A TEXTUAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MARK 1:41

In this blog I will be doing a real quick textual analysis of Mark 1:41. Depending on which translation you read it'll have different readings of the same verse. The KJV & the ESV both renders the reading "moved with pity" (ESV) or "moved with compassion" (KJV), as does the NASB ("moved with compassion"). However other Bible translations such as the NIV, the NET, & others may have "moved with indignant" (NIV), or "move with indignation" (NET), or perhaps even "moved with anger" (NIRV). The NKJV follows the KJV after its reading, & so does most of the Bible translations. I want to do a textual critical analysis of this verse, & demonstrate which reading is the most probable as the original reading of this passage, but first I must cite this passage in full.

The Greek words under consideration are σπλαγχνισθεὶς (transl. splagchnitheis, pron. splog-nee-thās) & ὀργισθείς (transl. orgistheis, pron. or-gis-thās). The Greek word, σπλαγχνισθεὶς, is translated as "moved with compassion" which is where most Bible versions stand on the reading. The Greek word, ὀργισθείς, is translated as "moved with anger."

The Manuscript Evidence

You might be wondering at this point why there is even any dispute between these Bible versions. The reason is because some of the manuscripts have a different reading from the MT (the Majority Text). Before we can get into that we must discuss internal & external evidence. In textual criticism (the analytical discipline that is responsible for reconstructing the original text from a specific manuscript tradition) external evidence is the manuscript evidence of our surviving Greek manuscripts, which number to almost 5800 copies, as well as other ancient versions of the NT & even the church fathers citations are considered. This numbers our manuscripts to over 24,000 manuscripts total!

Internal Evidence involve the text in question, context, relative passages that specific writer writes. The reason you have to understand this is that supporters of "moved with anger" (scholars like Bart Ehrman & Dan Wallace for example) are not taken their position due to the external evidence from the manuscript. If that be the case, there would be no question. The vast majority of manuscripts we have on Mark 1:41, including our earliest manuscripts (such as א, & B, as well as many others), all have the Greek word σπλαγχνισθεὶς.

However, a few manuscripts have the Greek word ὀργισθείς. The manuscript support for this reading is Codex Bezae (D) & a few Latin manuscripts (three total). The evidence for this second reading isn't very strong externally. Codex Bezae is a fifth century manuscript, although it has some early readings in it, believed to go back to the second century, for the most part, this codex is considered by textual scholars to be highly unreliable. It is filled with wierd readings, & often has interpolations. There are many cases where this codex has readings that appear in no other manuscript. The rule of thumb involving Codex D is that if it is the only manuscript that contains a particular reading, or if it is the earliest manuscript that contains a particular reading, then it should be rejected as the original. In the case of ὀργισθείς this manuscript is our earliest manuscript for the reading, and our only Greek manuscript that contains the reading as well.

However, you may say that perhaps this "rule" is just not written in stone, & therefore scholars are still freely able to choose the other reading. Yes, they can, & do (such as Bart Ehrman & Dan Wallace), but if they do, understand this, they don't do it because of the manuscript evidence. They are forced, even by their own admission, to accept the reading on some other ground otherthan the manuscript evidence.

The Internal Evidence Versus the External Evidence

The internal evidence is why some such as Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace, & I recently read the possibility of even Bruce Metzger taken this position. There is a method in textual criticism where if there is a "softer" reading & a "harder" reading, the harder one is preferred, because scribes were known to smooth out the harder reading for the softer reading. This method is both logical & sensible, but all the evidence must be weighed.

To claim that the scribes smoothed out the reading one must wonder a few things. 1) Jesus gets angry in other areas of Mark's Gospel (Mark 3:5 & 10:14), but the scribes made no attempt at smoothing out these passages. We would have to 2) wonder why the scribes would "soften" this passage, only to leave other passages untouched?

Some supporters of ὀργισθείς have also argued, additionally, that whenever Matthew & Luke use Mark as a source they have been known to soften harder readings in the Gospel. This, of course, is true, but the question we need to ask is did they do it in this case? It is also possible, as the Greek scholar Mounce had said in a blog, this could have been a scribes way of harmonizing this passage with later references within the Gospel of Mark concerning Jesus getting angry (Bill Mounce, "A Little Text Criticism (Mark 1:41)", billmounce.com). The supporters for these other renderings suggest that when Matthew records the event there is no mention of either the word σπλαγχνισθεὶς nor ὀργισθείς (Matt. 8:2, & Luke 5:12-13) & is completely missing from the text. This is true also, so supporters of this view (such as Dan Wallace) thinks Matthew & Luke, wanting to smooth out Mark's language, omits the word from their Gospel, therefore making a stronger case for their view.

In my opinion, this is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence they have in support of their view. The question they ask is why else would everything else be the same, but this word ("compassion" or "anger") be missing from this passage? Although I find this evidence persuasive, it is not conclusive. If Matthew & Luke is using "Q" instead of Mark ("Q" is the common source material between Matthew & Luke), it's possible that everything within this verse is the same except this word. Also, both Matthew & Luke omits it which seems unlikely that both of them would have the same thought about omitting the word in both of their Gospels unless it's their common source, rather than their common source of them using Mark, that they are relying on. Also, keep in mind, "Q" is considered a "sayings source" concerning Jesus' sayings, & this is Jesus speaking in Matthew & Luke.

Once again, we also have to keep in mind that we are weighing all of the evidence not just some of it. There is one more issue with the manuscripts we must discuss. If the original reading was ὀργισθείς instead of σπλαγχνισθεὶς then we would have to figure out how this reading just disappeared so utterly from the manuscripts? As far as I'm aware, Codex D is our only Greek manuscript that contains the reading, & its a diglot (a manuscript with the same text written in two different languages--in the case of Codex Bezae that would be Greek & Latin), plus a few late Latin manuscripts. It is possible this could even be a Latin interpolation. The problem is, if this could happen to a reading in the manuscript evidence where it can disappear so utterly from it, we would have no confidence in the text of the NT. Personally, my studies in textual criticism show that this doesn't happen. In every case I've ever seen when we only have a few manuscripts of a particular reading, it is usually found not to be the original reading.

The Conclusion

When all of the evidence is weighed, I think σπλαγχνισθεὶς ("compassion") wins out over ὀργισθείς ("anger"). The earlier reading is found in our earliest uncials, & the vast majority of our Greek manuscripts. The later reading is found in one Greek manuscript, & it's a fifth century manuscript which is considered both unreliable & filled with interpolations & unusual readings. Beyond this we only have a few late Latin manuscripts that this particular reading is also found in (a, ff2, r1*). Both the NA27 & the NA28 renders the text "σπλαγχνισθεὶς" instead of ὀργισθείς. The internal evidence for "anger" is good, but far from conclusive. The presence of other possibilities means that we may not appeal to reasonable conjectures alone. Also, even this would still have to be weighed against the wealth of manuscripts & other evidence. One piece of evidence that we haven't discussed yet is the fact that the context of Mark 1:42 does not make sense in light of the concept of Jesus getting angry at a Leper wanting Jesus to heal him. Although the other side has proposed reasonable suggestions, nothing seems to really make sense of the context.

Based upon the manuscript evidence I have concluded that this is most likely a Latin interpolation. According to Philip Comfort, the scribe who composed D was much more familiar with Latin than with Greek, & Latin & Greek was both taught in the area that this manuscript was composed (Comfort, "Encountering the Manuscripts", 2005, p. 81). All of this evidence has led me to conclude with most Bible translations that the most probable reading here that is original is that Jesus "moved with compassion" when the leper requested healing from Jesus in Mark 1:42!

Brian K. Bowen