Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

as a side note
John seems to be a good interpreter of Mark

	Mark 2:24 – 3:6	John 5:16-21
Against inquisitors of the Sabbath	2:24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”	5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
take an argument based on Genesis	2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.	5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
to assert your authority	2:28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”	5:19-20 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.
and associate it with the resurrection.	3:1-6 Restoration of the withered hand on Sabbath	5:20-21 And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:Similarly, "Mark" (author) invokes the name "David" a few more times than he does "Isaiah" and again appears to have a connected theme which supports the answer to the question of this Thread as "42", er, sorry, that "Lord of the Sabbath" is "Mark's" intended (marriage in Heaven).
...
I see a nice little contrived ... chiasm here that connects the invocation of the name "David" to the issue of Jesus' identity. The first and last instances are also connected by "Mark's" Jesus doing the speaking. Since there is agreement that "Lord" is a part of the key phrase of the last use here than that supports that "Lord" is also a part of the key phrase of the first use.Joseph

Thanks, Joe. I've seen the markan David-links and agree. Maybe I have you poorly understood, but it seems to me that your argument does not affect the crucial point. The “Lord” is not in question.

The question is
- whether the Son of Man and the Son of Sabbath is Lord or
- whether the Son of Man is Lord and also Lord of Sabbath.

@Stephan: Sorry, that I first answer to Joe's post, but that is easier for me. I need to think a bit more about the version of Marcion.

JW:
I was going by the title of this Thread, "Son of the Sabbath or Lord of the Sabbath?", but you were probably space limited in the title and I can see you expanded the question in your post. The NIGTC (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) says the related meaning is complicated/confusing but the only issue identified is whether the meaning is general (humans) or specific (title for whatshisface).

Look at the first use of the offending phrase by "Mark" (author):

2:10

5207 [e]	Huios	Υἱὸς	Son	N-NMS
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	-	Art-GMS
444 [e]	anthrōpou	ἀνθρώπου	of man	N-GMS

Note that the genitive form is within the phrase. This phrase has the exact same form within the question of this Thread. This suggests that the genitive relationship of the larger phrase of this Thread is only that the lord is possessive of the Sabbath. The Greek "καὶ" has a broader meaning than the English "and". Everyone here agrees that the context is the relationship of who is lord, is Sabbath the lord of man or is man the lord of Sabbath. I've also pointed out that "Mark's" connected invocation of David has the same lord relationship issue, is David lord of the son of David (title for whatshisface) or is the son of David lord of David.

"The son of man is lord of the Sabbath" seems to be the meaning here. If you are still bar-kurious I would look for the form of "son of man" in the genitive to something else (the Lord's son of man).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack wrote:Note that the genitive form is within the phrase. This phrase has the exact same form within the question of this Thread. This suggests that the genitive relationship of the larger phrase of this Thread is only that the lord is possessive of the Sabbath. The Greek "καὶ" has a broader meaning than the English "and".

I am not satisfied with your argument. Remember how often you find out that Mark is a very careful writer. Your own interpretations of Mark's Gospel are based on key words in connection with issues and the assumption that Mark has carefully constructed these connections in his Gospel. You also see in other rhetorical figures such as clear chiasms an aid to interpretation.

In the present case, however, it seems that you are willing to overlook a simple and – at first glance - clear word order, which was not overlooked by Matthew and Luke, and may have been modified in their versions because of the possible double meaning. It seems to me that the word order is clear enough to raise the question of why Mark – as a careful writer - has made his statement in such a form.

JoeWallack wrote:Everyone here agrees that the context is the relationship of who is lord, is Sabbath the lord of man or is man the lord of Sabbath.

I know of no scholar who would ask the question in this way. I think that the majority of scholars tends more or less to a “humanistic” interpretation of Mark 2:27, but there are also scholars who would reject generally a “humanistic” interpretation of Mark (You know his argument - also based on Genesis - against divorce in Mark 10:6-8: Mark does not argue that the divorced wife has to worry about economic and social disadvantages. Generally: Mark´s „hard way“ of the cross is not a Matthean „easy yoke“.)

In addition, all “good” scholars note the logical problem. When the Sabbath was made for mankind, then all men are “Lords of the Sabbath” (Perhaps Stephan´s heretics of Prodicus had a similar conviction.) For example Wieland Wilker: “Either Jesus is superior to the Sabbath, or everyone is.”

JoeWallack wrote:"The son of man is lord of the Sabbath" seems to be the meaning here. If you are still bar-kurious I would look for the form of "son of man" in the genitive to something else (the Lord's son of man).Joseph

I am, and you will see the Bar Kurios ... I've been thinking a little bit about argument 2 from the first post

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:2. We do not know when the resurrection occurred in the imagination of Mark. Theoretically it would be possible that the process of resurrection happened on the Sabbath. In this case, the risen Jesus could be - in a figurative sense – a son or an offspring of the Sabbath.

Only twice we have „save life“

Mark 3:4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life (ψυχὴν σῶσαι) or to kill?” But they were silent.

Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life (ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι) will lose it, but whoever loses his life (ψυχὴν) for my sake and the gospel’s will save (σώσει) it.

It happened between

Mark 15:42.46 „And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath (προσάββατον), Joseph of Arimathea, … laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock.“

Mark 16:1 „When the Sabbath (σαββάτου) was past, Mary Magdalene, ...“

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this could be a typical Markan idea. It can only happen during a “holy” time-frame. Therefore the Sabbath was made for the man. But maybe I am wrong.

JW:
God I hate serious posts (expecting the Christians here to only quote the first 3 words):

Mark 2:27

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
3004 [e]	elegen	ἔλεγεν	he said	V-IIA-3S
846 [e]	autois	αὐτοῖς	to them,	PPro-DM3P
3588 [e]	To	Τὸ	The	Art-NNS
4521 [e]	sabbaton	σάββατον	Sabbath	N-NNS
1223 [e]	dia	διὰ	on account of	Prep
3588 [e]	ton	τὸν	the	Art-AMS
444 [e]	anthrōpon	ἄνθρωπον	man	N-AMS
1096 [e]	egeneto	ἐγένετο,	was made,	V-AIM-3S
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3756 [e]	ouch	οὐχ	not	Adv
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	the	Art-NMS
444 [e]	anthrōpos	ἄνθρωπος	man	N-NMS
1223 [e]	dia	διὰ	on account of	Prep
3588 [e]	to	τὸ	the	Art-ANS
4521 [e]	sabbaton	σάββατον·	Sabbath.	N-ANS

Everyone (except for the average Christian) would agree that there are no verse divisions in the original. Our verse 27 flows into and is part of a larger connection of words that includes verse 28. Clearly 27 has a context of choosing the direction of a relationship between two stated subjects, the Sabbath and man. "οὐχ" makes clear that one of the choices is wrong (ouch!). The right choice is that man is superior to the Sabbath.

The offending verse 28:

Mark 2:28

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
5620 [e]	hōste	ὥστε	so then	Conj
2962 [e]	kyrios	κύριός	[1]Lord	N-NMS
1510 [e]	estin	ἐστιν	is	V-PIA-3S
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	the	Art-NMS
5207 [e]	Huios	Υἱὸς	[2]Son	N-NMS
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	-	Art-GMS
444 [e]	anthrōpou	ἀνθρώπου	of man	N-GMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	[3]also even	Conj
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	of the	Art-GNS
4521 [e]	sabbatou	σαββάτου.	Sabbath.	N-GNS

appears to have the same two subjects, Sabbath and son of man (sinonym for "man" - more on that later) and the same context of the issue of superiority in the relationship. Normally this would just be parallelism, restating the first thought with similar language. But this is not "normally" here, this is nomarkally. The unorthodox touches:

[1] Lord = Fits the context here as "lord" in general is a noun indicating superiority and specifically is the word here indicating which of the two subjects is superior. But "Mark" (author) also uses "lord" specifically to refer to Jesus (especially the Gentiles (Paul)). Additionally, as I pointed out, "Mark" also uses "lord" as the offending word in his Jesus' only other invocation of David. Now I wouldn't so much say "Mark's" usage here is ambiguous, I would say it intentionally has multiple meanings. As it relates to my award winning Thread:

Is "Mark" a Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges? An Inventory of Markan Literary Technique.

I would say that it is evidence that "Mark" was more sophisticated than the Gospellers who abed him, not less.

[2] son of man = Once again it fits the context. As a synonym for "man" it is one of the two subjects. Grammatically though, as spin would say, this is naughty. Even though you are using a synonym you are changing the specific word for a subject within a connected group of words. Usage here is similar to "lord" above (so to speak). Technically it fits but is unnecessarily ambiguous unless you want it to have multiple meanings. And does "Mark" want his Jesus to be referred to as "son of man"? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods?

As to the genitive within this phrase, I've already explained that the phrase has a genitive all by itself, man generates the son (which is than possessed). So it does not necessarily mean that the "Lord" here possesses the son of man and the Sabbath. Would "Mark" like the idea of "son of man" being possessive to the Lord". Very much so Bar none except Abba. I think this is a meaning "Mark" wants but technically this does not work grammatically as "lord" by context indicates which way the relationship goes here and can not also be a new subject. Just the best "Mark" could do on short notice before the apocalypse.

[3] also = The biggest problem grammatically (it's always the little things, isn't it). Based on the above, "lord" here is better translated as a general meaning of superior within a relationship and "son of man" is better translated as a synonym for "man" to retain the subject. Coming into the conjunction than, "The son of man (generic = man/human) is lord (generic = master/superior). But literally the finish is "and Sabbath". So you would have "The son of man is lord and Sabbath." Does not work grammatically. I don't think there is any other translation that is even technically correct based on context and grammar. The larger context of the pericopes before are all about the significance of Jesus. Since "Mark" does have overall themes of Jesus being "the son of man" and "lord" I think the best you can do here is what ASV has "so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath". "Son of man" refers to Jesus, "lord" is Jesus' relationship to Sabbath and the conjunction "and" means that the Sabbath is just another thing that Jesus is lord over.

I think "Mark" has cleverly used a Midrash sounding teaching, substituted a few synonyms and ended up with a finish that is close to grammatically correct but more importantly gives a desired conclusion (proof-texting).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack wrote:Since "Mark" does have overall themes of Jesus being "the son of man" and "lord" I think the best you can do here is what ASV has "so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath". "Son of man" refers to Jesus, "lord" is Jesus' relationship to Sabbath and the conjunction "and" means that the Sabbath is just another thing that Jesus is lord over.Joseph

I agree that this is the best meaning of the sentence. But in the end you do not really answer my question. You show „only” how to solve the grammatical problems and to translate the sentence into the traditional meaning. I assume our Greek is very limited, but the following examples may not be wrong. Let's hope so.

1) The phrase

A: the Son of the Man is Lord of Sabbath
B: the Son of the Man is Lord of the Sabbath

would normally be in biblical Greek

A: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου έστιν κύριος σαββάτου
B: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου έστιν κύριος τοῦ σαββάτου

The phrase

the Son of the Man is Lord even of the Sabbath

would normally be in biblical Greek

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου έστιν κύριος καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου


2) To emphasize the object or to indicate interchangeability between subject and object (or maybe other reasons) you can put the object before the subject. (This works also in German perfectly, but I do not know if it works also in English.)

A: Lord even of the Sabbath is the Son of the Man
B: Lord is - even of the Sabbath - the Son of the Man

The preferred word order in biblical Greek would be

A: κύριος καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου έστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
B: κύριος έστιν καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

I think, that the second phrase B corresponds perfectly to your interpretation of Mark 2:28.

κύριος έστιν καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
Lord is - even of the Sabbath - the Son of the Man

So it is no wonder that laparola shows the following minor variants for

Matthew 12:8 - κύριος γάρ (indeed) ἐστιν καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (124 372 565 pc ς ND Dio)
Luke 6:5 - Κύριός ἐστιν καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (p4vid copsa copbo(pt) )

This phrase is clear. The genitive “τοῦ σαββάτου” is modifying “κύριος” and no Bar Kurios can come around the corner and claim that the phrase could also mean "son of the Sabbath".


3) The problem starts only in Mark 2:28, where the sequence of the words “κύριος” and “τοῦ σαββάτου” is interrupted.

κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου
Lord is the Son of the Man and/even of the Sabbath

In the last two days I was looking for a phrase in the Septuagint and in the NT using the exact same word order as in Mark 2:28

noun as subject + noun in genitive + καὶ + noun in genitive
(υἱὸς + τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + καὶ + τοῦ σαββάτου)

in which the last genitive noun does not modify the subject. It is quite possible that I have overlooked something, but I have not found such a phrase. In all cases the “καὶ” means “and” and the last genitive is modifying the subject. Trust me!

Finally, this is not a decisive argument. Mark is not just any writer. But let‘s say, the phrase in the sense of “even of the Sabbath” would be a highly unusual word order.


4) So, why do not we understand the phrase “ὁ υἱὸς (τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ) τοῦ σαββάτου” in the sense of “the son (of man and) of the Sabbath”?

I would say one of the main reasons is, that “υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου” (Son of the Man) is a title and a fixed expression (but Mark maybe invented it) and it would be strange to “mix” the title with another unusual term. For example: Everyone would understand the meaning of the phrase

“Son of God and of Christmas”

as an expression for Jesus, but it would be unusual. The phrase would be ambiguous if I say (not knowing if it works in English, in German it would work in an arranged form)

“A brightness is the Son of God and of Christmas”

It could mean that the Son of God and of Christmas (=Jesus) is a brightness. But it could also mean that the Son of God is a brightness in general and in particular that the Son of God is a brightness of Christmas.

I would say the more unusual the second genitive is and the more the thematic context suggests it, the more the reader would refer the second genitive to the object and not to the subject. But this is never the first choice.


5) I do not want to defend rigidly a vague possibility. Most of the reasons points to “Lord even of the Sabbath”. No doubt! Thanks for all comments.