03_Wilson_201_221_201_221 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 202 202 WALTER T. WILSON 202 In the midst of all this complementarity, as one progresses from the first story to the second there is also a clear sense of escalation. While the events of the first story transpire in the relatively neutral site of a grainfield (12,1), those of the second take place in “their” synagogue (12,9), a venue of conflict and condemnation (cf. 10,17; 13,54). In keeping with this, while the Pharisees’ observation in 12,2 is clearly accusatory in tone, it is only in the second story that we learn that they are actually seeking to “accuse” Jesus (12,10) 7. Accompanying this intensification in the Pharisees’ animosity to- wards Jesus is a shift in the focus of their remarks. While the first story concerns the actions of Jesus’ disciples (12,1-2), the second concerns the authority of Jesus himself (12,9-10), extending claims that he has just made about being (or representing) something greater than the temple (12,6) as well as being (in his capacity as the Son of Man) lord of the Sabbath (12,8) 8. If the Pharisees are guilty of condemning “innocent” disciples (12,7) in the first story, in the second story they are guilty of conspiring to destroy the dis- ciples’ innocent leader (12,14). Within this context, exposing the nature of the Pharisees’ cul- pability specifically with respect to the Law represents a Matthean priority 9. As the evangelist sees things, Jesus’ opponents have failed both in their knowledge of the Law and in their ability to rea- son from the Law. In reply, what Jesus models in these episodes is not simply a particular interpretation of sabbatical practice but, more importantly, a particular way of reasoning about all religious practices. It is with regard to the latter that Jesus most fully differ- entiates himself from his interlocutors and most fully manifests the concrete implications of his messianic authority. If attention is turned to the sources supporting his interpretation of sabbatical practice, it is evident that in fashioning a response to his critics the Matthean Jesus embraces a multipronged approach. Specifically, in the first pericope we have a haggadic analogy based on a biblical story (12,2-4; cf. 1 Sam 21,1-6), a halakhic precedent drawn from a statute “in the Law” (12,5-6; cf. Num 28,9-10), and a 7 For kathgore,w as a legal technical term, see BDAG s.v. Cf. Exod 31,14. 8 J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York 2009) IV, 254. 9 Note that 12,5 (with its explicit reference to the Law) is redactional.