JW:Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:46 amJoeWallack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:58 pmEphrem says that in direct response to the leper's request, Jesus was angry. We have the following reasons to think that "angry" was what Ephrem saw:The passage in Ephrem’s commentary reads:
... For, ̄in response to if you are willing, he was angry [ ʾettp̱ır̄], and in response to you can, he was healed …
...
We have the following reasons than to prefer "angry" over "compassion" from Ephrem:
In the bigger picture, if you accept that Ephrem is a witness for "angry" then:
- 1) "Anger" fits more directly with Ephrem's commentary than "compassion".
2) The following verses also support "anger" giving "anger" an overall support as being explicit in the text.
3) It's easier to understand Ephrem as adding "compassion" to the text as his own commentary since the overall text shows an angry Jesus.
4) The later angry related verbs are not normally translated as "angrily" in the Christian Bible. So why does Ephrem use the most negative description for Jesus? Unless the text explicitly said "angry".
1) It's also evidence that the Diatesseron had "angry".
2) It's also evidence that Tatian was for "angry".
3) It's also evidence that GMatthew/GLuke might have had "angry" originally.
Agreed. Theerfore I said
I agree that you agreed. I normally only respond when I disagree but you are far from normal.
JW:FurthermoreIt appears that Ephrem was aware of a widespread discussion of Jesus' anger in these verses with different interpretations about the cause of the anger. Without the explicit mention in Mark 1:41, such a discussion is difficult to imagine.JoeWallack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:58 pmThe passage in Ephrem’s commentary reads:
...
It is also said that the Lord was not angry [ʾettp̱ır̄] with him, but with his leprosy.
Good one.
That's the type of fine discovery a lawyer would make.
Joseph
https://vridar.org/responding-to-adl-propaganda/