Merle

Renassault, imagine meeting you here! Yes, it is you and I that have been debating this issue as part of the debate on the date of the gospels at my blog.

I came here to see if I can get some scholarly input into this handwashing issue. I state at my site that this is an anachronism in Mark, but my statement is based on what I read in one source. If it turns out this is a questionable interpretation based on a minority of scholars, then I will reword that portion at my site. I have no intention of portraying something as fact that is based on the debatable opinion of one scholar. Since I don't know, and since this is not my field of expertise, I came to ask the question.

The question is whether lay people refused to eat unless they had done ritual handwashing (as per Mark 7) before 70 AD. Neither of your verses states that people could not eat food unless they had done ritual handwashing. And nowhere have you stated evidence that Levictus 15:11 was actually practiced before 70 AD. The verse in Psalms could be nothing more than a poetic expression. So neither verse is real evidence.

I am not saying you are wrong on whether ritual handwashing was practiced at that point in time. I am just saying that you have not given any real evidence yet.

By the way, now that we are both here, perhaps we could move the whole discussion here? That is a lot easier than debating via blog comments, and would allow others to join in.

andrewcriddle

IIUC the opinion of most scholars is that the Pharisees, (mostly lay people), and their sympathizers, practiced ritual hand wahing before meals before 70 CE and would avoid eating meals with those who did not.

Most lay Israelites, however, including those who were otherwise devout, did not adopt this practice until the rise in Pharisaic influence after 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r2k0306c.htm


Why exactly did the only begotten eternal son leave out this bit and actually mislead us with

Which sort of sin is it where you know something and do not comment about it?

John Kesler

Here is Mark 7:3-4 from the NRSV:

It appears that the offending phrase is that which I have bolded. Is there any evidence, manuscript or otherwise, that this phrase is a later insertion? What is the earliest attestation of verse 3 which contains the phrase in question?

Merle

Thanks, everybody, for your comments and links.

renassault

Hmm, I did suspect the Leviticus verse of not applying to the context, but I think I assumed they were one and the same (I think the Psalms one pushed me). I think the Essenes had these purification rites but I don't know if they are the hand washing one in Mark 7.

Hello Merle . I found this through a link on your blog .

douglas

Does that settle it for you rennassault? Have you any more extra-biblical evidence to put forward?

And if you don't mind me asking, why does this "anachronism" bother you so much? Is it because it shows that Jesus probably didn't say this thing, because it strongly points to a dating for Mark of post 70AD, or is it a combination of both?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Just trying to understand the context for this discussion.

renassault

Providing that you did not even answer whether the Essenes at Qumran did this, why do you think it bothers me or that it shows evidence of post-70 AD for Mark (who can't be after 75 if Markan dependence is to survive)? I simply don't think the example has enough fuel to conclude that only priests did this in the time of Jesus (Josephus anyone?). Even if there are no Old Testament verses regarding this specific kind of handwashing, it is not inconceivable that eventually it would be applied to them, especially with its emphasis on clean food. Expanding tradition is evident even among the Qumran sect which eventually developed a rule of no deffacation on the Sabbath (I guess that could be considered work after a severe constipation ).

JoeWallack

JW:
I've already indicated

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=220039

the correct translation of 7:3 is "fist" which is clearly Fiction. From a Polemical standpoint this one isn't very interesting as the Consensus is Anachronism. Even France, who has a default position that everything in "Mark" is Historical, in TNIGTC, which is probably the best Christian critical commentary available, confesses to us that it is probably anachronistic.

The earliest extant direct reference is M. Ber. 8.2-4 (Mishnah), obviously written hundreds of years after the supposed time of Jesus. It is available online in Hebrew and makes clear that the Jewish tradition of ritual hand washing was after the destruction of the Temple.

It's generally only Apologists that try to defend the historicity of 7:3 and the only supposed ammunition available to them are the famous "Eighteen Measures" developed by the Schools of Hillel and Shammai shortly before the Temple destruction as described in the Talmud. One of the measures was ritual bodily immersion which was considered impracticable and therefore could be substituted with ritual hand washing.

The Talmud is a combination of History, Teaching and Commentary so it's difficult to know how much weight to give supposed historical claims. Assuming that Bet Hillel and Shammai did make such a historical declaration it's likely that rather than something more than all the Pharisees following such a decree it was actually less than all the Pharisees. You have the following reasons than, to consider:

"3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;"

anachronistic:

1) The Talmud indicates the Eighteen Measures were well after the supposed time of Jesus.

2) The Eighteen Measures would have been primarily motivating to Bet Hillel and Shammai and not all the Jews per 7:3.

3) In general The Jewish Bible supports Ritual washing for the Priests and the Talmud supports transfer of Rituals from the Priesthood to the Household after the destruction of the Temple.

4) 1)-3) above probably appealed to "Mark" as subject matter because of the Ritual, Temple and Destruction issues.



Joseph

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

Merle

Good to see you clicking links. Although I link to this site at my blog, I don't link to this thread. So it looks like you took some time to explore once you got here. Enjoy!