Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Angry Healer

Bible Review magazine bids us farewell with at least one good article by Bart Ehrman, "Did Jesus Get Angry or Agonize?" (Winter 2005, final issue, pp 17-26,49). The essay addresses textual critical issues covered at more length in Ehrman's recent book, Misquoting Jesus. He considers the following passage in Mark (1:39-43), where Jesus could be healing someone out of compassion or anger.

Jesus came preaching in their synagogues in all of Galilee and casting out the demons. And a leper came to him beseeching him and saying to him, "If you choose, you can cleanse me." And [feeling compassion or becoming angry], reaching out his hand, he touched him and said, "I do choose. Be cleansed!" And immediately the leprosy went out from him, and he was cleansed. And rebuking him severely, Jesus cast him out at once.

Most English bibles favor the "feeling compassion" (SPANGNISTHEIS) translation, even though, as Ehrman notes (p 18), one of the oldest Greek manuscripts (Codex Bezae) has "becoming angry" (ORGISTHEIS), which is in turn supported by three other Latin texts. The problem with the "compassion" option is that Matthew (Mt 8:2-3) and Luke (Lk 5:12-13) would have followed this in their own versions of the account (or at least one them surely would have), as they both favor the theme of compassion. But neither has Jesus healing the leper out of compassion. They don't portray him angry either, but that's expected: Matthew and Luke take pains to censor Mark's accounts of Jesus' anger elsewhere (as in Mk 3:5 -- Mt 12:13/Lk 6:10).

Most of us prefer to view Jesus as compassionate whenever possible, not only because it makes him more attractive, but because (in a case like this) it seems to make more sense in context. Ehrman says that this is actually a reason for viewing it as the wrong translation:

"One factor in favor of the 'angry' reading is that it sounds wrong. If Christian readers today were given the choice between these two readings, no doubt almost everyone would choose the one more commonly attested in our manuscripts: Jesus felt pity for the man, and so he healed him. The other reading is difficult to figure out. What would it mean to say that Jesus felt angry?" (p 19)

But I disagree. It's the compassionate option that sounds wrong by Mediterranean standards. The leper's appeal to help is a challenge that puts Jesus on the spot in front of the crowds. "If you choose, you can cleanse me", is a veiled way of questioning Jesus' ability to heal, and daring him to prove himself. That's why Jesus rebukes him and tells him to get lost.

Ehrman concludes:

"Jesus' anger erupts when someone doubts his willingness, ability, or divine authority to heal... Someone approaches Jesus gingerly to ask: 'If you are willing you are able to heal me.' Jesus becomes angry. Of course he's willing, just as he is able and authorized. He heals the man but, still somewhat miffed, rebukes him sharply and throws him out." (p 22)

I agree with this except for Ehrman's depicting the leper's appeal as "ginger". The man is on his knees, shamelessly and stridently begging for deliverance. This constitutes a challenge that Jesus must meet head-on or lose face.

Jesus is featured consistently angry in Mark, less so in Matthew, and almost completely devoid of anger in Luke. The earlier the gospel, not surprisingly, the more we see the historical Jesus: the apocalyptic prophet who was angry at the world, demanded a better one, and who acquired a following the way macho men did in his culture.

3 Comments:

Blogger Stephen C. Carlson said...

Thank you very much for this. You've just caused me to rethink my assumption of whether the Western "being angry" is really the harder reading!

12/20/2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian reader. Not a scholar.

I've long been aware of the reading for angry and I have sometimes wondered if that was the right reading. However I am not sure that Ehrmann's reasoning would be correct - that Jesus was angry at being challenged in front of a crowd. He was not shy for example, in telling the Pharisees who wanted a sign where to go. Or to try and shake off the Syrophoenician woman. I don't get the impression of Jesus being one to be bulldozed into public displays of his authority - quite the opposite - so that explanation would be 'out of character' as well don't you think?

Also I think those who would find 'compassion' more appropriate to Jesus think of 'compassion' as 'pity' which it is not. There is a link between compassion and anger in the biblical texts. Unfortunately we Christians are guilty of not reading our own scriptures closely enough.


I am not sure how you would explain this reading of 'angry' (I am sure you are not interested in a Christian reading). I will say though that I suspect Jesus ordering the leper to go show himself to the priests is of relevance.

I believe the raising of Lazarus also shows a Jesus who is not quite wet-puppy-dog-weepy.

Anyway, this is really more of an excuse to come out of lurk mode and say I have enjoyed your blog this year, and to wish you and yours a merry Christmas.

12/21/2005  
Blogger Loren Rosson III said...

I've long been aware of the reading for angry and I have sometimes wondered if that was the right reading. However I am not sure that Ehrmann's reasoning would be correct - that Jesus was angry at being challenged in front of a crowd. He was not shy for example, in telling the Pharisees who wanted a sign where to go.

I don't understand how Lk 17:20-21 stands as a counter to Ehrman's (and my own) interpretation of Mk 1:39-43. Jesus behaves according to the canons of honor-shame in either case. The difference is that in Lk 17:20-21 he is challenged by a group of rivals. Rather than allow himself to be put on the defensive, he blows them off by changing the subject -- refusing to answer their question about the apocalypse's timetable, and redirecting their attention to the kingdom's present dimension. That's how Jesus always treats his foes (Pharisees, scribes, priests, and Herodians) in the gospels -- never answering questions directly, coming back with rhetorical evasions, insults, counterquestions, scriptural one-upsmanship, or some kind of clever wit. But in the case of Mk 1:39-43 Jesus is challenged by someone in genuine need, not a rival. But it’s a public challenge nonetheless, an affront to Jesus' honor (whether intended or not), and Jesus must respond in a way that keeps it intact. Which he does. He heals the leper, a very honorable act in the eyes of watching crowds, not only because he proved himself "mighty in deed", but because he did so on behalf of an outcast (which the Torah looks out for). And then he rebukes the leper -- telling him to get lost -- which makes level the playing field for having been presumptuously challenged in the first place.

Or to try and shake off the Syrophoenician woman.

The case of Mk 7:24-30/Mt 15:21-28 is fascinating, because it is the single reported instance in the gospels where Jesus loses in a challenge-riposte encounter. And he loses to a Canaanite woman, who has no business asking him for help, or publicly engaging him at all. I wrote a blogpost about this months ago here. This is what I wrote:

"Jesus rightfully ignores the woman, and when she persists he refers to her as a lowly dog. But instead of shamefully retreating, she shamelessly embraces the insult and one-ups the messiah in a clever rejoinder: 'Lord, even the dogs get to eat scraps.' To which Jesus concedes defeat: 'For saying this you may go your way; your daughter is healed.'(Mark) / 'Great is your faith! Your daughter is healed.'(Matthew) Translation: 'Touché, woman; you dish out what you take, so God grants your favor.' [see John Pilch]

"Jesus was apparently amused by the fact that a heathen woman beat him this way. Never mind any supposed compassion and mercy. He had none here. If Mk 7:24-30/Mt 15:21-28 is at all historical, and has been co-opted by Mark as the pivotal account by which grace came to the pagan nations, then it's indeed amusing that it all happened (as Mark believes) on account of that shameless hussy who gave as good as she got, and gratified Jesus because of it."

So again, Jesus heals someone not out of compassion, but because he got a kick out of the fact that a pagan woman managed to beat him at his own game. It does make me wonder how many instances like this have been censored from the gospel accounts. This is the only one that survives.

I don't get the impression of Jesus being one to be bulldozed into public displays of his authority - quite the opposite

But this is exactly what often happens in the gospels.

Anyway, this is really more of an excuse to come out of lurk mode and say I have enjoyed your blog this year, and to wish you and yours a merry Christmas.

Thanks for writing. Happy holiday to you too.

12/21/2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home