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. 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 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! 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.