Journal for the Study of the New Testament http://jnt.sagepub.

com/

Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15

Heikki Risnen Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1982 5: 79 DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8200501606 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/5/16/79.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New Testament can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1982 What is This?

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

79

JESUS AND THE FOOD LAWS: REFLECTIONS ON MARK 7.15

Heikki Räisänen Professor of New Testament

Exegesis,

Helsinki,
FINLAND.

&dquo;There is nothing outside a man which by entering into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what 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, the authenticity 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 totally different from the normal Jewish notion of purity, we do hear the authentic voice of Jesus /1/. Occasional doubters have been quickly blamed for &dquo;scepticism run wild&dquo; /2/, and the
very existence of some dissenters is now taken as an indication of a deep crisis in NT scholarship by such a distinguished authority as W.G. KUmmel /3/. How justified is such a judgement?

Along with the standard notion that Mark genuine, radical saying of Jesus, other views
While

considering

verse

15a

as

an

7.15 is a do indeed exist. authentic radical mashal of

Jesus, H. Merkel regards verse 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) the authenticity of the whole saying, while some scholars, notably C.E. Carlston /9/ assume an original form less sweeping in scope. Finally, quite a few expositors, who hold fast to the authenticity of the saying in its present form, posit an original meaning which was different from that suggested by the Markan interpretation /10/. The question surely deserves
to be reconsidered.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

80

I have already discussed the problem of Mark 7.15 in a short paper presented at the 32nd Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense /11/; I have tried to avoid as far as possible repeating those reflections here. The interested reader is referred to that article for a fuller presentation of some parts of the argument.

I
seems reasonable to agree with those commentators who that verse 7.15 has been secondarily placed in its present context, presumably by Mark. Verse 14 is a typical Markan introduction, designed to attach to a new context The saying had material which had circulated separately /12/. probably been provided with a commentary (the substance of verses 18-23, or at least verses 18b, 19a, 19b) at a pre-Markan stage /13/; this commentary is, however, secondary to the saying itself /14/. From the point of view of the historical Jesus problem it is therefore necessary to exegete verse 15 as a separate saying, regardless of its present context /15/.

It

assume

Attempts to establish an earlier form of the saying, allegedly different from the present one, are beset with difficulties. To begin with, the suggestion that verse 15b should be removed on the grounds that it is an expansion which distorts the meaning of the whole /16/ is implausible /17/. It is true that xopcJca8aL (with prefixes) is first used in a concrete sense (v. 15a) and then metaphorically (v. 15b; obviously, it would be absurd to apply Ta ~X TOD &V-5P(LROU HTIoPu6~va to excrement /18/). This change is a striking rhetorical device; I see no reason to assess it as evidence of clumsiness, much less as an indication of an origin different from that of verse 15a /19/. There is no need to attribute the 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~6nopevouevov and Hnopv6~va to Mark /20/. It is illegitimate, however, to Mark does use etio - and infer this from Markan usage /21/. lxxopcJca8aL quite often /22/, but apart from the traditional/2~ verse 4.19 he uses these verbs in the concrete sense of On the other hand, if our movement from one place to another. text contained, instead, some forms of c~a - and lEOpXca8aL (as does Matthews!), this could just as well have raised the

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

81

suspicion of quite common

Markan redaction, for these verbs, too, are in the second gospel /24/. But then we must ask, which way of expressing the idea of entering or coming out could have had the chance of escaping our redactionhunting net at all? It is illegitimate to argue for redaction from the choice of words, if one is not able to snggest how the idea in question could have been expressed in non-redactional vocabulary /25/.

The observation that the participles cannot simply be detached as being redactional has consequences for the interpretation. The participles are then not simply pleonastic /26/, nor do they limit the allegedly wider original scope of the saying /27/. They indicate, rather, that the saying is concerned with food - no more and no less /28/. It is not concerned, for instance, with all No general statement external influences upon man /29/. concerning cultic piety is made /30/; still less is mans alleged desire to justify himself by legalistic works being combatted /31/. On the other hand, it is not just the Pharisaic halakah of washing hands, either, that is in view/32/. The saying is concerned with things entering into man from What else could that be, outside and thereby defiling him. except foods? Consequently, the commentary supplied in verses 18 f. does not restrict the scope of the saying /33/; it only states explicitly what is implied in the logion itself.

possibility is not excluded that may have been slightly changed in course of its transmission. As Lambrecht points out, o66~v 6XXcl is a frequent construction in Mark; 6va~a~ is often used editorially; and the parallelism would be more symmetrical, if the lEw8cv of verse l5a had an Eaw3ev as its counterpart in verse 15b (cf. v. 21) /34/. But even on the maximalist view that the logion has indeed been altered at all these points it does not follow that any major modification of its meaning must have taken place /35/. We would then have an original form rather like Matt. 15.11 - and that saying is hardly different from Mark 7.15 in content. (It is the Matthaean context that suggests that Matthew gave the saying No definite an interpretation different from Marks /36/). There is no conclusion about the original form can be drawn. evidence that Mark 7.15 ever circulated in a form close to that conjectured by Carlston (&dquo;what truly defiles a man comes from within, not from without&dquo;) /37/.
That established, the the the

wording of the saying

...

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

82

radical if If nothing man from outside can defile him, then the Biblical food laws are actually set aside. Consequently, many interpreters who regard the saying as genuine understand it as a polemical statement on the Torah. Jesus is openly combatting the law /38/. Others, however, have found it difficult to posit so radical a statement on the lips of Jesus; assuming the authenticity, they try in various ways to dilute the content of the saying. Jesus did not, it is held, intend to repudiate the food laws /39/. He may have had some particular occasion in view /40/, or he may have expressed a polemical and paradoxical idea using a semitic idiom which means no more than this: &dquo;A man is not so much defiled by that which enters him from outside as he is by that which comes from within&dquo; /41/. If this is so, we must conclude that Jesus obviously did not perceive the far-reaching implications of his more or less casual statement. Mark or his predecessors then understood the saying in more radical terms than its original intention; Mark 7.19 leaves no doubt about the repudiation of all food laws on the editorial level. Hrhile a mild interpretation of Mark 7.15 along the lines mentioned is sometimes motivated by a reluctance to attribute to Jesus (who is more or less viewed in terms of Matt. 5.17) an iconoclastic stance toward parts of the OT /42/, just as often the reason is the difficulty to account for subsequent Christian developments which failed to take note of the paradigm set by the Master on the radical reading /43/ - a difficulty which will be our concern later in this essay.

Taken at face value, the

implicit

attack on that enters into a

saying looks like a important parts of the Torah.

It may be hopeless to ascertain the original meaning of a 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 made plain by what follows in Mark, Matthew is at pains to tone down the critique; and Luke, the most conservative evangelist, passes over it in silence /44/. Moreover, if the saying was not clear, it is not easy to understand why it was faithfully preserved in the first place /45/. All pretensions to certainty are out of place here, but it would seem methodologically plausible to give precedence to an interpretation which takes the wording of the saying literally, if it is able to combine an anti-Torah orientation with other data, and in particular, the absence of

saying,

influence upon

subsequent developments.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

83

II A survey of the application of the most popular authenticating criteria yields meagre results. One cannot appeal to the criterion of multiple attestation, since, apart from Mark 7.15 ff., a critical stance to food laws is visible in Matt. 15.11, a verse dependent on our saying /46/, as far as the possibly genuine Jesus tradition is concerned. Neither Matt. 23.25 par,nor Luke 10.8 can be regarded as real parallels to Mark 7.15. Matt. 23.25 is not critical of food laws /47/. The parallel verse Luke 11.41 may be so construed (although its meaning is not too clear /48/), but this verse is obviously secondary to Matt. 23.25 /49/. And even if Luke 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 all distinctions between clean and unclean food, as is probable/52/, we presumably have before us a maxim crystallised in the Gentile mission /53/. It is incredible that Jesus could have given so novel a piece of advice in so casual a manner /54/, and so 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 the disciple is to eat whatever he is given is followed by a saying quite like Matt. 15.11, but this combination (intelligent as it is) is obviously secondary /55/.

only

Furthermore, the linguistic criterion is not of much help in 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 combining elements from Mark 7.15 and from the comment supplied in 7.18b /58/ - a rather improbable situation. Moreover, several Greek words which do not lend themselves to a simple retranslation had first to be deleted from Marks text /59/. It is striking that Matthews secondary version can easily be regarded as semitic, whereas Marks cannot /60/. There remains the argument from the stylistic form, an antithetical parallelism. This is easily compatible with authenticity and indeed favours it /61/, but is in itself no sufficient criterion /62/. Thus inferences from language remain
inconclusive.
The criterion of dissimilarity is most often appealed to in this connection. &dquo;This is perhaps the most radical statement

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

84

in the whole of the Jesus tradition, and, as such, it is certainly authentic&dquo; /63/. The limits of this criterion by now well-known; but since it is used here positively, negatively, it does seem impressive at first sight. But while being radically different from normal Jewish

are

not

statements on food laws, Mark 7.15 is not at all dissimilar to early Christian statements like Rom. 14. 14, 20 or Acts 10.15b! /64/. To conclude from this that Mark 7.15 is not

genuine would, of course, amount to a gross misuse of the criterion of dissimilarity; it cannot function in this way. The point is merely that no thoroughgoing dissimilarity can be
established in this case and that this therefore remains inconclusive.

particular

criterion

In his oft-cited essay on Mark 7.15 W.G. KUmmel, wisely does not attach crucial weight to any of the criteria discussed so far. He points, rather, to two other considerations as the decisive ones. On the one hand, such elements in the Jesus tradition as help &dquo;to explain the fact of the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus&dquo; may be regarded as reliable; on the other hand, the criterion of coherence is particularly important /65/. In the light of these two criteria KUmmel comes to the conclusion that Mark 7.15 is to be traced back to Jesus himself, &dquo;with the greatest probability that is possible to attain here&dquo; /66/. But can these two criteria

enough,

really perform

so

much?

To begin with the crucifixion argument: it is, in itself, quite conceivable that Jesus was accused of rejecting purity regulations in general and food laws in particular. Strikingly enough, no such accusation is mentioned in the traditions about Whereas the conflict over the Sabbath 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 connection is established in so many words between a saying like Mark 7.15 Thus the argument remains and the death of Jesus /68/. circular: 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 of the tradition on this point is, of course, even more compatible with the opposite assumption that Jesus did not take such a stance. It should be emphasized that we know very little about the real reasons for the crucifixion. That political

the trial of Jesus.

leads, according

to

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

85

considerations on the part of Pilate were more important than is visible in the gospels is evident; what motives the Jewish leaders may have had remains too much a matter of conjecture to 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 demands of the purity regulations of the Torah. He denied, against Moses, to a husband the right to dismiss his wife. He interpreted the Sabbath command in a humanitarian way and took a critical attitude toward the Temple. Surely it would be coherent with the picture thus emerging if he also made a statement which actually did away with the food laws. There is indeed no denying this. Nevertheless, it can be asked whether the alternative view - that Jesus did not make such a statement - would be incompatible with this picture. It should be noted that the above picture is not unequivocal, for the attitude of Jesus to different parts of the law seems quite different. In some cases he takes a rigorist stance (divorce, oaths); in others his attitude seems rather that of a reformer (Sabbath, Temple); it is on some points only that he seems lax towards the Torah or its current interpretation (mixing with sinners). This leaves ample room for quite different acts or positions to be deemed coherent /69/! It is typical of the situation that both those scholars who take Mark 7.15 as anti-Torah and those who give it a milder interpretation can view the saying as coherent with the respective total view of the Torah. The truth is that the criterion of coherence is as circular as any /70/. As a further supposed analogy to Mark 7.15, KUmmel refers in this connection to the &dquo;oldest antitheses&dquo; in Matt. 5 (verses 21 f., 27 f., 33 ff.), in which Jesus sets his ego over against commands of the Torah /71/. It is questionable, however, whether the antithetical formulation can be traced back to the historical Jesus even in these three cases /72/. Even if it could, it is not clear what inferences should be drawn. In the first antithesis a command of the Torah is intensified. In the remaining two cases a precept of the law is actually superseded - by a more rigorous command; in both cases parallels from Qumran can be adduced. The speaker of these antitheses brings nothing very novel. The liberalism of Mark 7.15 is a different matter. It seems therefore

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

86

to assert on the basis of the antitheses that Jesus set his personal claim above that of the Torah and to use this as confirmatory evidence for the authenticity of Mark 7.15. Moreover, no Christological motivation is visible in Mark 7.15 /73/; the mashal seems rather to present a truth which is obvious to common sense /74/.

precarious

The proper conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion is not necessarily that the authenticity of Mark 7.15 should be called into question. It is enough to say that the arguments advanced for authenticity remain inconclusive. But we have not yet dealt with the main objection raised by some scholars against authenticity. This will be our concern in what follows /75/.
III

Occasionally the authenticity of Mark 7.15 has been questioned on insufficient grounds. Schulz rejects it simply because the logion is not found in Q, the oldest layer of which he regards as the only serious candidate to have preserved genuine sayings of Jesus /76/. Again, it is probably too sweeping to state, as does Schoeps /77/, that Mark 7.15 is the only one among the sayings attributed to Jesus that really contradicts some parts of the Torah (and not just some of its interpretations). Berger postulates a large antinomian current
in Hellenistic Judaism; Mark 7.15 is, he thinks, influenced by that current and therefore inauthentic /78/. It is, however, quite unlikely that ritual laws were neglected among Dispersion Jews /79/.

grounds advanced by the authenticity of the saying. The decisive argument was always this: given the early existence of such a radical saying, it is startling that no one ever seems to have made use of it in the subsequent turbulent decades. As Carlston puts it, the saying in fact&dquo;renders the controversies in the primitive Church over the keeping of the law incredible&dquo;. &dquo;If Jesus ever said, There is nothing outside of man ... his break with the Law would have been instantly recognized by friend and foe alike as complete ...&dquo; /80/.
These, however,
are

not the usual

minority

who have doubted the

Here is the place to try the criterion of pregnant speech proposed by Stephen Westerholm, a pupil of Gerhardsson. A useful indication of authenticity is, he maintains, &dquo;any sign

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

87

or been the object of, further that it has been applied to situations arising within the early church. This takes into account the inherent probability that Jesus did impress something of what he had to say on his followers, and that they regarded his words as authoritative. Especially is this to be reckoned with where the saying in question is concise, rhythmic,and formulated to provoke further thought: indications that we are dealing with words which the Master of the mashal intended to be remembered and pondered&dquo; /81/. Westerholm thinks that the mashal Mark 7.15 meets these requirements and that we do have evidence that the verse was recalled, commented upon, and applied in the halakhic disputes of the early church /82/. His evidence is slender: Mark 7.19c and Rom. 14.14 /83/. Mark 7.19c is a Markan or pre-Markan comment on a pre-htarkan tradition and tells us little about the age of the saying commented upon, except that it must predate the commentary. As for Rom. 14.14, I have argued in the article mentioned above that Paul is not referring to a saying of the historical Jesus /84/. If anything, the criterion of pregnant speech points, in our case, to a negative direction!

that it has

generated,

reflection,

or

The weight of the argument from the missing Wirkungsgeschichte 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 around Stephen /85/. This is dubious. It is difficult enough to understand how a number of Christians could cling to the law, if Jesus had fought against it, as many suppose. But this is not yet the whole story. In fact, there is no evidence that anybody, conservative or radical, ever appealed to this saying in the course of the debates over Gentile mission and table fellowship (!) during the first two decades or so in the early church. Paul never refers to it, although it could have aided him greatly in many of his arguments. How effective it would have been to quote such a saying to Peter (a person surely sensitive to words of the historical Jesus!) and others in the heat of the Antiochian conflict (Gal. 2.11 ff.), in which Paul, with all his post-Easter theological arguments, evidently was the losing party. One wonders, too, whether it might not have made sense to him to hint, elsewhere in Galatians /86/, at Even more strikingly, perhaps, the position taken by Jesus. Paul refrains from using the saying in his discussion of meat offered to idols (I Cor. 8); yet, immediately before and after

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

88

the chapter in question, he does appeal to sayings of the Nor does he historical Jesus (7.10, 9.14; cf. 7.25) /87/. have recourse to it when talking about the ascetic practices of the weak brethren in Rome; Rom. 14.14 is not such a reference /88/. If there is a connection between Rom. 14.14 and Mark 7.15 it is just as likely that the dependence lies the other way round /89/.
But if Paul did not know of Mark 7.15, we must infer that And the saying was unknown to the congregation in Antioch. when we take into account that Antioch was the most likely place for the traditions of the Hellenists to take root, the conclusion lies at hand that the Stephen group (whatever precisely its attitude to the law /90/) was not in possession of such a saying either /91/.
no part in What counted there was the appeal to experience - Gentiles had received the Spirit without being circumcised. This is not just Lukan style, for Gal. 2.8 also refers to the argument from experience /92/.

According

to Acts

15, sayings of Jesus played

the Jerusalem

meeting.

It seems that the acceptance of Gentiles into Christian congregations without circumcision, as well as intercourse with them without regard to food laws, began spontaneously, without a theological decision. &dquo;Action preceded theology&dquo; /93/. That verse Rom. 14.14 still expresses the early sentiment. gives expression to a conviction reached in faith, instinctively as it were, that nothing is unclean of itself; nothing is

allowed to stand in the way of fraternal communication within the community. But at some point a need for more reflective theological arguments must have made itself felt, the more so as a Judaizing restoration program raised the claim that Gentile Christians be circumcised and observe the Torah /94/. The quest for arguments is evident in the story of Peters vision (Acts 10) /95/. Here it is the bat q81 who teaches Peter that all food and all people have been cleansed by God/96/ The story presupposes that Peter is not aware of a previous ruling by the historical Jesus to the same effect. No wonder If we may assume that the Luke omitted Mark 7 in his gospel! vision story comes from Petrine circles this could suggest that Peter, certainly one of the main bearers of the Jesus tradition, did not hand on a saying like Mark 7.15 in his

teaching /97/.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

89

IV

If Mark 7.15 was nevertheless part of the living tradition from the outset, then who preserved it? And why was it preserved at all, if it was not used? If neither Jerusalem nor Antioch come into the reckoning the place of transmission, one may resort to the (unknown

as

and largely hypothetical) congregation(s) in Galilee. One could try to reconstruct a theology of Galilaean circles engaged in Gentile mission and regard them as bearers of sayings like 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 and
Jerusalem.

As for the why question, the answer makes little sense as a word of the Lord, the saying was faithfully preserved even though it was not understood /99/. It is rather difficult to maintain that during the first quarter of century or so after the crucifixion no one recognized the force of the saying or its potential significance for the ongoing theological battles, whereas that significance seems to have been grasped immediately after the battle was over (within, The assumption say, a decade after the writing of Romans). of an originally non-radical genuine saying faces the same difficulty: during the formative decades no implications of the saying were seen, whereas they seem to have become crystal All clear as soon as the battle had been won on other grounds. Yet I find another this may not be impossible to account for. solution a lot more plausible.

that,

It seems to me much more likely that Mark is influenced by the 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; he is not). It should be noted that Pauls wording is closer to the secondary comment xa9ap~~wv navTa ra 6PvaTa (cf. Rom. 14.20: x6vTa [sc. $5wvaTa] vlv xa9apa) than to the saying itself. I suggest that Mark 7.15 reflects an attempt to find a theological justification for the practical step taken in the Gentile mission long before, much as Matt. 28.18-20 gives such a justification in retrospect for the mission itself by tracing its beginning back to a commandment of the (this time, risen) Lord (which would, had it really been given at the first

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

90

Easter, likewise render the subsequent development unintelligible). Mark 7.15 should be seen as an attempt parallel to the appeal to a vision of Peter: where some circles resorted to appeal to the guidance of the Spirit, others took refuge in the earthly Jesus. Possibly the saying first came into being as a remoulding of some version of Matt. 23.25 f /100/.
On this hypothesis no gap needs to be posited between the and its interpretation. To be sure, verses 18 ff. were attached later to Mark 7.15, but the interval need not have been long. Above all, there is no reason to assume that the interpretation was devised by another group than that behind verse 15. Both commentaries (verses 18c-19 and verses 20-23) can be seen as quite congenial interpretations of verse 15.

saying

Still, literary-critical considerations demand the assumption of successive stages. The redundant ~~eyev 6e in verse 20 indicates that verses 20-23 are an addition. The strangely detached position of the important clause xa8apllwv RdVTa T 6PVaTa (v. 19c) suggests that it, too, has been added, presumably by Mark /101/. Finally, the composition of verses 17, 18a, 18b shows characteristic signs of Markan
redaction.

material, which formed

Yet Mark must have had before him some traditional a bridge between the saying and its

exposition.
The primary datum was the saying in v. 15 (not necessarily in exactly the same form as in Mark). Soon an explanation was added which correctly made it plain that the reference was to food laws, which were repudiated by Jesus. Still later an explanation 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 Christian e group (xouvL6uaL is &dquo;Jewish Greek&dquo; /102/) engaged in Gentile mission, akin to Paul in many respects (though not necessarily closely associated with him); the sarcasm in v. 19 is indeed comparable to Pauls outbursts in Gal. 5.12 or in Phil. 3.2. Mark, who must have stood fairly close to this group (perhaps he belonged to it) took up this small unit, adapted it to his

peculiar public teaching/private explanation scheme, provided it with an introduction (v. 14) and incorporated it into his gospel as a sequel to Jesus controversy with the
place within telling).
Pharisees and the Scribes /103/. All this could have taken a few years (or even months; there is no way of

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

91

When this hypothesis is related to the earlier discussion authenticating criteria, its plausibility is enhanced. The scanty attestation is just what might be expected, and the of
small non-semitic features gain significance as modest to the origin of the saying (I would guess that the The reasons for the crucifixion group was largely bilingual). are a matter of educated guessing anyway, and we can still produce a reasonably coherent picture of Jesus words and deeds even assuming that he did not repudiate food laws. The picture, however, takes on a somewhat less iconoclastic shape than that painted by KUmmel and others. Just how radical Jesus was regarding the law depends largely on whether or not he made a statement like Mark 7.15.

pointers

Let me add, to avoid misunderstanding, that the present article is not motivated by a concern to present Jesus, for whatever reasons, in a less radical light. (In fact, a radical Jesus would be more convenient for my own personal theology.) Nor am I trying to establish any wholesale solution to the problem of ipsissima verba /104/. The issue at hand is strictly the historical puzzle posed by the (missing) Wirkungsgeschichte of this particular saying.
To summarize. Mark 7.15 could be integrated without much into the total teaching of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. It is difficult, however, to account for subsequent Christian developments on the assumption of its authenticity. On the assumption of inauthenticity these developments are easily explicable. I do not claim, however, that the problem has been definitively solved. The solution here presented relies largely on an argument from silence, and the objection may be raised that we simply know too little of the way sayings of Jesus were used in early Christianity. The question may have to be left open: but it should be recognized that a reasonably good case can be made for the inauthenticity hypothesis /105/. To say the least, the accusation of wild scepticism is without any foundation whatsoever, there is little reason to lament a crisis in NT scholarship /106/. The fact that no final answer can be given would only witness to a crisis, if we absolutely had to know more about Jesus and early Christianity than is really possible on the basis of

difficulty

our

extant

sources.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

92

NOTES

This

study was undertaken during a stay in TUbingen auspices of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

under the

/1/ R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition 3 ), 158 (cf. 110); H. Braun, Jesus (1969), 73; E. Käsemann, (1957 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. Kümmel, "Äυßere und innere Reinheit des Menschen bei Jesus" ( Das wort und die Wörter, Festschrift G. 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 erklärte (Mk. 7, 19)", wuD 16 (1981), 89. An expression coined by C.G. Montefiore, The Synoptic /2/ Gospels I (1968 ), 133; cited e.g. by V. Taylor, The Gospel 3 according to St. Mark (1952), 343. Montefiore was referring to Bultmann: but Bultmann did not in fact deny the authenticity of the saying. The nemesis of Forschungsgeschichte avenged this inaccuracy some decades later, when Montefiore himself was listed as an exponent of the inauthenticity of Mark 7.15 by H.J. Schoeps, Studien zur unbekannten Religionsgeschichte (1963), 52. /3/ Kümmel, art. cit. 35. "Markus 7, 15 - das Jesuswort Uber die innere /4/ Verunreinigung", ZRGG 20 (1968), 352-360. Die Botschaft Jesu (1953), 118. /5/ The Gospel according to St. Mark (1960), 134. /6/ "Die neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus", (Neues /7/ Testament und Geschichte, Festschrift O. Cullmann 1972), 39, 41. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu I (1972), 463 ff. /8/ "The Things That Defile (Mark VII, 15) and the Law in /9/ Matthew and Mark", NTS 15 (1968-69), 95. Cf. B.W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (1930), 354; B.H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law (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 (1926 ), 2 77; V. Taylor, op. cit., 343; Pesch, op. cit. 383; W. Paschen, Rein und unrein (1970), 184; P. Fiedler, Jesus und die Sünder

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

93

(1976), 253; S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (1978), ff.; Luz, op. cit., 60 f. Cf. also LUhrmann, art. cit. 86. /11/ "Zur Herkunft von Markus 7, 15", in: J. Delobel (ed.), ΛOΓIA IHΣOY ( 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, This is so even if one posits a basic unit op. cit. 277. which consisted of elements of verses 1-2, of verse 5 and of verse 15; thus Berger, op. cit. 462 f,; Anderson, op. cit. 181;
82 H-J. Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (1978), 262; Lührmann, art. cit. 81 f, It seems more natural, however, to suppose that verses 1-13 formed a previous unit (itself composed of two parts, vv. 1-8 and 9-13). Verses 14 f. introduce (apart from the change of scene) a new theme; verse 15 does not give an answer to the question raised in v. 5. Also, it would be odd if so much material was inserted between question and answer. Cf. Bultmann, See op. cit. 15; Kümmel, art. cit. 37; Gnilka, op. cit. 276. also 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 Markus 1 (1979), 343; even more incredible is his overall interpretation 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.

/21/ /22/

260 (pre-Markan insertions). Cf. KUmmel, art. cit. 37 f,

ϵ&iacgr;σπoρϵ&uacgr;ϵσϑαι: 1.21, 4.19, 5.40, 6.56, 11.2 (7.15, 18, 19); &eacgr;&kap a;πoρϵ&uacgr;ϵσϑαι: 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;σ&eacgr;ρχϵσϑαι some 30 times, &eacgr;ξ&eacgr;ρχϵσϑαι some 40 times (note the usage in 5.30). /25/ Cf. Lambrecht, art. cit. 60: it is methodologically inadmissible to deny that the idea contained in the Markan verbs was already present in the original saying. /26/ Against Taylor, Merkel, Klauck (n. 20).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

94

/27/ /28/

Against Horst (n. 20). Correctly Montefiore, op. cit. 153; Klostermann, op. cit. 77; E. Stauffer, "Neue Wege der Jesusforschung", ( Gottes ist

der 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.

Thus Lambrecht himself, art. cit. 60. 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 a statement might have looked like in Aramaic or in translation Greek.

/33/ /34/ /35/ /36/

Against Gnilka, Lambrecht, art.

cit. 285. cit. 59.

op.

/38/

op. cit. op. cit.

Bultmann, op. cit. 158; Käsemann, op. cit. 207; Schweizer, 82; Merkel, art. cit. 351 f. (for v. 15a); H. Hübner, art. cit. 175; Haenchen, op. cit. 265; cf. also Kümmel, 39, 41; Lambrecht, art. cit. 76. The most radical assessment

is that of Stauffer, art. cit. (n. 28), 171: Jesus is more than a renegade, he is a preacher of apostasy who emphatically annuls the Mosaic food laws and seduces his disciples to

apostasy. /39/ Montefiore, Taylor, Klostermann, Pesch (n. 10). /40/ Westerholm, op. cit. 82: perhaps just some such
mentioned in vv. 1-5. This semitic negation theory cit. 83. would Matt. 15.11; in Mark 7.15a the sweeping o&uacgr;δ&eacgr;ν and the strengthening δ&uacgr;ναται surely stand in its way. "Nothing is able to .." is, at any rate, an odd circumlocution

controversy

as

the

one

/41/

Westerholm, op. apply better to

not
so

for "it may

much ...".

/42/ This motivation is criticized by Merkel, art. cit. 351 (cf. 345) and by Pesch, op. cit. 383 n. 17 (even though Pesch But this was himself goes a long way in the same direction). not always the reason for tempering the content of the saying or for regarding it as inauthentic. The wirkungsgeschichtlich argument is stressed e.g. by Taylor, op. cit. 343 and now by
Luz, op. cit. 61.

/43/ Merkel (see previous note) ignores this problem altogether. Typically, Percy and Johnson are not included his historical survey ( art. cit. 341-350).

in

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

95

Cf. J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God (1972), 139 f. be, of course, that Mark 7 disappears from Luke as part great omission. On the other hand, Luke 11.37 ff. may indicate that Luke knew Mark 7.15; cf. HUbner, op. cit. (n. 36), 182 ff. /45/ Westerholm, op. cit. 81 f. claims both that the saying was general and unclear in its implications and that it was revolutionary and so startling that Jesus and the disciples must "have taken the trouble to see to it that it was remembered" (81). But he cannot have it both ways. /46/ Despite the boom enjoyed now by the Griesbach-Farmer hypothesis, I think it legitimate to hold fast to Markan priority. If Matthaean priority were assumed, we would likewise have only a single attestation, since Mark would then depend on Matthew. It is only on the linguistic issue (see below) 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 use this guess in an argument about the Markan saying. /48/ For different interpretations see, e.g., Jervell, op. cit. 140, and HUbner, op. cit. 188.

/44/

It may of the

/49/ Luke 11.41 was regarded as original by Horst, art. cit. (n. 20), 444 and Branscomb, op. cit. (n. 9), 199 ff. For criticisms see Merkel, art. cit. 355 n. 14. KUmmel ( art. cit. 46 n. 58) also regards Matt. 23.25 as primary; cf. recently for this view D. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (1979),
144 f.

/50/

Thus now R. Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (1980), 220, /51/ Against M. Hengel, Jesus und die Tora (Theol. Beiträge 9,

1978), 164. /52/ E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (1929 ), 115 takes 2 v. 8b (which he attributes to Luke) as a simple repetition of v. 7a which only makes the point that the disciple may not require more or better food. It is more likely, however, In that case Luke has that v. 8b is not just redundant.
overlooked the tension between this half-verse and Acts 10 (which favours the assumption that he did not invent the former himself but got it from his tradition). /53/ Thus e.g. Laufen, 220, 274; W. Grundmann, Das 210; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary Evangelium nach Lukas

cit. op. (1961 ) 2 ,

on

the First Epistle to the Corinthians Das Evangelium nach Lukas (1976), 332 f. to whether the Q source presupposes the

J. Ernst, On the discussion as Gentile mission see

(1968), 241;

Laufen,

op. cit.

237 ff.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

96

Cf. M-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc "une question aussi grave ne pouvait être tranchée en passant, dune manière obscure". Lagrange concluded that Luke 10.8b does not refer to food laws (cf. above n. 52). /55/ On Thomas 14 cf. W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-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. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Lambrecht, art. cit. Gospels and Acts (1967 ), 106 f., claimed that &a cgr;νϑρωπo&sfgr; is used in a strictly semitic way (in the sense of τι&sfgr;) in Mk. 7.15 (18, 20); but in fact &a cgr;νϑρωπo&sfgr; possesses here its full meaning "a human being". See E.C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (1981), 134, 249. /58/ Thus Paschen. This presupposes that two versions (two different translations?) of the same saying, each containing one significant Aramaism (τ&a cgr; κoινo&uacgr;ντα in v. 15b, o&uacgr;...π&aacgr;νυ in v. 18), are used in Mark 7.15 ff., one as the saying proper, the other as its interpretation! Parallel to this is HUbners casus suggestion (op. cit. 166 f.) that the Semitic &eacgr;&kap a;ϵ&iacgr;νo ( ) in v. 20b points to another version of the saying. pendens There is no reason to resort to such strained constructions, unless we assume that any Aramaisms are a priori impossible on a post-Easter stage in the tradition. /59/ Paschen deletes the participles ϵ&iacgr;σπoρϵνóμϵνoν and &a cgr;&kap a;πoρϵνóμϵνα as Markan additions ( op.cit. 173 f,); on this procedure see above, nn. 20-25. But in so doing he removes the expression &eacgr;στιν. .ϵ&iacgr;σπoρϵνóμϵνoν from v. 15a; yet he evaluates the analogous &eacgr;στιν τ&a cgr; κoυνoυντα in v. 15b as an Aramaic feature (p. 176) - which does not prevent him from finally deleting the copula &eacgr;στ&iacgr;ν from v. 15b as well (a finite form of hawah could only denote a past event)! /60/ One should compare F. Delitzschs quite literal Hebrew rendering of Matt. 15.11 with his handling of Mark 7.15 which produces some ten deviations from the Greek wording! If we are allowed to assume Markan priority, a comparison with Matthew on this point reveals very clearly that Semitic language is no warrant for originality. One can indeed observe a successive Aramaicizing from Mark 7.15 via Mark 7.18-20 to Matt. 15.11. /61/ Cf. Jeremias, op. cit. 24-30. /62/ Correctly recognized by KUmmel, art. cit. 38.

/54/ 297;

), 8 (1948

59.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

97

/63/ Perrin, op. cit. (n. 1) 150 (italics added). /64/ Merkels attempt (art. cit. 354 f.) to detect a theological difference between Rom. 14.14 and Mark 7.15 is
over-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,
cit. 126. Cf. K. Berger, Gesetz, SM(D) I, 354. Westerholm, op. cit. 81 maintains that Jesus must have held some such view as the one here expressed; otherwise he could not have been so indifferent to considerations of ritual purity as his eating in the company of sinners shows him to have been. This statement is acceptable, if some is emphasized. In some very broad sense (and Westerholm himself interprets Mark 7.15 in a mild way) a certain amount of indifference to cultic stipulations was surely necessary for Jesus. But Mark 7.15a goes a good deal beyond what was It is one thing to necessary for that practical attitude. sit light to Pharisaic interpretations of purity laws; it is another to state a principle which in fact invalidates the divine law for which the fathers had died a martyrs death two centuries earlier. It is quite unlikely that Jesus ate pork with the sinners! /70/ Jeremias, op. cit. 203 suggests indeed that on the radical interpretation the saying is in coherent with the total picture ("völlig isoliert"!); similarly Luz, op. cit. 60. /71/ Art. cit. 43; cf. U.B. MUller, "Vision und Botschaft", ZThK 74 (1977), 440. /72/ I. Broer has, among others, recently argued that it goes back to Matthaean redaction: Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes (1980), 102 ff. /73/ Against Lambrecht, art. cit. 79; correctly in this regard Berger, op. cit. (n. 8), 577. /74/ There is no explicit reference to the notion of the goodness of the creation either, which MUller, art, cit. 439 sees 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 survey that he does not consider this objection at all seriously. Cf. Räisänen, art. cit. (n. 11), first section. /76/ Cf. above, n. 7. /77/ op. cit. (n. 2), 52 f. (as a possibility). /78/ Cf. above n. 8.
op.

/68/ /69/

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

98

See H. HUbner, "Mark. 7.1-23 und das jUdisch/79/ hellenistische Gesetzesverständnis", NTS 22 (1975-76), 319-345; also H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (forthcoming), ch. I 4 b. Art. cit. (n. 9), 95. /80/ /81/ (n. 10), 6; cf. B. Gerhardsson, Die Anfänge Op. cit. der Evangelientradition (1977), 50 f. /82/ Op. cit. 81. /83/ Op. cit. 81 f.; likewise Luz, op. cit. 149 n. 112.

Thus e.g. HUbner, op. cit. 174 f.; Gnilka, op. cit. 286. Admittedly, the issue in Galatia was circumcision rather than food laws; but circumcision was a first step which would surely have been followed by observance of all stipulations of the Torah, including the food laws. (I am not persuaded by theories that Pauls Galatian opponents had a selective attitude to the law; to read this from statements like Gal. 6.13 is to misunderstand the polemical nature of Pauls argument.) See also n. 92. We do hear about calendar matters in Gal. 4.10, and it would have been possible at least to insert a reference to what Jesus had said about foods and apply it to other external matters (cf. the close connection between circumcision, feasts, and food laws in Col. 2). I am aware of dangers involved in an argument from /87/ silence. It may turn out to be too effective, if it makes impossible to find an early Sitz im Leben for numerous other parts of the Synoptic tradition, e.g. for the conflict stories about the Sabbath. Thus Paul does not refer to Synoptic Sabbath stories in Gal. 4.8-11; indeed, he seems not to have known them (Gnilka, op. cit. 129 f.). Does my argument, by way of analogy, require the absurd conclusion that these traditions were not in existence at that time? I think not. At any rate, we do not learn that Sabbath was such a burning issue in the Gentile mission as was the problem of table fellowship; the question never figures in Acts and seems to be one remove further from the critical centre than is the problem of table fellowship. But surely questions like this still require further reflection.
See above, n. 84. /88/ Cf. Klauck, op. cit. 269 (he himself advocates the /89/ authenticity of Mark 7.15). See e.g. M. Hengel, "Zwischen Jesus und Paulus", ZThK 72, /90/ (1975); J.D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977), 272 f.

/84/ /85/ /86/

Art.

cit.

(n. 11).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

99

Cf. U.B. MUller, "Zur Rezeption gesetzeskritischer /91/ Jesusüberlieferung im frühen Christentum", NTS 27, (1981), 165, 167. For understanding the modest role played by the Hellenists in handing on the Jesus tradition, U. Wilckenss article, "Jesusüberlieferung und Christuskerygma - zwei Wege

urchristlicher Uberlieferungsgeschichte", ThViat 10 (1965-66, 310-339), is fundamental. The Hellenists were more or less outsiders to the teaching enterprise ) Lehrbetrieb of the ( Aramaic-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 with Gerhardssons thesis that transmission of tradition was an independent Sitz im Leben: op. cit. (n. 81), 48 etc. Of course, the issue at hand was circumcision, not /92/ food laws; but both Acts 11.3 and the Apostolic Decree show that it was very hard to separate the two issues for long in

practice.
J. Jervell, op. cit. (n. 44) 136; cf. S.G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (1973), 152. Cf. H. Räisänen, "Legalism and Salvation by the Law", /94/ (S. Pedersen, ed., Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, 1980), 79 ff. That the story of the vision is secondary to the insight /95/ expressed in Acts 10.15b (11.9b) is recognized by Paschen, op. cit. 171 f.; he also notes that Paul received his idea of the cleanness of foods from that very tradition which is reflected in Acts 10.15b. It is not clear to me how Paschen manages to combine this notion with the other assumption that Paul appeals to Jesus tradition in Rom. 14. To be sure, Luke takes the message to be that all human /96/ beings are clean; the importance he attaches to the Decree shows that, for him, all foods were not clean, as far as Jewish Christians were concerned. This does not exclude the likelihood that originally the story of the vision was concerned with the food question. See H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (1963), 61 f. If we may connect the historical Peter with the vision /97/ story, this would be another indication that Papias statement on Mark is inaccurate. Cf. Müller, art. cit. (n. 91), 168-182. /98/ /99/ Against Haenchen, op. cit. 266; Westerholm, op. cit. 81 f. (see above, n. 45) /100/ On the possibility that bearers of pre-Markan traditions were acquainted with Q traditions see Laufen, op. cit. (n. 50). /101/ Thus e.g. Gnilka, op. cit. 278.

/93/

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

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 belong together with verse 5; it must be left for others to consider
whether it can in turn serve to strengthen that analysis. For the opposite view see n. 15. /104/ Thus I would not, in principle, "advise scepticism whenever 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 to a 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 do verses 6-7, but the point of Isa. 29-13 is not much different in the MT); cf. Westerholm, op. cit. 75-80. /105/ This is admitted by some advocates of the traditional view; e.g. HUbner, op. cit. 172. /106/ See above, nn. 2-3.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013