Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:32:33.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mark 9. 42–10. 12, Matthew 5. 27–32, and B. Nid. 13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Will Deming
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Matt 5. 27–32, from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark 9. 42–10.12 are passages that contain similar material, although neither is directly dependent on the other. Both have sayings that deal with ‘offences’ caused by certain body members (the verb used is σκανδαλίζω), and both contain a version of Jesus' prohibition of divorce. Between these two passages and a third, b. Nid. 13b, from the Babylonian Talmud, there also exist several similarities. Despite this intriguing configuration of materials, which might indicate that all three passages are dependent on a common set of traditions, scholars have approached these texts from a very different perspective. Those who posit a connection between the synoptic and the rabbinic materials do so only with respect to Matt 5, never Mark 9; and several scholars have instead sought parallels to the synoptic passages in Hellenistic gnomic literature, disregarding or ignoring the rabbinic material altogether. In the present study I intend to challenge the validity of these approaches and propose that there is indeed a common set of traditions to which all three of these texts are indebted. I will begin my investigation by highlighting three peculiarities of Mark 9. 42–48, and then posit a relation between this passage and b. Nid. 13b. Following this I will bring the material from Matt 5. 27–32 and Mark 9. 49–10. 12 into consideration. One of the results of this study, as I shall explain more thoroughly in the conclusion, will be the identification of a discussion on male sexuality that took place in Jewish and Christian circles sometime in the middle of the first century C.E

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 130 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

1 Moore, George Foot, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard Univerity Press, 1950) 2: 268–9;Google ScholarBraun, Herbert, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967) 2: 110, n. 7;Google ScholarLohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957) 196.Google Scholar cf. idem, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956) 127.

2 Hommel, Hildebrecht, ‘Herrnworte im Lichte sokratischer Überlieferung’, in his Sebasmata; Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum (WUNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984) 2: 56–8, 63–73;Google ScholarSchattenmann, Johannes, ‘Jesus und Pythagoras’, Kairos 21 (1979) 215–20;Google ScholarKoester, Helmut, ‘Mark 9. 43–47 and Quintilian 8.3.75’, HTR 71 (1978) 151–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See, e.g., Pesch, Rudolph, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2: 112–13.Google Scholar

4 In addition Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2:113 contrasts the present tense apodosis of v. 42 to the imperative apodosis of w. 43–47.Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., Mann, C. S., Mark (ABC; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986) 380–1.Google Scholar

6 See, e.g., Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1963) 144–5, 148;Google ScholarMichel, O., ‘μικρός (έλάττω έλάχιστος)’, TDNT 4: 650–4;Google Scholarand Légasse, S., ‘μικρός, 3’, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 2:1051–2.Google Scholar

7 Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 115; see, e.g., Prov 6. 16–18 and b. Tan. 21a (Nahum of Gimzo, fl. 100 C.E.).Google Scholar

8 See Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) 182.Google Scholar

9 The reference is unclear.Google Scholar

10 On the use of καλόν … ή in translations see Beyer, Klaus, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (SUNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) vol. 1, pt. 1: 78–81, n. 1 (esp. 80). Cf. R. Tarfon's words as preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud (j. Nid. 2:1): ‘Of such a one, his destruction is pretty [i.e., prettier] to him than his life’ .Google Scholar

11 Stählin, Gustav, ‘σκάνδλον, σκανδαλίξω’, TDNT 7: 340–4.Google Scholar

12 E.g., Is 7. 20. See also: Exod 4. 25; Deut 28. 57; Judg 3. 24; 1 Sam 24. 4 (ET = 24. 3); 2 Kgs 18. 27 (Qr); Isa 6. 2; 36. 12 (Qr); Ezek 16. 25; and perhaps Ruth 3. 4, 7, 8, 14; cf. Deut 25. 9–10. The euphemism in these passages is always the plural . The singular in the Niddah passage seems to be accounted for by the fact that it stands parallel to the singular ‘hand’ in the expression ‘adultery with the hand or with the foot’. It is this pair ‘hand/foot’ which supplies the essential hermeneutical bridge that allows the rabbinic exegesis to appeal to Exod 20.14//Deut 5. 18 as a prohibition against masturbation.Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., the material cited in Moore, , Judaism, 2: 267–8;Google ScholarMichaelis, Wilhelm, ‘όϕθαλμός’, TDNT 5: 376; and Str-B 1:298–301.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Beyer, , Syntax, cited above in n. 10.Google Scholar

15 See n. 1 above.Google Scholar

16 E.g., Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 26.Google Scholar

17 Cf. n. 28 below.Google Scholar

18 Cited above in n. 2.Google Scholar

19 On the idea that the right hand is the more important of the two hands see Lohmeyer, Matthäus, 128 n. 1. The first century Latin epigrammatist Martial, in any case, speaks of masturbation as done with the left hand: Martial, Epigrams, 9. 41; 11. 73.Google Scholar

20 Hommel, , ‘Herrnworte’ 57; similarly Koester, ‘Quintilian’ 151–2, 153.Google Scholar

21 Koester, , ‘Quintilian’ 152.Google Scholar

22 See ibid., 152–3.

23 Ibid. It is true that Koester also appeals to the Markan context itself, maintaining that ‘Mark 9. 42, the command not to offend the little ones, is a rule for the community’ (153). But since his purpose is to establish the original meaning of Mark 9. 43–47, and since he began his investigation by stating that ‘the context in Mark does not give any clue, because the connection with the preceding saying about “not offending little ones” (Mark 9. 42) is secondary’ (151), this is a non sequitur.

24 von Wahlde, Urban C., ‘Mark 9. 33–50: Discipleship: The Authority that Serves’, BZ 29 (1985) 59.Google Scholar

25 For the concept, ‘adultery with the eye’, cf. Sir 9. 8, 2 Pet 2. 14, Str-B 1:299, and the next note.Google Scholar

26 Cf. the Mekhilta of R. Simeon ben Yohai on Exod 20. 14 (5th cent. C.E.): ‘“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Neither with hand nor foot nor eye nor mind …’ (cited and trans, in Moore, , Judaism, 2: 268, n. 1).Google ScholarThe text is somewhat problematic, however, being reconstructed by David Hoffmann from later medieval sources (Hoffmann, D., Mechilta de-Rabbi Simon b. Jochai: Ein halachischer und haggadischer Midrasch zu Exodus [Frankfort: J. Kauffmann, 1950] 111).Google ScholarThese words are not found on any of the actual fragments of the Mekhilta from the Cairo Geniza, although these fragments are incomplete — see Epstein, J. N. and Melamed, E. Z., eds., Mekhilta d'Rabbi Šim b. Jochai (Jerusalem: Sumptibus Hillel Press [1955]) 15–34.Google ScholarOn the linguistic aspects of associating divorce and remarriage with adultery, see Schaller, J. B., ‘Die Sprüche über Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat in der synoptischen Überlieferung’, in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde, ed. Lohse, Eduard (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 226–46.Google Scholar

27 For an example of this idea among contemporary Greco-Roman authors, see Musonius Rufus frag. 12, ‘On Sexual Relations’.Google Scholar

28 The only reference to female sexual ethics in these passages is Mark 10. 12. Here I am in agreement with the usual opinion that this verse is a later development of the prohibition in 10.11;Google Scholarsee, e.g., Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 132.Google Scholar