Matt 7:19

Steven Avery

Active member
Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text (1896)
John William Burgon and Edward Miller
http://books.google.com/books?id=ye1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA61
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/corruption.iii.vi.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21112/21112-h/21112-h.htm

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[119].' 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[120], the Vulgate, favour καθαριζον;—nor by the Fathers:—since Aphraates[121], Augustine (?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124], Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], 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.

[120] '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.)


[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)—'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)

[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'

[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.'

[124] iii. 494. ελεγε ταυτα 'ο Σωτηρ, καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.

[125] i. 206. εκκαθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.

[126] Galland. iii. 400. αλλα και 'ο Σωτηρ, παντα καθαριζων τα βρωματα.

And I tried to make the font bigger, but it is hard to do on the iPad.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
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.
Thanks, but all that wasn't necessary... I just needed the citation with page number(s)... for example:

Burgon, John William. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, edited by Edward Miller. London: George Bell and Sons; Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1896, pp. 61-63.

In any case, I found the section through the in-line page numbers. I'm working on a number of other detailed posts at the moment, as well as an off-line project, so I'll get back to you with a response later today or tomorrow...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Buzzard

Active member
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.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
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 -

and there-in lies the problem

Rev11:2
"..... the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not;
for it is given unto the Gentiles:
and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

You cannot put any credence nor faith in what has been
(and still is)
taught by the Gentile churches, about;
as was posted
the historical Jesus
most of it is based on the "Suppositions of Men"
 

Steven Avery

Active member
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 -

So you would agree that the minority variant with the masculine grammar and the wacky grammar that leads to Jesus declaring all foods clean is rejected as the New Testament text.
 

CES1951

Active member
Take the chip off your shoulder, and stop trying to pick fights all day long.
You'll live longer, and have a happier life.

And even the KJV teaches that you should be peaceful, gentle, charitable, etc. etc.
Try it sometime.
You talking to the mirror again?
 

Shoonra

Member
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.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I had it handy.
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:

When scribes made copies from dictation or even when a solitary scribe pronounced aloud the words being transcribed, confusion would sometimes arise over words having the same pronunciation as others but differing in spelling (as the English words there and their or grate and great). During the early centuries of the Christian era, certain vowels and diphthongs of the Greek language lost their distinctive sounds and came to be pronounced alike, as they are today in modern Greek. The confusion between ω and ο was common... (Metzger and Ehrman 254-55)

Mark 7:19 is not discussed here (or elsewhere according to the index) in this co-authored book, but Metzger addressed it elsewhere and did not attribute it to an itacism:

The overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence supports the reading καθαριζων. The difficulty in construing this word in the sentence prompted copyists to attempt various corrections and ameliorations. (Metzger 95)

While an itacism here is possible, the above-mentioned difficulty and the attendant theological problem suggests an intentional change is more probable. It must also be pointed out that attributing the difference to an itacism says nothing about the direction of the change and Burgon here fails to make a persuasive case for the superiority of καθαριζον... indeed, he passes over the interpretive difficulties precisely because if he dwelt on them, the less likely it would appear this is an itacism at all. He focuses almost entirely on the "grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων" in relation to the verb at the beginning of verse 18 and overlooks entirely that the author immediately reintroduces direct speech with ελεγεν in verse 20, to which inferred subject the participle also gravitates. The grammatical difficulty is thus overblown and we are left with the interpretive issues I earlier raised. In the absence of Burgon addressing any of this, I would appreciate your engagement with it...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 1971.
Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press, 2005.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
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.
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...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Active member
The textcrits often work under a basic harder reading fallacy:

Martin Litchfield West (1937-2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Litchfield_West

Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts
Martin Litchfield West
https://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&pg=PA51

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.

And dubious syntax and unnatural phrasing clearly applies here.

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.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
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.

And Matthew should have expressed the same wacky idea.

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?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The textcrits often work under a basic harder reading fallacy...
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.

And dubious syntax and unnatural phrasing clearly applies here.
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.

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.
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.

And Matthew should have expressed the same wacky idea.
Why? Matthew is writing for a law-observant Christian community for whom the dietary laws are (still) in effect.

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?
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.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Hi Jonathan.

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?

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Active member
There are two sections from other writers that are especially astute (and contradict your assertions above.)

Expositor
Textual Criticism Illustrated from the Printing Office
Alfred Watts
http://books.google.com/books?id=6dIZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA233

The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission Paperback – January 1, 2007
by Chris C. Cargounis
https://www.amazon.com/Development-Greek-New-Testament-Transmission/dp/080103230X#reader_080103230X
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Lectio difficilior is a fallacy only ... Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Lectio difficilior is often fallacious logic. One reason is given by Martin Litchfield West above. You may not think that Mark 7:19 fits into his explanation, fair enough, we can disagree, however even you should accept what West said as true, if you have a high view of the Bible text.

Beyond that, here is a simple multi-case. Many ultra-minority variants are piddle corruptions, only in a small pct of Greek mss. The corruption could be a word, a phrase, or more than a piddle like a verse, or even a section. Frequently, the accidental omission will create a "harder reading", because the logic, sense and flow of the Bible text is mangled.

So the counter-position against lectio difficilior immediately has more strength. We can see WHY the shorter, abbreviated text is harder and it has nothing to do with scribes improving the text. The shorter reading is harder because it was the most common scribal faux pas, dropping of text, which often is fatigue, or homoeteleuton, or other related reasons.

Here is a simple example. The Greek text with Acts 8:37 can be considered harder, because without it the question in Acts 8:36 is dangling, never answered.

Acts 8:36-38 (KJV)

36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said,
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

We could discuss this back and forth, but that is not my point. It is simply that the harder reading argument would be invalid and fallacious, since the counter-argument of Holy Spirit consistency is much stronger. We can see the ease of omission.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
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 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.

There are two sections from other writers that are especially astute (and contradict your assertions above.)
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.

Lectio difficilior is often fallacious logic.
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.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Your rhetorical question is not an accurate summary of what I argued.

It was not a rhetorical question.
It is a request for a clear statement from you as to Jesus being a law-breaker in the Gospels.

You brought a possible interpretation of Acts 10 into play, which us not my interpretation at all, and which is irrelevant to Jesus being a law-breaker in the Gospels.

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.

You have a link to Alfred Watts, who gives a very fine technical explanation of the variant being an itacism.

John William Burgon's analysis is superb, and covers more textual and Greek territory than most modern writers. So I have no idea what you would consider "antiquated". However, I do not see him speaking of the cause of the variant so to whom do you claim this applies "we are here dealing with an itacism".

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.

So, looking at West, and my discussion of omissions being the harder reading, it sounds like you are agreeing that the principle is often used fallaciously.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
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.

When you make a contra-assertion, without any compelling evidence, I have no reason to answer your assertion.

A good example of a claim without evidence is your claim that this is not an itacism. Nobody can know for sure the cause of the original variant, Watts explains how easy is such a scribal change. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this did not happen.

Your Matthew request is far too vague. The sections in my Bible are in harmony in Mark and Matthew, in your preferred variants they are not.
 
Top