Re: Did Jesus declare all foods clean?
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:42 pm
Alexander, yes, priestly writers would have been well pissed with mark 7. YHWH is a HOLY god. His commands are holy. YHWH says that certain foods do defile.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
moses wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:40 pm https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... h=390d89ce
Alexander, your quote from the above link
Going from memory, the "declare all foods clean" is a possible interpretation/extrapolation based on the minority variant, masculine, in the corruption versions.
that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
John2 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:04 am I took a look at Mark 7 and this is how it looks to me.
First, let's consider the context. Right before 7:14-23, Jesus castigates the Pharisees in 7:5-13 for letting go of "the commands of God and holding on to human traditions":
So why would Jesus then go on to "nullify the word of God" himself in 7:14-23? But I see that Jesus doesn't say anything about eating unclean food here. It is Mark's interpretation of what Jesus is saying:So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
I think the last section explains the first one. In other words, I think he's saying metaphorically that you can simply crap out the traditions of the Pharisees and not be defiled by them since "their teachings are merely human rules." This would be in keeping with 7:1-4:
So in my view, Jesus is simply saying not to observe the traditions of the Pharisees. To say that he is "setting aside the commands of God" concerning clean and unclean food (like Mark thinks) would make Jesus a hypocrite too.The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
Yes , I have read Boyarin's , The Jewish Gospels, again. He says that Jesus in Mark 7 was only opposing an innovation of the Pharisees which modified the Torah .
In page 115 of the same book Boyarin writes the following:iskander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:31 amYes , I have read Boyarin's , The Jewish Gospels, again. He says that Jesus in Mark 7 was only opposing an innovation of the Pharisees which modified the Torah .
To call food kosher refers to its permissibility for eating by Jews as defined in the Torah , these laws are observed to the letter by pious Jews even today, These dietary laws , kashrut , was not the modification Jesus was opposing in Mark 7.
The innovation of the Pharisees that Jesus found unacceptable was the set of rules that define when any food -kosher or not--is pure or impure , depending on how that food was handled .
Boyarin writes that both Mark and Jesus were Jewish and knew they were separating different sets of Hebrew words , muttar and tahor.
Can you give examples of foods that were kosher that the Pharisees considered impure?iskander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:31 amTo call food kosher refers to its permissibility for eating by Jews as defined in the Torah , these laws are observed to the letter by pious Jews even today, These dietary laws , kashrut , was not the modification Jesus was opposing in Mark 7.
The innovation of the Pharisees that Jesus found unacceptable was the set of rules that define when any food -kosher or not--is pure or impure , depending on how that food was handled .
Boyarin writes that both Mark and Jesus were Jewish and knew they were separating different sets of Hebrew words , muttar and tahor.
Two interpretations of the words of a Jewish reformer of the first century AD in Palestine :Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:58 amCan you give examples of foods that were kosher that the Pharisees considered impure?iskander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:31 amTo call food kosher refers to its permissibility for eating by Jews as defined in the Torah , these laws are observed to the letter by pious Jews even today, These dietary laws , kashrut , was not the modification Jesus was opposing in Mark 7.
The innovation of the Pharisees that Jesus found unacceptable was the set of rules that define when any food -kosher or not--is pure or impure , depending on how that food was handled .
Boyarin writes that both Mark and Jesus were Jewish and knew they were separating different sets of Hebrew words , muttar and tahor.
And foods that were not kosher than the Pharisees considered pure?
Without such specifics, we would be in the land of sophistry.
As I pointed out above, all this is based on a questionable interpretative extrapolation of a minority corruption text. Mark never wrote:
"(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
However, following the classical ad hominem, "to the man", allowing the argument for the sake of seeing where it leads, lets hear how this plays out in the proposed Pharisitical distinction.
Thanks!
Steven
Another one for the restricted Jewish audience:iskander wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:46 amTwo interpretations of the words of a Jewish reformer of the first century AD in Palestine :Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:58 amCan you give examples of foods that were kosher that the Pharisees considered impure?iskander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:31 amTo call food kosher refers to its permissibility for eating by Jews as defined in the Torah , these laws are observed to the letter by pious Jews even today, These dietary laws , kashrut , was not the modification Jesus was opposing in Mark 7.
The innovation of the Pharisees that Jesus found unacceptable was the set of rules that define when any food -kosher or not--is pure or impure , depending on how that food was handled .
Boyarin writes that both Mark and Jesus were Jewish and knew they were separating different sets of Hebrew words , muttar and tahor.
And foods that were not kosher than the Pharisees considered pure?
Without such specifics, we would be in the land of sophistry.
As I pointed out above, all this is based on a questionable interpretative extrapolation of a minority corruption text. Mark never wrote:
"(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
However, following the classical ad hominem, "to the man", allowing the argument for the sake of seeing where it leads, lets hear how this plays out in the proposed Pharisitical distinction.
Thanks!
Steven
One for the wider world of the goyim :
mark 7.PNG