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)
