Mark 7:19, is "Jesus declared all foods clean" in the original Greek manuscripts?

[Stefcui]

Nope. There are two different texts being translated, and you are showing the AV translating the Westcott-Hort corruption.

Hi Steven,

It is always good to hear your sensible comments. I hope you have been well.

God Bless

[Heirofhim]

Hello
Yeshua lived a sin-free life to be our perfect sin-offering.
In order to be sin-free He lived according to Torah (the Law, which is a poor translation).
Torah gives us knowledge about what sin is.
IF, I am saying IF Yeshua did not live according to Torah, He could not have been our perfect sin-offering.
We all know what Yeshua said in Matt 5. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets"

In the light of that we can say that the commentary about declaring all food as clean is a ill thought addition to Scripture. An addition that is impossible.
Sam

[Christian2]

Hi John, Steven and others.

The problem as I see it is Mark's parenthetical phrase. Why did he insert it? Was it meant only for his Gentile audience? There is nothing in the same account in Matthew 15 that implies that Jesus declared all foods clean. It was about eating with unwashed hands. I think that is what is in view in Mark 7, too.

How could Jesus declare all foods clean moments after chastising the Pharisees for teaching “as doctrines the commands of men” and “disregarding the command of God”?

Mark 7: 6 He answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:

These people honor Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.
7 They worship Me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commands of men.[c]

8 Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.”[d] 9 He also said to them, “You completely invalidate God’s command in order to maintain[e] your tradition!

Why would Jesus turn around and disregard the Torah concerning food laws at this point? Seems to me it would make Jesus inconsistent and He would have opened Himself up to accusations from the Jewish leaders that He was preaching against the law!!

Thanks.

[John Reece]

The phrase "purging all meats" is a literalistic rendering ― in archaic language ― of καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (katharizōn panta ta brōmata);...

Nope.
There are two different texts being translated, and you are showing the AV translating the Westcott-Hort corruption.

There are not two different texts being quoted by me.

As I have posted: "purging all meats" is the KJV rendering of the Greek text καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα, which is likewise the Greek text that is rendered variously by modern versions as "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" (TNIV), or "Thus he declared all foods clean" (NRSV), etc., etc.

[biribiri]

Nestle/United Bible Society text does not include that portion. It seems that almost everything else does.
A tricky piece it is, but I'm (provisionally) accepting the record of the Byzantine majority text.
A couple of points that may be worth considering.
。 Jhn 8:17 "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.
。Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? (Even trickier - this piece quotes God as saying "you are gods")



When the disciples were picking grain and eating it on the Sabbath - was this not also a violation of Israel's law, and on two counts?

Is it possible that Jesus did not consider all the law of Israel to be God's law? Or, did he perhaps consider that "your law" did not wholly apply, but yet was not wholly overwritten, during the establishment of the New Covenant? Perhaps it had general application to Israel, but not to those who had received him.... Can of worms, anyone?

[John Reece]

Nestle/United Bible Society text does not include that portion.

What portion?

[biribiri]

Oops.

(7:19) NU-Text ends quotation with eliminated, setting off the final clause as Mark's comment that Jesus has declared all foods clean.

That too is a viable interpretation. A little bit of exposition on the part of the author perhaps. But the (side) issue of Jesus not requiring of his disciples that they observe every precept of the law remains, though my understanding is that Jesus himself kept every provision of the law. (quite happy to be proven wrong.)

Strongs lists βρώματα as any kind of food ... Is there debate about the meaning?

[OmniSkeptical]

I don't buy it. Any violation of the law of Moses would be a sin. Physical hunger marked the event with the Pharisees, and the speech about food was about what defiles a man.

[John Reece]

Mark 7:14-23

(WEB, parentheses added): Mark 7:14 He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand. 15 There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Mark 7:17 When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said [λέγει] to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Don’t you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can’t defile him, 19 because it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα ― literally, "cleansing all the foods")?” 20 He said, “That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 22 covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger:

7.19 καθαρίζων {A} The overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence supports the reading καθαρίζων. The difficulty of construing this word in the sentence* prompted copyists to attempt various corrections and ameliorations.

*Many modern scholars, following the interpretation suggested by Origen and Chrysostom, regard καθαρίζων as connected grammatically with λέγει in verse 18.

[robrecht]

When the disciples were picking grain and eating it on the Sabbath - was this not also a violation of Israel's law, and on two counts?

Not necessarily. A good case can be made that this behavior was not unlawful. But it is clear that Mark considered it unlawful:

Mk 2,24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"
25 And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?
26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions." (NRSV)

Is it possible that Jesus did not consider all the law of Israel to be God's law? Or, did he perhaps consider that "your law" did not wholly apply, but yet was not wholly overwritten, during the establishment of the New Covenant? Perhaps it had general application to Israel, but not to those who had received him.... Can of worms, anyone?

Yes, I think this is possible, but we can say for sure that Mark considered some of the laws of Moses to be concessions to the law of God, concessions which actually violated God's law, eg, the discussion of divorce:

Mk 10,2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."
5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you.
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
10 ¶ Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (NRSV)

This was not really a revolutionary teaching, but a previously existing controversy within Judaism, and here Jesus is basically siding with the teaching of the House of Shammai.

[robrecht]

... Why would Jesus turn around and disregard the Torah concerning food laws at this point? Seems to me it would make Jesus inconsistent and He would have opened Himself up to accusations from the Jewish leaders that He was preaching against the law!!

But, in Mark's gospel, that is exactly what the Jewish leaders thought that Jesus was doing. See my post immediately above.

[robrecht]

Hi Folks,

This is a good time to note that Novatian's quote indicates the Byzantine Majority, Received Text variant, as in the AV, NKJV, Geneva, over the minority corruption (NIV and the alphabet soup).

Novatian - On the Jewish Meats
http://books.google.com/books?id=rMlFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA391
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

John William Burgon has an excellent discussion of the evidences, in The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, with the large majority of the cursives being a major factor, supporting the traditional text. After noting the split in uncials and early church writers and versional evidences.

One thing is absolutely clear. Both variants had solid representation even as early as the 2nd century. Novatian and Tatian easily balance the early evidence of Origen.

For this reason, it is also a reasonable conclusion that the early split was accidental, textual fingerfehler, or difficulties reading and understanding and copying the Greek text.

Any attempted case for purposeful error causing the variant line here is quite weak. (This point has been noted by Maurice Robinson.) Incidentally, the late William L. Petersen, tc-list Jan 25, 1999, also made an interesting comment pointing out that Acts 10-15 surely showed no knowledge of all foods having been declared clean by Jesus.

As to which early variant is the error, we should note, too that the grammar and context is particularly problematic in the Alexandrian minority variant (that is even alluded to by Metzger) and that the Alexandrian manuscript line is noted for large numbers of Greek copying errors. e.g. The "many obvious blunders" in Sinaiticus that Tischendorf noted, as well as the more detailed analysis from gentlemen like Scrivener and Burgon.

Tatian's Diatessoran
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...atessaron.html
And when Jesus entered the house from the multitude, Simon Cephas asked him, and said unto him, My Lord, explain to us that parable. He said unto them, Do ye also thus not understand? 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?

Overall, we see yet another example of the danger of using Metzger as a source, from whom you will always get Hortian text agitprop.

Caveat emptor.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Hi, Steven. It is not clear to me, what you are considering to be the referent of the neurer participle in the majority text. Natural law? The cleansing? I bolded these above in your post. For other imaginary additions to the text of Mark (eg, σῶμα, κόπρον, κόπριον, σκύβαλον), see the earlier discussion between apostoli and me earlier in this thread, particularly apostoli's link.

[robrecht]

Oops! That should be "neuter participle" in my previous post.

Thanks for the correction, John!

[Heirofhim]

It doesn't matter what translation that is being used.
The dilemma is that if Yeshua broke the "Law", none of us can claim to be saved. Because if Yeshua transgressed the law, by changing YHWH's, the Fathers "Law", He sinned and could not be the perfect sacrificial lamb.
In other words we are cutting the branch we are sitting on.

[OmniSkeptical]

The problem is there is no thus in Greek or even δε. Λεγει is linked to all the verbs after it, so nothing is declared but the bowel descriptions. Sorry but he didn't declare pork clean; he said the stomach cleans the pork out by bowel movement.