Was Jesus annoyed with the leper or filled with compassion? Mark 1:41
In the Gospel of Mark chapter 1 we are told of a story where a leper comes to Jesus and asks him to heal him.
Mark 1:40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Jesus is then stated as being moved with compassion heals the man.
Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. KJV
However in the NIV version of the Bible we see that Jesus is not moved with compassion for the man rather he is annoyed
Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” NIV
Indignant meaning to show anger or annoyance.
These are two very different emotions being described. So what is the correct rendering here. Was Jesus indignant or moved with compassion.
The NIV is in the significant minority on this rendering, that doesn’t necessarily make it incorrect but it is at least noting that Bible versions such as the ESV, NASB, ASV and ERV all of which are translated using the same underlying Greek text all agree with the KJV here even if they don’t all use compassion but a synonym of.
It must be noted that the NIv has not always read as such. It used to read as the
This story is also found in the gospel of Matthew, where we see that Jesus heals the man. However no emotions is actually attributed to Jesus only that he does as the man asks and heals him.
Matthew 8: 1When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 3And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
And it is also found in the gospel of Luke, where again there is no mention of anger or compassion just the healing itself.
Luke 5:12And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
The NIV’s Footnotes state
Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.
MANY manuscripts, this really is an understatement and gives the wrong impression.
The Greek word σπλαγχνισθεις which means to feel compassion is translated as compassion in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, ISV, ASV and ERV to name a few and also as pity in the ESV.
This is the Greek word found in the vast majority of manuscripts including Vaticanus, Siniaticus. Alexandrinus, plus C, c, e, f, l and q AND the Greek Lectionaries, the Latin Vulgate, the Old Latin Italic aur, Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian.
Even the UBS 4th edition critical Greek text has this rendering.
καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· NA/UBS
The Greek, οργισθεις, that has been adopted by the 2011 NIV is found in Codex Bazae. It is supported by 4 old Latin manuscripts
(Codex Bazae Mark 1:41)
Again this does not in itself prove that the NIV would be incorrect. I am myself convinced that the true reading CAN be found in a single manuscript (that doesn’t mean that it is or that this reading is the correct reading, just that it is possible.)
The reasoning behind this usage of the Greek οργισθεις, it is the more difficult reading and so it is asserted (see Westcott and Hort on this) that scribes were more likely to alter a text from a difficult reading rather than create one. Now while this may or may not be the case and I won’t go into any detailed argument against this claim, to reject the overwhelming evidence simply based on this argument is …..erroneous to say the least.
I will at least state that IF the scribe felt that this was a difficult reading WHY would he change the word to mean the complete opposite, in fact, why would he change the word at all? Why not just harmonise it with Matthew and Luke who make no mention of the compassion. It would have made much more sense for the scribe to have simply removed the word and thus read as the other two Gospels.
Let’s see if we can find a plausible explanation for how we end up with these two readings.
The first thing we must note is the manuscripts where the reading οργισθεις is found. 4 Latin and Codex Bazae.
The latin, in pity, is misertus while the latin, in anger is iratus.
The latin reading is as follows Is autem miseratus eius
Is is the contracted name for Jesus.
Now lets say that a copiest missed out one of the m’s between autem miseratus
The text would now read Is autem iseratus eius
It is then possible that a further copiest took the IS at the start of iseratus as a repetation of the name of Jesus and removed it and thus leaving
Is autem eratus eius
eratus becomes iratus through a simple process of orthography and thus we now have the reading in the latin of
Is autem iratus eius
Codex Bazae is a Greek latin manuscript. It has one page of Greek followed by a page of the same text in latin.
The scribe who produced Bazae could then have very well have matched the Greek with the latin and thus from Iratus comes the Greek reading οργισθεις, which is only found in Bazae.
There is evidence of a lot of Latinization in Bazae…of which I will not digress into here.
When we look at the context however it would certainly seem strange and does not fit the texts that Jesus would get annoyed by the lepers request for healing. Neither is Jesus shown to be annoyed by those people that were in need of his help and that had indeed besought his help. Rather the opposite in fact, Jesus is shown to have had much compassion for those that required it and who in faith had asked him for it. There really is no reason to assert that Jesus on this occasion would have been annoyed or angered by the lepers request for him to then simple grant the request, especially as Jesus replies to his request “if you wilt” and Jesus replying “I will” as attested to by Matthew, Luke and more importantly Mark as well. This then clearly being his will. If it was his will then there is no logical reason to conclude that this request would have annoyed or angered him.
The scriptural and context evidence then would support the correct reading being compassion.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here
0 Comments