Mark 10:19 omits the observance of the Sabbath because of the ban of it by Hadrian

[Giuseppe]

Mark 10:19

You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

"Sanctify the feasts" is not found, indeed.

[schillingklaus]

The whole commandments drivel is a late and impious interpolation by Judaizers, anyways.

[lclapshaw]

The whole commandments drivel is a late and impious interpolation by Judaizers, anyways.

And your sources are?

[Stuart]

Where is there any evidence of a ban by Hadrian of the observance of the Sabbath? This is made up.

At least those claiming that the ban on castration ("castrare" of slaves) in one of Hadrian's rulings as being a ban on circumcision at least has it's basis on an actual ruling, although misinterpreted. It is not, other Roman rulings on Egyptians and Jews allowed exceptions for family members but not slaves or others in the household, and used the term "circumcisio," showing Roman jurists were fully aware of the difference. But hey it makes a good story for claiming this was a cause of the Bar Kokhba revolt. What is true is that after the Bar Kokhba revolt the Judea province was handed over to Syria, under Greek Laws, being that the government of the province essentially ceased to exist by 135 AD. Antonius Pius' ruling that Jews may circumcise their family members, but not others in the household can be seen as restoration of some of the rights formerly held by Jews when they could appeal to their National ("ethnos" in Greek) law, i.e., the Torah based laws which were recognized when Judea was a province. A matter of practicality it seems (and no doubt a sizeable gift to the Imperial Court for a favorable ruling).

Anyway, were did you come up with this ban on the Sabbath? Were in the legal code did Hadrian make such a ruling?

[Giuseppe]

Anyway, were did you come up with this ban on the Sabbath? Were in the legal code did Hadrian make such a ruling?

I am expecting the book of the author who argues so. When I have more news, I may answer.
In whiletime, why was this ban of the Sabbath an invention, according to you? Isn't it a banal corollary of the ban of circumcision?

[John2]

But the rest of Mark doesn't omit Sabbath observance (or any other part of the Torah). Jesus observes the Sabbath and festivals and wears fringes (which serve to remind Jews to observe all of the Torah) and such. So Jesus himself observes more commandments than the examples he gives to the man in 10:19, including the Sabbath.

Compare this with 7:10-13:

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters."

Does Mark "omit" Sabbath observance here too? I think Jesus is just citing some examples from the Torah, given his own Torah observance and his remark that "you do so [i.e., nullify the Torah] in many such matters."

And as far as the Sabbath goes, Jesus doesn't break it in 2:23-28, he just has a more flexible interpretation of what constitutes work than the Pharisees and says outright that "the Sabbath was made for man."

[Giuseppe]

But the rest of Mark doesn't omit Sabbath observance (or any other part of the Torah).

you are correct, but my point is not that Mark is a radical anti-nomianist. My point is that even the Mark as described by you was embarrassed by the ban of the Sabbath by Hadrian and accordingly he omitted the commandment "sanctify the feasts" in 10:19. So Mark was post-Hadrian.

[John2]

But the rest of Mark doesn't omit Sabbath observance (or any other part of the Torah).

you are correct, but my point is not that Mark is a radical anti-nomianist. My point is that even the Mark as described by you was embarrassed by the ban of the Sabbath by Hadrian and accordingly he omitted the commandment "sanctify the feasts" in 10:19. So Mark was post-Hadrian.

I don't follow your logic. I can't isolate 10:19 from the rest of Mark, and in the rest of Mark Jesus observes the Sabbath and festivals (and wears fringes all the while which serve to remind Jews to observe all of the Torah).

[Giuseppe]

I don't follow your logic. I can't isolate 10:19 from the rest of Mark, and in the rest of Mark Jesus observes the Sabbath and festivals (and wears fringes all the while which serve to remind Jews to observe all of the Torah).

your 'logic' fails to consider that Mark is explicit in 10:19 about the first commandments, while he is implicit in the other cases where there is the mention of the sabbath. The reason of this elusiveness is that Mark was obliged to do so because Hadrian had banned the observance of the Sabbath.

[andrewcriddle]

The claim that the historical Hadrian prohibited keeping the Sabbath, seems to be largely confined to 7th Day Adventist scholars such as Samuele Bacchiocchi. There is a basis for this claim in the Talmud.

(A) On the twenty-eighth of [Adar] came good tidings to the Jews, that they should not cease from the Torah.

(B) For one time a decree was decreed against Israel that they should not occupy themselves in Torah [study], nor circumcise their sons, and that they should profane the Sabbath. What did Yehudah ben Shamua and his colleagues do? They went and took counsel with a matron who was frequently visited by all the greats of Rome.
She said to [Yehudah ben Shamua and his colleagues], “Stand and cry out at night.”

They went and cried out at night.

They said, “By heaven! Are we not brothers? Are we not children of one father? Are we not children of one mother? How are we different from every nation and language, such that you decree against us evil decrees?” And [the Romans] annulled [the decrees] and [the Jews] made that day a holiday [yom tov].

However Peter Schafer and others argue that the rabbinic materials tell us extremely little about the actual conduct of the Romans against the Jews.

See https://academic.oup.com/book/36021/chapter/313080522

Andrew Criddle