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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Daniel B. Wallace To: Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:56 PM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.