JoeWallack

JW:
RT France in his detailed commentary on "Mark" says "with the fist" is the literal translation. So does every other commentary I've seen. They say that "fist" in the dative functions as an adverb and you can see by the phrase construction:

πυγμῇ	pugmē	4435	N-DSF	carefully
νίψωνται	nipsōntai	3538	V-AMS-3P	they wash
τὰς	tas	3588	T-APF	the
χεῖρας	cheiras	5495	N-APF	hands

that an adverb is logical. "With the fist" is the adverb for the verb "wash". It's how they wash their hands. With the fist. This is why everyone is replacing the offending word with an adverb, "carefully", "diligently" and "often". Also, washing your hands "to the fist" does not make sense.

Even if it was "to the fist" I still think all of the translations are biased. The closest would be "to the wrist" but that would actually make sense unlike "to the fist".



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

To me if we are strictly dealing with the hand, "to the fist" would indicate the whole hand, all that makes up the fist. But another look at Liddell & Scott tells us that it can mean a measure ("from the elbow to the knuckles" = 18 δακτυλοι), which would supply an extent to the washing.

I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the alternative Greek form πυκνα found in the authoritative manuscripts Sinaiticus and Washingtoniensis. There is no bias whatsoever in translating that as "often", as in the case of the KJV, et al. Even the Vulgate has "crebro", which indicates "frequently". Using "diligiently" is derivable from a combination of ideas "often" and "completely" (ie all the hand) and is quite reasonable.

There is nothing I can see to support your claim of bias.

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's try your suggestion "from the elbow to the knuckles":

From the elbow to the knuckles they wash the hands.

Doesn't work, does it? You know you have to try and fit the lexicon examples to your specific phrase and context. Let's go to what we can see of Wallace's online Grammar guide:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xlq...page&q&f=false

I think 7:3 falls under his 4. Dative of Rule because of the reference to observing the traditions of elders. Wallace says this use can be locative or instrumental so no help there. Every commentator I've seen takes it as instrumental (means). Let's try your "to the fist" as instrumental. The method than of washing the hands is to wash to the fist. Even though "to the fist" is an expression that would never be used, if it was you yourself confess that "to the fist" means the same thing as "hands". So the method of washing the hands was to wash the hands? Redundant, doesn't work.

You are forced than to try a locative meaning. "To the fist" meaning a location. The exact same problems. "To the fist" would never be used as a location and if it was it would just mean to the end of the hands = redundant.

Regarding some manuscripts having "often" perhaps I do have a looser definition of "tendentious" than your intent here. Sounds like you are trying to avoid textual criticism and context issues and only have examples where there is no support what so ever for the Christian (mis)translation such as 22:17 where there is no known underlying Hebrew for "pierced"?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

Rubbish. You're trying to be pedantic with no returns. Imagine what you'd do with a foot... I mean the length, not what you could do with your foot. Your foot's not the same size as someone else's, so when I talk about a foot meaning length, everyone else's foot is wrong....

From the elbow to the knuckles they wash the hands as a length is quite reasonable: He washed his hands all the way to the elbow.

Same initial response as above.



Washing the whole hand rather than just the palm surface.

A lot of people will argue for the priority of Sinaiticus. You'd have to fight with them. Others will say that in this case Sinaiticus is the way ahead because it seems to preserve the functional scribal tradition in this instance against the more common form. There is no tendentiousness for those people over the particular translation: it is simple and obvious.

You're left trying to force tendentiousness through a Cartesian approach to language -- which is guaranteed to fail.

avi

But, right on target, in terms of asking whether or not there may have been an attempt to mistranslate the original Hebrew for theological purposes....

Codex Sinaiticus, unfortunately, lacks Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea. Which source did you use to examine the Greek LXX?

The parallel Hebrew bible, at John Hurt's excellent web site, reveals "son" with every version, however, the meaning appears to be consistent not with Jesus, but with all of mankind, if I have understood the underlying text...I may be using 21st century rose colored glasses to offer that possibility....

avi

vid

Attempts at hiding Marks lack of knowledge about when Jewish days start.

However don't take my word on it, I don't know Greek, better check the actual text yourself.

Another one:

vid

I only passed on what I have read in the source linked. I unfortunately do not read Greek.

yalla

Galatians 1.16
RSV
NEB

"...was pleased to reveal his Son to me....."

Jerusalem
Gideon

" ...was pleased to reveal his Son in me ..."

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm open to the possibility of defenses claiming a figurative meaning but I do not see any evidence for "wash the hands" having a figurative meaning in "Mark's" time. I think the attempt is anachronistic. In "Mark's" time most people did not wash hands before eating. So I doubt there was any such phrase with a figurative meaning. Christian defenders, presumably aware of all extant possibilities, are unaware of any ancient such usage. Hence, all commentaries I've seen confess confusion.

You would have a better chance in modern times, where despite Jesus' condemnation, Christians ritualistically wash hands before eating and I confess that "wash your hands" has limited figurative meaning. It would include just rinsing, palm side only, only the dirty parts or possibly extending to the wrists. I don't believe though that even in modern times anyone has ever said "wash your hands" meaning to the elbows.

I don't even need to negate all possibilities anyway. I just need to show that in "Mark's" time "wash your hands" usually had a pretty literal meaning.


JW:
Clever. But still not an expression ever known to be used and anachronistic. Washing just the under is motivated by cleanliness which is modern. The Jews that washed hands in "Mark's" time would have washed both sides and for a religious reason.

JW:
It's not much of a textual criticism contest:

Manuscript = With a fist

Patristic = With a fist

Authority = With a fist

Hmmm, okay, so we disagree and we both still insist that we are right. Since everyone here knows that spin is never wrong than that means that I am insisting on my explanation despite knowing that I am wrong. That means I'm an Apologist! DCH predicted this. Damn his powers of prophecy.

I wash my hands of this.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

Just two points:

1) It would seem I'm not necessary for the discussion regarding revelation to/in me to continue. You're doing so well without needing actual input from me, and

2) There seems to have been no sign of tendentiousness regarding translation uncovered in the discussion regarding the difficulties of the particular phrase.