Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:53 pm by Dave Armstrong

Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli) 2023-02-21T15:53:49-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

This is my 20th refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case.

*****

I’m replying to a portion of Lucas’ article, “Maria pecou?” [Did Mary sin? ] (2-5-15).

4. Mary thought Jesus was “out of his mind”

If I ask you if it is a sin for a person to think that Jesus was crazy, you would certainly say yes. This is not just a sin, but one of the most grievous – even though this unbelief is temporary and not permanent. Let us read the following biblical text:

[Lucas’ Portugese translation, rendered into English] “When his relatives heard about it, they went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21)

Mark 3:21 (RSV) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.”

Of course the Papists will take Mary out of the picture and say that only Jesus’ brothers (oops, I mean cousins!) were present on this occasion. But that is not what the biblical text says. Analyzing the context, we see that these family members were his mother and brothers, and not just his brothers:

Mark 3:31 (RSV) And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Therefore, Jesus’ mother was also part of Jesus’ relatives who were outside the house, sending for him because they thought Jesus was “out of his mind”, that is, crazy. If that’s not a sin, I don’t know what is!

Note the italicized and bolded word “people” above, in the RSV translation. This is key to understanding this incident and the two passages brought forth by Lucas. There is dispute even about who was making this claim of Jesus’ supposed craziness or mental instability: was it his relatives or the scribes?: whose opinion of Jesus was reported in the next verse:

Mark 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (cf. Jn 10:20-21)

Context highly suggests to me that “people” (or “they”) in Mark 3:21 is indeed specifically referring to the scribes, since we know that they thought He was demon-possessed. They alone are described as having this utterly hostile view, not the masses, who, except in Nazareth, generally were in Jesus’ favor. It’s not just Catholics who think the reference was not to Jesus’ family. Bengel’s Gnomen commented:

ἔλεγον, they were saying) the messengers [not the relatives] from whom his relatives heard of His earnestness.—ὅτι ἐξέστη, He is beside Himself) By this word they were attributing to Him excess of ardour, overwhelming His intellect, but it was falsely that they attributed this to Him, as Festus did to Paul; Acts 26:24, Thou art mad.

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), according to Wikipedia, “was a Lutheran pietist clergyman and Greek-language scholar known for his edition of the Greek New Testament and his commentaries on it.” So he understood the Greek text, and deemed that the reference to Jesus being crazy did not come from His family. This isn’t Catholic bias in favor of Mary, but the scholarly opinion of a Lutheran Greek scholar as to what the text is expressing in the first place.

In this understanding, the text is simply construed as His family coming out to remove Him from hostile enemies, who were massively misunderstanding Him, accusing, and perhaps becoming violent (as at Nazareth, when His critics tried to throw Him over a cliff). Hence, there would be no necessary implication (in this particular passage and incident) of His family’s (let alone Mary’s) disbelief in Him. They were concerned for His safety. Other English translations convey what I believe to be the true sense of the passage:

NRSV When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

Good News / (TEV) When his family heard about it, they set out to take charge of him, because people were saying, “He’s gone mad!”

Moffatt . . . . . . for men were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Phillips . . . for people were saying, “He must be mad!”

NEB . . . for people were saying that he was out of his mind.

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) . . . They went to get him because people said he was crazy.

Mounce Reverse Interlinear . . . for people were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Methodist Drew S. Holland, Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Tennessee, in a fascinating and thought-provoking 26-page article devoted to Mark 3:21 (“The Meaning of Ἐξέστη in Mark 3:21”: The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 [Winter 2017] ) concurs with my interpretation as to who was making the claim in question about Jesus. Holland (surprisingly) vigorously contends that the text doesn’t even have to do with Jesus’ alleged madness, but that’s another question altogether. My concern is to identify who made the claim in the first place. He concurs with me in that respect:

[I]t is the crowd, not οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, who makes this claim about Jesus. (p. 6)

I argue here for a reading of Mark 3:21b that may be translated: “And having heard, the ones near him [the disciples or his family] went out to take hold of him; for they [the crowd] were saying . . .” (p. 9)

As with Mark 3:21, there is no condemnation of Jesus by his family in 3:31, . . . we cannot say that the connection of these two verses indicate that Jesus’s family misunderstands him. (p. 14)

We no longer need to be caught up in the debate about whether Jesus’s disciples or his family make this unflattering claim about him, because neither does. Rather, it is the crowd that does so . . . (p. 15)

Dr. Holland gives his interesting opinion as to why Jesus’ family (or friends) came to “sieze” Him (Mk 3:21):

The second pattern is that Jesus’s disciples always protect him from an adoring crowd, not an upset one. This is present in Mark 3:9 [“And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they should crush him”: RSV]; 6:36; 8:4; 10:48; and 14:47. Although the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ in Mark 3:21 is often debated, nearly all commentators agree that it is Jesus who is seized and that either his disciples or his family is protecting him from the crowd. Where scholarship has failed in this respect is the reason for seizing Jesus. But, it would not be Markan style to indicate that they restrained him from an irate crowd and there is nothing in the context to indicate this. Rather, they restrained Jesus because the crowd adored him and wanted to come closer to this miracle worker. This sets the stage for the crowd’s positive reaction to Jesus, which the scribes soon attempt to squelch. (p. 25)

I’m not sure I agree with this. I’d have to think about it a lot more. But this does again (for my present purposes) confirm that His family didn’t think He was nuts. They were simply trying to remove Him from the dangers of a crowd: whether an adoring one (that can still be dangerous) or a small (i.e., the scribes) or larger hostile portion of the crowds.

Even in the translations that have “they were saying.” etc. (as very many do), it’s a question of who “they” refers to. It can still be read as others besides the family. The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, has some very good commentary on the passage:

The usual interpretation is that relatives (or followers) of Christ, disturbed by reports, came out to take charge of him. The following points are to be noted. (1) The phrase οἱ παρ’αὐτοῦ does not necessarily mean relatives (friends). It has a wider usage which would include disciples, followers, members of a household. It is not certain that the persons designated by this phrase are the same as ‘his mother and brethren’, 31. Even if they are, there is no reason for thinking that our Lady shared in the sentiments of the others, though she would naturally wish to be present when the welfare of her divine Son was in question. (2) ‘For they said’, rather, ‘For people were saying’. If this be correct, then 21b refers to reports which reached Christ’s friends, not to an expression of opinion by them.

I readily grant that it’s certainly possible that some of Jesus’ relatives — thinking with the carnal mind that virtually everyone possessed before Pentecost — may have vastly misunderstood Him. If so, nothing in that contradicts what Catholics believe. We know that there was some unbelief among His relatives, whom I believe were His cousins, based on many arguments that I have repeatedly defended (“For even his brothers did not believe in him”: John 7:5). But this doesn’t include Mary, nor can any passage be found that directly implies any disbelief in Mary about her Son and His status as God Incarnate and Messiah. She knew about that from the time of the Annunciation.

“Unbelief” in Jesus — in any event — was common before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and was frequently exhibited even by His disciples, as I commented upon at length in one paper. So this ought not surprise us in the least that some of Jesus’ relatives fell into it (including possibly in the passage under consideration). In any event, there is no hint of evidence that Mary was among these nonbelievers. It’s sheer speculation based on an unimpressive argument from silence.

It would be like saying, “the twelve disciples all believed in Jesus and never ceased doing so.” We know that one, Judas Iscariot, ultimately did not. Or, “no disciple ever doubted that Jesus was risen after hearing reports that He was.” Again, we know that Thomas did doubt (John 20), though it was short-lived. One can’t determine all particulars of beliefs of those in a group, with sweeping statements or mere speculations.

Likewise, by the same logic, one can’t determine from “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind” (Mk 3:21, NIV) — even if we accept this rendering of the passage (which I don’t), and Mary is mentioned as being with them ten verses later –, that Mary was included in the opinion. There’s simply not enough information. It remains an argument from silence. We could know this for sure only as a result of a biblical passage (if there had been one) like the following: “When his mother heard about this, she went to take charge of him, for she said, ‘He is out of his mind’”.

That would be conclusive, and no one could deny its clear meaning. But that’s not what the passage (in any translation or interpretation) positively asserts, and so it remains speculation and an argument from silence: in which case anyone is equally justified in believing that she did not think that, as they are in thinking that she did. We don’t have enough information (here or anywhere in the New Testament) to decisively claim that she thought negatively about Jesus.

And that remains true about Mark 3:21 regardless of whether one thinks that Mary was sinless (as Catholics do) or not. It’s a matter of logic and exegesis. The burden of proof is on the Protestant to try to prove a “sinful Mary.” Lucas has failed to do so here, in his shoddy, epistemologically inadequate, blasphemous, and slanderous anti-Catholic thinking. Shame on him! This is bearing false witness (a grave sin), and against no less than the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God the Son.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attacks Mary, in claiming that she thought Jesus was crazy, based on inconclusive exegesis and an argument from silence.

mentally unstable Jesus?

sinful Mary

Previous Post

September 7, 2022

James: "Brother" of Jesus: Josephus vs. the Bible & Hegesippus

Next Post

September 9, 2022 Lucas Banzoli Wars Against Mariological Straw Men

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz