Mark 7:3

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Verse < Mark 7 > Next Verse

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

Contents

Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.

JW:

Translation Error

Should Christianable Guesses Be Included In Lexicon Definitions?

Let's use Danker's "A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature" Third Edition (BDAG - It's my BDAG Baby)) as an illustration, which I think would generally be thought of as one of the best Lexicons available for the Christian Bible.

Let's also use Mark 7:3 (ASV) for an example of a Christianable Guess:

Mark 7

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

Mark 7

3 "?? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????????? "

The word being analyzed here is:

"diligently"

"?????"

Now let's look at Danker's entry for this word:

"?????, ??, ? ? fist (so Eur., Hippocr. et al.; PPetr III, 22 (e) 2 [III b.c.]; LXX) in a difficult pass. ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? lit. unless they wash their hands with (the) fist Mk 7:3 (where the v.l. ????? [s. ??????] is substituted for ?. [Vulgate crebro], thus alleviating the difficulty by focusing on the vigor of the action. Itala codex d has ‘primo’ [on this and other Itala readings s. AJülicher, Itala II ’40, p. 59]). The procedure is variously described and interpreted as a washing: ‘in which one clenched fist is turned about in the hollow of the other hand’, or ‘up to the elbow’ or ‘the wrist’, or ‘with a handful’ of water. FSchulthess, ZNW 21, 1922, 232f thinks of it simply as a rubbing w. the dry hand. Whatever the actual motion may have been, the emphasis is on the cultic devotion of those who engage in the lustral act.—Palladius, Hist. Laus. 55 ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????????. CTorrey, ZAW 65, ’53, 233f.—For lit. s. ??????? 1.—Field, Notes 30f; Goodsp., Probs. 59f; MBlack, Aramaic Approach2, ’53, 8f; PWeis, NTS 3, ’56/57, 233–36 (Aramaic); SReynolds, JBL 85, ’66, 87f (with cupped hands; against him MHengel, ZNW 60, ’69, 182–98; reply by Reynolds ibid. 62, ’71, 295f). ? fist-fight, boxing (Hom. et al.; ins; Tat. 4, 1; 26, 3) more generally (Jos., Ant. 14, 210) ?? ???? ??? ?????? in the midst of the fight B 12:2.—DELG s.v. ??? I. M-M. TW."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr?terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago

What in god's name is Danker trying to say here? We have the following evidence that the "?????" of Mark 7:3 should be translated as "fist":

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

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

A few later, inferior manuscripts have "?????", "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:

????? = fist
????? = 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".


--JoeWallack 09:41, 13 Jun 2006 (CDT)

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.


[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: The first step is to try and determine exactly what "Mark" meant:

[url]http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_7:3[/url]

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

[url]http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Mark&chapter=7&verse=3[/url]

"?? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? [B][SIZE="3"]?????[/SIZE][/B] ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????????"

Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry ????? (2) ????? (3) Noun [B][SIZE="3"]a fist[/SIZE][/B] Parsing Dative Singular Feminine Related Words None found. Context in Mark 7:3 ?? ???????? ??? ?? ... ???????? ??? ?????? ??? Strongs # 4435 the clenched hand, i.e. (only in dative case as adverb) with [B][SIZE="3"]the fist[/SIZE][/B] (hard scrubbing)

[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: Here we see that according to Zhubert the Lexical entry for the offending word [B][SIZE="3"]?????[/SIZE][/B] is "fist":

[B]Thayer's[/B]

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. [B][SIZE="3"]the fist[/SIZE][/B], clenched hand
  2. up to the elbow 

NAS Word Usage - Total: 1

carefully 1


[B]LSJ (from Perseus)[/B]

????-? , h(, (???) A. [B][SIZE="3"]fist[/SIZE][/B], Hp.Art.71, E.IT1368; “?? ?. ?????” Ar.V. 1384; “????? ???????” LXX Ex.21.18, cf. Is.58.4. 2. boxing, as an athletic contest, “????? ?????????” Il.23.669; “?????? ?????” E.Alc.1031; “?????? ?????? ????? ???????” AP6.256 (Antip.); “?????? ??????” Pi. O.7.16, cf. 10(11).67; ?????? or ??? ?. ??????, Pl.Lg.795b, D.61.24; freq. in Inscrr., e.g. ?????? ?????? (sc. ???????) IG7.1765 (Thespiae), etc. b. generally, fight, ?. ????????? ??? ?????? Edict.Caes. ap. J.AJ14.10.6, cf. Artem.5.58; ??? ?. ???????????, ?????????, of partridges, Gp.14.20.1,2. 3. in Ev.Marc.7.3, ????? ???????? is interpr. diligently (v.l. ?????, often). II. a measure of length, the distance from the elbow to the knuckles,= 18 ????????, 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 [B]"fist" and "fist-fight" [/B] and [B]every example except one shows a meaning of "fist" or fist-related[/B]. The one exception is:

"in a difficult pass. ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? lit. [I]unless they wash their hands with (the) fist[/I] [B]Mk 7:3[/B] where the v.l. ????? [s. ??????] is substituted for ?. [Vulgate crebro], thus alleviating the difficulty by focusing on the vigor of the action."

Thus every available Lexicon seems to agree that [B][SIZE="3"]?????[/SIZE][/B] always means "fist" except for Mark 7:3!

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

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

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

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

????? = fist
????? = often

with "often" being a [B]recognizable[/B] reason for Jesus' lecture. But Danker's Lexicon is [B]supposed to be a Lexicon and not a Textual Variation guide[/B]. 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) [B]"Matthew"/"Luke" Reaction.[/B] 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 [B][SIZE="3"]Context[/SIZE][/B] 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."

[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: "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.

[COLOR="Blue"]Joseph[/COLOR]


Anachronism

[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: I've already indicated

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

the correct translation of 7:3 is "fist" which is clearly [B]Fiction[/B]. 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.

[COLOR="Blue"]Joseph[/COLOR]


Epiphanius

[QUOTE=JoeWallack;5249081][COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]:

[I][amazon=9004079262]THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS[/amazon][/I]

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 37

[QUOTE]They "washed their hands diligently,"2 and also diligently cleansed themselves of certain types of pollution in natural water and baths. ... 2 Mark 7:3. It seems best to keep the traditional translation of ????? since Epiphanius gives no clue as to what he means by the word. [/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Blue"]JW:[/COLOR] I previously demonstrated that "Mark" likely intended the literal meaning of ????? = fist:

[url=http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4914161#post4914161] Handwashing anachronism in Mark?[/url]

With Apologies to Frank Williams it's clear that Epiphanius above understood the literal "fist" for 7:3 as he simply repeats the word when using the verse to explain the ritualistic behavior of the Scribes. Epiphanius does not simply quote from the verse, he presents the [I]meaning[/I] of the verse. Thus Epiphanius is support that "Mark" intended a literal ????? = fist.

We have the following related considerations:

1) "Mark's" use of "washing with the first" was Likely intended to be a [B]Literary[/B] creation (Fiction).

2) The reference is [B]anachronistic[/B] and evidence for late dating.

3) Epiphanius' reference is "Scribes" but 7:3 has "Pharisees" indicating doubt as to [B]TransMission[/B].

4) Frank Williams continues the tradition of [B]Translators[/B] and Commentators who refuse to consider the possibility that "fist" means "fist".



Con

Error 1) "Mark's" use of "washing with the first" was Likely intended to be a [B]Literary[/B] creation (Fiction).

Answer Specifically due to hand-washing, this can't be used as shown below.

Error 2) The reference is [B]anachronistic[/B] and evidence for late dating.

Answer Not so, Erubin 21f.:

'The Rabbis taught: It happened that when R. Aqiba was in prison R. Jehoshua of Garsi served him every day. Water was given R. Aqiba in a measure. One day the warden of the prison said to R. Jehoshua: "To-day thy measure of water is too large. Perhaps it is thy intention to undermine the prison." So he poured out half the water and returned the remainder. When R. Jehoshua came to R. Aqiba the latter said to him: "Dost thou not know, that I am an old man and that my life is dependent upon thee?" R. Jehoshua then related what had happened. Said R. Aqiba: "Give me the water and I will wash my hands prior to eating," and he answered: "There is hardly enough water to drink, and thou wouldst use it to wash thy hands?" Rejoined R. Aqiba: "What can I do? I must follow the rabbinical commandment, which if violated would involve capital punishment. It were better for me that I die of hunger, than to act contrary to the opinion of my colleagues." And it was said that R. Aqiba would not taste anything until water was brought to him to wash his hands. When the sages heard of this, they said: If he was so careful in his old age how was he in his youth, and if he was so particular in prison how was he when at liberty!

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: In the time that Solomon the king ordained the law of Erubin and that of washing the hands (before meals) a heavenly voice was heard, which said [Proverbs xxiii. 15]: "My son, if thy heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine," and [ibid. xxvii. ii]: "Become wise, my son, and cause my heart to rejoice, that I may give an answer to him that reproacheth me."' Thus the custom probably existed in the time of Jesus for all people to wash their hands prior to meals, and probably had existed so for some time.

Error 3) Epiphanius' reference is "Scribes" but 7:3 has "Pharisees" indicating doubt as to [B]TransMission[/B].

Answer He may have been confused with Matthew 15:1. Doesn't mean anything since both Matthew and Mark have Phraisees, thus Epiphanius obviously emphasized the Scribes. An original Scribes instead of Pharisees wouldn't mean anything anyway.

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

External links

Personal tools