Silencing the Pharisees:

Rhetorical Methods in Mark 2:23-28

Jake Oresick

RL 299.01

Exegesis Paper

May 12, 2004

Introduction

In Mark 2:23-28, we see a verbal confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees. The question of the Sabbath is the crux of the conflict, as the Pharisees believe Jesus’ disciples have violated one of the Ten Commandments (Exod 34:21) by plucking grain on the seventh day. After being met with the Pharisees’ objection (“Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”) Jesus retorts with a scriptural reference. Jesus begins, “Have you never read what David did...?,” recalling 1 Samuel 21:1-16, wherein David is fleeing the country to save his life and asks the priest that he might have bread for his journey. Finding no “common” bread, the priest gives David and his companions the bread of the presence—consecrated, only to be consumed by priests—only after they vow that none among them are unchaste. In his allusion to 1 Samuel, however, Jesus says, “when Abiathar was high priest,” which is inconsistent with scripture. Jesus then finishes the confrontation with an enthymeme,[1] stating, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” This exegetical investigation will prove that Mark[2] presented this pericope in a rhetorical structure that demonstrates Jesus’ authority over the Pharisees. It will also demonstrate Jesus’ theology is concerned with the spirit of the law more so than the letter of the law.[3]

Methods of Investigation

After providing information on the Gospel of Mark’s social-scientific background, variations of our pericope in the other synoptic gospels will be explored. From there, we will begin rhetorical criticism. Rhetorical criticism will be the primary focus of this investigation, that is, the analysis of forms and uses of argumentation in a speech or text. This form of criticism will be central, of course, as it will ultimately be argued that Mark’s rhetorical structure is designed to demonstrate Jesus’ authority over the Pharisees. We will explore rhetorical criticism in two areas. The first is Mark’s background as an oral narrative and how that contributed to a rhetorical structure persuasive in demonstrating Jesus’ authority. Second, we will see how Mark intentionally silences Jesus’ opponents during a verbal confrontation to effectively illustrate Jesus supremacy.

Social Context of Mark

To fully understand the Gospel of Mark, it is not only important to grasp the social-scientific conditons of Judea in the early first century, but also of Rome in the 60s, when the gospel itself was composed. Certainly, a misunderstanding of Jewish protocol or customs would pervert one’s comprehension of the actual story of Jesus (especially the pericope in question), but a look at Rome under Nero’s rule is also highly relevant. This is especially true given the volatile nature of the period, and, more specifically, the intense Jewish and Christian persecution that occurred at the time.

Beginning with Galilee and Judea in the 20s and 30s, the sitz im leben Jesu, we see a rather unstable political landscape. Although the world of the gospels was undoubtedly controlled by the Roman Empire, Jews enjoyed special concessions not traditionally entrusted to conquered peoples. Although Jews were more autonomous than most peoples in the Roman Empire, the aforementioned friction was a prevalent component of the political climate:

By Roman lights, the Jews were treated leniently and given extraordinary privileges. They were not required to serve in the army, and officially every effort was made to respect their religious scruples. Within limits, they were permitted to govern themselves by their own laws. Nevertheless, Roman administration in this provincial outpost was inclined to be clumsy, inept, and corrupt, and the tension between Jew and Roman is very apparent in the gospel story.[4]

We see an example of this when Pontius Pilate sought to improve the water supply in Jerusalem. Because he could, Pilate simply appropriated the necessary funds from the Temple treasury. “He had not anticipated that the Jews would see this not merely as theft but as sacrilege. Thus, when word got out, a mob of Jewish protestors was waiting for him when he next visited Jerusalem.”[5] Furthermore, Roman governors emphasized their political clout in the Jewish world, and were often able to influence the appointment of the high priests—at least in an indirect manner. This is crucial to our pericope, as a lot of Jewish opposition to Jesus was born of fear of Roman reprisal.

While Jesus and his followers had a difficult time in Galilee in the 20s and 30s, Rome in the 60s—where and when the Gospel of Mark was actually written—was arguably much worse. The current emperor, Nero, was hostile towards the Jews, but even more so to the first converts to Christianity. Nero was even said to have burned Christians alive.[6] One major problem Jewish-Christians faced was proselytism, “considered an un-Roman act.” It was certainly frowned upon, and “’may have lead to several expulsions and to conscription.’”[7] This explains, at least to some degree, why the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as the secret messiah. Mark’s gospel is certainly the most cryptic of the four, and given the cultural context of the period—fervent with anti-Christian sentiment—we can assume that the gospel’s theology was meticulously veiled. Also problematic for Christians at this time was that Nero seems to have been the first Roman ruler to distinguish them from Jews:

[Nero] singled [Christians] out and blamed them for the fire. Christians were no longer associated with a religion of long standing which at least officially was not prohibited or banned by Roman law. Thus it is not surprising that our sources say the main complaint about the Christians is that they were guilty of practicing a religio nova, and thus the charge in regard to starting the fire seemed reasonable at the time....Being hauled before authorities...would surely have been seen as a real possibility in Mark’s day. When one takes the trouble to consider the list of prominent Roman or Greco-Roman writers who expressed strong feelings of revulsion toward Judaism or any of its offshoots that would be seen as a superstitio, a list which includes Cicero, Tacitus, Martial, Juvenal, Ovid, Quintilian, Seneca, and even someone like Plutarch, it becomes apparent what a widespread feeling this was in Roman culture.[8]

Because Jews and Christians alike had so successfully absented themselves from Roman life—public games, public sacrifices, the military—the bias against them was further maintained. To compound matters further, Romans had long regarded Jews with suspicion because of their monotheism. Romans, of course, were not only polytheists, but were highly inclusive. In fact, whenever their military conquered a new culture, the Romans not only offered sacrifices to their own deities, but to those of the vanquished.[9] The high level of syncretism in the Roman Empire made the Jews and Christians, by comparison, seem both antisocial and intolerant.

Religio-National Groups

Differences between religio-national groups within the Jewish nation are also central to understanding the Gospel of Mark. There were several divergences in the practice of Judaism from one sect to another, a reality that often led to healthy debate, if not conflict. Most familiar to readers of Mark would be the Pharisees, although their portrayal in the gospels is misleading to say the least. Pharisaism was the “normative religion of most of Palestine and the Diaspora, the religion taught in the synagogues and professed by the greatest number of the scribes (who would later be known as the rabbis).”[10] While the Gospel of Mark depicts them as exclusive, hyper-legal, and at times fanatical, it would be much more accurate to say that most Jews of the time were Pharisees. Most early Christians were Pharisees; St. Paul, in Philippians 3:5, “considers it a point of honor” to recognize his Pharisaism.[11] The religion of the Pharisees represented a moderate progressiveness. Much like the theology of Jesus himself, Pharisaism was a religion of the spirit more so than the letter.

Why, then, do the gospels portray the Pharisees as unforgiving ideologues? Our own pericope in question, in fact, Mark 2:23-28, epitomizes the rigid, “holier than thou” observance with which the Pharisees are associated. To answer this question, we must investigate the subjective nature of assigning and recognizing labels. A relevant contemporary example would be when, approximately a decade ago, an Orthodox leader raised the ire of Reform Jews by declaring that only the Orthodox, because of their strict observance of the Law, where in fact “real” Jews. This phenomenon is certainly not a new one, as the Pharisees, by whom the disciples were confronted, would not have considered Jesus and his disciples to be Pharisees at all. Most people in the community, although identifying themselves as Pharisees, practiced it in its “non-professional” sense. “Pharisaism in the professional sense descended to many particulars which were the practice of only a few: in this sense Pharisaism was, indeed, a faction.” Thus, the “professional Pharisee, as a matter of fact, would not have considered that the average Jews practiced his religion at all.”[12] While the sect itself was the product of a progressive tendency, it was also laden with components that made it susceptible to the harsh legalism that is seen in the gospels. Ironically, Jesus and the Pharisees who oppose him in the Gospel of Mark would have shared more agreement than disagreement, although, for rhetorical purposes, it was more effective for Mark to stress their points of opposition. The rhetorical strategy here is to emphasize the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees, and implicitly identify them with the broader group of Jesus’ opposition.

The most maligned of the groups we see in the gospels would certainly be the Sadducees. Truly an exclusive sect, they consisted mostly of the priestly aristocracy. Their name, perhaps bestowed ironically, originated in their “pretensions to the descendents of Sadoc, the high priest prominent in the times of David and Solomon.”[13] Religiously, they rejected Pharisaic notions pertaining to belief in the resurrection of the body, as well as in angels and any kind of non-corporeal spirits.[14] Only the Torah of Moses was included in their canon, and they maintained a strict religious fundamentalism, much more so than the “professional” Pharisees of the gospels. The main reason for their lack of popularity, however, was that the Sadducees were extremely Hellenized. The first century was a time when most Jews resented the dominion of the Romans, and because of the Sadducees’ Hellenism, most Jews viewed them as traitors. Beyond these facts, the Sadducees’ “spirit of conciliation” with Roman leaders allowed them to wield political power that was disproportionate to their scant numbers. Thus, they are more accurately understood as wealthy, overly pious, and widely despised.

Class Structure/Audience

In an agrarian society, as this was, it is important to remember that the ruler, along with the governing class—although comprising only five percent of the population—controlled approximately fifty percent of the annual national income. When considering this, it is not difficult to see why the Jesus movement and the radical social reforms it suggested were so popular with the plebeian class, which comprised a great majority of the population.[15] The peasant and artisan classes, which included most people in an agrarian society, were a natural target for Jesus’ message. One of the reasons he was considered to be so radical, however, was because he not only preached to the destitute, but made them central to his message.[16] The degraded class—porters, miners, prostitutes—were marginalized a great deal in hierocratic Palestine, as were the expendable class—criminals, beggars.[17] Aside from being strong in numbers, the plebeian class was the ideal group for Jesus’ ministry because of the disparate economic conditions that existed. While the gospels would maintain that Jesus’ mission was purely in a theological, salvific context, a social-scientific criticism would be incomplete without a political viewpoint, especially because religion and politics were so intertwined in this period. Jesus’ message is remarkably well-received, if for no other reason than its interest in the poor, who were manifold. Our pericope would no doubt have resonated with Jews and Gentiles alike, as it depicts hungry men being reprimanded for eating in a society where most did not have enough to eat. This makes sense rhetorically for Mark to aim his argument about food at hungry people.

The last crucial thing it is important to understand about the Gospel of Mark is the audience for which it was originally intended. Unlike Matthew, the Gospel of Mark was intended to be heard by Gentiles, and was to be used to proselytize to them. In Mark’s gospel, references to Jewish customs and practices are always explicated. In the instance that Gentiles hearing the gospel performed were unfamiliar with these customs, the rhetoric would have otherwise been blunted. Ablutions before meals, washing of vessels, slaughtering of lambs, and the concept of the Jewish Sabbath are all things that would have been lost on Mark’s audience had he not taken time to explain them.[18] Aramaic words and phrases are also translated, as if to indicate that Mark realized the importance of Gentile converts by the time the transcript was actually written down. This will become more relevant during analysis in this investigation, as we see Mark exploit Gentile ignorance of the Jewish Scriptures to strengthen his rhetorical methods.

Literary Context

It is important to understand the literary context of the pericope in question. The passage concerning the plucking of the grain falls in the midst of five conflict stories that appear in succession in Mark 2:1-3:6. First, we see Jesus heal a paralytic man, as he then refutes doubts about his ability to forgive sin (2:1-12). Second, the Pharisees question Jesus about eating with tax collectors and sinners (2:13-17). Next, the Pharisees, as well as the disciples of John the Baptist, question Jesus about why his disciples do not fast (2:18-22). The fourth conflict story is the pericope in question, and is then followed by Jesus being questioned about restoring the withered hand of a man on the sabbath (3:1-6).

Synoptic

While it is true that our pericope appears in all three Synoptic gospels (Mt 12:1-8; Lk 6:1-5), there is little variation among them. Some of the variations that do exist, however, are rather significant. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke specifically state that the disciples ate the grain, whereas the eating is merely implied in Mark. “To make a road,” (Mk 2:23) “he was in need [of food],” (Mk 2:25) and the incorrect reference to Abiathar as high priest (Mk 2:26) are stricken from the editions of Matthew and Luke.[19] None of these redactions are especially significant until we come to Mark 2:27: “And he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for sabbath.’” This passage is entirely omitted from Matthew and Luke, a fact that is relevant considering the boldness of Jesus’ proclamation. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary safely surmises that Matthew and Luke removed 2:27 because “it went too far.”[20] This is important because, in Matthew and Luke, Son of Man becomes a title and a sign of divinity, whereas in Mark it refers to human beings.[21] Françoise Brown implies that 2:27 was not part of the original, aural tradition, but added by Mark at the time of transcription because Jesus’ example regarding David and his companions is “not entirely satisfying.”[22] It is then implied that Matthew and Luke decided 2:27 was not needed, because 2:28 (“so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath”) is an adequate Christological solution. However, Mark’s inclusion of 2:27—especially considering it refers to human begins in this case—is particularly relevant because it de-emphasizes rigid, scriptural adherence and re-emphasizes the needs of compassion and pragmatism.

Oral Tradition

Mark’s gospel was the compilation of oral tradition: “It is indisputable that Mark was heard by early Christians, not read by them. All literature in antiquity was composed for the ear, not the eye.”[23] This makes sense when one considers the quaint simplicity of Mark, as well as its structure:

Oral/aural narrative is always episodic. In the absence of paragraph breaks and other typographical indicators of print, the audience needs aural clues to identify the beginning and ending of narrative units. Eric Havelock writes, “The basic grammatical expression which would symbolise the link of event to event would simply be the phrase ‘and next . . .’. As anyone who has taken beginning Greek knows, Mark normally begins the next episode with kai, ‘and.’”[24]

Understanding the oral origin of Mark’s gospel is paramount for the modern reader, who would be accustomed to the linear structure of conventional prose. Characteristic of Mark’s aural tradition, it contains groups of episodes in parallel structure. Joanna Dewey writes:

As readers of narrative accustomed to linear sequence, we do not hear the aural parallel and chiastic echoes binding the narrative together, but when we begin looking they can be found in abundance. This clustering of material in echo systems both helps the performer (and audience) remember the material, and helps bring out the significance of the episodes by relating them to one another.[25]

This is why, for instance, we see several conflict stories in sequence. This is no curious happenstance, but a rhetorical device to better reach those hearing the gospel performed, as would have been the case in the first century AD.

It is important to remember that, because Mark’s gospel was originally intended for oral performance, it does not follow the same linear progression to which we are accustomed. Still, our pericope’s context is not accidental. These five conflict passages were methodically structured in this way for emphasis. Of this structure, Dewey says, “The five controversy stories create an elaborate chiastic pattern with multiple congruent structural and verbal echoes.”[26] She then goes on to note that the passages follow a pattern of A, B, C, B’, A’. The first and the fifth (A and A’) are about healing; the second and the fourth (B and B’) contain an incident, then eating, then a proverb, and a Christological saying; the third (C) contains questions of Jesus on fasting, followed by two sayings on the incompatibility of old and new.[27] When presented this way, it is clear to see how Mark is trying to portray Jesus through these conflict stories. Jesus is met with resistance from the authorities at every pass, but continues to demonstrate his superiority by winning these confrontations. Hearing these five stories in sequence would have certainly bombarded Mark’s audience with the idea that Jesus is more legitimate than his opponents.

Rhetorical Silencing of Pharisees

Our focus will now shift to the rhetorical structures used by Mark. Let us again take a look back: Jesus’ disciples have plucked the grain, and it is presupposed that they are eating it. The Pharisees then approach Jesus and ask, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath” (v. 24)? Jesus retorts with, “Have you not read what David did...” (v. 25)? There are obvious problems with Jesus’ reference to 1 Samuel 21:1-16, a point adequately addressed by Mary Ann Tolbert:

While David’s story is given in scripture and thus carries scriptural authority, it has nothing to do with the sabbath; it is not a rule of similar weightiness, for, after all, the purity of bread placed daily on the altar is not prescribed by the Ten Commandments nor justified by God’s creation of the world. Moreover, David’s action occurred under extreme duress, which can hardly be said of Jesus’ disciples’ stroll through the grainfield, and David was questioned about his ritual preparedness to take the bread, indicating that the decision to violate the law in this case was carefully considered and perhaps partially mitigated; no such discussion or consideration marked the actions of the disciples.[28]

The first question a critic might ask of Mark is: why arm the salvific figure with such a hollow argument during such a crucial confrontation? One possible answer might be that, because Mark’s gospel was primarily intended for a Gentile audience, they would not have realized the flaws in Jesus’ argument. It also seems likely that, even if they realized the weaknesses in his reference to David, they still felt it was important for Jesus to counter with a scriptural citation, as the audience (Jews if not Gentiles as well) would no doubt be familiar with the Pharisees’ obsession with Law. If Jesus could outwit them with a scriptural citation it would do a great deal towards legitimizing his theology. Also, it is noteworthy that Jesus only recites the components of the David story that are necessary to argue his case. “By focusing on the desperate situation of David, Jesus actually disguises the lack of desperation in the disciples’ behavior.”[29] It is also the case in rhetorical literary structures that a point of view is reinforced tremendously when it is objected to, and then successfully defended. Robert Tannehill writes:

In an objection story the responder is already committed to a position through the words or actions causing the objection. The resulting challenge creates tension within the story and puts the responder in a difficult situation. However, an impressive response is all the more impressive because it occurs within a situation of difficulty and risk.[30]

Thus, the rhetorical inclusion of the Pharisees’ objection allows Mark’s gospel to show its audience that Jesus’ theology can withstand scrutiny, making it all the more impressive and appealing. These are some reasons why Mark’s gospels included verses 25 and 26, despite their inconsistency with the situation of Jesus’ disciples.

The brilliance of this pericope’s rhetorical structure is most apparent by the way it ends. Because the Pharisees’ rigid adherence to scripture, it is logical to think that they would have quickly derided the flaws in his reference to David. David and his companions taking the “holy bread has practically no analogies whatsoever with the breaking of sabbath law by the disciples, which any competent rhetorical opponent of Jesus’ would easily be able to show.”[31] The rebuttal never comes. This is probably not because the Pharisees never made one, but because Mark consciously leaves Jesus unchallenged as a rhetorical ploy. Jesus essentially wins the confrontation by default: the gospel’s audience is given the impression that the Pharisees cannot refute him, and thus the authority of Jesus is demonstrated.

It is very clear at this point that Mark’s rhetorical structure is both deliberate and methodical. The gospel’s audience is now inundated with validations of Jesus’ authority, as our pericope was preceded by three other confrontation stories wherein Jesus also “wins.” At the point it appears Mark 2:23-28 is the coup de gras of sorts. Jesus has not only once again refuted his critics, but this time it is concerning the question of the Sabbath. It is clear, though, that our pericope is not only about the Sabbath; it is, in effect, a microcosm of Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees. If they could not rebut Jesus in regards to the relatively minor question of work on the Sabbath, then surely they are not fit to challenge Jesus’ authority on an issue of more gravity. Thus, the Pharisees’ credibility with Mark’s audience is surely diminished from this point on:

By silencing the opposing position and by emotionally distancing the audience from positive regard for the Pharisees, Mark encourages the audience, ancient and modern, to dismiss them and hence also the legitimacy of their views. Undoubtedly, Mark’s fundamental narrative purpose here, as throughout the gospel, is to strengthen the authority and stature of Jesus in contrast to all of those around him. By not permitting the Pharisees any verbal response to Jesus’ arguments, the author assures that Jesus’ rhetoric and Jesus himself stand supreme.[32]

In this way, Mark is able to illustrate Jesus’ victory in this confrontation, and his position appears infallible, as it was not subjected to further argument in the text. Furthermore, now that Jesus has essentially won, Mark adds the radical phrase, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” (v. 27). While this verse was removed by the other synoptics (probably because it appeared to be excessive) Mark has adequately justified Jesus’ authority, and has earned license to make such a pronouncement. There is also a great deal of theology involved: Mark’s statement that undermines the rigid legality of the Pharisees. He does this with verse 27, but has earned the ability to do so only because Jesus has completely silenced his opponents. The pericope as a whole, however, serves to emphasize that things consecrated to God—bread, Sabbath—are not absolute values, as the Pharisees regard them to be. These things exist for humanity’s sake, which is exactly the point exactly served by the reference to David.[33]

Original Audience

To its original audience, Mark 2:23-28 was undoubtedly a demonstration of Jesus as ultimate authority (superceding scripture). It is probably safe to say, however, that Jesus’ defense of his disciples was not a carte blanche for his other followers (and the audience of the gospel, for that matter) to violate the Sabbath, or to choose which of the Ten Commandments they would follow and which they would not. An adequate conclusion would be that Jesus wanted his disciples to move away from the rigid, letter-based observance of the Pharisees, but Mark was probably most concerned with his audience realizing the supremacy of Jesus.

Contemporary Audience

A contemporary audience of the Gospel of Mark would almost certainly be aware of the holes in Jesus’ argument if they were familiar with Jewish tradition, but this is less likely to be relevant given the considerable rift between Judaism and Christianity in the 1,940 years since it was written. A contemporary Christian audience, if not especially inclined to Biblical scholarship, would be ignorant of Mark’s sitz im leben, and of Jewish customs altogether. In this case, the question of Jesus’ reference to David would be of little significance. A contemporary audience would have a difficult enough time understanding the issue of conservative Sabbath observance that entails abstaining from anything that could be considered laborious. For the contemporary audience that is better informed, it seems that this passage really only works to demonstrate Jesus’ judicial and theological authority. The questions of Law in the context of the pericope are probably archaic from a modern layperson’s perspective. Excluding observant Jews, the modern audience is likely to be less concerned with these things, and would be interested only in Jesus’ authority being expressed. This authority is theological. By demonstrating he can say what is lawful and what is not, Jesus also gains credibility in the argument of the gospel as a whole: that he is Lord.

Conclusion

This investigation has repeatedly illustrated how the rhetorical methods used by Mark served to demonstrate Jesus’ authority. We have seen how, because of its oral tradition, Mark includes Jesus winning five different confrontations in succession—a rhetorical device used to overwhelm the audience with notions of Jesus’ supremacy. Mark’s silencing of Jesus’ opponents was also an effective rhetorical method. Mary Ann Tolbert most eloquently argued that, by silencing the Pharisees, especially in the event of such a flawed argument from Jesus, Mark dramatically reduces the Pharisees’ credibility, and thus augments the credibility of Jesus himself. We also see evidence that Mark very strategically implemented Jesus’ problematic allusion in. 1 Samuel. When Jesus makes the allusion, he concentrates on the main themes: that David and his companions were hungry, and in peril, and this justifies their breach of Law. Mark ignores the specifics, and tailors the argument to the situation in such a way that it coincides beautifully with Jesus’ statement, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Man, in this case, means “human beings,” and Mark uses this verse to demonstrate Jesus preference for the spirit of the law rather than its letter.

Select Bibliography

Benders, Alison. lecture, John Carroll University, Mar. 27, 2003.

Brown, Françoise. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002).

Brown, Raymond E., et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990).

Dewey, Joanna. “Mark as an Aural Narrative: Structures as Clues to Understanding,” Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992): 45-56.

Donahue, John R., et al. The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002).

Driscoll, James F. Catholic Encyclopedia, September 2003, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm (1 April 2004).

McGinn, Sheila. lecture, John Carroll University, Jan. 23, 2004.

______. lecture, John Carroll University, Apr. 15, 2004.

______. interview, Apr. 21, 2004.

Parrott, Rod. “Conflict and Rhetoric in Mark 2:23-28,” Semeia 64 (1994): 117-137.

Poduska, Donald. lecture, John Carroll University, Feb. 17, 2003.

Robbins, Vernon K. “A Rhetorical Typology for Classifying and Analyzing Pronouncement Stories,” SBL Seminar Papers 23 (1984): 93-122.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Luke (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984).

Tolbert, Mary Ann. “Is It Lawful on the Sabbath To Do Good or Harm: Mark’s Ethics of Religious Practice,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 23 (1996): 199-214.

Vawter, Bruce. The Four Gospels (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967).

Wikenhauser, Alfred. New Testament Introduction (Herder and Herder, 1963).

Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001).

[1] A syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly.

[2] To avoid confusion this investigation will refer to Mark as a blanket reference for the author of Mark’s gospel.

[3] The “spirit and letter of the law” is a generic phrase that will be used (in the interest of simplicity) to highlight a de-emphasis on rigid scriptural adherence and a renewed concentration on pragmatism and human needs.

[4] Bruce Vawter, The Four Gospels (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967), 32.

[5] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 32.

[6] McGinn, lecture, John Carroll University, Apr. 15, 2004.

[9] Donald Poduska, lecture, John Carroll University, Feb. 17, 2003.

[13] James F. Driscoll, Catholic Encyclopedia, September 2003, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm (1 April 2004).

[15] Sheila McGinn, lecture, John Carroll University, Jan. 23, 2004.

[16] Alison Benders, lecture, John Carroll University, Mar. 27, 2003.

[17] McGinn, lecture, John Carroll University, Jan. 23, 2004.

[19] Françoise Brown, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 197.

[20] Raymond E. Brown, et al., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N,J,: Prentice Hall, 1990), 603.

[23] Joanna Dewey. “Mark as an Aural Narrative: Structures as Clues to Understanding,” Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992): 46.

[28] Mary Ann Tolbert. “Is It Lawful on the Sabbath To Do Good or Harm: Mark’s Ethics of Religious Practice,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 23 (1996): 207-8.

[30] From Robert Tannehill. “Introduction: The Pronouncement Story and Its Types,” Semeia 20 (1981): 1-13, as cited by Rod Parrott. “Conflict and Rhetoric in Mark 2:23-28,” Semeia 64 (1994): 122.

[33] John R. Donahue, et al., The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 113.