Text:

Before ‘water’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ Textus Receptus has en ‘in.’ Support for the second en is stronger than the first: Souter, Merk, Kilpatrick, and Soden include en in both places, while Tischendorf, Lagrange, and Vogels include it only before ‘Holy Spirit’; Nestle, Westcott and Hort, Taylor, and Turner reject en in both instances. (It is to be noticed that although in other passages in the N.T. en is sometimes used and sometimes not used before ‘water’ it is always used before ‘Holy Spirit’: Mt. 3.11; Lk. 3.16; Jn. 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.16.)

Exegesis:

egō … autos ‘I … he’: the personal pronouns, not being essential in Greek, are emphatic: ‘I, on my part … he, on his part.’

ebaptisa ‘baptized’: the force of the aorist has been the subject of considerable comment. The majority of translations and commentators agree with Lagrange’s interpretation: the ministry of the Baptist ends when that of Jesus begins (cf. Howard II, 458f.: “the aorist of the thing just happened”). In English the perfect ‘have baptized’ (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Knox, The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Manson, Translator’s New Testament; cf. Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada) may convey the meaning ‘I have baptized and am baptizing no more.’ According to such a view the present baptizō ‘I baptize’ of the parallels Mt. 3.11, Lk. 3.16, represents a change of meaning.

There is, however, an alternative way of viewing the aorist tense: without any particular reference to past time it describes or conveys a general truth (called a “gnomic” aorist). When the full force of ekērussen legōn ‘he was preaching’ in the previous verse is noticed, John’s message is not represented as having been delivered once, but repeatedly, throughout his ministry. The aorist ebaptisa ‘I baptized’ does not mean, therefore, that the action is past and finished; it is rather the reference to an action in which time is not emphasized, best translated into English by the present, ‘I baptize.’

(en) ‘in’: whether or not the preposition is included before ‘water’ and/or ‘Holy Spirit,’ the sense adopted by the majority of translations and commentators is ‘with,’ that is, the instrumental.

pneuma hagion (3.29; 12.36; 13.11; cf. to pneuma ‘the Spirit’ 1.10, 12) ‘the Holy Spirit’ – and so throughout Mark (and the N.T.). The presence or absence of the definite article, in Greek, before ‘Holy Spirit’ does not establish a difference between the operation, power, or gifts of the Spirit, and the person of the Spirit. With or without the article pneuma hagion is always ‘the Holy Spirit.’ Whatever may have been the original significance of the phrase in the preaching of John the Baptist (see Taylor and reff.), especially with the addition of kai puri ‘and with fire’ in Matthew and Luke, the meaning intended by the author of the Gospel is fully Christian, i.e. the Holy Spirit of God.

Translation:

Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit, for (1) it includes such a wide range of meaning, from ‘evil spirit’ to ‘poor in spirit’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ and (2) it touches so vitally the crucial comparison and contrast between Christianity and so-called “animism.” We cannot go into a detailed examination of all the problems involving in either ‘spirit’ or ‘Holy Spirit.’ There are four principal dangers in the choice of a word for Holy Spirit: (1) the term may identify an essential malevolent spirit, and no mere addition of the word ‘holy’ or ‘good’ is likely to change the basic connotation of the word, (2) the word may mean primarily the spirit of a deceased person (hence God must have died – a not infrequent error in Bible translations), (3) the expression used to mean ‘spirit’ may denote only an impersonal life force, a sort of soul-stuff which may be conceived as indwelling all plant, animal, and human substances (therefore, to say that ‘God is spirit’ is to deny His essential personality), and (4) a borrowed term may signify next to nothing to the people, and can only be explained by another term or terms, which, if they are adequate to explain the borrowing, should have been used in the first place. It is true that in some instances a borrowed word has seemed to be the only alternative, but it should be chosen only as a last resort.

There is no easy formula to be employed in finding an adequate equivalent for Holy Spirit, for what seems to work quite well in one area may not serve in another. One thing, however, is certain: one should not select a term before making a comprehensive study of all kinds of words for spirits and for parts or aspects of personality and thus having as complete a view as possible of all indigenous beliefs about supernatural beings. (The use of the question outline suggested on pp. 212-13 of Bible Translating may prove to be very useful for such necessary investigations.)

An almost equally difficult element in the phrase Holy Spirit is the unit meaning ‘holy,’ which in the Biblical languages involves a concept of separation (i.e. unto God or for His service). In general, however, it is difficult to employ a term meaning primarily ‘separated,’ for this often leads to the idea of ‘cast out.’ One must make sure that the concept of ‘separated’ implies not merely ‘separated from’ (hence, often culturally ostracized), but ‘separated to’ (in the idea of consecrated, dedicated, or ‘taboo’ – in its proper technical sense). Perhaps the most naive mistakes in rendering Holy have been to assume that this word can be translated as ‘white’ or ‘clean,’ for we assume that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” a belief which is quite foreign to most peoples in the world. Holy may, however, be rendered in some languages as ‘clear,’ ‘pure’ (in Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Javanese ‘clean’ or ‘pure’), ‘shining,’ or ‘brilliant’ (with the connotation of awesomeness), concepts which are generally much more closely related to ‘holiness’ than is ‘whiteness’ or ‘cleanness.’

If one encounters any particular difficulties in finding an adequate expression for Holy Spirit, it is recommended that the translator get in touch with the Translations Department of the Bible Society for special help and guidance, since a proper solution to this problem is so basic to any and all communication of the Gospel message.

In so far as possible the phrases ‘baptize you with water’ and ‘baptize you with the Holy Spirit’ should be parallel. However, if the term for ‘baptism’ includes the term ‘water,’ then some adjustment must be made. One would not want to say, for example, in Tzeltal ‘you take water with the Holy Spirit’ in the second clause, even though a combined idiom ‘he gives and you take water’ describes the total process of baptism. The parallelism is attained, therefore, in Tzeltal by translating, ‘I have given you and you have taken water; but he will give and you will take the Holy Spirit.’

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 .