Sympathetic, or Angered?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Pat Ferguson » September 23rd, 2013, 6:18 pm

καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγε ..... (Mark 1:41 N-A28)

Most English language Bible versions render σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say something as or akin to "moved with compassion" (e.g., EMTV). But two English versions I've looked at translate σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say "angry" (so in ERV and LEB). I've searched several mss dated to the period 150-475 CE (namely, from Papyrus Egerton 2 to codex 02/A), and the Vulgate, but I have yet to locate a document that indicates Jesus became angry (σκυθρωπός(?)) at the leper.

Q: from which "great Catholic" codex or other manuscript came the notion that Jesus became "angry" at the leper?
"That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1.1-3)
Pat Ferguson
 
Posts: 14
Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 2:30 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stephen Hughes » September 24th, 2013, 1:19 am

Pat Ferguson wrote:Most English language Bible versions render σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say something as or akin to "moved with compassion" (e.g., EMTV). But two English versions I've looked at translate σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say "angry" (so in ERV and LEB). I've searched several mss dated to the period 150-475 CE (namely, from Papyrus Egerton 2 to codex 02/A), and the Vulgate, but I have yet to locate a document that indicates Jesus became angry (σκυθρωπός(?)) at the leper.

CEB, ERV, LEB, NIV, and NIVUK all have the meaning of anger or indignation. The translators are not working from a different manuscript, they are considering a different relationship between the parts of the sentence. Where the feeling that Jesus had are directed at the leper, the translations are like "feel compassion / mercy for him". Where the meaning anger is expressed, the translators may have considered that Jesus emotion was directed at different other elements in the sentence; the words that he had just spoken, the disease that had socially debilitated the man or perhaps the leper for doubting that he wanted to. The Greek word σπλαγχνισθεὶς itself can be used with the sense of "deeply moved", "moved in his innermost emotions". The MSG avoids the need to interpret the situation by using the more neutral "deeply moved" in its translation.

It is the job of a translator to interpret the sense of the passage and put it into what they think is the best way to express the meaning of the passage. Here you will not find what you are looking for in the various manuscripts, but in the translator's art.

If you are interested in varient readings you can get a standard edition of the GNT with an apparatus criticus. Relating manuscript variations together with differences English translations is when you see a differerence in the apparatus criticus for a passage AND a difference in the Engish. If there is no difference in the apparatus criticus but there is a difference in the English, then we look into a dictionary to find different meanings of the Greek word. The differences in meaning could be because of collocations (taking the word together with one word or the other) or just different possible meanings that were available to them when they were translating. We can assume that when a committee was translating a passage, for every verse, there were a half dozen or more possibilities that they considered before arriving at a final translation. Some of those may have come from textual variants and some from different ways of looking at the syntax and still others from different possible word meanings.

The people who compiled (are compiling) the apparatus criticus have no hidden agendas or points to prove. They work with a recognised scientific method and strive for scholarly excellence in what they do. Unless you have a very good reason to not trust what they have compiled you can take their work at face value. But, personally, I must say that it is exciting to read an unedited manuscript of either the Bible or another work in Greek, and I think that should be encouraged for all students at one point or other in their careers.

In this case σπλαγχνισθεὶς perhaps it is better not to jump first to the conclusion that the feelings were directed at the leper - although, after considering all the other possibiliities you may later think that that is in fact true.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stephen Carlson » September 24th, 2013, 1:32 am

Pat Ferguson wrote:καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγε ..... (Mark 1:41 N-A28)

Most English language Bible versions render σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say something as or akin to "moved with compassion" (e.g., EMTV). But two English versions I've looked at translate σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say "angry" (so in ERV and LEB).

No, actually they are translating the textual variant ὀργισθείς here.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stephen Hughes » September 24th, 2013, 2:08 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:No, actually they are translating the textual variant ὀργισθείς here.
I'm sorry about my post then, I was working from an incomplete data set, that variant didn't show up for me when I was searching.
Last edited by Stephen Hughes on September 24th, 2013, 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » September 24th, 2013, 2:09 am

Pat Ferguson wrote:καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγε ..... (Mark 1:41 N-A28)

Q: from which "great Catholic" codex or other manuscript came the notion that Jesus became "angry" at the leper?


Codex Bezae.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 207
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Jonathan Robie » September 24th, 2013, 11:30 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Pat Ferguson wrote:καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγε ..... (Mark 1:41 N-A28)

Q: from which "great Catholic" codex or other manuscript came the notion that Jesus became "angry" at the leper?


Codex Bezae.


40 Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν
καὶ λέγων [..] Ἐὰν θέλεις δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.
41 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ
ἥψατο αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι:
42 καὶ εὐθέως ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα,
καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Pat Ferguson » September 24th, 2013, 1:15 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:,... the translators may have considered ....
Thanks, but I'm not interested in what "the translators may have considered" (emp. added).

Stephen Hughes wrote:It is the job of a translator to interpret the sense of the passage and put it into what they think is the best way to express the meaning of the passage.
Acknowledged, but what documentary evidence provided them a justifiable basis for interpreting/expressing σπλαγχνισθεις as indignant rather than "moved with compassion" (KJV; "Moved with pity" in ESV)?
Stephen Hughes wrote:We can assume ....".
Again, no thanks. I, long ago, learned to:
Assume nothing!
Investigate everything!
Verify, verify, verify!

Stephen Hughes wrote:I must say that it is exciting to read an unedited manuscript of either the Bible or another work in Greek, and I think that should be encouraged for all students at one point or other in their careers.
Agreed.
Stephen Hughes wrote:... it is better not to jump first to the conclusion .....
Agreed.
"That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1.1-3)
Pat Ferguson
 
Posts: 14
Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 2:30 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Pat Ferguson » September 24th, 2013, 3:26 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Codex Bezae.
Jonathan Robie wrote:41 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς
Aha! I confirm the content of codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis at Mark 1:41.

So, then, it's in the Greek-Latin codex 05/D (ca. V CE) where the Greek aor. pass. part. masc. sing. nom. verb form (οργισθεις: angry, furious) first appears? OK, new question:

    If extant earlier--and possibly earlier--mss indicate that Jesus either expressed no emotion (as in papyrus fragment Egerton 2, ca. 200 CE), or that he was moved with compassion or pity (σπλαγχνισθεὶς in 01, 02, and 03), then on what objective basis did the codex Bezae scribe alter the wording?
"That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1.1-3)
Pat Ferguson
 
Posts: 14
Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 2:30 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stephen Hughes » September 24th, 2013, 3:37 pm

Pat Ferguson wrote:I'm not interested in what "the translators may have considered
On this point we must agree to differ. I like the word "may", because it leaves me the possibility to think outside my own preconceptions. Uncertainty is the basis questioning and the impetus for progress in knowledge.

Pat Ferguson wrote:what documentary evidence provided them a justifiable basis for interpreting/expressing σπλαγχνισθεις as indignant rather than "moved with compassion"
When I wrote this reply, I was working on the assumption that it was translated from σπλαγχνισθεὶς. The evidence that others have presented suggests that it was translated from ὀργισθεὶς. There is another suggestion that the confusion / variant readings may come from (a misreading of) the Aramaic Vorlage's אתרחם which is perhaps ordinarily rendered as σπλαγχνισθεὶς, but may have here been rendered as ὀργισθεὶς - but I'm not sure if we are ready to take this discussion to that level on this forum.

Pat Ferguson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:We can assume .... (that when a committee was translating a passage, for every verse, there were a half dozen or more possibilities that they considered before arriving at a final translation. Some of those may have come from textual variants and some from different ways of looking at the syntax and still others from different possible word meanings. )".

Again, no thanks. I, long ago, learned to:
Assume nothing!
Investigate everything!
Verify, verify, verify!
The weakness of that neat little statement is that it is idealistic. We can assume that people walking down the street are moving their legs. I have served on translation committees - that is the way things happen - even individuals will bring a number of ideas to the table.

Pat Ferguson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:... it is better not to jump first to the conclusion .....
Agreed.
Here the fundamental conclusion jumped to was
Pat Ferguson wrote:two English versions I've looked at translate σπλαγχνισθεὶς to say "angry"
I looked in several places to see whether what you said about σπλαγχνισθεὶς being the origin of "angry" could be taken as read, and without evidence to the contrary, I assumed that your statement was well grounded. Later contributors to this thread have added new evidence that Codex Bezae 05 is the source of the reading. I replied to their additional information in this way
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:No, actually they are translating the textual variant ὀργισθείς here.
I'm sorry about my post then, I was working from an incomplete data set, that variant didn't show up for me when I was searching.
There is no skin off my nose for that - nobody has all available resources at all times, this is not a personally held opinion (that might mean something to me) it is a textual variant that I was not able to find. B-Greek is a generally very supportive and understanding community - nobody has upbraided me for an oversight.

The next step now is that I have introduced (to this discussion) that the Aramaic Vorlage may be the ultimate origin of the different English translations (but like most things we are discussing that is not an original idea of mine). I have the deepest respect for translators - the ultimate origin of our reference materials (grammars and lexicons) are the works of competent bi-linguals (including early translators).

In a discussion, people say one thing, others bring a new perspective or new information and the dialectic mode of enquiry goes on. There is nothing unusual happening here. This thread will be over in a few days for what the discussion is worth now. Maybe someone will re-visit later if they have something new to add.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Sympathetic, or Angered?

Postby Stephen Carlson » September 24th, 2013, 4:17 pm

Pat Ferguson wrote:
    If extant earlier--and possibly earlier--mss indicate that Jesus either expressed no emotion (as in papyrus fragment Egerton 2, ca. 200 CE), or that he was moved with compassion or pity (σπλαγχνισθεὶς in 01, 02, and 03), then on what objective basis did the codex Bezae scribe alter the wording?

Mod note: This question goes outside of the scope of B-Greek, so I invite those wishing to answer to respond by private message.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Next

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest