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

RE: [textualcriticism] Mark 7:19 - text-critical and exegetical comments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Feb 15, 2007
      "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 2 of 3 , Feb 15, 2007
        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.