Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The Greek word “cleansing” is overwhelmingly secure. The dispute concerns what it modifies and how editors punctuate the sentence: the bodily process or Jesus as narrator who thereby declared all foods clean.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“It goes out into the draught, purging all foods,” taking the participle with the digestive process or drain.
Authorized Version
“It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” — Mark 7:19
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.
Translation or explanation
“Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, the comparative difficulty of the readings; the printed confidence rating represented here is {A}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Mark 7:19
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
It does mean that a theological conclusion should not be smuggled into Mark through English punctuation as though the manuscripts contained “Jesus declared.”
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 7:19, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Many modern translations detach it as an editorial comment: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Editors must decide where Jesus’ sentence ends and what subject the participle follows.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 7:19 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: It does mean that a theological conclusion should not be smuggled into Mark through English punctuation as though the manuscripts contained “Jesus declared.”
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
— Mark 7:19 There is little manuscript dispute over the key word katharizōn, “cleansing” or “purging.” The Authorized Version connects it with what enters the belly and passes into the draught: “purging all meats.” Ancient Greek manuscripts did not supply modern quotation marks and paragraph punctuation.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
It can also describe the digestive exit or the drain, a masculine noun immediately available in the sentence. The larger context began with unwashed hands and traditions imposed by the elders. Acts 10, Romans 14, and 1 Timothy 4 must be read in their own contexts.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The larger context began with unwashed hands and traditions imposed by the elders.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 7:19. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Many modern translations detach it as an editorial comment: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Editors must decide where Jesus’ sentence ends and what subject the participle follows.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 59
Burgon directly discusses Mark 7:19. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Conclusion
Editors who punctuate the clause as Mark’s comment often capitalize or introduce it with “thus,” though neither feature existed in the continuous Greek line. Those additions may be responsible translation aids, but they should be visible as interpretation. A research record that stores only the English result would falsely classify punctuation as manuscript evidence; the Greek participle and the editorial subject assignment must remain distinct fields.
The received construction remains grammatically and contextually sound. “Purging all meats” follows the route Jesus has just described and leaves the moral contrast intact: food passes through the body; sin comes from the heart. The critical punctuation is an anciently possible interpretation, not a newly discovered textual reading. Readers should be told when a translation choice, rather than different Greek letters, is doing the work.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 7:19, the received text reads “It goes out into the draught, purging all foods,” taking the participle with the digestive process or drain.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” — Mark 7:19”. The assessed critical reading is “Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 7:19, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “It goes out into the draught, purging all foods,” taking the participle with the digestive process or drain.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” — Mark 7:19”. The assessed critical form is “Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 7:19, the received text reads “It goes out into the draught, purging all foods,” taking the participle with the digestive process or drain.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” — Mark 7:19”. The assessed critical reading is “Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 7:19Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 59 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 7:19
Received reading: “It goes out into the draught, purging all foods,” taking the participle with the digestive process or drain.
Principal competing reading: “Thus he declared all foods clean,” taking the masculine participle as Mark’s comment on Jesus’ teaching.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” — Mark 7:19
There is little manuscript dispute over the key word katharizōn, “cleansing” or “purging.” The disagreement is grammatical. The Authorized Version connects it with what enters the belly and passes into the draught: “purging all meats.” Many modern translations detach it as an editorial comment: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”
Ancient Greek manuscripts did not supply modern quotation marks and paragraph punctuation. Editors must decide where Jesus’ sentence ends and what subject the participle follows.
A participle is not a new verb
The modern rendering often turns “cleansing” into “declared clean.” That may express an inferred result, but “declared” is not a separate Greek word in the line. The participle can refer back to Jesus as the speaker, yet that subject is distant. It can also describe the digestive exit or the drain, a masculine noun immediately available in the sentence.
The physical sense is plain: food does not enter the heart, the biblical center of moral agency. It passes through the digestive system and is expelled, with the body separating what is useful from waste. Jesus’ contrast concerns the source of moral defilement, not a lesson in ritual plumbing.
The larger context began with unwashed hands and traditions imposed by the elders. The question was not whether pork had become lawful. Jesus lists evil thoughts, adulteries, thefts, murders, and pride as things proceeding from within. Turning verse 19 into a parenthetical repeal of all Mosaic dietary distinctions risks changing the subject midway.
That does not decide every Christian question about food. Acts 10, Romans 14, and 1 Timothy 4 must be read in their own contexts. It does mean that a theological conclusion should not be smuggled into Mark through English punctuation as though the manuscripts contained “Jesus declared.”
Editors who punctuate the clause as Mark’s comment often capitalize or introduce it with “thus,” though neither feature existed in the continuous Greek line. Those additions may be responsible translation aids, but they should be visible as interpretation. A research record that stores only the English result would falsely classify punctuation as manuscript evidence; the Greek participle and the editorial subject assignment must remain distinct fields.
The received construction remains grammatically and contextually sound. “Purging all meats” follows the route Jesus has just described and leaves the moral contrast intact: food passes through the body; sin comes from the heart. The critical punctuation is an anciently possible interpretation, not a newly discovered textual reading. Readers should be told when a translation choice, rather than different Greek letters, is doing the work.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Mark 7:1–23; Acts 10:9–29; Romans 14:1–23; 1 Timothy 4:1–5.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2025
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- The principal issue is syntax and punctuation rather than the presence or absence of Greek words. Ancient interpreters divided the construction in more than one way.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Mark 7:19 — “Purging All Meats”: Grammar, Punctuation, and a Modern Interpretive Claim,” VAR-2025, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas