Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus Angry?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by JoeWallack »

This post was made by iskander who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
JW:
Ah, much better. The easiest way to increase the level of scholarship. It goes without saying that I will still make fun of iskander unmercifully.


Joseph

Oops, almost forgot:

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by iskander »

JoeWallack wrote:
This post was made by iskander who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
JW:
Ah, much better. The easiest way to increase the level of scholarship. It goes without saying that I will still make fun of iskander unmercifully.


Joseph

Oops, almost forgot:

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?
Being in your ignore list is not important.

PS Give freedom to Palestine
james_C
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by james_C »

freedom.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Daniel Wallace Credo House Mark 1:41

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Daniel Wallace, whose credibility took a bigger hit than Hamas with the supposed 1st century fragment of Mark Catastrophe, has what looks like a pretty good argument for "angry" here (I've only looked at the first part) Mark 1:41 although as usual he does not appear to go into as much detail as I do.

To Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) and our (dis)own iskander credit, they do confess now that "anger" is likely original. Their Apologetic dishonesty is trying to spin what that means. Wallace's dishonesty is that "Mark" (author) is trying to impose Reader emotion here on Jesus while iskander's is that Jesus is angry at Judaism. What an original "anger" here means is that only one Greek manuscript (albeit an oldie and goodie) survived dishonest Christian transmission so while there is no shortage of giant leaps of faith speculating that there may be lost readings with no Manuscript support that solve ginormous difficulties such as the ending of GMark, it is a small step of reason that there may be lost readings with no manuscript support for extremely difficult readings such as after Peter weeps like a woman mourning the dead he than remembers the Parable of the Sower.

I have mixed feelings on filtering iskander. His/her/their/it's/AbAss apologies are a distraction to the Textual Criticism here which is primary. On the other hand the Apologies are an important part of Polemics, illustrating historical dishonesty. Regarding Palestinian Terrorism also, if iskander is a Christian Apologist, than he is more likely to be an Apologist in other areas. This is like in the Sopranos where the New York family says, "Tony wanted our attention, now he's got it." iskander wanted my attention, now he's got it.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Comparison to "Luke"

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
A comparison of GMark with GLuke:

Mark Greek
1:41
Luke Greek 5:13 Mark Translation Luke Translation Commentary
Καὶ καὶ And And -
σπλαγχνισθεὶς - having been moved with compassion, - The issue in question. Note that the five word English translation has one underlying Greek word.
ἐκτείνας ἐκτείνας having stretched out having stretched out -
τὴν τὴν the the -
χεῖρα χεῖρα hand hand -
αὐτοῦ ἥψατο ἥψατο αὐτοῦ of him touched touched him First other difference. Word switch with no difference in meaning.
καὶ - and - Second other difference. No difference in meaning.
λέγει αὐτῷ λέγων says to him saying Third other difference. No difference in meaning.
Θέλω Θέλω I will I am willing -
καθαρίσθητι καθαρίσθητι be you cleansed be you cleansed For KK's eyes only. No difference here but note that tragic word.
καὶ καὶ And And -
εὐθὺς εὐθέως immediately immediately -
ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ departed from him the leprosy and he was cleansed The leprosy departed from him Fourth other difference. No significant difference but "Mark's" (author) extra of "he was cleansed" is more in line with "Mark's" description of physical illness having evil spiritual source so that the literary image is of a physical and spiritual departure of illness and evil spirit. This is a better fit for "Mark's" probable meaning of "cleaned" here. The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith. "Luke" of course wants a more historical sounding pericope. Jesus touches a guy with the leprosy and the leprosy is healed, end of story (so to speak).

Conclusion = In using GMark as a base "Luke", like "Matthew", mostly uses the exact same words as "Mark" for this pericope. Of the few differences the only one with a significant difference in meaning is the issue in question. If "Luke" saw "compassion" here in GMark there is no good reason why she would have exorcised it as it is exactly how she saw Jesus. This looks like more evidence, before any extant related Manuscripts, that GLuke, early second century, had no evidence of "compassion" in GMark here.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Mark's Leper

Post by robert j »

I agree with your conclusion that "with anger" is the more original reading here. However,
JoeWallack wrote:The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith.
Just how much faith did the leper show? It seems mixed at best, having faith that Jesus could heal him, but expressing some doubt that Jesus would be willing.

And a leper comes to Him, imploring Him and kneeling down, and saying to Him, "If You are willing, You are able to cleanse me." (Mark 1:40)

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's Leper

Post by JoeWallack »

robert j wrote:I agree with your conclusion that "with anger" is the more original reading here. However,
JoeWallack wrote:The leper is supposedly physically cleaned of leprosy but more importantly is spiritually "cleaned" because of faith.
Just how much faith did the leper show? It seems mixed at best, having faith that Jesus could heal him, but expressing some doubt that Jesus would be willing.

And a leper comes to Him, imploring Him and kneeling down, and saying to Him, "If You are willing, You are able to cleanse me." (Mark 1:40)

JW:
1
40 And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And being moved with anger, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.
To the Reader, the leper is being described as being humble, cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt. "Mark's" (author) Jesus is insulted at the supposed questioning of Jesus' willingness to heal. This is primarily about Jesus' reaction and secondarily about the faith of the leper. Per Aristotle's Poetics good Greek Tragedy is plausible. Plausible reasons/motivations are given for actions. This helps the audience identify with the character as they think it is possible and could happen, even to them. GMark is commonly (mis)thought to be all about everyone's reaction to Jesus when it is about everyone's reaction including Jesus'. Here Jesus' reaction is to a recipient of healing. At the corresponding 3:5 Jesus' reaction is to the Jewish leaders audience. At 6 Jesus' reaction is to his home town audience. In classic Greek Tragedy the hero will lose to Fate. In GMark Jesus loses to fate. The ability of his Disciples to not have faith is stronger than his ability to give them faith. GMark is fate, and not faith, accomplices.

This is all a preQue to Paul and his "crucify your Passions". Paul's use of "passions" = strong negative emotions such as anger. "Mark's" Jesus' successful ability to crucify his passions from his Teaching & Healing Ministry could not be properly observed, reflected on and acted upon by Jesus' fellow characters because they were a part of The Play. Only after it all supposedly happened could someone, not part of the performance, appreciate and understand the significance (explicitly used by Paul in Galatians). In classic Greek Tragedy the hero loses to fate, but this loss lesson is the reason the audience will not. Jesus can win in the future, just don't be like Peter.

Note the literary style of "Mark" where the beginning (1:41) and ending (3:5) of Jesus' Galilean mission is framed by his anger (probably the best Internal evidence for "anger" being original to 1:41.)


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by iskander »

To the reader,
Mark 1:40 ff is about the kingdom of god at work.
The man had been made an outcast by the perverse doctrines of the Pharisees and god was impotent to help the victims. Jesus liberates God and makes him King.

Judaism was not a religion, Judaism was a cruel superstition in that it was the ritual prescribed by men that which made the difference. God was imprisoned in a filthy little room and once a year he was showered with the ' pig's blood' of the atoning animal .People suffered under the yoke of the Oral Torah and Jesus brought to the them the love of a personal God.
PS Give freedom to Palestine, please
james_C
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by james_C »

Alexander/iskander , I think your jc was as racist as his dad in heaven. For gentile woman to be accepted in kingdom of Jesus, she had to accept her status as an animal and slave of Jewish racist children. Freedom to Palestine.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Must You Be Such A Angry Young Man/Mark1:41 Jesus An

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
A comparison of what follows 1:41-42 with GLuke:

1:43

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology Commentary
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj -
1690 [e] embrimēsamenos ἐμβριμησάμενος having warned V-APM-NMS Strong negative emotion, often associated with anger
846 [e] autō αὐτῷ him, PPro-DM3S -
2112 [e] euthys εὐθὺς immediately Adv -
1544 [e] exebalen ἐξέβαλεν he sent away V-AIA-3S The meaning is to drive/cast out. This is the word used for demon launching. Again, strong negative emotion.
846 [e] auton αὐτόν, him, PPro-AM3S -

GLuke has 5:14 "καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ" = and he instructed him. "Command" may be better but clearly "Luke" (author) has exorcised "Mark's" words, "warned" and "drove out", indicating/supporting that Jesus was angry. So GLuke has removed the Markan evidence, direct and indirect, that Jesus was angry, same as GMatthew.

For James C - if at the end of a cutting edge/top quality Textual Criticism post I add a link to an article that is critical of Palestinian Terrorism, then sure, you have the right to take a pal-pot-shot supporting Palestinian Terrorism, but it's not going to continue to be primary to your posting in this Thread. Do it a 3rd time and I will filter you. If you want to support Palestinian Terrorism then there's a place for that, Neil Godfrey's blog, with Jugdish, Mohammet and Neil. I'm sure you'll have lots to talk about.


Joseph

European Sympathy for Palestinians and Criticism for Israel - Motivated by Morals or Self-Interests?
Post Reply