Before even addressing the grammar, there is a fundamental problem of instability that your position cannot escape. No rational person would test-fly an airplane built from contradicting schematics, and no one would purchase a house governed by multiple conflicting contracts, each carrying serious consequences. Yet this is precisely what is being defended here. A translation that reverses itself and then insists the later reading must be upheld creates a situation where, if you debated your pre-2011 self without naming the version, you would be arguing against yourself over the same verse. That is not refinement of the text, but confusion, and it forces the reader into arbitration rather than submission to a settled authority.
Turning to the text itself, the proposed explanation still does not arise from the grammar of the passage, either in Greek or in English. In Mark 1:40, both the KJV and the NIV translate the sentence as a respectful conditional appeal, not as a challenge to Christ’s compassion or willingness. The English construction “If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” reflects a long-established idiom of submission. The conditional clause recognizes authority; it does not probe character. Grammatically, the condition governs will, not disposition. Nothing in the English syntax signals accusation, testing, or provocation.
This is reinforced by normal English usage. Conditional language does not imply doubt by default. In both Early Modern English and contemporary English, “if” often functions as a deferential framing device. Expressions such as “If you will allow” or “If you please” do not question goodwill; they acknowledge authority. The KJV accurately preserves this idiomatic sense, and the NIV’s English does as well. Neither translation linguistically suggests that the leper was questioning Jesus’ compassion.
The narrative structure also matters. When Jesus is misunderstood, challenged, or morally provoked elsewhere, the text consistently records a correction, rebuke, or teaching moment. Here, no such response appears. The request is immediately granted. From a narrative standpoint, that response aligns naturally with compassion rather than indignation. An angry response without stated cause or correction would be out of place in the flow of the account.
The Greek confirms this reading. The verb δύνασαι is indicative and declarative, affirming ability. The leper is not questioning whether Jesus can act, nor whether He is compassionate, but affirming Christ’s power while submitting to His will. The sentence structure encodes humility and trust, not tension. Any reading that introduces indignation must therefore import psychological motives that the grammar itself does not convey.
There is also an important historical consideration. The majority of Greek manuscripts did not transmit the indignant reading, and that is not accidental. The manuscript tradition reflects sustained judgment by generations of scribes who recognized which readings fit the grammar, context, and portrayal of Christ, and which did not. Readings that disrupt narrative coherence or create Christological difficulty tend not to spread widely. The compassion reading fits the passage naturally, while the indignant reading introduces difficulty that must be explained away.
For clarity, passages where Jesus displays righteous indignation elsewhere in the Gospels, such as the cleansing of the temple, explicitly state the cause for His anger. Mark 1 does not. Introducing indignation here portrays Jesus as angry without cause, which conflicts with His own warning in Matthew 5:22. That is not a minor historical detail. It directly affects how Christ’s character is presented.
At this point, the indignant reading has still not been adequately defended from the text itself. It is unsupported by the immediate context, by the English grammar of Mark 1:40, and by the Greek grammar underlying the passage. What has been offered in its defense is a speculative narrative imposed on the text rather than one derived from it. Ultimately, insisting on indignation here violates the flow of the passage, the teaching of Scripture, and the principle of a stable text, replacing submission to God’s word with a pick-and-choose, shape-shifting Bible mindset.
If this is the approach you are going to take, then there really is no point in moving on to other verses. At this stage, you already made a decision regardless of what the English says or what the Greek actually shows. In other words, when the text itself no longer controls the your understanding of God's Word or your conclusion, continuing this discussion on other verses will not really accomplish anything.
However, if you change your mind in your approach, my writeup is available for you to read. All I can do is encourage you to keep an open mind and look at the larger pattern of changes found in Modern Bibles, which includes the NIV as well.
....
