Mark 7:19 - in the modern versions Jesus declares all foods clean

Steven Avery

Administrator

This is a very significant variant, small in textual size, big in doctrinal import.
More planned!

Mark 7:18-19 (AV)
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Matthew 15:17 (AV)
Do not ye yet understand,
that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly,
and is cast out into the draught?

Acts 10:15 (AV)
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Matthew 5:17-18 (AV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.

Acts 25:7-8 (AV)
And when he was come,
the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about,
and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
While he answered for himself,
Neither against the law of the Jews,
neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar,
have I offended any thing at all.

Jesus did not consider all animals to be food, nor did He ever eat any unclean animals (this is confirmed indirectly by Peter in the Book of Acts 10:14; if Jesus would have, this would have likely been a charge that the Pharisees would have made against Him, but He did not; also, since the Bible says that Jesus never sinned in Hebrews 4:15, and that is additional support that He did not eat any--religious Jews in His day did not eat it). If Jesus declared all animals to be clean, would the Bible still use unclean animals as symbols of uncleanliness?

LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=48&rif2=7:19
1611806356623.png


John Hurt GNT
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C007.htm#V19

Received Text - καθαριζον
"a very intelligible meaning" yet also a "difficulty"

Critical Text - καθαριζων,
Burgon -
"grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων, which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. "
" the Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory. "

Bezae - καθαρίζει

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/a-n...tristic-studies-and-a-troll.1896/#post-136380


Mark 7:19 (AV)
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?


This is using the Greek majority reading καθαρίζον.
Afaik, nobody uses the Codex Bezae text καθαρίζει.

What Timothy Keller says does not make sense, and it is curious that he offers the ultra-minority Codex Bezae text.
Even using the critical text, καθαρίζων it is quite strained to get the declare all foods clean English, as you point out.
My Bible text is the TR-AV.
Be careful with the apparatus, they have a trick to omit many uncials that support the Byzantine-TR reading.

It is a fascinating textual variant, with very significant doctrinal overtones.

============================


BCHF
, the "declare all foods clean" is a possible interpretation/extrapolation based on the minority variant, masculine, in the corruption versions.

The TR/Byz reading is neuter, and is as in the AV, and does not support the errant idea of declaring all foods clean.

Mark 7:18-19 (AV)
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Bruce Gore - "Jesus abrogates kosher" (using CT)

===================================

Debate - Shnarkle vs. Burls - led to CARM discussion
https://www.debate.org/debates/Mark...ther-than-Thus-he-declared-all-foods-clean/1/
Confusion here is trying to bring in Codex Bezae, which Latinized variant is basically irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Burgon Flip

Burgon
Last 12 Verses (1871)
https://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179
the evangelists word, not Jesus "purging all meats"
Jesus "made all meats clean"
Simon Peter was the author - as in the vision

Burgon -
Causes of the Corruption (1896)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA61
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/corruption.iii.vi.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21112/21112-h/21112-h.htm


But the instance which requires the most attention is καθαριζον in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the alteration into καθαριζων is advocated as being 'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the Saviour's words[119].' Such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence—which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by καθαριζων, and καθαριζον bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there being eight against the change (ΦΣKMUVΓΠ), and eleven for it (אABEFGHLSXΔ);—that not much is advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis[Pg 62] Codex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour καθαριζον;—nor by the Fathers:—since Aphraates[121], Augustine (?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124], Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], we discover that we have not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of אAB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by καθαριζον,—and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων, which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people who form their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself.[Pg 63] The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. Καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα ought either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to read, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony.]

Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted καθαριζων into his corrected text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:—'I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's later views of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the Twelve Verses he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the true reading," and writes in the margin, "The old reading is doubtless the true one," and in the margin of the paragraph referring to καθαριζων on p. 180 he writes, "Alter the wording of this." This entirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimony to the old rending was conclusive,—at least that he was not justified in changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose express exactly the inference that I had drawn.

[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or exiit) purgans omnes escas"; i (Vindobonensis) and r (Usserianus) have "et purgat" for "purgans": and a has a conflation "in secessum exit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum"—so they all point the same way.'—(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White.)

[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)—'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)

[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'

[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.'

[124] iii. 494. ελεγε ταυτα 'ο Σωτηρ, καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.

[125] i. 206. εκκαθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.

[126] Galland. iii. 400. αλλα και 'ο Σωτηρ, παντα καθαριζων τα βρωματα.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Commentaries, many to add, including:

Bengel-Gill-Michaelis-Black-Scrivener-Kingdon-Geikie-Haas-Farrar-Hoskier-Dummelow-Vincent-Robertson-Flusser-Wilkinson-Kutilek-Moo-Black-Gundry-Hegg-Carlson-Crossley-Goodacre

b-greek 1997 and 2009
Messianic Apologetic 2002

John Lightfoot (c. 1650)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/talmud.v.vii.html#v.vii-p28.2

Griesbach - (c. 1780) neuter per Morison

James Morison (1882) masculine
http://books.google.com/books?id=UCpWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA190

Alfred Edersheim (1883) - discusses difficulties
https://books.google.com/books?id=GjVuNu9ol5QC&pg=PA23
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.viii.xxxi.html

Alfred Watts - (1885) neuter - excellent
http://books.google.com/books?id=sjk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA233
Influence of Neighboring Words
1626699332922.png

1626699371217.png


John William Burgon (1891) - above, Edward Miller

Lenski - (1961) masculine
https://books.google.com/books?id=s2IY9IfpOA8C&pg=PA297

McKee
Bacchiochie
Rhoades
Karavidopoulos
Huie
Schenck
Hasel
Wieland

Chrys Caragounis (2004) in Wieland - reasonable analysis except conclusion - separate post below
http://www.amazon.com/Development-Greek-New-Testament-Transmission/dp/080103230X#reader_080103230X

Will Kinney

===========================

ECW - See Burgon - Sixtus

Aphraates Augustine Novatian
Origen Theophylact Gregory Thaumaturges
http://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA62
1626769707984.png

1626769753556.png


pro - Diatessaron
Know ye not that everything that entereth into the [40] man from without cannot defile him; 1456because it entereth not into his heart; it entereth into his stomach only, and thence is cast forth in the cleansing which maketh [41] clean all the food?1457

pro - Euthymius
Zigabenus - neuter "Cleansing all the foods, that is, leaving them clean; "

pro - Novatian (Burgon) -

pro - Aphraates

pro - Augustine
http://books.google.com/books?id=w3ZPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6
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 and partaking of the corruption into which everything earthly is resolved, whence the Lord exhorts us to labour for the other food which never perishes:
Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.
https://www.bible.com/bible/823/MRK.7.19.VULG

pro - Aquinas - lots of commentary - Bede/Jerome - Theophylact - Ps-Chrysostom - Gloss
https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JHObZ1D7MC&pg=PT136
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2.iii.vii.html

contra - Origen
Frederick Field
https://books.google.com/books?id=AWNIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31

1626782751439.png

1626782788192.png

ACCS
https://books.google.com/books?id=oDIBDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA94
"according to Mark, the Savior "declared all foods clean"

contra - Gregory Thaumaturgus (Burgon) - c. 260
“And the Saviour, who purifies all meats, says ..." Frederic Farrar

contra - Gregory of Nyssa - UBS in Tim Hegg

contra - Chrysostom - Homily in Matthew - Farrar
1626770836294.png

Greek in Frederic Field
https://books.google.com/books?id=AWNIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31

contra - Theophylact

===========================

BVDB and other forums - Nazaroo
Suidas - only for definition
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
LaParola uncials in the apparatus
1611853653470.png

This could be of the apparatus trickery, deliberately leaving out Byzantine uncials which I discuss on the apparatus tampering thread.
I do believe the number is greater than 8, but will have to check.

Burgon shows 8 - Φ Σ K M U V Γ Π - but some in the apparatus are not included.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - Vol 2 (1883)
Alfred Edersheim
https://books.google.com/books?id=GjVuNu9ol5QC&pg=PA23
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.viii.xxxi.html#fna_viii.xxxi-p170.2

And this, at least, the Rabbis also taught; explaining, with much detail, how the heart was alike the source of strength and of weakness, of good and of evil thoughts, loved and hated, envied, lusted and deceived, proving each statement from Scripture.3416 But never before could they have realised, that anything entering from without could not defile a man. Least of all could they perceive the final inference which St. Mark long afterwards derived from this teaching of the Lord: ‘This He said, making all meats clean.’ 3417 3418

3416 Midr. on Eccles. i. 16.
3417 St. Mark vii. 19, last clause
3418 I have accepted this rending of the words, first propounded by St. Chrysostom, and now adopted in the Revised Version, although not without much misgiving. For there is strong objection to it from the Jewish usus and views. The statement in Ber. 61 a, last line, ‘The œsophagus which causeth to enter and which casteth out all manner of meat’ ( ושט מכניס ומוציא כל מיני מאכל ) seems to imply that the words of Christ were a proverbial expression. The Talmudic idea is based on the curious physiological notion (Midr. on Eccles. vii. 19), that the food passed from the œsophagus first into the larger intestine (Hemses,
1626769147413.png
, perhaps = omasum), where the food was supposed to be crushed as in a mill (Vayyik R. 4, 18; Midr. on Eccl. xii. 3), and thence only, through various organs, into the stomach proper. (As regards the process in animals, see Lewysohn, Zool. d. Talm. pp. 37-40). (The passage from Ber. 61 a has been so rendered by Wünsche, in his note on St. Matt. xv. 17, as to be in parts well nigh unintelligible.) It may interest students that the strange word ͺ
1626769284302.png
rendered both in the A.V. and the R.V. by ‘draught,’ seems to correspond to the Rabbinic Aphidra
1626769006720.png
which Levy renders by ‘the floor of a stable formed by the excrements of the animals which are soaked and stamped into a hard mass.’
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM Thread
https://forums.carm.org/threads/matt-7-19.4912/page-3#post-336623

Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts
Martin Litchfield West
https://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&pg=PA51


When we choose the ‘more difficult’ reading, however, we must be sure that it is in itself a plausible reading. The principle should not be used in support of dubious syntax, or phrasing that it would not have been natural for the author to use. There is an important difference between a more difficult reading and a more unlikely reading.

And dubious syntax and unnatural phrasing clearly applies here.

If Mark wanted to express the hokey idea that Jesus was declaring swine and rats as clean, proper food, there would have been much easier methods to say it directly.
 
Top