This article examines the reference to capital punishment in Mark 7.10. We ask if it was more likely to have been intended and received in a literal or a hyperbolic sense within the first century.1 We conclude that a literal sense is more probable.
AlandK., et al. (eds.) 2012Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
2.
AviozMichael2021Legal Exegesis of Scripture in the Works of Josephus (LSTS; London: T & T Clark).
3.
BarracloughRay2000 ‘Being Pharisaic Christians. A Study of Mark 7:10b and Matthew 15:4b’, Irish Biblical Studies22: 2–25.
4.
BaumgartenAlbert1984 ‘Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis’, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society16: 5–17.
5.
BaumgartenJoseph2005 ‘The Avoidance of the Death Penalty in Qumran Law’, in ChazonEsther G.DimantDevorahClementsRuth A. (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 (STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005): 31–38.
6.
BenovitzMoshe1998KOL NIDRE: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions (BJS 315; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
7.
BickermanElias J.1947 ‘The Warning Inscriptions of Herod’s Temple’, JQR37: 387–405.
8.
BorgenPeder2001 ‘Application of and Commitment to the Laws of Moses’, SPhilo13: 86–101.
9.
BrunerFrederick Dale2004Matthew: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
10.
BuchananGeorge W.1965 ‘Some Vow and Oath Formulas in the New Testament’, HTR58: 319–26.
11.
BurgersChristianBrugmanBritta C.Renardel de LavaletteKiki Y.SteenGerard J.2016 ‘HIP: A Method for Linguistic Hyperbole Identification in Discourse’, Metaphor and Symbol31: 163–78.
12.
BurkeTrevor2003Family Matters: A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians (LNTS; London: T & T Clark).
ColsonF. H.WhitakerG. H. (trans.) 1930Philo: On Drunkenness (LCL 3; London and New York: Harvard University Press).
15.
CrossleyJames2004The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (LNTS; London: T & T Clark).
16.
CrossleyJames2012 ‘Halakah and Mark 7.3: With the Hand in the Shape of a Fist’, New Testament Studies58: 57–68.
17.
CurranJohn2018 ‘Ius Vitae Necisque: The Politics of Killing Children’, JAH6: 111–35.
18.
CzajkowskiKimberly2016 ‘Justice in Client Kingdoms: The Many Trials of Herod’s Sons’, Historia65: 473–96.
19.
De LangeNicholas R. M1976Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
20.
DerrettJ. D. M.1963 ‘Law in the New Testament: The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery’, NTS10: 1–26.
21.
DerrettJ. D. M.1970 ‘ΚΟΡΒAΝ, Ο ΕΣΤΙΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ’, NTS16: 364–68.
22.
DerrettJ. D. M.2005Law in the New Testament (Eugene: Wipf & Stock).
23.
De Sola PoolDavid1916Capital Punishment Among the Jews (New York: Bloch).
24.
FeldmanLouis H.1984Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter).
25.
FinkelsteinJ.J.1981 ‘The Ox That Gored’, TAPS71: 1–89.
26.
FitzmyerJoseph A.1959 ‘The Aramaic Qorbān Inscription from Jebel Ḫallet Eṭ-Ṭûri and Mark 7: 11/Matt 15: 5’, JBL78: 60–65.
27.
FranceR. T.2002The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
28.
FocantCamille2012The Gospel According to Mark: A Commentary (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012).
29.
FullerRussell1994 ‘Exodus 21:22–23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus’, JETS37: 169–84.
30.
FurstenbergYair2008 ‘Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination in Mark 7.15’, NTS54: 176–200.
31.
FurstenbergYair2020 ‘Jesus against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second Temple Intersectarian Discourse’, JBL139: 774–77.
32.
GallantRobert Paul1988 ‘Josephus’ Expositions of Biblical Law: An Internal Analysis’, PhD Diss., New Haven: Yale University.
33.
GoldenbergDavid1978 ‘Halakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study’, Dropsie College Theses.
34.
GoldenbergDavid M.2013 ‘Josephus’s “Mosaic Constitution”’, in FeldmanLouis H.KugelJames L.SchiffmanLawrence H. (eds.), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society): 1202–25.
35.
HaalandGunnar2011 ‘Convenient Fiction or Causal Factor?’, in PastorJackSternPninaMorMenachem (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146; Leiden: Brill): 163–75.
36.
HewittJ. W.1931 ‘Gratitude to Parents in Greek and Roman Literature’, AJP52: 30–48.
37.
HiersRichard H.2003 ‘The Death Penalty and Due Process in Biblical Law’, U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 81: 751–843.
Josephus2008Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 1B: Judean War 2 (ed. and trans. MasonSteve; Leiden: Brill).
43.
LoaderWilliam R. G2002Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
44.
MaartensJo Ann1991 ‘A Second Best Voyage: Jesus and Judaism on Oaths and Vows’, D.Phil. thesis, McMaster University.
45.
Manekin-BambergerAvigail2019 ‘The Vow-Curse in Ancient Jewish Texts’, HTR112: 340–57.
46.
MannC. S.1986Mark (Anchor Bible Volume 27; New York: Doubleday).
47.
MarcusJoel2000Mark 1–8 (Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries; New York: Doubleday).
48.
MasonSteve2009Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins (Peabody: Hendrickson).
49.
MazarB.1970 ‘The Excavations South and West of the Temple Mount Jerusalem: The Herodian Period’, BA33: 47–60.
50.
McGinnThomas A. J.2019 ‘Herod the Great and the Iudicium Domesticum: Legal Pluralism to Die For’, Journal of Legal History40: 155–81.
51.
MeyersCarol L.2014 ‘Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?’, JBL133: 8–27.
52.
MuellerEike Arend2015 ‘Cleansing the Common: Narrative-Intertextual Study of Mark 7:1–23’, PhD Diss., Andrews University.
53.
NiehoffMaren R.2018Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press).
54.
PickupMartin2007 ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s Pharisees’, in NeusnerJacobChiltonBruce (eds.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor University Press): 67–112.
55.
RabelloA. M.1992 ‘Herod’s Domestic Court? The Judgment of Death for Herod’s Sons’’, Jewish Law Annual10: 39–56.
56.
RevelBernard1913 ‘Inquiry into the Sources of Karaite Halakah’, JQR3: 337–96.
57.
SandersE. P.1990Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press).
58.
SandersE. P.2016 ‘The Synoptic Jesus and the Law: Conflicts and Agreements in Comparison with Other Contemporary Debates’’, in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress).
59.
SchillerA. Arthur1978Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development (The Hague: Mouton).
60.
SchuhmannDaniel2009Mischna Nedarim. Textkritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentierung (Jerusalem: LeeAchim Sefarim, 2009).
61.
SulzbergerMayer1912 ‘The Polity of the Ancient Hebrews’, JQR3: 1–81.
62.
SvartvikJesper2000Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).
63.
TaylorVincent1952The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan).
64.
VenterDirk J.2014 ‘The Implicit Obligations of Brothers, Debtors and Sons (Romans 8:12–17)’, Neotestamentica48: 283–302.
65.
WilfandDoron2016 ‘Mark, Matthew, and the Tanakh: A Comparison of Tanakh References in Mark and Matthew’, PhD Diss., Duke University.
66.
WinkWalter1992 ‘Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way’, Review & Expositor89: 197–214.
67.
WinterPaul1961On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter).
68.
ZeitlinS1962 ‘Korban’, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 53: 160–163.
