Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:44:53.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mark 2.1–3.6: a Bridge between Jesus and Paul on the Question of the Law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

James D. G. Dunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of continuity between Jesus and Paul is an old one, not least with regard to their respective attitudes towards the law. For example, in a private conversation some years ago Ernst Käsemann maintained a typically provocative position: (1) that Jesus' attitude to the law lies very much at the heart of Jesus' distinctiveness; (2) that Paul's attitude to the law was in fact the same; and (3) that Paul was independent of Jesus at this point. The conversation unfortunately had to end before we could pursue such further questions as whether in that case Paul was as religiously significant (distinctive? unique?) as Jesus. But it highlights an important problem: if Paul's attitude to the law, with its coordinate teaching about grace and justification, is central to the Christianity of the Gentile mission, then in what sense or degree is his teaching continuous with or dependent upon the traditions which stemmed from Jesus - if at all?

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 395 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Stendahl, K., ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56 (1963), pp. 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in his Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (SCM 1977), pp. 78–96.Google Scholar

[2] SCM 1977.

[3] ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL 65 (1983), pp. 95–122Google Scholar, in which Sanders' findings are referred to more fully.

[4] For documentation on these points I must refer to my ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2. 11–18)’, JSNT 18 (1983), pp. 3–57, particularly pp. 12–25Google Scholar; also ‘New Perspective’ (n. 3) pp. 107–9.Google Scholar

[5] Cf. the conclusion of M. Hengel: ‘We owe the real bridge between Jesus and Paul to those almost unknown Jewish-Christian “Hellenists” of the group around Stephen …; this was the first to translate the Jesus traditions into Greek and at the same time prepared the way for Paul's preaching of freedom by its criticism of the ritual law and the cult’ (‘Zwischen Jesus und Paulus’, ZTK 72 [1975], p. 206Google Scholar; ET in Hengel, , Between Jesus and Paul [SCM 1983], p. 29)Google Scholar. This essay is also in effect an attempt to fill out Hengel's claim from within the Jesus-tradition itself.

[6] See my ‘The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 28 (1982), pp. 461–78, particularly pp. 463–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[7] Kuhn, H. W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Vandenhoeck 1971), pp. 53–98.Google Scholar

[8] Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (Macmillan 1952), p. 92Google Scholar; Perrin, N., The New Testament: an Introduction (Harcourt, 1974), p. 145.Google Scholar

[9] Kuhn, (n. 7) pp. 20 f.Google Scholar, against particularly Albertz, M., Die synoptischen Streitgespräche (Trowitzsch 1921), pp. 5–16.Google Scholar

[10] Dewey, J., Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2.1–3.6 (SBL Dissertation Series 48, Scholars 1980), pp. 17, 42, 54.Google Scholar

[11] Even if Mark is responsible for specifying the location (Capernaum), as e.g. Bultmann, R. maintains (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [ET Blackwell 1963], pp. 64, 340–1)Google Scholar, the following story implies an event which took place in a centre of population, and it is this fact which causes the slight jarring with 1.45.

[12] See e.g. Hultgren, A. J., Jesus and his Adversaries, Augsburg 1979, p. 161Google Scholar; Best, E., Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNT Supp. 4 (Sheffield University 1981), p. 175.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. e.g. Hultgren, (n. 12) p. 161Google Scholar and n. 55 and Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium. 1. Teil (Herder 2 1977), p. 170.Google Scholar

[14] See particularly Neirynck, F., ‘Jesus and the Sabbath: Some Observations on Mark 2.27’, in Jésus awe Origines de la Christologie, ed. Dupont, J. (Leuven 1975), pp. 227–70, especially pp. 254–68.Google Scholar

[15] See Kuhn's, brief survey (n. 7) pp. 22–3Google Scholar; Dewey, (n. 10) p. 47.Google Scholar

[16] Kuhn, (n. 7) pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

[17] πώς αύτόν άπολέσωσω in 11. 18 might well be an echo of oˇπως αύτόν άπολέσωσω in 3. 6, as Kuhn acknowledges (p. 20 n. 46).

[18] These methodological considerations apply with equal force to Dewey's attempt (n. 10) to argue against the existence of a Markan unit.

[19] Bultmann, (n. 11) p. 12.Google Scholar

[20] Stanton, G. N., Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge University 1974), chap. 5, especially p. 122.Google Scholar

[21] Pesch, (n. 13) pp. 195–6.Google Scholar

[22] See also Taylor, (n. 8) pp. 220–1Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium (Kösel 1970), p. 83Google Scholar; and on the Herodians (3. 6) Hultgren, (n. 12) pp. 154–6.Google Scholar

[23] Kuhn, (n. 7) p. 88.Google Scholar

[24] 2. 24 – τiποωύσω τοīς σάββαδω oˇ ούk ἔεεστω;

3.4 – ἔξεστω σοīς σάββασω άγαθόν ποiη¯σαι…;

[25] So Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 1978), 1. Teil, pp. 131–2.Google Scholar

[26] Pesch, (n. 13) p. 164 and n. 2.Google Scholar

[27] Kuhn, (n. 7) pp. 82–5.Google Scholar

[28] Kuhn, (n. 7) pp. 91–5.Google Scholar

[29] See particularly Neusner, J., From Politics to Piety (Prentice-Hall 1973), pp. 80, 83–90.Google Scholar

[30] See my ‘Antioch Incident’ (n. 4) pp. 27–8.Google Scholar

[31] See further Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospel (First Series, Cambridge University 1917), pp. 121–8Google Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck, IV pp. 77–114.Google Scholar

[32] If the references to the Pharisees were inserted into an original tradition of comparison simply between the disciples of the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus, as is quite possible, the insertion must have taken place at the stage when the tradition was meshed into the other traditions to form the complete unit – Taylor, (n. 8) p. 210Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1), 1967, p. 36.Google Scholar

[33] Taylor, (n. 8) p. 215.Google Scholar

[34] As a too casual reference to the rabbinic evidence like that of Taylor (n. 8) might imply.

[35] See particularly Schweizer, (n. 32) pp. 210–4Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Paternoster 1972), pp. 156–62.Google Scholar

[36] Kuhn, (n. 7) p. 85.Google Scholar

[37] Hultgren, (n. 12) pp. 162–5.Google Scholar

[38] See particularly Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, Vol. 1: The Proclamation of Jesus (ET SCM 1971), pp. 118–21.Google Scholar

[39] Kruse, H., ‘Die “Dialektische Negation” als semitisches Idiom’, VT (1954), pp. 385–400Google Scholar. On the historicity of the saying within Jesus' ministry see e.g. Taylor, (n. 8) pp. 207–8Google Scholar; Pesch, (n. 13) pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

[40] We need not discuss here the ultimate origin of vv. 19b–20 or the intended reference of ‘on that day’.

[41] Cf. e.g. the views of Kuhn, (n. 7) pp. 71–2Google Scholar; Schweizer, (n. 32) pp. 36–7Google Scholar; Pesch, (n. 13) p. 177Google Scholar; Gnilka, (n. 25) p. 111.Google Scholar

[42] I assume, with most commentators who address the question of the pre-Markan unit, that v. 27 at least was attached to vv. 23–4 by the time the sequence of controversy episodes was put together.

[43] Strack-Billerbeck, I p. 623; II p. 5.Google Scholar

[44] I need not go into the relation of v. 28 to v. 27 which complicates the point being made here but does not diminish it (cf. n. 50 below).

[45] Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Athlone 1956), pp. 67–71Google Scholar; Cohn-Sherbok, D. M., ‘An Analysis of Jesus' Arguments concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath’, JSNT 2 (1979), pp. 31–41.Google Scholar

[46] See the discussions in n. 45 above.

[47] Cf. Goppelt, L., Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 1 (ET Eerdmans 1981), pp. 93–5.Google Scholar

[48] But see Goppelt (n. 47).

[49] Against Dewey, (n. 10) p. 47.Google Scholar

[50] Cf. e.g. Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der historische Jesus (Vandenhoeck 1970), pp. 61–2Google Scholar; Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew (Collins 1973), pp. 180–1Google Scholar. We should note that the transition to a titular sense need not have coincided with translation of the Jesus-tradition from Aramaic to Greek, however much the unfamiliarity of the form in Greek may (must) have helped forward the process.

[51 ] Since there is no real indication that Judaism had already used the image of the bridegroom for any messianic figure, probably the eschatology of 2.19 was originally more to the fore than the christology as such (see Jeremias, J., TDNT 4 pp. 1101–3Google Scholar; also The Parables of Jesus [ET SCM revised 1963], p. 52).Google Scholar

[52] Despite particularly Roloff, (n. 50), pp. 56–8Google Scholar, there is no clear indication of any desire to equate David and Jesus – for, apart from anything else, it was the disciples and not Jesus who plucked the grain, whereas it was David and not his followers who took the bread of the Presence.

[53] See above n. 50 and below n. 56.

[54] See e.g Jeremias, (n. 38) p. 114.Google Scholar

[55] Cf. Kuhn, (n. 7) p. 56 n. 20.Google Scholar

[56] Most recently Lindars, B., Jesus Son of Man (SPCK 1983), pp. 44–7.Google Scholar

[57] If 2. 5b–10 are to be regarded as redactional – so Bultmann, (n. 11) pp. 14–15Google Scholar; Taylor, (n. 8) p. 191Google Scholar; Gnilka, (n. 25) p. 96Google Scholar – the links which might be said to bind 2. 1–12 to 2. 15–3. 6 vanish completely.