Merle

Randel Helms writes that the custom of handwashing referred to in Mark 7:2-4 was practiced only by priests in the time of Christ, and was not practiced by lay people until later. Helms argues that Mark's reference to it being practiced by lay people is an anachronism, with Mark inserting his post-70 AD culture into the story. At my blog somebody is arguing that this is false, but is not giving any real evidence to prove Helms wrong. Does anybody have more information on whether this is an anachronism or not? Thanks.

Malachi151

I dunno about the hand washing bit, but the entire emphasis on the Pharisees in Mark is indicative of the later half of the 1st century, when the Pharisees came to power in Judea.

During the first half of the 1st century the Pharisees were out of power and not heavily involved. The emphasis on the Pharisees suggests a narrative that is concerned with the political climate of the late 1st century, leading up to the destruction of Judea.

Even my Study Bible says this.

May also be interested in:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Steven Carr

The disciples in Mark 7 have no idea why they are not washing their hands.

Were they really so idiotic?

renassault

The Pharisees did not come to power after 70 AD; they were simply the only school of the four (Essenes, Zealots, and Sadducees) left who could actually do something. The Pharisees came to power as early as the first century BC, as Josephus informs us:

And if they certainly had political power (Antiquities 17.2.4, especially ones "who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings," very nicely complements what is found in the Gospels), they certainly could not have the freedom found in the Synoptics (which proves nothing in the regard of date). If Mark were written after 70 AD, he would not have apologies against sects like the Sadducees who did not exist after 70 AD (Mark 12.18-27).

Merle, why do you say that I showed no real evidence when I gave a reference to the Talmud as well as two Old Testament verses (most certainly written before the 1st century AD):

Leviticus 15.11: 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

Psalms 26.6: I wash my hands in innocence,
and go about your altar, O LORD,

Why isn't this real evidence?

Steven Carr

Jesus was furious when he was given water to wash his hands with.

Almost as furious as when he was not given water to wash his feet with.

Touchy.....

Steven Carr

Evidence of what? Evidence that Jews believed hand-washing was not a ritual invented by men, but was instead Biblically mandated?

Toto

RA: Are you confusing ritual hand washing before a meal with other purification rites? Your quotes do not seem to apply to this particular ritual (hand washing before eating performed by householders.)

There are some notes on this controversy here

Malachi151

Well, the Gospel of Mark is an anti-apostolic work, that intentionally portrays all the "disciples" as fools. A main point of the work was to discredit the apostles.

Malachi151

I'm just going based on what the Jewish encyclopedia and my study bible say, perhaps they are both wrong....

From the notes on the Gospel of Matthew, talking about the many reasons why "Matthew" is not thought to have been based on pre-destruction notes or traditions:

Yes, they existed long prior to this, but they weren't in political power during the 1st half the of 1st century.

JoeWallack

JW:
The first step is to try and determine exactly what "Mark" meant:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_7:3

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

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...pter=7&verse=3

"οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων"

Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
πυγμῇ (2) πυγμή (3) Noun a fist
Parsing Dative Singular Feminine
Related Words None found.
Context in Mark 7:3 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ ... νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ
Strongs # 4435 the clenched hand, i.e. (only in dative case as adverb) with the fist (hard scrubbing)

JW:
Here we see that according to Zhubert the Lexical entry for the offending word πυγμῇ is "fist":

Thayer's

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4435 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pugme from a primary pux (the fist as a weapon)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pugme 6:915,973
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
poog-may' Noun Feminine
Definition

1. the fist, clenched hand
2. up to the elbow

NAS Word Usage - Total: 1
carefully 1


LSJ (from Perseus)

πυγμ-ή , h(, (πύξ)
A. fist, Hp.Art.71, E.IT1368; “τῇ π. θενών” Ar.V. 1384; “πυγμῇ πατάξαι” LXX Ex.21.18, cf. Is.58.4.
2. boxing, as an athletic contest, “πυγμῇ νικήσαντα” Il.23.669; “πυγμὴν νικᾶν” E.Alc.1031; “ἄνδρας πυγμὰν ἐνίκα Ὀλύμπια” AP6.256 (Antip.); “πυγμᾶς ἄποινα” Pi. O.7.16, cf. 10(11).67; πυγμὴν or τὴν π. ἀσκεῖν, Pl.Lg.795b, D.61.24; freq. in Inscrr., e.g. πυγμὴν Ζωΐλος (sc. ἐνίκησε) IG7.1765 (Thespiae), etc.
b. generally, fight, π. μονομάχων καὶ θηρίων Edict.Caes. ap. J.AJ14.10.6, cf. Artem.5.58; εἰς π. καθίστασθαι, τρέπεσθαι, of partridges, Gp.14.20.1,2.
3. in Ev.Marc.7.3, πυγμῇ νίψασθαι is interpr. diligently (v.l. πυκνά, often).
II. a measure of length, the distance from the elbow to the knuckles,= 18 δάκτυλοι, Thphr.HP9.11.5, Poll.2.147,158.

Moving to Danker's "A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature" Third Edition (BDAG) as an illustration which I think would generally be thought of as one of the best Lexicons available for the Christian Bible. On page 896 the only defining words in bold are "fist" and "fist-fight" and every example except one shows a meaning of "fist" or fist-related. The one exception is:

"in a difficult pass. εαν μη πυγμη νιψωνται τας χει�?ας lit. unless they wash their hands with (the) fist Mk 7:3 where the v.l. πυκνα [s. πυκνος] is substituted for π. [Vulgate crebro], thus alleviating the difficulty by focusing on the vigor of the action."

Thus every available Lexicon seems to agree that πυγμῇ always means "fist" except for Mark 7:3!

We have the following evidence that the "πυγμη" of Mark 7:3 should be translated as "fist":

1) Outside of Mark 7:3 I don't believe there is any meaning of "πυγμη" that is not "fist" related for this time period.

2) Since the context is washing hands "fist" can obviously be related to the context.

3) Scribe Reaction. A few later, inferior manuscripts have "πυκνα", "often". A good guess for this is that copyists recognized that "unless they wash their hands with (the) fist" was unrecognizable as to what exactly Jesus was referring to and so they guessed that an earlier scribal error was made and the original word was something close to the same spelling:

πυγμη = fist
πυκνα = often

with "often" being a recognizable reason for Jesus' lecture. But Danker's Lexicon is supposed to be a Lexicon and not a Textual Variation guide. Holy BapsonofMan! If (the) holy spirit is a contributing editor to Danker why doesn't he/she/it/them? get any credit?

This Christianable Guess allows LFJ to claim that "often" is in a respected Lexicon thus defending against claimed error in CB's mistranslating "often" instead of the correct "fist".

4) "Matthew"/"Luke" Reaction. Both have exorcised "Mark's" reference and I'm pretty sure both knew Greek and recognized that the Greek word for "fist" meant "fist".

5) And, the NT Cruncher as Roger Pearse would say, the Context of "Mark" here makes "fist" a perfect fit:

7:1
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,

2 and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands.

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

4 and [when they come] from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?

6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.

7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.

8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.

9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death:

11 but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given [to God];

12 ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother;

13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand:

15 there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.

16 [If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.]

17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, [it] cannot defile him;

19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.

20 And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,

22 covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:

23 all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man."

JW:
"Mark's" Jesus has explained that Ritual only cleans the outside for appearance sake, but you can still be "dirty" on the inside. Deeds are what cleans the inside, which is the important part, not Ritual. Ritual therefore, can be an obstacle to being Spiritually clean.

Thus we have it on good authority that "Mark" likely choose a word here which always means "fist" because he intended to mean "fist". "The Jews" ritually washed with clenched hands but it only cleaned the outside, not the inside. An inspired lesson by "Mark" if you take it Figuratively. On the other hand (so to speak) trying to take 7:3 Literally is one of Christianities worst moments as think how many Christians have died because they didn't wash their hands before they ate.



Joseph

LEXICOGRAPHER, n.
A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods. For your lexicographer, having written his dictionary, comes to be considered "as one having authority," whereas his function is only to make a record, not to give a law. The natural servility of the human understanding having invested him with judicial power, surrenders its right of reason and submits itself to a chronicle as if it were a statue. Let the dictionary (for example) mark a good word as "obsolete" or "obsolescent" and few men thereafter venture to use it, whatever their need of it and however desirable its restoration to favor -- whereby the process of improverishment is accelerated and speech decays. On the contrary, recognizing the truth that language must grow by innovation if it grow at all, makes new words and uses the old in an unfamiliar sense, has no following and is tartly reminded that "it isn't in the dictionary" -- although down to the time of the first lexicographer (Heaven forgive him!) no author ever had used a word that was in the dictionary. In the golden prime and high noon of English speech; when from the lips of the great Elizabethans fell words that made their own meaning and carried it in their very sound; when a Shakespeare and a Bacon were possible, and the language now rapidly perishing at one end and slowly renewed at the other was in vigorous growth and hardy preservation -- sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion -- the lexicographer was a person unknown, the dictionary a creation which his Creator had not created him to create.

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