Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T11:44:18.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

᾽ΕΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ and ᾽ΟΡΓΙΣΘΕΙΣ, Mark 1, 40–43

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Kirsopp Lake
Affiliation:
Harvard University

Extract

The interpretation of these verses and the textual problem which they involve has long been disputed among critics. With the ordinary text the difficulty begins with the word ἐμβριμησάμενος in vs. 43. It means ‘scolding,’ or ‘rebuking,’ and no reason can be seen for Jesus' adopting this attitude towards the man whom he had just healed. The matter becomes even more complicated if the variant readings in verse 41 be considered. The ordinary texts read σπλαγχνισθείς, ‘having compassion on him,’ but one of the earliest, Codex Bezae, reads ὀργισθείς, ‘being angry with him,’ or perhaps more accurately, ‘being in a passion,’ although nothing in the story explains why Jesus should have been in a passion with the unfortunate leper. With this agree several old Latin codices. It seems probable that ὀργισθείς is the original reading; it certainly is “hard,” and there was no reason why σπλαγχνισθείς should be changed to it, though the reverse change is not difficult to understand. Perhaps the explanation can be found in the punctuation. I suggest that it should be punctuated and translated as follows: ‘And there came to him a leper beseeching him and kneeling and saying to him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean; and he [the leper] put out his hand in a passion of rage and touched him. And he [Jesus] said, I will, be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him and he was clean. And he rebuked him and immediately drove him out.’

Type
Notes
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1923

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The reference in von Soden's apparatus to ὀργισθείς as occurring in Tatian (Ephrem's commentary) seems to be due to a mistake. The language of Ephrem is fully accounted for by ἐμβριμησάμενος, and does not imply that the Diatessaron read ὀργισθείς for σπλαγχνισθείς. But see Harris, J. R., Expositor, October 1922, pp. 259261.Google Scholar