question about ancient Jewish hopsitalitty

dear friends i have a hunch, but i am finding it difficult to reference, here is the passage,

Now a certain one of the Pharisees kept asking him to dine with him. Accordingly he entered into the house of the Pharisee and reclined at the table. And, look! a woman who was known in the city to be a sinner learned that he was reclining at a meal in the house of the Pharisee, and she brought an alabaster case of perfumed oil,  and, taking a position behind at his feet, she wept and started to wet his feet with her tears and she would wipe them off with the hair of her head. Also, she tenderly kissed his feet and greased them with the perfumed oil.  At the sight the Pharisee that invited him said within himself: “This man, if he were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman it is that is touching him, that she is a sinner.”  But in reply Jesus said to him: “Simon, I have something to say to you.” He said: “Teacher, say it!”
 “Two men were debtors to a certain lender; the one was in debt for five hundred denaraii, but the other for fifty.  When they did not have anything with which to pay back, he freely forgave them both. Therefore, which of them will love him the more?”  In answer Simon said: “I suppose it is the one to whom he freely forgave the more.” He said to him: “You judged correctly.”  With that he turned to the woman and said to Simon: “Do you behold this woman? I entered into your house; you gave me no water for my feet. But this woman wet my feet with her tears and wiped them off with her hair.  You gave me no kiss; but this woman, from the hour that I came in, did not leave off tenderly kissing my feet.  You did not grease my head with oil; but this woman greased my feet with perfumed oil.  By virtue of this, I tell you, her sins, many though they are, are forgiven, because she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”  Then he said to her: “Your sins are forgiven.”  At this those reclining at the table with him started to say within themselves: “Who is this man who even forgives sins?”  But he said to the woman: “Your faith has saved you; go your way in peace.” Luke 7:36-50


now my question is this, How did this lady gain access to the house of the Pharisee? some commentators have suggested that she may have mingled with the servants, however, it is unlikely because she was known, in the city and normally Pharisees would have nothing to do with women in general, never mind a known sinner.

Others have suggested that it may be a reflection of the morality of the Pharisees at the time, it being simply overlooked that a prostitute should enter a Pharisees house, although this is certainly speculative.

My own hunch is that the ancient Jews had an open house policy, so that if you were having a meal, persons could come and sit in the periphery of the room in the hope that after you guests had finished they may get something charitable to eat, and thus the lady in question could easily have come and gone. any insight most appreciated - regards Robbie.

It could be it was written a few hundred years after the events in question could have happened and since it was good story that illustrated a useful point the writer didn't bother to provide enough detail to make it seem plausible. It could actually be that the writer never contemplated someone accepting the story as a factual account. It could be written purely as a moral fable from the beginning to the end.

"There was indian prince who desired enlightenment and an evil teacher told him that he could achieve his goal by chopping off the index fingers of one-hundred people and wearing them as a necklace around his neck. He was in the market one day scouting for his final victim when the Buddha approached him and in full view of a crowd called out to him and thrust an index finger out as an offering. At that moment he achieved his goal and spent the rest of his life trying to make amends to those he had harmed."

I don't believe a word of that but it is a great story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a story is just a story.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
It could be it was written a few hundred years after the events in question could have happened and since it was good story that illustrated a useful point the writer didn't bother to provide enough detail to make it seem plausible. It could actually be that the writer never contemplated someone accepting the story as a factual account. It could be writt t is a great story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a story is just a story.

=====================================
It could be it was written a few hundred years after the events in question could have happened and since it was good story that illustrated a useful point the writer didn't bother to provide enough detail to make it seem plausible. It could actually be that the writer never contemplated someone accepting the story as a factual account. It could be written purely as a moral fable from the beginning to the end.
======================================

The place to start in evaluating this theory is with what Luke writes in his prolog.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke, one of many writers with access to eyewitnesses, carefully investigated the matters about Jesus. He writes this gospel, the result of his research, in an orderly manner to confirm what the reader has already been largely instructed about. His investigation started at the initial stages of the spread of the Christian gospel - "from the first". Eyewitnesses were still alive as is confirmed by Acts in which Luke is a traveling companion to Paul who had interactions with Peter, James, and John.

So we can assume that though the Gospel is not exhaustive in its details, it does lay out economically accurate facts concerning what Jesus did.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
It could be it was written a few hundred years after the events in question could have happened and since it was good story that illustrated a useful point the writer didn't bother to provide enough detail to make it seem plausible. It could actually be that the writer never contemplated someone accepting the story as a factual account. It could be writt ...[text shortened]... t is a great story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a story is just a story.

yes but there is no evidence to suggest such, whereas the details of the account are entirely accurate, for example the customs that were commonly denied Christ, washing of the feet, a kiss on entry, greasing the head with oil etc etc all contemporary Jewish customs, the little case of alabaster which carried the precious oils, very common at the time amoung Jewish women, even the mode of dining, as in a reclined manner all point to the authenticity of this account, the fact that the Pharisee addressed Christ as teacher, for he would have heard him teaching publicly in the temple, each and every detail points to its authenticity, the only moral lesson is actually given to the Pharisee, a lesson in forgiveness, yep it happened.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but there is no evidence to suggest such, whereas the details of the account are entirely accurate

Except for the appearance of the women. That kind of thing is a common device in 'heightened' writing: meticulous attention to every detail so that the absurd inclusion stands out. (Monty Python?)

Jay, all the sutras begin with "This I heard" - straight from the mouth of Ananda! Even the ones that in language and doctrinal style exhibit the influence of later ideas. You don't know! You believe (which is fine - keep believing, I really don't care.) Have you read it in the original? Have you made philological comparisons with contemporaneous texts? Or are you just preaching? I was trying to offer an answer top Rob's question based on the 'universal' features of the story. If you're trying to convert all of us to your sect start another thread please.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Except for the appearance of the women. That kind of thing is a common device in 'heightened' writing: meticulous attention to every detail so that the absurd inclusion stands out. (Monty Python?)

Jay, all the sutras begin with "This I heard" - straight from the mouth of Ananda! Even the ones that in language and doctrinal style exhibit the influence ...[text shortened]... story. If you're trying to convert all of us to your sect start another thread please.

Except for the appearance of the women. That kind of thing is a common device in 'heightened' writing: meticulous attention to every detail so that the absurd inclusion stands out. (Monty Python?)

so we naturally discount the entire cultural aspects, simply because its convenient for your argument, i do not think so!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so we naturally discount the entire cultural aspects, simply because its convenient for your argument, i do not think so!

I'm only offering an alternative reading which seems to me as plausible as believing that there is some unknown custom at work. I will freely admit that I am not an expert in Jewish customs in the first century AD. You could well be correct that an unknown custom is on display in this story.

Is anyone here an expert in Jewish custom? I would love to hear from them. (I would prefer not to argue for or against literalism in the subject texts because aside from their cultural and 'universal' significance they mean nothing to me - I would rather argue about Moby Dick and why the original publishing ( that began with "Call me Ishmael." ) ended with no survivors.)

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I'm only offering an alternative reading which seems to me as plausible as believing that there is some unknown custom at work. I will freely admit that I am not an expert in Jewish customs in the first century AD. You could well be correct that an unknown custom is on display in this story.

Is anyone here an expert in Jewish custom? I would love to ...[text shortened]... hy the original publishing ( that began with "Call me Ishmael." ) ended with no survivors.)

mmm, plausible, mmmmm, ok, whatever you say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dear friends i have a hunch, but i am finding it difficult to reference, here is the passage,

Now a certain one of the Pharisees kept asking him to dine with him. Accordingly he entered into the house of the Pharisee and reclined at the table. And, look! [b]a woman who was known in the city to be a sinner learned that he was reclining at a meal in ...[text shortened]... ady in question could easily have come and gone. any insight most appreciated - regards Robbie.

This assuredly a keystone episode in the teachings of Christ. An interesting pairing of scripture might be found in second corinthians chapter 12 :7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Our true strength is in our brokenness, for God uses the meek and makes them strong. this sinful woman would have been considered one of the meek by Christ, yet her faith and her humbleness exceeded that of the pharisee

Originally posted by duecer
This assuredly a keystone episode in the teachings of Christ. An interesting pairing of scripture might be found in second corinthians chapter 12 :7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I ...[text shortened]... idered one of the meek by Christ, yet her faith and her humbleness exceeded that of the pharisee

Yes my friend, no doubt. what is really interesting is the contrast in hospitality, the Pharisee neglected to do for the Christ what should have been incumbent upon him, the lady, did it to an extraordinary degree. for example, we can safely say that the oil which she poured upon Christs head and feet was probably the most expensive item that the lady owned. because of the mixing of the ingredients it costs a fortune! there is another instance when someone else anoints the Christ and was scolded because of the expense, up to a years wages. also she wipes his feet with her hair, in the east as in the west, a ladies hair is regarded as a precious ornament, the scriptures indicate that it was given to her, as a glory! yet this lady wiped Christs feet with her hair in an extraordinary show of hospitality. she could have used a cloth or a napkin, usually set aside for the purpose, but chose not to! its astonishing when you think about it. her reward for showing hospitality? she received forgiveness for her sins and got life!