Why Jesus Blessed The Children (MK 10,13-16 Par.) - J. Duncan M. Derrett

Why Jesus Blessed the Children (Mk 10:13-16 par.
)
Author(s): J. Duncan M. Derrett
Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 1-18
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560479 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.137 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:05:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Novum TestamentumXXV, 1 (1983)
WHY JESUS BLESSED THE CHILDREN

(MK 10:13-16 PAR.)
by
J.DUNCAN M. DERRETT
Blockley,England
The blessing of the children is no longer' understood in the

sentimental sense once common. Jesus may have been fond of
children-people who have none of theirown oftenare-but it is
not supposed that the pericope owes its existenceto that.2Not long
ago it was suspected thatthe pericope proved the existenceof a bap-
tismal liturgy,and that Mk 10:14 refersto some such
This is now (p. xc,67r)
motif.3 generallyabandoned,4 rightly-as we shall see.
Strange things, but plausible, are said nowadays about the
pericope. An excellent treatmentis found in a somewhat obscure
G. Klein, Argernisse. metdemNeuen Testament
Konfrontationen (Munich, 1970),
70-1(thechapter,pp. 58-81,corresponds to a lecturegivenin 1964. E. Haenchen,
Der WegJesu (Berlin21968),344 rightly warnsagainstreference to pastor present
'childpsychology';at 346 he interprets 'child' as one whois ambitionless, 'child'
meansnotchild,but 'humble'(ibid., 347, 349). At 348 he deals withThomas22
(p. 85.20-22),a sayingwhich,as it generalisesthevirtueofbabyhoodas example
of sexlessnon-differentiation,
is a secondarygnosticdevelopment and outsideour
concern(on Thomas see H. C. Kee atJ.B.L. 82, 1963,307-14).Arechildren'lit-
oughttheytobe so; oughttheytobe imitatediftheyare so? K.
tle', 'unimportant';
Berger,Die Amen-WorteJesu (Berlin1970), 41 n.38. For Harvey,see below,n.19.
R. Schnackenburg, The Gospelaccording
toSt. Mark (London, 1977) 193, rightlyre-
jects the idyllicconceptof thescene,whichholdsa decisionof principle.But an
unexpectedly sentimental treatmentof the wholethemeappearsat E. Stauffer's
massive 'Jesus,Geschichteund Verkiindigung,' Auf u. Niederg.d. Rom. Welt
II.25/1 (1982), 4-130,at 90-2.
2 The mostusual explanationis thatJesus, by an acted parable, showsthat
salvationcomesto thehumble.On thepericopesee J. Schlosser,Le rkgne deDieu
dans les ditsdejisus (Paris, 1980), 477 ff.
30. Cullmann,Baptism intheNewTestament
(London, 1970),76-80(a baptismal
formulaof thefirstcenturygleamsthroughMk 10:13-16)(he raisedthepointat
R.H.P.R. 1937,432). J. Jeremiasagreed:Z.N.W. 40 (1941), 243-5.
4A. W. Argyleat Exp.T. 67 (1955-6),17,Klein,ubi cit.,68-9. S. Ligasse,Jisus
et l'enfant(Paris 1969), 210-14; Reploh, cit. inf., 190; R. Pesch, Das
MarkusevangeliumII (Freiburg,etc., 1977), 131;J. P. B. Lewis, 'Mk 10:14,koluein
and baptizein,'RestorationQuarterly
21 (1978), 129-134. Haenchen, op. cit., 347
repudiatesany conclusionto be drawnfromthe presenceofour textin any bap-
tismalservice.Schnackenburg, ubicit.sup.,is cautious.

2 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT
place.5 The detachmentof the passage fromany action on the part

ofJesus is assumed.6 Furtherdeparturesare foundin Matthew and
in Luke. The characteristicpreoccupationsof those evangelistsare
seen at work.' The storyin Luke has moved degrees furtherfrom
whatever was derived fromtradition;and that itselfboils down to
vv. 13-14 only.8 The concept of the Kingdom of God9 and the con-
cept of children(below puberty)as by nature entitledto itlo go back
to primitiveChristianity.V.16 is thoughtto be a Marcan addition
since it has &voyxoAtxLa&to
voS,a rare word found otherwiseonly in a
passage stronglysuspected also to be Marcan." set0sis
looks like a developmentfrom e&? Xearip
in v.13. And, ifso, v. 16
i'voc...&trexL
is a bracket to enclose the intrusivev. 15, which everyone believes
to come fromelsewhere.12 If 15 was not necessarilyadded by Mark
himselfto v. 14,'3 at any rate it is not part of the same traditionwith
5 See n. 1 (Klein).
6 In Klein's viewv. 14, thekernel,has an inventedactionattachedto it at 16.
But one asks: is theactionat 9:36 inventedalso, or not?The 'come to me' aspect
(cf. Mt 11:28) derives,in Klein's view,fromthe Easterfaith(ubi cit., 69). See
ibid. 71.J. Sauer, 'Der urspriingliche
'Sitz im Leben' vonMk. 10:13-16,'Z.N. W.
72 (1981), 27-49,understands thepassage to representearlyChristianauthorisa-
tionof takingchildrento faith-healers!
7Haenchen,ad loc. Klein, ubi cit.
8 In Klein's viewthepassage shouldend withtheWord ofJesusat 14.
9The leading article,K. L. Schmidt,BooatXrea, T.W.N.T. I (1933/1957)
naturallycontainsall references to 'entry'but the pointmade below does not
figure.Klein, ubi cit.,emphasisesthedifference betweenthevisualisationsofthe
Kingdomin v. !4 and 15. See n. 69 below.
1o J. Klausner,Jesus of Nazareth(New York, 1959), 306. Texts in favourof
school-children and assertingthesanctityofchildrenbelowpuberty(not affected
bytheEvil Inclination)(W. Grundmann, Das EvangeliumnachMarkus,Berlin1971,
205) (see also Test Abr. 9:3, shorttexttrans.M. Delcor,Le Testament d'Abraham,
Leiden 1973, 181) are irrelevant.
" See Mk 9:36. Klein,ubi cit.,67 (Luke was awareofa pre-Marcantradition).
H. Fleddermannat C.B. Q. 43 (1981), 56-75 at 61, takes vcryxaXotactevocat Mk
9:36 to have been takenfrom10:16.
12 R. Bultmann, TheHistoryoftheSynopticTradition(Oxford 1968), 32; afterhim
Lohmeyer,ad loc.J. Dupont,LesBdatitudes (Bruges/Louvain 1954), 150(v. 15 was
put in to explainthatthestorywas notsimplyaboutchildren).Ligasse, op. cit.,
39, 187, 327 (one shouldreplacethe accenton 14c). Klein, ubi cit., 67-8. K.-G.
Reploh,Markus-Lehrer derGemeinde 1969), 187.J. I. H. McDonald at
(Stuttgart
StudiaEvangelicaVI (= TexteundUntersuchungen 112, Berlin1973), 328-32.Yet as
Haenchensays,op. cit., 344, v. 15 was thehighpointofthestoryforevangelists.
E. J. Pryke lists uncriticallyat RedactionalStylein theMarcan Gospel(Cambridge
1978) at p. 18 theauthorswhoallegethat13, 15a and 16-17aare redactional,and
showsthe resultat 165. A carefuldiscussionof 10:15 appearsat R. Schnacken-
burg,God'sRuleandKingdom (London 21968),142.
13 Kleinwouldhave v. 16 original,
butprobablyMark'sowninvention (ubi cit.,
66, 67).

WHY JESUS BLESSED THE CHILDREN 3
it. The concept of the Kingdom seems to be differentfromthat at

14e,14and the concept of the child, as a patternwhom othersmay
imitate, clashes with 14e.'5
to thepericope
The background
In the 17th and 18th centuries it was widely known'"6that our
pericope was connected withGen 48; but some time in the last cen-
turythe referencewas dropped fromthe marginsof our bibles, and
it recentlydisappeared fromview,"17so that no modern commen-
tator utilises it. This has been anomalous since a fulltreatmentof
the midrashim was provided by Bowker.'8
As a matterof factuntil one has meditatedon Jacob's blessingof
Ephraim and Manasseh one has not equipped oneselfto studyMk
10:13-16. Once one has digestedthatstoryone findslittleinterestin
existing commentaries upon our passage.19 Jesus, to be brief,
blesses childrenanalogously withJacob's blessing of Ephraim and
Manasseh in somewhat parallel circumstances;and in so doing he
both develops furtherthe theme once enhanced by Jacob, and
bypasses Moses, who to a certain extent imitatedJacob.20
"4 Klein, ubi cit., 67-8. The Kingdomoriginally

came to men.
'5 Ibid. Haenchen,op. cit., 346 (v. 15 is an 'edifying'interpretation).
16 It was knownto Grotius(Annotationes
inNouumTestamentum,
1642,in thecor-
rectededn., Groningen1827, 107),JohnCanne (1664) and Samuel Clark(1690);
and figuresin thebeautifulfolioGreekNew TestamentpublishedbyJohnMill,
Oxford1707 (p. 115 ad v. 13). It figuresagainstMt 19:13 inJohnWesley'sNew
TestamentwithExplanatory Notes(1754) (I have used theedn. Halifax 1824).
'7 The mentions at H. B. Swete,TheGospel accordingtoSt. Mark(London 1902),
220, and V. Taylor,TheGospel accordingtoSt. Mark(London 1963),422, referring
to I. Abrahams,Studies in Pharisaism andtheGospels I (Cambridge1917), 119 and
Billerbeck,Kommentar, I, 809 f., are sterile.Ligasse, op. cit.,failsto see thepoint
of and Gen 48-49at pp. 332-3and 333 n. 2.
ivoryxaELea6L
18J. Bowker,TheTargums andRabbinic Literature
(Cambridge1969), 274-7.On
theblessingsthemselves see C. M. Carmichael.inJ.B.L. 88 (1969), 435 ff.
19 The bestpreparation forstudyofour passageis A. E. Harvey,Companion to
theNew Testament(Oxfordand Cambridge,1970), 163:Jesusvaluedchildrenin the
present;Ps 131:2 is relevant.E. P. Gould, TheGospelaccording toSt. Mark(Edin-
burgh1896), 188identified childrenas manifestations ofobedience-perhapsthey
were in 1896? Bultmann,op. cit., 57 says Mk 10:13-16 praises child-like
understanding. W. L. Knox, TheSources oftheSynoptic GospelsI, St. Mark(Cam-
bridge1953), 69 unconsciously (and as I believecorrectly)linksour passagewith
Mk 9:36, wherehumility as a conditionofdiscipleship wouldappropriately be em-
phasised.
20 L. Ginzberg, Legends oftheJewsI (Philadelphia1947), 147. Butforthereason
whyMk 10:13-16appearsat thisprecisepositionin Mark see Derrettat Bibl. 63
(1982), 474-505at p. 503!

If we acquaint ourselves withthe storyas it exists in that curious

amalgam, the Masoretic Text and the lively midrashim
thereupon,2' we can see why our pericope comes between that on
divorce and that on the Rich Enquirer. It has been supposed for
centuries22that the sequence marriage-children-inheritance was
natural and even appertained to some convenient catechism.23
Marriage itselfis necessaryforthe productionoflegitimatechildren
and until relativelyrecenttimes only legitimatechildrenwould ex-
pect to participatein an inheritance,even given thatJewish law is
kind to bastards (cf. the biblical preferenceforIsaac over Ishmael at
Gen 21:10-13, Gal 4:30). Mark at 10:17 does use the word
'Share', 'lot', 'inheritance' are connected ideas.
x?povoptacom.
They are authorisedin this contextby Deut 16:20. No doubt in the
ancient world (where there were no inheritance-taxesor family-
protectionstatutes)the passage frompovertyto riches by way of a
chance legacy (Tit 3:7) was an aspiration tinged withmore drama
than any equivalent now. However, that linkage is banal, and we
can do much betterwiththe aid of Gen 48-49. In short:thosewhose
familylives are dominated by the charismaticinsight(distinctfrom
prudence: Mk 10:5, cf. Mt 19:10) are, while adult, in the shoes of
Ephraim and Manasseh; and those who, having that character,
obeying God fromtheiryouth(Job 31:17-18) and so fitforwhat was
foretoldin theirfavourby Jacob, are entitledto Jesus' recognition
and favour, and would indeed enter the Kingdom ifnot held back
by theirriches.
Granted that one eschews whoredoms, as did Joseph, and stays
faithfuleven to a long-barrenwifeand mourns her at her death as
did Jacob,24 one still cannot obtain the inheritance promised to
Ephraim and Manasseh ifone has grownup to become attached to
wealth. See Jas 2:5. Mt 5:3 is familiar: oi tq
ta~x&ptoL0;1 XOo
xv~iapGTOtLat tk6"vinty... The genitiveof the person plus the verb
(to be), as thereand at Mk 10:14, (par.) impliesa promise;25
ELVOCL but
not necessarilyan unconditional one. A choice must be made be-
21 M. M. Kasher, Encyclopediaof biblical Interpretation
VI (New York 1965),
106 ff.L. Ginzberg,op. cit., 136.
22 Ligasse, cit. sup., 36 and n. 4. Reploh thought the textwas whereit was
because of thechurch'spreoccupation withproperty (op. cit., 190).
23 Legasse, op. cit.,36. Klein,op. cit.,62. Pesch,op. cit., II, 128 ff.mentions
previousnotionsto thiseffect.
24 'A man diesonlytohiswife, and a womandiesonlytoherhusband'(cf.Ruth
1:3): Pesqta Rabbati3, b. Sanh. 22b, Midr. R. RuthII.7 (= Soncinotrans.,30).
25 R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom(supra), 85.

tween material goods And the distinctioncan

ahd heavenly goods.
arise if not by a literal interpretationof Gen 48, at least by way of
midrashof it. Key phrases are )ahuzat Coldm (48:4) and melo)haggdyim
(48:19). The formercan be rendered 'endless possession' (the noun
is thatused in the pentateuchforthe land of Canaan as distributed,
and, by analogy forthe Land of the Promise), i.e. the everlasting
thingsof the World to Come, in contrastto earthlypossessions such
as Joseph's familyobtained in Egypt (Gen 47:11); the latteris the
'completion (fullness)of the nations'(providinga marvellousdouble
meaning). Visualising the connectionof ideas in this way we avoid
the incongruitywhich perplexed poor King Richard,26
'...and do set the Word itself
Against the Word:
As thus, "Come, littleones;" and then again,
"It is as hard to come as fora camel
To thread the posternof a needle's eye."
The materials we need are midrashim, some admittedlynot of
great age, but some of them, again, agreeingexactlyin sense but in
differentwords, thus arguing age indeed. The source of them all is
the Masoretic Text itself. Certainly old are the midrashim to be
found in the Palestinian Targum and in Midrash Rabbah. Minds
such as drew these intriguingepisodes out of the garbled storyleft
by editors of Genesis could certainlyhave recognised Mk 10:13-16
at a glance. The proposals, not to say pretentions,and assurances
ofJesus are obvious. What the Holy Spirit did throughthe mouth
of Jacob is not repudiated, recalled, varied, or sophisticated. On
the contrary,this latest bearer of the Spiritconfirmsthe prophecy,
but as activated (by himself)now.The connectionofthe whole thing
withmarriage is almost certainlyMark's doing, but it is authorised
by the fact that Jacob and Joseph, both eminently qualified
matrimonially,would not have connived at a blessing of Ephraim
and Manasseh had the latter not been legitimate.
The circumstances
oftheblessingofJacob
The blessing, though conveyed by Jacob, was the work of the
Holy Spirit, which generallyenabled Jacob to have second sight.27
26 W. Shakespeare, theSecond,
KingRichard ActV, sceneV, lines 13-17:noticed
by Wellhausen(on Mark).
27 The Targumps. Jonathanemphasisesthis(Bowker,op. cit., 239-242,257,
260, 266).

The occasion to convey it by an act of prophecywas Jacob's coming

death. He knew thatthe blessingsand promisesmade to Abraham,
Isaac and himselfmust be passed on, and it was he who selected
Joseph especially for this purpose. Yahweh did not bless Joseph
directly,for reasons we can only guess-but it is clear that the
three-foldblessing (doubled in the case ofJacob himself)was quite
enough. It created a perfectendowmentforthe 'seed' and it is not
absurd forthis to be distributed,as it were, and diversifiedforthe
Twelve Tribes.
Yet the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh was specificallya
blessing of Joseph (so 48:15),28 and the blessing descends from
Abraham to Joseph and his issue ('seed' at 11 = 'seed' at 4) via
Jacob; the blessing is not only on Ephraim and Manasseh but will
be shared by any descendant of Joseph to be begotten later than
they-they will enter into the same inheritance(48:6). Now the bi-
ble knows none such! These spiritualdescendants ofJoseph will be
awaited tillthe End of Days. Yahweh said at Luz (Gen 35:11, 48:4)
that Jacob would become the ancestor of a company of peoples
(qahal Camim).The blessings conferredon Ephraim and Manasseh
are thereforeof more than passing interest.They are the totalof the
blessings conferredon Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The boys will
multiply(and thereforetheirunknown 'brothers'will multiply)like
fish(weyidgi)29into a multitudein the middle of the earth (48:16).
This at once alerts us to the call ofJesus' fishermen,30
and thereis
surelya link.
The blessings pronounced on the Tribal Ancestors in these
chapters reflectthe prowess and prospects of the tribes (so far as
theywere stillidentifiable)at the period when theywere devised. It
is known thatJoseph was representedby Ephraim and Manasseh
and that thoughthe latterwas supposed to be the senior the former
was far more important.31The curious arrangement whereby,
despite Joseph's precautions,Jacob gave a senior's blessing to the
junior and vice versa (withcrossed hands) reflectsthis. But the real-
28 The pointis emphasisedby RabbenuBachyab. Asher(A.D. 1291),Commen-

taryon thePentateuch
I, 375.
29 Targ. ps. Jon., Gen 48:16. Bowker,275. Targ. Neofiti,Gen 48:16. The
offishat Gen 48:16 is notedbrilliantly
significance by S. Ben-Chorin,BruderJesus
(Munich 31970),65-6.
30 J. D. M. Derrett,'HEAN FAP CAAIEIL(Mk 1:16). Jesus'sfishermen and
theparableof theNet,' N.T. 22/2(1980), 108-137.
31 R. North, 'Ephraim', L. Th.K. III (1959), 925-6.

ly interestingaspect for us is that the Spirit refused to recognise

seniorityand treatedthe youngeras ifhe were the elder.32This has
a bearing on the question of seniorityin the Kingdom, and the story
at Gen 48:17-19 may well lie behind Mk 9:35 (as indeed 9:36-37
suggest) and 10:31. The child, as an authenticheir to the Kingdom,
must be recognised as such even by those who are, in point of age,
his seniors.
Jacob's refusal to give a due recognition to seniority-a
characteristicwhich Jesus shared-could be excused not merely
because of the power of an ancestor's blessing, which in his case
gave him an advantage over his own ancestors (Gen 49:26), but
also because he acted under the impulse of the Spirit. And if one
wanted to be pedantic the boys' names(Gen 41:51-52) offeredex-
cuse enough.33
Jacob's blessingand its limitations

The blessingcame in itsown time and subject to limitations.The
boys, whom he knew perfectlyas boys, were re-recognised,as death
approached, as his immediate legatees. The Holy Spiritwas fussy.
It enabled him to see the End (Gen 49:1) and the roles of the Tribes
at that time; it did not withholdits power because of evil men who
would come amongst descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh.34
However it withheldfromJacob knowledge of the identityof the
Redeemer (but that he should come fromthe Tribe ofJudah: Gen
49:10) and of the timeof redemption(cfMk 13:32, Acts 1:7).35 The
promise that Yahweh would be withJoseph at Gen 48:21 is taken
traditionallyas a promise that a temple would be built by his
descendants, and also as a covert indication of the identityof the
32 The bible consistently places Ephraim before Manasseh: Midr.R.Gen.

XCVII. 5 = Sonc. trans. 942. God confirmedJacob's words: Midr. R. Num.
XIV. 4 = Sonc. 583-4.
* A.
Strus,Nomen-Omen
(Rome, 1978), 67.
= Sonc. 924, XCVII. 4= Sonc.
34 Jeroboam and Jehu. Midr. R. Gen. XCVI
941. Kasher,op. cit., 128-9. 'Bless thelads', however,referstoJoshuaand Gi-
deon: Midr. R. Gen. XCVII. 3 = Sonc. 939. Hezekiahsaid, 'I have seen by the
aid of the Holy Spiritthatworthlesschildrenwill issue fromme' (referring to
Manasseh, thewickedking):b. Ber. 10a.
35 Targ. ps. Jon, Gen 49:1. Kasher, 139-142(the Shekinahlefthim at that
point). Bahya b. Asher, ubi cit., 377 (Jacob spoke of the dispersionand the
redemption);ibid., 378 (Gen 49:1 hints at the redemptionfromthe disper-
sion-the redemption that'fallsto' them).

Messiah.36 The Messiah, one notes, is not only 'Son ofJoseph' but
'Son of David'. The angel at 48:16 will reveal himselfwhen Salva-
tion comes (Mal 3:1).37 Indeed the Palestinian Targum on Exod
40:11 speaks of the Messiah son of Ephraim, a second Joshua, who
will vanquish Gog, etc., at the End of Days; and the bones of the
tribe of Ephraim will be the firstto be resurrectedby Ezekiel.
Joseph receives, though a younger son, a special portion above
his brethren(who had wronged him and to whom he had been in-
crediblygenerous) (Gen 48:22), which portion is Jacob's personal
legacy, acquired by him not by his sword and his bow (so the M.T.)
but by his good deeds and merits.38There is an ancient tradition
thatthe special legacy was the firstrobe, the robe ofAdam.39This is
of peculiar interestin connection with Lk 15:22: there the 'first
robe' (symbolically Adam's robe) is given to the younger son
disregardingthe likelycomplaints of the elder (we shall returnto
thatparable). Yet thereis more about Joseph: he, thoughthe target
of archers (Gen 49:23) (i.e. the victim of calumniators, more
specificallythe magicians of Egypt(see Targ., LXX)) will profitex-
ceedingly fromthe meritsofJacob.40
Yet the Holy Spirit fledwhenJacob doubted the boys' fitness.41
It is accepted thatthereweredescendants of Ephraim and Manasseh
who became unworthy:at the momentwhen the blessing was to be
36 Midr. R. Gen. XCVII. 6 = Sonc. 942-3;ibid. Exod. III. 8 = Sonc. 68. See H.
Freedman'snote at Sonc. 943 n. 2 and Kasher's note at E.B.I. VI, p. 132. 86
(citingGen 50:24). On thesanctuarysee Midr. R. Exod. XXXIII. 8 = Sonc. 424.
In viewoftheimportance oftheBlessingofJacob inJewishtraditionthecool at-
titudeofJosephus(Ant.ii. 194-196)is probablyto be explainedby an attemptto
play down all messianicmotifs.
37 Midr. R. Exod. XXXII. 9 = Sonc. 413.
The Targumsso explain48:22 (Bowker,275). Targ. Neofition Gen 48:22.
38
So Midr. R. Gen. XCVII. 6. Rashi rendersthewords'wisdomand prayer'.For
the pictureofJosephas the perfection
of piety,a standingemphasisedin first-
centuryhaggadah, see H. W. Hollander, Josephas an EthicalModel in theTestaments
of theTwelvePatriarchs(Leiden, 1981).
39 See PalestinianTargum.J. D. M. Derrett, Law intheNewTestament (London
1970), 119 and n. 6.
o40The old haftarahto Seder43 (Gen 48:1) is 2 Kgs 13:14-23(a promiseofvic-
tory)and thehomiliesdeal withrewardsafterdeathand themeritsofthepatriar-
chs;thehomiliesto Seder44 (Gen 49) deal withthepriestlyblessing(J. Mann, The
Bible as Read and Preachedin theOld Synagogue
I, Cincinnati 1940, 344 ff.,349 ff.).
41 Kasher,op. cit., 118: 'He could not see meansthattheHoly Spirithad left
him.' The Spiritforsook Jacobtwice,once whenhe wishedto blessEphraimand
Manasseh,and oncewhenhe desiredtorevealtheEnd, theadventoftheMessiah.
Pes. Rabb. 3. Tanham Vayahi 6 (F. Singermann, MidrashTanhuma.Sederbere'it
(Berlin1927), 284-7(theHoly Spiritcame toJacob twicebecause of Ephraim).

given the boys' own qualifications were in doubt. As they were

under the age of puberty they could have no moral quality-the
question related to their legitimacy. Joseph's own action (see
below) became of vital importance. With a delicate hint Jacob
raises the question of Rachel's burial. Rachel died and was buried
at Bethlehem (of all places). Joseph's discipline at the hands of
Jacob made him what he was (Pal. Targ., Gen 49:24), butJoseph's
mother was the grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh and,
posthumously,theiradoptive mother. It was proper she should be
remembered at that time. The ancestress of the recipientsof the
blessing must obviously have a bearing on theirentitlementto it;
and when Jacob says, mysteriously,'Who are these?' he hints at
theirmother.Their legitimacymust be examined."42 Joseph explains
that theyare the sons of Asenath, said to be the daughterof Dinah,
or an Egyptian woman converted to Judaism. If Ephraim and
Manasseh are indeed sons of a proselytethat is very interesting.
Joshuawas descended fromthe proselyteAsenath (Midr. R., Num.
VIII, 4). Now the ketubah or marriage contractis produced;43and
Jacob is satisfied. The Holy Spirit which had fled returns at
Joseph's prayers(48:12),44 and when it has reenteredJacob the lat-
ter continues with the ceremony of blessing. The workingof the
Spirit is indicated by the words 'I know, my son, I know' at 48:19.
Jacob foresawall that was to come.45
TheformoftheblessingofJacob
There are several elements.There is (i) the bringingnear (10, 13:
thereis no knowingwhat childrenwill do ifleftto themselves:2 Kgs
2:23). Their entitlementhaving been proved they are brought to
42 'Thoughtheywerebornin Egypt,I regardthemas myown children':Pes.

Rabb. 3. Kasher, 110, giveslaterreferences.It dependedon theketubah: see next
note.
43 On Asenathsee Gen 41:45. On theketuba Targ. ps. Jon., Gen 48:9. Kallah
RabbathiII. 19 (3rdcentor 8thcent.?)(see Introd.to TheMinor Tractates
Massektoth
Ketannoth,ed. A. Cohen, II, London 1965,v; thepassageis translatedat p. 455).
Midrashha-Gadolad loc. Pes. Rabb. 3. Kasher,116-117.Rashi on 48:8 (Raschi's
Pentateuch-Kommentar,trans. S. Bamberger,Hamburg 1928, 127). Bachya b.
Asher,ubi cit.
44 Pes. Rabb. 3. Tan. Vayahi 6. Kasher, 116. Yahwehsaid to theHoly Spirit,
'How longyetshallJosephsuffer? Reveal thyselfquicklyand enterintoJacob,that
he may be able to bestowblessings'(so Ginzberg'sparaphrase).Pes. Rabb. 3
(11b-12a) (trans.W. G. Braude,New Haven and London 1968, I, 78).
45 Targumson Gen 49:1.

Jacob, not only because he is on his deathbed but because the gran-
tor of the blessing should be sought by those desirous of it. At that
timeJacob is meditatinga general testament(in high eschatological
style) for his descendants as a whole... Jacob's eyes were heavy
because the Holy Spirit,returning,had clouded his earthlysight.46
There follow(ii) the kissing(10), (iii) the embracing(the LXX have
eX Evforthe M.T.
rteptL (iv) the placing of hands upon
the boys (14) and finally way.habbiq),
(v) the invocation of the deity and the
angel to bless them (15-16). The order of events is of interestto us.
Jacob physically embraces them and confers his charisma upon
them,as upon adopted sons, in the mostemphaticmanner possible.
The verb HBQ (to embrace) is not common in the Old Testament.
It is used of foldingthe arms47of sexual embrace,48and, in reference
toJacobas theobject,of the embracingof a blood relationof the same
gender.49Our place is the only one whereJacob is the subject of the
verb. The Greek words for'embrace' (to flingthe arms around and
hug to oneself) are 7pLrXa4.4twvo (cf. Xen., Anab. 7.4.10 [a child],
Symp. 9.4) and The latter is certainly used in this
dva'yxalCogt.
sense50 and especially
of children.5'
Modern translationsof Mk 10:16
render it 'taking them (up) in his arms', which misses the point.
Such a renderingof the verb is possible in some instances.52Set
against the background ofJacob's behaviour,Jesus' embracingthe
boys is an acknowledgement in acted metaphor-a well-known
semitic usage (cf. 1 Kgs 22:11, 2 Kgs 13:15ff;Acts 21:11)--that
theyare his relationsand co-heirs.At once the propositioncomes to
mind that theyare recognisedby him as undisqualzfied co-inheritors
with himself: see Rom 8:17 e 8 t~xvo, xocrxrlp6vo?o" xrlpOvo.OL
pv 0ao, GUTXrJp6VOIOL 8L XptatoG,also Gal 3:29, 4:7 and Rev 21:7.
46 Yelammedenu 34 = A. Jellinek, ed., Bet ha-MidraschVI (Vienna 1877), 83.

47 Prov6:10, 24:33. Lohmeyer(ad loc.) placessomeofthereferences thatfollow
togetherwithoutdistinguishing theirmeanings.Embracingwiththe arms:Job
24:8 (cf. Lam 4:5).
48 Qoh 3:5, Prov 4:8, 5:20, Cant 2:6, 8:3.
49 Gen 29:13, 33:4.

50 Of greatinterest are Test.Job. 52:10 (ed. S. P. Brock)(embracinga soul) and
Test. Abr., rec. A (Ms D)., ed. M. R. James(Cambridge1892),94 (God sayshe
embracedsouls of thedead, and restoredthemto life).Metaphoricaluse: Plut.,
Mor. 335D; Procop. Gaz., Ep. 133.
51 See Alciphro (Loeb ed.) IV. 19.5. 4 Macc 13:21. Plut., Cam.5 (Loeb ed., ii.
104); Mor. 492D. Ins. Gr. XII. 7, 39525 (7ixvo).2 Kgs 4:16 is ambiguous.
52 Diod. Sic. III. 58, 3 (,cv p3p~cqcv
...
ivyxo,ottiwv).

ofourpericope
The authenticity
Mk 10:13-14 are about charismatic contact, the passing of
charisma by direct touch. The persons who take the initiative,
whichevertheirsex and whatevertheirmotive, expect the children
to benefit. In the littledrama children are helpless appendages to
theirparents, sharers (it was conventionallysupposed)53of the lat-
ters' fates,devoid of responsibilityfortheirfutures.Here thereis no
referenceto blessingsby ancestors,to the eve of the Sabbath, to the
Day of Atonement,or even to the High Priest(was Jesus to be seen
as a priest?).54An intercultural,international superstitionis at
work, yet with a dramatic backcloth. The disciples rebuke the
adults, most probably not because theywere officious(2 Kgs 4:27)
or had not been offereda douceur, nor because Jesus was too busy,
nor because children were insignificant,55but because Jesus'
religion was non-magical, reserving touch for healing56 accom-
panied with faith on the part of the patient (or his
representatives)-a charismaticsituationforwhich touch should be
reserved (cf. The King's Evil). Jesus was cross,57and, while admit-
tingthat the disciples filterall access to himself(!), requires themto
allow childrenfreeaccess. The reason is thatsuch as theyare, being
indeed heirs to the Kingdom and in sense his collaborators (Is
8:18), were not subject to the disciples' direction.The disciples' at-
titude to and expectations of the Kingdom were along other lines
(Mk 15:43, Mt 20:21, Lk 14:15, 17:20, Acts 1:6). Moreover his
5 G. M. Sifakis,'Childrenin Greektragedy,'Bull. Inst.Class.Stud.26 (1979),

67-73 at 68-9.
5 Klein, ubi cit., 71. G. Friedrichis probablywrongat Z. Th. K. 53 (1956),
294-5.The practiceofa father'sblessinghissonon theEve oftheSabbathwhether
beforeor aftersynagogue-attendance is of greatage (and oftenillustrated in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries)(see below,n. 65). The principleis a com-
monplace:Sir 3:9 (LXX and Heb.). On themagicalexpectations heresee Pesch,
op. cit., 132 and n. 3.
55 The traditional reasonsare listedby Corneliust Lapide and by M. Polus in
hisSynopsis.See also Pesch,op. cit., 132n. 4. Klein says,ubi cit. 71-3thatifitwas
an ideal scenetheguardians'motivesare pointless,and thesameoughtlogicallyto
be said of thedisciples'interference!
56 Klein says(ibid.) thediscipleswereright,theywanteda plannedcontactto go
on withJesus.They rejectedtheinterest in magicobtaining(as now) amongstthe
non-pious.Schnackenburg, Gospel(1977), 193.
57 See Mk 10:41 on a relative-statusquestion),14:4 (&Ta~vaxorovte~
over some presumed (&Tovo?xtelv
wasteof property).Lk 13:14 (&Tavocxtiv overbreachofthe
Sabbath).

teaching of children mightprotectthem fromthe disqualifications

which easily arise.
Let us pass to v. 16. He exceeded the adults' expectations:he em-
braced themas his kindred(and thus superiorto the disciples!), and
placed on them his hands58 (obviously on their heads) and
thoroughlyblessed them, being an emphatic form of
xt)XoyT
The word has overtones of congratulation (Plut., Mor.
E&,oy0X.
66C) and thanks (Tob 10:14 BA) as well as extolling(Plut., Mor.
1069C). The sequence agrees with that at Gen 48:14-15, only the
kissing is missing.59Kissing is appropriate as between ascendants
and descendants and, analogously, pupils and teachers.60As we
take the Marcan text there is no suggestionthatJesus substitutes
his own blessing forthat of others,includingafortioriJacob;but he
adds his power to what was conveyed to the boys' ancestors long
ago, and by analogy affirmsthat the Kingdom belongs to such as
they are.6' That is, indeed, such as Ephraim and Manasseh were,
assuming the children's parents' marriage to have been in all
respectsregular. It would be ridiculous to suggestthatJesus would
have abstained from blessing children who were the fruit of
adultery,but it is certainlyan observed factthatchildrenof regular
unions have a long start in the competition for the prize of
righteousness.
Matthew preservesthe idea of the invocation at Mt 19:13 fori'v
ti& 07rL tjo?" xG Epo parallels Jacob's behaviour
0 dTj:L
veryXe.pt(
closely. It is impossible to prove that Matthew was aware of
theJacob parallel. By omittingiveyxLthar& EvoS(as I suppose he has
done)62 he preserves the very different picture he has formed:
children are received by Jesus, who merelyconfirmsthat they are
58 One hand signifies healing(see Klein, 59), bothhandssignify thetransferofa

thingfromthesubjectto therecipient,outsidesacrificial ritual.R. Pter, 'L'im-
positiondes mainsdans l'ancienttestament,'V.T. 27 (1977), 48-55. A Farrer's
hint(cf. A Studyin St. Mark,Westminster, 1951, 327-8) thatJairus'daughter,a
Manassite,escapesa laying-onof hands (Mk 5:21, cf. 41) is intriguing; for,in a
sense,thehandswerereservedfora moresuitablepersonand a betteroccasion.
59 It occurred to E. Hirsch,Friihgeschichte
desEvangeliums I (Tiibingen1951), 111,
that'layinghandson them'was an additionmade at thestageofMark II. Haen-
chen,op. cit., 347-8rejectsthis.
60 See reference at J. Lightfoot,WholeWorks xi (London 1823), 411 (ad Mk
10:21).
61 UnlikeDupont I do not see otodLOtV as a Marcan improvement on tod6tv.
62 In Klein's viewMatthewdid notpossessv. 15 in theform inwhichwe haveit,
otherwisehe could have had no objectionto theembracing.

patternsof fitnessforthe Kingdom and neitherplaces them on a

footingof equality withhimselfnor prefersthem in any sense to the
disciples. Luke, who favourshumilityand passivity,is interestedin
children,whom he sees as infantsin arms. He may well have read
in his copy of Mark, and seems to have taken it in
iv'yxaoticgXavoS
the less common sense. Yet thereexists a furtherpossibilityforhis
decision, namely an interpretationof the somewhat difficulttextof
Hosea 11:3. Without going into the philological and textual dif-
ficultieswe may proceed on the hypothesisthat therewas available
to Luke a version reading, 'I myselftaughtEphraim to walk, I took
them on my arms: but theydid not understandit was I that cared
forthem'. Jesus performsthe divine functionof liftingthe nation up
in his arms. In Luke Jesus neither acknowledges nor blesses the
children.63He makes a statementabout them.
We now come to v. 15 (= Lk 18:17) which is usually relegatedto
the rank of a secondary developmentwithinthe gospel.64Vincent
Taylor makes the followingremark(Mark,423), 'It may be thattwo
differentideas of the kingdom are combined: thepresent kingdomis
received, thefuturekingdom is entered ... This reading ... may be
correct,but it is not easy to believe that a distinctionof this kind is
intended. It is easier to suppose that a single idea runs throughthe
saying, namely, that men who do not receive the kingdomas a gift
cannot enter upon its blessings ...' However, the seeming con-
tradiction,or nonsequitur, as between vv. 14 and 15 is visible in both
Mark and Luke-unless it is no real contradictionbut rathertwo
interpretationsof one idea.
The childrenareJoseph in the formof Ephraim and Manasseh.
This is not in the least fancifulsince therewas an ancient tradition,
kept alive by Gen 48:20 and the Targums thereon,thatJews bless-
ed boys, whetherat circumcisionor otherwise,in the form'Let God
make you like Ephraim and Manasseh!' This certainlyhad a fur-
ther life or lives, with an unknown continuity.65Any blessing of
children would be equated mentally with this classical blessing-
formula, and any Jewish hearer of the gospel-passage would have
been aware of it. The formulacontains in itselfa conditionalaspect.
63 Accordingto Klein, thisis because he is interested
in the scene solelyas a
lessonforadults.
64 Above, n. 12.
65Kasher, 130, 131. D. Philipsonat JewishEncyclopediaIII, 243; also articleat
Enc.Jud.4 (1971), 1087. I. Abrahams,ubi citsup. The illustrationofthesceneof
Jacob'sBlessingat theDura Europossynagogue,panel 10 is extremely significant.

Ephraim and Manasseh had unworthy descendants, but there

would come a time when theirdescendants and co-heirswould be
worthyof the promise. A millenarian sect sees a blessing coming
true now.
The children whom Jesus blessed have, like Ephraim and
Manasseh, a vestedinterest in the Kingdom. Since this expression is
not known outside the Anglo-Americanlegal systemsit must be ex-
plained. A 'vested interest'arises when Xdies (forexample) leaving
by testamenta lifeestate to A and the 'remainder' (sci. the corpus of
the property)to B. During A's lifeB knows thatwhen A dies B will
inevitablyinheritthe propertyabsolutely,and thisvested interestof
B can be pledged or sold, or will pass, on B's death during the
lifetimeof A, to B's own heirs. That this conception was known in
Jewish law in the time of Christ, a real expectancy in an in-
heritance,somethingmuch more valuable than a bare possibilityof
inheriting,is proved at Lk 15:31 rixvov, atj&odv'OErtt' [0ouel, xri
7ctv'rer L& to&tv.66 Therefore (i) the childrenwill inherit-unless
the disposition is forfeitedfor 'faithlessness'or disobedience, and
(ii) only those who receive the Kingdom as a child receives'67a (pro-
mise of an) inheritancewill 'enter into' it, i.e. take possession of it,
when (as English lawyers say) that which was previously'vested in
interest(only)' becomes 'vested in possession'. It is essential to
grasp what the children's 'title' was. They are not simplyOE0ETOL in
respect of the Kingdom (cf. Lk 9:62) nor are theyxXatwo0vtE (Lk
20:35). They have a vested interestby reason of the blessing-but
they can disqualifythemselvesfromobtaining possession of it. As
children are a paradigm, v. 15 is a very proper expansion and
elucidation of v. 14. The Kingdom is an inheritance(Mt 25:34,
Acts 20:32, Gal and 3:18, etc.); and it is certainthatthe inheritance
(Mt 5:5) as such is unmerited by the recipient in person (Deut
9:4-5!).68
66 Derrett, Law in theNew Testament, cit. sup., 108-9.Assumingan assignment
to have been made withpostobit.effect.
67 Some thoughtthat sotuLov should be read as an accusative (!) (referencesat
Taylor,423 and see Schillingat Exp. T. 77, 1965-6,656-8). Rightlyrejectedby
Ligasse, op. cit., 188-9.PaceSchlatter(Matthiius, 386) thishas nothingto do with
takingthe yokeof the Kingdom:the boyshave not (theyare underthe age of
puberty).Thereforethereis no question,as Haenchendiscusses,op. cit., 345, of
thewayin whicha childmighttaketheyoke.Nordoes 'receivetheKingdom'mean
'receiveJesus' Word'! Such subtledisquisitions wouldbe beyondany child.
68 Bultmanncitedby Haenchen,op. cit., 345 n. 2. M. Hengel, Nachfolge und
Charisma (Berlin1968), 75, remarksrightly how unrabbinic Jesus' actionwas. At

There is no point in having the prospect of an inheritanceif (a)

you are unworthyof it when the time comes to enterinto possession
of it (and may thus be deprived?), and (b) ifothershave discretion
whether you may enter upon it. Entryinto the Kingdom was
thereforecontemplated fromthe start,69as set out in the termsof
Deut 1:8 (as Ligasse notes). The correctGreek verb for entering
upon an inheritance is not eSGpXot.ctbut which
stpoa~pxov0ct,
representsthe Latin adire(hereditatem). Our idea of 'entry'perhaps is
all too appropriate in legal English. Yet the original is none of the
Greek uses of as at Xen., Cyr. 1.5.1 (e? icg 3ou) or
70"6
at Xen., Anab.E.a pXoFL.L
7.3.21 (~~t r, but, as is shown at Delitzch's
T5tvov)
and Salkinson's translations of our passage, the Hebraic com-
monplace bo' be, 'to enter upon'. The precise sense is to be seen at
Prov 23:10, but Num 20:24, Ps 95:11, Ezek 20:38 are parallel
usages (cf. Jn 4:38). All we need to visualise what is meant is the
Codex Alexandrinus reading of Deut 1:8 eitae06vTe xlpovoaixaotE
rilvyijv,with the parallels at Deut 4:1 (common reading), 5, 14
(E and 6:18 var. lect. aaEe0tXv)-in other
.EOpEdEGE),
words a biblical cliche. As(EXo'.j),
in the case of Aaron and Moses himself,
forall the promises made to, and by, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
an entitledJew may not actually enter into the Land to possess it!
He may well be xXrlp6voyoS (and have a vested interestas at Mk
12:7) and yetnever posses the (ibid.)! So Heb 3:14-4: 11.
x?rlpovotdcx
Consequently v. 15 makes excellent sense as an amplificationof
v. 14, and thereforea commentary,in the lightof Deuteronomy,on
Gen 48-49. The question remains whetherit could have been added
as a ChristianmidrashbeforeMark obtained the material. There is
a strongpredispositionon the part of redaction-critics to see v. 15 as
an afterthought, whencesoeverderived. It is now necessaryforus to
p. 175and n. 118he rejects,as does Pesch,M. Black'sidea (at Exp. T. 59, 1947-8,
14-16) that atLs0ov (talya) implies 8tdxovoSand thereforemerit. Humility is not
a meritorious
strictly condition.Ligasse, op. cit., 178-9.One does notstriveforthe
Kingdom,one obtainsitmiraculously (K. L. Schmidtat T. W.N.T. I, 585-6):one
belongsto it or one does not. Nevertheless Blackhad a point.The childrenwill
rememberthattheyreceiveda blessingfromone who gave up notmerelyall his
wealth(ifany) and prospects(to thedisgustoftheirguardians)buthislifealso, in
serviceof mankind;and his blessingimputesin thema capacityto do likewise.
69 On entry to the Kingdomsee H. Windisch,'Die Spriichevom Eingehenin
das ReichGottes,'ZN. W. 27 (1928), 163-192.The term'entryintotheKingdom'
is sanctified
by the threefold utteranceat Mk 10:23-25.As a find(not a gift)it
figuresat Lk 12:32and as an inheritanceat Lk 10:25(Mk 10:17), 1 Cor 6:9, 15:51,
Gal 5:21.

16 J.DUNCANM. DERRETT
weigh up the factors, and to review the connected passages and

decide how the ideas and textsmay be linked.
The meaningofourpericopeas it stands

It goes withoutquestion that the teaching ofJesus, as it existed
prior to the times of Matthew and Luke, knew of the Kingdom be-
ing offeredto men, as it were as an open invitation,and being re-
jected by them throughindifferenceor relativelack of interest:the
teaching may be summed up as disqualification by choice.70It was
certain frombeforethe time of Mark himselfthatJesus understood
that those who received the Word could fail to observe it due to the
competition of worldly interests(Mk 4:18-19). As it stands our
pericope means that contact withJesus may preserve those who are
withoutsin so thattheymay turntheirvested in the Kingdom
interest
inpossession.The teachingregarding'adultery', even
into an interest
legally (customarily)authorised 'adultery', and the teaching about
the Rich Enquirer do very appropriatelybracket this passage, the
more neatly forthis sequence of ideas occurringin so many words
in Gen 48-49 as understoodby Jews of the time of Jesus.
Could Jesus have blessed children in this dramatic way, using
them as object-lessonsforthe disciples? Obviously he could.71 We
know frommany other episodes his interest,relativeto himself,of
haggadahregarding the Redemption. That he should turn the in-
tenselyJewish scene of the Blessing ofJacob to the advantage of his
own eschatologyis quite appropriate. That the childrenare, so long
as theyare children,heirs to the Kingdom is a teachingcomplete in
itself. The possibilityremains that the conclusion derived there-
from,that adults must be like children(i.e. receive the inheritance
as a free giftsubject only to the condition of their 'receptiveness',
i.e. theirnot disqualifyingthemselvestherefrom)in order actually
to enterthe Kingdom, may not be an afterthought;but as it brings
out what is implicitthe possibilityremains only a possibility.
The connected passages are, however, capable of being
reconstructedinto a patternby a bold conjecture. This would tend
to obviate one standard means of explaining 'confusion', namely to
70 On the parable of the Great Supper see Derrett,Law in theNew Testament
(cit.
sup.), ch. 6.
71 Bultmann,op. cit., 60 (cf. 61). some rabbinicalmaterial is given at
Billerbeck,Kommentar,I, 808. Billerbeckwas unawareof the significance

of the
BlessingofJacob in our context.

reduce traditional saying to independent, 'floating', clauses. It is

evident that both Mk 10:13-16 and Mk 9:33-37 lack something.In
the former case the embracing makes sense only if there is a
histrionicreferenceto Jacob; in the lattercase one wonders whence
the child was 'obtained'. My suggestionis thattherewas a tradition
in which both pericopes were united, and theyhave been separated
by the evangelist forhis own didactic purposes.
Let us suppose that the circumstancedepicted was a discussion
about rank in the Kingdom (which was a proximate eventuality),
the statusofJesus withinit, and the statusof his personal disciples;
and perhaps not merelytheirstatus but theirroles. This involves a
distinctionbetween the Kingdom and all social organizations, a
distinction which cannot possibly be over-emphasised. Like all
good teachers, Jesus takes advantage of chance illustrationsand
coincidences. People bring children, and he makes several points:
(i) not merelyif he choosesto do so, but because they are children
(naturally Jewish children) they are entitled to be recognised by
him, embraced by him, and so constitutedby him equals with
himself: irrespectiveof intellectualquality they are fitto bear the
charisma that he himself bears, undisqualified, unmodified (this
depends on the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, the conven-
tional patternof Children of the Promise); (ii) adults who have as
qualificationsthe qualities which the childrenhave by nature will
take possession of the Kingdom which is theirsby the Promise; (iii)
in that Kingdom thereare no ranks, firstshall be last, last first,ser-
vants rankingas high as theirmasters, and (see Acta Philippi 140)
the lefthand as good as the right(cf.Jacob's blessing). The children
can very well be Jesus' messenger (which is hardly what the early
churchwill have relished- cf. Pesch, Mk. II, 106-7!), and thereis
no seniorityin the Kingdom (a marked distinctionfromthe Bud-
dha's allowance of seniorityamongst his monks). Then let us, in
our imagination,see Jesus sendingthe childrenaway withhis bless-
ing, his hands on their heads (as all elders touch the heads of
children who rush up to them amongst the Masai),72 with the
words, 'May God keep you like Ephraim and Manasseh'. At this
rate Mk 9:33-37 and 10:13-16 are parts of a single story.Matthew
emphasises the lesson on statuslessthinking Mt
(t'1TELVc.asL0utdv:
72 For semitic
practicesee A. M. Rihbany,TheSyrian
Christ
(London 1919),38;
G. M. Lamsa, GospelLight(Philadelphia1939), 110.

18 J. DUNCANM. DERRETT
18:4), and both Matthew and Luke emphasise the reversalof roles
(Mt 20:26-27; Lk 9:48d as well as 22:26) which Mark seems to have
separated a littlefromour pericope and lodges at 10:43-44.7"
If this conjecture is right,there is no question of 10:13-16 being
derived from9:33-37, or Mt 18:3-4 being derivedfromMk 10:15,74
nor v. 15 being derived fromsome separate source: all thismaterial
belongs together. All the lessons can well derive from the same
material, and this was in essence a manipulation by Jesus of the
Blessing ofJacob. In his days all the blessingswill take effect;and it
is thereforeimperativethat the quality of childrenand theirstatus
as heirs should be understoodand exploited: hence the embracing,
which properly links the two Marcan passages and would have
enabled a hearer of at 9:36 and 10:16, and toto6tcv
ivxyxaltaIdgvoS
at 9:37 and 10:14, to thread the two together, thus notionally
restoring,in his mind, the original unityof the tradition.Of course
in Matthew and Luke this has become impossible, and we find
ourselves with two storiesas well as two teachings; and the loss of
the allusion to Jacob has proved a costlyone.
73 It may be of morethanpassinginterest thatthe charismatic

JosephSmith
understoodMk 10:13-16par. as essentially to be takenin combinationwithMt
18:10 (so BookofMormon, 3 Nephi 17:11-25)(theBookofMormon appearedin 1830
but I have used theeditionfromMitcham,1970,pp. 433-4).
7 Bultmann,op. cit., 32 takesMt 18:3 to be theMatthaeanformofMk 10:15
in anothercontext.


Why Jesus Blessed The Children (MK 10,13-16 Par.) - J. Duncan M. Derrett

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Jesus Blessed The Children (MK 10,13-16 Par.) - J. Duncan M. Derrett

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Jesus Blessed the Children (Mk 10:13-16 par.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.137 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:05:09 AM