Compassion or Anger? How Do You Read It?

Mark 1:40-45 can be read in two very different ways. Below are two translations that I have made, based on the possibilities of the terms and Mark includes. One variant reading (old manuscript that is different from most of the others, has a word that means 'angry' or 'wrathful' as opposed to a word that could either mean 'angry' or 'compassionate.' Other words are agreed upon in the primary manuscripts, but the words themselves have a wide variety of translations, which can only be interpreted by the context. Those kind of interpretation choices are very common in New Testament translations, but this text is particularly interesting because it could either be interpreted as a compassionate moment or an angry encounter.

The first translation is most similar to what one might find in most common Bibles. It chooses to translate most of the questionable terms as a compassionate Jesus and a happy, but disobedient man who has been cleansed. It reads like this: And a leper comes to [Jesus], imploring him [and bowing], and saying to him, "If you will you are able to cleanse me." And having compassion, stretching out his hand he touched him and says to him, "I will, be cleansed." And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And speaking earnestly with him, he immediately sent him away. And says to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go present yourself to the priest and bring what is commanded by Moses regarding your cleansing, as a testimony to them." But going out he began to proclaim much and spread the word abroad so that nowhere was [Jesus] able to appear to enter into a city, but was out in deserted places; and they came to him from all places.

A second translation would be quite different. In this translation, I am going with the more edgy, difficult reading of words. Partly this is due to the phenomenon that later translations often soften the edge of texts, so an edgier meaning may have the weight of being more original. It is not an exact science, but here you go. I did make one commentary insertion. I believe v.45 is meant to say that Jesus could not go into villages - not because he is too popular, but because he is now ritually unclean. And a leper comes to [Jesus], summoning him [...] and saying to him, "If you dare, you are able to cleanse me." And being angry, stretching out his hand he grabbed him and said, "I will, be cleansed." And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And snorting with indignation, he immediately threw him out and says to him, "Beware that you say nothing to anyone, but go away, show yourself to the priest and bring what is commanded by Moses regarding your cleansing, as a testimony against them." But going out he began to declare and spread the word abroad so that nowhere was [Jesus] able to appear to enter into a city, but was out in deserted places because he was considered unclean; and they came to him from all places.

Now, having seen these two translations, I would be quite interested in which one you find more compelling. If you are interested in seeing the exegesis behind some of these choices, please see my earlier post "Compassion and /or Anger!/?