Mark 1:41 and the ESV

I was reading Bryon's blog on Mark 1:41 and getting ready to right a defense of the NA27 reading disagreeing with Ehrman and supporting the the conservative position (yes I can be fair). The issue with Mark 1:41 is that the evidence is heavily mixed. Here is an excellent text note from the comments on the NET bible which presents the evidence fairly:

The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”). It is more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is for a copyist to soften “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion,” making the decision quite difficult. B. M. Metzger (TCGNT 65) suggests that “moved with anger” could have been prompted by 1:43, “Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning.” It 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).

What prompted Bryon's comment I believe was the fact that the IBS had gone from "compassion" (NIV) to "anger" (TNIV). I think compassion with a text note (like the NRSV, NLT, GNT, CEV... do it) is a reasonable position. Because NA27 is meant to be a standard it should err on the conservatism when the evidence is mixed, which in this case staying with the TR/MT reading. And I don't think anyone can say the evidence isn't mixed here. That is I think it is reasonable and proper for translations to follow the UBS/NA studies here; if the NA28 or NA29 makes the change, which seems likely, then I'd be more critical of this approach in a translation based on them but they didn't so I have no problem with taking the conservative position on this verse at this time.

As Bryon mentions the REB takes the Ehrman positions and has "with anger" with a text note saying that many manuscripts have "with pity". Again a reasonable choice. It is likely they felt comfortable going with anger here because Dodd (NEB) handles this issue creatively with "In warm indignation Jesus ...."

Now turning to our favorite dishonest translation the ESV, goes with pity but makes no mention of the variant reading at all. Essentially removing a text note from the NRSV. They take the RSV's reading:

Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean."

word for word. I don't have a problem with a 1950s translation missing this, I do with one from 2001. Just to pick from the opposite extreme the Scholars Version (Jesus Seminar) has several paragraphs on the importance of anger and messianic secret in their commentary (which is what prompts Ehrman's indignation about this change) yet they still honesty report they are going with a minority of the manuscripts. Again evidence that the ESV is more ideologically unbalanced in its treatment than the Jesus Seminar.

Why does anyone take this translation as anything more than conservative propaganda? It is beyond me.

Also coming in for some level of condemnation here is the NIV for not noting this properly, even though the debate had occured by then. I can almost excuse they rarely have text notes on variants and they are from a quarter century ago but still it deserves mentioning since I'm slamming the ESV so hard on this.