I'd focus on the messanic expectations of the time. He wasn't acting like Messiah was supposed to. Instead of raising and army and overthrowing Rome, he's hanging out with drunks and prostitutes and picking fights with Pharisees. That'd be crazy to them. (But you're right, saying "Mary thought he was crazy" is reading in more than the text says.)
It reminds me a comment from a muslim woman who said to me 'How God would chose to inflict such a pain to his son in order to save mankind from the originel sin? Don't you think there was a better way?" Let say now that Jesus had chosen to accomplish a miracle in order to avoid crucifixion... The reaction of the Jews around would have been to hail him, pull out some swords and butcher some Romans, so the Romans would send more soldiers to stop the rebellion, and than legions after legions... imagine Jesus being forced by his people to murder half of the roman army (otherwise they stop to follow him) and explain to the widows & orphans after that he is there to teach love and forgiveness... If we compare the behaviour of his disciples during the trial, especially Peter, and after his resurection, the unstoppable tide of conversions, God hasn't done a bad calculus.
@@lereseauamitie6349 Also such a view as that Muslim woman was espousing takes Christs choice and character out of the equation and in doing so misses the greatest act of love and selflessness that has ever or will ever happen.
Thank you I was feeling a little confused after reading mark so I prayed and God took me to this video which helped but your comment really helped me get a better understanding.
@@lereseauamitie6349I think muslims would understand, that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. In many cultures animals are offerred to God (or gods). But it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away human sins. So a special sacrifice was needed. Also it was the devils plan to force Jesus to give up.
Quoting Tim McGrew from our latest stream together… “Nothing makes me more worried that the doctrine of innerancy is true than listening to Bart Ehrman”
@@computationaltheist7267 We hosted a Christmas episode on my channel with Erik, the McGrews and a few others. During the show Tim McGrew said this in response to us bringing up some of Ehrman’s objections to the birth narratives. :)
@@ExploringReality I thought Dr. McGrew was not an inerrantist so he would agree with Ehrman so I am still confused. Please do forgive me for my ignorance.
Actually from the view point of the scriptures, it doesn’t seem like it was saying that his family thought He was crazy, rather it was the crowds who thought Jesus was crazy and Jesus’s family was trying to restrain Him to get Him out of there to make sure He was safe from what they might do to Him, not that they thought He was crazy. Now, I don’t think that they knew full well exactly what He would do or have happen to Him since even Bis disciples were not even getting it fully.
Your are spot on. The error that many are making is reading translations that are not expressing this clearly. As you get closer to the literal translations it is obvious that his family is not calling him senseless or crazy. But if you read something like the New Living Translation then one is left thinking that they are. That is what makes Bart so devious. He has the training to look at the translations and give a correct rendering but he purposely uses others lack of knowledge as a weapon to convince them of his falsehoods and almost all of those so convinced won't bother to check out the truth for themselves.
The text is clear that it was Jesus' mother and family that thought he was "out of his mind". This is supported by Jesus making it clear that his biological family was not his true family only those who followed the will of the father. Furthermore, the writer known as Mark shows how Jesus was rejected in his hometown where few believed and not many miracles were performed. The entire theme of Mark's gospel is that no one knows the identity of Jesus including his family and appointed disciples. This is an attempt to undermine those who were closest to Jesus and promote those who were least, Paul and his gospel.
The text is clear that "people were saying" that Jesus was out of his mind, and that the family was responding to 2nd-hand reports. It's likely that the family heard things that were inaccurate. Claiming that this means the family thought he was crazy for performing miracles is an unsound inference. The addition of the claims from religious leaders that he was performing miracles by the power of Beelzebul makes it plain that the writer wanted to convey the sorts of negative things some people were saying. Meanwhile, Mark also emphasizes the huge crowds Jesus was drawing, so clearly the word about Jesus contained both positive and negative. As to your claim about Mark wanting to discredit the actual disciples while promoting Paul, I think you're badly confused. You're asserting different gospels, which indicates that you're reading too shallowly; there is no such distinction. It also indicates that you don't know Church history; Mark was identified by several of the Church fathers, without any conflicting voices, as Peter's scribe and companion, and Mark's gospel is claimed to be the gospel as Peter recounted it, in the order that he recounted it. Luke's gospel is understood to be the gospel used by Paul, as Luke was Paul's companion and Paul quotes from Luke's gospel once or twice. Meanwhile, Mark's gospel is no more dismissive of the appointed disciples than is Matthew's or Luke's. They all perform miracles in all three Synoptic gospels, and they all get several things wrong in all three as well.
@@philweingart9523 The accurate and vast majority of translations are clear that it was Jesus' family that was saying he was mad. Not just people. This is later proven out in the text by Jesus distinguishing his real spiritual family from his biological family. Likewise Jesus is not accepted in his hometown due to disbelief. Second, any clear reading of Mark's gospel shows that the disciples are unable to recognize who Jesus is ( not merely the messiah as Peter states later but the Son of Man who is given all authority in Daniel and Enoch). Peter and the other disciples are continued to be called out for a lack of faith, hindering the children i.e. gentiles from coming to Jesus, seeking glory and honor for themselves as oppossed to Paul's and the gospels theme of the least being the first, and falling asleep during Jesus' time of need. Peter and the disciples are compared to those who sow upon rocky ground who have no root. They initially react with joy but fall away under persecution or tribulation. In Mark 14:27 Jesus says you will all fall away. Peter denies he will fall away but he is assured by Jesus that he will just like The Parable of the Sower. I know church tradition on Mark. It is absurd just like the Roman Catholic church building its authority on Peter. The whole theme of Mark is that Jesus' family and disciples do not understand who he is and worst yet desert him and lack faith. However, those who are aware know that Paul is the least who will become the first. Mark's gospel is essentially Paul's gospel.
@@CMGigas1803 first you don't understand bible translations. 2nd, until you do there is no point discussing your lack of dicernment regarding interpretation of scriptures. Start with humbilness.
Mark 3:20 says that the crowds were so large that Jesus and his disciples couldn't even eat. The natural reading of Mark 3:21 is that it was the out-of-control crowding, and not "He's performing miracles," that led the family to think that Jesus "had lost his senses." As usual, Ehrman is simply seeing what he wants to see and misrepresenting the account.
@@philweingart9523 or you cherry pick what you like and ignore how many men were born from a vergin before Christ or how to give up material possessions at the chore of Christianity ✝️.. what Hong other women is condemned.. but the double standard is a man who knows old Greek and the jewish culture, history and studied the original texts .. it is interesting how you treat women..when your Jesus trusted more them than his male disciples. . who were jealous the resurrection was revealed to a woman..and Peter didn't like it and still doesn't...
In the passage, as you wrote, it says “people” were saying he has lost his mind. It doesn’t say his family, much less his mother. It merely says of them that they went to “restrain him” because of what people were saying, not that they themselves thought similarly. You’re right, the text spoke for itself. I’ll grant not every version translates it that way, but it does not seem to specify who the “they” was that were saying it. Even in the case it was them, you have a perfectly solid explanation laid out here.
When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.” *What did they Hear* = "Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat." - So is it a mother wanting a son to put himself first & eat?! Or is it the massive crowd that he had no way to escape this time before he had a boat ready (Jesus asked His disciples to have a boat ready for Him so that the crowd would not crush Him.) Either way it isn't "crazy" in the sense they didn't believe him but crazy because he put others first and had no prepared escape & they feared for him, where he did not fear for himself so they came to seize him, which he declines. - Could say this is a prelude to the cross, mental preparation for his family.
@@mikeyant2445 which is more proof that the Gospels were not made up because embarrassing stories are not in fake stories if you're trying to prove something. Jesus brothers were not following Him until after His resurrection: that's why John took her in until James became a Christian.
@@davidjanbaz7728 The story would be embarrassing to the biological family of Jesus. This was the point. From the perspective of Paul, his gospel, and followers they were looking to undermine Jesus' family and closest disciples. Paul refers to himself as the last or least of the apostles in his writings. Likewise, the gospel of Mark refers to the last being first in the kingdom.
Context is King. According to the criterion of embarrassment, this suggests a real event. An event so well k nown that it could not be edited out of the story.
I think I remeber a story in the old testament where prophet Elijah proved the Baal prophets to be false since God sent fire on his sacrifice which was a miraculous event. After when the queen was threatening him, he ran away and wanted God to kill him and rid him of his dilemna since he was scared. So I think even if Mary thought Jesus was crazy, that still doesn't necessarily conclude that the virgin birth and the events surrounding it didnt occur since it is normal for humans to have doubts or lose trust in God even after miraculous signs and revelations.
Underrated comment. I kinda like the story about people close to Jesus thinking he was crazy because it's human. Even his disciples saw him perform great signs and wonders frequently and still doubted. If the gospels never recorded a moment of doubt in any of Jesus's followers, skeptics would say this is unrealistic and object on those grounds instead. Some people just don't want to believe, and Jesus acknowledged this (Luke 16:31).
@@Wesstuntube Yep. The disciples were constantly confused by His words and decisions and they recorded such in the gospels. Saint Peter denied his own master three times in one night after witnessing and being directly involved in countless miracles and mysteries.
Actually the text doesnt say any of his family though he was crazy. It says they would try to stop him because PEOPLE were saying he was crazy. They might want to stop him from making everyone think he was crazy. Whether they know there is something special about him or not, it doesn't mean they won't behave as people towards him.
Also, if as we Catholics believe and the Church has taught for centuries, that Jesus brothers we’re actually cousins or extended family, they may not have been that aware of everything about him.
I'm not sure that totally helps either way. I think they'd be close family, living in the same household with Mary (and perhaps for a time Joseph, before he passed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). As I've said elsewhere in the comments, Ehrman's objection and my reply stands regardless if one takes a Catholic or Protestant position on the identity of Jesus' family in Mark 3 and 6, and John 7
@@TestifyApologetics Does the Gospels actually say they lived in the same home as Mary? It seems strange Jesus gave her to John if she was already living with actual family
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Not strange at all, though it is likely, considering their probable age, that either all or several of the brothers would have had their own homes by then. Jesus’s half-siblings all thought he was crazy at the time of His crucifixion. Mary by that point seems to have not thought so. As the oldest son, Jesus was responsible for His mother’s care, and thus he passed it on to John, who was a follower of His and thus would be completely sympathetic to Mary when she needed it most rather than letting a less sympathetic brother inherit the role.
@@John-fk2ky I suppose it just seems strange that Jesus would berate the Pharisees about not taking care of their parents and loading them off to other people only to do the same thing with His mother to someone who is not her son. I suppose it really doesnt matter though, definitely not a hill to die on no pun intended
@@tylerdavis520 no, not really. There was no word for "cousin" or "step sibling" at the time and place of writing. They can be cousins, step-siblings from Joseph's previous marriage, or at certain points, a combination of both. Joseph is considered to have been much older when he took Mary as his wife, having been married previously, and passing away at some point in Jesus' youth. For this reason those mentioned are considered children of Joseph and his previous wife.
Also the same incident where his mother wanted to talk to him was in Matthew's Gospel too, which has the virgin birth. Plus let's face it all of the Gospels constantly portray Jesus as being doubted even by his closest followers, why is this one so incredibly difficult to believe that Mary didn't trust Jesus enough or any of the apostles (Even assuming that they did think he was crazy).
The mention of this is Mark 3 21. If people read on, it continues in verse 31 "THEN Jesus's mother and brothers came and stood outside". Which implies that she and they were not part of the family that though he was crazy in verse 21.
It's possible that Joseph and Mary to Jesus' half-siblings about his miraculous birth but they didn't believe it. John said they didn't believe in him. Either way, you're right, Bart's objection is baseless.
I guess we don't know what made them think he was 'out of his mind'. Maybe they simply thought he was acting extremely unwisely in continually drawing large crowds around him, risking Roman intervention, or thought he was provoking wrath from their own religious leaders with his words and actions against them so feared for his safety. Maybe it was their love and for concern for him that as his popularity grew, so did his danger from enemies. So they wanted to rein him in. And stop what they saw as mad provocation.
Some translations make it sound as though His family were saying, "He has gone out of His Mind" but the translation here has the much better "for people were saying," which means that what the family actually did could have been merely coming and restraining Him (the text is ambiguous as to whether the family thought the same or if they only restrained Him). If they only restrained Him, it could have been something as simple as that His family was merely trying to protect Him from the scoffers. While it is not too difficult to imagine some of Jesus' family (whose exact relation to Jesus is ambiguous) to have been against Him, I see nothing in this text to state that that was the case. They could have been merely trying to help Him.
From the old greek (koine) text, I found a translation word by word: And having heard [of it],those belonging to Him went out to seize Him; they were saying for,He is out of His mind.
@@lereseauamitie6349 It's true. And "those belonging to him" (οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ) is quite a strange phrase for Mark to use if he was trying to describe Jesus's family. If Mark intended to describe Jesus's family specifically, he could easily have used unambiguous words like πατριὰ (patria) or oikoß (oikos 'household' - like the yogurt). οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ is completely unique in the NT, and can mean anything from family to friends to associates, so there's certainly some doubt as to who these 'belonging to Jesus' are. It could even be some of his own followers. In my opinion, the vague word choice was intentional and the author of Mark is doing his best to describe a chaotic scene in which we had huge crowds, teachers of the law coming up from Jerusalem with harsh criticism, and disparaging rumors were flying around which his mother and brothers may have heard distorted versions of.
So you ignore the plain text of Scripture in favor of translational silliness?Why the heck would Mark use words for siblings when talking about Jesus’s relatives, as do the books of Acts, James and Jude, when Greek not only has words for things like “cousin”, but that is the normal way to use those words? A plain reading of the text suggests that “brothers” means “brothers”, and there is absolutely zero reason to think it meant otherwise unless you have preconceived notions going in. And, no, the Catholic position usually wrecks things. Just look at the whole thing with Mary. Not counting a whole host of beliefs concerning Mary that lack any Biblical basis whatsoever, the most basic one, that she was a perpetual virgin, completely ignores the clear teachings of the Bible itself. It flat out says that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born. Moreover, the two were husband and wife. They were expected to have sex and have more kids. The entire idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is so antithetical to scripture it’s almost hilarious.
This was my understanding as well. Mark DOES NOT SAY that Mary thought Jesus was crazy. As usual, Ehrman jumps to the least charitable possible conclusion from a number of possibilities and acts as though it's the only possible conclusion. John 7:5 suggests that it was Jesus's brothers specifically who did not believe in him and makes no mention of his mother. There are so many possibilities to explain why Mary was there in Mark 3:31 that don't involve her thinking Jesus was crazy. She could have been trying to keep the peace in the family as some kind of mediator and was there on behalf of the brothers. Maybe she feared for Jesus's safety. Maybe Jesus was defying her messianic expectations and she wanted to talk to him about it. Maybe she came later to try to keep the family together, because she isn't mentioned when his family first confronts him earlier in 3:21, she's only mentioned as "waiting outside" later in 3:31. We just don't know, but the text doesn't say Mary thought Jesus was nuts, so we're wrong to assume that without evidence.
Given all the "maybes" in your post, who is the one reading too much into the text? The text doesn't literally say "Mary thought Jesus was out of his mind", but in verse 21 it said his family did, and in verse 31 it says the family consisted of Mary and his brothers. Deciding that only some of the family members actually thought differently is not in the text.
@@truncated7644 Sorry, but we can't know that from the passage. The Greek is too non-specific. Mark 3:21: καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν· ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ translates literally as "those belonging to him" and is sometimes translated as "family" but it can just as validly be translated as friends (KJV), "his people (NASB)," or even his companions. It's a vague reference and it's not by any means clear that this group is equivalent to the specific party of his mother and brothers who came later in verse 31 "looking for him". Jesus would have had many relatives and friends and companions. We have no way of knowing which of them thought him to be out of his mind. What we do know is that: 1. Some of "the people belonging to Jesus" thought that he was out of his mind when the crowd grew so large around the house that he and his disciples couldn't even eat 2. His mother and brothers came looking for him, and Jesus used their presence to make a point about obedience. To say that Jesus's mother definitely thought he was crazy based on this passage is irresponsible, especially since the parallel passages in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21 make no such suggestion of his mother, John 7:5 focuses specifically on his brothers as being the unbelieving ones, and Jesus's mother was present during his ministry at multiple times with no such animus at any point implied. It is a further unsupported leap of logic to use this passage as an argument against the virgin birth EVEN IF Jesus's mother did think he was crazy at one point. Did she think he was plain nuts or did she think his ministry was nuts and that Jesus should get on with ruling on the throne of his father David as the angel promised her in Luke 1? We have no way of knowing. A few maybes are warranted. Thanks for the comment.
@@Wesstuntube Thanks for the greek and other comments, much appreciated. To me, it seems like a tortured reading to not associate the first term, which "can" mean family, to not be the family when Mark says they arrived. Mark is telling a story, not just a string of facts, and the structure of this pericope connects the two. But you make my point for me when you note that Matthew and Luke omit this, the point being that they didn't see this episode in Mark as being consistent with their narratives that includes angel announcements and a virgin birth. In my opinion, the objections to the most simple reading of the text stems from conflicting exegetical approaches. The critical approach reads Mark as his own gospel, where as a more evangelical approach uses each gospel to inform the other. We probably disagree on this point. So for me, Mark says the family thought Jesus was out of his mind and that the family included Mary. You believe there is evidence in other gospels that make this reading unlikely and so have to go beyond the text of Mark to interpret Mark.
@@truncated7644 Ok let's only look at Mark and nowhere else. If all we had to go on was Mark 3:20-31, then "family" is certainly a defensible translation of οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ given the arrival of his specific family members in verse 31, but there is something strange going on here. οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ is a pretty vague term for the author of Mark to use for Jesus's family, when he could have easily used a specific, unambiguous term like πατριὰ (patria) or oikoß (oikos 'household' - like the yogurt). This non-specific phrase "those that belong to him" which can mean anything from family to associates to followers is an odd choice (and unique in the NT) that raises questions. If we assume that the author of Mark was intentional in his word choice, then it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that he was purposefully using a vague term to describe the potentially nebulous group of people close to Jesus who thought he was out of his mind and went to 'restrain' him, as this entire event was triggered by him earlier doing miracles on the sabbath, sending out his disciples to preach, and attracting such a large crowd at a house that he and his disciples couldn't eat, drawing criticism from a few different groups and angles. You can say it's a torturous reading of the passage to assume anyone else but his family is being referenced here, but Mark's wording is tortuous if he was referring to Jesus's family specifically, so take your pick. In my opinion, his vague word choice was intentional and the author of Mark is doing his best to describe a chaotic scene in which we had huge crowds, teachers of the law coming up from Jerusalem with harsh criticism, and disparaging rumors were flying around which his family may have heard distorted versions of. We don't really know, so let's not say we do and pretend it's the only option. The point still stands that even if Mary thought Jesus to be out of his mind at this time, it's a very weak objection to the virgin birth narrative in general, because we don't know the substance of her objection or what she intended to do specifically. We don't know if she was objecting to his treatment of the Sabbath (which could be legitimate if she genuinely believed him to be the Messiah), or if she feared for his safety as a mother despite what she knew about him, or if she was trying to advise him to pursue his ministry differently, or any number of other things, especially if she was basing her assessment of his mental state simply on rumors she was hearing. Finally, even if Mary thought at this time that Jesus was an absolute unredeemable nutcase, that would only invalidate her experience at his birth if we make no allowance for her to experience temporary irrational human doubt as she saw Jesus's ministry unfolding very differently than she had pictured. This isn't unreasonable, as his disciples frequently saw him perform great signs and wonders but still voiced their doubts frequently. I like this story about people thinking Jesus was crazy because it's very human. I suspect if the narrative were flipped and nobody close to Jesus ever disagreed with him, skeptics would complain that this is unrealistic and object on those grounds instead. You have to take a whole bunch of possibilities and turn them into certainties to turn this narrative into a serious objection about the virgin birth of Jesus, and even then it's pretty weak. Thanks again for talking.
@@Wesstuntube These are really great comments. I agree with you that many of the things you suggest could be possible. However, from a literary perspective, we have to ask if these other possibilities were known to the author to be true, and if so, would we expect him to write it in the manner he did. To me, that doesn't seem most probable. Mark's not mentioning the Virgin Birth is an argument from silence, and is of course weak. But the intentional omission of this story from Matthew and Luke isn't an argument from silence, it is an act of editorial intent. While no one can say with 100% certainty what their intent was, it lines up well with the critical argument that Mark did not know about the virgin birth. And it is also consistent with Mark's secret messiah theme of portraying those around Jesus as not understanding who he truly was. I guess I struggle with accepting that I am taking a bunch of possibilities and using them to make a serious objection to the virgin birth. For me, for many other reasons, I don't think the gospels provide accurate and reliable history about Jesus, so I don't feel the need to make Mark's portrayal of Jesus consistent with the other gospels. I would view this as just an observation that Mark portrays Jesus' family in a way in which they don't know who Jesus is.
The main point is, that Mary is not mentioned to have been there. "the family" does not necessarily mean the whole family. So Ehrman has no point to begin with.
Bart eats beats, Bart beats Battlestar Galactica. The only thing worse than Dr. Ehrman not getting what he wants is Dr. Ehrman getting what he wants. Many of the issues he has with the text give it credibility that eyewitnesses wrote what they saw or received. Jay Warner Wallace's work in this area builds a solid case for argument. To me, Dr. Ehrman acts more like a crooked lawyer than a reputable scholar. Another well-done video, Marry Christmas Testify, and to all your viewers.
I get that Bart's argument doesn't provide conclusive proof. But the extent to which your arguments rely on conjecture about the brothers' or Mary's state of mind and then say Bart is reading too much into the text seems like the pot calling the kettle black. The text claims the family thought Jesus was out of his mind. The text states that Mary is part of this family contingent. That Mary thought Jesus was out of his mind is the most straightforward reading of the text. Why isn't any other interpretation considered "reading too much into the text"? It is also consistent with the claim of legendary development, since if Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and Mary had never been visited by an angel, it fits perfectly with the plainest reading of the text; that is, his family had no idea what he was up to and thought he had lost his mind. The way Mark structures the passage, verses 21 and 22 are provided to set up the teaching Jesus delivers in verses 23-35. The setup involves two groups of people who thought Jesus was not quite right (out of his mind, possessed by Beelzebul) and is written as a compound sentence. Jesus then uses this opportunity to defend himself by claiming that if he is doing the work of God, he cannot be serving the devil.
The Pharasees said Jesus was doing his miracles by Satan's power because they couldn't deny his miracles he did in public! Jesus hyperbole would make his brothers think he was crazy but they weren't following him . That's why Mary said do whatever Jesus says at the wedding in Canaan. She wasn't sure what he was going to do but she knew miracles would bring unwanted attention from the Pharasees. Don't let English be you're guide to the text and the exact meaning of it. Only the Greek can clear up any ambiguity that might be in the English translations.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I think psychologizing Jesus' family members is reading more into the text that is there. Your comments about Mary are introducing a story from the author of the Gospel of John, who, writing a generation after Mark, has a different view of who Jesus was. If you are going to combine the two gospels, you will end up with a gospel neither Mark or John wrote. In Mark, the author is unfamiliar with the story of the virgin birth and that is why, only in Mark, is the story about his family being concerned for his mental health told. Both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark but apparently chose to omit this story because it conflicted with other elements of their narrative such as the virgin birth.
I agree Bart Ehrman's argument has some weight, but its force can be blunted by these considerations. The overall consideration has to be whether there are other reasons to think James and the family of Jesus in the Jerusalem church believed in the virgin birth
Bart Ehrman is sly. I’ve noticed that he will make “jokes“ like this but he won’t actually state that he’s joking. In other words, he will plant seeds of doubt with ambiguous passages that he can manipulate to suit his arguments. By doing it in a joking manner, that means he doesn’t have to fully commit to them.
When Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside asking for him ...he said " who are my mother and my brothers ..you standing here before me are my mother and my brothers..whoever does the will of the father is my mother and my brothers.." Sounds to me like he is saying that he was separating them from his family because his own family does not do the will of his father ...? .. How is that possible if Mary was visited by the holy spirit ..Joseph also ? So his family were well aware of who he was and would definitely have followed and supported him.. Mark didn't know about the virgin birth ..or he just didnt think it important enough to record it in his gospel?..(the biggest miracle of them all )..hmm.he seems to imply that Jesus was chosen by God at the baptism.." you are my son ..of whome I am well pleased " (I'm paraphrasing) Did Jesus not know he was God ? Or did he just need a reminder?..from himself ?
My reading of that is that they thought he was out of his mind for doing it publicly on the Sabbath because that's the entire focus of the scene. That, or Mary was just following on with the skeptical brothers. I can't see proof Mary denied Jesus's divinity.
Read further down to verse 31, it provides additional context to who where coming to take care of Jesus out of concern for his mental health: Mary and Jesus' brothers. That's the family.
@@truncated7644 Ah, okay. I missed that. Oops. I'll correct it. But In any case, it doesn't actually matter. The text never says Jesus is put of his mind for thinking he's a miracle worker. My reading of that is that they thought he was out of his mind for doing it publicly on the Sabbath because that's the entire focus of the scene. That, or Mary was just following on with the skeptical brothers. I can't see proof Mary denied Jesus's divinity.
@@inukithesavage828 It doesn't provide proof Mary denied his divinity. But it is consistent with the proposition that Mark didn't know about the virgin birth and the fact that the two gospels that do have the virgin birth remove this part of the story is even more compelling.
While, I would normally disagree with this channel and their views, This argument is terrible, it is a "gotcha" argument and we know nothing in which the Angel in Matthew or Luke told Mary that Jesus would cast out demons.
There's another, previous story about a "virgin birth" in the Bible. His name was Cain. Was Jesus really Cain resurrected and his half-brother (again, paralleling the story of Cain and Abel) really James the Just? I've come to know this as a matter of fact. What do you think?
Wait ...isn't the bible the inerrant word of God ? ..if god breathed the story ..then why would there be questions? ..Bart is reading the actual word of God ... You are making assumptions...hmm
Yeah. I don't get it. As you can tell, I got a little peeved. Hope I didn't come across harshly or make a fool out of myself. I don't like when people misconstrue stuff and then double down and make things worse when I try and clarify. Seriously, this is pushing me over the edge with Twitter. I don't find it to be a beneficial platform for me at all. I'm a little surprised because I've gotten along so well with Ye in the past. And Amateur Exegete and his use of the word pop apologist is just a slur.
@@TestifyApologetics I think the main thing I would do is change the description to say that it is evidence against the Virgin birth rather than "The Virgin birth probably didn't happen", but that's maybe that's just me wanting to nuance it a bit too hard.
How is Jesus the Messiah if biologically he is not related to Joseph and Hebrew didn't trace lineage through the mother and if they did Mary was a Levi so that wouldn't check out. What do you say to something like this as it has been bothering me
The problem with cherry-picking passages and making very specific objections. Is that often these objections contradict each other. For example, This particular objection would contradict Ehrman's assertion that the gosples were written very late 100 or 140 years after the death of Jesus. who would write something like this?
@@truncated7644 He mentions it in recent interviews on youtube, especially John. also like a throwaway statement I am not sure if he was just being alittle careless
@@truncated7644 Whose Word is It?: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why (New York: Continuum, 2006); the other is: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins; Edinburgh: Clark, 2005). C
@@midnightwatchman1 I wonder if you might not have a correct recollection of what he says in these books because he says in multiple places that he thinks the dates are between 65 and 100 CE (that is, 30 to 60 years after the crucifixion, NOT 100 to 140 years after). For example, in a post on Bart's blog (Feb 19, 2017) he says "But these parameters (between, say 65-100 CE for all four Gospels) are agreed on by most scholars of all persuasions, except fundamentalists and a few others." I have read the books you mentioned and don't recall him dating it so late.
@@truncated7644 I would put a hard stop before 70 AD. what exactly is the argumentation for putting them so late? Especially what happened to Jersuleium in 70 AD
Where does it say it wasn't Mary also? Verse 31 makes it clear that she was a member of the family coming to take care of Jesus because they feared for his mental health.
history isn't like math or the law of logic. if I give a more tentative conclusion, I'm reaching. If I gave a certain conclusion, I'm overconfident. so it's a no win situation with some of you guys, bro.
@TestifyApologetics In Judaism, the concept of Satan differs from the common depiction in some other religions. Satan, or "ha-Satan" in Hebrew, is not necessarily seen as inherently evil in Judaism. Instead, Satan is often depicted as an adversary or accuser, serving as a tester or challenger of human faithfulness to God. In some Jewish traditions, Satan is considered to be an angel who carries out specific tasks assigned by God, rather than being an independent force of evil. So, while Satan may oppose or challenge humans, the concept does not necessarily carry the same connotations of absolute evil as it does in other religious traditions.
What if he was not born of a virgin mother? Lots of things in the Greek translation which inspired the KJV and pretty much everything after it had been combined with paganism. His father was if Abrahams bloodline, so it would make sense tgat tge virgin birth was added. After all, several pagan god's were of virgin births. I'm not saying I'm correct, but I can see that it's a possibility that it was added. The Greeks will say huge pagan society, and Constantine wanted to unite them under one religion. I'm sure he combined paganism with whatever Christianity was called at that time to make this new religion. All I'm asking is to be open-minded and think and do a little research. Do not think for a second that the word has not been manipulated by Satan. He is the great deceiver, the greatest liar ever, that's his job is to still us from the Savior and creator.
I'd focus on the messanic expectations of the time. He wasn't acting like Messiah was supposed to. Instead of raising and army and overthrowing Rome, he's hanging out with drunks and prostitutes and picking fights with Pharisees. That'd be crazy to them. (But you're right, saying "Mary thought he was crazy" is reading in more than the text says.)
It reminds me a comment from a muslim woman who said to me 'How God would chose to inflict such a pain to his son in order to save mankind from the originel sin? Don't you think there was a better way?" Let say now that Jesus had chosen to accomplish a miracle in order to avoid crucifixion... The reaction of the Jews around would have been to hail him, pull out some swords and butcher some Romans, so the Romans would send more soldiers to stop the rebellion, and than legions after legions... imagine Jesus being forced by his people to murder half of the roman army (otherwise they stop to follow him) and explain to the widows & orphans after that he is there to teach love and forgiveness... If we compare the behaviour of his disciples during the trial, especially Peter, and after his resurection, the unstoppable tide of conversions, God hasn't done a bad calculus.
@@lereseauamitie6349 Also such a view as that Muslim woman was espousing takes Christs choice and character out of the equation and in doing so misses the greatest act of love and selflessness that has ever or will ever happen.
Thank you I was feeling a little confused after reading mark so I prayed and God took me to this video which helped but your comment really helped me get a better understanding.
>he's hanging out with drunks and prostitutes and picking fights with Pharisees
Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
@@lereseauamitie6349I think muslims would understand, that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. In many cultures animals are offerred to God (or gods). But it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away human sins. So a special sacrifice was needed. Also it was the devils plan to force Jesus to give up.
Quoting Tim McGrew from our latest stream together…
“Nothing makes me more worried that the doctrine of innerancy is true than listening to Bart Ehrman”
The issue is discussed at 58:18 on the webinar for those who are interested.
I don't get the quote. Please do elaborate.
@@computationaltheist7267 We hosted a Christmas episode on my channel with Erik, the McGrews and a few others.
During the show Tim McGrew said this in response to us bringing up some of Ehrman’s objections to the birth narratives. :)
@@ExploringReality I thought Dr. McGrew was not an inerrantist so he would agree with Ehrman so I am still confused. Please do forgive me for my ignorance.
@@computationaltheist7267 no you’re fine! It was just Tim’s way of saying that Ehrman’s arguments are so poor that they lend credence to innerancy.
Actually from the view point of the scriptures, it doesn’t seem like it was saying that his family thought He was crazy, rather it was the crowds who thought Jesus was crazy and Jesus’s family was trying to restrain Him to get Him out of there to make sure He was safe from what they might do to Him, not that they thought He was crazy. Now, I don’t think that they knew full well exactly what He would do or have happen to Him since even Bis disciples were not even getting it fully.
Your are spot on. The error that many are making is reading translations that are not expressing this clearly. As you get closer to the literal translations it is obvious that his family is not calling him senseless or crazy. But if you read something like the New Living Translation then one is left thinking that they are. That is what makes Bart so devious. He has the training to look at the translations and give a correct rendering but he purposely uses others lack of knowledge as a weapon to convince them of his falsehoods and almost all of those so convinced won't bother to check out the truth for themselves.
The text is clear that it was Jesus' mother and family that thought he was "out of his mind". This is supported by Jesus making it clear that his biological family was not his true family only those who followed the will of the father. Furthermore, the writer known as Mark shows how Jesus was rejected in his hometown where few believed and not many miracles were performed. The entire theme of Mark's gospel is that no one knows the identity of Jesus including his family and appointed disciples. This is an attempt to undermine those who were closest to Jesus and promote those who were least, Paul and his gospel.
The text is clear that "people were saying" that Jesus was out of his mind, and that the family was responding to 2nd-hand reports. It's likely that the family heard things that were inaccurate. Claiming that this means the family thought he was crazy for performing miracles is an unsound inference. The addition of the claims from religious leaders that he was performing miracles by the power of Beelzebul makes it plain that the writer wanted to convey the sorts of negative things some people were saying. Meanwhile, Mark also emphasizes the huge crowds Jesus was drawing, so clearly the word about Jesus contained both positive and negative.
As to your claim about Mark wanting to discredit the actual disciples while promoting Paul, I think you're badly confused. You're asserting different gospels, which indicates that you're reading too shallowly; there is no such distinction. It also indicates that you don't know Church history; Mark was identified by several of the Church fathers, without any conflicting voices, as Peter's scribe and companion, and Mark's gospel is claimed to be the gospel as Peter recounted it, in the order that he recounted it. Luke's gospel is understood to be the gospel used by Paul, as Luke was Paul's companion and Paul quotes from Luke's gospel once or twice. Meanwhile, Mark's gospel is no more dismissive of the appointed disciples than is Matthew's or Luke's. They all perform miracles in all three Synoptic gospels, and they all get several things wrong in all three as well.
@@philweingart9523 The accurate and vast majority of translations are clear that it was Jesus' family that was saying he was mad. Not just people. This is later proven out in the text by Jesus distinguishing his real spiritual family from his biological family. Likewise Jesus is not accepted in his hometown due to disbelief. Second, any clear reading of Mark's gospel shows that the disciples are unable to recognize who Jesus is ( not merely the messiah as Peter states later but the Son of Man who is given all authority in Daniel and Enoch). Peter and the other disciples are continued to be called out for a lack of faith, hindering the children i.e. gentiles from coming to Jesus, seeking glory and honor for themselves as oppossed to Paul's and the gospels theme of the least being the first, and falling asleep during Jesus' time of need. Peter and the disciples are compared to those who sow upon rocky ground who have no root. They initially react with joy but fall away under persecution or tribulation. In Mark 14:27 Jesus says you will all fall away. Peter denies he will fall away but he is assured by Jesus that he will just like The Parable of the Sower. I know church tradition on Mark. It is absurd just like the Roman Catholic church building its authority on Peter. The whole theme of Mark is that Jesus' family and disciples do not understand who he is and worst yet desert him and lack faith. However, those who are aware know that Paul is the least who will become the first. Mark's gospel is essentially Paul's gospel.
@@CMGigas1803 first you don't understand bible translations. 2nd, until you do there is no point discussing your lack of dicernment regarding interpretation of scriptures. Start with humbilness.
Mark 3:20 says that the crowds were so large that Jesus and his disciples couldn't even eat. The natural reading of Mark 3:21 is that it was the out-of-control crowding, and not "He's performing miracles," that led the family to think that Jesus "had lost his senses."
As usual, Ehrman is simply seeing what he wants to see and misrepresenting the account.
@@philweingart9523 or you cherry pick what you like and ignore how many men were born from a vergin before Christ or how to give up material possessions at the chore of Christianity ✝️.. what Hong other women is condemned.. but the double standard is a man who knows old Greek and the jewish culture, history and studied the original texts .. it is interesting how you treat women..when your Jesus trusted more them than his male disciples. . who were jealous the resurrection was revealed to a woman..and Peter didn't like it and still doesn't...
The text also does not state, that the family thought he was crazy, only that they did it because other people said so.
In the passage, as you wrote, it says “people” were saying he has lost his mind. It doesn’t say his family, much less his mother. It merely says of them that they went to “restrain him” because of what people were saying, not that they themselves thought similarly.
You’re right, the text spoke for itself.
I’ll grant not every version translates it that way, but it does not seem to specify who the “they” was that were saying it.
Even in the case it was them, you have a perfectly solid explanation laid out here.
I actually raised this objection in your previous videos. I’m glad you made a video resolving it.
When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.” *What did they Hear* = "Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat." - So is it a mother wanting a son to put himself first & eat?!
Or is it the massive crowd that he had no way to escape this time before he had a boat ready (Jesus asked His disciples to have a boat ready for Him so that the crowd would not crush Him.) Either way it isn't "crazy" in the sense they didn't believe him but crazy because he put others first and had no prepared escape & they feared for him, where he did not fear for himself so they came to seize him, which he declines. - Could say this is a prelude to the cross, mental preparation for his family.
Whatever else this is, its not a made up story. Its actually a rather embarrassing admission in connection with Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.
@@mikeyant2445 which is more proof that the Gospels were not made up because embarrassing stories are not in fake stories if you're trying to prove something.
Jesus brothers were not following Him until after His resurrection: that's why John took her in until James became a Christian.
@@davidjanbaz7728 The story would be embarrassing to the biological family of Jesus. This was the point. From the perspective of Paul, his gospel, and followers they were looking to undermine Jesus' family and closest disciples. Paul refers to himself as the last or least of the apostles in his writings. Likewise, the gospel of Mark refers to the last being first in the kingdom.
Thank you so much for making this video. I’ve been puzzled by the very question for years.
Glad it was helpful!
Who as a mature believer actually takes nonsense like that seriously?
Context is King.
According to the criterion of embarrassment, this suggests a real event. An event so well k nown that it could not be edited out of the story.
The title gives me "if George Washington was so smart, why is he dead?" vibes
@@austinapologetics2023 hello boy 🗣
I love that your videos are so well structured and strongly supported
I think I remeber a story in the old testament where prophet Elijah proved the Baal prophets to be false since God sent fire on his sacrifice which was a miraculous event. After when the queen was threatening him, he ran away and wanted God to kill him and rid him of his dilemna since he was scared.
So I think even if Mary thought Jesus was crazy, that still doesn't necessarily conclude that the virgin birth and the events surrounding it didnt occur since it is normal for humans to have doubts or lose trust in God even after miraculous signs and revelations.
Underrated comment. I kinda like the story about people close to Jesus thinking he was crazy because it's human. Even his disciples saw him perform great signs and wonders frequently and still doubted. If the gospels never recorded a moment of doubt in any of Jesus's followers, skeptics would say this is unrealistic and object on those grounds instead. Some people just don't want to believe, and Jesus acknowledged this (Luke 16:31).
@@Wesstuntube Yep. The disciples were constantly confused by His words and decisions and they recorded such in the gospels. Saint Peter denied his own master three times in one night after witnessing and being directly involved in countless miracles and mysteries.
It seemed to me from the text , the family cam the restrain him becase the some in the crowd thought he was crazy .
I love Barts stuff. I fresh analytical take on a topic that feels full of appeals to anything but historicity and logic.
Maybe they wanted Jesus to pull back and be more careful lest the religious leaders would really set about hurting Him or his family
I never thought about that but it makes sense.
Actually the text doesnt say any of his family though he was crazy. It says they would try to stop him because PEOPLE were saying he was crazy. They might want to stop him from making everyone think he was crazy. Whether they know there is something special about him or not, it doesn't mean they won't behave as people towards him.
He was definitely special😂
Just like schizophrenic Mohammed
Thank you for your ministry!
Also, if as we Catholics believe and the Church has taught for centuries, that Jesus brothers we’re actually cousins or extended family, they may not have been that aware of everything about him.
I'm not sure that totally helps either way. I think they'd be close family, living in the same household with Mary (and perhaps for a time Joseph, before he passed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). As I've said elsewhere in the comments, Ehrman's objection and my reply stands regardless if one takes a Catholic or Protestant position on the identity of Jesus' family in Mark 3 and 6, and John 7
@@TestifyApologetics Does the Gospels actually say they lived in the same home as Mary? It seems strange Jesus gave her to John if she was already living with actual family
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Not strange at all, though it is likely, considering their probable age, that either all or several of the brothers would have had their own homes by then. Jesus’s half-siblings all thought he was crazy at the time of His crucifixion. Mary by that point seems to have not thought so. As the oldest son, Jesus was responsible for His mother’s care, and thus he passed it on to John, who was a follower of His and thus would be completely sympathetic to Mary when she needed it most rather than letting a less sympathetic brother inherit the role.
@@John-fk2ky I suppose it just seems strange that Jesus would berate the Pharisees about not taking care of their parents and loading them off to other people only to do the same thing with His mother to someone who is not her son. I suppose it really doesnt matter though, definitely not a hill to die on no pun intended
@@tylerdavis520 no, not really. There was no word for "cousin" or "step sibling" at the time and place of writing. They can be cousins, step-siblings from Joseph's previous marriage, or at certain points, a combination of both.
Joseph is considered to have been much older when he took Mary as his wife, having been married previously, and passing away at some point in Jesus' youth. For this reason those mentioned are considered children of Joseph and his previous wife.
Also the same incident where his mother wanted to talk to him was in Matthew's Gospel too, which has the virgin birth.
Plus let's face it all of the Gospels constantly portray Jesus as being doubted even by his closest followers, why is this one so incredibly difficult to believe that Mary didn't trust Jesus enough or any of the apostles (Even assuming that they did think he was crazy).
Occam's razor: to skeptics, at least, Mark not knowing of the virgin birth provides the simplest explanation of the behavior.
The mention of this is Mark 3 21. If people read on, it continues in verse 31 "THEN Jesus's mother and brothers came and stood outside". Which implies that she and they were not part of the family that though he was crazy in verse 21.
It's possible that Joseph and Mary to Jesus' half-siblings about his miraculous birth but they didn't believe it. John said they didn't believe in him.
Either way, you're right, Bart's objection is baseless.
Aware of his "miracles" in the sense that they never happened because there's no such thing?
Romans 1:3-4refutes the virgin birth outright.
That's a silly thing to say.
There was no virgin birth… they read this story with pre conceived notions…. The scripture say no such thing…
Why was Joseph going to “put her away”? Because he hadn’t slept with her! O ye slow to believe!
I guess we don't know what made them think he was 'out of his mind'. Maybe they simply thought he was acting extremely unwisely in continually drawing large crowds around him, risking Roman intervention, or thought he was provoking wrath from their own religious leaders with his words and actions against them so feared for his safety. Maybe it was their love and for concern for him that as his popularity grew, so did his danger from enemies. So they wanted to rein him in. And stop what they saw as mad provocation.
His family did NOT think He was crazy! Especially His mother.
Some translations make it sound as though His family were saying, "He has gone out of His Mind" but the translation here has the much better "for people were saying," which means that what the family actually did could have been merely coming and restraining Him (the text is ambiguous as to whether the family thought the same or if they only restrained Him). If they only restrained Him, it could have been something as simple as that His family was merely trying to protect Him from the scoffers. While it is not too difficult to imagine some of Jesus' family (whose exact relation to Jesus is ambiguous) to have been against Him, I see nothing in this text to state that that was the case. They could have been merely trying to help Him.
From the old greek (koine) text, I found a translation word by word: And having heard [of it],those belonging to Him went out to seize Him; they were saying for,He is out of His mind.
@@lereseauamitie6349 It's true. And "those belonging to him" (οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ) is quite a strange phrase for Mark to use if he was trying to describe Jesus's family.
If Mark intended to describe Jesus's family specifically, he could easily have used unambiguous words like πατριὰ (patria) or oikoß (oikos 'household' - like the yogurt). οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ is completely unique in the NT, and can mean anything from family to friends to associates, so there's certainly some doubt as to who these 'belonging to Jesus' are. It could even be some of his own followers.
In my opinion, the vague word choice was intentional and the author of Mark is doing his best to describe a chaotic scene in which we had huge crowds, teachers of the law coming up from Jerusalem with harsh criticism, and disparaging rumors were flying around which his mother and brothers may have heard distorted versions of.
Mary didn’t think he was crazy and Jesus didn’t have any siblings. The Catholic position solves this problem, per usual
So you ignore the plain text of Scripture in favor of translational silliness?Why the heck would Mark use words for siblings when talking about Jesus’s relatives, as do the books of Acts, James and Jude, when Greek not only has words for things like “cousin”, but that is the normal way to use those words? A plain reading of the text suggests that “brothers” means “brothers”, and there is absolutely zero reason to think it meant otherwise unless you have preconceived notions going in.
And, no, the Catholic position usually wrecks things. Just look at the whole thing with Mary. Not counting a whole host of beliefs concerning Mary that lack any Biblical basis whatsoever, the most basic one, that she was a perpetual virgin, completely ignores the clear teachings of the Bible itself. It flat out says that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born. Moreover, the two were husband and wife. They were expected to have sex and have more kids. The entire idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is so antithetical to scripture it’s almost hilarious.
Which part of the Bible is this???
I have never read this in any bible and I’ve read the whole book 3 times.
This was my understanding as well. Mark DOES NOT SAY that Mary thought Jesus was crazy. As usual, Ehrman jumps to the least charitable possible conclusion from a number of possibilities and acts as though it's the only possible conclusion.
John 7:5 suggests that it was Jesus's brothers specifically who did not believe in him and makes no mention of his mother. There are so many possibilities to explain why Mary was there in Mark 3:31 that don't involve her thinking Jesus was crazy. She could have been trying to keep the peace in the family as some kind of mediator and was there on behalf of the brothers. Maybe she feared for Jesus's safety. Maybe Jesus was defying her messianic expectations and she wanted to talk to him about it. Maybe she came later to try to keep the family together, because she isn't mentioned when his family first confronts him earlier in 3:21, she's only mentioned as "waiting outside" later in 3:31. We just don't know, but the text doesn't say Mary thought Jesus was nuts, so we're wrong to assume that without evidence.
Given all the "maybes" in your post, who is the one reading too much into the text? The text doesn't literally say "Mary thought Jesus was out of his mind", but in verse 21 it said his family did, and in verse 31 it says the family consisted of Mary and his brothers. Deciding that only some of the family members actually thought differently is not in the text.
@@truncated7644 Sorry, but we can't know that from the passage. The Greek is too non-specific. Mark 3:21: καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν· ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη
οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ translates literally as "those belonging to him" and is sometimes translated as "family" but it can just as validly be translated as friends (KJV), "his people (NASB)," or even his companions. It's a vague reference and it's not by any means clear that this group is equivalent to the specific party of his mother and brothers who came later in verse 31 "looking for him". Jesus would have had many relatives and friends and companions. We have no way of knowing which of them thought him to be out of his mind. What we do know is that:
1. Some of "the people belonging to Jesus" thought that he was out of his mind when the crowd grew so large around the house that he and his disciples couldn't even eat
2. His mother and brothers came looking for him, and Jesus used their presence to make a point about obedience.
To say that Jesus's mother definitely thought he was crazy based on this passage is irresponsible, especially since the parallel passages in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21 make no such suggestion of his mother, John 7:5 focuses specifically on his brothers as being the unbelieving ones, and Jesus's mother was present during his ministry at multiple times with no such animus at any point implied.
It is a further unsupported leap of logic to use this passage as an argument against the virgin birth EVEN IF Jesus's mother did think he was crazy at one point. Did she think he was plain nuts or did she think his ministry was nuts and that Jesus should get on with ruling on the throne of his father David as the angel promised her in Luke 1? We have no way of knowing.
A few maybes are warranted. Thanks for the comment.
@@Wesstuntube Thanks for the greek and other comments, much appreciated. To me, it seems like a tortured reading to not associate the first term, which "can" mean family, to not be the family when Mark says they arrived. Mark is telling a story, not just a string of facts, and the structure of this pericope connects the two.
But you make my point for me when you note that Matthew and Luke omit this, the point being that they didn't see this episode in Mark as being consistent with their narratives that includes angel announcements and a virgin birth.
In my opinion, the objections to the most simple reading of the text stems from conflicting exegetical approaches. The critical approach reads Mark as his own gospel, where as a more evangelical approach uses each gospel to inform the other. We probably disagree on this point. So for me, Mark says the family thought Jesus was out of his mind and that the family included Mary. You believe there is evidence in other gospels that make this reading unlikely and so have to go beyond the text of Mark to interpret Mark.
@@truncated7644 Ok let's only look at Mark and nowhere else. If all we had to go on was Mark 3:20-31, then "family" is certainly a defensible translation of οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ given the arrival of his specific family members in verse 31, but there is something strange going on here. οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ is a pretty vague term for the author of Mark to use for Jesus's family, when he could have easily used a specific, unambiguous term like πατριὰ (patria) or oikoß (oikos 'household' - like the yogurt). This non-specific phrase "those that belong to him" which can mean anything from family to associates to followers is an odd choice (and unique in the NT) that raises questions.
If we assume that the author of Mark was intentional in his word choice, then it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that he was purposefully using a vague term to describe the potentially nebulous group of people close to Jesus who thought he was out of his mind and went to 'restrain' him, as this entire event was triggered by him earlier doing miracles on the sabbath, sending out his disciples to preach, and attracting such a large crowd at a house that he and his disciples couldn't eat, drawing criticism from a few different groups and angles. You can say it's a torturous reading of the passage to assume anyone else but his family is being referenced here, but Mark's wording is tortuous if he was referring to Jesus's family specifically, so take your pick. In my opinion, his vague word choice was intentional and the author of Mark is doing his best to describe a chaotic scene in which we had huge crowds, teachers of the law coming up from Jerusalem with harsh criticism, and disparaging rumors were flying around which his family may have heard distorted versions of. We don't really know, so let's not say we do and pretend it's the only option.
The point still stands that even if Mary thought Jesus to be out of his mind at this time, it's a very weak objection to the virgin birth narrative in general, because we don't know the substance of her objection or what she intended to do specifically. We don't know if she was objecting to his treatment of the Sabbath (which could be legitimate if she genuinely believed him to be the Messiah), or if she feared for his safety as a mother despite what she knew about him, or if she was trying to advise him to pursue his ministry differently, or any number of other things, especially if she was basing her assessment of his mental state simply on rumors she was hearing.
Finally, even if Mary thought at this time that Jesus was an absolute unredeemable nutcase, that would only invalidate her experience at his birth if we make no allowance for her to experience temporary irrational human doubt as she saw Jesus's ministry unfolding very differently than she had pictured. This isn't unreasonable, as his disciples frequently saw him perform great signs and wonders but still voiced their doubts frequently. I like this story about people thinking Jesus was crazy because it's very human. I suspect if the narrative were flipped and nobody close to Jesus ever disagreed with him, skeptics would complain that this is unrealistic and object on those grounds instead.
You have to take a whole bunch of possibilities and turn them into certainties to turn this narrative into a serious objection about the virgin birth of Jesus, and even then it's pretty weak. Thanks again for talking.
@@Wesstuntube These are really great comments. I agree with you that many of the things you suggest could be possible. However, from a literary perspective, we have to ask if these other possibilities were known to the author to be true, and if so, would we expect him to write it in the manner he did. To me, that doesn't seem most probable.
Mark's not mentioning the Virgin Birth is an argument from silence, and is of course weak. But the intentional omission of this story from Matthew and Luke isn't an argument from silence, it is an act of editorial intent. While no one can say with 100% certainty what their intent was, it lines up well with the critical argument that Mark did not know about the virgin birth. And it is also consistent with Mark's secret messiah theme of portraying those around Jesus as not understanding who he truly was.
I guess I struggle with accepting that I am taking a bunch of possibilities and using them to make a serious objection to the virgin birth. For me, for many other reasons, I don't think the gospels provide accurate and reliable history about Jesus, so I don't feel the need to make Mark's portrayal of Jesus consistent with the other gospels. I would view this as just an observation that Mark portrays Jesus' family in a way in which they don't know who Jesus is.
The main point is, that Mary is not mentioned to have been there. "the family" does not necessarily mean the whole family. So Ehrman has no point to begin with.
3:10 their YOUNGER sibling. Or maybe older if we are talking about cousins, but how would younger sibling oppose their older one?
What mother doesn't worry?
Bart eats beats, Bart beats Battlestar Galactica.
The only thing worse than Dr. Ehrman not getting what he wants is Dr. Ehrman getting what he wants. Many of the issues he has with the text give it credibility that eyewitnesses wrote what they saw or received. Jay Warner Wallace's work in this area builds a solid case for argument. To me, Dr. Ehrman acts more like a crooked lawyer than a reputable scholar.
Another well-done video, Marry Christmas Testify, and to all your viewers.
I get that Bart's argument doesn't provide conclusive proof. But the extent to which your arguments rely on conjecture about the brothers' or Mary's state of mind and then say Bart is reading too much into the text seems like the pot calling the kettle black. The text claims the family thought Jesus was out of his mind. The text states that Mary is part of this family contingent. That Mary thought Jesus was out of his mind is the most straightforward reading of the text. Why isn't any other interpretation considered "reading too much into the text"?
It is also consistent with the claim of legendary development, since if Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and Mary had never been visited by an angel, it fits perfectly with the plainest reading of the text; that is, his family had no idea what he was up to and thought he had lost his mind.
The way Mark structures the passage, verses 21 and 22 are provided to set up the teaching Jesus delivers in verses 23-35. The setup involves two groups of people who thought Jesus was not quite right (out of his mind, possessed by Beelzebul) and is written as a compound sentence. Jesus then uses this opportunity to defend himself by claiming that if he is doing the work of God, he cannot be serving the devil.
The Pharasees said Jesus was doing his miracles by Satan's power because they couldn't deny his miracles he did in public!
Jesus hyperbole would make his brothers think he was crazy but they weren't following him . That's why Mary said do whatever Jesus says at the wedding in Canaan. She wasn't sure what he was going to do but she knew miracles would bring unwanted attention from the Pharasees.
Don't let English be you're guide to the text and the exact meaning of it.
Only the Greek can clear up any ambiguity that might be in the English translations.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I think psychologizing Jesus' family members is reading more into the text that is there. Your comments about Mary are introducing a story from the author of the Gospel of John, who, writing a generation after Mark, has a different view of who Jesus was. If you are going to combine the two gospels, you will end up with a gospel neither Mark or John wrote.
In Mark, the author is unfamiliar with the story of the virgin birth and that is why, only in Mark, is the story about his family being concerned for his mental health told. Both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark but apparently chose to omit this story because it conflicted with other elements of their narrative such as the virgin birth.
I agree Bart Ehrman's argument has some weight, but its force can be blunted by these considerations. The overall consideration has to be whether there are other reasons to think James and the family of Jesus in the Jerusalem church believed in the virgin birth
Maybe his mom didn’t know what that big needle was for that poked her stomach ?
Just another example of Black Bart reading what he wants the text to say than what it actually says
That felt more like a satirical joke rather than an actual argument. But I’ve never watched that video so I don’t know.
Bart Ehrman will say anything to "disprove" Christianiy. Being an atheist his only morality is what he decides for himself.
Bart Ehrman is sly. I’ve noticed that he will make “jokes“ like this but he won’t actually state that he’s joking. In other words, he will plant seeds of doubt with ambiguous passages that he can manipulate to suit his arguments. By doing it in a joking manner, that means he doesn’t have to fully commit to them.
When Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside asking for him ...he said " who are my mother and my brothers ..you standing here before me are my mother and my brothers..whoever does the will of the father is my mother and my brothers.."
Sounds to me like he is saying that he was separating them from his family because his own family does not do the will of his father ...? ..
How is that possible if Mary was visited by the holy spirit ..Joseph also ? So his family were well aware of who he was and would definitely have followed and supported him..
Mark didn't know about the virgin birth ..or he just didnt think it important enough to record it in his gospel?..(the biggest miracle of them all )..hmm.he seems to imply that Jesus was chosen by God at the baptism.." you are my son ..of whome I am well pleased " (I'm paraphrasing)
Did Jesus not know he was God ?
Or did he just need a reminder?..from himself ?
My reading of that is that they thought he was out of his mind for doing it publicly on the Sabbath because that's the entire focus of the scene. That, or Mary was just following on with the skeptical brothers. I can't see proof Mary denied Jesus's divinity.
Read further down to verse 31, it provides additional context to who where coming to take care of Jesus out of concern for his mental health: Mary and Jesus' brothers. That's the family.
@@truncated7644 Ah, okay. I missed that. Oops. I'll correct it. But In any case, it doesn't actually matter. The text never says Jesus is put of his mind for thinking he's a miracle worker. My reading of that is that they thought he was out of his mind for doing it publicly on the Sabbath because that's the entire focus of the scene. That, or Mary was just following on with the skeptical brothers. I can't see proof Mary denied Jesus's divinity.
@@inukithesavage828 It doesn't provide proof Mary denied his divinity. But it is consistent with the proposition that Mark didn't know about the virgin birth and the fact that the two gospels that do have the virgin birth remove this part of the story is even more compelling.
@@truncated7644 If you find that compelling, you have a very low standard of evidence.
While, I would normally disagree with this channel and their views, This argument is terrible, it is a "gotcha" argument and we know nothing in which the Angel in Matthew or Luke told Mary that Jesus would cast out demons.
Please do a video on old testament prophecy of Jesus Arguments have been made that they really have nothing at all to do with a future messiah
Already have one on Psalm 22 done just not published yet
There's another, previous story about a "virgin birth" in the Bible. His name was Cain. Was Jesus really Cain resurrected and his half-brother (again, paralleling the story of Cain and Abel) really James the Just? I've come to know this as a matter of fact. What do you think?
Why do you believe Cain was virgin born, that is, born without the sperm of a man?
WTH? The Bible all but LITERALLY (since it uses a euphemism) says Adam and Eve had sex, and Cain was the result.
Can't help but think that you know who is crazy. Then there's that constant little laugh.
Great vid: thanks for this!
Bart Ehrman gets a ton of coal for Christmas
Wait ...isn't the bible the inerrant word of God ? ..if god breathed the story ..then why would there be questions? ..Bart is reading the actual word of God ...
You are making assumptions...hmm
Great 👌
But I know Muslims and atheist are about to post Bart erhman question all over the internet
Bart destroyed Islam so they might not like him anymore!
I see this video has created a bit of controversy on Twitter with Ye of Little Faith and Amateur Exegete.
Yeah. I don't get it. As you can tell, I got a little peeved. Hope I didn't come across harshly or make a fool out of myself. I don't like when people misconstrue stuff and then double down and make things worse when I try and clarify. Seriously, this is pushing me over the edge with Twitter. I don't find it to be a beneficial platform for me at all. I'm a little surprised because I've gotten along so well with Ye in the past. And Amateur Exegete and his use of the word pop apologist is just a slur.
@@TestifyApologetics I think the main thing I would do is change the description to say that it is evidence against the Virgin birth rather than "The Virgin birth probably didn't happen", but that's maybe that's just me wanting to nuance it a bit too hard.
they issues are clearly epistemically entangled together, IMO.
@@petery6432 poor evidence!
How is Jesus the Messiah if biologically he is not related to Joseph and Hebrew didn't trace lineage through the mother and if they did Mary was a Levi so that wouldn't check out. What do you say to something like this as it has been bothering me
Does it matter if the Jews didnt count a mothers geniology as important? She is still a daughter of David through Nathan.
I don't think Mary was a Levite.. Don't both genealogies go through Judah?
3:00 you mean youngest foster sibling. Proto evangalion ftw.
The problem with cherry-picking passages and making very specific objections. Is that often these objections contradict each other. For example, This particular objection would contradict Ehrman's assertion that the gosples were written very late 100 or 140 years after the death of Jesus. who would write something like this?
I don't think Bart ever said that about the gospels' dating. Do you know in what book of his that you have read where he says this?
@@truncated7644 He mentions it in recent interviews on youtube, especially John. also like a throwaway statement I am not sure if he was just being alittle careless
@@truncated7644 Whose Word is It?: The Story
Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why (New York: Continuum, 2006); the other is: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins; Edinburgh: Clark, 2005). C
@@midnightwatchman1 I wonder if you might not have a correct recollection of what he says in these books because he says in multiple places that he thinks the dates are between 65 and 100 CE (that is, 30 to 60 years after the crucifixion, NOT 100 to 140 years after). For example, in a post on Bart's blog (Feb 19, 2017) he says "But these parameters (between, say 65-100 CE for all four Gospels) are agreed on by most scholars of all persuasions, except fundamentalists and a few others." I have read the books you mentioned and don't recall him dating it so late.
@@truncated7644 I would put a hard stop before 70 AD. what exactly is the argumentation for putting them so late? Especially what happened to Jersuleium in 70 AD
The only thing I learn from these videos is that Bart has a huge bias to write more books and make more money.
He is definitely cashing in.
Mark 3, not mark 2
Great video. It was his brothers that thought be was crazy and not Mary.
Where does it say it wasn't Mary also? Verse 31 makes it clear that she was a member of the family coming to take care of Jesus because they feared for his mental health.
Shermer and others should know better.
so according to Bart,Mark slipped up there-nice😂
If you have to use a perhaps to make your point you're reaching.
history isn't like math or the law of logic. if I give a more tentative conclusion, I'm reaching. If I gave a certain conclusion, I'm overconfident. so it's a no win situation with some of you guys, bro.
Gee, a bible scholar that doesn't know scripture!? Nowhere in that text does it say that. Bart is lying for his narrative again.
In judaism satan is not evil
Your cat has a belly button
@@TestifyApologetics 💩
@TestifyApologetics the Holy scriptures came from jewish people so we should learn from jewish rabbis
@TestifyApologetics In Judaism, the concept of Satan differs from the common depiction in some other religions. Satan, or "ha-Satan" in Hebrew, is not necessarily seen as inherently evil in Judaism. Instead, Satan is often depicted as an adversary or accuser, serving as a tester or challenger of human faithfulness to God. In some Jewish traditions, Satan is considered to be an angel who carries out specific tasks assigned by God, rather than being an independent force of evil. So, while Satan may oppose or challenge humans, the concept does not necessarily carry the same connotations of absolute evil as it does in other religious traditions.
You’re a hypotheses are tragically flawed. For your biased opinion to be true you would have to prove that Jesus existed.
What if he was not born of a virgin mother? Lots of things in the Greek translation which inspired the KJV and pretty much everything after it had been combined with paganism. His father was if Abrahams bloodline, so it would make sense tgat tge virgin birth was added. After all, several pagan god's were of virgin births. I'm not saying I'm correct, but I can see that it's a possibility that it was added. The Greeks will say huge pagan society, and Constantine wanted to unite them under one religion. I'm sure he combined paganism with whatever Christianity was called at that time to make this new religion. All I'm asking is to be open-minded and think and do a little research. Do not think for a second that the word has not been manipulated by Satan. He is the great deceiver, the greatest liar ever, that's his job is to still us from the Savior and creator.
jesus virgin lad
He loves you he needs you to love him too and he wants to be with you open. You heart and he will k kisses. You. Mahns snjsjsjsns
@@wildager1488 um jesus loves you