db41/42 were we to remain at this level of inter-
pretation, we would find a not particular radical, even strangely "rabbinic" Yeshu fighting against some rigorists whom he identifies as Phari-sees. However, this approach leaves too much in the text unexplained? It doesn't explain at all the argument from David's having fed himself and his followers on 'forbidden bread'! We might see presently how taking that textual moment seriously will reveal another dimension of the Markan theology of YESHUA ('christology'
?
In short, my (DB's) suggestion is that a set of controversy arguments in favor of allowing violation of the Sabbath for healing (now a quite accepted practice) has been overlaid with and radicalized by a further apocalyptic moment suggested by the very connection with David's behavior!
The David story itself can go either way. Just as the Rabbis chose to emphasize David's hunger and thus the lifesaving aspect of this story, justifying other breaches of the law if a life can be saved, so did Matthew; Mark, by contrast, understanding the story as being about the special privileges of the Messiah, pushed it in the direction that he did. On this account, the reason for the absence of verse 27 in Matthew & Luke is that Mark's messianic theology was a bit too radical for the later EUANGELISTS.
I think that the problems of this sequence of verses are best unraveled of we take seriously it's context following Mark 2:10, as we have just discussed. If Yehoshua (the Markan Yeshu, or the YESHUA of these passages) proclaims himself as the Son of Man who has his authority by virtue of Dani'el 7:14, THEN it is entirely plausible that he would claim sovereignty over the Sabbath as well! Extending the clearly controver-sial notion that healing (a.s.o.!) is permitted on the Sabbath by virtue of various biblical precedents & arguments, Yeshu makes a much more radical claim: not only does the Torah authorize healing of the deadly sick on the sabbath, but the messiah himself, the Son of Man, is given sovereignty to decide how to further extend & interpret the sabbath law. IF ..., then/hence ...
? In short, my (DB's) suggestion is that a set of controversy arguments in favor of allowing violation of the Sabbath for healing (now a quite accepted practice) has been overlaid with and radicalized by a further apocalyptic moment suggested by the very connection with David's behavior!
The David story itself can go either way. Just as the Rabbis chose to emphasize David's hunger and thus the lifesaving aspect of this story, justifying other breaches of the law if a life can be saved, so did Matthew; Mark, by contrast, understanding the story as being about the special privileges of the Messiah, pushed it in the direction that he did. On this account, the reason for the absence of verse 27 in Matthew & Luke is that Mark's messianic theology was a bit too radical for the later EUANGELISTS.
I think that the problems of this sequence of verses are best unraveled of we take seriously it's context following Mark 2:10, as we have just discussed. If Yehoshua (the Markan Yeshu, or the YESHUA of these passages) proclaims himself as the Son of Man who has his authority by virtue of Dani'el 7:14, THEN it is entirely plausible that he would claim sovereignty over the Sabbath as well! Extending the clearly controver-sial notion that healing (a.s.o.!) is permitted on the Sabbath by virtue of various biblical precedents & arguments, Yeshu makes a much more radical claim: not only does the Torah authorize healing of the deadly sick on the sabbath, but the messiah himself, the Son of Man, is given sovereignty to decide how to further extend & interpret the sabbath law. IF ..., then/hence ...
14 jan 2013 - bewerkt op 15 jan 2013
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 02 jan 2026 50340 Volgens die uitspraak (Luke 9:44) zei Yesjoe
- O 02 jan 2026 50339 In déze en andere uitspraken uit de derde
- O 01 jan 2026 50338104 Mattai’s Versie van wat YESJ tegen Petrus
- O 01 jan 2026 50337/103 De opvatting dat YESJ dé eschatologische
- O 01 jan 2026 50336102/9: Mensen zoon dochter kind vriend taal?
- O 01 jan 2026 50335 De Slaven die naar deze Wijngaard gestuurd
- O 01 jan 2026 50334101Dit is ‘t brandpunt v/d botsing van Yesjoe
- O 31 dec 2025 50333100 Zelfs E. Meyer beschouwt dit visioen als
- O 31 dec 2025 50332 YESJ nam Sjim’on “Petra”, Yochanan & Ya’akov
- O 31 dec 2025 5033199 DOOR mij heb jij ‘t gezicht van Velen ver-
- O 31 dec 2025 50330 Pas sinds de ontdekking van de geschriften
- O 31 dec 2025 50329/98 Als YESJ als een Zoon was voor God, dan
- O 30 dec 2025 50328/97 Die charismatische vrome mannen geloofden
- O 30 dec 2025 50327/96 ÉÉN DING is echter zeker ook nú híer nòg
- O 30 dec 2025 50326 We zien dus duidelijk dat er ook al in deze