The Minor, Trivial Stuff Thread

[patrick457]

It would appear that Elizabeth was related to St.Joseph of Arimathae uncle to Mary and latter day guardian of Jesus and Mary - twinc

Hmm, that’s interesting. Source?

 

[patrick457]

Since I might as well post something for the moment…

The Ten Words (more popularly known as “Ten Commandments”) as given in Exodus 20 are not clearly divided: there are at least up to fourteen or fifteen imperatives in it. It was thus up to various people how to parse these up into ten.

Let us first go into the so-called Philonic Division. Our Catholic readers might recognize these as the division usually employed by many Protestants, that it sometimes has an infamous reputation among some as the ‘Protestant Division’ of the Commandments: what is not so well-known among both sides is that this is also the one usually employed by the Eastern Churches. Now, why is it called ‘Philonic’? The simple answer is because it is found in the writings of Philo and Josephus, who both employ this reckoning - out of the three (Philonic, Augustinian, Talmudic/Rabbinic), this one is apparently the earliest:

Now the most excellent five were of this character, they related to the monarchial principle on which the world is governed; to images and statues, and in short to all erections of any kind made by hand; to the duty of not taking the name of God in vain; to that of keeping the holy seventh day in a manner worthy of its holiness; to paying honour to parents both separately to each, and commonly to both. So that of the one table the beginning is the God and Father and Creator of the universe; and the end are one’s parents, who imitate his nature, and so generate the particular individuals. And the other table of five contains all the prohibitions against adulteries, and murder, and theft, and false witness, and covetousness.

• Philo, De Decalogo 12.51

Having said this, he led the people forward, together with the women and children, so that they might hear God converse with them concerning what they must do, in order that the excellence of spoken words might not be harmed by a human tongue in being transmitted to their knowledge. All heard a voice coming from on high to all, so that none of the ten sayings escaped them that Moyses left inscribed on the two tablets. It is not permitted for us to speak them openly verbatim, but we shall reveal their contents.

The first saying teaches us that God is one and that it is necessary to worship him alone. The second bids us to make an image of no living being or to worship it, the third to swear by God on nothing insignificant, the fourth to observe the seventh days by ceasing from all work, the fifth to honor parents, the sixth to desist from murder (φόνου), the seventh not to commit adultery, the eighth not to engage in theft, the ninth not to bear false witness, and the tenth to desire (ἐπιθυμίαν) nothing belonging to another.

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3.89-92 (5.5)

I have heard some express this idea that this division was formulated by Protestants just to give a justification for the iconoclastic tendencies some movements had directed against the Romish ‘superstition’. Even so, I believe that this is a gross misconception that must be put to rest, as we have here evidence that this division had already existed before Protestantism even came into the scene.

Also, we cannot say it was done for iconoclastic purposes or that each and everyone of those who use the division are ‘iconoclastic’, since we would have to accuse the Eastern Churches - who use imagery as well and have themselves took a good deal of damage during the Iconoclast heresy in the 8th-9th centuries, as well as Origen (who did adopt it in his Homilies on Exodus, Homily 8 On the Beginning of the Decalogue), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (The Decalogue of Moses) and St. Jerome (Commentary on Ephesians 6) of being iconoclastic themselves.

 

[SnakeMauler]

To give many people a break from the oft-heated (fiery!) debates of this subforum, I’d like to open this thread. Now by “minor stuff” I mean the small, ‘trivial’ things related to the Bible that never make it in serious high discussion; say, things like “how were Biblical Jews clothed?” or “What was a Roman soldier’s armor like?” or “How did houses look like?” or even “Were there already tallitot in those days?”

Now, does anybody have a suggestion as to what ‘minor’ thingie we shall tackle first? Anyone?

I was reading the book of Matthew last night and it makes the trip to Egypt sound so casual. Isn’t it a long ways? Aren’t there robbers, sandstorms, and sand people? Where did they stay? Were there hotels in Egypt? What sort of things did they pack along the way probably?

 

[patrick457]

The second is the so-called Talmudic Division used by Jews today, and one that appears - or at least inferred - in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Makkot 24a). Since some readers may not be familiar with it, here is how the commandments are divided.

1.) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2.) You shall have no other gods before me.
3.) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
4.) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5.) Honor your father and your mother.
6.) You shall not murder.
7.) You shall not commit adultery.
8.) You shall not steal.
9.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.) You shall not covet.

The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (usually dated to around the 7th century, or perhaps even much later into the medieval period) says this in its version of Exodus 20:

The first word, as it came forth from the mouth of the Holy One, whose Name be blessed, was like storms, and lightnings, and flames of fire, with a burning light on His right hand and on His left. It winged its way through the air of the heavens, and was made manifest unto the camp of Israel, and returned, and was engraved on the tablets of the covenant that were given by the hand of Mosheh, and were turned in them from side to side: and then called He, and said, “Sons of Israel, my people, I am the Lord your God, who brought you out free from the land of Mizraim, from the house of the bondage of slaves.”

The second word which came forth from the mouth of the Holy One, whose Name be blessed, was like storms, and lightnings, and flames of fire. A burning light was on His right hand and on His left and was borne through the air of the heavens, returned, and was made manifest unto the camp of Israel; it returned, and was engraved on the tablets of the covenant, and was turned in them from side to side. Then called He, and said, "*House of Israel, my people, you shall have no other God besides me. You shall not make to yourselves image or figure, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, or worship before them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God and an avenger, punishing with vengeance, recording the guilt of wicked fathers upon rebellious children unto the third and unto the fourth generation of them who hate me; but keeping mercy and goodness for thousands of generations of the righteous who love me, and who keep my commandments and my laws.

My people of the house of Israel, let no one of you swear by the name of the Word of the Lord your God in vain; for in the day of the great judgment the Lord will not hold guiltless any one who swears by His name in vain…*"

There is a Jewish legend about how God only was just done saying two commandments when the people, terrified of the Divine voice and the various phenomena, asked Moses speak instead. Rashi in his Commentary on Exodus 19:19 refers to it:

When Moses would speak and make the Decalogue heard to Israel - for they heard from the mouth of God only “I am…” and “You shall not have” (Makkot 24a) - the Holy One, blessed be He, would assist him [Moses] by giving him strength so that his voice would be strong and audible.

Not surprisingly, writers such as Maimonides (in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot) used this division. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Deuteronomy, notes that while “all the scholars of antiquity believed that the First Commandment is ‘I am’”, thinks it odd that God would give two commandments straight and only then pause, which led him to propose that ‘I am the LORD’ is the preamble “[introducing] the Commander”, while the first commandment is “You shall no other gods”. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” would be the ninth commandment, while not coveting your neighbor’s wife is the tenth.

In his anti-Christian polemic Against the Galileans, Julian the Apostate - as quoted by St. Cyril of Jerusalem - shows that he is also familiar with this reckoning or something similar to it, which may show that this also has quite a bit of an early origin (Julian reigned from 360 to 363):

That is a surprising law of Moses, I mean the famous decalogue! “Thou shalt not steal.” “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” But let me write out word for word every one of the commandments which he says were written by God himself.

“I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” Then follows the second: “Thou shalt have no other gods but me.” “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” And then he adds the reason : " For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third generation." “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” “Remember the sabbath day.” “Honour thy father and thy mother.” " Thou shalt not commit adultery." “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not steal.” “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” “Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbour’s.”

Now except for the command “Thou shalt not worship other gods,” and “Remember the sabbath day,” what nation is there, I ask in the name of the gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other commandments? So much so that penalties have been ordained against those who transgress them, sometimes more severe, and sometimes similar to those enacted by Moses, though they are sometimes more humane.

 

[Spirithound]

I was reading the book of Matthew last night and it makes the trip to Egypt sound so casual. Isn’t it a long ways? Aren’t there robbers, sandstorms, and sand people? Where did they stay? Were there hotels in Egypt? What sort of things did they pack along the way probably?

It does, doesn’t it? Well, the distance from Cairo to Bethlehem is approximately 500 km. I picked Cairo because it’s a nice central-ish location in the Nile Delta, but the Holy Family could have chosen any number of tiny villages or big cities like Alexandria (northwest part of the Delta) or Memphis (20 km south of modern Cairo) all across the Delta and Lower (northern) Egypt. So this could have taken them 1-2 months.

The danger of robbers and sandstorms is probably substantial (of course sand people are either harmless, or robbers ), so it is likely that they joined in a trade caravan going down to Egypt, or possibly, did Jews go to the Temple for Hannukah?

We have speculated on these fora before that they supported themselves with the gifts the Magi brought Baby Jesus. Remember these were kings visiting Him, and so they probably did not come just the three of them on one horse each, but more likely a whole entourage with them, and the gifts, as befitting another King, were equally lavish.

That just gave me another idea! Joseph probably could have spent some of that gold on a horse and carriage for them. That would cut down the travel time required. They probably had to leave just about everything behind, and so the rest of the gold would have bought them a house and Joseph some new carpentry tools to support them further.

 

[Thing]

(Did’nt Flash Gordon fight the sand people, or was it mud men. I don’t suppose that was Biblical though. )

 

[patrick457]

The danger of robbers and sandstorms is probably substantial (of course sand people are either harmless, or robbers ), so it is likely that they joined in a trade caravan going down to Egypt, or possibly, did Jews go to the Temple for Hannukah?

Yes. Joining a caravan is pretty much the main option if you’re a traveller on foot; the chance of danger betiding you is much lower when journeying with other folks than if you were alone.

We have speculated on these fora before that they supported themselves with the gifts the Magi brought Baby Jesus. Remember these were kings visiting Him, and so they probably did not come just the three of them on one horse each, but more likely a whole entourage with them, and the gifts, as befitting another King, were equally lavish.

Ah, you must remember this though. Identifying these magoi as ‘kings’ is probably an attempt by later Christians to link Old Testament prophecies such as that in Psalm 68:29, 72:10, and Isaiah 60:3 to Jesus (and while we’re at it, no we don’t exactly know whether there were three of them, despite what certain Christmas carols might tell us!): we do know however that this identification was an old one, since St. Caesarius of Arles (d. 542) and the writer of the Syriac work The Cave of Treasures take this idea for granted.

Based on their usages, we can infer four meanings for the Greek term magos - one is the original, the others are secondary:

1) A member of the Persian priestly caste (the original meaning); by extension, to learned men and priests who specialized in astrology and dream interpretation - one needs to realize that at that time, the line between science and superstition was very blurry; astronomy and astrology, for example, were only gradually recognized as separate in western 17th century philosophy.
2) Possessors of supernatural knowledge/power
3) ‘Magicians’ (the other instances of magos in the NT are in this sense: for example, Simon Magus and Elymas aka Bar-Iesous in the book of Acts; also used in the Septuagint and Theodotion version of Daniel to describe the court ‘magicians’ of Babylon)
4) (In some instances in Classical Greek literature) Deceivers or charlatans, who use sleight of hand to give the appearance of achieving supernatural effects

Commonly today Matthew’s magoi is identified as being around the first category. The later identification with ‘kings’ (which is not originally implied by the word) is more to tie up the Old and the New spritually: if anything, historical magoi were servants of kings!

One interpretation I’ve heard of is that Matthew’s original audience would have caught on both the positive and the negative meanings that the term magoi imply: that God chose such men to receive His revelation is a sign not so much of their wisdom but of their foolishness and ignorance, on the principle set out in Matthew 11:25: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.” In fact, some Church Fathers apparently even interpreted the magi in a negative way: they were seen as opponents of the true religion who came to bow in submission to the conquering Messiah. St. Ignatius of Antioch says for example in his Epistle to the Ephesians (19.2-3):

How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.

 

[patrick457]

Where did they stay?

Egypt was a natural place to stay if you’re a Jew seeking political asylum. The Roman province of Aegyptus is big enough, and it’s just beside Judaea province.

Also, as early as the third century B.C. one can speak of a widespread diaspora of Jews in many Egyptian towns and cities (even before that, there already existed Jewish communities in certain areas of the land). Josephus claimed that after Ptolemy I Soter took Judea, he led some 120,000 Jewish captives to Egypt from the areas of Judea, Jerusalem, Samaria, and Mount Gerizim. With them, many other Jews, attracted by the fertile soil and Ptolemy’s liberality, emigrated there of their own accord. Soon after, these 120,000 captives were freed of their bondage by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. As time went on, further waves of Jewish immigrants settled in Egypt, especially around Alexandria. Thus, their history in this period centers almost completely on Alexandria, though daughter communities rose up in places like the present Kafr ed-Dawar, and Jews served in the administration as custodians of the river.

Jews were numerous in Alexandria from the very outset, forming a notable portion of the city’s population under Alexander the Great’s successors. The Ptolemies assigned them a separate section, two of the five districts of the city, to enable them to keep their laws pure of indigenous cultic influences. Alexandrian Jews enjoyed a greater degree of political independence than elsewhere. While the Jews elsewhere throughout the later Roman Empire formed private societies for religious purposes, or else became a corporation of foreigners like the Egyptian and Phoenician merchants in the large commercial centers, those of Alexandria constituted an independent political community, side by side with that of the indigenous population. You must also remember that it was Alexandrian Jews who gave us the Septuagint!

Given these, the Holy Family would not have found themselves in a totally foreign land there. They could have even dwelt with some of these communities (perhaps it’s even possible that they also lived in Alexandria along with these folk).

Were there hotels in Egypt?

An extensive network of temporary lodgings did exist at that time (stopovers and commercial lodgings were at times located at intervals of a day’s journey), though I don’t know how many there were in Egypt.

The quality of lodging establishments in the ancient Roman world vary. While in some establishments, you do get to have a decent lodging - especially if you had the money, there are some ‘inns’ in those days which are so basic, that at times they generally consisted of nothing more than an extra room made on the floor of someone’s house and rented out to paying strangers (this, of course, is the origin of the whole inn business: renting out temporary lodging space for a fee; we must also note that a number of inns back then were converted private houses). Establishments of the latter type were more cheaper, but they were more uncomfortable: try imagining a small cramped room, which may or may not be infested with bugs and pests, with dirty walls covered with graffiti, and little to no furniture. Plus, lower-quality establishments were usually much frequented by the lower-class, slaves, and people of a seedy reputation, and could at times also double as a brothel; such were thus regarded by ‘decent’ people as a den of crime and immorality.

So what other options did people back then? They relied on the goodwill of people who would let them stay in their house. Rich and important folk often sought and found accomodations in the dwellings of other upper-class people and dignitaries, if they had no villas of their own in their destination; the poor had no other choice but to find accomodation with their (distant) relations or relied on total strangers for hospitality. Now Jews, true to their Near Eastern heritage, generally took pride in hospitality, considering it good manners and an act of piety to let a weary traveller inside their own abode.

By the way, remember the ‘inn’ of Luke 2:7? Based on the original Greek word and the historical context, this traditional rendering may be incorrect: so no, the Holy Family probably did not encounter any innkeepers (in the true sense of the word) in the little town of Bethlehem as well.

 

[patrick457]

That just gave me another idea! Joseph probably could have spent some of that gold on a horse and carriage for them. That would cut down the travel time required. They probably had to leave just about everything behind, and so the rest of the gold would have bought them a house and Joseph some new carpentry tools to support them further.

Just question: why a horse?

BTW, two caravan routes were available, one through Hebron and Beersheba and across the desert, and the other going southwest toward Gaza, where they would pick up the route of the coastal plain.

SnakeMauler:

What sort of things did they pack along the way probably?

Probably just the necessary stuff: change of clothing, perhaps a bit of food and drink for the journey, and some cash (the gift of the magi comes in handy here).

 

[didymus]

Here’s a really short, minor nitpick:

God did not punish the Israelites with forty years’ wandering because of the sin of the Golden Calf - contrary to Cecil B. DeMille! (At least, it was not the main reason for that).

I read a book by a rabbi once that speculated the Lord forced/permitted his people to wander for forty years so that two generations would be born and very few who entered the Promised Land would have personal memories of having been slaves in Egypt.

Place in the “Interesting if True” file.

 

[patrick457]

I read a book by a rabbi once that speculated the Lord forced/permitted his people to wander for forty years so that two generations would be born and very few who entered the Promised Land would have personal memories of having been slaves in Egypt.

Place in the “Interesting if True” file.

Hmm, interesting indeed.
Now, for the Biblical account:

And much livestock had been to the sons of Reuben and to the sons of Gad, very many; and they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead - and behold, the place was a place for livestock; and the sons of Gad, and the sons of Reube came in and spoke to Moses and to Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the congregation, saying, “Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon—the land which YHWH had struck before the congregation of Israel is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock.” And they said, “If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants for a possession. Cause us not to pass over the Jordan!”
And Moses said to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Reuben, “Shall your brethren go in to the battle, and you - shall you sit here? And why do you discourage the heart of the sons of Israel from passing over to the land which YHWH had given them? Thus your fathers did in my sending them from Kadesh-Barnea to see the land. And they went up to the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, and discouraged the heart of the sons of Israel so as not to go in to the land which YHWH had given them; and the nose of YHWH burned in that day, and He swore, saying, 'If they see - the men who are coming up out of Egypt from a son of twenty years**+** and above - the ground which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob - for they have not been fully after me, except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, and Joshua son of Nun, for they have been fully after YHWH.’ And the nose of YHWH burned aganst Israel, and He made them to wander in the wilderness forty years, until the consumption of all the generation that had done the evil in the eyes of YHWH.
And behold! You have risen in the place of your fathers, an increase of men - sinners, to add yet to the burning of the nose of YHWH toward Israel; when you turn back from after Him, then He will once again leave him [Israel] in the wilderness, and you will destroy all this people.*”

• Numbers 32:1-15

http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/262/wm/pd2283721.jpg

And YHWH said, “I have forgiven according to your word. Yet indeed, by my life - and it shall be filled - all the earth - with the glory of YHWH. For all the men who are seeing my glory and my signs which I have done in Egypt and in the wilderness, and test me these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice: if they see the land**** which I have sworn to their fathers - none of those spurning me shall see it.”
And my servant Caleb - because there has been another spirit with him, and he is fully after me, I shall bring him in to the land which he entered, and his seed shall possess it.* (Now the Amalekite and the Canaanite are dwelling in the valley.) Tomorrow turn and journey into the wilderness by the way of the Sea of Reeds."
And YHWH spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Until when this evil congregation who are complaining against Me? The complaints of the sons of Israel, which they are complaining against me, I have heard. Say to them, ‘By my life’ - a word of YHWH - 'as you have spoken in my ears, so will I do to you! In this wilderness shall your corpses fall, even all your numbered ones, to all your number, from a son of twenty years+*** and above, who have complained against me. You - you shall come not in to the land which I have lifted up my hand to cause you to settle in, save Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. And as to your children, whom you have said would become plunder: I will bring them in, and they shall know the land which you have refused. And as to you: your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, and your sons shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and bear up your harlotry until your corpses are consumed in the wilderness. According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days - a day for a year, a day for a year - you shall bear up your iniquities forty years, and you shall know my rejection.’
I, YHWH, I have spoken. If I do not this***** to all this evil congregation who are gathering together against me - in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.”
And the men whom Moses had sent to spy the land - and they turned back and made all the congregation complain against him by bringing out a slander about the land, even the men bringing out an evil slander about the land - died of the plague before YHWH. But Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, have lived - of those men who went to spy out the land.’*"

• Numbers 14:20-38

+ 'A son of so-and-so years’: Idiom for ‘so-and-so years old’.

• ‘If…’: These elliptical sentences are the normal way to express a negative oath for Hebrew (i.e. something like “May thus happen to me if so-and-so happens”). The sense is close to “I shall surely…” or “I shall indeed…” (in the case of Numbers 32: "Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt…shall see the land")

 

[Spirithound]

Just question: why a horse?

Probably just my western bias poking through
I guess a donkey would have been a more readily available animal.

 

[patrick457]

Probably just my western bias poking through
I guess a donkey would have been a more readily available animal.

But then again, come to think of it…the Holy Family astride a fiery (figuratively, not literally ) steed.

 

[miamijoe]

Re: wandering 40 years…
So it wasn’t because of the golden calf, but because of them complaining against God? Is that what I’m to understand from that from Numbers. Thank you

 

[patrick457]

Re: wandering 40 years…
So it wasn’t because of the golden calf, but because of them complaining against God? Is that what I’m to understand from that from Numbers. Thank you

Yep, mainly because of the ten out of the twelve spies sent to observe Canaan, except Joshua and Caleb. God is in effect saying: “You don’t want to go in the land I promised you, then? Then you won’t.” Thus the Israelites wandered for forty years - one year for each day the spies scouted Canaan - in the desert until all those who complained (those who did not want to go) finally died.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Based on their dialogues between them, Pharisees and Sadducees are usually seen as very hostile towards Jesus, and Him being hostile towards them. But I heard somewhere that this is a rather false tradition, and that in fact, the dialogues, when properly translated and interpreted, aren’t really hostile at all. For instance, Jesus calling them ‘snakes’ isn’t so much as swearing but a (ironic) remark to them considering themselves as ‘cunning as snakes’ or something.

Who knows more about this?

 

[twinc]

Based on their dialogues between them, Pharisees and Sadducees are usually seen as very hostile towards Jesus, and Him being hostile towards them. But I heard somewhere that this is a rather false tradition, and that in fact, the dialogues, when properly translated and interpreted, aren’t really hostile at all. For instance, Jesus calling them ‘snakes’ isn’t so much as swearing but a (ironic) remark to them considering themselves as ‘cunning as snakes’ or something.

Who knows more about this?

surely they were not as wise as serpents and gentle as doves as we are commanded to be - twinc

 

[patrick457]

Based on their dialogues between them, Pharisees and Sadducees are usually seen as very hostile towards Jesus, and Him being hostile towards them. But I heard somewhere that this is a rather false tradition, and that in fact, the dialogues, when properly translated and interpreted, aren’t really hostile at all. For instance, Jesus calling them ‘snakes’ isn’t so much as swearing but a (ironic) remark to them considering themselves as ‘cunning as snakes’ or something.

Who knows more about this?

Hmm, you bring up something interesting here. We’ll look it up!

 

[patrick457]

Bump!

 

[Spirithound]

Woot! Time for more trivial stuff!

So, we hear about Jesus eating in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and the woman washes Jesus’s feet with her tears, dries them with her hair, then anoints them with nard. Simon the Pharisee rebuked Jesus in his thoughts, and then Jesus rebuked him with a parable, and concluded with this:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 7:44-46[/BIBLEDRB]

So, my question is about how a Jew would welcome someone into his house. What did the foot-washing consist of? Was there a kiss of welcome? Was there typically an anointing? What would that consist of?