Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: June 25th, 2012, 1:45 am
Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
- Mark 7:19
"Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" (KJV)
"since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean. (ESV)
What is the antecedent of καθαρίζων? It is masculine, and if it is Jesus, then Jesus "cleanses all foods," which is taken to mean that he declares all foods clean. On the other hand, the semi-colon placement seems to indicate that the cleansing has to do with the previous clause.
Is Jesus the only possible antecedent? Or could it refer to the process of something going through the person, despite not being neuter. The discussion regarding constructio ad sensum made me wonder if the gender of a masculine singular participle need not be tied to a masculine singular noun in this case.
- Mark 7:19
"Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" (KJV)
"since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean. (ESV)
What is the antecedent of καθαρίζων? It is masculine, and if it is Jesus, then Jesus "cleanses all foods," which is taken to mean that he declares all foods clean. On the other hand, the semi-colon placement seems to indicate that the cleansing has to do with the previous clause.
Is Jesus the only possible antecedent? Or could it refer to the process of something going through the person, despite not being neuter. The discussion regarding constructio ad sensum made me wonder if the gender of a masculine singular participle need not be tied to a masculine singular noun in this case.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
I wouldn't exactly call it an antecedent, i.e., it isn't an adjective but more of an adverb. What we have is a circumstantial participle which sets forth the attendent circumstances. If you note the ESV translation you quoted, it adds "Thus he declared …" What they have done is to go back to the beginning of v 18 with καὶ λέγει—"And he said … cleansing all foods." The rationale is that by saying this he cleansed [declared/said cleansing] all food.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
And the participle being neuter in the Byzantine text makes me wonder whether perhaps:D Ryan Lowe wrote:The discussion regarding constructio ad sensum made me wonder if the gender of a masculine singular participle need not be tied to a masculine singular noun in this case.
(1) That is the original, and was changed in the Alexandrian texts.
(2) That is what the Byzantine scribes thought it should be, and they changed the text.
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
Or that the copyists were hearing the text read out loud and copying in a group - and they heard it as καθαρίζον, which sounds the same as καθαρίζων. What automatically makes you think that the Alexandrian scribes changed it and that the Byzantine mss are more ancient? Many such changes are accidental and should not be attributed to intention of any kind.David Lim wrote:And the participle being neuter in the Byzantine text makes me wonder whether perhaps:D Ryan Lowe wrote:The discussion regarding constructio ad sensum made me wonder if the gender of a masculine singular participle need not be tied to a masculine singular noun in this case.
(1) That is the original, and was changed in the Alexandrian texts.
(2) That is what the Byzantine scribes thought it should be, and they changed the text.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
Ah yes. No I wasn't assuming any bad intention; "changed" can include "accidentally changed". But now that you mention:Jason Hare wrote:Or that the copyists were hearing the text read out loud and copying in a group - and they heard it as καθαρίζον, which sounds the same as καθαρίζων. What automatically makes you think that the Alexandrian scribes changed it and that the Byzantine mss are more ancient? Many such changes are accidental and should not be attributed to intention of any kind.David Lim wrote:And the participle being neuter in the Byzantine text makes me wonder whether perhaps:D Ryan Lowe wrote:The discussion regarding constructio ad sensum made me wonder if the gender of a masculine singular participle need not be tied to a masculine singular noun in this case.
(1) That is the original, and was changed in the Alexandrian texts.
(2) That is what the Byzantine scribes thought it should be, and they changed the text.
(3) In later centuries "ο" sounds the same as "ω" and the scribes were copying from hearing.
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
This has been discussed many times on the old B-Greek mailing list. I recommend reviewing the archives.
With the critical text, with καθαρίζων, the antecedent of this participle is the subject of the λέγει (Jesus) at the beginning of v.18. It is probably to be understood as an editorial comment on the part of the narrator that Jesus cleansed (i.e. declared clean) all foods, although subsequent Christian history (e.g. Peter in Acts) suggests that this was not fully understood at the time.
Under this interpretation, the participial is not part of what Jesus said, so the placement of the Greek question mark (not semicolon) in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition is misleading.
Origen and Chrysostom apparently construed the participle with the following verb ἔλεγεν in v.20, whose implicit subject is Jesus. How they dealt with the δέ is unknown to me, but their Greek is better than mine!
It is very unlikely that the masculine would refer to an implicit process. I would expect a neuter.
The late Byzantine reading καθαρίζον is due to both homophony between the two participles after the second century and an attempt to ease the syntax by providing a closer antecedent. It must be recognized that not all Byzantine MSS read the neuter. The important early Byzantine (in the gospels) Codex Alexandrinus still reads the masculine. The masculine is also not specific to Alexandrian texts, because the Caesareans also read it.
With the critical text, with καθαρίζων, the antecedent of this participle is the subject of the λέγει (Jesus) at the beginning of v.18. It is probably to be understood as an editorial comment on the part of the narrator that Jesus cleansed (i.e. declared clean) all foods, although subsequent Christian history (e.g. Peter in Acts) suggests that this was not fully understood at the time.
Under this interpretation, the participial is not part of what Jesus said, so the placement of the Greek question mark (not semicolon) in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition is misleading.
Origen and Chrysostom apparently construed the participle with the following verb ἔλεγεν in v.20, whose implicit subject is Jesus. How they dealt with the δέ is unknown to me, but their Greek is better than mine!
It is very unlikely that the masculine would refer to an implicit process. I would expect a neuter.
The late Byzantine reading καθαρίζον is due to both homophony between the two participles after the second century and an attempt to ease the syntax by providing a closer antecedent. It must be recognized that not all Byzantine MSS read the neuter. The important early Byzantine (in the gospels) Codex Alexandrinus still reads the masculine. The masculine is also not specific to Alexandrian texts, because the Caesareans also read it.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
Stephen C. Carlson wrote
Now why would you expect a neuter. I would expect a masculine as it appears.It is very unlikely that the masculine would refer to an implicit process. I would expect a neuter.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
Jason Hare wrote:
It is more likely that the Alexandrian text is older than the Byzantine. Therefore, I would say that the Byzantine tradition changed it.Or that the copyists were hearing the text read out loud and copying in a group - and they heard it as καθαρίζον, which sounds the same as καθαρίζων. What automatically makes you think that the Alexandrian scribes changed it and that the Byzantine mss are more ancient? Many such changes are accidental and should not be attributed to intention of any kind.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
I'm trying to think what masculine noun would be implicit and I am drawing a blank. Maybe you know one, since you're expecting one.George F Somsel wrote:Now why would you expect a neuter. I would expect a masculine as it appears.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: June 25th, 2012, 1:45 am
Re: Mark 7:19 καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
It seems strange to put the participle at the end of a long quotation like that. Are there other clear examples that we know of where a participle is used at the end of a quotation with λεγω?Stephen Carlson wrote:With the critical text, with καθαρίζων, the antecedent of this participle is the subject of the λέγει (Jesus) at the beginning of v.18. It is probably to be understood as an editorial comment on the part of the narrator that Jesus cleansed (i.e. declared clean) all foods, although subsequent Christian history (e.g. Peter in Acts) suggests that this was not fully understood at the time.