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
JoeWallack
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

On The Road To Jerusalem

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:14 pm

On The Road To Jerusalem

JW:
I think this Thread has established by now that "angry" is likely original to 1:41. For all those who have not
been following closely/need points sharply explained, the best evidence is as follows:
  • 1) Ehrman's analysis of the surrounding Internal evidence.

    2) The Transcriptional evidence of "Matthew"/"Luke".

    3) And as the Brits say, the cruncher, the emotion of angry at the beginning and ending of Jesus' supposed
    Galilean Ministry, is a demonstrated literary technique of the author.
I'm increasingly thinking that Secret Mark is original GMark. Relevant to this thread is Jesus' anger in
Secret Mark:

Secret Mark Fragments
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb.
I note with interest that this is at the beginning of The Way to Jerusalem:

10
32 And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him,
And at the end of the way to Jerusalem:

11
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs.

14 And he answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it.

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves;

16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.
11:16 looks like a reference to Romans 9:
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
Upon arrival in Jerusalem the text describes Jesus as angry. So if Secret Mark is original Jesus is angry at the beginning and ending (with some stretching) of The Way to Jerusalem. The offending word "angry" though is not in GMark here, even though as demonstrated above, Jesus is described as angry. Was the concluding "angry" in Secret Mark?

Nota Ben = I'm adding a new feature to my posts in dishonor of Donald Trump/Neil Godfree. A requirement that I include at the end the one best piece of contra evidence. The primary disputed claim I make here is that "Mark" (author) deliberately used an inclusio technique of using the same word at the beginning and ending of connected narrative in order to give that narrative an emotional flavor. "Mark" may have done this in places without explicitly using the offending word and that could explain its occurrence in rare Manuscripts. A few manuscripts add "angry" to 1:41 because everyone would agree that the surrounding text describes Jesus as angry.


Joseph


The Combination of Extreme Criticism of Israel & Avoidance of Criticism of Palestinian Terrorism

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On The Road To Jerusalem

Post by rakovsky » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:12 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:14 pm


JW:
I think this Thread has established by now that "angry" is likely original to 1:41. For all those who have not
been following closely/need points sharply explained, the best evidence is as follows:
  • 1) Ehrman's analysis of the surrounding Internal evidence.

    2) The Transcriptional evidence of "Matthew"/"Luke".

    3) And as the Brits say, the cruncher, the emotion of angry at the beginning and ending of Jesus' supposed
    Galilean Ministry, is a demonstrated literary technique of the author.
...
I'm increasingly thinking that Secret Mark is original GMark. Relevant to this thread is Jesus' anger in
Secret Mark:
Joseph,
In canonical Mark, Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem supposedly to meet his fate, and in the Temple he performs the cleansing and is angry because the moneylenders etc. made the Temple a den of thieves.

In Morton Smith's (probably forged) "Secret Mark" passage #2, on a Bethany detour to Jerusalem, Jesus rejects women, with no explanation of why, and in passage #1 the woman asks Jesus for help, the disciples rebuke the woman, Jesus becomes angry (due to the woman IMO) - as opposed to already being angry (as part of an angry journey), and then goes and helps up the young man in the tomb. So it's not like a single "angry" journey to Jerusalem. Instead, it's like he rejects women from his secretive cult in "Secret Mark".

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Anger Management

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:53 pm

I'm No Good

JW:
Verse Who Is Jesus Angry At?
1
41 And being moved with compassion [anger], he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.
Jewish commoner
3
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.
Pharisees & Herodians
Secret Mark [10]
And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb.
Disciples
11
14 And he answered and said unto it [cursed], No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it.
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves;
16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.
Chief priests & Scribes

Note that with the addition of Secret Mark Jesus is angry at all the major fool groups in GMark's Underverse:
  • 1) Jewish commoner.

    2) Pharisees & Herodians

    3) Disciples (not much doubt that it's the Disciples here).

    4) Chief priests & Scribes
And Jesus is not angry with the Romans or Gentiles (more evidence that GMark was composed in Rome I think). Jesus
being explicitly "angry" with the Disciples would be a difficult reading and a good reason for exorcism but
the mano El Mano would be a very difficult reading and the combined pericope, Jesus angry at his disciples and
manplaning with a sometimes naked man through the night with gaping, would have been, unlike the
imaginary figs, ripe for plucking (from the text).

It is looking like Secret Mark is original here or at least has a base from original GMark that has been exorcised
from extant GMark.

Trump/Godfree Counterpoint = There is no explicit "angry" with the Chief Priests who you would think Jesus would have
been the angriest with.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man. Mark1:41 Was Jesus Angry?

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:01 pm

Textual Healing's Good For Jews

JW:
I've found a professionally written article concluding "compassion" as original here:

"Anger Issues: Mark 1.41 in Ephrem the Syrian, the Old Latin Gospels and Codex Bezae," NTS 63 (2017): 183-202
Nathan C . Johnson


After sampling the article I deduce that Johnson is Baptist, Southern Baprtist, before the heavy reign of Jesus. Seriously, the article is a good example of Apologetics where the key is continue to change the standard for a category of evidence and then posturing complete success/failure.

To his credit Johnson points out that the following English (US) Translations now have "angry", CEB, ERV, NIV & LEB:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... V;LEB;NRSV

NRSV, probably the best Christian English translation, has "angry" as a footnote.

I think this Thread cumulatively already has the best article written on the subject and in this Thread I will deconstruct Johnson's argument. You can find a summary of my argument for "Angry" as original at my Skeptical Textual Criticism Blog:

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

The best evidence for "angry" as original is in general The Difficult Reading Principle and specifically The Transcriptional component so I'll start with Johnson's attempt to discredit it.


Joseph

Burg, Soros and the ‘Jew-niversal.’

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Johnson!

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:21 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXqNc5DGXU

JW:
Regarding The Difficult Reading Principle Johnson concludes:

"Anger Issues: Mark 1.41 in Ephrem the Syrian, the Old Latin Gospels and Codex Bezae," NTS 63 (2017): 183-202
Nathan C . Johnson

. Lectio difficilior potior
...
To conclude, the argument put forward for ὀργισθείς[angry] as the lectio difficilior is
circular: the textual witness was purportedly changed because the word was offensive,
and the word is ostensibly offensive because the textual witness was changed.
Conversely, what evidence we possess demonstrates that Jesus’
anger was not problematic for many readers in antiquity, and was even increased
by some. Therefore, unless better corroborative evidence can be produced,
arguments that ὀργισθείς is the lectio difficilior are necessarily circular and
should be rejected.
Summary of Johnson's argument above = "Angry" at 1:41 in the early centuries would not generally have been a Difficult Reading for Copyists.

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 - As I have shown in this Thread the only significant change that GMatthew makes when copying the story is to exorcise "angry".

    3 - As I have shown in this Thread the only significant change that GLuke makes when copying the story is to exorcise "angry".
Regarding 2) No general reason to think that early on 1:41 with "anger" was a problem. we have the following general evidence that it was a problem:
  • 1 - The common sense that negative descriptions of Jesus would have been a problem for early Christians.

    2 - The extant evidence that in general copyists exorcised difficult readings.

    3 - The extant evidence that GMark was in general considered difficult (I still think "The Name Of The Rose" should have been looking for Origen's "lost" commentary on GMark).

    4) The extant evidence that the earlier evidence for 1:41 is more likely to support "angry" than the later.
Nota Ben = Johnson's main detailed effort here to conclude that early Patristics were okay with "angry" at 1:41 is to make speculative arguments indirectly related to Patristic commentary. For his first effort he cites Ambrose and notes that he is evidence for "compassion" but if his text said "angry" he would have... This is just symptomatic of his inability to find quality evidence for the conclusion he wants but I'm not going to discuss his related attempts in detail because my primary objective is to judge what is likely original to 1:41 and not to demonstrate that Johnson is wrong.


Joseph

http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogsp ... Criticism

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

Re: Johnson!

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » 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.

davidmartin
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:12 pm

Hebrew original?
Compassion - חמלה
Anger - חֵמָה

Just drop a Lamed..

IMO a Hebrew original (I mean proto-whatever sources) is totally 100% logical
In Israel Aramaic was shunned for holy texts and Greek would be useless
Hebrew would give legitimacy to new writings

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

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

Post by Martin Klatt » Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:45 am

---
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

robert j
Posts: 747
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 9:37 am

Martin Klatt wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:45 am

I can't believe nobody else sees these mock healings for what they are.
I can’t believe nobody else sees Mark’s leper as a respectful parody of Paul.
JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:01 pm

The best evidence for "angry" as original is in general The Difficult Reading Principle and specifically The Transcriptional component so I'll start with Johnson's attempt to discredit it.
I think the best evidence for "angry" as original is Mark’s use of Paul --- and more specifically Numbers 12 --- as source material for his passage on the leper in Mark 1:40-45.

Mark’s presentation of an angry Jesus has a clear, text-based solution. If Mark used Numbers 12 as source material for this passage, then Jesus’ anger would be a direct use of the relevant passage in Numbers where the leprosy is directly related with “The anger of the Lord’s wrath” (Numbers 12:9-10).

I think the evidence for “anger” as original is relatively straightforward in the solution I suggest here. However, grasping the complex inter-relationships between Mark and his source material from Paul, Numbers, and Jeremiah takes a significant amount of work and study. But I think the effort is well worth it.

I have demonstrated in some detail those inter-relationships in the OP in this link --- “Mark’s ménage a trois with Miriam and Paul” --- I have recently added more arguments and edits ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1451

For the detailed arguments see the OP in the link, but here are some brief comments including a bit from that OP ---

I think that Paul served as the inspiration, as the model for the fictive figure of Mark's leper in a clever yet respectful parody.

Sure, I clearly recognize the first response by most to this suggestion would be “No Way!”

Why would a follower of Paul present Paul as a leper of all things? Well, first of all in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, Paul himself self-identified with the leprous ektroma from the story in Numbers 12 because he persecuted the assembly of God. And like the leprous Miriam in Numbers 12 who was ignorant and sinned but was eventually cleansed by the grace of God, Paul was cleansed by the grace of God --- as was Mark's leper cleansed by the grace of Jesus.

One might wonder how Paul could claim to have been chosen from the womb (Gal. 1:15) and also self-identify as an ektroma, as a miscarriage, as an abortion? Paul derived his story of having been chosen from the womb from Jeremiah 1:4-5 (LXX). And just like Jeremiah, it was later in life when Paul was called by the grace of God to work among the Gentiles (Jeremiah 1:6-10, LXX; Gal. 1:15-16).

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.

The complex inter-relationships may be easier to grasp if the process is briefly described. Paul first used Numbers 12 and Jeremiah to help craft his backstory. Then, the author of GMark --- as an Paulinist insider knowing that Paul used Numbers 12 and Jeremiah --- used Paul's backstory, and Numbers 12, and Jeremiah to craft his tale of the healing of the leper, with Paul as the model for the leper.

I think it's a serious mistake to underestimate Paul's creative and generative use of the scriptures, and Mark's use and knowledge of Paul, and Mark's use of the scriptures, and Mark's cleverness.

Are all the inter-connections here just coincidences? Not likely.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7596
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 10:40 am

robert j wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:37 am
I have demonstrated in some detail those inter-relationships in the OP in this link --- “Mark’s ménage a trois with Miriam and Paul” --- I have recently added more arguments and edits ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1451

For the detailed arguments see the OP in the link, but here are some brief comments including a bit from that OP ---

I think that Paul served as the inspiration, as the model for the fictive figure of Mark's leper in a clever yet respectful parody.

Sure, I clearly recognize the first response by most to this suggestion would be “No Way!”

Why would a follower of Paul present Paul as a leper of all things? Well, first of all in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, Paul himself self-identified with the leprous ektroma from the story in Numbers 12 because he persecuted the assembly of God. And like the leprous Miriam in Numbers 12 who was ignorant and sinned but was eventually cleansed by the grace of God, Paul was cleansed by the grace of God --- as was Mark's leper cleansed by the grace of Jesus.

One might wonder how Paul could claim to have been chosen from the womb (Gal. 1:15) and also self-identify as an ektroma, as a miscarriage, as an abortion? Paul derived his story of having been chosen from the womb from Jeremiah 1:4-5 (LXX). And just like Jeremiah, it was later in life when Paul was called by the grace of God to work among the Gentiles (Jeremiah 1:6-10, LXX; Gal. 1:15-16).

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.

The complex inter-relationships may be easier to grasp if the process is briefly described. Paul first used Numbers 12 and Jeremiah to help craft his backstory. Then, the author of GMark --- as an Paulinist insider knowing that Paul used Numbers 12 and Jeremiah --- used Paul's backstory, and Numbers 12, and Jeremiah to craft his tale of the healing of the leper, with Paul as the model for the leper.

I think it's a serious mistake to underestimate Paul's creative and generative use of the scriptures, and Mark's use and knowledge of Paul, and Mark's use of the scriptures, and Mark's cleverness.

Are all the inter-connections here just coincidences? Not likely.
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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply