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 .

Exegesis:

anablepsas (cf. 6.41) ‘looking up’ or, ‘recovering sight’: either of these meanings is possible. The former is favored by Thayer, Abbott-Smith, Arndt & Gingrich; American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Goodspeed, The Modern Speech New Testament, Williams, Zürcher Bibel, Taylor; the latter is preferred by Moffatt, Manson, Translator’s New Testament, Lagrange, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada.

blepō tous anthrōpous hoti hōs dendra horō peripatountas literally ‘I see men, for I see (them) walking around like trees.’ As the Greek text stands the statement is none too logical: clearly the meaning of the blind man’s answer is, ‘I see men, because even though the things I perceive look like trees, they are walking around,’ i.e. the fact that they were in motion told him they were men, not trees. The meaning will be more clearly brought out by a free paraphrase than by a word-for-word translation. Cf. Manson (and Williams) ‘I see men: they look to me like trees walking about’; Lagrange Je vois les hommes, car j’aperçois comme des arbres qui marchent. Black conjectures that the underlying Aramaic emphatic form of statement meant ‘I see men like trees walking,’ and the Vulgate and Syriac versions translate a text identical with this, ‘I see men like trees that are walking’ (omitting the hoti ‘because’ and horō ‘I perceive’ of the critical Greek text).

dendron (only here in Mark) ‘tree.’

peripateō (cf. 2.9) ‘walk,’ ‘walk about.’

Translation:

Looked up must not be taken in the sense of ‘looking up to heaven’ or ‘looking up at the sky.’ Either the man’s head was lowered and he looked up, or as is equally possible the Greek verb may mean ‘regained his sight’ (see above). ‘Looking up’ should not be, however, any higher than horizontal (in some translations the misunderstanding which follows, in which men are said to look like trees, has been attributed by the readers to the fact that the man looked up toward the sky, and, of course, all he could see would be trees).

Unless one is quite careful the difficult reply of the man is made more complicated by an awkward grammatical arrangement. For example, a number of renderings have meant ‘I see men walking like trees.’ Of course, trees do not walk, and the meaning of the passage is completely lost. Renderings which have attempted to convey the meaning of the original while remaining as close to the Greek as the receptor languages in question will allow, include ‘see men that are walking, they are like trees’ (Tzeltal), ‘see men like trees, they are walking’ (Copainalá Zoque), ‘I see men like they are trees; I see them as they are walking’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui).

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:

hopou ean auton katalabē ‘wherever it seizes him,’ i.e. wherever the boy might be when the spirit seizes him.

hopou ean (hopou an 6.56) ‘wherever,’ ‘whatever place.’

katalambanō (only here in Mark) ‘take hold of’: with hostile intent, as here, ‘seize.’

rēssei auton kai aphrizei kai trizei tous odontas kai xērainetai ‘it throws him to the ground, and he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth and grows rigid.’

rēssō (cf. rēgnumi 2.22) ‘throw down,’ ‘dash to the ground.’

aphrizō (9.20) ‘foam at the mouth.’

trizō (only here in the N. T.) ‘gnash,’ ‘grind,’ ‘grit.’

xērainō (cf. 3.1) ‘dry up,’ ‘wither,’ therefore (as in 3.1), ‘grow rigid,’ ‘become stiff’ (cf. Manson, Moffatt, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale). This meaning of the word suits the context better than ‘waste away,’ ‘pine away’ (American Standard Version, Goodspeed, The Modern Speech New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada). Translator’s New Testament has ‘becomes parched.’

The other words have already been dealt with: hina ‘that’ of content, not of purpose, cf. 3.9; ekballō ‘cast out’ cf. 1.12, 34; ischuō ‘be strong,’ ‘be able’ cf. 2.17; 5.4.

Translation:

As in all expressions of demonic seizure (cf. Revised Standard Version seizes him), one must make certain of the way in which one can speak of such events in the receptor language (see 1.23). In some instances it may be necessary to speak of ‘entering into,’ ‘taking hold of him,’ or ‘being captured by.’

Dashes him down is equivalent in some languages to ‘causes him to fall down,’ especially if the demon is regarded as being within the person. However, whenever possible this strong figure should be used, but the idiom must be applicable to persons, and not exclusively to things (as has been the case in certain translations).

He may need to be changed to ‘the boy,’ since the pronominal reference may not clearly indicate the shift between the dumb spirit as the subject and the boy.

Foams may be easily translated in most languages by finding out how people describe the actions of demented persons, epileptics, or those suffering from rabies. In Southern Subanen one says literally ‘his mouth fills with bubbles.’

Becomes rigid is translatable as ‘his body becomes stiff’ (Southern Subanen) and ‘he becomes bone’ (Conob).

For cast it out see 1.34.

Were not able is translatable as ‘could not do so’ or ‘could not cast the demon out.’ In some languages one says ‘they did not have the strength to do so.’

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:

ean de to halas analon genētai ‘if the salt becomes saltless,’ ‘if the salt loses its saltness’: it is explained that the coarse salt from the Dead Sea would dissolve, from excessive dampness or other causes, and leave savorless salt-like crystals as a residue. On the other hand, this may be an instance of oriental hyperbole in which ‘salt losing its salt’ is equivalent to something losing its reason for existence.

en tini auto artusete; ‘how will you season it?,’ ‘with what will you restore its flavor?,’ i.e. restore its saltness, its capacity to season, its distinguishing characteristic as salt.

echete en heautois hala ‘have salt in yourselves’: the majority take echete ‘have’ as imperative; Manson, however, takes it to be indicative, ‘there is salt between you.’ A reasonable explanation of the figure is offered by Lagrange who understands it to mean affability and agreeableness in social relations.

kai eirēneuete en allēlois ‘and be at peace among yourselves,’ ‘and keep peace with one another.’

eirēneuō (only here in Mark) ‘to be at peace.’

Translation:

Good must be understood in the sense of ‘valuable,’ ‘good for something’ or ‘useful’ – not ‘good,’ in the sense of moral or beneficent.

Salt has lost its saltness is translated in Amganad Ifugao as ‘if salt has lost its salt flavor’; in Javanese it is ‘if its being-salty has disappeared.’ One could also say ‘if salt is no longer salty.’ There is, of course, a problem here in that pure sodium chloride cannot lose its saltiness, but as noted above, this passage refers evidently to a highly impure substance from which the sodium chloride could be leached out. Similar kinds of salt are found in many parts of the world, and hence the statement does not seem so “impossible” as it might to those who are acquainted only with more refined products.

How will you season it is in some languages equivalent to ‘how can you put the salt flavor (or ‘taste’) back again’; cf. Javanese ‘what shall then be done so that its flavor is made to return?’

There are two principal meanings conveyed by the word peace: (1) inward attitudes of tranquillity and contentment and (2) lack of strife between persons. The first type of meaning is expressed in such idioms as ‘a song in the body’ (Baoulé), ‘heart coolness’ (Maninka), ‘to sit down in the heart’ (South Bolivian Quechua), and ‘quietness of heart’ (Chol). The second meaning, which is the one occurring in this context, relates to the capacity for unruffled social intercourse and for sympathetic and thoughtful consideration of others (in addition, of course, to the actual absence of strife – whether on a local or national level). In this type of context idioms such as ‘quiet goodness’ (Kekchi) and ‘having your hearts feel oneness for one another’ (Tzeltal) fit quite well, for Jesus is speaking not merely of the absence of strife, but of the positive quality of social adjustment.

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:

This is the third prediction of the Passion (cf. 8.31; 9.31).

Most of the words of this verse have already been dealt with: for ho huios tou anthrōpou ‘the Son of man’ cf. 2.10; paradidōmi ‘deliver up’ cf. 1.14; hoi archiereis ‘the chief priests’ cf. 8.31, hoi grammateis ‘the scribes’ cf. 1.22.

katakrinousin (14.64; 16.16) ‘they will condemn.’

tois ethnesin (10.42; 11.17; 13.8, 10) ‘to the nations,’ i.e. ‘to the Gentiles.’ The modern equivalent of this word on the lips of the Jews would be “pagans,” “heathen.” All non-Jews were considered “pagan.” In this context the specific reference is to the Roman authorities.

Translation:

Saying may be translated as a coordinate or independent verb of speaking, e.g. ‘and he said….’

Behold is not a command to look, but to pay attention.

For the Son of man see 2.10, and not especially the problems of a third person referent applicable to the speaker, hence translated in some instances as ‘I the Son of man.’

Will be delivered, as a passive, would normally be shifted to the active form in many languages, but this is made difficult by the fact that the one who delivered up Jesus was Judas, and Jesus does not make this known at this time. An equivalent form of expression can, however, usually be found, e.g. ‘the Son of man will come under the control of,’ ‘will come into the hands of,’ or ‘the chief priests … will get the Son of man in their hands.’

For chief priests see 2.26 and 8.31, and for scribes see 1.22.

Condemn him to death is translatable in some instances as ‘declare, You must die’ (or ‘be killed’), depending upon the normal way of speaking about the execution of criminals.

Deliver is ‘hand him over,’ to ‘turn him over to,’ or ‘lead him to.’

Gentiles is often rendered by transliteration, but this is not very satisfactory, since it conveys no meaning. A better, but not entirely adequate, alternative is to use the local equivalent of ‘foreigners,’ e.g. ‘the people of other lands’ (Guerrero Amuzgo), ‘people of other towns’ (Tzeltal), ‘people of other languages’ (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), and ‘strange peoples’ (Navajo).

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:

apokritheis eipen (cf. 3.33) ‘he said’: a literal translation ‘he answered and said’ (King James Version, American Standard Version) is highly incongruous (yet cf. Swete’s ingenious interpretation).

Notice the emphatic form of the statement, which Moule calls “most vehemently prohibitive”: mēketi ‘no longer,’ eis tōn aiōna ‘eternally,’ ‘forever’ (cf. 3.29), mēdeis ‘no one.’

phagoi ‘may eat’: the optative is used for command (here, of course, a prohibition).

Translation:

May no one ever eat is a special form of utterance which has parallels in some languages in a simple future ‘no one will ever’ or with a somewhat more emphatic introductory expression ‘it will be very so that no one will ever.’ The form is that of a curse upon the fig tree.

Heard it is translatable in some languages ‘heard what he said.’

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 .