A little text criticism (Mark 1:41)

I am just as surprised as you are that the strength of the external evidence did not end the debate. I would, however, conclude that there is no question concerning which reading the external evidence supports, rather than "very little question" as you put it. I also believe that your suspicions concerning internal evidence being the primary basis for the NIV 2011 reading are well founded. I am disappointed that you chose in this post to deal primarily with the internal evidence, and gave the appearance that you were defending the NIV's decision. I fail to understand why anyone would argue against the preponderance of external evidence for σπλαγχνισθείς cited in the UBS, 4th rev. ed. (1994), pg. 122, and the NA, 27th ed. (1898, 1993), pg. 91. The subjectivity involved in concluding in favor of a reading found in no papyrus, only one uncial, not a single miniscule, only four other manuscripts in the Old Latin, and the Diatessaron (which has its own set of problems, see the UBS, 4th rev. ed., pp. 38-39), in my opinion is extreme. Regardless of one's approach to textual criticism, or what family of manuscripts one might be prejudiced in favor of, the reading that has been preserved in all but one of the uncials, all of the miniscules, all of the Lectionaries, all of the versions (except for the four examples of the Old Latin previously referred to, while the other six contain the reading cited in the text), and the only two Fathers cited cannot be so easily dismissed. The two word note, "Many manuscripts", in the 2011 NIV at this place is an gross understatement the reality of which renders their decision inexplicable to me. It is also significant that the degree of certainty was increased by the UBS editors from a D in the 3rd ed. (corrected, 1983), "the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision", to a B in the 4th rev. ed. (1994), "the text is almost certain". Apparently the committee involved in textual decisions for the 2011 NIV was moving in another direction altogether. Nevertheless, see the following for other discussions of this issue: 1. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (third edition) (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 76-77, including footnote 2 on pg. 77. 2. Daniel B. Wallace, "The Gospel According To Bart: A Review Article Of Misquoting Jesus By Bart Ehrman", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:2 (Jun 2006), pp. 340-342, "IV. The Problem With Problem Passages", 3. In footnotes 50 and 51 of this article Wallace refers to the following two works that address this issue, respectively: "Bart D. Ehrman, “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus,” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 77-98." "Mark A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41:A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999). Even though Ehrman’s article appeared four years after Proctor’s disser tation, Ehrman did not mention Proctor’s work." 3. NET Bible note 74 on this verse at http://bible.org/netbible/ [accessed 26 MAR 2013]: tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”). It is more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is for a copyist to soften “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion,” making the decision quite difficult. B. M. Metzger (TCGNT 65) suggests that “moved with anger” could have been prompted by 1:43, “Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning.” It also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40). As well, it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). Thus, in light of diverse mss supporting “moved with compassion,” and at least a plausible explanation for ὀργισθείς as arising from the other reading, it is perhaps best to adopt σπλαγχνισθείς as the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. For the best arguments for ὀργισθείς, however, see M. A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999). Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, John T. "Jack" Jeffery, Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel Greentown, PA)

Your pints are solid. The evidence of context supports your conclusion. Jesus understood not only the man’s faith and nature but his thoughts and circumstance. Speculation is a poor tool but here may prove useful. If Pharisees had hired this leper (the more pitiful the better) to challenge this new teacher into exposing real power or none. Jesus in perfect character, irritated (‘iratus’-Bazae’s Latin text) at the motive yet compassionate towards the man, healed him yet instructed him NOT to tell anyone...of course knowing the result which puts pressure on His ultimate timeline. Sometimes contextual imagination, not excluded by the context, can be a helpful (if not entirely instructive) tool of understanding the human heart.

I first discovered this in a Bible study and all others responded with compassion and I thought I had read the wrong passage. Recently I found a few others that change the focus. Matt 18:15. NIV 2011 takes out the words *sins against you*. It completely changed the focus of our discussion. and Malachi 2:16. Changes from the Lord saying *I hate divorce* to *the man who hates his wife and divorces her.* NIV 2011... really changed things.

I just ran into this myself. The dictionary definition of indignant is "to be angry or annoyed" or both. Jesus already knew what his future held if he healed this man. If you knew, in advance, that healing the leper would cause them to go out and spread word about you such that you could no longer enter towns but have to "live out in lonely areas," you too would probably be annoyed/upset. It is possible to be both annoyed/irritated AND be compassionate at the same time. My father has a favorite saying, "An emergency on your behalf does not constitute an emergency on my behalf" but then he proceeds to help the person anyway. That saying demonstrates his both being annoyed/indignant/upset at having to do some task that perhaps could and should have been done sooner (i.e. better time management on the other person's behalf) but also demonstrating sufficient compassion at the same time to actually proceed to help out anyway. If my dad simply said the phrase and then didn't take any action, then that would probably upset the person he said it to. Many people have learned to manage their time well because of that particular saying followed up with the assistance they requested. So maybe both interpretations are equally applicable. Jesus was annoyed and perhaps ticked off knowing what his future held of not being able to enter towns/villages to carry out his mission despite the apparent attempt to change it with this man - that is, telling the man to not spread word about his healing, knowing the man would do so anyway. And yet he healed the man because of his deep compassion for those who are suffering. Mark is a weird book. It's very different from the other gospels and almost lives in its own universe. It has the feeling of "Oh maybe I should get on this gospel writing bandwagon" but then wrote it like someone who was jotting down a diary. I agree that NIV 2011 changed a number of things - perhaps not for the better or more accurate. I keep a NIV 1984 handy for strange scenarios and a web browser handy for looking stuff up online. Thanks for the breakdown of the original materials and the helpful insights here.

I'm not a Greek scholar, so I appreciate Mr. Mounce explaining what lies behind the New International Version. As I write in a short web log, I like both texts! (https://mygod.myplaza.xyz/wrestling-mat/#indignant -- but this might be removed which is fine). Again, thank you - Louis