Exegesis:

ou gar sunēkan epi tois artois ‘for they did not understand about the loaves’: i.e. from the multiplication of the loaves, in the feeding of the multitude, they should have gained insight (into the person of Jesus).

all’ ēn autōn hē kardia pepōrōmenē ‘but their heart was hardened.’

kardia (cf. 2.6) ‘heart,’ ‘mind,’ ‘thinking.’

pōroō (8.17; cf. pōrōsis 3.5) ‘harden,’ ‘petrify’; when used of ‘heart’ it means ‘to grow (or, make) dull,’ ‘blind,’ ‘obtuse.’

Translation:

Some translations of the expression they did not understand about the loaves have meant little more than ‘they did not remember about the loaves’ or ‘they did not think about the loaves.’ However, the meaning here is much more. What the Gospel writer implies is that they did not understand the implications of the miracle. If available terms rendering understand are inadequate in the receptor language, one may need to expand the clause somewhat, e.g. ‘they did not know what it meant when Jesus divided the loaves’ or ‘they did not recognize the meaning of the feeding the people with the loaves.’

There are relatively few languages in which one can say ‘their hearts were hardened’ or ‘hard’ and at the same time preserve the meaning of the original at this point. If translated literally this expression would have the following meanings in various languages: ‘endurance’ (Sayula Popoluca), ‘brave’ (Tzeltal), ‘doubt’ (Piro), ‘bad character’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui) and ‘courage’ (Shilluk). On the other hand, one can always speak of the characteristic denoted by the phrase their hearts were hardened, e.g. ‘they have hard heads’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘their ears do not have holes’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘they do not have pain in their hearts’ (Tzeltal).

Hardened indicates primarily a state of being resulting from a process, not a specific process requiring the identification of the particular agent. The Greek has reference to the condition of the hearts, not the process by which they become hardened.

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:

apolabomenos auton apo tou ochlou kat’ idian ‘taking him aside away from the crowd by himself.’

apolambanō (only here in Mark) ‘take aside,’ ‘take away.’

kat’ idian (cf. 4.34) ‘privately,’ ‘alone,’ ‘by himself.’

ebalen tous daktulous autou ‘he put his fingers.’

ballō here means ‘put,’ ‘place.’

daktulon (only here in Mark) ‘finger.’

eis ta ōta autou ‘into his ears’; i.e. Jesus placed his fingers in the ears of the deaf man.

ous (cf. 4.9) ‘ear.’

ptusas hēpsato tēs glōssēs autou ‘spitting he touched his tongue’: i.e. Jesus spat and touched the tongue of the deaf man.

ptuō (8.23) ‘spit’: the text does not say precisely what was the purpose of the action. From the parallel incident narrated in 8.23 it may be deduced that Jesus touched the tongue of the deaf man with the saliva (cf. Moffatt, Goodspeed; cf. Lagrange).

haptomai (cf. 1.41) ‘touch.’

glōssē (7.35; 16.17) ‘tongue.’

Translation:

There are a number of possibilities of misunderstanding in this verse resulting from (1) indefinite pronominal reference in some languages and (2) the relationship of the spitting to the touching of the tongue. In the first place one must make certain that Jesus put his own fingers into the man’s ears (this is obscure and misleading in some translations). In the second place, we do not know where Jesus spat. If the interpretation is that Jesus only spat on the ground to indicate the fact that the demon had gone out, that is often one type of expression but if Jesus spat directly onto the man’s tongue (implying some therapeutic value in the spittle), that would often be quite a different way of speaking. There is, of course, still another possibility, namely, that Jesus would spit on his own finger and then touch the man’s tongue with his saliva-moistened finger. Translators often feel a certain reluctance in the idea of Jesus either spitting on the man’s tongue or touching the tongue with saliva (a feeling of repugnance growing out of quite contemporary concepts of hygiene), but in many parts of the world saliva is still regarded as a means of blessing (Shilluk) or therapy (Yaka). There is essentially nothing strange nor unbecoming in this type of healing procedure.

There are several minor problems involved in this verse. For example one must often specify which finger goes into the ear of the man, since the use of the plural here ‘fingers’ would in some instances mean a group of fingers in each ear. If, moreover, one means to interpret this verse as ‘spitting on the ground and then touching the tongue with a finger,’ this must imply either that one finger is taken out of the ear, or that another was used (some translations have Jesus’ index finger in two places at the same time).

It is impossible to say precisely how one must translate this passage, for there are obvious alternative renderings. The important thing is that the rendering make sense, in keeping with at least one standard interpretation.

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:

humeis ‘you’ is emphatic: Translator’s New Testament ‘You, who do you say…?’ (cf. The Modern Speech New Testament ‘You yourselves…’; Manson, Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada).

apokritheis … legei (cf. 3.33) ‘answering … he says’: ‘he answered.’

ho christos (cf. 1.1) ‘the Anointed One,’ ‘the Messiah,’ ‘the Christ’: here employed as a title, not as a proper name. Most English translations have ‘the Christ’ (cf. Zürcher Bibel der Christus, Lagrange le Christ, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada o Cristo); Manson and Translator’s New Testament, however, ‘the Messiah.’

Translation:

Who do you say that I am is as complex as the parallel question in verse 27. In Tzeltal this may be expressed as ‘Who am I, if you should say?’

In general the Christ is translated in a form more or less equivalent to a proper name, even though in this instance it is a title. The reasons for this are (1) any expression such as ‘the anointed’ often involves cultural connotations which are strange and hence difficult to explain, and (2) any such terms as ‘the appointed one’ or ‘the chosen one’ must usually be expanded to indicate by whom, e.g. ‘the appointed one by God.’ Accordingly, a transliterated form of Christ is preferred.

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 dunē ‘(if) you can’ Textus Receptus adds pisteusai ‘to believe,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

to ei dunē ‘the if you can’: here the definite article to ‘the’ is the equivalent of quotation marks in modern writing (cf. 9.10). In effect, Jesus takes the phrase ‘if you can’ which the father applied to him and applies it to the father: ‘Jesus said to him, (This saying of yours) If you can….’ Cf. Translator’s New Testament; Arndt & Gingrich: “as far as your words ‘If you can’ are concerned.”

dunata (10.27; 13.22; 14.35, 36) ‘possible.’

tō pisteuonti (cf. 1.15) ‘to him who has faith,’ ‘to him who believes’: if an object is to be supplied, it will be faith in God.

Translation:

If you can is a highly elliptical expression and is likely to be badly misunderstood unless the contextual setting is more evident. In many instances people interpret this phrase as meaning ‘if you can do so, then all things are possible….’ However, this is not the meaning of the passage and in order to make clear what the intent of this expression is, one can translate ‘why do you say, If you can? Why, all things are possible to him who believes.’ Indonesian and Toraja-Sa’dan translate ‘What about: if you can take it on you.’ In Sapo the rendering is ‘why do you ask if I fit?,’ in which the direct form is shifted to the indirect and ‘fit’ is the idiomatic term expressing capacity for a particular action.

Possible is interpreted in two different ways: (1) anything can happen with respect to one who believes (i.e. the one who has faith can be the recipient of any and all kinds of miraculous benefits) and (2) the one who has faith can do anything. It is this second meaning which should be reproduced here, in which case some languages require the direct, rather than the indirect statement, e.g. ‘the one who has faith can do all things.’

For faith see 1.15.

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:

pros tēn sklērokardian humōn ‘on account of your hardness of heart.’

pros ‘because of,’ ‘with reference to’; ‘in view of’; ‘having regard to’ (Translator’s New Testament).

sklērokardia (16.14) ‘hardness of heart,’ ‘obstinacy,’ ‘stubbornness’: Lagrange is probably right in referring the word to the lack of docility on the part of the Israelites in their relation to God, their unwillingness to accept his will in the matter. Cf. pōrōsis kardias 3.5; pōroō kardia 6.52.

entolēn (cf. 7.8) ‘commandment,’ ‘legislation.’

Translation:

For hardness of heart see 6.52. In this particular phrase, however, the idiom may require a verbal form, e.g. ‘because your hearts are hard’ or ‘since you do have hard hearts.’

Wrote you this commandment must not be taken in the sense of ‘wrote this commandment to you,’ but rather, ‘wrote this commandment for your sake.’

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:

ti aitesthe ‘what you are asking for’ (rather than Revised Standard Version ‘what you are asking’ – cf. v. 35; see Goodspeed).

piein to potērion ‘to drink (the contents of) the cup’: here a symbol of suffering, as often in the O.T. (cf. Ps. 75.9; Isa. 51.17-22; Jer. 25.15).

pinō (10.39; 14.23, 25; 16.18) ‘drink.’

potērion (cf. 7.4) ‘cup,’ ‘drinking vessel.’

to baptisma ho egō baptizomai ‘the baptism with which I am baptized.’ The use of the noun and the verb ‘baptism’ and ‘baptize’ in the metaphorical sense of sufferings and tribulations which “overwhelm” one is well attested by the papyri (cf. Moulton & Milligan). For the two words cf. 1.4, 5.

The two presents pinō ‘I drink’ and baptizomai ‘I am baptized’ may be understood in one of three ways: (1) as “punctiliar” presents, without any time reference at all, so that the statements are the equivalent of: ‘Are you able to drink my cup, or undergo my baptism’; (2) as futuristic presents, as quite commonly used in the N.T.: ‘the cup which I am to drink’ and ‘the baptism with which I am to be baptized’; (3) as linear presents the words would mean: ‘the cup which I am (now) drinking’ and ‘the baptism which I am (now) undergoing.’ Most translations reflect the first possibility (American Standard Version, Montgomery, Berkeley, Manson, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada), while others prefer the second (Moffatt, The Modern Speech New Testament, Lagrange; cf. Swete); the third interpretation is adopted by Goodspeed (cf. also Taylor). The whole context of the disciples’ request and Jesus’ answer would seem to favor the second interpretation.

Translation:

Drink the cup cannot be translated literally in many languages. People say ‘to drink from a cup,’ but not ‘drink a cup.’

An additional problem exists in this verse because of the fact that there is no clue to indicate that these expressions about drinking and being baptized are figurative statements. As straight literal statements, e.g. ‘are you able to drink from the cup that I drink from,’ they would not seem to be very meaningful. Accordingly, in some languages the introduction of a linguistic clue to the fact that these are figures is legitimate – in fact, necessary, e.g. ‘are you able, as it were, to drink from the cup….’ Any such expression, e.g. ‘as it were,’ ‘like,’ ‘as though,’ may indicate to the reader the figurative, and hence, more meaningful significance of the passage.

For baptize see 1.4, but in this context there is usually a simplification of wording which is required, e.g. ‘can you be baptized as I will be baptized’ (Sapo), for baptized with the baptism is often a quite impossible expression, especially in languages in which baptism must be translated as a verb, not as a noun.

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 exeporeuonto ‘they went out’ of Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Kilpatrick, and Merk (and Revised Standard Version), exeporeueto ‘he went out’ is read by Textus Receptus, Tischendorf, Soden, Vogels, Souter, Lagrange, and Taylor.

Exegesis:

hotan opse egeneto exeporeuonto ‘when it was evening they left’ (or exeporeueto ‘he left’): this is the meaning assigned the phrase by Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Manson, Translator’s New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada, Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale. It is possible, however, that the conjunction of hotan in the first clause (which properly means ‘whenever’) with the imperfect exeporeuonto (or exeporeueto) ‘they were leaving’ of the second clause, means ‘whenever it was evening they used to leave,’ indicating an action which took place every evening (cf. American Standard Version, The Modern Speech New Testament, Goodspeed, Montgomery).

In Mark hotan appears 21 times, in 14 of which it is used with the aorist subjunctive: in all 14 a single action is indicated, usually definite; where indefinite, as required by the context, the meaning is ‘whenever’ (hotan with aor. subj.: 2.20; 4.15, 16, 29, 31, 32; 8.38; 9.9; 12.23, 25; 13.7, 14, 28, 29). Four times hotan appears with the present subjunctive, of which a single action is indicated in two (13.4; 14.25) and repeated action in two (13.11; 14.7). It appears with the indicative mode three times: with the present tense (11.25) repeated action is indicated, likewise with the imperfect (3.11), while its use with the aorist tense is the passage under discussion (11.19). The conclusion seems inevitable that hotan opse egeneto means ‘when evening came,’ indicating a single, definite occurrence.

As for the imperfect exeporeuonto (or exeporeueto) it is possible that repeated action is indicated, ‘they used to leave’ (or, ‘he used to leave’): Marcan usage, however, and the context (cf. next verse) appear decisive in favor of ‘they went out,’ a single action.

opse (cf. 11.11) ‘late,’ ‘evening’: presumably towards sunset.

ekporeuomai (cf. 1.5) ‘go out,’ ‘leave,’ ‘go forth.’

Translation:

Evening refers to the first quarter of the night, indicating after sundown.

In many languages ‘evening’ cannot ‘come’; it may, however, ‘descend’ or ‘become’ or ‘be.’

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:

didaskale (cf. 4.38) ‘teacher.’

hēmin ‘for us (Jews)’ – not simply ‘for us Sadducees.’

hoti ‘that’: may be taken as introducing indirect discourse (as done by Revised Standard Version) and so translated ‘that’; it is more probable, however, that it serves here to introduce a quotation as direct discourse (represented in English by colon and quotation marks; cf. Translator’s New Testament). The passage quoted is a free rendering of Deut. 25.5f.

apothanē (cf. 5.35) ‘(if) he die.’

katalipē (cf. 10.7) ‘(if) he leave.’

kai mē aphē ‘but (if) he not leave’: kai here is adversative. The verb aphiēmi (cf. 2.5) ‘leave’ is here equivalent to kataleipō of the previous clause.

teknon (cf. 2.5) ‘child’: here used generically, ‘children,’ ‘offspring.’

hina ‘in order that’: may be taken as dependent upon egrapsen ‘he wrote … that,’ giving the content of what Moses wrote, or else simply as imperatival, hina labē ‘he must take’ (equivalent to the Septuagint volitive future lēmpsetai ‘he shall take’).

labē … tēn gunaika ‘he take … the woman’: the phrase here and in vv. 20-21 indicates marriage, and not simply sexual possession, and means ‘take a wife.’

ho adelphos autou ‘his brother,’ that is, the brother of the dead man (and not the brother of the ‘someone,’ tinos, referred to in the previous clause, in which case it would be the dead man himself, or a third, unnamed, brother: that is why instead of ‘his brother’ in the Greek text, Revised Standard Version has ‘the man’ which makes for clarity and accuracy).

exanastēsē sperma tō adelphō autou ‘raise up seed for his brother,’ ‘produce descendants for his brother’: under the regulations of Levirate marriage, the child born to the marriage of a man with his brother’s widow would be accounted the son of the dead man. It is to be noticed that this clause in Mark is not an exact transcription of the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 25.5f.) but recalls the language of Gen. 38.8-9.

exanistēmi (only here in Mark) ‘raise up’: not in the modern sense of ‘rearing’ or ‘bringing up’ children, but with the meaning of ‘causing to rise (or, appear),’ in the sense of begetting children.

sperma (cf. 4.31) ‘seed’: here figuratively and generically for ‘children,’ ‘offspring.’

Translation:

For us should not be interpreted as an exclusive first person plural reference, as some translators have done, for though the Sadducees had a particular purpose in asking this question, as related to their interpretation of the law, certainly Jesus was included by the Sadducees in the group who were the recipients of the law of Moses.

Wrote … that if … but … the man must take … and raise up … is a very complex form of indirect discourse. In some instances it is wise to simplify the structure in accordance with the regular patterns of the receptor language, e.g. ‘wrote for us these words, If a man’s brother dies…’ or ‘wrote for us, If a man’s brother dies…,’ thus adapting the form to direct discourse.

Man’s brother must often be ‘man’s older brother,’ since so many languages make a distinction between older and younger, especially in this type of context.

Leaves a wife may be changed in perspective to read ‘his wife is alone and has no children’ or ‘leaves his widow without any children.’

The man must be translated as ‘the younger brother’ in languages in which a clear distinction between younger and older brother must be preserved. Of course, it was not absolutely necessary that the levirate relationship be between brothers of successive ages, but that would be the more normal relationship, and in this context this is obviously the order.

Must take the wife must be translated in such a way as to avoid any concept of improper relations, e.g. ‘must marry the widow’ or ‘must marry the woman.’ In most languages the technical term for ‘wife’ must be avoided, since in many societies she is no longer legally the wife of the deceased.

Raise up children is a very specialized kind of idiom which must be changed in most languages, e.g. ‘have children,’ ‘produce children.’ The use of ‘raising up seed’ (which is the literal translation of the Greek) must generally be avoided, since it is likely to be either meaningless (any meaning it might have would refer to plants) or be very vulgar, as a reference to sexual intercourse.

For his brother is neatly expressed in Cashibo-Cacataibo as ‘for the name of his brother,’ indicating that the children would bear the name of the dead brother. In the Tabasco Chontal the precise relationship must be expressed as ‘to produce children by his sister-in-law for his older brother.’

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 .