One of my favorite Greek words is splagchnizomai. It sounds like something you’d order in an Italian restaurant. But in reality it’s more like what happens after you eat Taco Bell—it means to be moved in the bowels. All kidding aside, it’s actually a rather emotional word. It’s to be moved by something so deeply that you feel it in the depth of your being. In the Scriptures splagchnizomai is what stirs Jesus to action. One of these places is Mark 1:41,
Moved with pity (splagchnizomai), he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”
But there is a little problem here. Some manuscripts have the word orgistheis (moved by anger) instead of splagchnizomai (moved by compassion). What this means is that when we compile all the fragments we have from the Gospel of Mark 1:41 some of those read “anger” and some of them read “compassion”. You’ve noticed this if you are an NIV reader:
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
How do we determine which one is original? Today I hope to walk you through the process of making a decision like this. At the end of the day this is one of those places where we likely conclude with Metzger: “It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text”. But walking through the process can be incredibly helpful even if we cannot come to a firm conclusion.
External Evidence
The first thing to consider is the external evidence. There are thousands of manuscripts. Some are more reliable than others. As an example, if you were trying to determine the truthfulness of a story, should more weight be given to a person who lived in the region and only a few years removed or would you give more weight to a person who did not live in the region and was a couple decades removed from the event? In the case of biblical manuscripts sometimes they are several hundred years and thousands of miles away from the event.
All of these manuscripts are divided into text families. And scholars debate which family to give the most weight to, but most are in agreement that the Western texts are the least reliable. Here in Mark 1:41 the Western text family is the one which preserves “anger”. The weight, then, of external evidence falls towards a reading of “compassion” over “anger”. But there is more to consider.
Internal Evidence
The next thing to consider is internal evidence. This is where we get to put on our Scooby-Doo hats and do a bit of detective work. Here we ask questions of the text. What would have been more likely to be changed by a scribe? What reading is most consistent with the author?
Which translation makes you the most comfortable? A Jesus who responds to a leper with anger or a Jesus who responds to a leper with compassion? It’s kind of hard to imagine where a scribe would have changed the text to make Jesus angry, but it’s understandable how he would make him compassionate. Douglas Moo gives the defense of the NIV’s choice:
Simply because of a basic principle of textual criticism: prefer the reading that can best explain the others. In other words, we have to ask his question: as scribes copied the Gospel of Mark over the centuries, would they have been more likely to put the Greek word for ‘anger’ in place of the one for ‘compassion’? Or the reverse? The answer is clear: they would have been far more likely to substitute ‘compassion’ for ‘anger.’
There is also another line of internal evidence in favor of “anger” as the correct reading. When Matthew and Luke tell the story of this leper they do not record any emotion on the part of Jesus. Not compassion, not anger. In fact both Matthew and Luke refrain from having Jesus angry. But Mark doesn’t. Mark is more comfortable with orgistheis. But in the places where Mark does mention Jesus’ compassion—guess what happens? Matthew and Luke preserve the emotion of Jesus. Is the absence of emotion here in Matthew and Luke evidence that Mark’s original was “anger”?
Furthermore, look at the language and emotion Jesus uses throughout this passage. The words used in 1:43 are strong words often used of Jesus’ action of casting out demons. Verse 43 actually fits better with Jesus’ anger than his compassion/pity.
There is some pushback when it comes to internal evidence. One strong piece is that there are other places in Mark where Jesus is presented as angry and these are not changed. Why would a copyists change the words in 1:41 but not in the other places? Secondly, it’s possible that a scribe was too strongly connecting 1:43 to 1:41 and thus made an error. Philip Comfort argues somewhat persuasively:
But we must remember that the scribe who wrote ‘being indignant’ was the scribe of D (who is often followed by ita d). This scribe (or a predecessor) was a literary editor who had a propensity for making significant changes in the text. At this point he may have decided to make Jesus angry with the leper for wanting a miracle—in keeping with the tone of voice Jesus used in 1:43 when he sternly warned the leper. But this was not a warning about seeking a miracle; it was a warning about keeping the miracle a secret so as to protect Jesus’ identity.”
These arguments need to be considered but on the whole, the most convincing internal evidence is in favor of an “anger” reading. So what do you do when internal evidence argues with external evidence?
Conclusion
I have preached this passage before and I did not go down this path. I focused in on Jesus’ compassionate response to the leper. And I still think the fact that Jesus touched the untouchable speaks to the tender care of Jesus. But if I preached this passage today I think I’d also mention this “angry” alternative.
Why would Jesus be angry with the leper? Perhaps it was his lack of faith. That’s definitely a possibility. A very early commentator (Tatian) had this to say:
If you are willing, you can cleanse me. The formula is one of petition and the word is one of fear. That you are able to I know, but whether you are willing, I am not certain.’ Therefore, our Lord showed him two things in response to this double [attitude]: reproof through his anger, and mercy through his healing […] [The Lord] was angry with regard to this line of reasoning and so [he ordered] secondly, ‘Go show yourself to the priests, and fulfill that Law which you are despising.’ […] It is also said that [the Lord] was not angry with him, but with his leprosy”
I think there is also something to be said for Jesus’ anger at what has become of His beautiful creation. Anger should be a response to leprosy and anything else that destroys humanity. I like how James Edwards says this, “As though the leprosy were dispelled by holy wrath, Mark declares, ‘Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.’”
Whether Jesus was moved by compassion or anger the point remains. He lovingly restored that which was broken. In one sense anger is a proper response to brokenness—in another sense compassion is the most fitting response. I wonder if the Lord left us this little variant so that we’d have to wrestle with this balance.
