Text:

After suneseōs ‘understanding,’ Textus Receptus includes kai ex holēs tēs psuchēs ‘and with all the soul,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

to agapan literally ‘the to love’: the infinitival phrase is used as a noun, and is the subject of the sentence. The infinitive is timeless, indicating simply the action involved in the verb without any reference to the time aspect.

It is to be noticed that the three clauses ‘heart,’ ‘understanding,’ and ‘strength’ do not follow literally either v. 30 or Septuagint Deut. 6.5.

ex holēs tēs kardias ‘with all the heart,’ following v. 30 and the Septuagint of Deut. 6.5.

ex holēs tēs suneseōs ‘with all the understanding,’ which follows neither v. 30 nor the LXX of Deut. 6.5. It is the equivalent of ex holēs tēs dianoias sou ‘with all your mind’ of v. 30, which, as noticed, is added to the three clauses of Deut. 6.5.

sunesis (only here in Mark; cf. suniēmi 4.12) ‘comprehension,’ ‘understanding.’

ex holēs tēs ischuos ‘with all the strength,’ following v. 30 (but not the Septuagint of Deut. 6.5, which has dunamis).

perissoteron (cf. 7.36) ‘much more (than),’ ‘more abundant (than)’: in the neuter, agreeing with the subject to agapan ‘the to love,’ which is also neuter.

holokautōmatōn (only here in Mark) ‘whole burnt offerings’: these were the offerings in which the animal was entirely consumed by fire.

thusiōn (only here in Mark) ‘sacrifices,’ ‘offerings’: refers to all offerings and sacrifices of the Jewish religion, whether animal or vegetable. (Carefully to be avoided is any rendering which might convey the idea of ‘sacrifice’ as the personal element of cost and hardship with which one may accomplish certain tasks or perform certain duties.)

Translation:

For problems involved in translating love with … the heart see 12.30.

Understanding may be translated in the same way as ‘mind’ in 12.30.

The basic problem of translation in this verse is the use of the infinitive constructions which in many languages cannot be used, especially not when the infinitive constructions are so involved and include two different expressions for ‘love.’ In this passage there are often two alternative ways of treating the construction: (1) by means of a conditional clause, e.g. ‘if you love him … and if you love your neighbor…, that is much more than…’ or (2) through the use of paratactic constructions, in which the first is a statement of obligation, e.g. ‘you should love him … and you should love your neighbors…; that is much more than….’

General obligations or a truth of universal import may be stated in terms of second person ‘you’ or of first person ‘we,’ usually in the inclusive form, if the inclusive-exclusive contrast exists. The use of these persons is seemingly more widespread than an indefinite third person singular, as in the Greek and English.

Much more than all is a difficult comparative expression since two complex processes, ‘loving God’ and ‘loving one’s neighbors,’ are compared with two other processes ‘providing burnt offerings’ and ‘making sacrifices.’ This is treated in Tzeltal as ‘great the goodness this becomes past the goodness of burned gifts for God and killed gifts.’

Where there is no special designation, burnt offerings are often treated as ‘gifts that are burned,’ sometimes with ‘to God’ added in order to imply their religious significance. Sacrifices are frequently rendered as ‘killed gifts’ or ‘gifts that one kills.’

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .