Matt 7:19

Steven Avery

Well-known member
. The sections in my Bible are in harmony in Mark and Matthew, in your preferred variants they are not.

To be clear, that is preferred variants and translation.

There are writers who stay with the masculine variant, but give reasons for translating it the same as the neuter. Tim Hegg is one.

Mark7.19b Short Note (2005)
Tim Hegg
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf

The counter-point to that is that there are some early church writers who like the "declared foods clean" understanding. And the counterpoint to that would be that the early church writers might be zealous scavenger eaters, and liked any variant and translation combo that negates the Hebraic perspective on clean foods.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Mark 7:19 and Matt 15:7 do not say the same thing. Why do you not criticize the KJV?

The big issue is making Jesus a law-breaker. Thus not the Messiah.
They agree on the primary point. (In the AV.)

Now, if you have something substantive to share, go right ahead.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
"A specific complaint" referred to this vague comment.

"I've never seen you accept "The big issue" argument you've made relative to other translations. Why is that?"

You Mark and Matthew complaint is fully answered.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No. Mark and Matthew do not say the same thing in the verses you reference from the KJV. You have failed to detail why this is so.

Yawn.

Anyway, always wonderful to read the pure Bible scriptures.

Mark 7:17-19 (AV)
And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 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 15:16-20 (AV)
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


What huge differences do you want to address?

That are comparable to Jesus (supposedly) declaring all foods clean (and thus, not the Messiah) in the corruption versions.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
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.
Do you know what begging the question is? Your request is an excellent example of it. Here is what I've said on the matter:

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... (originally posted here)

What is unclear about the above statement I made other than it does not assume the facile correspondence between text and reality that your own position does?

You brought a possible interpretation of Acts 10 into play, which us not my interpretation at all...
If you want to challenge my interpretation, you'd have to share what yours is and give some reason(s) why it is preferable.

You have a link to Alfred Watts, who gives a very fine technical explanation of the variant being an itacism.
On the page you linked to, a part sentence is devoted to the passage... you think that is a "very fine technical explanation"? :unsure:

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".
Burgon was a nineteenth-century writer... we are now in the twenty-first century --- in terms of scholarship, he and Watts (also published in the 1800s) are antiquated. In any case, Burgon discusses the passage in his section on itacism (see the tops of pages 61 and 63), specifically cases of confusion between the letters ω and ο (see page 61).

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.
I stand by my original assertion, which is that lectio difficilior cannot be invoked uncritically... I have nowhere suggested such uses can be quantified as "often".

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,
Here's what I actually said:

While an itacism here is possible, the above-mentioned difficulty and the attendant theological problem suggests an intentional change is more probable. (originally posted here)

Do the words 'possible' and 'probable' (italicized in my original post) sound to you like I am claiming to know for sure the cause of this variant? My position is that an itacism is possible but not probable.

So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this did not happen.
And I have shouldered the burden to prove why the aforementioned position is superior to yours... you shoulder an equal burden to demonstrate why an itacism is more probable than a deliberate change.

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.
There was nothing whatsoever vague regarding my request... the problematic clause is omitted entirely in Matthew --- that is not harmonious and it is hardly a coincidence. You need to explain its absence since you suppose the pertinent clause is theologically innocuous when read with καθαριζον. In fact, it's not... the idea that such a saying traces back to the historical Jesus is dubious because it suggests the processes of digestion terminating with defecation cleanses food when bodily discharges such as this are actually unclean according to Jewish law (Deut 23:12-14). Indeed, the form of the saying that appears in both Matthew and Mark, terminating with the expulsion of the consumed food, makes the ironic point that being sure to eat with clean hands makes no difference whatsoever to the end result, which is the food comes out the other end unclean.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top