Thursday, March 10, 2016

Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong

(Verse-numbers and highlight added.)
Iratus (angry) is highlighted.

There is, however, more to the story. 


Mark 8:1-2a in Codex Bezae.
"TOUTOU" (in the yellow rectangle) was added
to correspond to the Latin parallel.


● Codex Bezae’s unique Greek reading agrees with its Latin text.
● A relatively rare word is involved.

Matthew 10:42 in Codex Bezae.  The yellow rectangle
contains the Greek word for "water"
(a retro-translation of the Latin translation).



Peter M. Head said...

Thanks James,
Granted that Bezae Greek and Bezae Latin are in agreement, how do you prove the direction of influence from Latin to Greek?

Archepoimenfollower said...

Thanks indeed! This does indeed seem to be a case where knowledge of the manuscript directly affects the textual decision. Knowledge of the individual manuscripts seems more frequently to take a back seat to other criteria, much to our detriment I believe.

Does not the discussion above make a reasonable case for the Latin influencing the Greek, especially since Bezae is a Greek-'Latin edition and all other manuscripts with anger are Latin. This is particularly true since minuscule 1358 does not actually read anger or compassion. (See Cate 2011, Bulletin of the Ancient Biblical Center)


Archepoimenfollower said...

I noticed your compliant about Wallace above, however, he was the Editor of the NET Bible New Testament and the reading in Mark 1:41 is compassion.


James E. Snapp, Jr. said...


If you consult Wallace's 2006 post at you will see his statement, regarding ORGISQEIS, that "At this stage I am inclined to think it is most likely original."

JoeWallack said...

The cruncher as Professor Head's Brits would say for Ehrman:

is that GMatthew and GLuke exorcise the offending word. Ehrman righteously points out that they always edit GMark's angry Jesus but never his compassionate one. Related to this is Ehrman's observation that the extant offending word is relatively late by Text Critic standards (Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) compared to authorship date of GMatthew/GLuke.

Ehrman's primary Textual Criticism criteria is a minimum of quality evidence and the The Difficult Reading Principle.

The one who has written the book, so to speak, on the subject is:

The "Western" Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus"

Mark Alan Proctor

690 pages! I have faith that in a book that size the author has identified related Patristic evidence, which presumably he thinks supports "angry".

Finally, a corollary to Professor Head's comment. The Retro theory can just as easily explain how "compassionate" was added to the Greek text


Peter M. Head said...

You have a lot of faith if you believe the size of a book is an indication of intellectual quality and research thoroughness.

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

Joe Wallack,

If you sift through the post to Bart Ehrman's name, you will see that an embedded link leads to the same material you mention. It's not as if this has not been taken into consideration. I would counter that Matthew stresses Jesus' compassion elsewhere, and didn't want to overdo it, and that Luke tends to downplay Jesus' emotions in general.

JW: "Ehrman's primary Textual Criticism criteria is a minimum of quality evidence and the The Difficult Reading Principle."

As I explain in the post, the appeal to the more difficult reading is an oversimplification that does not adequately consider D's special properties. Ehrman, at this point, has ignored an even more basic principle -- Hort's Axiom itself.


I don't. Afaik, the only possible patristic reference that I didn't cover in the post is a reference in Ephraem Syrus' commentary on the Diatessaron, but it is very loose, and is capable of being the result of a confusion of two similar Syriac words.

Regarding Head's comment, I have been busy in 3D, but do plan to address it in detail, when I think up a fitting metaphor. In the meantime, I do not grant that anyone has explained why almost all scribes except those of 5 medieval Byz copies and three OL and Codex Bezae would insert "moved with compassion" rather than simply excise "angry" so as to harmonize with the parallels.

JoeWallack said...

This will be my last post on this subject at this Blog as I think future comments from me are more likely to annoy than entertain.

Intrinsic = Ehrman righteously points out that the offending phrase has a few relatively harsh words (softened in English) that support "angry" and elsewhere describes Jesus with strong emotion. For a Skeptic such as myself "style" is a relatively important criteria and I note with interest that an angry Jesus at 1:41 bookends (so to speak) with a universally agreed angry Jesus at the end of the Galilean Ministry. This repetition of significant word at the start and end of related blocks is a phenomena I see several times in GMark and for me is the best evidence that "angry" is original.

Transcriptional = GMatthew/GLuke are editors so if they do not like a word or any similar word they will exorcise the offending word. Scribes are copyists so they are less likely to exorcise. At the time of our extant External evidence Scribes know that there is an adjective word there. Their decision is which one to choose. Additionally, 1:41 fits the pattern of other Textual Criticism issues with very early but little External evidence but much better Difficult Reading Principle evidence.

For me 1:41 would be much more interesting to debate than the LE or 1:1 since it has so much less supporting evidence.

For me 1:41 is far more inter

Anthony Peterson said...

Im no textual scholar, but Jesus' willingness to heal was questioned. Thats an attack on his character. Did he ever turn anyone away who asked for healing? Perhaps Jesus was angry at the lie or deception that he was unwilling.

JamesBlog said...

Here is what Mounce said on the issue:

Don Quinn said...

If Compassion were Jesus' eternal and natural state, why would Mark feel compelled to express it?

"Jesus, wearing clothes, addressed the gathering ... " not remarkable.
"Jesus, wearing bunny slippers, addressed the gathering ... " remarkable.