This master´s thesis takes off in the text-critical problem in Mark. 1:41 which either uses the word “wrath” (ὀργισθείς), or the word “compassion” (σπλαγχνισθεὶς). I analyze the arguments for and against both readings with the help of reputable commentators. I conclude that it is impossible to prove either one and that therefore the best reading is that which can be backed up by the best arguments. I therefore choose the “wrath reading” since that is the reading most often advocated for by the commentators and since it makes the most sense in the narrative. The essay then develops into a narrative criticism about the wrath of Jesus in the gospel of Mark as a whole. Furthermore, it also considers if Jesus is portrayed as a manly man or an emasculated man and relates it to the wrath of Jesus. This is considered relevant since anger and manliness are closely linked both in our time and in ancient times. The conclusion is that the wrath of Jesus is a Christological claim by the author which drives the point that Jesus is Gods agent. It follows that this agent should express anger at the same things that God himself is angry about. I also find that Jesus is sometimes a manly man and sometimes not, which leads me to believe that manliness in the gospel of Mark is either undefined or redefined by Jesus as to mean obedience to the Father.