Thursday, January 6, 2022

James G. Crossley on the Dispute about the Qorban Tradition in Mark 7

Mark 7/Matt 15 and Jesus' comments against the Qorban (alt. Korban) rule is often used as a "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura. For a discussion, see Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura.


In his book, The date of Mark's Gospel, James G. Crossley, himself a liberal scholar, writes the following about the background to Mark 7 and the Qorban dispute, and how it is reflective of a very early tradition that could go back to the historical Jesus himself, in support of this thesis that the Gospel of Mark was written at a very early date (late-30s to late-40s):

 

Qorban

 

In Mk 7.6 ff. we start getting an attack on ‘tradition’ in general in addition to table purity. Mark 7.9-13 gives a specific example of what is called ‘your tradition’ (7.9, 13) namely the qorban tradition. Here we get a claim that the Pharisees and scribes would not go back on a dedicated property which the Markan Jesus believes runs contrary to the commandment to honour parents. It is difficult to know precisely how קרבן would have been understood in first-century Judaism. It could be seen literally as a gift which was dedicated in some way to the Temple. Alternatively it could be dedicated in a less literal sense, as if it were dedicated to God or the Temple, possibly as some form of oath. It is difficult to decide between these options but whichever one is chosen the issue of whether parents could be denied benefit by children by some form of oath or vow still has to be tackled. In this sense Mk 7.9-13, it is often argued, is misleading, mainly because it appears that the rabbis would have agreed with the Markan Jesus.

 

If a man saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, ‘let the figs be qorban to you’, and discovered them to be his father or brothers, while others were with them too—Beth Shammai maintain: his father and brothers are permitted, but the rest are forbidden. Beth Hillel rule: all are permitted (m. Ned. 3.2; cf. 9.1).

 

There is, however, some evidence that oaths and vows could be problematical or strictly binding (e.g. Deut. 23.21-23; Num. 30.2; Jgs. 11.29-40; Mk 6.17-28). It might be added that if Matthew records this tradition (Mt. 15.3-6) then, given his knowledge of Jewish law, it could well be accurate. A significant piece of evidence is found in the Mishnah and is occasionally cited in discussions of Mk 7.9-13:

 

It once happened that a man at Beth Horon, whose father was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from him, was giving his son in marriage, and he said to his fellow, ‘The courtyard and the banquet are given to you as a gift, but they are yours only that my father may come and eat with us at the banquet.’ His fellow said, ‘If they are mine, they are dedicated to Heaven.’ The other answered, ‘I did not give you what is mind that you should dedicate it to Heaven.’ His fellow said, ‘Did you give me what is yours only that you and your father may eat and drink and be reconciled with one another, and that the sin should rest on his head!’ When the case came before the Sages, they said: Any gift which, if a man would dedicate it, is not accounted dedicated, is not a [valid] gift (m. Ned. 5.6)

 

This passage appears to show that certain Jews were not prepared to overturn a vow even if it involved parents. It could be argued again that if Mark attests a similar tradition to one found in rabbinical literature it would be an unlikely coincidence. However things are not so clear cut. With handwashing there is enough rabbinical material to argue that if Mk 7.1 ff. was invented or mistaken it would be an unlikely coincidence. M. Nedarim 5.6, on the other hand, points to an issue possibly similar to Mk 7.9-13 which is not so well attested. Possibly should be stressed because it is not entirely clear that Nedarim 5.6 does specifically state that vows concerning parents, in certain circumstances, could not be released. The saying of the Ages is concerned with the status of a conditional gift, indeed the passage does not discuss the specific issue of being released from the vow concerning his father. That said there is still a case of a man at Beth Horon whose father was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from him and the Sages’ saying in its  present context could be seen to cover the possibility of the man not giving benefit to his father. Likewise the father and son were initially involved in a vow whereby the father could not have any benefits from the son. It only requires an isolate example like the sort found in Nedarim 5.6 to be built up into a polemical argument and this is perhaps the best way to access the Markan passage, particularly in the light of other exaggerated polemic found in the synoptic tradition. For example, the scribes and Pharisees almost certainly tithed mint, dill and cumin but they would almost certainly have not believed they overlooked justice and mercy. In a similar way there can be no doubt that the scribes and Pharisees took the commandment to honour parents very seriously. Jesus accuses the Pharisees of neglecting the commandment to honour parents but the Pharisees of course would argue differently. Yet polemic by its very nature is often exaggerated and so it is perilous to read passages such as Mk 7.9-13 too literally.

 

Sanders takes a different approach to Mk 7.9-13 through his interpretation of a passage in Philo where if someone made a vow in the name of God, even if it were a ‘a chance verbal promise’, it is binding (Hypothetica 7.3) and,

 

The same holds for any other persons over whom he has authority. If a man has devoted his wife’s sustenance to a sacred purpose he must refrain from giving her that sustenance; so with a father’s gifts to his son or a ruler’s to his subjects. (Hyp. 7.5)

 

The best way of releasing dedicated property is by the priest refusing it, ‘for he is empowered by God to accept it ir now’. Another means of release is that given gy someone who at the time has higher authority (to whom this refers is not entirely clear). Sanders suggests that Jesus’ criticism in Mk 7.9-13 ‘could be much more specifically applied to Philo’s interpretation of vows and their release than to the Pharisees’. According to Sanders, Mk 7.9-13, the property expected by parent from son, is simply the reverse of Hypothetica 7.3-5 which allows a man to forbid his wife from using property by means of dedication and is extended to include a man’s gift to his son. Anders appears to suggest that Mk 7.9-13 would have a Diaspora setting and thus he refers to his earlier argument that the handwashing dispute reflects handwashing before prayer in the Diaspora (Sanders, Jewish Law, p. 57).

 

Against this approach, it has already been argued that there are problems in Sanders’ argument that Mk 7.104 reflects handwashing before prayer, so it cannot be used as evidence to back up his claims for Mk 7.9-13, as Sanders appears to do. Moreover, if it does reflect a Diaspora setting (that of a Greek-speaking Egyptian Jew!) it is difficult to account for the translation of the Semitic קרבן. It is also worth noting that Sanders does not discuss m. Nedarim 5.6, which raises the possibility of similar issues in Palestine, Hypothetica 7.3-5 itself does not fully back up Sanders’ suggestion. The beginning of Hypothetica 7.5 explicitly tells us that this passage concerns people over whom the man has authority. This is not the same as Mk 7.9-13 because the man does not have authority over his parents. That said it remains a useful passage for our purposes because this type of vow appears to be classed as a tradition, hence the beginning of Hypothetica 7.6, ‘Besides these there is a host of other things which belong to unwritten custom and institutions or are contained in the laws themselves (μυρια δε αλλα επι τουτοις, οσα και επι αγραφων εθων και νομιμων καν τοις νομοις αυτοις)’. This suggests that someone approximately contemporary with Jesus may well have referred to vows roughly similar to Mk 7.9-13 as tradition. This alone does not, of course, suggest a date for Mark or Mk 7.1-23 but the fact that Mk 7.9-13 would have been perceived to be a part of ‘tradition’ and was stated as one by Mark further emphasises that Mk 7.1-23 is dealing with tradition and further contrasting this polemically with biblical law. (James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 266; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 188-91)