Jesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies · PDF fileJesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies donald a. hagner fuller theological seminary ... First, there is the problem, usually

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.2 (2009) 215–248

Jesus and theSynoptic Sabbath Controversies

donald a. hagner

fuller theological seminary

The historicity of the Sabbath-controversy passages passes a variety of tests in-cluding historical plausibility, dissimilarity, and multiple attestation. Thesepassages find a natural place in Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees. The pluck-ing of grain on the Sabbath and the Sabbath healings could not but raise the ireof the Pharisees, who thought of themselves as the guardians of the law. Since theSabbath was an anticipation of the eschaton, Jesus regarded it as the perfect dayfor bringing wholeness to those in need. These Sabbath deeds are an indispens-able part of the kingdom he brings, and thus they point to his messianic mission,his authority, and his identity. Thus, as with the question of Jesus’ view of thelaw itself, so too the Sabbath controversies find their final explanation in mattersof Christology and eschatology.

Key Words: Sabbath, law, conflict stories, Pharisees, plucking grain, healing,Messiah, authority, Christology, eschatology

One of the ongoing, intractable questions in Gospel scholarship concernsthe attitude of Jesus to the law of Moses. Is Jesus loyal to the law and ob-servant of it, does he violate it and cancel it out, or does he somehow tran-scend it by penetrating to its essence? One aspect of that larger question,in a microcosm, is the issue of Jesus and the Sabbath. In a large and im-portant study of the Sabbath,1 Lutz Doering reviews the options under sixheadings: (1) Jesus was against the Sabbath commandment; (2) Jesus wasagainst only the Pharisaic halakah and not the Sabbath commandment it-self; (3) Jesus was not fundamentally against the Sabbath commandmentbut only against its universal and inflexible application; (4) the free stanceof Jesus vis-à-vis the Sabbath is marked by the eschatological stamp of histeaching and work; (5) Jesus views the law not as a rigid ordinance but interms of its intent; and (6) Jesus lived in full conformity to the Sabbathpraxis of the day.2

1. Lutz Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum(TSAJ 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).

2. Ibid., 399–400.

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.2216

The present article discusses the historicity and significance of thesynoptic Sabbath controversies. In the first part, we look at the historicalquestion with some attention to the redactional activity of the Evangelists.In the second part, we look at the problem of Jesus and the Sabbath as itcan be understood within the theological framework of the person ofJesus, his message, and his work.

1. The Historicity of the Sabbath Controversies

1.1. Methodological issues. Questions of methodology have only becomemore complicated as the years have passed. In a relatively recent article,John P. Meier, who has been busy for some years now with his monumen-tal historical Jesus project,3 advocates a heightened methodological sensi-tivity in the area of Jesus and the law.4 Meier calls attention to two largeproblems.

1.1.1. First, there is the problem, usually glossed over, of knowing theactual extent, status and stability of the written Torah in the time of Jesus.5

Meier points, for example, to the instability of the text of Scripture in thefirst century. He notes further that despite the veneration of the law, it wasnot uncommon for the laws to be rewritten (cf. Jub. 2:25–33, which prohib-its preparing food or drink on the Sabbath and carrying anything in or outof the house; see also Jub. 50:1–13). He also indicates that laws that are notactually in Torah were often nevertheless attributed to Torah. Since the ex-ample Meier presents here concerns the Sabbath, we must look moreclosely at this. Meier reminds us that, although the Mosaic law forbidswork on the Sabbath, nowhere does the written Torah specify the natureof work, for example, by any extensive list of forbidden activities. An il-lustration of the difficulty can be seen in the lack of clarity concerningwhether Israelite soldiers were allowed to fight on the Sabbath. Whereasin earlier generations they apparently did fight on the Sabbath, during thetime of the Maccabean revolt some refused to do so (cf. 1 Macc 2:27–38).Others, however, allowed that defensive action was permissible on the Sab-bath (see Josephus, Ant. 14.4.2, who presents as “the law” what earlier hepresented as an ad hoc decision of Mattathias [Ant. 12.6.2]).

Similarly, Meier points out, both Josephus and Philo hold “that Mosescommanded in the written Law that Jews should study the Torah . . . and/orto attend the synagogue . . . on the Sabbath,”6 although, of course, no suchcommandments are to be found in the Scriptures. Meier’s point is simply

3. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols. to date; New York: Doubleday,1991–). In a fourth volume to come, Meier promises to deal in detail with the “enigma” of Jesusand the law. See the postscript to this essay, pp. 247–248.

4. “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Law: Some Problems within the Problem”(CBQ 65 [2003]): 52–79.

5. Ibid., 55–67.6. Ibid., 63.

Hagner: Jesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies 217

that it is sometimes difficult to pin down what “the law” really said in thefirst century. Thus, he asks, “Jesus and the Law–but what was the Law?”7

1.1.2. The second problem mentioned by Meier is more familiar toscholars. Here, the issue concerns the difficulty of knowing exactly whatspecific interpretive traditions concerning the meaning of the Sabbathmight have influenced Jesus’ approach to the Torah.8 In Meier’s words, “de-ciding which interpretive traditions Jesus presupposes, embraces, or rejectsseems at times nigh impossible.”9 Here, Meier focuses on divorce ratherthan the Sabbath. He indicates, for example, that it now seems, contrary tothe earlier view, that the Qumran documents do not forbid divorce. Fur-ther, Meier concludes that using the disputes between the houses of Sham-mai and Hillel concerning the grounds for divorce as the background forunderstanding the teaching of Jesus is anachronistic.10 We have longknown of the difficulty of using later rabbinic materials to throw light onthe NT. Now Meier calls attention to the wider problem of the difficulty ofusing all such background materials with any real degree of confidence.

1.1.3. Meier’s concluding warning is appropriate: “Both the historicalJesus and the historical Law are problematic quantities, containing prob-lems within problems. Anyone trying to construct a path through this mazeshould first post a road sign: Proceed with caution.”11 It would be hard tofault this kind of statement. At the same time, however, since Meier’s ar-ticle stems from his historical-Jesus project, it is perhaps excessively strin-gent, almost minimalist, having in mind the highest possible degree ofcertitude rather than the probable historical knowledge that might other-wise suffice. But as with practically all historical knowledge, here varyingdegrees of probability would seem to be all that is available to us.

In volume 2 of A Marginal Jew, Meier repeatedly came to the decisionof non liquet (not clear) for the historicity of various healing pericopes (al-though as we shall see, he now suggests that he will come to a more firmlynegative conclusion in volume 4). On this point, Meier earlier wrote:

It may turn out that, because of the lack of data, no clear decision canbe made one way or the other in most or even all of the cases [refer-ring to stories that lack multiple attestation]. This decision should notbe viewed as a diplomatic way of saying the accounts do not go backin some form to the historical Jesus, anymore than it should be takenas a covert judgment of historicity. Non liquet means non liquet, nomore, no less. Often both liberal and conservative scholars are under-standably unhappy with a decision not to decide, but sometimes thefragmentary state of our sources leaves us no other option.12

7. Ibid., 67.8. Ibid., 67–79.9. Ibid., 67.

10. Ibid., 74, 76.11. Ibid., 79.12. A Marginal Jew, 2:706f.


Meier calls the designation non liquet a “frustrating judgment.” I find it nota little amusing, despite Meier’s caveat, that the Jesus Seminar takes nonliquet as consistently supporting their negative conclusions.13 In fact, how-ever, non liquet hardly prohibits a positive conclusion. In the end, the issuecomes down to degrees of probability, and most importantly where theburden of proof resides. One’s a priori inclination becomes a cruciallyimportant factor in deciding for or against historicity.

1.1.4. As with virtually all the Gospel materials, so too with regard tothe Sabbath controversies, the typical tests for authenticity naturally comeinto play. The three well-known criteria, dissimilarity, multiple attestation,and coherence, can, to be sure, be useful at times. They are nevertheless notwithout their problems, as has frequently been pointed out.14 Extremelyproblematic, on the other hand, is the insistence of some that the burden ofproof lies with those who would accept an element of the tradition as au-thentic. Such a view cripples the possibility of historical knowledge so fun-damentally that it is unrealistic and counterproductive, to say the least.There is something very wrong with a methodological approach that pro-duces an empty cipher.15 The burden of proof here must remain with thosewho would deny historical authenticity of the materials we have.16 PeterStuhlmacher makes the point well: “When one treats the gospel traditionnot with a finally uncritical, flat-out doubt, but with an appropriate ‘criti-cal sympathy’ (W. G. Kümmel), it is appropriate to proceed methodologi-cally not from its historical unbelievability, but from its believability.”17

Given how admittedly little we often have available, no other approach canbe fair to the documents we possess.

1.2.0. A preliminary observation is in order here. We have a variety ofwitnesses that should encourage a positive inclination toward the historic-ity of the Sabbath-controversy passages. The Sabbath-controversy pas-sages are represented in several strands of historical material and thus passthe test of multiple attestation. The incident of the plucking of the grain onthe Sabbath is found in all three Synoptics. That Jesus healed on the Sab-bath is even more solidly attested in our sources. In addition to the tradi-tion found in Luke’s special material, we also have evidence from the

13. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (ed. R. W. Funk and R. W.Hoover; New York: Macmillan, 1993), 49–50.

14. See especially Stan Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Pre-vious Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); G. Theissen andD. Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (trans. M. E. Boring; Louis-ville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); discussion and bibliography in C. A. Evans, Life of JesusResearch: An Annotated Bibliography (rev. ed.; NTTS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 132–34, 136–41.

15. Thus, Bo Reicke in his insightful article “Incarnation and Exaltation: The HistoricJesus and the Kerygmatic Christ,” Int 16 (1962): 156–68.

16. See S. C. Goetz and C. L. Blomberg, “The Burden of Proof,” JSNT 11 (1981): 39–63.17. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992),

1:45; the entire sentence is emphasized in the original. For the opposite view, Doering: “It musttherefore be firmly held that the burden of proof lies upon the assertion of authenticity” (Schabbat,407, emphasis in the original).


Gospel of John: the healing of the paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda(John 5:1–47; defended in 7:19–24) and the healing of the man who wasblind from birth (John 9:1–41). There is also evidence in nonbiblical mate-rial that the Sabbath was a subject of the greatest importance (e.g., Qum-ran, Josephus, Gospel of Thomas) that points to the likelihood that Jesus raninto trouble on this matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Sab-bath was an actual problem in the early church, and thus there is little rea-son to believe that the Sabbath-controversy stories are the creation of theearly church.

How much debate is there concerning the historicity of the synopticSabbath-controversy narratives? We shall now look at the several passagesone by one.

1.2.1. The disciples’ plucking of the grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; Matt 12:1–8; Luke 6:1–5) presents the first challenge. The three ac-counts agree closely, with typical variations, except for two major differ-ences: (1) the Matthean insertion (Matt 12:5–7): “Or have you not read inthe law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath,and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’you would not have condemned the guiltless;” and (2) Matthew’s andLuke’s omission of the Markan logion: “The Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).

The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar on these texts are mixed. For theMarkan pericope, they put some of Jesus’ words in pink (= “Jesus probablysaid something like this”), namely (their translation): “The Sabbath daywas created for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve for the Sabbath day. Sothe son of Adam lords it even over the Sabbath day” (Mark 2:27–28). Theythink that these logia are “aphoristic” and “memorable” and that they“could have circulated independently.” As for the story itself, on the otherhand, they conclude—without supporting argument—that “the narrativecontext in which this saying is preserved may well be the invention of thecommunity.” As for the other words of Jesus (Mark 2:25–26), they “are anintegral part of the story and so never circulated independently. As a con-sequence, they tell us nothing about what Jesus may have said.”18 The lo-gion “The son of Adam lords it over the Sabbath day,” which is given arating of pink in Mark, is given a lower rating (gray = “Jesus did not saythis, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own”) in the parallels inMatt 12:8 and Luke 6:5. The reason for this is that according to the Semi-nar, Matthew and Luke, by eliminating the first logion and presentingonly the second logion, show that they understand the latter Christolog-ically, i.e., as referring to the apocalyptic Son of Man. But this for the Sem-inar indicates a misunderstanding, since they take the second logion, like

18. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, 49–50. The Jesus Seminaris rather more conservative in their conclusions on this passage in The Acts of Jesus: The Searchfor the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).


the first, to refer merely to human beings. Mark too understood the secondlogion to refer to the apocalyptic Son of Man, “but he nevertheless pre-serves the original parallelism, which makes it possible to recover Jesus’meaning.”19 Why Jesus cannot have been referring to himself as the apoca-lyptic Son of Man is not argued but simply assumed.

The Seminar takes Mark 2:25–26 to be “a Christian scribal insertion,”for the reason that it was the tendency of Christians “to buttress their po-sition by reference to the scriptures.” On the other hand, it is alleged that“Jesus was apparently not given to this practice.”20 How such a conclusioncan be drawn when Jesus admittedly justifies his action on the Sabbath byan appeal to Gen 1:26 and Ps 8:4–8,21 in material designated pink, is leftunexplained.

Laudably, the Jesus Seminar has modified its views on the historicityof this pericope to some extent. To begin with, they said “the narrativecontext in which this saying is preserved may well be the invention of thecommunity.”22 On the other hand, in their subsequent volume on the actsof Jesus, they conclude: “the story paints a picture of typical activities”and not “a single scene.”23 Yet, remarkably, “The Fellows think that thepractice of Jesus and the disciples and the objection of the Pharisees hassome basis in fact.”24 The Seminar puts the additional material found inMatt 12:5–7 in black without comment, following a general bias againstthe historicity of M material.

In advance of what will appear in volume 4, Meier has decided againstthe historicity of the plucking of grain on the Sabbath incident, for the fol-lowing reasons: (1) the presence of the Pharisees in the grainfield “strainscredibility”;25 (2) the question of the distance travelled to the grainfield;(3) the distortion and misrepresentation of the story in 1 Sam 21; (4) the ir-relevance of that story, which does not mention the Sabbath.

Others, of course, have challenged the historicity of our passage.26 Onereason for this is the widespread belief that the passage is composite, withits component parts put together initially by Mark or perhaps already inthe tradition used by Mark.27 The fact that Mark 2:27–28 is introducedafresh with the words kai elegen autois suggests to many that these two logiamay stem from elsewhere in the tradition and were attached to the present

19. Ibid., 183.20. Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 68.21. See The Five Gospels, 49 and 183.22. Ibid., 49.23. The Acts of Jesus, 68.24. Ibid., 284.25. “The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” CBQ 66 (2004):

561–81, here 573.26. Doering, for example, comes to very similar conclusions to those of the Seminar.

Schabbat, 408–32.27. For full discussion, see F. Neirynck, “Jesus and the Sabbath: Some Observations on

Mark ii,27,” in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (ed. J. Dupont; new rev. ed.; BETL 40; Gem-bloux: Duculot, 1989), 227–70.


passage.28 Alternatively, some conclude that these verses originally fol-lowed v. 24 and that it is vv. 25–26, introduced with kai legei autois, that havebeen inserted into the pericope.29 A further issue is that 2:28 is regarded bymany as a later addition to v. 27. Meier concludes that vv. 27–28 “wereadded secondarily, either at the same time or in separate stages.”30

Even as cautious a scholar as C. E. B. Cranfield regards v. 28 as prob-ably an addition to the story. He doubts that Jesus would have used a mes-sianic title such as Son of Man in reference to himself and concludes that“the most probable explanation seems to be that this verse is a Christiancomment—either Mark’s own or an exegetical comment already attachedto v. 27 in the tradition he used.”31 Eduard Schweizer concludes that “thisstory appears to be fictitious,” wondering where the Pharisees come from,why they do not fault the disciples for walking beyond the allowed dis-tance on the Sabbath, and also noting that the story lacks a specific setting(when and where).32

1.2.2. What can be said in response to the arguments against the his-toricity of this pericope? We may begin by noting that we probably haveevidence of multiple attestation in this pericope. Theissen and Merz havenoted that the large number of “minor agreements” between Matthew andLuke against Mark argue for the existence of a parallel tradition.33 There isfurthermore the coherence of the Sabbath-healing stories with the presentnarrative, which together point to the problematic nonobservance of theSabbath on the part of Jesus, thus increasing its historical plausibility.

It should be made clear that the story can be essentially historical evenif the passage as we have it is composite. Thus, even if vv. 27–28 wereadded, or vv. 25–26 inserted, from another context, the story can still havehappened more or less as recounted. All claims concerning the prehistoryof the pericope, however, are necessarily speculative. As R. Gundry puts it,listing no fewer than eight options for the Markan passage, “the woods arefull of mutually destructive theories regarding stages of tradition-historyleading up to the present pericope.”34

28. A view held by scholars as diverse as R. Bultmann (The History of the Synoptic Tradition[rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1963], 16); and William Lane (The Gospel according to Mark[NIC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 118f.); cf. R. A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC; Dallas:Word, 1989), 120. Vincent Taylor writes, “There can be little doubt that the sayings have beenadded, either by Mark or an earlier compiler, from a sayings collection.” The Gospel accordingto St. Mark (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966), 218.

29. E.g., Morna Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1991), 104.

30. “The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” 572. Meier notes,however, that this conclusion leaves open the question whether the two logia go back to thehistorical Jesus.

31. The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972),118.

32. The Good News according to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970), 70.33. G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1998), 367f.34. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 148.


Let us begin with Meier’s first two objections, raised earlier bySchweitzer and others. Is it realistic to imagine Pharisees in the grainfieldsspying on Jesus? Why is this thought to be so improbable? With their sus-picions more than aroused (cf. Mark 2:7, 16; 3:6), there is every reason tothink that the Pharisees could well have been interested in seeing whatJesus might be up to on that Sabbath and so, with other curious onlookers,have walked along behind the disciples (cf. Mark 1:28, 37, 45). But why,secondly, was there no charge concerning walking beyond the acceptedlimit (a distance of no more than approximately a half mile35)? There is inthe text no indication that the limit had been exceeded.36 Jesus and his dis-ciples may well have been just beyond the border of the town,37 on “a Sab-bath afternoon stroll [more] than a missionary expedition.”38 In agreementwith this, there is no indication in Mark (unlike Matthew 12:1) that thedisciples were hungry.

Meier’s other observations concerning the use of the story in 1 Sam 21raise difficult points to be sure. It seems to me, however, that Meier de-mands a school-room exactitude here that is unnecessary for the argu-ment to work. First, although David’s men are not with him at that precisemoment, according to 1 Sam 21:2f. David refers to them in the words “Ihave made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place.Now then, what do you have at hand?” Clearly, the bread is for him andhis hungry men whom he will shortly meet. This seems obvious from thetext of 1 Sam 21. Thus, it is hardly necessary to conclude that the questionof the high priest, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” “directlyand blatantly contradicts what Jesus claims the text says.”39 This is to ap-proach the text in a woodenly literal way. But is the text of 1 Sam 21 reallydistorted or misrepresented here? Mark nowhere uses plural verbs to saythat “they” went into the house of God; the verb “went in” (eiselthen) issingular, referring to David.40 Mark says, furthermore, that David gave it(edoken) to those who were with him. And why cannot they have eaten the

35. See the Damascus Document 10.20–2, “No-one is to walk in the field to do the workwhich he wishes [on] the Sabbath. He is not to walk more than one thousand cubits outsidethe city.” Cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.8.4; m. ºErub. 4:3ff.

36. “The incidental question as to travelling on the Sabbath does not arise, for in the Gos-pels this aspect is ignored, and we must suppose that the disciples had not engaged on a longjourney, for such a proceeding would constitute an entire breach with the spirit of the Sabbathrest” (I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels [1st and 2nd series, 1917 and 1924;repr., New York: Ktav, 1967], 134).

37. See the interesting statement in m. So†ah 4.3: In a discussion of the Sabbath limit, it issaid that “The one thousand cubits are the outskirts [of the city] and the two thousand cubitsare the [surrounding] fields and vineyards.”

38. So D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels” in From Sabbath to Lord’sDay: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A Carson; Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 1982), 61.

39. “The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” 575.40. Meier is therefore not strictly correct when he says that “Jesus claims that David had

companions with him when he came to the priest at Nob” (ibid., 574). That is an inference andnot stated in Mark’s text.


bread later? Why must the loaves have been eaten then and there, as Meierseems to insist?

But there are further issues. The passage of Scripture to which Jesusappeals does not refer at all to the Sabbath. So how does it serve as a de-fense for the actions of Jesus’ disciples? The argument is not direct but an-alogical. The point is that the dictates of the law, here eating bread thatonly the priests were allowed to eat, but including the Sabbath command-ment by implication, can be transcended by a matter of greater impor-tance. Even if the Sabbath were mentioned in the story of David, theargument would not work, at least in Mark, where there is not so much asa mention that the disciples were hungry (Matthew does add this point tomake the case more convincing), let alone in mortal danger, which mighthave justified acting in this way on the Sabbath.

Finally, there is the issue of the mistaken reference to the high priestas not Ahimelech (as in 1 Sam 21), but Abiathar. Meier admits that in someOT texts there seems to be a confusion between the son and the father, al-though there is no evidence available to us regarding such a variant spe-cifically for the 1 Sam text. Mark’s reading here, understandably omittedby Matthew and Luke, may simply be an example of this confusion. In anyevent, it hardly seems fair to make this confusion of names, really a minorpoint and found in other texts, a determining factor in whether Jesusspoke these words.41

Some 15 years ago, Maurice Casey mounted a very interesting defenseof the historicity of the pericope, based on a reconstruction of the under-lying Aramaic and an examination of the cultural background of the ep-isode.42 Casey regards the story as an example of Peah, that is, plucking ofgrain that had been left on the border of the field for the poor (Lev 19:9,23:22). Although Mark does not say so, the clear implication, according toCasey, is that the disciples were hungry (this making more appropriatethe analogy of David and his men eating the bread of the presence). Giventhe disturbing actions of Jesus, for example, already in Mark healing on theSabbath and eating with tax collectors and sinners, “the probability thatsome Pharisees would come and observe him early in the ministry is ex-tremely strong.”43

Casey regards Mark 2:23–28 as coherent argumentation. “We shouldnot find Jesus’ argument incoherent, and the Marcan narrative a mosaicof separate pieces, on the ground that the argument does not follow ananalytical mode foreign to the environment in which the argument was

41. Meier’s conclusion seems to me overstated, unnecessary, and unfair: “the recountingof the incident of David and Ahimelech shows both a glaring ignorance of what the OT textactually says and a striking inability to construct a convincing argument from the story”(ibid., 578).

42. “Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23–28),” NTS 34 (1988):1–23.

43. Ibid., 5.


produced.”44 While Casey may have overstated his case, he concludesthat “the whole narrative has an excellent Sitz im Leben in the life of Jesus.The early church cannot have created it.”45 It is important to note here,however, that the logic of Casey’s argument depends on his taking Mark2:28 in a non-Christological sense. If that verse is taken as referring toChrist, then Casey would not accept its historicity. We shall return to thisproblem below.

It seems clear that the introductory formula at the beginning of Mark2:27, kai elegen autois, need not be taken as introducing material from an-other context.46 It can equally well mark a new aspect of material beingpresented at the same occasion. Noting this phenomenon at Mark 6:10, 7:9,and 9:1, Gundry concludes “we do not have convincing evidence to sup-pose that in 2:27 the phrase indicates the importation of sayings into a pe-ricope that lacked them before.”47 Gundry points out that the insertion ofthe phrase prevents the misunderstanding of v. 28 as an editorial commentrather than a saying of Jesus; but it had to be put at the beginning of v. 27because of the subordinating conjunction hoste at the beginning of v. 28.“Mark wants this saying [v. 28] to be understood as spoken by Jesus.”48

Also worth noting here is E. Lohse’s opinion, who, after considering theevidence concludes that 2:27 “als echtes Jesuswort anzusehen ist.”49

Gundry astutely comments that it would be strange for a later redac-tor to have added the argument from the OT in Mark 2:25–26, especiallywhen no OT arguments are used in the context and especially when thepassage about David and his men does not specifically refer to the Sabbath.The additional fact that this support is haggadic (from a story) rather thanhalakic (from a legal stipulation), as would be required in legal disputes,further “increases the chances of originality and authenticity.”50

Finally, we may note five points mentioned by R. Pesch in support ofthe historicity of this pericope: (1) the presence of similar passages con-cerning Jesus and the Sabbath in special Luke and in John, and the irrel-evance to early church interests of plucking grain on the Sabbath; (2) Jesus

44. Ibid., 11.45. Ibid., 20.46. For its review of the discussion, F. Neirynck’s article is indispensable: “Jesus and the

Sabbath,” 227–81.47. Mark, 143.48. Ibid., 144.49. “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (ed. W. Eltester; Ber-

lin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964), 85.50. See D. M. Cohn-Sherbok, “An Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments Concerning the Plucking

of the Grain on the Sabbath,” JSNT 2 (1979): 31–41. Quotation: Gundry, Mark, 148. Note Gun-dry’s earlier comment: “To argue that because the scriptural argument in vv 25–26 is notChristological it comes from Jesus rather than from the church wrongly posits that only non-Christological statements are historically acceptable on his lips. To argue that because thescriptural argument is not eschatological it comes from the church rather than from Jesuswrongly posits that only eschatological statements are historically acceptable on his lips. Easyformulas do not decide historical questions” (p. 146).


and the disciples were poor itinerants; (3) the plausibility of Jesus’ beingheld responsible for the disciples’ conduct; (4) Jesus also uses Scripture inother conflict stories; and (5) Jesus knew himself to be on a mission andcompares himself to David again in Mark 12:25–37.51

If one accepts the essential historicity of Mark 2:23–28 and thus ofMatt 12:1–4, what about the M tradition in Matt 12:5–7? The majority ofscholars take these verses as originating from the Evangelist or at leastleave it an open question. The Evangelist, it is commonly argued, may haveregarded the argument of 12:3–4 as unconvincing and made the additionto strengthen the case, modelling vv. 5–7 on vv. 3–4. It is, of course, im-possible to disprove this hypothesis. Another plausible hypothesis, how-ever, is that Jesus also spoke vv. 5–7 and that this material was preservedin an oral tradition available to Matthew. It coheres beautifully with thepreceding verses, and if Jesus presented the first illustration, it is also pos-sible that he presented the second in parallel form. Furthermore, the quo-tation of Hos 6:6 here can well come from Jesus, in the same way that itsfirst occurrence probably goes back to the historical Jesus, as clearly doesthe pericope in which it occurs, 9:12–13. Here again, the initial bias one as-sumes regarding the historicity of the gospel tradition, whether negativeor positive, will largely determine the conclusion to which one is attracted.

There are thus good arguments for taking the pericope as essentiallyhistorical, despite the objections that some have raised.52

1.3.1. The second main synoptic Sabbath controversy concerns thehealing of the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1–6, Matt 12:9–14,Luke 6:6–11). Again, the three synoptic accounts are remarkably similar.The only major difference between them is found in Matthew’s addition ofthe question, “What man of you, if he has only one sheep and it falls intoa pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how muchmore value is a man than a sheep?” (Matt 12:11–12a). This material is notfound in Mark, but almost the same question occurs in Luke’s story of theSabbath healing of the man with dropsy (Luke 14:5), thus raising the levelof historical probability.

Jesus’ words in this passage are not authentic according to the Semi-nar. Words such as “Get up here in front of everybody” and “Hold our yourhand” they reject as words that would not have been remembered. Also

51. Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 1:183. Davies and Allison(The Gospel according to Saint Matthew [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991], 2:305) accept thevalidity of these points in defense of the parallel Matt 12:1–8.

52. For a listing of those who defend the historicity of the story, see Yong-Eui Yang, Jesusand the Sabbath in Matthew (JSNTSS 139; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 165 n. 112. W. R. G.Loader, in a long excursus on the tradition of Mark 2:1–3:6 and the historical Jesus (39–55), al-though coming to somewhat conservative conclusions, adjudges only “possibility” for 2:23–28.He accepts the contention of Sanders and Vermes that the Pharisees would not have beenbothered by any of Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath, and that therefore if any history underliesthese pericopes the opposition must have come from some “extremist” group (Jesus’ Attitudetowards the Law, 52f.).


attributed to the Evangelist is the thought-provoking question (Mark 3:4),ignored in their comments, “On the Sabbath day is it permitted to do goodor to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” While apparently rejecting thehistoricity of the story, they do at least concede that “the story suggests . . .that Jesus did engage in controversy regarding the Sabbath observance.”53

As noted above, the Matthean parallel has these additional words: “Ifyou had only a single sheep, and it fell into a ditch on the Sabbath day,wouldn’t you grab on to it, and pull it out? A person is worth considerablymore than a sheep. So, it is permitted to do good on the Sabbath day”(Matt 12:11–12, the Seminar’s translation). These the Seminar puts in graybecause they believe that “in its present form” it was “formulated by theevangelist.” They add, however, that “the content of the saying is believedto be reminiscent of Jesus’ teaching.”54 The Lukan parallel (Luke 6:6–11)gets the same negative verdict given to the Markan passage.

The doubt of the Seminar concerning Mark 3:1–6 begins with v. 6 andworks backward. “The plot against Jesus described in v. 6 is widely re-garded as a Markan fiction. Nothing in the way Jesus treats the witheredhand would have called for an attempt on his life.”55 Their argument thenproceeds as follows.

If the plot is a Markan invention, then the authenticity of the sayingin v. 4 becomes problematic: the rhetorical question Jesus proposes isdesigned for this particular story. It sets up the option of saving life,in this case, the hand of the man, or destroying life—Jesus’ own.Moreover, the rhetorical query is a typical way of responding to thecharge in v. 2. In short, it is difficult to isolate any elements in the storythat are not part of Mark’s compositional scheme that climaxes in theplot of v. 6.56

They remark further that, since Jesus performs no overt action other thanto ask the man to hold out his hand, the Pharisees would not have foundanything objectionable in what he did and so they would not have thoughtthat Jesus violated the Sabbath. Hence, “The response on the part of thePharisees is trumped up by the storyteller.”57 Finally, since the story doesnot follow the form of the typical healing narrative, Jesus here taking theinitiative himself, this leads to the “suspicion that the story was created tosupport growing Christological interests in the Christian community.”58

In volume 2 of his Marginal Jew, Meier also expresses his doubts con-cerning this passage. As with the Seminar, he begins with doubt about theauthenticity of Mark 3:6 and works backward:

53. The Five Gospels, 50. Doering makes the same proposal (Schabbat, 445).54. Ibid., 184.55. The Acts of Jesus, 69.56. Ibid. “Considering the gravity of these problems, gray [= possible, but unreliable] was

a generous designation” (ibid.).57. Ibid.58. Ibid.


If, then, we consider 3:6 not to reflect one precise event in the actualministry of the historical Jesus in a.d. 28–30, this raises serious ques-tions about the historicity of the rhetorical question in 3:4 and henceof the form of the dispute as it now appears in Mark 3:1–6. But whatis Mark 3:1–6 without the element of the dispute story? Once one un-ravels 3:6, which in turn unravels 3:4, one wonders what is left of theball of yarn that is 3:1–6.59

His conclusion is “I do not think that the Sabbath controversy, as pre-sented in Mark 3:1–6, goes back to a historical event in Jesus’ ministry.”But at the same time, he is fair enough to admit that it cannot be provedthat the narrative is unhistorical, and he finally concludes that “the histo-ricity of the miracle story in Mark 3:1–6 is best left in the limbo-categoryof not clear (non liquet).”60

In his more recent article on the plucking of grain on the Sabbath, dis-cussed above, Meier indicates that he has now moved more firmly in thedirection of rejecting the historicity of this and other pericopes involvinghealing on the Sabbath. The reason: “I hope to show in volume 4 that thereis no solid evidence that in the early first century a.d. Palestinian Jews ofany stripe would have considered healing a violation of the Sabbath; if thisopinion is correct, then my decision of non liquet would have to be revisedin the direction of ‘not historical.’”61 The question of whether healing onthe Sabbath would have been a problem for first-century Jews will be dis-cussed below.

1.3.2. In responding to the objections raised concerning the historicityof this passage, we must first address the questions surrounding v. 6. It is,of course, quite possible that this verse is a redactional addition, placedhere as the culmination of the chain of controversy passages that begins in2:1. Mark (or someone before him) has apparently gathered together con-troversy stories for their cumulative impact.62 It is unlikely that the plot tokill Jesus arose just from this particular healing on the Sabbath. But whenJesus repeatedly acted toward the Sabbath with a pretentious authority,63

doing so in the context of his proclamation of the dawning of the kingdom,he would easily have been regarded as a dangerous threat.

R. A. Guelich regards v. 6 as part of the passage, arguing that (1) sincethe passage does not fit the form-critical category for a healing pericope (it

59. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:731 n. 16.60. Ibid., 2:683–84.61. “The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” 561 n. 2.62. “It may be that a more accurate historical presentation of the material would have

spread the conflict stories out through the ministry of Jesus but, by placing them together inthe early stages of his gospel, Mark emphasizes the implacable opposition of official Judaismto Jesus and explains—at a human level—his final rejection.” M. D. Hooker, The Gospel accord-ing to Saint Mark, 108.

63. C. Dietzfelbinger argues that the story of Mark 3:1–6 represents in stylized form anumber of Sabbath healings performed by Jesus. “Vom Sinn der Sabbatheilungen Jesu,” EvT38 (1978): 281–98, here p. 287.


is more a pronouncement story), it is illegitimate to eliminate v. 6 on form-critical grounds; (2) the fact that kai exerchesthai is favored by Mark hardlymeans that the entire verse is redactional; and (3) Mark may have chosento put this pericope here precisely because he wanted to conclude this sec-tion with the point made in v. 6.64

Even if one concludes that v. 6 is redactional, however, it hardly fol-lows that the passage unravels and is necessarily unhistorical, pace Meierand the Seminar. The reason they think it does is the result of a question-able interpretation of v. 4. They take the words about doing harm and kill-ing on the Sabbath to refer the Pharisees’ and Herodians’ plot to do awaywith Jesus. According to this view, the choice is not between two thingsJesus may do but rather between what Jesus may do (good; save life) andwhat his enemies are contemplating doing (harm; kill). Thus, v. 4 needs thestatement of v. 6. It is exegetically more likely, however, that the words areto be understood as Jesus’ own choice between healing and not healing.Not to heal is thus taken as harming and in effect killing.65 If this view istaken, then v. 4 is not absolutely dependent on v. 6 to make good sense.

The flat statement of the Seminar that the words of Jesus in this pe-ricope would not have been remembered is simply biased opinion. Thewords “Come here” (the Greek is more striking: egeire eis to meson, literally“rise up in the midst [of the crowd]”) and “Stretch out your hand,” are ex-actly the kind of vivid words that would leave an indelible impression onanyone who witnessed the event (cf. Mark 5:41). More significant is thequestion “On the Sabbath day is it permitted to do good or to do evil, tosave life or to destroy it?” Contrary to the Seminar’s opinion, the questionis both striking and memorable. Lohse concludes: “Also in this word Jesushimself speaks, not first the community.”66

It may be argued that, since healing on the Sabbath was not an issuein the early church, it is unlikely that this story would have been createdto meet a pressing need.67 All in all, it seems fair to conclude with Guelichthat “there seems to be no solid evidence for disputing the historical rootsof this story in Jesus’ ministry.”68 Supporting the historicity of the logion

64. Mark 1–8:26, 132. Gundry also supports “the originality and authenticity” of v. 6(Mark, 156). Why, he asks, would the Evangelist create this reference to the Pharisees’ andHerodians’ plotting against Jesus when neither have a role to play in his account of the passionnarrative?

65. Thus, e.g., Schweizer, Cranfield, Guelich, Hooker. For the opposite view: Taylor, Lane,Gundry.

66. “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” 85. So too, Matt 12:11–12 (cf. Luke 14:5) is, accordingto Lohse “ein echtes Jesuswort” (p. 87); Dietzfelbinger concludes the same, “Vom Sinn der Sab-batheilungen Jesu,” 288.

67. “If a ‘community problem’ is reflected in the story, it is a problem otherwise un-known.” Sven-Olav Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (Åbo: Åbo AkademiPress, 1995), 85.

68. Mark 1–8:26, 132. Lohse too gives strong affirmation: “Unter allen in den Evangelienerzählten Sabbatgeschichten könnte die Perikope Mc 3 1–5 am ehesten eine Situation imWirken des historischen Jesus wiedergeben” (“Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” 84).


of Jesus in Matt 12:11 are the presupposition of “Jewish sentiment,” thelanguage typical of Jesus (“which one of you”), its consistency with otherSabbath controversy stories, and its similarity to the tendency of Jesuselsewhere to exalt mercy over the typical understanding of holiness.69

1.4.1. There are two further Sabbath-controversy passages, foundonly in Luke. In the first of these, a woman with a bent-over back is healedon the Sabbath (Luke 13:10–17). Justifying his deed, Jesus is recorded assaying (Luke 13:15–16) “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sab-bath untie his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead it away to water it?And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan boundfor eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” TheSeminar regards these words as apparently “created by Luke specificallyfor this story.” They add the unsupported and dogmatic conclusion: “Theywere not among the remembered sayings of Jesus transmitted orally be-fore the gospels were written.”70 As for the story itself, they conclude,

It seemed entirely probable to the members of the Seminar that Jesuswas faced with a confrontation on a Sabbath after healing someone’snon-life-threatening condition. . . . They also thought it probable thatJesus questioned Sabbath regulations and that he occasionally failedto observe them. However, they did not think the story of the afflictedwoman supported these probabilities, except as a remote fictivememory.71

They support their conclusion by noting the pericope’s “Lukan vocabulary,style, and themes,” noting further that Luke here “indulges his proclivityto imitate the Greek scriptures (LXX)” and that “this was the principle rea-son for the black designation.”72

The second pericope (Luke 14:1–6) refers to the Sabbath healing of aman with dropsy. Here we get both questions (from Jesus), “Is it lawful toheal on the Sabbath, or not?” and “Which of you, having a son or an ox thathas fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbathday?” The Seminar rejects the authenticity of the first, on the grounds thatit is not “memorable” and “portrays Jesus as initiating a discussion of afine legal point,” but gives the second a gray designation “on the groundsthat it reflects Jesus’ view on the question of Sabbath observance, but onlyin a general way.”73

The Seminar’s justification for the black vote given to the story isexpressed in the following words.

In this case the setting in the house of a Pharisee is most likely a Lukancontrivance. The appearance of the patient at a dinner party, as noted

69. Davies and Alllison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 2:316f.70. The Five Gospels, 346. But how can they possibly know this, one wonders?71. The Acts of Jesus, 319. Is not the bias of the Seminar showing in these remarks?72. Ibid.73. The Five Gospels, 350. Again, is this anything more than subjective opinion?


earlier, is unmotivated. Taking the initiative in both the cure and thedebate is unusual for Jesus, who normally only responds when ques-tioned or addressed and who functions as a healer only when re-quested. These abnormalities, plus the fact that the story exhibitsother traces of Luke’s style, suggested a black vote.74

At this point, we find a conclusive statement concerning Jesus and theSabbath that is worth quoting in full:

The Seminar took polls on several general questions about Jesus’ con-cern with matters of Sabbath observance. The Fellows agreed by anoverwhelming margin that Jesus probably did not engage in debateson fine points of law, nor did he initiate discussion or debate aboutSabbath observance. On the other hand, the Fellows strongly agreedthat Jesus did engage in activities that suggested he had little concernfor Sabbath observance. His actions did provoke those who were con-cerned about such regulations and their response must have involvedhim in arguments about proper Sabbath observance.75

It is hardly obvious why Jesus would not have initiated discussion aboutthe Sabbath if in fact he engaged in activities that suggested he had littleconcern for observing the Sabbath. These tensions suggest that the Semi-nar’s position is not as well thought out as it might be. And as is so oftenthe case, what they set forth as the opinion of “scholarship” turns out to bethe opinion of a relatively small representation of scholars, while thosewho differ are studiously ignored.

1.4.2. The Seminar seems to have an a priori bias against the two Lu-kan pericopes because they represent L tradition. There can be no questionbut that the passages reveal Lukan redaction, but that should not preju-dice the historical question. Meier also calls attention to the points madeby the Seminar against Luke 13:10–17. At the same time, however, he callsattention to details that “may at least point to pre-Lucan tradition,”namely the absence of Pharisees and the specific “eighteen years” that thewoman had suffered. “These concrete details may point to pre-Lucan tra-dition and even to tradition stemming from the historical Jesus, but theyhardly prove the case.”76 Meier nevertheless concluded that the questionof the historicity of the pericope remains unclear (non liquet). As we haveseen, however, he will conclude against the historicity of the passage in hisvolume 4. Joseph Fitzmyer’s conclusion is more positive: “The story itselfprobably reflects one of the real-life situations of Jesus’ own ministry: acure and debate over the Sabbath in Stage I of the gospel tradition.”77

74. The Acts of Jesus, 321.75. The Five Gospels, 350.76. A Marginal Jew, 2:684.77. The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV (AB 28a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985),

1011. For a detailed response to “difficulties” bearing on the authenticity of the passage, seeJ. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1993), 722f.


Meier’s treatment of Luke 14:1–6 parallels that of Luke 13:10–17. Heretoo, Meier notes “signs of heavy Lucan redaction.”78 Again, we may askwhy this fact disqualifies a story from being historical.79 Indeed, Meierhimself makes the following observation:

Still, the question of historicity is not so easily settled. Luke 14:1–6does have characteristics that mark it off from all other stories of heal-ing on the Sabbath: the healing takes place in the house of a Pharisee,not in a synagogue, and in the context of a meal. Dropsy as the ail-ment cured is unparalleled in the rest of the Bible. Jesus heals notwith a word but with a touch. No opposition to Jesus is voiced, Jesus’reaction to his adversaries is not as fierce as elsewhere, and no hostileaction is planned against Jesus. Thus, the question of Luke 14:1–6 be-ing a mere variant of other stories of healing on the Sabbath is notsuch an open-and-shut case as might first appear.80

Although Lohse regards the story as an example of Gemeindebildung,the logion of 14:5 “muß zum ältesten Bestand der Logienüberlieferunggerechnet werden” (“must be reckoned with the oldest form of the logiatradition”).81 John Nolland, admitting Luke’s hand in the formation of thepassage and calling attention to the transferring of motifs from one Sab-bath-healing pericope to another in the transmission of the tradition,points to the oddity of the reference to dropsy, if it does not stem from tra-dition, and concludes that “Luke had an additional Sabbath-healing ac-count at his disposal here, even if its visibility is finally minimal in thepresent account.”82

1.5. The conclusions of capable scholars who oppose, and those whosupport, the historicity of the synoptic Sabbath-controversy passages re-veal, if nothing else, the endemic difficulty of the question. Of course, onecannot decide pro or con by counting the number of scholars on one sideor the other. One can indeed weigh the arguments, but opinions will stilldiffer. One may be tempted to throw one’s hands up in despair. What doesseem finally to emerge is one indisputable fact: the crucially determinativerole that is played by one’s predisposition to the question. This should notbe surprising in a day when we are learning that there is no truly “objec-tive” or “neutral” knowledge and that every position necessarily begins

78. A Marginal Jew, 2:711. He notes the opinion of Busse that the story is a Lukan creationand Bultmann’s opinion that it is a variant of the story of the healing of the man with the with-ered hand in Mark 3:1–6.

79. Fitzmyer astutely observes: “It is not clear, however, how such [Lukan] expressionswould argue for the episode as a community-formation (Gemeindebildung), as several com-mentators (E. Lohse, J. Roloff) would have it.” The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV, 1039.

80. A Marginal Jew, 2:711. But again, volume 4 promises to take a more negative slant onthe historicity question.

81. “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” 81. Matthew Black finds wordplay in an Aramaicsubstratum of this logion (“The Aramaic Spoken by Christ and Luke 14.5,” JTS n.s. 1 [1950]:60–62). This suggestion, however, is challenged by Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1042.

82. Luke 9:21–18:34, 745.


from some kind of “faith” basis. This does not excuse us from doing ourhomework well. Nor does it mean that we accept everything blindly anduncritically, “by faith,” so to speak. But we are made freshly aware of thedifficulty of the historical enterprise.

Must we then give up on the whole question of truth? Not at all. Whilewe may not often be able to adjudicate, or “prove,” individual points, in myopinion only a view that places the burden of proof on those who deny thehistoricity of the tradition, rather than on those who affirm it, can arrive ata satisfactory explanation of the Gospel materials. In the same way, onlythose who approach these materials with faith in their essential truthful-ness will be able to make convincing coherence of the Jesus of the NT—something a highly skeptical view can hardly do. The strange paradox,then, is that there is no more helpful tool for the Gospel interpreter thanfaith in the truthfulness of the Gospels themselves.83

1.5.1. To conclude this part of the article: contrary to the skepticism ofthe Jesus Seminar and other scholars, a strong case can be made for thehistoricity of the Sabbath-controversy passages. As with all historical ar-gument, we necessarily deal with degrees of probability rather than ab-solute certitude. But the evidence warrants acceptance of these accounts ashighly probable, trustworthy history.84

The fact that the Evangelists are active in composing their narrativesand that they make redactional changes of their sources necessitates nonegative conclusion concerning the basic historical character of their nar-ratives. We have redacted traditions and interpreted stories, we have Jesuspresented from a postresurrection perspective, we have ipsissima vox andnot the verbatim Aramaic words of Jesus—all of these things are true buthardly need to be thought of as undermining the essential historical char-acter of our Gospels.

It is a priori extremely unlikely that Jesus could come with his revo-lutionary message about the dawning of the kingdom of God and neverspeak of his relation to something as common as the question of Sabbathobservance. This was an exceptionally important matter to first-centuryJudaism. The Pharisees, as self-appointed guardians of the law, wouldhave been deeply concerned about Jesus, even to the point of plotting hisdeath. “The Sabbath was therefore the chief, almost the sole, safeguardagainst the lapse of Jews into the beliefs and practices of their pagan

83. Among options offered in the interesting discussion of Gerd Theissen and AnnetteMerz, I find myself most attracted to what they call “orientation on the biblical picture ofJesus.” Their comments on this orientation seem appealing: “All historical reconstructions ofJesus are surrounded with an aura of hypothesis. Why should we not prefer the biblical pic-ture of Jesus to these constructs of scholarly imagination, confident that it is an effect of thehistorical Jesus? Do we not have the ‘real Jesus’ in the picture which he has produced?” (TheHistorical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 119).

84. In a similar vein, Theissen and Merz: “A comparison with other Sabbath conflicts inprimitive Christianity and Judaism shows that these conflicts are not just fictitious scenes”(The Historical Jesus, 367).


neighbours, and to take away this safeguard meant the end of Judaism.The Pharisees believed they were fighting for the very existence of Is-rael.”85 That these Sabbath-controversy passages have the ring of truth tothem will be further evident from the discussion of their theological im-port that now follows.

2. The Significance of the Sabbath Controversies

It is now time to look at the Sabbath controversies to determine their sig-nificance for understanding Jesus, his authority, and his attitude toward thelaw. After a brief treatment of the OT and Jewish background on Sabbathobservance, we will look at each episode for its theological significance.

2.1. There is little need to provide as background a full survey of theSabbath in OT, Second Temple, and rabbinic Judaisms,86 but some prelim-inary observations are in order. Of foundational importance, of course, isthe initial Sabbath commandment:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor,and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lordyour God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or yourdaughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, orthe sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord madeheaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the sev-enth day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it(Exod 20:8–11; cf. Deut 5:12–15).

The elaborate nature of this initial statement of the commandment alreadyindicates its importance. The commandment touches the total household,even the animals and the sojourners. To observe the Sabbath furthermoremeans to imitate the Creator (Gen 2:2–3). The Sabbath is “to the Lord yourGod” and a “hallowed” day. To mention only two texts, one can see the im-portance of the Sabbath in Num 15:32–36 (with which, contrast the Westerntext addition to Luke 6:4) and, for the Second Temple period, Jub. 2:17–21.“The weekly Sabbath is for Judaism a sign of election, for no people apartfrom Israel has sanctified God in keeping the Sabbath.”87 The Sabbath day

85. G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (ed. L. D. Hurst; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 386f.C. Dietzfelbinger: “Wer den Sabbat nicht hält, hindert Israel daran, Israel zu sein.” “Vom Sinnder Sabbatheilungen Jesu,” 291. J. D. G. Dunn, speaking of Mark 2:23–28, says that “For Jesusto show such disregard for Israel’s covenanted obligation was tantamount to denying Israel’selection and abrogating the covenant” (“Mark 2.1–3.6: A Bridge between Jesus and Paul on theQuestion of the Law,” NTS 30 [1984]: 395–415, here p. 402).

86. See G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols.; New York:Schocken, 1971; reprint of 1930 original), 2:21–39; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People inthe Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135) (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black; rev. ed.; 3 vols.;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87), 2:467–75; E. Lohse, “sabbaton,” TDNT 7:2–20; E. P. Sanders,Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity Press In-ternational, 1990), 6–23. For the rabbinic material, see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zumNeuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck’sche, 1926), 1:610–30.

87. E. Lohse, “sabbaton,” TDNT 7:8.


is extended to the concept of the sabbatical year with its concern for thepoor and oppressed (Lev 25–26; Deut 15:1–8). It is easily understand-able why the Sabbath became so important for the Jews and indeed one ofthe key identity markers of Judaism.88

While it is abundantly clear that the Sabbath is to be observed by theavoidance of work, a question not easily answered is how “work” is to bedefined. This precise question explains the growth of the Sabbath halakah.There was no scarcity of opinion concerning what did and what did notconstitute violation of the Sabbath commandment. The rabbis themselvesrecognized this: “The rules about the Sabbath, Festal-offerings, and Sac-rilege are as mountains hanging by a hair, for [teaching of] Scripture[thereon] is scanty and the rules many” (m. Hag. 1.8). The 39 forbiddenclasses of work listed in m. Sabb. 7.2 were only a start on the question. Theentirety of the tractate Shabbath and its supplement ºErubin indicate the in-dustry of the rabbis and the multitudinous opinions and disputes on thesubject (one may also think of the attention given to strict observance ofthe Sabbath in the Qumran scrolls, the Damascus Document and Jubilees).89

Despite all of this labor devoted to the understanding of the Sabbath com-mandment, perfect obedience to the Sabbath remained an elusive goal. IfIsrael could but successfully keep two Sabbaths, it was argued, then theMessiah would come (b. Shabbat 118b; Targum Yerushalmi II on Exod 20).

Amid the sheer amount and bewildering nature of the Sabbath hala-kah as developed in the Second Temple period and in post-70 Judaism, andreflected in Mishnah and Talmud, a couple of points need to be made, sincethey bear on the synoptic controversies. All would have agreed that theSabbath was a gift of God to Israel, and that it was made for human wel-fare, though few perhaps would have drawn the conclusions from this no-tion that Jesus did. There was a fair amount of agreement as to what wasnot allowed on the Sabbath: “a wide consensus governed the practice ofmost of the inhabitants of Jewish Palestine. Not doing one’s regular work,not lighting a fire, not starting on a journey–all these must have been stan-dard.”90 So too there seems to have been a common conviction that, whilecures of minor ailments were not allowed, the Sabbath law had to give wayin cases of danger to life: “Any case in which there is a possibility that life isin danger thrusts aside the Sabbath law” (m. Yoma 8.6; Tosefta, Shabbat,15.16). With this background in mind, we turn again to our passages.

2.2. In the controversy concerning the plucking of grain on the Sab-bath, the Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of “doing what is not lawful on

88. Cf. the concern for observance of the Sabbath in the early Postexilic Period (Neh13:15–22). On the seriousness of violation of the Sabbath, cf. Num 15:30–36. For the connectionbetween the covenant and the Sabbath, see Exod 31:16–17 and Isa 56:6.

89. “The exact limits within which the early halacha permitted the infringement of theSabbath law are not easily defined, for no subject is more intricate than the history of the prin-ciple of the subordination of Sabbatarian rigidity.” Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and theGospels, 131.

90. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 16.


the Sabbath” (Mark 2:24). What is the standard by which this judgment ismade? Does the action of the disciples for which Jesus is questioned, andcorrectly held responsible,91 violate only the Pharisees’ halakah (= oral To-rah) or the written Torah itself? The Scriptures, of course, prohibit work onthe Sabbath and further specify that work on the Sabbath is to be avoided“even in ploughing time and in harvest time” (Exod 34:21). One mightthink at first sight that Deut 23:25 would be pertinent here: “When you gointo your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with yourhand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.”While this takes care of the moral problem of eating another’s grain, how-ever, it says nothing about such activity on the Sabbath. This implicit iden-tification of the impropriety of harvesting on the Sabbath is made explicitin m. Shabbat 7.1–2, where among the 39 classes of forbidden work on theSabbath are reaping and threshing (rubbing the grain in the hands [Luke6:1] could technically be defined as the latter):92

A great general rule have they laid down concerning the Sabbath. . . .If he knew that it was the Sabbath and he yet committed many actsof work on many Sabbaths, he is liable for every main class of work[which he performed]. . . . The main classes of work are forty saveone: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, win-nowing, cleansing crops, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, etc.

It is clear that Jesus allows his disciples to violate the Torah as understoodand interpreted by the Pharisaic halakah.93 Although it is in the end a mat-ter of interpretation, and Jesus makes no frontal attack on the Torah itself,at the same time the question is how Jesus handles himself in this situationand whether he displays a sovereignty in understanding the Torah that isquite different from the approach of the Pharisees. “What is alarming inthe story is Jesus’ indifferent attitude towards the accusation of having vio-lated the Sabbath.”94 It is more than a battle of interpretations, however, aswe will see.

91. On this, see D. Daube, “Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels,” NTS19 (1972–73): 1–15.

92. It has often been noted that there is no problem caused by the disciples’ eating grainfrom another’s grainfield since that is allowed in Deut 23:25. Luz (Matthew 8–20 [Hermeneia;Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 181) notes a germane but late Talmudic text (b. Sabb. 1.28a): “Onemay pinch with the hand and eat but not with a tool; one may crush and eat something . . .with the fingertips.” Theissen and Merz call attention to the following in Philo (Mos. 2.22),speaking of the Sabbath: “For it is not permitted to cut any shoot or branch, or even a leaf, orto pluck any fruit whatsoever.”

93. Given the Mishnaic passage just quoted, I fail to see how W. R. G. Loader can say“There is no law or law interpretation known to us which Jesus’ disciples would be contra-vening” (Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law, 52). The idea that the infringement was that the dis-ciples were making a path (hodon poiein; Mark 2:23), as, e.g., M. D. Hooker suggests (The Gospelaccording to Saint Mark, 102), seems highly improbable.

94. Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 102.


The cogency of the argument from the story of David and his men eat-ing the bread of the presence has been much debated. Is the story really asuitable parallel to what Jesus allows his disciples to do? Some have indi-cated that a point from halakah, rather than a historical anecdote (hag-gadah), is required to counter the Pharisees’ objection.95 But allowingthat exception, there is no reference to the Sabbath in the record of 1 Sam21:1–7.96 A further problem is that David’s men may have been in dire need(at the point of starvation—so the Pharisees would have thought), whereasthe disciples appear to be having a snack. Mark and Luke say nothing aboutthe disciples even being hungry; only Matthew adds the point tostrengthen the parallel and make the argument more cogent (Matt 12:1).

According to the Gospels, David’s infringement appears to have beenthat he and his men ate bread that only the priests had the right to eat(Lev 24:9). David and his men violated the letter of Torah (the account isin 1 Sam 21:1–6). Is Jesus’ citing of this narrative a tacit admission that heand his disciples have also violated the letter of the law?97 Matthew’sadded second justification (12:5) would seem to imply the same thing: “Orhave you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the templeprofane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?”98

What is the validating parallel principle at work here? Is it mere hun-ger? Is it being on a divinely ordained mission? Is it Davidic typology,99

with the Son of David in view? It seems clear that even if it is not techni-cally correct by rabbinic standards,100 we have a species of a fortiori (qalwahomer) argument here. That is made explicit by the unique and utterlyastonishing statement of Jesus in Matthew that “something greater thanthe temple is here” (Matt 12:6)—and it is in this statement that we clearlymove off of rabbinic ground. If the priests are allowed technically to vio-late the Sabbath in the service of God,101 how much more may the Sabbath

95. D. M. Cohn-Sherbok, “An Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments Concerning the Plucking ofGrain on the Sabbath,” JSNT 2 (1979): 31–41; D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism(London: Athlone, 1956), 67–71. Matthew’s added defense, about the priests violating the Sab-bath in their work (Matt 12:5), does meet the technical requirement, as Daube points out:“There is nothing haggadhic about this. The argument is of a kind which no student of halakhacould lightly dismiss” (p. 71). For a similar approach, cf. J. M. Hicks, “The Sabbath Controversyin Matthew: An Exegesis of Matthew 12:1–14,” ResQ 27 (1984): 79–91.

96. There is, however, an apparently early rabbinic tradition that the incident took placeon a Sabbath (b. Mena˙. 95b; Yalqu†. on 1 Sam 21:5).

97. “His action is not brought in line with Torah, but cited as a biblical example wherethe letter of Torah is broken. No Pharisaic argument, this!” S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Au-thority (ConBNT 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978), 98.

98. Cf. b. Sabb. 132.b: “Temple service takes precedence over the Sabbath.” See too m.ºErub. 10:11–15; m. Pesa˙. 6:1–2. In John 7:22–23 (as in m. Sabb. 18:3; 19:1–6), the command to cir-cumcise on the eighth day takes precedence over the Sabbath.

99. Thus, Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 176–77.100. Thus Cohn-Sherbok, “An Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments Concerning the Plucking of

Grain on the Sabbath.”101. E. Levine argues that what was in view was the Pharisees’ allowance of reaping the

first sheaves, or ºomer offering, on the Sabbath (see m. Mena˙. 10.1). “The Sabbath Controversy


be violated by the greater reality of the Messiah and his disciples in theservice of the dawning kingdom of God.102 Matthew’s addition of Hos 6:6makes the further point that mercy takes precedence over strict obser-vance of the letter of the law. Again, the meeting of human need, which isa core element of the dawning kingdom, must supercede technical Sab-bath observance. Matthew concludes that if the Pharisees had known themeaning of Hos 6:6, they “would not have condemned the guiltless” (us-ing the same word [anaitios] that is used of the temple priests who work onthe Sabbath). Despite the technical violation of the Sabbath law by his dis-ciples, Jesus and his disciples remain without guilt.

What starts out in Matthew as an argument over the interpretation ofthe Sabbath commandment ends up on another level involving the dra-matic newness of Christology and mission. That, however, is Matthew’sunique handling of the passage. What about Mark and Luke? All threeSynoptic witnesses end the pericope with the important Christologicalstatement: “The Son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” Mark has an emphatickai, “even the Sabbath.” Here the astounding statement is made that Jesusis kyrios, and kyrios even of the Sabbath. This is no ordinary teacher orhealer who has the temerity to violate accepted norms of Sabbath activity.He strides through the Synoptic tradition as one who has no parallel andwhose unique authority is not a derived authority. But as we have seen,some have argued that in Mark the statement is to be taken not as a ref-erence to Jesus but to the son of man in the sense of “humanity.” The rea-soning is that the preceding verse in Mark (Mark 2:27), omitted by bothMatthew and Luke, refers to humans and not to Jesus: “The Sabbath wasmade for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Then, by synonymous parallel-ism, “son of man” in the next line is also meant to refer to humankind andnot to Jesus himself, and so the logion of Mark 2:28 was not originallyChristological.103

Mark 2:27 does refer to humans, and similar things were said by therabbis.104 The Sabbath was made for the sake of human beings and not viceversa. Does it follow, however, that humankind is the lord of the Sabbath?

102. As Loader rightly says, these arguments in Matthew “bring to expression a chris-tology which has been assumed throughout” (Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law, 203). Yang, how-ever, draws too much out of the temple allusion at this point in the narrative when heconcludes “The role and authority of the temple as the focus of God’s presence thus is trans-ferred to and fulfilled by Jesus” (Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 181).

103. T. W. Manson has argued—implausibly, in my opinion—that in both verses a corpo-rate Son of Man (= the nation of Israel) is in view” (“Mark ii.27f.” [ConBNT; Lund: Gleerup,1947], 138–46).

104. Thus, b. Yoma 85b, speaking of the Sabbath: “For it is holy unto you [Exod 31:14]. Thatis, it is committed into your hands, not you into its hands.” Also, the Midrash Mekilta 109b onExod 31:14: “The Sabbath is delivered unto you, and you are not delivered to the Sabbath.”

according to Matthew,” NTS 22 (1976): 480–83. This seems only a remote possibility. As Yangpoints out, Matthew has “have you not read in the law,” and that the violation of the Sabbathtakes place “in the temple,” not the fields. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 179.


This would seem to be very unlikely.105 Though the rabbis may have ac-cepted that the Sabbath was made for man, they did not interpret this factin the way that Jesus did. They took it mainly to mean that when a life wasin danger, then and only then could the Sabbath restrictions be lifted.Jesus does not attack the Torah or its authority in this episode. Rather, asin all the Sabbath controversies, he unhesitatingly cuts through to the un-derlying intent of Torah (as in Matt 5:17–48). The sovereign freedom withwhich Jesus interprets the Sabbath law is inseparable from his uniqueidentity as the Agent of God’s redemptive rule. As Son of Man, he is Lordof the Sabbath.106

2.3. As we have seen, there are several instances in the Synoptics ofhealings performed by Jesus on the Sabbath. The first one in Mark is theexorcism of an unclean spirit on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21–28). The focus ofthis story, however, is solely on the power of Jesus over the demonic, andthe fact that the exorcism was done on a Sabbath, although noted,causes no Sabbath controversy. But the careful reader will have noticedthe reference to the Sabbath and hence be prepared for the Sabbath con-troversies that follow in the narrative. Immediately after the episode ofthe plucking of grain on the Sabbath comes the story of the healing of thewithered hand (Mark 3:1–6 and par.). Now, with the preceding in-fringements of the Sabbath in mind, the Pharisees lie in wait for Jesus“to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might ac-cuse him” (Mark 3:2).

As we have already had occasion to note, healing on the Sabbath wasallowed only in instances in which life was threatened. “Whenever thereis doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath” (m. Yoma 8:6).The rabbinic response to Jesus in this instance would surely have been thatthe man could have waited till the following day to be healed (cf. Luke13:14: “But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healedon the Sabbath, said to the people, ‘There are six days on which workought to be done; come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sab-bath day’”). Jesus, on the other hand, regards human need of any kind asjustifying remedial action on the Sabbath.107 In a way that cuts straightacross the nomistic casuistry of the Pharisees, and with an unmatched au-thority, Jesus puts priority on the reality of human need rather than on an

105. Cranfield quotes the words of Rawlinson: “Our Lord would not have been likely tosay that ‘man’ was ‘lord of the Sabbath,’ which had been instituted by God” (The Gospel ac-cording to Saint Mark, 118). Similarly, Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment, 93.

106. “In this originally independent saying the Christian community is confessing Jesus,the Son of Man, who as the kyrios decides concerning the applying or transcending of the Sab-bath. In His lordship Sabbath casuistry comes to an end” (E. Lohse, “sabbaton,” TDNT 7:22).

107. “All things considered, it would seem that Jesus differed fundamentally from thePharisees in that he asserted a general right to abrogate the Sabbath law for man’s ordinaryconvenience, while the Rabbis limited the license to cases of danger to life” (Abrahams, Studiesin Pharisaism and the Gospels, 134). Is it not an understatement of human suffering, however,to regard those healed as merely inconvenienced?


overstress of the Sabbath itself. He does away not with the usefulness ofobserving the Sabbath but only with an observance that hinders a humanbeing from experiencing wholeness and well-being.108

Thus, Jesus says to his critics, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do goodor to do harm, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4). This mashal means, at theleast, that healing is in keeping with a proper understanding of the Sab-bath law. The key would then be what was said in Mark 2:27, “the Sabbathwas made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The Sabbath was made forthe man with the withered hand, and thus he deserved to be healed onit.109 But probably more is to be seen here. Eschatological and Christolog-ical110 perspectives hover in the background. Jesus, the eschatological Sonof Man, not only presents the correct understanding of the Sabbath com-mandment, as in the preceding pericope, but also brings the kingdom ofGod in his ministry. Part and parcel of this kingdom is the overcoming ofevil and suffering.111 To refrain from healing the man would have been tocontradict the greater reality that Jesus was all about. And, given that theSabbath became itself a foreshadowing of the time of salvation (Zohar onGen 48a: “The Sabbath is a mirror of the world to come”; further texts inStrack-Billerbeck IV.2. 839f.),112 far from being an activity to avoid, it wasespecially appropriate to heal on the Sabbath.113

This too would appear to be the explanation of the reference to doingharm and to killing. As Cranfield puts it, “To omit to do the good which

108. Thus rightly, Berndt Schaller, “Jesus und der Sabbat,” in Fundamenta Judaica: Studienzum antiken Judentum und zum Neuen Testament (ed. L. Doering and A. Steudel; Göttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001).

109. “To delay healing for a day is to deny the Torah’s true intention, which is the gloryof God and the benefit of man” (Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 107).

110. W. R. G. Loader rightly says that the christological statement of 2:28 functions alsofor the present pericope. Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2/97; Tü-bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 36.

111. Back rightly places the whole discussion in the context of Jesus’ announcement ofthe dawning of the kingdom of God (Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment, 161–78).

112. R. Goldenberg writes: “Through the lens of the Sabbath we can glimpse the Jewishvision of eternity” (“The Place of the Sabbath in Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Sabbath in Jewish andChristian Traditions [ed. T. C. Eskenazi, D. J. Harrington, and W. H. Shea; New York: Crossroad,1991], 43). Thus Lohse: “The day of the rest which the patriarchs celebrated grants a foretastealready of eternal glory, which will be an unending Sabbath” (TDNT 7:8). See too H. Riesen-feld, “The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in Judaism, the Preaching of Jesus and Early Chris-tianity,” The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 111–37, here 114f. Even the verbused to refer to the restoration of the man’s hand, apokathistemi, possibly is an intentional al-lusion to eschatological restoration (cf. the use of the word in reference to Elijah: Mark 9:12,Matt 17:11).

113. So too Doering: “Immerhin ist aber die Interpretation sehr wahrscheinlich, daß Leidund Krankheit nach Jesu Auffassung nicht mit dem Charakter des Sabbats vereinbar sind, der vondem Rückverweis auf die Schöpfermacht Gottes und wohl auch von der Vorausschau auf dieEndzeit ist. Das bedeutet aber, daß Jesus am Sabbat, einem Tag, an dem Gott dem Menschenohnehin in besonderer Weise zugewandt ist und an dem Mensch in diese Nähe in Ruhe,Freude und Lobpreis feiert–daß Jesus also an diesem Tag auch heilen muß” (Schabbat, 456; em-phasis in original). See too B. Schaller, “Jesus und der Sabbat,” 146.


one could do to someone in need is to do evil.”114 Although, as we haveseen, the words do not necessarily refer to those who plot the death ofJesus (Mark 3:6), there is obvious irony in the fact that they apparently diddo their plotting on the Sabbath.115

The special Matthean logion (Matt 12:11–12), “What man of you, if hehas one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of itand lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep!” again pri-oritizes human need over strict obedience to the law.116 With this a fortioriargument in mind,117 Matthew changes Mark’s question into a declarativestatement: “So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt 12:12). Thereference to “mercy” in Hos 6:6, so recently quoted (in Matt 12:7), is alsoapplicable here.

There are those who deny that this healing narrative involves any vio-lation of the Sabbath. Geza Vermes, following David Flusser, states that“Speech could not be construed as ‘work’ infringing the law governing theJewish day of rest.”118 But unless one simply denies any historical basiswhatsoever to these narratives, the healings performed by Jesus were re-garded by the Pharisees as violating their halakah, and hence the Sabbath.Theissen and Merz make the following correct observation: “the fact that[the healings] took place only through words (as in Mark 3.1ff.) does notin itself make them a permissible action. Of course words were allowed onthe Sabbath. But so too was eating and drinking–however, not when both

114. The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 120. Cranfield adds that failing to do good is tobreak the sixth commandment and quotes Calvin: “There is little difference between man-slaughter and the conduct of him who does not concern himself about relieving a person indistress.” Cf. Schweizer: “Failure to do good is the same as doing evil; failure to save a life isthe same as destroying it.” The Good News according to Mark, 75. So too, Guelich: “If ‘to dogood’/’to save a life’ meant to heal, then ‘to do evil’/’to take a life’ meant not to heal and thusdeprive this one of the benefits of God’s restoring power” (Mark 1–8:26, 136). Against this ex-planation, see D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels,” in From Sabbath toLord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1982), 57–97, here pp. 69f.

115. The idea that “killing” here refers to self-defense on the Sabbath (thus, Theissen andMerz, The Historical Jesus, 369) is implausible and breaks the parallelism of the passage, in par-ticular being incompatible with the words “to do evil.”

116. Not all would have agreed that an animal could be pulled out of a pit on the Sabbath.According to the rabbis, an animal in a pit on the Sabbath could be provided food and comfort,but could not be pulled out (b. Sabb. 128b). The Essenes also prohibited pulling an animal outof a pit on the Sabbath (CD 11.13–14; cf. 4Q251 2.5–6).

117. Yang emphasizes that this argument is far from rabbinic or halakic since the argu-ment does not find its basis in Torah but is “proclamatory again rather than explanatory andtherefore provocative rather than persuasive” (Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 204).

118. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1973). Cf.Flusser, Jesus (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969), 49. In his Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minne-apolis: Fortress, 1993), Vermes concludes that “the whole debate seems to be, however, a stormin a tea-cup since none of the Sabbath cures of Jesus entailed ‘work’, but were effected by wordof mouth, or at most, by the laying on of hands or other simple physical contact” (p. 23). Forthe same view, see E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 266.


exclusively served a therapeutic purpose.”119 If Jesus were regarded as ahealer, furthermore, then any kind of healing by his agency whatsoeverwould probably have been regarded as work. Holmén’s observation is alsotelling: “If healing is not work, we do not know why Jesus would compareit to pulling an ox, child and/or a sheep out from a well or a pit.”120

In this passage we again encounter Christological and eschatologicalmotifs. Again, it is Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath (as in the immediatelyprior verse in all three Synoptics), who with incomparable authority in-terprets the meaning of the Sabbath and performs a sovereign act of heal-ing. As in the preceding passage, the question ultimately concerns nothalakah but the person and work of Jesus. Luke is the only Synoptic writerto note here that Jesus “himself knew their reasonings” (Luke 6:8), namely,that they wanted to bring accusation against him. Jesus will neverthelessheal on the Sabbath, both because there is no better day to bring wholenessthan the Sabbath (with its intention to benefit humanity and its eschato-logical anticipation) and because the salvation in the fullest sense, includ-ing healing, is an indispensable part of the kingdom that he brings in hisperson and ministry.121

2.4. We may deal much more briefly with the healings in Luke13:10–17 and 14:1–6, calling attention only to the distinctive aspects ofthese pericopes.

The story of the healing of the woman with the bent over back (Luke13:10–17) has four distinctives. First, here alone in the synoptic healingnarratives (cf. John 9:6, where Jesus makes clay with spittle and applies itto the blind man’s eyes–the one instance of clear “work” in connection witha Sabbath healing) do we find Jesus doing something physically, namelylaying hands on the woman (Luke 13:13). It is therefore perhaps easier toregard this healing as involving work, but it is hard to think of this as verysignificant, since it seems from the other narratives as though healing ofany kind could be thought of as involving a kind of “work.”

Second, as we have seen, here alone among the healing narratives dowe encounter the Jewish rationale about these matters, articulated by theindignant ruler of the synagogue where the healing took place: “There aresix days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and behealed, and not on the Sabbath day” (Luke 13:14). The objection122 wouldapply to all the Sabbath healings performed by Jesus. That is, in none of thestories is the recipient of the healing in such desperate straits that the heal-ing could not have been delayed until the next day. The reason Jesus healson the Sabbath, as we have seen, is not the result of a different halakah or

119. The Historical Jesus, 368.120. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking, 104.121. B. Schaller, “Jesus und der Sabbat,” 146.122. Cf. m. Sabb. 19.1: “R. Akiba laid down a general rule: Any act of work that can be

done on the eve of Sabbath does not override the Sabbath.” The same statement is found in m.Mena˙. 11.3; cf. m. Pesa˙. 6.2.

spread one pica short


a dispute about halachic matters but is the result of transcendent concernshaving to do with his person and mission.

Third, only in this pericope does Jesus refer to his opponents as “hyp-ocrites,” apparently because their regard for the plight of animals on theSabbath is greater than for suffering human beings: “Does not each of youon the Sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead it awayto water it?” (Luke 13:15). This example, unique to Luke (cf. the examplein Luke 14:5), cannot be paralleled exactly in Jewish writings.123 C. G.Montefiore notes that the rabbis would never have allowed cruelty to ani-mals and that oxen require daily watering.124 He adds that the womancould have waited another day.

Fourth, and for our purposes most importantly, Jesus describes the in-firmity of the woman as the result of being “bound” by Satan (Luke 13:16).Healings in the Gospel accounts are the result of a cosmic battle with es-chatological implications, with the power of Satan necessarily yielding tothe power of the kingdom brought by Jesus.125 Again, then, since the Sab-bath is a foreshadowing of the coming eschatological reality, wherein allhuman woes, suffering, sickness, and death are done away with, not onlymay the work of the kingdom be done on the Sabbath but there is in factno better day for the meeting of human need. It is the mission of Jesus tobring the rule of God, and eschatological salvation is about the well-beingof all who are oppressed.126

The second Sabbath healing unique to Luke concerns the man withdropsy who turns up at the dinner party in the Pharisee’s house (14:1–6).There is little more to say about this pericope, which bears some similarityto other Sabbath-healing narratives we have examined (esp. Matt 12:9–14).Reminiscent of Matt 12:11 is the question of Luke 14:5: “Which of you,having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pullhim out on a Sabbath day?”127 The rhetorical question again points to thepropriety of doing good on the Sabbath, and answers the question of 14:3:“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” The silence of the Pharisees istwice remarked on (14:4, 6), and indeed the Pharisees never speak in this

123. Tying and loosing knots are among the prohibited works in m. Sabb. 7:1. On themovement of animals for the purpose of drinking, see m. ºErub. 2.1–4.

124. The Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1927), 2:501.125. See Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNTSup 231; Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2002), 373ff.126. According to Doering, Luke presents “eine Intepretation der Heilung im Sinne der

Königsherrschaft Gottes, dazu die Darstellung der Hoheit Jesu” (Schabbat, 467). Cf. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, “Die Sabbatheilungen Jesu nach Markus und Lukas,” in Jesus Rede von Gottund ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum: Beitrage zur Verkündigung Jesu und zum Kerygmader Kirche (ed. D.-A. Koch, G. Sellin, and A. Lindemann; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1989), 176.

127. It is not surprising to find that some manuscripts (Sinaiticus, K, L, families 1 and 13,33, and others) have onos, “ass,” in place of huios, “son” (D has probaton, “sheep”; cf. theMatthean parallel). The fact that huios is the harder reading and found in P45 and P75, as wellas in (A), B, and the Textus Receptus, makes it easily the preferred reading.


pericope. They are mute before the authority of Jesus.128 That the manshould be healed on the Sabbath is again implicitly connected with theidentity and mission of Jesus.129

2.5. We are now in a position to draw some final conclusions about oursubject. If we return to the options listed by Doering mentioned at the be-ginning of this essay, we may say the following. The first and last options,the two extremes, we can dismiss out of hand. It is widely agreed thatJesus did not oppose the Sabbath commandment, either in principle or inactuality,130 and it is equally clear from the material before us that he didnot fully conform to the Sabbath observance of his day. Jesus certainly didnot overthrow, but nor did he abide by, the Sabbath commandment itself.Jesus in fact seems remarkably indifferent to the law. Tom Holmén notesthat Jesus does not deny the accusations that he has transgressed the Sab-bath and is altogether remarkably indifferent about the Sabbath: “he sim-ply was not particularly concerned about keeping the commandment.”131

At the least, one must say that, as “Lord of the Sabbath,” Jesus was in somesense able to transcend the Sabbath commandment. It is worth noting thatin his response to the man who wanted to inherit eternal life, Jesus refersto keeping the commandments, but the Sabbath is not among the ones hespecifically mentions (Mark 10:17–22 and parallels). The primary consid-eration is to “come and follow me.”132

There is, on the other hand, some truth in each of Doering’s four re-maining options. The second states that Jesus was not against the Sabbathbut only against a halakic approach to the Sabbath commandment. One ofthe most obvious things about the synoptic Sabbath-controversy passages

128. Gerhard Klumbies, “Die Sabbatheilungen Jesu nach Markus und Lukas,” 175.129. Cf. Dietzfelbinger, “Vom Sinn der Sabbatheilungen Jesu,” 297–98.130. For a convincing argument that the early Christian communities “took for granted

the legitimacy of the Sabbath,” see Herold Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Synoptic Gospels,” JSNT38 (1990): 13–27, here p. 22. One notable exception is W. Rordorf: “It is a misunderstanding tohold that Jesus did not attack the Sabbath commandment itself, but only the casuistical refine-ments of the Pharisees.” A few lines later he can say “this commandment enslaved human be-ings” (Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the ChristianChurch [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968; German original, 1962], 63; cf. 77–79). Cf. C. G. Mon-tefiore, against most other recent Jewish scholars: “His teaching about divorce, about the Sab-bath, about clean and unclean, was in the spirit of the Prophets, but not in strict accordancewith the letter of the Law.” The Synoptic Gospels 1:cxxxv; “Jesus, too, though less fervently thanhis Rabbinical opponents, professed to believe, and did actually believe, in the divineness of theLaw. But his impassioned prophetic attitude drove him on to action and to teaching which werein violation of the Law” (ibid.); For a strong statement that Jesus did away with the Sabbathcommandment, see L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (trans. J. E. Alsup; 2 vols.; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1981–82), 1:92–95.

131. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 105. “Hence, regardless ofwhich side one takes, it cannot be argued, on the basis of all or any deliberatively chosen part of theextant evidence, that Jesus was particularly interested in keeping the Sabbath” (ibid.; emphasisin original).

132. The contrast with the Gospel of Thomas could not be greater: “If you do not keep theSabbath (as) Sabbath, you will not see the Father” (logion 27).

spread one pica short


is that Jesus does not take a halackic approach to the Sabbath.133 He doespresent arguments in defense of his conduct or that of his disciples, butthey are not really halakic and they fall short of being convincing at thehalakic level. In fact, the argument is not conducted at the halakic level atall. H. Riesenfeld correctly concludes “there is nothing to indicate that onany occasion he wanted to take part in the discussion of Jewish law on itsown level . . . as a matter of fact Jesus did not dispute about details.”134

This is an important point. Jesus raises the Sabbath question to an entirelynew level.

To be sure, Jesus is the definitive interpreter of the law and hence ofthe Sabbath. The truth in Doering’s third option is that Jesus does opposea universal and inflexible application of the Sabbath law. The reason forthis is what Doering refers to in his fifth option, namely, that Jesus ap-proaches the law not as an ordinance but in terms of its intent. This is whythe logion of Mark 2:27 is so very important: “The Sabbath was made forman, not man for the Sabbath.” In good Jewish form, Jesus penetrates tothe essence of the Sabbath, by going back to its foundation in Genesis. Inso doing, he simultaneously alludes to the eschatological reality antici-pated by the Sabbath. The Sabbath is meant for the mercy (cf. the quota-tion of Hos 6:6 in Matt 12:7), wholeness, and well-being that comes withsalvation. The Sabbath commandment must therefore give way to, and nothave the effect of annulling (as in the Pharisaic halakah), the Sabbath’s truepurpose and significance. Yang therefore rightly refers to Jesus as “the re-coverer and fulfiller of God’s original and ultimate will for the Sabbath.”135

It is Doering’s fourth option that comes the closest to the truth: the freestance of Jesus toward the Sabbath is a result of the eschatological stampof his teaching and work.136 It is in a fundamental sense about the mean-

133. “One of the problems in approaching the traditions is that they do not portray Jesusas a formal interpreter of the Law. . . . Much of Jesus’ instruction in Mark, and doubtless,therefore, the Markan tradition was about mission, his own and that of his disciples” Loader,Jesus’Attitude towards the Law, 521. C. Hinz makes a similar observation: “Die Heilungen Jesuaber nehmen keine kasuistischen Ausnahmebestimmungen zur Entschuldigung in Anspruch,sondern sie wollen geradezu provozieren, das Verständnis vom Sinn des Sabbats entlarven”(“Jesus und der Sabbat,” KD 19 [1973]: 91–108, here p. 95); see too S. Westerholm, Jesus andScribal Authority (ConBNT 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978). For the view, however, that Jesus offershis own Sabbath halakah in place of that of the Pharisees, see M. Bockmuehl, “Halakha andEthics in the Jesus Tradition,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context (ed. J. Barclay andJ. Sweet; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 264–78; and along the same line, P.Sigal, The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew (New York: UniversityPress of America, 1986), 119–53.

134. The Gospel Tradition, 118. Cf. Doering: “Er bestimmt den Sabbat seinem Wesen nachnicht primär durch die Regulierung der Arbeitsruhe, sondern durch die Gottesherrschaft” (Schabbat,477; emphasis is Doering’s).

135. Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 225.136. “The eschatological teaching of Jesus entails both a claim to fulfilment in the present

and a focus on final future reversal in the time when God’s reign is fully established. It formsan important context for understanding his attitude towards the Law” (Loader, Jesus’ Attitudetowards the Law, 523).


ing of Jesus and his mission. This, however, falls just short of recognizingthe determinative factor, the person of Jesus—for, of course, his teachingand work cannot adequately be understood without coming to grips withhis personal identity. This has been pointed to already by the texts we haveexamined, most impressively in the two logia “the Son of man is lord evenof the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28, Matt 12:8, Luke 6:5) and “I tell you, somethinggreater than the temple is here” (Matt 12:6).137

At issue in the Sabbath question is more than a matter of whose in-terpretation of the Torah is most convincing or authoritative. It is a muchlarger and more important matter: the dawning of the kingdom of God,and especially the identity of Jesus and his definitive authority.138 “TheSabbath incident in Mark 6:1–6 then makes clear what has been the caseall along; it is not Jesus’ healings on the Sabbath that are the cause of of-fense but the claims that He makes for Himself.”139 As Robert Banks putsit, “What Jesus, in fact, takes up, however, is not a particular orientationtowards the Sabbath law, but the demand that the Sabbath be orientatedtowards, interpreted by, and obeyed in accordance with, his own personand work.”140

This is why the discussions of Abrahams, Vermes, and Sanders,141 allof whom try to fit Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath within a straightforward

137. “When, therefore, Jesus says that something greater than the Temple is here, he canonly mean, he and his disciples may do on the Sabbath what they do because they stand in theplace of the priests in the Temple: the holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circlemade up of the master and his disciples” (J. Neusner, “Practice: Jesus and Torah” in Judaismin the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs [by B. Chilton and J. Neusner; London: Routledge,1995], 135–44, here, p. 142).

138. “Von dieser Verkündigung der anbrechenden Gottesherrschaft her ist nun auchJesu Reden über den Sabbat und sein Verhalten am Sabbat zu interpretieren. Sein Reden undHandeln am Sabbat ist Teil seiner Verkündigung” (Dietzfelbinger, “Von Sinn der Sab-batheilungen Jesu,” 295). Daniel J. Harrington rightly concludes that Matthew “breaks out ofthe Jewish debate by giving the two stories a christological dimension” (“Sabbath Tensions:Matthew 12:1–14 and Other New Testament Texts,” The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Tradi-tions [New York: Crossroad, 1991], 45–56, here p. 53).

139. A. T. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,”in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Car-son; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 360. It is this, more than anything, that causes the Jew-ish authorities to take action against Jesus. From at least 1:21 onwards in Mark, the strikingand unique authority of Jesus is in view (2:1–3:6 may well be a pre-formed unit taken up byMark). This is the answer to the argument that the Pharisees would not have wanted to doaway with Jesus because of his actions on the Sabbath. Cf. D. Bock: “the opposition to Jesus didnot surface on the basis of this one set of Sabbath actions only” (Jesus according to Scripture: Re-storing the Portrait from the Gospels [Leicester: Inter-Varsity / Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 608).

140. R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1975), 131. Similarly D. Bock: “In the end, all the controversies force achoice about who Jesus is” (Jesus according to Scripture, 118). Cf. C. Hinz, “Jesus und der Sabbat,”KD 19 (1973): 98.

141. In light of the Gospel materials we have looked at, it is difficult to see how Sanderscan say “I conclude, then, that the synoptic Jesus behaved on the Sabbath in a way which fellinside the range of current debate about it, and well inside the range of permittedbehaviour. . . . Other Jews disagreed about equally substantial issues. The synoptic stories show


Jewish framework, are unconvincing. None of them can manage to explainthe hostile reaction of the Jewish authorities, and hence they must severelyedit the narratives or deny their historicity.

By contrast, the maverick Jacob Neusner, who will have nothing of thestandard Jewish reclamation of Jesus, captures the main point in his dis-cussion of the Sabbath in Matthew:

At issue in the Sabbath is neither keeping nor breaking this one of theTen Commandments. At issue here as everywhere else is the personof Jesus himself, in Christian language, Jesus Christ. What mattersmost of all is the simple statement, no one knows the Father exceptthe Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. There,startling and scarcely a consequence of anything said before or after-ward, stands the centerpiece of the Sabbath-teaching: my yoke iseasy, I give you rest, the son of man is lord of the Sabbath indeed, be-cause the son of man is now Israel’s Sabbath. . . . Christ now stands onthe mountain, he now takes the place of Torah.142

As we indicated at the beginning, the question of Jesus and the Sab-bath is a part of the larger question of Jesus and the law. In the much-discussed latter issue, one must also in the end deal with the personalidentity of Jesus and his unique mission. As with the Sabbath, Jesus standsas the supremely authoritative interpreter of the law. The result is that, aswith the Sabbath, Jesus is able in remarkable ways to transcend the law.The law and the righteousness that is the goal of the law are upheld, butin innovative ways that deviate from the conventions of the Pharisees.When all is said and done, one must conclude with Robert Banks that whatwe must come to terms with “is not so much his relationship to theLaw . . . as how the Law now stands in relationship to Jesus as the onewhose teaching and practice transcend it and fulfil it and to whom all at-tention must now be directed.”143

Did Jesus break with the Sabbath? Our answer must be: at one level,technically, perhaps yes. In a deeper sense, however, Jesus protects thetrue meaning of the Sabbath, and so ultimately the answer is no.144 As we

142. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus: An Intermillennial, Interfaith Exchange (New York: Doubleday,1993), 72f.; see too Neusner’s essay “Practice: Jesus and Torah,” 135–44.

143. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 251f.144. “The absolute obligation of the commandment is thus challenged, though its valid-

ity is not contested in principle.” Lohse, TDNT 7:22. Cf. T. W. Manson: “He did not hesitate tobreak through [the Law’s] restrictions in the interest of His own task. . . . He reserved the rightto criticize freely, not only the oral tradition and the scribal decisions, but even the written To-rah itself. We can see this clearly enough if we take a single example—the Sabbath law”(“Jesus, Paul, and the Law,” in Judaism and Christianity [ed. E. I. J. Rosenthal; London: Sheldon,1937], 3:125–41, here p. 129).

that any possible transgression on the part of Jesus or his followers was minor and would havebeen seen as such by even the strictest groups” (Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 23). Cf.Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 22–24; idem, Jesus the Jew, 36;Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1:131.


have repeatedly pointed out, however, the issue involves something radi-cally different from Jesus’ presenting an alternative Sabbath halakah in ri-valry with the Pharisees. Back rightly concludes “In short, he does notmove in the sphere of Torah, but is independent of it.”145 A correct under-standing of the matter necessarily involves recognition of the determina-tive importance of messianic fulfillment in all that Jesus does and says—in short, matters of Christology and eschatology. Here, as always in theNT, newness does not replace the old, but rather the old is taken up andfulfilled in the new.146 Fulfillment involves newness. “Placed in a messi-anic setting the Sabbath was transformed so that it entirely pointed for-ward to a new order for the life of man.”147 According to Matt 5:17, Jesuscautions against the wrong conclusion: “Think not that I have come toabolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but tofulfill them.” The messianic Son of Man, who brings the eschatological ful-fillment of the kingdom of God, as the Lord of the Sabbath, interprets theSabbath in accord with its original intention—a day created by God for theexperiencing of health, wholeness, and joy, a day which by its very naturetherefore points toward and anticipates the salvation from sin and suffer-ing that he now brings to the world.

Postscript

Just prior to the publication of the present essay, the fourth volume ofJohn P. Meier’s masterly treatment of the historical Jesus, devoted to theconsideration of Jesus and the law, appeared (A Marginal Jew: Rethinkingthe Historical Jesus, vol. 4: Law and Love [New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 2009]). The importance of this work necessitates a few comments,however inadequate. On the historical issue per se of the Sabbath healings,Meier, as promised, is more negative than in his discussion of miraclescontained in volume two. In volume two, where the three narratives wereassessed as miracle stories, as we saw above, the verdict was non liquet (notclear); Meier now argues that the Synoptic controversy stories of healingon the Sabbath cannot be historical: “in all four Gospels, we have not asingle narrative of a sabbath dispute occasioned by a healing that probablygoes back to the historical Jesus” (p. 259). The reason for this shift in opin-ion rests on Meier’s discovery that there is no evidence in pre-70 Jewish lit-erature that healing on the Sabbath was forbidden. Here a determinativeconclusion depends on the weakest form of reasoning: the argument fromsilence. Meier readily admits that he is arguing from silence but regards

145. Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment, 192.146. Yang captures the tension well: “Jesus’ fulfilment of the Sabbath, like that of other

laws, has the elements of both ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ in the sense that the Sabbath isno longer the same after Jesus’ fulfilment but is transcended by that fulfilment” (Jesus and theSabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 306).

147. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, 117. Riesenfeld speaks of the “eschatological actu-alizing of the symbolic content of the Sabbath” (ibid., 120).


the universal, widespread silence “a metaphorical shout” (p. 255). Never-theless, should a precarious argument from silence be allowed to be-come the decisive pivot that determines a historical conclusion? Againstthe admitted multiple attestation of the Synoptic healing stories, Meier isreduced to saying “sometimes a brief inspection employing the criterion ofmultiple attestation can be deceiving” (p. 253). Thus, even when the evi-dence satisfies a major criterion of authenticity, a positive conclusion mustgive way to other considerations. Meier also continues to deny the histo-ricity of the narrative concerning plucking grain on the Sabbath. Althoughhe concludes positively concerning the historicity of the logion in Mark2:27, he denies the authenticity of 2:28, regarding it as necessarily a laterChristological comment. Oddly enough, Meier accepts the historicity ofwhat he takes to be the halakic-type sayings associated with the Sabbathcontroversy stories (on the grounds of multiple attestation) while denyingthe historicity of the narratives themselves! He simply isolates them fromtheir contexts.

On the issue of Jesus and the law, Meier has fully collapsed the Jesusof the Gospels into Jesus the halakic Jew. “All questers for the historicalJesus should repeat the following mantra even in their sleep: the historicalJesus is the halakic Jesus” (p. 297). But the evidence of this conclusion, soimportant to Meier, is extremely flimsy, i.e., the few elements of halackic-type argumentation found in the Sabbath controversy stories. Are thesereally sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that Jesus was funda-mentally halakic? Meier has to suppose that there was much more of thismaterial that simply did not come into the Gospels. Above all for Meier,Jesus must be made to fit more or less comfortably into the first-centuryPalestinian Jewish context (but then why the hostility of the Pharisees?). Inactuality, history is full of the surprising and unexpected. But not forMeier the historian. Strict historical criteria can allow for no surprises. Thetelescoped narratives of the Syoptics (much more was spoken and donethan is recorded), freely edited by the evangelists, can easily be decon-structed as Meier does.

Most disappointingly, Meier demeans the “Christian depiction ofJesus.” But this depiction of Jesus does more justice to the Gospels as his-torical documents than does Meier’s reconstruction. Meier’s sense of the“historical probabilities,” which cannot but remain debatable, becomes thetruth over against the Gospels. It is worth remembering that “the quest forthe historical Jesus” is a misnomer. It is not a search that can bring us thereal Jesus (although that often seems to be the implication) but rather asearch that provides what necessarily and finally must remain an artificialconstruct. The fact remains that the historical method, strictly practiced àla Meier, is ill-equipped to deal with the uniqueness represented by thestory of Jesus.

Documents

Jesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies · PDF fileJesus and the Synoptic Sabbath Controversies donald a. hagner fuller theological seminary ... First, there is the problem, usually