Back to Danny/Daniel Boyarin & The Jewish Gospels

There are several well-known problems on our present passage, which (as is Mark 7, which we will later treat) is of enormous importance for reconstructing Jewish religious history. The major issues are the reason for the disciples plucking on the Sabbath; the nature and the meaning of Jesus' reply invoking the analogy of David; the connection between that reply and vv. 27-28, in which the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is made for man; and the meaning and connection between those verses.

Jesus seems to be giving too many justifications of the disciples' behavior; is the defense based on an ancient halakhic principle that the Sabbath ma be violated for human welfare, or does it have something to do with Jesus' messianic status? Many scholars have "solved" these problems by assuming that the text has been interpolated.

This explanation, while in itself unsatisfactory, points up the tension in the text between ancient halakhic (legal) controversy (which there certainly is here) & radical apocalyptic transformation in the words of Jesus (which I believe is also here). What convinces me that there is genuine memory of halakhic controversy here is the fact that the elements of Jesus' arguments are found later within the traditions of the Rabbis.

"The Rabbis" is a designation for the leaders of a group of Jewish teachers who produced the Mishna, the midrashim, & the two Talmuds, Palestinian & Babylonian. They flourished from the second through the seventh centuries A.D. in Palestine & Babylonia & were eventually accepted as the authoritative transmitters of Judaism. The authorities cited in this passage are all second-century Palestinians (tannaim), so even if the attributions are genuine, the text is later than the Gospels. Although the rabbinic parallel does illumine some aspects of Jesus' statement - namely, it's scriptural basis - what is more important is that the Gospel attests to the antiquity of a rabbinic idea. What we see here us convergence (despite some vitally important differences) between two sets of Jewish traditions about the Sabbath based in part on the same reasoning, namely, that the Sabbath was given to benefit those who kept it, not that the people are there to serve the Sabbath.

Maar nu eerst wat eten zei 'likkepot': straks of later zien we wel weer verder? 't Idee is in elk geval helder & klaar: 'wat is (on)waar'? En waarom dan wel: wat doet er 'méér' toe & wat 'mìnder'! Hoe wegen we belangrijke zaken (wel of niet) 'tegen elkaar af'?! See You Later!!