Translation commentary on Mark 3:5

Text:

At the end of the verse Textus Receptus adds hugiēs hōs hē allē ‘sound as the other (hand)’ (from the parallel passage Mt. 12.13): all modern editions of the Greek text omit this phrase.

Exegesis:

periblepsamenos (3.34; 5.32; 9.8; 10.23; 11.11) ‘looking around’: the aorist participle indicates manner, and this verb is used in Mark (with the exception of 9.8 and 11.11) of Jesus’ looking upon friends or enemies.

met’ orgēs (only here in Mark) ‘with anger,’ ‘wrathfully.’

sullupoumenos (only here in N.T.) ‘grieved’: in ordinary usage this compound verb means ‘to grieve with (somebody),’ ‘to sympathize,’ and Lagrange and Swete suggest that here it indicates a mixture of grief with anger; most commentators, however, see here only a strengthened form of the simple verb ‘deeply grieved’ , or else the Greek equivalent of the Latin contristare ‘grieve,’ ‘mourn.’

epi tē pōrōsei tēs kardias autōn ‘at the hardness of their heart.’

epi ‘at,’ ‘because’: for this use of epi, see 1.22.

pōrōsis (only here in Mark) ‘hardness’: it is generally agreed that the word in the N.T. (also Rom. 11.25, Eph. 4.18) has the meaning of ‘dullness,’ ‘insensibility,’ ‘insensitiveness,’ ‘obstinacy’ (J. A. Robinson: “obtuseness or intellectual blindness”), Translator’s New Testament Glossary, Manson “stupidity,” Moffatt “obstinacy.”

kardia ‘heart’ (see 2.6 for the meaning of ‘heart’).

ekteinon ‘you stretch out’ (cf. 1.41).

apekatestathē (8.25; 9.12) ‘it was restored,’ i.e. returned to its original soundness.

Translation:

Since the clause grieved at their hardness of heart describes the reason for the anger, it must in some languages precede (Navajo). In all such instances, however, the proper antecedent of ‘their’ must be clearly evident.

Since anger has so many manifestations and seems to affect so many aspects of personality, it is not strange that expressions used to describe this emotional response are so varied: ‘to be warm inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to have a cut heart’ (Mende), ‘to have a split heart’ (Miskito), ‘to have a hot heart’ (Tzotzil), ‘a swollen heart’ (Mossi ), ‘fire of the viscera’ (Conob), ‘pain in the heart’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘not with good eye’ (Chimborazo Highland Quichua).

There are, of course, differing degrees of anger which may be indicated in various languages, but there is no reason to think that some relatively weak form of anger should be referred to here, just because Jesus is the subject of the sentence. This was genuine indignation and anger because of the callous disregard of the people for human welfare.

Since ‘anger’ is so often expressed as a process, it must be combined with the main verb of its clause as another related event, e.g. ‘Jesus’ heart was hot as he looked around’ or ‘as he looked around … his heart was swollen.’

In this verse grieve is not to be associated with weeping or mourning for the dead (a common meaning of the term), but with the concept of deep emotional upheaval and disturbance, often described in very figurative language, e.g. ‘his liver was ruined because of…’ (Shilluk).

Hardness of heart is one idiom which in a great many languages must be replaced by quite different types of expressions. For one thing, ‘hard heart’ may have quite different meanings in other languages: ‘brave’ (Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Shilluk), ‘bad character’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘endurance’ (Sayula Popoluca), and ‘to be in doubt’ (Piro). In still other languages a phrase such as ‘hard heart’ would not mean any more than a ‘stony lung’ would mean to English-speaking persons. If, then, we are to make sense in such languages, we must adopt an expression which is the natural equivalent in this type of context as e.g. ‘large heart’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave), ‘tightness of heart’ (Shilluk), ‘blind in their thoughts’ (Copainalá Zoque), ‘hard heads’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘ears without holes’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘do not have pain in their heart’ (Tzotzil, Tzeltal).

Restored may be rendered as ‘was made like it was before’ or ‘became good again.’

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 4:13

Exegesis:

ouk oidate tēn parabolēn tautēn; ‘do you not understand this parable?’: as a question, this is purely rhetorical, since it is not a request for information, but stands as an accusation. It may be taken as a statement, however: ‘You don’t understand this parable! How then…?’ Or it may be taken as a condition: ‘If you don’t understand this parable … how will you…?’ (cf. Goodspeed, Berkeley, Williams).

oidate … gnōsesthe ‘you know … you will know’: it is precarious to try to maintain a strict distinction between oida ‘know by intuition or insight’ and ginōskō ‘know by experience or observation’ as do Swete, Taylor. oida occurs some 23 times in Mark and ginōskō 12.

Translation:

Note that the direct discourse may consist of questions, in which case the introductory verb must often be ‘questioned’ rather than ‘said.’ On the other hand, the first expression may be a statement (see above), followed by a question. In any event the questions are strictly rhetorical, and if such questions are treated in any particular manner in the receptor language this fact should be consistently indicated.

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 5:19 – 5:20

Text:

Instead of kai ‘and’ (at the beginning of v. 19) of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has ho de Iēsous ‘and Jesus.’

Exegesis:

ouk aphēken (cf. 2.5) ‘he did not allow,’ ‘he did not permit.’

hupage eis ton oikon sou (cf. 2.11) ‘go home.’

pros tous sous ‘to your own family (or people)’ (cf. Translator’s New Testament), rather than ‘friends’ (Revised Standard Version).

hosa ho kurios soi pepoiēken kai ēleēsen se ‘how much the Lord has done for you an (how) he had pity on you.’

hosa (cf. 3.8) is here adverbial ‘how much,’ ‘how greatly’ (modifying both ‘has done’ and ‘had pity’), rather than adjectival ‘how many things’ (cf. Lagrange).

pepoiēken kai ēleēsen ‘he has done and he showed mercy’: the proper distinction should be observed, where language allows, in translating the two tenses, the perfect of the first verb and the aorist of the second verb (cf. Taylor). Revised Standard Version ‘he has had mercy’ is not fully satisfactory translation of ēleēsen.

kērussein (cf. 1.4) ‘proclaim.’

en tē Dekapolei (7.31) ‘in the Decapolis’: a league originally consisting of 10 cities, east of the Jordan. It is not necessary to suppose that the man proclaimed his cure in all the cities, but simply that he announced it in the region of the Decapolis.

kai pantes ethaumazon ‘and all men (who heard of it) marveled.’

thaumazō (6.6; 15.5, 44) ‘marvel,’ ‘wonder.’

Translation:

Probably the use of ‘Jesus’ as subject of ‘refused’ is justified, in order to avoid ambiguity.

Your friends, as a rendering of the Greek tous sous, is equivalent in many languages to ‘your clan,’ implying the man’s family, both immediate and extended.

Lord is here undoubtedly a reference to God, but probably employed purposely by Mark with a kind of double reference, to God and to Christ. For a discussion of problems relative to Lord see 1.3, but note also the fact that in some languages ‘Lord’ must always be possessed. A man cannot be ‘lord’ without being ‘lord of someone.’ This means that in a verse such as this one must translate ‘how much your Lord has done.’

Mercy is not a process which is easy to describe, for it involves a psychological state and an overt response in the form of behavior. As in the case of so many related words, e.g. love, kindness, grace, and goodness, this term likewise has a number of different types of equivalents, of which the most common are: (1) those based on the quality of heart, or other psychological center, e.g. ‘tender heart’ (Ngäbere), ‘white heart’ (Miskito), ‘what arises from a kind heart’ (Amganad Ifugao), and ‘purity of heart’ (Vai); (2) those which introduce the concept of weeping or extreme sorrow, e.g. ‘his abdomen weeps’ (Conob), ‘to cry inside’ (Kipsigis), ‘to cry continually within’ (Shilluk), and ‘to feel great sorrow,’ with the connotation of being about to cry (Navajo); (3) those which involve willingness to look upon and recognize the condition of others, e.g. ‘to see misery’ (Kpelle) and ‘to know misery’ (Toro So Dogon); and (4) those which involve a variety of intense feelings, e.g. ‘to be in pain for’ (Western Highland Purepecha), ‘to be very sorry for’ (Mixteco Alto) and ‘to have increasing love for’ (Mezquital Otomi). In one language, Tepeuxila Cuicatec, mercy is closely identified with grace as ‘showing undeserved goodness.’

Decapolis may be rendered ‘in the country of ten cities’ or ‘in the region called Ten Cities.’

The type of marveling referred to in this verse may be described in different ways, e.g. ‘listened quietly’ (Central Tarahumara), ‘they forgot listening’ – in which the meaning is that they were so absorbed in what they heard that they forgot everything else (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), and ‘it was considered very strange by them’ (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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 6:18 – 6:19

Exegesis:

elegen gar hō Iōannēs tō Herōdē ‘for John said to Herod’: this clause gives the reason why Herod had imprisoned John.

elegen may be the equivalent of the pluperfect ‘had been saying’ in this context.

exestin (cf. 2.24) ‘it is right,’ ‘it is lawful.’

echein ‘to have,’ ‘to possess’ as wife.

eneichen (only here in Mark) ‘she was hostile to,’ ‘she bore a grudge against’: the American colloquialism ‘to have it in for someone’ corresponds to this use of the Greek verb enechō.

kai ēthelen … kai ouk ēdunato ‘and she wanted … but could not.’

Translation:

John said to Herod poses certain problems of sequence, for this is no longer in the reverse order, noted in the preceding verse, but fits between events 3 and 4. Only careful use of conjunctions and tense forms is likely to avoid confusion.

Not lawful is not always an easy expression, especially in the languages of people who have no formal written legal codes. In Chicahuaxtla Triqui the best equivalent seemed to be ‘God does not permit’ (a common way of referring to the highest sanctions of behavior). In Huastec one may say ‘you are not allowed,’ without reference to the one doing the allowing. In Tzeltal the proper expression is ‘this is against the command’ and in Sayula Popoluca one says ‘the law [a borrowing from Spanish] does not help you.’

Have your brother’s wife is better rendered as ‘to live with your brother’s wife’ than to say ‘to marry your brother’s wife,’ for the latter might be interpreted as meaning that Herod had married her after the death of Philip, his brother.

Had a grudge is often ‘was very angry with’ or ‘was mad at.’

In languages in which careful distinctions are made between primary and secondary agency, wanted to kill him may be translated as ‘wanted to cause him to be killed.’

She could not does not refer to her lack of strength (as some translators have rendered the passage), but her inability to get Herod to do what she wanted.

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 6:56

Exegesis:

Most of the words of this verse have already been dealt with: eisporeuomai ‘enter’ (1.21); kōmē, polis, agros ‘village, city, country-town’ (5.14; 6.6); parakaleō ‘request’ (1.40); hina of content ‘that’ (5.10, 18); kan ‘if only,’ ‘at least’ (5.28); himation ‘cloak,’ ‘garment’ (2.21); haptomai ‘touch’ (1.41); sōzō ‘heal,’ ‘cure’ (5.23).

en tais agorais (7.4; 12.38) ‘in the market places’ (perhaps ‘in the town squares,’ ‘in the village centers’): not every town and hamlet had its own market place.

tous asthenountas (only here in Mark; cf. the adjective asthenēs 14.38) ‘those who were feeble,’ i.e. the sick.

kan tou kraspedou tou himatiou autou hapsōntai ‘they might touch at least the fringe of his garment.’

kraspedon (only here in Mark) ‘edge,’ ‘border,’ ‘hem’; probably here not in the general sense, but in the specific sense of ‘tassel’ (in Hebrew tsitsith) worn by pious Jews on each of the four corners of the cloak (cf. Mt. 23.5).

Lagrange calls attention to the distinction between the aorist hēpsanto ‘they touched’ and the imperfect esōzonto ‘they were made well’ in the last clause: ‘And as many as touched it (momentary act) they were being made well (one after the other).’

Translation:

Came is probably better rendered as ‘went’ in most languages, for the point of view of the narrator is that of a companion of Jesus, not of those to whom he was coming.

Villages, cities, or country is paralleled by ‘small villages, large towns, and hamlets in the country.’ In Latin America market places are equivalent to ‘plazas,’ the central, open squares of the towns, often used for markets, at least on certain days.

There is a confusion in subject reference in the verb besought. Is the meaning here (1) that those who laid the sick in the market places requested Jesus to allow the sick to touch the hem of his garment (probably more accurately the tassel, though this would be difficult to translate in many languages), or (2) that the sick pleaded with Jesus to be able to touch his garment? It may very well be that both would be true, not only would the “sponsors” of the sick try to get Jesus to pay attention to their friends or relatives, but the sick would themselves ask for help. In many languages, however, one cannot preserve such an ambiguity, and hence one must choose between those who brought the sick and the sick themselves, in which case it is probably more in keeping with the context to employ the latter alternative.

Were made well may be translated as ‘got well,’ ‘became well,’ or ‘were healed.’

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 7:37

Exegesis:

huperperissōs (only here in the N.T.; cf. perissos 6.51, perissōs 10.26) ‘exceedingly,’ ‘beyond measure.’

exeplēssonto (cf. 1.22) ‘they were amazed,’ ‘they were astounded.’

kalōs (cf. 7.6) ‘well,’ modifying the verb ‘he has done.’

kai tous kōphous poiei akouein kai alalous lalein ‘he makes both the deaf hear and the dumb speak.’

kai … kai ‘both … and.’

kōphos (cf. 7.32) ‘deaf.’

alalos (7.14, 25) ‘dumb,’ ‘mute.’

Translation:

For astonished see 1.22, 27. Beyond measure is ‘very very much’ in some languages.

The deaf hear and the dumb speak may require certain tense contrasts, e.g. ‘those who have been deaf to hear now and those who have not been able to speak to speak now.’ In other instances this can be handled as ‘the deaf to hear again and the dumb to speak again,’ implying a change of state or capacity. Without this added factor in some languages the meaning is that the people remain essentially deaf, but can still hear – a totally misleading implication.

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 8:33

Exegesis:

epistrapheis (cf. 4.12) ‘turning,’ ‘turning round’ as in 5.30.

hupage opisō mou ‘you get behind me!’ is the meaning commonly assigned to the phrase here, as a rebuke, contrary to the usual meaning of opiso (cf. 1.7) to denote the honored place of the disciple, the follower, of Jesus. Morton Smith conjectures the Greek should have been hupage ex opisō mou meaning ‘cease to be my disciple!’ Most commentators, however, take the phrase here to mean ‘withdraw!’ ‘retire!’ ‘go away!’ (cf. Arndt & Gingrich ‘get out of my sight!’). C. H. Dodd translates ‘Go backward,’ i.e. withdraw, and Black renders ‘away from me that I no longer see thee.’

satana (cf. 1.13) ‘Satan’ (in the vocative case).

hoti ou phroneis ta tou theou alla ta tōn anthrōpōn ‘because you are not thinking the things (thoughts) of God but the things (thoughts) of men.’ The Revised Standard Version paraphrase is not very satisfactory.

phroneō (only here in Mark) ‘think,’ ‘set one’s mind on,’ ‘be intent on’: the verb refers not simply to intellectual activity but also to direction and purpose of heart (cf. Souter: “moral interest, thought, and study, and not a mere unreflecting opinion”).

Translation:

Seeing his disciples must be in some instances ‘seeing his other disciples,’ for Peter was obviously not in this group, but at that moment at the back of Jesus. In Sayula Popoluca the equivalent is ‘looking at the disciples,’ in the sense of facing them.

If possible it would be well to translate rebuked in this verse by the same verb as is used in the preceding, but in some instances this cannot be done, since the content of the direct discourse actually follows said. Here the context favors ‘scolded.’

The literal rendering of get behind me has been found in a number of translations to mean ‘get behind to assist me.’ The possibility of this type of interpretation must of course be carefully avoided. The alternative may be ‘get away from me,’ ‘leave me,’ or ‘get away behind me’ (Amganad Ifugao).

The last clause is almost certain to produce difficulty in a literal rendering, for ‘think the thoughts of God’ or ‘think the things of God’ is likely to be relatively meaningless. In some instances one may translate as ‘you are not concerned with what God wants but with what men want’ or ‘you are not thinking as God thinks, but as men think.’

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 .

Translation commentary on Mark 9:27

Exegesis:

The words in this verse have already been dealt with: for krateō ‘seize’ and egeirō ‘raise’ cf. 1.31; for anistēmi ‘rise’ cf. 1.35.

Translation:

Took him by the hand seems to us such a perfectly normal way of speaking that we do not realize that there are various alternative ways of describing this type of activity: ‘took his hand,’ ‘grasped the hand of the boy,’ ‘put the boy’s hand in his hand,’ ‘took hold of the boy by grasping his hand’ – all variants of the activity of grasping by the hand.

Lifted him up must not be translated in such a way as to be contradictory to the following expression ‘he arose.’ In some languages ‘lifted him up’ has been so rendered as to imply that Jesus literally lifted the child up off the ground by the arm. This is not what is implied by the following phrase. Obviously, Jesus assisted the boy to arise by taking hold of his hand. The resultant translation in some languages is ‘helped him rise up and he stood up’ (Tabasco Chontal).

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 .