Exegesis:

apelthōn ‘going away’: i.e. from the three disciples.

ton auton logon ‘the same word’: in this context, ‘the same prayer’ or ‘the same petition’ (cf. similar use of logos in 5.36; 7.29; 8.32; 9.10; 10.22; 11.29; 12.13).

Translation:

Saying the same words must refer to the previous prayer, not to the immediately preceding words uttered by Jesus, e.g. ‘he spoke to God with the same words with which he had spoken to God’ or ‘he talked to God just as he had done before.’

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:

anathematizein (only here in Mark) ‘to invoke anathema,’ ‘to devote to destruction,’ ‘to put under the curse’: the verb means to pronounce anathema (Hebrew cherem), i.e. ‘devoted to destruction,’ upon someone, in this case on the speaker himself. ‘May I be accursed if (what I say is not true)!’ For instances of this cf. 1 Sam. 20.13; 2 Sam. 3.9; Acts 23.12.

omnunai (cf. 6.23) ‘to swear,’ ‘to put oneself on oath’: neither one of the two verbs here employed would suggest vulgarity or profanity on the part of Peter (cf. Gould); they are rather, on his part, expressive and solemn protestations of the truth of his assertion.

Translation:

In most societies there is some means whereby a person may put himself under a curse if his statement is not true, e.g. ‘said that he wanted God to punish him if it were not so’ (Central Pame). However, in some languages the description of such a process would take a paragraph, since curses are not normally invoked as proof of one’s veracity. In these instances, ‘declare with solemn words’ or ‘say with very strong words’ may be the closest parallel.

Curse and swear are distinct processes, even though the witness of God or supernatural sanctions are invoked in both instances. In the first case, God is asked to punish one for not telling the truth, and in the second, God is asked to be a witness of the truth, e.g. ‘God truly sees me that I don’t know the one you say’ (Tzeltal).

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:

ho christos (cf. 8.29) ‘the Messiah,’ ‘the Christ.’

ho basileus Israēl (only here in Mark) ‘the King of Israel.’

katabatō (cf. v. 30) ‘he must descend,’ ‘let him come down.’

hina here indicates purpose, ‘in order that,’ ‘so that.’

idōmen kai pisteusōmen ‘we may see (it) and believe (that he is the Messiah).’

pisteuō (cf. 1.15) ‘have faith,’ ‘believe.’

hoi sunestaurōmenoi (only here in Mark) ‘those who had been crucified with.’

ōneidizon (16.40) ‘they were reviling,’ ‘they were insulting.’

Translation:

Let the Christ … is a kind of third person command, not an expression of permission, as some translators have taken it. However, a third person imperative is rather rare in languages and hence some paraphrastic equivalent must be employed. These are generally of two types: (1) a shift to second person, e.g. ‘you claim to be the Christ, the King of Israel, come down … so that we may…’ and (2) a statement of obligation, e.g. ‘the Christ, who is the King of Israel, should come down … so that we may….’ In general the latter method is preferred, for it eliminates the necessity of relating ‘you’ to ‘the Christ’ by some phrase which would be out of keeping with the attitudes of the chief priests and scribes. ‘You who are the Christ’ would be entirely out of harmony with the context.

Christ, the King of Israel, which is an appositive phrase, must be made a relative clause in some languages, e.g. ‘Christ who is the King of Israel,’ and a paratactically combined explanation in others, e.g. ‘Christ, he is the King of Israel.’

For the King of Israel see comments under the King of the Jews (15.2).

See is often a transitive verb in various receptor languages, thus requiring an object, e.g. ‘see you (or ‘him’) do it.’ Likewise believe may be translatable only as a transitive, e.g. ‘believe in you’ (or ‘him’).

Reviled him may be rendered as ‘heaped insults on him,’ ‘denounced him,’ or ‘said bad things about him.’

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:

kainais ‘new’ is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and Taylor, but included by the great majority of editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

sēmeia (v. 20; cf. Mk. 8.11) ‘signs’: here, as in Mk. 8.11, the signs are miraculous or supernatural events attesting to the divine origin of the message proclaimed.

tois pisteusasin (cf. v. 16) ‘those who believe,’ ‘the believers.’

parakolouthēsei (not in Mark) ‘will accompany,’ ‘will follow,’ ‘will attend.’

en tō onomati mou (cf. Mk. 9.38) ‘in my name.’

daimonia ekbalousin (cf. v. 9) ‘they will expel demons.’

glōssais lalēsousin kainais ‘they will speak in new tongues’: whether these ‘new tongues’ are intelligible foreign languages, or ecstatic charismatic utterances, the text does not say. It is to be presumed, however, that the meaning here is the same as that in Acts 2.4-11, rather than that in 1 Co. 14 (it should be observed, however, that nowhere else is the phrase ‘speak in new tongues’ used: in Acts 2.4 ‘speak in other tongues’ is used, while 1 Co. 14 has simply ‘to speak in tongues’ or, ‘a tongue’).

glōssa ‘tongue,’ meaning here ‘language’ (the word is not used in this sense in Mark – cf. 7.33).

kainē ‘new’: the meaning here is, presumably, ‘new (i.e. strange) to the one speaking it’ not necessarily ‘new’ in the sense of a heretofore unknown language.

Translation:

For signs see 8.11, but in this context it is difficult to speak of ‘signs’ as ‘accompanying’ or ‘following’; these are activities restricted to persons, rather than to signs or symbols. Sometimes, however, one can say that ‘signs will be present in those who…’ or ‘signs will be with those who….’ In other languages the clause must be recast as ‘those who believe will show these signs:….’

For cast out demons see 1.26, 32, and 34; and for in my name see 9.37.

In most languages one cannot say ‘speak in a tongue.’ In fact, more often than not one speaks ‘with the mouth,’ not ‘with the tongue.’ Hence, in this passage one must use ‘speak strange languages’ or ‘speak other languages.’ If possible one should leave as ambiguous whether the ‘language’ in this case is actually a foreign language or ecstatic speech.

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:

Textus Receptus omits euthus ‘immediately’: its inclusion, however, is accepted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Revised Standard Version ends the verse at “unclean spirit”: all editions of the Greek text, however, include also in this verse kai anekraxen ‘and he cried out’; the following discussion conforms to the Revised Standard Version division.

Exegesis:

euthus ēn ‘immediately (there) was’: as it stands this phrase is difficult to translate Revised Standard Version “immediately there was” is impossible English, unless was can mean ‘came,’ ‘entered’ (which The Modern Speech New Testament‘s “all at once there was” actually means; cf. Translator’s New Testament, Berkeley: “just then there was”). The weakened sense ‘now’ is adopted by some (Manson; “now … there was”); Moffatt connects ‘immediately’ with ‘cried out’: “who at once shrieked out.” Two alternatives offer themselves: (1) euthus may be understood in a general sense ‘now,’ ‘then’; (2) ēn ‘was’ may be taken as equivalent to egeneto ‘came,’ ‘appeared,’ The second is probably to be preferred, cf. Gould: “No sooner [was Jesus] in the synagogue than this demoniac appeared.” Cf. O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada: Nao tardou que aparecesse. A man with an unclean spirit would not normally be in attendance at the worship service in the synagogue.

anthrōpos ‘man’ here equals the indefinite pronoun tis ‘a certain one.’

ēn pneumati akathartō ‘in an unclean spirit’ (1.26, 27; 3.11, 30; 5.2, 8, 13; 6.7; 7.25; 9.25; cf. pneuma alalon ‘dumb spirit’ 9.17, 25; and to pneuma ‘the spirit’ 9.20).

en ‘in,’ ‘with’ has the force of the Hebrew be with the meaning ‘having’ (cf. 5.2, and Lk. 4.33); Howard (II, 464) calls it a “Semitism of thought.” Arndt & Gingrich translate “under the special influence of a demonic spirit” (cf. Swete “under spiritual influence”), while Lagrange, with particular reference to Rom. 8.9, suggests “a man in whom was an unclean spirit.”

pneuma akatharton is best understood as ‘a spirit (which makes the man) unclean.’ Grant suggests physical impurity; what is probably meant, however, is ceremonial, moral, or spiritual defilement or pollution. Moulton & Milligan quote a magical papyrus in which the word has the “moral sense of an unclean demon” (cf. Zech. 13.2).

Translation:

If was is to be interpreted in the sense of ‘appeared,’ which is probably the most likely (demoniacs would not normally be in a synagogue service since the possession of a spirit would make them unclean and hence ceremonially unacceptable), one may translate ‘right then a man with an unclean spirit appeared.’

There are a number of different ways in which people speak of demon possession: ‘an unclean spirit had hit him’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘under the control…’ (one Chinese translation), ‘someone hit by an evil spirit’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘… standing around inside of’ (Navajo), ‘a man has an unclean spirit’ and ‘an unclean spirit has a man.’

In many languages it is impossible to distinguish between the word used for ‘spirit’ in this context (speaking of ‘unclean spirit’) and the word for ‘demon.’ Any attempt to make a distinction, when none actually exists in the language in question, may only lead to misunderstanding. Accordingly, unclean spirit may simply be ‘unclean demon.’

At the same time, it is not always easy to distinguish between ‘unclean spirit’ and ‘evil spirit.’ The latter is not too difficult because such spirits are often regarded as morally bad, hence, evil. However, in many cultures there is no use of ‘unclean’ in the sense of ceremonially or religiously unacceptable. Some translators have tried to use the equivalent of ‘dirty demon,’ but this has often appeared to be a very strange expression. What is more, the real significance of the term ‘unclean’ is not primarily the appearance of the spirit itself so much as the fact that the possession of such a spirit made the person in question unclean, i.e. ceremonially in some languages a word meaning ‘unclean’ may have no moral significance, but a term such as ‘ugly’ may. For example, in Tabasco Chontal the closest equivalent of unclean spirit is ‘ugly spirit.’

Since in many languages there are a number of different kinds of spirits, it is of extreme importance that one carefully study all the types and be sure that any word chosen for ‘spirit’ in this context is appropriate. One thing is quite certain, namely, that in most instances it will be different from the word employed in the phrase ‘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 .

Exegesis:

soi legō ‘to you I say’: the order of the Greek makes the personal pronoun soi ‘to you’ emphatic: cf. Translator’s New Testament ‘to you I am speaking.’

eis ton oikon sou ‘to your house,’ i.e. ‘go home’ (presumably in Capernaum itself, where the incident occurred). American Standard Version ‘into thy house’ is an example of extreme literalism in translation. Cf. en oikō ‘at home’ in 2.1.

Translation:

In all such verses as this one, in which most of the words are identical with expressions used in previous verses, but where some (the last) are slightly different, one must be sure to maintain parallelism where the wording is the same but not to overlook the minor differences.

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:

hoi apo Ierosolumōn katabantes ‘who came down from Jerusalem’: one went up to the capital (cf. 10.32) and came down from it (cf. similar usage with regard to London) (cf. Lk. 2.51, 10.30f., Acts 8.26).

For hoi grammateis ‘the scribes’ cf. 1.22.

elegon hoti … kai hoti ‘they were saying that … and that’: both times hoti is recitative, introducing direct speech. This being so, it would be more accurate to punctuate the translation in such a way as to indicate two direct statements: The scribes … were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “By the prince of demons he casts out demons.”

elegon ‘they were saying’: the statement was repeated.

Beelzeboul echei ‘he has Beelzebul,’ i.e. ‘he is possessed by Beelzebul.’ Commentators are divided over whether or not ‘Beelzebul’ and ‘the prince of the demons’ are the same one, or refer to two different evil spirits.

en tō archonti tōn daimoniōn ‘in the ruler of the demons.’

en ‘in,’ ‘by,’ i.e. ‘in the name of,’ ‘by the power of.’

ho archōn (only here in Mark) ‘ruler,’ ‘chief’: in form it is the present participle of the verb archo ‘to rule.’

ekballei ta daimonia ‘he drives out the demons’ (cf. 1.34).

Translation:

For scribes see 1.22.

In many languages expressions of coming and going, whether up to or down from, are used with great precision and care, something which is not typical of the Gospels. Accordingly, if one is to use such expressions in a translation in a language which maintains a scrupulous consistency in such details of movement, it is obligatory that one maintain the same expressions throughout. Otherwise the reader is likely to be utterly confused.

For expressions dealing with possession see 1.23. A literal translation of this type of expression ‘has Beelzebul’ or ‘is possessed by Beelzebul’ can give rise to entirely wrong meanings. For example in Izthmus Zapotec to say only ‘is possessed by’ would mean ‘to speak filthy words.’ On the other hand, if one wants to designate demon possession, one must say ‘he talks with Beelzebul.’ Despite the fact that the literal expressions in this language do not seem to carry this proportionate scale of intensity in meaning, nevertheless, they do, and what counts is not the literal words but the meaning.

If one wishes to identify Beelzebul with the prince of the demons, one may translate ‘and by this prince of demons’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave).

The last clause of this verse introduces a difficult problem of secondary agency. That is to say, the primary agent is he (i.e. Jesus), but the secondary agent (secondary in terms of the grammatical structure, but primary in importance as far as the scribes were concerned) is the prince of demons. In languages in which such secondary agency can be expressed by a prepositional phrase, as in Greek or English, the problem is simple enough, but in many languages this is not possible. The alternatives are of two types: (1) the secondary agent becomes the primary agent of a causative expression, e.g. ‘the prince of demons causes him to cast out demons’ or ‘… gives him power to cast out…’ (Copainalá Zoque) and (2) the secondary agent becomes the source of power for the accomplishment of an activity, e.g. ‘Jesus receives power from the prince of demons so that he can cast out demons.’

Prince is ‘the chief’ (Copainalá Zoque, Southern Bobo Madaré) or ‘the ruler.’ In Shipibo-Conibo one may say ‘the strong one among the demons.’

For demons see 1.26, 32.

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:

kokkō sinapeōs (only here in Mark) ‘grain (seed) of mustard’: the plant is identified as the sinapsis nigra (cf. Lagrange). The mustard grows wild in Palestine: it is an annual plant, growing from seed, and, especially when cultivated, may reach a height of 10 to 12 feet. A garden herb (cf. lachanon ‘herb’ next verse), it is, not quite accurately, called a ‘tree’ (Lk. 13.19), due to its large size.

mikroteron on ‘being smaller (than)’: as is common, the comparative ‘smaller than’ is used for the superlative ‘smallest of.’ The neuter tense of the adjective and participle is probably due to the neuter spermatōn ‘seeds’ which follows.

on ‘being’: the participle is concessive ‘though it is.’

spermatōn (12.19, 20, 21, 22) ‘seeds’ (notice sporos ‘seed’ in v. 27, and kokkos ‘grain,’ ‘seed’ in this verse).

Translation:

It must be translated so as to refer to ‘the kingdom of God.’

Grain of mustard seed may be rendered as ‘a seed of a plant called mustard,’ employing a word borrowed from the dominant prestige language of the area (Central Tarahumara, Eastern Highland Otomi). Frequently, one can find a type of local mustard plant, which, though somewhat different, can still be used as a basis for the translation, e.g. ‘a seed of a kind of … plant’ (in which the appropriate close equivalent can be used; cf. Taungthu). Toraja-Sa’dan, Indonesian and Javanese use sawi, a sort of mustard plant (Brassica rubosa), the leaves of which are eaten as vegetables.

The constructions introduced by which, when are such that they frequently require some radical readjustments, e.g. ‘it is like the grains of a plant called mustard; when these seeds are sown in the earth, they are the smallest….’ In this rendering we have suggested the plural for singular since in a number of languages such generic statements must be regularly in the plural form. However, for the sake of the following verse, it is preferable, if at all possible, to employ the singular throughout. Note also the change of sown upon to ‘sown in,’ as in a number of languages.

Despite the fact that the statement smallest of all the seeds on earth cannot be taken in any absolute sense, one should nevertheless translate the text as it is.

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 .