This coming Sunday is the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time. 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, “I do will it. Be made clean.” 42 The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean. 43 Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once. 44 Then he said to him, “See that you tell no one anything, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them.”

The encounter between Jesus and the leper contains several verbs that describe Jesus’ emotional state. How they are translated plays an important role in the tone of the passage. The textual tradition indicates that uncertainty over the emotional tone of the passage also existed in antiquity. Most manuscripts describe Jesus’ initial reaction to the leper’s appeal (v. 41), rendered “filled with compassion” or “moved with pity” (splagchnistheis). This verb is used in other miracle accounts (Mark 6:34; 9:22). The word splagchnistheis is derived from the word splanchna, meaning “bowels” or “innards.” In a figurative sense, it refers to deep feelings, emotions, or compassion. Which specific emotion needs to be inferred from the surrounding text. There is a minority of texts that have a different verb, orgistheis. These texts translate Jesus’ reaction as “moved with indignation (or anger).”

While wondering what to make of the translation in v.41, one needs to consider the language of v.43: “Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once.” The word “dismissed” (exebalen) is the same word used in casting out demons in Mark 1:12. There it is translated as “driven out” or “expelled.” In the same sense, embrimaomal, “sternly warned” does not capture the normal sense of anger or displeasure associated with the word and its usage.

In other words, there is a range of emotions available to the translators. But in any case, the v.41 presents a grammatical challenge as the subject of the phrase is not clear. It is unclear if the emotion is to be assigned to Jesus or the leper.

Arguing for the leper as subject, the thought is that he has become so overwhelmed with his virtually hopeless plight that in anger he reaches out and touches Jesus. But if one assumes that Jesus is the subject, the anger can be understood as an expression of righteous indignation at the ravages of sin, disease and death which take their toll even upon the living, a toll particularly evident in a leper. All this is compounded by the social conventions surrounding the disease.

All told, the majority of translations opt for Jesus’ reaction as one of compassion in the encounter with the leper, shifting to one that moves to a stern warning in the realization that the man will do exactly what Jesus will ask him not to do: See that you tell no one anything. Instead of following Jesus’ word, the cured man tells everyone! And Jesus’ mission is thwarted as soon as it begins: “It was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly” (v. 45). The admonition in v. 43 would then have specific reference to this act coming after the leper had been made whole and was in a frame of mind to receive such a rebuke.

These are the problems caused by the minor attestation in manuscripts and Mark’s relatively poor grammatical structures in Greek.

Image credit: 12th-13th century Mosaic | Cathedral of the Assumption, Monreale, Sicily | PS-US