Does the Gospel of Mark Reveal Jesus’ Anger or His Compassion?
What the Codex Bezae reveals about Jesus’ temperament
In the fifth-century C.E. Codex Bezae, an early edition of the New Testament written in Greek, the Gospel of Mark describes Jesus’ anger before healing a leper (Mark 1:41). While later scribes changed Jesus’ anger to compassion, it is likely that Codex Bezae preserves the original reading. Image: Cambridge University Library/ff.288v & 289r from Nn.2.41.
Textual variants among ancient manuscripts aren’t usually as controversial as chapter 1, verse 41 of the Gospel of Mark. Sometimes one scribe spelled a word differently on his manuscript, while another might have accidentally skipped or repeated some of the text he was copying. These cases are minor variants and don’t really change the meaning of the text. Other times, however, scribes added to or even changed text to clarify a passage or suit the theological preferences of their communities. That’s when things get interesting, and this passage in the Gospel of Mark offers an especially intriguing example.
In Mark 1:41, a leper has approached Jesus seeking to be healed. Most Greek manuscripts (the New Testament was originally written in Greek), as well as later translations, say that Jesus was moved with compassion and healed the man. A few manuscripts, however, say that Jesus’ anger was kindled before he healed him. So did the verse mean to convey Jesus’ anger or his compassion? If this were a popularity contest, the “compassion” reading would surely win. In 1998, the authoritative book Text und Textwert recorded only two Greek manuscripts (and a few early Latin ones) that contained the reading expressing Jesus’ anger. But, as Dr. Jeff Cate announced in The Folio,* the bulletin of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at the Claremont School of Theology, close examination of one of those two Greek manuscripts has shown that it does not contain the word for either anger or compassion. Just as Matthew and Luke did when retelling Mark’s story in their gospels (cf. Matthew 8:2–4; Luke 5:12–16), the scribe of this Markan manuscript simply left it out.
FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.
Mark composes his account of the life of Jesus in this scene from a 12th-century manuscript from Constantinople.
This now leaves the other Greek manuscript, the fifth-century C.E. Codex Bezae, as the sole Greek witness to the reading expressing Jesus’ “anger.” Much like the cheese in “The Farmer in the Dell,” Codex Bezae stands alone.
But most interesting of all, the Codex Bezae may in fact have the better (i.e., original) reading. As New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman pointed out in a 2005 article in Bible Review, “one factor in favor of the ‘angry’ reading is that it sounds wrong.”** It is much easier to believe that early scribes were troubled by Jesus’ anger and changed it to his feeling compassion, rather than the other way around. Later scribes also would have preferred the easier “compassion” reading and copied it until it became the more popular reading. (As Ehrman explains, there are other passages in the Gospel of Mark that seem to support the reading conveying Jesus’ anger.) Thus does Codex Bezae now stand as a lonely witness to what is very likely the original Greek text of Mark 1:41.
Based on Strata, “Jesus’ Anger Rewritten as Compassion,” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2012.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Notes
* Jeff Cate, “The Unemotional Jesus in Manuscript 1358,” The Folio 28, no 2 (2011), p.1.
** Bart D. Ehrman, “Did Jesus Get Angry or Agonize?” Bible Review, Winter 2005.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 24, 2012.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
This ‘learned man’ has submitted a document with ‘credentials’ and his paper will be examined by future generations. From the response of the discerning readers and believers, the author’s argument for ‘anger’ cannot stand. Shamefully, this is not the only example of academic authors who have disputed the validity of the scriptures and have strayed form the intent and truth of the gospel, poisoning the waters and stirring up strife. Can this one example stand up to the character of Christ revealed in other scriptures? I don’t think so, therefore this interpretation is not valid.
Some Bible translations render this passage as “moved with pity”.
The book “Insight On The Scriptures” (vol. 2) makes this observation:
Jesus Christ perfectly reflected the personality of his Father in the display of pity. He “felt pity” for the crowds, even when his privacy was interrupted, “because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:36; Mr 6:34) The sight of persons who were bereaved or who had leprosy or who were blind moved Jesus to feel pity, so that he brought them miraculous relief. (Mt 14:14; 20:30-34; Mr 1:40, 41; Lu 7:12, 13)
Another reference work makes this comment:
On another occasion, a leper approached Jesus and pleaded: “If you just want to, you can make me clean.” How did Jesus, a perfect man who had never been sick, respond? His heart went out to the leper. Indeed, “he was moved with pity.” (Mark 1:40-42) He then did something extraordinary. He well knew that lepers were unclean under the Law and were not to mingle with others. (Leviticus 13:45, 46) Jesus was certainly capable of healing this man without any physical contact. (Matthew 8:5-13) Yet, he chose to reach out and touch the leper, saying: “I want to. Be made clean.” Immediately the leprosy vanished. What tender empathy Jesus expressed!
Then there is this observation:
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4697: σπλαγχνίζομαι
σπλαγχνίζομαι; 1 aorist ἐσπλαγχνίσθην (cf. Buttmann, 52 (45)); (σπλάγχνον, which see); properly, to be moved as to one’s bowels, hence, to be moved with compassion, have compassion (for the bowels were thought to be the seat of love and pity): absolutely, Luke 10:33; Luke 15:20; σπλαγχνισθείς with a finite verb, Matthew 20:34; Mark 1:41
It would help me if you gave the words for angry and compassion in Greek, Hebrew, Latin and any other language that my affect it. What were the scribes native language ? Etc.
What would Jesus have to be angry about.?
Thanks: Sincerely Luana
‘Mar 1:41, NIV: “Filled with xxxxxxxxx, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
Yes, our Lord was willing to heal this man of LEPROSY and reached out and TOUCHED him and healed him. … No, you just don’t do that, unless you are ANGRY at his CONDITION of being leprous, or COMPASSIONATE toward him because he was leprous and desired healing.
Either way, Jesus’ anger or compassion relate to the leprosy. He can be angry because of the man’s suffering and need, and he can be compassionate because of the man’s suffering and need.
…. and he reached out and touched him and healed him. Who among us would risk doing that?
I would consult New Testament scholar Dr Craig Evans on this because Bart Ehrman’s scholarly integrity is up for question as he himself has indicated that he has purposefully obscured the truth in order to persuade people on certain topics. See debates between both men.
I agree wholeheartedly! I met Craig years ago when he was working on Dead Sea Scroll material. Not only is he incredibly intelligent, but he also has a pure desire to seek truth.
One of the problems with the “angry” variant is that the theory that it is the original implies not only that the major transmission-lines altered the text, but that the text was altered in the same way. It’s kind of like looking at a tree with multiple branches with oranges on them, and seeing one branch that is bearing one lemon. It seems more likely that one is looking at a tree which is an orange tree down to the roots but on which a lemon-branch has been grafted.
“But where did Codex Bezae’s reading come from then?” someone is sure to ask. From retro-translation from Latin. Codex D/d is not just a “Greek manuscript,” article-writer. It is Greek-Latin. Please adjust the text of the article accordingly, preferably with a note that Codex D is notoriously inaccurate.
What happened:
(1) Someone, attempting to translate the Gospel of Mark from Greek into Latin, encounters the word “Splangchistheis” and is not sure what to do with it: “Moved in his gut?” — “Gut-wrenched??” — “Churned within”???. He rendered it as “angry.”
(2) Later, someone familiar with this Latin (mis-)translation tidied up a Greek text of Mark in the ancestry of Codex Bezae by tweaking the Greek word in Mk. 1:41, replacing the question-raising “splangchistheis” to the clearer and less nuanced “orgistheis” (angry).
And that’s all there is to that. Codex Bezae is simply wrong at this point, as it always is when it has no allies among the Greek manuscripts that have not been influenced by the Old Latin transmission-line(s).
Especially when playing our tole as parent, counselor, guide, messenger-angel, teacher or healer, when others suddenly or unexpectedly show us disrespect, distrust or contempt, rather than simple straightforward aggression, caught off guard, our ego may be stirred to respond before we get a chance to rein it in. My current understanding of this Mark passage is that, asked by Jesus if s/he wished to be healed, a person with a skin disease responds with a sneer:
“If you WANT to, you can heal me!” implying by tone as much as in content that Jesus (i) could feel free do do as he pleased, as he would, anyway, only healing for his own, personal satisfaction/gratification/glory, as it were, (ii), if he, Jesus, did so, the other party would not owe him anything in return and/or (iii) it would be no “skin off my nose” EITHER way, thank you very much!
Such unexpected hostility/sneering can catch any of us unawares, often to effects which later may seem comical but right then are far from it. It is as though the ego or “pain-body” or demon/s of the other part has/have instinctually sought an energy feed from our ego/pain-body/demon/s. If Jesus reacted with any anger, then the “leper’s” demon/s had succeeded, at least for a moment. JUST as in Matthew 16:23 when Jesus rebuked Peter’s demon’s: “Get behind me, Satan!” and also in Mark 1:25 where he is said to have rebuked another “unclean spirit.”
If Jesus, who knew so well that we can never really be blamed for we never really know what we do when we act less than lovingly, again continued to rebuke folks even following his resurrection, as we are told he did, then I see our call, our encouragement, our empowerment to do such things as he did and greater, too, to be a call not so much to walk farther on water as to catch our rebukes before we utter and, eventually, before we even FEEL them surface, or feel them, at ALL!
Every peace, joy and blessing to you all, fellow hard-of-heart, unbelievers, disbelievers, Pharisees and hypocrites, I say, knowing that I am a Pharisee, too, but that, as Jesus assured us, acc. to Luke 17:21, the Kingdom, God, Heaven, Christ – is within all us Pharisees as surely as it within every human being who has ever lived or will live.
Tom.
Our Warfare is ALL Spiritual against those foul spirits that operate in the hearts as is the flesh of ALL MEN.
Jesus could SEE the culprit was Satan NOT this man and He Jesus became angry IN Spirit and yet did Not err into sin.
Regarding the destruction of All flesh in the flood. It was exactly that “FLESH” as in all humans. Not the demons that were indwelling them as they would Appear again in Ham’s (Unclean) grandson Canaan as he made up the “SEVEN” Evil Nations that Joshua and the Jews crossed over into their land to be conquered by God Himself as they had to “OBEY” Him to See the exodus of the demon spirits that were occupying the Land of Promise called today be God our Jesus who is Gods Messiah as Christ IN You our only Hope of our Fathers Glory which is Eternal Life as in Knowing God NOT Living forever Amen?
Not saying there is sin in Jesus Gods Christ but there is sin in the Heavenly realm of Ones soul which is dead by reason of our err into sin and controlled by the Demonic forces in the Heavenly Eternal realm of Ones being and can only be “CAST OUT” by Gods Messiah within us called Jesus as Gods Only Christ in us our Hope of Salvation to Glory Amen!
Kiitos hienosta artikkelista “Does the Gospel of Mark”. Minusta alkutekstissä puhutaan “vihaten armahtamisesta”. Vastaavia hepreasmeja Raamatussa on mm Psalmissa 2:11 “iloitkaa pelolla”. Jeesus kohtasi sairaassa Saatanan työn, jota vihasi, mutta toteutti samalla omaa armahtamistaan. Toisinaan heprean sanoilla voi olla vastakohtaisiakin merkityksiä.