spin

Lk 5:14a is accounted for from Mk 1:44a. We then must still account for the lack of Mk 1:43 in the other two.

So you feel you didn't have the knowledge to make an adequate statement in the first place.


spin

show_no_mercy

This is from pg 78 of Bart Erhman's "Lost Christianities". Though I don't know off hand which "earlier manuscripts" he's referring to.

andrewcriddle

The Western text of Mark 1:41 (Codex Bezae the Old Latin and aparently Ephraem Syrus) reads orgistheis ie being angry.

Some scholars, eg Bart Ehrman, regard this as the original, omitted as offensive by Matthew and Luke and replaced by splagchnistheis ie moved with compassion in most manuscripts of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

spin

OK. NA27 gives the Codex Bezae as having οργισθεις, meaning "he became angry" (eg Mt 18:34), a 5th century text as the only early text to have the variant, against three major earlier manuscripts and others contemporary. I think Ehrman's hopeful. (But it might be good to see the Latin supplied by Bezae as well to understand the Greek -- Bezae is a bilingual text.)


spin

spin

Strange, NA27, which I consider authoritative, doesn't cite Ephraemi (C) for οργισθεις.


spin

spin

These all have similar circumstances, mainly of healing, as Mk 1:41, so οργισθεις (he became angry) seems less appropriate than σπλαγχνισθεις (he was moved with compassion).


spin

Chaucer

It could simply mean he was troubled or vexed by the general circumstances, without necessarily being angry at anyone in particular. Someone (the leper) was suffering, and so Jesus feels affronted somehow by the horrifying spectacle that results, feeling an urge perhaps to address the grisly spectacle in some constructive way.

I recall (but don't recall where) that I've seen the translation somewhere, "much troubled", which could indicate anything including either sympathy or impatience. If the original reading has such an ambiguity, then "much troubled" may be truer to a possibly ambivalent original.

Chaucer

EarlDoherty

Here we have a prime example of the weakness of certain arguments for Luke using Matthew. These “minor agreements” (in the chart by Spin) are so minor as to be trivial. First of all, they could be explained by the process of assimilation. Later copyists change the text of one Gospel—perhaps inadvertently—to agree with their familiarity with the text of another. Second, can we really believe that Luke would have made some conscious decision to do something like change Mark’s “he said to him” to “saying,”? Or that Luke couldn’t have felt the impulse to have the leper address Jesus as “Lord” without some prompting from Matthew? These things are more likely to be mere coincidence (or assimilation) than that Luke adopted a methodology of using Mark and Matthew, both open in front of him (though how does one “open” two scrolls and ‘leaf’ through both to compare common passages?), which would encompass such trivialities as this, while at the same time diverging from Matthew in large scale ways such as failing to adopt any of Matthew’s redactions of Mark (like the “upon this rock” addition I discussed earlier).

Yet great emphasis is placed on these minor agreements, probably because they constitute perhaps the strongest item in a very weak batch. And as a general principle there is also the possibility that the text of Mark as we have it has changed over its original, and in certain of the minor agreements the Ur-Mark Luke and Matthew used actually did agree with their texts. Again I stress the infeasibility of relying absolutely and solely on specific textual wording when our extant copies are separated from the autographs by as much as a century and more, and given the fluidity of most texts in the early Christian record in regard to amendments, deliberate and otherwise. These small-scale situations in textual comparison cannot be appealed to so absolutely, while ignoring other more telling indicators, such as the lack of Matthean redactions of Mark in Luke, or the alternating primitivity of the Q pericopes in Matthew and Luke.

Earl Doherty

DCHindley

It is cited in the UBS GNT apparatus. For reasons peculiar to the editors and purpose of the editions, N/A and USB don't always cite the exact same list of manuscripts and church fathers for any particular variant.

USB is intended for use by translators and thus refers a lot to use of passages by church fathers as it relates to their interpretation of a Greek passage when translating into Latin, Syriac, etc.

N/A tends to concentrate on textual issues in the biblical manuscripts directly, and occasionally refers to quotations by church fathers if they are in Greek.

It's best to use both. BTW, if it is in Ephraim Syrus, it is not Greek οργισθεις (orgistheis) but a Syriac word that roughly means the same thing. Greek OrgE means any passionate emotion,* usually anger, but if you think about it the same word is behind English "Orgy," which is certainly not about anger (let's ignore "angry sex" for the moment).

DCH

*Per Liddell & Scott, principly natural impulse or propension: one's temper, temperament, disposition, nature, or secondly passion, anger, wrath.

spamandham

From this particular set of verses, we could conclude that Matthew and Luke both had a manuscript to work from that differs from what we know as Mark.

But we could also conclude a sequence, where Matthew used Mark and made changes as he saw fit. Then Luke used Matthew and Mark as his sources, picking what he liked from each. Under that scenario, we would expect that Luke would omit some of the same things Matthew omits, but might also include other things Matthew omitted. We would expect Luke to include some of what Matthew added, but probably not everything, and we would expect Luke to omit that which he disliked from both, and add his own unique innovations as well.

How can we tell the difference between a scenario such as this, vs. some form of Q?