James White and the NA/UBS Compilation

            “So do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” – Hebrews 10:35 (EHV)

            When one version of the New Testament has a verse, and another version does not have it, that’s something worth looking into.  When one version of the New Testament has 40 verses that another version doesn’t have, that’s definitely something worth looking into.  Textual criticism involves the investigation of those differences, and more:  not only are there some differences in manuscripts that involve the inclusion or non-inclusion of entire verses, but also hundreds of differences in manuscripts that involve important phrases and words.  (There are hundreds of thousands of trivial differences in the manuscripts, involving word-order and spelling, but the ones that involve non-synonymous differences in the wording of the text are the ones that tend to get the most attention.)    

            How can ordinary Christians confidently maintain confidence that the New Testament they hold in their hands conveys the same authoritative message that was conveyed by the original documents of the New Testament books?  To an extent, this is something one takes on faith, since there is no way to scientifically prove that the reconstructed archetype of the text of all witnesses is the same as the text of the autographs.  But that does not mean that one’s position about specific readings should be selected at random, rather than via careful consideration of the evidence.    

            When that careful consideration has been made, though, what should one do with one’s conclusions?  You might think that after scribal corruptions have been filtered out via text-critical analysis, the obvious thing for Christians to do would be to treat the reconstructed text as the Word of God, a text uniquely imbued with divine authority.  However, if one is to do something with one’s conclusions, one must first have conclusions – and here we have a problem, because there is no sign of the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations of the Greek New Testament (both of which present the same text) ever being more than provisional and tentative.  As the Introduction to the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece states:  “It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition):  it is not to be considered as definitive.”

            Anyone who wants a definitive text of the New Testament should abandon all hope of such a thing emerging from the team of scholars who produce the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations. 

            The built-in instability of the NA/UBS compilation is understandable – nobody wants to say, “We are resolved to ignore any new evidence that may be discovered in the future” – but it is also somewhat problematic:  it has caused some apologists, such as James White, to effectively nullify the authority of some parts of the New Testament.  Christians are being told that they should not regard a particular verse, or a particular phrase, or a particular word, as authoritative, on the grounds that the compilers of the NA/UBS compilation have declared it questionable.  Even if a reading is included in the text today, the compilers might change their minds about it tomorrow, and therefore, it has been proposed, readers should not put much weight on such readings.

            Instead of producing a compilation in which every textual contest is won, the NA/UBS compilers often advise readers to treat a contested passage as if its original contents cannot be known – in which case, none of the rival readings can be safely treated as Scripture.

            For example, James White said this regarding Luke 23:34a (“Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”):  “In Luke 23:34, there is a major textual variant.  And, as a result, you should be very careful about making large theological points based upon what is truly a highly questionable text.”  In another video, White stated the following, referring again to Luke 23:34a:

            “When you have a serious textual variant, you should not, in an apologetic context, place a tremendous amount of theological weight upon a text that could be properly and fairly questioned as to its specific reading.  And so, I don’t think that you should build a theology based upon this text.”

Speaking for myself, I think the original text of the New Testament ought to be the basis for Christian theology, whether it was perfectly perpetuated by scribes or not.  While there are textual contests which are extremely close (close enough to justify a footnote providing the alternative reading), the number of such cases is not as high as the compilers of the NA/UBS text make it out to be.  There is a clear danger and weakness in the approach being advocated by White and by whoever else proposes that “We shouldn’t build theology upon a disputed text”:  the danger of relegating parts of genuine Scripture to a non-authoritative status merely because they have been questioned by textual critics.

Is White aware of how much of the New Testament has been questioned by textual critics?  Here are some passages in the Gospels which, if White’s approach were used consistently, would go into a “Do Not Use for Theological Purposes” category, and their subjects: 

Mt.  1:7-8 (Was Jesus descended from Asaph and Amos?  Or, were the names of Asa and Amon spelled the same as the names of Asaph and Amos?)

Mt. 1:16 (Was Joseph the father of Jesus?)

Mt. 1:18 (Was Jesus already Christ when he was born?)

Mt. 1:25 (Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?)

Mt. 9:34 (Did Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the ruler of the demons?)

Mt. 12:47 (Did someone tell Jesus His mother and brothers were outside?)

Mt. 13:35 (Did Matthew say that Isaiah wrote Psalm 72, which is ascribed to Asaph?)  (Or to put it another way:  Did Matthew err?)

Mt. 16:2-3 (Did Jesus say this?)

Mt. 17:21 (Did Jesus say that prayer and fasting were needed prior to casting out a particular kind of demon?)
            Mt. 18:11 (Why did Jesus come?)

Mt. 18:15 (Is the subject about any sin, or about when one is personally wronged?)

Mt. 19:9 (Is remarriage permitted after divorce?)

Mt. 21:31 (What did the crowd say to Jesus?)

Mt. 21:44 (Is this verse original?)

Mt. 23:14 (Is this verse original?)

Mt. 26:28 (Did Jesus say “new covenant” or just “covenant”?)

Mt. 27:16 (Was Barabbas also named Jesus?)

Mt. 27:35b (Is this verse original?)

Mt. 27:49 (Was Jesus pierced with a spear before He died?)  (Or to put it another way:  Do Matthew and John contradict each other?)

Mt. 28:19 (Did Jesus advocate baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?)

Mk. 1:1-3 (Are these verses original?)

Mk. 1:1 (Did Mark consider Jesus to be inherently the Son of God?)

Mk. 1:2 (Did Mark blend together two passages, one from Isaiah and one from Malachi, and introduce them as having been written by Isaiah?)      

Mk. 1:40 (Did the man with leprosy kneel to Jesus?)

Mk. 1:41 (When requested to heal the leper, was Jesus angry, or was He filled with compassion?)

Mk. 6:22 (Was the dancer at Herod’s court the daughter of Herodias, or the daughter of Herod?)

Mk. 7:4 (Did Mark refer here to immersion, or to pouring?) 

            Mk. 7:16 (Is this verse original?)

            Mk. 7:19 (Did Jesus declare all foods to be fit to eat, or did He describe what happens to food after digestion?)

            Mk. 8:38 (Did Jesus refer to His words, or to His followers?)

            Mk. 9:29 (Did Jesus say that fasting was needed prior to casting out a particular kind of demon?)

            Mk. 9:44 and 9:46 (Did Jesus emphasize the eternal nature of suffering in hell?)

            Mk. 10:24 (Did Jesus say that it is hard to enter into the kingdom of God, or that it is hard for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God?)

            Mk. 11:26 (Is it necessary to forgive those who have sinned against us?)

            Mk. 13:14 (Did Jesus affirm that Daniel was a historical character?)

Mk. 14:24 (Did Jesus say “new covenant” or just “covenant”?)

            Mk. 15:28 (Is this verse original?)

            Mk. 16:9-20 (Are these 12 verses, including their record of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, and His command to go into all the world and preach the gospel, original?)

            Lk. 1:46 (Was it Mary, or Elizabeth, who sang the Magnificat?)

            Lk. 2:14 (Did the angels say “Peace on earth, goodwill to men,” or “Peace on earth upon those favored by God”?)

            Lk. 3:22 (Did Luke describe the Father’s voice as if Jesus had become His Son at His baptism?)

            Lk. 4:44 (Was Jesus preaching in the synagogues in Galilee, or in the synagogues of Judea?)

            Lk. 5:39 (Is this verse original?)

            Lk. 6:48 (Is the final phrase in this verse original?)

            Lk. 8:26 (To what region did Jesus and His disciples go?)

            Lk. 8:43 (Is part of this verse a scribal corruption?)

            Lk. 9:26 (Did Jesus refer to His words, or to His followers?)

            Lk. 10:1 and 10:17 (Did Jesus send 70 individuals, or 72?)

            Lk. 10:42 (What did Jesus say to Martha?)   

            Lk. 11:13 (Did Jesus refer to gifts in general, or to the gift of the Holy Spirit?)

            Lk. 11:42 (Did Jesus affirm the regulations of the Law of Moses?)

            Lk. 14:5 (Did Jesus refer to a donkey, or to a son, or to a sheep?)

            Lk. 17:36 (Did Jesus emphasize that one shall be taken, and another shall be left?)

            Lk. 18:11 (Was the Pharisee praying “with himself”?)

            Lk. 18:24 (Was Jesus very sorrowful when the rich young ruler did not accept His offer?)

            Lk. 19:25 (Is this verse original?)

            Lk. 22:43-44 (Did Jesus’ body produce drops of sweat like blood?  And did an angel appear to Him in Gethsemane, strengthening Him?)

            Lk. 22:62 (After denying Jesus three times, did Peter depart and weep bitterly?)

            Lk. 23:17 (Is this verse original?)

            Lk. 23:34a (Did Jesus ask the Father to forgive those who were responsible for crucifying Him?)

            Lk. 24:3 (Did Luke specify that the women visiting the tomb did not find the body “of the Lord Jesus”?)

            Lk. 24:6 (Did Luke state that the men said to the women at the tomb, “He is not here, but is risen”?)

            Lk. 24:12 (Did Luke write this verse, which reports that Peter ran to the tomb and saw the linen cloths?)

            Lk. 24:36 (Did Jesus greet His disciples by saying “Peace unto you”?)

            Lk. 24:40 (Did Jesus show His disciples His hands and His feet?)

            Lk. 24:42 (Was Jesus given a piece of honeycomb to eat, as well as fish?)

            Lk. 24:51 (Did Luke say specifically that Jesus “was carried up into heaven”?)

            Jn. 1:18 (Did John call Jesus “only begotten God” or “the only begotten Son”?)

            Jn. 1:34 (Did John the Baptist affirm that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus was the chosen one of God?)

            Jn. 3:13 (Did the verse originally end with the phrase, “the Son of Man who is in heaven”?)

            Jn. 4:9 (Did the verse originally end with the phrase, “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”?)

            Jn. 5:3-4 (Did John write an explanation of why sick and infirm people were gathered at the pool called Bethesda?)

            Jn. 6:23 (Did John write the final phrase of this verse, mentioning that the Lord gave thanks for the bread?)

            Jn. 6:36 (Did Jesus say that whoever comes to Him will never hunger and that whoever believes in Him will never thirst?) 

            Jn. 6:47 (Did Jesus say that whoever believes on Him has eternal life?”)

            Jn. 7:8 (Did Jesus say He was not going to the feast, or that He was not yet going?)

            Jn. 7:39 (Did John say that the Holy Spirit was not yet given?)

            Jn. 7:53-8:11 (Are these 12 verses – the story about the adulteress – original?)

            Jn. 8:59 (Did Jesus go through the midst of the people, and so pass by?)

            Jn. 9:38-39 (Did the man who had received his sight say, “Lord, I believe,” and worship Jesus?)

            Jn. 10:8 (Did Jesus say that all who came before Him are thieves and robbers?)

            Jn. 12:8 (Is this verse original?)

            Jn. 12:32 (Did Jesus say that He would draw all people to Himself, or that He would draw everything to Himself?)

            Jn. 14:14 (Is this verse original, and if it is original, does it depict Jesus referring to prayers offered to Him?)

            Jn. 17:11 (Did Jesus refer to the elect – “those whom You have given Me” – in this verse?)

            Jn. 19:29 (Was a hyssop-branch, or a javelin, used to offer wine to Jesus?)

            Jn. 20:31 (Did the Gospel of John originally end at the end of 20:31?

           

            If I were to delve into the rest of the New Testament, more such passages could be listed, such as Acts 20:28 (did God purchase the church with His own blood?), First Corinthians 14:34-35 (Did Paul say that women are to be silent in the churches and are not permitted to speak?), Galatians 2:20 (Did Paul say that he lived by faith in the Son of God?), Galatians 4:25 (Is the first part of the verse a scribal corruption?), First Timothy 3:16 (Did Paul state that in Jesus, God was manifest in the flesh?), Hebrews 2:9 (Did Jesus taste death “apart from God”?), and Revelation 13:18 (Is the number of the beast 616 or 666?). 

  

            Does anyone think that this is how the Holy Spirit wanted these passages to be treated when He inspired the writers of the New Testament?   Christians confidently believe (or ought to confidently believe) that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine – but it can’t be profitable for doctrine if its authority is not recognized.  Few are moved by the declaration, “Thus saith the Lord, maybe.”  

            An objection might be raised:   “But it is not as if those readings have been arbitrarily declared dubious; the passages you listed have been properly and fairly questioned.”

            Who says?  Does anyone have transcripts of the conversations that led the NA/UBS compilers to almost habitually reject the reading of the vast majority of Greek manuscripts where it diverges from the Alexandrian Text (usually in the Gospels, the Byzantine Text is favored by a majority of over 85% of the Greek manuscripts, frequently over 95%, and sometimes over 99.5%), and to regularly prefer the readings of Codex Vaticanus even where it stands in a very small minority and disagrees with the oldest evidence?  James White does not think the BA/UBS compilers were correct when they introduced a conjectural emendation (that is, a reading with no Greek manuscript support) into the text of Second Peter 3:10.  But clearly the previously accepted reading of Second Peter 3:10 is now disputed; White, if he consistently refrains from using disputed passages for theological purposes, will stop using it.  Does anyone not see a problem here?  Almost anything – the disagreement of a single Greek manuscript, or the opacity of a reading to the compilers – has been used to justify disputing readings that are supported by evidence that is early and abundant and widespread.

            The NA/UBS compilation is unstable and it is very likely to become more unstable.  And if anyone optimistically imagines that only readings that the UBS compilation-committee previously assigned a “D” rating are unstable, think again:  in the 28th edition, the editors reversed what had been assigned an “A” rating in Second Peter 2:18.  That is, it is not only readings which the compilers regard with “a very high degree of doubt” which are now considered questionable; readings which in previous editions of the NA/UBS compilation were considered “virtually certain” are also vulnerable to change.      

            It is not my intention here to defend every one of the inspired readings which James White regards as unsafe to use as Scripture.  I merely observe that the approach he currently endorses – in which all that is needed to justify voiding the authority of a passage is for some textual critics to declare that after properly and fairly exploring the issue, their verdict is a shrug – is bound to introduce more and more instability into the text, and to consequently encourage readers to lose confidence in more and more passages – not because the passages have been shown to be non-original, but merely because they have been disputed.  This is not as large a problem as the Nestle-Aland compilation’s rejection of many original readings.  But it is a problem.

The Adulteress in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

The Church of the
Holy Sepulchre

         The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem has a long and distinguished history.  A church building on its site was built in the days of Constantine, and was destroyed by Persians in 614.  It was soon rebuilt, but it was set on fire in 841, and again in 935, and again in 966; finally it was thoroughly destroyed by Muslims in 1009.  In 1149, fifty years after the First Crusade, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been rebuilt and thoroughly remodeled.  It is essentially this medieval edifice, with various expansions, that can be visited today in Jerusalem.  Many Christian pilgrims and tourists to Jerusalem visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – including President and First Lady Trump, who visited there earlier this year (2017).

            In addition to all its cherished pilgrimage-sites, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is home to a small collection of New Testament manuscripts.  A Gospels-manuscript, GA 1358, is there; this manuscript used to be cited as if it supports the reading of Codex Bezae in Mark 1:41 (where Codex Bezae famously says that Jesus became furious , rather than that He was filled with compassion) – but in 2011, researcher Jeff Cate showed that the text of Mark 1:41 in 1358 has merely been conformed to the parallel account in Matthew, stating neither that Jesus was filled with compassion nor that He was angry.    

            The Library of Congress recently released microfilm page-views of GA 1358 – Naos Anastaseos 15.  This manuscript, about 1000 years old, contains not only the text of the four Gospels but also book-introductions by Cosmas Indicopleustes (a writer of the mid-500’s who is otherwise infamous for his belief that the earth is flat) – not just for Matthew, but also before Luke and before John.

            Here is a basic index of GA 1358:

            Beginning of Matthew.  Beginning of Mark.  Beginning of Luke.  Beginning of John.

            The pericope adulterae (καὶ ἀπῆλθεν, etc.) follows John 7:52.

            After the end of John, this manuscript features a brief summary of apostolic history, and a description of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ recorded in the Gospels. 

            The Naos Anastaseos (Sanctuary of the Resurrection) collection also includes nine Greek Gospels-lectionaries, most of which are very late, having been produced in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s.  Two of them, however – Naos Anastaseos 11 – Evangelion (made in the 1200’s) and Naos Anastaseos 9 (made in 1152) – are much older.

            Naos Anastaseos 9 – GA Lectionary 1033 – has some particularly interesting features which render it the most significant manuscript in the collection.  Its full-page picture of Mary and the Child Jesus is artistically notable, but of far more interest is its treatment of the pericope adulterae, that is, the story of the adulteress which is found in John 7:53-8:11.  This passage, famously absent from the Alexandrian manuscripts that serve as the primary New Testament base-text for most modern English translations (the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.), is present in about 85% of the extant Greek manuscripts. 

            In one small group of manuscripts known as family-13 (also called the Ferrar group, in honor of William Hugh Ferrar, a researcher in the 1800’s who noted the close relationship of four of the main members of the group, minuscules 13, 69, 124, and 346), the story of the adulteress is not found in the Gospel of John; it is instead inserted in the Gospel of Luke after 21:38 (that is, at the end of chapter 21).  This dislocation of the pericope adulterae has been confidently asserted by many commentators to be evidence that it was a “floating” composition which copyists inserted at different locations.

Highlighted:
the listing for Oct. 8

            Naos Anastaseos 9 may shine some light on this subject.  Let’s look into its pages and see what we find. 

            In most continuous-text manuscripts of the Gospel of John, John 7:53-8:11 follows John 7:52.  Many manuscripts are supplemented by a lectionary-apparatus – rubrics and notes for the lector, explaining what each day’s Scripture-reading was, and where to find it (and, often, a phrase with which to start it).  Typically, in the lectionary-cycle, the annual Scripture-reading, or lection, for Pentecost, a major feast-day, begins at John 7:37, and continues to the end of 7:52, but instead of stopping there, the lector is instructed to jump ahead in the text to 8:12, and read that verse, and then conclude.

            Accordingly, in Naos Anastaseos 9, we see, in the lection for Pentecost (beginning on page-view 35), no indication of the existence of John 7:53-8:11 in the Pentecost-reading; John 7:52 is followed immediately by John 8:12; nothing separates the two verses except a normal cross-symbol which routinely serves as a pause-marker.

            When we look in the Menologion-section of Naos Anastaseos 9 for the lection for October 8 – the feast-day of Saint Pelagia, when John 8:3-11 was typically read – we do not find the pericope adulterae there either.  Instead, there is a listing which says that for the reading for St. Pelagia’s Day, seek the lection for April 1.  Turning, then, to the lection for April 1, we find the lection for Saint Mary the Egyptian – and, behold, there is the text of John 8:1-11.

The April 1 lection
(beginning)

            But this is not just any text of John 8:1-11.  It is almost exactly the text of John 8:1-11 that appears in Codex Λ (039), and it is very similar to the form of the pericope adulterae that appears in Luke in the family-13 manuscripts.  Codex Λ (039) is a Gospels-manuscript from the 800’s, containing Luke and John; each Gospel is accompanied by a note – the “Jerusalem Colophon,” which is found in 37 manuscripts – which states that its text has been cross-checked using the ancient manuscripts that are kept on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.  (Codex Λ and minuscule 566 form two parts of one unit, Codex Tischendorfianus III; 566 has the text of Matthew and Mark.)

           

The following readings show this very satisfactorily:

● v. 1 – ὄχλος instead of λαὸς (agreeing with Λ)

● v. 3 – καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῶ instead of ἄγουσιν δὲ (agreeing with family-13)

● v. 3 – does not include πρὸς αὐτον (agreeing with Λ, family-13, et al)

● v. 3 – επί instead of εν (agreeing with Λ, family-13, et al)

● v. 3 – ἐν τῶ instead of just ἐν (agreeing with Λ)

● v. 4 – εἶπον instead of λέγουσιν (agreeing with Λ)

● v. 4 – εἴληπται instead of κατελήφθη (agreeing with Λ and family-13)

● v. 5 – includes περὶ αὐτῆς at the end of the verse (agreeing with Λ and family-13)

The April 1 lection
(continued)

● v. 6 – does not include τῷ δακτύλῳ (agreeing with Λ)

● v. 6 – does not include μὴ προσποιούμενος (agreeing with Λ and family-13)

● v. 7 – ἀναβλέψας instead of ἀνακύψας (agreeing with Λ and family-13, et al)

● v. 7 – λίθον βαλέτω after πρῶτος (agreeing with U, Λ, and family-13)

● v. 7 – εἰς instead of ἐπ (unique to Neos Anastaseos 9)

● v. 9 – και εξῆλθεν at the beginning of the verse (agreeing with Λ) 

● v. 10 – ἀναβλέψας instead of ἀνακύψας (agreeing with Λ and family-13, et al)

● v. 10 – includes ἲδεν αὐτὴν (basically agreeing with U, Λ, and family-13)

● v. 10 – καὶ instead of θεασάμενος πλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς (agreeing with U, Λ, family-13, et al)

● v. 10 – εἰσιν οἱ (no ἑκεῖνοι), agreeing with U, Ω, family-13, et al)

● v. 11 – ὁ δὲ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς, agreeing with Λ and 124)

● v. 11 – καὶ μηκέτι (agreeing with Byz, Λ, et al)

            The exceptionally close correspondence between Codex Λ and the text of the lection for April 1 in Naos Anastaseos 9 suggests that the ancient manuscripts which are referred to in the Jerusalem Colophon were indeed located at Jerusalem – not Mount Sinai or Mount Athos – and were ancestors of Naos Anastaseos 9. 

GA 1187:  obeli alongside
John 8:3ff., and footnote.

            This evidence also indicates that a note about the pericope adulterae which appears in Codex Λ, in the margin of minuscule 1424, and in minuscules 20, 215, 262, 1118, and 1187 is also referring to manuscripts at Jerusalem when it mentions ancient manuscripts which contain the pericope adulterae.      

            Let’s take a closer look at this note in 1187.  In 1187, the pericope adulterae is given its own rubric at the top of the page, and each line of John 8:3-11 (but not 7:53-8:2) is accompanied by an obelus.  The note says:   “The obelized portion is not in certain copies, and it was not in those used by Apollinaris.  In the old ones, it is all there.  And this pericope is referred to by the apostles, affirming that it is for the edification of the church.” 

            Τα ὀβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις ού κεῖται· ουδε ἀ-

            πολιναρίου· εν δε τοις ἀρχαιος ὅλα κεῖται· μνημονευου-

            σιν της περικοπης ταυτης και οι αποστολοι πάντες

            ἐν αισ εζέθεντο διατάζεσιν ἐις οἰκοδομεῖν τῆς ἐκκλησίας: –

 (The claim  that the apostles refer to the pericope adulterae reflects the annotator’s awareness of the composition known as the Apostolic Constitutions (particularly Book 2, chapter 24) (from c. 380) which, in turn, is largely based on the earlier Didascalia (from the 200’s; see pages 39-40 of Gibson’s English translation of the Didascalia).

Highlighted:  the note about the pericope adulterae in GA 1187, at St. Catherine’s Monastery.

             Out of the 37 Greek manuscripts that have the Jerusalem Colophon, at least five of them – 039, 262, 899, 1187, and 1555 – also consistently share some otherwise rare readings, essentially rendering them a distinct textual family.  In addition, 039, 20, 262, 1118, and 1187 have the annotation about the pericope adulterae which mentions the absence of the PA in the copies of Apollinaris and the presence of the PA in ancient copies and the use of the PA in Apostolic Constitutions.  Thus, in 039, 262, and 1187, both features are present.  This suggests that these three witnesses are the best witnesses – along with Naos Anastaseos 9 – to the earliest strata of a small but distinct transmission-line (Wisse’s “Group Λ”).

[Explore the embedded links in this post for more information and resources on this subject.]

Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong

          If you read Mark 1:41 in an NIV printed before 2011, and in an NIV made after 2011, you will find two different statements.  The early editions of the NIV say that when a leper approached Jesus seeking to be healed, Jesus was “filled with compassion.”  In 2011, the NIV was revised in order to adopt many of the changes that had been introduced in the discontinued TNIV.  Among those changes was the introduction of a different form of Mark 1:41 which states that Jesus, rather than feeling compassion, became “indignant,” that is, angry.

Mark 1:38-42 in Greek in Codex Bezae (D).
(Verse-numbers and highlight added.)

          Those two different forms of Mark 1:41 – “filled with compassion” versus “indignant” – echo two textual variants.  It’s not as if the translators have emphasized different nuances of the same Greek text.  The Greek base-text of the 2011 NIV is different from the Greek text of the 1984 NIV at this particular point.  The 1984 NIV (and the ESV, NKJV, HCSB, and KJV) reflects the Greek word σπλαγχνισθεις, which is found in a massive majority of Greek manuscripts (including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and about 1,600 others, plus thousands of non-Greek manuscripts).  But Codex Bezae has a different reading:  οργισθεις.  When we turn to the Latin manuscripts, a mountain of evidence favors misertus, which supports σπλαγχνισθεις.  However, four Old Latin manuscripts support οργισθεις.  One of those four is the Latin text which accompanies the Greek text in Codex Bezae.  Codex Bezae is not only a Greek manuscript; it is Greek-Latin; its text is arranged in alternating pages – a page of Greek text is followed by the same passage in Latin, followed by a page of Greek text, followed by the same passage in Latin, and so forth.

          The reason why the compilers of the NIV’s base-text have rejected the variant that is supported by over 99.99% of the external evidence runs as follows:  copyists were more likely to adjust the text to relieve difficulties, rather than to introduce difficulties.  Codex Bezae’s textual variant in Mark 1:41 is more difficult than its rival, and therefore (it is claimed), it should be preferred.  A typical defense of οργισθεις is built on and around this question:  Which is more likely:  that scribes would be puzzled by “filled with compassion” and would replace it with “angry,” or that scribes would be puzzled by “angry” and would replace it with “filled with compassion”?  And there the question is left, as if this consideration tips the scales.

Mark 1:38ff. in Latin in Codex Bezae (d).
Iratus (angry) is highlighted.

There is, however, more to the story. 

          First, another question should be asked:  if early copyists encountered οργισθεις in their exemplars and thought it was so problematic that it must be changed, then why did they replace it with σπλαγχνισθεις instead of simply omitting the word?  In the parallel-passages in Matthew 8:2-3 and Luke 5:12-13, there is no mention of Jesus becoming filled with compassion.   If a reckless copyist was profoundly puzzled by an exemplar of Mark which read οργισθεις in Mark 1:41, his natural reaction would be to harmonize the verse to the parallel-passages by making a simple excision.  Yet instead of a finding a harmonistic omission, we see σπλαγχνισθεις dominating every Greek transmission-stream, with the exception of Codex Bezae and a few manuscripts which, as a result of harmonization, do not have σπλαγχνισθεις or οργισθεις.  (Minuscule 1358, which has been erroneously cited as support for οργισθεις, is one such manuscript.  According to Jeff Cate, the only Greek manuscripts which are known to display neither σπλαγχνισθεις nor οργισθεις in Mark 1:41 are minuscules 169, 505, 508, 1358, and lectionary 866.  In minuscule 783, an entire line was skipped at the beginning of Mark 1:41, but the error was corrected; σπλαγχνισθεις εκτεινας την χειρα αυτου appears in the margin.)
          Second, we do not encounter a consistent aversion, on the part of copyists, to the notion of Jesus being angry.  In the same manuscript in which we find οργισθεις in Mark 1:41, we even find a harmonization in which Jesus’ anger is emphasized:  in Codex Bezae, the text of Luke 6:10 is supplemented with the words εν οργη, that is, in anger, transplanted from Mark 3:5.  When we consider passages such as Mark 9:19 (where Jesus expresses exasperation), and Mark 10:14 (where Jesus is greatly displeased with His disciples’ actions), and Mark 14:6 (where Jesus curtly corrects His disciples), there is not much evidence to justify the theory that early copyists of the Gospel of Mark were averse to depictions of Jesus’ anger.

          Third, a demonstrable scribal mechanism – one for which there is abundant evidence – accounts for οργισθεις as a creation of a copyist.  As we stand in the vestibule of that subject, let’s ask a question:  how could anyone, in the course of translating the Gospel of Mark into Latin, start with σπλαγχνισθεις and end up with iratus (in anger) rather than misertus (in pity)?  Two theories have been proposed which argue that this happened due to a careless mistake. 

          In the first theory, the Latin text read, Is [i.e., Iesus, contracted as a sacred name] autem miseratus eius, and a copyist accidentally wrote “M” only once instead of twice, producing Is autem is eratus eius.  A subsequent copyist, interpreting the second occurrence of is as a superfluous repetition of Jesus’ contracted name, removed it, thus producing the sentence, Is autem eratus eius, and the shift from eratus to iratus was then merely a matter of orthography. 

          In the second theory (proposed in 1891 by J. Rendel Harris), the Latin text in Codex Bezae descended from a Latin translation which rendered σπλαγχνισθεις by the ambiguous Latin term motus, as if to say that Jesus was “stirred” or “moved.”  This ambiguous term was subsequently replaced, sometimes by misertus and sometimes – erroneously – by iratus.  Harris proceeded to propose that the Greek text in Codex Bezae was conformed to the Latin text alongside it, and that this phenomenon of retro-translation from Latin into Greek is the mechanism that produced the reading οργισθεις. 

          Harris was partly right.  As we proceed to a third (and simpler) explanation of the origin of οργισθεις, it will be worthwhile to notice some examples of the influence of the Latin text of Codex Bezae upon its Greek text.  In his 1891 article, A Study of Codex Bezae, published in Texts & Studies, Harris gave many examples of Latinization in this manuscript’s Greek text.  I will review a few of the many Latinizations that occur in Codex Bezae in the Gospel of Mark.

● Mark 1:10 – The usual reading σχιζομενους (torn) is replaced by ηνυγμενους (opened), based on the Latin apertos (opened). 

● Mark 1:33 – The word αυτον is added, based on the Latin eius.

● Mark 1:38 – The usual reading εχομενας κωμοπολεις (neighboring towns) is replaced by ενγυς κωμας και εις τας πολεις, a loose harmonization to Matthew 9:35, based on the Latin proximos vicos et civitates (nearby towns and cities).

● Mark 2:25 – Codex D adds οντες (were) at the end of the verse, to correspond to the Latin erant (were).

● Mark 3:5a – Instead of the usual reading πωρωσει (hardness), Codex Bezae reads νεκρωσει (deadness), based on the Latin emortua. 

● Mark 3:5b – Codex Bezae ends the verse with ευθεως (immediately), based on the Latin statim (immediately).

● Mark 3:6 – Codex Bezae, instead of stating that the Pharisees took counsel (εποιουν, the Byzantine reading), or that the Pharisees gave counsel (εδιδουν, the reading of B L 565 and a smattering of other manuscripts), says that they undertook counsel (ποιουντες), corresponding to the Latin faciebant.

● Mark 6:20 – Codex Bezae adds the word ειναι (to be) at the end of the verse, corresponding to the Latin esse (to be).

● Mark 6:39 – where the usual text is συμποσια συμποσια (group by group), the Latin text here is secundum contubernia (according to groups), and accordingly the Greek text in Codex Bezae is κατα την συμποσιαν.  This is manifestly a Greek translation of the Latin translation. 

● Mark 7:25 – The usual Greek text has no conjunction, stating that the woman, having arrived, fell at Jesus’ feet.  But in Codex Bezae, the word και (and) has been added, expressing the word et that is found in the Latin text.

Mark 8:1-2a in Codex Bezae.
"TOUTOU" (in the yellow rectangle) was added
to correspond to the Latin parallel.

● Mark 8:2 – Codex Bezae adjusts the Greek text and adds the word τουτου, echoing the Latin text which includes istam.   

● Mark 10:16 – Mark uses the words Και εναγκαλισαμεος αυτα to describe how Jesus took the children in His arms.  The Latin text of Codex Bezae, however, has something very different, as if the Latin translator misconstrued the meaning of εναγκαλισαμεος:  Et convocans eos (“And He summoned them,” or, “And He called them together”).  Accordingly, the Greek text in Codex Bezae has been altered to mean what the Latin mistranslation means:  instead of εναγκαλισαμεος Codex Bezae reads προσκαλεσαμενος.

          Here in Mark 10:16 we have a situation that is very similar to the one we encounter in Mark 1:41:
● Codex Bezae has a reading that no other Greek manuscript has.

● Codex Bezae’s unique Greek reading agrees with its Latin text.

● A relatively rare word is involved.

● The second half of the Greek word in Codex Bezae resembles the second half of the word that is usually found.

          I propose that the phenomenon observed in 10:16 is also at work in 1:41.  An early translator, in the course of translating the Greek text of Mark into Latin, was puzzled by the term σπλαγχνισθεις – at least, at its first occurrence in Mark.  This is understandable, inasmuch as if one were to dissect the word in search of its meaning, one might conclude that it meant that Jesus was “gut-wrenched,” or that he “reacted viscerally.”  As the translator read the surrounding verses for further insight, he found in verse 43 that Jesus gave the healed man a strict order.  So the translator concluded that in this context, σπλαγχνισθεις meant “deeply moved” and that this could validly be rendered into Latin by iratus – dismayed, perturbed, angry. 
          With iratus thus entering the Old Latin transmission-stream, it was almost inevitable that when Greek-Latin codices were made, someone who was more familiar with the Latin text than with the Greek text would adjust the Greek text of Mark 1:41 in order to make it agree with the Latin text.  The result is what we observe in Codex Bezae.    

   

Matthew 10:42 in Codex Bezae.  The yellow rectangle
contains the Greek word for "water"
(a retro-translation of the Latin translation).

      This is not an isolated incident.  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.

          When one sifts through commentaries and articles about Mark 1:41, it is not easy to find any that mention  Codex Bezae’s Latin-based variants.  The authors are, it seems, either unaware of this highly relevant feature of the Greek text in Codex Bezae, or they are afraid to mention it.  Numerous prominent writers and commentators, such as Daniel Wallace, Bart Ehrman, Bill Mounce, Mark Strauss, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, and Douglas Moo, have kept this feature of the manuscript (which explains many of its anomalies, including its unique reading in Mark 1:41) a tightly guarded secret.  Not one of them, as far as I can tell, has ever mentioned it in any discussion of Mark 1:41.  If it seems as if there has been some momentum among commentators to prefer the Latinized variant in Mark 1:41, using the excuse that they are preferring the variant that explains its rivals, or that they are preferring the more difficult reading, perhaps it is because there is momentum among commentators to lose touch with (or to never become acquainted with) the special characteristics of the relevant evidence.

          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.  An incorrect text-critical decision currently mars the English text in the New International Version.  The newly released Common English Bible (CEB) perpetuates the same mistake, stating in Mark 1:41 that Jesus was “Incensed.”  The New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) begins Mark 1:41 with the sentence, “Jesus became angry.”  The Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) distributed by The Bible League begins Mark 1:41 with the sentence, “These last words made Jesus angry” – a paraphrase which is not only based on an erroneous compilation, but also projects a cause-and-effect that has no basis in any Greek text.  

          I appeal to the producers and distributors of the NIV, the NIRV, the CEB, and the ERV to remedy the unfortunate (and, very probably, under-informed) decision that the compilers of their New Testament base-text made in Mark 1:41.  In the meantime, I encourage Bible-readers to detour around those versions, if better options are available, as long as they contain such a prominent mistake that conveys a meaning that is contrary to the meaning of the original text.  


[The New International Version and New International Reader’s Version are trademarks ® and © 2011 by Biblica, Inc.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved worldwide.]