Year: 2009
Type: book-chapter
Abstract: whether it 'is permissible for a man to divorce [his] wife'; the reference to the Pharisees lacks in Codex Bezae and other witnesses, and the shorter form is considered by some 'the earliest recoverable reading'.3 It is debated whether the question itself would make sense in Second Temple Judaism.Some have asserted this, pointing to the de facto exclusion of divorce in the Temple Scroll (see further below) or to the strict approach of the House of Shammai, according to which 'the divorce is only a result of adultery, which at any rate forbids the wife to her husband'.4 However, even if this points to a very negative view of divorce and the divorced woman-an issue to which we shall come back later-, it does not deny that the Shammaites accepted the institution of divorce as such.There may have been some further criticism of divorce (e.g., Mal 2:16 MT [?]), 5 but, as we shall see, no other Second Temple Jewish text generally prohibits divorce to ordinary Jews; thus, the question in Mark 10:2 might indeed seem odd.David Instone-Brewer has therefore suggested to mentally supply '[sc.divorce] for any reason', 6 bringing the pericope in line with the Matthean parallel (Matt 19:3) and the famous debate between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai on the interpretation of rD b∂ ; d tÅ w√ rR o (Deut 24:1; m.Git.9:10), but I do not think that there is sufficient warrant for this: 'for any reason' (κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν) in Matt 19:3 correlates with the famous exception clause in v. 9 'except for sexual indecency' (µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ) and is most probably a Matthean clarification (see also αἰτία in v. 10).In my view, it seems more likely that the indeterminate wording in Mark serves to prepare Jesus' own position as 3 A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007) 457; cf. the minority opinion of Metzger and Wikgren in B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Dt.Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 88.4 I. Rosen-Zvi, '"Even if he found another one more beautiful than her": A Fresh Look at the Reasons for Divorce in Tannaitic Literature', JSIJ 3 (2004) 1-11: 2 (in Hebrew [ET: LD]).According to Rosen-Zvi, the connection of Shammaite and Hillelite views with a different interpretation of Deut 24:1 (see below) is a secondary development: ibid.1-5. 5 The interpretation of this verse is extremely difficult.The Minor Prophets scroll from Qumran, part of the LXX manuscripts, the Vulgate, and Targum Ps.-Jonathan render the beginning of the verse as 'if you hate (her), send (her) away', thus condoning and even recommending divorce under certain circumstances; 4QXII a : jlC htnC Ma_yk (DJD 15, 224); LXX WL : ἀλλ' ἐὰν µεισήσας ἐξαποστείλον; V: cum odio habueris, dimitte; Tg.Ps.-J.: hrfp hl tyns Ma yra.In contrast, MT might be read as a critique of divorce.However, Gordon Paul Hugenberger has convincingly argued that, compared with an interpretation (and possibly emendation) of MT jA ; lA v ańD c_yI ; k in terms of God's rejection of divorce ('for I hate divorce'), a sense of the text is to be preferred that is directed against divorce on account of mere aversion against the woman ('for if he hates [her] and [therefore] sends [her] away'): G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 48-83, esp.76. 6 Cf.D. Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids [Mich.]:Eerdmans, 2002) esp.159, 175-77.developed subsequently; 7 the possible absence of 'the Pharisees' from the earliest text form perhaps underlines the lack of historical context.The interlocutors' answer in v. 4 shifts to the vocabulary of concession: 'Moses conceded (ἐπέτρεψεν) 8 to write a certificate of annulment and to divorce [one's wife]' (cf.Deut 24:1).The juxtaposition of 'command' and 'concede' language has the effect that the interlocutors classify divorce not as a commandment but as a concession, 9 a notion Jesus takes up in v. 5: 'Because of your hardness of heart' Moses wrote the provision for the get.̣As Morna Hooker comments, 'Jesus does not dispute the validity of the Deuteronomic rule, but sees it as concessionary: it was introduced because of man's weakness'.10 In Mark 10, the concession is contrasted (vv.6-8) with the original institution of marriage, whilst v. 9 concludes for human praxis, in the third person imperative.(Mark 10:6) ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς• (7) ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν µητέρα [καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ], 11 (8) καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα µίαν• ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ µία σάρξ.(9) ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος µὴ χωριζέτω.7 Cf.R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTK 2/1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 5 1989, 4 1991) 2:122.8 Cf. for the language of personal concession esp.Mt 8:21 par.; also Mk 5:13 par.9 But note that in the parallel in Mt 19:7-8 there is a different distribution of the verbs ἐντέλλειν and ἐπιτρέπειν, with the interlocutors asking, 'Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of annulment and to divorce [one's wife]?' and Jesus answering, 'For your hardness of heart Moses conceded you to divorce your wives…'.10 M. Hooker, The Gospel According to St Mark (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2001 [1991]) 236.Some scholars point out that the reference to Moses implies that this concession is 'merely' Mosaic and does not reflect God's will; e.g., S. D. Fraade, 'Moses and the Commandments: Can Hermeneutics, History, and Rhetoric Be Disentangled?',The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James Kugel (ed.H. Najman & J. H. Newman, JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 399-422: 417; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 468.However, although the text does contrast the Mosaic rule with God's order here, I would like to caution that 'Moses' is not consistently used in such a contrasting way in Mark; see Mark 7:10, where 'Moses' is referred to for Decalogue commandments and clearly belongs to the side of 'God's commandments' mentioned in the preceding verse.-On'hardness of hearts' see further below, (at) n. 101.11 The words in brackets are missing in a B Ψ 892*.2427 sy s , but here it is possible that the best
Source: BRILL eBooks
Author: Lutz Doering
Language: English
Subfield: Religious studies
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W596576738