I was studying Mark 1 today and came across a scholarly debate around a word that really changes the way Jesus is presented in the text. Within manuscripts of Mark 1:41, there is a question of a word change. Older manuscripts use one word, which is translated as anger, while newer another, which is translated as compassion. The context seems to lean toward a reading of angry, with many scholars reading it that way and even major translations of the Bible, such as the 2011 version of the NIV, translating it that way with a footnote that says: “Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion” to allude to the issue.
The Textual Debate
The debate revolves around a textual variance in Mark 1:41. The word found within the majority of texts is Splanchnizomai (σπλαγχνίζομαι) which is translated as something like “moves with compassion.” But within the Codex Bezae, a 5th-century manuscript, we find the word Orgistheis (ὀργισθείς) which means “moved with anger” or “moved with indignation.”
According to the rule Lectio Difficilior Potior (the more difficult reading is the stronger) many scholars choose the minority reading of Orgistheis. The idea is that Scribes sometimes acted like editors to smooth out difficult texts. Seeing Jesus put into a bad light, they would change some words, like a PR agent working on Jesus’ behalf. Because there was a change, one way or the other, these scholars think that it doesn’t make sense for a scribe to change the text from compassion to anger, since that would make the text more difficult from a PR perspective, so the more difficult reading is held as being the most likely.
Daniel Wallace, in his extensive note in the NET bible, says that the correct reading is anger. Though the number of manuscripts is overwhelmingly in favor of the reading for compassion, the internal evidence is overwhelmingly in favor for a reading of anger.1 He also point out that some of the work of the skeptic, Bart Ehrman, on this point has been some of the finest work on the question.
I don’t have Bart’s books or papers, but I did find a conversation he had about this in 2005. He said, “since becoming angry is the more difficult reading to understand, it’s more likely to have been the original reading. The logic is you have to ask yourself: If you were a scribe changing the text, which text would you have been likely to have changed? If you had the text in front of you that said ‘Jesus became compassionate,’ would you be likely to want to change that to say became angry? Whereas on the other hand, if the text originally said ‘Jesus became angry,’ would you be likely to change it to say he became compassionate? So as it turns out, there’s other evidence that that, in fact, is exactly what Mark originally said, that Jesus became angry”.2
Another supporting view that is used is the contextual evidence found in Mark 1:43. The word embrimáomai (ἐμβριμάομαι) is used. Strong’s says it comes from the word brimáomai (βριμάομαι), which means “to snort with anger” and that the word means “to have indignation on, i.e. (transitively) to blame, (intransitively) to sigh with chagrin, (specially) to sternly enjoin:—straitly charge, groan, murmur against.”3 In B.B. Warfield’s book The Emotional Life of Our Lord, it says that this word “is never used otherwise that of hot anger in the Classics, the Septuagint, and the New Testament… save when they denote snorting or growling proper".4
Besides this, we have this word exebalen (ἐξέβαλεν) which means to cast out. In Mark 1, it is also used in verses 12, 33 and 39. In verse 12, the Spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness where he endures the temptations of Satan for 40 days. In 33 and 39 we see the same word used to describe Jesus driving out demons. The word exebalen implies a violent force—it is the same word used for casting out demons or tearing something up by the roots.5
Jesus, then, in verse 43, seems to be have indignation at the leper he just healed and forcefully sends him away. All of this supports the indignation or anger translation of verse 41.
Why is Jesus Mad?
What is the deal with Jesus being mad? Here’s my take.
We could be tempted to view Jesus as being angry at the leper. But then he kind of turns into a monster. Is he disgusted by the man and, even though he’s healed him, he wants him out of his presence?
But this isn’t really in alignment with how Jesus views illness. Jesus views illness as a foreign invader, as a marring of this image of God. Jesus doesn’t view illness as a medical condition, but as a foreign occupying force in God’s good creation.
Looking at the passage, the leper comes to him and ask for help. Jesus is moved with indignation and BECAUSE of his indignation he heals the man. This wouldn’t make sense if he was mad at the man. He’s mad at the situation. He’s mad that a man can even be a leper to begin with.
For me, it almost feels like the anger of the Lord is a key factor in this cleansing. I need to think about this more, but this reminds of a lot of Yahweh in the Old Testament, lashing out in anger, blotting out the unholy in His anger.
The Interesting Bit Here
What’s really interesting about this that Jesus touches the leper, but before he does he declares that the man will be clean. This flips how Jews understood cleanliness.
Haggai 2:11-13 says:
1 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Ask the priests what the law says: 12 If someone carries consecrated meat in the fold of their garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, some wine, olive oil or other food, does it become consecrated?’”
The priests answered, “No.”
13 Then Haggai said, “If a person defiled by contact with a dead body touches one of these things, does it become defiled?”
“Yes,” the priests replied, “it becomes defiled.”
So, according to Haggai, holiness cannot be transferred by one that is clean but impurity can be transferred by something unclean. In other words, the Sacred cannot transfer to the Profane to make it Sacred, by the Profane can transfer to the Sacred to profane it. But in Jesus we see something completely different.
Jesus is angry that the profanity of sin has spread to infect this poor man. In his anger, He imparts his cleanliness into the man and completely wipes out his uncleanliness. He then compels the man out of the house, imploring him to keep the law and present himself to the priest.
This is important. Jesus is something completely different in the history of the world. He isn’t one who is profaned by the world, but is one who sanctifies and brings the world back into the original vision of Eden. And more to the point, he isn’t only compassionately doing this, but he is doing it with aggression and with pointed purpose. He is a not some passive character, helping an unfortunate soul when they come to him, but is an active, aggressive force looking to take the world over by force.
NET Bible, 2nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2019), Mark 1:41, accessed February 7, 2026, https://netbible.org/bible/Mark+1.
"Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'," Fresh Air, NPR, December 14, 2005, accessed February 7, 2026, https://freshairarchive.org/segments/bart-ehrmans-misquoting-jesus.
Blue Letter Bible, s.v. "embrimaomai (G1690)," accessed February 7, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1690/kjv/tr/0-1/.
NET Bible, 2nd ed., Mark 1:43, accessed February 7, 2026, https://netbible.org/bible/Mark+1.
https://netbible.org/bible/Mark+1