All three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain parallel stories of Jesus healing a leper. As is common with synoptic parallels, the three stories are not identical, although all follow the same basic structure. While the versions in Matthew (Mt) 8:1-4 and Luke (Lk) 5:12-14 are the same in all extant mss, the version in Mark (Mk) 1:40-45 varies greatly, with many mss containing several hard to understand textual variants in Mk 1:40-43. While variants can typically be explained as simple copying mistakes, a collection of difficult to explain variants clustered tightly together (as here) strongly suggests some other activity by scribes copying these verses. However, there appears to be no obvious motivation for these particular changes, which include a one-word change in Mk 1:41, where the choice of word has a great impact on how the character of Jesus is presented in Mark, with Jesus either being angry, or showing compassion towards the leper.
In Mk 1:41 the New International Version (NIV) reads:
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
The NIV adds the following short note regarding this verse: “Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion,” instead of Jesus being indignant. However, what is not stated is that it is actually the majority of mss and bibles in which Jesus is compassionate, as for example in the NET Bible, which reads:
Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing. Be clean!”
The NET also adds a much more detailed note regarding this variant (which is a difference of just one word), which begins:
The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς [σπλαγχνισθεισ] (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς [οργισθεισ] (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”).
It should be noted that the NET does not actually mean that several Latin mss contained Greek text, but that a, d, ff2, r1* all contain Et iratus, the Latin equivalent of ὀργισθείς [οργισθεισ]. However, in Mark 1:41 – Why the NIV is Wrong James Snapp notes that:
Retro-translation occurs all over Codex Bezae. In Matthew 10:42, where the usual text is ποτηριον ψυχρου (literally, a cup of cold; the presence of a beverage in the cup being implied), Codex Bezae reads ποτηριον υδατος (a cup of water). That is not an arbitrary paraphrase; it is a retro-translation based on the Latin text.
When the impact of retro-translation upon the Greek text of Codex Bezae is appreciated, the likelihood that the reading οργισθεις in Mark 1:41 is original effectively falls to zero. It echoes a mistranslation in the Latin text that accompanied the Greek text in the codex.
Also, Wieland Willker notes that in the Diatessaron the evidence is split:
Ephrem, in his Diatessaron commentary writes (McCarthy): "Therefore our Lord showed him two things in response to his double [attitude]: reproof through his anger, and mercy through his healing. For, in response to if you are willing, he was angry, and in response to you can, he was healed."
The Arabic Diatessaron (Ciasca, ch. 22) has misertus [compassion].
As being indignant (or angry) and being moved with compassion are almost opposites, how did these two variants occur? In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger commented:
It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ὀργισθείς ("being angry") would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to σπλαγχνισθείς ("being filled with compassion"), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support of ὀργισθείς is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports σπλαγχνισθείς. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted over-scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς either (a) was suggested by ἐμβριμησάμενος of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraḥam, "he had pity," with ethra‘em, "he was enraged").
The NET note referred to above continues by referring to Metzger’s comments, and then suggests that “moved with anger”:
… also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40). As well, it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). Thus, in light of diverse mss supporting “moved with compassion,” and at least a plausible explanation for ὀργισθείς as arising from the other reading, it is perhaps best to adopt σπλαγχνισθείς as the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. For the best arguments for ὀργισθείς, however, see M. A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999).
As both Metzger and the NET indicate, there are valid arguments both for and against changing either “moved with anger” to the almost universal “moved with compassion,” or the reverse, making it very hard to decide the original reading. It might be thought that the parallels in Matthew and Luke could provide some insight regarding the original reading, but they have neither σπλαγχνισθείς nor ὀργισθείς. Instead, in both Matthew and Luke Jesus simply touches the leper, speaks, and heals him:
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. [Mt 8:3a]
And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. [Lk 5:13a]
However, this is not the complete picture, as neither Metzger nor the NET point out that a few mss of Mark (which Willker gives as b, g1, and four minuscles: 169, 505, 508, 783*) also have neither word, so containing no reference to Jesus’ attitude or state of mind. As there is no early support in Mark for this variant it appears very unlikely that this was the original reading, and instead suggests that some copyists were influenced not only by seeing both words in mss of Mark, but also the lack of either word in Matthew and Luke.
If Mark followed both Matthew and Luke then we would here have an odd situation in which the author of Mark (aMk) decided (for an unknown reason) to make a one-word addition to indicate Jesus’ state of mind, to sources (Matthew and Luke) that did not mention it. On the other hand, assuming Markan priority this might suggest that the authors of both Matthew (aMatthew) and Luke (aLuke) also saw neither word in Mark, but given the very limited (non-Greek) support for this in the extant mss of Mark, this is also very unlikely. Instead, assuming Markan priority it would appear that aMatthew and aLuke found what they saw in Mk 1:41 problematical, and chose to omit all mention of Jesus’ attitude, stating simply that he touched the leper and spoke to him.
As to which word aMatthew and aMark saw in their copies of Mark, in A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus Bart D. Ehrman suggests that both Matthew and Luke had no reason to remove σπλαγχνισθείς if that was what they saw in Mark:
… Matthew and Luke have no qualms about describing Jesus as compassionate. But they never describe him as angry. In fact, whenever one of their sources, Mark, did so, they both rewrite the term out of their stories. Thus it is hard to understand why they would have removed σπλαγχνισθείς from the account of Jesus healing the leper but easy to see why they might have removed ὀργισθείς.
Willker comments that the lack of either word in Matthew and Luke indicates that they saw ὀργισθείς here:
Both Mt and Lk omit the word but retaining [sic] the wording of the rest. A significant Minor Agreement. This has been taken as an argument that they read ὀργισθείς and omitted the word as inappropriate.
The problem here is that the logic is not sound, since if both aMatthew and aLuke saw ὀργισθείς in Mark and believed it to be inappropriate for Jesus to be angry, why did the majority of scribes copying Mark and also seeing ὀργισθείς not do the same (especially if they knew that neither Matthew nor Luke had either word here)? On the other hand, as indicated above, there appears to be no reason for either aMatthew or aLuke to omit σπλαγχνισθείς if that was what they saw in Mark. The only remaining alternative would appear to be that both aMatthew and aLuke saw both words, in different copies of Mark. Nevertheless, such a situation is highly unlikely, as this would require both ὀργισθείς and σπλαγχνισθείς to have been present in very early mss of Mark. However, there is another possibility: That whatever word was in the original ms of Mark became unreadable as the result of some form of damage at this point in the ms, leading to uncertainty by aMatthew, aLuke, and scribes copying Mark as to what the word was meant to be.
When looking at the two Greek words in question, σπλαγχνισθείς and ὀργισθείς, it is immediately notable that both words end with the same 6 letters: ‘ισθείς.’ This raises the possibility that, in what may have been the original (but certainly very early) ms of Mark, the first half of the original word became lost or unreadable, for example as a result of damage to the material of the mss itself, or some foreign material or mark obscuring the writing. Scribes copying from this ms would then have had to select an appropriate word ending in ‘ισθείς.’ Given the signs of Jesus anger in Mk 1:43, 3:5, 10:14, and 18:34, some may have felt that ὀργισθείς was the best choice, while others that σπλαγχνισθείς fitted the context better.
If the variant in Mk 1:41 was an isolated instance then the suggestion of damage to Mark might be easily dismissed, but there are other difficult variants in this passage for which ms damage also provides a ready explanation. In the majority of mss the beginning of Mk 1:40 reads:
And a leper came to him, entreating him and kneeling down to him, and… [Mk 1:40a]
Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτὸν καὶ…
In the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke the leper performs different actions:
a leper approached and worshiped him [Mt 8:2a]
λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ
there was a man covered with leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell down on his face and begged him [Lk 5:12b]
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ
In Luke the leper does not approach (or come to) Jesus, but simply sees him, and this is not simply a matter of different translations of similar Greek. If both aMatthew and aLuke saw the beginning of Mk 1:40 as given above, then it would be reasonable to expect their parallels would more closely resemble Mark, but instead they use quite different words to describe what the leper did. However, there are other variants of these words from Mk 1:40 in which the actions of the leper are different. Willker lists the following five such variants, in all of which Mk 1:40 begins with the words shown above (Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν), but which is then progressively shorter in different mss:
… αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτὸν – 69*
… αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν καὶ - 01C2, L, Θ, f1, 517, 565, 579, 892, 954, 1241, 1675, 2542, 2766, 2786, pc90, Lat(f, l, q, vg), Sy-S, Sy-P, arm, geo1
… αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν – 01*
… αὐτὸν καὶ - D, G, W, Γ, 124(=f13b), pc60, it, vgms
… αὐτὸν - B, samss
In the first three of these variants the leper kneels, while in the shortest two he does not, but just entreats Jesus. Metzger comments:
On the one hand, the combination of B D W al in support of the shorter text is extremely strong. On the other hand, if καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν were the original reading, homoeoteleuton could account for its accidental omission. On the whole, since in the parallel passages Matthew’s use of προσεκύνει (Mt 8.2) and, still more, Luke’s πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (Lk 5.12) seem to support the originality of the idea of kneeling in Mark’s account, the Committee decided to retain καὶ γονυπετῶν with א L Θ f 565 al but to enclose the expression within square brackets.
Although the majority of mss of Mark have the leper kneeling, as Metzger indicates there is significant support for the variants in which the leper does not kneel. Unfortunately, it is not obvious how the variants with the leper kneeling would give rise to those without, or vice versa. Willker comments:
The variety of readings is strange. A secondary addition as harmonization to Mt/Lk is improbable. The wording is completely different… Both Mt and Lk have different words here but both have basically the same meaning, thus it is probable that both read something like it in Mk (this explanation is based on a source theory, here Markan priority).
The problem with Willker’s comments is that, although there is some commonality in meaning, the different words used here in the three synoptic parallels make it hard to explain how any one could give rise to the other two. This is especially so given that, as seen above, Mt 8:3a and Lk 5:13a are almost identical, so indicating a common source, i.e. Mark. It appears unlikely that aMatthew, at least, would object to using γονυπετῶν to refer to the leper kneeling if he saw it in Mark, as the same word appears in Mt 17:14. This suggests that aMatthew and aLuke did not see the leper kneeling in Mark, or, perhaps, that what they saw was hard to make out, and, again, some form of damage (getting worse over time) provides a ready explanation for both the different variants we see in Mark, and the different attempts by aMatthew and aLuke to make sense of what they saw.
It may be significant that it is largely the Western mss of Mark that have both no mention of the leper kneeling and Jesus becoming angry, suggesting a connection between the two variants, and that it was largely scribes who saw the leper kneeling in Mk 1:40 who then chose to have Jesus act with compassion in Mk 1:41.
In addition to the variants noted above in Mk 1:40a and 41, there is a variant in Mk 1:40b. In both Mt 8:2 and Lk 5:12 the Leper says to Jesus: Κύριε ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι (Lord, if you are willing, you are able to make me clean). However, in the majority of mss of Mark the leper in Mk 1:40b does not call Jesus ‘Lord,’ resulting in a minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Despite this, support for the inclusion of Κύριε in Mark is actually very strong. Although Metzger does not comment on this variant, in The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Streeter notes:
But the word [Κύριε] occurs in Mark also in B C L 579 Sah., W c e ff2, Θ 700. It is omitted by א D b, Syr. S. Boh. Byz. Hort for once deserts B, thinking B here assimilates (κύριε only once in Mk.). But the combination of the three distinct traditions, Egyptian B C L Sah., "African" W c e, and Caesarean Θ 700, is a very strong one. Either, then, B is right and there is no agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark; or we have, not only a clear case of B L convicted of assimilation, but evidence of such an orgy of assimilation in these small details that no text can be relied on, and it is just as likely that the presence of κύριε in either Matthew or Luke may be due to the same cause.
Streeter is concerned with the implications of B and L including Κύριε (and other words) while the majority of mss do not. If B is assimilated to Matthew or Luke here then the ‘omission’ of other words in the majority of mss might instead actually be assimilations in B, which would mean that the text of one of our most ‘trusted’ New Testament mss could not be relied upon. However, as the variants in Mk 1:40a discussed above cannot be due to assimilation from Matthew or Luke, it is unlikely that this variant in Mk 1:40b (only four words further on) would be due to assimilation. On the other hand, if the inclusion of Κύριε in B C L etc. is original then why is it not present in the majority of mss? Given that the variants in Mk 1:40a and 40b are only four words apart, it is reasonable to suppose a common cause, and if there was some form of damage to Mark affecting Mk 1:40a, then damage affecting Mk 1:40b causing some copyists to have seen Κύριε and some not cannot be ruled out.
A significant number of mss contain much shorter variants of Mk 1:42-43, which in the majority of mss read:
And having spoken, immediately the leprosy went away from him and he was made clean. [Mk 1:42]
καὶ ειπόντος αυτού εὐθὺς πῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη
And warning him sternly, he sent him away at once. [Mk 1:43]
καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν
Neither Matthew nor Luke has a complete parallel to Mk 1:42-43, with the parallel in Matthew being particularly short, having nothing corresponding to Mk 1:43:
And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. [Mt 8:3b]
καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα
And immediately the leprosy went away from him. And he ordered him, [Lk 5:13b-14a]
καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ
In many mss of Mark (01, B, D, L, W, f13, 565, 892, al30, it(a, b, c, d, ff2, r1), Sy-S, Sy-P, Co) Mk 1:42 does not mention Jesus speaking (ειπόντος αυτού is omitted), so beginning as do the parallels in Matthew and Luke:
And immediately the leprosy …
Willker suggests:
There is no reason for an omission. The addition could be a natural intensification ("and as soon as he had spoken ...").
Mt and Luke do not have an equivalent. Greeven (TC Mark, 2005, p. 126) thinks that the words fell out as a harmonization to the parallels. A secondary addition without parallel he finds "hardly conceivable".
Although Willker suggests that “there is no reason for an omission” in Mark, and Greeven finds an addition “hardly conceivable,” it is easy to see how the longer variant could be original if the shorter form resulted from damage to Mark. On this basis both aMatthew and aLuke saw the shorter form, which was also used in the Western tradition and various versions, while one or more early Greek copies of Mark (from before the damage) became the basis of the majority reading. Although the majority of mss of Mark do contain the whole of the rest of Mk 1:42-43, in some mss some of this other text is also not present:
W and b do not contain Mk 1:42b-43, reading just: And immediately the leprosy went away from him.
c, e, and aur do not contain Mk 1:43, reading: And immediately the leprosy went away from him and he was made clean.
Sy-S does not contain parts of Mk 1:42-43, reading: And immediately he was made clean. And he warned him sternly.
Willker comments that these omissions constitute a significant Minor Agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark, and notes the similar instance in Mk 1:41. He suggests that the omissions here are probably a harmonization to Matthew or Luke, but that “An omission due to h.t. (KAI - KAI) is also possible.” However, it is again easy to see how this could be the result of damage to Mark.
In addition to the shorter variants noted above, in Sy-S Ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς (See to it that you say nothing to anyone) is not present in Mk 1:44. However, in this case both Matthew and Luke contain parallels of these words.
The overall effect of these variants is that Matthew and Luke substantially agree with several mss of Mark by having close parallels of the shorter variants of Mk 1:40-44, and so disagreeing with the longer majority of mss of Mark. While it has been suggested that the shorter variants in Mark could be due to harmonization to Matthew or Luke, variants considered to be harmonizations are typically longer (e.g. where a detail from Matthew or Luke has been added to Mark) rather than shorter. If instead the shorter variants are original it seems unlikely that anyone would later add the words seen in the majority of mss without there being support from parallels in the other gospels.
The fact is that these variants are hard to explain on the basis of harmonization, mistakes by copyists, theological motivation, etc. However, it is easy to see how damage to an original ms of Mark could result in a copyist, or (on the assumption of Markan priority) the authors of either Matthew or Luke, having to omit or modify text in Mark that was either missing or hard to read, and the variants described above can all be explained on this basis. Nevertheless, there is a problem with this theory, which is that support for the omissions is not consistent across the mss tradition.
Overall the Byzantine majority of mss have the longer forms of these variants, while the Western mss, and the Latin, Syriac, and other versions have the shorter forms, but this is not always the case at the level of individual mss of Mark. For example, even though Sy-S has the shortest text in Mk 1:42-44, this is not so in Mk 1:40. Nevertheless, the omissions do cluster largely in the Western mss, which suggests the possibility that the Western mss tradition (at least in Mark) does descend from an original ms of Mark that had significant damage. The different variants noted above would then be assimilations resulting from copyists and/or translators also being aware of earlier (probably Greek) mss, that were descended from the same original ms, but from a time when damage to the original was less severe.
References
Carlson, Stephen C: The Synoptic Problem Website
Ehrman, Bart D.: Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus
Metzger, Bruce: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: The Gospel According to Mark
The NET Bible
Proctor, M.A.: “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999)
Snapp, James, Jr: Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong, March 10, 2016
Streeter, B.H: The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates, 1924
Willker, Wieland: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol 2 Mark