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.
John2
Posts: 3234
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:06 pm

robert j wrote:

Casual readers of Mark's story in verses 1:40-45 would be very unlikely to make the connection of Mark's leper with Paul. So again, why do it? Mark was an exceedingly clever writer with a sly sense of humor. I think it was a respectful inside-joke that Mark found amusing. It would not be the only instance of sly characterizations in Mark's tale.

I wonder if this could have something to do with Mark's falling out with Paul, as per Acts 15:37-40:

Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left ...

I tend to give Acts more merit these days than others here seem to, and while there could be some spin going on here, I think this John Mark is the same Mark that Papias says wrote the gospel of Mark and followed Peter (like Barnabas does in Gal. 2:11-13).

So if there is anything to what robert j is saying, perhaps making Paul a leper has something to do with this falling out (in addition to the references that robert j mentions). And bearing in mind the idea that Mark followed Peter (who, along with Barnabas, sided with "the circumcision party" sent by James in Gal. 2), it's interesting that Jesus goes on to tell the leper to observe the Torah in 1:43-44:

Jesus promptly sent him away with a stern warning: “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering Moses prescribed for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”

So maybe it wasn't so much a "respectful inside-joke" but more of a "stern warning" like Jesus says.
The move about is all we do.

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

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

Post by robert j » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:44 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:40 am

I have to admit, your case for this Pauline interconnection is one of the best I have seen for any idea within hailing distance of the "super secret decoder ring" side of Marcan interpretation.
Thanks, I think ...
Last edited by robert j on Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Post by robert j » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:00 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:06 pm

I tend to give Acts more merit these days than others here seem to ...
You certainly give the tales and 2nd century traditions in Acts way, way more merit that I do.

John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:06 pm

... it's interesting that Jesus goes on to tell the leper to observe the Torah in 1:43-44:

Jesus promptly sent him away with a stern warning: “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering Moses prescribed for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”
I have a different take on this as well. In a follow-up post in the thread, “Mark’s ménage a trois with Miriam and Paul”, I commented on this portion of Mark's passage on the leper ---
robert j wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:52 am

... Jesus had already cleansed the leper, so why were the rituals of the priest still required? They weren’t said Mark --- Mark sent the leper to the priest as a polemic. The Greek phrase εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς in Mark 1:44 can readily be seen as meaning in this context “for a witness or testimony against them”. This interpretation is supported by Mark’s use of the very same phrase in verse 6:11, where the connotation as a polemic is clearly implied. Mark used the leper as a witness to the superiority of Jesus over the old Mosaic system.

Mark was promoting the superior authority of Jesus --- with his ability to cleanse immediately (Mark 1:42) --- as opposed to the old, long, drawn-out, and detailed Mosaic quarantine and cleansing process at the hands of the priests. (Leviticus 13 and 14).

And Mark is echoing Paul from 2 Corinthians --- the veil of “the old covenant” is “removed in Christ”. (2 Cor 3:10-16).
Last edited by robert j on Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

John2
Posts: 3234
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:40 pm

robert j wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:00 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:06 pm

I tend to give Acts more merit these days than others here seem to ...
You certainly give the tales and 2nd century traditions in Acts way, way more merit that I do.

That's because I suspect Acts was written c. 95 CE by the Epaphroditus Paul mentions in Php. 2:25 and 4:18 and that he was thus in a position to know some things about early Christianity.


I have a very different take on this as well. In a follow-up post in the thread, “Mark’s ménage a trois with Miriam and Paul”, I commented on this portion of Mark's passage on the leper ---
robert j wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:52 am

... Jesus had already cleansed the leper, so why were the rituals of the priest still required? They weren’t said Mark --- Mark sent the leper to the priest as a polemic. The Greek phrase εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς in Mark 1:44 can readily be seen as meaning in this context “for a witness or testimony against them”. This interpretation is supported by Mark’s use of the very same phrase in verse 6:11, where the connotation as a polemic is clearly implied. Mark used the leper as a witness to the superiority of Jesus over the old Mosaic system.

Mark was promoting the superior authority of Jesus --- with his ability to cleanse immediately (Mark 1:42) --- as opposed to the old, long, drawn-out, and detailed Mosaic quarantine and cleansing process at the hands of the priests. (Leviticus 13 and 14).

And Mark is echoing Paul from 2 Corinthians --- the veil of “the old covenant” is “removed in Christ”. (2 Cor 3:10-16).

I think MacDonald explains this passage well:

If Jesus were to heal the leper, he would necessarily expose the activity to the authorities, for it was the only cure that, according to Leviticus 14, required a demonstration of purity before a priest and the observance of an elaborate ritual, including bathing, shaving of the body, and complicated sacrifices.


https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... rk&f=false
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7360
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 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

robert j wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:44 pm
Thanks, I think....
The compliment was/is real. I am (rightly) suspicious of interpretations which posit unmarked, coded correspondences between characters and events in a text, on the one hand, and people and events purportedly in the author's purview, on the other. Your proposal is of that basic type, but it is not of the "super secret decoder ring" variety, and I think it is well worth considering. I wonder if you have ever considered writing it up as an article and getting it published in some venue.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1222
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Johnson and Johnson

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:58 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:47 am
JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:21 am
Johnson's main related claimed points:
  • 1) No direct early commentary on 1:41 that "anger" was a problem.

    2) No general reason to think that early on 1:41 with "anger" was a problem.
Regarding 1) No direct early commentary on 1:41 that "angry" was a problem. we have the following direct/near direct evidence that it was a problem:
  • 1 - Ephrem is a witness for "angry" and in his related commentary he repeatedly includes Jesus' supposed compassion in the pericope (I have faith that this was used by subsequent copyists to support the change to "compassion").

    2 -

Johnson is clever enough to deny that Ephrem is a witness (but imho his arguments seem weak)
4. Old Latin Witnesses

Of the three purported language groups of witnesses to ‘anger’, we have urged that Ephrem should be dismissed, and our sole Greek witness, Codex Bezae, is a Greek–Latin diglot. Thus, in discounting Ephrem, we find that all of the extant witnesses to ‘anger’ are connected with the Old Latin manuscript tradition.
JW:
Ahh, KK, always a pleasure. Ephrem here is out of order for me so, only for you:

Per Johnson (of course you would have to look at the Syriac for the best understanding but as near as I can tell spin is still on Europa with Adrian):
The passage in Ephrem’s commentary reads:

If you are willing, Lord, you can cleanse me. The formula is one of petition and
the word is one of fear. ‘That you are able to, I know, but whether you are
willing, I am not certain’. Therefore, our Lord showed the leper two things in
response to this double attitude: rebuke [ kaʾ̄taʾ̄] through his anger
[ bp̱ūrteh], and compassion [ raḥme] through his healing. For, ̄
in response to if you are willing, he was angry
[ ʾettp̱ır̄], and in response
to you can, he was healed … The leper said to him, Lord, if you are willing, you
can cleanse me. Through his anger [ bp̱ūrteh], the Lord showed that he
was healing without exception of persons. But, because the leper had believed
that if you are willing, you can, the Lord showed that he did not spurn this faith.
Moreover, the leper had seen that the priests were not cleansing the lepers, but
were burdening them by means of the prescriptions in the Law concerning
leprosy, and thus the service of the Law was belittled in the leper’s eyes.
Therefore, he said, If you are willing, you can cleanse me. The Lord was
angry [ ʾettp̱ır̄] with regard to this line of reasoning, and so he ordered
secondly, ‘Go, show yourself to the priests, and fulfill that Law which you are
despising’. The Lord also commanded him in this way, because the leper
had been thinking about him in this manner, because he had seen him relax
some elements of the Law. It is also said that the Lord was not angry [
ʾettp̱ır̄] with him, but with his leprosy. (.–)

JW:
Again, I'm primarily interested in what Ephrem says and secondarily interested in what Johnson says Ephrem says.

Witness:


With "compassion" =
40 And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.
Ephrem says that in direct response to the leper's request, Jesus was angry. We have the following reasons to think that "angry" was what Ephrem saw:
  • 1) Without "angry" in these verses there's no reason to think that "Mark's" Jesus was angry based on these verses.

    2) In general it would have been as surprising then as it is now to think that Jesus would have gotten angry in response to a healing request (without "angry" in the text).

    3) Having "compassion" in the text is pretty much whatever the opposite of angry is.
Johnson neglects to look at it this way (surprise) and instead argues that what follows shows that Jesus was angry and that is why Ephrem says Jesus was angry (not because the text had "angry"):
43 And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out,
"Strictly charged" = https://biblehub.com/greek/1690.htm
I snort (with the notion of coercion springing out of displeasure, anger, indignation, antagonism), express indignant displeasure with some one; I charge sternly.
"sent him out" [send him out. send him out.] = https://biblehub.com/greek/1544.htm
From ek and ballo; to eject (literally or figuratively) -- bring forth, cast (forth, out), drive (out), expel, leave, pluck (pull, take, thrust) out, put forth (out), send away (forth, out).
Johnson's argument has logic as both verbs are consistent with "anger" (it would be nice again if spin would show us compassion/anger and translate the Syriac). They are also consistent with "angry" in the text. Johnson says that Jesus' compassion was shown by the healing. The direct textual point/issue though is if Jesus is willing to heal and he answers by healing. The direct point/issue is not if Jesus has compassion.

We have the following reasons than to prefer "angry" over "compassion" from Ephrem:
  • 1) "Anger" fits more directly with Ephrem's commentary than "compassion".

    2) The following verses also support "anger" giving "anger" an overall support as being explicit in the text.

    3) It's easier to understand Ephrem as adding "compassion" to the text as his own commentary since the overall text shows an angry Jesus.

    4) The later angry related verbs are not normally translated as "angrily" in the Christian Bible. So why does Ephrem use the most negative description for Jesus? Unless the text explicitly said "angry".
In the bigger picture, if you accept that Ephrem is a witness for "angry" then:

1) It's also evidence that the Diatesseron had "angry".

2) It's also evidence that Tatian was for "angry".

3) It's also evidence that GMatthew/GLuke might have had "angry" originally.

Nota Ben = Further evidence is some Diatesserons lack either, just like GMatthew/GLuke.

Word.


Joseph

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

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

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

Post by robert j » Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:05 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

The compliment was/is real.

Your proposal ... is not of the "super secret decoder ring" variety, and I think it is well worth considering.
Thanks again, and for clarifying that.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

I am (rightly) suspicious of interpretations which posit unmarked, coded correspondences between characters and events in a text, on the one hand, and people and events purportedly in the author's purview, on the other.
If I am interpreting this correctly, it goes to the core of our very different approaches. That is, seeing the authors (Mark following Paul here) as the primary players with their creative use of the texts --- as opposed to granting a somewhat equal level of likelihood that the textual material was layered on top of the knowledge or memory of a recent historical figure.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

I wonder if you have ever considered writing it up as an article and getting it published in some venue.
I’ve moved this question to the “The Lounge” under the title “Venues for Articles on Early Christian History by Non-Scholars”.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5941

And I’ve posed a follow-on question to Ben, as well as to a wider audience, for those that may be interested in any responses, and for anyone that might have suggestions to offer.

Note for Forum “Guests” --- “The Lounge” seemed the most appropriate forum for the discussion, but it is only available to registered users.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7360
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 » Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:26 am

robert j wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

I am (rightly) suspicious of interpretations which posit unmarked, coded correspondences between characters and events in a text, on the one hand, and people and events purportedly in the author's purview, on the other.
If I am interpreting this correctly, it goes to the core of our very different approaches. That is, seeing the authors (Mark following Paul here) as the primary players with their creative use of the texts --- as opposed to granting a somewhat equal level of likelihood that the textual material was layered on top of the knowledge or memory of a recent historical figure.
Not sure about this; it depends on what you are seeking to emphasize. If by "recent historical figure" you mean Jesus, then issues of his actual historicity surface only occasionally for me. My principal claim for Paul in this respect is that he regarded his Jesus as a recent historical (albeit obscure) figure: that Paul, in fact, viewed his Jesus as the/a Messiah figure prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures to return at the turn of the ages. This claim regarding Paul depends upon certain passages being present in the original versions of the Pauline epistles; if we still have the original epistles pretty much as they stand, then I regard the claim to be as certainly true as virtually any claim about ancient texts can hope to be; if not, then of course things become more complicated, depending upon which passages are genuine and which are not. In either case, however, Jesus actually being a recent historical figure is a separate matter. Paul (and others) thinking that he was, when really he was not (his personage being a culmination of scriptural myth and hopeful legend), is very much a live option for me.

I am not sure to what extent this response answers your implied question.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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

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

Post by robert j » Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:44 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:26 am
robert j wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:01 pm

I am (rightly) suspicious of interpretations which posit unmarked, coded correspondences between characters and events in a text, on the one hand, and people and events purportedly in the author's purview, on the other.
If I am interpreting this correctly, it goes to the core of our very different approaches. That is, seeing the authors (Mark following Paul here) as the primary players with their creative use of the texts --- as opposed to granting a somewhat equal level of likelihood that the textual material was layered on top of the knowledge or memory of a recent historical figure.
Not sure about this; it depends on what you are seeking to emphasize. If by "recent historical figure" you mean Jesus, then issues of his actual historicity surface only occasionally for me. My principal claim for Paul in this respect is that he regarded his Jesus as a recent historical (albeit obscure) figure: that Paul, in fact, viewed his Jesus as the/a Messiah figure prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures to return at the turn of the ages. This claim regarding Paul depends upon certain passages being present in the original versions of the Pauline epistles; if we still have the original epistles pretty much as they stand, then I regard the claim to be as certainly true as virtually any claim about ancient texts can hope to be; if not, then of course things become more complicated, depending upon which passages are genuine and which are not. In either case, however, Jesus actually being a recent historical figure is a separate matter. Paul (and others) thinking that he was, when really he was not (his personage being a culmination of scriptural myth and hopeful legend), is very much a live option for me.

I am not sure to what extent this response answers your implied question.
Yes. That certainly helps me to understand your thoughts and position. I suspect we will have more opportunities to delve into these issues at another time in another thread.

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

Re: Johnson and Johnson

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:46 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:58 pm
The passage in Ephrem’s commentary reads:

... For, ̄in response to if you are willing, he was angry [ ʾettp̱ır̄], and in response to you can, he was healed …
Ephrem says that in direct response to the leper's request, Jesus was angry. We have the following reasons to think that "angry" was what Ephrem saw:
...
We have the following reasons than to prefer "angry" over "compassion" from Ephrem:
  • 1) "Anger" fits more directly with Ephrem's commentary than "compassion".

    2) The following verses also support "anger" giving "anger" an overall support as being explicit in the text.

    3) It's easier to understand Ephrem as adding "compassion" to the text as his own commentary since the overall text shows an angry Jesus.

    4) The later angry related verbs are not normally translated as "angrily" in the Christian Bible. So why does Ephrem use the most negative description for Jesus? Unless the text explicitly said "angry".
In the bigger picture, if you accept that Ephrem is a witness for "angry" then:

1) It's also evidence that the Diatesseron had "angry".

2) It's also evidence that Tatian was for "angry".

3) It's also evidence that GMatthew/GLuke might have had "angry" originally.

Agreed. Theerfore I said
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:47 am
(but imho his arguments seem weak)

Furthermore
JoeWallack wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:58 pm
The passage in Ephrem’s commentary reads:
...
It is also said that the Lord was not angry [ʾettp̱ır̄] with him, but with his leprosy.
It appears that Ephrem was aware of a widespread discussion of Jesus' anger in these verses with different interpretations about the cause of the anger. Without the explicit mention in Mark 1:41, such a discussion is difficult to imagine.

Post Reply