iv. Uncleanness in NT. — Since nothing in the Law touched the daily life of the Jew at so many points as the laws of uncleanness and purification, and that not only in the Dispersion (where the sacrificial sj'stem could not legally be practised) but in Palestine itself, it was natural that the scribes should develop the rules concerning it with the most painful minuteness. Casuistry, in fact, ran riot in this inviting field. The NT has many references to the laws of purification, and the largest of the six books of the Mishna (nnno tid) is devoted to this subject. Thirty chapters in it are devoted to the single subject or vessels. The rules went far beyond anything laid down in even the most casuistical Pentateuch laws. This is shown most of all in the regulations about the Washing of Hands. It was granted that these were not found in the Law, but were only traditions of the elders ; yet they were very strictly enforced. The chief point to observe is that the hands were wiished before food although they might he cere- monially clean. At first adopted liy the Pharisees, it became a practice almost universal among Jews. Probably its origin was to prevent any contact with food when the person might have tincon- sciously contracted defilement. If the hands were known to be unclean, two washings before food were required. It also became customary to wash the hands after food ; and some Pharisees, in- genious in discovering new ways of self-righteous- ness, washed between the courses. The washing of the hands was performed by pouring, the han<l3 being held with the fingers u)), so that the unclean- ness might be washed down away from the fingers. The water had to run down to the wrist, else the ceremony was inefl'ectual (Edersheim thinks that in Mk 7" we should translate irvyii^, ' to the wrist' ; but see .Swete's note). We have a further reference to the Jewish custom in the story of the marriage at Cana, where there were six stone waterpots for the water of purification (Jn 2" ; cf. also the dis- cussion between .lohn the Baptist's disciples and a Jew about purification, Jn 3", and the Jews purifying themselves or avoiding defilement before the passover, ll"* 18*).
• 8ce Fruzer, Ic. I. iU-iiS. Anions the natives of Central Australia circumcision and sublnclHlon arc still perfonned with stone knives, though Iron knives arc known. Hut, accordinir to tradition, circumcisiOD was originally pf^rformed with the flre- Htii^k, and the stone knives wore uloptcd because so man^ died i]i consequence of th«oiMntloii(SpeQoeraDdOUleD, <.«. 2iiS, 224, SM-«U2).
834
UNDERGIRD
UNICORN
More importance attaches to the attitude of Jesus and the apostles to these customs. He excitev.1 tlie surprise of a Pharisee because He did not wash His hands before breakfast (Lk Hf") : and His disciples, by the same neglect, led tlie Bcribes and Pharisees to cliallenge Jesus to account for their behaviour (Mk V-\ Mt 15'- =). Tl'i« gave Him occasion to denounce tlie making void ot the word of God through tradition, and to enunciate the "reat liberating principle that not that which goeth into a man defiles him, but that whicli cometh out of him, from the heart. At one stroke He repealed all the Levitical rules as to unclean meats (Mk 7»-^, Mt 15^="). There can be no such thinn- as ceremonial, there is only moral delile- ment. It was long, however, before this decisive pronouncement was really appreciated by the dis- ciples. Just before he was sent to Cornelius, bt. Peter could sav that he had never eaten anything common or unclean (Ac 10"). The principle was adopted, with concessions to Je^^^sh prejudices against meats ottered to idols, things Strang ed, aSd blood, in the letter of the Church of Jerusalem (Ac 15^). St. Paul expressed the principle in the clearest form— that all things are clean, and nothing of itself is unclean (Ro H"-^^ cf. Tit I")- 'All things are lawful ; meats for the belly, and the belly for meats : but God wiU destroy both it and them' (1 Co 6"). Nay, food perishes in the very act of use. What we can destroy must not be suflered to rule us (Col 2™""). So Christians must not permit themselves to be judged in ineat or drink (Col 2'«). But, in actual practice, both Jesus and St Paul made gracious concessions to Jewish feeling. Jesus bade the leper otter for his cleansing the things which Moses commanded (Mk 1"). And St. Paul himself, becoming' a Jew to the Jews, submitted to a rite of purihcation (Ac 21= ). This apostle laid down the great principle that Chris- tians must be governed by the law of love ; and, while we cannot make the conscience of another the measure of our own, we must exhibit always the tenderest consideration for the scruples of others, lest we jilace a stumbling-block in their way ; and, further, tliat where these scniples exist, he who entertains them must not defile his con- science by violating them. But it is clear that in the Christian atmosphere the essentially heathen idea of ceremonial uncleanness could not survive.
Literature.— The most important has been freely quoted In the article. Jlost is to be learned from W. R. Smith and Frazer (cf. also his art. 'Taboo' in the Em. Bril.^). For Arab usage Wellhausen's Jiesle Arab. Heid.^ is valuable. For non-Semitic parallels Jcvons' Intrud. to the Hist, of AW., and Spencer and billens very important work, The Native Tnhes of Central Amlralia, are most useful. The Hebrew customs are treated by Bcnzin.'er, and much more fully by Nowack, in their works on Hebrew Archaeology. Their conclusions on several points miL'ht have been modified by a more thorough study of sayaLie parallels, through which alone we can hope to understand the fsraelitish ideas and usages. Thediseussion in the 0/ Ihenl,,ues of Schiiltz, Dillmann, Siuend, and Marti may also he consulted, together with Stade's in his GVI^ i. 481-4S7. The coinm.n- tatorson Leoitinit deal with the subject; the soundest treat- ment is prohahlv that of Baentsch in Nowack's Uandkommentar. Bertholcfs commentary in Marti's Kurzer Hand-Cominentar appeared too late to be used in this article. An article by J . U. Slatthes, ' De begrippen rein en onrein in bet OT, in the i/ii ix.iiii. (1899) 293 fr., has not been read by the present writer.