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.
james_C
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:14 am

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

Post by james_C » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:50 am

i am sure i read in misquoting jesus that ehrman gave an argument why "pity" does not work. he says that the way jesus handles the guy after healing was not with "kids gloves"

i don't know if i am quoting ehrman accurately but thats what i remember.

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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:55 am

james_C wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:50 am
i am sure i read in misquoting jesus that ehrman gave an argument why "pity" does not work. he says that the way jesus handles the guy after healing was not with "kids gloves"

i don't know if i am quoting ehrman accurately but thats what i remember.
It is only an opinion.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1111
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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:32 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
Thanks Ben,

I went to the O.P. link: Evangelical Textual Criticism. It claims to be; "A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology."

I read the argument and agree that ὀργισθείς is actually the lectio facilior, and that the internal evidence is strongly in favor of σπλαγχνισθείς. My concern is not about Ehrman's flimsy theory based on an outlier manuscript that is filled with scribal errors but rather the reason for the preference of "compassion" over "pity".

I understand that the nuances in translating Greek into English can be very tricky and the difference between compassion and pity is an excellent example. However, I still haven't heard why "pity" does not make more sense than "compassion".

To me, mercy out of pity makes more sense than mercy out of compassion.

Can someone parse the Greek words for me and explain why one is better than the other?

ὀργισθεὶς (3709)
σπλαγχνισθεὶς (4697)
ἠλέησα (1633)

Thanks in advance.

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: 7360
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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:11 am

I think it is simply a translational preference. I cannot read the minds of the translators, but "pity" and "compassion" certainly overlap in English:

pit·y
ˈpidē
noun
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others
https://www.google.com/search?q=pity+de ... e&ie=UTF-8

com·pas·sion
kəmˈpaSHən
noun
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others
https://www.google.com/search?q=pity+de ... definition

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

robert j
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Mark's Leper

Post by robert j » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:06 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:15 am
robert j wrote:I agree with your conclusion that "with anger" is the more original reading here. However,
JoeWallack wrote:The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith.
Just how much faith did the leper show? It seems mixed at best, having faith that Jesus could heal him, but expressing some doubt that Jesus would be willing.

And a leper comes to Him, imploring Him and kneeling down, and saying to Him, "If You are willing, You are able to cleanse me." (Mark 1:40)

To the Reader, the leper is being described as being humble, cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt. "Mark's" (author) Jesus is insulted at the supposed questioning of Jesus' willingness to heal. This is primarily about Jesus' reaction ...

... This is all a preQue to Paul
I agree with your suggestion here. For the casual reader, Mark needed a plausible reason for the anger of Jesus so he crafted his tale to show the leper expressing doubt about Jesus’ willingness to heal.

But I have another opinion on the primary reason for the anger of Jesus here. Mark was following his source materials --- Paul, and along with Paul, Numbers 12.

In Numbers 12, the leprosy is directly associated with “the anger of the Lord’s wrath”.

I have characterized the wider associations here ---

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1451&p=33090#p33090

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:13 am

james_C wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:50 am
i am sure i read in misquoting jesus that ehrman gave an argument why "pity" does not work. he says that the way jesus handles the guy after healing was not with "kids gloves"

i don't know if i am quoting ehrman accurately but thats what i remember.
James,

Although I did read, "Misquoting Jesus", I don't have a copy on hand to cross check Ehrman's reasons. Likewise, what you recall in the book sounds about the same as I remember it. Thanks.

Nevertheless, I think I worked it out.

σπλαγχνισθεὶς (4697)

The parsing code in ESV is VPNSMAD = Verb, Participle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine, Aorist, Deponent.

Pity (tender mercy) reads better than (angry) compassion.

Either way I don't see how Ehrman justifies his claim in his debate with Dr. James White (1:07-1:08 mark) that: "This is a big deal here and these differences matter."...Bart Ehrman

https://youtu.be/moHInA9fAsI

Even so, it is up to you Mr. Ehrman to prove it and not up to me to disprove it.

Sincerely,

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

Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

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

Post by Solo » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:43 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:29 am
JW:
Summary of the argument for Angry:
.......

INTERNAL =
  • The Difficult Reading Principle
    • Transcriptional
      • Offensive
        Very Difficult Reading, especially with the choice between "angry" and "compassion". Possibly the most difficult reading.
    • Intrinsic
      • Offensive
        The emotion of anger by Jesus frames the Galilean Healing Ministry and is a demonstrated literary technique of "Mark". Undisputed angry Jesus at 3:5. "Mark" never shows Jesus as compassionate during healing. Context also matches as 1:41 & 3:5 both involve the issue of breaking the Ritual Law in order to heal. These stories also frame the six consecutive Conflict stories.
JW:
There are a number of important related points to make here regarding Textual Criticism. Perhaps the most important one is that Manuscript support is inversely related to the degree of Difficult Reading and this relationship can be extreme. In the case above we have one extant Greek manuscript for an extremely difficult likely original reading. This projects to the possibility that there are likely original readings, extremely difficult readings, with no extant Manuscript support.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
I don't think that "angry" Jesus is a feature of only the Galilean ministry. Jesus is on a short fuse throughout Mark's narrative and this appears to have a literary purpose: Beside 3:5 - which agree is thematically closest casus similis to 1:41 - there is also Jesus snapping after being touched by the woman he heals (5:30), comparing Peter to Satan (8:33), lashing at his disciples at not being able faith-heal an epileptic boy (9:19), and again for a different reason at 10:14, then losing it with the fig tree and finally having the "temple" tantrum. I have long ago convinced myself that Mark did this on purpose to portray Jesus as that of a wild, unpredictable man, easily mistaken for a demoniac or one with cahoots with Beelzebul ("demons" instantly recognize him) - which of course is how outsiders, including his family perceive him.

So, FWIW an "angry Jesus" healing a leper who then disobeys him and causes trouble for his benefactor by praising him everywhere publicly makes a lot of sense to me. I read it as a parable on an episode of hypermania which has surprising health benefits (eg. clearing of eczemas, which were conflated with Hansen's as "lepra" in antiquity). The "cured" man babbling about his cure everywhere - despite being told not to - is a transparent take on glossolalia, or pressure of speech which manics (or pneumatics if you want) experience in their revelries. (Jesus' vain attempt to stop the ebullient praise of himself is repeated in 7:36). Mark's ministry of Jesus gives an impression of someone who himself was a healer or "therapon" and observed closely behaviors and symptoms of this common challenge - to physicians, also!

Best,
Jiri

Best,
Jiri

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:59 pm

.
The following is not a decisive thought, just an addition to Joe’s arguments about 1) Mark’s word usage and 2) the context, in which a word occurs.

1) Beyond the verse 1:41 Mark used the verb σπλαγχνίζομαι (splagchnizomai - moved with compassion/ filled with pity) three times and always in the grammar construction

verb + preposition “ἐπὶ” + object in accusative (“ἐπ'” and “ἐφ'” are forms of “ἐπὶ” before a rough or a smooth breathing)

Mark 6:34 he felt compassion for them (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς)

Mark 8:2 I feel compassion for the people (Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον)

Mark 9:22 have compassion on us (σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς)

Matthew used σπλαγχνίζομαι (splagchnizomai) five times, in two cases without preposition and object (18:27, 20:34) and in another case with the preposition “περὶ“ and the object in genitive (9:36). The two other verses are Markan material with the preposition “ἐπὶ”. Luke used the verb three times, in two cases without preposition and object (10:33, 15:20) and in one verse as Mark with the preposition “ἐπὶ”, but with the object in dative (7:13).

The use of σπλαγχνίζομαι (splagchnizomai) with the presposition “ἐπὶ” and an object in accusative seems therefore to be a typical and deliberate Markan word usage.


2) The word occurs in the verses 6:34 (feeding of the 5000), 8:2 (feeding of the 4000) and 9:22 (healing the demoniac boy) in stories which have some similar elements: Jesus, the disciples, a great crowd and a “failure” or misunderstanding of the disciples.

6:37 But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?”

8:3 And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.” 4 And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”

9:17 And someone from the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a spirit that makes him mute. 18 And whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid. So I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.”

At first glance it seems that the first two stories have a completely different issue, but the Syrophoenician woman pericope teaches that the two things (giving the bread and casting out demons) are – perhaps in a mystical way – equivalents.

7:26 And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”


3) Naturally, the major variant in the mss for Mark 1:41 (σπλαγχνίζομαι without preposition and object) could be an exception, but it looks a bit suspicious to me that the word occurs in a different word usage and in a story without the elements mentioned above.

I tend to think that for Mark the opposite of compassion/pity is not anger, but the hardening of the heart.

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 25, 2017 3:55 am

I have read somewhere that in a phrase like σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας the action described by the aorist participle finds its natural completion in the action of the verb when the aorist expresses feeling.

ὀργισθείς : in Matt 18:34 the handing over of the man to the tortures is a natural outcome of the master's anger.
σπλαγχνισθεὶς : in Mk 9:22 in this case the act of healing, forgiving, or helping, is a natural outcome and expression of compassion.


NB. The manuscript D contains a large number of errors. In Mk 1:43 there is an unusual word ἐμβριμησάμενος ( warn sternly) . It is possible that someone tried to explain this by writing ὀργισθείς in the margin of his manuscript, and that a later scribe wrongly inserted in Mk 1:41.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:04 am

John T wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:13 am
james_C wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:50 am
i am sure i read in misquoting jesus that ehrman gave an argument why "pity" does not work. he says that the way jesus handles the guy after healing was not with "kids gloves"

i don't know if i am quoting ehrman accurately but thats what i remember.
James,

Although I did read, "Misquoting Jesus", I don't have a copy on hand to cross check Ehrman's reasons. Likewise, what you recall in the book sounds about the same as I remember it. Thanks.

Nevertheless, I think I worked it out.

σπλαγχνισθεὶς (4697)

The parsing code in ESV is VPNSMAD = Verb, Participle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine, Aorist, Deponent.

Pity (tender mercy) reads better than (angry) compassion.

Either way I don't see how Ehrman justifies his claim in his debate with Dr. James White (1:07-1:08 mark) that: "This is a big deal here and these differences matter."...Bart Ehrman

https://youtu.be/moHInA9fAsI

Even so, it is up to you Mr. Ehrman to prove it and not up to me to disprove it.

Sincerely,

John T
I took the time to get a copy of "Misquoting Jesus" to find out exactly why Erhman will not accept "pity" over "angry".
You have to skip around in his book as well as go to his footnotes to understand.

Truns out that Erhman has no problem with "pity". His point was to show how church propaganda might be responsible for a deliberate edit or omission of the Greek word for pity in the Codex Bezae in order to make it easier for pagans to convert to Christianity.

That during the time the Bezae was written..."authors from this period who insist that the gods do not get "angry," as this is a human emotion induced by frustration...But the Christian God, too, was above any kind of peevishness." ....Misquoting Jesus pg. 201.

By changing angry to compassion the pagans would then be able to accept Jesus' emotion as entirely appropriate for a divinity.
Compassion yes, angry no.

Interesting theory but Ehrman provides no convincing arguments other than to lend support to his hobby horse that the Bible is not inerrant.

Nothing new here. :cheers:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply