andrewcriddle

I agree that ritual handwashing did not become general among Jews until well after 70 CE.

However reconstructions of pre-70 Pharisaism such as those of Neusner imply that the Pharisees attempted to live in everyday life by rules similar to those observed by priests in the Temple.

Hence such hand washing would have been obligatory among Pharisees at the time of Jesus (and would probably have been regarded by them as something all pious Jews should perform even if before 70 CE most Jews took little notice.)

Andrew Criddle

michael wellenberg

I suspected this, I just wanted to be sure. But Julian´s reason is a pure assertion, and not a very good one, either.
First because he assumes that the demon called Legion in ch. 5 is a reference not only to a Roman legion (which I agree with) but also to a specific legion, namely Legio X (which is based on no grounds whatsoever).
Second, because it is not legitimate to transfer this assumed legion into ch. 13, so that it can fill a hole, namely Mark´s not mentioning any troops there (where they should be if ch. 13 refers to the fall of Jerusalem).

Of course not all the Jews washed their hands at Jesus´time, he and his disciples did not, and they were Jews, and probably not the only ones who did not follow Pharisean rules.
But this is completely irrelevant for the date of Mark´s gospel whether or not Nineham is right because 7:3-4 is not his own handiwork. The explanation might be inserted after 70 but since it does not originate from Mark it is no valid evidence for dating his gospel after 70 AD.

Michael

JoeWallack

JW:
How hard is it to articulate that the idea that Peter is responsible for "Mark" is ridiculous.

In:

Mark's View Of The Disciples

I've demonstrated that "Mark's" Peter:

1) Mistakenly expected Glory during Jesus' Live Ministry.

2) Never has sufficient Faith in Jesus.

3) Opposed Jesus' Martyrdom.

4) Was identified as Satan.

5) Denied Jesus (to fulfill prophecy).

6) Abandoned Jesus.

7) Didn't see or even know about the resurrected Jesus.

To think that Peter was behind this Gospel in Order to help him convince people that they should listen to him teach them all things Jesus is preposterous. You'd have a Gospel going to people containing every reason not to Believe that Peter understood Jesus and no Peter or interpretation or "Matthew" or "Luke" there to make people Believe that Peter understood Jesus. In other words, at the time, this Gospel would have everything it shouldn't have and nothing it should have to help Peter Evangelize.

I see that I need to do a follow up to the Thread above such as:

Who Converted "Mark's" "The Disciples", Jesus or "Matthew"/"Luke"?

Where we will analyze How "Matthew"/"Luke" changed "Mark's" presentation of The Disciples.

I can understand why Christians here might Believe that Peter was responsible for "Mark", they've been raised to Believe that 1+1+1=1. But all you Skeptics here are weak and worthless. Now drop down and give me twenty! (Reasons why Jesus was not the Prophesied Messiah from the Jewish Bible).

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go back to the fabulously popular:

Who's Lion?

Thread and confer with Professor PP Poopypants and PHD Wormology candidate Fr. Loopis.



Joseph

Church Tradition. Noun and Verb. Oral memorization technique whereby stories are continuously transmitted without being written down until no one remembers what really happened.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Julian

You are not convincing, just as you were not convincing in the thread that was linked to. I have given a lot of evidence af varying quality and I have speculated upon that evidence. All you did was a bit of hand waving, saying I was speculating, ignored the evidence, and moved on. Why don't you refute my points? Why don't you provide a better explanation for our demon? Saying that is is based on no grounds whatsoever, is downright dishonest since I provide the evidence right then and there. You will need to do a lot better if you hope to impress anyone. Your say-so leaves a lot to be desired.

Julian

yalla

From this I gather that:
. you agree that ALL Jews did NOT wash their hands and thus "Mark" is wrong.
. you seem to think that 7.3-4 was written after 70CE,
. and since ALL jews began to wash their hands AFTER 100CE this assertion by "Mark" was written after 100CE.

I note that you have not:
. accounted for the statement that the hand-washing rule did not apply to Pharisees etc, but only priests.
[Incidentally I am not sure this is absolutely correct because it seems possible at least some Pharisees had certain handwashing customs for certain occasions. Nevertheless it seems that the statement "All Jews....'' is clearly a post 100CE anachronism when placed in the alleged time of JC].

A note to andrew criddle- what evidence can you supply that ALL Jews washed their hands c30CE? An "implication" that some Jews - ie some Pharisees on some occasions- cannot be transformed into an "obligation" for ALL Jews, particularly in the light of the statement...." it is agreed by everyone that at about A.D.100, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all...." . What evidence do you have to predate this by many decades?


To continue:
.given any reasons why Nineham, and the experts Nineham refers to, are wrong.
.nor given any support for claiming this section as an interpolation.
This requires some strong evidence.

I would also note that you have ignored a minor and major point that Julian made with reference to X Fretensis.
Namely, the association of the Boar as one of the symbols of that legion with the theme of the swine in "Mark's" account.
And the major aspect is that X Fretensis was the legion primarily concerned with the defeat of Judea in 66-73CE and remained in the region.
Why you seem to think this HAS to be placed in Ch13 I don't know, that is simply an irrelevant comment, it is not in Ch 3, 8 , 11 whatever either. So what?
cheers
yalla

michael wellenberg

That is not true. I tried only to point out that the linking of the demon called Legion with Legio X is only a hypothesis.
I did give an explanation for the demon, namely that it refers to a legion but not a specific one but allegorically to Romans in general to whom Mark utters a threat. And the linking of the demon with Legio X still calls for an explanation why Mark, unlike Luke, does not mention any troops in ch. 13, if this refers to the conquest of Jerusalem.

Michael

michael wellenberg

No, I said that not all Jews washed their hands, and it is not certain that the Pharisees did not (see Andrew´s comment). The core is a discussion with the Pharisees, mind. Mark himself was not wrong.
This follows from my suspicion that these verses do not originate from Mark, and that only later all Jews would have to wash their hands.
No (see above)

Andrew did this.
I did not say he was wrong, I said it was not relevant in this case.
I try to supply it when I have a little more time.
It is a nice coincidence but it does not prove an identity. Because Mark´s threat to the unclean Romans would naturally imply that they go into the unclean swine.
How do you explain the absence of troops in ch. 13, if it refers to the defeat of Judea ? This IS relevant.

Michael

yalla

Gidday michael,
"Andrew did this"
Sorry but he did not.
He made a suggestion that applied, perhaps, maybe, possibly to some Jews.
He provided no evidence why we should accept this.
He did not refute those who state the handwashing rules came 70 years later.
He, and you, have provided no reason to believe that whoever wrote Mark 7.3was not wrong and committed no anachronism from a belief that is based on Jewish customs of the 2nd, not 1st, century.

Your suspicion that 7.3 is an interpolation is only a mere assertion.
Why do you suggest this?

Do you expect the author[s] of "Mark" to openly state that the gospel was written after the Jewish War?
After writing the whole book from a context of c30CE do you expect him/they to announce it was really written much later by non witnesses?
That is what would be the admission if a reference to X Fretensis, the legion that destroyed the temple and Masada years later, was suddenly dropped in somehow to Ch.13.
The predictions of the destruction of the temple and the general scenario of the Little Apocalypse would be exposed as after the event hindsight and not the wise and wonderful prophecies of JC.
Your expectation that there should be a description of Roman troops operating in judea c 70CE is contrary to the whole thrust of the gospel in general and Ch 13 in particular.
cheers
yalla

andrewcriddle

I'm not claiming that most Jews before 70 CE ritually washed their hands. I don't think they did.

What I am claiming as probable are the following (some more probable than others)

a/ Ritual handwashing was obligatory for Pharisees from before the time of Jesus' ministry.

b/ Pharisees believed this was something all devout Jews should do even though most Jews before 70 CE ignored them.

c/ Nineham's 'experts' are probably using late Talmudic tradition (possibly about 'the day they seated Eleazar b Azariah in the assembly') of doubtful historical value. (I may well be wrong here but I've spent some time without success trying to find relevant material in Mishnah and Tosefta.)

d/ Jews as a whole probably did not practice ritual hand washing before meals until well after 100 CE.

(IMHO 'and all the Jews' in Mark 7:3 is an exaggeration for any possible date of Mark.)



Andrew Criddle

yalla

Gidday Andrew,
My understanding of the situation is limited and open to change.
From your post;
a/ Probably not. There seems to have been doubt about what was the norm for Pharisaic behaviour re hand washing. Some did, some did not. On some occasions, but not others. They argued among themselves about all of this.
b/ That seems to be what I have found out, that is we [ you and I] broadly agree.
c/ Late Talmudic tradition is mentioned by Nineham and he says it has limited value but cannot be altogether rejected. We agree more or less.
d/Nineham states this as a certainty. [Which is why I suggest 7.3 suggests a late date for the writing of "Mark".] He does suggest that perhaps some Jews 'jumped the gun" by practising hand washing before it became obligatory. Sounds doubtful to me but I have no direct knowledge of this stuff and want to find out more. Seems like we agree??

IMHO 7.3 is an exaggeration and an anachronism and perhaps an indication [stong/weak?] of a late date for "Mark". Agree?
Either way it is evidence against the traditional authorship of "Mark".

We don't seem to be too far apart in this.
cheers
yalla