2011 NIV translation of Mark 1:41

[jimmudcatgrant]

The ESV translates "moved with pity" and other versions translate "moved with compassion."  The new NIV translates "Jesus was indignant."  Not sure what to think of that.  That is why I want to learn Greek.

Any thoughts on why the change from all other versions that I have read?

 

[wheatpenny]

According to the footnote in the NRSV, some manuscripts say "moved with anger" instead of "moved with compassion". I don't have a critical apparatus soi I don't know which manuscripts say that.
All the versions in my Bible software say "compassion" (or "pity") so I assume that "anger" is a minority reading and "compassion" is to be preferred.

 

[SAWBONES]

As I understand it, "moved with anger" at Mark 1:41 is indeed a minority reading at this verse, and one that has some manuscript support, and it certainly would be considered to conform to the "lectio difficilior" principle; the trouble is, it's simply TOO difficult a reading, almost IMHO a "nonsense" reading, being so discordant to the context as to be considered non-applicable.

How would Jesus' "being angry" result in, or be reasonably anticipated to lead into, his healing of the leper?
Who, or what, was He angry at or about?

If we presume He was angry at the disease, or if one considers that the leprosy was perhaps a Satanic manifestation that He was angry about, then why is no such anger mentioned in other examples of His' healing leprosy or other diseases, or in the casting out of demons, or even in the healing of the woman of whom He explicitly said "Satan hath bound", in Luke 13:16?

I believe the reading chosen by the the NIV is simply wrong in this case, and I DO wonder about the committee's reasons for including it, but I don't know very much about the NTTC evidence at this verse, and would be glad to learn more.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

As I understand it, "moved with anger" at Mark 1:41 is indeed a minority reading at this verse, and one that has some manuscript support, and it certainly would be considered to conform to the "lectio difficilior" principle; the trouble is, it's simply TOO difficult a reading, almost IMHO a "nonsense" reading, being so discordant to the context as to be considered non-applicable.

How would Jesus' "being angry" result in, or be reasonably anticipated to lead into, his healing of the leper?
Who, or what, was He angry at or about?

If we presume He was angry at the disease, or if one considers that the leprosy was perhaps a Satanic manifestation that He was angry about, then why is no such anger mentioned in other examples of His' healing leprosy or other diseases, or in the casting out of demons, or even in the healing of the woman of whom He explicitly said "Satan hath bound", in Luke 13:16?

I believe the reading chosen by the the NIV is simply wrong in this case, and I DO wonder about the committee's reasons for including it, but I don't know very much about the NTTC evidence at this verse, and would be glad to learn more.

I went to net.bible.org and found the following notes from the NET bible:

74 tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei",

 

[SAWBONES]

I'd seen the NET Bible notes, and considered that both Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman have gone on record in favor of the "angry" reading, but it still just seems to me to be way too discordant to be correct.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

I'd seen the NET Bible notes, and considered that both Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman have gone on record in favor of the "angry" reading, but it still just seems to me to be way too discordant to be correct.

Agree, Sawbones.  It just doesn't seem to fit.  I am not a big fan of Bart Ehrman.

 

[FSSL]

I'd seen the NET Bible notes, and considered that both Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman have gone on record in favor of the "angry" reading, but it still just seems to me to be way too discordant to be correct.

I am away from my tools right now... but are you uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus being angry? Or is it the textual evidence?

 

[Timotheos]

For what it's worth, I think this is one of the verses Ehrman has a heyday w/. 

Since my view is that internal evidence is all but irrelevant, the Mss support trumps the "angered" reading hands down.  It seems to be pretty much localized to the Western tradition (which their philosophy of copying could be called into question and thus explain this change since accident seems unlikely).  Although, some prominent Western witnesses did not follow the "angered" reading. 

It is interesting that La Parola lists one Byz minuscule w/ the "angered" reading: 1358.  That would be an interesting Ms to collate and see other scribal patterns to this Ms.

If I were to argue internally, I would say that the "angered" reading is so difficult that it is downright near absurd. 

I can't say that I'm surprised the NIV11 followed this reading.  They seem to lean toward the more extreme readings of reasoned eclecticism. 

 

[Timotheos]

I like what Dr. Robinson said about this issue

Not yet having seen the article, I wonder whether Dr Williams considers the matter to have originated within the Latin with back-translational effect on the Greek of Codex Bezae.

As it stands, it-d has iratus while at least the Vulgate-based Latin reading is misertus preceded by autem.

If in an Old Latin predecessor the M beginning misertus were dropped by haplography from the autem hypothetically preceding, a reasonable sequence of Latin-based error and attempted correction of what appeared to be a nonsense reading would be plain:

AUTEM MISERTUS -> AUTEM ISERTUS -> AUTEM IRATUS

Even if such seems too remote a possibility, the alternative of simple scribal omission of the initial m from misertus would still produce an equivalent scenario. Even more to the point, Wordsworth-White cite one Latin MS that reads miseratus which, assuming a dropped m, could result in iseratus, leading even more naturally to the iratus reading.

Had either possibility occurred in some Latin ancestor, the alteration to iratus in a predecessor of it-d and some other Old Latin MSS (a ff2 r1) would be understandable, even if in paraphrasing, the scribe of it-d ended up replacing an intial Iesus autem with a simple et.

If so, the same scribe could easily have translationally adjusted the Greek of D to match the Latin, and thus no reason need be sought to explain two otherwise widely differing Greek words.

Just my thoughts....

Cf. post here: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2012/02/mark-141-and-ehrman.html

 

[SAWBONES]

I am away from my tools right now... but are you uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus being angry? Or is it the textual evidence?

Hi Barry. Glad to see you here.

I'm not in the least troubled by the concept of Jesus' being angry; we have ample precedent in Scripture for that in His cleansing of the temple and in some of His interactions with the Pharisees, among other circumstances.
Rather, it's His being angry in the context of healing a leper that simply doesn't seem to make sense without some adequate explanation as to why, or about what, and I think it bad NTTC practice to adopt a "novel" and minority reading like this within the text of a major version of the NT without both textual support and contextual support.

Since my view is that internal evidence is all but irrelevant, the Mss support trumps the "angered" reading hands down...

Indeed it does trump the "angered" reading in terms of number, though I can't at all agree that "internal evidence is all but irrelevant" in all cases; it may be highly significant in some cases, though certainly not apparently in this one, unless someone can explicate a convincing interpretation for Jesus' being angry in the context of healing!

If I were to argue internally, I would say that the "angered" reading is so difficult that it is downright near absurd. 

I agree.

 

[FSSL]

I am away from my tools right now... but are you uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus being angry? Or is it the textual evidence?

Hi Barry. Glad to see you here.

I'm not in the least troubled by the concept of Jesus' being angry; we have ample precedent in Scripture for that in His cleansing of the temple and in some of His interactions with the Pharisees...

Thanks for the welcome Sawbones. I have not been posting much lately. We are now in Florida. We are with relatives, so I am loosely following the discussions on my phone.

I knew about this translational choice but did not peer into it too much. This is an interesting one.

 

[TVC]

This change was made in the TNIV and then carried into the NIV2011.  The 1984 NIV says Jesus was filled with compassion.

 

[Izdaari]

I agree with the majority that the compassion reading seems much more plausible than the angry reading. But I think that may be one of very few that the TNIV got wrong.

 

[FSSL]

I am siding with the compassion side of the argument, but here is some info...

Text Instead of splagchnistheis

 

[SAWBONES]

I am siding with the compassion side of the argument, but here is some info...


Quoted text from commentary (italics mine):
"...The observation has been made that no reason is actually given, but there can be no doubt that there was anger and irritation on the part of Jesus toward the man; embrimēsamenos

 

[OZZY]

According to the footnote in the NRSV, some manuscripts say "moved with anger" instead of "moved with compassion". I don't have a critical apparatus soi I don't know which manuscripts say that.
All the versions in my Bible software say "compassion" (or "pity") so I assume that "anger" is a minority reading and "compassion" is to be preferred.

Simple. CASH! Why would you need a NEw bible if it wasn't different?

 

[Winston]

I went to net.bible.org and found the following notes from the NET bible:

74 tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei",