>Dear B-Greek List,
>
>I am perplexed as to why the Mark 7:19 expression "he declared all
>things clean" is not in some /most versions of the bible but it is in
>others. A friend showed me the expression in the Westcott and Hort Greek
>Text but I have limited research material to investigate further. He
>recommended I ask you.
>
>Could you please help me as to why some/ most versions omit this
>expression?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Mike Hawkins
Mike, this is actually more of a syntax question about the participle
KAQARIZWN than a textual question. Granted, several variant readings for
KAQARIZWN occur, but strong support for the inclusion of the phrase "he
declared all foods clean" exists among all of the text-types (including the
Byzantine). The variant is in regard to the form of the word KAQARIZWN, with
the following forms being noted in NA27: the form in the text KAQARIZWN
(Pres. Act. Part., Nom. Masc. sing.) ; KAQARIZON (Pres. Act. Part., Nom.
Neut. sing.); KAQARIZEI (Pres. Act. Indic., 3rd. pers. sing.); and
KAQARIZETAI (Pres. Middle/Passive Indic., 3rd. pers. sing.) .
In taking the participle as the best attested reading, the question is that
of syntax: how is this participle functioning in this context. The
translations "he declared" or "thus he declared" are deriving the subject
"he" from the form of the participle (masc. sing.) and the context which
would relate that to Jesus as the speaker. Then the function of the entire
participial phrase is related to the preceding discussion as showing the net
result of the discussion, with is summarized in this phrase with the force of
a summary of the point Jesus was making. In this specific instance, the
active voice of the participle would be understood as "causative" action that
could be expressed as "he declared to be clean" or "he caused to be clean".
Returning to the variant readings, the move to a conjugated verb in the
middle/passive indic. form further reinforces an attempt to relate the
"causative" nature of the action, with Jesus being the understood agent of
the cleansing. The active indic. form might be understood as "causative",
but the form is not determinative for this interpretation. These two
readings likely left the statement as a stronger "pronouncement" statement by
Jesus that served much like an authoritative pronouncement by other religious
leaders, such as pronouncing certain actions as permitted or forbidden, or
pronouncing a healing as taken place. In such instances, the word "declare"
would seem accurate to indicate the importance of such a statement. These
two readings likely highlight that interpretation of the phrase (although
when the realization of that resulting "pronouncement" came about is open to
speculation, for Peter obviously did not have such an understanding in Acts
10, nor did many of the Jewish Christians that struggled with the Gentile
presence as reflected in Paul's letters).
Obviously Jesus did not literally clean all foods at that moment, but he is
presented by Mark as declaring that they were clean (or causing them to be
understood as clean), thus removing the social stigma of "unclean" from
certain foods and more importantly from those who ate such foods.
I hope this helps.
Paz,
Bill Warren
Professor of New Testament and Greek
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary