2011 NIV Translation of Mark 1:41

[Baptist4life]

Mark 1:41

New International Version (NIV)

41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

in·dig·nant/inˈdignənt/
Adjective:
Feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment.

Other versions translate this "moved with compassion." The new NIV translates "Jesus was indignant." Not sure what to think of that.

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

 

[Amy.G]

It makes no sense to me. If indignant was a synonym for compassion I could understand it, but it is just the opposite.

 

[rsr]

Perhaps Mr. Boland will weigh in on this.

In the meantime, "anger" is in a few Latin manuscripts and the Codex Bezae. A similar reading has been adopted by the Common English Bible, which notes that the "compassion" reading is the one adopted by most critical editions of the NT, and the new Lexham English Bible. (The reading, BTW, is a carryover from the TNIV.) There is speculation that "compassion" resulted from a copyist error (or, as Ehrman suggests, a deliberate change of the text.) Although a case can be made for the NIV reading, it does not seem to be nearly as strong as for the traditional reading.

Here's a previous discussion:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=50539

 

[Greektim]

Mark 1:41

New International Version (NIV)

41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”






Other versions translate this "moved with compassion." The new NIV translates "Jesus was indignant." Not sure what to think of that.

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

This is what I wrote on the New FFF. Enjoy!

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.

 

[Greektim]

This is what I wrote on the New FFF. Enjoy!

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.

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

 

[gb93433]

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.

The NIV did the same thing with Amos 4:4.

 

[TC]

Mark 1:41

New International Version (NIV)

41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”






Other versions translate this "moved with compassion." The new NIV translates "Jesus was indignant." Not sure what to think of that.

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

The 1984 NIV says:

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

The TNIV makes the change that the 2011 follows:

Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

This change does not make any sense to me.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The 1984 NIV says:

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

The TNIV makes the change that the 2011 follows:

Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

This change does not make any sense to me.

The NIV11 editors were operating under two assumptions: (1) that the change in whichever direction was intentional; (2) that no scribe/editor would have intentionally made a compassionate Jesus into an angry Jesus. Therefore "indignant" must be original.

However, both assumptions are questionable:

(1) Peter Williams has argued that the specific word for compassionate was so rare and the word for angry so common that a scribe very well could have written the more common one by accident, especially since the last six letters of both words in this case are identical.

(2) Some manuscripts intentionally add that Jesus spoke with anger in Luke 6:10. If some did so there, why not here?

There are other explanations how "angry" came to exist in one Greek manuscript. The manuscript that contains it, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D/05), is a Greek-Latin codex where the Greek has often been changed to agree with the Old Latin column. This is why one often sees this Greek manuscript agreeing with Old Latin witnesses against all other Greek manuscripts. Also, the Latin perfect participles for "angry" (iratus) and "compassionate" (misertus, miseratus, misirtus) are similar, and could have contributed to confusion or alteration. In addition, the ancient Latin ancestor of all subsequent Latin manuscripts does not follow the Greek here with its usual rendering of the Greek KAI with "et" but rather with "autem," which usually renders Greek DE. "Autem" in Latin is often a "detour" conjunction that anticipates a different or negative situation from what precedes. So the actual wording of the Latin translation made the conditions ripe for alteration.

In addition, it is very likely that Tatian used "angry" in his Diatessaron in the 2nd century, and perhaps from this source the reading entered the Old Latin manuscripts and then into one Greek manuscript by way of cross-contamination.

Now about implications of this and other similar passages as regards apologetics. Only one Greek manuscript in Mark 1:41 says that Jesus was angry (Text und Textwert says two, but Jeff Cate has proved one of those, a late minuscule, not to be so.). Here's where things get tricky. According to one's theory regarding the textual transmission of the NT, the original reading may or may not be preserved in only one manuscript. Some say that the original at times is completely lost. Apologetically, if "angry" is original in Mark 1:41, then we must conclude that here and therefore probably elsewhere, the text of the NT, with all of its 5000+ manuscripts, is not very reliable, for most of what was handed down to us reflects the intentions and opinions of men and not the mind of God and the authors he inspired. We must therefore stop using the number of manuscripts as an argument in favor of the reliability of the text, since number obviously means absolutely nothing. Bart Ehrman has done this with some initial success, and one of his favorite passages for arguing his agenda is none other than Mark 1:41. (Another is Mark 16:9-20, where only two Greek manuscripts out of about 1500 omit the verses.)

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Van]

Yes, the reasoning for support of the majority text seems questionable, but supporting the earliest copy seems sound.

We seem to have several choices here, the original was moved with compassion and a few copists changed it to match Mark 3:5.

The original was moved with indignation, and early copists changed it, and the corrupted text was copied copiously.

Just reading it in context, moved with indignation fits better than moved with compassion, and when we throw in Christ's other responses, i.e. Mark 3:5, 10:14, etc, to those of "little faith" indignation gets my vote.

 

[Greektim]

Yes, the reasoning for support of the majority text seems questionable, but supporting the earliest copy seems sound.

We seem to have several choices here, the original was moved with compassion and a few copists changed it to match Mark 3:5.

The original was moved with indignation, and early copists changed it, and the corrupted text was copied copiously.

Just reading it in context, moved with indignation fits better than moved with compassion, and when we throw in Christ's other responses, i.e. Mark 3:5, 10:14, etc, to those of "little faith" indignation gets my vote.

If this post was not said in jest or sarcasm, then I'd have to wonder about the reading capabilities of the poster. Van, where in the discussion was the majority reading ever presented as questionable? Did you read more likely reasons why one might change "compassion" to "anger" besides a citation in 3;5? I and then J.Boreland after cited the reliance on Codex Beaza to rely on the Latin. The Latin's misspelling gives a good reason for the reading to enter into a Greek Ms.

But to say that the context fits better w/ "indignation" than "compassion" seems absurd to me. The immediate context is a faith statement from the leper to which is explained that Jesus was angry??? That same context continues between Jesus and the leper. How does anger remotely fit into this exchange??? I don't see it. Maybe I am misunderstanding you b/c your last sentence calls a lot of things into questions in my book.

 

[Van]

Hi Greektim, I will leave to the folks who seems unable to read.

We must therefore stop using the number of manuscripts as an argument in favor of the reliability of the text, since number obviously means absolutely nothing.

It is ok for you to disagree with the NIV scholars and with me, as an simple bible student. I think many agree it is a difficult verse and a close call. As far as reading up on the topic before I posted, I read the link to the other thread, and the NET Bible footnote, and several on line commentaries advocating both sides of the question.

One of my favorite observations from the text is duality, something has more than one reading. Say a prophecy with an immediate application and an distant future application. Or Jesus being indigant over someone's lack of faith in His agape love to the lost.

And Sir, if you cannot find that in the context of our passage, note Jesus responded to his question of whether not Jesus would have mercy on him with I am willing. Once I thought I saw, and Lord knows I could be way off target, what Jesus could be indignant about, it worked for me.

God Bless

 

[Greektim]

Hi Greektim, I will leave to the folks who seems unable to read.



It is ok for you to disagree with the NIV scholars and with me, as an simple bible student. I think many agree it is a difficult verse and a close call. As far as reading up on the topic before I posted, I read the link to the other thread, and the NET Bible footnote, and several on line commentaries advocating both sides of the question.

One of my favorite observations from the text is duality, something has more than one reading. Say a prophecy with an immediate application and an distant future application. Or Jesus being indigant over someone's lack of faith in His agape love to the lost.

And Sir, if you cannot find that in the context of our passage, note Jesus responded to his question of whether not Jesus would have mercy on him with I am willing. Once I thought I saw, and Lord knows I could be way off target, what Jesus could be indignant about, it worked for me.

God Bless

"Close call"??? What is close about it? That it is even considered a viable reading is due to its controversial internal evidence and not its scant external evidence. On internal evidence alone, the "compassion" reading wins out (and it aint close; wow I said "aint").

Next, are you sure you understand what the word "duality" means?

Finally, what in the very immediate context of Jesus healing a leper in Mark 1 indicates that he would be angry by the faith of the leper? That is on the side of absurdity.
That is why it is the "harder reading," because it makes little sense. If it makes sense to you, then it shouldn't be considered an option b/c now it lacks Mss support and it is the easier reading. Your view goes against the crust of most reasoned eclectic textual critics.

 

[Van]

Hi Greektim, the NET footnote says it is a close call.

I addressed the internal evidence, i.e. the flow of thought of the immediate and related context.

BTW, duality could refer to a situation where two alternate reading both make sense, therefore to choose one, the one seemingly less likely for the copists to introduce, makes it a close call.

 

[DaChaser1]

If this post was not said in jest or sarcasm, then I'd have to wonder about the reading capabilities of the poster. Van, where in the discussion was the majority reading ever presented as questionable? Did you read more likely reasons why one might change "compassion" to "anger" besides a citation in 3;5? I and then J.Boreland after cited the reliance on Codex Beaza to rely on the Latin. The Latin's misspelling gives a good reason for the reading to enter into a Greek Ms.

But to say that the context fits better w/ "indignation" than "compassion" seems absurd to me. The immediate context is a faith statement from the leper to which is explained that Jesus was angry??? That same context continues between Jesus and the leper. How does anger remotely fit into this exchange??? I don't see it. Maybe I am misunderstanding you b/c your last sentence calls a lot of things into questions in my book.

based upon what I have heard and read on this subject , the NIV translators mainly went with "its so foreign to our concept of jesus, so unique MUST have been watered down by scribes in order to make it sound "more like Jesus!"

 

[Greektim]

Hi Greektim, the NET footnote says it is a close call.

I addressed the internal evidence, i.e. the flow of thought of the immediate and related context.

BTW, duality could refer to a situation where two alternate reading both make sense, therefore to choose one, the one seemingly less likely for the copists to introduce, makes it a close call.

YOu didn't address anything. Your unclear writing mentioned some things, but it made no sense. So I ask again, how in v. 41 can Jesus be mad at the leper if in v. 40 he believed? Or is Jesus' indignation pointed elsewhere? If so, where and how does that fit the context AND have anything related to the discourse of Jesus between the leper in vv. 40-41 where it is located?

And I would subscribe that you used "duality" in a different way the first time than you explained the second. No matter.

I think 2 things need to be considered for this variant. If we began the discussion under the guise of "all things being equal", we would have to admit that it is not. I.e. the "angered" reading falls woefully short. If we also rely on 1 or 2 Grk Mss localized to a certain texttype which have in the past shown proclivity towards Latin translation (or mistranslation), then it is absurd to abandon all normal sense of logic for external evidence just b/c the internal evidence would take us somewhere else. Why is it that internal evidence trumps the clear external evidence is beyond me.

Internal evidence is at best speculation (although logical and likely in some cases), but it should not devalue the objective and scientific facts of the external evidence. Not to mention that in Van's case, he sees "angered" as the easier reading and therefore going against the tide of internal evidence principles. If the difficult reading is to be applied here, then in Van's case he should be following the "compassion" reading.

 

[Van]

He claims my posts did not address anything, yet rails against how I addressed the issues. Pure twaddle.

He pretends he cannot read for he asks who Jesus was mad at. Why was Jesus indignant, according to my post, was apparently beyond his reading skill.

And finally I must again restate that Greektim has not the faintest idea what is meant by the "harder" reading. It means it is more likely a copyist would corrupt the text and go from a harder reading to a easier reading, than vice versa. Thus more likely to go from moved by indignation to moved by compassion, than vice versa.

Will the penny drop. Time will tell.

 

[Greektim]

He claims my posts did not address anything, yet rails against how I addressed the issues. Pure twaddle.

He pretends he cannot read for he asks who Jesus was mad at. Why was Jesus indignant, according to my post, was apparently beyond his reading skill.

And finally I must again restate that Greektim has not the faintest idea what is meant by the "harder" reading. It means it is more likely a copyist would corrupt the text and go from a harder reading to a easier reading, than vice versa. Thus more likely to go from moved by indignation to moved by compassion, than vice versa.

Will the penny drop. Time will tell.

First of all (since you don't have the decency to address me), have you read your posts? Your writings skills are greatly lacking. Perhaps it is your grammar or punctuation, but you have written confusing statements. You know there is an edit function, yes?

Second, you are dodging now. I just want a simple answer to a simple question. I am asking b/c clearly I am not understanding you. Yet you keep fudging. Now who's being the twad???

Third, I take issue that you accuse me of not having the faintest idea of what the "harder reading" is in textual criticism. Here is why your argument is flawed. I agree that the harder reading is the "angered" reading. I'm not denying that. YOUR problem is that you claimed earlier that the "angered" reading made MORE sense to you. Therefore, by your own admission, "filled with compassion" is the harder reading b/c "angered" is easier in your opinion. Therefore, you do not abide by your own criteria, that is unless you are like mean and don't care for internal evidence.

Lastly, keep your penny. Most people can at least off $.02 though. Give that a try

 

[Van]

Is this the sort of tommy rot up with I must put?

Note the quotation, I said the harder reading made more sense? But is that what I said? I said given the context, the harder reading fits better. Jesus rebuking the question with "I am willing!" Sounds like indignation to me.

But alas, Greektim is doing his best. And we are not to judge another's servant.

 

[Greektim]

Is this the sort of tommy rot up with I must put?

Note the quotation, I said the harder reading made more sense? But is that what I said? I said given the context, the harder reading fits better. Jesus rebuking the question with "I am willing!" Sounds like indignation to me.

But alas, Greektim is doing his best. And we are not to judge another's servant.

Is this the sort of tommy rot up with I must put?

And this is an example of you writing very poorly, sir.

Keep your snark and snide... it doesn't befit a pious individual such as yourself.

Not matter the quotation, to say that the "harder reading" (which I am assuming you are referring to the "angered" reading) fits better then is to say that the harder reading is actually the easier reading. The fact that it fits better makes that point.

And you can make a case for the "angered" reading on internal grounds. I don't want to deny you that. But here's the rub, internally "filled with compassion" is just as viable and by your standards fit worse (thus making it the harder reading). Therefore, we could simply say it is a crap-shoot when it comes to the internal evidence of this passage. If that is the case, and it undoubtedly is by your own admission above, the external evidence is the leading factor. Therefore, "filled with compassion" is the outright winner. Normally in textual decisions I will use language such as "most likely" or "probably," but the reality is, that this passage is in my mind more than probable. I am convinced that the reading "filled with compassion" is the correct reading. Anything otherwise is simply beating against the wind.

 

[Rippon]

The Gospel Message Of St. Mark by R.H. Lightfoot,back in 1949:

Of the Lord we read,first in verse 41,'being angered'. For` this is certainly more likely to be the original reading than the usual 'being moved with compassion' and secondly,in verse 43, 'strictly charging him'. The Greek participle here is,however,much stronger than the English rendering;the word implies indignant displeasure. We are likely to be correct in thinking that the anger and the displeasure were in no way directed against the individual leper himself,but describe the divine passionate and indignant reaction,when confronted witha signal example of the pitiful condition of hapless humanity,and all that this implied. (pages 25,26)