1982 - heikki räisänen - jesus and the food laws. reflections on mark 7.15

7/27/2019 1982 - Heikki Risnen - Jesus and the Food Laws. Reflections on Mark 7.15

1/23

http://jnt.sagepub.com/

the New TestamentJournal for the Study of

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8200501606

1982 5: 79Journal for the Study of the New TestamentHeikki Risnen

Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Testament Journal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1982Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citationhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citationhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citationhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/


2/23

79

JESUSAND THE FOOD LAWS: REFLECTIONS ON MARK7.15

Heikki RisnenProfessor of New Testament Exegesis,Helsinki,FINLAND.

&dquo;There is nothing outside a man which by entering intohim can defile him; but the things which come out of a man arewhat defile him&dquo;. (Mark 7. 15) .

There is a broad consensus among NT scholars that this

saying belongs to the bedrock of those ipsissima verba, theauthenticity of which is hardly open to serious doubt.Scholars not suspect of historical credulity, such as Bultmann,Braun, or KUsemann, agree that in this saying, so totallydifferent from the normal Jewish notion of purity, we do hearthe authentic voice of Jesus /1/. Occasional doubters havebeen

quicklyblamed for

&dquo;scepticismrun wild&dquo; /2/, and the

very existence of some dissenters is now taken as anindication of a deep crisis in NT scholarship by such adistinguished authority as W.G. KUmmel /3/. How justifiedis such a judgement?

Along with the standard notion that Mark 7.15 is agenuine, radical saying of Jesus, other views do indeed exist.While considering verse 15a as an authentic radical mashal of

Jesus, H. Merkel regardsverse

15b as secondary /4/.E. Percy /5/, S.E. Johnson /6/, S. Schulz /7/ and K. Berger /8/deny (for widely different reasons, as will be seen) theauthenticity of the whole saying, while some scholars, notablyC.E. Carlston /9/ assume an original form less sweeping inscope. Finally, quite a few expositors, who hold fast to theauthenticity of the saying in its present form, posit anoriginal meaning which was different from that suggested bythe Markan interpretation /10/. The question surely deserves

to be reconsidered.

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/23

80

I have already discussed the problem of Mark 7.15 in ashort paper presented at the 32nd Colloquium BiblicumLovaniense /11/; I have tried to avoid as far as possiblerepeating those reflections here. The interested reader isreferred to that article for a fuller presentation of someparts of the argument.

I

It seems reasonable to agree with those commentators who

assume that verse 7.15 has been secondarily placed in itspresent context, presumably by Mark. Verse 14 is a typicalMarkan introduction, designed to attach to a new contextmaterial which had circulated separately /12/. The saying hadprobably been provided with a commentary (the substance ofverses 18-23, or at least verses 18b, 19a, 19b) at a pre-Markanstage /13/; this commentary is, however, secondary to the

saying itself /14/. From the point of view of the historicalJesus problem it is therefore necessary to exegete verse 15 asa separate saying, regardless of its present context /15/.

Attempts to establish an earlier form of the saying,allegedly different from the present one, are beset withdifficulties. To begin with, the suggestion that verse 15bshould be removed on the grounds that it is an expansion whichdistorts the

meaningof the whole /16/ is

implausible/17/.

It is true that xopcJca8aL (with prefixes) is first used in aconcrete sense (v. 15a) and then metaphorically (v. 15b;obviously, it would be absurd to apply Ta ~X TOD &V-5P(LROUHTIoPu6~va to excrement /18/). This change is a strikingrhetorical device; I see no reason to assess it as evidence of

clumsiness, much less as an indication of an origin differentfrom that of verse 15a /19/. There is no need to attributethe emphasis on inward impurity to Hellenistic influences; a

similar contrast between external (cultic) purity and inward(moral) impurity is present in the Q saying Matt. 23.25 f. par.

Some commentators ascribe the participles e~6nopevouevovand Hnopv6~va to Mark /20/. It is illegitimate, however, toinfer this from Markan usage /21/. Mark does use etio - andlxxopcJca8aL quite often /22/, but apart from the traditional/2~verse 4.19 he uses these verbs in the concrete sense of

movement from one place to another. On the other hand, if ourtext contained, instead, some forms of c~a - and lEOpXca8aL(as does Matthews!), this could just as well have raised the



4/23

81

suspicion of Markan redaction, for these verbs, too, arequite common in the second gospel /24/. But then we mustask, which way of expressing the idea of entering or comingout could have had the chance of escaping our redaction-hunting net at all? It is illegitimate to argue for redactionfrom the choice of words, if one is not able to snggest howthe idea in question could have been expressed innon-redactional vocabulary /25/.

The observation that the participles cannot simply bedetached as being redactional has consequences for theinterpretation. The participles are then not simplypleonastic /26/, nor do they limit the allegedly wideroriginal scope of the saying /27/. They indicate, rather,that the saying is concerned with food - no more and noless /28/. It is not concerned, for instance, with allexternal influences upon man /29/. No general statement

concerning cultic piety is made /30/; still less is mansalleged desire to justify himself by legalistic works beingcombatted /31/. On the other hand, it is not just thePharisaic halakah of washing hands, either, that is in view/32/.The saying is concerned with things entering into man fromoutside and thereby defiling him. What else could that be,except foods? Consequently, the commentary supplied in verses18 f. does not restrict the scope of the saying /33/; it onlystates explicitly what is implied in the logion itself.

That established, the possibility is not excluded thatthe wording of the saying may have been slightly changed inthe course of its transmission. As Lambrecht points out,

f

o66~v ... 6XXcl is a frequent construction in Mark; 6va~a~ isoften used editorially; and the parallelism would be moresymmetrical, if the lEw8cv of verse l5a had an Eaw3ev as itscounterpart in verse 15b (cf. v. 21) /34/. But even on themaximalist view that the logion has indeed been altered atall these points it does not follow that any major modificationof its meaning must have taken place /35/. We would then havean original form rather like Matt. 15.11 - and that saying ishardly different from Mark 7.15 in content. (It is theMatthaean context that suggests that Matthew gave the sayingan interpretation different from Marks /36/). No definiteconclusion about the original form can be drawn. There is noevidence that Mark 7.15 ever circulated in a form close to

that

conjectured by Carlston (&dquo;what trulydefiles a man comes

from within, not from without&dquo;) /37/.



5/23

82

Taken at face value, the saying looks like a radical ifimplicit attack on important parts of the Torah. If nothingthat enters into a man from outside can defile him, then theBiblical food laws are actually set aside. Consequently,many interpreters who regard the saying as genuine understandit as a polemical statement on the Torah. Jesus is openlycombatting the law /38/. Others, however, have found itdifficult to posit so radical a statement on the lips of Jesus;

assuming the authenticity, they try in various ways to dilutethe content of the saying. Jesus did not, it is held, intendto repudiate the food laws /39/. He may have had someparticular occasion in view /40/, or he may have expressed apolemical and paradoxical idea using a semitic idiom whichmeans no more than this: &dquo;A man is not so much defiled by thatwhich enters him from outside as he is by that which comesfrom within&dquo; /41/. If this is so, we must conclude that Jesusobviously did not perceive the far-reaching implications ofhis more or less casual statement. Mark or his predecessorsthen understood the saying in more radical terms than itsoriginal intention; Mark 7.19 leaves no doubt about therepudiation of all food laws on the editorial level. Hrhile amild interpretation of Mark 7.15 along the lines mentionedis sometimes motivated by a reluctance to attribute to Jesus(who is more or less viewed in terms of Matt. 5.17) aniconoclastic stance toward parts of the OT /42/, just as often

thereason

is the difficulty to account for subsequent Christiandevelopments which failed to take note of the paradigm set bythe Master on the radical reading /43/ - a difficulty whichwill be our concern later in this essay.

It may be hopeless to ascertain the original meaning of asaying, the original setting of which is not known to us.Nevertheless, as it stands, the saying certainly leaves the

impression of being critical of the Torah. It was so understood

by all the Synoptics. Whereas the critical orientation is madeplain by what follows in Mark, Matthew is at pains to tone downthe critique; and Luke, the most conservative evangelist, passesover it in silence /44/. Moreover, if the saying was not clear,it is not easy to understand why it was faithfully preserved inthe first place /45/. All pretensions to certainty are out ofplace here, but it would seem methodologically plausible togive precedence to an interpretation which takes the wording ofthe saying literally, if it is able to combine an anti-Torahorientation with other data, and in particular, the absence ofinfluence upon subsequent developments.



6/23

83

II

A survey of the application of the most popularauthenticating criteria yields meagre results. One cannotappeal to the criterion of multiple attestation, since, apartfrom Mark 7.15 ff., a critical stance to food laws is visibleonly in Matt. 15.11, a verse dependent on our saying /46/, asfar as the possibly genuine Jesus tradition is concerned.Neither Matt. 23.25

par,nor Luke 10.8can

be regardedas

realparallels to Mark 7.15. Matt. 23.25 is not critical of foodlaws /47/. The parallel verse Luke 11.41 may be so construed(although its meaning is not too clear /48/), but this verseis obviously secondary to Matt. 23.25 /49/. And even ifLuke 10.8 could be ranked as belonging to the Q material /50/,it can hardly be traced back to the historical Jesus /51/.If the Lukan Jesus means that his emissaries should drop alldistinctions between clean and unclean food, as is probable/52/,we presumably have before us a maxim crystallised in theGentile mission /53/. It is incredible that Jesus could have

given so novel a piece of advice in so casual a manner /54/, andso clear an instruction in a mission-context would render the

later hesitancy of Peter and others totally unintelligible.In the gospel of Thomas (logion 14) the advice that thedisciple is to eat whatever he is given is followed by asaying quite like Matt. 15.11, but this combination (intelligentas it is) is obviously secondary /55/.

Furthermore, the linguistic criterion is not of much helpin our case /56/. Strikingly enough, a translation into

Aramaic is seldom even attempted. When the attempt was made /57/,the original form had to be reconstructed by combiningelements from Mark 7.15 and from the comment supplied in7.18b /58/ - a rather improbable situation. Moreover, severalGreek words which do not lend themselves to a simpleretranslation had first to be deleted from Marks text

/59/.It is striking that Matthews secondary version can easily beregarded as semitic, whereas Marks cannot /60/. Thereremains the argument from the stylistic form, an antitheticalparallelism. This is easily compatible with authenticity andindeed favours it /61/, but is in itself no sufficientcriterion /62/. Thus inferences from language remaininconclusive.

The criterion of dissimilarity is most often appealed toin this connection. &dquo;This is perhaps the most radical statement



7/23

84

in the whole of the Jesus tradition, and, as such, it iscertainly authentic&dquo; /63/. The limits of this criterion are

by now well-known; but since it is used here positively, notnegatively, it does seem impressive at first sight. Butwhile being radically different from normal Jewishstatements on food laws, Mark 7.15 is not at all dissimilarto early Christian statements like Rom. 14. 14, 20 orActs10.15b! /64/. To conclude from this that Mark 7.15 is not

genuine would, of course, amount to a gross misuse of thecriterion of dissimilarity; it cannot function in this way.The point is merely that no thoroughgoing dissimilarity can beestablished in this case and that this particular criteriontherefore remains inconclusive.

In his oft-cited essay on Mark 7.15 W.G. KUmmel, wiselyenough, does not attach crucial weight to any of the criteriadiscussed so far. He points, rather, to two other considerationsas the decisive ones. On the one hand, such elements in theJesus tradition as help &dquo;to explain the fact of the condemnationand crucifixion of Jesus&dquo; may be regarded as reliable; on theother hand, the criterion of coherence is particularlyimportant /65/. In the light of these two criteria KUmmelcomes to the conclusion that Mark 7.15 is to be traced back

to Jesus himself, &dquo;with the greatest probability that ispossible to attain here&dquo; /66/. But can these two criteriareally

performso much?

To begin with the crucifixion argument: it is, in itself,quite conceivable that Jesus was accused of rejecting purityregulations in general and food laws in particular. Strikinglyenough, no such accusation is mentioned in the traditions aboutthe trial of Jesus. Whereas the conflict over the Sabbath

leads, according to Mark 3.6, to a plan to kill Jesus /67/, and

according to John 5.16 to a persecution of him, and the obscure

Temple saying plays a part (Mark 14.58 par),no

such connectionis established in so many words between a saying like Mark 7.15and the death of Jesus /68/. Thus the argument remainscircular: if Jesus took a stance to food laws like that

indicated in Mark 7.15, then it is quite conceivable that this

played a part in the process that led to his condemnation,(although no direct evidence has survived). But the silence ofthe tradition on this point is, of course, even more compatiblewith the opposite assumption that Jesus did not take such astance. It should be emphasized that we know very little aboutthe real reasons for the crucifixion. That political



8/23

85

considerations on the part of Pilate were more important thanis visible in the gospels is evident; what motives the Jewishleaders may have had remains too much a matter of conjectureto invite trust in this particular criterion of authenticity.Would that we knew at least whether or not the Pharisees had

something to do with the crucifixion!

But what about the coherence? Jesus mixed, it seems,

without scruples with sinners who did not meet the demandsof the purity regulations of the Torah. He denied, againstMoses, to a husband the right to dismiss his wife. Heinterpreted the Sabbath command in a humanitarian way and tooka critical attitude toward the Temple. Surely it would becoherent with the picture thus emerging if he also made astatement which actually did away with the food laws. Thereis indeed no denying this. Nevertheless, it can be askedwhether the alternative view - that Jesus did not make such

a statement - would be incompatible with this picture. Itshould be noted that the above picture is not unequivocal, forthe attitude of Jesus to different parts of the law seemsquite different. In some cases he takes a rigorist stance(divorce, oaths); in others his attitude seems rather that ofa reformer (Sabbath, Temple); it is on some points only thathe seems lax towards the Torah or its current interpretation(mixing with sinners). This leaves ample room for quitedifferent acts or positions to be deemed coherent /69/!It is typical of the situation that both those scholars whotake Mark 7.15 as anti-Torah and those who give it a milderinterpretation can view the saying as coherent with therespective total view of the Torah. The truth is that thecriterion of coherence is as circular as any /70/.

As a further supposed analogy to Mark 7.15, KUmmel refersin this connection to the &dquo;oldest antitheses&dquo; in Matt. 5

(verses21

f.,27

f., 33 ff.),in which

Jesussets

his egoover against commands of the Torah /71/. It is questionable,however, whether the antithetical formulation can be tracedback to the historical Jesus even in these three cases /72/.Even if it could, it is not clear what inferences should bedrawn. In the first antithesis a command of the Torah isintensified. In the remaining two cases a precept of the lawis actually superseded - by a more rigorous command; in bothcases parallels from Qumran can be adduced. The speaker of

these antitheses brings nothing very novel. The liberalismof Mark 7.15 is a different matter. It seems therefore



9/23

86

precarious to assert on the basis of the antitheses thatJesus set his personal claim above that of the Torah and touse this as confirmatory evidence for the authenticity ofMark 7.15. Moreover, no Christological motivation is visiblein Mark 7.15 /73/; the mashal seems rather to present a truthwhich is obvious to common sense /74/.

The proper conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion

is not necessarily that the authenticity of Mark 7.15 should becalled into question. It is enough to say that the argumentsadvanced for authenticity remain inconclusive. But we havenot yet dealt with the main objection raised by some scholarsagainst authenticity. This will be our concern in whatfollows /75/.

III

Occasionally the authenticity of Mark 7.15 has beenquestioned on insufficient grounds. Schulz rejects it simplybecause the logion is not found in Q, the oldest layer of whichhe regards as the only serious candidate to have preservedgenuine sayings of Jesus /76/. Again, it is probably toosweeping to state, as does Schoeps /77/, that Mark 7.15 is theonly one among the sayings attributed to Jesus that reallycontradicts some parts of the Torah (and not just some of itsinterpretations). Berger

postulatesa large antinomian current

in Hellenistic Judaism; Mark 7.15 is, he thinks, influenced bythat current and therefore inauthentic /78/. It is, however,quite unlikely that ritual laws were neglected amongDispersion Jews /79/.

These, however, are not the usual grounds advanced by theminority who have doubted the authenticity of the saying. Thedecisive argument was always this: given the early existenceof

sucha

radical saying, it is startling thatno one ever seems

to have made use of it in the subsequent turbulent decades. AsCarlston puts it, the saying in fact&dquo;renders the controversiesin the primitive Church over the keeping of the law incredible&dquo;.&dquo;If Jesus ever said, There is nothing outside of man ... hisbreak with the Law would have been instantly recognized byfriend and foe alike as complete ...&dquo; /80/.

Here is the place to try the criterion of pregnant speech

proposed by Stephen Westerholm,a

pupil of Gerhardsson. Auseful indication of authenticity is, he maintains, &dquo;any sign



10/23

87

that it has generated, or been the object of, furtherreflection, or that it has been applied to situations arisingwithin the early church. This takes into account the inherentprobability that Jesus did impress something of what he had tosay on his followers, and that they regarded his words asauthoritative. Especially is this to be reckoned with wherethe saying in question is concise, rhythmic,and formulated toprovoke further thought: indications that we are dealing withwords which the Master of the mashal intended to be rememberedand pondered&dquo; /81/. Westerholm thinks that the mashal Mark7.15 meets these requirements and that we do have evidencethat the verse was recalled, commented upon, and applied in thehalakhic disputes of the early church /82/. His evidence isslender: Mark 7.19c and Rom. 14.14 /83/. Mark 7.19c is aMarkan or pre-Markan comment on a pre-htarkan tradition andtells us little about the age of the saying commented upon,

exceptthat it must

predatethe

commentary.As for Rom.

14.14,I have argued in the article mentioned above that Paul is notreferring to a saying of the historical Jesus /84/. If anything,the criterion of pregnant speech points, in our case, to anegative direction!

The weight of the argument from the missingWirkungsgeschichte is often played down by suggesting that,while the conservative Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were not

bold enough to assimilate the message of Jesus at this point,other groups were less scrupulous, e.g. the Hellenists aroundStephen /85/. This is dubious. It is difficult enough tounderstand how a number of Christians could cling to the law,if Jesus had fought against it, as many suppose. But this isnot yet the whole story. In fact, there is no evidence thatanybody, conservative or radical, ever appealed to this sayingin the course of the debates over Gentile mission and table

fellowship (!) during the first two decades or so in the earlychurch. Paul never refers to it, although it could have aidedhim greatly in many of his arguments. How effective it wouldhave been to quote such a saying to Peter (a person surelysensitive to words of the historical Jesus!) and others in theheat of theAntiochian conflict (Gal. 2.11 ff.), in which Paul,with all his post-Easter theological arguments, evidently wasthe losing party. One wonders, too, whether it might not havemade sense to him to hint, elsewhere in Galatians /86/, atthe

positiontaken

byJesus. Even more strikingly,

perhaps,Paul refrains from using the saying in his discussion of meatoffered to idols (I Cor. 8); yet, immediately before and after



11/23

88

the chapter in question, he does appeal to sayings of thehistorical Jesus (7.10, 9.14; cf. 7.25) /87/. Nor does hehave recourse to it when talking about the ascetic practicesof the weak brethren in Rome; Rom. 14.14 is not such areference /88/. If there is a connection between Rom. 14.14and Mark 7.15 it is just as likely that the dependence liesthe other way round /89/.

But if Paul did not know of Mark 7.15, we must infer thatthe saying was unknown to the congregation inAntioch. Andwhen we take into account thatAntioch was the most likelyplace for the traditions of the Hellenists to take root, theconclusion lies at hand that the Stephen group (whateverprecisely its attitude to the law /90/) was not in possessionof such a saying either /91/.

Accordingto Acts 15, sayings of Jesus

playedno part in

the Jerusalem meeting. What counted there was the appeal toexperience - Gentiles had received the Spirit without beingcircumcised. This is not just Lukan style, for Gal. 2.8 alsorefers to the argument from experience /92/.

It seems that the acceptance of Gentiles into Christian

congregations without circumcision, as well as intercourse withthem without regard to food laws, began spontaneously, without

a theological decision. &dquo;Action preceded theology&dquo; /93/.Rom. 14.14 still expresses the early sentiment. That versegives expression to a conviction reached in faith, instinctivelyas it were, that nothing is unclean of itself; nothing isallowed to stand in the way of fraternal communication within

the community. But at some point a need for more reflectivetheological arguments must have made itself felt, the more soas a Judaizing restoration program raised the claim thatGentile Christians be circumcised and observe the Torah /94/.The quest for arguments is evident in the story of Petersvision (Acts 10) /95/. Here it is the bat q81 who teachesPeter that all food and all people have been cleansed by God/96/The story presupposes that Peter is not aware of a previousruling by the historical Jesus to the same effect. No wonderLuke omitted Mark 7 in his gospel! If we may assume that thevision story comes from Petrine circles this could suggestthat Peter, certainly one of the main bearers of the Jesustradition, did not hand on a saying like Mark 7.15 in his

teaching /97/.



12/23

89

IV

If Mark 7.15 was nevertheless part of the living traditionfrom the outset, then who preserved it?And why was it preservedat all, if it was not used?

If neither Jerusalem norAntioch come into the reckoningas the place of transmission, one may resort to the (unknown

and largely hypothetical) congregation(s) in Galilee. Onecould try to reconstruct a theology of Galilaean circlesengaged in Gentile mission and regard them as bearers of sayingslike Mark 7.15 /98/. But if there was an early Galilaean

community with a distinctly liberal theology of the Torah,it is astonishing that we hear of no conflicts between them andJerusalem.

As for the why question, the answer makes little sense

that, as a word of the Lord, the saying was faithfullypreserved even though it was not understood /99/. It is ratherdifficult to maintain that during the first quarter of centuryor so after the crucifixion no one recognized the force of thesaying or its potential significance for the ongoingtheological battles, whereas that significance seems to havebeen grasped immediately after the battle was over (within,say, a decade after the writing of Romans). The assumptionof an

originallynon-radical

genuine sayingfaces the same

difficulty: during the formative decades no implications ofthe saying were seen, whereas they seem to have become crystalclear as soon as the battle had been won on other grounds. Allthis may not be impossible to account for. Yet I find anothersolution a lot more plausible.

It seems to me much more likely that Mark is influenced bythe insights gained in the Gentile mission, expressed by Paul

in Rom. 14.14, 20, than that Paul is dependent on Jesus.(That does not mean that Mark is directly dependent on Paul; heis not). It should be noted that Pauls wording is closer tothe secondary comment xa9ap~~wv navTa ra 6PvaTa (cf. Rom. 14.20:x6vTa [sc. $5wvaTa] vlv xa9apa) than to the saying itself. Isuggest that Mark 7.15 reflects an attempt to find a

theological justification for the practical step taken in theGentile mission long before, much as Matt. 28.18-20 gives sucha justification in retrospect for the mission itself by tracingits beginning back to a commandment of the (this time, risen)Lord (which would, had it really been given at the first



13/23

90

Easter, likewise render the subsequent developmentunintelligible). Mark 7.15 should be seen as an attemptparallel to the appeal to a vision of Peter: where some circlesresorted to appeal to the guidance of the Spirit, others tookrefuge in the earthly Jesus. Possibly the saying first came intobeing as a remoulding of some version of Matt. 23.25 f /100/.

On this hypothesis no gap needs to be posited between the

sayingand its

interpretation.To be sure, verses 18 ff. were

attached later to Mark 7.15, but the interval need not havebeen long. Above all, there is no reason to assume that the

interpretation was devised by another group than that behindverse 15. Both commentaries (verses 18c-19 and verses 20-23)can be seen as quite congenial interpretations of verse 15.Still, literary-critical considerations demand the assumptionof successive stages. The redundant ~~eyev 6e in verse 20indicates that verses 20-23 are an addition. The strangely

detached position of the important clause xa8apllwv RdVTa T6PVaTa (v. 19c) suggests that it, too, has been added,presumably by Mark /101/. Finally, the composition ofverses 17, 18a, 18b shows characteristic signs of Markanredaction. Yet Mark must have had before him some traditional

material, which formed a bridge between the saying and itsexposition.

The primary datum was the saying in v. 15 (not necessarilyin exactly the same form as in Mark). Soon an explanation wasadded which correctly made it plain that the reference was tofood laws, which were repudiated by Jesus. Still later anexplanation of the latter part of the saying was attached,which listed the various evil capacities of the human heart.All this work took place in an emancipated Jewish Christiangroup (xouvL6uaL is &dquo;Jewish Greek&dquo; /102/) engaged in Gentileemission, akin to Paul in many respects (though not necessarilyclosely associated with him); the sarcasm in v. 19 is indeedcomparable to Pauls outbursts in Gal. 5.12 or in Phil. 3.2.Mark, who must have stood fairly close to this group (perhapshe belonged to it) took up this small unit, adapted it to hispeculiar public teaching/private explanation scheme,provided it with an introduction (v. 14) and incorporated itinto his gospel as a sequel to Jesus controversy with thePharisees and the Scribes /103/. All this could have takenplace within a few years (or even months; there is no way of

telling).



14/23

91

When this hypothesis is related to the earlier discussionof authenticating criteria, its plausibility is enhanced. Thescanty attestation is just what might be expected, and thesmall non-semitic features gain significance as modestpointers to the origin of the saying (I would guess that thegroup was largely bilingual). The reasons for the crucifixionare a matter of educated guessing anyway, and we can stillproduce a reasonably coherent picture of Jesus words and deedseven

assumingthat he did not

repudiatefood laws. The

picture,however, takes on a somewhat less iconoclastic shape than thatpainted by KUmmel and others. Just how radical Jesus wasregarding the law depends largely on whether or not he made astatement like Mark 7.15.

Let me add, to avoid misunderstanding, that the presentarticle is not motivated by a concern to present Jesus, forwhatever reasons, in a less radical light. (In fact, a

radical Jesus would be more convenient for my own personaltheology.) Nor am I trying to establish any wholesale solutionto the problem of ipsissima verba /104/. The issue at hand isstrictly the historical puzzle posed by the (missing)Wirkungsgeschichte of this particular saying.

To summarize. Mark 7.15 could be integrated without muchdifficulty into the total teaching of Jesus as portrayed inthe gospels. It is difficult, however, to account for subsequentChristian developments on the assumption of its authenticity.On the assumption of inauthenticity these developments areeasily explicable. I do not claim, however, that the problemhas been definitively solved. The solution here presentedrelies largely on an argument from silence, and the objectionmay be raised that we simply know too little of the waysayings of Jesus were used in early Christianity. The questionmay have to be left open: but it should be recognized that areasonably good case can be made for the inauthenticityhypothesis /105/. To say the least, the accusation of wildscepticism is without any foundation whatsoever, there islittle reason to lament a crisis in NT scholarship /106/. Thefact that no final answer can be given would only witness toa crisis, if we absolutely had to know more about Jesus andearly Christianity than is really possible on the basis ofour extant sources.



15/23

92

NOTES

This study was undertaken during a stay in TUbingen under theauspices of theAlexander von Humboldt Foundation.

/1/ R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition(19573 ), 158 (cf. 110); H. Braun, Jesus (1969), 73; E. Ksemann,Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (1960), 207. See

further, among others, the following: E. Haenchen, Der weg Jesu(1966), 265; N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus(1967), 150; W.G. Kmmel, "&upsi;ere und innere Reinheit desMenschen bei Jesus" (Das wort und die Wrter, FestschriftG. Friedrich, 1973), 35; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium I (1976),383; J. Lambrecht, "Jesus and the Law", EThL 53 (1977), 75;J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus I (1978), 286; J. Riches,Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (1980), 136 ff.; U. Luz,in: R. Smend-U.Luz, Gesetz (1981), 60 (probably);D. LUhrmann, "... womit er alle Speisen fUr rein erklrte(Mk. 7, 19)", wuD 16 (1981), 89./2/ An expression coined by C.G. Montefiore, The SynopticGospels I (19683), 133; cited e.g. by V. Taylor, The Gospelaccording to St. Mark (1952), 343. Montefiore was referringto Bultmann: but Bultmann did not in fact deny the authenticityof the saying. The nemesis of Forschungsgeschichte avengedthis inaccuracy some decades later, when Montefiore himself waslisted as an

exponentof the

inauthenticityof Mark 7.15

byH.J. Schoeps, Studien zur unbekannten Religionsgeschichte(1963), 52./3/ Kmmel, art. cit. 35./4/ "Markus 7, 15 - das Jesuswort Uber die innere

Verunreinigung", ZRGG 20 (1968), 352-360./5/ Die Botschaft Jesu (1953), 118./6/ The Gospel according to St. Mark (1960), 134./7/ "Die neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus", (NeuesTestament und Geschichte, Festschrift O. Cullmann 1972), 39, 41./8/ Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu I (1972), 463 ff./9/ "The Things That Defile (Mark VII, 15) and the Law inMatthew and Mark", NTS 15 (1968-69), 95. Cf. B.W. Bacon,Studies in Matthew (1930), 354; B.H. Branscomb, Jesus and theLaw (1930), 176; D.E. Nineham, Saint Mark (1963), 191 f.;H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (1976), 183./10/ Montefiore, op. cit. 163; B.W. Bacon, "Jesus and the Law"JBL 47 (1928), 210; E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (19262),

77; V. Taylor, op. cit., 343; Pesch, op. cit. 383; W. Paschen,Rein und unrein (1970), 184; P. Fiedler, Jesus und die Snder



16/23

93

(1976), 253; S. Westerholm, Jesus and ScribalAuthority (1978),82 ff.; Luz, op. cit., 60 f. Cf. also LUhrmann, art. cit. 86./11/ "Zur Herkunft von Markus 7, 15", in: J. Delobel (ed.),OIA IHOY(BEThL, to appear in 1982)./12/ Gnilka, op. cit. 278./13/ Gnilka, ibid./14/ Gnilka, op. cit. 277./15/ KUmmel, art. cit. 37; Pesch, op. cit. 378; Gnilka,

op. cit. 277. This is so even if one posits a basic unitwhich consisted of elements of verses 1-2, of verse 5 and ofverse 15; thus Berger, op. cit. 462 f,; Anderson, op. cit. 181;H-J. Klauck, Allegorie undAllegorese in synoptischenGleichnistexten (1978), 262; Lhrmann, art. cit. 81 f, Itseems more natural, however, to suppose that verses 1-13 formeda previous unit (itself composed of two parts, vv. 1-8 and9-13). Verses 14 f. introduce (apart from the change of scene)a new theme; verse 15 does not give an answer to the questionraised in v. 5. Also, it would be odd if so much materialwas inserted between question and answer. Cf. Bultmann,op. cit. 15; Kmmel, art. cit. 37; Gnilka, op. cit. 276. Seealso n. 103.

/16/ Merkel (n. 4)./17/ Cf. KUmmel, art. cit. 37; Klauck, op. cit. 260 n. 5;Lambrecht, art. cit. 75./18/ Thus, however, W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus1 (1979), 343; even more incredible is his overallinterpretation of the saying in terms of revelation history(p. 345)./19/ Against Merkel, art. cit. 353./20/ J. Horst, "Die Worte Jesu Uber die kultische Reinheit...", ThStKr 87 (1914), 445; Taylor, op. cit. 343; Merkel,art. cit. 353 f.; Paschen, op. cit. 173 f.; Riches, op. cit.137; cf. also Lambrecht, art. cit. 59 and n, 127; Klauck,op. cit. 260 (pre-Markan insertions).

/21/ Cf. KUmmel, art. cit. 37 f,/22/ ϵ&iacgr;oϵ&uacgr;ϵϑ: 1.21, 4.19, 5.40, 6.56, 11.2 (7.15, 18, 19);&eacgr;oϵ&uacgr;ϵϑ: 1.5, 6.11, 10.17, 10.46, 11.19, 13.1 (7.15, 19,20, 21, 23)./23/ Cf. Klauck, op. cit. 200./24/ ϵ&iacgr;&eacgr;ϵϑ some 30 times, &eacgr;&eacgr;ϵϑ some 40 times(note the usage in 5.30)./25/ Cf. Lambrecht, art. cit. 60: it is methodologicallyinadmissible to deny that the idea contained in the Markan

verbs was already present in the original saying./26/ Against Taylor, Merkel, Klauck (n. 20).



17/23

94

/27/ Against Horst (n. 20)./28/ Correctly Montefiore, op. cit. 153; Klostermann, op. cit.77; E. Stauffer, "Neue Wege der Jesusforschung",(Gottes istder Orient, Festschrift O. Eissfeldt, 1959), 171; Lambrecht,art. cit. 60, 75; also Schmithals, op. cit. 343 (but see n. 18)./29/ Against KUmmel, art. cit. 39 (the text says "into", not"upon"!); Gnilka, op. cit. 284./30/ Against E. Haenchen, op. cit. 266./31/ Against E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (1967),

82; Anderson, op. cit. 187, 188./32/ Against J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie I (1971),203.

/33/ Against Gnilka, op. cit. 285./34/ Lambrecht, art. cit. 59./35/ Thus Lambrecht himself, art. cit. 60./36/ On Matthews mitigating of the saying see e.g. H. HUbner,Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (1973), 176-182./37/ Art. cit. 95. One would like to know what such astatement might have looked like inAramaic or in translationGreek.

/38/ Bultmann, op. cit. 158; Ksemann, op. cit. 207; Schweizer,op. cit. 82; Merkel, art. cit. 351 f. (for v. 15a); H. Hbner,op. cit. 175; Haenchen, op. cit. 265; cf. also Kmmel,art. cit.39, 41; Lambrecht, art. cit. 76. The most radical assessmentis that of Stauffer, art. cit. (n. 28), 171: Jesus is more thana renegade, he is a preacher of apostasy who emphatically

annuls the Mosaic food laws and seduces his disciples toapostasy./39/ Montefiore, Taylor, Klostermann, Pesch (n. 10)./40/ Westerholm, op. cit. 82: perhaps just some suchcontroversy as the one mentioned in vv. 1-5.

/41/ Westerholm, op. cit. 83. This semitic negation theorywould apply better to Matt. 15.11; in Mark 7.15a the sweepingo&uacgr;&eacgr; and the strengthening &uacgr; surely stand in its way."Nothing is able to .." is, at any rate, an odd circumlocution

for "it may not so much..."./42/ This motivation is criticized by Merkel, art. cit. 351(cf. 345) and by Pesch, op. cit. 383 n. 17 (even though Peschhimself goes a long way in the same direction). But this wasnot always the reason for tempering the content of the sayingor for regarding it as inauthentic. The wirkungsgeschichtlichargument is stressed e.g. by Taylor, op. cit. 343 and now byLuz, op. cit. 61./43/ Merkel (see previous note) ignores this problemaltogether. Typically, Percy and Johnson are not included inhis historical survey (art. cit. 341-350).



18/23

95

/44/ Cf. J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God (1972), 139 f.It may be, of course, that Mark 7 disappears from Luke as partof the great omission. On the other hand, Luke 11.37 ff. mayindicate that Luke knew Mark 7.15; cf. HUbner, op. cit. (n. 36),182 ff.

/45/ Westerholm, op. cit. 81 f. claims both that the sayingwas general and unclear in its implications and that it wasrevolutionary and so startling that Jesus and the disciplesmust "have

takenthe trouble to see

toit that

itwas

remembered" (81). But he cannot have it both ways./46/ Despite the boom enjoyed now by the Griesbach-Farmerhypothesis, I think it legitimate to hold fast to Markanpriority. If Matthaean priority were assumed, we wouldlikewise have only a single attestation, since Mark would thendepend on Matthew. It is only on the linguistic issue (seebelow) that Matthaean priority would make a difference./47/ One may, of course, conjecture that Matt. 23.25 once

circulated in a more radical form, akin to Mark 7.15 (cf.KUmmel, art. cit. 42), but it would be inadmissible to usethis guess in an argument about the Markan saying./48/ For different interpretations see, e.g., Jervell, op. cit.140, and HUbner, op. cit. 188./49/ Luke 11.41 was regarded as original by Horst, art. cit.(n. 20), 444 and Branscomb, op. cit. (n. 9), 199 ff. Forcriticisms see Merkel, art. cit. 355 n. 14. KUmmel (art. cit.46 n. 58) also regards Matt. 23.25 as primary; cf. recentlyfor this view D. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (1979),144 f.

/50/ Thus now R. Laufen, Die Doppelberlieferungen derLogienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (1980), 220,/51/ Against M. Hengel, Jesus und die Tora (Theol. Beitrge 9,1978), 164./52/ E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (19292), 115 takesv. 8b (which he attributes to Luke) as a simple repetition ofv. 7a which

onlymakes the

pointthat the

disciple maynot

require more or better food. It is more likely, however,that v. 8b is not just redundant. In that case Luke hasoverlooked the tension between this half-verse andActs 10

(which favours the assumption that he did not invent the formerhimself but got it from his tradition)./53/ Thus e.g. Laufen, op.cit. 220, 274;

W. Grundmann, Das

Evangelium nach Lukas (19612), 210; C.K. Barrett, A Commentaryon the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1968), 241; J. Ernst,

Das Evangelium nach Lukas (1976), 332 f. On the discussion asto whether the Q source presupposes the Gentile mission seeLaufen, op. cit. 237 ff.



19/23

96

/54/ Cf. M-J. Lagrange, vangile selon Saint Luc (19488),297; "une question aussi grave ne pouvait tre tranche enpassant, dune manire obscure". Lagrange concluded thatLuke 10.8b does not refer to food laws (cf. above n. 52)./55/ On Thomas 14 cf. W. Schrage, Das Verhltnis desThomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition...(1964), 52-57./56/ Contrast Luz, op. cit. 149 n. 112, who asserts that the

Aramaic character of the language speaks for authenticity./57/

Paschen,op. cit.

(n. 10),176

f.,followed

by Pesch,op. cit. 379 n. 2, and Westerholm, op, cit. 81 (with n. 108);HUbner, op. cit. 166-168. For a critical comment cf.Lambrecht, art. cit. 59. M. Black, AnAramaicApproach to theGospels andActs (1967 ), 106 f., claimed that &aacgr;ϑo&sfgr; isused in a strictly semitic way (in the sense of &sfgr;) in Mk.7.15 (18, 20); but in fact &aacgr;ϑo&sfgr; possesses here its fullmeaning "a human being". See E.C. Maloney, SemiticInterference in Marcan Syntax (1981), 134, 249.

/58/ Thus Paschen. This presupposes that two versions (twodifferent translations?) of the same saying, each containingone significant Aramaism (&aacgr; oo&uacgr; in v. 15b, o&uacgr;...&aacgr;&upsi;in v. 18), are used in Mark 7.15 ff., one as the saying proper,the other as its interpretation! Parallel to this is HUbnerssuggestion (op. cit. 166 f.) that the Semitic &eacgr;ϵ&iacgr;o (casuspendens) in v. 20b points to another version of the saying.There is no reason to resort to such strained constructions,unless we assume that anyAramaisms are a priori impossible ona post-Easter stage in the tradition./59/ Paschen deletes the participles ϵ&iacgr;oϵϵo and&aacgr;oϵϵ as Markan additions(op.cit. 173 f,); on thisprocedure see above, nn. 20-25. But in so doing he removesthe expression &eacgr;...ϵ&iacgr;oϵϵo from v. 15a; yet heevaluates the analogous &eacgr; &aacgr; o&upsi;o&upsi; in v. 15b as anAramaic feature (p. 176) - which does not prevent him fromfinally deleting the copula &eacgr;&iacgr; from v. 15b as well (afinite form of hawah could

onlydenote a

past event)!/60/ One should compare F. Delitzschs quite literal Hebrewrendering of Matt. 15.11 with his handling of Mark 7.15 whichproduces some ten deviations from the Greek wording! If weare allowed to assume Markan priority, a comparison withMatthew on this point reveals very clearly that Semiticlanguage is no warrant for originality. One can indeed observea successive Aramaicizing from Mark 7.15 via Mark 7.18-20 toMatt. 15.11.

/61/ Cf. Jeremias, op. cit. 24-30./62/ Correctly recognized by KUmmel, art. cit. 38.



20/23

97

/63/ Perrin, op. cit. (n. 1) 150 (italics added)./64/ Merkels attempt (art. cit. 354 f.) to detect atheological difference between Rom. 14.14 and Mark 7.15 isover-subtle.

/65/ KUmmel, art. cit. 41. Cf. also Gnilka, op. cit. 286;Westerholm, op. cit. 81; Klauck, op. cit. 269./66/ Art. cit. 43./67/ Yet Mark 3.6 may well be Markan; thus e.g. Gnilka,op. cit. 126.

/68/ Cf. K. Berger, Gesetz, SM(D) I, 354./69/ Westerholm, op. cit. 81 maintains that Jesus must haveheld some such view as the one here expressed; otherwise hecould not have been so indifferent to considerations of ritual

purity as his eating in the company of sinners shows him tohave been. This statement is acceptable, if some isemphasized. In some very broad sense (and Westerholm himselfinterprets Mark 7.15 in a mild way) a certain amount ofindifference to cultic

stipulationswas

surely necessaryfor

Jesus. But Mark 7.15a goes a good deal beyond what wasnecessary for that practical attitude. It is one thing tosit light to Pharisaic interpretations of purity laws; it isanother to state a principle which in fact invalidates thedivine law for which the fathers had died a martyrs deathtwo centuries earlier. It is quite unlikely that Jesus atepork with the sinners!/70/ Jeremias, op. cit. 203 suggests indeed that on the

radical interpretation the saying isincoherent with the totalpicture ("vllig isoliert"!); similarly Luz, op. cit. 60./71/ Art. cit. 43; cf. U.B. MUller, "Vision und Botschaft",ZThK74 (1977), 440./72/ I. Broer has, among others, recently argued that it goesback to Matthaean redaction: Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikali-

sierung des Gesetzes (1980), 102 ff./73/ Against Lambrecht, art. cit. 79; correctly in thisregard Berger, op. cit. (n. 8), 577.

/74/ There is no explicit reference to the notion of thegoodness of the creation either, which MUller, art, cit. 439sees behind Mark 7.15; correctly Merkel, art. cit. 355 n. 114.That idea may stand behind the secondary verse Luke 11.40./75/ It is a decisive weakness in KUmmels instructive surveythat he does not consider this objection at all seriously.Cf. Risnen, art. cit. (n. 11), first section./76/ Cf. above, n. 7./77/

op.cit.

(n. 2),52 f.

(asa

possibility)./78/ Cf. above n. 8.



21/23

98

/79/ See H. HUbner, "Mark. 7.1-23 und das jUdisch-hellenistische Gesetzesverstndnis", NTS 22 (1975-76),319-345; also H. Risnen, Paul and the Law (forthcoming),ch. I 4 b.

/80/ Art. cit. (n. 9), 95./81/ Op. cit. (n. 10), 6; cf. B. Gerhardsson, Die Anfngeder Evangelientradition (1977), 50 f./82/ Op. cit. 81./83/ Op. cit. 81 f.; likewise Luz, op. cit. 149 n. 112.

/84/ Art. cit. (n. 11)./85/ Thus e.g. HUbner, op. cit. 174 f.; Gnilka, op. cit. 286./86/ Admittedly, the issue in Galatia was circumcisionrather than food laws; but circumcision was a first step whichwould surely have been followed by observance of allstipulations of the Torah, including the food laws. (I am notpersuaded by theories that Pauls Galatian opponents had aselective attitude to the law; to read this from statementslike Gal. 6.13 is to misunderstand the

polemicalnature of

Pauls argument.) See also n. 92. We do hear about calendarmatters in Gal. 4.10, and it would have been possible at leastto insert a reference to what Jesus had said about foods and

apply it to other external matters (cf. the close connectionbetween circumcision, feasts, and food laws in Col. 2)./87/ I am aware of dangers involved in an argument fromsilence. It may turn out to be too effective, if it makesimpossible to find an early Sitz im Leben for numerous other

parts of the Synoptic tradition, e.g. for the conflict storiesabout the Sabbath. Thus Paul does not refer to SynopticSabbath stories in Gal. 4.8-11; indeed, he seems not to haveknown them (Gnilka, op. cit. 129 f.). Does my argument, by wayof analogy, require the absurd conclusion that these traditionswere not in existence at that time? I think not. At any rate,we do not learn that Sabbath was such a burning issue in theGentile mission as was the problem of table fellowship; thequestion never figures inActs and seems to be one removefurther from the critical centre than is the problem of tablefellowship. But surely questions like this still requirefurther reflection.

/88/ See above, n. 84./89/ Cf. Klauck, op. cit. 269 (he himself advocates theauthenticity of Mark 7.15)./90/ See e.g. M. Hengel, "Zwischen Jesus und Paulus", ZThK 72,(1975); J.D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament(1977), 272 f.



22/23

99

/91/ Cf. U.B. MUller, "Zur Rezeption gesetzeskritischerJesusberlieferung im frhen Christentum", NTS 27, (1981),165, 167. For understanding the modest role played by theHellenists in handing on the Jesus tradition, U. Wilckenssarticle, "Jesusberlieferung und Christuskerygma - zwei Wegeurchristlicher Uberlieferungsgeschichte", ThViat 10 (1965-66,310-339), is fundamental. The Hellenists were more or lessoutsiders to the teaching enterprise(Lehrbetrieb) of theAramaic-speaking community in Jerusalem. They did learn some

sayings of Jesus which were handed on e.g. to Paul (cf.1 Cor. 7), but not very many. This is quite compatible withGerhardssons thesis that transmission of tradition was an

independent Sitz im Leben: op. cit. (n. 81), 48 etc./92/ Of course, the issue at hand was circumcision, notfood laws; but bothActs 11.3 and theApostolic Decree showthat it was very hard to separate the two issues for long inpractice./93/ J. Jervell, op. cit. (n. 44) 136; cf. S.G. Wilson, TheGentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (1973), 152./94/ Cf. H. Risnen, "Legalism and Salvation by the Law",(S. Pedersen, ed., Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, 1980),79 ff.

/95/ That the story of the vision is secondary to the insightexpressed inActs 10.15b (11.9b) is recognized by Paschen,op. cit. 171 f.; he also notes that Paul received his idea ofthe cleanness of foods from that very tradition which is

reflected inActs 10.15b. It is not clear tome

how Paschenmanages to combine this notion with the other assumption thatPaul appeals to Jesus tradition in Rom. 14./96/ To be sure, Luke takes the message to be that all humanbeings are clean; the importance he attaches to the Decreeshows that, for him, all foods were not clean, as far as JewishChristians were concerned. This does not exclude the likelihood

that originally the story of the vision was concerned with thefood question. See H. Conzelmann, DieApostelgeschichte (1963),

61 f./97/ If we may connect the historical Peter with the visionstory, this would be another indication that Papias statementon Mark is inaccurate.

/98/ Cf. Mller, art. cit. (n. 91), 168-182./99/ Against Haenchen, op. cit. 266; Westerholm, op. cit.81 f. (see above, n. 45)/100/ On the possibility that bearers of pre-Markan traditionswere acquainted with Q traditions see Laufen, op. cit. (n. 50)./101/ Thus e.g. Gnilka, op. cit. 278.



23/23

100

/102/ Paschen, op. cit. 165-168; KUmmel, art. cit. 38./103/ It will be seen that my hypothesis presupposes the(majority) view that Mark 7.15 did not originally belongtogether with verse 5; it must be left for others to considerwhether it can in turn serve to strengthen that analysis.For the opposite view see n. 15./104/ Thus I would not, in principle, "advise scepticismwhenever the matter is in doubt", as Westerholm (op. cit. 6)describes "the tendency in current gospel research". For

instance, I do not see why Jesus could not have replied toa query of the Pharisees in the way indicated in Mark 7.9-13,or even in 7.6-8 (of course he did not cite the LXX as doverses 6-7, but the point of Isa. 29-13 is not much differentin the MT); cf. Westerholm, op. cit. 75-80./105/ This is admitted by some advocates of the traditionalview; e.g. HUbner, op. cit. 172./106/ See above, nn. 2-3.

1982 - heikki räisänen - jesus and the food laws. reflections on mark 7.15

Documents