Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 67:2 (NA 2016)
Article: Counting Witnesses For The Angry Jesus In Mark 1:41 Interdependence And Insularity In The Latin Tradition
Author: Peter E. Lorenz

---

TynBull 67:2 (2016) p. 183

Counting Witnesses For The Angry Jesus In Mark 1:41
Interdependence And Insularity In The Latin Tradition

Peter E. Lorenz

([email protected])

Summary

A survey of recent literature on the remarkable reading in Mark 1:41, depicting Jesus’s anger at a leper who approaches him to be healed — supported by just Codex Bezae, a segment of the Old Latin version, and perhaps the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, attributed to Ephrem — reveals a tendency to ascribe the acceptance of the alternative reading depicting Jesus’s compassion to the overwhelming preponderance of its support. It is clear though that the UBS³ and UBS⁴ committee preferred this reading on the basis of the ‘diversity and character’ of its evidence1. The present article examines the implications of the predominantly Latin support for the reading that depicts Jesus’s anger in light of the question of textual diversity, considering palaeographical, codicological, and textual evidence of a northern-Italian provenance for its manuscripts and text forms, while arguing that the insular character of the tradition raises serious doubts regarding the independence of its testimony when it differs distinctively in relation to the Greek tradition.

1. Introduction

If text-critical decisions were decided by numeric attestation, the remarkable reading οργισθεις (‘indignant’, niv) in Mark 1:41, depicting Jesus’s indignation at a leper who approaches him to be

TynBull 67:2 (2016) p. 184

healed, would not stand long against its well-attested rival σπλαγχνισθεις (‘moved with pity’, nrsv). According to Text und Textwert, the latter is attested by the entire Greek tradition with the notable exception of the Greek column of the Graeco-Latin bilingual manuscript, Codex Bezae.2 The mainstream Greek reading σπλαγχνισθεις is represented in every version but for a segment of the Old Latin (consisting of a, ff², r¹, and Bezae’s Latin column, d) and a possible allusion in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, attributed to Ephrem.3 Recent discussion has tended to highlight the overwhelming attestation of the mainstream reading as the main factor in assessing its external support, while downplaying the role of diversity in a...

visitor : : uid: ()