A not so well known discussion between Timothy Keller, a professor of Patristic Studies, and a Troll...

shnarkle

Well-known member
Well I declare...
A discussion between a Professor of Patristic Studies; Timothy Keller, a pastor and author in the Presbyterian Church of America; and Shnarkle, a Professional Troll.

As Author Frantz Fanon notes, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
==============================

Mark 7:19 : The difference between "cleansing all foods" and "declaring all foods clean".

Professor: "There is no substantive difference between Codex Bezae and the majority of the manuscripts. Codex Bezae has: (katharizei panta ta bromata) Whereas most manuscripts have:(katharizon panta ta bromata)
The difference is between "he declares all foods clean" and "declaring all foods clean." It's the difference syntactically between a main
clause and a subordinate participial clause, but still means practically the same thing."

shnarkle: My response to this would be to first point out that regardless of the type of clause, the Greek word "katharizon" and "katharizei" don't include the meaning "declaring" or "he declares".

2511 [e] katharizon purifying V-PPA-NMS

If one looks for the meaning of "clean, purifying, cleansing etc." there are some references of a Levitical pronouncement of cleanliness, but the context of this passage doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Instead we see a comparison between the process of defilement and the digestive process.

In the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus immediately points out that the Pharisees have made the commandments null and void through their traditions. For Jesus to then suggest that the law is now done away with by his pronouncement makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the dietary laws aren't in view in this passage in the first place.

Professor: "This is your problem, being concerned with the letter of the law to the point where you can't accept the Bible's own interpretation and application of the law."

Shnarkle: Again, this comment collapses in on itself if one is to use the "declaring" version of this passage as it is the pronouncement of a Levitical priest, and Levitical pronouncements are explicitly concerned with the letter of the law.
In the older manuscripts, the process of digestion is what is cleansing or purging the food, not some declaration. The only declaration likely to accompany this type of purging would be if one were to break wind.

Timothy Keller: "n Matt. 5:18: 'I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.' This categorical statement doesn't seem to fit in with Mark 7;19 at all! But maybe we should look closer. Immediately before his statement about the Law in Matthew 5:18 Jesus tells us his relationship to it: 'I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets...but to fulfill.' This means that Jesus did not 'declare all foods clean' by abolishing the clean laws, but by fulfilling them." --Timothy Keller; "The Gospel of Mark", pg. 80


Shnarkle: The Pharisees of 20 centuries ago are rolling over in their graves and slapping themselves silly wondering why they didn't think of this. If Christ's disciple was having sex instead of eating, this is what the discussion would have looked like for our modern day Pharisees:

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?"....Jesus replied, "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

So how does one escape defilement? How does one get clean? This whole planet is turning into a gigantic cesspool of filth and pollution. I buy a HazMat suit before I test drive a brand new car. Before I get home I burn my clothes before going inside, then I jump into a tub of 200 proof alcohol and light it on fire to disinfect myself. Then I'm clean....on the outside.

If I want to get clean on the inside I have to drink a quart of that 200 proof alcohol and then swallow a lit M100. As it makes its way through my digestive tract, in the end, as it announces its departure it simultaneously cleans and disinfects my entire bathroom. Thus making my entire home clean. Everything is therefore clean. Everything that is, except my heart. Only God can make that clean, and if I defile my heart there is nothing I can do to make it clean. My filthy rotten disgusting defiled heart can only do one thing--sin. That's what defiled, depraved hearts do. They don't make anything clean. Only one's digestive tract can make anything clean. One with a box of Colon Blow and a lit M100 incinerating and disinfecting everything that offends.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Mark 7:19 (AV)
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?

This is using the Greek majority reading καθαρίζον.
Afaik, nobody uses the Codex Bezae text καθαρίζει.

What Timothy Keller says does not make sense, and it is curious that he offers the ultra-minority Codex Bezae text.

Even using the critical text, καθαρίζων it is quite strained to get the declare all foods clean English, as you point out.

My Bible text is the TR-AV.

Be careful with the apparatus, they have a trick to omit many uncials that support the Byzantine-TR reading.

It is a fascinating textual variant, with very significant doctrinal overtones.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Mark 7:19 (AV)
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?

This is using the Greek majority reading καθαρίζον.
Afaik, nobody uses the Codex Bezae text καθαρίζει.

What Timothy Keller says does not make sense, and it is curious that he offers the ultra-minority Codex Bezae text.

Even using the critical text, καθαρίζων it is quite strained to get the declare all foods clean English, as you point out.

My Bible text is the TR-AV.

Be careful with the apparatus, they have a trick to omit many uncials that support the Byzantine-TR reading.

It is a fascinating textual variant, with very significant doctrinal overtones.
We seem to be in agreement that Bezae's text-critical value is limited, if not altogether worthless. It is a fascinating study, however, in showing the degree to which some scribes felt at liberty to revise their texts in the copying process... even if most scribes were a bit more restrained, it is evidence of the tendency itself and the role of scribes in generating the plethora of manuscript variations. We are not in agreement, however, on the viability of the Textus Receptus as the best witness to the earliest recoverable form of the New Testament text.

As to the text of Mark 7:19, the "majority" reading departs from both Bezae and the "critical" reading (your use of the terms I've put in scare quotes subtly favors the former rather than the latter) in positing the purging process itself (neuter subject) as the agent of cleansing. Bezae derives from the "critical" reading by making its subject (Jesus) more explicit and it is obviously a secondary reading. The choice for priority is then between the "majority" and "critical" readings --- your suggestion that a declaration of all foods clean is a "strained" English translation of the latter is in tension with your conclusion that this variant has doctrinal significance. How would you translate the clause καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα and coordinate it to that which precedes?

For the record, I defend the priority of the "critical" reading and see the "majority" reading as secondary and derivative, arising precisely to resolve a cluster of difficulties both in the immediate context of Mark and in comparing the text with its parallels in Matthew (where it is lacking) and Luke-Acts, the latter reflecting a different reconstruction of when the Jewish dietary laws were abrogated (cf. Lk 11:41; Ac 10:15). I am not opposed to the idea that the clause itself was added by a scribe to the text of Mark, but it was early enough in its transmission that Luke was aware of and engaged with it.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Mark 7:19 (AV)
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?

This is using the Greek majority reading καθαρίζον.
Afaik, nobody uses the Codex Bezae text καθαρίζει.
Everyone who wants to justify doing away with the dietary laws does.
What Timothy Keller says does not make sense, and it is curious that he offers the ultra-minority Codex Bezae text.
Timothy Keller is known for twisting and even pretending the texts say something they don't. He has a big following though. He's quite popular.
It is a fascinating textual variant, with very significant doctrinal overtones.
Even using it results in blatant incoherent gibberish. The context has nothing to do with the dietary laws.

They're saying that Jesus' example of the digestive process somehow does away with God's laws. Who knew? Evidently no one figured this out before Jesus pointed out for our edification.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Nope.
Normally they do that by the difficult translation of the critical text, and do not even mention Codex Bezae.
Right. I wasn't saying that they use the Codex Bezae, but they all seem to have that parenthetical remark in their bibles which has to come from that manuscript, no? Quite a few have it, and even abandon using parenthesis:

New International Version
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

New Living Translation
Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

English Standard Version
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Berean Study Bible
because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” (Thus all foods are clean.)

Berean Literal Bible
because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus purifying all foods.)

King James Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

New King James Version
because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

New American Standard Bible
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)

NASB 1995
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

NASB 1977
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Amplified Bible
since it does not enter his heart, but [only] his stomach, and [from there it] is eliminated?” (By this, He declared all foods ceremonially clean.)

Christian Standard Bible
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated” (thus he declared all foods clean ).

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." (As a result, He made all foods clean.)

American Standard Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.

Contemporary English Version
It doesn't go into your heart, but into your stomach, and then out of your body." By saying this, Jesus meant that all foods were fit to eat.

English Revised Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Good News Translation
because it does not go into your heart but into your stomach and then goes on out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten.)

GOD'S WORD® Translation
It doesn't go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet." (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.)

International Standard Version
Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods."

Literal Standard Version
Because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it goes out, purifying all the meats.”

NET Bible
For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.)

Weymouth New Testament
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?" By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.

World English Bible
because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus purifying all foods?"

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Right. I wasn't saying that they use the Codex Bezae, but they all seem to have that parenthetical remark in their bibles which has to come from that manuscript, no? Quite a few have it, and even abandon using parenthesis:

No, they (all the ones that are not using the TR variant) are all using the critical text variant, questionably and awkwardly translated (as you point out). None are using the Codex Bezae variant. Many, not all, are making the doctrinal super-jump to Jesus declaring all foods clean, and they are doing it from the critical text variant.

And I put this together tonight, using some bookmarks from earlier days.

Pure Bible Forum
Mark 7:19 - in the modern versions Jesus declares all foods clean
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...versions-jesus-declares-all-foods-clean.1643/

John William Burgon (1813-1888) actually flipped his position, (the earlier position was in the 1871 Last Twelve Verses of Mark) and what Edward Miller wrote for Burgon posthumous in Causes of the Corruption is superb, in the second post on that page.

Doctrinally, if Jesus had declared all foods clean, (before the crucifixion, the death of the testator, where it was arguably possible) the Pharisees would have had the true accusation that Jesus was a law-breaker, without any doubt or counterpoint.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
No, they (all the ones that are not using the TR variant) are all using the critical text variant, questionably and awkwardly translated (as you point out). None are using the Codex Bezae variant. Many, not all, are making the doctrinal super-jump to Jesus declaring all foods clean, and they are doing it from the critical text variant.
Okay. I see what you're saying now. I wish I could say that I find this surprising.
Doctrinally, if Jesus had declared all foods clean, (before the crucifixion, the death of the testator, where it was arguably possible) the Pharisees would have had the true accusation that Jesus was a law-breaker, without any doubt or counterpoint.
I see this as more of a problem for Christian doctrine in that Christianity requires that Jesus be sinless. The Pharisees would have had their smoking gun to discredit Jesus as a teacher which could have been enough to leave him to disappear into obscurity without resorting to having him crucified.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Okay. I see what you're saying now. I wish I could say that I find this surprising.

I see this as more of a problem for Christian doctrine in that Christianity requires that Jesus be sinless. The Pharisees would have had their smoking gun to discredit Jesus as a teacher which could have been enough to leave him to disappear into obscurity without resorting to having him crucified.
Yay! ...
Still active with Timothy Keller?
He could do well to know that Codex Bezae is not in the picture (one of you brought it up.)

Yes, if the minority corruption, questionably translated, was in fact the Bible text, it would have been that big a deal. The Pharisees did try accusations on the Sabbath, as you know. However, this would have been a real and clear-cut law-breaking. Either the words of Jesus were wrong, or Mark's parsing of those words in the Gospel. Either way, it is a real problem.

Those with a high view of the Bible often are TR and AV supporters. For us, clearly, this is not an issue, it is simply one of dozens of hard errors in the modern versions, or many of the English editions and commentaries in various languages. This is not brought up too much in the Bible discussions since many of the TR and AV supporters do not understand well this question of Jesus not being a law-breaker, since their understanding is clouded a bit by an overall antinomian New Testament doctrinal perspective.

Modern version and critical text supporters have dozens of hard errors in their Versions. So for them it is just another wiggle opportunity.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Immediately before his statement about the Law in Matthew 5:18 Jesus tells us his relationship to it: 'I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets...but to fulfill.' This means that Jesus did not 'declare all foods clean' by abolishing the clean laws, but by fulfilling them." --Timothy Keller; "The Gospel of Mark", pg. 80

That was quirky.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Immediately before his statement about the Law in Matthew 5:18 Jesus tells us his relationship to it: 'I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets...but to fulfill.' This means that Jesus did not 'declare all foods clean' by abolishing the clean laws, but by fulfilling them." --Timothy Keller; "The Gospel of Mark", pg. 80

That was quirky.
I've got a few books by Keller, and they're full of quite a bit of that same kind of quirky logic. People just gloss over it with glossy eyes as if it makes perfect sense to them.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I've got a few books by Keller, and they're full of quite a bit of that same kind of quirky logic. People just gloss over it with glossy eyes as if it makes perfect sense to them.
And I generally prefer many of the commentaries from the 1700s and 1800s.

As far as I can tell (still checking) Burgon is by far the best on Mark 7:19. Although of course some other writers give some value-added.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Yes, if the minority corruption, questionably translated, was in fact the Bible text, it would have been that big a deal...

Those with a high view of the Bible often are TR and AV supporters...
It is one thing to preach your TR/AV priority (read: KJV-Onlyism or something closely approximating this) to the choir, quite another to actually respond to your informed critics... indeed, you have failed to do so despite your continued back and forth with another poster. My post here was a polite challenge to your position and I bring it to your attention again. I will be back on Monday and look forward to your response. If none is forthcoming, I can only conclude you are incapable of actually defending your position and the lurkers here can draw their own conclusions with respect to the ramifications of that silence.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is one thing to preach your TR/AV priority (read: KJV-Onlyism or something closely approximating this) to the choir, quite another to actually respond to your informed critics... indeed, you have failed to do so despite your continued back and forth with another poster. My post here was a polite challenge to your position and I bring it to your attention again. I will be back on Monday and look forward to your response. If none is forthcoming, I can only conclude you are incapable of actually defending your position and the lurkers here can draw their own conclusions with respect to the ramifications of that silence.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,

I ignored it because it was a weak post, and interrupted a very good discussion about Mark 7:19. I'll see if I can spend a minute on it now.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
We seem to be in agreement that Bezae's text-critical value is limited, if not altogether worthless. It is a fascinating study, however, in showing the degree to which some scribes felt at liberty to revise their texts in the copying process... even if most scribes were a bit more restrained, it is evidence of the tendency itself and the role of scribes in generating the plethora of manuscript variations. We are not in agreement, however, on the viability of the Textus Receptus as the best witness to the earliest recoverable form of the New Testament text.

As to the text of Mark 7:19, the "majority" reading departs from both Bezae and the "critical" reading (your use of the terms I've put in scare quotes subtly favors the former rather than the latter) in positing the purging process itself (neuter subject) as the agent of cleansing. Bezae derives from the "critical" reading by making its subject (Jesus) more explicit and it is obviously a secondary reading. The choice for priority is then between the "majority" and "critical" readings --- your suggestion that a declaration of all foods clean is a "strained" English translation of the latter is in tension with your conclusion that this variant has doctrinal significance. How would you translate the clause καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα and coordinate it to that which precedes?

For the record, I defend the priority of the "critical" reading and see the "majority" reading as secondary and derivative, arising precisely to resolve a cluster of difficulties both in the immediate context of Mark and in comparing the text with its parallels in Matthew (where it is lacking) and Luke-Acts, the latter reflecting a different reconstruction of when the Jewish dietary laws were abrogated (cf. Lk 11:41; Ac 10:15). I am not opposed to the idea that the clause itself was added by a scribe to the text of Mark, but it was early enough in its transmission that Luke was aware of and engaged with it.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Yes, Bezae's value in this variant is very close to worthless. Very possibly an errant back-translation from Latin, in which case it is not necessarily a scribe taking liberty.

The fact that you are an opponent of the Received Text is not surprising.

Majority is the textcrit word for a variant that has a large majority of the Greek mss. in its favor.
Critical text is a similar normative textcrit word.
;Have no idea why you make an issue over accepted terminology.

Burgon explains some of the problems with the strained text.
It is not my job to offer various translations for a corruption text that I reject.

"tension with your conclusion that this variant has doctrinal significance."
Simply because the critical text is in fact translated and given commentary in the real world in a way that makes Jesus a sinner. The doctrinal significance is simply reflecting the real world reality.

"For the record, I defend the priority of the "critical" reading and see the "majority" reading as secondary and derivative,"
That is your right, see Burgon in Corruption for an example of upholding the majority text.

Do you accept the Matthew text as authentic?
That is a big help on the Mark text.

Matthew 15:17 (AV)
Do not ye yet understand,
that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly,
and is cast out into the draught?
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I ignored it because it was a weak post, and interrupted a very good discussion about Mark 7:19. I'll see if I can spend a minute on it now.
I appreciate the subsequent follow-up post, though I still don't see evidence there about how my contribution was "weak" --- in any case, I will be back on Monday to respond to your latest post.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Majority is the textcrit word for a variant that has a large majority of the Greek mss. in its favor.
Critical text is a similar normative textcrit word.
;Have no idea why you make an issue over accepted terminology.
My objection revolves around the equivocation between "majority" and "majority text". For example, if some of the early Alexandrian text type manuscripts agreed on a reading with the Byzantine text type against a Western exemplar such as Bezae, would you call that agreement the "majority" reading? If so, on what basis because it would also be the "critical" reading, meaning the text that would appear in the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament? By using "critical" instead of "minority" opposite "majority" you imply a reference in the latter to the "majority text", which is nomenclature used by defenders of the Byzantine text type and of the Textus Receptus as the exemplar standing behind the KJV to underscore the vast amount of manuscripts that exist in support of it. In contemporary scholarly circles, however, this nomenclature is placed in scare quotes and the neutral term Byzantine text substituted to avoid the aforementioned problems.

Burgon explains some of the problems with the strained text.
It is not my job to offer various translations for a corruption text that I reject.
If you're going to parrot Burgon's conclusions, you need to be able to defend them... this includes your comments that translations based on the "critical" text are "strained", "difficult" and "awkward". OK, explain why you think so. If you do not have the requisite skills in Greek to argue the case, then cite the page number(s) of Burgon's pertinent comments on the passage and I'll evaluate it directly from your source.

"tension with your conclusion that this variant has doctrinal significance."
Simply because the critical text is in fact translated and given commentary in the real world in a way that makes Jesus a sinner. The doctrinal significance is simply reflecting the real world reality.
The problem is that you equate what the gospel authors write with a real-world reality... critical scholars (your opponents on this matter) do not approach the New Testament gospels this way, but rather reconstruct whatever historical events may lay behind them. You're not going to find many critical scholars who actually think the historical Jesus violated the Jewish dietary laws... the Markan text is a parenthesis that reflects the author's (or possibly a later scribe's) Gentile perspective retrojected back into the time of Jesus' ministry. Historically speaking, this is extremely unlikely... the practice arose much later with an influx of Gentile converts to the new faith, therefore Luke more reasonably places this teaching on the lips of the post-Easter Jesus (see Acts 10).

Do you accept the Matthew text as authentic?
That is a big help on the Mark text.
That depends what you mean by "authentic". I happen to think that Matthew used Mark as a source -- which is a discussion all on its own -- and, if the clause was present, he said to himself "Uh, I don't think so, Mark" and omitted it. If the clause was the gloss of a later scribe, as I've suggested to be a possibility, there was nothing for Matthew to omit... there is no way to adjudicate conclusively which of these two possible scenarios it was (on the assumption of Markan priority).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top