^{page 295 note 1} N.T.S. XVII (1972), 233–5.

^{page 295 note 2} Ibid. p. 235.

^{page 295 note 3} This point is not at all decisive by itself. It is quite possible to make sense of ⋯κο⋯σαντες on Wansbrough's view. Indeed it could be thought more intelligible in the context to say that the disciples who were with Jesus ‘heard’ what was going on than to refer the participle to Jesus' family who were apparently somewhere else. On the latter and more usual view it is necessary to supply in the imagination some messenger or other, who conveys to Jesus' relatives the news of the ‘mad’ goings on. There is a further minor problem with the normal interpretation: whereas in the Q tradition the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus is in league with Beelzebul is explained as their reaction to an exorcism performed by Jesus, in Mark the remark of Jesus' relatives to the effect that he is mad is not so obviously explained from what precedes. Why should his family have concluded that Jesus was mad on the basis of a report that he and his followers were prevented from eating by an excited crowd? This is probably too subtle a point to be taken seriously; and even if Wansbrough's view is adopted, Mark still introduces the scribes' accusation that Jesus is possessed without explanation. If the NEB interpretation of the Greek text is adopted here, ‘they set out to take charge of him; for people were saying…’, this does not substantially affect the point here nor our subsequent argument.

^{page 296 note 1} The argument is again not decisive. For some sort of parallel to the sense required by Wansbrough see Rev. vii. I. Also note that the idea of Jesus' family or friends ‘seizing’ him is not without difficulty.

^{page 296 note 2} I am indebted to Mr D. R. de Lacey for pointing this out to me.

^{page 296 note 3} Cf. ii. 13; vi. 34, 45, 46; vii. 14; xv. 8, 15.

^{page 296 note 4} A singular verb is frequently used when ⋯χλος is the expressed subject of the sentence; but there is a marked tendency to slip into the plural. See iii. 9; iv. I; v. 24; viii. I, 2; ix. 15.

Against this argument and in defence of Wansbrough's view it might be maintained that a singular pronoun and verb are particularly appropriate in iii. 21, the crowd being thought of as a crowd rather than as a collection of individuals, also that to have used a plural pronoun would have been confusing after verse 20, where αὐτο⋯ς refers to Jesus and those with him. It remains true, how-ever, that the usage is unusual if Wansbrough's view is correct.

^{page 297 note 1} Wansbrough explains that the phrase was misinterpreted because people also misinterpreted κρατ⋯σαι αὐτ⋯ν. It did not make sense to have Jesus' followers, who were with him, going out to get control of him (art. cit. p. 235.)

^{page 297 note 2} Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 236. The R.S.V. translates ‘his friends’ in this passage.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 3} Perhaps this is to demand too much of Mark's editing. There is no denying that the evangelist could have intended the two passages to be taken together, even if it seems to us that Mark's readers would more naturally have understood οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτο⋯ of Jesus' disciples rather than of his family at a first reading of the gospel.

It is interesting to observe that when Mark does refer to Jesus' family in iii. 31, 32, he is quite explicit in referring to Jesus' mother and his brothers. Such an explicit reference might have been expected in iii. 21, if Mark was introducing Jesus' family into the narrative at that point; but the explicitness of iii. 31 may be because the author is leading up to the saying of verses 34, 35.

^{page 297 note 4} vii. 17; ix. 28. Translating οῑκον as ‘home’s in iii. 20 might prepare us for a reference to Jesus' family; but there is then a different problem with translating οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτο⋯ as ‘his relatives’; for, if Jesus was at home, from where did his relatives ‘go out’ to seize him? Mark gives the impression that they took some time to reach Jesus.

^{page 297 note 5} Note also the expression οἱ περ⋯ αὐτ⋯ν in iv, 10; cf. iii. 34. It might be possible to take οἱ παρ' αὐτο⋯ of the disciples and still to maintain that it was Jesus who was thought out of his mind (cf. the R.S.V.). But there are problems with this: e.g. from where did the disciples ‘go out’ to restrain Jesus? Were they not already with him?

^{page 298 note 1} Some scholars doubt whether the two sea-side scenes refer to two separate incidents; but this is unimportant for our argument.

^{page 298 note 2} For other places where the disciples attempt to protect Jesus from the crowds see Mark vi. 35 f.; x. 13.

^{page 298 note 1} It is true that the Q tradition does not say that the crowd prevented Jesys from eating; this is something unique to Mark. But, even though Mark goes further than the others in describing the crowd's excitement, Matthew and Luke do refer to the people being astonished.

^{page 298 note 2} It might be possible for some one to argue for a connection between the Marcan and the Q tradiitons at this point without endorsing Wansbrough's view which interprets ⋯ξ⋯στη of the crowd. However, as was noted earlier, the Q tradition can hardly be derived from MAr; and, although it may be possible to accept the usual interpretation of Mark iii. 20, 21 and yet to suppose that Mark was influenced in his se;ection or wording of that story by Q, the connection between the traditions is then rather tenuous and the suggestion is speculative.