We read the following in Mark 6:1-4:
He left that place and came to his hometown, and
his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue,
and many who heard him were astounded. They said, "Where did this man get
all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power
are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and
brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here
with us?" And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them,
"Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their
own kin, and in their own house." (NRSV)
Some
Catholic apologists have started arguing that this supports the claim that the αδελφος/αδελφη (brothers/sisters) of Jesus are not uterine
siblings, but instead, “near relatives” (συγγενής). How so? They (correctly) point
out that this pericope is a Markan Sandwich/Intercalation, with those who are
said to be the “brothers and sisters” of verse 3 being placed by Jesus in the
category of “kin” (συγγενής) of verse 4:
Verse
1: Jesus enters his hometown
Verse
2: Crowd at the synagogue
Verse
3: “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are mentioned and so is Mary Verse 4 (in
this interpretation): hometown, kin (=brothers and sisters), household.
The
problem with this interpretation is two fold. Firstly, “kin” does not refer to the
brothers/sisters of Jesus. A more natural interpretation of the pericope is as
follows:
Verse
1: Jesus enters his hometown
Verse
2: Crowd at Synagogue
Verse
3: “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are mentioned and so is Mary [so far so good
. . . ]
Verse
4: hometown (=hometown of v. 1); “kin” (=fellow countrymen [i.e., those composing
the crowd at the Synagogue); “household” (=brothers/sisters of Jesus and Mary)
Such an interpretation flows better than the contrived interpretation above.
Secondly,
if the Catholic interpretation is correct, no one belongs to the
category of ‘household’ in v. 4! After all, the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are
subsumed under the category of ‘kin’ of v. 4, and Mary, being sinless, cannot
be among those who do not honour Jesus, ergo, no one belongs to the “household”
of Mark 6:4!
Why
do some Catholics try to argue like this? It is because that συγγενής does not
refer to a uterine sibling, so if the brothers/sisters are actually the συγγενής
of Jesus, this would be a huge support for the perpetual virginity of Mary.
However, as we see, this is an example of a man-made dogma informing a pretty-lousy
(read: eisegetical) approach to Mark 6.
What
is further problematic is that, while the direct speech of Jesus in Mark 6:4
uses συγγενής, Mark translates into Greek the direct speech of Jesus elsewhere,
where he refers to these ‘relatives’ as αδελφος and αδελφη:
And looking at those who sat around him, he said,
"Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my
brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:34-35 NRSV)
Appendix: συγγενής in
leading scholarly Koine Greek Lexicons
BDAG:
6872 συγγενής
• συγγενής, ές (σύν, γένος)
1. belonging to the same
extended family or clan, related, akin to (Pind., Thu. et al.;
also Ath., R. 20 p. 73, 17 τὸ συγγενές) in our lit. only subst. In the sing., masc. (Jos., Vi. 177; Just., A
I, 27, 3) J 18:26 and fem. (Menand., fgm. 929 K.=345 Kö.; Jos., Ant. 8,
249) Lk 1:36 v.l. (for συγγενίς). Predom. pl. (also Demetr.: 722, 1, 13 and 18 Jac.) οἱ συγγενεῖς (the dat. of this form, made on the analogy of γονεῖς … γονεῦσιν, is συγγενεῦσιν [a Pisidian ins: JHS 22, 1902, p. 358 no. 118; 1 Macc 10:89 v.l.] Mk
6:4; Lk 2:44 [both passages have συγγενέσιν as v.l., the form in Diod. S. 1, 92, 1; OGI 177, 7: 97/96 BC; UPZ 161,
21: 119 BC; PTebt 61, 79; 1 Macc 10:89; Jos., Vi. 81, Ant. 16, 382]; B-D-F §47,
4; W-S. §9, 9; Mlt-H. 138; Thackeray 153) Lk 2:44; 21:16. W. gen.
(B-D-F §194, 2) Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 14:12; Ac 10:24.
2. belonging to the same
people group, compatriot, kin, ext. of 1 (Jos., Bell. 7, 262, Ant. 12, 338) οἱ συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα Ro 9:3 (of Andronicus and Junia; on the latter s. Ἰουνία and EEpp, in Handbook to Exegesis of the NT, ed. SPorter ’97, 49f); cp. 16:7,
11, 21.—B. 132. DELG s.v. γίγνομαι. M-M. TW. Spicq.
TDNT:
4. The New Testament.
The idea of a relation between man and God, which was alien to the OT
and later Judaism (→ III, 114, 27 ff.), in
respect of which even Philo had reservations (→ 739, 1 ff.), but which was common in the
surrounding world (→ 737, 20 ff.), appears
plainly only at one point in the NT, namely, in the quotation from Arat.
Phaen., 5 in the Areopagus address in Ac. 17:28: τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν (→ III, 118, n. 377).
What the OT and NT say about man’s divine likeness is on a different level → II, 390, 10 ff.; 396,
14 ff.; the same applies to the parallel between Christ and Christians.16
The group συγγενής, συγγένεια certainly has no
connections of this type in the NT.
συγγένεια is used in the concrete sense of “relations”
== “relatives” in Lk. 1:61, Ac. 7:3 (== Gn. 12:1), and 7:14 in an independently
formulated summary of Gn. 45:9 f.), cf. Jos. Ant., 2, 165. In the infancy
stories in Lk. we also find συγγενής in 1:58; 2:44 and συγγενίς in 1:36 → n. 1.17 Reflected here is a high
regard for relationship and neighbourliness such as one finds in a village. In
2:44, when the parents of Jesus are looking for Him after He stayed behind in
the temple, they ask συγγενεῖς and then γνωστοί, → I, 718, 41 ff. In the saying in 4:24 Luke mentions
only the πατρίς of the prophet (so too Jn. 4:44), whereas
Mk. 6:4 par. Mt. 13:57 mentions his οἰκία as well, and Mk. 6:4 (→ n. 1) also puts his συγγενεῖς between the two → V, 132, 1 ff. In the parable about the right
kind of guests in the material peculiar to Lk. (14:12), one is not to ask φίλοι nor ἀδελφοί nor συγγενεῖς nor rich neighbours. Here φίλοι and συγγενεῖς are not to be taken together → 737, 8 f.; 739, 18 ff., 34 ff. συγγενεῖς and γείτονες (cf. περίοικοι 1:58) are closer. Lk. 21:16 goes further
than Mk. 13:12 par. Mt. 10:21 by mentioning συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλοι (i.e., other relatives and friends) as well as
parents and brethren; perhaps this twofold statement refers to close
acquaintances and friends. This also seems to be the meaning in Ac. 10:24. When
the Roman centurion Cornelius summoned τοὺς συγγενεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἀναγκαίους φίλους to receive Peter, it is unlikely that he had
many relatives in Caesarea. “Related” is undoubtedly the meaning in Jn. 18:26.
In Paul συγγενής occurs only in Romans. The meaning is perfectly
clear in 9:3: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα. The whole context shows that the reference is to
Jews with whom the apostle shares his γένος (cf. 2 C. 11:22; Gl. 1:13 f.; Phil. 3:5). The
addition κατὰ σάρκα supports this, but it also shows that συγγενής is apparently not precise enough without
this, just as ὁ Χριστός in 9:5 or Ἰσραήλ in 1 C. 10:18 would hardly be possible
without the corresponding addition. It may thus be seen that the word συγγενής, like ἀδελφός (→ n. 24), had now a primary Christian orientation
for Paul.. If one views R. 16:7, 11, 21 in this light, the question arises
whether the Christians whom Paul calls his συγγενεῖς without an addition like κατὰ σάρκα are to be regarded as Jewish Christians.
Since there are also Jewish Christians in the list who are not called συγγενεῖς, namely, Aquila and
Prisca in v. 3, Mary in v. 6, and possibly Rufus and his mother in v. 13, it is
hard to see in συγγενεῖς in 16:7, 11, 21 a ref.
to Jewish nationality as in 9:3. The possibility that the συγγενεῖς of R. 16 are kinsfolk
of the apostle in the narrower sense of relatives may be ruled out, since it is
most improbable that there would have been six members of Paul’s immediate
family among those mentioned in R. 16. Membership of the tribe of Benjamin runs
into the same objection. Nor is it likely that the ref. is to Jews or non-Jews
of Tarsus or Cilicia (on 16:21 → 742, 18 ff.). 9:3 suggests rather that for Paul as
a Christian συγγενής had long since been
filled out with Chr. content and would thus refer to Jews only with the express
addition κατὰ σάρκα. But what is its Chr.
content? One may conclude from the phrase Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα in 1 C. 10:18 that
Paul viewed Christians as the true Israel → III, 387, 24 ff. Hence συγγενεῖς κατὰ σάρκα in R. 9:3 suggests
that the viewed Christians as his present συγγενεῖς, his true συγγενεῖς, his συγγενεῖς κατὰ πνεῦμα. The saying of Jesus
about His real kinsfolk in Mk. 3:34 f. par. could be regarded as a preparation
and par. for this understanding, and one might also recall the transferring of
the term λαός to the Chr. community → IV, 54, 6 ff. Against this view, however, is
the fact that the μου in R. 16:7, 11, 21 indicates a personal
relation between Paul and these six Christians which can hardly be explained by
saying that συγγενής simply defines them as
fellow-Christians.
It is best, then, to see in συγγενής a personal relationship. As an expression of
esteem (→ 737, 3 ff.)—in the general sense and not along the lines of courtly
style (→ 738, 21 ff.)—it has
the sense of “close companion,” “intimate,” “friend.” If this is so, then συγγενής μου is very much like the ἀγαπητός μου of R. 16:5, 8 f. and is one of the many
predicates in σύ- which the apostle used in R. 16 and elsewhere to single out Christians
who were close to him. Since Paul does not call any fellow-worker φίλος, one may suspect that in his vocabulary συγγενής takes the place of φίλος.
This is confirmed by the fact that there is no evidence that those
addressed in this way were all Jewish Christians. Neither in the case of
Herodion in 16:11 nor Andronicus and Junias in 16:7 do the names force us to
conclude that these are Jewish Christians. As concerns the συγγενεῖς of 16:21, one cannot
rule out the possibility that Jason, if he was the same as the Jason mentioned
in Ac. 17:5–9, was a Gentile Christian, and this is fairly certain in the case
of Sosipater if he was the man mentioned among the companions from the Pauline
churches in Ac. 20:4. As regards Lucius, it is linguistically quite possible
that this was Luke. The main argument against this is that Luke was a Gentile
Christian acc. to Col. 4:14 (cf. v. 11) whereas the Lucius of R. 16:21 is
called a συγγενής. But if συγγενής in R. 16 does not
denote a native Jew, this objection falls to the ground, and there is nothing
to prevent the equation of Lucius and Luke.
συγγενής is thus an instructive example of the way in
which a word which must have had a Jewish content for Paul in his pre-Christian
period was then totally transferred into the Christian sphere. (Wilhelm Michaelis, “Στῦλος,” Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament,
10 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1964–], 7:740–742.
Louw-Nida:
10.6 συγγενής, οῦς, dat. pl. συγγενεῦσιν m: a person who belongs to the same extended family or clan - 'relative,
kinsman.' ἀνεζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς γνωστοῖς 'they started looking for him among their relatives and friends' Lk
2.44.
TLNT:
συγγένεια, συγγενής, συγγενίς
syngeneia, family, kin; syngenēs, male relative; syngenis, female relative
→see also συγγενής
syngeneia, S 4772; TDNT
7.736–742; EDNT 3.282; MM 595; L&N
10.5; BDF §110(2); BAGD 772 | syngenēs, S 4773; TDNT 7.736–742; EDNT 3.282; MM 595; L&N 10.6, 11.57; BDF §§47(4), 48, 194(2);
BAGD 772 | syngenis, EDNT 3.282;
MM 595; L&N 10.7; BDF §59(3); BAGD 772
These noun forms, which do not appear before Pindar, correspond to the
idea of “birth, race” and are formed around gignomai,
“be born,” then “become, occur.” So syngeneia
means “family,” “kinship”; syngenēs
means “belonging to the same genos,
kin, related”; syngenis is a
relative; but there are many nuances.
I.—The first meaning, which remains the commonest, is that of blood
ties, the racial meaning, which relies on the concept of the family: “the
paternal family” (syngeneia patros,
Euripides, Tro. 754); “my father’s
kinsman” (Or. 1233; Phoen. 291), “a relative’s blood.”4
Aristotle notes, “The same person is called son by one, brother by another, by
someone else cousin or kinsman by blood, marriage, or affinity.” These degrees
of kinship are specified as brother (Aeschylus, Cho. 199, adelphos, from a, “one,” and delphys, “womb”; cf. Ep.
Arist. 7; P.Grenf.II, 78, 13),
sister (Aeschylus, Eum. 691), cousin
(PV 855); and relatives and friends
are linked with them. Furthermore, syngeneia
refers to the kinship of the human race with divinity, that is to say, the
origin of humanity with and its likeness to divinity. Zeus is “father of gods
and men” (Homer, Il. 1.544; Hesiod, Th. 546, 643; Op. 59, 169), “the common author of our two races” (Aeschylus,
Suppl. 402). From this paternity
there derives a resemblance: “Since man shares in the divine lot (theias metesche moiras), he attains this
state of kinship (syngeneia) with the
gods.” The Stoics Cleanthes and Aratus (quoted by St. Paul, tou gar kai genos esmen, Acts 17:28)
affirm this divine filiation.
II.—From the physical sense we move on to the metaphorical meaning,
“affinity, likeness.” Thus Plato, Phd.
79 b–c, which links likeness and
kinship (homoios and xyngenēs); 84 b, kinship and similarity (xyngenēs
and toioutos); 86 b: “of the same nature and family” (homophyē te kai xyngenē); Resp. 8.559 d. One learns “to know some things by other things if they have
some relationship”; the lover “does not cease to attach himself to that which
is related to him.”12 “Of all human activities, the one that is the
most closely related to God’s activity (contemplation) is the most blessed”
(Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 10.9.11783;
cf. 11796). Hence the meanings “of the same type, analogous, having
the same properties.” From the meaning “natural” we move to
“connatural.” “Avarice is more natural (innate, symphyes) to man than prodigality” (ibid. 4.3.11214; cf.
3.15.11199); “Connaturality (syngeneia)
disposes children to obey their father.”
III.—In usage, and according to their etymology, the terms syngeneia and syngenēs take on nuances of solidarity, affection, and pride. “His
native city, his comrades, his parents—that is what a man cherishes, that is
what is sufficient for him” (Pindar, Paean.
4.33); “blood ties (to syngenes) are
terribly strong when friendship is added” (Aeschylus, PV 39; cf. 289); “family conversations (hai syngeneis homiliai) are a stong potion for hearts”; “real
kinship produces solid friendship” (Plato, Menex.
244 a; cf. Leg. 5.729 c; 11.929 a). Aristotle insists on this more than
anyone else: “Since whatever is conformable to nature is agreeable, and since
things that are akin (syngenē) have
natural links between them, all things that are akin and all like things are
mutually pleasant to each other most of the time” (Rh. 1.11.13712–13). “The species of friendship (philia) are comradeship (hetaireia), membership in the same
household (oikeiotēs), membership in
the same family (syngeneia), and so
on” (Rh. 2.4.13814); apart
from the friendship of association (en
koinōnia), there is “friendship of kindred (syngenikē) and friendship of comrades (hetairikē)” (Eth. Nic.
8.12.11612, 16), friendship based on kinship (9.2.11659
and 30).
IV.—Finally, syngeneia has a
social and political meaning. Plato had already used this term for the “great
alliances” of the state (Resp. 6.491 c), but it becomes common in this
meaning from the third century bc
in the vocabulary of the inscriptions: cities unite in bonds of friendship and
kinship. Thus Alabanda is “kin to the Greeks”;18 “whereas the
Rhodians are a people related to the people of Argos.” The formula “kinsmen and
friends” (syngeneis kai philoi)
recurs endlessly: the Acarnanians “celebrate the cult of the gods with piety
and conduct toward peoples that are kinsmen and friends a politics that is
noble and worthy of their ancestors.” The most notable case is that of a
subdivision of the tribe (phylē) of
Sinuri. This syngeneia administrates
the sanctuary; its members (syngeneis)
“are pious toward the deity” (n. 9, 7–8) and can be the objects of honorific
decrees; thus Nesaios “conducted himself well toward the syngeneia” and becomes the brother of the syngeneis (n. 73). So this community was a fraternity.
V.—In the inscriptions, and especially in the papyri, syngenēs, “king’s friend,” is a courtly
title that usually precedes the person’s function (stratēgos, epistratēgos).
The Alexandrian Chrysermos is “kinsman of king Ptolemy” (ton syngenē basileōs Ptolemaiou). King Attalus III calls Athenaeus
his kinsman (hēmōn esti syngenēs, I.Perg. 248, 28). The papyri notably
associate the “kinsman” with the legal guardian: “having as his legal guardian
his kinsman Petearmouthos.”
VI.—The ot and the nt conform to current usage without
adding any new nuance. The lxx
uses syngeneia to translate the
Hebrew mišpāḥâh, “family,” in the
larger sense of a clan or a tribe; the nt
always uses this word for kinship (Luke 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14). Syngenēs in the words of Jesus is
absolutely conformable to ot
usage: “A prophet is not scorned except in his country and among his kinsmen (en tois syngeneusin autou) and in his
household.” St. Luke links it with neighbors (Luke 1:58, hoi perioikoi), with acquaintances (2:44, tois gnōstois), with brothers (that is, the closest relatives), and
with wealthy neighbors (Luke 14:12, geitonas
plousious), with friends (21:16), and with intimate friends (Acts 10:24, tous anankaious philous). For St. Paul,
the Israelites are his brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom 9:3),
that it, they are of the same genos,
the same race, sharing with the apostle the same Jewish descent, blood
relatives; but in the greeting in Rom 16:7, 11, 21, it is not clear why St.
Paul would describe Christians in terms of their Jewish origins by calling them
his compatriots (syngeneis); he must
mean instead that they are related by birth in a way that is “oriental-style”
(i.e., very broad), but that they are nevertheless related by common origin in
the same family.
The biblical hapax syngenis,
the feminine of syngenēs, does not
appear in the papyri before the second century ad
(“having married my kinswoman”) and does not specify any particular degree of
relationship. In Luke 1:36, it means that Mary and Elizabeth were both of the
Israelite race, but not that they necessarily belonged to the same tribe. (Ceslas Spicq and James D.
Ernest, Theological Lexicon of the New
Testament, 3 vols. [Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994], 3:301–307)
