Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §14.4
the pre-Markan tradition clearly attests a pre-70 Pharisaic concern on the subject;
and if pre-70, why not at the time of Jesus? The sensitivities on impurity contracted
by touching are clear from of old. 126 And the fact that a whole Mishnah
tractate is devoted to the subject, Yadaim ('Hands'), indicates a long tradition
history of halakhic concern. So there is no real reason to dispute the testimony
(for that is what it is) of Mark 7 that the concern was already active in Pharisaic
halakhoth at the time of Jesus. 127
Of interest here is the picture of Jesus in effect debating halakhah with
Pharisees and/or scribes who identified themselves with Pharisaic tradition, and
who, we note again, are recalled in this instance as having come down from Jerusalem
(v. 1). The accusation of v. 5 can be read also as an invitation to debate, to
explain practice brought into question by evolving halakhah. In this case Jesus is
not remembered as setting a more fundamental principle in opposition to a traditional
ruling. Rather he takes the warning of Isa. 29.13, a warning of the danger
of superficiality in worship 128 and of treating human formulations too unquestioningly,
and indicates his view that 'the tradition of the elders' is succumbing to
that danger in the case in point. 129
from Jerusalem to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands' (265). Luke knows a similar tradition and
criticism in a different context (Luke 11.38).
126. E.g., Lev. 5.2-3; 7.19, 21; 11.8, 24-28; Isa. 52.11; 65.5; T. Mos. 7.9-10; cf. Col.
2.21. Ebner draws particular attention to Hag. 2.11-14 {Jesus 237-38).
127. In Jewish Law 31, 39-40, 90-91, 228-31, Sanders observes that Pharisees practised
hand-washing at their own Sabbath and festival meals, but again notes that there is no evidence
in rabbinic literature that Pharisees washed their hands before eating ordinary meals. But how
well grounded is such a clear distinction in Pharisaic purity concerns between 'Sabbath and
festival meals' and 'ordinary meals'? At least we can say that hand-washing prior to eating
communally would have been consistent with the concerns regarding the susceptibility of
hands to uncleanness already evident in traditions attributed to the period (particularly m. Ber.
8.2, 4; m. Mik. 1.5-6; further documentation in Sanders 228-31); see further especially Kazen,
Jesus 62-72, 81-85; also Westerholm, Jesus 73; R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition
History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTS 13; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 194-202; J. C.
Poirier, 'Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their Hands?' JJS 47 (1996) 217-33; Funk, Acts of Jesus
94-95. Flusser follows G. Alon in concluding that prior to the destruction of the Temple washing
hands before a meal was regarded as advisable but not obligatory and was not accepted by
all the sages (Jesus 59-60).
128. One of the more polemical terms attributed to Jesus by both Mark (7.6) and Q
(Matt. 7.5/Luke 6.42) is hypokrites ('play-actor, pretender, dissembler'), which could have the
Hebrew hanep behind it (K. Seybold, hanep, 70075.38-39), but the Greek should not be taken
as indication of possible influence on the young Jesus from the theatre in Sepphoris {pace R. A.
Batey, 'Jesus and the Theatre', ATS 30 [1984] 563-74), since the theatre was probably not built
till the second half of the first century (chapter 9 n. 198). Marcus notes the similar condemnation
of the Pharisees in Josephus, Ant. 17.41 and Qumran (1QH 12[= 4].13) (Mark 1.444).
129. Here again is to be noted the similar criticism of Pharisees made at Qumran: they
572