Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    Codex Bezae. That s the entire Greek support for the reading orgistheis (angry) in Mark 1:41. Yet Dr. Bart Ehrman continues to press for its adoption. The
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Codex Bezae. That's the entire Greek support for the reading
      "orgistheis" (angry) in Mark 1:41. Yet Dr. Bart Ehrman continues to
      press for its adoption. The TNIV, like the NEB, has adopted this
      reading into the text. I diagree, though (along with the ESV and
      HCSB).

      Dr. Ehrman's case for "orgistheis" (presented in "A Leper in the
      Hands of an Angry Jesus" and more recently in "Bible Review") rests
      partly on the argument that the parallels in Matthew and Luke do not
      contain "splagchnistheis" and there is no perceptible impetus for
      such an abandonment of their source-text (presumed to be the Gospel
      of Mark); meanwhile their omission of the word may be explained by
      their desire to presenting Jesus getting angry.

      Three counterpoints:

      First, do Matthew and Luke really avoid presenting Jesus getting
      angry? They portray Jesus as quite annoyed with His disciples on
      some occasions. And He sure sounds angry when He denounces the
      scribes and Pharisees, and at the Temple-cleansing -- deliberately
      angry, but still angry.

      Second, there's a Minor Agreement at the beginning of 1:41. Mt. 8:2
      and Lk. 5:12 both have "Lord" (Kurie) but Mk. 1:41 doesn't. (B+C+L+W
      et al have Kurie, but Aleph+A+D et al do not.) This should at
      least raise the question of whether or not they used a source which
      was different from what we know as the Gospel of Mark. (Really, all
      "Minor Agreements" may be summoned to testify about this.)

      Third, parallels in Matthew and Luke DO contain "splagchnistheis" --
      they're just not the parallels one usually thinks about. Mark 1:41
      is the only case where Mark states that Jesus healed a person by
      touching him after feeling compassion for him (assuming that
      "splagchnistheis" is original). Where else does Jesus do this?

      In two passages, Jesus does something remarkably like that. One is
      Matthew 20:34. There, Matthew depicts Jesus healing two blind men ~
      "And Jesus in pity touched their eyes." The parallel-passages in
      Mark 10:52 and Luke 18:42 say nothing about Jesus' pity, or about
      Jesus touching the blind. Yet Matthew 20:34 uses the word
      "splagchnistheis" and the word "hpsato." Where did Matthew get the
      idea that Jesus healed in this way? Since those two words appear in
      Mk. 1:41 exactly as they appear in Mt. 20:34, it seems likely that he
      got the idea from Mk. 1:41 and, though he omitted these details from
      his condensed account of the healing of the leper, he considered it
      appropriate to include them elsewhere.

      And in Luke 7:13, Luke states that Jesus felt compassion
      (esplagchnisqh) for the widow in Nain right before He came and
      touched (upsato) the bier. This pericope is not in Matthew or Luke.
      Why did Luke think that Jesus would be so filled with compasison that
      He would allow Himself to be considered "unclean" in this way? And
      why would Luke describe Jesus' emotions using this term? The answer
      "Because a Lucan source depicted Jesus doing this, and because Luke
      was aware that Mark had reported that Jesus felt compassion when He
      similarly underwent "uncleanness" in 1:41" seems apt.

      The remainder of the pro-"orgistheis" argument consists of the point
      that the canon that the reading which best explains the others is
      more likely to be original -- and since it is easier to imagine why
      scribes would replace "Jesus was angry" with "Jesus was
      compassionate" than the opposite shift, this favors "orgistheis."

      Counterpoint:

      There should be no need for a reminder that the canons are not
      mechanical rules, and that any case might be a special case. What we
      have here is a special case -- a case of "retro-translation" which
      may be manifested elsewhere in Codex Bezae. As noted in W. Willker's
      Commentary, J.R. Harris observed that the Latin word "motus" was
      capable of being understood as "moved with pity" or "moved with
      anger" (and that it is used with both meanings in "Acts of
      Perpetua"). And just the other day at the Evangelical Textual
      Criticism site, Dr. P.J. Williams noted that "orgistheis" might be
      "possibly a retranslation from Latin iratus from misertus." (And in
      TCGNT, BMM notes a close similarity between two Syriac words for "he
      was enraged" (ethra'em) and "he had pity" (ethraham).)

      It wouldn't be difficult for an early copyist who had learned the
      pericope in Latin, and who had assumed that his Latin text meant that
      Jesus was angry with the leper for some good reason, would, when
      encountering "splagchnistheis" in a Greek exemplar, assume that the
      exemplar-producing scribe had made a mistake, and "correct" it to
      "orgistheis." I think it's likely that something like that is the
      origin of the variant in Codex Bezae. That might not be the most
      probably series of events ever proposed, but it seems a lot more
      probable than the competing proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly
      replaced (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
      and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and four Byz. mss)
      by "splagchnistheis" in all channels of transmission, leaving that
      shining example of pristine, disciplined copyist-work, the text of D,
      as its sole Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.

      There's also the question of vocabulary to consider -- at least, if
      vocabulary is going to be hired as an important piece of evidence in
      other cases, then it wouldn't be fair to ignore it here. Forms of
      "splagchnizomai" appear in Mark 6:34, 8:2, and 9:22; where is
      "orgistheis" similarly shown to be a Markan term? Is there anything
      besides 3:5 (met' orghs)?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana, USA
      www.curtisvillechristian.org
    • James M. Leonard
      Regarding TNIV, we should note that R.T. France is on the Committee for Bible Translation (CBT), and that his recent commentary on Mark might shed some light
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding TNIV, we should note that R.T. France is on the Committee
        for Bible Translation (CBT), and that his recent commentary on Mark
        might shed some light on the passage.

        We should also note that the 11 member CBT has at least two text
        critics, Gordon Fee and Bruce Waltke.


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Codex Bezae. That's the entire Greek support for the reading
        > "orgistheis" (angry) in Mark 1:41. Yet Dr. Bart Ehrman continues
        to
        > press for its adoption. The TNIV, like the NEB, has adopted this
        > reading into the text. I diagree, though (along with the ESV and
        > HCSB).
        >
        > Dr. Ehrman's case for "orgistheis" (presented in "A Leper in the
        > Hands of an Angry Jesus" and more recently in "Bible Review")
        rests
        > partly on the argument that the parallels in Matthew and Luke do
        not
        > contain "splagchnistheis" and there is no perceptible impetus for
        > such an abandonment of their source-text (presumed to be the
        Gospel
        > of Mark); meanwhile their omission of the word may be explained by
        > their desire to presenting Jesus getting angry.
        >
        > Three counterpoints:
        >
        > First, do Matthew and Luke really avoid presenting Jesus getting
        > angry? They portray Jesus as quite annoyed with His disciples on
        > some occasions. And He sure sounds angry when He denounces the
        > scribes and Pharisees, and at the Temple-cleansing -- deliberately
        > angry, but still angry.
        >
        > Second, there's a Minor Agreement at the beginning of 1:41. Mt.
        8:2
        > and Lk. 5:12 both have "Lord" (Kurie) but Mk. 1:41 doesn't.
        (B+C+L+W
        > et al have Kurie, but Aleph+A+D et al do not.) This should at
        > least raise the question of whether or not they used a source
        which
        > was different from what we know as the Gospel of Mark. (Really,
        all
        > "Minor Agreements" may be summoned to testify about this.)
        >
        > Third, parallels in Matthew and Luke DO contain "splagchnistheis" -
        -
        > they're just not the parallels one usually thinks about. Mark
        1:41
        > is the only case where Mark states that Jesus healed a person by
        > touching him after feeling compassion for him (assuming that
        > "splagchnistheis" is original). Where else does Jesus do this?
        >
        > In two passages, Jesus does something remarkably like that. One
        is
        > Matthew 20:34. There, Matthew depicts Jesus healing two blind men
        ~
        > "And Jesus in pity touched their eyes." The parallel-passages in
        > Mark 10:52 and Luke 18:42 say nothing about Jesus' pity, or about
        > Jesus touching the blind. Yet Matthew 20:34 uses the word
        > "splagchnistheis" and the word "hpsato." Where did Matthew get
        the
        > idea that Jesus healed in this way? Since those two words appear
        in
        > Mk. 1:41 exactly as they appear in Mt. 20:34, it seems likely that
        he
        > got the idea from Mk. 1:41 and, though he omitted these details
        from
        > his condensed account of the healing of the leper, he considered
        it
        > appropriate to include them elsewhere.
        >
        > And in Luke 7:13, Luke states that Jesus felt compassion
        > (esplagchnisqh) for the widow in Nain right before He came and
        > touched (upsato) the bier. This pericope is not in Matthew or
        Luke.
        > Why did Luke think that Jesus would be so filled with compasison
        that
        > He would allow Himself to be considered "unclean" in this way?
        And
        > why would Luke describe Jesus' emotions using this term? The
        answer
        > "Because a Lucan source depicted Jesus doing this, and because
        Luke
        > was aware that Mark had reported that Jesus felt compassion when
        He
        > similarly underwent "uncleanness" in 1:41" seems apt.
        >
        > The remainder of the pro-"orgistheis" argument consists of the
        point
        > that the canon that the reading which best explains the others is
        > more likely to be original -- and since it is easier to imagine
        why
        > scribes would replace "Jesus was angry" with "Jesus was
        > compassionate" than the opposite shift, this favors "orgistheis."
        >
        > Counterpoint:
        >
        > There should be no need for a reminder that the canons are not
        > mechanical rules, and that any case might be a special case. What
        we
        > have here is a special case -- a case of "retro-translation" which
        > may be manifested elsewhere in Codex Bezae. As noted in W.
        Willker's
        > Commentary, J.R. Harris observed that the Latin word "motus" was
        > capable of being understood as "moved with pity" or "moved with
        > anger" (and that it is used with both meanings in "Acts of
        > Perpetua"). And just the other day at the Evangelical Textual
        > Criticism site, Dr. P.J. Williams noted that "orgistheis" might be
        > "possibly a retranslation from Latin iratus from misertus." (And
        in
        > TCGNT, BMM notes a close similarity between two Syriac words
        for "he
        > was enraged" (ethra'em) and "he had pity" (ethraham).)
        >
        > It wouldn't be difficult for an early copyist who had learned the
        > pericope in Latin, and who had assumed that his Latin text meant
        that
        > Jesus was angry with the leper for some good reason, would, when
        > encountering "splagchnistheis" in a Greek exemplar, assume that
        the
        > exemplar-producing scribe had made a mistake, and "correct" it to
        > "orgistheis." I think it's likely that something like that is the
        > origin of the variant in Codex Bezae. That might not be the most
        > probably series of events ever proposed, but it seems a lot more
        > probable than the competing proposal that "orgistheis" was
        thoroughly
        > replaced (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
        > and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and four Byz.
        mss)
        > by "splagchnistheis" in all channels of transmission, leaving that
        > shining example of pristine, disciplined copyist-work, the text of
        D,
        > as its sole Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather)
        support.
        >
        > There's also the question of vocabulary to consider -- at least,
        if
        > vocabulary is going to be hired as an important piece of evidence
        in
        > other cases, then it wouldn't be fair to ignore it here. Forms of
        > "splagchnizomai" appear in Mark 6:34, 8:2, and 9:22; where is
        > "orgistheis" similarly shown to be a Markan term? Is there
        anything
        > besides 3:5 (met' orghs)?
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
        > Indiana, USA
        > www.curtisvillechristian.org
        >
      • Michael Marlowe
        ... I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim Snapp wrote:

          > ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
          > proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
          > (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
          > and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
          > four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
          > of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
          > disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
          > Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.

          I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
          are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
          western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
          sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
          should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
          convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
          questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
          yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
          to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
          remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.

          Michael
        • Bart Ehrman
          I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings (in comparsion
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
            that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
            (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
            manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
            simply count Alexandrian noses.

            Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
            *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
            instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.

            I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
            but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
            instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.

            -- Bart Ehrman



            On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:

            > Jim Snapp wrote:
            >
            >> ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
            >> proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
            >> (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
            >> and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
            >> four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
            >> of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
            >> disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
            >> Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
            >
            > I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
            > are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
            > western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
            > sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
            > should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
            > convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
            > questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
            > yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
            > to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
            > remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
            >
            > Michael
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Daniel B. Wallace
            If I may weigh in here: I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don t recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor,
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              If I may weigh in here:

              I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading. I appreciate some of the points that were made in defense of the compassionate reading, too. And I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before). One of my students just wrote a term paper on the passage. I will be posting it on csntm.org in the next couple of weeks (along with hundreds of images, new collations, etc.). I hope to hear from more of you on this text!

              Respectfully,

              Daniel B. Wallace
              Executive Director,
              Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
              www.csntm.org

              ----- Start Original Message -----
              From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"

              > I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
              > that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
              > (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
              > manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
              > simply count Alexandrian noses.
              >
              > Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
              > *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
              > instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
              >
              > I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
              > but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
              > instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
              >
              > -- Bart Ehrman
              >
              >
              >
              > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
              >
              > > Jim Snapp wrote:
              > >
              > >> ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
              > >> proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
              > >> (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
              > >> and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
              > >> four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
              > >> of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
              > >> disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
              > >> Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
              > >
              > > I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
              > > are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
              > > western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
              > > sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
              > > should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
              > > convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
              > > questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
              > > yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
              > > to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
              > > remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
              > >
              > > Michael
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              ----- End Original Message -----
            • K. Martin Heide
              Bart Ehrman wrote: I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Bart Ehrman wrote:
                    I think you make a good point.  But on what grounds can we decide
                that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings 
                (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other 
                manuscripts)?  I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and 
                simply count Alexandrian noses.
                
                    Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone.  It represents a 
                *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this 
                instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
                
                    I think Hort had a much better approach to D.  It represented a faulty 
                but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare) 
                instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
                
                -- Bart Ehrman
                
                
                
                On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
                
                  
                Jim Snapp wrote:
                
                    
                ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
                proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
                (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
                and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
                four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
                of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
                disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
                Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
                      
                I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
                are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
                western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
                sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
                should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
                convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
                questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
                yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
                to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
                remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
                
                Michael
                
                
                
                    
                  
                So you think that e.g. the so-called western non-interpolations maybe or are valid and that the papyri add nothing to our knowledge
                regarding these variants? (see e.g. Kurt Aland in ANTT 2,
                "Die Bedeutung des P75 für den Text des Neuen Testaments - Ein Beitrag zur Frage der 'western non-interpolations'")

                (By the way, you never do textual criticism without counting noses. Even you in your Orthodox Corruption tell us explicitly,
                in case you prefer D, where D is backed up by additional witnesses etc. such as Old Latin)


                Martin

              • Bart Ehrman
                Thanks for this. The question is always, which noses to count and how to count them. I have an excursus on the Western non-interpolations in Orthodox
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for this. The question is always, which noses to count and how
                  to count them.

                  I have an excursus on the Western non-interpolations in Orthodox
                  Corruption. I think Hort was right on the money and Aland is absolutely
                  wrong (and that he misconstrued Hort), for reasons I lay out in detail
                  there. I've sometimes thought that excursus was about the best thing I
                  ever wrote....

                  -- Bart Ehrman



                  On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, K. Martin Heide wrote:

                  > Bart Ehrman wrote:
                  >
                  > I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
                  > that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
                  > (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
                  > manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
                  > simply count Alexandrian noses.
                  >
                  > Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
                  > *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
                  > instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
                  >
                  > I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
                  > but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
                  > instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
                  >
                  > -- Bart Ehrman
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Jim Snapp wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
                  > proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
                  > (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
                  > and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
                  > four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
                  > of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
                  > disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
                  > Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
                  >
                  >
                  > I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
                  > are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
                  > western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
                  > sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
                  > should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
                  > convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
                  > questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
                  > yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
                  > to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
                  > remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
                  >
                  > Michael
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > So you think that e.g. the so-called western non-interpolations maybe
                  > or are valid and that the papyri add nothing to our knowledge regarding
                  > these variants? (see e.g. Kurt Aland in ANTT 2, "Die Bedeutung des P75
                  > fuer den Text des Neuen Testaments - Ein Beitrag zur Frage der 'western
                  > non-interpolations'")
                  >
                  > (By the way, you never do textual criticism without counting noses. Even
                  > you in your Orthodox Corruption tell us explicitly,
                  > in case you prefer D, where D is backed up by additional witnesses etc.
                  > such as Old Latin)
                  >
                  >
                  > Martin
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________________________________________________________
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > * Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
                  >
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  > ________________________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  >
                • Bart Ehrman
                  Dan, I m glad for the (almost) support. But in my view, if an angry Jesus is the *same* as a compassionate Jesus, there s little reason to do text criticism
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dan,

                    I'm glad for the (almost) support. But in my view, if an angry Jesus
                    is the *same* as a compassionate Jesus, there's little reason to do text
                    criticism on the verse!

                    Best,

                    -- Bart



                    On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:

                    > If I may weigh in here:
                    >
                    > I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading. I appreciate some of the points that were made in defense of the compassionate reading, too. And I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before). One of my students just wrote a term paper on the passage. I will be posting it on csntm.org in the next couple of weeks (along with hundreds of images, new collations, etc.). I hope to hear from more of you on this text!
                    >
                    > Respectfully,
                    >
                    > Daniel B. Wallace
                    > Executive Director,
                    > Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
                    > www.csntm.org
                    >
                    > ----- Start Original Message -----
                    > From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
                    > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"
                    >
                    >> I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
                    >> that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
                    >> (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
                    >> manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
                    >> simply count Alexandrian noses.
                    >>
                    >> Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
                    >> *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
                    >> instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
                    >>
                    >> I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
                    >> but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
                    >> instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
                    >>
                    >> -- Bart Ehrman
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> Jim Snapp wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>>> ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
                    >>>> proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
                    >>>> (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
                    >>>> and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
                    >>>> four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
                    >>>> of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
                    >>>> disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
                    >>>> Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
                    >>>
                    >>> I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
                    >>> are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
                    >>> western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
                    >>> sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
                    >>> should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
                    >>> convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
                    >>> questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
                    >>> yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
                    >>> to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
                    >>> remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
                    >>>
                    >>> Michael
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    > ----- End Original Message -----
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • sarban
                    ... From: Daniel B. Wallace To: Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:56 PM Subject: Re:
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Daniel B. Wallace" <csntm@...>
                      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:56 PM
                      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with
                      Compassion"


                      > If I may weigh in here:
                      >
                      > I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall
                      > if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same
                      > reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western
                      > text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that
                      > one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger
                      > elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual
                      > critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading.

                      IMHO the reading 'angry' is probably original.

                      However there is a possible unintentional origin given by Metzger
                      in his textual commentary.

                      Ephraem Syrus knows this reading which is presumably that of
                      Tatian's Diatessaron. It would be possible to argue that the other
                      witnesses for 'angry' (D and the Old Latin) are dependent directly
                      or indirectly on a reading in Syriac/Aramaic. (Either Tatianic or
                      pre-Tatianic.)

                      If so Ethra(ch)am 'he had pity' could have been unintentionally confused
                      with Ethra'em 'he was enraged'.

                      Andrew Criddle
                    • Michael Marlowe
                      ... It seems to me that your approach to D is far more eclectic than Hort s approach to it. Michael
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bart Ehrman wrote:

                        > I think Hort had a much better approach to D.

                        It seems to me that your approach to D is far more eclectic than Hort's
                        approach to it.

                        Michael
                      • Michael Marlowe
                        ... This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set aside. I
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Daniel Wallace wrote:

                          > But one has to wonder why the Western text
                          > would create such a reading: there is no
                          > unintentional reason that one can muster for it ..

                          This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a
                          clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set
                          aside. I think that's unreasonable in view of the obvious inferiority of D
                          as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated
                          results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really
                          give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now? It does not
                          deserve such weight that we should demand to know the cause of all its
                          divergent readings before discounting them. As Hort said, "knowledge of
                          documents should precede final judgment upon readings." In other words, our
                          opinion of a manuscript's readings ought to be colored by our knowledge
                          about its general character. I think the independent value of D is
                          comparatively low. Its value is chiefly in confirming from a distance the
                          readings attested in other early streams of transmission. This is true even
                          if it be taken as a representative of a whole stream of "western" MSS,
                          because the "western" witnesses are not to be trusted when they stand alone.
                          As a group they are not equal to the "Alexandrian" witnesses. Some of them
                          have evidently come through the hands of people who had little interest in
                          preserving the original form of the text, either in Greek or in Latin. In
                          view of this treatment of the text in the West, it seems unreasonable to put
                          forth some reading in D/d (with perhaps a smattering of other Latin MSS) as
                          the original reading, against all the other witnesses, simply because one
                          cannot readily account for the D reading by some habitual tendency of
                          scribes.

                          If an explanation for ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is thought to be necessary, I
                          think Metzger is probably on the right track when he guesses that it was
                          "suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver. 43" (Textual Commentary, p. 77). The
                          details of how it actually came to replace SPLAGCNISQEIS in D or its
                          ancestors are not terribly hard to imagine. Perhaps someone wrote ORGISQEIS
                          (or its Latin equivalent) in the margin close by EMBRIMHSAMENOS (or by its
                          Latin equivalent) as a homiletic note pointing out that the word in the
                          Greek indicates that Jesus was angry. Then a copyist might have incorporated
                          the note into the text, at the most suitable place for it. Stranger things
                          have happened in D. Perhaps someone boldly introduced the variant on a whim.
                          But however it came about, I would point out that ORGISQEIS also seems to be
                          a *harmonization to the immediate context that relieves a difficulty.*
                          Instead of Jesus being compassionate and then suddenly scolding the man for
                          no apparent reason, he is just annoyed at being pursued or interrupted at
                          the time (the context indicates that the wanted to leave off the healing and
                          get out to do some preaching). Other specific explanations could be found,
                          starting from Metzger's idea; but again, I don't see the need for it. The
                          other early evidence decisively favors SPLAGCNISQEIS, and D cannot outweigh
                          it.

                          Michael
                        • voxverax
                          Dr. Wallace & Dr. Ehrman ~ There *is* an unintentional reason that one can muster for the creation of orgistheis -- I mentioned it in post #1502:
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dr. Wallace & Dr. Ehrman ~

                            There *is* an unintentional reason that one can muster for the
                            creation of "orgistheis" -- I mentioned it in post #1502:
                            miscorrection by a copyist who had first encountered the passage in
                            Latin, and had understood the Latin term (one that could mean "moved
                            with anger" or "moved with pity") to mean "angry."

                            DW: "I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading
                            (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before)."

                            I don't think the adoption of "orgistheis" would spark a rewrite of
                            Mark's Christology either -- especially since one could say that
                            Jesus was angry with the leper for breaking Mosaic regulations by
                            entering a synagogue (but healed him nevertheless, thus forebearing
                            with the leper's desperate disobedience but tempering this by
                            instructing the leper to keep Moses' commandments about what to do
                            next). But that still doesn't make its claim to originality as
                            strong as the case for "splagchnistheis."

                            BDE: "Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It
                            represents a *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin
                            witnesses in this instance (and others like it) are directly
                            dependent on D."

                            The Old Latin witnesses a (c. 360), d (c. 500?), ff2 (400's), and r1
                            (600's)? No; d seems to have been greatly influenced by D but not
                            the other three. But I would like to know exactly what Latin word is
                            contained in those three witnesses. Is it a term which is capable of
                            a double-meaning? If not, nothing changes. But if so, then I think
                            this would further support the explanation that "orgistheis" is a
                            miscorrection elicited by a misinterpretation of a Latin text.

                            Does anybody have any data to share in this regard? Perhaps within
                            the dissertation or that term-paper which were alluded to, or in some
                            more readily available source, this possibly significant data-nugget
                            can be found.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Curtisville Christian Church
                            www.curtisvillechristian.org
                          • K. Martin Heide
                            Michael Marlowe wrote: Daniel Wallace wrote: But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 9, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Michael Marlowe wrote:
                              Daniel Wallace wrote:
                              
                                
                              But one has to wonder why the Western text
                              would create such a reading: there is no
                              unintentional reason that one can muster for it ..
                                  
                              This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a 
                              clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set 
                              aside. I think that's unreasonable in view of the obvious inferiority of D 
                              as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated 
                              results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really 
                              give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now? It does not 
                              deserve such weight that we should demand to know the cause of all its 
                              divergent readings before discounting them. As Hort said, "knowledge of 
                              documents should precede final judgment upon readings." In other words, our 
                              opinion of a manuscript's readings ought to be colored by our knowledge 
                              about its general character. I think the independent value of D is 
                              comparatively low. Its value is chiefly in confirming from a distance the 
                              readings attested in other early streams of transmission. This is true even 
                              if it be taken as a representative of a whole stream of "western" MSS, 
                              because the "western" witnesses are not to be trusted when they stand alone. 
                              As a group they are not equal to the "Alexandrian" witnesses. Some of them 
                              have evidently come through the hands of people who had little interest in 
                              preserving the original form of the text, either in Greek or in Latin. In 
                              view of this treatment of the text in the West, it seems unreasonable to put 
                              forth some reading in D/d  (with perhaps a smattering of other Latin MSS) as 
                              the original reading, against all the other witnesses, simply because one 
                              cannot readily account for the D reading by some habitual tendency of 
                              scribes.
                              
                              If an explanation for ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is thought to be necessary, I 
                              think Metzger is probably on the right track when he guesses that it was 
                              "suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver. 43" (Textual Commentary, p. 77). The 
                              details of how it actually came to replace SPLAGCNISQEIS in D or its 
                              ancestors are not terribly hard to imagine. Perhaps someone wrote ORGISQEIS 
                              (or its Latin equivalent) in the margin close by EMBRIMHSAMENOS (or by its 
                              Latin equivalent) as a homiletic note pointing out that the word in the 
                              Greek indicates that Jesus was angry. Then a copyist might have incorporated 
                              the note into the text, at the most suitable place for it. Stranger things 
                              have happened in D. Perhaps someone boldly introduced the variant on a whim. 
                              But however it came about, I would point out that ORGISQEIS also seems to be 
                              a *harmonization to the immediate context that relieves a difficulty.* 
                              Instead of Jesus being compassionate and then suddenly scolding the man for 
                              no apparent reason, he is just annoyed at being pursued or interrupted at 
                              the time (the context indicates that the wanted to leave off the healing and 
                              get out to do some preaching). Other specific explanations could be found, 
                              starting from Metzger's idea; but again, I don't see the need for it. The 
                              other early evidence decisively favors SPLAGCNISQEIS, and D cannot outweigh 
                              it.
                              
                              Michael
                              
                              
                              
                              
                                
                              We should not regard the Text of D alone, but the whole western tradition:
                              As most text-critics correctly assert, we do not have to speak of "the western text" , but of "western texts":
                              there is not a small difference between those manuscripts. Every scribe took, so it seems, the western-text-manuscript
                              he had already, and added/changed what he thought would be appropriate. That's why the P75-B alignment is so important, because
                              it embodies a very "clean" tradition (compared with, let's say, the P48-D alignment in Acts). D is only the endproduct of a scribal tradition,
                              which, in addition, is - at least in actual manuscript support - later than the P75etc.-B tradition.

                              So, you have to have very, very good arguments (intrinsic probability is not enough! and what about the church fathers?), to prefer the western reading in Mk 1:41. Remember that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger in their new case for the western text in Acts argue a lot with intrinsic probability, too ...

                              All the best,
                              Martin
                            • Peter Head
                              I can t recall that ORGISTHEIS has ever been included in any edition of the Greek NT; but it is practically the majority opinion among commentators on Mark
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 10, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I can't recall that ORGISTHEIS has ever been included in any edition of the
                                Greek NT; but it is practically the majority opinion among commentators on
                                Mark (Taylor, Hooker, Lane, Gnilka, Pesch). Preferring this reading is
                                hardly therefore an Ehrmanian idiosyncrasy.

                                Pete



                                Peter M. Head, PhD
                                Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                Tyndale House
                                36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                                566607
                                Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                                http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.