Footnotes

1. Mark 1:40 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.
2. Mark 1:40 sn The ancient term for leprosy covers a wider array of conditions than what is called leprosy today (Hansen’s disease). In the OT the Hebrew term generally referred to a number of exfoliative (scaly) skin diseases (when applied to humans). A person with one of these diseases was totally ostracized from society until he was declared cured (Lev 13:45-46). In the NT the Greek term also refers to a number of skin diseases, but there is some evidence that true leprosy (Hansen’s disease) could be referred to, since that disease began to be described by Greek physicians in Alexandria, Egypt around 300 B.C. and thus might have been present in Judea and Galilee just before the time of Jesus.
3. Mark 1:40 tn This is a third class condition. The report portrays the leper making no presumptions about whether Jesus will heal him or not.
4. Mark 1:41 tc The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splanchnistheis, “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D) and a few Latin mss (a d ff² r¹*) here read ὀργισθείς (orgistheis, “moved with anger”). Just as important, the second-century Diatessaron by Tatian almost surely spoke of Jesus’ anger here. On the one hand, the external evidence is so overwhelming for σπλαγχνισθείς that only solid internal reasoning could overturn it. On the other hand, various creative arguments that have been offered for accidental changes in the early transmission of the text from σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς generally reveal more about the ingenuity of the scholar than the authenticity of the text. Inner-Greek, inner-Latin, and inner-Syriac accidental changes have all been suggested, but they lack conviction. (See, e.g., Peter J. Williams, “An examination of Ehrman’s case for ὀργισθείς in Mark 1:41, ” NovT 53 [2011]: 1–12, who argues for an inner-Greek corruption; Metzger, TCGNT 65, suggests “It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς either (a) was suggested by ἐμβριμησάμενος of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraḥm, “he had pity,” with ethra‘em, “he was enraged”).” It remains far more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is to envision a copyist softening “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion.” Against this, it has been asserted that it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). However, at France notes, this view “ignores the fact that in those passages, unlike here, there was obvious cause for anger” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 115). In the parallels both Matthew and Luke have neither ὀργισθείς nor σπλαγχνισθείς here. The simplest explanation for this omission is that their copies of Mark read ὀργισθείς and the other evangelists simply deleted it. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. Perhaps the best defense of the “angry” reading is Bart D. Ehrman’s “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus,” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed. Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 77–98. For discussion of the evidence and bibliography, see D. B. Wallace, “Textual Criticism and the Criterion of Embarrassment,” Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed. Komoszewski (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming), discussion on Mark 1:41.
5. Mark 1:41 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
6. Mark 1:41 sn Touched. This touch would have rendered Jesus ceremonially unclean (Lev 5:3; see also m. Nega’im 3.1; 11.1; 12.1; 13.6-12).
7. Mark 1:43 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
8. Mark 1:43 tn Grk “him”; the referent (the man who was healed) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
9. Mark 1:44 tn Grk “And after warning him, he immediately sent him away and told him.”
10. Mark 1:44 sn The silence ordered by Jesus was probably meant to last only until the cleansing took place with the priests and sought to prevent Jesus’ healings from becoming the central focus of the people’s reaction to him. See also 1:34; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; 9:9 for other cases where Jesus asks for silence concerning him and his ministry.
11. Mark 1:44 sn On the phrase bring the offering that Moses commanded see Lev 14:1-32.
12. Mark 1:44 tn Or “as an indictment against them”; or “as proof to the people.” This phrase could be taken as referring to a positive witness to the priests, a negative testimony against them, or as a testimony to the community that the man had indeed been cured. In any case, the testimony shows that Jesus is healing and ministering to those in need.
13. Mark 1:45 tn Grk “he”; the referent (the man who was healed) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
14. Mark 1:45 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
15. Mark 1:45 tn Grk “and”; καί (kai) often has a mildly contrastive force, as here.
16. Mark 1:45 tn The imperfect verb has been translated iteratively.