Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:49:26.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Culture and Historicity: the Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23–28)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Maurice Casey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mark 2. 23–28 relates an incident which took place when Jesus was walking through the fields with some of his disciples one Saturday: the disciples plucked ears of corn, and some Pharisees objected to this on the ground that it was a breach of Sabbath Law. Jesus defended his disciples with two arguments which have proved difficult to understand, and which have led many scholars to imagine that the passage is not a unity and is mostly a product of the early church. I propose the following reconstruction of Mark's Aramaic source, on the basis of which I shall argue that the incident is authentic and intelligible.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1[ Previous scholarship is usefully summarised by Neirynck, F., ‘Jesus and the Sabbath. Some observations on Mark II, 27’, Jésus aux Origines de la Christologie (ed. Dupont, J., BEThL 40; Leuven; Leuven Univ., 1975) 227–70Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT; Zurich/Köln/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Einsiedeln/Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins GmbH, 1978)Google Scholar. More recently, cf. especially Auchinger, H., ‘Quellenkritische Untersuchungen der Perikope vom Ahrenraufen am Sabbat, Mk 2, 23–28 par’, Jesus in der Verkundigung der Kirche (ed. Fuchs, A.; Linz: A. Fuchs, 1976) 110–55Google Scholar; Bacchiochi, S., From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome: Gregorian Univ., 1977) 48–63Google Scholar; Cohn-Sherbok, D. M., ‘An Analysis of Jesus' Arguments Concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath’, JSNT 2(1979) 31–41Google Scholar; Casey, P. M., Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1980)Google Scholar; Brooks, R., Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture. Tractate Peah (Brown Judaic Studies, 43. Chico: Scholars, 1983)Google Scholar; Lindars, B., Jesus Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1983)Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Mark 2. 1–3. 6: a Bridge between Jesus and Paul on the Question of the Law’, NTS 30 (1984) 395–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Casey, P. M., ‘The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt viii.20//Luke ix.58)’, JSNT 23 (1985) 3–22Google Scholar; Casey, P. M., ‘General, Generic and Indefinite: the use of the term “son of man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987) 21–56.Google ScholarThe present article is the revised version of a seminar paper read at the Universities of Hull and Nottingham in 1983. I am grateful to colleagues for their helpful comments: I am solely responsible for the views here expressed. I am also grateful to the librarian and staff of Durham University Library, especially Lesley Forbes at the School of Oriental Studies, for facilities without which this article could not have been prepared for publication.Google Scholar

[2[ Cf. Cohen, B., ‘The Rabbinic Law presupposed by Matthew xii.1 and Luke vi.1’, HThR 23 (1930) 91–2.Google Scholar

[3[ Cf. Weinert, F. J., ‘4Q 159: Legislation for an Essene Community outside of Qumran?’, JSJ 5 (1974) 179–207.Google Scholar

[4[ For the general background to the term ‘disciple’, cf. Rengstorf, K. H., ‘μαθητής’, TWNT 4 (1942) 417–64Google Scholar; Daube, D., ‘Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The term should not be assimilated to a strictly rabbinical environment.

[5[ It is difficult to evaluate the evidential status of the reading καί φάγονται, of the more accurat καί φάγετε (Eus ad Ps 33, syro-hexapla apud Barhebraeus ad loc.), perhaps a correction to LXX on the basis of a correct reading in a Hebrew text. For the text of 4Q Samb, and discussion, Cross, F. M., ‘The oldest manuscripts from Qumran’, JBL 74 (1955) 147–72, esp. 167–8Google Scholar. For a detailed treatment of the textual tradition of 4Q Samb, providing the background against which it is entirely probable that Jesus would know the book of Samuel in the older and more accurate form of text known to us from the Qumran fragments, Ulrich, E. C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 192; Missoula: Scholars, 1978).Google Scholar

[6[ For Kimchi, , Miqraoth Gedoloth, ed. Levensohn, J. (12 vols.; Warsaw, 1862), vol. 7Google Scholar; for Ps-Jerome, , Saltman, A., Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel (SPB XXVI; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 96.Google Scholar

[7[ Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (Freiburg i.B./Leipzig: Mohr, 1896) 93Google Scholar; Manson, T. W., ‘Mark 2. 27 ff.’, CNT 11 (1947) 138–46; tentatively also Lindars, Son of Man, 25–26, and n. 27.Google Scholar

[8[ For full discussion, Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’; this includes refutation of the arguments of Lindars, Son of Man 17–24.Google Scholar

[9[ Wellhausen, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten 6 (Berlin: Reimar, 1899) 203Google Scholar. For Mark 2. 10, Casey, Son of Man 159–61, 228–9Google Scholar; Lindars, , Son of Man 44–7, 176–8.Google Scholar

[10[ This remains controversial, but it cannot be dealt with here. For recent bibliography, Casey, Son of Man; ‘Jackals’ 16 n. 6. Cf. further Walker, W. O., ‘The Son of Man: Some Recent Developments’, CBQ 45 (1983) 585–9.Google Scholar

[11[ For full discussion, Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’.