Exegesis:

kai erchontai eis Bethsaidan ‘and they come to Bethsaida’: this is presumably the same Bethsaida referred to in 6.45.

kai pherousin autō tuphlon ‘and they bring a blind man to him’: another example of the impersonal plural: ‘people brought…,’ ‘men brought….’

pherō (cf. 1.32) ‘bring.’

tuphlos (8.23; 10.46, 49, 51) an adjective, ‘blind,’ used as a noun: ‘a blind man.’

The other words have already been dealt with: parakaleō (1.40) ‘beg,’ ‘plead’; hina (5.10, 18) ‘that,’ indicating content, not purpose; haptomai (1.41) ‘touch.’

Translation:

They must be so translated as to refer to Jesus and the disciples. Him may require translation by the word ‘Jesus’ if the reference is to be clear in some languages.

Bring may require a very special type of corresponding form, e.g. ‘led,’ ‘directed,’ or ‘showed the way.’

Note that the people are the ones who requested Jesus to touch the blind man. Touch in this case would probably be either with the finger or the hand. In Huautla Mazatec the reference must be quite specific, e.g. ‘And Jesus and the disciples arrived at the village of Bethsaida. The people brought to him a man who was blind. They asked Jesus to touch that person.’ The problems in Huautla Mazatec are especially acute because of a lack of grammatical distinctions in number and gender.

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 (the first) autous ‘them’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has tous grammateis ‘the scribes.’

Exegesis:

autous ‘them’: to whom did Jesus direct his question? The text allows two or possibly three alternatives: (1) the disciples: inasmuch as in v. 14 it is said that Jesus came to his disciples, around whom there was a great crowd and with whom scribes were arguing, it would seem natural that Jesus should ask them the question (so Bengel); (2) the scribes: copyists who introduced into some manuscripts the words tous grammateis ‘the scribes’ (see Text, above), understood them to be the ones to whom Jesus spoke (so F. C. Grant); (3) the crowd: since one of the crowd answers (next verse), the majority of commentators (Gould, Swete, Lagrange, Taylor and others) assume that the crowd was being addressed. If so, the question ‘What are you discussing with them?’ must be taken in a general sense, since it was not the crowd but the scribes who were discussing with the disciples. Of the three alternatives the context favors the first one: Jesus would be more likely to question his disciples than the scribes (or the crowd).

The majority of translations have simply ‘he asked them,’ undefined, carrying over the same ambiguity that exists in the Greek text.

pros autous ‘with them’: who is referred to here depends on the interpretation given autous ‘them.’ If ‘them’ refers to the crowd or to the scribes, ‘with them’ refers to the disciples; if, on the other hand, ‘them’ refers to the disciples, as is probable, ‘with them’ refers to the scribes. For this second autous Kilpatrick has heautous, translated ‘among yourselves.’

Translation:

The fact that one person in the crowd should respond to the question of Jesus does not seem to be particularly strange, even though Jesus may have directed his words to the disciples, for obviously the action of the man in question was what had prompted the discussion with the scribes. One can, of course, attempt to reproduce the ambiguity of the Greek text, though in some languages this is not possible.

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 verse is a free quotation from Isa. 66.24.

ho skōlēx autōn ou teleuta ‘their worm does not die’: in the context of Isaiah 66.24, ‘their’ refers to the men who rebelled against God. ‘Their worm’ means ‘the worm that feeds upon them.’

skōlēx (only here in the N.T.) ‘worm’: the singular ‘the worm’ is used generically for ‘the worms’ – it does not mean a single worm. The reference is to worms which feed upon decaying bodies.

teleutaō (cf. 7.10) ‘die’: a ‘worm that does not die’ is a figure of unending decay.

to pur ou sbennutai ‘the fire (of hell) is not quenched’: a figure of unending suffering and torment.

sbennumi (only here in Mark) ‘quench,’ ‘extinguish,’ ‘put out’ (cf. asbestos v. 43).

Translation:

Many languages distinguish clearly between two types of worms: (1) intestinal parasites and (2) worms which feed on carrion and refuse. By translating literally ‘their’ the meaning of intestinal parasites has often been given, but of course this is entirely wrong. The pronoun (in the possessive form in Greek) is by no means possessive. The rotting corpse certainly does not possess the worms – if anything it is the reverse. Accordingly, one must employ a word which clearly refers to worms feeding on dead flesh and indicate the specific relationship, e.g. ‘where the worms feeding on the bodies’ or ‘worms eating their flesh.’ More often than not a plural rather than a singular for ‘worms’ must be used (for one thing they are seldom seen alone), and ‘their’ implies a plural.

Is not quenched is a negative expression of continuous time, hence translatable in some languages as ‘never put out.’

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:

de ‘but,’ ‘and’: as Taylor says, it is impossible to dogmatize whether the particle is here adversative ‘but’ or explanatory ‘for.’ The interpretation of the saying is vitally affected by the question. Almost without exception commentators and translations adopt the adversative meaning ‘but’; Lagrange, however, understands it to mean ‘for’ and thus interprets the saying.

prōtoi ‘first’ and eschatoi ‘last’ probably refer, not to time, but to rank, as in 9.35.

Translation:

First and last in such a context as this are highly abstract terms (compare the usage in 9.35). In Huautla Mazatec first and last must be shifted to the figure of a line of men, e.g. ‘he who wants to be placed first will follow.’ A similar figure exists in Chicahuaxtla Triqui ‘those in front will go to the rear.’ In Copainalá Zoque the same figure is employed ‘first ones go behind and the behind ones go ahead.’ In some instances, however, the contrast must be related to importance, e.g. ‘the greatest’ (Highland Puebla Nahuatl).

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:

tē epaurion (only here in Mark) ‘on the morrow,’ ‘on the following day’ (the word hēmera ‘day’ is implied).

exelthontōn autōn apo Bēthanias ‘when they came out from Bethany,’ ‘after they had left Bethany’ (The Modern Speech New Testament).

epeinasen (cf. 2.25) ‘he hungered,’ ‘he was hungry.’

Translation:

They must refer back to Jesus and the twelve disciples.

Came is rendered better in some languages as ‘traveling along, having left,’ in order to preserve the perspective of the narrative.

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:

The words in this verse have already been dealt with: for zēteō ‘seek,’ here meaning ‘attempt,’ ‘try’ cf. 3.32; krateō ‘seize,’ ‘arrest’ cf. 1.31; ephobēthēsan tōn ochlon ‘they feared the crowd’ cf. 11.32; aphiēmi ‘leave,’ ‘forsake’ cf. 2.5.

egnōsan ‘they knew’ here means ‘they perceived,’ ‘they understood.’

pros ‘with reference to’; in the context, almost ‘against.’

Translation:

They is obscure, for it refers back to the ‘chief priests and the scribes and the elders’ of 11.27. However, rather than repeat this expression one can remove the ambiguity (in which the pronouns might refer to the tenants, referred to in the preceding parable, or to the people in general), by saying ‘those to whom Jesus addressed his words’ or ‘those to whom Jesus was speaking.’ In Tzotzil one may say ‘his opponents’ to distinguish this group.

Arrest may require an indirect causative in some languages ‘cause him to be seized,’ since the authorities would not themselves take him in hand but would order soldiers to do it.

Against them must refer back to the authorities.

The relationship of ideas in this verse may require in some languages a recasting of the order, since the causal introduced by for does not give the reason for the immediately preceding event, namely, ‘the fearing of the multitude’ but for the desire on the part of the authorities to arrest Jesus. The Greek order of clauses, 1, 2, 3, 4 is shifted for example in Navajo to 3, 1, 2, 4, e.g. ‘perceiving that he was speaking against them, they sought to…; but because they feared the multitude, they left 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 .

Exegesis:

ek tou perisseuontos autois ‘from that which abounds to them,’ ‘from their abundance’: the participle is the genitive of the neuter form to perisseuon ‘that which abounds.’

perisseuō (only here in Mark; cf. perisseuma 8.8) ‘to abound,’ ‘to be present in abundance.’

husterēseōs (only here in Mark; cf. hustereō 10.21) ‘lack,’ ‘need,’ ‘poverty.’

panta hosa (cf. 6.30; 11.24) ‘everything,’ ‘everything as much (as).’

bion (only here in Mark) ‘life’: here in terms of ‘livelihood,’ ‘means of living,’ ‘subsistence,’ ‘property.’

Translation:

Out of their abundance is neatly translated in the Tabasco Chontal as ‘they gave money which they didn’t need.’ In Tzeltal this is ‘the left-over money.’

In Bali the last of this verse is idiomatically rendered as ‘but she, being wholly destitute, has cast in all her money and has shaken out her house’ (as one shakes out a bag so that nothing is left in it), implying that all the money she had was given.

The idea of her whole living can also be translated as ‘all she had; this was her food’ (Tabasco Chontal) and ‘all she was going to eat’ (Copainalá Zoque).

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:

In such statements as these the translator must consciously refrain from making the saying any more definite or explicit than the original, as it stands in Mark.

peri de tēs hēmeras ekeinēs ē tēs hōras ‘but concerning that day or that hour’: this, of course, refers to the time when that day or hour will come (not, as Moffatt has it, ‘no one knows anything of that day or hour’). No great significance is to be attached to the phrase ‘day or hour’: it is simply a way of saying that no one knows the precise moment when ‘the time will come’ (v. 33).

oudeis … oude … oude … ei mē ‘no one … not even … nor … except only’ (cf. Gould). For ei mē ‘except,’ ‘but only’ cf. 2.7.

hoi aggeloi en ouranō (cf. 12.25) ‘the angels in heaven.’

ho huios ‘the Son’: only here in Mark is the phrase used absolutely: elsewhere it is always defined by a following genitive (cf. 1.1).

ho patēr (cf. 8.38) ‘the Father,’ that is, God.

Translation:

That day and that hour is a difficult phrase to translate for two reasons. First, there is the problem of the indefinite nature of the reference (implied in the use of that), whether, for example, to the days of the tribulation (verse 19) or the time of the coming of the Son of man (verse 26) or the lesson from the fig tree (verse 28); (the one thing we are sure of is that it does not refer to the immediately preceding verse dealing with the passing of heaven and earth). Secondly, a problem arises over the use of day and hour without some further designation as to how they are related to any specific event. In order to make some sense of this passage some translators have rendered the first part of this verse ‘no one will know the day or the hour when these things will happen,’ using a phrase occurring at the end of verse 30.

The phrases introduced by not even … nor … but may require the filling in of the elliptical elements, e.g. ‘the angels in heaven do not know this, the Son does not know this; only the Father knows this.’

In many languages one basic problem in the translation of the Son and the Father is that the corresponding words ‘son’ and ‘father’ must be possessed, for, after all, persons cannot be ‘sons’ or ‘fathers’ without being the sons or fathers of someone. In this passage, for example, one must translate in Copainalá Zoque ‘the Son of God does not know, but only my Father….’ The use of ‘my’ is required because of the fact that Jesus is speaking. In languages in which one cannot speak of himself in the third person, it would be necessary to say ‘I who am the Son.’

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 .