Mark 2:23

καὶ ἐγ.: connection with foregoing topical, not temporal; another case of conflict. αὐτὸν παραπορεύεσθαι : ἐγένετο is followed here by the infinitive in first clause, then with καὶ and a finite verb in second clause. It is sometimes followed by indicative with καὶ, and also without καὶ (vide Burton's Syntax, § 360). παραπορ. stands here instead of διαπορ. in Lk., and the simple verb with διὰ after it in Mt. It seems intended to combine the ideas of going through and alongside. Jesus went through a corn field on a footpath with grain on either side. ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is a puzzling phrase. In classic Greek it means to make a road = viam sternere, ὁδὸν ποιεῖσθαι meaning to make way = iter facere. If we assume that Mk. was acquainted with and observed this distinction, then the meaning will be: the disciples began to make a path by pulling up the stalks (τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας), or perhaps by trampling under foot the stalks after first plucking off the ears. The ἤρξαντο in that case will mean that they began to do that when they saw the path was not clear, and wished to make it more comfortable for their Master to walk on. But it is doubtful whether in Hellenistic Greek the classic distinction was observed, and Judges 17:8 (Sept [15]) supplies an instance of ὁδὸν ποιεῖν = making way, “as he journeyed”. It would be natural to Mk. to use the phrase in the sense of iter facere. If we take the phrase in this sense, then we must, with Beza, find in the passage a permutata verborum collocatio, and translate as if it had run: ὁδὸν ποιοῦντες τίλλειν : “began, as they went, to pluck,” etc. (R. V [16]). The former view, however, is not to be summarily put aside because it ascribes to the disciples an apparently wanton proceeding. If there was a right of way by use and wont, they would be quite entitled to act so. The only difficulty is to understand how a customary path could have remained untrodden till the grain was ripe, or even in the ear. On this view vide Meyer. Assuming that the disciples made a path for their Master by pulling up the grain, with which it was overgrown, or by trampling the straw after plucking the ears, what did they do with the latter? Mt. and Lk. both say or imply that the plucking was in order to eating by hungry men. Meyer holds that Mk. knows nothing of this hunger, and that the eating of the ears came into the tradition through the allusion to David eating the shewbread. But the stress Mk. lays on need and hunger (duality of expression, Mark 2:25) shows that in his idea hunger was an element in the case of the disciples also.

[15]Septuagint.

[16] Revised Version.