FWD from Crosstalk/Carlson

From: Bob Schacht (Robert.Schacht@NAU.EDU)
Date: Fri Dec 19 1997 - 04:05:41 EST


>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:49:38 +0000
>From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Mark 7:19
>Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
>X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com
>To: CrossTalk@info.harpercollins.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
>
>I'm forwarding a brief exchange between Mahlon and me on this topic
>for the whole Crosstalk list. This was Mahlon's response to my message:
>
>Stephen Carlson
>
>>Return-Path: <mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net>
>>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 06:28:55 -0500
>>From: "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net
>>Organization: Rutgers University - Religion Dept
>>To: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: Mark 7:19
>>
>>Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Having been away for a week on business, I would like to give Mahlon a
>>> belated welcome to the list. He is a wonderful addition to this list,
>>> but I hope he won't mind my disagreeing with him on this issue.
>>
>>Greetings yourself, Stephen, & welcome back. I wondered where you were
>>hiding. Of course I don't mind disagreement. That's how I entered the
>>list in the first place.
>>
>> I'm not
>>> sure I can really add much more to this discussion, except my support
>>> for Carl's position. In general, I have a great deal of respect for
>>> Carl's carefully reasoned and nuanced messages.
>>>
>>> Metzger's commentary on this passage,
>>> graded an "A", is correct:
>>>
>>> The overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence supports the
>>> reading KAQARIZWN. The difficulty of construing this word
>>> in the sentence[n.1] prompted copyists to attempt various
>>> corrections and ameliorations.
>>>
>>> [n.1] Many modern scholars, following the interpretation
>>> suggested by Origen and Chrysostom, regard KAQARIZWN as
>>> connected grammatically with LEGEI in ver. 18, and take it
>>> as the evangelist's comment on the implications of Jesus'
>>> words concerning dietary laws.
>>>
>>> Thus, the reason why few translations offered the rendering that
>>> Jesus made all foods clean until the mid-20th century is due to
>>> the fact that most translations until then were based on the TR,
>>> including the KJV.
>>>
>>> With the reading KAQARIZWN (nominative masculine participle) now
>>> secure, the participle can only construe with the implied subject
>>> of the preceding verb LEGEI, if this sentence is grammatical. I
>>> think if the participle were to construe with the verb phrase KAI
>>> EIS TON AFEDRWNA EKPOREUETAI "and goes out into the latrine", it
>>> would be neuter. Agreement with the accusative masculine noun
>>> AFEDRWNA is also not grammatical, since KAQARIZWN is the wrong case.
>>> If KAQARIZWN applies to the implied subject of LEGEI, namely Jesus,
>>> it would mean that Jesus made all foods clean.
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time with the case that the author of Mark cannot
>>> be so awkward in placing this gloss in this position, but, at the
>>> same time, can very well write an ungrammatical sentence (i.e., put
>>> KAQARIZWN in the wrong case). I think all agree that this passage
>>> is fairly awkward, but awkwardness is not unusual in Mark. On the
>>> other hand, the alleged grammatical error is so blatant that I think
>>> that the stylistic oddity is the easier solution.
>>>
>>> I also agree with Carl that the rendering of the KJV's "purging" is
>>> problemmatic since the verb KAQARIZW basically means "to make clean,
>>> cleanse, purify." Even the citations by Mahlon to Liddell & Scott
>>> do not help his case. For example, L&S state "CLEAR ground of weeds".
>>> Although the Greek text is not given, it appears that the object of the
>>> clearing, the ground, is what is being made cleaned -- not the weeds.
>>> Back to Mk7:19 KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA, it is "all foods" that are
>>> made clean. As Carl noted, if the sense of the KJV is wanted (i.e. the
>>> food is evacuated), the object of the verb would be the intestines not
>>> the food.
>>>
>>> However, picking and choosing arbitrary meanings from a dictionary is a
>>> dubious methodological procedure. The best meaning comes from context,
>>> and the issue here is defilement. Since KAQARIZW is used so often in
>>> relation to ritual purity and since ritual purity is the issue, the most
>>> natural significance of the verb is related to ritual purity. Since
>>> the interpretation of the Jesus' remarks to abolish the kosher laws, by
>>> rendering all food -- even disgusting food -- clean seems new to Mark
>>> (Matthew here better preserves the original controversy) and unknown to
>>> Paul in his letters and Acts, I would conclude that this gloss is Mark's
>>> interpretation on a pre-existing but ill-fitting tradition. Even if Jesus
>>> really did intend to abolish the kosher laws with his statement, no one
>>> before Mark seems to have realized it.
>>>
>>> While I'm disagreeing with Mahlon, I'm also finding it difficult that the
>>> author of Mark was a (knowledgeable) Jew, because he is cavalier about
>>> important distinctions in Judaism. At Mk7:1-23 we see the issue of hand
>>> washing confounded with kashrut. At Mk15:46 Joseph of A. bought a linen
>>> cloth after it was evening (v42) on Friday -- apparently in violation of
>>> the Sabbath laws. Maybe the aorist participle of v46 (lit. "having
>bought")
>>> can be pressed to indicate a time before the evening, but I would think
>>> that a knowledgeable Jew would be more sensitive to when the Jewish day
>>> begins. Perhaps Mark was not a *knowledgeable* Jew; in that case, what
>>> evidence is there left (besides Colossians) to distinguish a not-so-
>>> knowledgeable Jew and a Gentile?
>>>
>>> Stephen Carlson
>>>
>>Informative & well argued. But I wish people would stop generalizing
>>about Jews in the first century. From all we can tell from the sources,
>>Judaism was far more diverse then than it is today. Moreover, there is
>>the geographical factor of a Galilee separated from Judea by a
>>three-four day journey. The Pharisees were the dominant party in Judea.
>>No question. Galilee is another story. No less an authority on early
>>Judaism than Jake Neusner has repeatedly warned against assuming that
>>there were many Pharisees in Galilee prior to the Jewish War. He takes
>>quite seriously the historicity of Johanan b. Zakkai's lament that
>>Galileans hate the Torah (meaning the Pharisaic interpretation of the
>>ORAL Torah). Johanan was responsible for creating Pharisaic a uniform
>>Pharisaic consensus after the Jewish War. Before that there was a
>>free-for-all between various Pharisaic schools. If Pharisees were in
>>Galilee: what brands of Pharisaism were there? Disciples of the
>>revolutionary Zaddok whom Josephus mentions? Disciples of political
>>right-wingers (allies of Herod) as Mark seems to indicate? Or something
>>in between? There are just too many possibilities & too little
>>information to make a definitive ruling on how much of Pharisaic
>>doctrine would know or observe. For example, Eric Meyers in his report
>>on excavations in Sepphoris argued the Jewishness of the area by
>>excavation of pits that he identified as miqvahs. Yet his own report
>>also lists pig bones as prevalent everywhere. This sure sounds like a
>>strange form of Pharisaic Judaism to me. So, the question of whether
>>Mark or Jesus was "Jewish" cannot be determined by degree of agreement
>>with Pharisaic halakha.
>>
>>But you seem to mistake my argument on Mark 7:19 & you misrepresent
>>(unintentionally I'm sure) Carl's analysis. HE says that the
>>construction is so odd that the participle is less likely to be from
>>Mark than a later scribe. I agee, IF the participle is interpreted
>>grammatically. If someone can produce a parallel construction in Mark
>>for this logion, I will concede that Mark might have created such a gosh
>>awful grammatical construction as this & still remembered to make
>>participle agree with subject. But my argument hinges on the LOGIC of
>>the whole pericope rather than just grammar. Jesus' questions presuppose
>>that the disciples (& Mark's readers) should have known that what is
>>consumed is passed out of the body without him having to explain it.
>>This is not presented as novel information. Therefore, the logic of the
>>sentence makes it improbable that KAQARIZWN modifies LEGEI. If MARK
>>wanted to say that he would probably have written KAQARIZEI PANTA TA
>>BRWMATA LEGWN (by analogy with his regular style elsewhere). The only
>>way to make KAQARIZWN refer to LEGEI is to treat it as Carl suggests: a
>>scribal addition. So, in that case, this verse provides no evidence
>>that MARK thought Jesus declared all foods clean.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>
>>Mahlon
>>
>--
>Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
>scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words.
>http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
>
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Director of Research
American Indian Rehabilitation Research & Training Center
Institute for Human Development, University Affiliated Program
P.O.Box 5630
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5630
phone 520-523-1342; FAX 520-523-9127
http://www.nau.edu/~ihd/airrtc.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:39 EDT