Was Jesus Indignant or Compassionate?

[John of Japan]

Amen, Brother Salamander -- Preach it! :thumbs:

But Salamander wasn't dealing with the passage. Mark 1:41 is not "both indignant and compassionate," but either one or the other. He can't have it both ways. And you know what, I wonder if friend Salamander actually read the OP, since he was defending a non-KJV reading.

from dictionary.com
in·dig·nant

-adjective -- feeling, characterized by, or expressing strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base

John of Japan: //And I just can't imagine Jesus being indignant because He was politely and desperately asked to heal someone!//

Jesus was indignant not against the leper but indignant against the leprosy. In fact, Jesus was so indignant against the leprosy that He KILLED the leprosy.

So then you are coming down on the side of indignant, right? Remember that this is a problem of textual criticism, not translation. And the "indignant" word is found in only two Greek manuscripts. In fact, of the two mss, it is found in only one purely Western manuscript, meaning all of the other Western mss do not have it. So to sum up, all three text types--Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western--oppose the "indignant" reading.

Jesus was indignant at other times, the Bible teaches that, but I don't believe He was indignant here in Mark 1:41, but rather compassionate. :type:

 

[HankD]

Hi, Hank. Hope you're doing well.

You're basically right here, except that in this case W&H went with the reading attested by all Alexandrian mss, rather than the more difficult one, as I wrote in a previous post. In this case their geneological rule overruled their difficulty rule. Robinson-Pierpont also makes use of the WH geneological theory, going with the reading in all Byz/Maj mss.

All of this points up the fact that textual criticism is a highly subjective scholarly discipline, and certainly not a science, as some like to think. You evaluate the text, choose your rule and make your subjective choice.

If textual criticism were truly a science, scholars would use the scientific method in determining their rules. For example, I'd love to see experimentation involving people copying mss. You could have a group of Greeks copy them (similar to the Byzantine tradition), some with Greek as a second language, then a control group of Greek teachers. No one has ever done anything similar that I know of, though James Price wrote some computer programs to do textual criticism back in the day.

I missed your W&H citation. It is alluding me. I went back through your posts and couldn't find it.

There is a possibitlity that "indignant" is correct as remote as it might seem since there are two witnesses which attest to the reading.

Anyway IMO there must always be an element of subjectivity for any variant determination (abundance of evidence or no). It's the nature of decision making.

Look at 1 John 5:7 for instance and the controversy that verse has caused in spite of the lack of any ancient Greek witness - in fact, only Latin attestation (as far as I know - perhaps 1 Greek Father).

Thank you JJ for being of those who chose to "go".
Your post demonstrates that missions is more than just "telling" the gospel.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

HankD

 

[HankD]

OK JJ I found the W&H reference.

Assuming "indignant", here is a possibility from the previous verse:​

And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.​

Possibly Jesus was indignant because the leper questioned His willingness to heal Him.​

This would fulfill the Burgon "contextual" evidence.
But of course not the overwhelming evidence of ancient witnesses.

HankD​

 

[John of Japan]

I missed your W&H citation. It is alluding me. I went back through your posts and couldn't find it.

There is a possibitlity that "indignant" is correct as remote as it might seem since there are two witnesses which attest to the reading.

Anyway IMO there must always be an element of subjectivity for any variant determination (abundance of evidence or no). It's the nature of decision making.

Look at 1 John 5:7 for instance and the controversy that verse has caused in spite of the lack of any ancient Greek witness - in fact, only Latin attestation (as far as I know - perhaps 1 Greek Father).

Ooh, ouch about 1 John 5:7. That's one reading I'd love to include even while knowing the paucity of mss evidence. The similarity to the Mark 1:41 reading is that there are also two Greek witnesses for the trinitarian reading, and both readings have Latin support, with 1 John 5:7 having much more.

According to a Trinity Bible Society paper I have defending the TR reading, the two Greek mss with it are: the Montfort MS in Dublin U. liberary and Codex Wizanburgensis of the 8th cent. The main evidence is that it is found in all of the codices of the Vulgate and Old Latin. Meanwhile, "indignant" has some evidence in the Latin. So I'd say there's an interesting comparison in the evidence for the trinitarian reading and the "indignant" in Mark 1:41. But the eclectic types who accept "indignant" would be indignant about the comparison.

Thank you JJ for being of those who chose to "go".
Your post demonstrates that missions is more than just "telling" the gospel.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

HankD

I've always considered it a great, unearned privilege from the Lord to be called to be a missionary.

 

[John of Japan]

OK JJ I found the W&H reference.

Assuming "indignant", here is a possibility from the previous verse:​

And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.​

Possibly Jesus was indignant because the leper questioned His willingness to heal Him.​

This would fulfill the Burgon "contextual" evidence.
But of course not the overwhelming evidence of ancient witnesses.

HankD​

I read the question by the leper as being polite and humble. My translation: "If you want to, you can make me clean." Usually when we in 21st century English say, "If you want to...," we're trying to avoid offending someone by giving an order when we have no authority to do so.

It's a third class conditional sentence, indicating doubt on the part of the leper--not that Jesus can, but that He wants to. (Thelo = wish or desire.) The poor guy hopes Christ will make him clean, but is prepared for rejection. He's an outcast from society, considered unclean and required to call out "Unclean!" wherever he goes. Personally, I can't imagine our loving Christ being indignant in this case.

 

[HankD]

Thank you JJ.

Personally, I support the Comma.

I also agree that if the Mark 1:41 word is "indignant" then it probably has a different object than the leper (though the variant might lead one to that conclusion).

Although the text does not reveal what I think it might be, here is my guess:

There were pharisees and/or legalists around Him who were indignant themselves about the fact that a leper showed up who was not supposed to mingle with the crowd and when a leper did come into town they were to shout out the fact of their uncleaness (as you mentioned).

Also the feeling of the day was that they (lepers) were the worst of sinners seeing that were lepers and probably the brunt of a special wrath from God.

Jesus knowing all, not only communicated with the man but to pour salt on the wounds of the legalists He "put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean".

Jesus then sent him straight to the priests as a testimony of the mercy of God, even the Law of Moses making a place for it.


HankD

 

[Mexdeaf]

What a depressing thought...... glad I don't share your view!

Sorry that the facts depress you. I rather find it exciting that Almighty God can preserve His Word in spite of man's best efforts to mess it up!

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you JJ.

Personally, I support the Comma.

I'm conflicted! On odd days I support the comma, and on even days I doubt it! I translated 1 John 5 into Japanese on an odd day. :laugh:

I also agree that if the Mark 1:41 word is "indignant" then it probably has a different object than the leper (though the variant might lead one to that conclusion).

Although the text does not reveal what I think it might be, here is my guess:

There were pharisees and/or legalists around Him who were indignant themselves about the fact that a leper showed up who was not supposed to mingle with the crowd and when a leper did come into town they were to shout out the fact of their uncleaness (as you mentioned).

Also the feeling of the day was that they (lepers) were the worst of sinners seeing that were lepers and probably the brunt of a special wrath from God.

Jesus knowing all, not only communicated with the man but to pour salt on the wounds of the legalists He "put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean".

Jesus then sent him straight to the priests as a testimony of the mercy of God, even the Law of Moses making a place for it.


HankD

This is interesting speculation, but it isn't supported by the passage or the parallel passages in Matthew or Luke, since the scribes or Pharisees are not mentioned in any of the accounts. As you yourself said, "The text does not reveal...." :type:

 

[TCGreek]

I am on an e-mail list of translators. Some of these guys are heavy hitters, known scholars, so I just kind of keep quiet and try to learn. But I've been blown away by learning that the TNIV translates "Jesus was indignant" instead of "moved with compassion" in Mark 1:41.

Hi John. I just noticed this exciting thread. I like its contents. About a year ago I noticed that textual variant but never really followed it up.

But I'm glad you have the textual muscles for it.

The TNIV is now my primary text for reading, studying, preaching and teaching, so you got me on this one.

How did this come about? There is a textual variant. Almost all mss, with both the Byzantine/Majority and Alexandrian text types agreeing, have σπλαγχνισθείς (having compassion, aor. part.), with the main one opposing being Bezae (or D; 5th cent.), with ὀργισθείς (indignant, aor. pass. part.). A few Old Latin mss. agree, as does Ephraem, a minor 5th cent. Greek manuscript of mixed text types.

So get the picture. Every single Greek mss agrees that Jesus was compassionate instead of indignant before he healed a man except two (only two, count 'em), one Western and one mixed. Metzger (Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, 2nd ed.) gives "compassion" a B possibility (pretty much certain), but the TNIV translators decide to go with the Western reading. Why? They can't figure out how the reading "indignant" became "having compassion," but can figure out how "having compassion" might have become indignant. For a more complete discussion see: http://homepage.mac.com:80/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20070103_mark_1_41_in_the_tniv.html

Here's the NET textual note on this:

74tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “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).

Now I am left with one thought. Where in the world is the common sense? The TNIV translators here just didn't have their heads on straight. In fact, if you'll read the blog I just linked to, one TNIV translating consultant missed the textual variant altogether and assumed "indignant" was a translation of σπλαγχνισθείς, which would be exceedingly strange, since the verb only occurs 12 times in the NT, and the other 11 are clearly compassion! And I just can't imagine Jesus being indignant because He was politely and desperately asked to heal someone!

The TNIV's choice is quite interesting, I say. The textual evidence favors "moved with compassion."

But according to the NET notes, there are other places in Mark where Jesus became indignant or angry.

But I know of no other place in Scripture where Jesus became indignant when he was about to heal someone.

I am not attacking the TNIV in general, not even having a copy, but this one very strange rendering in particular, so please don't inform me about how great the rest of the translation is. (Hmm, who would be likely to do that? ) It's a clear case of scholars following slavishly a "rule" of textual criticism (go with the explanation of the change that sounds more likely) more instead of their common sense and the vast majority of the mss.

At any rate, "became indignant" is a possible reading.

Good stuff, John.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John. I just noticed this exciting thread. I like its contents. About a year ago I noticed that textual variant but never really followed it up.

But I'm glad you have the textual muscles for it.

The TNIV is now my primary text for reading, studying, preaching and teaching, so you got me on this one.

Score one for the guy in Asia. :type:

Here's the NET textual note on this:

74tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “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).

I did read this. Thanks for posting it.

In return, I'll post Metzger's note in his textual commentary. I read elsewhere that the 2nd edition raises the "compassionate" reading to a B, (almost certain), but I only have the 1st ed., so here it is:

"It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why orgistheis (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to splangxnistheis (“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 orgistheis is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splangxnistheis. (An understatement indeed!--JoJ) (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted overscrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading orgistheis either (a) was suggested by emgbrimhsamenos of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, “he had pity,” with ethra’em, “he was enraged”)."
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1st ed., pp. 76-77.

The TNIV's choice is quite interesting, I say. The textual evidence favors "moved with compassion."

But according to the NET notes, there are other places in Mark where Jesus became indignant or angry.

But I know of no other place in Scripture where Jesus became indignant when he was about to heal someone.

Good points. Orgizo is used eight times in the NT, but Mark never uses it, and of the five times in the Gospels, it is never used of Jesus.

At any rate, "became indignant" is a possible reading.

Good stuff, John.

Barely possible, I'll admit that--but only if your textual criticism method is radical eclecticism. Any method that takes stock in the mss evidence or geneology will reject "indignant."

Here's the nail in the coffin, IMO. My Vulgate NT (White and Wordsworth), has "Iesus autem misertus eius...," with of course the participle misertus (fr. misereo) being Latin for "having compassion," and they don't even list the variant in their apparatus--and remember that the main evidence for "indignant" is in D and four (I believe it was) Old Latin mss.

 

[Salamander]

Looking through Dr. David Alan Black's New Testament Textual Criticism, A Concise Guide, I found on pp. 39-40 a description of the current four approaches to textual criticism. Concerning "Radical Eclecticism" he says they believe:
"a. The text is to be based on internal evidence alone.
b. No manuscript or group of manuscripts is to be preferred.
c. The result is a purely "eclectic" text."

So this explains why someone--a radical eclectic--would prefer "indignant" to "moved with compassion" in Mark 1:41.

I prefer compassion over indignation any day!:godisgood: And even if we examine Scripture even a little loosely, we'll find God prefers it over indignation too!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

But Salamander wasn't dealing with the passage. Mark 1:41 is not "both indignant and compassionate," but either one or the other. He can't have it both ways. And you know what, I wonder if friend Salamander actually read the OP, since he was defending a non-KJV reading.

So then you are coming down on the side of indignant, right? Remember that this is a problem of textual criticism, not translation. And the "indignant" word is found in only two Greek manuscripts. In fact, of the two mss, it is found in only one purely Western manuscript, meaning all of the other Western mss do not have it. So to sum up, all three text types--Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western--oppose the "indignant" reading.

Jesus was indignant at other times, the Bible teaches that, but I don't believe He was indignant here in Mark 1:41, but rather compassionate. :type:

I beg to differ and can't believe I am agreeing with Ed, but the understanding and balance incorporated in the passage definately describes both compassion for the leper and indignation towards the disease.

We must remember that everything good about God is balanced by his indignation towards sin and those results of sin.

Even in His wrath, He still shows us mercy.

Trying to say "it's one and not the other" is extreme and improper due to the lack of balance.

 

[Deacon]

I'm a compassionate sort of guy myself but I noticed that Robert Guelick was angered, in Vol. 34A of the Word Biblical Commentary.

And a leper came appealing to Jesus and kneeling said, “If you want, you can make me clean.”
Being angered, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him and said, “I do. Be clean.
[Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. (71). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

The footnote reads:

"ὀργισθείσ/σπλαγχνισθείς offers a genuine textual dilemma."
[SNIP]
Perhaps the strongest argument for ὀργισθείς lies in its apparent correspondence to ἐμβριμᾶσθαι in 1:43, cf.John 11:33, 38 and στενάζειν in Mark 7:34 (G. Stählin, TDNT 5 [1967] 427, n. 326)

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

I beg to differ and can't believe I am agreeing with Ed, but the understanding and balance incorporated in the passage definately describes both compassion for the leper and indignation towards the disease.

We must remember that everything good about God is balanced by his indignation towards sin and those results of sin.

Even in His wrath, He still shows us mercy.

Trying to say "it's one and not the other" is extreme and improper due to the lack of balance.

Wow, have you changed! So you disagree with the KJV! It says only "having compassion," not "being indignant and having compassion." Wow! Salamander disagreeth with the KJV in Mark 1:41 and calleth it "extreme and improper due to the lack of balance!" Whew!

Now that I've had my fun, please note that this thread is strictly about Mark 1:41, and not asking if Jesus was ever indignant.

 

[TCGreek]

Score one for the guy in Asia. :type:

:thumbs:

I did read this. Thanks for posting it.

In return, I'll post Metzger's note in his textual commentary. I read elsewhere that the 2nd edition raises the "compassionate" reading to a B, (almost certain), but I only have the 1st ed., so here it is:

"It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why orgistheis (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to splangxnistheis (“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 orgistheis is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splangxnistheis. (An understatement indeed!--JoJ) (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted overscrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading orgistheis either (a) was suggested by emgbrimhsamenos of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, “he had pity,” with ethra’em, “he was enraged”)."
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1st ed., pp. 76-77.

Metzger rating from D to B says a lot.

Good points. Orgizo is used eight times in the NT, but Mark never uses it, and of the five times in the Gospels, it is never used of Jesus.

Barely possible, I'll admit that--but only if your textual criticism method is radical eclecticism. Any method that takes stock in the mss evidence or geneology will reject "indignant."

I'm quite in agreement. And I'm really trying to restraint myself from saying that it's careless scholarship to go with "indignant." We just have too much solid evidence for "filled with compassion."

Here's the nail in the coffin, IMO. My Vulgate NT (White and Wordsworth), has "Iesus autem misertus eius...," with of course the participle misertus (fr. misereo) being Latin for "having compassion," and they don't even list the variant in their apparatus--and remember that the main evidence for "indignant" is in D and four (I believe it was) Old Latin mss.

You're correct. I believe the REB reads "Jesus was filled with anger" or something like that.

Good stuff, John.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm a compassionate sort of guy myself but I noticed that Robert Guelick was angered, in Vol. 34A of the Word Biblical Commentary.

And a leper came appealing to Jesus and kneeling said, “If you want, you can make me clean.”
Being angered, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him and said, “I do. Be clean.
[Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. (71). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

The footnote reads:

Rob

My Expositor's Bible Commentary on Mark (Walter Wessel) also goes for "being angered," which is strange because it's text is the NIV which has "filled with compassion." Which makes me wonder what got into the TNIV guys. I think that the "indignant" reading is just a scholars' fad! When these guys come to their senses they'll say, "Why did we ever do that??"

None of the older Greek commentaries I have (Robertson, Vincent, Wuest, Alford) go for "indignant." It wasn't even mentioned!

 

[John of Japan]

:thumbs:
Metzger rating from D to B says a lot.


I'm quite in agreement. And I'm really trying to restraint myself from saying that it's careless scholarship to go with "indignant." We just have too much solid evidence for "filled with compassion."


You're correct. I believe the REB reads "Jesus was filled with anger" or something like that.

Good stuff, John.

Well, it's been fun, but I'm almost out of resources to discuss this one--unless I cruise the Internet just looking for stuff, and who has time for that. Of course, the one guy did write his entire Ph. D. thesis on this one reading. Hmmm!

 

[Salamander]

Wow, have you changed! So you disagree with the KJV! It says only "having compassion," not "being indignant and having compassion." Wow! Salamander disagreeth with the KJV in Mark 1:41 and calleth it "extreme and improper due to the lack of balance!" Whew!

Now that I've had my fun, please note that this thread is strictly about Mark 1:41, and not asking if Jesus was ever indignant.

Um, I agreed, and still agree, that the KJV reading gives ample consideration for the reader to examine the situation and then being guided by the Holy Spirit to conclude that anything that causes harm to the individual is at a point of adversity with Christ and then would ultimately reveal his indignation, yet his compassion is towards the sinner and his indignation against the sin.

This isn't rocket science, but it is close.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

:thumbs:





You're correct. I believe the REB reads "Jesus was filled with anger" or something like that.

:laugh: Did you mean "akin"?

I have to stand on the fact that God is only ever angry with the wicked and the religious leaders who oppress sinners, but never have I seen anywhere he was indignant towards the sinner who his only begotten died and shed his blood for them.

If Jesus was ever angry towards a sinner for their lack of wisdom, then we would have to reject James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Seems more the wording understood as "indignant" is more akin to heresy and to the father of all lies.

 

[Rippon]

Seems more the wording understood as "indignant" is more akin to heresy and to the father of all lies.

Rip:Now you've crossed the line ( not that you haven't before).So those scholars who would translate the wording in question to 'indignant' are heretics, and this is sponsored by Satan?!You sound more and more like Skypair, just in a different forum.