Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?

In Jesus: A Profile, Alan Watson argues that, contrary to popular translations, Mark 7:19 does not actually say that Jesus declared all foods clean, and that Jesus most certainly never made such a declaration.For the technical aspects of the argument, Watson makes mention of a translation difficulty with the text in Mark 7:19 that supposedly states Jesus to have declared all foods clean. The verses in question are these (since translation differences are important, I've included two translations for comparison and italicized the significant parts):

quote:

---

Mark 7:18—19 (NRSV):

​

He said to them, 'Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

---

quote:

---

Mark 7:18—19 (KJV):

​

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

---

According to Watson, the KJV translation is to be seen as more accurate, as he says:

quote:

---

Watson in Jesus: A Profile (1998):

​

Even more to the point, Mark 7:19 does not in fact say, "Thus he declared all foods clean." The Greek καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα contains nothing akin to "he declared." The problem emerges clearly when we look at the discussion by C. S. Mann. He translates, "So (by saying this) he declared all things clean." But he candidly admits to a difficulty: "But the translation we have given depends upon supplying 'by saying this.'" But any such interpretation is impossible in the absence of something like "he declared" or "by saying this"and there is no justification for their addition. The Greek that I have quoted is better translated literally, "purging all meats," as in the King James Version: [quoted above]. The text is dealing with the physical effects: what is eaten is purged by the body. Still, whether one takes as the correct reading καθαρίζον or καθαρίζων "purging," the phrase cannot properly be constructed. (pp. 64—65)

---

Thus, from the text, the part of Mark 7:19 translated in the NRSV as '(Thus he declared all foods clean)' is difficult to reconstruct as an actual declaration of the cleanness of all foods; and even when so translated, the words are far from attributable to Jesus himself.¹For the theological and textual interpretative aspect of the argument, we can look to a few facts brought up by Watson:

• Jesus never otherwise makes a pronouncement directly against God's law as set out in Scripture.
• Such a teaching by Jesus would have caused a sensation not mentioned or recorded.
• Along with the rest of the related passage (i.e, 7:14—15) Jesus appears not to be declaring as clean food of a species declared unclean by God, but only declaring that food of a clean species did not become unclean by contamination (the teaching was spurred, after all, by a question on hand washing).
• Jesus' supposed declaration is never cited or mentioned in the early debates between Jewish and Gentile Christians over food laws.

These points, along with the problematic translations, seem to weaken the position that Jesus did in fact declare all foods clean. All together, it certainly leaves the matter open to ask the question: did Jesus really declare all foods clean?Jon
__________
¹ Regarding the quibble over καθαρίζον or καθαρίζων, I know nothing of Greek; the presence of anyone who could explain that specific would be greatly welcomed in this thread!
__________
Watson, A. (1998) Jesus: A Profile. Georgia: UGP. Edited by Jon, : Edit to fix signature glitch...Edited by Jon, : Fixed broken link...

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

While it is likely true that the author of Mark did not know Jesus or the disciples, I am not sure that the 'added statement' is the best proof of that. As Watson points out, the instance of the phrase that we have in modern translations such as the NRSV is likely a highly corrupted and interpretative translation of the original Greek. The KJV translation, according to Watson, captures what he believes to be the most likely meaning of the phrase, it being little more than a tag-along statement to Jesus' previous 'empties into the sewer' comment.Either way, if Jesus never declared all foods clean, is it likely that he would have required observation of the Jewish food laws by his followers?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Huh? What does this have to do with whether or not Jesus declared all foods clean?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

It requires an extreme amount of interpretive liberty to conclude that this 'vision' records an act of God declaring all creatures clean to eat. It could certainly be interpreted in the same way that Jesus' words are interpreted, when he tells the crowd not to treat human traditions like commandments from God:

quote:

---

Mark 7:6—13 (NRSV):

​

He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
"This people honours me with their lips,
  but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
  teaching human precepts as doctrines."
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'

​

Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban" (that is, an offering to God) then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'

---

And even more to the point, there is good reason to read this vision as having little to do with food and as supporting the notion that Jesus never declared all foods clean:

• Peter's statement indicates that he likely never heard any declaration of unclean foods now being clean, making it unlikely that Jesus actually made such a declaration in Peter's presence.
• Peter's own interpretation of the vision has nothing to do with foods, and he instead interprets it to mean that Jew and Gentile are equally open to receive 'repentance unto life' (Acts 11:18). He does not go out and eat a pig, and there is no indication that such behavior has been approved by God (certainly not Jesus) in this vision.

So there isn't a whole lot in this vision to grasp at as God (actually just a voice that Peter calls 'Lord', and refers to later as 'God') definitively declaring any and all creatures clean to eat. Peter seems to have no desire to eat unclean animals; he shows no indication of hearing something like this from Jesus; God doesn't seem to be telling Peter that all unclean things are clean (indeed, there are two Greek words here used to reference non-clean foods: one that references uncleanness and another that references commonnessa sort of 'cross contamination'and God only approves of eating things of the latter type, not of the former); and Peter does not interpret the vision as having much of anything to do with food, which is clear upon reading the passages that follow.But, though I see little here for concluding that God, in this vision, declared unclean foods clean, even if God had declared all foods clean, what would that have to do with Jesus? (A question I asked already, to which you replied only with some apologetic nonsense.)JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Love your enemies!