Abstract
In the late fourth- or early fifth-century bilingual Codex Bezae (D), Lk. 6.5 includes the following agraphon in Greek and Latin: ‘On the same day, when [Jesus] saw someone working on the Sabbath, he said to him, “Man, if you know what you are doing you are blessed, but if you do not know then you are cursed and a transgressor of the law”’. Although scholars generally agree that this passage did not originate with the author of Luke, its precise origin and meaning remain contested. Previous studies implicitly agreed that the agraphon’s origin must be sought in the texts and traditions of the earliest Christian era. Based on literary parallels between Lk. 6.5D and the writings of Church Fathers, especially from the fourth century ce, this article argues that the Sabbath-Worker agraphon originated in the throes of later Christian polemic against Jewish and Judaizing practices of Sabbath observance.
Introduction
Codex Bezae (D) includes an agraphon about Sabbath observance at Lk. 6.5.
2
After the pericope of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath, in almost every manuscript, Lk. 6.5 reads: ‘And he said to them, “The son of man is lord of the Sabbath”’. In Bezae, however, this ‘lord of the Sabbath’ passage does not appear until after Lk. 6.10, after Jesus has healed the man with the withered hand. In place of this postponed saying, the bilingual Codex Bezae includes the following anecdote in Greek and Latin: On the same day, when he saw someone working on the Sabbath, he said to him, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing you are blessed, but if you do not know then you are cursed and a transgressor of the law’. Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἄνθρωπε, εἶ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. eodem die uidens quendam operantem sabbato et dixit illi homo si quidem scis quod facis beatus es si autem nescis maledictus et trabaricator legis.
3
The origin and meaning of this agraphon have been debated since Hugo Grotius drew attention to it more than 350 years ago (1641: 674). Although scholars generally agree that this passage did not originate with the author of Luke, its precise origin and meaning remain contested.
The various and contradictory theories on the origin and interpretation of Lk. 6.5D can be summarized by reviewing several articles devoted exclusively to this agraphon: these include the studies of Walter Käser, Ernst Bammel, Joël Delobel, J. Duncan M. Derrett, and Tobias Nicklas. Käser believed that the agraphon arose out of a young church community that had moved beyond Jewish and Jewish-Christian disputes over Mosaic Law but still struggled with the ethical implications of ‘der Freiheit Christi’. 4 Bammel postulated its origin in a longer pre-Markan narrative that was revised by the early church to promote ‘the Christological restriction of the Sabbath privilege’. 5 Delobel saw it as ‘later Christian reflection’ on Christ’s supersession of the Sabbath that likely developed ‘in a mixed pagan-Jewish community’ before the synoptic tradition had been gathered. 6 Derrett attempted to identify conceptual parallels throughout the gospels in order to argue that the agraphon originated with ‘a reformer who dare not leave the shelter of the Torah’: its ‘ultimate source’, Derrett suggested, could be Jesus or the authors of Q, Matthew or John. 7 In summary, Lk. 6.5D has been attributed to Jesus, Luke or one of the other canonical gospels, a pre-Lukan or pre-Markan source, or a nebulous first- or early second-century Jewish-Christian or Gentile-Christian community; additionally, others have suggested that it came from Marcion, Papias, the Gospel of the Hebrews or another apocryphal source. 8 None of these theories is completely satisfactory, and none has gained widespread acceptance. 9 This lack of consensus led Tobias Nicklas, in the most recent article on Lk. 6.5D, to abandon the question of origin altogether. 10
Rather than abandon the question of this agraphon’s origin, it is necessary to rethink our assumptions about the textual transmission of Luke’s gospel. Previous studies implicitly (and unnecessarily) agreed on one thing: that the agraphon’s origin must be sought in the texts and traditions of the earliest Christian era. For instance, Bammel’s conclusion about the early origin of Lk. 6.5D was influenced in part by his supposition that ‘the scribe of D would not have been able to conceive such a composition’ (Bammel 1986: 407). Since the early 1980s, when Bammel presented this argument, our understanding of the nature of scribal and readerly activity in connection with the transmission of NT texts has evolved. And, as Kim Haines-Eitzen writes, ‘it has become increasingly clear that scribes were readers embodied in social, cultural, and religious contexts and that their contexts did shape their (re)production of texts’. 11 With this new perspective on scribal influence comes the possibility that significant changes to the text of the NT could occur in later periods. Indeed, David Parker has argued that Codex Bezae is ‘our most eloquent witness to the fact that the early church could and did alter the transmitted sayings of Jesus … right through to the fourth century’. 12 This suggests that an origin for this agraphon could be sought outside of the well-worn contexts previously considered. My contention is that Lk. 6.5D originated not in the earliest Christian era, but in the throes of later Christian polemic against Jewish and Judaizing practices of Sabbath observance.
Sabbath observance first appears as an issue for Christian identity in the second century. 13 Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho each distinguished between a proper ‘Christian’ understanding of the Sabbath and the Jewish practice of weekly Sabbath observance. 14 For instance, Ignatius, after contrasting those who live ‘according to Judaism’ with those who live ‘according to Christ Jesus’, contrasts Jewish Sabbath observance with the Christian celebration of the Lord’s day: ‘And so those who lived according to the old ways came to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath (μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες) but living according to the Lord’s day’. 15 The second century marks the beginning of Christian polemic against the Jewish Sabbath, but only the beginning.
In the centuries that followed, some Christians continued to observe the Sabbath alongside Jews, and other Christians railed against such practices. Studies of the so-called ‘parting of the ways’ have demonstrated that boundaries between Judaism and Christianity were not easily established. 16 In the third century, Origen counseled his congregation not to speak in church on Sunday about anything they had learned in the synagogue on Saturday. 17 In the fourth century, John Chrysostom complained of Christians in Antioch seeking the spiritual powers and advice of synagogue leaders. 18 Samuele Bacchiocchi has suggested that Christian polemic against Sabbath observance reached a fevered pitch in the fourth century: in addition to Chrysostom, ‘Athanasius in Alexandria, Cyril in Jerusalem, [and] Basil in Cappadocia’ all ‘fight against the observance of the Sabbath on the part of some Christians’ (Bacchiocchi 1975: 118). During this same period, a local synod in Laodicea (c. 360 ce) tried to add authority to this anti-Sabbath polemic by decreeing, ‘Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day’. 19 From the second through the fourth century, practices of Sabbath observance grew more controversial for some Christians and elicited an increasing number of polemical responses. This polemic developed into a fairly consistent refrain among some Church Fathers, a refrain that is echoed in Lk. 6.5D. 20
Luke 6.5D and its Parallels in the Writings of the Church Fathers
Although this agraphon is short, it includes topics and emphases that are unique to later Christian Sabbath polemic – especially the association of ‘work’ and ‘knowledge’ with proper observance of the Sabbath and the use of the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’. Luke 6.5D associates ‘knowledge’ and ‘work’ with the Sabbath day through two significant repetitions. First, since Lk. 6.5D begins ‘on the same day’ and follows the account of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath, the man who worked is clearly doing so on the Sabbath. But the author makes this explicit: ‘On the same day [i.e., on the Sabbath], when he saw someone working on the Sabbath’. This reiteration emphasizes that the work occurred on the Sabbath. This is followed by another doubling. The author repeats the verb ‘know’ (οἶδα): ‘if you know (οἶδας) what you are doing you are blessed, but if you do not know (οἶδας), you are cursed’. The second οἶδας is, of course, superfluous. Yet, as Delobel suggests, by including it the author emphasizes the importance of knowledge. 21 Notably, even without the second οἶδας, the saying makes knowledge the determining factor in whether the Sabbath-worker is blessed or cursed. The other distinguishing feature of this agraphon is its use of the rare phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ (παραβάτης τοῦ νόμου), which is best known from Paul’s discussion of circumcision in Romans. 22
These key features of Lk. 6.5D are all central components of Christian Sabbath polemic by the fourth century ce: the association of Sabbath-day work with knowledge, the use of Pauline critiques of Gentile circumcision, and blessings or curses associated with Sabbath activity. In what follows, I will review representative passages from Christian authors, dating from the middle of the second century to the end of the fourth, in order to demonstrate how these components developed and functioned within early Christian Sabbath polemic.
Work and Knowledge
Luke 6.5D suggests a positive valuation of Sabbath-day work so long as the one who works ‘knows’ what he is doing. Early Christian authors, beginning in the middle of the second century ce, likewise argued that certain forms of knowledge rightfully led to Sabbath-day work. For instance, Justin Martyr interprets Ezek. 20.20 – ‘Hallow my sabbaths … so that you may know that I the Lord am your God’ (NRSV; emphasis added) – to mean that the primary purpose of the Sabbath was to bring about knowledge of God. The Sabbath, as Justin explains in his Dialogue with Trypho, was imposed on Jews so that they ‘would be forced to remember [God], as he himself said, That you may know (γινώσκειν) that I am God your Savior’. 23 From his interpretation of Ezekiel, Justin draws two related conclusions about Sabbath work: (1) lack of knowledge binds people to misguided Jewish forms of Sabbath observance, in particular, that of not working, and (2) proper knowledge absolves Christians from the practice of physically resting on the Sabbath. Justin makes these same points elsewhere when he chastises Trypho and his compatriots, ‘You think that you are pious when you do not work (ἀργοῦντες) for one day, not understanding (μὴ νοοῦντες) why [the Sabbath] was imposed on you’. 24 In this passage, the Jews’ lack of knowledge (μὴ νοοῦντες) binds them to a particular form of Sabbath observance, that of ‘not working’ (ἀργοῦντες). Justin likewise shows that Christians are absolved from that form of Sabbath observance when he insists that they know better: even Christians would rest on the Sabbath if, he says, ‘we did not know (ἔγνωμεν) the very reason [it] was imposed on [the Jews]’. 25 Correct or complete knowledge becomes the determining factor in whether one works or does not work on the Sabbath.
The texts of Justin Martyr do not a provide perfect parallel to Lk. 6.5D. For instance, although Justin suggests that some Sabbath work was permissible (e.g. Dial. 23.3; 29.2), he does not insist that Christians must work on the Sabbath – an injunction central to later Christian polemic. 26 In that later period (fourth century ce), the combination of the topics ‘work’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘Sabbath’ was common in Christian Sabbath polemic. In a discussion of Jewish Sabbath practices – in particular, why activities that are permitted the day before the Sabbath would then become offenses for Jews when done on the Sabbath – Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–394 ce) affirms his own Christian knowledge of Sabbath observance and work: ‘But I know the Sabbath of rest, I know the law of idleness (τὸν τῆς ἀπραξίας νόμον) which does not bind or command man to be without the work of natural activity’. 27 In the same period, Epiphanius likewise affirms the determining role of knowledge: when Jews saw Jesus ‘working miracles’ (θεοσημείας ἐργαζόμενον), they wrongfully accused him of blasphemy and of breaking the Sabbath because, Epiphanius says, ‘they were not worthy of the heavenly knowledge’ (τῆς γνώσεως τῆς ἐπουρανίου). 28 Even the Apostolic Constitutions, which seems to have a more positive valuation of Jewish forms of Sabbath observance (e.g. Const. ap. 7.23, 36), still adopts this common motif about knowledge and work. The author praises God as follows: ‘You commanded them to observe the Sabbath, not to provide an excuse for idleness (ἀργία), but an opportunity for piety, for knowledge (γνῶσις) of your power’. 29 The purpose of the Sabbath is knowledge (γνῶσις), not idleness (ἀργία). In these texts, the content of the knowledge shifts between God and the Sabbath itself, but the function of the knowledge remains the same: proper Christian knowledge is associated with Sabbath-day work, not with idleness.
The association of ‘work’ and ‘knowledge’ is one of the most common components of Christian Sabbath polemic after the middle of the second century ce, and more examples of this feature will appear with the other motifs examined below. Yet this evidence alone already suggests a date later than previously supposed for Lk. 6.5D.
Adapting Paul’s ‘Transgressor of the Law’
The distinctive phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ (παραβάτης νόμου) is most familiar from two verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans 2.25 and 2.27. 30 In these passages, Paul argues that circumcision of the heart matters more than physical circumcision, since physical circumcision has no value if one becomes a ‘transgressor of the law’. In studies of Lk. 6.5D, a couple of scholars have argued that the agraphon and the phrase ‘transgressor of the Law’ originated with Jesus and were, therefore, the source for that phrase later written by Paul in Romans. 31 Yet evidence suggests that this argument should be reversed. Luke 6.5D did not provide the language for Romans; rather, Romans is the likely source for the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ in Lk. 6.5D. This becomes clear when one recognizes that Pauline language and arguments against Gentile circumcision, including the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’, were regularly adopted by later Christian authors in polemic against Jewish Sabbath observance.
Christian authors begin to adopt Paul’s arguments into their own polemic in the mid- to late-second century ce – yet the specific Pauline phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ does not appear until later. For instance, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus adapt Paul’s argument about Abraham and circumcision from Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 to fit their arguments about the Sabbath. Paul argues that circumcision is not necessary for justification since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised (Rom. 4.1-12; cf. Gal. 3). Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, likewise argues that Sabbath observance is not necessary because Abraham and Moses ‘were called just and were pleasing to [God]’ even though they ‘did not keep the Sabbaths’. 32 If the Sabbath was not necessary for those who lived before Moses, Justin explains, then it is not needed now. 33 One can only infer that Justin relied on Paul for this argument, but other authors make their dependence explicit. 34 Irenaeus, for instance, cites the ‘Apostle Paul’ and quotes directly from Romans to make the same argument: ‘Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, “believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness”’ (emphasis added). 35 By the end of the second century, Abraham is no longer justified only ‘without circumcision’, but also ‘without the Sabbath’. Paul’s early arguments against the practice of circumcision proved useful in this later Christian polemic against Sabbath observance.
By the fourth century, the specific Pauline phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ was also adopted into this Christian polemic. Eusebius, in his commentary on Ps. 92, suggests that a Jew becomes a ‘transgressor of the law’ in the very act of trying to observe the Sabbath.
Formerly, when once those of the circumcision worshiped through symbols and types, it was not unlikely for them to offer certain hymns to God by means of the harp and lyre, and to do this on the days of the Sabbath, clearly undoing their [Sabbath] rest (τὴν ἀργίαν), and transgressing the law of the Sabbath (παραβαίνοντας τὸν νόμον τὸν περὶ τοῦ Σαββάτου). But we who preserve the inner Jew according to the apostolic saying – ‘For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal’ (Rom 2.28-29; NRSV) – we offer up the hymn with a living harp, a lyre of the soul, and spiritual songs.
36
Eusebius contrasts Jews who ‘transgress the law of the Sabbath’ through their activities of worship with Christians who keep the law spiritually, ‘preserving the inner Jew’ – an additional allusion to Rom. 2.25-29, which is the origin of the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’. 37
John Chrysostom also uses the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ from Rom. 2 to describe Sabbath-observant Jews. According to Chrysostom, in his Commentary on Isaiah, the Sabbath was rejected by Isaiah, Christ and Paul because it was not essential – the ‘necessary things’ are internal dispositions like faith, not external practices like resting on the Sabbath. By appealing to Rom. 2 and a psalm, Chrysostom interprets the rejection of ‘new-moons and Sabbaths’ in Isa. 1.13 in such a way that God condemns Jews for observing Sabbath and circumcision instead of developing faith.
‘Your new-moons and Sabbaths.’ It should be noted that [Isaiah] does not reject any of the necessary things, but those things which Christ also abolished when he was here. Thus, Paul made use of this point more vigorously whenever he was disputing with the Jews, by including not only these things [i.e., new-moons and Sabbaths], but also many others. He says that those who show nothing from within themselves gain nothing from these [outward practices], as when he says … ‘For circumcision is of benefit if you do the Law, but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision becomes foreskin’ (Rom. 2.25). Since [the Jews] did not have faith, he was not saying that those who were entrusted gained something from being entrusted with the law. Just as David suggested in another way when he said, ‘God said to the sinner, “Why do you declare my commandments?”’ (Ps. 49.16).
38
In an effort to show that one’s inner disposition matters more than external action, Chrysostom turns Paul’s conditional critique of circumcision into a condemnation of Jewish practices including Sabbath observance. In this reading of Rom. 2, the Sabbath-observant Jew is a ‘transgressor of the law’. 39
In Lk. 6.5D, the man who works on the Sabbath becomes a ‘transgressor of the law’ and is ‘cursed’ if he is not knowledgeable, as is the case with the Jews in the previous examples. If the man in Lk. 6.5D knows what he is doing by working on the Sabbath, however, then he is blessed. In fourth-century Christian Sabbath polemic, this describes the Christian.
Blessed and Cursed
Fourth-century Christian texts also employ the particular language of blessings and curses in order to present Jews as condemned for their Sabbath practices while Christians are praised for their knowledge and Sabbath-day work. This is exemplified in the following passages from Eusebius and Augustine.
Eusebius reworks Isa. 56.2, a passage that originally pronounced a blessing on the person ‘who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it’. Eusebius alters this passage in such a way that it blesses the one who works on the Sabbath. His interpretation will sound similar to many of the texts already considered. He affirms that the Sabbath is a rest from evil work, not from all work. Jews are said to lack the knowledge (ἀγνοεῖν) that the Sabbath is really about doing righteousness. In fact, Eusebius insists that ‘the Jews practice nothing good … but spoke of a single Sabbath day’ and that blessings are only pronounced on those who do good works: ‘For the one who does these things would be worthy of the blessing that comes from God’. 40 He then concludes his remarks on the Sabbath by reworking Isa. 56.2. Isaiah 56.2 says, ‘blessed is the mortal who does these things, and the person who clings to them, who keeps the sabbaths, not profaning them, and refrains from doing any evil’. 41 But Eusebius omits the portion I have italicized and quotes the passage as follows: ‘blessed is the mortal who does these things, and the person who clings to them, and the one who keeps his hands from doing an injustice’. 42 By removing that middle phrase, the blessing (μακάριος) from the beginning of the verse is pronounced not on the one ‘who keeps the Sabbath’ but on the one who works, the one who performs just and righteous deeds (ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα). The Christian is blessed for properly understanding that the Sabbath is about doing righteous works.
By the end of the fourth century, condemnation of Jews also appears regularly in attacks on heretics. 43 Despite the focus on heretics, the characteristic features of Sabbath polemic continued to play a role. For instance, Augustine, in his Contra Faustum (c. 400 ce), uses Paul’s explanation that ‘Whoever are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law’ (cf. Gal. 3.10) to argue that Sabbath observance was one of the reasons that Jews are cursed.
The Church admits and avows the curse pronounced by the apostle: ‘Whoever are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law’ … That is, the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly Passover.
44
In this instance, it is not ‘killing Christ’ that caused the Jews to be cursed; rather, Jews are cursed (populum iudaeorum maledictum) because ‘after killing Christ’ they continued to practice, among other things, ‘an earthly Sabbath’. 45
Why Alter Luke?
By the time that Codex Bezae was being written in the early fifth century, Christian polemic against Sabbath observance had evolved into a fairly consistent refrain. The Jews’ ignorance of the Sabbath’s true purpose was contrasted with the Christians’ knowledge. Jews were portrayed as transgressors of the law and cursed for worshipping and resting on the Sabbath, while Christians were considered blessed for working on that day. Bezae-Luke 6.5 includes all of these features and reflects this same polemic. This agraphon, therefore, likely originated in the period when these topics and this polemic were most prominent, in the fourth century. Although the confluence of these subjects in the fourth century provides a plausible polemical context for the origin of this agraphon, it does not explain why the agraphon appears in Lk. 6 following the pericope of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath (Lk. 6.1-4). To understand its location in Luke, it is necessary to examine the early history of interpretation of that pericope.
Interpretation of Luke 6.1-5
The Christian polemic against Jewish Sabbath observance permeates early interpretations of Lk. 6.1-4 (cf. Mt. 12.1-8 and Mk 2.23-28). This pericope describes a dispute between Jesus and Pharisees who criticized Jesus’s disciples for plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath. Jesus responds with evidence that King David and those with him once ate bread set apart for priests alone – exceptions to the Law were allowed under special circumstances. 46 In the fourth century, however, this pericope was not about exceptions to Sabbath observance; rather, for Ambrose, Chrysostom, Athanasius and Augustine, this account illustrated the Jews’ sinfulness, lack of knowledge, and persistent idleness on the Sabbath.
Ambrose of Milan, writing in the latter-half of the fourth century ce, treats the pericope as an allegory: ‘the Disciples hungered for the salvation of humankind’ (5.29). 47 Nevertheless, he still employs the key polemical topics outlined above. He contrasts the idleness of Jews on the Sabbath with the work of Christians: ‘the Jews thought that this was not permitted on the Sabbath, but Christ, through the gift of new Grace, designated the idleness of the Law as a work of Grace’ (5.29). 48 Ambrose insists that one ‘is permitted to work on the Sabbath’ (5.31), 49 and he uses this pericope to show that the Jews lack knowledge: ‘fittingly does the Lord … prove that the defenders of the Law do not know (nescire) what pertains to the Law’ (5.32). 50
In a homily on Matthew, also from the late fourth century, John Chrysostom presents this pericope as one example of the many times that Jesus turned an accusation back on his accusers: ‘For again, when [the Jews] were blaming [Jesus’s] disciples for plucking the ears of grain [on the Sabbath], he reveals them to be the guilty ones’. 51 Chrysostom then shares another instance when the accusation of ‘transgression’ was reversed, and explains that Jesus ‘showed them to be the transgressors, and even in regards to the Sabbath’. 52
When Athanasius or Augustine wanted to portray their opponents to be as ignorant as the Jews ostensibly were, they cited the pericope of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath. For Athanasius, the account proved that ‘the Jews’ did not care ‘either for the laws, or for the Sabbath, for they were guilty of greater transgressions of the law on that day’. 53 For Augustine, this pericope exemplified how ‘the Jews opposed Christ because they did not understand what the true Sabbath was’. 54
The interpretation of this pericope in the fourth century was influenced by the same polemic against Jewish forms of Sabbath observance identified throughout this article. The exegetical gymnastics that these authors employed to reach those common polemical conclusions makes it clear that the anti-Jewish-Sabbath interpretation was not self-evident. How might a fourth-century Christian ensure that this pericope would be understood to contrast Jewish ignorance and idleness with proper Christian knowledge and Sabbath work? One obvious solution would be to add a point of clarification to the original story. As Haines-Eitzen and others have argued, readers and scribes occasionally changed the biblical text in accordance with their own ‘social, cultural, and religious contexts’ (Haines-Eitzen 2000: 9). It should, therefore, come as no surprise that a Christian in this period would add new words of Jesus to this pericope in order to reinterpret the story in the context of fourth-century Sabbath polemic. I am arguing that this is precisely what happened in Bezae-Luke. But it is undeniable that this is what happened in another text from the same era: a tractate from Ps.-Athanasius.
Adding a Sabbath Agraphon
A tractate from the fourth century attributed to Athanasius and dedicated exclusively to the subjects of Sabbath and circumcision adds an agraphon to Matthew’s version of the pericope of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath. 55 Ps.-Athanasius’s discussion of the Sabbath clearly participates in the same polemic as other Christian texts from that time. He emphasizes the importance of work and the role of knowledge. For instance, he reinterprets biblical passages that prohibit Sabbath-day work (e.g. Lev. 23.30-31) to mean that God ‘commands one to work on the Sabbath’, and he insists that ‘the Sabbath is not in the first place a law of idleness (ἀργία), but a law of knowledge’. 56 He supports these interpretations, as others had done with the adapted Pauline argument, by pointing to specific instances in the OT and arguing that Jewish ancestors observed the Sabbath in a Christian way with work and knowledge. 57 And as with Ambrose, Chrysostom, Athanasius and Augustine, so too Ps.-Athanasius interprets the pericope of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath to show how Jesus condemned Jewish Sabbath observance.
In his interpretation of this pericope, Ps.-Athanasius includes an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus. The pericope appears in his tractate after a quotation from Ezekiel. He reads Ezek. 20.12 – ‘Moreover I gave them my sabbaths … so that they might know that I the LORD sanctify them’ (NRSV) – to mean, ‘the Sabbath was given for the sake of knowledge, and not for the sake of idleness (ἀργία)’.
58
He then defends that interpretation by quoting from Mt. 12: For this reason the Lord said to those who were accusing the disciples when they plucked grain: ‘If you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”’ (Mt. 12.7; cf. Hos 6.6). For he accused the very people who were not working on the Sabbath. Διὰ τοῦτο ὁ Κύριος ἔλεγε τοῖς αἰτιωμένοις τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐπὶ τῷ τίλλειν στάχυας· Εἰ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν. Ἀργοῦντας γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ Σαββάτῳ ᾐτιᾶτο.
59
It is not clear from a straightforward reading of Matthew that Jesus was in fact ‘accusing’ those ‘who were not working on the Sabbath’. It goes without saying that the author of Matthew, who hoped that people would never have to flee on a Sabbath (Mt. 24.20; cf. Mk 13.18), would not depict Jesus condemning people for Sabbath rest. 60 By the time of Ps.-Athanasius, however, condemnation of Jewish Sabbath rest was precisely the point of this pericope. Therefore, Ps.-Athanasius adds to Jesus’ words a saying that compels such an interpretation.
For [the Lord] accused the very people who were not working on the Sabbath: ‘You do not grasp the essential feature of the Sabbath; that is, knowledge consistent with the truth’. Ἀργοῦντας γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ Σαββάτῳ ᾐτιᾶτο, ὅτι τὸ ἴδιον τοῦ Σαββάτου οὐκ ἔχετε, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν γνῶσις.
61
This additional saying reframes the pericope in terms of fourth-century Sabbath polemic. Now, with this agraphon added to Matthew, Jesus condemns the Pharisees – and presumably any Jew or Judaizing Christian from Ps.-Athanasius’s time who did not work on the Sabbath – because they lacked knowledge. It is not clear whether Ps.-Athanasius believed that these were authentic words of Jesus or simply imagined that Jesus should have said this sort of thing. Regardless, the effect is that this agraphon compels his audience to reinterpret the pericope in a way that coheres with contemporary polemic.
The similarities to Bezae-Luke are unmistakable. In Matthew and Luke, the pericope had concluded with Jesus’ words, ‘For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mt. 12.8//Lk. 6.5). In Ps.-Athanasius and Bezae-Luke, the account concludes with an agraphon about ‘work’ and ‘knowledge’ as central to the Sabbath.
Conclusion
It is not difficult to imagine why an agraphon would have been added to Lk. 6 in the fourth century. Like Ps.-Athanasius and other Christian authors, scribes and their patrons were influenced by the controversies of their day, and Sabbath observance had become a prominent concern. 62 Although fourth-century Christianity was by no means monolithic, certain Christian authors across the empire had developed a fairly consistent polemic against Jewish Sabbath observance. They emphasized the importance of knowledge and the need to work on the Sabbath, they adapted Pauline passages about circumcision to argue against Sabbath observance, and they pronounced blessings on Christians while condemning Jews for their practices on that day. In this same period, Christian authors interpreted the account of the Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath in light of this polemic, and at least one author added a new saying of Jesus that compels a polemical interpretation.
Luke 6.5D includes these key features of early Christian Sabbath polemic and, in the context of this polemic, compels a particular reading of Disciples who Plucked Grain on the Sabbath. Rather than deny that plucking grain constituted work, Bezae-Luke celebrates Sabbath-day work. The agraphon proclaims anyone with the proper knowledge, such as the disciples of Jesus and presumably all future disciples, blessed for their work. Simultaneously it curses those who work without knowing what they are doing. In an early fifth-century context, this curse would refer to the Pharisees who confronted Jesus and presumably to their successors, because even they performed some works on the Sabbath, but did so without Christian knowledge. 63 For the readers of Bezae-Luke, Jesus now spoke directly to an issue of prominent concern in their own era.
This study does not explain why the Sabbath-worker agraphon was added to Luke’s gospel instead of Mark’s or Matthew’s. 64 Additionally, I cannot say precisely how the agraphon entered into the textual tradition preserved in Codex Bezae – it is not clear whether the agraphon existed first as marginalia or whether it was intended to be read as part of the Gospel of Luke from its inception. Yet the evidence in this article is sufficient to suggest a timeframe for the agraphon’s origin. And based on that evidence, it developed much later than has often been assumed. 65 Luke 6.5D almost certainly originated after the middle of the second century and most likely in the fourth century ce in conjunction with similar Christian polemic against Jewish or Judaizing forms of Sabbath observance. 66
Footnotes
1.
Sincere thanks are due to both Bart D. Ehrman and Thomas A. Wayment for their insightful and incisive reviews of previous drafts.
2.
Codex Bezae (D) is a late fourth- or early fifth-century bilingual, Greek and Latin, uncial manuscript containing most of the four canonical gospels and Acts as well as part of 3 John. This codex is renowned for the number and type of variations found in its text. See Metzger and Ehrman 2005: 70-74 and the important codicological study of Bezae, 
.
3.
Bezae-Luke 6.4b [6.5]. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. Digital images of the MSS are available online; see http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/391 and .
4.
Käser 1968: 425-26: ‘Weit besser als aus jüdischer oder judenchristlicher Polemik erklären sich Thema und Gestaltung des Logions aus der Abwehr gegen die Gefahr, die der jungen Gemeinde aus den eigenen Reihen von libertinistisch Gesinnten her droht.’ Käser does not, however, explain why this struggle with the ‘libertine-minded’ centered on the issue of Sabbath work. Roloff (1970: 88, n. 120) suggests that Käser ‘excludes the actual Sabbath problem too much’ (‘Ähnlich zuletzt W. Käser, der allerdings das eigentliche Sabbatproblem doch wohl zu sehr ausklammert’). Roloff (1970: 87–88) and others have proposed that the agraphon arose out of a Palestinian or Jewish-Christian community in support of the Law; see also Lohse 1964: 83, n. 17 and most recently : 440.
5.
Bammel 1986: 421; this presidential paper was originally read to the Cambridge Theological Society on 6 May 1981. On the agraphon as a pre-Markan narrative, see also Loisy 1907: 513, n. 1. : 36) argued that it was original to Luke and excised by Marcion and then by the later church.
6.
Delobel 1985: 473. Delobel (1985: 464), building on the arguments of Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1963: 25, 55) and Heinz Schürmann (1982: 304, n. 29), further develops the idea that this agraphon originated in a Pauline-like community of the ‘strong’ whose knowledge allows them to move beyond the Law. This is similar to Käser 1968: 414-30. For the most recent expression of this theory, see : 235.
7.
Derrett 1995: 247. Derrett (1995: 247) argues, ‘[T]o know what one is doing if one wishes to qualify for blessings and avoid curses is in part consistent with Lk 11.52/Mt 23.13 and with Mt 23.3, and finds corroboration from Jn 7.39, 9.41. Any of these could have been its ultimate source.’ What Derrett means by ‘ultimate source’ is unclear. The passages he lists bear little or no literary correspondence to Lk. 6.5D, and they lack any reference to the Sabbath; even as conceptual comparisons they are often strained. It is little surprise that in a recent tome on the Sabbath, after discussing Derrett’s study, Doering (1999: 440 and n. 237) concludes that the authenticity of the logion is ‘chancenlos’. In addition to Derrett, the following have also suggested an origin in the authentic words of Jesus: Plummer 1896: 168; Zahn 1920: 273-74, n. 20; Jeremias 1957: 49-54; Grundmann 1961: 136; Taylor 1964: 77; and Resch 1967: 46. For a critical response to these views, see Schmid 1960: 127; Käser 1968: 414-30; Delobel 1985: 465-70; and : 438-40.
8.
On Gospel of Hebrews or Papias, see Westcott and Hort 1882: appendix 59, 88; Weiss and Baumgarten 1907: 443; Klostermann 1929: 75. On Gospel of Hebrews, see also Edwards 2009: 333-35. On Marcion, see Grotius 1641: 674; Vogels 1926: 97. Von Harnack (1923: 36) argues that it was removed by Marcion. : 610) argues that the agraphon belongs to the same apocryphal tradition as Gos. Thom. 3, 14.
9.
For problems with most of these theories, see the persuasive arguments of Delobel 1985: 465-70. For the current consensus that the agraphon did not originate with Luke, see the following recent commentaries on the Gospel of Luke: Fitzmyer 1981: 610; Bovon 2002: 197; Wolter 2008: 235. The agraphon is not addressed in the following commentaries: Nolland 1989; Johnson 1991; .
10.
Nicklas 2002: 161; see also Rice 1974: 206-207, 214. Both Nicklas and Rice argue that Luke 6.5D functions simply to heighten the Lukan Sabbath motif. Elsewhere : 220, 222) argues that Bezae-Luke ‘attempts to free Jesus and his followers from Jewish custom and tradition in the matter of Sabbath-keeping’.
11.
Haines-Eitzen 2000: 9. See Metzger and Ehrman 2005: 280-99; see also Ehrman 1993 and Kannaday 2004. For the influence of readers on scribal activity, see .
12.
Parker 1991: 276-78, 281-83, here 285; : 100-101; see also Ehrman 1994. Typically, it is true that the ostensibly unique variants of late manuscripts attest to earlier unknown readings, since ‘in virtually no instance has the discovery of a new papyrus provided us with a reading that was altogether unknown from already available evidence’ (Ehrman 1996: 100). Nevertheless, the ‘free’ character of the Western textual tradition allows for the possibility that changes or additions were made to the text right up to the transcription of this fifth-century manuscript. Indeed, the numerous correctors of Bezae attest that continued tradition.
13.
The Sabbath is not mentioned in any of Paul’s undisputed letters, but its observance is affirmed in Col. 2.16. The Sabbath appears more frequently in the gospels and Acts, where sometimes practices of Sabbath observance are debated, but not the Sabbath commandment itself. The closest NT parallel to the Bezae-Luke’s praise of Sabbath-day ‘work’ is in the Gospel of John, where the Jews are said to persecute Jesus, claiming that he ‘broke the Sabbath’ (ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον) because he healed a man ‘on the Sabbath’ (Jn 5.16, 18; cf. Lk. 13.14 and Jn 9.14, 16). Jesus’ response to this accusation seems to challenge the biblical basis of Sabbath observance: whereas Gen. 2.2 affirms that God finished ‘his work’ (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) and rested from ‘all his work’ (πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ), Jesus responds: ‘My Father still works (ἐργάζεται) and I work (ἐργάζομαι)’ (Jn 5.17; cf. 7.21-23). In the context of John’s gospel, however, it is not clear whether this statement is intended as a rejection of the Sabbath commandment or a christological affirmation; see Brown 1966: 217. For more on the Sabbath among first-century Christians, see discussions in Lohse 1964; Bacchiocchi 1977: 17-73; McKay 1994: 132-75; and especially . It should be noted that other significant aspects of Lk. 6.5D are wholly absent from this pericope in John: there is no discussion of ‘knowledge’ or ‘blessings’ and ‘curses’.
14.
E.g., Barnabas explains that the Lord has ‘nullified’ (κατήργησεν) such things as the Sabbath (Barn. 2.5). Discussion of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho appears below, in the section on ‘Work and Knowledge’. See Lieu 1996: 33-34, 46-47, 121; and McKay 1994: 176-200. Gospel of Thomas 27 could demonstrate the opposite trend – Christians are commanded to ‘sabbatize the Sabbath’ – but this language may be metaphorical; see DeConick 2007: 131-32; and : 328-29.
15.
Ign. Magn. 9.1-2; text and trans. Ehrman 2003: 249-51. On the reading ‘Lord’s Day’, see Schoedel 1985: 123, n. 3; see also : 34, 46-47.
16.
See Simon 1986; Becker and Reed 2003; .
17.
Origen, Hom. Lev. 5.8; cf. Origen, Sel. Exod. 12.46.
19.
Canon 29; trans. NPNF2 14:148. For discussion, see Bacchiocchi 1975: 118 and : 93-99.
20.
Parker (1991: 190) proposes a similar approach in his critique of Eldon Epp’s study: ‘But the only possible way to establish theological tendency is by comparison with the Fathers’ understanding of the text: given their interpretations of Luke and Acts, the critic would then have to ask whether the Bezan reading can credibly be regarded as representative of one or more of them’; cf. Epp 1966 and : 699-739.
22.
Romans 2.25, 27; see also Jas 2.9, 11.
23.
Dial. 19.6 (Marcovich 1997: 101); trans. : 32. Cf. Dial. 21.2.
24.
26.
E.g., Council of Laodicea, canon 29; see above, n. 19. For the purposes of this article, it is irrelevant whether this ‘canon’ was enforced. The order itself establishes a central subject of Christian Sabbath polemic in the fourth century: Sabbath work.
27.
εἰ τοίνυν τὸ πρὸ τοῦ σαββάτου ϕρυγανίζεσθαι καὶ πῦρ ἀνάπτειν ἔξω ἀδικίας ἐστὶ καὶ κολάσεως, πῶς τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τῇ ἐπιούσῃ ἡμέρᾳ πλημμέλημα γίνεται; ἀλλ’ οἶδα τὸ σάββατον τῆς ἀναπαύσεως, οἶδα τὸν τῆς ἀπραξίας νόμον, ὃς οὐχὶ πεδήσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ϕυσικῆς ἐνεργείας ἄπρακτον εἶναι διακελεύεται (Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. Eccl. 7 [: 393]).
28.
Epiphanius, Ancoratus 27.4-5 (Holl 2013: 36). For an alternative translation, see : 100-101. Although Epiphanius’s primary interest was christological – he presents Jews alongside others who misunderstand the relation between Christ’s divinity and humanity – he, nevertheless, borrows the common trope about Sabbath work and knowledge to prove his point.
29.
30.
The phrase also appears in Jas 2.9, 11, but those verses do not feature prominently in early Christian Sabbath polemic.
31.
Klostermann said that the phrase ‘transgressor of the law’ reminds one of Rom. 2.25, 27 and Jas 2.11, but Resch went further, arguing that those passages attest to the authenticity of Lk. 6.5D: ‘Daß es ein echtes synoptisches Herrenwort ist, sollte nicht angezweifelt werden, da es sowohl von Paulus als von Jakobus gekannt und benützt worden ist.’ See Klostermann 1929: 75; Resch 1967: 46; see also : 168.
32.
33.
εἰ γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἦν χρεία περιτομῆς οὐδὲ πρὸ Μωυσέως σαββατισμοῦ καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ προσϕορῶν, οὐδὲ νῦν (Dial. 23.3 [: 108]). Justin repeats this answer numerous times, often including lists of biblical personalities who did not observe Sabbath; cf. Dial. 19.5 (all the prophets); 23.1 (Enoch and others); 92.2 (Enoch, Noah, Noah’s children, and others).
34.
35.
36.
Πάλαι μὲν οὖν, ὁπηνίκα διὰ συμβόλων καὶ τύπων ἐλάτρευον οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, οὐκ ἀπεικὸς ἦν διὰ ψαλτηρίων καὶ κιθάρας ἀναπέμπειν τινὰς τῷ Θεῷ τοὺς ὕμνους, καὶ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ Σαββάτου, παραλύοντας δηλαδὴ τὴν ἀργίαν, καὶ παραβαίνοντας τὸν νόμον τὸν περὶ τοῦ Σαββάτου· ἡμεῖς δὲ, τὸν ἐν κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖον ἀποσώζοντες κατὰ τὸν ϕάσκοντα Ἀπόστολον· Οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ϕανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ ϕανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομὴ, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ ἡ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι, οὐ γράμματι, ζῶντι ψαλτηρίῳ καὶ κιθάρᾳ ἐμψύχῳ, πνευματικαῖς τε ᾠδαῖς τὸν ὕμνον ἀποδίδομεν (Eusebius, Comm. Ps. [PG 23.1172d]).
37.
The law that the Christians keep is ‘the divine law’ in contrast to the ‘Law of Moses,’ and the Sabbaths they celebrate are ‘holy and spiritual’; ἅγιά τε Σάββατα καὶ πνευματικὰ ἑορτάζοντες (PG 23.1168-69).
38.
Τὰς νεομηνίας ὑμῶν, καὶ τὰ σάββατα. Παρατηρητέον ὡς οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐκβάλλει, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἃ καὶ παραγενόμενος ὁ Χριστὸς κατέλυσεν. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος εὐτονώτερον τῷ λόγῳ κεχρημένος, ἡνίκα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἐμάχετο, οὐ ταῦτα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερα πλείονα τούτων θείς, τοὺς οὐδὲν οἴκοθεν ἐπιδεικνυμένους οὐδὲν ἐκεῖθεν κερδαίνειν ἔϕησεν, οὕτω λέγων· Εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ καὶ ἐπαναπαύῃ τῷ νόμῳ καὶ καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ καὶ γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα καὶ δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαϕέροντα, κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου. Καὶ πάλιν· Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠϕελεῖ, ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονε. Καὶ οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πιστευθῆναι αὐτοὺς τὸν νόμον ἔϕησέ τι τοὺς πιστευθέντας καρπώσασθαι, ἐπειδὴ ἠπίστησαν· ὅπερ οὖν καὶ ὁ Δαυῒδ ἑτέρως αἰνιττόμενος ἔλεγε· Τῷ δὲ ἁμαρτωλῷ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· ἵνα τί σὺ ἐκδιηγῇ τὰ δικαιώματά μου (Chrysostom, Comm. Isa. 1.5.51 [: 68-71]).
39.
For Chrysostom, Jews are by nature sinners and their practices are necessarily sinful. This idea appears elsewhere in Chrysostom’s writings; e.g. Adv. Jud., passim.
40.
Trans. Armstrong 2013: 273. προσήκει μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὑμᾶς, ὅτι δεῖ πρῶτον ἁπάντων ϕυλάσσειν κρίσιν καὶ ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην· ὁ γὰρ ταῦτα ποιῶν τοῦ παρὰ θεοῦ μακαρισμοῦ γένοιτ’ ἂν ἄξιος (Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.45 [: 348]).
41.
NRSV adapted; italics added.
42.
διόπερ εἰ καταδέξαιντο, ἃ ἐγὼ θέλω, καὶ ἀντέχοιντο τῆς ἐμῆς διαθήκης, ἣν παρεδείκνυον ἀρτίως λέγων ϕυλάσσεσθαι δεῖν κρίσιν καὶ ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην, καί· μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀντεχόμενος αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ διατηρῶν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν ἀδίκημα (Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.45 [Ziegler 1975: 349]). For an alternative translation, see : 273-74.
43.
See Cameron 2003. On fourth-century anti-Jewish polemic, see Bacchiocchi 1975: 118; Simon 1986: 202-23; Fredriksen and Irshai 2005: 997-1007. On anti-Jewish/-Judaizing polemic as identity discourse, see .
44.
Faust. 12.11; trans. NPNF1 4.187.
45.
quoniam occiso Christo adhuc operatur terrenam circumcisionem, terrenum sabbatum (Faust. 12.11 [CSEL 25.340]).
46.
For interpretation of this passage in Luke, see Fitzmyer 1981: 604-607, 609; and : 198-200.
47.
Trans. Tomkinson 2003: 158, adapted. Esuribant discipuli salutem hominum (Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 5.29 [: 194]).
48.
Trans. Tomkinson 2003: 158. Sed hoc putabant Iudaei sabbato non licere, Christus autem nouae gratiae munere designabat otium legis opus gratiae (Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 5.29 [: 195]).
49.
Trans. Tomkinson 2003: 159. operari sabbato liceat et operantis nulla sit poena (Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 5.31 [: 195]).
50.
Trans. Tomkinson 2003: 160. defensores legis arguit nescire quae legis sunt (Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 5.32 [: 196]).
51.
52.
53.
Trans. NPNF2 4.255. Ἔμελε δὲ αὐτοῖς οὕτε τῶν νόμων, οὕτε διὰ τὸ Σάββατον ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ μᾶλλον παρηνόμουν (Athanasius, Fug. 2 [PG 25.645]).
54.
Translation adapted from NPNF1 4.231. sed si illi restiterunt Christo non intelligentes uerum sabbatum (Augustine, Faust. 16.28 [CSEL 25.473]).
55.
On the authenticity of Athanasius’s De sabbatis et circumcision, see Hoss 1899: 102. Hoss’s 1899 work is the only reference to De sabb. included in Butterweck 1995. Both Quasten and Rordorf accept Hoss’s arguments for authenticity, see Quasten 1986: 50 and Rordorf 1972: 91, n. 1. De sabb. is cited as the fourth-century ce work of Ps.-Athanasius in : 96, n. 110.
56.
ἐν δὲ Σαββάτῳ ἐργάζεσθαι κελεύει· οὐκ ἄρα ἀργίας προηγουμένως ἐστὶ νόμος τὸ Σάββατον, ἀλλὰ γνώσεως (Ps.-Athanasius, De sabb. [PG 28.139]).
57.
Why were those who marched around Jericho ‘commanded to work on the Sabbath?’ (διὰ τί ἐργάζεσθαι προστάττονται). Ps.-Athanasius explains that they observed the Sabbath, ‘not by not-working (οὐκ ἀργοῦντες), but by knowing the Lord who was helping them’ (Ἀλλ’ ἠπίστατο, ὅτι σαλπίζοντες ἐσαββάτιζον, οὐκ ἀργοῦντες, ἀλλὰ γινώσκοντες τὸν βοηθοῦντα αὐτοῖς Κύριον). What about the necessity to circumcise on the Sabbath? Again, he explains that such a person ‘observes the Sabbath by working and by knowing God’ (καὶ ὅμως σαββατίζει, ἐργαζόμενος μὲν, γινώσκων δὲ τὸν Θεόν). Ps.-Athanasius, De sabb. (PG 28.137).
58.
Γνώσεως ἄρα καὶ οὐκ ἀργίας ἕνεκεν ἐδόθη τὸ Σάββατον (Ps.-Athanasius, De sabb. [PG 28.136]). The following line continues: ὡς εἶναι μᾶλλον τὴν γνῶσιν ἀναγκαιοτέραν τῆς ἀργίας.
59.
Ps.-Athanasius, De sabb. (PG 28.136).
60.
See Allison and Davies 1991: 311-14; Luz 2000:180-84; see also : 145-53.
61.
Ps.-Athanasius, De sabb. (PG 28.136).
62.
For the influence of scribes and their patrons on the text of the NT, see above n. 11.
63.
Works such as playing hymns or performing circumcision; see Eusebius, Comm. Ps. above, pp. 170-71 and n. 36. Luke 6.5D does not make it explicit that the one with knowledge who works on the Sabbath is a Christian and the ‘transgressor of the law’ is a Jew, that would have been anachronistic in the context of Luke’s Gospel.
64.
65.
See above, pp. 163-65.
66.
Although this conclusion runs contrary to Rice’s interpretation of Lk. 6.5D (see above, n. 10), it does support his broader conclusion that ‘D attempts to free Jesus and his followers from Jewish custom and tradition in the matter of Sabbath-keeping’ (1974: 222). My conclusion also supports the arguments of both Epp (1966) and Ehrman (2006: 377-94) that certain textual variants exhibit an anti-Jewish tendency, in particular in Bezae and the Western textual tradition. See also counter-arguments in Barrett 1979: 15-27 and Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger 2004: 8-11, as well as the responses in Ehrman 1996: 95-122 and : 699-739.