In yesterday’s 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 to make sense of what I have to say would take *so* much background that – well, I should discuss the background instead of the point I want to make.
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):
39 And he [Jesus] came preaching in their synagogues in all of Galilee and casting out the demons. 40 And a leper came to him beseeching him and saying to him, “If you will, you are able to cleanse me.” 41 And [feeling compassion (splangxnisqeis)/ becoming angry (orgisqeis)] reaching out his hand, he touched him and said to him, “I do will, be cleansed.” 42 And immediately the leprosy went out from him, and he was cleansed. 43 And rebuking him severely, immediately he cast him out 44 and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing that which Moses commanded, as a witness to them.” 45 But when he went out he began to preach many things and to spread the word, so that he [Jesus] was no longer able to enter publicly into a city…..
As you can see, it is a rather important textual variant. In the vast majority of manuscripts we are told – as one might expect – that Jesus felt compassion for the man (poor guy: has leprosy!) and so healed him. But in one fifth century Greek manuscript and several old Latin manuscripts, instead we are told that Jesus became angry (at what exactly??) and then healed him. So which is it? Did Jesus feel compassion or did he get angry?
FOR THE REST of this post, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
On reading your current entry I immediately thought of the child’s prayer that begins, “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild….” It would be interesting to trace all the instances where Jesus was angry and the reasons for the anger.
This is interesting.
Good post. Keep going.
In Papyrus Egerton 2, when Jesus commands “and sin no more”, should we understand that the man should abstain from socialising with lepers, or that the true source of his disease what a theological sin? Perhaps a better question is: “How was leprosy understood in the ancien world, in particular the Jewish world?” About the similar passage in Mark: could the command of Jesus to offer a sacrifice at the Temple be a cover up, in line with the so-called messianic secret?
I’ll get to that!
What about the verse in which Jesus “rebukes” the leper. Is that related to the “getting angry”?
Yup! It helps show that this was his emotion, not compassion. (And then he “throws him out”!)
Hmm. Assuming Mark and the Unknown Gospel were referring to the same incident…was Jesus angry at the man’s requesting “cleansing” for himself, but not asking a person he thought capable of performing miracles also to help those other lepers he knew of? Or was he angry at the man’s offering an “excuse” for how he’d contracted leprosy, thinking it made him more deserving of a cure than others who were similarly afflicted?
I’ll be talking about that in today’s post and the next one.
Respectfully, my analysis of Mark 1:41 (based upon the wording of Papyrus Egerton 2; the lack of extant patristic allusions relevant to that verse, and comments published by yourself (Misquoting Jesus 133ff) and Metzger (TCGNT 2nd 65)), likely did NOT contain a demonstration/expression of emotion by Jesus in the autograph of Mark.
Ergo, I disagree that Mark 1:41 contains “an interesting textual variant”. An inauthentic variant, perhaps; “interesting,” not so much 🙂
Have you considered creating a forum where responders (like myself) might edit comments after posting? I seem to always leave out important words or make typos in my initial posts that I can’t correct via a blog editor.
Bummer 🙁
We suggest proof reading. 🙂
Do you mean that he felt neither compassion nor anger? There aren’t any manuscripts that are missing *both* terms (i.e. every manuscript has one or the other)
Does it matter to the point of the story if Jesus displayed an emotion or not? What’s more important? That Jesus is believed to have healed the leper? Or what he was feeling at the time? And, yes, post-Nicene mss penned since the time of 03/B say Jesus expressed either compassion or anger. Yet we know that pre-Nicene Egerton 2 did not. So wouldn’t that trump the evidentiary value of Vaticanus and later mss?
It sounds like you’re asking about what *really* happened (in history). I’m not asking that question. I’m asking what Mark is trying to say about what happened.
Hi again, Prof. Ehrman 🙂
I understand what you’re asking (I even proofread this response three (3) times :D). Nevertheless, I’m asking about the probative evidential value of the “great Catholic” codices and later Judeo-Christian manuscripts when compared to the content of proto-Orthodox fragment Egerton 2. Doesn’t the probative value of an earlier authenticated writing outweigh the evidentiary value of later documents despite the preponderance of or a predilection toward the latter?
Regards,
Pat
(PS: I much appreciate and wish to respect your time. So in lieu of a direct response here, perhaps you might later address my question in a later and related posting?)
Still not quite sure what you’re asking, but if it is whether Papyrus Egerton 2 is more important thatn B and Sinaiticus, I think the answer has to be no. It’s not a copy of Mark!
Well why don’t we get a Bart Ehrman First Five Books of the New Testament with all your conclusions? Thomas Jefferson had his version. The Jesus Seminar have their version.
If you think the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas should be included, please add them as well. Out of curiosity–and I believe you’ve asked this question below–if you were canonizing Gospels, which ones would you choose?
By the way, given your recent posts on the Acts of the Apostles, you probably wouldn’t want to do your scholarly take on the First Five Books of the New Testament.
I, personally, do not like the Gospel of Thomas. I call it the Jesus Smoking Marijuana Gospel. (That’s my conclusion after having added two copies of it to my library. I earnestly gave it an objective reading, and was so glad when I was done to say, this just won’t do. I extend my apologies because I know this Gospel speaks to some people who are more appreciative than I am of the approach to rhetoric found in the Gospel of Thomas.)
I’m happy with all the Gospels we have. I just want more to be discovered! And I wouldn’t canonize any more since I’m not a fan — as a historian — of the concept of a canon. If I were a theologian, that would be different….
A further thought – did some Jews of that day believe *God* caused people to be afflicted with conditions like leprosy, as punishment for their sins? And did Jesus (in these writers’ eyes) presumably *not* believe that, if he was angered by the man’s thinking his explanation of how he’d contracted the illness made him more worthy?
I can’t help being reminded of the Gospel passage where someone asks Jesus whether a man born blind was being punished for his parents’ sins, or his own. His own? I know you’ve said there was no belief in reincarnation among these people. So…did they think an omniscient God might punish someone for sins God knew he *would* commit?
Yup, I hope to get to that a bit.
I guess I should know your answer by now since I’ve read quite a bit of what you’ve written, but do you think we can say without a doubt that Mark came first and that Matthew and Luke came later? I’ve seen so much contradiction out there when I try to find out which gospel came out first. Some people claim Matthew came first, but that seems improbable to me. Luke and John almost certainly did not come first. Mark’s gospel is short, stylistically rugged, and leaves out major doctrines such as the virgin birth and a full account of the resurrection with the oldest manuscripts ending at 16:8.
One of the things I learned from studying Mart was that the most prevalent word in that gospel is “immediately.” For that reason, many have labeled Mark the gospel of action. There isn’t as much didactic content or discourse in Mark as the other gospels. It is largely anecdotal: “Immediately, Jesus got on the boat and…” I’ve learned from you that Mark was first written in Greek. That leads me to ask whether John Mark really wrote this gospel as an amanuensis of Peter, having memorized everything from Peter’s sermons in the proper order, or whether someone else wrote it. I think you’ve discussed this question elsewhere.
I know we probably will never find out who wrote these gospels, but it would be nice to identify with certainty who did not write them. It would also be nice to identify with far greater certainty each of them was written, and then nail down the development of the New Testament canon as it began to come together. The practical implications are obvious. If we knew when certain books began to appear and who wrote them (or not), we’d be in a better position to blunt any attempt to beat someone over the head with Bible verses that are thought to be the inspired word of God.
Yes, I think it’s beyond much doubt that Mark came first and was copied by Matthew and Luke. The evidence is too much for a response here: maybe I’ll do a series of posts on it down the line….
Haven’t had a chance to log in and read for over a month, so it’s quite the treat to sit down and soak up in one shot all the posts you’ve done over the last month! Sorry to be commenting on a little bit older material though 🙂
You wrote “in other places of Mark we are told that Jesus felt compassion (using the same Greek word as here) and in yet other places that Jesus became angry. And what happens when Matthew and Luke reproduce *those* passages? One or the other ALWAYS retains the statement that Jesus became compassionate; and BOTH of them ALWAYS eliminate the statement that he got angry.”
Could you cite a few of those passages? I’d hugely appreciate it.
Compassion: Mark 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; anger/irritation: Mark 3:5; 13:14