Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7480
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:17 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:48 am
JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:41 pm


JW:
Ehrman's article I refer to was published in 2003. It helped fragment Christian Bible Scholarship's (CBS) opinion regarding 1:41 into "angry" likely original, "angry" a quality candidate and "angry" not a serious candidate for originality. The strength of Ehrman's argument is the "Matthew"/"Luke" reaction and The Difficult Reading Principle.

I have never seen a complete professional argument for "compassion". Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC) relies mainly on Manuscript evidence. Since there is only one Greek Manuscript with "angry" TTC concludes that "compassion" is original and is only then interested in what it considers a secondary debate, what is the strength of The Difficult Reading Principle here. Ehrman gives the related defenses of the UBS as:

1) Transcriptional -
  • 1. The Manuscripts have Jesus angry at 3:5 so this shows that Scribes were not resistant to showing Jesus as angry. The problem with this defense, as Ehrman points out, is that 3:5 has a good reason from a Scribe's standpoint, for Jesus to be angry, but 1:41 does not.

    2. The Aramaic words for "angry" and "compassionate" are very similar. Ehrman points out though that GMark was originally written and copied in Greek so this is not a reasonable explanation.
One issue here is that Codex Bezae (D) itself may have been influenced by a Syriac/Aramaic version of Mark.
See for example Aramaic influence on Bezae
Is the theory that Bezae derives only from an Aramaic version? Or is it that it derives from a combination of an Aramaic version and a Greek version?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1283
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:58 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IUXEWVH9BQ

JW:
Proctor wrote the detailed argument for "angry":

The "Western" text of Mark 1:41 : a case for the angry Jesus

which unfortunately only appears to be available in print at Baylor and DTS and is probably more closely guarded than David in Legion. It's like the old saying, Cops have the best dope, counter-missionaries have the best Christian arguments and Evangelicals have the best evidence for Skeptical readings. The Abstract gives a few more pieces of evidence for "angry" that apparently Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) blissfully ignored/denied for 2,000 years because it did not want to argue for "angry":

Document Preview The "Western" text of Mark 1:41: A case for the angry Jesus
textual tampering of the corrector of Codex Usserianus (itr1)
[Direct evidence of the key criterion of Direction of Change]
quotation practices of Romanus the Melodist
[c. 520]
Ephrem mentions Jesus anger toward the leper in his Commentary on the Diatessaron and in one of his Hymns on Paradise
[In addition to the Diatessaron, Ephrem is then secure as a witness to "anger". Since the extant Diatessaron has "compassion", another direct hit for Direction of Change supporting "anger".]

Courtesy of Ephrem we have a specific explanation for the change to "compassion". Ephrem's commentary indicates that the Diatessaron had "anger" but Ephrem himself describes Jesus as having compassion. Thus it is a short Puttristic to subsequent Patristic, based on Ephrem, converting Ephrem's commentary of "compassion" into (the) text. A phenomenon we have seen demonstrated many times, not by CBS but on this unholy Forum. Mystery solved.


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Post by iskander » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:44 am

This thread is very helpful in elucidating historical events such as : why was Jesus killed, why the Inquisition and why the Taliban.

The explanation I discovered reading this thread is that each one of these three events comes from the womb of the same bitch : they are all the people of the book !!!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by iskander » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:50 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:33 pm
JoeWallack wrote: minimum of External evidence combined with The Difficult Reading Principle has the potential to be decisive in determining likely original.
So, in your world of being hostile to the New Testament

a) the less actual evidence you have, and
b) the more absurd and inconsistent is the reading

the more likely it is to be the authentic autograph.

Bizarro criticism.

Steven
:cheers:
Mark 1:41
Anger or compassion.

'Compassion' is attested by the entire Greek tradition with the exception of the Greek column of thee Greco-Latin bilingual manuscript Codex Bezae .

In the mainstream reading Greek 'Compassion' is represented in every version but for a segment of the Old Latin ( consisting of a, ff, r, and Bezae's Latin column d) and a possible allusion in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, attributed to Ephrem.


Was Jesus angry? Was Jesus perceived to be angry by some of the witnesses ?

The argument for anger assumes that Jesus cannot possibly ever to have been angry , which is contrary to human nature. The argument is an assumption and it carries no merit.

Jesus is shown angry when he cleans the temple of profiteers and elsewhere.'

PS : This is anger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
By Scarsellino - bQHLstvakkK2yA at Google Cultural Institute maximum zoom level, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=22006955

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1283
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Morning

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:33 am

West End Texts
andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:48 am
JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:41 pm

JW:
Ehrman's article I refer to was published in 2003. It helped fragment Christian Bible Scholarship's (CBS) opinion regarding 1:41 into "angry" likely original, "angry" a quality candidate and "angry" not a serious candidate for originality. The strength of Ehrman's argument is the "Matthew"/"Luke" reaction and The Difficult Reading Principle.

I have never seen a complete professional argument for "compassion". Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC) relies mainly on Manuscript evidence. Since there is only one Greek Manuscript with "angry" TTC concludes that "compassion" is original and is only then interested in what it considers a secondary debate, what is the strength of The Difficult Reading Principle here. Ehrman gives the related defenses of the UBS as:

1) Transcriptional -
  • 1. The Manuscripts have Jesus angry at 3:5 so this shows that Scribes were not resistant to showing Jesus as angry. The problem with this defense, as Ehrman points out, is that 3:5 has a good reason from a Scribe's standpoint, for Jesus to be angry, but 1:41 does not.

    2. The Aramaic words for "angry" and "compassionate" are very similar. Ehrman points out though that GMark was originally written and copied in Greek so this is not a reasonable explanation.
One issue here is that Codex Bezae (D) itself may have been influenced by a Syriac/Aramaic version of Mark.
See for example Aramaic influence on Bezae

Andrew Criddle
JW:
Lorenz' related article is here:

Counting Witnesses for the Angry Jesus in 1:41

Most of his article deals with the External Western evidence. But the strength of the argument for "angry" specifically is "Matthew"/"Luke" and Ephrem, and generally The Difficult Reading Principle. Everyone agrees that the weakness of the argument for "angry" is the Manuscript evidence. His objective appears to be to try and reduce the quantitative weight of Bezae from 1 to something less than 1. Just like Snapp with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (16:8). What a Manuscript has is primary. The "why" is secondary. In general the explanation that a Greek Manuscript most likely had mainly Greek sources is the default. Lorenz' speculative and complicated argument here is a long way from undoing the default and again, would not make much difference to the "angry" argument. His enthusiasm here says more about him then Bezae.

Out of a 34 page article he devotes a few pages at the end to try and deal with The Difficult Reading Principle. His defense against the Transcriptional evidence is amazement that if "angry" is original it was completely replaced by "compassion" with no variation. A typical Apologetic Strawman. This does not directly deal with the underlying Transcriptional question = Is it more likely that a Scribe would change "angry" to "compassion" here than verses vice and how much more likely? In his conclusion he also changes the evidence that even he himself just presented in his own article. There is variation in replacement of "angry" by witnesses having neither word (I also doubt that all 1,600 Greek witnesses claimed have the exact same form and there is variation of words in the Versions). He also blissfully ignores that this paragraph fits the pattern of other Difficult readings in GMark where the likely edited word becomes relatively uniform. Also, in general, as I've mentioned, the witness for GMark in general is relatively late, providing not only more time for editing but more time to agree the editing. He completely ignores the Intrinsic evidence.


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Post by andrewcriddle » Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:34 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:17 am
andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:48 am

One issue here is that Codex Bezae (D) itself may have been influenced by a Syriac/Aramaic version of Mark.
See for example Aramaic influence on Bezae
Is the theory that Bezae derives only from an Aramaic version? Or is it that it derives from a combination of an Aramaic version and a Greek version?
There are 2 forms of this speculative idea.

Some scholars e.g. Chase have held that Bezae is a Greek text which has been assimilated to an early Syriac or Aramaic text.
Other scholars e.g. Torrey have held that a Greek text was translated into Aramaic and retranslated back into Greek to produce Bezae.

The link I provided tentatively supports the second option (as did FF Bruce).

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Morning

Post by John T » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:41 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:41 pm
John T wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:17 am
I read the arguments for "angry" but I don't recall the arguments against "pity".

So, why can't splanchnistheis (Mark 1:40) mean "moved with pity" instead of moved by anger?

Codex Sinaiticus uses "pity" not angry.

What is wrong with the Greek word for pity (4697)?

Sincerely,

John T
JW:
Ehrman's article I refer to was published in 2003. It helped fragment Christian Bible Scholarship's (CBS) opinion regarding 1:41 into "angry" likely original, "angry" a quality candidate and "angry" not a serious candidate for originality. The strength of Ehrman's argument is the "Matthew"/"Luke" reaction and The Difficult Reading Principle.

I have never seen a complete professional argument for "compassion". Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC) relies mainly on Manuscript evidence. Since there is only one Greek Manuscript with "angry" TTC concludes that "compassion" is original and is only then interested in what it considers a secondary debate, what is the strength of The Difficult Reading Principle here. Ehrman gives the related defenses of the UBS as:

1) Transcriptional -
  • 1. The Manuscripts have Jesus angry at 3:5 so this shows that Scribes were not resistant to showing Jesus as angry. The problem with this defense, as Ehrman points out, is that 3:5 has a good reason from a Scribe's standpoint, for Jesus to be angry, but 1:41 does not.

    2. The Aramaic words for "angry" and "compassionate" are very similar. Ehrman points out though that GMark was originally written and copied in Greek so this is not a reasonable explanation.
Not pointed out by Ehrman is that "angry' verses "compassion" is not just a Difficult Reading, it is a Very Difficult reading as the words are largely opposites and the picture of Jesus being angry with a leper for requesting healing is strongly against Scribes' image of Jesus. A very difficult reading with opposites supports intentional, such as "angry" to "compassion". But the TTC defense above is unintentional.

2) Intrinsic -
  • 1. No UBS defense.
For a current criticism of "angry", with even worse arguments against, see:

Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?
My question was not about what is wrong with "compassion" but "pity". :banghead:

I have several of Ehrman's books and have watched several of his lectures when he argues for "angry" but I don't ever recall him explaining why "pity" doesn't work.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7480
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Morning

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:36 pm

John T wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:41 pm
My question was not about what is wrong with "compassion" but "pity". :banghead:

I have several of Ehrman's books and have watched several of his lectures when he argues for "angry" but I don't ever recall him explaining why "pity" doesn't work.
"Had pity" and "took compassion" are alternate translations for the same Greek word: σπλαγχνισθεὶς. "Became angry" is ὀργισθεὶς. The other manuscript option is the omission of a word here at all.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1283
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Morning

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:00 pm

John T wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:41 pm
JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:41 pm
John T wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:17 am
I read the arguments for "angry" but I don't recall the arguments against "pity".

So, why can't splanchnistheis (Mark 1:40) mean "moved with pity" instead of moved by anger?

Codex Sinaiticus uses "pity" not angry.

What is wrong with the Greek word for pity (4697)?

Sincerely,

John T
JW:
Ehrman's article I refer to was published in 2003. It helped fragment Christian Bible Scholarship's (CBS) opinion regarding 1:41 into "angry" likely original, "angry" a quality candidate and "angry" not a serious candidate for originality. The strength of Ehrman's argument is the "Matthew"/"Luke" reaction and The Difficult Reading Principle.

I have never seen a complete professional argument for "compassion". Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC) relies mainly on Manuscript evidence. Since there is only one Greek Manuscript with "angry" TTC concludes that "compassion" is original and is only then interested in what it considers a secondary debate, what is the strength of The Difficult Reading Principle here. Ehrman gives the related defenses of the UBS as:

1) Transcriptional -
  • 1. The Manuscripts have Jesus angry at 3:5 so this shows that Scribes were not resistant to showing Jesus as angry. The problem with this defense, as Ehrman points out, is that 3:5 has a good reason from a Scribe's standpoint, for Jesus to be angry, but 1:41 does not.

    2. The Aramaic words for "angry" and "compassionate" are very similar. Ehrman points out though that GMark was originally written and copied in Greek so this is not a reasonable explanation.
Not pointed out by Ehrman is that "angry' verses "compassion" is not just a Difficult Reading, it is a Very Difficult reading as the words are largely opposites and the picture of Jesus being angry with a leper for requesting healing is strongly against Scribes' image of Jesus. A very difficult reading with opposites supports intentional, such as "angry" to "compassion". But the TTC defense above is unintentional.

2) Intrinsic -
  • 1. No UBS defense.
For a current criticism of "angry", with even worse arguments against, see:

Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?
My question was not about what is wrong with "compassion" but "pity". :banghead:

I have several of Ehrman's books and have watched several of his lectures when he argues for "angry" but I don't ever recall him explaining why "pity" doesn't work.

Sincerely,

John T
I'm Fooling You and You Don't Like It. It's Magic!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Morning

Post by iskander » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:34 am

John T wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:41 pm
...

My question was not about what is wrong with "compassion" but "pity". :banghead:

I have several of Ehrman's books and have watched several of his lectures when he argues for "angry" but I don't ever recall him explaining why "pity" doesn't work.

Sincerely,

John T
Most surviving manuscripts have σπλαγχνισθεὶς; a minority of manuscripts have ὀργισθεὶς ; and other manuscripts omit the comment on the emotional state of Jesus.

The problem that has engaged biblical Christians is to determine what really happened in Mark 1 :41, Specifically, the problem is to know the attitude of Jesus in 41.

Some Christian scholars say that it is ὀργισθεὶς the word which tell us the state of mind of Jesus, because it is an embarrassing word , and that word must be the first choice for the original manuscript

The majority of Christian scholars say it is σπλαγχνισθεὶς the word which tells others of the state of mind of Jesus because his action is showing a compassionate act and therefore it should be chosen for the canonical text notwithstanding the existence of alternative manuscripts .

Other manuscripts omit both ὀργισθεὶς and σπλαγχνισθεὶς and let the act of healing speak for itself.

Biblical scholars are desperate for any opportunity to discuss byzantine problems , and fanatics opposed to Christianity are happy to participate in this convenient theme as a good opportunity to pose as scholars when selling propaganda .

In the Christian doctrine Jesus is fully man, which makes anger when faced with the ugly Mosaic superstition against the Mosaic tyranny as likely as compassion for their victim.

It is for us to assess the meaning and importance of what Jesus did and by us I mean ordinary men and women, and exclude cheap propaganda as well as official doctrines.
Last edited by iskander on Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:14 am, edited 4 times in total.

Post Reply