Discussion:
Mark 1:40-45 appears to be midrash on Isaiah 64:5-9
(too old to reply)
Old George down on the bayou
2006-12-18 03:20:31 UTC
Permalink
This "leper" pericope (Mark 1:40-45) appears to be midrash on
Isaiah 64:5-9

Isaiah 64:5-9 You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who
remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were
angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is
unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all
shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No
one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have
hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.
Yet, Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we
are all the work of your hand. Do not be angry beyond measure, Lord; do
not remember our sins forever. Oh, look upon us, we pray, for we are
all your people.

Mark 1:40-45 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his
knees, If you are willing, you can make me clean. Being angry, Jesus
reached out his hand and touched the man. I am willing, he said. Be
clean! Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus drove
him away at once with a strong warning: See that you don't tell this
to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices
that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.
Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a
result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in
lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
tdup2
2006-12-19 03:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old George down on the bayou
This "leper" pericope (Mark 1:40-45) appears to be midrash on
Isaiah 64:5-9
...
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Mark 1:40-45 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his
knees, If you are willing, you can make me clean. Being angry, Jesus
reached out his hand and touched the man. I am willing, he said. Be
clean! Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus drove
him away at once with a strong warning: See that you don't tell this
to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices
that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.
Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a
result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in
lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
Mark 1:41 does not read that way, "Being angry". Mine reads, "Filled with
compassion."

Tim

----

[The Greek word has a range of possible meanings. --clh]
Matthew Johnson
2006-12-20 03:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by tdup2
Post by Old George down on the bayou
This "leper" pericope (Mark 1:40-45) appears to be midrash on
Isaiah 64:5-9
...
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Mark 1:40-45 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his
knees, If you are willing, you can make me clean. Being angry, Jesus
reached out his hand and touched the man. I am willing, he said. Be
clean! Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus drove
him away at once with a strong warning: See that you don't tell this
to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices
that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.
Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a
result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in
lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
Mark 1:41 does not read that way, "Being angry". Mine reads, "Filled with
compassion."
George forgot to point out that his preferred translation follows an obscure
textual variant: there really _are_ manuscripts that read ORGISQEIS (having
become angry) instead of the much more common SPLAGXNISQEIS (having taken
compassion).

This viewpoint should not be subject to _automatic_ derision. It really is true
that over time, original readings hard to understand were replaced with easier
readings. But unlike George, I am not convinced that this happened _here_ in
Mark 1:41.

That said, this variant, ORGISQEIS, is much more consistent with the idea that
Mark 1:40-45 is 'Midrash'. But then why do both Matthew and Luke, in the
parallel passage of what appears to be the same event, omit _both_ ORGISQEIS and
also EMBRISMHSAMENOS in v.43? Clearly they did not believe this was Midrash. So
why should we?

[snip]
Post by tdup2
[The Greek word has a range of possible meanings. --clh]
Yes, it does. And I have argued in the past that _here_ ORGISQEIS does not
necessarily have anything to do with anger. But in retrospect, I have to admit
that this argument (based mainly on LXX) is not 100% convincing either. However,
it is enough to weaken the argument that the original must have been ORGISQEIS,
or that the passage must be Midrash.

In particular, the verb obviously derives from ORGH, about which we have a
famous Greek scholar Mark Griffith (Aeschylus Promethus Bound) saying:

Begin quote-------------
on l315, "not quite anger, 'give up your present attitude'". on 79-80, "ORGH
ranges from 'temperament' though passion of all kinds to 'anger' in particular,
here the first as at 315, 378, 678"

End quote fm "Cambridge Greek & Latin Classics: Promethus Bound".
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Old George down on the bayou
2006-12-20 03:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by tdup2
Post by Old George down on the bayou
This "leper" pericope (Mark 1:40-45) appears to be midrash on
Isaiah 64:5-9
...
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Mark 1:40-45 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his
knees, If you are willing, you can make me clean. Being angry, Jesus
reached out his hand and touched the man. I am willing, he said. Be
clean! Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus drove
him away at once with a strong warning: See that you don't tell this
to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices
that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.
Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a
result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in
lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
Mark 1:41 does not read that way, "Being angry". Mine reads, "Filled with
compassion."
Yes, many manuscripts have the Greek for "Filled with compassion."
Others have the Greek for "being angry". Which is the original?

Christians made copies of Mark's gospel down through many hundreds of
years.

If the original was, "Filled with compassion", is it likely a
Christian copier would change it to "Being angry"? Why?

If the original was, "Being angry", is it likely a Christian copier
would change it to "Filled with compassion"? Why?

In trying to select the original reading from the many ancient texts of
the New Testament, the scholars who work in that field (Textural
Criticism) usually select the more difficult reading. Most think that
"being angry" is the most difficult reading for most Christians. Many
Christians do not like to think of Jesus being angry in this story
about a leper and Jesus.

If you get interested in the subject of Textural Criticism, there are
text books on the subject. One popular one is:

The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger. You may be able to find it on
Amazon.com.

By the way: Jesus was Mark's hero and role model. According to Mark
(chapter 4) Jesus always taught using parables and then explained his
parables. Could it be that Mark thought the Jesus was the best
teacher, and would also always want to teach with parables?

Just a thought: Could it be that this "leper pericope" is one of
Mark's parables? And Mark is using it as midrash?
Matthew Johnson
2006-12-21 05:23:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <_l2ih.3875$***@trnddc06>, Old George down on the bayou says...


[snip]
Post by Old George down on the bayou
In trying to select the original reading from the many ancient texts
of the New Testament, the scholars who work in that field (Textural
Criticism) usually select the more difficult reading.
In the 18th century, they adhered to Griesbach's rules this
slavishly. But not anymore.
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Most think that "being angry" is the most difficult reading for most
Christians.
You got that part right!
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Many Christians do not like to think of Jesus being angry in this
story about a leper and Jesus.
And with good reason.
Post by Old George down on the bayou
If you get interested in the subject of Textural Criticism, there are
The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger. You may be able to find it on
Amazon.com.
This is a good book. How ironic, then, that Metzger does _not_ support
your choice on this particular reading. On the contrary: he says, in
"Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 1962: SPLAGXNISQEIS
{D} It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original
text. OTOH, it is easy to see why ORGISQEIS ("being angry") would have
prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to SPLAGXNISQEIS ("being
filled with compassion"); but not easy to account for the opposite
change. OTOH, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the
following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence
in support of ORGISQEIS is less impressive than the diversity and
character of evidence that supports SPLAGXNISQEIS. (2) At least two
other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (Mar_3:5) or
indignant (Mar_10:14), have not propmted over-scrupulous copyists to
make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading either (a) was
suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver 43, or (b) arose from confusion
between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac 2 ethraham, "he had
pity,", with ethra'em, "he was enraged"). [2 Although Ephraem in his
Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron shows knowlege of the reading
ORGISQEIS, all Syriac versions (syr[s,p,h,pal]; Curetonian hiat)
comibine in support of SPLAGXNISQEIS.

Those 'eclecticists' who ignore this reasoning are, I am afraid, too strongly
motivated by a love of novelty rather than a love of knowlege, science, or
Scripture.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Old George down on the bayou
2006-12-22 04:09:50 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Old George down on the bayou
If you get interested in the subject of Textural Criticism, there are
The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger. You may be able to find it on
Amazon.com.
This is a good book. How ironic, then, that Metzger does _not_ support
your choice on this particular reading.
My object was to recommend a good book that one could use to understand
textural criticism. It was not my point, in recommending that book to
have it prove my choice of word of words in the leper pericope to be
correct. It really does not matter that you and others disagree with
me, in my interpretation of Mark's gospel. But it would be nice if
most Christians understood more about how the text of our scriptures
evolved to what we read in our Bibles today. And to understand how the
thousands of differences in wordings of the old manuscripts are
evaluated in order to try to reconstruct the wording used by the
original author.

Even though, Metzger does not agree with me on this point (Even he is
not perfect!), the book is still an excellent book, and Christians who
do not understand textural criticism, would do well to study it.

But, I will point out that the scholars who determined the wording of
the New English Bible do agree with my conclusion of the word in
question in the leper pericope. So I am not alone.
Post by Matthew Johnson
On the contrary: he says, in
"Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 1962: SPLAGXNISQEIS
{D} It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original
text. OTOH, it is easy to see why ORGISQEIS ("being angry") would have
prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to SPLAGXNISQEIS ("being
filled with compassion"); but not easy to account for the opposite
change. OTOH, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the
following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence
in support of ORGISQEIS is less impressive than the diversity and
character of evidence that supports SPLAGXNISQEIS. (2) At least two
other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (Mar_3:5) or
indignant (Mar_10:14), have not propmted over-scrupulous copyists to
make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading either (a) was
suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver 43, or (b) arose from confusion
between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac 2 ethraham, "he had
pity,", with ethra'em, "he was enraged"). [2 Although Ephraem in his
Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron shows knowlege of the reading
ORGISQEIS, all Syriac versions (syr[s,p,h,pal]; Curetonian hiat)
comibine in support of SPLAGXNISQEIS.
Those 'eclecticists' who ignore this reasoning are, I am afraid, too strongly
motivated by a love of novelty rather than a love of knowlege, science, or
Scripture.
Matthew Johnson
2006-12-25 06:14:13 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Old George down on the bayou
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a good book. How ironic, then, that Metzger does _not_ support
your choice on this particular reading.
My object was to recommend a good book that one could use to understand
textural criticism.
Which was a legitimate goal. And I think you did achieve it. But my goal,
equally legitimate, was to make sure people were not fooled by that reference
into thinking that this Dean of Textual Critics support your conclusion (or that
of the NEB). Whether you had that as part of your goal is actually quite
secondary.

[snip]
Post by Old George down on the bayou
But, I will point out that the scholars who determined the wording of
the New English Bible do agree with my conclusion of the word in
question in the leper pericope. So I am not alone.
This is true. But even though the NEB does this, alas, that does not put you in
good company. For Bible translators are notorious for trying to play their own
games at eclecticism, ignoring the decisions of Nestle-Aland or UBS, and
pretending that they can do better. Yet they are rarely anywhere near as good
(at textual criticism) as the Textual Critics who prepared either of these
editions.

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Bob
2006-12-29 03:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Old George down on the bayou
But, I will point out that the scholars who determined the wording of
the New English Bible do agree with my conclusion of the word in
question in the leper pericope. So I am not alone.
This is true. But even though the NEB does this, alas, that does not put you in
good company. For Bible translators are notorious for trying to play their own
games at eclecticism, ignoring the decisions of Nestle-Aland or UBS, and
pretending that they can do better. Yet they are rarely anywhere near as good
(at textual criticism) as the Textual Critics who prepared either of these
editions.
Which all goes back to a primary argument of atheists, agnostics, and
skeptics: "You say the bible is the word of God, but you can't agree on
a translation. If the translation is wrong, those are man's words and
not Gods. Therefore the bible contains errors. Since God is supposed to
be perfect and the bible isn't, it can't be God's word."
This is why I believe in the message of the bible. The words may
change but the message doesn't.
Old George down on the bayou
2006-12-30 02:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Bob wrote:
...>
Post by Bob
Which all goes back to a primary argument of atheists, agnostics, and
skeptics: "You say the bible is the word of God, but you can't agree on
a translation. If the translation is wrong, those are man's words and
not Gods. Therefore the bible contains errors. Since God is supposed to
be perfect and the bible isn't, it can't be God's word."
They think the Bible should be perfect? That is a very strange
argument. Why should the Bible be perfect? Whatever they mean by
"perfect". Why should it not have errors?

You should no longer let those arguments bother you. Ignore them.
Don't let such people put you on the defensive and get you to get off
target and chasing after prefect rabbits.
Post by Bob
This is why I believe in the message of the bible. The words may
change but the message doesn't.
Loading...