¹ Moore, George Foot, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard Univerity Press, 1950) 2: 268–9;Google ScholarBraun, Herbert, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967) 2: 110, n. 7;Google ScholarLohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957) 196.Google Scholar cf. idem, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956) 127.

² Hommel, Hildebrecht, ‘Herrnworte im Lichte sokratischer Überlieferung’, in his Sebasmata; Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum (WUNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984) 2: 56–8, 63–73;Google ScholarSchattenmann, Johannes, ‘Jesus und Pythagoras’, Kairos 21 (1979) 215–20;Google ScholarKoester, Helmut, ‘Mark 9. 43–47 and Quintilian 8.3.75’, HTR 71 (1978) 151–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ See, e.g., Pesch, Rudolph, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2: 112–13.Google Scholar

⁴ In addition Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2:113 contrasts the present tense apodosis of v. 42 to the imperative apodosis of w. 43–47.Google Scholar

⁵ See, e.g., Mann, C. S., Mark (ABC; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986) 380–1.Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1963) 144–5, 148;Google ScholarMichel, O., ‘μικρός (έλάττω έλάχιστος)’, TDNT 4: 650–4;Google Scholarand Légasse, S., ‘μικρός, 3’, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 2:1051–2.Google Scholar

⁷ Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 115; see, e.g., Prov 6. 16–18 and b. Tan. 21a (Nahum of Gimzo, fl. 100 C.E.).Google Scholar

⁸ See Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) 182.Google Scholar

⁹ The reference is unclear.Google Scholar

¹⁰ On the use of καλόν … ή in translations see Beyer, Klaus, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (SUNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) vol. 1, pt. 1: 78–81, n. 1 (esp. 80). Cf. R. Tarfon's words as preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud (j. Nid. 2:1): ‘Of such a one, his destruction is pretty [i.e., prettier] to him than his life’ .Google Scholar

¹¹ Stählin, Gustav, ‘σκάνδλον, σκανδαλίξω’, TDNT 7: 340–4.Google Scholar

¹² E.g., Is 7. 20. See also: Exod 4. 25; Deut 28. 57; Judg 3. 24; 1 Sam 24. 4 (ET = 24. 3); 2 Kgs 18. 27 (Qr); Isa 6. 2; 36. 12 (Qr); Ezek 16. 25; and perhaps Ruth 3. 4, 7, 8, 14; cf. Deut 25. 9–10. The euphemism in these passages is always the plural . The singular in the Niddah passage seems to be accounted for by the fact that it stands parallel to the singular ‘hand’ in the expression ‘adultery with the hand or with the foot’. It is this pair ‘hand/foot’ which supplies the essential hermeneutical bridge that allows the rabbinic exegesis to appeal to Exod 20.14//Deut 5. 18 as a prohibition against masturbation.Google Scholar

¹³ See, e.g., the material cited in Moore, , Judaism, 2: 267–8;Google ScholarMichaelis, Wilhelm, ‘όϕθαλμός’, TDNT 5: 376; and Str-B 1:298–301.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Beyer, , Syntax, cited above in n. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See n. 1 above.Google Scholar

¹⁶ E.g., Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 26.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. n. 28 below.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cited above in n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On the idea that the right hand is the more important of the two hands see Lohmeyer, Matthäus, 128 n. 1. The first century Latin epigrammatist Martial, in any case, speaks of masturbation as done with the left hand: Martial, Epigrams, 9. 41; 11. 73.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hommel, , ‘Herrnworte’ 57; similarly Koester, ‘Quintilian’ 151–2, 153.Google Scholar

²¹ Koester, , ‘Quintilian’ 152.Google Scholar

²² See ibid., 152–3.

²³ Ibid. It is true that Koester also appeals to the Markan context itself, maintaining that ‘Mark 9. 42, the command not to offend the little ones, is a rule for the community’ (153). But since his purpose is to establish the original meaning of Mark 9. 43–47, and since he began his investigation by stating that ‘the context in Mark does not give any clue, because the connection with the preceding saying about “not offending little ones” (Mark 9. 42) is secondary’ (151), this is a non sequitur.

²⁴ von Wahlde, Urban C., ‘Mark 9. 33–50: Discipleship: The Authority that Serves’, BZ 29 (1985) 59.Google Scholar

²⁵ For the concept, ‘adultery with the eye’, cf. Sir 9. 8, 2 Pet 2. 14, Str-B 1:299, and the next note.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. the Mekhilta of R. Simeon ben Yohai on Exod 20. 14 (5th cent. C.E.): ‘“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Neither with hand nor foot nor eye nor mind …’ (cited and trans, in Moore, , Judaism, 2: 268, n. 1).Google ScholarThe text is somewhat problematic, however, being reconstructed by David Hoffmann from later medieval sources (Hoffmann, D., Mechilta de-Rabbi Simon b. Jochai: Ein halachischer und haggadischer Midrasch zu Exodus [Frankfort: J. Kauffmann, 1950] 111).Google ScholarThese words are not found on any of the actual fragments of the Mekhilta from the Cairo Geniza, although these fragments are incomplete — see Epstein, J. N. and Melamed, E. Z., eds., Mekhilta d'Rabbi Šim b. Jochai (Jerusalem: Sumptibus Hillel Press [1955]) 15–34.Google ScholarOn the linguistic aspects of associating divorce and remarriage with adultery, see Schaller, J. B., ‘Die Sprüche über Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat in der synoptischen Überlieferung’, in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde, ed. Lohse, Eduard (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 226–46.Google Scholar

²⁷ For an example of this idea among contemporary Greco-Roman authors, see Musonius Rufus frag. 12, ‘On Sexual Relations’.Google Scholar

²⁸ The only reference to female sexual ethics in these passages is Mark 10. 12. Here I am in agreement with the usual opinion that this verse is a later development of the prohibition in 10.11;Google Scholarsee, e.g., Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 132.Google Scholar