1. Interpretations of πυγμῇ

Critics have proposed numerous interpretations of πυγμῇ. First, it might mean to put the clenched fist of one hand into the hollow of the other and rub.Footnote ² Martin Hengel found this interpretation already in the works of Beza, Scaliger, Grotius and Calov, as well as in numerous nineteenth-century commentaries.Footnote ³ This interpretation accords with the case of the word, which is best understood as an instrumental dative.Footnote ⁴ However, it does not accord with the Jewish ritual, which was not a washing or scrubbing, but simply a rinsing, in which water was poured over the hands from a vessel.Footnote ⁵ The rabbinic regulations concerning rinsing the hands say nothing about rubbing the palm of one hand with the fist of the other.Footnote ⁶ The one reference to rubbing one hand on the other refers not to washing but to drying. If a person poured water over only one hand and then rubbed it on the other to dry it, the rinsed hand became unclean. However, if he rubbed it on his head or the wall, it did not become unclean.Footnote ⁷

In a second type of interpretation, πυγμῇ referred to the shape in which one held the hands. According to some critics, the term meant to clench the fist while an attendant poured water over it.Footnote ⁸ However, a clenched fist would prevent the water from reaching every part of the palm.

In a variation of this view, Stephen Reynolds thought that Mark referred to ‘cupped’ hands:

The New Living Translation (2005) followed Reynolds's suggestion: ‘until they have poured water over their cupped hands’.

Reynolds gave two different translations of πυγμῇ. Within the text of his article, he translated it as a participial phrase: ‘cupping the hand’. However, πυγμῇ could not have this meaning because it is not a participle, but a noun in the dative case. Reynolds took this as a dative of respect, but this would mean ‘with respect to a fist’, not ‘cupping the hand’.Footnote ¹⁰ In the title of his article, Reynolds translated πυγμῇ as ‘cupped hand’. However, πυγμῇ does not have this meaning either. It refers to a clenched fist, and from this primary meaning came the derived meaning of ‘boxing’ or ‘fisticuffs’.Footnote ¹¹ The related term πύκτης means ‘boxer’ or ‘pugilist’. Pugilists, then as now, fought with fists, not cupped hands. If Mark had wanted to refer to a ‘cupped’ hand, he would have used the adjective κοίλος, literally meaning ‘hollow’. The phrase ‘with a cupped hand’ would be expressed as χειρὶ κοίλῃ (lit. ‘with a hollow hand’). For example, Lucian used a similar phrase in one of his dialogues: ἀρυσάμενος κοίλῃ τῇ χειρί, meaning ‘drawing (water) for yourself with the hand cupped’.Footnote ¹² Strato provided another example: τὴν χείρα μοι κοίλην προσενήνοχας (addressed to a beggar), meaning ‘You have held out your hand to me cupped.’Footnote ¹³

James G. Crossley gave essentially the same explanation as Reynolds, proposing that Jews who rinsed their hands held them ‘in the shape (or form) of a fist’ in order to cover the hands fully with the least amount of water. He supposed that the fists were sufficiently relaxed that water would seep through the fingers to cover enough of the hand for purification.Footnote ¹⁴ Like Reynolds, Crossley derived this meaning from πυγμῇ by interpreting it as a dative of respect. Once again, however, if πυγμῇ were a dative of respect, it would mean ‘with respect to a fist’. It would not mean ‘in the shape of a fist’, which would be expressed by ἐν σχήματι πυγμῆς. For example, Nicolas Cabasilas used ἐν σχήματι in this way when he referred to the tongues of fire in Acts 2.3 as fire ἐν σχήματι γλώσσης, ‘in the shape of a tongue’.Footnote ¹⁵

In a third interpretation, some critics take πυγμῇ to mean ‘with a handful (of water)’.Footnote ¹⁶ Hengel traced this explanation back to Wettstein, who supposed that ‘a handful’ corresponded approximately to 1/4 log, which was the least amount of water permissible for the rite of rinsing the hands.Footnote ¹⁷ This explanation faces the objection that πυγμή means ‘fist’, not ‘fistful’. Hengel circumvented this objection by supposing that πυγμή in Mark's usage was a Latinism. In Latin the word corresponding to πυγμή (pugnus) can mean either ‘fist’ or ‘handful’.Footnote ¹⁸

This explanation still faces several objections. First, Mark had no need for a Latinism since he could have used the term δράξ, the normal Greek word for ‘handful’.Footnote ¹⁹ Second, even if πυγμή meant ‘handful’, it does not mean ‘handful of water’. Hengel had to suppose both a Latinism not otherwise attested and an ellipsis in the same expression. Third, even if ‘a handful’ corresponded to the 1/4 log mentioned in rabbinic literature, the handwashing ritual was not limited to 1/4 log. This was simply the minimum amount of water that could be used.Footnote ²⁰ If Mark's expression meant ‘with a handful of water’, it would imply that the practitioners always used this amount of water, when presumably they often used more.Footnote ²¹ To accurately describe the ritual, Mark would have had to say ‘with at least a handful of water’. This, however, is not expressed by πυγμῇ.

A fourth interpretation is based on the fact that the noun πυγμή can mean not only ‘fist’, but also a measurement of length, specifically the length of a forearm, from the knuckles to the elbow.Footnote ²² In this sense, it corresponds to the ‘short cubit’.Footnote ²³ This meaning forms the basis for the paraphrase ‘up to the elbow’.Footnote ²⁴ The Jerusalem Bible (1966) adopted this translation (‘as far as the elbow’). The same interpretation appears in the Revised Patriarchal Greek Orthodox New Testament (1904): ‘unless they wash their hands and forearms’. However, the dative case of πυγμῇ would be an awkward way to express this idea (‘they rinse the hands with respect to a cubit’).Footnote ²⁵ The meaning ‘up to the elbow’ would be expressed not by πυγμῇ, but by μέχρι τοῦ ἀγκῶνος. For example, Hippocrates referred to a man who had his hand festering ‘up to the elbow’ (μέχρι τοῦ ἀγκῶνος).Footnote ²⁶ Even if πυγμῇ could mean ‘up to the elbow’, it would not apply to the Jewish ritual. While rinsing to the elbow fits the Islamic practice of ritual washing before prayer (Quran 5.6), it does not agree with Jewish practice at a meal, in which the hands were considered clean or unclean only to the wrist.Footnote ²⁷

This fact leads to a fifth suggestion: that πυγμῇ means ‘up to the wrist’.Footnote ²⁸ Hengel traced this explanation to John Lightfoot.Footnote ²⁹ It was adopted in Young's Literal Translation (1862): ‘if they do not wash the hands to the wrist’. Linguistically, however, it is difficult to derive this meaning from πυγμῇ.Footnote ³⁰ The term for ‘wrist’ in Greek was καρπός, or more fully καρπὸς τῆς χειρός.Footnote ³¹ The phrase ‘up to the wrist’ would be expressed as μέχρι τοῦ καρποῦ. For example, Sozomen refers to an angel whose hand was seen only ‘up to the wrist’ (μέχρι τοῦ καρποῦ).Footnote ³²

Because no one has ever plausibly explained the meaning of ‘with a fist’, a number of critics have regarded this term as the result of an error. A few have explained it as a mistranslation of an Aramaic word. According to C. C. Torrey, the original Aramaic meant ‘not at all’, construed with the following verb: ‘they eat not at all’.Footnote ³³ According to P. R. Weis, the original Aramaic meant ‘with the (special) pitcher’, construed with the preceding clause: ‘unless they rinse their hands with the (special) pitcher’.Footnote ³⁴ Neither suggestion, however, has gained any degree of assent.Footnote ³⁵ These suggestions assume that an Aramaic source stood behind the current Greek text. However, the context in which πυγμῇ occurs (Mark 7.3–4) was apparently added by Mark to a pre-existing story in order to explain Jewish customs to his primarily Gentile audience. Mark inserted these verses into the middle of a sentence, breaking the original connection between 7.2 and 7.5. As Markan redaction, these verses probably originated in Greek and never existed in Aramaic.

T. C. Skeat attributed the term to a mistake in the autograph. Immediately before this term, Mark mistakenly wrote ἐὰν μή (‘unless’) twice and crossed out one instance of this phrase. However, the scribe to whom he gave the manuscript to copy mistakenly restored the crossed-out expression as πυγμῇ.Footnote ³⁶ This suggestion, unfortunately, has nothing to support it except speculation.

W. D. McHardy proposed that the term originated as a marginal gloss. A scribe took the term from Exod 21.18 and placed it in the margin at Mark 7.10, which cites Exod 21.17. A copyist then moved it from the margin into Mark 7.3.Footnote ³⁷ J. M. Ross subsequently gave four good reasons to reject this explanation.Footnote ³⁸

Numerous critics have concluded that the term πυγμῇ is incomprehensible. Julius Wellhausen remarked that no one knows what it means.Footnote ³⁹ Likewise M. Eugene Boring concluded, ‘The precise meaning … is not known’.Footnote ⁴⁰ Critics have often reaffirmed Henry Barclay Swete's judgement, that ‘no explanation hitherto offered is wholly satisfactory’.Footnote ⁴¹ Because of the uncertain meaning of this word, it was left untranslated in several Bible translations, including the Revised Standard Version (1952), the New English Bible (1970) and the Revised English Bible (1989). Others have translated it with a vague generality: ‘unless they wash their hands in a particular way’ (An American Translation, 1923) or ‘in a special way’ (New King James Version, 1982); ‘unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing’ (New International Version, 1978); or ‘unless they wash their hands properly’ (English Standard Version, 2001).

2. Interpretations of πυκνά

Efforts to find a satisfactory meaning for πυγμῇ have probably come to a dead end. Further efforts are unlikely to produce results that are any more satisfactory than those obtained thus far. Yet surprisingly few critics have sought an alternative explanation in textual criticism. The editors of UBS⁵ adopted the reading πυγμῇ with an ‘A’ level of certainty because it is the more difficult reading. They assumed that its difficulty prompted some copyists to omit it and others to replace it with a word that gives a better sense.Footnote ⁴² Westcott and Hort previously made the same assumption.Footnote ⁴³ K. L. Schmidt expressed the same view.Footnote ⁴⁴

It is true that the more difficult reading is to be preferred when a scribe made an intentional change. A scribe would be more likely to revise away difficult wording intentionally than to create it intentionally. Textual critics sometimes state this principle without qualification as lectio difficilior potior (‘the more difficult reading is preferable’), as if it were always true. In fact, however, this criterion applies only to intentional changes. It does not apply when the text has been corrupted unintentionally by an error. As Hyeon Woo Shin observed, ‘The criterion preferring the more difficult reading appears to contradict the criterion rejecting scribal mistakes, for readings caused by scribal mistake could appear to be more difficult.’Footnote ⁴⁵ A scribal mistake often introduced into the wording some difficulty or confusion that was not there before. In such cases, when the text has undergone corruption, the less difficult wording is generally more primitive.

In the case of πυγμῇ, ‘it seems likely that the text is corrupt’, because no one has ever found a plausible meaning for it.Footnote ⁴⁶ This fact justifies taking a closer look at the variant reading πυκνά. Constantinus Tischendorf adopted this reading in his final critical edition of the Greek text.Footnote ⁴⁷ From the perspective of Jewish practice, Strack and Billerbeck also supported it.Footnote ⁴⁸ Adolf Schlatter considered it a possibility.Footnote ⁴⁹

This reading appears in the Greek majuscules א and W. Apparently several Latin witnesses also read πυκνά, giving its normal meaning of ‘repeatedly, frequently, or often’. The Old Latin it^b rendered it as subinde (‘repeatedly’), while it^{f l} and the Vulgate translated it as crebro (‘repeatedly, frequently, often’).Footnote ⁵⁰ Likewise, the Coptic Bohairic translated it as ṇoumēš ṇsop, meaning ‘many times, repeatedly’.Footnote ⁵¹ Following the Vulgate, all the early English translations through the King James Version (1611) gave the translation ‘oft’ or ‘oft tymes’.Footnote ⁵² The Douay-Rheims American Edition (1899) has ‘often’.

The Syriac Peshitta and the Syriac Harklensis (both bṭîla’ît), the Ethiopic version (baḥǝqqu) and the Arabic Diatessaron (ğaslan) give translations that mean ‘diligently’ or ‘carefully’.Footnote ⁵³ Some critics have thought that these versions were translating πυγμῇ, taking ‘with a fist’ to mean ‘vigorously’, or ‘with care’.Footnote ⁵⁴ J. M. Ross, for example, suggested that ‘to clean with the fist’ was a common way to denote any thorough cleansing.Footnote ⁵⁵ However, this conjecture lacks any substantiation. It is more likely that the ancient versions that gave this translation based it on the variant reading πυκνά (‘repeatedly’), paraphrasing this as ‘diligently’. Both UBS⁵ and NA²⁸ cite these versions as witnesses for the reading πυκνά. Numerous English translations since the King James have given a similar translation.Footnote ⁵⁶ This interpretation explains the translations ‘diligently’ in the American Standard Version (1901), ‘scrupulously’ in the New American Bible (1970), ‘carefully’ in the New American Standard Bible (1971) and the Common English Bible (2011), and ‘thoroughly’ in the New Revised Standard Version (1989). However, the rabbinic sources do not describe a thorough cleansing but simply a rinsing, and neither πυγμῇ nor πυκνά actually has these meanings.

3. πυκνά as ‘Repeatedly’

The Greek lexica give the meaning of πυκνά as ‘often’ or ‘frequently’.Footnote ⁵⁷ In reality, this word conveys a wider range of nuances, including ‘repeatedly’. For example, in the Argonautica, when Medea, at home at night, impatiently waited for dawn, πυκνὰ δ’ ἀνὰ κληῖδας ἑῶν λύεσκε θυράων, αἴγλην σκεπτομένη (‘repeatedly, then, she loosened the bolts of her doors, watching for daylight’).Footnote ⁵⁸ Likewise in Joseph and Asenath, when Asenath was in distress, ἐπάτασσε τῇ χειρὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτῆς πυκνά (‘she beat her breast with her hand repeatedly’).Footnote ⁵⁹ For the Latin translations subinde (it^b) and crebro (it^{f l} vg), the Latin lexica do give the meaning ‘repeatedly’ as an option.Footnote ⁶⁰

The translation ‘repeatedly’ best fits the practice described in the Mishnah and other rabbinic literature. When devout Jews ate, they rinsed their hands before the meal, after the meal, and sometimes during the meal if it consisted of more than one course.Footnote ⁶¹ Furthermore, each rinsing involved pouring water on the hands twice. The ‘first water’ purified the hands but thereby became unclean itself. The ‘second water’ therefore purified the first water that remained on the hands.Footnote ⁶² Thus Jews who practised this rite rinsed their hands repeatedly during the course of a single meal: twice before the meal, twice after, and often twice or more during. Against this background for Mark 7.3, the reading πυκνά in the sense ‘repeatedly’ gives excellent sense: ‘unless they rinse their hands repeatedly, they do not eat’.Footnote ⁶³

Since the Mishnah was compiled more than a century after Mark wrote his gospel, it is necessary to consider whether the Jewish practices described there correspond to those current in Mark's day. In the present case, there is little reason for concern about this issue. In Mark 7.3–4, Mark mentions a number of Jewish practices relating to immersion. These correspond quite well to the practices described in the Mishnah and other rabbinic literature.Footnote ⁶⁴ These rabbinic sources, therefore, probably provide relevant background for the practice of rinsing hands, just as they do for the other practices that Mark mentioned in the same context.

It appears likely, then, that Mark originally wrote πυκνά in the sense ‘repeatedly’. This word became corrupted to πυγμῇ through a scribal error. While we cannot know for certain how this error arose, the manuscript tradition suggests one possibility. The immediate context of this word originally read μη πυκνα. Apparently a copyist started to write this, but through a mental error duplicated the μη and wrote instead μη πυκμη.Footnote ⁶⁵ This variant has been preserved in Codex Bezae (D). After the first copyist made this initial mistake, a subsequent scribe, finding the unknown word πυκμη, may have regarded it as a misspelling of πυγμη and changed it accordingly. In this way, perhaps, rinsing ‘repeatedly’ became rinsing ‘with a fist’.