I turned in an interpretation of Mark 9:49-50 for Hermeneutics class today. This is the second project I’ve had like this where I was given a difficult, short passage of Scripture (Mark 9:49-50) to interpret. Using the rules of biblical interpretation I learned in class, I was to supposed to explain the meaning of each phrase/detail of the passage.
Disclaimer
Before I continue with a description of my experience working on the project, I suppose I should include a disclaimer. Anyone who has this assignment in the future students needs to realize that:
- My interpretation here is guaranteed to be cloudy enough that it won’t help you much.
- Indeed, even if I were to revise the paper in light of my professor’s comments, I am still highly likely guaranteed to be wrong in key interpretational questions anyway.
- The wealth of commentaries in the library collection should be more than sufficient to help you understand this passage. “Hardest verse in Mark” or not, this is a class project because it is attainable. More on that below.
Observations from the project
Interpretational doability
Although many commentators term Mark 9:49 “the most difficult verse” in the book, on the most demanding questions most of the commentators have a fairly uniform approach. The difficulty with this passage comes from grappling with the passage itself and exposing yourself to all the possible interpretations.
In many ways, perhaps the key difficulty for “secondary interpreters” (those who have the benefit of the commentator’s labour) is to be able to affirm the accuracy of the commentator’s interpretations. No commentator will claim a licensed interpretation of the passage, but the insights of each commentator combined with the others yields a helpful and likely accurate approach.
Text criticism and interpretation
One part of this project that drove me crazy was the insistence on interpreting Mark 9:49 in light of its textual variants. The phrase καί πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (translated “and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt” in the KJV) is contested on the basis of textual criticism, yet factors heavily into the interpretations offered by many commentators. Many commentators believe that it was an allusion to Lev. 2:13 added by a copyist in a manuscript margin, and thus not part of the original passage in Mark. Over time, the phrase was incorporated into the actual text of manuscripts based on this alleged addition.
Almost all the commentators based their interpretation on this contested phrase, noting that the connection with Leviticus throws light on an otherwise confusing statement. It seemed ludicrous to me that a copyist’s allusion which was (allegedly) added inappropriately to certain text families should sway every commentator’s interpretation. Continue reading →