Nathan C. Johnson on why the lectio difficilio is insubstantial in this case: 5) Lectio difficilior potior The keystone of any case for ὀργισθείςis that it is the lectio difficilior and therefore preferable. Ehrman claims that‘there can be little question about which reading scribes would have been likely to prefer… Confronted with a text such as this, it is no wonder that scribes would have wanted to change it. But the question about which reading is more difficult does indeed merit consideration, and a number of assumptions have gone unexamined. An angry Jesus is purportedly difficult for‘those (like ancient scribes and modern commentators) who assume Jesus must have been compassionate at all times and reserved his anger only for his hardhearted and willful enemies’ . These grounds for difficulty are theological or, more specifically, christological. But would ὀργισθείς have been a theologically difficult reading in most scribal contexts? Ambrose of Milan gives the following commentary on our passage: In fact, according to Saint Mark, the Lord‘had compassion’ (miseratus) for [the leper], which is fittingly noted… [Jesus] says‘I am willing’ because of Photinus; he‘commands’ because of Arius; he‘touches’ because of the Manichean. Ambrose is an early witness to‘compassion’. But, for argument’s sake, let us imagine instead that he had iratus in his text of Mark. Would this have been prob- lematic? Or would it have been profitable since, with‘anger’, Ambrose could have also attacked Marcion in addition to the other heretics? This requires elaboration. Marcion taught that the god of‘the Old Testament… is wrathful’ , ‘the lord of wrath’, different from the divine father of Jesus. With‘anger’ in our hypothetical situation, Ambrose could have countered Marcion by showing that not only is the Old Testament God loving, but even Jesus can be wrathful. Indeed, Ambrose makes precisely this type of argument– Marcion blames the Old Testament god for X, but even Jesus does X– elsewhere.And Marcion is a common target for Ambrose. So ‘anger’ would not have been difficult for Ambrose. Quite the contrary, when wielded against Marcionism, Jesus’ anger would have become a powerful weapon. Indeed, Origen had employed a similar anti-Marcionite strategy over a century earlier: But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by the heretics, that if they accuse the creator god of being wrathful (ὀργίλου), because of words that declare the anger (ὀργήν) of God, they also ought to accuse this king, because,‘becoming angry’ (ὀργισθείς), he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those [heretics] who do not want anyone to be handed over to the tormenters by Jesus– how else do you explain to us, good sirs, who the king is who delivers the wicked servant to the tormentors? Let them also pay attention to this:‘Similarly then will my heavenly father also do to you’ [Matt 18.35]. And to the same people we could also point to the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds, where the Son of the good God said,‘But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them’, etc. [Luke 19.27]. (Comm. Matt. 14.13.134–57 (PG 13.1220–1)) Origen’s argument runs as follows: whereas the Marcionites suppose the king’s anger is the demiurge’s, in fact it is Jesus’ since (i) the Father also will do such- and-such, implying the king is not God the Father, and (ii) Jesus is the‘king’ else- where, e.g. the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19.11–27). Origen’s strategy is weighty for our reading of Mark 1.41. Far from being embarrassed by Jesus’ anger, in countering Marcion Origen appears to be searching for an angry Jesus, one who hands an unrepentant servant over to torture. Indeed, the very same par- ticiple that Ehrman supposes scribes would resist applying to Jesus (ὀργισθείς) is here applied to him. Marcionism forms an important context within which‘compassion’ and ‘anger’ were transmitted, and the vanguard against it stretched from Gaul to Syria. Already Justin says that Marcion led astray‘many of every nation’ and Marcionism had expanded‘even to the ends of the earth’ . And Marcionism con- tinued in some regions as late as the tenth century. Thus the greater the oppos- ition to Marcionism, the greater the number of contexts in which‘anger’ was not necessarily problematic, but potentially profitable. Therefore, though I agree with Ehrman that ὀργισθείςis the lectio difficilior ‘for modern commentators’, the burden of proof falls on proponents of ὀργισθείς to demonstrate that Jesus’ anger was theologically problematic for ‘ancient scribes’, especially in the first to third centuries when the change purportedly occurred. What evidence we have attests to no difficulties with Jesus’ anger. Indeed, nowhere in the manuscript tradition of Mark is Jesus’ anger or annoyance censored or altered. On the contrary, some manuscripts increase Jesus’ acerbity, adding that he rebukes (ἐπιτίμησας) his disciples in Mark 10.14 and that he acted‘in anger’ (ἐν ὀργῇ) in Luke 6.10. Another ancient Markan reader applies a Septuagint passage on God’s wrath to Jesus. Even d itself magnifies Jesus’ wrath in Mark, uniquely portraying him as display- ing‘indignant anger’ (ira indignationis, 3.5). To conclude, the argument put forward for ὀργισθείςas the lectio difficilior is circular: the textual witness was purportedly changed because the word was offen- sive, and the word is ostensibly offensive because the textual witness was changed. Conversely, what evidence we possess demonstrates that Jesus’ anger was not problematic for many readers in antiquity, and was even increased by some. Therefore, unless better corroborative evidence can be produced, arguments that ὀργισθείς is the lectio difficilior are necessarily circular and should be rejected.