Thanks! The NIV has a footnote acknowledging that many mss have the KJV translation, and I can see how both are possible,
because Jesus might very well have been insulted by the leper questioning (in Mark 1:40) whether he was compassionate and willing to heal people. Thus, I see no significant contradiction between the two translations, although I agree with you that the 1984 NIV and KJV are preferable as the primary understanding, and the nuance of indignation should have been the footnote.
BTW, even if the difference is deemed to be a "change", it is contained in a historical rather than a doctrinal passage. If there is an implicit lesson, it would be: Of COURSE Jesus is willing to heal sinners (cf. Matt. 13:14-15, 22:37-40)!
The flip of the coin by the 2011 NIV translators might put this verse in the same vein as when Jesus manifested righteous indignation by driving the moneychangers out of the temple. IOW, the doctrine is that divine indignation/wrath does not contradict divine love.
That was fun BH (my initials also using my nickname). Please share another couplet as time permits.
HAND (Need that emoji as well as praying hands added to the icons :^)
Thanks for the response. One clarification at the outset. Neither the KJV nor the NIV, in any edition, translates Mark 1:40 in a way that suggests doubt in Christ’s ability. Both clearly affirm that Jesus can cleanse the leper. The idea that the leper insulted Jesus by questioning His power is not supported by the English of either translation, and it is not supported by the Greek text.
The real issue begins at the Greek and textual level in Mark 1:40, because this verse sets the grammatical, moral, and narrative context for what follows in Mark 1:41. The Greek text reads:
ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι
Each element is precise.
ἐὰν
KJV: “if”
This introduces a conditional clause. The condition does not concern Christ’s power, but frames the request.
θέλῃς
KJV: “thou wilt”
Careful modern equivalent: “if it is your will” or “if you are willing”
This verb is in the subjunctive mood, placing uncertainty only on Christ’s will, not His ability. The leper submits himself to Christ’s choice rather than challenging Him.
δύνασαι
KJV: “thou canst”
Careful modern equivalent: “you have the power to”
This is present indicative, a statement of fact. The leper affirms Christ’s ability without hesitation.
με καθαρίσαι
KJV: “make me clean”
Put plainly, the leper is saying, I know you can do this. I submit to whether you choose to. This is humility, not provocation or skepticism. The grammar leaves no room for reading doubt into the plea.
This becomes even clearer when we compare how Greek expresses doubt when doubt is intended. Greek has clear and unmistakable ways to question ability, and Mark does not use them here. In Mark 9:22, the father says:
εἴ τι δύνασαι, βοήθησον ἡμῖν
“If you can at all, help us.”
Here, doubt is explicit. The phrase εἴ τι directly questions ability, and Jesus immediately corrects that doubt in the following verse. Greek also commonly expresses uncertainty using particles such as μήπως or μήποτε, or by framing the statement as an interrogative. None of these features appear in Mark 1:40. Instead, Mark uses a straightforward indicative affirmation of Christ’s power. Grammatically, doubt is excluded.
Because Mark 1:40 contains no doubt, no challenge, and no provocation, it provides no linguistic or contextual basis for portraying Jesus as indignant in response in Mark 1:41. Introducing indignation at that point requires importing a reaction that the grammar and narrative flow do not warrant.
For clarity, it should be noted that when Jesus displays righteous indignation elsewhere in the Gospels, such as in the cleansing of the temple, the text explicitly supplies a cause for His anger. Those passages describe deliberate, willful corruption and abuse of sacred things. Mark 1 presents a completely different situation. There is no stated cause whatsoever for indignation. The grammar of Mark 1:40, the immediate context, and the parallel accounts in Matthew 8:3and Luke 5:13 all portray a humble plea from a broken man seeking mercy. To portray Jesus as indignant at this moment maligns His character by depicting Him as angry without a cause, placing Him under the very warning He Himself gave:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”
(Matthew 5:22 KJV)
The indignant reading, therefore, introduces a moral and Christological problem that the text itself does not create.
At this point, after the Greek grammar, narrative flow, and moral implications have been weighed, the conclusion follows naturally. For the NIV 2011 translators to introduce indignation here reflects a serious failure of judgment. The Greek syntax excludes doubt, the context supplies no cause for anger, and Christ’s own teaching condemns anger without cause. To overlook or set aside these factors is not a neutral translation decision. It represents a breakdown in the responsible handling of the text. Either these elements were not properly understood, or they were ignored in favor of a minority Western reading driven by Codex D (Codex Bezae) and a small group of Old Latin witnesses.
This also exposes a deeper instability within the NIV tradition itself. The NIV 1984 reads “filled with compassion,” while the NIV 2011 reverses course and reads “indignant,” with a footnote hedging between the two. Which one is the Bible? The reader is left to choose. That is not a single, settled text, but a shape-shifting Bible that changes from edition to edition. In practice, it becomes a pick-and-choose your own adventure approach to Scripture.
Scripture presents a very different model. God is not the author of confusion, and Jesus did not argue competing textual variants of the Hebrew Scriptures with His disciples. He quoted Scripture as settled and authoritative. By contrast, the NIV model asks the reader to navigate competing readings and decide which portrayal of Christ they prefer.
By comparison, the KJV presents a stable reading, and the Greek manuscript evidence explains why that stability exists. Distinguishing between Greek manuscript authority and Latin versional influence does not undermine the KJV. It strengthens its defense. Mark 1:40 and Mark 1:41 read grammatically, contextually, and morally coherent when compassion, not indignation, is recognized as the original sense, faithfully preserving the character of Christ revealed in the Gospels.
Side Note
Scripture itself affirms the legitimacy of using real-world illustrations and analogies to explain and defend spiritual truth. In Matthew 15:26–28 (KJV), Jesus uses a brief parabolic statement when He says, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” The Canaanite woman responds by extending His illustration with a real-world application: “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Jesus does not rebuke her for expanding His example, nor does He say that only He may use parables or real-world illustrations. Instead, He commends her faith and grants her request. This demonstrates that using everyday examples to illustrate spiritual truth is not improper, but can be appropriate and insightful when done rightly.
That principle matters here. Real-world reasoning exposes the weakness of a shape-shifting, pick-and-choose approach to Scripture. No one would test-fly an airplane knowing it was built from contradicting schematics that disagreed at critical points. No one would purchase a house governed by multiple conflicting contracts, each worded slightly differently and all capable of causing serious financial harm. If such instability is unacceptable in matters of safety and livelihood, then why accept it in a book that deals with your very soul?
A Bible tradition that continually revises, hedges, and reverses itself forces the reader into uncertainty rather than confidence. Scripture presents a very different model. God is not the author of confusion, and the words of Scripture are treated by Christ and the apostles as settled and authoritative. Real-world illustrations do not replace Scripture, but they help expose the practical and spiritual consequences of abandoning a stable textual foundation.
....
