Handwashing

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 12:12 AM 5/2/99 -0400, hhiwater@bright.net wrote:

>

>

>Ed Tyler wrote:

>

>> At 04:36 PM 4/30/99 -0400, Kornform@aol.com wrote:

>> >>KORNFORM M. D.

>> >>Matt 15:1 THEN came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of 

>Jerusalem,

>> >>saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for

>> >>they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said

>> >>unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your

>> >tradition?

>> >>

>> >>The scribes and Pharisees made an observation about Jesus' disciples not

>> >>washing their hands.

>> >>

>> >>Defenders of "Bible science" take it as evidence that somewhere in 

>scripture

>> >

>> >>handwashing was advised for medical reasons. They ignore the fact that

>> >Jesus'

>> >>own disciples were caught not washing their hands. If "God" imparted the

>> >>wisdom to the ancient Jews that handwashing was medically useful, why 

>didn't

>> >>the disciples of this very same "God" wash their hands when they were in

>> >>constant contact with this "God"?

>> >>

>> >>Very strange.

>> >>

>> >

>> >Ed

>> >Bible science aside, it's worth noting that you've mentioned one of the few

>> >"acts of Jesus" from the gospels that is considered authentic, for

>> >essentially the reasons you cite.  It is difficult to see a motive for the

>> >gospeler to invent this pericope.

>> >

>> >KORNFORM

>> >Authentic?  Authentic in what sense? That "Jesus" said it? Why could not

>> >"Matthew" have invented it, having forgotten or ignorant about any

purported

>> >handwashing rules issued by the previous demon-god (none have been cited so

>> >far from the Bible we have)? "Matthew" thought it was a good thing to pit 

>the

>> >lack of observance of so far phantom handwashing rules against the

broaching

>> >of rules with regard to the Pharisees. Why is this authentic anything?

>>

>> Ed

>>

>> As I say, it's difficult to see any motive for a gospeler to invent it.

>> The reference of the Pharisees is to tradition, not to the Law, so the fact

>> that there's no scriptural basis for their criticism isn't really relevant.

>>  It's generally acknowledged that performing ablutions before eating was a

>> traditional Jewish practice.

>

>HELEN:

>I suppose the question would be was it a Greek or Roman practice. If the 

>carefully

>performed hand washing of Jews was viewed as a silly Jewish religious

ritual by

>the pagans, then this verse could have been a later addition to help the

>Christians in their major effort not to have to act in anyway Jewish.  This 

>could

>have been a way to avoid ritual  hand washing just as they managed to avoid

>circumcision, giving up pork and other kosher laws, Saturday sabbaths, wearing

>beards, and the restrictions against eating blood. There is an obvious 

>pattern in,

>I think, all early Christian writings of finding reasons why the early 

>Christians

>didn't have to obey any of the Jewish codes. I think most scholars acknowledge

>this pattern. We're back to the problem of not being able to figure out 

>which is

>the cart and which is the horse.


Ed

That's true, but ablution before meals was a common practice among both
Greeks and Romans as well as Jews.  In fact, the Greeks seem to have gone
further and taken ritual baths before feasts.  That's one reason that it's
hard to see why an evangelist would invent this pericope.  The instances
where they permit violations of Jewish law (eating pork, e.g.) and abolish
practices like circumcision (which would have cut down as it were on
incoming male converts) are easy to explain, but when you've got a pericope
that violates both Jewish and gentile customs its presence becomes more
difficult to account for.

• Previous message: Handwashing
• Next message: Handwashing
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]