More on Mark 1:41 in the TNIV (and NEB/REB)
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.
Compassionate? Angry? Indignant? A "Gut Feeling" from Mark 1:41 in the TNIV
Kletos writes:
I was going to give the TNIV a chance, so I began to read in Mark. I got as far as verse 41 of chapter 1 where I read, "Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" So, I consulted my Greek New Testament (published 1994). The authors categorized this textual variant as a {B} meaning that the variant included in the text ("Jesus was moved with compassion..." - which is how nearly every other translation renders the verse) is "almost certain." The texts that support "indignant" were few and didn't seem to be more ancient than those that support the dominant translation.
Now, lest I cause some readers' eyes to glaze over and move on to some other web page in the blogosphere, let me nutshell the issue before going into a bit more detail. Here's the question: How would Jesus respond to a leper who begs to be healed--with compassion or anger? Most would instantly suggest compassion, but the answer may not be so easy. Consider how three different translations of the Bible have rendered this verse:
| NIV | REB | TNIV |
|---|---|---|
Mark 1:40 ¶ A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” |
Mark 1:40 ¶ On one occasion he was approached by a leper, who knelt before him and begged for help. ‘If only you will,’ said the man, ‘you can make me clean.’ 41 Jesus was moved to anger; he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, ‘I will; be clean.’ | Mark 1:40 A man with leprosya came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” 41 ¶ Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!" |
In reality, there are some ancient texts that imply Jesus had compassion [σπλαγχνισθείς] and some that say he was angry [ὀργισθείς] at some level. If you've stopped to look this up in a translation other than the three listed above, odds are very high that yours says that Jesus had compassion for the man. In fact, until the TNIV, the REB was the only major translation I knew of that went with the other variant.
Kletos mentioned in his blog entry that "compassion/σπλαγχνισθείς" was {B} reading in the UBS Greek New Testament meaning that the editors believed "that the text is almost certain." I was at home when I first read Kletos' blog entry, and all I had on my shelves at home (I keep newer materials in my office at school) were the older 3rd ed. UBS Greek text and the first edition of Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary. Both of these older works show σπλαγχνισθείς as a {D} reading suggesting "that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision." Further regarding {D} readings, Metzger writes "among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading."
Now, when I read Kletos' blog entry, I have to admit that while I was curious, this didn't bother me as much as it did him. I find these issues quite interesting, and to me a good understanding of the underlying issues goes a long way. Obviously, this is not the first time that a translation committee has gone with a variant reading, and all the more reason to read Bible versions in parallel. So, while I'm not losing sleep over this issue, the further I've looked at the above mentioned underlying issues, the less clear they become.
However, Kletos was certainly right to be startled. Upon looking at the 4th ed. UBS Greek New Testament and the 2nd ed. Textual Commentary, the reading had moved from a {D} to a {B} variant between editions!
Why? Beats me. There's no explanation for the upgrade.
And Metzger's commentary on the reading is word-for-word-identical in BOTH editions:
It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ὀργισθείς ("being angry") would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to σπλαγχνισθείς ("being filled with compassion"), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support of ὀργισθείς is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports σπλαγχνισθείς. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted over-scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς either (a) was suggested by ἐμβριμησάμενος of v. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, "he had pity," with ethra'em, "he was enraged"). [pp. 76-77, 1st ed.; p. 65, 2nd ed.]
Is there any explanation between the editions as to why the reading went from a {D} to a {B}? Nope, not at all. And if it's so difficult to come to a firm decisions regarding these readings, why the change?
I should also point out that although the NET Bible opts for the traditional reading of σπλαγχνισθείς as evidenced by the rendering of "compassion," it takes the alternate variant serious in the accompanying textual note:
The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς [splanchnistheis, “moved with compassion”]. Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς [orgistheis, “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).
What most catches my attention in the above explanation is the reference to Proctor's analysis of the issue. Had someone on the TNIV Committee been convinced by the arguments in Proctor's work? I haven't seen the dissertation, but it's a recent work and the TNIV is certainly a recent translation.
Nevertheless, seeking to get answers straight from the source, I asked about the TNIV rendering of Mark 1:41 on the contact form at the TNIV web site. On Dec. 14, I received this reply:
Dear Mr. Mansfield,
Thank you for contacting International Bible Society regarding the TNIV’s rendering of Mark 1:41, changing “filled with compassion” to “was indignant.” You have clearly done some fine research already and discerned the difficulty posed by splangchnistheis. The verb basically means “to have the viscera moved”, viscera considered to be the seat of emotion. In the Hebrew/Jewish culture, this would refer to the bowels and intestines, and the seat of the more tender affections, such as compassion, while the Greek poets thought of the bowels as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger (according to Thayer’s Greek- English Lexicon). So which way should we go here?
This verb is actually the strongest of three words which might be translated as being compassionate, the others being sumpaschein and eleein. This one implies not only a pained feeling at the sight of suffering but in addition a strong desire to relieve or to remove the suffering. Hence the TNIV translators felt that compassion alone did not exhaust the meaning load of the term. They needed a slightly stronger English term to convey that the feeling was more than compassion, and so they settled on “indignant.” This conclusion is consonant with the fact that the feeling in Jesus’ heart at once turned to action.
Thank you for your kind words regarding the TNIV.
Sincerely, Eugene Rubingh, Translation Consultant, International Bible Society
If I was reading Dr. Rubingh's explanation correctly, it would seem that the TNIV translators (of whom Rubingh is not one of as far as I know) did not go with the variant meaning "to be angry" but had merely used a word in English, indignant, that captured the sense of σπλαγχνισθείς better than merely "moved with compassion." And as I thought more about the issue, I had to admit that the word indignant is not a mere synonym for anger. To be indignant implies "feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment." It's anger for a cause. One can be indignant about the injustices that come with life. Wouldn't Jesus look at this leper in Mark 1:40 and feel some kind of anger toward the disease that had made this man an outcast to society? Jesus wasn't feeling merely compassionate, although that was part of it. And it wasn't simply anger as rendered in the REB (granted, from an alternate reading). Rather, Jesus was indignant about the situation, so he healed the man.
Okay, I could start to get my mind around this. Understanding of the underlying issues trumped confusion once again, right?
Well, not so fast.
I emailed Dr. Rubingh back and asked permission to quote the above information which he graciously gave me in an email reply. As I was about to post my entry about the TNIV's rendering of Mark 1:41 on this blog (three weeks ago, mind you), I happened to look at the text in my copy of the TNIV Bible, and I noticed something that I hadn't seen before.
You see, I have this bad habit. Often when I look up scripture passages, I do so on the computer using Accordance. That is not the bad habit. My mistake often comes from not turning on the textual notes with the text itself. I had completely missed the TNIV textual note that read "Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion."
This could only mean that the TNIV Translation Committee did not base the rendering of "Jesus was indignant" from σπλαγχνισθείς. That was the reading that the textual note refers to! Obviously, the Committee was convinced with the ὀργισθείς variant, although they wisely didn't simply render the word "angry" like the REB. At the very least, it reads better.
By this point I feared I was on the verge of pestering Dr. Rubingh, but I emailed him a third time in regard to the TNIV textual note which neither of us had referenced in our original correspondence. I haven't heard from him yet, but the holidays may have slowed his reply.
Nevertheless, I still don't have a definitive answer for the TNIV's rendering of this passage. Mark 1:41 is not covered in the "Passages Commonly Asked About" section on the TNIV web site. And in a brief Google survey, I found a number of references to the TNIV's preference in Mark 1:41, but no definitive answer for the decision. I do find the issue curious and extremely interesting. If anyone has any insight or inside info from the Translation Committee, please share it with us.
See also Jeremy Pierce's treatment of the subject: "Mark Tidbit 2: Jesus' Anger"
And see my follow-up to this post: "More on Mark 1:41 in the TNIV"