Four-Color Synopsis

§ 89 Jesus' True Relatives

Other Parallels:

Key: Bold Blue = Mt; Bold Red = Mk; Bold Green = Lk. Bold Magenta = Mt and Mk; Bold Yellow = Mk and Lk; Bold Cyan = Mt and Lk; Bold Black = Mt, Mk, and Lk.

• Matt 7:21 Ou paV o legwn moi kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patroV mou tou en toiV ouranoiV.
• Luke 11:27-28 Egeneto de en tw legein auton tauta eparasa tiV fwnhn gunh ek tou oxlou eipen autw: Makaria h koilia h bastasasa se kai mastoi ouV eqhlasaV. autoV de eipen: Menoun makarioi oi akouonteV ton logon tou Qeou kai fulassonteV.
• John 15:14 UmeiV filoi mou este, ean poihte a egw entellomai umin.
• Ebion 5 (Epiph., Pan. Haer. XXX 14:5): Palin de arnountai einai auton anqrwpon, dhqen apo tou logou ou eirhken o swthr en tw anaggelhnai autw oti Idou h mhthr sou kai oi adelfoi sou exw esthkasin, oti TiV mou esti mhthr kai adelfoi; kai ekteinaV thn ceira epi touV maqhtaV efh: Outoi eisin oi adelfoi mou kai h mhthr kai adelfai oi poiounteV ta qelhmata tou patroV mou.
• 2 Clem 9:11 Kai gar eipen o kurioV: Adelfoi mou outoi eisin oi poiounteV to qelhma tou patroV mou.
• Thomas 99 (trans. Greeven): Eipon oi maqhtai autw: oi adelfoi sou kai h mhthr sou esthkasin exw. eipen autoiV: Outoi oi poiounteV to qelhma tou patroV mou, outoi eisin oi adelfoi mou. autoi eiseleusontai eiV thn basileian tou patroV mou.

Cross-references to Synopses:

• Eusebius: Canon II, in quo tres, § 130 Matt; § 35 Mark; [§ 82 Luke]
• Rushbrooke 1880: § 19 Matt; Mark; [Luke]
• Huck 1892, ⁷ 1928: § 89 Matt; Mark; [§ 104 Luke]
• Aland 1964, ³ 1965: § 121 Matt; Mark; [§ 135 Luke]; [§ 321 John 15:14] + Matt 7:21; Ebion 5; 2 Clem. 9:11; Thomas 99
• Benoit & Boismard 1965, ² 1977: § 122 Matt; Mark; [§ 140 Luke]; [§ 199 Luke 11:27-28] + Ebion 5; Thomas 99; 2 Clem. 9:11; Clem. Alex. (Ecl. Proph. 20).
• Greeven 1981: § 102 Matt; Mark; [§ 117 Luke]; [John 15:14] + Ebion 5; Thomas 99.
• Orchard 1983: § 142 Matt; [§ 99 Luke]; § 108 Mark
• Funk 1995: § K20.3 Mark; Matt; [Luke]; [GEbi 5, Thom 99:1-3]; [John 15:14; 2 Clem 9:11]
• Peabody: § 22 Matt; Mark; [(Luke)]; [Luke 11:27-28]

Literalistic English Translations

Key: Bold Blue = Mt; Bold Red = Mk; Bold Green = Lk. Bold Magenta = Mt and Mk; Bold Yellow = Mk and Lk; Bold Cyan = Mt and Lk; Bold Black = Mt, Mk, and Lk.

• Matt 12:46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers stood outside seeking to speak to him. 47 [But someone said to him, Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to you.] 48 But answering he said to the one telling him, Who is my mother and who are my brothers? 49 And extending his hand at his disciples, he said, Look, my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my father who is in heaven, he is my brother, sister, and mother.

• Mark 3:31 And came his mother and his brothers, and standing outside they sent to him, calling him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, Look, your mother and your brothers [and your sisters] are outside seeking you. 33 And answering them he says, Who is my mother and [my] brothers? 34 And looking around at those sitting around him, he says, See, my mother and my brothers. 35 [For] whoever does the will of God, that one is my brother and sister and mother.

• Luke 8:19 But his mother and brothers arrived for him and they could not meet him through the crowd. 20 But they announced to him, Your mother and your brothers are standing outside wishing to see you. 21 But answering he said to them, My mother and my brothers are those who are hearing and doing the word of God.

• Matt 7:21 Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my father in heaven.
• Luke 11:27 Now it happened that, while he said these things, a certain woman from the crowd lifting her voice said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts you nursed at! 28 But he said: Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.
• John 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
• Ebion 5 Moreover they deny that he was a man, apparently from word that the Savior spoke when he was announced that Look, your mother and your brothers are outside standing, that Who is my mother and brothers? And extending his hand at the disciples he said: Those who are doing the wishes of my father are my brothers and mother and sisters.
• 2 Clem 9:11 For the Lord also said: Those who are doing the will of my father are my brothers.
• Thomas 99 The disciples said to him: Your brothers and your mother are standing outside. He said: Those who are doing the will of my father, those are my brothers. They will enter into the kingdom of my father.
• Clem. Alex., Ecl. proph. 20 For my brothers, the Lord said, and fellow heirs are those doing the will of my father.

Context

Matthew

 12:38-42               [11:29-32]   Against Seeking for Signs
 12:43-45               [11:24-26]   Return of Unclean Spirit
 12:46-50     3:31-35   [ 8:19-21]   Jesus' True Relatives (Th99)
 13: 1- 9     4: 1- 9     8: 4- 8    Sower Parable (Th9)
 13:10-11     4:10-11     8: 9-10    Mystery of the Kingdom of God

Mark

 12:29        3:27      [11:21-22]   The Strong Man (Th35)
 12:31-32     3:28-30   [12:10   ]   Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Th44)
 12:46-50     3:31-35   [ 8:19-21]   Jesus' True Relatives (Th99)
 13: 1- 9     4: 1- 9     8: 4- 8    Sower Parable (Th9)
 13:10-11     4:10-11     8: 9-10    Mystery of the Kingdom of God

Luke

              4:24        8:18       Pay attention
[13:12   ]    4:25        8:18       To Those Who Have/Lack (Th41)
[12:46-50 ==  3:31-35]    8:19-21    Jesus' True Relatives (Th99)
[ 8:18   ]    4:35        8:22       Let's Go to the Other Side
[ 8:23-27]    4:36-41     8:23-25    Stilling the Storm

Textual Issues

Matt 12:47 {C} [eipen de tiV autw Idou h mhthr sou kai oi adelfoi sou exw esthkasin zhtounteV soi lalhsai]: À^{(1). 2} C (D) W Z Q f^{(1). 13} Maj lat sy^p.h mae bo

• Chapman 1937 (AH): "Hence these eminent critics [Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort] would not accept the evidence of esthkasin for the dependence of Lk. here on Mt. ... As the omission is a most ordinary example of homoioteleuton, we may neglect the impressive sound of 'ÀBL'." (1937: 119)

• Butler 1951 (AH): "Omitted by À* B, it is square-bracketed by Huck and is usually regarded as an interpolation or at best as doubtfully authentic. But the omission was probably due to homoeoteleuton, and I regard Mark iii. 32 and Luke viii. 20, taken together, as early evidence for the verse's genuineness." (1951: 13 n.1)

• Davies & Allison 1991 (2SH): "À* B L T [sic, G] pc ff¹ k sy^s.c sa omit this and the rest of the verse. But it is not an interpolation (pace Verseput, p. 284). (i) There are differences between 12.47 and its synoptic counterparts. (ii) Accidental omission is a good hypothesis, given that both vv. 46 and 47 end with lalhsai. (iii) V. 48 does not follow well upon v. 46: who is 'the one speaking to him'?" (1991 2:363 n.117)

• Metzger ² 1994 (2SH): "The sentence, which seems to be necessary for the sense of the following verses, apparently was accidentally omitted because of homoeoteleuton (lalhsai ... lalhsai)." (1994: 26)

• Gundry ² 1994 (3SH): "On the omission of v 47 in part of the textual tradition, see Metzger, Textual Commentary ad loc. The omission is a result of homoeoteleuton. The hypothesis of later insertion from Mark into Matthew does not take account of typically Matthean revisions that characterize the verse as it appears in Matthew." (1994: 249)

omit: À* B L G pc ff¹ k sy^s.c sa.

• Allen ³ 1912 (MkH): "À^a C D E al latt insert here: ... The verse is rightly omitted by À* B L G S¹ S² ff¹ k. Mt. has purposely omitted the corresponding clause in Mk., and has only taken from it the zhtousin se = zhtounteV autw lalhsai, Mt ⁴⁶. The interpolator has written the words to assimilate to Mk. and Lk., and to prepare the way for v.⁴⁸. If the verse were genuine, Mt. and Lk. would agree against Mk. in esthkasin, as they do in the verse in eipen for legei." (1912: 142)

• Boismard 1972 (MSH): "V. 47 of Mt is omitted by the best witnesses of the Alexandrian text (S B L Sa) as also by the oldest African (k, cf. ff) and Syriac (SyrSin, SyrCur) versions; by itself, this agreement of witnesses of diverse origin could prove the inauthencity of v. 47. It is confirmed by certain grammatical pecularities. The order of the words 'are standing outside' is not the same as in v. 46; the word 'mother' is modified by a possessive in v. 47, but not in v. 46; it can be inferred that v. 47 is not from the same hand as v. 46. But above all, the aorist eipen, 'said,' is followed by the particle de and has an indefinite pronoun as its subject, two grammatical constructions that are never read elsewhere in Mt (despite the frequency of eipen). From these various observations, it can be concluded that v. 47 of Mt is an addition of a scribe wishing to align Mt with Mk." (1972:177, ET by Carlson)

• Metzger ² 1994 (2SH): "In view, however, of the age and weight of the diverse text-types that omit the words, the Committee enclosed the words within square brackets in order to indicate a certain amount of doubt concerning their right to stand in the text." (1994: 26-27)

Mark 3:32 {C}[kai ai adelfai sou] A D G 700 . 1010 pm it vg^mss sy^h.mg

• Metzger ² 1994 (2SH): "A majority of the Committee considered it probable that the words kai ai adelfai sou were omitted from most witnesses by either (a) accidentally through an oversight in transcription (the eye passing from sou to sou), or (b) deliberately because neither in ver. 31 nor ver. 34 (nor in parallel passages) are the sisters mentioned. Had the words been interpolated, the addition probably would have been made already in ver. 31. Nevertheless, the view of the weight of attestation for the shorter text, it was thought best to enclose the disputed words within square brackets." (1994: 70)

omit: À B C K L W D Q 074 f^{1. 13} 28. 33. 565. 892. 1241. 1424. pm lat sy.

• Metzger ² 1994: (2SH) "[The shorter text should be adopted; the longer reading, perhaps of Western origin, crept into the text through mechanical expansion. From a historical point of view, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus' sisters would have joined in publicly seeking to check him in his ministry. B.M.M.]" (1994: 70)

Mark 3:33 [mou]: À A C L W Q 074 f^{1. 13} Maj latt sy | omit: B D.

Mark 3:35 [gar]: À A D C L Q 074 f^{1. 13} Maj lat sy sa bo^ms | omit: B (W) b e bo.

Triple Tradition Hypotheses

Markan Priority Hypothesis [Matthew and Luke dependent on Mark]

Theme: Disciples

• Allen ³ 1913: (2SH) "It is in Mt.'s manner to make the reference [scil. those sitting in a circle about Him] apply specially to the disciples." (1913: 142)

• Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "Further in accordance with his ecclesiastical standpoint, the evangelist wants to make it perfectly clear that Jesus is referring to his disciples, not to the crowds." (1991 2:364, footnote omitted)

Theme: Jesus

• Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "The omission [of Mk 3.20-21] reduces the tension between Jesus' physical family and his spiritual family; and this permits the presence of the family in 12.46-50 to serve 'more as a catalyst rather than a contrast' (Brown et al. (v), p. 99)." (1991 2:362)

Fatigue

• Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "It makes sense for Mk 3:31 to mention people 'standing outside', for Jesus is in a house (cf. 3.20f.). But Matthew has failed to tell us what Mark has told us (cf. Lk 8.20). That is, in abbreviating his source, he has nelected to inform us what 12.46 evidently assumes, namely, that Jesus is inside.¹¹⁶ This is an example of imperfect editing, and evidence for the priority of Mark. ...
  ¹¹⁶ Although one could conceivably argue that those standing exw are not outside a house but outside the ring of people around Jesus. (But what of 13.1?)" (1991 2:363)

• Goodacre 1998: (FH) "Matthew has, therefore, in switching between sources at 12.46, forgotten to refer to the house that had been mentioned earlier on by Mark. By reproducing Mark faithfully at this point, Matthew has inadvertently betrayed his hand, leaving the detective a key piece of evidence." (1998: 48, footnote omitted; see also 53)

Matthean Priority Hypothesis [Mark (and Luke) dependent on Matthew]

Style: idou

• Chapman 1937: (AH) "It will be seen that idou is in every case easy to omit, but otiose to add." Matt 12:46 idou || Mark 3:31 omit (1937: 202)

Proto-Matthew Hypothesis [Mark and Matt depends on a common source]

Theme: Mark's Attitude to the Disciples

• Parker 1953: (pMt+Q H) "In the light of this, it is very significant that K took the part of the Twelve but that Mark did not. ... Besides rejecting passages like the foregoing, Mark is in parallels to Matthew constantly derogatory of the Twelve." (1953: 104)
  "3. In Matthew, Jesus expresses confidence in the disciples. In Mark this confidence is placed in larger groups.
  [Matt] 12:49. The disciples are Jesus' 'mother and brothers.'
  [Mark] 3:34.Those who sat about him are his 'mother and brothers.'" (1953: 105, emphases original)

Style: Roughness in the Greek

• Parker 1953: (pMt+Q H) "In Matthew the Greek is usually smoother, and passages are frequently shorter, than at corresponding points in Mark. So far as these conditions hold, they indicate that Matthew has at many points polished the source material more than Mark has done. It does not follow, from this, that Mark was itself Matthew's source. Precisely the same situation would arise if two editors handled the same document independently. Futhermore, the inference that Matthew did the greater editing is open to two serious qualifications:" (1953: 42, footnote omitted)
  "2. Matthew does not always show more editorial finish than Mark. ... Consider, finally, the following passages, wherein Matthew averages about 17 per cent more words than Mark while adding little or nothing to the content--in several of them Mark actually tells more than Matthew does: ... Mark 3:32b-35 ... Matt. 12:27-50 .... Thus while Mark's Greek is usually the more rougher, sometimes Matthew's is. Mark is usually more discursive, but often Matthew is. This is hard to explain if Matthew copied direct from Mark. It is easy to explain if both authors worked independently upon a common source." (1953: 43)

Griesbach Conflation Hypothesis [Mark is dependent on Matthew and Luke.]

Style: Markan addition

• Riley 1989 (2GH): "Mark follows Matthew fairly closely, but speaks of a crowd who were sitting about him (Jesus) both in 3:32 and 34, though he must mean a crowd of disciples, since it is when looking around on them (a characteristic Markan addition) that Jesus speaks of them as those who do the will of God." (1989: 43, emphases original)

Double Tradition Hypotheses

Q Hypothesis [Luke and Matthew depends on a common source outside of Mark]

Mark/Q Overlap?

• Streeter 1924 (2SH): "(b) Lk. xi. 27-28. An unknown woman cries, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee . . ." Our Lord replies, "Nay, blessed are they that hear the word of God . . ." In Luke this follows immediately after the parable of the Unclean Spirit. Matthew immediately after this same parable (Mt. xii. 46-50) inserts our Lord's reply to the announcement, "Thy mother and brethern without seek thee," from Mk. iii. 31, a different incident but one of which the moral is the same, "whoso will do the will of my Father . . . the same is my brother and sister and mother." As there is no connection of thought between this and the preceding parable, the position of Matt. xii. 46-50 can only be due to a deliberate substitution of the Marcan for the Q version of the saying as to what constitutes true relationship to Christ." (1924: 278-79)

• Jacobson [Ph.D. diss. 1978] (2SH): "Jacobson 158: Although Mark has a story about Jesus' relatives (3:31-35) at the end of the Beelzebul accusation (3:24-27), Matthew and Luke concur in placing the saying concerning hearing and doing immediately after the return of the evil spirit (Matt 12:43-45 // Luke 11:24-26 ...). This suggests that the saying occurred in Q and that while Matthew followed Mark, he was influenced by the Q saying of Q 11:27-28." (Kloppenborg 1988: 96)

Lukan Posteriority Hypothesis [Luke used Matthew (perhaps in addition to Mark)]

Minor Agreements

• Chapman 1937: (AH) "Where Luke seems not to follow Mark's order he is following Matthew. ... But in every place where Lk. has a parallel to Mk. against the order of Mk., Lk. shows agreements with Mt. against Mk." (1937: 110) The Mother and Brethren pericope is against the order of Mk. (1937: 111) "Lk. has no agreement with Mk. against Mt., but he has some slight agreements with Mt. against Mk. ... In the second verse Mt. and Lk. agree as to esthkasin. Next they agree as to o de ... eipen, but then Lk. would not reproduce legei, which he dislikes." (1937: 118)

• Butler 1951: (AH) "On general principles we should suppose that Luke, being in non-Marcan context, is not derived from Mark. If Matt. xii. 47 is authentic, Luke's passage is if anything more akin to Matthew's than to Mark's, and as usual in such cases is covered by the formula: dependence on Matthew, (possible) reminiscence of Mark, Lucan modification of Matthew's wording. To suppose that Matthew has here conflated Mark with Q (especially as Q gave him nothing that he could not find in Mark) would be unnatural and an offence against sound criticism." (1951: 13, footnotes omitted)

• Goulder 1989: (FH) "The Matthaean scroll may be laid on the shelf, but Matthew's familiar wording still echoes repeatedly in Luke's ears." (1989: 414) "Matthew omits Mark's 'and your sisters', and alters the phrasing to exw esthkasin followed by a phrase with the present participle; and Luke makes the same omission, and (almost) the same change of phrase. The most common defense here is textual doubt, for N-A²⁶ brackets both Mt. 12.47 and 'and your sisters' in Mk 3.32. But Metzger's commentary justifies the inclusion of the Matthaean verse with force...." (1989: 417)

• Gundry ² 1994: (3SH) "That Luke also has esthkasin even though he lacks Matthew's parallelistic reason for its insertion (this is Luke's first and only reference to standing) suggests Matthean influence." (1994: 249)

On-Line Evaluations

Carlson 2000

This pericope is a good example that demonstrates why it is necessary to resolve the text critical issues before delving into source criticism. If Matt 12:47 is authentic, then there are two additional "minor agreements" between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The bracketed text is the superior reading due to (a) the commonness of the homeoteleuton scribal error and (b) the difficulty of the supposed interpolation from the synoptic parallels, neither of which includes the word lalhsai that gavies to the homeoteleuton.

The good example of fatigue favors Markan priority over Matthew here, rather than the reverse. Indeed, a similar fatigue argument can be made for Luke's dependence on Mark: as with Matthew, Luke 8:20 presupposes that Jesus was in a house, which is also not explicitly related in Luke's version. The stylistic evidence, however, is not only weak but points in both directions (compare Allen with Chapman), and the thematic arguments are readily reversible (compare Davies & Allison with Parker).

The minor agreements in this passage, especially esthkasin, indicate a literary connection between Matthew and Luke outside of Mark. A Mark/Q overlap is ruled out because Luke 11:27-28 is unlikely to be part of Q and, in any case, does not use the word esthkasin. For Gundry's reasons, coincidental redaction to add esthkasin is doubtful. The value of these minor agreements, however, is attenuated by the textual uncertainty over Matt 12:47.

The synoptic theory that best explains these synoptic interrelations, i.e., Markan priority and Lukan posteriority, is the Farrer Theory. Runners up include the Two Source Theory, which accepts Markan priority, and the Augustinian Theory, which accepts Luke's use of Matthew. Due to the strength of the fatigue and the uncertainty over the text of the minor agreements, the Two Source Theory has the edge for second place.

Smith 1997-2000

Mahlon Smith's treatment in his Synoptic Gospels Primer makes the case for the 2SH over the AH, FH, and 2GH.