[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19 Keep focus on the Greek text, please

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Nov 2 17:50:19 EST 2009


This is getting far, far beyond the focus on the text itself and its  
immediate context. I don't want to call a halt to what has been a  
useful and informative thread, but the focus needs to stay on the  
central issue of the Greek text in its immediate context rather than  
background issues and broader matters of itnerpretation.

Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List

On Nov 2, 2009, at 5:14 PM, yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> 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>





More information about the B-Greek mailing list