Matthew 15 & Mark 7 - part 2
Tricky Grammar
Now it’s time for a bit of a grammar lesson. In many languages, including Greek, verbs have gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), number (singular or plural), and case (nominative, accusative, etc.). The gender, number, and case of the verb match the gender, number, and case of its subject. Let’s consider an example in English to help us understand what is going on here. Here is a simple English sentence:
He runs.
In this example, the subject is “he.” It is the subject because it is the person or thing doing the action. Therefore, the case is nominative (which means subject). “He” has a gender, which is masculine, and “he” is singular since there is only one person doing the action.
In summary, “he” has the following attributes:
Case: Nominative
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular
The verb of the sentence is“runs.” In English, this is a bit tricky because, while our verbs can be described in many ways, they don’t really have case or gender. Singular third person verbs (such as those that accompany “he”) do have number. We have to say “He runs,” not “He run.” An “-s” is required at the end of the verb to show that it is a third person singular verb. But case and gender are lacking in our English verbs.
“Runs,” therefore, has the following attributes:
Case: none
Gender: none
Number: singular
Concerning case, in English there is not a special ending on the verb “runs” to indicate that it is nominative. The same is true of gender. There is nothing special about “runs” to tell us that the person running is a male. But in Greek, there are forms of the verb to indicate both of these things. We could look at the Greek verb for “runs” in isolation, apart from its subject, and be able to tell that it is a nominative, masculine verb, and that it therefore has a nominative, masculine subject.
I am a lover of grammar. I get excited to see the intricacies of language at work. Perhaps you are like me, or perhaps you are less enthused about parts of speech and subject-verb agreement. Whatever the case, grammar is critical to understanding language. More significantly, it is critical to understanding God’s Word. With this in mind, let’s return to Mark 7:19b.
In later dated manuscripts, the verb katharizō is written as a neuter singular nominative participle (a participle is a verb form that can be acting like an adjective or adverb). But in the older manuscripts, katharizō is a masculine singular nominative participle. Why does this matter? Because it signifies whether the subject (the person or thing doing the action) is neuter or masculine. If it is neuter, then the thing doing the action of “cleansing” would be something like the neutral “body,” or perhaps the process of digestion, which is eliminating the waste. The food goes through the body. The body eliminates it. Food is thus cleansed from the body.
In the older manuscripts, since katharizō is a masculine singular nominative participle, it should have a masculine singular nominative noun paired with it. The closest one in the text is Jesus himself, in verse 18, where it says “He said” (referring to Jesus). Therefore, many modern translations conclude that Jesus is the one cleansing the food. Yet this seems inconsistent with the context. Jesus is not talking about himself doing any sort of cleansing, but rather food going through the body. And so, the modern translators conclude that Mark is making a parenthetical comment, explaining that through this teaching, Jesus is declaring that all foods are now clean to eat.
Critical Questions
This grammar raises several questions:
First, what is the most natural, contextual reading of the passage?
Second, which are the more reliable Greek manuscripts?
Third, if the older manuscripts are more reliable, is it possible in the Greek to have a verb or participle that does not match its subject in gender, number, or case?
Fourth, should we discard the food laws based on this passage with debatable translation and application?
A key principal of hermeneutics (the study of how to interpret Scripture) is to consider the context of the passage. The overall context of the passage is the elevation of manmade traditions over the Word of God. Specifically, Jesus addresses the Pharisaical tradition of hand-washing to prevent food from becoming unclean. Jesus points out the absurdity of this teaching because food eaten with unwashed hands cannot go into your body and make your heart unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person, from their already defiled heart that shows they are truly unclean.
Based on this context, it is inconsistent to conclude the enigmatic verse of 19b as a statement about abrogating the Biblical food laws, which are not mentioned in the passage. Jesus is addressing manmade laws, not God’s laws. Rather, it makes more sense to render the passage, “cleansing all foods,” referring to the body’s ability to rid itself of anything it consumes through the process of digestion.
This explanation is incomplete without answering the second question: Which are the more reliable Greek manuscripts?
The KJV and NKJV translations, though they may make the most sense in the context, are based on the Textus Receptus, which contains the neuter participle for “cleansing.” The Textus Receptus is generally less reliable than other older manuscripts because it is based on manuscripts that date no earlier than the tenth century. There are several additional manuscripts from the ninth century that also include the neuter participle in Mark 7:19 (such as Codex Cyprius). The more modern translations such as the ESV (which include the masculine participle for “cleansing”) are based on much older manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which are from the fourth century. For this reason, when there is a difference in text, translators lean toward the older manuscripts. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark explains,
Now it’s time for a bit of a grammar lesson. In many languages, including Greek, verbs have gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), number (singular or plural), and case (nominative, accusative, etc.). The gender, number, and case of the verb match the gender, number, and case of its subject. Let’s consider an example in English to help us understand what is going on here. Here is a simple English sentence:
He runs.
In this example, the subject is “he.” It is the subject because it is the person or thing doing the action. Therefore, the case is nominative (which means subject). “He” has a gender, which is masculine, and “he” is singular since there is only one person doing the action.
In summary, “he” has the following attributes:
Case: Nominative
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular
The verb of the sentence is“runs.” In English, this is a bit tricky because, while our verbs can be described in many ways, they don’t really have case or gender. Singular third person verbs (such as those that accompany “he”) do have number. We have to say “He runs,” not “He run.” An “-s” is required at the end of the verb to show that it is a third person singular verb. But case and gender are lacking in our English verbs.
“Runs,” therefore, has the following attributes:
Case: none
Gender: none
Number: singular
Concerning case, in English there is not a special ending on the verb “runs” to indicate that it is nominative. The same is true of gender. There is nothing special about “runs” to tell us that the person running is a male. But in Greek, there are forms of the verb to indicate both of these things. We could look at the Greek verb for “runs” in isolation, apart from its subject, and be able to tell that it is a nominative, masculine verb, and that it therefore has a nominative, masculine subject.
I am a lover of grammar. I get excited to see the intricacies of language at work. Perhaps you are like me, or perhaps you are less enthused about parts of speech and subject-verb agreement. Whatever the case, grammar is critical to understanding language. More significantly, it is critical to understanding God’s Word. With this in mind, let’s return to Mark 7:19b.
In later dated manuscripts, the verb katharizō is written as a neuter singular nominative participle (a participle is a verb form that can be acting like an adjective or adverb). But in the older manuscripts, katharizō is a masculine singular nominative participle. Why does this matter? Because it signifies whether the subject (the person or thing doing the action) is neuter or masculine. If it is neuter, then the thing doing the action of “cleansing” would be something like the neutral “body,” or perhaps the process of digestion, which is eliminating the waste. The food goes through the body. The body eliminates it. Food is thus cleansed from the body.
In the older manuscripts, since katharizō is a masculine singular nominative participle, it should have a masculine singular nominative noun paired with it. The closest one in the text is Jesus himself, in verse 18, where it says “He said” (referring to Jesus). Therefore, many modern translations conclude that Jesus is the one cleansing the food. Yet this seems inconsistent with the context. Jesus is not talking about himself doing any sort of cleansing, but rather food going through the body. And so, the modern translators conclude that Mark is making a parenthetical comment, explaining that through this teaching, Jesus is declaring that all foods are now clean to eat.
Critical Questions
This grammar raises several questions:
First, what is the most natural, contextual reading of the passage?
Second, which are the more reliable Greek manuscripts?
Third, if the older manuscripts are more reliable, is it possible in the Greek to have a verb or participle that does not match its subject in gender, number, or case?
Fourth, should we discard the food laws based on this passage with debatable translation and application?
A key principal of hermeneutics (the study of how to interpret Scripture) is to consider the context of the passage. The overall context of the passage is the elevation of manmade traditions over the Word of God. Specifically, Jesus addresses the Pharisaical tradition of hand-washing to prevent food from becoming unclean. Jesus points out the absurdity of this teaching because food eaten with unwashed hands cannot go into your body and make your heart unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person, from their already defiled heart that shows they are truly unclean.
Based on this context, it is inconsistent to conclude the enigmatic verse of 19b as a statement about abrogating the Biblical food laws, which are not mentioned in the passage. Jesus is addressing manmade laws, not God’s laws. Rather, it makes more sense to render the passage, “cleansing all foods,” referring to the body’s ability to rid itself of anything it consumes through the process of digestion.
This explanation is incomplete without answering the second question: Which are the more reliable Greek manuscripts?
The KJV and NKJV translations, though they may make the most sense in the context, are based on the Textus Receptus, which contains the neuter participle for “cleansing.” The Textus Receptus is generally less reliable than other older manuscripts because it is based on manuscripts that date no earlier than the tenth century. There are several additional manuscripts from the ninth century that also include the neuter participle in Mark 7:19 (such as Codex Cyprius). The more modern translations such as the ESV (which include the masculine participle for “cleansing”) are based on much older manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which are from the fourth century. For this reason, when there is a difference in text, translators lean toward the older manuscripts. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark explains,
It is conceded by nearly all commentators and translators that this verbal clause is an additional comment by the evangelist himself, explaining the significance of the words of Jesus (cf. Field Notes, 31f. and commentaries in loc.). In the correct text the masculine participle katharizōn ‘cleansing’ modifies ‘he’ (i.e. Jesus), and is a participle of manner, ’ In this way he cleansed” (paragraph 10333).
This apparent contradiction produces a bit of a conundrum. The context fits the neuter participle in the later manuscripts, but the masculine participle from the earlier manuscripts is considered more accurate and reliable.
On to the third question, if the older manuscripts are more reliable, is it possible in the Greek to have a verb/participle that does not match its subject in gender, number, or case?
There are, in fact, a number of verses in the New Testament in which participles do not match the subject in gender, number, and/or case. Consider a few different verses where this occurs.
On to the third question, if the older manuscripts are more reliable, is it possible in the Greek to have a verb/participle that does not match its subject in gender, number, or case?
There are, in fact, a number of verses in the New Testament in which participles do not match the subject in gender, number, and/or case. Consider a few different verses where this occurs.
Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:45–48).
The last participle in this passage is “beginning,” which is the Greek participle ἀρξάμενοι (arxamenoi). This participle is masculine plural nominative, yet it has no matching subject that is masculine plural nominative. For this reason, it is unclear whether “beginning from Jerusalem” is modifying what comes before it (the proclamation of repentance for the forgiveness of sins) or what follows it (that the disciples are witnesses beginning from Jerusalem). In either case, the participle lacks a matching subject.
Lukan expert I. Howard Marshall comments, “In both cases the syntax is harsh, and suggests that Luke had not wholly mastered and revised his material. The difficulty led to textual emendation by scribes” (906). Marshall explains that the Greek grammar does not follow the regular rules of syntax and is difficult to translate. Therefore, scribes of the texts fixed the grammar to follow the rules in later manuscripts. This is quite possibly what happened in Mark 19:b, which explains the variants between the newer manuscripts (ninth century and forward) and the older manuscript families (fourth and fifth centuries). In fact, France claims this is exactly what happened in Mark 7:19b. France explains that the ninth and tenth century scribes made “emendations found in some MSS, representing attempts to ‘correct’ the syntax by those who failed to recognise the nature of the clause” (291).
A similar grammatical inconsistency to that of Luke 24 occurs in Acts 10:37:
Lukan expert I. Howard Marshall comments, “In both cases the syntax is harsh, and suggests that Luke had not wholly mastered and revised his material. The difficulty led to textual emendation by scribes” (906). Marshall explains that the Greek grammar does not follow the regular rules of syntax and is difficult to translate. Therefore, scribes of the texts fixed the grammar to follow the rules in later manuscripts. This is quite possibly what happened in Mark 19:b, which explains the variants between the newer manuscripts (ninth century and forward) and the older manuscript families (fourth and fifth centuries). In fact, France claims this is exactly what happened in Mark 7:19b. France explains that the ninth and tenth century scribes made “emendations found in some MSS, representing attempts to ‘correct’ the syntax by those who failed to recognise the nature of the clause” (291).
A similar grammatical inconsistency to that of Luke 24 occurs in Acts 10:37:
As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him (Acts 10:36–38).
Here the Greek participle arxamenos is masculine singular nominative, yet, again, it has no antecedent or subject that matches its gender, number, and case. New Testament Greek Scholar Bruce M. Metzger points out this grammatical anomaly in the earlier manuscripts and explains the scribes would have attempted to improve the grammar by altering the case in later manuscript copies (334).
Consider one more example from the Book of James:
Consider one more example from the Book of James:
For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison (James 3:7–8).
In this verse, the adjectival participle “restless evil” (ἀκατάστατον κακόν; akatastaton kakon) is neuter singular nominative, yet it appears to modify or describe the noun “tongue,” (γλῶσσαν; glōssan) which is feminine singular nominative. This is another example of a participle not matching its subject in gender, just like in Mark 19b.
Examples such as these three from Luke, Acts, and James show that the early manuscripts contain grammatical anomalies in syntax. Occasionally the authors wrote participles that did not match their subjects in gender, number, or case, much as writers today do not always write with perfect grammar. As Marshall, France, and Metzger point out, the scribes took note of these abnormal uses of Greek grammar and attempted to fix them, resulting in later manuscripts with grammatical phrases that made more sense. This explains why the later manuscripts such as those used to compile the Textus Receptus would have a grammatical construction of “cleansing all foods” that made sense contextually. The scribes most likely fixed the perceived grammatical error in gender.
Examples such as these three from Luke, Acts, and James show that the early manuscripts contain grammatical anomalies in syntax. Occasionally the authors wrote participles that did not match their subjects in gender, number, or case, much as writers today do not always write with perfect grammar. As Marshall, France, and Metzger point out, the scribes took note of these abnormal uses of Greek grammar and attempted to fix them, resulting in later manuscripts with grammatical phrases that made more sense. This explains why the later manuscripts such as those used to compile the Textus Receptus would have a grammatical construction of “cleansing all foods” that made sense contextually. The scribes most likely fixed the perceived grammatical error in gender.
| Earliest manuscripts have: | Explanation: | Scribal Solution: | Edited version of later manuscripts: |
|---|---|---|---|
| katharizōn (καθαριζων) panta ta brōmata | katharizōn (Καθαριζων) is a masculine singular participle, and appears to lack an immediate masculine singular subject | Noting this grammatical inconsistency, the medieval scribes changed katharizōn (καθαριζων) to the neuter participle katharizon (καθαριζον) | katharizon (καθαριζον) panta ta brōmata |
It is, therefore, possible to understand “cleansing all foods” as modifying the process of digestion, as the context implies. Based on the masculine gender of the earliest manuscripts, many scholars understand “cleansing all foods” to be an act by Jesus (since he is the closest masculine word), in which he declares all foods clean. But the grammar in the earliest manuscripts did not always have participles that matched their subjects or antecedents in gender, number, and case. Mark may have a participle with a missing antecedent as in the Luke and Acts examples, or a participle modifying a noun of different gender as in the case of James.
A final note: It is crucial to remember that when we read an English translation of Scripture, there is inevitably translator interpretation due to a variety of factors. One of these is that the translators have many sets of manuscripts from different time periods to make sense of, and they must do their best to reconcile grammatical variants such as the one listed in the table above. Furthermore, a necessary evil of translating is that much of a language’s particular nuances are lost in order to create an understandable translation. This is further complicated by hundreds of years between the original author’s writing and the translator’s work. We, as readers, are subject not only to the interpretive choices of the contemporary translator, but also to the interpretive choices of the scribes who were copying texts and fixing grammatical inconsistencies during the Middle Ages. Text copying and translation is truly a complicated discipline.
What Should We Do?
Consider the final question: Should Christians discard the food laws based on this passage with debatable translation and application?
This, then, is the most practical of the four questions. It asks, what should we do? How should we live? Should we continue to follow the food laws found in the Torah or not? Of course, there are many passages in the Bible to consider to answer this question, but for our purposes here, we are looking narrowly at the Matthew/Mark passages.
Should we disregard the food laws based on Mark 7:19b? Since there is much disagreement, textual variants, and grammatical difficulties in translating this half of one verse, this text is insufficient to draw the conclusion that God has made all animals for mankind to eat. It would be an irresponsible application.
Further, returning to the original context of the sister passages in Matthew and Mark, recall it is not about clean and unclean animals. Rather, it is about manmade laws raised above God’s laws, and the condition and defilement of the human heart, which desperately needs to be cleansed.
What can we conclude? What should we do? Let’s tread carefully and be responsible with the text. Contextually, this passage is not about adding pork chops and strips of bacon to our menu. Rather, Jesus encourages us to consider our own customs and traditions. We ought to ask ourselves, what are we elevating above the Word of God? What things do we practice while we ignore the condition of our own sinful hearts? May our hearts be cleansed by Him as we seek to live out His Word.
Bibliography
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2011). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
ESV Study Bible (2011). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. (1961). A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS Translator’s Handbooks; Accordance electronic ed. New York, NY: United Bible Societies.
James R. Edwards, James R. (2002). Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
France, R. T. (2002). The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Guelich, Robert A. (1989). Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 1–8:26, Vol. 34A. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Lane, William L. (1974). The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Marshall, I. Howard (1978). The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Metzger, Bruce M.(1994). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Vol. 2d. New York, NY: United Bible Societies.
Warren, Bill ed. (2004). The Center for New Testament Textual Studies NT Critical Apparatus. New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
Wegner, Paul D. (1999). The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
ESV Study Bible (2011). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. (1961). A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS Translator’s Handbooks; Accordance electronic ed. New York, NY: United Bible Societies.
James R. Edwards, James R. (2002). Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
France, R. T. (2002). The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Guelich, Robert A. (1989). Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 1–8:26, Vol. 34A. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Lane, William L. (1974). The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Marshall, I. Howard (1978). The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Metzger, Bruce M.(1994). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Vol. 2d. New York, NY: United Bible Societies.
Warren, Bill ed. (2004). The Center for New Testament Textual Studies NT Critical Apparatus. New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
Wegner, Paul D. (1999). The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.