Text:

Instead of the masculine participle katharizōn ‘cleansing’ (which modifies ‘Jesus’) of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has the neuter participle katharizon ‘cleansing’ (which modifies pan to exōthen eisporeuomenon ‘everything which goes in from without’ of v. 18).

Exegesis:

hoti ‘because.’

koilian (only here in Mark) ‘stomach,’ ‘belly.’

kai eis ton aphedrōna ekporeuetai ‘and goes on out (of the stomach) into the privy.’

aphedrōn (only here in Mark) ‘privy,’ ‘latrine’; where the word may be offensive, synonyms may be used (Manson ‘sewer,’ Moffatt ‘drain,’ Williams ‘waste’), or the term be altogether avoided (Revised Standard Version ‘passes on,’ Goodspeed ‘is disposed of,’ The Modern Speech New Testament ‘passes away’).

katharizōn panta ta brōmata ‘cleansing all foods.’ It is conceded by nearly all commentators and translators that this verbal clause is an additional comment by the evangelist himself, explaining the significance of the words of Jesus. In the correct text the masculine participle katharizōn ‘cleansing’ modifies ‘he’ (i.e. Jesus), and is a participle of manner, ‘In this way he cleansed….’

katharizō (cf. 1.40) either ‘make clean’ or ‘declare clean.’ ‘Make clean’ is a causative, ‘to cause to be clean,’ not in the sense of manufacturing or cleansing, but in the meaning ‘declaring clean’ or ‘establishing as clean.’ The comment of the evangelist is: ‘In this manner Jesus made clean for us Christians all food.’

brōma (only here in Mark) ‘food.’

Translation:

It must in some instances he rendered as ‘food,’ since the indefinite referent would be misinterpreted.

Not … but may be related to two verbs, ‘the food does not enter his heart but it enters his stomach.’

This contrast between the ‘heart’ and the ‘stomach’ cannot be maintained in some languages, e.g. Farefare, in which the stomach, not the heart, is the psychological center of the personality and the seat of the affections. Accordingly, one must say ‘the food does not enter into his very life, but it goes on through his stomach.’

While in some languages one must be careful so as not to employ some vulgar term in speaking of defecation, in other languages the people will react unfavorably to any apparent prudishness as being either incomprehensible or annoying. Accordingly, in some instances the translation is literally ‘goes out of the rectum’ or ‘goes out when one squats.’ In any case the translation must reflect indigenous usage, with sensitivity to normal patterns of expression.

It is most important that translators not follow Textus Receptus in the last clause of this verse, for it not that which goes into the privy which purifies all foods, but Jesus who declared all foods fit to eat. The resulting translations may parallel the following: ‘in this way he said, All foods are good to eat’ (Southern Subanen), ‘by these words he said, All food is good’ (Farefare), ‘when he said this, he declared that all foods could be eaten’ (Southern Bobo Madaré), ‘in saying this he purified all food’ (Barrow Eskimo), ‘thus he spoke-cleansed all food’ (Copainalá Zoque).

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .