Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Aractus]

This paragraph is just false:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ompassion/

Did Jesus get "angry" or did he have "compassion"?  Big difference, if you ask me!

Just because a variation exists (there's literally at least one variation per word in the NT due to the large number of Greek manuscripts, with most of those being differences in spelling or grammar) doesn't mean it casts doubt upon the original wording. But look, let's assume this a genuine case for an un-knowable original wording of Mark - it's not a big deal. It's less significant than the number of the beast because the meaning of the passage is not substantially altered. You might think it's a "big difference" - but it isn't. Mark describes Jesus taking action and rebuking others out of anger in several other places in his gospel anyway. Anyway that's besides the point, AFAIK it is believed the text originally read "indignant" as is indicated by the fact that the 2011 version of the NIV uses that as the basis for their translation, and it would therefore be the version found in Novum Testamentum. Given that it's an Evangelical translation that would prefer to be influenced by evangelical theology (one of my criticism of it), for it to include that variation over the "compassion" version would lead me to believe that Bart and the other textual critics decided that's how it was originally written in Mark. Therefore they do know what it said with a reasonable degree of confidence, and it's not a matter for petty debate, or an unsettled matter as is Revelation 13:18's number of the beast.