Loading...In my previous post I mentioned the interesting story found in the Unknown Gospel (as it is called – even though part of it is now known…) contained in the second-century manuscript Papyrus Egerton 2. There’s an intriguing aspect of that story that I wanted to post on today, but I realized that first I need to discuss a bit of important background.
So here’s the deal. There is an interesting textual variant in Mark’s story of the man cured of leprosy by Jesus – that is, some of our textual witnesses have one way of reading one of the verses, and other textual witnesses have a different way. And it really matters. Here is the passage (Mark 1:39-45) in a literal translation. The textual variant I am interested in is in v. 41 (there are lots of other textual variants among our manuscripts in this passage; this particular one is the only one I’m interested in here):
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Great post – I hear argument #1 used often and I was wondering if it is a strong enough foundation to use in all cases? For example. Can the reverse be true, where the author would like to erode the reputation of Jesus and insert words that show him insensitive? Point #2 is a good supporting argument, but my question is more about using argument #1 as a paint brush for all scenarios.
Btw – love the blog and podcast and hope to sit down for dinner with a group next time you are in Atlanta.
Yes, it’s widely used as a criterion, and it’s always a weighing of probabilities — was it more likely this way or the other. In this case it doesn’t seem like a *lot* of doubt, though it’s always there.
Would it be possible for you to provide a few examples of where Mark uses anger, but Matthew and Luke use compassion?
Ah, sorry — I got to this in the next post. They never change anger to compassion; they just get rid of the anger (as in this case)
If Jesus is preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand and all will be made right in that kingdom, then I can see him being angry at the impatience of the people who ignore his message and instead ask to be healed “now.” “I can’t wait for the kingdom – do it now!” And if the historical Jesus was a teacher and not a miracle worker I can see him being angry at those who wanted to see miracles rather than heed his message.
If the word “rebuke” in verse 43 in considered original, then it seems to bear into two arguments (one for each side):
1) Why rebuke someone you feel compassion for?
2) Scribes might be inclined to change from compassion to angry to better align with the following “rebuke”
Might we, perhaps ‘impolitely’, acknowledge that as a slaver, Johnathan Edwards, Theologian, is also Disgraced – though perhaps in a slightly higher degree than his politician non-relative.
Yes, by our standards, absolutely. And so is every slave owner from earlier periods (including lots of the earliest CHristians). As to the latter day Jonathan Edwards, I continue to wish (my wife and I talked about it the other day) that he could have just gotten control of himself. He was the only modern politician who focused on poverty and wanted to make it part of his platform.
I would imagine that both Judea and the Romans had laws against magic over temple, even medical practice. Did the writings of Paul change the gospel story?
Paul’s major contribution was his argument that gentiles could be followers of the Jewish messiah Jesus without observing the Jewish law. That made the most enormous difference.
I just wonder if Jesus might have felt angry with the condition of the poor man not the man himself? I don’t know anything about ancient languages so I don’t know whether it is even possible in the grammar to have that kind of reading but it’s where I immediately went to when I saw that dichotomy. Is that possible?
It’s one of the wways it has been read.
감사합니다!
NO need to say it’s Greek to me….
First off as a new member, I’d like to thank you for your insightful posts. The comments and responses are equally engaging.
I was looking at Mark 1:41 in different versions and at least from the ones I looked at (lots of versions out there!) only a handful had him as being angry, one of which was the NIV, which kind of surprised me as I think it’s pretty popular version among evangelical Christians.
In general, how do you find the NIV?
Yes, I was very surprised when it came out to see mark 1:41. Of course they translate it “incensed” which is not quite write (it’s the word for “wrath”), but still. My guess is that Gordon Fee had something to do with it. (He was the head of the committee for a while, I believe, and was a superb textual critic.) On the whole I think the NIV is hugely readable, but I find it irritating how it often translates contradictions out of existence (esp. in the OT).
When an existing Bible translation is updated or revised, is it a different process than producing a completely new version? I take it that it’s more than just updating the language and that there’s some translation going on as well.
Hugely different. Translators doing an updated / revised edition do still look at the original language and consider textual variants, and so on. But it is not NEARLY as complicated or time consuming as producing a translation from scratch. And updating a revision is itself much easier and less time consuming than doing a revision itself.
Getting angry makes since to me if Jesus was angry at the demon not the leper. Hard to tell with the lack of prepositions and pronouns.
But, then I think the harder perspective to grasp is the rebuking and casting out. That only makes sense if Jesus was angry at the leper.
Matthew and Luke both have the single participle “having stretched out his hand”.
Doesn’t the awkwardness of Mark’s double participle “having been moved with compassion having stretched out his hand” indicate that it is in fact Mark adding the extra participle to the original version found in Matthew/Luke?
Well, he apparently added one participle or another, since “getting angry” is also a participle. But no, I don’t think it’s a particularly odd syntax ….
I got used to the forgeries in the attributions of Gospel and other books’ authorships.But I never thought that scribes could have exchanged “anger” for “compassion”. I wish this were a case of similarity in the Greek words which could have caused such blatant, momentous substitution of opposite concepts. No luck there,I guess.
More concerning though is finding so many instances of anger.In Matthew,he clearly instructs not to get angry. And yet he often gets angry and acts upon his anger.
In addition to the singular interconnected cases in Mark we learn about here,other major episodes may include the curse on the fig tree, the fiery (seemingly vindictive)condemnation of Chorazin,Bethsaida and Capernaum and the unjustified attack on the Temple money changers.
The question is,so what if Jesus perhaps had a Levantine temper or his own excitable nature and heightened sensitivity,or if these were cases of “do as I say, not as I do”,or if,ultimately,God had become fully human,traveling the entirely human emotional spectrum,including anger?
Moreover,anger may become a virtue if it results in combating evil.Eventually, Jesus’ teaching of what “ought” to be rather than what “is” endured.
Jesus’ full humanness,though,perhaps remains challenged,as fatherhood and family were not part of his experience.
I wonder,though,if “anger” and “compassion” are not akin to Gould’s” non-overlapping magisteria”.That is,not opposites,but in many areas,well within distinct categories, “as simultaneous emotions or one emotion masking another can be.
For example,one can experience anger at injustices because one feels compassion for the sufferers, creating a continuum rather than opposites.One can experience fear for oneself and others and express it in forms akin to angry outbursts.It also profits,I think, to discern precisely who or what Jesus protests against.
Finally,one could also understand the Pharisees’ anger at Shabbat healings:let’s say those were strictly prohibited like so many things in our times and societies are strictly forbidden.
The man with the withered hand healed inside the synagogue on Shabbat causes seemingly justified anger.The man with the withered hand could have been equally healed every other day. But doing it as Jesus did,to be witnessed by an assembly of pious Jews on a holy day was a provocation and a willful negation of Judaism’s precepts.
The withered hand was not a life and death issue.Only such issues,termed ” Pikuakh Nephesh”( saving a life),justified breaking Shabbat and every other holiday.
Moreover,the reasons Jesus gives- as related or misrelated in the Gospel- are false comparisons of irrelevant situations.
One can give Jesus infinitely more credit than that.
Dr.Bart, the NINT was excellent!
Having all these first rate scholars reveal concepts that I had not known before, has really helped me.
I have been discouraged from learning that the writings have been modified on key events, even with good intentions (e.g. Jesus was angry/compassionate with the leper).
My conclusion from studying with the NINT presenters:
Mark is a Shakespearean Tragedy
Matthew, Luke and John are Historical Novels.
“Let the reader understand” (hopefully, with spiritual insight).
I am truly grateful that you created this seminar online, and hope that there will be more in the future.
Sincerely, the old vet.
My Greek eyes hurt when I saw “splangxnisqeis” even though I admit “σπλαγχνισθείς” is tough to transcribe it in English. I think maybe “splachnesthes” is the closest you can get.
Yeah, you would think that after 47 years of writing about Greek I’d learn how to transliterate….
I suspect that the Septuagint contains many equivocal translations, not just the well known case of parthenos,obviously. My ability to read the Septuagint only in an English translation, ie, a translation of a translation, would not help my inquiry.
So I am at a loss, not knowing Greek.
Is there any literature I can read about
this?
The plainly amateur but faithful little philologist in me finds such issues terribly exciting . Or perhaps it’s a residual discipline acquired in the lifelong study of the HB, where every word is turned around in manifold ways, beginning with its root language nature, and public Torah reading must be word-perfect.
There’s been a lot written about the Septuagint as a translation, but I have to admit that offhand I’m not familiar with what would be the best thing out there. Do you know about the six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary? That’s a terrific tool, an encyclopedic coverage of all things biblical from a historical/scholarly perspective (with bibliogrpahy for each article). I’m out of town and so not near my books, but that’s where I would first go to see if there’s an entry on it. (The big probelm is that the ABD was done about thirty years ago…)
Yeah, and you would think that after 27 years of studying English I’d know the word “transliterate” in order to convey my thought accurately and to be able to write 1 comment correctly….