Text:

Instead of tō Ēsaia tō prophētē ‘Isaiah the prophet’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has tois prophētais ‘the prophets’: this late reading is an obvious correction which a scribe introduced into the original text because the first O.T. passage quoted by Mark is not from Isaiah but from Malachi 3.1.

After tēn hodon sou ‘your (sg.) way’ Textus Receptus adds emprosthen sou ‘before you (sg.)’ in harmonizing the quotation with Mt. 11.10 and Lk. 7.27. This addition, supported only by later mss., is rejected by the modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

kathōs (4.33; 9.13; 11.6; 14.16, 21; 15.8; 16.7) ‘according as,’ ‘even as’: this adverb of manner begins a new sentence whose conclusion is v. 4 (the quotations from the O.T. in vv. 2-3 being parenthetical): ‘As it is written … John the Baptizer appeared….’

gegraptai (7.6; 9.12, 13; 10.4, 5; 11.17; 12.19; 14.21, 27) ‘(it) has been written’: the perfect tense expresses permanent Scriptural authority. In the proclamation of the Christian message the O.T. Scriptures were often quoted, not simply as an illustration, but as cause and origin of the events proclaimed. Where indicated, full force must be given to this expression of the early Christian preaching: these things came to pass and happened thus and so because it was on record in the O.T. The meaning of the Greek perfect is perhaps best represented in English by the present tense: ‘it is written,’ ‘it stands on (Scriptural) record.’

en tō Ēsaia tō prophētē ‘in (the roll of) Isaiah the prophet.’

tō prophētē (6.4, 15; 8.28; 11.32) ‘the prophet’: the words, in this position, limit or define the individual called Isaiah: ‘Isaiah the prophet.’ He is quoted by name once more (7.6-7) and without being identified in 11.17.

idou (3.32; 4.3; 10.28, 33; 13.23; 14.41, 42) ‘see!,’ ‘behold!,’ ‘look!’ As an imperative of eidein ‘to see’ the word is used as a demonstrative particle, especially in the Septuagint and N.T., calling attention to what follows.

apostellō (3.14, 31; 4.29; 5.10; 6.7, 17, 27; 8.26; 9.37; 11.1, 3; 12.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13; 13.27; 14.13) ‘I send’: the present tense of the verb is essentially timeless in this context, a declaration rather than a promise, though the original context in the Septuagint it had the force of a future. Though here simply in a quotation, this is an extremely significant verb in the N.T., conveying a sense of commission, authority and responsibility in the transmission of God’s word to man (cf. Moulton & Milligan for papyri examples illustrating “the frequent N.T. sense of ‘commissioning’ ”). The subject of the verb, of course, is God.

ton aggelon mou ‘my (i.e. God’s) messenger’ (further use of the word aggelos in Mark is restricted to ‘angels’ as such: 1.13; 8.38; 12.25; 13.27, 32). The figure, that of an oriental monarch or conqueror who sends heralds ahead of him to announce his imminent arrival, here applies to John in his specific task of Forerunner.

pro prosōpou sou literally ‘before your face.’ The Semitic phrase means ‘ahead of you,’ ‘in front of you,’ ‘in your presence.’ For an example of its use in the Septuagint see Micah 6.4, and for further examples in the N.T. see Mt. 11.10, Lk. 7.27 (see further Lk. 9.52, 10.1, Acts 13.24). ‘Your’ refers to Jesus Christ, ahead of whom John goes as herald of his coming.

hōs kataskeuasei tēn hodon sou ‘who will prepare your road.’ The relative clause expresses purpose, a common Attic idiom. The relative hos ‘who’ has for its antecedent aggelos ‘messenger.’

kataskeuazō (only here in Mark) ‘make ready,’ ‘prepare.’ Moulton & Milligan quote a passage in which the verb is used with hodoi ‘roads’ along which the procession of devotees of Zeus and Dionysus was to pass. The sense in a passage such as this is not simply that of building or repairing the road, but that of making all necessary arrangements to insure a fitting welcome and reception for the heralded king or conqueror.

Translation:

The following expressions tend to cause lexical difficulty for the translator: in Isaiah, prophet, behold, before thy face, and prepare. In a high percentage of languages it is necessary to add ‘roll’ or ‘book’ to the expression ‘in Isaiah’ or the expression becomes ludicrous. For example, in some of the Mayan languages the equivalent of in is ‘stomach,’ and when speaking of a house it is quite obvious that one is speaking of the inside of a house, but when a person is referred to, the meaning of ‘stomach’ may be readily understood. Hence one often needs to say, ‘written in the book of Isaiah’ or ‘Isaiah wrote in a book’ (where the active form may be required).

Discovering an adequate term for prophet is not easy (see Bible Translating p. 234 and God’s Word in Man’s Language p. 20). In general there are two types of alternatives: (1) an expression which specifies foretelling the future, and which, as such, is often equivalent to soothsayer, fortune-teller, and clairvoyant, and (2) a phrase which describes the prophet’s function as one who speaks out on behalf of God, a particularly important aspect of the New Testament usage of this term. Though words of the first type are usually readily available, the connotations are often undesirable, and hence most translators have chosen the latter emphasis, without of course implying any denial of the foretelling function. The following expressions are typical: ‘interpreter for God’ (Central Pame, Vai), ‘one who speaks the voice of God’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘one who speaks for God’ (Kaqchikel, Navajo, Yaka), ‘God’s town crier’ (Northern Grebo), ‘one who causes them to know,’ in the sense of ‘revealer’ (Highland Totonac), ‘foreteller’ (Batak Toba), ‘God’s sent-word person’ (Sapo), ‘one who speaks God’s word’ (Shipibo-Conibo, Ngäbere), ‘one who speaks-opens’ a compound meaning ‘one who discloses or reveals’ (Copainalá Zoque).

Too often translators have rendered Behold by a verb which means only ‘to look,’ but obviously the context does not refer to literal viewing of an object, but the need of paying close attention to God’s promise. Accordingly, one should employ an expression which can also include the ideas of ‘pay attention’ or ‘listen’ (somewhat like the archaic English expression harken).

The phrase before thy face is a Semitism which means simply ‘in front of one’ (see above), but translated literally it may mean, as in some languages, ‘to be face to face with,’ and in this context the resultant meaning is rather ridiculous; for it implies that the viewer had to back up as the messenger went forth.

The preparation of the way is not constructing the road but getting it ready to receive a dignitary. In Central Pame the equivalent is ‘to clear the way’ implying in the local culture cutting down the trees and bushes which may have grown in the path, and which must always be removed when a visiting government official is to be received in a town. In many parts of Africa the equivalent would be sweeping and clearing the path.

The syntactic constructions in this verse are often complex because of the numerous explicit and implicit relationships. In the first place the whole of verses 2 and 3 should be combined in such a way as to form a kind of introduction to verse 4 (see above). This cannot be done easily in some languages because of the included direct discourse and the quadruple shift of subjects: ‘Isaiah writes,’ ‘God sends,’ ‘the voice cries,’ and ‘you (subject of the imperative) prepare.’ The difficulties are made even greater by the fact that after an introductory expression such as, ‘Isaiah wrote…’ a following ‘I’ in direct discourse would seem to refer to Isaiah, rather than to God. Because of the high probability of misunderstanding at this point, some translators have added ‘God’ in apposition with ‘I,’ e.g. ‘I God send my messenger….’

Because of the problems involved in relating the whole of verses 2 and 3 to verse 4, some translators have made declarative statements in the beginning of 4, e.g. ‘It says in the book of Isaiah…. So, too, came John…’ (Balinese), and ‘God’s spokesman Isaiah wrote … So the baptizer John came….’

The combination Isaiah the prophet should be treated as any appositive expression, e.g. ‘Isaiah, who was a prophet’ or ‘Isaiah, he was a prophet’ or ‘the prophet Isaiah’ (by reversing the order in some languages, ‘prophet’ may serve as a kind of title). In all such expressions one must discover the closest syntactic equivalent in the receptor (or target) language.

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 .

Text:

After (second) ho oinos ‘the wine’ Textus Receptus adds ho neos ‘new’: all modern editions of the Greek text reject this addition.

Instead of kai ho oinos apollutai kai hoi askoi ‘and the wine is lost and the skins also’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus (from the parallels Mt. 9.17, Lk. 5.37) has kai ho oinos ekcheitai kai hoi askoi apolountai ‘and the wine is poured out and the wineskins are ruined.’

After the last words askous kainous ‘fresh skins’ Textus Receptus adds blēteon (from the parallel Lk. 5.38) ‘must be put’: all modern editions of the Greek text reject this addition.

Exegesis:

ballei (some 17 times in Mark) here in the sense of ‘place,’ ‘put,’ ‘pour’: Moulton & Milligan illustrate from the papyri this unemphatic use of the verb.

oinon neon ‘new wine,’ i.e. still fermenting. On neos ‘new’ as distinguished from kainos ‘new’ see 1.27 and reff.

askous palaious ‘old wineskins’ (King James Version ‘bottles’ is quite misleading today).

askos ‘a leather bag,’ particularly a wineskin .

palaios ‘old’ has here the same meaning as in the previous verse; an “old wineskin” is one which has long been used and lost its elasticity, being unable to expand with the fermenting wine.

rēxei (cf. 9.18) ‘will burst,’ ‘will tear,’ ‘will break.’

kai ho oinos … kai hoi askoi ‘and the wine … and the skins’: this construction in Greek is translated ‘both the wine … and the skins.’

apollutai (cf. 1.24) ‘is lost,’ ‘is destroyed,’ ‘is ruined.’

eis ‘into’: instead of Revised Standard Version “new wine is for fresh skins,” it is probably better to translate ‘new wine (is to be poured) into fresh skins.’

Translation:

The generic negative expression used to introduce verse 21 should also be used in the parallel construction in verse 22.

In the selection of a term for wine in this passage it is essential that in so far as possible the concept of fermentation be present or at least understandable in the context. For that reason, for example, most translations in central Africa have used the local equivalent of palm wine, in which the processes of fermentation are well-known. Some missionaries have, however, insisted on the use of a borrowed word which would be more likely to relate the meaning to the foreign product, which may be known but rarely consumed by the local population, e.g. ‘drink called vin’ (or ‘wain’ or ‘vino,’ depending upon the source of the borrowing). There may be special reasons for the choice of a nonindigenous term for wine in other contexts, but for this particular passage it would seem that a well-known local product would be considerably more meaningful than any foreign one. New wine may be rendered as ‘wine beginning to ferment.’

Wineskins are variously described as ‘leather containers for wine’ (Southern Subanen), ‘bottle-like objects made of leather for wine,’ ‘animal skins used as containers for wine,’ and ‘animal skins into which wine is poured, to be kept.’ Toraja-Sa’dan uses a loan word; Pamona has ‘goat-skin,’ and Javanese ‘bladder (of an ox).’

Old in this context should refer to ‘used’ or ‘worn out.’

As may be required, the ellipsis in if he does may be expanded (see verse 2.21).

In some languages different verbs must be used to describe what happens to the wine and the skins. For example, ‘the wine runs out and the skins are ruined’ or ‘the wine is lost and the skins are made useless.’

The last clause may be translated as ‘fermenting wine should be put into new skin containers.’

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 .

Text:

After ēn ‘was’ Soden, Taylor and Kilpatrick add palai ‘already,’ which is omitted by all other modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

opsias genomenēs (cf. 4.35) ‘when evening came’: it is to be presumed that nighttime is meant, in light of the ‘late hour’ (v. 35) before the feeding of the multitude. Cf. Lagrange.

en mesō tēs thalassēs ‘in the middle of the sea’: the phrase means more than ‘out on the sea’ of the Revised Standard Version.

mesos (7.31; 9.36; 14.60; cf. 3.3) ‘middle,’ ‘in the midst.’

hē thalassa (cf. 1.16) ‘the sea,’ i.e. the Lake of Galilee.

kai autos monos ‘and he (was) alone’: monos is here an adjective, ‘alone,’ ‘by himself.’

Translation:

When evening came is translatable as ‘when it got night’ or ‘when darkness had come.’

The clause the boat was out on the sea may be wrongly interpreted, since it would seem to imply that the boat was there, but not the disciples. Note the contrast in the form of the last clause which specifies Jesus as being alone on the land. Accordingly, one may translate, as required, ‘the disciples were in the boat….’

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 .

Exegesis:

aphes (cf. 2.5) ‘allow,’ ‘permit,’ ‘let.’

chortasthēnai (cf. 6.42) ‘be fed,’ ‘be satisfied,’ ‘be filled.’

ta tekna (cf. 2.5) ‘the children’: here figuratively for the Jews (in contrast with the Gentiles, ‘the dogs’).

kalon (cf. 4.8) ‘right,’ ‘fitting.’

tois kunariois (7.28) ‘to the (little) dogs’: the word is a diminutive and indicates a house dog, or lap dog, in contrast with the fierce dogs that roamed the streets.

It is, of course, possible that the final clause should be interpreted as a question, perhaps rhetorical, e.g. ‘It is not right, is it, to…?’

Translation:

Let the children first be fed may, in a literal translation, give rise to a wrong interpretation, i.e. ‘permit the children to eat first and then the dogs.’ The meaning is more accurately conveyed in some languages by ‘first of all, the children should eat’ or ‘first, the children should be given food.’

Though the word dogs, in its regular form would be the common term used by Jews in speaking disrespectfully of the Gentiles, Jesus may have softened the term – or perhaps, even here with an understanding smile, have taken all the harshness out of the term, by using the diminutive ending, which may have carried associations of endearment, e.g. ‘the puppies.’ In some languages there are certain parallel distinctions, e.g. in Spanish (in contrast with the regular perros ‘dogs’), there are two diminutive forms perrillos and perritos, the latter of which implies endearment.

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 .