Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

July 9, 2011 1. July 9, 2011 2.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "July 9, 2011 1. July 9, 2011 2."— Presentation transcript:

1 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 1

2 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 2

3 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 33 Matthew 15:16-17 in the English & Greek Matthew 15:16-17 in the Aramaic Matthew 15:16-17 in the Hebrew Mark 7:18-19 in the Aramaic Mark 7:18-19 in the English & Greek

4 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 44 Matthew 15:16-17 English & Greek Note: Matthew is missing the final 3 words of Mark: kaqari,zwn pa,nta ta. brw,mataÈ KJV Matthew 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

5 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 55 Matthew 15:16-17 English & Greek NAS 15:16 And He said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?”

6 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 66 Matthew 15:16-17 English & Greek NIV 15:16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?”

7 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 77 Matthew 15:16-17 Aramaic Etheridge 15:16 But he said to them, Do you also not yet understand? 17 Know you not that whatsoever entereth the mouth, goeth into the belly, and from thence in purification it is cast without?

8 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 88 Matthew 15:16-17 Aramaic Murdock 15:16 And he said to them: Are ye also, up to this time, without understanding? 17 Know ye not, that whatever entereth the mouth, passeth into the belly, and from there is ejected by purgation?

9 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 99 Matthew 15:16-17 Hebrew 15:16 He said, Are you still without a mind? 17 Do you still not comprehend that everything that enters through the mouth merely goes to the belly and out through the natural opening?

10 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 10 ark 7:18-19

11 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 11 Mark 7:18-19 Aramaic Murdock 7:18 Are ye likewise so undiscerning? Do ye not know, that whatever from without entereth into a man, cannot defile him? 19 For it doth not enter into his heart, but into his belly, and is thrown into the digestive process, which carries off all that is eaten.

12 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 12 Mark 7:18-19 Aramaic Etheridge 7:18 He said to them, How dull are even you! Know you not, that nothing from without that entereth a man can defile him, 19 because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and is cast out in the purgation which all food purgeth?

13 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 13 Mark 7:18-19 English KJV 7:18 Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

14 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 14 Mark 7:18-19 English NAS 7:18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

15 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 15 Mark 7:18-19 English NIV 7:18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

16 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 16 Mark 7:18-19 Greek GNT 7:18 “ kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( Ou[twj kai. u`mei/j avsu,netoi, evsteÈ ouv noei/te o[ti pa/n to. e;xwqen eivsporeuo,menon eivj to.n a;nqrwpon ouv du,natai auvto.n koinw/sai 19 o[ti ouvk eivsporeu,etai auvtou/ eivj th.n kardi,an avllV eivj th.n koili,an( kai. eivj to.n avfedrw/na evkporeu,etai( kaqari,zwn pa,nta ta. brw,mataÈ

17 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 17 Mark 7:18-19 Greek GNT 7:18 “ kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( And said he 19 kaqari,zwn pa,nta ta. brw,mataÈ Cleansing all the foods kaqari,zwn – nominative masculine singular Key letter: next to last letter “ w ”

18 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 18 Considerations 1. Language is important 2. Textual variants must be considered 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered 4. Context must be considered 5. Implications are important 6. Historical setting is important

19 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 19 Considerations 7. Parallel passages must be considered 8. Past, present, and future events must be considered 9. How the behavior of other key figures plays a role 10. How the behavior of the key figure plays a role

20 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 20 1. Language is important The NAS and the NIV translate their underlying Greek text according to the regular rules of Greek grammar correctly The KJV translates their underlying Greek text according to the regular rules of Greek grammar correctly. But…they disagree

21 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 21 2. Textual variants must be considered The NIV and the NAS follow older and more reliable manuscripts. kaqari,zwn – nominative masculine singular participle The KJV follows the Textus Receptus kaqari,zon – nominative neuter omicronsingular participle The difference between “ w ” and “ o ”

22 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 22 2. Textual variants must be considered Why would a scribe change the participle from masculine to neuter? The “on it’s face” meaning of the passage seems to be the elimination of food eaten to the sewer.

23 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 23 2. Textual variants must be considered The Greek nouns utilized to describe human waste are neuter. The impetus for changing the masculine form to read as a neuter would have been to clear up any ambiguity as to the subject of the participle.

24 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 24 2. Textual variants must be considered However, the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts almost universally read kaqari,zwn, with the “ w ” not the “ o ”, which makes it masculine. In this case, the closest antecedent masculine singular noun is avfedrw/na, ‘latrine’.

25 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 25 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Example 1: She belong to a club. She belongs to a club. They belong to a club.

26 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 26 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Example 2: “i before ‘e’ except after c” What are these? Caffeine, codeine, deity, dreidel, feisty, foreign, forfeit, freight, heir, leisure, neighbor, seismic, sovereign, vein, weight, weird (16) Ancient, frequencies, conscience, science, society (5)

27 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 27 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Greek Problem: Participles generally must agree in gender, number, and case with the noun to which they attach. In the phrase eivj to.n avfedrw/na evkporeu,etai, the word for latrine, avfedrw/na, is in the accusative case, while the following participle, kaqari,zwn, is in the nominative case.

28 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 28 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Thereby lies the problem… If the body doesn’t “clean all foods”, then what or who does? Origen (185-232) understood that Yeshua was the subject (Commentary on Matthew Book 11, section 12). This requires going back 38 words to find the matching nominative case word.

29 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 29 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered What you get 38 words back is “He said”, which of course is Yeshua. If Yeshua is the subject of the masculine participle, you get “He (Yeshua) cleansing all the foods.” How does Yeshua “clean all the foods”?

30 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 30 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered He “cleans” all foods by “making all food stuffs clean”. Therefore, to help the English, you get “He declared all foods clean” Therefore, based on matching case, the NIV and the NAS have it correct and the KJV is rejected because it uses an inferior manuscript.

31 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 31 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Therefore, the textual variant used by the KJV is found to be inferior and should be rejected as a means to translate this passage differently from the NIV and the NAS. Does Greek grammar give us any other options?

32 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 32 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Yes. “It is well known in Greek grammar that the nominative singular participle may sometimes refer to something within the previous context or to something implied in the context not explicitly mentioned, even though it may not be in the same grammatical case.” Mark 7.19ShortNote by Tim Hegg

33 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 33 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Here are three examples with visual extracts (explanation to follow) 1. Moulton 2. Debrunner 3. Zerwick

34 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 34

35 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 35

36 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 36

37 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 37

38 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 38

39 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 39

40 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 40

41 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 41

42 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 42 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered 1. Moulton Sometimes appositional phrases and circumstantial ptcs. are found in the nom. instead of oblique cases: Mk 7:19 This is the only instance which is important for exegesis Some refer to Jesus (Origen), however, others take it as false concord, meant to agree with avfedrw/na and translate: the latrine which removes filth

43 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 43 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered 2. Debrunner (3) The remaining instances are appositives or circumstantial participles in the nominative instead of an oblique case. Mk 7:19

44 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 44 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered 3. Zerwick The exegesis of a passage is affected by this tendency in only one case, namely Mk 7,19… Others however take kaqari,zwn as equivqlent to kaqari,zon referring to avfedrw/na, thus understanding …into the privy which purifies all manner of food.

45 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 45 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered Conclusion… The need to understand the final clause of 7:19 as Mark’s editorial conclusion is removed if, in fact, kaqari,zwn can have an antecedent with which it does not share grammatical concord.

46 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 46 3. Rules of Grammar must be considered This allows the final clause of v.19 to function normally as the conclusion of Yeshua's argument, namely, that as it pertains to food, what comes forth from the bowel does not defile, because it goes out into the latrine and is properly purged. Therefore, the rules of Greek grammar allow us the leeway to understand the passage without Yeshua doing away with the law.

47 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 47 4. Context must be considered The context here is clearly a discussion not about what is considered food (designated by that which is clean) and non-food (designated by that which is unclean). It is about whether one can eat at all if the ceremonial washing of the hands does not take place before eating begins.

48 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 48 4. Context must be considered Everyone had been taught that minimum ritual defilement occurred frequently and a simple washing of the hands would remove it. This would keep one from changing the status of food (clean) into a non-Torah category of “common’ and thereby a “food-substance” to be avoided.

49 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 49 4. Context must be considered Yeshua taught that nothing the goes into the mouth (and into the stomach) can make a person unclean, not that the solution to the “hand washing” tradition was to do away with the law of clean and unclean.

50 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 50 5. Implications of “NIV NAS reading” 1. Galatians 4:4 states very clearly that Yeshua was under the law. He needed to obey it or it would be a sin. Deuteronomy 4:2 states that we are not to add nor take away from the commandments. Therefore, if he actually said this, then he just sinned and there are a lot of implications to that.

51 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 51 5. Implications of “NIV NAS reading” 2. Just prior, he stated that he did not come to do away with the law yet this translation has him doing exactly that. 3. Just prior, he stated that whoever taught others to not observe the commandments would be least in the Kingdom of God. He just put himself in that category.

52 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 52 5. Implications of “NIV NAS reading” 4. Just a few sentences earlier, he chewed out the Pharisees for setting aside the commandments of God but now he’s going to do that exact thing? 5. In the verses following, nobody takes note of the law being done away with, not even a comment yet Yeshua gets right back on the topic he has been addressing from the beginning…

53 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 53 6. Historical Setting This was a meal with some Pharisees who were criticizing him for not teaching his students to follow the man made traditions properly. Can you imagine if he actually said this and they had nothing to say about it? Notice at his trial, not a word is said about him doing away with any part of the law.

54 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 54 6. Historical Setting In the historical record of the conflicts in the first century, there is not even a single mention of those things that were unclean and not usable for food as having been changed during and after the life of Yeshua.

55 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 55 7. Parallel Passages Matthew has the same story but it is missing the final three words, which are at the center of the debate. The context of the story is the same and that section speaks clearly that the body expels the waste.

56 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 56 8. Past, Present, Future During the time of Moses, it is without debate that the laws of clean and unclean were on the books. During the Millennial Kingdom part of the priests work will be to teach the people the difference between the clean and the unclean. (Ezekiel 44:23) So what would be the reason to do away with it now just to bring it back?

57 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 57 9. Behavior of James and Paul Acts 21 demonstrates that James was proud of the tens of thousands that were zealous for the law. James counted himself in with that group. Then James constructs a scenario where Paul can demonstrate to all the he too is a part of that group and he (Paul) does just that.

58 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 58 10. Behavior of Peter Peter is at this event (Matthew 15:15) He would have heard that the class of unclean had been done away with. He guided Mark in the creation of his gospel and would have recalled such a landmark ruling by Yeshua. Yet, in Acts 10, he has no clue about this ruling. Is that even possible?

59 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 59

60 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 60 The Weight of Evidence We understand the NAS and the NIV translation of the last three words of Mark 7:19 as being correct to the letter of Greek grammar. However, that same Greek grammar allows us the leeway of sometimes recognizing that a lack of concord does not necessarily blockade our path to the truth.

61 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 61 The Weight of Evidence Combined with the ten points to consider, the Weight of Evidence is clearly on the side of “no concord required”.

62 July 9, 2011 http://hodf.org 62September 28, 2010 http://hodsbs.org 62


Download ppt "July 9, 2011 1. July 9, 2011 2."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google