Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §14.4
Mark's version posed the issue of food purity (and by implication ritual purity
generally) in terms of outright antithesis 132 ('it is not possible for anything from
outside to defile'; 'thus he declared the end of the law distinguishing unclean
from clean foods'). 133 In Matthew's version, however, the outright antithesis has
become more like a sharply drawn comparison, indicating priority of importance
without denying validity to what is deemed of lesser importance. 134
How to explain this divergence? In the history of modern interpretation
there has been an amazingly strong conviction that it is Mark, the earlier Gospel,
who has retained Jesus' own teaching at 7.15. 135 In contrast, it can be easily
argued that Matthew, writing in a context where Jewish law was still highly regarded,
should have wished to soften Jesus' teaching accordingly. 136 The former,
however, is a difficult position to maintain. For if Jesus had spoken so
clearly and decisively on the subject it becomes difficult to see how Peter could
ever have been recorded as saying subsequently, 'I have never eaten anything
common or unclean' (Acts 10.14; 11.8), or why the issue of food laws could
have become so divisive in earliest Christianity. 137 We should also observe that
132. The implication of antithesis is heightened by the double use of exöthen, 'from outside'
(7.15, 18) and esöthen, 'from inside' (7.21, 23), terms which appear only here in Mark's
Gospel; but we already observed Mark's careful use of exö ('outside') in Mark 3.31-32 and
4.11 (above, chapter 13 n. 26).
133. The laws on clean and unclean foods seem to be in particularly in view: Lev. 11.1-
23; Deut. 14.3-21. For the wider ramifications of purity law see above, chapter 9, e.g., §9.5c.
134. Sanders appositely cites as parallel Ep. Arist. 234: Jews honour God 'not with gifts
or sacrifices, but with purity of heart and of devout disposition' {Historical Figure 219).
135. Bultmann, History 105; Taylor, Mark 342-43; Bornkamm, Jesus 98; Perrin, Rediscovering
150; Goppelt, Theology 1.91; Pesch, Markusevangelium 383; Riches, Jesus 136-44
('Jesus simply discarded it [the notion of impurity] as unusable' [144]); Stauffer, 'Jesus' 49;
Schräge, Ethics 66-67; Gnilka, Jesus 215-16; J. L. Houlden, JSNT 18 (1983) 58-67 (here 63);
Becker, Jesus 304-308; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 365-67; others in my 'Jesus and
Ritual Purity' 54 n. 12. Schnackenburg, sittliche Botschaft 74-75 is more cautious. Funk, Five
Gospels 69 and Lüdemann, Jesus 49 accept the probable authenticity of the saying without discussing
the priority of Matthew or Mark.
136. See, e.g., B. Lindars, 'All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus and the Law', in
B. Lindars, ed., Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity
(Cambridge: Clarke, 1988) 61-71. H. Hübner's discussion (Das Gesetz in der synoptischen
Tradition [Witten: Luther, 1973]) is framed by talk of Matthew's '(re-)Qumranizing' and
'(re-)Judaizing' of the Gospel tradition (9-10, 237-39).
137. Gal. 2.11-14; Rom. 14.1-15.6; cf. 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.20-30. The point has
been made most forcefully by Sanders: 'the point of the saying [Mark 7.15] is so clear that the
positions of the "false brethren" Peter and James [referring to Gal. 2.11-14] becomes impossible
to understand if the saying be considered authentic' (Jesus 266-68). Similarly H. Räisänen,
'Zur Herkunft von Markus 7.15', in J. Delobel, ed., Logia: les paroles de Jesus (Leuven:
Leuven University, 1982) 477-84 (here 479-82); Vermes, Religion 25-26; Fredriksen, Jesus
108; cf. Harvey, Jesus 39-41; further in my 'Jesus and Ritual Purity' 55 nn. 16-17.
574