Was Jesus Indignant or Compassionate?

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.

 

Since Salamander's identity has been stolen, I guess it's up to me to defend the King James. Hey, everyone, the King James has "moved with compassion" here, and it's right! :thumbs:

 

Hi, Rob.

This is a great resource! Thanks for pointing it out.

The argument illustrates a flaw IMO in the eclectic method--it ignores the possible geneology of the text. Using a geneological method, both Robinson-Pierpont (doesn't even include the reading in the apparatus; nor does Hodges) and Westcott-Hort have σπλαγχνισθείς.

WH even gives a plausible explanation for the ὀργισθείς which I see Willker also has. Their note (and this is all they say about this supposedly "difficult" reading) is: "Western (Gr.[D] Lat.). A singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43, perhaps derived from an extraneous source" (p. 23 of their appendix in vol. 2, "Notes on Select Readings").

 

And I agree! :thumbs:

All very true. It just wasn't an answer to the OP. :saint:

Glad to know you havn't been kidnapped by aliens or had your BB identity stolen. :thumbs:

 

Hi, Hank. Hope you're doing well.

You're basically right here, except that in this case W&H went with the reading attested by all Alexandrian mss, rather than the more difficult one, as I wrote in a previous post. In this case their geneological rule overruled their difficulty rule. Robinson-Pierpont also makes use of the WH geneological theory, going with the reading in all Byz/Maj mss.

All of this points up the fact that textual criticism is a highly subjective scholarly discipline, and certainly not a science, as some like to think. You evaluate the text, choose your rule and make your subjective choice.

If textual criticism were truly a science, scholars would use the scientific method in determining their rules. For example, I'd love to see experimentation involving people copying mss. You could have a group of Greeks copy them (similar to the Byzantine tradition), some with Greek as a second language, then a control group of Greek teachers. No one has ever done anything similar that I know of, though James Price wrote some computer programs to do textual criticism back in the day.

 

No, not really. God invented science.

If textual criticism, as subjective as it is, were wrong to do, then the TR editors and the KJV translators were all wrong.

 

Looking through Dr. David Alan Black's New Testament Textual Criticism, A Concise Guide, I found on pp. 39-40 a description of the current four approaches to textual criticism. Concerning "Radical Eclecticism" he says they believe:
"a. The text is to be based on internal evidence alone.
b. No manuscript or group of manuscripts is to be preferred.
c. The result is a purely "eclectic" text."

So this explains why someone--a radical eclectic--would prefer "indignant" to "moved with compassion" in Mark 1:41.