Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark 1:41 (AV)
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.
There is a piddle corruption, barely even ultra-minority, that has become a cause célèbre among the cornefusenik textcrits.
For now, I will just bring in something I wrote back in 2008.
Bible believers in the hands of angry hired gun textcrits
https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.
There is a piddle corruption, barely even ultra-minority, that has become a cause célèbre among the cornefusenik textcrits.
For now, I will just bring in something I wrote back in 2008.
Bible believers in the hands of angry hired gun textcrits
https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205
Since you asked, here is the TNIV adding an additional corruption to the New Testament text.
Mark 1:41 (KJB)
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.
NIV
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
TNIV
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
Here, the TNIV took the absurd and corrupt 'harder reading' and tried to make it a smidgen less ugly with "indignant" instead of "moved with anger" the Revised English Bible reading that is more literal to the ultra-minority corruption.
This version change is based on an corruption favored by the atheist Bart Ehrman who wrote "A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus". The corruption is in very few western MSS, 6th century and on. On the textcrit forum the source being simply a Latin copyist error that got into Bezae was discussed by Jim Snapp and Malcolm Robertson. However, precisely how a corruption gets into a text filled with errors like Bezae (or Vaticanus or Sinaiticus) is not particularly important.
This corruption is against absolutely overwhelming MSS evidences and against the internal consistency of the word of God, similar to the modern versions having Jesus as a liar in John 7:8 by declaring he is not going to the feast.
Under their false modern textcrit paradigms the original word of God is actually supposed to be 'harder' and less consistent. Under their false paradigms fabricated NT blunders and errors can be put into the versions based on a very few MSS. And these blunders are of course strongly used by the skeptics and islamists and anti-missionaries and liberals and critics and others to attack the Lord Jesus Christ. The befuddled "evangelicals" don't even realize they have bit into a poisoned apple, they have grown their own hemlock. So the skeptics and all are able to attack the "Bible" as being not the pure word of God, since the versions of the Christian apologists are filled with these blunders. The versions being put out by the TNIV translators and all the other modern-versionists reeks with such corruptions.
Returning to the compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The true reading - "And Jesus, moved with compassion" is supported by hundreds or even thousands of Greek MSS (even the huge number of hand-copied Byzantine and the few Alexandrian MSS agree) including about a dozen uncials. Also agreeing are most of the Old Latin, the Vulgate and the Syriac and the Coptic and more. And, according to the apparatus, Basil and Ambrose. All of these date back way to way before the very few MSS with the anger management problem.
This variant is truly a fine example of the textual lunacy of 'modern scientific textual criticism'. Thus it comes up in the sandbox of textual corruptions by folks like Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace. Apparently, to add to the total textcrit disaster, Ehrman would likely know and use an earlier paper (and did not give credit or note) by Mark A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University, 1999).
Also folks from the TNIV translators crew did not even properly represent the issues involved and gave out totally false information that they weren't going from the minority variant. Their representative claimed in writing that they were going with a different sense of translation than "compassion" using the standard majority Greek. However that was later proven to be totally false by their own text-notes.
Here is a bit more. Even some of the textcrits can occasionally speak sensibly. "D" is Codex Bezae.
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/t...mark_1_41.html
Peter Kirk
The "anger" reading is supported by only ONE of the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT, Codex Bezae, and by just four of the large number of Old Latin MSS (one of which is the Latin text in the very same Codex Bezae). This is the group of Greek and Latin manuscripts which make up the "western text" of the New Testament, a text which differs radically from the accepted text in very many places, especially in Acts.... This is linked to a long-standing textual controversy about "Western Non-Interpolations" in the NT text, a theory of the 19th century scholar Hort now rejected by most scholars but recently defended by Bart Ehrman.
The next two points are correct by Michael Marlowe, however understand that the same situation of scribal incompetence exists with their own fav MSS Vaticanus and Sinaticicus, as Dean John Burgon demonstrated.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1505
Michael Marlowe
I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators.. we need to remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1515
Michael Marlowe
the obvious inferiority of D as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now?
Jim Snapp and Malcolm Robertson and others discussed explanations of the copyist blunder. One example.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1528
Mark 1:41 and the Latin Text
However, why anyone would care precisely how a blunder got into the text is a bit of a mystery. This is their sandbox, their playground.
Rather than read and believe and study and learn the word of God, defend and appreciate and love God's word, their dissections and conjectures and convolutions and fabrications of errors are all usually attempting to either create or justify corruption. However occasionally one of the folks enmeshed in that world will show the idiocy of the various theories. Jim Snapp has done similarly with the textual studies of the ending of Mark, which the textcrits claim to believe is only the corruption of man, yet is in their versions. (Yes, that is supremely hypocritical considering the warnings in God's word to adding to his word, however they really have no "beliefs" only mental rebellions and imaginings and strongholds.) Jim Snapp has shown the overwhelming evidence for the ending of Mark over the centuries, although Dean John Burgon's work more than a century ago should easily be more than sufficient to see the truth of Mark's beautiful and powerful ending for anyone with a sound man and a heart for God.