jakejones said
“1. Where does it say the law was not broker? (it says David did something unlawful)”
he didnt say it is not lawful to eat in emergency situation for other than high priest.
Agreed he didn’t say it is not lawful to eat in emergency. But the question is “Where does the passage say that the law was not broken?”
“2. What was the exception that was created?”
quote:
However, we need to take a closer look at the story about what Jesus and his disciples are doing on the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-28. A very helpful source is by Maurice Casey, “** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Jesus’ disciples were plucking grain left unharvested at the border of a field, a biblically mandated form of charity for the poor and hungry (Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22). Neither this act, nor healing by speaking a word (Mark 3:1-6), needs to be seen as breaking the command about working on the Sabbath. Some scholars read the words “to make a way” in Mark 2:23 as indicating that the disciples carved out a royal road through the field for king Jesus, which would be work on the Sabbath, but this reads too much into Mark’s admittedly awkward phraseology and Casey insists that Mark was just trying to translate an Aramaic source. However, the Pharisees were concerned to build a “fence around the Law” so that one would not even get close to violating a command and they may have defined plucking grain or healing as work in their own oral traditions that served as a guide for how to observe the Law.
To counter the Pharisees indignation, Jesus raises the objection that David and his followers ate the bread of the presence that was only meant for the priests in the temple to eat (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6). Just as the disciples were hungry and in need, the example may suggest that human need takes precedence over strict regulations, though the situation does not seem quite analogous to the accusation that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath commandment. Yet Casey offers evidence that it was culturally assumed that David was eating the sacred bread on the Sabbath when the shewbread was changed, so Jesus’ example may be more relevant than it first appears. In a subsequent episode, while the Pharisees may have objected to Jesus healing a non-life-threatening condition (a person with a withered hand in Mark 3:1-6) on the Sabbath, Jesus was convinced that his mission to liberate people from all forms of physical and spiritual ailments had priority.
Finally, it is crucial to highlight that Mark 2:27-28 may suggest that the Sabbath was created as a gift for humankind, rather than the reverse, and that humans are the rightful masters of the Sabbath. Casey views this as equivalent to other Jewish texts that speak about humans as ruling over all created things (4 Ezra 6:54; 2 Baruch 14:18). Of course, whatever Aramaic traditions underlie the text of Mark, Mark 2:28 seems to treat “the Son of Man” as a title distinctly in reference to Jesus. However, the logic could still follow that since the Sabbath was given to humankind, Jesus as the Human One par excellence can rightfully interpret how the Sabbath is best to be observed. By omitting Mark 2:27, Matthew and Luke may cut out some important aspects of the original argument and heighten Jesus’ personal authority over the Sabbath institution.
Mark does not say the disciples were hungry nor does it say they were picking grain left unharvested. Is this what you are claiming? That if the disciples are hungry they can pick grain on the sabbath? If not, then what is the exception that is being created?
Humans may rule over created things but God rules over humans, and he has created the law for them to follow. Keeping the sabbath is one of these laws. If Jesus is Lord of the sabbath he is the one who creates the laws of the sabbath. So either he is claiming to be God or he is subverting the authority of god and claiming it for himself.
JAS said
No, I don’t think that “all arguments for Markan priority would be ruled out.” It depends on the specific argument and the overall case. In scholarship, just as in law (except when we get too many purely politically aligned judges), a certain degree of precedence becomes established and is generally accepted unless a much better case can overturn it.
Yes for 1700 years a precedence of Matthean priority had been set.
This was overturned using arguments for Markan priority despite the fact that “bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible”.
Arguments for Markan priority based on a lower christology are often given, but you want to rule out the same line of evidence if it turns out Matthew in fact had the lower christology than mark?
“Mark does not say the disciples were hungry nor does it say they were picking grain left unharvested. Is this what you are claiming? That if the disciples are hungry they can pick grain on the sabbath? If not, then what is the exception that is being created?”
so now you are arguing from silence?
neither did mark say that the disciples asked jesus, “hey man, can we pick? ”
mark has the disciples pick and he supports his view based on a story from the old testament.
then he says that sabbath was made for man.
“Humans may rule over created things but God rules over humans, “
where did mark say that the disciples asked jesus for permission?
did god give humans the ability to make exceptions to his rules ?
“and he has created the law for them to follow. Keeping the sabbath is one of these laws.”
and humans have the ability to make exceptions to all of his laws. read the mishna.
“If Jesus is Lord of the sabbath he is the one who creates the laws of the sabbath.”
where did mark say this nonsense? “creates the laws of the sabbath” ? what are you talking about ? jesus was under the law according to mark.
“So either he is claiming to be God or he is subverting the authority of god and claiming it for himself.”
and he uses it by basing it on an example where david does something unlawful ?
nowhere does mark say that the disciples asked jesus for permission to do a task on sabbath
if mark is having the disciples breaking the sabbath
then this means that the disciples are lord of sabbath and have power and authoirty over it.
this could only mean that the disciples were yhwh in flesh.
brenmcg said
JAS said
No, I don’t think that “all arguments for Markan priority would be ruled out.” It depends on the specific argument and the overall case. In scholarship, just as in law (except when we get too many purely politically aligned judges), a certain degree of precedence becomes established and is generally accepted unless a much better case can overturn it.
Yes for 1700 years a precedence of Matthean priority had been set.
This was overturned using arguments for Markan priority despite the fact that “bible texts for the New Testament are sufficiently chaotic that any number of scenarios and explanations are possible”.
Arguments for Markan priority based on a lower christology are often given, but you want to rule out the same line of evidence if it turns out Matthew in fact had the lower christology than mark?
It isn’t that I want to arbitrarily “rule it out.” It just doesn’t seem like a very strong argument, as you just admitted a moment ago. I am not sure that Matthean priority was really an established thing. The order of books was somewhat arbitrary as they had to be given in some physical sequence as part of a collection, not necessarily the result of a deeply considered argument. Once the pattern was made, it was simply followed. I am not sure that anyone really even gave the matter as much thought as you seem to think.
jakejones said
“Mark does not say the disciples were hungry nor does it say they were picking grain left unharvested. Is this what you are claiming? That if the disciples are hungry they can pick grain on the sabbath? If not, then what is the exception that is being created?”so now you are arguing from silence?
neither did mark say that the disciples asked jesus, “hey man, can we pick? ”
mark has the disciples pick and he supports his view based on a story from the old testament.
then he says that sabbath was made for man.
“Humans may rule over created things but God rules over humans, “
where did mark say that the disciples asked jesus for permission?
did god give humans the ability to make exceptions to his rules ?
“and he has created the law for them to follow. Keeping the sabbath is one of these laws.”
and humans have the ability to make exceptions to all of his laws. read the mishna.
“If Jesus is Lord of the sabbath he is the one who creates the laws of the sabbath.”
where did mark say this nonsense? “creates the laws of the sabbath” ? what are you talking about ? jesus was under the law according to mark.
“So either he is claiming to be God or he is subverting the authority of god and claiming it for himself.”
and he uses it by basing it on an example where david does something unlawful ?
You’re not quite answering the question. What do you think is the exception being claimed here that allows the disciples to pick grain on the sabbath?
jakejones said
nowhere does mark say that the disciples asked jesus for permission to do a task on sabbathif mark is having the disciples breaking the sabbath
then this means that the disciples are lord of sabbath and have power and authoirty over it.
this could only mean that the disciples were yhwh in flesh.
They are his disciples, they’ll do what he says. They call him Lord. He claims to be Lord of the Sabbath. They’ll follow his commands regarding sabbath observance.
“Mark does not say the disciples were hungry nor does it say they were picking grain left unharvested. Is this what you are claiming? That if the disciples are hungry they can pick grain on the sabbath? If not, then what is the exception that is being created?”
so now you are arguing from silence?
neither did mark say that the disciples asked jesus, “hey man, can we pick? ”
They are his disciples, they’ll do what he says. They call him Lord. He claims to be Lord of the Sabbath. They’ll follow his commands regarding sabbath observance.
Robert said
brenmcg said
“Possibly?”
So you think it possible that the words “his elect” are chosen to state explicitly that it is Jesus doing the selecting?
Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?
Because I’m not quite sure what your answer is. If the words “his elect” explicitly state Jesus is doing the selecting then the only way to avoid Jesus being the judge of humanity is to claim this is omitted from Mark’s original.
Because Matthew believes that the Son of Man separates the sheep and the goats and he knows that Mark is obviously referring to God and not himself when he says that God shortened the days and selected the elect. Lord does not only or always refer exclusively to Jesus in the gospel of Mark. Sometimes, especially on the lips of Jesus, it refers to God and not to Jesus himself. This was obvious to Matthew and to most anyone else who reads this passage. It just does not fit this idiosyncratic argument for Markan priority here.
Unfortunately Mark doesn’t say God shortened the days he says the Lord shortened them. And the only other instance of kyrios in the chapter refers to Jesus – Mark 13:35.
Matthew says “keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come”. Why would he feel the need to change “If the Lord had not cut them short for the sake of his elect whom he chose”?
No, in Mark the parable is told against the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Matthew, as he typically does, shortens this, omitting the scribes, but then he later adds that the Pharisees had heard this parable.
Matthew often shortens Mark? I thought longer versions were indicators of later versions?
Matthew just says the Pharisees heard the parables of Jesus. Why do you think there’s an issue with that?
One could say that the entire gospel of Mark is about what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. See Mk 1,1.
One could say its about the implications of Jesus being the Son of God. But (almost) nothing about the nature of this “sonship”. It can mean lots of things to different people. What does it mean to Mark? His only indication is the parable of the vineyard.
You mean other than the fact that Mark neither here nor anywhere else speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus and his being sent into the world and becoming incarnate?
Yes other than that is there any indication?
Is it only by analogy with the parable of the vineyard that we have any access to what Mark meant by being the Son, or for how long Jesus was the Son?
Robert said
But you have. For example, your ridiculous claims that the virgin birth was an earlier Jewish messianic expectation and that Mark had an even more elevated view of Jesus’ origin, which is supposedly apparent from the fact that he did not even mention the name of Jesus’ father.
Not in any sense a universally held jewish belief about the messiah, I was just claiming it was likely Matthew wasn’t the one who made it up.
About Mark, I just said Mark avoided definitive claims about the birth of Jesus and just began his gospel with an adult messiah/son of god. You misinterpreted that as a claim to a higher origin story.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)