Mark 2:16

This exegetical study of Mark 2:16, specifically the phrase οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων, is based on a b-greek discussion from Monday, May 17, 1999. The initial inquiry arose from a perceived semantic tension in the phrase, as scribes and Pharisees were thought to be distinct entities. The question posed was how to interpret the genitive construction, considering whether it implied a single unified group or two separate groups, or a subset relationship.

The main exegetical issue at stake in Mark 2:16 revolves around the precise nature of the relationship between “scribes” (γραμματεῖς) and “Pharisees” (Φαρισαίων) as denoted by the genitive case. Scholars have debated whether this phrase refers to a specific sub-group of scribes who were also Pharisees, whether it signifies a general affiliation, or if it represents a literary device employed by the evangelist to consolidate opposition to Jesus. The discussion also touches upon potential textual variants in the immediate context (Mk 2:15-16) and their implications for understanding the identity and role of these figures in Mark’s narrative, considering both historical realities and Markan rhetoric.

Mark 2:16 (Nestle 1904)
καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων ἰδόντες ὅτι ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν ἔλεγον τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Τί ὅτι μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει;

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no textual differences between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for the specific wording of Mark 2:16. Both texts read οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The critical apparatus of NA28 confirms that the reading οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων is universally attested in the primary manuscripts, including א, B, D, W, Θ, f¹, f¹³, and the Byzantine tradition. No significant textual variants affect the wording of the phrase in 2:16 itself. However, the discussion referenced a hypothetical variant in Mark 2:15-16, where an additional καὶ might be inserted before οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων, potentially implying that these scribes were among those following Jesus. This variant is not supported by the major critical editions and is considered secondary, likely an attempt by scribes to clarify what they perceived as an ambiguous sentence structure regarding who was following Jesus.

Lexical analysis of the key terms illuminates their background:

• γραμματεύς (grammateus): According to BDAG, this term can refer to a secretary or clerk in secular contexts, but in the New Testament, it primarily denotes a religious scholar or expert in the Mosaic law, often functioning as a teacher. KITTEL (TDNT) elaborates that in Judaism, particularly from the post-exilic period, the scribes were the custodians and interpreters of the Torah, holding significant authority. While they formed a distinct professional class, they could be associated with various religious groups.
• Φαρισαῖος (Pharisaios): BDAG defines Pharisees as a Jewish religious-political party active during the Second Temple period, known for their strict adherence to the written and oral Law. KITTEL (TDNT) adds that the name itself (meaning “separated ones”) reflects their dedication to purity and their distinctive traditions. They were a popular and influential group, often in opposition to Jesus in the Gospels.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The phrase οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων presents a nominative plural noun (γραμματεῖς) modified by a genitive plural noun with the definite article (τῶν Φαρισαίων). The genitive case in Greek can express a variety of relationships, including possession, origin, association, or a partitive relationship (subset). Several interpretations are possible:

1. Genitive of Affiliation/Association: This is the most straightforward interpretation, suggesting that these scribes were either members of the Pharisaic party or were closely associated with them. It implies that while scribes formed a general professional class, some were explicitly linked to the Pharisees. This aligns with historical understanding, where not all scribes were Pharisees, but many Pharisees were scribes, and scribes often aligned with specific religious groups.
2. Partitive Genitive (Subset): This interpretation suggests “the scribes *who were also* Pharisees.” It highlights that within the broader category of scribes, there was a specific group who identified as Pharisees. This effectively creates a compound identity, “Pharisee-scribes.”
3. Genitive of Origin/Source: Less likely in this context, but theoretically possible, implying “scribes *from among* the Pharisees.” However, the strong association with membership or identity is usually preferred.

Rhetorically, the phrase serves Mark’s narrative purpose. While it likely reflects a historical reality that some scribes were Pharisees, Mark may also employ this specific phrasing to consolidate the opposition against Jesus. By linking the “scribes” (who represent legal authority and interpretation) with the “Pharisees” (who embody strict adherence to tradition and frequently clash with Jesus), Mark creates a unified front of powerful religious opponents. This literary strategy intensifies the conflict, establishing the legitimacy and magnitude of the challenge Jesus faces, transcending a mere distinction between two groups to present a combined, formidable adversary.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The phrase οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων in Mark 2:16 identifies a particular contingent of scribes who were either members of the Pharisaic party or closely aligned with its teachings and agenda. This construction likely functions as a genitive of affiliation or a partitive genitive, specifying a subset of the broader scribal class. From a rhetorical perspective, Mark effectively combines two significant groups of religious authority to present a unified and powerful opposition to Jesus, regardless of whether every individual scribe mentioned was formally a Pharisee. The stability of the Greek text in major critical editions confirms the phrase as integral to Mark’s original composition.

Based on this analysis, the following translations are suggested:

1. The scribes, who were Pharisees, observing that…
   This translation emphasizes that these specific scribes held membership or strong affiliation with the Pharisaic party, clarifying their identity within the broader scribal class.
2. The scribes of the Pharisaic party, seeing that…
   This rendering highlights their association or allegiance with the Pharisees as a distinct religious group, similar to a “belonging to” relationship.
3. The Pharisee scribes, when they saw that…
   This concise translation combines the two elements into a single identifying phrase, underscoring the composite identity of these specific opponents and their role as representatives of Pharisaic teaching.