[B-Greek] Mark 7:19 katharizon in the light of Mark 7:14:23
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 31 12:15:41 EDT 2009
Your wish is my command. Unfortunately, however, I don't have the Greek text of Chrysostom so we will have to rely upon the English translation.
But Mark saith, that “cleansing the meats,” He spake this. He did not however express it, nor at all say, “but to eat such and such meats defileth not the man,” for neither could they endure to be told it by Him thus distinctly. And accordingly[Page 319] His conclusion was, “But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.”
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. X. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies of the Gospel of Saint Matthew. (318). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
If the translation here is correct, it would seem that Chrysostom disagrees with you when you state, "It is clear that καθαρίζο(ω)ν πάντα τὰ βρώματα is not related as an
implicit subject ot Jesus" since that is precisely how Chrysostom must be understood.
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
From: Nikolaos Adamou <nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com>
To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Cc: leonardj at live.com; b-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 6:41:04 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Mark 7:19 katharizon in the light of Mark 7:14:23
18 KAI LEGEI AUTOIS, "hOUTWS KAI hUMEIS ASUNETOI ESTE?
OU NOEITE hOTI PAN TO ECWQEN EISPOREUOMENON EIS TON ANQRWPON
OU DUNATAI AUTON KOINWSAI
19 hOTI OUK EISPOREUETAI AUTOU EIS THN KARDIAN ALL' EIS THN KOILIAN;
KAI EIS TON AFEDRWNA EKPOREUETAI, KAQARIZON PANTA TA BRWMATA.
by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont
Let’s put the questions we have so far, and I will try to answer.
Do we have interrogative sentences?
Even without using question marks in the manuscripts, we can identify
Both Westcott / Hort (1881) and the critical text I use by Antoniadis
that is in use by the Orthodox Churh give two (2) interrogative sentences,
while Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont give on the first one.
Bible in Basic English has two interrogative sentences,
BUT does not follow Westcott / Hort by exluding the last part from the
while Westcott / Hort include it.
I do not turn anything into a question, our out of the question; the
question is in the text.
Translations take the question out of the text. Saying this, I would
like to make a point.
I also looked at some of the English translations, taking the advice
from Iver Larsen.
He is correct that most of English translations are similar to each
other, except the King James,
but I will notice that they are far away from the original text.
In such cases, we should not go to see what the translations are, but
what the text is.
Looking at the text, we should not get locked at verses, but at sentences.
The meaning comes from the sentence and the paragraph, and not from the verse.
The complete thought here is Mark 7:14-23.
The main point here is not food, or clean and unclean, but what KOINEI humans.
It is the complete sentence that is contained in verse 15. This
point is so important,
that two other sentences, before and after stress that.
a) Hear me all of you, and understand, & b) If any man hath ears to
hear, let him hear.
If Jesus want to talk about KATHARW or KATHARIZW
why did not use these words and He used KOINOW?
Some translators use Defile - American Standard Version, but some Clean.
I think that Rev. Bryant J. Williams III is correct by noting that
“KAQARIZON may have been pronounced
similarly to KAQARIZWN at the time of Mark writing his gospel.”
Caragounis talked about the historic Greek pronunciation, and in his book
he gives many example of the same case.
In such cases we make the appropriate corrections,
so the text will be correct, as critical editors do.
I would be very interest to see St. Chrysostom’s point for “KAQARIZWN”.
Antoniades in his critical edition was based MOSTLY on Chrysostom,
and he follows the Byzantine text giving it as KAQARIZON.
Leonard Jayawardena wonders if Christ makes any scientific /
I do not think so, simply He provides an example using how a human body works,
a pragmatological one, that all understand.
Westcott / Hort gives his interpretation of the text with two
οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε;
οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται
19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ'
εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται [.] καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
If you take it as WH give it as an interrogative clause, Jesus cannot
be an indirect subject.
If you put a comma after ἐκπορεύεται as Maurice Robinson and William
Pierpont or Andoniades,
then everything makes sense and just a correction from καθαρίζων to
καθαρίζον solve the problem.
Andoniades gives as an interrogative second sentence
οὔπω νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ
δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι;
making a separate complete sentence the verse 19 as
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν,
καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont provide 19 as
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν•
καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
It is clear that καθαρίζο(ω)ν πάντα τὰ βρώματα is not related as an
implicit subject ot Jesus, but to εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται.
Nor in this paragraph is anything that suggests that
<In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.>
it does not relate to anything that the text refers and discusses.
From Mark 14 to 22 threre are twelve (12) errors that WH corrected!
Westcott / Hort (1881) with text from Codex Sinaiticus within brackets [ ] .
14 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὔτοῖς•
ἀκούσατε μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε.
15 οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [ΑΝΟΥ]
εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς [ΕΠ] αὐτὸν [ΑΥΤΟ] ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν,
ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [ΑΝΟΥ] ἐκπορευόμενα ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα [ΚΟΙΝΑΥΝΤΑ]
τὸν [ΤΟ] ἄνθρωπον [ΑΝΟΝ].
17 Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου,
πηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοὺ τὴν παραβολήν.
18 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς•
οὕτως [ΟΥΤΩ] καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοι ἐστε;
οὐ [ΟΥΠΩ] νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον
[ΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΙ ΤΟΝ ΑΝΟΝ] εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι
9 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν
αὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα [ΕΚΒΑΛΛΕΤΑΙ] ἐκπορεύεται. καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
20 ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ [ΑΝΟΥ] ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον.
[ΕΚΙΝΟ] ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν [ΑΝΟ] ἄνθρωπον.
21 ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν [ΑΝΩΝ] ἀνθρώπων
ἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοῖ ἐκπορεύονται, [ΠΟΡΝΙΑΙ] πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι,
22 [ΜΟΙΧΙΑΙ] μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, [ΑΣΕΛΓΙΑ] ἀσέλγεια,
ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη•
23 πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται [ΚΑΚΕΙΝΑ] καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.
As we can see above, old texts contain several grammatical errors.
Why καθαρίζων not be be one of them?
Why not 13, that ἐκπορεύεται [with a comma that makes sense] καθαρίζoν?
What does Chrysostom say on this?
There are too many other things between Jesus and καθαρίζων that makes
it very difficult to make a connection.
This period by WH is his interpetation, not part of the text, and
created the problem.
> From: cwconrad2 at mac.com
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:22:02 -0400
> To: john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
> CC: leonardj at live.com; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19
> On Oct 31, 2009, at 7:06 AM, John Sanders wrote:
> > My own thoughts on this passage is that καθαριζον
> > (KAQARIZON) is probably
> > the original term used. Beginning with verse 18 there are two οτι
> > (OTI)
> > clauses, the second beginning with verse 19 and ending with the word
> > εκπορευεται (EKPOREUETAI). The clause καθαιζον
> > παντα τα βρωματα (KAUARIZON
> > PANTA TA BRWMATA) is the concluding phrase summing up the food law.
> > Beginning with verse 20 the conversation now emphasizes what is truly
> > unclean. In other words, βρωματα (BRWMATA) is ορθο
> > (nominative) plural
> > construing with a verb in the singular. I know that the participal
> > is not a
> > true verb in that sense, but I suspect it will perform accordingly in
> > speech.
> Neuter nominative plural construing with a finite singular verb is one
> thing, but neuter plural noun construing with a neuter singular
> participle is hardly conceivable, a solecism of the first order (cf.
> BDF §136).
> This troublesome passage has been discussed before, and in checking
> through the archives I find my own take on this passage set forth in
> 1997 (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-03/0886.html) and also
> in my "Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark" (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/Mark/
> ).. I think that KAQARIZWN with -W-, the nominative masculine form in
> agreement with IHSOUS as the implicit subject as of LEGEI in verse 18.
> I won't reproduce that 1997 message here, as it was composed before
> our current restricted parameters of list-discussion were formulated.
> I would agree with George here, that KAQARIZWN the nominative
> masculine participle is grammatically proper here, although its
> position at such great removal from the main clause with which it must
> construe is extremely awkward.
> Carl W. Conrad
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com
> > >wrote:
> >> Donald Cobb wrote:
> >> Quote
> >> If we retained the neutral KAQARIZON, I would find it extremely
> >> difficult,
> >> in terms of meaning, to connect it with PAN TO EKSWTHEN in v. 18 or
> >> with the
> >> understood subject of the verbs in v. 19: "For it enters... into
> >> the bellly
> >> and goes out into the latrine, purifying all foods". IMO, the
> >> sentence thus
> >> understood is nonsensical; can we say that the food that enters,
> >> etc.,
> >> pronounces all foods clean?
> >> I don't think that turning into a question, as does NA, gives a good
> >> meaning, either.
> >> If we chose to retain the neutral, I think we would have to
> >> understand the
> >> subject as an unexpressed relative, hO, hOTI or something along
> >> those lines,
> >> and paraphrase: "This statement of Jesus pronounced all foods pure."
> >> Unquote
> >> LJ: With regard to the past para., cannot the antecedent of the
> >> participle
> >> (if "antecedent" is the correct term) be taken as the whole thought
> >> expressed by the words from PAN TO EXWQEN to EKPOREUETAI, so that
> >> the idea
> >> is that the biological process described by these words purifies
> >> the food
> >> consumed? (The meaning is still nonsensical, of course, as I have
> >> explained
> >> in my last post.)
> >> This would be analagous to the idea expressed by a clause/s
> >> sometimes being
> >> the antecedent of a relative pronoun in English, as in the sentence
> >> "The
> >> crowd went berserk and started smashing property, which compelled the
> >> authorities to send in the riot police."
> >> Is a similar phenomenon occurring in Mark 7:19 with the neuter
> >> participle
> >> KAQARIZON?
> >> Leonard Jayawardena
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re
> >> up to on
> >> Facebook.
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_2:092009
> >> ---
> >> 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
> > --
> > John Sanders
> > Suzhou, China
> > ---
> > 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
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Windows 7: It helps you do more. Explore Windows 7.
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek