As I've already created a link in the previous post, Jeremy Pierce has a terrific blog entry from two years ago on this very subject about whether Jesus was compassionate [σπλαγχνισθείς] or angry [ὀργισθείς] in Mark 1:41. I was looking at this issue strictly as a text critical issue and had ignored the commentaries on the subject.

In his original post, Jeremy deftly notes

The scholarly consensus is that the original text reads that Jesus was angry here. Out of the six commentaries I read (and three more whose conclusions I know), only one takes the view that Mark here says Jesus was compassionate rather than angry, and he simply ignores the issue and assumes the translations to be right. All the others discuss the issue, give the arguments, and conclude that Jesus was angry. Scholarly consensus doesn't mean the view is correct. I don't subscribe to the head-counting method of biblical scholarship. Still, differing from the majority consensus requires a strong argument that they're wrong or some good reason to presume another view.

After reading this, I looked at my own commentaries on Mark. Now, I'll make a confession here that of the four gospels, commentaries on Mark are the most lacking in my collection with only about a half dozen representatives. But I had two serious contributions in which I looked up Mark 1:41 Both Robert Guelich (Word Biblical Commentary) and David Garland (NIV Application Commentary--I know the NIVAC is not an overly critical commentary, but Garland is a top-notch scholar and the Mark volume is perhaps the best in the series) consider that the better (original) reading should be angry/ὀργισθείς.

'Nuff said. I'm convinced.

Bible translations tend to be keepers of tradition and very slow to change even if a different rendering would reflect a more accurate representation of an original reading supported by current scholarship. This is further reason why I am using translations in the Tyndale tradition less. So having said that, cheers to the NEB/REB! In my previous post, I mentioned the REB as the only other major translation to go with the ὀργισθείς reading, but I should have known that I spoke too soon. See, this goes back to that habit of relying on electronic texts. There just is no NEB module in Accordance! So I got out my copy of the NEB and I was delighted (but not surprised) to read this rendering of Mark 1:41...

In warm indignation Jesus stretched out his hand, touch him, and said, 'Indeed I will: be clean again.'

A textual note in the NEB reads "Some witnesses read Jesus was sorry for him and stretched out his hand" obviously referring to the σπλαγχνισθείς variant. The REB follows in the same tradition with its less dynamic "moved to anger." This is further evidence to my claim of the significance of the NEB in the history of English translations. The NEB consistently nails correct renderings decades before other translations follow suit. And in this case, the TNIV is the only contemporary translation to deny the accepted Greek eclectic text with its use of "indignant" (although the NET, NRSV and NLT refer to the alternative reading in their textual notes) thus demonstrating its accuracy once again.

Although I would still like to see confirmation of this thinking from the TNIV Translation Committee, the question posed in my previous entry seems to have been answered.

Tags: Mark, TNIV, REB