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: 1192
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Let's Dance

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:12 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
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)
JW:
I agree that you agreed. I normally only respond when I disagree but you are far from normal.
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.
JW:
Good one.

That's the type of fine discovery a lawyer would make.



Joseph

https://vridar.org/responding-to-adl-propaganda/

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Try Benedicto, I Really Try. But When I See That Anger Does Not Mean Anger...

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:06 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0B8wOtR3Y

JW:
The next best evidence for "angry" after the Transcriptional part of The Difficult Reading Principle is the Inscriptional part of The Difficult Reading Principle, specifically for what is near the verse in question. Which does the near in total better support, "anger" or "compassion"? As previously noted in this holy Thread, the near only has explicit support for "anger":

1:43

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology Commentary
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj -
1690 [e] embrimēsamenos ἐμβριμησάμενος having warned V-APM-NMS Strong negative emotion, often associated with anger
846 [e] autō αὐτῷ him, PPro-DM3S -
2112 [e] euthys εὐθὺς immediately Adv -
1544 [e] exebalen ἐξέβαλεν he sent away V-AIA-3S The meaning is to drive/cast out. This is the word used for demon launching. Again, strong negative emotion.
846 [e] auton αὐτόν, him, PPro-AM3S -

JW:
This is an important part of Ehrman's argument and Johnson does not address it. As noted previously Johnson does try to use the angry verbs here to avoid concluding that Ephrem saw "angry" in the text. W?

W: That's some weird shit.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:09 am

JW:
Order of evidence for "angry":
  • 1) Transcriptional

    2) Internal evidence - near verbs.
The next best evidence for "angry" is the Patristic evidence of GMatthew/GLuke both of whom exorcise whatever original emotion (angry/compassion) that GMark had. Johnson addresses this as unreMarkable by lowering the evidential standard to synonyms, unrelated verses and hypotheticals. This Thread however has already shown just how remarkable this exorcism was as the removal of Jesus' emotion here was the only significant word change by either in their entire copied verses:

Mark Greek
1:41
Matthew Greek 8:3 Mark Translation Matthew Translation Commentary
Καὶ καὶ And And -
σπλαγχνισθεὶς - having been moved with compassion, - The issue in question. Note that the five word English translation has one underlying Greek word.
ἐκτείνας ἐκτείνας having stretched out having stretched out -
τὴν τὴν the the -
χεῖρα χεῖρα hand hand -
αὐτοῦ - of him - First other difference. A common word and no difference in meaning.
ἥψατο ἥψατο he touched him he touched -
καὶ - and - Second other difference. No difference in meaning.
λέγει αὐτῷ αὐτοῦ λέγων says to him him saying -
Θέλω Θέλω I will I am willing -
καθαρίσθητι καθαρίσθητι be you cleansed be you cleansed For KK's eyes only. No difference here but note that tragic word.
καὶ καὶ And And -
εὐθὺς εὐθέως immediately immediately -
ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ - departed from him - Third other difference. No significant difference but "Mark's" (author) extra of "departed from him" is more in line with "Mark's" description of physical illness having evil spiritual source so that the literary image is of a physical and spiritual departure of illness and evil spirit. This is a better fit for "Mark's" probable meaning of "cleaned" here. The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith. "Matthew" of course wants a more historical sounding pericope. Jesus touches a guy with the leprosy and the leprosy is healed, end of story (so to speak).
ἡ λέπρα καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα the leprosy and he was cleansed was cleansed his the leprosy -


Mark Greek
1:41
Luke Greek 5:13 Mark Translation Luke Translation Commentary
Καὶ καὶ And And -
σπλαγχνισθεὶς - having been moved with compassion, - The issue in question. Note that the five word English translation has one underlying Greek word.
ἐκτείνας ἐκτείνας having stretched out having stretched out -
τὴν τὴν the the -
χεῖρα χεῖρα hand hand -
αὐτοῦ ἥψατο ἥψατο αὐτοῦ of him touched touched him First other difference. Word switch with no difference in meaning.
καὶ - and - Second other difference. No difference in meaning.
λέγει αὐτῷ λέγων says to him saying Third other difference. No difference in meaning.
Θέλω Θέλω I will I am willing -
καθαρίσθητι καθαρίσθητι be you cleansed be you cleansed For KK's eyes only. No difference here but note that tragic word.
καὶ καὶ And And -
εὐθὺς εὐθέως immediately immediately -
ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ departed from him the leprosy and he was cleansed The leprosy departed from him Fourth other difference. No significant difference but "Mark's" (author) extra of "he was cleansed" is more in line with "Mark's" description of physical illness having evil spiritual source so that the literary image is of a physical and spiritual departure of illness and evil spirit. This is a better fit for "Mark's" probable meaning of "cleaned" here. The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith. "Luke" of course wants a more historical sounding pericope. Jesus touches a guy with the leprosy and the leprosy is healed, end of story (so to speak).



Joseph

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

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:49 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:09 am
Order of evidence for "angry":
Not decisive arguments but two additional observations.

First, the grammatical word usage of „moved with compassion“ in GMark

Apart from vers 1:41 Mark used „σπλαγχνίζομαι“ (to be moved with compassion) three times.

Mark 6:34 feeding the five thousand 32 And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. 33 Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. 34 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things.
Mark 8:2 feeding the four thousand 1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, 2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat.
Mark 9:22 healing of the boy with the unclean spirit 20 And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”


Mark used the verb „moved with compassion“ in all three instances with the preposition „on/upon“ and an object.

Mark 6:34 he had compassion on them ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς
Mark 8:2 I have compassion on the crowd Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον
Mark 9:22 have compassion on us σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ' ἡμᾶς


This is not the case in the majority reading of Mark 1:41.

Mark 1:41 And moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand (καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα) and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”


User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Anger Management

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:53 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:49 am
JoeWallack wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:09 am
Order of evidence for "angry":
Not decisive arguments but two additional observations.

First, the grammatical word usage of „moved with compassion“ in GMark

Apart from vers 1:41 Mark used „σπλαγχνίζομαι“ (to be moved with compassion) three times.

Mark 6:34 feeding the five thousand 32 And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. 33 Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. 34 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things.
Mark 8:2 feeding the four thousand 1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, 2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat.
Mark 9:22 healing of the boy with the unclean spirit 20 And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”


Mark used the verb „moved with compassion“ in all three instances with the preposition „on/upon“ and an object.

Mark 6:34 he had compassion on them ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς
Mark 8:2 I have compassion on the crowd Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον
Mark 9:22 have compassion on us σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ' ἡμᾶς


This is not the case in the majority reading of Mark 1:41.

Mark 1:41 And moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand (καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα) and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”


JW:
Good one. But there are some differences with the above and 1:41:
  • 1) The obvious one is the plural subjects here. The preposition seems more natural with a group since it lacks the near quality of an individual. Maybe only in English.

    2) While 1:41 is technically a verb, it is clearly an emotion (anger/compassion). The first two above compassions have a stronger sense of a verb, as compassion is followed by connected verb (cause/effect). The third compassion is just a request and is not the motivation for action.
Interestingly, "Mark" always connects Jesus' compassion to the crowds (9:22 Jesus is motivated by the crowd). On the other hand, as Ehrman rightfully points out, the two instances of Jesus' anger (1:41 & 3:5) are connected to questioning Jesus willingness to heal:
  • 1:41 = Questions Jesus' general willingness to heal.

    3:5 = Questions specific limitations (Shabbat) on Jesus' willingness to heal.
As always, it's difficult to look at a Markan story without finding irony:

9:22:

εἴei if Conj
τι anything IPro-ANS
δύνῃ You are able [to do], V-PIM/P-2S

Jesus' response 9:23

Εἰ If Conj
δύνῃ You are able? V-PIM/P-2S

Note that Jesus answers a question with a question but what follows indicates that the meaning is not Jesus just repeating the question (since the word is exactly the same) in the same context (Jesus' ability to heal) but changing the subject to the requester, if the requester is able (to believe) -

"All things are possible to him that believeth. 24 Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

As has been pointed out on this unholy Forum this is a primary theme of GMark, Jesus' limitations. Healing in GMark is primarily based on the recipient (faith) and not on Jesus (course this is also a convenient apology - "He never had real faith/was a real Christian").


Joseph

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

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Hangry Games

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:39 am

To Sir With Love One Another

JW:
Order of evidence for "angry":
  • 1) Transcriptional

    2) Internal evidence - near verbs.

    3) Patristic evidence of GMatthew/GLuke
The next best evidence for "angry" is the similarity to the characteristics of External evidence for other Markan difficult readings:
  • 1 - In general the External evidence for "angry" is relatively much earlier than the External evidence for "compassion".

    2 - Very limited but very early quality evidence:
    • 1) GMatthew/GLuke.

      2) Ephrem (and by extension Diatesseron).

      3) Bezae

      4) Early Latin witness
    3 - The observed extreme inverse relationship in general between degree of difficulty and quantity of External support:
Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings

[/td]
Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:10
and the Spirit as a dove descending into him:
vs. upon
Vaticanus
Bezae
Sinaiticus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant. Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon)
insignificant difference in meaning.
Mark 1:41
angry
vs. compassionate
BezaeSinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).
Mark 16:9-20 omission vs. inclusion Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtoniansus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Original ending lost Yes. Whether or not the likely original Gospel narrative contained the primary historical assertion of orthodox Christianity, known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

Note - Regius has the LE but has notes giving evidence that the LE is not original. Thus the 3 best witnesses testify against the LE. Washingtoniansus, the 4th best witness, has an expanded LE, and variation is a sign of addition. Thus the majority of quality witness for LE was written about twice as long after original GMark than the quality witness against LE.




Joseph

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

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Anger Management

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:16 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:53 pm
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:49 am
Mark used the verb „moved with compassion“ in all three instances with the preposition „on/upon“ and an object.

Mark 6:34 he had compassion on them ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς
Mark 8:2 I have compassion on the crowd Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον
Mark 9:22 have compassion on us σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ' ἡμᾶς


This is not the case in the majority reading of Mark 1:41.

Mark 1:41 And moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand (καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα) and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”


JW:
Good one. But there are some differences with the above and 1:41:
  • 1) The obvious one is the plural subjects here. The preposition seems more natural with a group since it lacks the near quality of an individual. Maybe only in English.
Seems less likely to me. Grammatically, "crowd" in Mark 8:2 is singular, and semantically, it should make no difference whether it is one person or two as in Mark 9:22. It*s the same participle as in Mark 9:22.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Anger Management

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:16 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:53 pm
Interestingly, "Mark" always connects Jesus' compassion to the crowds (9:22 Jesus is motivated by the crowd).
Agreed. Furthermore, the father is denoted in Mark 9:17 as „one from the crowd“, in Mark 9:19 Jesus answered to all („them“) after only the father asked a question and in Mark 9:25 Jesus begins to command the spirit when he “saw that a crowd came running together“. It looks like that the father (and the son ?) represents the crowd in some sense.

The three stories may have in common Jesus, the disciples and “a great crowd” as characters, a “failing” of the disciples and an emphasis on interaction with God.

Mark 6 feeding the five thousand 34 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. 35 And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. 36 Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 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?” 38 And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. 41 And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. 42 And they all ate and were satisfied.
Mark 8 feeding the four thousand 1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, 2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. 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?” 5 And he asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They said, “Seven.” 6 And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. 7 And they had a few small fish. And having blessed them, he said that these also should be set before them.
Mark 9 healing of the boy with the unclean spirit 14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. 15 And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed and ran up to him and greeted him. 16 And he asked them, “What are you arguing about with them?” 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.”
...
28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” 29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”


Post Reply