| Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity. |
Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail to Peter Kirby with ideas for an article or book review. Thanks! |
The New "Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel"1
Originally appeared in Jewish Quarterly Review XX (1908): 330-346.
by A. Büchler
This short but instructive fragment presents a hitherto unknown criticism by
Jesus of the ceremonial purification current in the Temple ritual. It is in
the form of a dialogue with a priestly official in the inner court of the sacred
edifice. The text gives us so many new details concerning the strict laws of
purification and the practice of them in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, that Jewish
scholars must feel an even greater interest in the fragment than do Christians.
The editors, with their usual diligence, have given an exact transcription of
the text, a translation, and a commentary. In the latter they received the help
of Prof. E. Schürer, the well-known author of Geschichte des jüd.
Volkes zur Zeit Jesu Christi. He, together with the editors, concludes that
Jewish tradition does not confirm the exaggerated statements of the fragment.
To remind readers of the exact wording of the text, we venture to cite in full
the translation which the able editors have provided.
And he took them and brought them into the very place of purification, and
was walking in the temple.
And a certain Pharisee, a chief priest, whose name was Levi (?), met them
and said to the Saviour, Who gave thee leave to walk in this place of purification
and to see these holy vessels, when thou hast not washed nor yet have thy
disciples bathed their feet? But defiled thou hast walked in this temple,
which is a pure place, wherein no other man walks except he has washed himself
and changed his garments, neither does he venture to see these holy vessels.
And the Saviour straightway stood still with his disciples and answered him,
Art thou then, being here in the temple, clean?
He saith unto him, I am clean; for I washed in the pool of David, and having
descended by one staircase I ascended by another, and I put on white and clean
garments, and then I came and looked upon these holy vessels.
The Saviour answered and said unto him, Woe ye blind, who see not. Thou hast
washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night
and day, and hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots
and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe and beautify for the lust of men;
but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness. But I and my disciples,
who thou sayest have not bathed, have been dipped in the waters of eternal
life which come from . . . But woe unto the . . .
The editors declare that the whole fragment is historically worthless, because
of the impossibility of reconciling this picture with actually known facts.
In particular they maintain (p. 12):—
But that an ordinary Jew before visiting the inner court of the Temple had
to wash and change his clothes as stated in ll. 18-20 is not confirmed by
any other evidence; and neither the "place of purification" in l.
8, nor the "pool of David" in l. 25 are mentioned elsewhere, while
considerable difficulty arises in connexion with the sacred vessels which
are stated to have been visible from the court to which Jesus and his disciples
had penetrated. Moreover the two stairways leading down to the "pool
of David" and still more the statement that dogs and swine were cast
into it (ll. 33-4) seem to be details invented for the sake of rhetorical
effect, for that a high priest washed himself in a pool of the character described
in the fragment is incredible.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the writer of this Gospel was accurately
informed on all these matters, and that tradition fully confirms the details
which sound so incredible. I am not concerned with the authenticity of the fragment,
but with its interpretation, through clear, trustworthy, and easily accessible
parallels in the Mishnah and Talmud. I must premise that I am presenting my
results without that full consideration which I should have preferred to give
them. The editors of this Review have, however, pressed me to put my
notes together without delay, and I did not feel able to withstand their wishes.
In the first instance it is certain, as the editors already remark, that the
dialogue is represented as taking place in the inner court (εν τω ιερω)
in which Jesus was walking. The site of the incident can in no way be the actual
Temple, for no layman could enter it at all, even after the most complete washings
and purifications. But though any Jewish layman could enter the inner court,
he could only do so when complete levitical purification had first occurred.
This is shown by the negative rule in Kelim i. 8: "The inner court of the
Israelites is of higher sanctity than it (the Court of the Women), in so far
as no one may enter the former who has not yet brought the requisite sacrifice
after having been purified from a levitical uncleanness2.'
The offering could only be brought after a complete purification consisting
of washing the garments and bathing the body (Lev. xiv. 9; xv. 13; Num. xix.
19). The same is stated by Josephus (Wars, v. 5. 6): "Men who are
not fully purified (καθαπαν ηγνευκοτες)
are excluded from the inner sanctuary." By the expression "fully purified"
Josephus means in the first instance immersion in a bath, but it will be seen
from further consideration that his prescription applies not only to those who
have contracted levitical impurity, but to all who desire to enter the inner
court, whether they had previously been in a state of levitical uncleanness
or not. This is shown by what he says Against Apion, ii. 8: "In
tertiam (porticum) masculi Iudaeorum mundi existentes atque purificati,"
i.e. "In the third court entrance was lawful only to male Jews who were
clean and purified." Josephus does not restrict the prescribed purification
only to those who had been levitically unclean, but applies the rule to all
who entered the inner court. But the term purificati must mean "purified
by immersion in a bath" and corresponds to the Greek αγνοι
or αγιοι. This is clear from Josephus's usage of this
phrase elsewhere. Thus Wars, vi. 9. 3, he records of the visitors to
the Temple on the Passover, i. e. "They were all clean and holy,"
and these terms correspond to the mundi atque purificati of the former
passage, and as in the former passage apply to all laymen and not only to those
who had been unclean. So, too, in Antiq. xv. 2. 5, where Josephus says
of the Court of the Women: "On the East side there is one great gate through
which we enter when in a purified state (αγνοι) with
our women." The historian again in Wars, iv. 3.12 relates: "Ananus
(who with his followers held possession of the outer court of the Temple) thought
it sinful to lead the people into the inner court without precedent purification
(προηγνευκως)."
Thereupon John the Zealot informs his friends in the inner court that the followers
of Ananus have announced their intention to purify themselves on the next day
(αγνειαν δε παρηγγελκεναι)
so that the people could enter the inner court under the pretext of performing
the divine service (Wars, iv. 3. 14). And in Antiq., xiv. 11.
5 (Wars, i. 11. 6) the High Priest Hyrcanus attempts to prevent Herod
and his non-Jewish soldiers from entering Jerusalem on the ground that being
a festival the people within had purified themselves (αγνευοντος του πληθους).
And when Paul accompanied the four Nazirites into the Temple he first purified
himself (αγνισθεις), and then entered
the sacred precincts (Acts xxi. 26).
The foregoing evidence suffices to confirm the Gospel fragment before us in
its implication that no layman could enter the inner court of the Temple without
previous purification. But in what did this purification consist? It consisted
in immersion in a bath. This is shown by Josephus's language when rendering
the biblical prescription concerning the Levites in Num. viii. 7 ("Let
them wash their clothes and so make themselves clean"), and ibid.
ver. 21 ("And the Levites were purified and washed their clothes").
Josephus renders (Antiq. iii. 11. 1): "He purified them (ηγνιζε)
with ever-flowing spring-water and with sacrifices." It is obvious, therefore,
that when he uses the same Greek term for purification in the case of laymen,
he also means bathing. Further examples of Josephus's use of the term conclusively
confirm this inference, that by purification he meant immersion in water. He
says of the Essenes (Wars, ii. 8. 5): "After work in the forenoon
they wash their body in cold water, after this cleansing (μετα ταυτην την αγνειαν)
they betake themselves to a special building which no member of another sect
may enter and gather themselves here in the eating hall as though they entered
a sanctuary." Here Josephus uses the same word (αγνεια)
as he does of entry into the Temple, and here he distinctly explains it to mean
bathing. In the passage of doubtful authenticity in which Josephus refers to
John the Baptist (Antiq., xviii. 5. 2) baptism is described as εφ αγνεια του σωματος.
Finally, the same expression is used of purifying the robe of the high-priest
before the festivals. The Romans held possession of the robe and handed it over
to the Jews a week before the feast (Antiq., xviii. 4. 3). This purification
(αγνισθειση) can be nothing
other than washing3. Josephus's use of αγνος
or αγιος ("holy") in the sense of purified
is quite parallel with the use of the Hebrew term [Hebrew]. This latter verb
also means to cleanse, as in Exod. xix. 10 ([Hebrew]); also ibid. v. 14 ([Hebrew];
Antiq., iii. 5. 1, αγνευοντες την τε αλλην αγνειαν),
and Lev. xvi. 19 ([Hebrew]). It is not without importance for the present argument
that the washing of hands and feet by the priests before their service is termed
in the Mishnah [Hebrew].
But all doubts as to the meaning of these rules concerning purification before
entering the inner court are removed by the Rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah,
Yoma, III, 3, lays it down that: "No man may enter the inner court
for offering sacrifice, even though he be clean, without previously bathing
himself" ([Hebrew]). It might seem from the context and from the word 'aboda
that this rule applies exclusively to priests. But the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma,
III, 40 b) remarks on this passage that the word 'aboda must not be pressed
in this way, as the same rule applies to such as enter the court without intention
to offer sacrifice ([Hebrew]). The Tosefta (Negaim, VIII, 9) and the
parallel Baraitha (Yoma, 30 b) expressly confirm this. "A man recovered
from leprosy bathes in the chamber of the lepers, and then goes and stands in
the Nicanor Gate. Rabbi Judah says: He does not need to bathe, for he has already
bathed overnight. They said to him: He does not bathe under this category [i.
e. because he has recovered from leprosy], but every one who enters the inner
court by way of the Nicanor Gate has to bathe in that chamber4".
Since the Nicanor Gate leads directly to the Altar, everybody entering by it
must take the precaution to bathe on the spot. It was enough for the pilgrim
entering from, any other gate to have previously bathed at home. To facilitate
such bathings the authorities in every place had to prepare the baths before
the pilgrim festivals, and had to provide for every requisite of the purification
rite (Mishnah, Shekalim, I, 1; Tosefta, Shekalim, I, 1-2). In
reference to this duty R. Isaac says: "Every man must purify himself before
each pilgrim feast" ([Hebrew], Rosh Ha Shana, 16 b; Sifra,
49 a).
It may now be held proved that every layman who entered the inner court had
to purify himself by bathing. Thus the statement of the new Gospel Fragment
on this point is fully justified by the facts.
We now come to the second point on which the accuracy of the fragment has been
questioned, but here again, it will be shown, the fragment is in accordance
with the facts of tradition. I refer to the statement that the layman on entering
the inner court changed his garments. Not only was such a change of garments
incumbent upon one who had incurred an actual uncleanness, but also any one
who purified himself in order to appear before the Lord was, even by the Bible,
required to purify his garments or to change them for other (clean) attire.
In Gen. xxxv. 2 we read: "Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all
that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean,
and change your garments." Exod. xix. 10: "And the Lord said unto
Moses, Go unto the people and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them
wash their clothes." Josephus, rendering the latter text (Antiq.,
iii. v. 1), says: "They adorned themselves, their wives and children, with
garments in a luxurious fashion." We would, therefore, anticipate that
the Jewish pilgrim when visiting the Temple on festivals would wear festival
garments. Josephus clearly represents this as being the case in a passage dealing
with the solemn meeting of the high-priest Jaddua with Alexander the Great (Antiq.,
xi. 8. 4). We are there told how God spoke to the anxious High Priest: "Wreathe
the city and open the gates; then let the people go, in white garments—thou,
however, with the priests, in the robes prescribed for you—to meet the king."
As the high-priest and the other priests are here wearing their official robes,
it is inferrable that the white garments of the people are also the clothes
worn by the laity during the sacrifices. In this way we explain a difficulty
in Hegesippus's account (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., ii. 23) concerning
James the brother of Jesus. "James was a Nazirite, and to him alone it
was permitted to enter the sanctuary, for he wore no woollen, but only a linen
garment. He always went alone into the Temple, where one might find him on his
knees praying for the forgiveness of the people." This implies that, like
an Essene, he regularly wore white linen clothes, which, again like an Essene,
he put on after bathing. Therefore James was able to enter the inner court of
the Temple every day, a thing which the ordinary Jewish layman only did on festivals.
It seems to me clear from this that any visitor to the inner court was bound
to wear clean clothes. The priest in our Gospel fragment, who sees Jesus walking
in the inner court in every-day dress was able at once to recognize that Jesus
had not bathed. "And a certain . . . chief priest . . . met them, and said,
Who gave thee leave to walk in the place of purification and to see these holy
vessels when thou hast not washed." The inseparable connexion between
changing the dress and taking a bath is precisely expressed in the Mechilta
to Exod. xix. 10 (ed. Friedmann, 64 a): "There is no washing of clothes
in the Bible without bathing the person" ([Hebrew]).
If, then, the preceding arguments be found convincing, the editors of the fragment
do an injustice to its author when they say (p. 20): "Schürer, therefore,
seems to be right in supposing that the author of the Gospel has by mistake
referred to laymen the regulations applicable only to priests." I hold,
on the contrary, that these regulations did apply to laymen.
We now approach another of the difficulties which, in the view of the editors, stand in the way of accepting the accuracy of the fragment. I refer to the inspection of the holy vessels by Jesus and his companions. It can be shown, however, that on the day after the festivals such sight of the holy vessels by laymen was well within the range of possibility.
The priest in the fragment three times over reproaches Jesus and his disciples
because they "look at the holy vessels without bathing or washing their
feet" (ιδειν [ταυ]τα τα αγια σκευη μητε λουσα[μ]εν[ω] μ[η]τε μην των μαθητων σου τους π[οδας βα]πτισθεντων).
To the priest this seems of much concern, and the sin against the Temple-laws
is to him a serious one. The editors rightly point out that the holy vessels
could not be seen usually from the inner court. But they have overlooked the
passage in the Mishnah which removes the difficulty, and which places the whole
scene of the fragment in its right setting. It will be seen that the incident
occurred on the day after a festival, when all the holy vessels were, in point
of fact, transferred to a washing-place in the inner court. It is necessary
to quote in full the Mishnah, Hagiga, III, 7-8: "Immediately after
the pilgrim-feast they go through the purification of the inner court. How do
they proceed? They immerse in water the vessels which were in the Temple, and
say to them [the priests]: 'Take care that ye touch not the Table and the Candlestick,
and thereby defile it.' All the vessels in the sanctuary were duplicated and
triplicated, so that if the first set became unclean they could bring the second
set in their place. All the vessels which were in the Temple require immersion
in water, except the golden and the brazen altars. These, according to R. Eliezer,
are regarded as fixed to the ground. But the sages say, the difference in the
case of the altars was due to the fact that they were covered with metal [and
thus were not susceptible to defilement]5."
That this Mishnah deals with actual fact and not with mere theory is shown by
the case reported in Talmud Yerushsilmi, Hagigo, III, 79 d (Tosefta,
Hagiga, III, 35): "On a certain occasion they immersed the Candlestick
in water, and the Sadducees said: 'See the Pharisees bathe the orb of the sun6.'
" Again, R. Simeon b. Gamliel in the name of Simeon the son of the Segan
relates (Shekalim, VIII, 5) that for the immersion of the curtain three
hundred priests were required. A non-priest was not permitted to see these vessels
without having received purification, just as the Levites (Num. iv. 19) were
not allowed to see the ark uncovered. The vessels were never seen by laymen
except on occasion of their purification on the day after the festival. As by
that day all the pilgrims had left, it must have been very unusual for a layman
to visit the inner court and disturb the priest at his work. But, though unusual,
there was nothing in the Temple regulations to prevent such intrusion, provided
always that the visitor had washed and changed his garments7.
The next point in the fragment that needs elucidation is the "very place
of purification" (αυτο το αγνευτηριον),
into which Jesus is represented as introducing his disciples. This αγνευτηριον
was not the inner court itself, as the editors suggest (p. 10). But it was a
chamber of that court, in which there was a bathing-place. There were several
such chambers provided with baths. The one referred to here cannot be the subterranean
one which the priests used for their own purification (Tamid, I, 1),
for a layman could not have found admission to it. Besides, the whole narrative
is inconsistent with a subterranean site. But there were two other chambers,
above ground, either of which may be identical with the αγνευτηριον
of our text. These two chambers were—(a) the Parva-chamber, which had on its
first floor a bath used by the high-priest on the Day of Atonement (Yoma,
III, 3; Middoth, V, 3; T. B. Yoma, 19 a); and (b) a bath over
the Water-Gate, which was also used by the high-priest on the Day of Atonement
(Baraitha in Yoma, 19 a). There may have been others, and these two may
have been used on other occasions, but no details have come down to us concerning
them. It is, therefore, not possible to decide the exact site intended in our
text, but it is certain that it stood in one of the chambers of the inner court,
and on that side of the chamber further removed from the court. It will be remembered
that the chambers were constructed in the thickness of the Temple wall, and
that they could be approached on two sides, one towards the hel, and
the other towards the 'azara (inner court). Into the part opening from
the hel laymen were admitted, though they were excluded from the other
side. The two divisions of the chamber were separated by stones marking the
boundary between them (Middoth, I, 6). A Baraitha (Yoma, 19 a)
expressly states that the bath was in the hel. As our fragment gives
no hint that the priest attempted to remove Jesus and his companions from the
place, and equally fails to reproach him on the ground of intruding on to holy
ground, the αγνευτηριον
can well be identified with the bath which stood in the hel above the
Water-Gate. Obviously the word αγνευτηριον
is the Greek translation of the Hebrew [Hebrew] (Place of Bathing). This fact
falls into line with the previous argument as to the identity of the term αγνος
and αγνιζω with the Hebrew [Hebrew] (to immerse
the body in water).
It is not so easy to account for another item in the priest's reproach. He
blames the disciples for entering without previously bathing their feet. It
is noteworthy that while the priest expects Jesus himself to have bathed and
changed his garments, he demands of the disciples merely that they should have
bathed their feet. The editors have not noticed this distinction, probably because
in the reply of Jesus (ll. 41-2 of the Greek) this distinction is omitted ("But
I and my disciples who thou sayest have not bathed"). In fact, it is only
Jesus who walks in the inner court, as is shown by ll. 8-9 (εισηγαγεν εις αυτο το αγνευτηριον και περιεπατει εν τω ιερω,
"He brought them into the very place of purification, and he was
walking in the Temple"). The priest when uttering his reproach keeps this
in mind, for (l. 12) he only complains that Jesus himself is walking about and
looking at the vessels (τις επετρεψεν σοι πατ[ειν]];
κ.τ.λ., "Who gave thee leave to walk?
&c"). For a third time, too, the fragment (l. 16) makes it clear that
Jesus was alone in walking within the court (αλλα μεμολυ[μμενος] επατησας τουτο το ιερον τ[οπον]
. . ., "But defiled thou hast walked . . ."). By his walking
within the court and viewing the vessels Jesus had infringed the purification-laws.
But his disciples must have remained on the threshold of the chamber, and for
that the bathing of feet was, according to the priest of the fragment, enough
to satisfy the law. Now we know that not only priests had to be barefooted when
entering the Temple and ascending the altar, and had to wash their feet, but
the lay-pilgrims who ascended the Temple mount had also to remove their shoes.
The Mishnah (Berachoth, IX, 5) formulates the rule: "No man shall
enter the Temple mount with his staff, his shoe, his bag, or with the dust on
his feet8." Here, again, we are dealing
with actual facts and not with later theory, for the Midrash (Threni Rabba,
I, 16, § 47) records the following incident: "Miriam, the daughter
of Boethos, the wife of the high-priest Joshua ben Gamala, desired to hear her
husband read the lesson from the Law while robed in his high-priestly attire
on the Day of Atonement. They laid for her carpets from the door of her house
to the entrance of the Temple, so that her naked feet should not touch the ground.
Nevertheless, her bare feet touched the ground." The commentators explain
that Miriam went barefooted because of the prohibition to wear shoes on the
Fast. But in Sifrê on Deut., § 305 (ed. Friedmann, 130 a)
and Aboth de R. Nathan, XVII (ed. Schechter, 33 a), R. Johanan ben Zaccai
relates to his pupils, when he saw the daughter of the once wealthy Nicodemus
ben Gorion reduced to a condition of abject poverty: "The family of this
woman never entered the Temple mount9 to worship
until people previously spread for them Milesian cloth under their feet."
This passage seems to refer to visits paid to the Temple on ordinary occasions.
That the aristocracy visited the Temple for prayer on other days than the Day
of Atonement is shown by the Mishnah (Shekalim, VI, 1). It may be concluded,
therefore, that the aristocracy went barefooted whenever they entered the Temple
for worship. Perhaps we may incidentally find here the explanation of a difficult
passage in Juvenal (Satire vi, lines 156 ff.). The Roman poet refers
to a gift of a jewel by Agrippa, the Jewish prince, to his sister Berenice,
in a country "observant ubi festa mero pede Sabbata reges,"
i.e. "where the kings observe the festival of the Sabbath barefooted."
But this custom did not apply only to the aristocracy, as the quotation given
above from the Mishnah (Berachoth, IX, 5) indicates. This is confirmed
by the statement of Josephus (Wars, iv. 3. 6) that when the Zealots held
the inner court of the Temple, their impudence turned against God and they entered
the sanctuary with soiled feet10. As Josephus
specifically mentions the feet, it follows that it was forbidden to enter the
sanctuary with soiled feet. I cannot, however, assert that this objection to
appearing in the Temple with soiled feet (in the phrase of the Mishnah given
above "with the dust on the feet") necessarily implies that the feet
were bathed, for I do not recall any passage which definitely states this. But
it is certainly probable that, with the ever-increasing stringency of the purity-laws
in the Temple, laymen were required to do as the priests did and wash their
feet. Our Gospel-fragment would then be justified in claiming that the disciples
of Jesus had no right to enter even the hel portion of the chamber of
the inner court with unwashed feet.
The priest in the fragment boasts (l. 25) that he had himself performed the
full rites of purification by bathing εν τη λιμνη του Δ(αυει)δ,
"in the pool of David." This cannot refer, as Schürer suggests
(p. 20) to the brazen Sea of Solomon, for in that no one could bathe. The priest
must, as the editors remark (p. 21), much more probably have bathed within the
Temple area, in one of the bathing-places which I have described above. But
we cannot define the place with precision. We can, however, assert without hesitation
that the next clause of the priest's boast is thoroughly probable. The claim
of the priest that "having descended by one staircase I ascended by another"
is by no means a detail "invented for the sake of rhetorical effect"
as our editors think (p. 12). For it is entirely in accord with the requirements
of a very rigid observance of the purity-laws not to touch, when in a state
of purification, the spots previously touched in a condition of defilement.
The priest of our fragment would belong to the class of exaggerated saints of
whom we have other knowledge in Aboth de R. Nathan (XII, p. 28 b). It
is perhaps just because the priest assumes this extreme attitude on the purity-laws
that Jesus retorts regarding the condition of the water in which the priest
had necessarily bathed. The water for the Temple and for all purifications came
from Etam (Yerushalmi, Yoma, III, 41 a, Midrash Threni Rabba on
IV, 4, ed. Buber 72 b) from the so-called Pools of Solomon, SW. of Bethlehem.
In the speech of Jesus in our fragment (ll. 32 ff.) he uses the phrase: "Thou
hast washed in these running waters," undoubtedly with a purpose. He refers
to the course by which the water reached Jerusalem, and he urges that this water,
which the priest employs for the supreme purification, had on its long road
to the Temple received many undesired defilements. The people in the villages
through which the water passed or at the site of the great reservoirs in Etam,
cast into the water dogs and swine to wash them. Jesus cannot have meant the
dead bodies of these unclean animals, for he would not have refrained from strengthening
his charge against the priest by that fact. The Jews certainly possessed dogs
in Palestine, but it is not so certain that they possessed swine, though the
prohibition to rear swine (Sota, 49 b) implies that the practice must
have been not uncommon. Jesus further uses the strange expression "wherein
dogs and swine have been cast night and day" in order to leave the priest
no loophole for escape. At whatever period of the twenty-four hours the priest
had chosen to take his ritual bath, he could not avoid the contamination of
unclean beasts.
In one or two details the translation is inexact in the passage that follows.
The Greek in ll. 34-38 runs: και νιψαμε[ν]ος το εκτος δερμα εσμηξω, οπερ [κα]ι αι πορναι και α[ι] αυλητριδες μυρι[ζ]ου[σιν κ]αι λουσουσιν και σμηχουσι [και κ]αλλωπιζουσι.
The editors translate: "And hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which
also the harlots and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe
and beautify for the lust of men." The word rendered wipe (σμηχειν)
really means anointing with oil, after the Oriental manner, applying a cosmetic
after the washing had occurred. In the case of the harlots there is a double
anointment, one before the washing (oil being used for soap), expressed by the
Greek μυρι[ζ]ου[σιν],
and the other after washing, expressed by σμηχουσι,
as in the case of the priest. The translation should thus run: "Thou hast
cleansed and anointed the outside skin which also the harlots and flute-girls
oil and wash and anoint and beautify." Whether the priests actually used
oil at their bathing in the Temple is not elsewhere stated. For an account of
the flute-players as harlots, see Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie für
das classische Alterthum, I, 1816, s. v. Ambubaiae; further the Gospel to
the Hebrews, Hennecke, Neutestam. Apokryphen, p. 20, No. 10; and Grünbaum,
Z.D.M.G., XXXI, 1871, p. 246.
The most striking feature of this fragment is its presentment of the rigid
observance of the purity-laws in the Temple. In no detail is the writer of the
fragment ignorant of the law or guilty of gross error. Though the reference
to the harlots and flute-girls may point to an extra-Palestinian and late origin,
the material referring to the religious laws must have come from good sources.
Whether this reference to harlots and flute-players necessarily implies a late
date; whether it may be a pointed retort against critics of himself who had
reproached Jesus for his association with the fallen; whether, further, we have
a primitive or a late tradition in the picture here drawn of Jesus claiming
for himself a spiritual superiority over his opponents ("But I and my disciples
. . . have been dipped in the waters of eternal life")—a claim which Jesus
nowhere makes in the canonical Gospels—on these matters I cannot suggest a solution,
or even express an opinion. But the importance of the fragment for our knowledge
of ancient Temple usages does not depend on the answer to these questions. It
reproduces the exact conditions at a particular time in the Temple more accurately
than Matt. xxiii. 25, where reference is made to this same cleansing of the
Temple vessels. The details of our text require further examination, but I am
already convinced that we have here more original materials than are to be found
in the Synoptics, who transfer from Jerusalem to Galilee the dispute between
Jesus and the Pharisees on the purity-laws of the Temple.
1 Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel from
Oxyrhynchus, edited with translation and commentary by B. P. Grenfell, and
A. S. Hunt, with one plate. (Published for the Egypt Exploration Fund by H.
Frowde, Oxford University Press, 1908.)
2 [Hebrew], Schürer (Geschichte,
II, 273, n. 59) wrongly translates [Hebrew], "der wegen irgend einer Yerfehlung
das vorgeschriebene Opfer nicht dargebracht hat."
3 That the material of which the high-priest's
robe was made could be washed is seen from the fact that the curtain ([Hebrew])
which was made of the same substance was actually washed (Shekalim, VIII,
5).
4 [Hebrew]. The Baraitha differs in minor
points, and R. Judah says [Hebrew].
5 [Hebrew]. Confer the text of the Mishnah
in the Palestinian Talmud, the Cambridge Mishnah, ed. Löwe and Rabbinowicz.
6 [Hebrew]; the Tosefta: [Hebrew].
7 It cannot be supposed that this post-festal
purification of the vessels occurred outside the inner court, for it was not
lawful to remove the vessels from the inner court, although R. Meir (Shekalim,
VIII, 4) says that when the curtain has become unclean in the first degree ([Hebrew]),
it had to be cleaned outside the inner court. The new Gospel confirms, and is
confirmed by the prescription, that the vessels were purified in the inner court.
8 [Hebrew]. The Baraitha in Berachoth,
62 b, makes it clearer that the shoes were removed from the feet, for this reads
[Hebrew].
9 The Baraitha in Kethuboth, 66b-67a,
reports that the father of this lady visited in this way the school ([Hebrew]),
but this reading cannot be anything but an error for the Temple ([Hebrew]) as
the parallels show. We find the same error in Aboth de R. Nathan, ch.
vi (p. 16 b) where the wrong reading is [Hebrew] in place of the correct reading
[Hebrew] in Taanith, 20 a.
10 It is cited (Psalms of Solomon, ii.
2) as a gross desecration of the Altar that the enemies ascended it while wearing
shoes. In Midrash Threni Rabba on II, 7, § 11 (after the correct
reading in the Aruch, s. v. [Hebrew], see Bacher, Agada der Pal. Amoräer,
I, 538, n. 4) R. Samuel b. Nahman said: "When the heathens entered the
sanctuary they turned with scorning gestures and impudent blasphemies against
Heaven, and made marks on the ground of the Temple with their shoes."
|
