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").
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.
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. (.–)
Again, I'm primarily interested in what Ephrem says and secondarily interested in what Johnson says Ephrem says.
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.
Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?