[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. [2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled—that is to say, unwashed—hands, they found fault.
-At Mark 7:2 it may not be apparent in translation, but the grammar here is implying that the bread the disciples are eating with unwashed hands is the magically multiplied loaves from the previous scene in chapter 6. Though that would mean my throes about the people not actually eating the bread but being nourished on Jesus' words would be wrong, but perhaps not—Scripture has no problem with working on several levels that defy easy quantification.
[3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, won’t eat unless they wash their hands, holding on to the tradition of the elders. [4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, bronze vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but instead eat bread with unwashed hands?”
-Mark 7:3-4= “unless they [εαν μη] washed [νιψωνται]” … “brass kettles” [χαλχιων]
-Leviticus 6:28 = “And if [εαν δε] a brass [χαλχω] cooking-pot (was used to boil the meat then) you shall scour and wash it out [εκκλυσει] in water.”
[6] He answered and said unto them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
-Mark 7:6 – 8 = Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 LXX (= notice that Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14 ‘ I will remove this people, confound the wisdom of the wise etc…’ )
-It is in chapter 7 of Mark that one begins to really notice that Jesus often functions in this novel as an allegorical stand-in for Paul. Mark 7:1 has the absurd detail that “Pharisees and some scribes came from Jerusalem” to see what Jesus and his own were up to. This is an obvious parody of the situation in the letter of Galatians, where “some from James,” the apostolic bishop in Jerusalem, arrive to “spy on the freedom we have in Christ” as Paul so self-servingly puts it, his euphemism for his bizarre theology of the Torah no longer being valid. The gospel author does his best to obfuscate the issue by making it about something else—his usual procedure, as always. Jesus’ retort at verse 8—that the rabbis “abandon the precepts of God to hold onto the tradition of men”—is mirrored in the next chapter where he rebukes Peter for similar thinking. Again, the 12 are always indirectly grouped with the pernicious Jewish elders and representatives.
By having Jesus quote Isaiah 29:13, Mark may be following the example of Paul in the first chapter of 1Corinthians, where he interprets Isaiah’s divine reasoning for the Babylonian exile as being why the gospel will be given over to Gentiles instead of Jews. It is under the influence of chapter 14 of Paul’s letter to the Romans that communities like those Mark may have been writing for would have read Mark 7’s periscope in front of us. Romans 14:20 simply ignores all Torah kosher rules, arguing that not letting new converts do whatever they want because it isn’t convenient to them to do otherwise somehow impedes God’s work. A more cynical view could not be imagined. Paul blandly declares: “all food is clean.” Considering how many thousands died over this issue, both these New Testament authors are guilty of the most vicious inhumanity possible here, despite numerous attempts by apologists to ignore what is the main point of all Christianity—the mocking erasure or cosmopolitan reversal of every single aspect of ancient 'conservative' Judaism.
-Isaiah 29:13 = the reference to lips in Mark 7:6 may be ironic, where in Isaiah it means ‘meaningless words’ i.e. flattering ‘lip-service’, while the evangelist is using it to mean actual eating of foods!
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” [9] And he said unto them, “Full well you reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” [10] For Moses said, ‘Honor thy father and mother’ and, ‘Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.’ [11] But ye say, ‘If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou might be profited by me; he shall be free.’ [12] And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
-in 7:9f Jesus opposes written law on oaths at Deut 23:21-23 by saying care for parents overrides as per Exod 20:12.
-Howard Clark Lee, ‘Community of the New Age: studies in Mark’s gospel’ (Westminster, Philadelphia, 1977) page 149= “Although the line of reasoning in 7:9-13 may be some points a caricature of rabbinic interpretive method, the outcome is the paradox that by appeal to Moses (Mark 7:10), the Mosaic ritual requirements are set aside.”
-Josephus, Antiquities 4.44 (=73) = “Those who designate themselves ‘korban’ to God —a word that means ‘gift’ [δωρον] in Greek—if they want to be released from this religious obligation they must pay the priests a sum of money.” (=this is referenced in Mark 7:11)
-‘Isaiah’s New Exodus’ (p 218) = “…there is more to the singling out of the practice of Corban than meets the eye. Honouring parents is, according to Ephesians 6:2, the first commandment with a promise—that you may live long in the land (cf. Exodus 21:15 and Deut 5:16). It is possible that Mark’s Jesus is raising the spectre of covenant sanction, namely, destruction and exile from the land (cf. Exod 21:15, 17; Levit. 20:9; Deut 21:18-21 and 27:16). … The authorities in Isaiah 28f, in spite of their continuing religious profession, had in fact rejected Yahweh’s plan and were consequently under judicial hardening and consigned to pursue a course of action that would ultimately destroy them and their city. The same situation holds in Mark with regard to the religious authorities from Jerusalem. Having already rejected Jesus’ exorcisms, they are now subject to Yahweh’s judicial blinding. When faced with Jesus’ ‘parabolic’ healings, the nature of their loyalty to Yahweh is revealed, and their blindness further confirmed. The threat of judgment looms. This, of course, is the point of both the parable of the tenants in Mark 12:1ff and the predicted destruction of the temple in Mark 13. Indeed, if Yahweh had met such hard-heartedness with destruction in the past, it would hardly be surprising if he should do so again. Given this Isaianic background, it may well be that Mark 13 owes more to the stimulus of the classical prophets than any particularly apocalyptic mode of thinking.”
[14] And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, “Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand!
-Mark 7:16 = making a pronouncement about food cleanliness, Jesus proclaims: “hearing, let hear!” [ακουειν ακουετω]
-Isa 32:2-3, 8= "He'll appear in Zion... no longer will they trust in men but instead lend their ears to hear... the godly plan [suneta] intellegent things [ebouleusanto]."
-while in Mark 7:14 the author appears to parodying or rewriting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 = “Hear, Israel, and obey!” but Jesus instead calls the crowd together and says: “Hear me, all of you, and perceive!” [ακουετε μου παντες και συνιετε] For the Hellenistic author Mark, persuasion has replaced absolute apodictic Torah law. By his Grecian logic, since nothing seems to be wrong with bacon and shellfish and the like, then the Torah must be wrong and these things are fine. Never mind that tens of thousands of Jews were butchered by Romans for refusing to disobey these food laws, Josephus remarking that even the children of Jews “smiled contemptuously” at their torturers who tried to force them to eat unclean food or curse the Jewish name of their God. see Josephus, War 7.418 (cf. Antiquities 18.24)= on how Sicarii in Egypt refused to call Caesar "Lord" and how brave Essenes are under torture at Bellum 2.152
-see how easy it must have been to confuse so-called Zealots and so-called Christians (sikariot=Xristanoi?) at Acts 24:5 where Tertullus says to Paul [κινουντα στασεις πασι τοις Ιουδαιοις τος κατα την οικουμενην] = compare this with Emperor Claudius open letter to the Jews of Alexandria, LCL Select papyri II, 86 lines 96-100 = comdemning them for accepting and harboring the revolutionary/seditious compatriots from Syria: [καθαπερ κοινην τινα της οικουμενης νοσον εξεγειροντας]
-Romans 10:17 = "Faith comes from what is heard." [akoh]
-Romans 1:5 and 16:26= "the submission/obedience of faith" [upokoh pistews] = similar in meaning to the term Islam/muslim in later provenance.
-notice how for the lazy-mided Paul this means escaping any need for 'service' or 'works', unlike the later Koran author(s) who understood the message more 'faithfully': see Quran 3.113-115 those from among "people of the book" who are "righteous, believe and do good works."
[15] “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
-John P. Meier, ‘A Marginal Jew Vol 4’ (page 393) = “Indeed, one of the most striking contradictions at the heart of Mark 7:1-23 is the fact that the relatively minor question of eating bread with unwashed hands (minor, at least, in the early first century AD) evokes a sharp objection from the Pharisees and scribes, while non … objects vociferously to Jesus’ shattering statement on food laws in 7:15.
[16] If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
-Ezekiel 3:27= the Lord says: “The one hearing, let him hear! [ο ακουων ακουετω] but the one resisting being persuaded, let him go ahead and resist!”
[17] And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. [18] And he said unto them: “Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into a man, it cannot defile him;
-Isaiah 32:2-3 = “He will appear in Zion. No longer will they trust in men, but lend their ears to hear.” Later at verse 8= the godly “plan” (συνετα) only “intelligent things.” (εβουλευσαντο)
[19] "Because it enters not into his heart, but into the stomach, and goes out into the bowels, cleansing all foods?” [20] And he said, “That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
-Talmud Bavli, Barachot 52b = Hillelites tell Shammaites that handwashing before eating unconsecrated food isn’t in the Torah, tacitly here they are admitting this is an invention of the Rabbis. Also, this puts the Markan Jesus on Hillel’s side on such matters.
-in the reference to “Lips” in Mark 7:6 there may be a callback to Isaiah 29:13; using this, mark mixes Pharisaic concern with food and their words, both involving the mouth/lips. Here is more proof of this gospel author’s literary skill, if such were needed.
-the use of the plural of the word “teachings” [διδασκαλιας] in Mark 7 may be intended to juxtapose the oneness of God with the multiplication of spurious and needless rules fabricated by the rabbis. This plural occurs also in Matthew 15:9 and Colossians 2:22, which contains a list similar to the one following here.
-the theme of ‘commandments of men’ = 1 Tim 1:14; Col 2:22’s ‘Jewish myths’ etc
-Isaiah 29:16 alluded to at Romans 9:20 (on the unbelief of Israel); cf. Romans 11:8 which alludes to Isa 29:10.
[21] For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, [22] Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: [23] All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
-In the background of all of this there seems to be the strange logic that since Pharisees and Jews of the ilk added extra rules to the Pentateuch, this means one can ignore all kosher rules in general? Paul seems to be saying this, via insinuation and indirection, many times in his letters. Both Mark and Paul are very careful and reticent about how and when they make reference to their views, much like modern crypto-nazis or proponents of other radical social ideologies.
-John P. Meier, 'A Marginal Jew: volume 4' page 374= "This comparison between Mark and Colossians makes two points clear: (1) Colossians 2:21-22 is not literarily dependent on Mark 7:6-7 for it's use of LXX Isa 29:13. Instead, like Mark but independently of Mark, Colossians takes over Isaiah 29:13 with a slight alteration to serve its own polemic. (2) We may therefore infer that the LXX version of Isa 29:13—and precisely the LXX version—circulated among the early Christians as a proof text that justified rejecting purity rules, especially those concerned with touching or eating food. [...] LXX Isa 29:14—again with slight variation—is cited by Paul in 1Cor 1:19 as he rejects the "wordly wisdom" of the Corinthians. [...] In Matt 11:25 (see Luke 10:21) Jesus addresses the Father: 'You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent men.' "
[24] And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into a house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. [25] For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: [26] The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician; and she begged him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. [27] But Jesus said unto her, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not fitting to take children's bread, and to throw it to the dogs.” [28] And she answered thusly, “Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.”
-Judges 1:7 = the defeated kings under Adoni-bezek’s table (υποκατω της τραπεζης) ; Mark 7:28 uses language from the LXX to reverse a negative Gentile trope. The phrase “throw it to the dogs!” [τω κυνι απποριψατε αυτο] appears at Exodus 22:31 about rejecting meat from animals killed by other animals.
-2Kings 8:12-13= the prophet Elisha predicts Hazael will “dash children to pieces” and Hazael responds by asking how “I, a dog, could accomplish such a thing?” Elisha predicts Hazael will soon become King of Syria [‘Aram’ in Hebrew]. Compare this to how Jesus tells a Syrian woman it would be unwise of him to cast his “children’s’ food” to “dogs.” (=Mark 7:27) It is also probably pertinent that the story about Ben Hadad’s illness and Hazael’s visit to Elisha takes place during a famine, so both the healing and the bread elements have been reused by Mark in the Syrophoenician’s tale. Though the reference is a slight one, it would be pertinent here to showcase just how Mark’s borrowings and reuse of scripture are actually in accord with how the OT writings were composed. In the Elisha story, the Hebrew biblical scribe purposefully reiterates language borrowed from the prophets’ poetical sermons to flesh out his histories. Notice the following, given in Greek though both the originals are in Hebrew—the parallels exist either way=
-2Kings 8:12 = Elisha predicts to Hazael= “You’ll kill by the broadsword [ρομϕαια], you’ll dash [εδαϕιεις] their infants, and those having one in the womb [και τας εν γαστρι εχουσας αυτων] you’ll tear apart [διαρρηξεις].”
-Hosea 13:16 = “Samaria will be obliterated … by the broadsword [ρομϕαια] they will fall, ones under their breasts (=nursing) shall be dashed [εδαϕισθησεται] and them having one in the womb [και αι εν γαστρι εχουσαι αυτων] shall be torn up [διαρραγηονται].”
-Yet this is not all, the author of 2Kings for some reason borrows the conversation here by editing and carefully reusing conversational segments from 2Samuel—just the way Mark does with his pericopes! It is most peculiar—behold=
-2Kings 8:11-12 = “The man of God wept {εκλαυσεν]. Hazael asked: ‘Why does my master weep?’ and Elisha answers: ‘I’ve (fore)seen the bad things [κακα] you’ll do [ποιησεις] (in the future).’”
-2Samuel 12:18 = David’s servants are afraid if they tell him his son died: “he’ll do bad things [κακα] to us!”; meanwhile the king fasts and “weeps.” [εκλαυσα] (verses 21-22).
-2Kings 8: = Hazael humbles himself, asking: ”What am I [τις εστιν], your servant [ο δουλος σου], a dying dog [ο κυων ο τεθνηκως], to accomplish such great things?”
-notice 2Sam 8 take place near Syrian Damascus, like 2Kings 8f.
-2Sam 9:8 = David restores Saul’s disgraced son Mephibosheth (=Mephibaal) his family lands, and the former prince asks: “Who am I [τις ειμι], your servant [ο δουλος σου]—formerly looked upon as a dying dog [τον κυνα τον τεθνηκοτα]?” Like Mark 7, 2Sam 9:7 features someone’s child accepting secondary place at a table [τραπεζης] and mention of bread.
[29] And he said unto her, “For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.” [30] And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
-the mention here of “upon the bed” [επι της κλινης] seems redundant, but is probably an echo of 1Kings 17:19 which has the same phrase about Elijah raising the Shullamite’s son. Several items indeed from 1Kings 17 appear here, the mention of “a morsel” [ψωμον] matches the hypothetical crumbs [ψιχιων] from Mark 7 while the issue of “bread for the children [αρτου … τοις τεκνοις]” (=1Kings 17:11-12) is precisely the issue at Mark 7:27 [αρτον των τεκνων]. Jesus says: “let first [πρωτον]”, in echo of 1Kings 17:13’s “At first” [εν πρωτοις], while Elijah’s “do according to your word” [κατα το ρημα σου] mirrors Jesus’ “on account of this word of yours” [δια τουτον τον λογον].
[31] And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
-a callback to Isaiah 9:1? That text also mentions ‘coasts’, Galilee of the Nations, and ‘other side of Jordan’ and it is quoted explicitly by Matthew.
-Mark 7:34= when Jesus “looking up into heaven” [αναβλεψας εις τον ουρανον] moaned while healing the mute. This is the exact same phrase as appears in Deuteronomy 4:19 where God explains that making images is forbidden entirely: “lest, looking up into heaven [αναβλεψας εις τον ουρανον] you undertake to serve the moon and stars and bow down to them…” And just as the boy is “deaf” so does YHWH in Deut 4:28 that man-made fetishistic idols are dumb and “cannot hear.”
[32] And they brought unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and beseeching him to put his hand upon him. [33] And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue; [34] And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, “Ephphatha!” (meaning: ‘Be opened.’) [35] And straightaway his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosened, and he spoke clearly.
-This is a parody that reverses God’s calling of Ezekiel, whom he temporarily ‘disables’ by making him have a crippling speech impediment, making him seem to be someone not worth listening to, yet like Isaiah 6:9 and 9:6 as we saw previously, this is part of a divine plan to fool humans into disbelieving a truthful message due to their lack of discernment about the messenger. Like ‘old man Withers’ from chapter 3, this is Mark reversing Old Testament curses into blessings=
-LXX Ezekiel 3:25-26 = God tells Ezekiel that his tongue shall be “tied with bonds/fetters” [δεσμοι … δησουσι] and then God will “tie your tongue [γλωσσαν σου συνδησω] to your throat and you’ll be mute [αποκωϕωθηση]” so as to ‘seem as a person of no importance’—but when the Lord tells him what “to speak” [λαλειν] his mouth shall be “opened” [ανοιξω]. In the Hebrew MT this is the word [eph-tach], the same that Mark 7:34 uses when Jesus heals the deaf-mute [κωϕον] boy: “Eph-phatha, (which means) ‘be opened.’” [εϕϕαθα (ο εστιν διανοιχθητι)]
Then notice how the Greek of Mark 7:35 matches the above episode in Ezekiel “The bond/fetter on his tongue was untied and he spoke correctly.” [ελυθη ο δεσμος της γλωσσης … ελαλει ορθως]
=Mark repeats some of this healing’s imagery in chapter 9 with the ‘epileptic’ boy, quoting there from Ezekiel 24—which itself is an expansion of Ezekiel 3!
[36] And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
-Mark 7:32-36 and 8:22-26 share a large amount of similarities, one story obviously dependent upon another, though which direction the borrowing goes we shall not look into here. It seems like part of Mark's mischevious sense of humor that in both these stories Jesus, seemingly in a disrespectful way? Jesus “spitting on” someone’s eyes at Mark 8:23 is unusual. Perhaps it, like the obsession with “touching” in chapter 5, is meant to mock the Essenes strange aversion to spitting. Perhaps some reference to Numbers 12 is intended, where Miraim is blighted with leprosy for questioning Moses’ decision to marry a foreigner: her brother then begs God to “heal her,” to which God answers blithely: “If by spitting, her father were to have spit in her face—would she not be ashamed?” Here we have intertwined motifs of healing and spitting, in a format that scribes like Mark might have been inclined to reverse in transit to their new position in his bold composition.
[37] And were beyond measure astonished, saying, “He has done all things well! He makes both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.”
-Genesis 1:31= “All as much as he made and beheld good exceedingly (it was).” [παντα οσα εποιησε και ιδου καλα λιαν]
-Mark 7:37= “All the things he’s done well [καλως παντα πεποιηκε].”
-this phrase connects up with the disciples at chapter 10 being “astonished beyond measure” at Jesus pronouncement on how riches are a wicked obstacle to those who possess them.
-Robert M Fowler, ‘Loaves and Fishes’ (page 105) = “The two healing stories in 7:31-37 and 8:22-26 possess as much or more verbal similarity than any two in Mark, including the two feeding stories.”
-Isaiah 35:6 LXX = the tongue of the dumb shall be “clear” [τρανη] = this Greek word was carefully chosen to translate the word ‘trah-nee’ [=phonetically sounded out] because it is the same group of consonants! Despite the Hebrew word meaning 'sing'(=wetaron) if one were to be more exact, yet the translator chose a rhyming word, a near homophone. This is a remarkable feature and fascinating phenomenon in the LXX. Such things are always in the background of all Hellenistic Jewish writings. Perhaps all Biblical works as well?
-Rashi on Gen 35:8 = thinks because the place where Jacob’s nurse Devorah was buried is called Alon [in Hebrew ‘acorn tree’] he argues this in fact a cryptic reference to Rebekah “because in Greek ‘alon’ means ‘another.’ So this name is thought to be about ‘another.’ This is evidence of interlinear interpretation as late as the early middle ages.
- The OG of Isaiah specifically uses Greek translation to make subtle statements of identification, often involving post-Alexander the Great politics in the Near East=
-LXX Isaiah 22:15-25 alludes, via Greek translation only, to Alcimus replacing Menelaus in 162 BCE, the rift that led to Onias taking a group of Judaeans—disgusted at Hellenism’s sudden popularity—into self-imposed exile in Egypt. The original MT seems to have been about a "Shebna" and "Eliakim."
-the LXX of Isaiah 9:11 replaces Hebrew ‘Aram and the Philistines’ with the translation of ‘Syria and the Greeks.’
No comments:
Post a Comment