2011 NIV Translation of Mark 1:41

LOL, did you not recognize Winston's response to someone critical of his prose? You know who I am talking about? The guy who said never in the history of human endeavor have so many been so indebted to so few. Or how about "blood, sweat and tears". You know the guy that Jack said had marshaled the English language and sent it marching against tyranny. And in case you are wondering, Jack is another wordsmith of note, JFK.

And folks, Greektim still is clueless as to why moved with anger is the harder reading even though it fits better in my opinion. No kidding!

 

Hi Rippon, thanks for the on topic post. Hopefully those who think moved with compassion is the inspired text will admit that the context or internal evidence supports the possiblity that moved with indignation might be the actual words of John Mark.

As I said before, I think Jesus replied indignately, I am willing! This was in response to someone questioning His love and compassion for "hapless humanity" in the person in view.

 

Where does it say in the text that the leper questioned his love and compassion for hapless humanity? Eisegesis is generally unbaptistic.

 

"Indignant" in Mark 1:41, as it only appears in one Greek manuscript out of 1450 or so that have survived, may reflect nothing more than a scribe's inattentive assimilation to the pericope containing Mark 3:5 triggered by the identical Greek words for "stretch" and "hand" in both passages. In Mark 3:5 Jesus is angry with just cause.

 

Reply to Slander

When the man said, in verse 40, "if you are willing, you can heal me" he was questioning Christ's compassion for hapless humanity embodied in himself. Therefore, my independent study results were discerned, rightly or wrongly, from the text. I did not throw in something not found in the context.

But if my view is valid, then moved with indignation works for the reply, I am willing!

A much more powerful argument for "moved with compassion" would be if the earliest copy read moved with compassion. Which variant appears to be written first?

 

Would it affect anything IF we simply do not know which word was actually spoken by the lord here?

 

That's been my point!!! There is hardly any Mss support that considers the "angered" reading valid. It is very nearly a single Greek Ms reading! The Mss support it does have is all western. Not that I weigh Mss the same way as you, but even the early Alexandrian text have "compassion." The primary witness for "angered" is Codex Baeza which is known for translating from the western latin that it is based upon. Therefore, D (codex Beaza) just translated a latin misspelling which changed "filled w/ compassion" to "angered". This makes a lot of sense.

 

I for sure do not know which variant is valid, but others seem keen on suggesting their view is right and anyone who holds to the possibility that the other reading is valid is lacking in intelligence or character. I certainly understand the basis of believing moved by compassion is the correct reading, except for the date of the manuscripts, which apparently no one knows or is willing to divulge.

 

You must have me on ignore b/c I have been saying this over and over and over again!!!

 

Thanks RSR, some of the scholarly footnotes I have come across suggest that the dates are apparent and not definitive and too close for adding weight to the argument. Apparently several commentaries go with "indignation" as a split the difference translation. For example the word in the "moved with compassion" variant refers to emotion coming from deep within, i.e. more visceral, rather than spiritual, so they are translating it, the compassion variant as indignation. And, if the correct variant is moved with anger, they are translating it as moved with indignation. Yes its a true weasel.
The best translation according to one commentator is "with warm indignation" which is loaded with both fervor and love.

 

So apparently you have me on ignore???

There is a word for this... but I'm not supposed to use that kind of language on this forum.

 

St. Mark by A.E.J. Rawlinson in 1928 :

"...certain important authorities (D,Old Latin,and the Diatessaron) read in v41 being angry

instead of being moved with compassion, on the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred,it is possible or probable that they represent the original." (p.21)​

 

The Gospel According To St. Mark by Vincent Taylor in 1952 :

"...it is easy to see why 'being angry' was changed to 'being filled with compassion', but not easy to account for the alteration vice versa.' (p.187)

"...anger is best explained ...as the reaction of Jesus to the disease ...rather than indignation at the interruption of His preaching ministry or the leper's breach of the law." (p.188)

 

Reply to Taylor

Yes, I agree Christ's reaction to the leper's question cannot be explain due to the interruption for Christ used the incident as a teaching moment. But, I also disagree is reaction was because of the leper's disease. No, the only thing I see that would raise Christ's ire would be questioning His willingness to heal, and so He replied fervently I am willing.

But as to Rippon's point by posting so many examples of scholar's finding the argument in favor of indignant stronger that of compassion, I totally agree.

Score one for the NIV!

 

Should way take into account synoptic parallel accounts???

 

I assume that is a trick question, of course when studying a passage, the parallel passages and those that impact the topic being studied, like how the same words are used by that and other authors should be taken into account. In this case, the phrase, moved by indignation or compassion, is not in the accounts by Matthew and Luke. Perhaps Mark's insight was given to him by either Jesus Himself, or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/whatabouttheniv2011.htm

I'm not a scholar. I'm not a KJVO. Is it correct that this reading comes from only one manuscript, while scores of others use the word "compassion"? Is it true that numerous other translations for more than 500 years, including the NIV, recognized "compassion" as the correct English word?

If this is true, how do scholars justify using the single exception?

 

Ha, that's so funny! Be assured that for every example Rippon has brought up there are a thousand that say otherwise. Ha, still laughing about this one! Too funny!

 

You must really think the worst of me... not a trick question. I just think it is an interesting angle that has yet been mentioned. W/ text critical situations as it is, it makes it all the more confusing, especially when you throw the synoptic problem along with the mix. I don't mean to compound the issue, just add a different dimension.

For instance, why would Matthew leave it out? Or, why would Mark add it? If you are going to put much effort into the internal evidence, those kind of questions need to be answered beyond a special insight that not many think Mark had (his "insight" was probably Peter; as well as Luke and Matthew if you are not a Markan prioritist, and I'm not).

If Matt. 8 is the parallel, does an angered Jesus fit there also?