july 9, 2011 1. july 9, 2011 2

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


Matthew 15:16-17 in the English & Greek

Matthew 15:16-17 in the AramaicMatthew 15:16-17 in the HebrewMark 7:18-19 in the AramaicMark 7:18-19 in the English & Greek


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?



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?”



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?”


Matthew 15:16-17 AramaicEtheridge 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?


Matthew 15:16-17 AramaicMurdock 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?


Matthew 15:16-17 Hebrew15:16 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?


ark 7:18-19


Mark 7:18-19 AramaicMurdock 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.


Mark 7:18-19 AramaicEtheridge 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?


Mark 7:18-19 EnglishKJV 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?


Mark 7:18-19 EnglishNAS 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.)


Mark 7:18-19 EnglishNIV 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.")


Mark 7:18-19 GreekGNT 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


Mark 7:18-19 GreekGNT 7:18 “kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( And said he19 kaqari,zwn pa,nta ta.

brw,mataÈ Cleansing all the foodskaqari,zwn – nominative masculine

singularKey letter: next to last letter “w”


Considerations1. Language is important2. Textual variants must be

considered3. Rules of Grammar must be

considered4. Context must be considered5. Implications are important6. Historical setting is important


Considerations7. Parallel passages must be

considered8. Past, present, and future events

must be considered9. How the behavior of other key

figures plays a role10. How the behavior of the key

figure plays a role


1. Language is importantThe 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


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 Receptuskaqari,zon – nominative neuter

omicron singular participleThe difference between “w” and “o”



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.



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.



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’.


3. Rules of Grammar must be considered

Example 1: She belong to a club.She belongs to a club.They belong to a club.



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)



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.



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.



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”?



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.



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?



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



Here are three examples with visual extracts (explanation to follow)

1. Moulton2. Debrunner3. Zerwick



1. MoultonSometimes 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



2. Debrunner(3) The remaining instances are

appositives or circumstantial participles in the nominative instead of an oblique case.

Mk 7:19



3. ZerwickThe 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.



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.


3. Rules of Grammar must be consideredThis 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.


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.



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.



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.


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.



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.



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…


6. Historical SettingThis 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.


6. Historical SettingIn 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.


7. Parallel PassagesMatthew 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.


8. Past, Present, FutureDuring 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?


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.


10. Behavior of PeterPeter 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?


The Weight of EvidenceWe 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.


The Weight of EvidenceCombined with the ten points to

consider, the Weight of Evidence is clearly on the side of “no concord required”.

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

july 9, 2011 1. july 9, 2011 2

Documents

english greek slide

aramaic matthew

english greek matthew

aramaic mark

mouth goeth

hebrew mark

english greek nas

mata kjv matthew