![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOK, I mentioned this is passing in the last post, but talking to Liv clarified it a bit. Have I got this right?
I think (?) that the traditional view of Mark 7, Mark is supposed to be describing Jesus as making a _new_ declaration. "You know all that Kosher stuff, don't worry about it. Being a good person is more important." In fact, it explictly says "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')".
However, I think (?) that the brackets were added by the translator, who didn't necessarily know much about 25AD Jewish laws and customs. Is that right?
If so, I'm mildly shocked. I mean, I know that the bible has been passed down and interpreted before it was written down, but I'm used to thinking of what we have now as fairly fixed, and the best record of what Jesus (probably) said. But no, people just went ahead and added stuff :(
However, I think if I've got this right, that parable makes more sense interpreted with a knowledge of the difference between Kashrut (dietary laws) and cleanliness. Eating non-Kosher food was a restriction on what you could _do_, but it didn't put you into a special state of uncleanliness. Kosher was what _everyone_ did.
Whereas becmoing unclean wasn't bad: it would definitely happen, and that was fine provided you cleaned up before doing something at the temple. And it was more of an esoteric, fiddly thing, altough very important if you did one of the things you shouldn't do if you were unclean.
Confusing the matter is that sometimes "clean" and "unclean" are used to describe foods, but I think (?) even then they're referring to the dietary laws, not to the "actual" laws about cleanliness.
With this understanding, I think (?) Boyarin says this passage makes a lot more sense if you interpret it as a technical discussion of Jewish law, by Jews on both sides. The point is that the big city intellectuals kept all the laws of cleanliness because they went in the temple all the time, and to NOT do so was Not Done.
Whereas Jesus et al were hard working country folk who never got to GO to the temple because they lived too far away. And didn't like fancy folk coming and telling them they were doing it wrong.
It's like the intellectuals were trying to catch Jesus out by criticising him for using the wrong fork, when Jesus only HAD one fork, and only WANTED one fork. And furthermore they implied they were keeping the laws of the Torah better, and Jesus says "no, you just made up that stupid rule. But you break all these ACTUAL rules that actually MATTER".
But all the way through, they're talking about cleanliness. The pharisees act as if the hand-washing thing is required, when Jesus says it actually isn't. And then Jesus gives some technical examples of how what you eat DOESN'T affect your cleanliness, showing that he knows the rules well and winning the debate. And then, back inside the house with his disciples, he makes a big rhetorical uppercut, and uses this as a metaphor for morality: all the "For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, blah blah, blah, from inside".
But the upshot of all this is that supposedly:
(1) neither of them was talking about the dietary laws, they both kept those
(2) The conversation makes perfect sense if you interpret it as the pharisees trying to catch Jesus out flouting the Torah, and Jesus puts them in their place, which suggests Mark was writing with full knowledge and attention to Jewish customs, which suggests that we can use other bits of mark as a useful historical source to learn about other jewish 25AD customs, which is what Boyarin's really interested in.
Digression 1
This isn't Boyarin stuff, just me making some disclaimers.
There were lots of various Jewish sects or denominations around at the time, and there was understandably conflict between jews who followed Jesus and those who didn't. Which means that Mark probably had a preference for recording stories where "a bunch of authority figures showed up and told Jesus he was teaching totally wrong and tried to catch him out with questions about jewish law that would make him look bad, and he gave them a big rhetorical drubbing and showed his knowledge of the law was better than theirs after all and totally justied whatever he was preaching at the time".
When this was explained to me, things like the render unto caesar bit suddenly made a lot more sense. If you don't know the history, it's not clear why Matthew 22:17 "Should we pay the imperial tax or not" is such a big deal, rather than a random technical question. But actually, it's obviously a giant political landmine. Israel -- the chosen people's land -- is under roman occupation. Obviously no-one wants to pay taxes to Rome. They want Rome to **** off. So if Jesus says "yes, pay taxes", he looks like a giant hypocrite and loses all his popular support. And if he says "no, don't pay taxes" he's a rebel who's executed for sedition. However, unsurprisingly, he finds a way of rising above the question.
And then the questioners fall to their knees amazed at his insight. And if Mark is telling propaganda, you can see why he would play up the "and then everyone was struck dumb in amazement" bit :)
But the point is, in all these passages Mark is writing, "pharisee" is a stand in for "existing authority which wants to slap Jesus down". But it's not clear if Mark would have described all pharisees like that, or if it's like saying "some people from the city came and argued with Jesus" -- yes, people from the city are annoying like that, but it doesn't mean everyone in the city is to be rejected. This is awkward because most of the other sects didn't survive to today, so modern rabbinical-based judaism is ultimately descended from the pharisees. But the gospels describe pharisees rather badly. (In fact, google says some people would say "pharisee" included Jesus, and the conflict was between different wings of pharisee-ism. I've no idea if that has historical basis or not, but suggests people would like to think that way.)
Digression 2
Don't panic, I think there are other passages suggesting that Christians don't have to keep Kosher, just not this one (if Boyarin is right). Obviously I don't care whether Christians keep Kosher or not -- if I were Christian I probably wouldn't keep Kosher, and if I were Jewish I would probably follow a "not eating pork, but ok with cheeseburgers" level of Kosher, except that I still think everyone of both religions still ought to be vegetarian :)
I think (?) that the traditional view of Mark 7, Mark is supposed to be describing Jesus as making a _new_ declaration. "You know all that Kosher stuff, don't worry about it. Being a good person is more important." In fact, it explictly says "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')".
However, I think (?) that the brackets were added by the translator, who didn't necessarily know much about 25AD Jewish laws and customs. Is that right?
If so, I'm mildly shocked. I mean, I know that the bible has been passed down and interpreted before it was written down, but I'm used to thinking of what we have now as fairly fixed, and the best record of what Jesus (probably) said. But no, people just went ahead and added stuff :(
However, I think if I've got this right, that parable makes more sense interpreted with a knowledge of the difference between Kashrut (dietary laws) and cleanliness. Eating non-Kosher food was a restriction on what you could _do_, but it didn't put you into a special state of uncleanliness. Kosher was what _everyone_ did.
Whereas becmoing unclean wasn't bad: it would definitely happen, and that was fine provided you cleaned up before doing something at the temple. And it was more of an esoteric, fiddly thing, altough very important if you did one of the things you shouldn't do if you were unclean.
Confusing the matter is that sometimes "clean" and "unclean" are used to describe foods, but I think (?) even then they're referring to the dietary laws, not to the "actual" laws about cleanliness.
With this understanding, I think (?) Boyarin says this passage makes a lot more sense if you interpret it as a technical discussion of Jewish law, by Jews on both sides. The point is that the big city intellectuals kept all the laws of cleanliness because they went in the temple all the time, and to NOT do so was Not Done.
Whereas Jesus et al were hard working country folk who never got to GO to the temple because they lived too far away. And didn't like fancy folk coming and telling them they were doing it wrong.
It's like the intellectuals were trying to catch Jesus out by criticising him for using the wrong fork, when Jesus only HAD one fork, and only WANTED one fork. And furthermore they implied they were keeping the laws of the Torah better, and Jesus says "no, you just made up that stupid rule. But you break all these ACTUAL rules that actually MATTER".
But all the way through, they're talking about cleanliness. The pharisees act as if the hand-washing thing is required, when Jesus says it actually isn't. And then Jesus gives some technical examples of how what you eat DOESN'T affect your cleanliness, showing that he knows the rules well and winning the debate. And then, back inside the house with his disciples, he makes a big rhetorical uppercut, and uses this as a metaphor for morality: all the "For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, blah blah, blah, from inside".
But the upshot of all this is that supposedly:
(1) neither of them was talking about the dietary laws, they both kept those
(2) The conversation makes perfect sense if you interpret it as the pharisees trying to catch Jesus out flouting the Torah, and Jesus puts them in their place, which suggests Mark was writing with full knowledge and attention to Jewish customs, which suggests that we can use other bits of mark as a useful historical source to learn about other jewish 25AD customs, which is what Boyarin's really interested in.
Digression 1
This isn't Boyarin stuff, just me making some disclaimers.
There were lots of various Jewish sects or denominations around at the time, and there was understandably conflict between jews who followed Jesus and those who didn't. Which means that Mark probably had a preference for recording stories where "a bunch of authority figures showed up and told Jesus he was teaching totally wrong and tried to catch him out with questions about jewish law that would make him look bad, and he gave them a big rhetorical drubbing and showed his knowledge of the law was better than theirs after all and totally justied whatever he was preaching at the time".
When this was explained to me, things like the render unto caesar bit suddenly made a lot more sense. If you don't know the history, it's not clear why Matthew 22:17 "Should we pay the imperial tax or not" is such a big deal, rather than a random technical question. But actually, it's obviously a giant political landmine. Israel -- the chosen people's land -- is under roman occupation. Obviously no-one wants to pay taxes to Rome. They want Rome to **** off. So if Jesus says "yes, pay taxes", he looks like a giant hypocrite and loses all his popular support. And if he says "no, don't pay taxes" he's a rebel who's executed for sedition. However, unsurprisingly, he finds a way of rising above the question.
And then the questioners fall to their knees amazed at his insight. And if Mark is telling propaganda, you can see why he would play up the "and then everyone was struck dumb in amazement" bit :)
But the point is, in all these passages Mark is writing, "pharisee" is a stand in for "existing authority which wants to slap Jesus down". But it's not clear if Mark would have described all pharisees like that, or if it's like saying "some people from the city came and argued with Jesus" -- yes, people from the city are annoying like that, but it doesn't mean everyone in the city is to be rejected. This is awkward because most of the other sects didn't survive to today, so modern rabbinical-based judaism is ultimately descended from the pharisees. But the gospels describe pharisees rather badly. (In fact, google says some people would say "pharisee" included Jesus, and the conflict was between different wings of pharisee-ism. I've no idea if that has historical basis or not, but suggests people would like to think that way.)
Digression 2
Don't panic, I think there are other passages suggesting that Christians don't have to keep Kosher, just not this one (if Boyarin is right). Obviously I don't care whether Christians keep Kosher or not -- if I were Christian I probably wouldn't keep Kosher, and if I were Jewish I would probably follow a "not eating pork, but ok with cheeseburgers" level of Kosher, except that I still think everyone of both religions still ought to be vegetarian :)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-06 12:43 pm (UTC)So one possible reading is: , which assumes we are still quoting Jesus' words here, and we think he's saying something like, all food goes through the body and comes out the same at the other end, so any uncleanness gets sorted out that way. Another possible reading is: , assuming that the narrator is now speaking about Jesus and giving us an interpretation of his explanation. The second reading is a bit more radical, and more useful if you want to conclude that Christians don't need to keep kosher, but it's a plausible grammatical reading of the three-word Greek phrase, it's not just something that the translator stuck on there with no justification in order to support contemporary Christian practice.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-06 01:11 pm (UTC)