¹ Lk. 16: 6–7.

² Derrett, J. D. M. at NTS, VII, 1961, 198–219Google Scholar; idem, Law in the New Testament, London, 1970, ch. 4, pt. 1.

³ Drexler, H. at ZNW, LVIII, 1967, 286–8Google Scholar; Crossen, J. D., JBL, XC, 1971, 464Google Scholar; Derrett, J. D. M., “Take thy bond … and write fifty …”, JThS, N.S., XXIII, 2, 1972, 438–440Google Scholar.

⁴ Selb, W. at Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stiftung, Röm. Abteil, LXXXVIII, 1971, 549–550Google Scholar; Spicq, C. at Tijdschr. voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, XXXIX, 1971, 603–5Google Scholar; Murphy-O'Connor, J. at RB, 1971, 464–5Google Scholar; Klauck, H. J. at Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 1972, 1, 72–73Google Scholar; Ballard, P. H. at JThS, N.S., XXIII, 2, 1972, 344Google Scholar n. 2(i); Merkel, H., “Recht im Neuen Testament”, Zeitschr. f. Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 1973, 266–9Google Scholar; Carmignac, J. at Revue de Qumran, 1973, 275–7Google Scholar. An outlook favourable to the “Orientalists” is adopted by Cave, C. H., “The parables and the scriptures”, NTS, XI, 1964–1965, 374–387Google Scholar, and by Drury, J., “The Sower, the vineyard, and the place of allegory in the interpretation of Mark's parables,” JThS, XXIV, 1973, 367–379Google Scholar.

⁵ Sanders, E. P., The tendencies of the synoptic tradition, Cambridge, 1969Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H. and McKnight, E. V., “Can the Griesbach hypothesis be falsified?”, JBL, XCI, 1972, 338–368Google Scholar; de Solages, Mgr., La composition des evangiles, Leiden, 1973Google Scholar. A different view is taken tentatively by Wenham, D., “The synoptic problem revisited…”, Tyndale Bulletin, 1971, 4–38Google Scholar, and pressed, inconclusively, by Lindsey, R. L., Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Mark, Jerusalem, 1969Google Scholar; see also Vassiliadis, P., “Behind Mark: towards a written source”, NTS, XX, 2, 1974, 155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The priority of Mark is assumed by Goulder, M. D., Midrash and lection in Matthew, London, 1974Google Scholar, but our Mark is a deutero-Mark according to Dungan, D. L., The sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, Oxford, 1971Google Scholar.

⁶ Aland, K., Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum, Stuttgart, 1964Google Scholar. Superseding the similar work of Huck-Lietzmann, this is indispensable to all serious students of the gospels.

⁷ Three short reports and three short texts are special to Mark. The little children (10: 16), the parable of the seed (4: 26–7), names at 11:21, 13: 3, also material at 5: 3–5, 7: 33–4, 8:22–6, 9:20–7, and especially “he expired” at 15: 37, 39 illustrate this.

⁸ See Mgr. de Solages, op. cit.; also Morgenthaler, R., Statistische Synopse, Zürich, Stuttgart, 1971Google Scholar.

⁹ Weiss, B., Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, Göttingen, 1901, 40–42Google Scholar; idem, Die Quelle des Lukasevangeliums, Stuttgart, Berlin, 1907, 150; Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus, Stuttgart, 1929, 392Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1950, 30–31Google Scholar; Hirsch, E., Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums, 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1951, 14–15Google Scholar; Beilner, W., Christus und die Pharisäer, Vienna. 1959, 25–31Google Scholar; Lohse, E., “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat”, in Eltester, W., ed., Judentum—Christentum—Kirche: Jeremias Festschrift, Berlin, 1960, 79–89Google Scholar; Beare, F. W., “The Sabbath was made for man?”, JBL, LXXIX, 1960, 130–6Google Scholar; Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Göttingen, 1962, 81–82Google Scholar; Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium, Munich, 1963, 40–44Google Scholar; Lohse, E., “Die Sabbatkonflikte Jesu”, in Friedrich, G. Kittel-G., ed., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VII, 1964, 21–24Google Scholar; Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the synoptic tradition, London, 1965, 132Google Scholar; Bowman, J., The Gospel of Mark, Leiden, 1965, 116–8Google Scholar; Haenschen, E., Der Weg Jesu, Berlin, 1966, 118–123Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark, London, 1967, 93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Berlin, 1968, 320–2Google Scholar; idem, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Berlin, 1971, 67–71; Schweizer, E., The good news according to Mark, London, 1971, 70–73Google Scholar; Hultgren, A. J., “The formulation of the Sabbath pericope”, JBL, XCI, 1972, 38–43Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., “Priorités et dépendances dans la tradition synoptique”, Recherches des Sciences Religieuses, 1972, 519–540Google Scholar (the Lucan form may be the earliest!). In most treatments some attention is paid to Mekilta on Exod. 31: 13, “The Sabbath was delivered to you, not you to the Sabbath”, a saying which, at first sight, resembles Mk. 2: 27. But, as Lohse points out, the intention there is merely to justify breaches of Sabbath restrictions in cases of danger to life, which cannot apply here. H. E. Tödt, op. cit., 130–2, finds a post-Easter commentary placing the title “Son of Man” into Jesus's mouth. Käsemann, E., Essays on New Testament themes, London, 1965, 101–2Google Scholar, says that the community was prepared to ascribe to its master what it was not courageous enough to claim for itself: it preferred to take refuge in a Christianized form of Judaism. Duprez, A, “Deux affrontements au jour de Sabbat,” Assemb. Seign., XL, 1972, 43–53Google Scholar: the Jesus of Mark enunciates a scandalous universalism. Freimann, M., “Eine misverstandene Rede Jesu,” Monatschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judentums, LVIII, 1914, 281–9Google Scholar, supposes Jesus's words were early misrepresented, but otherwise has no useful contribution.

¹⁰ Bultmann (see n. 16 below) regarded it as an open question whether v. 28 was original in Mark, or, from the start, an addition to v. 27; Dalman took v. 27 as interpolated; Beilner, op. cit.

¹¹ Hultgren, op. cit.; Beare, op. cit., took the story as original and vv. 27–8 as agglomerated to it. According to Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 1963, 214–220Google Scholar, v. 28 is a Christian comment. Haenschen, op. cit., 120, says vv. 25–6 were improperly introduced.

¹² Braun, H., Jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit, 2nd ed., Stuttgart, Berlin, 1969, 79Google Scholar (the Church wished to limit his proposition to his Messianity [due to its early rejudaizing tendencies and re-casuistic development]), 82, see also 161–2; Hummel, op. cit.; Beare, op. cit. It is very generally believed that v. 28 is the débris of a proposition which originally stated that Man was superior to Ritual Law; an escalating Christology transformed it into its present state.

¹³ Beare, 135; Hummel, 41. Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel, Göttingen, 1963, 43Google Scholar, claims that v. 27 was the original, here following Lohse, op. cit, 82. See also Friedrich, G. at Zeitschr. f. Theologie u. Kircke, LIII, 1956, 289Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Beare, 133–4 (“necessity knows no law”). So Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos, 1965, 41Google Scholar; Braun, op. cit., 82.

¹⁵ An independent theme with its own history: Mt. 4: 5, 24: 1, 26: 61, 27: 40 (Mk. 15: 29); Jn. 2: 19–21, 7: 28; Acts 7: 48, 17: 24. Freimann, cit. sup. suggests plausibly that for μεζων we should read μεῖζον, which fits better with the Hosea passage.

¹⁶ Beare emphasizes that both vv. 27 and 28 are inconceivable on the lips of any Jewish teacher. “Man” cannot be master of the Sabbath. The Church acknowledged Jesus as Messiah and this is one of the ways in which it showed it. Even the hunger looks fictitious. The anecdote was devised as a setting for the sayings. So Bultmann, R., History of the synoptic tradition, Oxford, 1968, 15–16, 47, 49Google Scholar. A possible refutation of these views, based on the Messiah's pre-existence of the world (let alone the Sabbath, cf. Jn. 8: 58), is noticed below, at n. 58.

¹⁷ Wünsche, A., “Jesu Conflikt mit den Pharisäern wegen des Aehrenausraufens seiner Schüler,” Vierteljahrsschrift f. Bibelkunde, I, 3, 1904, 281–306Google Scholar.

¹⁸ It is used absolutely at Mk. 11: 20 (by-passing the city or the figtree?). It suggests “make a detour by”. One by-passes, i.e. skirts a river (Exod. 2: 5 (LXX)), a group of people (Gen. 37: 27, Ruth 4: 1, Mk. 15: 29, Mt. 27: 39), a person (Lam. 1: 12), a place (Jer. 19: 8, 49: 16 (17)), a territory (Deut. 2: 4, 18), a city (Jos. 6: 7–8, 2: 15). It is the correct word for by-passing a ruined town or village which is, for the time being, impassable. The furtiveness of the movement as suggested at Mk. 9: 30 (Aland, § 164) is noteworthy. Klostermann, op. cit., takes σπριμα as the object of the verb, i.e. they skirted the fields. In that case they would not have made a path in the same sense, and the Pharisees' complaint relates only to the plucking. Matthew and Luke could not understand παραπορεεσθαι. It is quite possible that they understood the dispute to relate only to the limits upon Deut. 23: 25 placed by the Sabbath law, a by-no-means impossible supposition.

¹⁹ Mishnah, Er. IV, 8, V, 8, Babylonian Talmud (hereafter, “b”), Er. 55a. The projections at the corners are called “wings”. Explained neatly by Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, III (“Seasons”), I (“Sabbath”), 17, 2; 18, 6–8 (for the English tr. see n. 22 below).

²⁰ Mishnah, Soṭ. V, 3, Er. IV, 3; Mt. 24: 20; Acts 1: 12; Damascus Document XI, 4–5 (XIII, 13–4); Jub. 50: 8, 12; Josephus, , Ant., XIII, 252Google Scholar. The legend of Elisha b. Abuyah (a first-century notable, a Sadducee ?) (Jewish Encyclopaedia, V, 138–9) confirms the concern for the limits in the period. The Dead Sea material is not unanimous. 1,000 cubits is found in the Damascus Document (CDC X.21), but also 2,000 cubits (CDC XI.5–6; also in the War Scroll from Cave 1 at Qumran, 1QM VII. 6–7 [Yadin, Scroll, 290]). Malina, B. J., Palestinian manna tradition, Leiden, 1968, 52Google Scholar, refers to the Palestinian Targum on Exod. 16: 29 (2,000 cubits) as representing pre-Mishnaic halakah.

²¹ The complex, but common-sense provisions are explained by Maimonides, op. cit., III, 1, 27, passim.

²² Mk. 4: 4; Mishnah, B. B. VI, 6 (see Drury, at JThS, XXIV, 1973, 368–9)Google Scholar.

²³ Maimonides, op. cit, 21, 1–3 (trans. S. Gandz and H. Klein, Yale Judaica Ser. 14, New Haven, 1961, 129–30). All operations analogous to agricultural operations were forbidden.

²⁴ See Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v.; also παρατλλω (pull up, of weeds); ὑποτλλω (pluck up, of vegetables). Note that Fr. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der grieschischen Papyrusurkunden, II, 600, found τλλω with the meanings “loosen” and “turn” as well as “pluck” and “strip”.

²⁵ Mk. 4: 28.

²⁶ The ancient Britons first cut the ears and then stored them in the dry. As they ripened, κ δ τοτων τοὺς παλαιοὺς στχυς καθ' μραν τλλειν, κα κατεργαζομνους ἔχειν τν τροφν : Bibl.hist. V, 21, 5. The translation by C. H. Oldfather in the Loeb Classical Library edition (III, 154) is inaccurate; they did not “pick out” the heads, but stripped them. The true explanation was suggested to me by Mr. M. J. Atkinson. At Deut. 23: 25 (LXX) we have συλλξεις ν τας χερσν σου στχυς (neither the Masoretic Text nor the Targum of Onkelos confine the right to a hired labourer, but the Palestinian Targum does). Having “made a way” the disciples seem to have been allowed to satisfy their hunger in this way, if they were indeed hungry, which Mark does not tell us. Cohen, B., “The rabbinical law presupposed by Mt. xii.1 and Lk.vi.1”, Harvard Theological Review, XXIII, 1930, 91–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, draws attention to b.B.M.87b, 92a (the law was not certain). For the Qumran version of the facility offered by Deut. 23: 25 see Vermes, G., The Dead Sea scrolls, London, 1966, 249Google Scholar.

²⁷ Deut. 20: 19; b.Qid.32a (Soncino trans., 156); B.Q.91b (Soncino trans., 529); Maimonides, op. cit., XIV, v, 6, 10.

²⁸ Büchler, A., “The ears of corn”, Expository Times, XX, 1908–1909, 278Google Scholar (an article neglected despite the fame of its author). Büchler rightly says it is superfluous to read “Son of man” as “man” (as most do), but he did not realize why (see below). Ears of corn were brought to Elisha at 2 K. 4:42, but the implications of the feeding-miracle which supervened seem to have no bearing on our story. Cf. 1 Sam. 10:3–4; 2 K. 4: 42.

²⁹ Mishnah, Shab. VII, 2, X, 6; Dem. V, 10; b.Shab. 70b–71a (Soncino trans., 338), 95a–b (Soncino trans., 456–8). Maimonides, op. cit., III, i, 8, 3 (but see 21, 14 [rubbing parched ears of grain, cf. Lk. 6: 1], trans., cit. sup., 133).

³⁰ It is exactly equivalent to δοποιεῖν. Mk. 2: 23 has a variant reading in this form. Judg. 17: 8 is often cited to the contrary, but the man (17: 6–9) was one who did as he wished and may not have cared for paths! The normal use of δν ποιεῖν is illustrated at Xenophon, Anab. IV, 8, 8, V, 1, 13, 14. Herod. VII, 42 is analogous with ποιεῖσθαι. See Diodorus, XX, 23, 5.

³¹ See Maimonides, op. cit., III, ii, 7, 1–3 (trans., 245–7). The notes supplied in the translation provide the Talmudic references.

³² The topic, and the episode, are dealt with by Daube, D., “Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the gospels”, NTS, XIX, 1, 1972, 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Daube handled our passage at his New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London, 1956, 67–71Google Scholar.

³³ There are discrepancies between the Masoretic Text of 1 Sam. 21: 1–9, the LXX, and Jesus's summary. Even more varied haggadah may once have existed. Further midrashic material is referred to in n. 36 below.

³⁴ 1 Sam. 21: 11; Lk. 1: 31–2(!); Is. 9: 7; 2 Sam. 7: 8–29; Ps. 16: 8–11, 132: 11.

³⁵ See n. 55 below. I show now that both pericopes exemplify commandeering, in local idiom γγαρα.

³⁶ Beare, 133 n. 10, says the midrash is “dredged up”; but he was unaware of the weight of it. Josephus, , Ant. III, 255–7Google Scholar; Mishnah, Suk. V, 7 f.; Midrash Rabbah, Num. XXIII, 1; b.Men.95b (Soncino trans., 585); Yalqûṭ, § 130 (ed. 1960, II, 727). A valuable article of Murmelstein, B. has been ignored: “Jesu Gang durch die Saatfelder”, Angelos III, 1928, 111–120Google Scholar. Rengstorf, op. cit., accepts the point, “some of the scribes regarded 1 Sam. 21. 2ff. as happening on the Sabbath”. Haenschen, op. cit., 120, summarily rejects it. Hummel, however, takes a more positive view of the midrash. The dispute was about the Sabbath, the circumstances of the showbread indicate a Sabbath event: why reject the utility of the midrash in the interests of a pre-determined exegesis ?

³⁷ 1 Sam. 22: 11–9.

³⁸ 1 Sam. 22: 20; Josephus, , Ant. VI, 269Google Scholar. On Abiathar see White at Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (1898), I, 6–7Google Scholar. The anomalous reference to Abiathar (instead of Ahimelech) is usually attributed to a slip of memory. But Bowker, J., more wisely, surmises something more subtle: Jesus and the Pharisees, Cambridge, 1973, 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Biblical discrepancy at 2 Sam. 8:17, 1 Chr. 24: 6 could be a cause of confusion, but a rational explanation of the passage (such as Bowker looks for) seems more acceptable. Cf. the “wrong” addition of hakohen (“the Priest”) to Jud. 20: 28 at b. Sheb. 35b. The locus classicus on evangelists' “mistakes” is “Zechariah the Son of Barachiah” (Matt. 23: 35), well on the way to explanation with the aid of Targ. Lam. 2.20 (McNamara, M., New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome, 1966, 160–3)Google Scholar.

³⁹ Josephus, , Ant. VI, 262Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ 1 Sam. 23: 9, 30: 7; 2 Sam. 15: 24–36; b. Yoma 73b, Soṭ. 48b (Soncino trans., 258); Sanh. 16b, 95b (Soncino trans. 80, 643).

⁴¹ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Lexicon, s.v., A2e. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Greek grammar of the New Testament, Cambridge, Chicago, 1961, § 234. Mt. 28: 14 (cf. Mk. 13:9, Acts 24: 19–20, 25: 9, 26: 2, 1 Cor. 6: 1, 6). Wetstenius, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, Amsterdam, 1751, 561 n. 26 (excellent).

⁴¹ 11QPs^aDav.Comp. Cf. Sanders, J. A., Discoveries in the Judaean desert, IV, Oxford, 1965, 91–93Google Scholar. Mk. 12: 36–7, Acts 2: 25.

⁴² 1 Cor. 15: 27 (cf. Mt. 28: 18); Heb. 2: 6–8; F. Hahn, op. cit., 131–2. The first (and the only theologian) to recognize the relevance of Ps. 8: 4–6 (5–7 (LXX)) was Bornhäuser, K., “Zur Pericope vom Bruch des Sabbats”, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschr., XXXIII, 1922, 325–334Google Scholar. See also Delitzsch, F., Biblical commentary on the Psalms, I, London, 1887, 196–200Google Scholar (Jesus's designation of himself as Son of Man leans upon this psalm no less than upon Dan. 7: 13); Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in myth and history, London, 1967, 114Google Scholar (see also 236, 322–3).

⁴⁴ Dan. 7: 13–4. The rabbinical interpretation of Ps. 8 (see Midrash on Psalms, Ps. 8, §§ 7–8) is Messianic. “Son of man” is equated with Isaac, “glory” refers to Moses, “to have dominion” with Joshua, and “under his feet” to David. All these figures are “types” of Jesus, b. Sanh. 38b (Soncino trans., 242) refers both “man” and “son of man” to Adam. “Little less than (a) God” implies Moses: b.R.H.21b (Soncino trans., 90); b. Ned. 38a (Soncino trans., 119).

⁴⁵ Barrett, C. K., From first Adam to last. A study in Pauline theology, London, 1962Google Scholar. F. Hahn, op. cit., does not consider the Adam-Christ typology as this lies outside his scheme. See also Davies, W. D., Paul and rabbinic Judaism, 2nd ed., London, 1955, 44Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Mk. 1: 13, “he was with the animals” (cf. Gen. 2: 18 f.) (Davies, cit. sup., 42–3, is not convinced). Derrett, , Theology, LXXIV, 1971, 566–571Google Scholar; Heythrop Journal, XIV, 3, 1973, 249–265Google Scholar; Jesus's audience, London 1973, 108Google Scholar. See Farrer, A., Study in St. Mark, Westminster, 1951, 233, 275–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ As at b. Sanh. 95b. G. Vermes emphasizes this meaning in his App. E to Black, M., An Aramaic approach to the gospels and Acts, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1967Google Scholar, and returns to this emphatically in his Jesus the Jew, London, 1973, 188–191Google Scholar. In his view Mk. 2: 28 would be an instance where son of man is unconnected with the Daniel saying (p. 180), which I now doubt. ξουσα (Dan. 7: 14) is also at Mk. 2: 10!

⁴⁸ LXX: “angels”. A persistent haggadah interprets the psalm in terms of the angels' jealousy of (i) Adam, (ii) Moses, cf. Yalqûṭ, § 641. Historically “God” is the correct reading, and seems never to have been eclipsed.

⁴⁹ On 1 Cor. 12: 1–3 see van Unnik, W. C. and Lampe's, C. W. H. articles in Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S., edd., Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, Cambridge, 1973Google Scholar. On the theme of royalty compare Mk. 15: 26 with Jn. 19: 21. Even Matthew includes a covert claim to royalty: Mt. 26: 55, cf. Jn. 8: 2, should be compared with Tosefta, Sanh. IV, 4 (only kings of the house of David may sit in the Temple courtyard).

⁵⁰ Haenschen, op. cit. The Christ of the New Testament is Lord over the Law: Betz, O., What do we know about Jesus?, London, 1968, 118Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Blass-Debrunner-Funk, op. cit., § 186 (2): σαββτου Mt. 24: 20D, το σαββτου Lk.18: 12, το νιαυτο Heb. 9: 7, χειμνος Mt. 24: 20/Mk. 13: 18 (Thuc. 3, 104), μρας Rev. 21: 25, τς μρας Lk. 9: 37 (pap. 45), μρας κα νυκτς Mk. 5: 5, Lk. 18: 7 (Xen., Anab., II, 6, 7), νυκτς Mt. 2: 14, etc., τς νυκτς Lk. 2: 8. ρθρου βαθως Lk. 24: 1, μερν Homil. Clem. 12.2.3, 3.6; 13.1.4.

⁵² κριος πντων ν (Gal. 4: 1); πντων κριος (Acts 10: 36). See Acts 2: 36. κριος = “master” at Josephus, B.J. I, 458, Ant. XIII, 300. κριος = “owner” at Exod. 12: 28–9, 34: 22–8 (7), 15 (14); Jdg. 19: 22–3; Mk. 12:9/Mt.20:8; “master or owner/boss” at Mt.9: 38, 24: 42–50, 25: 18–21; “ruler/king” at Mt. 18: 25–34. See also Lk. 16: 3, 5, 8; 19: 33; Jn. 13: 16, etc. Most relevant of all is κριος αὐτο at Mk. 11: 3 (see Kilpatrick, G. D., Jesus in the gospels and the early Church, Drawbridge Memorial Lecture, 1971, London [Chr. Evid. Soc., 1971], 3–4Google Scholar, followed by Derrett at NT, XIII, 1971, 246 n. 2). In fact Mk. 11: 3 and 2: 23–8 constitute jointly evidence tending to refute the otherwise carefully-prepared conclusion of G. Vermes (Jesus the Jew, cit. sup., 103, and especially 143) that Jesus never accepted the dignity of “lord” nor arrogated to himself the title of Messianic king.

⁵³ Mishnah, Sanh. II, 4, B.B. VI, 7, B.B.B. 64b, 100b (Soncino trans., 259, 419); Palestinian Talmud, Sanh. II, 5 (20b) (Schwab, M., Talmudde Jerusalem, X, Paris, 1888, 249)Google Scholar; Sifre Deut., § 161, commenting on Deut. 17: 19 (Ugolini, XV, p. dccxii; ed. 1969, p. 212). The wording of the formula, pôreṣ la‘^asôt lô derekh agrees in part with δν ποιεῖν. Maimonides, op. cit., XIV, v, 5, 3; Murmelstein, cit. sup., n. 36, p. 118.

⁵⁴ Semachot IV, 11, also editorial note at Soncino trans., b.B.B. 99b (p. 416); the Anointing at Bethany (Mk. 14: 3–9 and parallels) (Derrett, Law in the New Testament, ch. 12). The woman's expenditure of spices (below, n. 73) was justified in anticipation of Jesus's burial. Lightfoot, R. H., History and interpretation in the gospels, London, 1935, 222 n.Google Scholar, pointed out that since “Son of man” occurs chiefly after Mk. 8: 27 ff., its occurrence at 2: 28 must point to the Passion!

⁵⁵ Mk. 11: 1–7 and parallels; χρεαν ἔχει (11: 3). See last citation at n. 52 above. What connexion has the hunger in Mk. 2: 25 with that at Mk. 11:12 (A. Farrer, op. cit., 161)?

⁵⁶ Exod.23: 20; Ps.40: 3; Mai. 3: 1; Mt. 3: 3; Mk. 1: 3/Lk. 3: 4–5; Mt. 11:10/Mk. 1:2/Lk. 7:27; Lk. 1: 76; Jn. 1: 23, 3: 28. Note Mk. 11: 8 and parallels (where Mark has special material).

⁵⁷ Num. 28: 9 f. (H. Strack-) Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, I, Munich, 1961, 620Google Scholar; Gaechter, P., Das Matthäus Evangelium, Innsbruck, etc., 1963, 390 (well put)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Bornhäuser, ubi cit., 330 (cf. Jn. 5: 17, 18). “My Sabbaths“: Exod. 16: 25, Isa. 56: 4, 58: 13; Ezek. 20: 12, 16, 20, and repeatedly. Matthew's and Luke's error had two supports: (i) anarthrous κριος immediately suggests “God” (Kilpatrick, G. D., Josef Schmid Festschrift, Freiburg, 1971, 214–9Google Scholar); (ii) if we accept the rabbinic concept of the pre-existence of the Messiah, his presidency of the Messianic Banquet, and the nature of the Sabbath as prefiguration of the World to Come (which is all Sabbath: Is. 66: 23; Mishnah, Tam. VI, 4; Lampe, , Patristic lexicon, Oxford, 1968Google Scholar, s.v., 1220, D2), the Messiah is obviously Lord in, and in respect of, the Sabbath.

⁵⁹ Is. 22: 15, 21.

⁶⁰ A βουλευτς is usually rich: Midrash Rabbah, Gen. LXXVI, 6 (Sperber, D. at Rev. Int. des Droits de l'Antiquité, XIX, 1972, 31)Google Scholar. On the ambivalences of Joseph see Schreiber, J., Die Markus-passion Hamburg, 1969, 58–60Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Is. 53: 8 (Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 451–2).

⁶² Josephus, , B.J. IV, 317Google Scholar (most precise and authoritative).

⁶³ Midrash Rabbah, Cant. VI, 2, 1 (Soncino trans., 206), also ibid., §§ 2–4; Midrash Rabbah, Gen. LXII, 2 (Soncino trans., 551–2); Yalqûṭ, § 991. The garden is studied by Hemelsoet, B., “L'ensévelissement selon S. Jean”, Studies in John, (Sevenster Volume), Leiden, 1970, 47 ff., at 55–56Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Derrett, , “La resurrezione di Gesù”, Conoscenza Religiosa, 1973, 3, 306–314Google Scholar, citing, inter alia, Semachot VIII, 1; Brüll, N., “Die talmudischen Tractate über Trauer um Verstorbenen”, Jahrb.f. Jüd. Gesch. und Lit., 1874, 14, 51–52Google Scholar. Tomb-visiting on a Sabbath would in any case violate the rule against ostentatious mourning on that day: Semachot X, 15 (Judaea); b.M.Q.23b, cf. b.Shab. 12 a–b.

⁶⁵ Mishnah, Shab. XXIII, 4; Maimonides, op. cit., III, i, 24, 1–5 (especially the last); Tosefta, Shab. XVII, 3 (ed. Zuckermandel, 137, 14).

⁶⁶ Mishnah, Shab. XXIII, 5; Maimonides, op. cit, III, i, 25, 6.

⁶⁷ On the spices themselves see Sigismund, R., Die Aromata in ihrer Bedeutung für Religion, Sitten, Gebräuche, Handel und Geographie des Altertums bis zu den ersten Jahrhunderten unserer Zeitrechnung, Leipzig, 1884Google Scholar (repr. 1974). For a general survey of such behaviour see, e. g. Bendann, E., Death customs, London, 1930Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Jeremias, J., Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 4th ed., Göttingen, 1967Google Scholar (English trans., Eucharistic words of Jesus, London, 1964, cited below)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Jeremias, op. cit., 76–7 (so previously at JThS, L, 1949, 5); Dalman, G., Jesus-Jeshua, London, 1929, 101–3Google Scholar; Billerbeck, op. cit., II, 815–34. The difficulty is raised in Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus, Göttingen, 1937, 350Google Scholar. See also Klostermann, , Markusevangelium, 1950, 169Google Scholar; Grundmann, , Markus, 1971, 318–9Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ διαγενομνου το σαββτου (unacceptable t o Matthew or Luke) seems to mean “on the outgoing of the Sabbath”. The New Testament examples of the verb (which means “to pass, to continue on”) imply that a period was over (Mk. 16: 1, Acts 25: 13, 27: 9). For the story see Masson, C., “L'ensévelissement de Jésus”, Rev. de Théologie et de Philosophie, XXXI, 1943, 193–203Google Scholar; Gaechter, P., “Zum Begräbnis Jesu”, Zeitschr.f. Kath. Theologie, LXXV, 1953, 220–5Google Scholar. Margoliouth, D. S., Expository Times, XXXVIII, 1926–1927, 278–280Google Scholar has been ignored: he denied the priority of Mark, but commented on the women's disbelief in resurrection.

⁷¹ Mk. 8: 31, 9: 31, 10: 34 (ναστσεται); Mt. 16: 21, 17: 23, 20: 19 (γερθσεται—implying a miraculous revivification). Luke's vocabulary is mixed. Cf. Lk. 24: 7.

⁷² Lk. 23: 55. Mk. 15: 40–1 can be taken as the explanation of the strange words at 16: 7.

⁷³ Mk. 14:4/Mt. 26: 8! No one has connected Mk. 14:4 with the funeral purchases. Money proves intention and sincerity: 1 Chr. 21:22–25; 2 Sam. 24:21, 24 (cf. Deut. 2:4–7; cf. 26–30), and especially the curious Acts 21: 23–6.

⁷⁴ The concept of buying was known to be appropriate for the commencement of a cult: see 1 Chr. 21: 22–6. And for the ironical implications of the verb “to buy” here Mark's reader has been prepared by Mk. 6: 36: the point is that one must not go down to Egypt to buy corn, for that is how the first redemption itself became necessary! The same sarcastic point figures at Matt. 25: 9.

⁷⁵ The works by S. Ben Chorin and that by G. Vermes (cit. sup.) come to mind. A shift of research-concern from the person of Jesus to his community and his teaching would be welcome.

⁷⁶ Kilpatrick (cit. sup., n. 52, at p. 1) refers to neglect of linguistic evidence: “To elicit this body of evidence requires an investigation somewhat like archaeological excavations, but with a difference. We are concerned with words rather than with the physical remains of an ancient culture. We do not have to dig to find our words, but I suggest that we have to do something like digging to discover their significance for our problem and in the process may discover something like the stratification which is most important for the archaeologist when he wants to date his finds.”