Jonathan, have you read the John William Burgon section?
But the instance which requires the most attention is καθαριζον in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the alteration into καθαριζων is advocated as being 'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the Saviour's words.' Such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence—which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by καθαριζων, and καθαριζον bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there being eight against the change (ΦΣKMUVΓΠ), and eleven for it (אABEFGHLSXΔ);—that not much is advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis[Pg 62] Codex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, favour καθαριζον;—nor by the Fathers:—since Aphraates, Augustine (?), and Novatian are contradicted by Origen, Theophylact, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, we discover that we have not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of אAB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by καθαριζον,—and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων, which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people who form their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself.[Pg 63] The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. Καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα ought either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to read, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony.]
Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted καθαριζων into his corrected text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:—'I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's later views of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the Twelve Verses he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the true reading," and writes in the margin, "The old reading is doubtless the true one," and in the margin of the paragraph referring to καθαριζων on p. 180 he writes, "Alter the wording of this." This entirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimony to the old rending was conclusive,—at least that he was not justified in changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose express exactly the inference that I had drawn.
 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or exiit) purgans omnes escas"; i (Vindobonensis) and r(Usserianus) have "et purgat" for "purgans": and a has a conflation "in secessum exit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum"—so they all point the same way.'—(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White.)
 Dem. xv. (Graffin)—'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)
 iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'
 Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.'
 iii. 494. ελεγε ταυτα 'ο Σωτηρ, καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
 i. 206. εκκαθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
 Galland. iii. 400. αλλα και 'ο Σωτηρ, παντα καθαριζων τα βρωματα.
Thanks, but all that wasn't necessary... I just needed the citation with page number(s)... for example:Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text (1896)
John William Burgon and Edward Miller
And I tried to make the font bigger, but it is hard to do on the iPad.
the historical Jesus is unlikely to have broken the dietary laws of his religious tradition or counseled others to do so or abrogated these restrictions for his followers... this reflects dietary practices among later Gentile believers in Jesus -Yes... as I recall it didn't go very far.
Referring to those manuscripts in which a masculine verb appears as corrupted begs the question, of course.
Your evaluation appears to be based on a particular reconstruction of Christian origins and then assuming the text must cohere with this. Now, I happen to agree with you that the historical Jesus is unlikely to have broken the dietary laws of his religious tradition or counseled others to do so or abrogated these restrictions for his followers... this reflects dietary practices among later Gentile believers in Jesus --- the masculine verb forces the clause to be read as a parenthetical aside of the author, who we know is writing for a Gentile audience since he had paused earlier to explain Jewish custom (see vss 3-4). A straightforward correspondence between Mark's narrative and history is neither necessary nor, perhaps, even intended under the hypothesis this is the earliest-recoverable form of the text. He may be presenting Jesus' teaching on eating with unwashed hands as paradigmatic for the later practice of eating unclean foods. Alternatively, he may well be presenting Jesus as abrogating the Jewish dietary laws, mistakenly so from an historical standpoint. Matthew may understand it this way and, writing for a law-observant community, omits the clause in his version of the teaching. Luke perhaps reads it the other way, planting ambiguity in his loose parallel --- "everything is clean for you" (11:41) --- and delaying the specifics of food consumption to the early church period (see Acts 10:15), where historically they are better situated. The potential of the other interpretation makes the masculine verb the more difficult reading to which the neuter verb in the text tradition underlying the KJV may be seen as a secondary solution... the tension is avoided by making the removal itself the agent of purification and the clause continues Jesus' teaching. This creates its own problem, however, and one that is less likely to reflect the earliest-recoverable form since it ruins the irony in the saying otherwise that however pure something may be that enters the stomach it comes out unclean according to Jewish law.
the historical Jesus is unlikely to have broken the dietary laws of his religious tradition or counseled others to do so or abrogated these restrictions for his followers... this reflects dietary practices among later Gentile believers in Jesus -
Alright, I've had a chance to read Burgon on this... it occurs in his section on accidental causes of corruption and his position may be summarized as attributing the difference to an itacism. For those reading along who may not know what that is:I had it handy.
I introduced the matter of the καθαριζων / καθαριζον variant in my post here and offered my evaluation of it here. I agree with your source that we are not here dealing with an itacism, which I define and address in my most recent post here. If you'd like further clarification, I'd be happy to provide it...Scrivener says quite a bit about this verse in his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1883, 3rd ed. pp.582-583)/(1894, 4th ed., ed. by E..Miller, vol 2, pp. 336-337). I can't seem to type out Greek letters but Scrivener says the word ending in omega nu is preferable to the very similar word ending in omicron nu; "so far from being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy restoration of the true sense of the passage long obscured by the false reading."
My grasp of Greek is too feeble to make out the distinction but it clearly was important to Scrivener and I hope someone will explain it to me.
When we choose the ‘more difficult’ reading, however, we must be sure that it is in itself a plausible reading. The principle should not be used in support of dubious syntax, or phrasing that it would not have been natural for the author to use. There is an important difference between a more difficult reading and a more unlikely reading.
If Mark wanted to express the hokey idea that Jesus was declaring swine and rats as clean, proper food, there would have been much easier methods to say it directly.
Lectio difficilior is a fallacy only to those whose text traditions are deemed generally inferior in the light of its application. Scribes do not, as a habit, create all manner of difficulties in the texts they are copying... rather, they tend to smooth out real or perceived problems. This is a sound principle... and applied to this text results in priority given to καθαριζων.The textcrits often work under a basic harder reading fallacy...
Difficult? Yes. "Dubious" and "unnatural"? No: And he [Jesus] says to them: "x" (cleansing all foods) --- while the intervening text of x is lengthy, which is the origin of the difficulty, there is nothing syntactically amiss here when it is reduced to its most basic parts.And dubious syntax and unnatural phrasing clearly applies here.
What you call a "hokey" (and later on "wacky") idea is what the ascended Jesus is narrated to have done in a vision according to Acts 10... the issue at stake is not that Jesus declares all foods clean but when --- without an extended narrative about early Christ believers, Mark telescopes the mission to the Gentiles in chapters 7-8 and anticipates certain aspects of it, here using Jesus' teaching on eating with unclean hands as programmatic for abrogating the dietary laws.If Mark wanted to express the hokey idea that Jesus was declaring swine and rats as clean, proper food, there would have been much easier methods to say it directly.
Why? Matthew is writing for a law-observant Christian community for whom the dietary laws are (still) in effect.And Matthew should have expressed the same wacky idea.
Why stop where you did and why, if there is nothing problematic about the clause as it reads in the texts underlying the KJV, does Matthew omit it? By drawing Matthew's omission to bear on the matter, you've created a problem for your own position that you need to provide a solution for. In any case, the parenthetical nature of the clause in question is made evident in Mark 7:20 since he must pause to reintroduce direct speech... note how Matthew omits both the parenthesis and the speech reintroduction --- they go together and reinforce the superiority of καθαριζων.Mark 7:18-19 (AV)
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
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?
Lectio difficilior is a fallacy only ... Jonathan
Your rhetorical question is not an accurate summary of what I argued. Please go back, read it again and come back with a proper rebuttal (if you have one). Also, since you raised the matter of the clause's absence in Matthew, you are now responsible for providing an explanation that is consistent with your claim about the superiority of καθαριζον. Please provide one in your next post, as well as a response to all the other points I raised... you have passed over far more in my posts than you have actually responded to.So you believe Matthew held back the true understanding of the words of Jesus because it would have been hard for the Hebrew listeners to accept that Jesus declared all foods clean and was a law-breaker?
Your first (antiquated) source simply reiterates the claim -- incorrect as I see it -- that we are here dealing with an itacism and the second is nothing more than a link to a book.There are two sections from other writers that are especially astute (and contradict your assertions above.)
I've nowhere suggested that the principle should be invoked uncritically and without consideration to other scribal habits, among them fatigue in copying and occurrences of haplography.Lectio difficilior is often fallacious logic.
Your rhetorical question is not an accurate summary of what I argued.
Your first (antiquated) source simply reiterates the claim -- incorrect as I see it -- that we are here dealing with an itacism and the second is nothing more than a link to a book.
I've nowhere suggested that the principle should be invoked uncritically and without consideration to other scribal habits, among them fatigue in copying and occurrences of haplography.
since you raised the matter of the clause's absence in Matthew, you are now responsible for providing an explanation that is consistent with your claim about the superiority of καθαριζον. Please provide one in your next post, as well as a response to all the other points I raised... you have passed over far more in my posts than you have actually responded to.