Mark 1:41

The Text Criticism Discussion Group has had an interesting debate lately about Mark 1:41. This verse, part of the Mark's account of Jesus' healing of a leper, reads: "And because he had compassion, after he stretched out his hand, he touched him and said to him, 'I am willing, be cleansed" [my translation]. A difficult text variant, found only the Western mss. D and a few Old Latin texts and the Diatessaron, reads "And because he was angry."

The reading is rated a "B" in the UBS text. In his commentary, Metzger writes: "It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text" [65]. He admits that it is easy to see why scribes would change "angry" to "compassion," but the majority of the UBS committee was impressed by the overwhelming external evidence in support of "compassion."

While UBS and NA agree that "compassion" should be the text, many modern commentators disagree. I did a brief study last week of various commentaries, finding them overwhelmingly in favor of the western reading [Cranfield, Edwards (although he seems a bit ambivalent), Guelich, Lane, Marcus, France, Witherington, and Brooks]. I found that Gundry, Swete, and Cole were in favor of the traditional reading.

Those in favor of "anger" basically follow two arguments. First, they find it probable that scribes would change "anger" to "compassion" and not the other way round. Second, they believe "anger" complements v. 43 a bit better.

Proponents of "anger" spend a great deal of time dealing with the question: "Toward what or whom is Jesus' anger directed? Generally, commentators believe that Jesus was angry at the illness or with Satan who was at the bottom of the man's disfigurement. Lane writes that Jesus was showing "righteous indignation at the ravages of sin, disease and death which take their toll on the living, a toll particularly evident in a leper" [86].

I am inclined to still accept the tradional reading for two reasons. First, there is overwhelming external evidence to support it. I find it odd that modern commentators, who are quick to dismiss western evidence for the most part, are jumping on the western bandwagon here. Second, I believe that the reading "anger" can be explained by v. 43 ["and after he strongly warned him immediately he cast him out"-my translation]. There is strong language in this verse, and a scribe could just have likely changed "compassion" to "anger" because he could not harmonize Jesus' "softer" side in v. 41 with a "stronger" side in v. 43.

Thus, while modern commentators almost unanimously disregard the external evidence for the traditional reading in favor of the internal, there is both external and internal evidence to suggest that the traditional reading is original. I would also be inclined to rate the reading less than a "B" as found in the UBS text. Due to the debate surrounding it, it merits no more than a "C". Of course, the UBS committee often is too optimistic than it should be on the variants it presents.