Mark and Matthew invent a means of protecting progeny that permits them to misinterpret Lev 18:22 and 20:13

Mark 7:1-30

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”  And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

Matthew 15:1-28

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly

This parshah is usually divided into three separate readings, the first dealing with the practice of washing hands and the “prophecy,” the second dealing with the issue of defilement as it pertains to intent and speech rather than as it pertains to cleanliness, the third dealing with the woman who has a possessed daughter.  Dividing the parshah into three separate readings, however, interrupts the continuity.

Both the Markan and the Matthean narratives maintain the same structure:  Jesus is confronted about his lack of hygiene, he claims that his antagonists are hypocrites and cites “prophecy” to support his claim, and he finds a woman whose daughter is possessed.

The details of the narratives give some indication of the cultural location of the redactor.  In the Markan narrative, the redactor informs the audience in a parenthetical statement that it is the custom of the Pharisees and the Judeans to wash their hands before eating, and that they have a custom of washing eating utensils.  From this parenthetical instruction, we can infer that the audience of this narrative was not Judean, or they would have had no need of explanation.

The Matthean narrative lacks the instructional aside. 

Both the Markan and the Matthean narratives cite Isaiah as their source for the claim that the Pharisees are hypocrites.  The Markan narrative follows the citation with an instructional coda that the Pharisees have left the command of God for the tradition of men.  Again, we would note that if the intended audience were Judean, there would be no need of this extra explanation.  The Matthean narrative lacks this instructional coda.  The Matthean narrative, however, inserts a brief discourse on the nature of cavod av v’em (honoring father and mother), which the Markan narrative places after the discussion of hygiene.

The matter of objecting to washing hands and utensils because it is minhag (custom/tradition) and not halakhah (command/law) is interesting.   It would seem that because washing is not stipulated among the commands, Jesus understands it to be an extraneous practice.  The likelihood that this notion would come from a Judean author/redactor is small.   The likelihood that it would come from a Greco-Roman author/redactor, whose cultural practices did not include that specific of hygiene is greater.

            The Markan understanding of both cavod av v’em (honoring parents) and corban is bizarre.  The author says: “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother…”  The use of “corban” is intended to indicate that the speaker is “authentically” Judean.  However, there is no provision in halakhah (jewish law) for anyone to be exempt from cavod av v’em because what would have been given to the parent was given instead to God.  That is simply an impossibly bizarre and incorrect understanding of both the command to honor parents, and of the nature of the sacrifice to God. 

The Matthean narrative abbreviates that discourse:  “For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’”  The Matthean author omits the reference to “corban” but preserves the bizarre understanding of cavod av v’em.

Both the Markan and the Matthean narratives then turn to the matter of defilement by speech rather than by lack of hygiene.  The Markan narrative contains a description of the anatomical progress of food, with a parenthetical comment that this somehow rendered kashrut nul because the food does not enter the heart.  The Matthean narrative omits the nullification of kashruth, but addresses the notion that God will uproot whatever God had not planted (which, presumably, means that God does not approve of hand-washing before eating).  Both conclude by observing that what comes out of the mouth that originates in the heart defiles a person.

Then both the Markan and the Matthean narratives recount the tale of the woman whose daughter is possessed.       Mark calls the woman “syrophoenecian.”  Syrophoenecia was the large Roman province of Syria which encompassed most of what is today modern Syria and Lebanon, in addition to parts of southeastern Turkey.  The Markan author/redactor used the designation “Syrophoenecian” to demonstrate narrative is Greco-Roman.  The Matthean author/redactor calls the woman “Canaanite.”  The area known as Canaan is modern-day Israel, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and the western parts of Jordan and Syria.  The Matthean author/redactor sed to assert “Judaic” authenticity of narrative.

In the Markan narrative, the woman comes out and begs him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  In the Matthean narrative, the woman identifies him as “Lord” and “son of David.”   He ignores her.  His disciples intercede for her.  He tells them he was sent for the “lost sheep of Israel.”  As with identifying her as “Canaanite,” this is meant to indicate the “authentic Judeanness” of the narratve.

In the Markan narrative, Jesus tells her to feed her child first, because it is not right to give the child’s bread to dogs.  The woman replies that the dogs eat the child’s crumbs, meaning the child eats first.  In the Matthean narrative, Jesus tells the woman that it is not right to take the child’s food and throw it to dogs.  The woman replies that dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table, meaning she feeds the child before the dogs.

While the phrasing is different, the intent of both is the same:  it is an inversion of cavod av v’em.  Cavod av v’em, respect/honor father and mother, is stipulated among commands.  Cavod yeled (respect child) is not unless you consider that to be the intent behind the prohibition against disowning one’s progeny in Lev 18”22 and 20:133.  However, since that reading of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 was revised to something entirely different byGreco-Romans who adopted themselves into Judean heritage according to the formula they found in Philo, they had to find another way of making the same stipulation.  This seems to be how they accomplished that.  The irony, of course, is that in the beginning of the parshah, Jesus accused Judeans of hypocrisy for adhering to man’s traditions over God’s command.  Yet here, Jesus has created a new, human-made tradition because the command that governs the act was reinterpreted to mean something it does not mean.  This tells us more clearly than anything else possibly could that this tradition, in both the Markan and Matthean narratives, has its origins with the Greco-Romans who adopted themselves into Judean heritage for the purpose of claiming ownership of the text.  Because any Judean would know the matter of cavod yeled is included in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.