Does Mark 6:1-4 support the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus being non-uterine relatives/kin (συγγενής) of Jesus?

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)