Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul a Pharisee?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul a Pharisee?
  • Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 04:40:58 -0700 (PDT)


Mike Abernathy responded to Hyam Maccoby:

>I was able to check three Jewish authors who
>commented on the synoptic gospels: Lachs,
>Montefiore, and Abrahams. What I found was not
>consistent with the view you have expressed.
>Abrahams came closest to your position.He mentioned
>that the halacha allowed any effort to save
>life or to relieve "acute pain" on the Sabbath.
>However, he did not imply that healing was generally
>acceptable on the Sabbath when it was possible to
>delay the healing until the next day...Lachs answered
>the question "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
>saying, "The answer is a categorical yes, if life is
>in danger, but no, if it not in danger as in the
>situation here."... Montefiore admitted that
>rabbinic Judaism allowed for "certain minor
>infringements of the Sabbath"
>in the case of sickness. However, he continued to
>say, "But unrestricted permission to `heal' on the
>Sabbath would not, I think, have been permitted...

I looked up what Ed Sanders had to say in "Jesus and
Judaism". He basically agrees with Hyam:

"The stories of healing on the sabbath [Mk 3:1-6/Mt
12:9-14/Lk 6:6-11; Lk 13:10-17; Lk 14:1-6] reveal no
instance in which Jesus transgressed the sabbath law.
The matter is quite simple: no work was performed. If
Jesus had to remove a rock which was crushing a man's
hand, there would have been a legal principle at
issue: was the man's life in danger, or could he have
waited for the sun to set? But the laying on of hands
(Lk 13:13) is not work, and no physical action of any
kind is reported in the other stories." (p 266)

Sanders footnotes his opinion:

"Westerholm comments that 'it seems reasonable to
assume that Pharisees would oppose such action
[healing] where life was not in danger', and this is
possible, even though the kinds of healing attributed
to Jesus are not forbidden in the mishnah. Pesch has
also argued that Jesus in Mk 3:1-6/Mt 12:9-14/Lk
6:6-11 contravenes the sabbath law either of the bible
or of the Pharisees. But in view of later rabbinic law
it would seem that, even if we take the stories of
healing on the sabbath at face value, no SUBSTANTIAL
transgression was involved." (p 400-401)

So, with two general possibilities --

1. Healing which did not involve work was entirely
acceptable on the sabbath. That which did involve work
was unacceptable, save in emergency situations.
(Maccoby, Sanders)

2. All healing (whether it involved work or not) was
unacceptable on the sabbath, save in emergency
situations. (Lachs, Westerholm)

-- Abrahams, Montiefore, and Pesch seem somewhere
in-between. I'm also inclined to take seriously
position (2) with reservations. Considering the
diversity within 2nd-Temple Judaism, it would be most
surprising if no sect (or sects) of Pharisees took the
sabbath law more seriously than others. For, in any
case, healing was allowed in all emergency situations.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page