Exegesis:

prōi ennucha lian ‘exceedingly early, while still dark’: the piling up of three adverbs indicates that it was very early, long before sunrise. The whole adverbial phrase modifies the verb ‘to rise.’

prōi (11.20; 13.35; 15.1; 16.2, 9) ‘early,’ ‘in the morning.’

ennucha (only here in N.T.), an adverb, properly the neuter plural form of ennuchos ‘in the night,’ ‘at night time.’

lian (6.51; 9.3; 16.2) ‘very,’ ‘exceedingly.’

anastas exēlthen kai apēlthen ‘rising he went out and (went) away’: Turner notes this use of two almost synonymous verbs as characteristically Marcan.

anastas occurs 17 more times in the sense of ‘rise’ (it does not appear in Mark with the meaning ‘raise’), ‘rising up (from bed or from sleep).’

exēlthen ‘he went out (from the house)’: some see the additional idea of the town (Capernaum) also (Swete, Turner).

apēlthen ‘he went away.’ Manson: “went out and away”; Moule “he left the house and went away.”

erēmon topon ‘lonely place,’ ‘isolated spot,’ ‘solitary place’: there is no desert around Capernaum.

prosēucheto (6.46; 11.24, 25; 12.40; 13.18; 14.32, 35, 38, 39) ‘he prayed,’ ‘he was praying’: the imperfect tense may have the meaning ‘he started praying.’

Translation:

The equivalent of in the morning, a great while before day may be ‘it was still very dark’ or ‘it was a long time before the sun would come up,’ or ‘long before heavens-open-door’ (Maninka).

Rose means got up from sleeping.

While in English we must use several words to describe this process of getting up early in the morning before sunup and going out from the town, in More this entire idea is expressed by a single verb, this being a very common experience of the people, who set off for their fields very early in the morning hours.

In N.T. Greek proseuchomai is one of the most common verbs for praying and as such is the most neutral term. However, in attempting to discover adequate equivalents in other languages the situation is complicated by the fact that Christian prayer is in many respects so different from pagan prayer. In general there are three alternatives: (1) a traditional term which often implies primarily incantation and reciting, e.g. ‘to speak doctrine’ or ‘repeat words,’ (2) a word which identifies primarily the process of requesting, begging, and seeking, and (3) an expression which implies ‘talking with God’ (e.g. Central Pame, Tzeltal, Chol, Ecuadorian Quechua, Shipibo-Conibo, Kaqchikel, Tepeuxila Cuicatec, Copainalá Zoque, Central Tarahumara). Though in general the last alternative seems to be the most productive, it does not mean that the first two must never be employed, especially since in certain contexts they fit very well. Moreover, there may be certain connotations of these words which render them quite acceptable. For example, in Tzotzil the word for prayer means primarily ‘to beg’ or ‘to ask,’ but the full expression is ‘to ask with one’s heart coming out’ (in the sense of ‘entreaty’), implying a degree of self-exposure and sincerity, all of which seems to make the expression quite adequate. Toraja-Sa’dan at first used mangimbo ‘to invoke the gods’; the difficulty was this ‘invocation’ was always accompanied by sacrifice, and later it was discovered that the word had the meaning of ‘curse’ in certain districts. Then the word masambajang borrowed from Malay began to be used for ‘pray.’

In some instances a word for prayer is not to be interpreted in its literal, etymological sense. For example, in Western Highland Purepecha prayer is literally ‘to say poor,’ but no Indian would ever think of this meaning. The word is simply a local equivalent of ‘to pray.’ Huichol uses a verb meaning ‘to cause God to know’ and Miskito and Lacandon say ‘to raise up one’s words to God,’ the latter implying an element of worship, as well as communication.

What one should try to avoid in the selection of a term for prayer is (1) an expression which will mean only the recitation of largely meaningless word formulae and (2) a word which connotes begging insistence, equivalent to teasing God. Neither of these types of expressions can form an adequate basis for the Scriptural teaching about prayer, and they certainly do not fit in this context. For further discussions of terms for prayer, see Bible Translating, p. 233, and God’s Word in Man’s Language, pp. 42, 158.

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:

Instead of paraporeuesthai ‘go along’ of most modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus, Souter, and Westcott and Hort prefer diaporeuesthai ‘go through.’

Exegesis:

kai egeneto … paraporeuesthai ‘and it happened … (that he) went along’: for this Semitic construction see 1.9.

en tois sabbasin ‘on the sabbath day’ (on the use of the plural cf. 1.21).

paraporeuesthai dia tōn sporimōn ‘to go along through the grain fields’: the subject, of course, is auton ‘he’ (it is understood that the disciples were accompanying him).

paraporeuomai (9.30; 11.20; 15.29) ‘go by,’ ‘pass by’: plus dia ‘through,’ it means ‘go through.’

sporimos (only here in Mark) is an adjective ‘sown,’ ‘fit for sowing’; as a plural substantive ta sporima means here ‘grain fields,’ ‘standing grain’ . It is to be noticed that ‘cornfield’ of King James Version, Revised Version and Translator’s New Testament is not what American ‘corn’ (i.e. maize) is: the grain referred to is wheat or barley.

ērxanto hodon poiein tillontes ‘they began to make way plucking’: it is agreed that hodon poiein means what in classical Greek would be hodon poieisthai ‘journey,’ ‘go along’ (cf. Latin iter facere), and does not mean ‘make a road’ (for the same use of this idiom see Septuagint Judges 17.8). The words hodon poiein, therefore, are to be translated ‘as they went’ (American Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament). The disciples were going along a regular path through the wheat fields (cf. Rawlinson).

ērxanto … tillontes ‘they began … plucking’: according to rules of grammar ērxanto ‘they began’ should go with hodon poiein ‘to make (their) way’; it is generally agreed, however, that here the meaning is rather ‘they began plucking’ (cf. Lagrange, Taylor). As Gould says, there is not actually much difference between ‘they began to go along, plucking the ears’ and ‘they began, going along, to pluck.’ tillō ‘pluck,’ ‘pull off’ is found only here in Mark.

tous stachuas (4.28) ‘the ears (or, heads) of grain’ (i.e. wheat).

Translation:

Since the last specific previous reference to Jesus is in verse 19, and there are several intervening third person singular referents, it is often necessary to employ ‘Jesus’ as the subject of the first clause.

For sabbath see 1.21.

It is quite evident that Jesus was going along with his disciples, and that they were not walking out through a grainfield, but along a path. However, in order that the reader may properly understand the obvious intent of the Greek text, it is sometimes necessary to regroup the subject constituents, e.g. ‘Jesus and his disciples were going along a path through the grainfields’ (Amganad Ifugao).

The grainfields refer to fields of wheat. In some parts of the world there is practically no equivalent, and hence ‘corn’ (in the meaning of ‘Indian corn’ or ‘maize’) is used, even though the particular activities are in such instances not accurately represented. In some languages the wheat is described as ‘ricelike grain’ (Yaka) or ‘millet-like grain’ (Farefare), and in other languages it may have some special designation, e.g. ‘Mexican grain’ vs. ‘Indian grain,’ that is to say, wheat vs. maize (Tzeltal), and ‘field for grain for flour’ (Barrow Eskimo, in which there is a perfectly good word for wheat ‘flour,’ but no knowledge of wheat as a grain).

Ears of grain must in some languages be variously rendered as ‘stalks of seeds,’ ‘heads of grain,’ ‘clusters of seeds,’ or ‘fruit of seeds.’

Note that though Jesus and the disciples were walking together, only the disciples are described as plucking off the heads of grain. The question of the Pharisees, however, is directed only to Jesus.

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 ta peteina ‘the birds’ Textus Receptus adds tou ouranou ‘of the heaven’: all modern editions of the Greek text omit this addition.

Exegesis:

kai egeneto ‘and it was’ plus the indicative epesen ‘it fell’: for this Semitic construction see 1.9; 2.23.

en tō speirein (cf. 6.48 for identical construction) ‘in the sowing,’ ‘as he sowed’: a Semitic construction (Taylor, 62), but found also in Greek.

ho men epesen ‘some (seed) fell’: throughout the whole parable (vv. 5, 7, 8) sperma ‘seed’ is to be understood.

ho (‘some’) is the neuter of the relative hos ‘who,’ ‘which’: it is here used as a demonstrative ‘this (seed),’ ‘this portion (of the seed).’ In connection with allo (v. 5) alla (v. 7) and alla (v. 8) the whole series may be translated: ‘some … and other … and other … and others.’ Notice that ho ‘some’ and auto ‘it’ are collective, meaning ‘some seed’ (not singular, ‘a seed’).

piptō (4.5, 7, 8; 5.22; 9.20; 13.25; 14.35) ‘fall.’

para tēn hodon literally ‘by (alongside) the path’: some see in the Greek phrase a mistranslation of the underlying Aramaic, since the meaning, clearly, is ‘on’ the beaten path that ran through the field, on which the sower walked as he scattered his seed (cf. Lk. 8.5 ‘and it was trodden upon’). “Along” (Revised Standard Version) is ambiguous enough; some (Manson, Moffatt, Berkeley) have “on.”

ta peteina (4.32) ‘the birds.’

katephagen (12.40) ‘they ate,’ ‘they ate up,’ ‘they devoured.’

Translation:

Probably ‘on the path’ is a more justified translation, if one cannot use an ambiguous expression for the Greek phrase (see above).

The birds (as indicated in the added phrase of heaven) refer to the undomesticated song birds or wild birds, to be distinguished in a number of languages from domesticated fowl. In Tzeltal these former are the ‘field birds.’

Many languages distinguish carefully the way in which a bird eats from the manner in which people or animals eat. One must make certain to employ the right term.

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:

proskaleitai (cf. 3.13) ‘he summons,’ ‘he calls to himself.’

hoi dōdeka (cf. 3.14, 16) ‘the Twelve’ as a title, not simply as a number of men (Revised Standard Version ‘the twelve’).

apostellein (cf. 1.2; 3.14) ‘to send off’: a commission and authority to carry out the ministry of Jesus, in accordance with their call as disciples (cf. 3.14-15).

duo duo ‘by the twos,’ ‘two by two’: the use of the cardinal numbers in a distributive sense is not only Semitic but thoroughly Greek as well.

exousian tōn pneumatōn tōn akathartōn ‘authority over the unclean spirits,’ i.e. authority or power to cast them out.

exousia (cf. 1.23; 3.15) ‘authority,’ ‘capacity,’ ‘power.’

ta pneumata ta akatharta (cf. 1.23) ‘the unclean spirits.’

Translation:

For problems in translating the twelve, see 3.14. For authority see 2.10, and for unclean spirits see 1.26.

Called must not be interpreted in the sense of ‘call out to’ or ‘to summon’ (in the legal sense). Moreover, in this context, we are not dealing with the ‘commissioning’ of 3.13. In some languages the equivalent is ‘he spoke especially to the twelve followers’ or ‘he addressed himself to the twelve learners.’

Send them out may be rendered as ‘told them to go out,’ for their going out was in response to a verbal command.

Two by two must be distributive, not collective, i.e. two men went in one direction and two others in another.

Authority over may be rendered simply as ‘power (or ‘strength’) to cast out’ (or ‘to command’). It should be noted, however, that this was a delegated power, not an inherent capacity.

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:

kai idōn … erchetai ‘and seeing … he comes,’ ‘when he saw … he came’: in Greek the complete sentence goes from kai idōn ‘and seeing’ to epi tēs thalassēs ‘on the sea,’ the main verb being erchetai ‘he comes.’ The text appears to say that ‘he saw them’ from the hill where he was praying, and so he came, about the fourth watch of the night (cf. Lagrange).

basanizomenous en tō elaunein ‘distressed in (their) rowing,’ ‘troubled as they rowed.’

basanizomai (cf. 5.7) here in the sense of ‘be troubled,’ ‘be distressed’; perhaps the whole phrase means ‘they were straining at the oars’ (Goodspeed; cf. Translator’s New Testament; cf. Manson ‘laboring at the oars’; Berkeley ‘toiling hard at rowing’).

en tō elaunein (cf. 4.4 en tō speirein ‘as he sowed’) ‘in the rowing,’ ‘as they rowed’: the verb occurs only here in Mark.

ho anemos (cf. 4.37) ‘the wind.’

enantios (15.39) ‘against,’ ‘contrary,’ ‘opposed.’

peri tetartēn phulakēn tēs nuktos ‘about the fourth watch of the night’: according to the Greco-Roman system the night (6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.) was divided into four watches of three hours each. The fourth watch, the last one, would be from 3:00 to 6:00 A.M.

phulakē (in 6.17 ‘prison’) ‘watch.’

peripatōn epi tēs thalassēs ‘walking on the sea,’ ‘walking on (top of) the water.’

peripateō (cf. 2.9) ‘walk.’

kai ēthelen parelthein autous ‘and he was going to pass them by’: it is generally agreed that the verb thelō here does not mean ‘will’ or ‘wish,’ but is used in a weakened sense, being the equivalent of an auxiliary. American Standard Version ‘as if intending to pass them by’ reads into the text more than is there.

parerchomai (13.30, 31; 14.35) ‘pass by,’ ‘pass’: this is the meaning most commentators and translators give the verb in this passage; without a direct object it may mean ‘come to,’ ‘join’ (Lk. 12.37, 17.7) and this is the meaning Goodspeed gives it here, ‘and (he) was going to join them,’ an interpretation which seems quite reasonable in view of the context.

Translation:

Rowing is not too widely practiced in the world, and even where it is known, there are two principal practices: (1) pulling the oars, and hence going in the direction to which one’s back is turned, and (2) pushing the oars, as in the Orient, and thus facing the direction in which the boat is moving. Where rowing is completely unknown, translators have tried to describe the action as ‘making the boat move’ (Eastern Highland Otomi) and ‘pushing the water back with wooden poles’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui).

Wind was against them may be translated as ‘the wind was blowing against them’ or ‘the wind was blowing on their back’ (i.e. if our Western kind of rowing is understood) or ‘the wind was blowing into their faces’ (if the Oriental type is generally inferred by the people). One may avoid this problem somewhat by saying ‘blowing from the direction in which they were going.’

The fourth watch is variously rendered: ‘when it was almost dawn’ (Southern Subanen), ‘when the cocks had crowed’ (Maninka), ‘towards dawn’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘at the very first cock-crow’ (Batak Toba), ‘when it was already three o’clock at night’ (Indonesian).

Walking on the sea is ‘walking on top of the lake’ (or ‘face of the lake’ in some instances).

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:

nai (only here in Mark) ‘certainly,’ ‘assuredly,’ ‘exactly.’

kurie (in the vocative only here in Mark) ‘Sir’: a title of respect, not the Christian title ‘Lord.’

kai ta kunaria ‘yet the (little) dogs.’

hupokatō tēs trapezēs ‘underneath the table.’

trapeza (11.15) ‘table.’

esthiousin apo tōn psichiōn ‘they eat the crumbs’: the phrase esthiein apo ‘to eat of’ indicates the thing of which one partakes (not the idea of ‘some’ of it).

psichion (diminutive) ‘crumb,’ ‘bit’: perhaps here the word refers to the bits of bread used to clean the hands of the guests and then thrown under the table to the dogs (cf. Rawlinson).

Translation:

Yes cannot be translated literally in many languages, for there is no direct yes-or-no question. There is simply a negative statement it is not right…. Moreover, in a high percentage of languages if one is going to show agreement with a negative statement, one must use a negative, not a positive, reply. For example, in Tzeltal the woman’s reply must be ‘No sir; but even the dogs….’ In some languages, however, one can use the expressions ‘you are right’ or ‘you have said true,’ to indicate agreement with the preceding statement, whether in a positive or negative form.

Lord is probably not the better rendering at this point. The woman’s respect for Jesus is generally regarded as not equivalent to a recognition of his divine status, so much as a very polite means of address.

The children’s crumbs cannot be translated as a possessive construction in some languages, since these are not crumbs which belong to the children, but crumbs from the bread which they have been eating. They are therefore ‘crumbs from the children’ or ‘crumbs from the children’s bread,’ Pamona translates ‘the left-overs of the food,’ while Javanese has ‘the spilt (food).’

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:

Instead of dieblepsen ‘he looked intently’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has epoiēsen auton anablepsai ‘he made him see again.’

Instead of the neutral plural hapanta ‘all things’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has the masculine plural hapantas ‘all men.’

Exegesis:

For epethēken tas cheiras ‘he laid his hands upon’ cf. 5.23; for ophthalmous ‘eyes’ cf. 8.18.

kai dieblepsen kai apekatestē ‘and he looked intently and was restored,’ ‘and he saw clearly and was restored.’

diablepō (only here in Mark) ‘look intently’ (Revised Standard Version) or ‘see clearly,’ ‘see properly’ (Translator’s New Testament); others translate the word here ‘look hard,’ ‘look steadily,’ ‘stare straight ahead.’

apokathistamai (cf. 3.5) ‘be restored,’ ‘be made sound.’

kai eneblepen tēlaugōs hapanta ‘and he saw everything clearly.’

emblepō (10.21, 27; 14.67) ‘see.’

tēlaugōs (only here in the N.T.) ‘plainly,’ ‘clearly’; Moulton & Milligan define it ‘clearly from afar’ (cf. Taylor, Translator’s New Testament).

Translation:

In many languages, the first occurrence of he must be rendered as ‘Jesus,’ since the immediately preceding third person singular subject is the blind man. However, the second he must be changed to ‘the man,’ for this marks a change in subject. Of course, the reader can, with some care, determine these shifts from the context, but if in the receptor language it would be normal to mark such changes overtly, they should be so treated in the translation. This procedure is nothing more nor less than having the translation conform to the syntactic requirements of the language into which one is translating.

Restored may be ‘regained his sight,’ ‘his eyes were healed,’ or ‘finally he could see.’

Saw everything clearly is rendered in Tzeltal as ‘everything far off appeared clear,’ a normal way of talking about complete vision; cf. Toraja-Sa’dan ‘he gained certainty concerning everything when he saw it.’

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 .