[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Nov 2 17:14:55 EST 2009
OK, well that is a different sort of anachronism altogether! Surely
the translator cannot completely avoid it, since she or he is creating
a text that is, in many ways, metaphorical to the original (i.e.
METAFWRA = translatio) and the voices coalesce ... in this case we are
also dealing with Mark as a translator of Jesus and the story of the
confrontation over eating food with unwashed hands.
I think that Mark applies the story of Jesus in the straightforward
way Origen (and other ancient Greek speakers read it). Mark asserts
that Jesus cleansed all foods, kosher and non-kosher. The Syriac
evidence is derivative. Nevertheless, the context in which one chooses
to read the story can radically alter the meaning. If one chooses to
read Mark's story in the context of Jesus ministry and his interaction
with the Pharisees, it cannot mean what Mark and the translations of
Mark say it means. An enlightening study of what Jesus is likely to
have meant is found in the recent NTS article by Yair Furstenberg,
"Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination
in Mark 7:15." A follow up article has appeared in the Jerusalem
Perspective by David Bivens "Mark 7:19: Did Jesus Make 'Unclean' Food
'Clean'?" Bivens attempts to extend Furstenberg's interpretation to
Mark 7:19, in a spectacularly unsuccessful way, I might add. Here is
Furstenberg's abstract. (I have the pdf of both articles, BTW).
Mark 7.15, which contrasts two modes of defilement, appears in the
gospel as a
response to the Pharisaic custom of washing hands before eating. In
this article, it
is argued that this custom embodies an innovative approach to ritual
impurity.
Hand washing, which originated, so it is argued, in the Greco-Roman
practice, was
promoted by the Pharisees along with other purity laws, but stands in
contrast to
the biblical priestly purity system. In this logion, Jesus rejects the
Pharisees’ new
conception of ritual purity, which was designed to guard the self from
impurity.
This interpretation offers both a coherent narrative and a plausible
understanding
of the custom within its historical-social context.
As translators of Mark, we translate Mark, not Jesus.
As students of Greek we can seek to discover what Jesus words (before
Mark) might have meant, at a different time and place. It is
anachronistic to assume that Mark simply reproduced the meaning of
Jesus to his Gentile audience with no change in meaning at a different
time, place, and in a different language!
So, if I were to translate καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ
βρώματα in the Jesus' (Palestinian) context, I would say that it
means: "he said this, ... in effect, cleansing all [kosher] foods
[that the Pharisees assert are impure through being touched by
unwashed hands]"
In Mark's context, a lot has changed and many believers in Jesus have
moved on to assume that the story has to do, contrary to the immediate
context, with all foods, not just foods supposedly contaminated by
being eaten with unwashed hands. Here is a case where Mark has taken a
saying of Jesus and expanded its meaning, under the direction of the
Spirit of the Gentile mission, to allow for both Jewish and non-Jewish
believers in Christ to eat together. In this case context changes the
meaning of πάτα τὰ βρώματα and expands the originally
much more restricted meaning of καθαρίζων.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Nov 2, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:
> Hi Yancy,
>
> About your question on 'anachronistic':
>
> Mark is surely fond of adding such interesting and intriguing
> 'editorial comments' of his own here and there in the Gospel
> narrative. This phrase KAQARIZWN/KAQARIZON PANTA TA BRWMATA
> (which is lacking in the parallel Mt) does likewise belong to the
> layer of the
> author's voice.
>
> I glance from many writings that taking it (at the end of v. 19) to
> connect to KAI LEGEI AUTOIS (at the beginning of v.18) is surely a
> strained effort of (theological) understanding.
>
> Many modern translations bring this effect into the translation
> itself, the understanding which is purely at the level of
> interpretation.
> As it stands then, it *is* the voice of the translator within the
> translation. The readers get misled as if it were the voice of Mark,
> or even of Jesus. This cannot be anything other than anachronistic.
>
> Oun Kwon.
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
> <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In his Commentary on the Gospel of Mark 11.12, Origen says:
>>
>> <clipped>
>>
>> Origen clearly links KAQARIZWN with ELEGEN hO SWTHR.
> <clipped>
>> Origen seems to view Jesus' statements as having performative action,
>> in the act of saying this he "purified all foods."
>> But I think it is instructive and not anachronistic to compare Mark
>> with Paul,
>> who has a similar attitude in 1 Cor. 8:8.
>> If Mark knew Paul, he may well have picked up an attitude or two
>> from Paul.
>> They were alive in the same movement during the same decades.
>> What is anachronistic about that? Paul expressed himself with
>> considerable irony here.
>>
>> <clipped>
>>
>> Yancy Smith, PhD
>>
>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <Clipped>
>>> I do not see any narrative support for an idea of 'abolishing the
>>> dietary law' here. Bringing in Pauline comments into the
>>> discussion of
>>> this Gospel text seems anachronistic to me.
>>>
>>> <clipped>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list