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

[robrecht]

Hi,

Returning to various issues here, let us start with one that is fundamental.

When the Latin lacks the interjection phrase, it is an indication that either:

1) the translation was from the neuter Greek
or
2) the translators to Latin did not see the masculine Greek as supporting a Markan interjection.

Or possibly both if they were faced with the two Greek variants.

Therefore it definitely is evidence against the current Critical text understanding. The only part that is indefinite is that you can not be sure whether the text is against the CT from a direct grammatical (ie. support for the Greek majority) or from a translational perspective. Or both.

Neither.

When you say “evidence against the current critical text understanding,” it seems like perhaps you now prefer to discuss exegesis, ie, the the proper understanding, of several texts rather than try and establish the most likely original text. If that’s the case, fine, we can do that, but ‘higher criticism’ should not be used to gloss over the more fundamental issues of ‘lower criticism’, ie, the critical establishment of the more likely original text and a proper understanding of the languages and grammar used in the texts under discussion. I still await your explanation of the grammar of the neuter participle in Greek.

What do you mean: 'when the Latin lacks the interjection phrase'? This sounds like a discussion of lacunae in some Latin mss, but I suspect you are merely assuming one interpretation of a literal but more ambiguous Latin translation.

Previously you had said neither the Latin nor any of the versions ‘saw’ a Markan interjection, and that this is a strong argument against that translation today, and if the translation is unnatural, that is a strong argument for the neuter. It seems as if you have now accepted that the Latin provides no support for the neuter, which if so is good, but you still want to assume that the Latin rules out a Markan interjection. It does not.

The literal but ambiguous Latin translation certainly would have obscured the meaning of an underlying Greek masculine participle, but the Latin can still be understood as expressing a Markan interjection. As I mentioned above, you should check out the varying punctuation in Vulgate editions. See, eg, the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio:

Et ait illis: "Sic et vos imprudentes estis? Non intellegitis quia omne extrinsecus introiens in hominem non potest eum coinquinare, quia non introit in cor eius sed in ventrem et in secessum exit?", purgans omnes escas.

What about the other versions? All of the Coptic supports the masculine participle, and while some of the Coptic has been variously interpreted with respected to the masculine antecedent, other parts of the Coptic can only be read as supporting the Markan interjection. So it is just not true when you say none of the versions saw a Markan interjection.

This is a similar situation as to the Latin.

Yes, like Novatian’s Latin allusion, Tatian the ascetic vegetarian also seems to supply a Greek masculine noun (feminine in Syriac) in his Diatessaron, which survives in the Old Syriac and in the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta. Thus, do you now agree that Novatian and Tatian and the Syriac versions do not really support the Greek neuter text?

If you want to get to the proper English understanding:

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

through the masculine Greek, I find that questionable (and in my experience reading, Greek techies would battle this out for years of posts) yet acceptable.

I think it would be helpful (for you) to clarify what specifically you find questionable. In doing so, you may perhaps begin to see why the neuter construction is at least as questionable, if not more so.

With respect to your ‘proper English understanding’, can you now please answer my question regarding what antecedent you consider to be the subject of the participle ‘purging’? I will graciously accept an answer in 'proper English', or, if you prefer, in Greek, Syriac, Coptic or Latin.

What you refer to as the ‘proper English understanding’ is ultimately derived from and reflects the literal but more ambiguous Latin translation; it cannot be as easily forced upon the Greek texts which formally distinguish masculine, feminine, and neuter gender as well as nominative and accusative cases for present active participles. Latin and English do not.

Some of the English reformers and translators gave deference to prior English translations and, in this case, stuck with Wycliffe’s earlier rendition from the Latin (purgans, purgynge; Bishops: purgyng; KJV: purging) rather than struggling with the Greek here. Tyndale purposefully avoided the Wycliffe version of the Latin and in this passage followed Luther’s German indicative rendering of Erasmus’ second edition reading, still a masculine participle (ἐκκαθαρίζων); Luther: der da aus feget alle Speise ; Tyndale: that porgeth oute; Coverdale: that purgeth; Matthew & 1557 Geneva: that purgeth out) rather than more literally following Erasmus’ participle as did Cranmer: pourging out and the Great Bible: pourginge oute. Note especially the 1599 Geneva: ‘which is the purging’, but which to their credit they explain with a note that is based on a more literal understanding of the Complutensian Greek: “For that which goes into the draught purges all meats.”

Your ‘proper English understanding’, which is really only one interpretation of the obscured Latin, does not make good sense in the Greek, especially the Complutensian Greek that would eventually be adopted by Stephanus (without noting any variants). Beza’s text also repeats the Complutensian Greek that he found in Stephanus, but he actually explains the text with an overreaching reference to Erasmus’ Greek and Latin and a passive understanding of the participle, which cannot be found in the Greek and which he did not incorporate into his own Latin translation.

Non enim ingreditur in cor eius, sed in ventrem: & in latrinam abit, purificans omnes escas.

Dicitur enim id quod in latrinam eiicitur, expurgare omnes cibos, quoniam est cibi faex et purgamentum ut videri etiam possit activum pro passive usurpatum. Nam certe purgamentum potius dici videtur quod expurgatur quam quod expurget.

Likewise, the KJV translation follows the text of Beza but not his interpretation so it remains to be seen how they understood the ambiguous Latin they repeated.

The full John Gill section is here:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...mark-7-19.html

Apparently he presents no detailed commentary on the specifics of the Greek text, ie, he too does not specifically identify the subject or antecedent of καθαρίζων/ον , but he does seem to be dependent upon Bengel (“leaves behind … remains” remanet). As I said above, he seems to supply and specify an unmentioned but more specific subject (τὸ ἀκάθαρτον μέρος τῶν βρωμάτων) for ἐκπορεύεται, which is thus distinguished from an unmentioned (in the text of Mark) ‘that which it leaves behind, [which] is pure and nourishing [and which] remains in the man’. Thus Gill seems to have in mind some generalized ‘digestive process’ (of the stomach and ‘the bowels’) as the imaginary referent of the participle.

As for the Bengel Gnomen Latin
http://books.google.com/books?id=tHgrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA190
non inquinans, sed purgans, dum alimentum laudabile remanet et purgamenta abeunt.

Thank you for providing the link to Bengel’s Latin. I trust you will appreciate the correction of the spelling mistake. I haven’t consulted Bengel’s text to see if he included, graded or preferred any of Erasmus’ variants in his marginal notes, but I doubt it, and at least they were not yet able to be systematically evaluated in his critical apparatus. Using his own text critical principles, I hope to one day discuss the variant readings with him, appealing perhaps to his own recognition (prior to Westcott-Hort, of course) of the superiority of the African over the Asiatic text, his view of the lectio difficilior, over against the rule of the majority. I suspect he will readily agree, but if not, we will also be able to consult the Evangelist, Tatian, and the copyists, assuming, of course, they have all escaped the eternal fires of hell.

In the meantime, we have but his brief note that presumably tried to make some sense of the neuter participle, which required some form of explanation: non inquinans, sed purgans, dum alimentum laudabile remanet et purgamenta abeunt.

It [Food] is not polluting, but it [something?] is purging, while worthy food remains and the things purged leave.

As you can see, he too does not identify the antecedent subject of καθαρίζον, but he is clearly dependent upon Beza’s nominal passive interpretation (purgamentum … purgamenta), which I remind you was not adopted in the in the authorized version.

You never really did answer the question as to how the construction would read if you wanted to express what is said by Barnes, Gill or Bengel.

I answered your question about your citation of the Received text in English (which actually derives the participle from the Latin) and regarding Barnes, where you provided a link to the context of your quote. I delayed definitively commenting on Bengel until I could read his original Latin and on Gill until you could provide the context. The problem with these and other interpretations of the Complutensian text is they either read the text literally, which does not make good sense, or they insert additional ideas into the text. The least intrusive way to derive your traditional syntax from the Greek is to consider the masculine nominative participle to be a change in construction (omitting a relative pronoun) and referring to the masculine τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα (Tatian; Erasmus; critical editions of Alford, Tischendorf, von Soden, and Nestle-Aland; Meyer). Or you could change it to a feminine accusative participle καθαρίζουσαν to make it accord with τὴν κοιλίαν, as OmniSkeptical also once thought—that would make more sense of the ‘digestive process’ idea. Or, as I’ve said above, you could even force this understanding onto the neuter participle, if you assume a mistake in Mark’s Greek or a brachylogy to be filled in by an imaginary antecedent instead of the neuter antecedent in the text. Or you could claim that the neuter participle is really a truncated masculine participle, as OmniSkeptical has subsequently claimed based on his own research and discovery that the Greek has no neuter gender.

Do you feel the sentence would have to be rewritten ? (One could make that claim for the Markan interjection idea even with the masculine in view). If you do not feel the sentence would have to be rewritten, then I ask you to indicate whether you feel the Greek would be impelled to be either masculine or neuter to reach the English idea. If you are not sure, then simply say not sure.

Nothing should be rewritten, which is my point, but ‘the English idea’ is not actually supported by the actual Greek text and grammar. It can however be ungrammatically forced upon either the masculine or neuter participle. Of course, anyone who tries to make the claim that the Markan interjection requires a rewriting of the text should actually provide some argumentation to support such a claim.

Talking about an "imaginary antecedent" begs the question. e.g. We find neuter pronouns being the fulcrum for a conceptual antecedent in some verses, where the opponent of the idea might call it "imaginary", which is begging the question. See the CARM discussion on 1 John 5:20 where the antecedent ideas were hashed out some, and other verses used as pointers. Note, I am not saying a conceptual antecedent is involved, I am just encouraging you to relate to my actual question, and supplying an analogy.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

I am not familiar with the CARM discussion you refer to regarding neuter pronouns and 1 Jn 5,20--can you explain how it relates to Mk 7,19? As near as I can tell, I have answered all of your questions and you have answered none of mine. Is that what you mean by begging the question? Are you also begging your own question here by speaking of ‘antecedent ideas’ and then noting that you are not saying a conceptual antecedent is involved?

[One Bad Pig]

All translators are liars.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

εἰ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω (KJV verse 16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear") ...
From New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale, 2008), by Philip W. Comfort, here is the rationale for the omission (brackets added):

The WH NU [Westcott & Hort and Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies] reading has the earliest support among the manuscripts. The extra verse was added by scribes, borrowing it directly from 4:23 (see also 4:9) to provide an ending to an otherwise very short pericope, 7:14-15. This addition was included in TR and made popular by KJV. NKJV, NASB, NJB, and HCSB also include this extra verse.

The reason that even the NASV and the Holman have the passage is that the evidence is simply overwhelming, and they even reject the Critical Text.

The Greek uncials, the Greek cursives, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, early church writers (Diatessaron and Augustine are given) and the versional evidences from Syriac (Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta and other versions) Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian all support the inclusion of the verse. Only Coptic is shown with a real split.

This is a textbook case of a very obvious text-drop corruption that is only omitted in many modern versions due to the Hortian Vaticanus-primacy approach.

If you understand the evidences on a verse like this one, you can easily come out of the Hortian fog.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[John Reece]

This is a textbook case of a very obvious text-drop corruption that is only omitted in many modern versions due to the Hortian Vaticanus-primacy approach.

More likely, it is as explained by your other (than Westcott and Hort) nemesis:

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

7.16 omit verse {A}

This verse, though present in the majority of witnesses, is absent from important Alexandrian witnesses (ℵ B L Δ* al). It appears to be a scribal gloss (derived perhaps from 4.9 or 4.23), introduced as an appropriate sequel to verse 14.

Since you have quoted the comment by Philip W. Comfort in New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations, perhaps you may be interested to know what Comfort had to say about Metzger's work (on page xxxvii of Comfort's introduction):

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention how frequently I consulted The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (...), written by Bruce Metzger. This work (...) is an excellent companion to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (third and fourth edition) because it sets forth the reasons that led the committee (for whom Metzger was the spokesperson) to "adopt certain variant readings for inclusion in the text and to relegate certain readings to the apparatus." Thus, Metzger's work provides a report of how the committee evaluated and resolved problems concerning the 1,440 sets of variant reading supplied in the critical apparatus of the Bible Societies' edition.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

What about the actual evidence?
It clearly is overwhelmingly in support of the verse

Mark 7:16
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

The only explanation for omission of this verse is Hortian Vaticanus veneration, passed down to later textual writers like Metzger and Comfort. Showing these gentlemen parroting each other in blatant error only shows the pervasive nature of the Hortian fog.

Edward Miller, under the "Theory of Westcott and Hort refuted" referenced this as one of the variants of the category:

"Omissions of an entire verse, or of a longer passage, having all the appearance of being intrinsically genuine"

against

"superior readings well attested".

A guide to the textual criticism of the New Testament. (1886)
http://archive.org/stream/guidetotex...ge/56/mode/2up

All you have to do is look at the actual evidence. When ever you see one of the revision texts write "many ancient authorities insert" (ASV) that is shorthand for:

the evidence is actually overwhelming, yet we follow the ultra-minority Vaticanus abbreviated text

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

[John Reece]

What about the actual evidence?

There is a saying in the field of textual criticism that evidence should be weighed rather than counted.

Comfort (op. cit.) has a two paragraph comment (which is an excerpt of a more fulsome comment) that is relevant to your post.

The preference for the shorter reading was the primary canon of Griesbach, as espoused in his prolegomena to Novum Testamentum Graece (1796). This guideline has usually been observed by textual critics ever since. But the work of Royse in recent years has called it into question. Studying the habits of the scribes of P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, P⁴⁷, P⁶⁶, P⁷², P⁷⁵, Royse came to the conclusion that each of these scribes was more inclined to omit words than to add words (198, 2-3).

Some scholars have therefore drawn the conclusion that the longer reading is to be preferred over the shorter (for example Head 1990, 247). But Griesbach's principle is still valid if we remember that he "qualified it carefully by excepting certain variants, such as those that could be explained by homoeoteleuton" (Silva 1992b, 23). The kind of omissions noted by Royse often are nonessential terms or are the result of scribal inadvertence. Thus the principle still stands with respect to judging between truly shorter readings and readings with longer verbiage. In most instances, the longer verbiage is the result of scribal gap-filling* and expansion. Thus, while it cannot be said that the longer reading is always suspect, any reading which looks like an attempt to fill in textual gaps is suspect as a scribal addition.

*Scribes at times felt information was missing from the text (especially in narratives), which called for some kind of completion. Gaps were often filled mentally in the reading process. However, scribes made additions to the text, so as to make the text more lucid for their readers. Such insertions, whether one word or one sentence, account for the ever-expanding text of the New Testament throughout the course of its transmission. Such gap-fillig is nowhere more evident than in the interpolations that occur in the D-text of Acts. For more information on this phenomenon see Appendix A [a two page excursus on the topic of "Scribal Gap-Filling" ―JR].

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

John, you really should expand your sources beyond Hortian apologists.

Peter Head, Ronald Royse and others have shown that the scribal habits really are towards omission (which is also common sense, since omissions are extremely easy to occur) and Comfort is simply trying to handwave the actual studies.

Mark 7:15-16 (AV)
There is nothing from without a man,
that entering into him can defile him:
but the things which come out of him,
those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

The Diatessaron is one of the sources for which the origin goes way before the few manuscripts that have the omission.

THE DIATESSARON
(ascribed to Tatian circa 166 AD.)
http://www.masseiana.org/diatessaron.htm
And Jesus called all the multitude, and said unto them. Hear me, all of you, and understand: nothing without the man, which then enters him, is able to defile him; but what goeth out of him, that it is which defileth the man. He that hath ears that hear, let him hear.

Any scholar who tries to write about the verse Mark 7:16 who does not clearly tell you the evidences is simply engaging in agitprop, not textual teaching, and his books should simply be discarded. (Or you might want to keep a special reference Library of Hortian Confusions.)

Here is LaParola (omitting a 3rd minor variant) with an apparatus showing you the overwhelming evidence that your sources try to hide from you:

LaParola
Mark 7:16
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index....1=48&rif2=7:16

omit] (see Matthew 15:11) *א B L Δ* 0274 28 30 274 512 669 1013 1342 1662 2427 2474 2508 2532 2786 Lect1/2 cop-sa(mss) cop-bo(pt) geo1 WH CEI Riv TILC NM

εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω] (see Mark 4:9; Mark 4:23) A D E F G H K W X Δc Θ Π Σ f1 f13 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243c (1243* omit ὦτα) 1253 1292 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect1/2 lAD l68(1/2) l76(1/2) l184(1/2) l673(1/2) l813(1/2) l1223(1/2) it-a it-aur it-b it-c it-d it-f it-ff2 it-i it-l it-n it-q it-r1 vg syr-s syr-p syr-h syr-pal cop-sa(mss) cop-bo(pt) goth arm eth geo2 slav Diatessaron-a Diatessaron-p Augustine ς [NR] ND Dio Nv

Plus, if you have studied Vaticanus and Sinaiticus at all, you would know that they are abbreviated texts, with many verses omitted, phrases chopped, etc. There is nothing surprising about such an ultra-minority variant.

Here is my challenge for you. Find one writer, writing to support the Hortian (earlier Tischendorf following Sinaiticus) omission, who tells the reader that the verse supports include:

1) large majority of Greek uncials
2) overwhelming majority of Greek cursives (hundreds more in Byz)
3) Old Latin
4) Vulgate
5) Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta and all Syriac versions
6) additional versional support Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavic (Georgian and Coptic split)
7) Diatessaron
8) Augustine

When you show me a Hortian omission supporter who tells the reader the actual evidences, then it might be time to take your references as worthy of even a glance. Until the great errors of the mid-to-late 1800s, it would be hard to find a single Christian writer, in Greek or Latin or Syriac or any language, in any era at all, who doubted, or even mentioned any doubts, about the authenticity of our pure Bible verse.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The preference for the shorter reading was the primary canon of Griesbach, as espoused in his prolegomena to Novum Testamentum Graece (1796). This guideline has usually been observed by textual critics ever since. But the work of Royse in recent years has called it into question. Studying the habits of the scribes of P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, P⁴⁷, P⁶⁶, P⁷², P⁷⁵, Royse came to the conclusion that each of these scribes was more inclined to omit words than to add words (198, 2-3).

There were a number of weaknesses in the Comfort handwave, unless it is important to our discussion I will not get too bogged down watching him drift around the topic. For now I will simply point out that:

But Griesbach's principle is still valid if we remember that he "qualified it carefully by excepting certain variants, such as those that could be explained by homoeoteleuton" (Silva 1992b, 23). The kind of omissions noted by Royse often are nonessential terms or are the result of scribal inadvertence. Thus the principle still stands with respect to judging between truly shorter readings and readings with longer verbiage.

Is a totally illogical conclusion, as if Comfort felt that just stringing random ideas together was an argument.

Royse considered homoeoteleuton and it has nothing to do with the great majority of variants. And Royse considered many variants that are similar to dropping a phrase or a sentence. And it is very possible that the original drop in Mark 7:16 was in fact "scribal inadvertence", nullifying some attempted counterpoint by Comfort. Finally, the "thus the principle.." sentence is one of the dumbest pieces of non-logic around. This is what you get from Hortians in the fog.

Peter Head, Ronald Royse and others have shown that the scribal habits really are towards omission (which is also common sense, since omissions are extremely easy to occur) and Comfort is simply trying to handwave the actual studies.

We discuss this frequently on the textual forums (including the abuse of Griesbach's comments about the harder reading and the shorter reading, which were themselves qualified). A good example of studying these issues would be to read the section by Albert Curtis Clark (1859-1937) given at:

Clark on Mark's Ending, PA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/4381
The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ['prefer the shorter reading']. This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words :

Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum.'

["A shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks weight and antiquity, is preferable to a verbose one. For a copyist is much more prone to further additions than to make omissions."]

... Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim brevior lectio potior more evident than in the New Testament.

Simply an extract, go to the page for the fulness. Clark actually goes too far in the opposite direction, however his criticism of Griesbach is a good start.

Also helpful is the learned Edgar Simmons Buchanan (1872-1932), although Griesbach was not quite the inventor of the concept, except maybe in the context of extensive attempted NT application.

More Light From the Western Text - (1916)
Edgar Simmons Buchanan
http://books.google.com/books?id=xPwRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA426
Griesbach (1745-1812) used two supreme canons of textual criticism, the first of which he took from Bengel (1687-1752), and the second he seems to have the right to be called the inventor of .. prefer the shorter reading to the longer. Both these canons were framed on a wrong estimate of the fidelity of the early custodians of sacred manuscripts. (continues with explanation)

Others on the topic are Ernest Cadman Colwell, Peter Head and Ronald Royse. I'll see if I can put together a little reference compendium.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[Stefcui]

Steven, is it your contention that any text based on Westcott and Hort, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are to be regarded as spurious? Are you suggesting a KJV-only position?

God Bless

[John Reece]

Peter Head, Ronald Royse and others have shown that the scribal habits really are towards omission (which is also common sense, since omissions are extremely easy to occur) and Comfort is simply trying to handwave the actual studies.

It appears to me that it is you who are handwaving ― jumping up and down and waving both hands ― and using red and blue colors as a kind of flag waving.

What I find interesting is the fact that after all that has been posted in this thread, and all the time that has elapsed between your disappearances and re-appearances here, you have never answered any of Robrecht's questions posed to you, though he has answered in extensive detail every aspect of every question you have posed to him.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

When you say “evidence against the current critical text understanding,” it seems like perhaps you now prefer to discuss exegesis, ie, the the proper understanding, of several texts rather than try and establish the most likely original text.'

You miss the point. The modern version Markan interjection understanding has multiple problems. First, the original text from a textual evidence standpoint is more likely neuter (although it is not an overwhelming textual situation as we see above as in Mark 7:16) in which case the modern version understanding of a Markan interjection is defunct.

If you are stuck with the masculine, you can get the interjection with difficulty. This leads to another problem, why would Mark ever write an interjection in such a dysfunctional way? This textual stylistic question is never really answered by proponents of the textus corruptus Markan interjection translation.

Thus the various components, textual, translational and exegesis cannot be neatly separated as if one does not relate to the others, as they interrelate.

If that’s the case, fine, we can do that, but ‘higher criticism’ should not be used to gloss over the more fundamental issues of ‘lower criticism’, ie, the critical establishment of the more likely original text and a proper understanding of the languages and grammar used in the texts under discussion.

An atomistic approach simply does not work here, as I explain above.

I still await your explanation of the grammar of the neuter participle in Greek.

And I await your answer to my question .. I gave you the idea of the sentence as expressed by Gill and others, and asked you how that would be expressed in Greek. No response.

What do you mean: 'when the Latin lacks the interjection phrase'? This sounds like a discussion of lacunae in some Latin mss, but I suspect you are merely assuming one interpretation of a literal but more ambiguous Latin translation.

If a Latin translator saw an interjection in the Greek, they would translate it into the Latin. Afaik, this never happened. Do you see the Markan interjection in any of the Latin texts?

Previously you had said neither the Latin nor any of the versions ‘saw’ a Markan interjection, and that this is a strong argument against that translation today, and if the translation is unnatural, that is a strong argument for the neuter. It seems as if you have now accepted that the Latin provides no support for the neuter, which if so is good, but you still want to assume that the Latin rules out a Markan interjection. It does not.

And I have no idea of your logic here. Again, if there was a masculine, understood as an interjection, the Latin should show that interjection. It does not. So either the ancient Latin translators:

1) were working with the neuter from Greek
2) were working with the masculine, but reject the idea that a Markan interjection is involved.

Either way, they give no support to the modern versions.

The literal but ambiguous Latin translation certainly would have obscured the meaning of an underlying Greek masculine participle,

This would actually be a rejection of the modern English translations of the masculine.

but the Latin can still be understood as expressing a Markan interjection. As I mentioned above, you should check out the varying punctuation in Vulgate editions. See, eg, the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio:

The Nova Vulgata is irrelevant, something you should know. It is a Latin text that is based on the Greek Critical Text, (and can be tweaked to match related Hortian translational understandings)... and not even remotely a historic Latin version. Thus it can never be used as a support for the Greek Critical Text, unless it happens to match ancient Latin manuscripts, which would be rare in variant situations.

And I actually am a bit amazed that you would actually give the Nova Vulgata as if it has any historical relevance to our discussion. Do you know the history of this version, and do you know much about the Old Latin and the Vulgate editions in general?

Why do the circular riggings of the Hortian position take up so much time in the discussion? Earlier a rigged apparatus. (In fact, the majority of extant Greek manuscripts before the 10th century favors the neuter, the majority of uncials of all times very slightly favors the masculine.) Now we have an anachronistic version attempt.

I'll continue, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, when I have a bit more time.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

It appears to me that it is you who are handwaving .

Why ? I showed you that your evidence for Mark 7:19 was a rigged apparatus, designed to fool you by omitting many of the Byzantine uncials, similar is true with early Byzantine cursives. (You can see discussion of this now on the two major textual forums on yahoogroups.)

You should be thankful that you learned a bit about the trickery exposed, so hopefully you will not fall into that trap again.

And I showed you that the evidence for Mark 7:16 was simply overwhelming, essentially on every category except Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, for the Received Text reading.

Why not address those evidences, rather than posturing ?

Beyond that, I even disassembled the nonsense you posted from Philip Comfort, that was simply illogical. And was trying to somehow bring lectio brevior back into the picture as a foundational element on Mark 7:16, even though that fails miserably based on today's scientific understanding of scribal habits.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[John Reece]

I showed you that your evidence for Mark 7:19 was a rigged apparatus, designed to fool you by omitting many of the Byzantine uncials, similar is true with early Byzantine cursives.

Your conspiracy theory of a critical apparatus intentionally constructed ― by the five international editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament ― to fool people does not merit serious consideration.

[robrecht]

Hi,

You miss the point.

OK. Here's what you said:

(A)

When the Latin lacks the interjection phrase, it is an indication that either:

1) the translation was from the neuter Greek
or
2) the translators to Latin did not see the masculine Greek as supporting a Markan interjection.

Or possibly both if they were faced with the two Greek variants.

Therefore it definitely is evidence against the current Critical text understanding.

Here's how you now explain the point of what you said:

(B)

The modern version Markan interjection understanding has multiple problems. First, the original text from a textual evidence standpoint is more likely neuter (although it is not an overwhelming textual situation as we see above as in Mark 7:16) in which case the modern version understanding of a Markan interjection is defunct.

If you are stuck with the masculine, you can get the interjection with difficulty. This leads to another problem, why would Mark ever write an interjection in such a dysfunctional way? This textual stylistic question is never really answered by proponents of the textus corruptus Markan interjection translation.

Thus the various components, textual, translational and exegesis cannot be neatly separated as if one does not relate to the others, as they interrelate.

Now you seem to be making a point about external evidence somehow rendering 'the modern version understanding' of a Markan interjection defunct (Websters: no longer living, existing, or functioning). I think I'm still missing the point because this part does not make sense to me. Nor does it seem to relate to what you said in (A). I see no mention of weighing external evidence in (A).

Next you speak about the difficulty and dysfunction of the Markan interjection, which you seem to consider to be two problems. And you say that this issue is never dealt with by proponents of the interjection. That's not true, by the way, both Booker and I have both explained it here in this very thread (196 & 208). Again, these problems of difficulty and dysfunction that you mention in (B) were not mentioned in (A).

I completely agree that issues of textual criticism, translation and exegesis are interrelated but I nonetheless still insist that higher criticism should not gloss over the more fundamental issues of ‘lower criticism’. In other words, these fundamental issues still need to be addressed. Your statements in (A) demonstrate an incomplete grasp of Latin and attempt to use the Latin as evidence against an exegesis of the Greek text, which you admit could be either the neuter or the masculine participle, yet without providing an explanation of the neuter participle. That's what I mean by glossing over the more fundamental issues.

An atomistic approach simply does not work here, as I explain above.

I would never advocate an atomistic approach. If you think I have you have misappreciated my efforts here. I've looked up and explained the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic, the medieval English, the reformers translations into Latin, German, and English, the pre-17th century Greek editions that preceded the King James Version, as well as Beza's explanation, on which Bengel depends.

And I await your answer to my question .. I gave you the idea of the sentence as expressed by Gill and others, and asked you how that would be expressed in Greek. No response.

I provided extensive answers for all of the texts and people you brought up. It would be overly tedious go back and quote myself, and this would prove no more satisfying to you the second and third time around, so let's try and find a simpler way. Maybe you can ask your question in a different way? Most of your your commentators introduce ideas that are not in the text, for which I've actually given you Greek translations of their implied or explicit ideas. I think the only thing I did not translate into Greek was Beza's passive because he explicitly considered the active to be used as a passive but did not dare to introduce this interpretation into his Latin translation. Or maybe I will just go ahead and translate their commentary into Greek--that might be amusing if I find the time.

If a Latin translator saw an interjection in the Greek, they would translate it into the Latin. Afaik, this never happened. Do you see the Markan interjection in any of the Latin texts?

Yes, practically all of them, but as I've said the Latin translation is ambiguous, meaning it neither requires nor excludes an interjection. But, because of the lack of precision in the target language, it certainly obscures what is clearer in the Greek, so what a literal translator may or may not have seen in the Greek is much less likely to be seen by a subsequent reader of only the Latin.

I have no idea of your logic here.

Good. I was quoting you practically verbatim and disagreeing with it.

Again, if there was a masculine, understood as an interjection, the Latin should show that interjection. It does not. So either the ancient Latin translators:

1) were working with the neuter from Greek
2) were working with the masculine, but reject the idea that a Markan interjection is involved.

Either way, they give no support to the modern versions.

OK, so you are now repeating (A). You think that the Latin precludes an interjection but it does not.

This would actually be a rejection of the modern English translations of the masculine.

No it is not.

But thanks for the humorous anachronism.

The Nova Vulgata is irrelevant, something you should know. It is a Latin text that is based on the Greek Critical Text, (and can be tweaked to match related Hortian translational understandings)... and not even remotely a historic Latin version. Thus it can never be used as a support for the Greek Critical Text, unless it happens to match ancient Latin manuscripts, which would be rare in variant situations.

And I actually am a bit amazed that you would actually give the Nova Vulgata as if it has any historical relevance to our discussion. Do you know the history of this version, and do you know much about the Old Latin and the Vulgate editions in general?

Why do the circular riggings of the Hortian position take up so much time in the discussion? Earlier a rigged apparatus. (In fact, the majority of extant Greek manuscripts before the 10th century favors the neuter, the majority of uncials of all times very slightly favors the masculine.) Now we have an anachronistic version attempt.

I'll continue, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, when I have a bit more time.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Please do not misunderstand. I did not quote the Nova Vulgata anachronistically (note the name!) or as having any historic relevance whatsoever--recall I twice mentioned it as a recent edition or version. The point in citing it was merely to demonstrate that the Latin is ambiguous and it can certainly be understood as an expressing a Markan interjection. I did actually check it against the Clementine and a critical edition of Jerome to make sure there were no substantive textual differneces here, as I'm sure you noticed. So, yes I do know a little bit about Latin and Latin editions, 'though my Latin is admittedly a little rusty. Why do you think I asked for Bengel's Latin text and traced his idea back to Bengel's explanation? I think we have demonstrated very clearly that it is the Complutensian text that has required much more time to explain, and I thank you for that.

Pax et bonum, Robrecht

[robrecht]

Hi,

You miss the point. The modern version Markan interjection understanding has multiple problems. First, the original text from a textual evidence standpoint is more likely neuter (although it is not an overwhelming textual situation as we see above as in Mark 7:16) in which case the modern version understanding of a Markan interjection is defunct.

Now you seem to be making a point about external evidence somehow rendering 'the modern version understanding' of a Markan interjection defunct (Websters: no longer living, existing, or functioning). I think I'm still missing the point because this part does not make sense to me.

OK, sorry, now I see what you mean here. Yes, the neuter in Greek, would preclude the Markan interjection interpretation, unless one tries to supply an imaginary antecedent along the lines of what BlueFalcon mentioned. Your introduction of the idea of external evidence in (B) and your claim that I had misunderstood (A) threw me off. I never missed or disagreed with that.