Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mark 7:19 - text-critical and exegetical comments

Expand Messages
  • schmuel
    Hi Textual Criticism, There is an article I would like to read, or at least know a bit about. Text-critical and exegetical comments on Mark 7:19 - I.
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 14 8:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Textual Criticism,

      There is an article I would like to read, or at least know a bit about.

      Text-critical and exegetical comments on Mark 7:19 - I. Karavidopoulos;

      Text, theology & translation : essays in honour of Jan de Waard
      by Simon Crisp; Manuel M Jinbachian; Jan de Waard (2004) UBS
      ISBN: 1843640783 9781843640783

      Incidentally, Worldcat says these libraries have it.
      http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56562038&referer=brief_results
      (one is not too far from me, but there is bureaucracy involved).

      If anyone has the article, or even has a rememberance thereof,
      and could correspond with me  (offlist may be best) it would be
      appreciated. 

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      schmuel@...

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

    • James Spinti
      The concluding clause in 19b is found in the manuscripts in two basic forms. According to one the participle is masculine in gender (KAQARIZWN); according to
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 15 6:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        "The concluding clause in 19b is found in the manuscripts in two basic
        forms. According to one the participle is masculine in gender
        (KAQARIZWN); according to the other it is neuter (KAQARIZON).

        "The text-critical and exegetical question we are going to discuss in
        this brief study is: Which of these two basic versions of the verse
        conveys the evangelist's original text?"

        If masculine:
        Jesus is implied subject, "in which case the meaning of vv. 18-19 is as
        follows: By saying that everything which comes from outside into a man
        cannot defile him, because it does not go
        into his heart but into his belly and is excreted in the APEDRWN, Jesus
        considered all food clean."

        "The majority of modern interpreters of Mark favour this interpretation,
        which underlies most of the older and more recent translations of Mark's
        Gospel. Yet, there are interpreters who either accept that the entire
        clause is due to a scribal gloss in the margin of Mark's text (hence its
        absence from the text of Matthew) or try to explain the clause as a bad
        translation of an Aramaic original."

        If neuter:
        "The meaning of the whole clause would then be, according to the XI
        century exegete Euthymios Zigavinos:

        "Cleansing all the foods, that is, leaving them clean; since, of course,
        the dirt mentioned before comes out in the privy, leaving all the foods
        inside clean-all, that is, which nature has kept back."

        "We believe that the interpretation suggested by Origen, Gregory
        Thaumaturgus and St. John Chrysostom, mentioned above, is the most
        accurate. It is preferred as well by contemporary interpreters. The
        interpretation is based on the reading of KAQARIZWN, with 'Jesus' as
        grammatical subject. Consequently, the clause is an editorial comment by
        the evangelist."

        "Concluding Remarks
        "In connection with the missionary work of the church these words
        obviously tend to show that the external and complex Jewish regulations
        do not consist of a divine revelation but are simply human traditions
        which, when given an absolute character, obscure God's will and lead to
        hypocrisy (see Mark 7:6-7). At the same time, Jesus and his universal
        principle of internal purity open the road for the acceptance of the
        Gentiles into the new faith without any obstacles imposed by the Jewish
        Law and its traditional interpretations. This teaching reminds us of the
        theology of the Apostle Paul, whose collaborator and companion Mark the
        evangelist had become."


        HTH,
        James

        ________________________________
        James Spinti
        Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
        Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
        Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
        jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
        Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
        Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
        Fax: 574-269-6788


        -----Original Message-----
        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of schmuel
        Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:33 PM
        To: Textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Mark 7:19 - text-critical and exegetical
        comments


        Hi Textual Criticism,

        There is an article I would like to read, or at least know a bit about.

        Text-critical and exegetical comments on Mark 7:19 - I. Karavidopoulos;

        Text, theology & translation : essays in honour of Jan de Waard
        by Simon Crisp; Manuel M Jinbachian; Jan de Waard (2004) UBS
        ISBN: 1843640783 9781843640783

        Incidentally, Worldcat says these libraries have it.
        http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56562038&referer=brief_results
        (one is not too far from me, but there is bureaucracy involved).

        If anyone has the article, or even has a rememberance thereof,
        and could correspond with me (offlist may be best) it would be
        appreciated.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        schmuel@...

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
      • Schmuel
        Hi Folks, ... on Mark 7:19 - I. Karavidopoulos; ... Waard ... Thanks very much, James. That is precisely the type of overview for which I was looking, to
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 15 9:39 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Folks,

          > Text-critical and exegetical comments on Mark 7:19 - I. Karavidopoulos;
          > Text, theology & translation : essays in honour of Jan de
          Waard
          > by Simon Crisp; Manuel M Jinbachian; Jan de Waard (2004) UBS
          > ISBN: 1843640783 9781843640783

            Thanks very much, James.  That is precisely the type of overview for which
          I was looking, to understand the approach of Karavidopoulo
          , and conclusions,
          less important is all the detail, especially in the  realm of doctrinal exegetical
          conjecture, where YMMV (your mileage may vary). 

             I have a couple of questions on the textual evidences.  One one the
          early church writers, and a bit on manuscripts.  I will put the church
          writer questions here. 

          James Spinti -
          "The majority of modern interpreters of Mark favour this interpretation,
          which underlies most of the older and more recent translations of Mark's
          Gospel. Yet, there are interpreters who either accept that the entire
          clause is due to a scribal gloss in the margin of Mark's text (hence its
          absence from the text of Matthew) or try to explain the clause as a bad
          translation of an Aramaic original."

          There is an excluded middle fallacy problem. One can accept the "other"
          interpretation and simply look at (KAQARIZWN) as a straight-line scribal
          error.  And the opposite is true, as well, (KAQARIZON) could simply be
          a scribal error.  Especially with such close words there is absolutely no
          compelling need to appeal to margins or glosses (no matter how popular
          such is in modern textcrit) to defend either position, especially since the
          variant was apparently quite early (Tatian's Diatessoran vs. Origen).

          If neuter:
          "The meaning of the whole clause would then be, according to the

           XI century exegete Euthymios Zigavinos:
          "Cleansing all the foods, that is, leaving them clean; since, of course,
          the dirt mentioned before comes out in the privy, leaving all the foods
          inside clean-all, that is, which nature has kept back."

          Similar interpretations are available earlier, although this is particularly
          expansive and complete.

          "We believe that the interpretation suggested by Origen,

          Definitely he has the interpretation described.

          Origen -Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew - Book XI
          http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-47.htm#P7660_1603367
          For if "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that
          which proceedeth out of the mouth," and especially when, according to Mark,
          the Saviour said these things "making all meats clean,"

          A good indication of the N-A text. 

          Sidenote:
          This conclusion on the text is dependent upon Origen doing the same grammatical
          parsing that is done today, while he may have come to the conclusion through a
          different route.  Perhaps some who are knowledgeable on Origen's Greek
          parsing skills and references and concepts and usage can share.

          Gregory Thaumaturgus

          Would it be possible to see the quote on this.
          Dean John Burgon gives a snippet of the original.

          "Galland. 400 - alla kai ho S t r, panta kathariz n ta br mata."

          and St. John Chrysostom,

          The Dean lists him as well, as he definitely witnesses for the Alexandrian text.
          However the claim that Chrysotom actually supports the Origen interpretation
          does not seem to be supportable.   Are there any other sections than this ?

          Chrytostom - Homily LI
          http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LI.html#iii.LI-p76.1
          https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/110/1100059.htm
          The sections beginning
          "And He did not say, “The observance of meats is nothing," and
          "But Mark saith, that “cleansing the meats,”


          If Chrysotom understood the Origen and modern grammatical understanding,
          you would surely expect something clear about Jesus declaring foods clean.
          It is  simply not there, so despite numerous scholarly attestations that
          Chrysotom gives the same interp as Origen, that idea is dubious.

          Does
          Karavidopoulo mention the early church witnesses for the TR reading ?
          My understanding is that this is the following -

          Tatian's Diatessoran
          http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-07.htm#P557_75963
          Know ye not that everything that entereth into the man from without cannot
          defile him; because it entereth not into his heart; it entereth into his stomach
          only, and thence is cast forth in the cleansing which maketh clean all the food?

          Novatian - On the Jewish Meats
          http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-140.htm#P10517_3323148
          God is not worshipped by the belly nor by meats, which the Lord says will perish,
          and are "purged" by natural law in the draught
          Galland. 319 - ‘Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.’  (Burgon)

          Augustine -Anti-Pelagian Writings Sanctification Manifold -Ch. 42
          http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.x.iv.xlii.html#x.iv.xlii-p6.1
          Just as therefore this sanctification of our ordinary food does not hinder what enters
          the mouth from descending into the belly, and being ejected into the draught,
          iii. 764. ‘Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.’  (Burgon)

          Aphraates -
          Dem. xv. (Graffin)­‘Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.’ (Lat.) (Burgon)

          If anyone can help with the specifics of the Aphraates citation,

          or similar on

          Gregory Nyssa as given in the UBS, any help on that would be appreciated.

          Thanks :-)


          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.