Text:

After ti lalēsēte ‘what you should say’ Textus Receptus adds mēde meletate ‘nor be anxious,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

hotan agōsin humas paradidontes ‘and whenever they arrest you and deliver you up to trial.’

hotan (cf. 11.19) ‘whenever’: here the sense is probably ‘whenever’ (rather than ‘when’), indicating repeated events and not simply one single event.

agō (cf. 1.38) ‘cause to go,’ ‘lead,’ ‘bring’: in a specialized use, ‘lead away,’ ‘take into custody,’ ‘arrest.’

paradidōmi (cf. 1.14) ‘deliver up (to trial),’ ‘turn over to the court.’

mē promerimnate ‘do not be concerned beforehand’: only here does the verb appear in the N.T.

ho ean dothē humin ‘whatever may be given you (by God).’

to pneuma to hagion (cf. 1.8) ‘the Holy Spirit.’

Translation:

The first clause may be accurately translated as ‘arrest you and hand you over to the authorities to be tried.’

For anxious see under cares 4.18. In this context words for ‘worry’ or ‘concern’ must be specifically applicable to the special anxieties involved, e.g. ‘don’t let your stomach rise up’ (Farefare), ‘don’t let you mind kill you’ (Navajo), ‘don’t be driven hard,’ a reference to animals being chased in the hunt (Piro).

Is given is a very indefinite passive, requiring in some languages an agent, e.g. ‘God gives you.’

Hour is more idiomatically rendered as ‘at that time’ or ‘on that occasion,’ since ‘hour,’ as a precise unit of time may be quite strange and completely inapplicable to this type of context.

For Holy Spirit see 1.7.

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:

aphete autēn (cf. 2.5) ‘leave her alone’: Arndt & Gingrich suggest ‘let go,’ ‘tolerate,’ while Lagrange prefers the meaning ‘let her do it.’ In light of the context, however, the Revised Standard Version is to be preferred (cf. Swete).

ti autē kopous parechete; ‘why are you causing her trouble?’ ‘why are you giving her difficulty?’: Moulton & Milligan give examples from the papyri of the use of this phrase meaning ‘cause trouble,’ ‘bother.’

kopos (only here in Mark) ‘trouble,’ ‘difficulty,’ ‘toil.’

parechō (only here in Mark) ‘to present,’ ‘to furnish,’ ‘to cause.’

kalon ergon ‘a good work,’ ‘a beautiful deed,’ ‘a noble thing’: the adjective here indicates “what is morally good, with a nuance of nobility and beauty” (Lagrange).

kalos (cf. 4.8) ‘beautiful,’ ‘fine,’ ‘fitting.’

ergon (cf. 13.34) ‘deed,’ ‘task,’ ‘action.’

ērgasato (only here in Mark) ‘she worked,’ ‘she performed,’ ‘she accomplished.’

en emoi ‘to me’: the preposition here indicates the object to whom something is done.

Translation:

Let her alone is sometimes translated rather concretely, e.g. ‘do not touch her’ (Cashibo-Cacataibo), an expression which implies avoidance of molestation or disturbance.

Beautiful thing requires recasting in some languages, e.g. ‘what she has done to me is beautiful’ or ‘it is very good what she has done to me.’

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:

grēgoreite kai proseuchesthe hina ‘you (plural) must watch and pray that’: Revised Standard Version takes ‘that’ to refer to the content of the prayer (as in v. 35 and 13.38); if, however, both verbs be taken with hina, it could indicate purpose – ‘watch and pray, in order that…’ (so Translator’s New Testament; cf. Moffatt “so that”).

peirasmon (only here in Mark; cf. peirazō 1.13) ‘temptation’: the context seems to demand the meaning of ‘temptation’ leading to sin, and not merely the idea of ‘trial’ or ‘testing.’

pneuma (cf. 2.8) … sarx (cf. 10.8) ‘spirit … flesh’: here presented as distinct and antithetical elements of man’s nature. The contrast between the two, say Arndt & Gingrich, is between the will as opposed to inferior feelings such as fear, anxiety, etc. which are attributed to the ‘flesh.’

prothumon (only here in Mark) ‘ready,’ ‘willing,’ ‘eager.’

asthenēs (only here in Mark); cf. astheneō (6.56) ‘weak,’ ‘powerless.’

Translation:

Watch would seem to be best translated as ‘stay awake’ or ‘stay alert.’

Enter into temptation is an awkward idiom in most languages, for one does not literally ‘enter into’ such an experience. In Tzeltal this concept is expressed as ‘end by being tempted,’ and in Copainalá Zoque one must say ‘fall when Satan tries you.’ In Highland Puebla Nahuatl one may ‘enter into sin,’ but not ‘enter into temptation.’

The spirit … the flesh is a fundamental contrast, but one which is variously expressed in different languages. Often, however, spirit is equivalent to ‘heart’ (Eastern Highland Otomi, Loma (Liberia), Guerrero Amuzgo, Highland Puebla Nahuatl ), and flesh may be rendered as ‘body’ (Guerrero Amuzgo, Highland Puebla Nahuatl , Tzeltal), ‘you yourself’ (Central Tarahumara). The following translations are illustrative of the contrastive expressions: ‘your hearts are ready but your bodies are weak’ (Highland Puebla Nahuatl ), ‘your heart is strong but you yourselves are not strong’ (Central Tarahumara), ‘your heart has strength, but your body does not have strength’ (Tzeltal), ‘your heart desires to do good, but your heart is weak,’ in which ‘heart’ must be used in both clauses since it not only stands for the center of the personality, but is also the symbol of typical human nature (Loma (Liberia)).

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:

At the end of the verse kai hē lalia sou homoiazei ‘for your speech is like (the speech of Galileans)’ is added by Textus Receptus and included in brackets by Soden and Taylor; it is omitted, however, by the majority of modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

ērneito (cf. v. 68) ‘he was denying’: the imperfect tense here, in contrast to the aorist tense in v. 68, may portray the denial as being repeated; cf. The Modern Speech New Testament, ‘he repeatedly denied it.’ Translator’s New Testament (again cf. v. 68), ‘But he disowned Him again.’

meta mikron (cf. 14.35) ‘after a little (while).’

kai gar Galilaios ei ‘for you also are a Galilean’: the kai ‘also’ should not be omitted (as done by Revised Standard Version).

Galilaios (only here in Mark) ‘a Galilean,’ ‘a man from Galilee.’

Translation:

Again he denied it may be rendered as ‘again he said it was not so’ or ‘again he declared that it was not true.’

One of them is rendered as ‘one with them’ in some languages, since association is described as being ‘with’ a group rather than ‘of’ it.

Galilean is generally rendered as ‘a man from Galilee’ or ‘Galilee is your land.’

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 of this verse have already been dealt with: for homoiōs ‘in like manner’ cf. 4.16; hoi archiereis ‘the chief priests’ cf. 8.31; empaizō ‘mock’ cf. 10.34; pros allēlous ‘among themselves,’ ‘to one another’ cf. 4.41; hoi grammateis ‘the scribes’ cf. 1.22; sōzō ‘save,’ ‘rescue,’ ‘help’ cf. 3.4.

Translation:

The logical subject includes both the chief priests and the scribes. In many languages this full logical subject must also be the formal grammatical subject, e.g. ‘the chief priests together with the scribes mocked him….’

Mocked him to one another is not always easy to translate, for a double type of subject is involved: (1) Jesus is actually the one mocked but (2) the chief priests and scribes direct their speech, not to Jesus, but to each other. In some instances this may be translated as ‘made fun of Jesus, speaking to each other.’

For save see 10.26.

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 pisteusas kai baptistheis ‘he who believes and is baptized’: the single definite article governing both participles joins the two verbs together in describing the man who will be saved; the clause could be translated, ‘the baptized believer.’

pisteuō ‘believe’: here and in v. 17 the aorist participle is used absolutely, ‘the believer’ (in Mark, the present active participle is used absolutely twice, 9.23, 42 – never the aorist participle).

baptizō (cf. Mk. 1.5) ‘baptize.’

sōthēsetai (cf. Mk. 3.4) ‘shall be saved’: in the theological sense; in apposition to ‘shall be condemned,’ the reference is eschatological.

ho … apistēsas (cf. v. 11) ‘the one who does not believe’: the aorist participle is parallel to ‘the believer’ in the previous clause, and may be translated, ‘the unbeliever.’

katakrithēsetai ‘shall be condemned’: the verb katakrinō is not used in Mark (cf. 10.33) in the theological sense, as here. The reference is obviously eschatological: ‘he shall be condemned in the Day of Judgment.’

Translation:

Believes is often translatable only by a transitive verb, requiring an object. In this instance one may use ‘the gospel’ (or ‘the good news’) as object.

For baptize see 1.4, and for save see 10.26.

Condemned is more than ‘judged’ or ‘denounced.’ There should be some connotation of judgment for sin, e.g. ‘he who does not believe still has his sin,’ implying a continuing guilt (Tzotzil), ‘whom God will cause to find sin,’ in which only an active form can be used (Copainalá Zoque), and ‘arrive to get words because of sin’ (Tzeltal). In some instances condemnation is spoken of in quite idiomatic ways, e.g. ‘condemnation will eat in him’ (Conob).

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 soi ‘with thee’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has hō ‘with whom.’

The construction is quite abrupt. Perhaps egeneto ‘came’ should be omitted, as is done by Turner, Tischendorf and Kilpatrick; Nestle and Westcott and Hort include it in brackets; other modern editions of the Greek text include it without any question.

Exegesis:

phōnē ek tōn ouranōn ‘a voice from the heavens’: the voice is God’s, addressing itself to Jesus. Lagrange: “the voice comes from heaven where God dwells.”

su ei ho huios mou ho agapētos ‘you are my beloved son’: the phrase is a compound of familiar O.T. phrases (Ps. 2.7; Isa. 42.1; cf. also Gen. 22.2; Isa. 44.2; 62.4), full of meaning.

su ei ‘you are’: a statement of fact, not a promise; it is either a revelation of a truth previously not known or confirmation of a truth already grasped (see Taylor, 162).

hō agapētos (9.7; 12.6) ‘the beloved’: used in the Septuagint (and classical Greek as well) of ‘favorite,’ ‘only.’ In the Septuagint agapētos seven times out of fifteen translates yachid ‘only one.’ Lagrange comments: “in the O.T. there is no great difference between ‘beloved’ and ‘only.’” Turner devotes a lengthy study to the phrase and concludes: “From Homer to Athanasius the history of the Greek language bears out, I venture to think, the argument of this paper that agapētos huios is rightly rendered ‘Only Son.’” The majority of translations, however, have ‘beloved’ rather than ‘only,’ which is in the nature of an interpretation (see Translator’s New Testament).

Grammatically ho agapētos may modify ho huios ‘the son’ and be translated ‘beloved Son’ (American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Lagrange, Knox, Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada), or it may stand independently, as a title, ‘my Son, the Beloved (one)’ (Manson, Moffatt, The Modern Speech New Testament, Berkeley).

en soi eudokēsa ‘in thee I am well pleased.’ The force of the aorist eudokēsa has been studied, both from the viewpoint of the Greek and the possible Semitic perfect underlying it. There is agreement that the meaning is best represented in English by the present tense: “ ‘punctiliar’ present” (Moule), “present of general truth” (Black). Cf. Jerome: in te complacui.

eudokeō en ‘be well pleased,’ ‘take delight’ with or in someone: cf. in the Septuagint Mal. 2.17, Ps. 43.4, 2 Sam. 22.20; in the N.T. see 1 Co. 10.5, 2 Co. 12.10. The translations reflect the meaning in various ways: “be pleased” (King James Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament); “delight” (Moffatt, The Modern Speech New Testament, Berkeley); “choice” (Manson).

Translation:

In some languages one cannot say ‘a voice came.’ One may, on the other hand, find that the use of some such expression as ‘words (or sounds) of a voice were heard coming…’ is fully satisfactory (so Indonesian ‘a voice was heard’). Though, of course, this is God’s voice (i.e. ‘God spoke from heaven’) it is best, wherever possible, to try to preserve the indefiniteness of the original form, despite its somewhat greater lack of clarity.

For a discussion of “heaven” see under verse 10.

Though there is justification for the translation of ‘only’ for Greek agapētos, generally rendered ‘beloved,’ it is probably more satisfactory to retain the translation used by the vast majority of translators, for undoubtedly even in the Greek expression there is something of the connotation of ‘love,’ despite what may be the more predominant denotation of ‘only.’

My beloved Son must be translated in a paratactic form, ‘… my Son; I love you,’ or ‘… my Son, the one I love’ (Copainalá Zoque).

With thee I am well pleased is a concept which is often translated in other languages by a wide variety of figurative expressions, e.g. ‘you are the heart of my eye’ (Huastec), ‘you arrive at my gall’ (Mossi , in which the gall is regarded as the seat of the emotions and intelligence), ‘I see you very well’ (Tzotzil), ‘you make me very happy’ (Sayula Popoluca), and ‘my bowels are sweet with you’ (Shilluk). One must not, however, assume that all languages will have such figurative expressions (in Inupiaqthe equivalent of this entire phrase is just a single word, with a strictly non-figurative meaning). Nevertheless, there are problems in the choice of an appropriate phrase, for it is entirely too easy to select inadvertently an expression which may refer primarily to satisfaction with food or pleasure in sensual entertainment.

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:

hina de eidēte ‘but in order that you may know’: as it stands the sentence is grammatically incomplete. Properly something like the following is to be understood: ‘But, in order that you may know … I will do this’ or, ‘I will say this.’ Instead of saying it, however, Jesus directly addresses himself to the paralytic, thus saying and doing what was necessary in order that the scribes should know.

exousian (cf. 1.22) ‘authority’ rather than ‘power’ of American Standard Version.

ho huios tou anthrōpou ‘the Son of man’: much has been written on the origin and meaning of this title in the Gospels. In order that the meaning of the phrase, as used by Jesus in the Gospels, be properly carried over into modern languages, it is necessary either literally to translate the words as a Christian technical term, a title, “The Son of man” or else use some phrase or title that will convey if possible a (messianic) sense of dignity, authority, and responsibility. Strictly to be avoided is any translation which would equate the title merely with ‘man,’ ‘a human being.’ In Mark the title appears here and in 12 other passages (2.28; 8.31, 38; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33, 45; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62).

epi tēs gēs ‘upon earth’: Revised Standard Version rightly connects the phrase with ‘has authority’ (cf. Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada).

Translation:

There is no easy way to resolve the problem of a grammatical break at the end of the first clause. The expression is simply not completed. However, the sense is relatively clear, and for the most part readers can understand the transition. It is best to leave the expression incomplete, rather than try to edit it, for the translator’s task is not to try to improve on the original (which contains the break), but to attempt to discover its closest equivalent. Accordingly, the only thing is to leave the incomplete statement as it is, but to employ some type of mark of punctuation which will reflect this fact.

The phrase Son of man is one of the most difficult in the entire N.T., for there are almost innumerable problems, many of which have subtle theological implications. The principal difficulties with this phrase are caused by (1) highly specialized terms for ‘son,’ e.g. ‘son of a man,’ ‘son of a woman,’ ‘son of a person’ without specification of sex, (2) the absence in some languages of a generic term for ‘mankind’ (though all languages may speak of mankind in the aggregate as ‘people’), and (3) the fact that this expression has a double semantic value in the N.T. In the first place, it is related to the numerous other idioms, having the structure ‘son of…,’ e.g. ‘son of peace,’ ‘son of perdition,’ ‘sons of thunder,’ in which the meaning is ‘one who has the essential quality of…’; and in the second place, in the N.T. Son of man has become a kind of title with Messianic import, whether derived primarily from the book of Daniel or not. A still further complication exists in this verse by virtue of the fact that in many occurrences of this phrase Jesus speaks of himself in the third person. This is, of course, possible in some languages, but in many translations one must add ‘I,’ e.g. ‘I who am the Son of man’ or people will insist that Jesus is speaking of someone else, not himself.

In some translations the expression used for Son of man has constituted a complete denial of the virgin birth. In some of these languages there are two words for son, one used in speaking of the son of a woman and the other the son of a man. Quite understandably, because of the last part of the phrase ‘of man,’ the latter word for ‘son’ was chosen, but the resultant meaning was to state emphatically that Jesus was the offspring of a male. Even if a generic term for ‘mankind’ had been used, the very occurrence of the specialized word for ‘son’ would have resulted in essentially the same meaning. Accordingly, in these languages, including a number in South America, the phrase which was ultimately chosen meant ‘he who was born man’ or ‘he who was truly man,’ expressions which would not deny his being the Son of God, but which would be a stereotyped expression to emphasize his humanity. In other languages ‘he who became man’ or ‘he who was born for man’ have been employed (cf. Toraja-Sa’dan ‘the Son who descended into the world as man’) but in any case a good deal of teaching must be undertaken if people are to understand the appropriate significance of the Biblical title. However, the basic phrase should be such as not to suggest immediately an entirely wrong meaning.

Authority is the ‘right’ or the ‘power.’ In some languages this is expressed figuratively or in descriptive phrases, e.g. ‘power in his hand’ (Loma (Liberia)), ‘being able to command’ (Chanca Quechua), ‘place to show power,’ ‘to hold the handle’ (Ngäbere).

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 .