Matthean posteriority: Lord of the Sabbath

[gryan]

Inrtersting!

Mk
Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παρα-πορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων,
καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.

Luke
Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δια-πορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων,
καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας
ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν.

Matt
Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων·
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν
καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν.

Luke knew Mark (underlined),
and I (MPH) find it significant that Luke's addition,
ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν, flows off the final words of Mark's sentence:
...τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν.

Matt knew Mark (bolded),
and Matt smoothed out Luke's awkwardness of syntax (καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν), by honing in on Luke's pair of verbs connected by καὶ: τίλλειν... καὶ ἐσθίειν.

My MPH reading could be wrong. I find the alternative composition history (from Mk to Matt to Lk) compelling too.

[gryan]

This is what Luke's thrashing wheat by rubbing the hands might have looked like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of_WdWISsHA

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This is what Luke's thrashing wheat by rubbing the hands might have looked like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of_WdWISsHA

I did that as a child too.

and I (MPH) find it significant

Gustav Volkmar (one of my great heroes) also thought that Matthew knew Mark and Luke. imho this proves the goodness of this theory sufficiently

My MPH reading could be wrong. I find the alternative composition history (from Mk to Matt to Lk) compelling too.

It seems to me that there is no clear indication in this pericope. You can see things one way or another. Neither is impossible and nothing is significantly more likely than the other.

[gryan]

Gustav Volkmar (one of my great heroes) also thought that Matthew knew Mark and Luke. imho this proves the goodness of this theory sufficiently

I had not heard of Gustav Volkmar before. I googled and found out about his thesis on Paul and Mark here:

"Volkmar’s thesis
The idea that Mark is an allegory about Paul is not new. Gustav Volkmar first argued the case for this in 1857 (Die Religion Jesu) and again in 1870 (Die Evangelien, Oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar). He was soon followed by others. Carl Holsten, for instance, and Moritiz Herman Schulze “approached the issue from different angles but agreed with Volkmar on the idea that the second Gospel is an apology for Paul by transferring Pauline theology ‘back’ into the sayings and doings of Jesus.” (Heike Omerzu, “Paul and Mark — Mark and Paul,” in Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II — For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark, edited by Becker, Engberg-Pedersen, and Mueller, p. 52).

Volkmar’s thesis ultimately drove a wedge into German biblical scholarship . . . Werner perceived Volkmar’s work to be in line with other recently published books which treated Jesus as a purely mythical figure.
Volkmar’s thesis ultimately “drove a wedge into German biblical scholarship; Adolf Jülicher (1857-1938) and William Wrede (1859-1906) both appreciated Volkmar’s work, Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) and his student Martin Werner (1887-1964) did not” (Anne Vig Skoven, “Mark as Allegorical Rewriting of Paul: Gustav’s Volkmar’s Understanding of the Gospel of Mark,” p. 14, from the same collection of essays referenced above). In 1923 Werner felt the need to write a book entirely devoted to refuting Volkmar’s views regarding Mark. He argued that Volkmar was guilty of allegoresis and that his work lent support to those who denied the historical existence of Jesus (although Volkmar himself never explicitly went that far).

In the preface to his book, Werner explains his worries about the consequences of Volkmar’s line of thought. Werner perceived Volkmar’s work to be in line with other recently published books which treated Jesus as a purely mythical figure. (Anne Vig Skoven, “Mark as Allegorical Rewriting of Paul: Gustav’s Volkmar’s Understanding of the Gospel of Mark,” p. 25)

Interest in Volkmar’s thesis did subsequently subside, although that may well have been due more to the advent of form criticism than to Werner’s rebuttal:

It has been suggested that Werner’s monograph put an end to the idea of Paulinism in Mark. I would argue that it was not so much Werner’s refutation itself as the rise of form criticism that sidetracked the line of inquiry that Volkmar had initiated. As we know, form criticism concentrated on the individual pericopes and traced their history backwards in search for their Sitz-im-Leben, but it took no interest in the gospels as complete works. It is quite telling that the interest in the relationship between Paul and Mark surfaces again with redaction criticism. Anglo-American scholars inclined toward literary readings like Joel Marcus and William Telford have long advocated for ideas that resemble Volkmar’s readings. (Anne Vig Skoven, “Mark as Allegorical Rewriting of Paul: Gustav’s Volkmar’s Understanding of the Gospel of Mark,” p.26)

dykstra1I have not read the books by Volkmar, Holsten and Schulze. My knowledge of German is so rudimentary that it would take me quite a while to work my way through those volumes. Maybe once I retire. But I have read an excellent book published in 2012 in English that reaches conclusions similar to theirs. Tom Dykstra, in his Mark, Canonizer of Paul, convincingly presents “the evidence for a literary relationship between Mark and Paul’s letters” (p. 27). He examines this relationship in a number of themes shared by Mark and Paul, especially their defense of the Gentile mission, their emphasis on a crucified Christ, and their discrediting of Jesus’ disciples and family. He argues too that there are allusions to Paul in the main parables and ending of Mark, as well as appropriations of Paul’s language and examples throughout that gospel. Dykstra concludes that Mark has in effect modeled his Jesus after Paul:

Mark deliberately created a literary Jesus whose words and actions parallel the words and actions of Paul. Mark’s Jesus defends the Gentile mission before the fact, in the face of opposition from his disciples, just as Paul defended his Gentile mission in the face of opposition from the ‘pillars,’ some of whom were reputed to have been among those disciples. To make this connection Mark portrayed Jesus leading reluctant disciples to Galilee, visiting other Gentile lands, interacting positively with individual Gentiles, performing miracles of feeding for mixed Jewish-Gentile crowds, insisting that recalcitrant disciples stop preventing children from reaching him, narrating parables, and so forth. (pp. 149-150)

Mark’s portrayal of Jesus was fashioned to provide a divine advance validation for Paul and his teaching
I cannot here do justice to all the parallels Dyskstra uncovers between Mark and Paul. I urge those interested to read his book. I find myself in agreement with much of his analysis. Like him, I think Mark’s portrayal of Jesus was fashioned to provide a divine advance validation for Paul and his teaching. As I see it, however, the Jesus episodes were intended to function more like prefigurations or foreshadowings of Paul. Some of them were intended to be within the reach of any Christian. Others were meant to be fully understood only by members of the Markan community. As an example of the first type I offer Jesus’ eating with Jewish sinners (Mk. 2:16). It likely served to prefigure/foreshadow Paul’s extension of this conduct to meals with Gentile sinners (Gal. 2:12 & 15). Similarly for Jesus’ breaking of Sabbath regulations (Mk. 2:24) and Paul’s extension of this to disregard for observance of all Jewish holy days (Gal. 4:10-11) Likewise for Jesus’ dismissal of defilement by foods (Mk. 7:15) and Paul’s lack of any fundamental problem with eating even meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:1-7)...."

https://vridar.org/2016/05/05/a-simonia ... llegory-2/

Much to ponder!

[schillingklaus]

Markan Prioritism is once more the broad path to error, and most uncritical scholars are bound thither. Critical scholars like Gerardus Bolland knew already long ago that Mk corrupted prior gospel-like sources no more and no less than other preserved gospels did.

[gryan]

Re: Gerardus Bolland

"Bolland states that the transformed Chrestos received the name of Moses’ successor, Joshua the son of Nun, who became "leader of the people of Israel, as Moses failed to complete the task to guide the people into the promised land".[5]

According to Bolland, the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest, followed by Luke’s and then Mark’s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Bolland

[gryan]

Assuming Markan priority, rgprice wrote this about the Lord of the Sabbath passage:

Pronouncement about the Sabbath

Mark 2:
23 One sabbath he was going through the cornfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?' 25 And he said to them, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.' 27 Then he said to them, 'The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.'

This is a rather odd passage, because the quotation is not true. The quotation in Mark 2:25 refers to 1 Samuel 21, but differs substantially. For one thing, the priest being referred to was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, but perhaps there was an error in the text that the author of Mark was using. For another, however, there is no mention of David ever saying anything about the Sabbath, much less what is stated in Mark 2:27-28.

1 Samuel 21:
1 David came to Nob to the priest Ahimelech. Ahimelech came trembling to meet David, and said to him, 'Why are you alone, and no one with you?' 2 David said to the priest Ahimelech, 'The king has charged me with a matter, and said to me, "No one must know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you." I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. 3 Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.' 4 The priest answered David, 'I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread—provided that the young men have kept themselves from women.' 5 David answered the priest, 'Indeed, women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?' 6 So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

So, there is no scriptural support for the statement that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not the other way around, but this fits with Pauline teaching.

Colossians 2:
16 Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

This fits an overall theme of both Pauline teaching and the Gospel of Mark, which is that faith and good works take precedence over the law.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

[gryan]

I agree that the saying "the Sabbath was made for mankind and not the other way around" fits Paul's teaching in Col (see quotation above); however, I think that there is some OT warrant for it. I think it could be argued that God rested on the seventh day so that humans could likewise rest from obligatory toil. Plucking grain is appropriate for Sabbath rest when it is not obligatory toil.