^{page 309 note 1} A few commentators believe that the family learn that others are saying that Jesus is out of his mind and therefore come to restrain him (see below).

^{page 309 note 2} Wansbrough, H., ‘Mark iii. 21 – Was Jesus ou of his mind?’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971/1972), 233–5.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 3} Schroeder, H.-H., Eltern und Kinder in der Verkündigung Jesu (T.F. 53) (Hamburg–Bergstedt, 1972), pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 4} ‘Mk 3, 20 f’ B.Z. XI (1913), 249–79 (I owe this reference to Schroeder).

^{page 309 note 5} ‘Adherents’ would be a natural meaning of the phrase; cf. Taylor, ad loc.

^{page 309 note 6} In some texts and translations this is taken as part of v. 19.

^{page 309 note 7} On the use of ‘house’ in Mark see Schreiber, J., Theologie des Vertrauens (Hamburg, 1967), pp. 162 ff. No attempt should be made to identify the present house with that of Peter in Capernaum.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} See also x. 46; xi. 15, 27; these are redactional clauses of very similar structure to v. 20 a and used to join pericopae. Thus if the plural verb is read in v. 20 a with α^c Aff ¹f ¹³ there is an equally strong case for taking it as redactional. Note also the use of the historic present, another sign of Mark's hand (Hawkins, , Horae Synopticae (Oxford, 1909), pp. 143–9; Taylor, Mark, 46 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} Matthew, 17 times; Mark 28; Luke 3; John 43.

^{page 310 note 3} Crossan, J. D., ‘Mark and the Relatives of Jesus’, N.T. XV (1973), 81–113, argues that Mark introduces this reference in order to create a parallel with i. 31 and ii. 16. He notes that when disciples are called in Mark we have: (a) a reference to Jesus by the sea (i. 16a; ii. 13; iii. 7–9);(b) the statement of their election (i. 16b–20; ii. 14; iii. 13–19); (c) Jesus and the disciple(s) are together in a house (i. 29; ii. 18; iii. 20a); (d) their eating together is mentioned (i. 31; ii. 16; iii. 20b). The parallels are fanciful. In the case of both i. 16–31 and iii, 7–20b there is intervening material which does not fit; two instances are not sufficient to argue that a partial parallel in a third must be complete; iii. 13–19 is not a ‘call’ in the same sense as i. 16b–20 and ii. 14; in iii. 20b the disciples are not able to eat!Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 4} Crossan, art. cit., argues that this divergence is a sign of Mark's hand in both clauses. It seems easier to assume that Mark is picking up tradition which the does not completely unify. Crossan's further argument that since Matthew and Luke do not possess parallels to vv. 20 and 21 Mark must have composed them would only be valid if there were no good reason why Matthew and Luke should omit them; clearly they would have wished to eliminate v. 21 because of its harsh reference to Jesus' family; v. 20 could not then stand by itself.

Crossan's argument depends on the parallel the draws with material in i. 16 ff. and ii. 13 ff.; the parallel is unsatisfactory (see n. 3 above) and so the argument falls.

Art. cit.

^{page 311 note 1} Cf. i. 16. Cf. also Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage’, J.T.S. XXVI (1925), 145–56;Google ScholarThrall, M., Greek Particles in the New Testament (Leiden, 1962), pp. 41 ff.;Google ScholarBird, C. H., ‘Some γ⋯ρ clauses in St Mark's Gospel’, J.T.S. IV (1953), 171–87.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 2} Wenham, D., N.T.S. XXI (1947–5), 295–300 noes its distance from its explanation in v. 31 but ignores Mark's well-known editorial trick of making a sandwich in which the two outer sections relate closely to one another.Google ScholarLambrecht, J., N.T. XVI (1974), 241–58, has shown from the structure of the whole passage, iii. 20–35, how important the sandwich is here. For Wenham's second argument against the traditional solution see p. 312 n. I. His third argument depends on Mark's knowledge of the Q tradition. It is not certain that Mark knew this tradition; its very form is uncertain; v. infra.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 3} Cf. Bauer, s.v.; cf. Sus. 13.

^{page 311 note 4} Cf. Bauer, s.v.

^{page 311 note 5} Meye, R. P., Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1968), p. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 1} This appears also to counter Wenham's argument (art. cit.) in relation to the activity of the disciples.

^{page 312 note 2} See also Lambrecht, art. cit. (at p. 244 n. 6). He points in particular to the parallel between v. 21b and v. 22b. This parallelism in Mark suggests deliberate construction on his part and not dependence on Q as Wenham (art. cit.) argues.

^{page 312 note 3} Cf. Bauer, s.v. See further Räisänen, H., Die Mutter Jesus im Neuen Testament (Helsinki, 1969), p. 27 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} This is how he NEB renders it.

^{page 313 note 2} See especially Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage’, J.T.S. XXV (1924), 378–86.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 30 ff.

^{page 313 note 4} Doudna, J. C., The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (J.B.L.Monograph Series XII, Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 6 f. He instances only Mark ii. 18, and here he construction is produced by the preceding ἔρχονται. Cf. Crossan, art. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 1} Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 322–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 314 note 2} Best, , ‘Mark's Preservation of he Tradition’, in L'Évangile selon Marc (ed.Sabbe, M., Leuven, 1974), pp. 21–34.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 3} Art. cit.

^{page 314 note 4} V. infra for discussion of the relationship of v. 35 to vv. 31–4.

^{page 315 note 1} Cf. iii. 5; x. 23; cf. also viii. 33; x. 27. See Räisänen, op. cit. p. 33. The pericope however seems to need a clause similar to v. 34 a, and Mark may only have replaced a similar word by his favourite term.

Crossan, art. cit., alleges differences between Mark on he one hand and Matthew and Luke on the other; in he latter he harshness with which Mark leaves he family of Jesus ‘outside’ is softened. Matthew and Luke would naturally tend to do his in harmony with their omission of v. 21, and there is no reason therefore to conclude that Mark has edited the material to produce the harshness. In any case Crossan overplays the variations of the two other evangelists from Mark.

^{page 315 note 2} Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (London, 1934), pp. 57, 63 f.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 3} Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 4} Some MSS read it in v. 32, but it is textually improbable.

^{page 315 note 5} Schroeder, op. cit., defends both the unity and genuineness of he whole pericope.

^{page 315 note 6} Cf. Best, ‘An Early Sayings Collection’ (to appear in Novum Testamentum)

^{page 316 note 1} Lambrecht, art. cit., reaches a somewhat similar conclusion through a different redactional analysis.

^{page 316 note 2} Trocmé, E., La Formation de L'Évangile selon Marc (Paris, 1963); Räisänen, op. cit. pp. 31 f.;Google ScholarLeaney, A. R. C., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke (London, 1958), p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} Trocmé, op. cit. pp. 104–9; Tyson, J. B., ‘The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark’, J.B.L. LXXX (1961), 261–8.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 4} Trocmé does not produce any other evidence from the Gospel to substantiate that his is Mark's view. Tyson supposes that the distinctive element in the theology of the Jerusalem church was a belief in the return of a royal Messiah and that his is rejected in Mark xii. 35–7. The rejection of this idea in that passage by Mark is by no means certain and though Mark does play down the role of Jesus as royal Messiah the does not exclude it, cf. x. 46–52; xi. 9 f; instead he corrects it, not because it is erroneous, but because it is inadequate and unhelpful in a Gentile environment.

^{page 316 note 5} Cf Crossan, art. cit.; Grässer, E., ‘Jesus in Nazareth’, N.T.S. XVI (1969/1970), 1–23.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} Cf. Lambrecht, art. cit., for more general issues on alleged opposition on the part of Mark to the relatives of Jesus.

^{page 317 note 2} See p. 310 n. 4.

^{page 317 note 3} Schroeder, op. cit. pp. 114 f., argues in defence of his point of view that after James and others of the family of Jesus had become Christians any suggestion that at any period they would have thought Jesus out of his mind would have been suppressed. This again is to misunderstand the way in which the Bible uses biographical information.

^{page 317 note 4} It is difficult to accept the suggestion of Coutts, J., ‘“Those Outside” (Mark 4, 10–12)’, Stud. Evang. 11 (= TU 87), 1964, pp. 155–7, that iv. 10–12 was joined to iii. 20–35 in Mark's source. Why Mark should ever then have inserted the parable of the sower becomes incomprehensible (cf. Räisänen, op. cit. p. 37 n. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} The metaphorical use of ‘brother’ was well known both in Jewish and Hellenistic culture, cf H. von Soden, TDNT I, 144–6.

^{page 318 note 2} Räisänen, op. cit. pp. 34 f.

^{page 318 note 3} Cf. Schweizer, Markus, ad loc.

^{page 318 note 4} Christians though of him as the ‘firstborn’ among brothers (Rom. viii. 29; cf. Col. i. 18).

^{page 318 note 5} τοὺςπ ερ⋯ αὐτ⋯ν in v. 34 means ’those of you who do …’ since γ⋯ρ (cf. p.311, n. 1) in v. 35 implies that it is explanatory of v. 34. It does no then identify the ‘crowd’ of v. 32 with the disciples or suggest that there is a third group within the crowd but identical neither with it nor the Twelve (that is if the disciples are to be limited here to the Twelve), i.e. a distinct group of ‘adherents’ (cf. Meye, op. cit. pp. 148–52).

^{page 318 note 6} The immediate context, iii. 13–19, would identify the disciples and the Twelve, but the very absence of both οἱ δώδεκα and οἱ μαθητι⋯ in iii. 20–35 suggests that Mark can hardly have been thinking in any restricted way of the Twelve.

^{page 319 note 1} CfMinear, P. S., ‘Audience Criticism and Markan Ecclesiology’in Neues Testament und Geschichte (Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Zürich and Tübingen,1972), pp. 79–89Google Scholar.