Exegesis:

For the whole expression cf. 4.23; 7.16, and in the O.T. Deut. 29.4; Psalm 115.6. The meaning is “If any one is able (and willing) to learn, let him pay attention!”

ōta (4.23; 7.33; 8.18) ‘ears.’

akouein ‘to hear’: the infinitive indicates purpose (cf. 4.3).

Translation:

This aphoristic expression is a very effective one, but in some languages it must be slightly modified in order to be intelligible. In the first place, its generic quality sometimes must be altered from singular to plural ‘all those who have….’ In the second place, in a number of languages the ears must be the inner ears, by which one hears, not the outer projections from the head (cf. Spanish, Highland Totonac). In the third place let him hear is not an expression of permission, but of exhortation, therefore, equivalent to ‘he ought to listen’ or ‘they should pay attention’ (Shilluk). Ears to hear may be rendered as ‘ears with which he (or ‘they’) can hear.’

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:

kai hoi boskountes autous ‘and the men tending them (the pigs),’ i.e. ‘the (their) herdsmen.’

ephugon (13.14; 14.50, 52; 16.8) ‘they fled,’ ‘they ran away.’

apēggeilan (5.19; 6.30; 16.10, 13) ‘they announced,’ ‘they told,’ ‘they related.’

eis tēn polin kai eis tous agrous ‘in the city and in the country towns.’

hē polis ‘the city,’ would be here the important city of that region.

agros ‘field,’ ‘country’: the word is used in three ways in Mark: (1) meaning literally ‘field’ (i.e. a plot of ground) in singular and plural, 10.29, 30; 11.8; 13.16; (2) meaning ‘country towns,’ ‘hamlets,’ in the plural only, 5.14; 6.36, 56; (3) meaning ‘rural region,’ ‘country district’ (as opposed to the urban region), in the singular and without the definite article, 15.21; 16.12.

ti estin to gegonos ‘what is it that has happened’: the neuter perfect participle of ginomai ‘happen,’ ‘take place.’

ēlthon ‘they came’: another impersonal plural, i.e. ‘people’ in general (Revised Standard Version), ‘men’ (Translator’s New Testament).

Translation:

The herdsmen are ‘those who watched the pigs,’ or ‘those who took care of the pigs,’ or ‘those who guarded the pigs while they ate.’

Told it must in some instances be expanded to ‘told the people what had happened.’

In the city and in the country must usually modify ‘people,’ i.e. ‘told the news to the people in the city and the people in the country.’ The repetition of ‘people’ may be required because the same people could not be both in the city and in the country at the same time.

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:

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 .

Exegesis:

hoi de esiōpon (cf. 3.4) ‘but they kept silent’ (cf. Lagrange ils gardaient le silence).

dielechthēsan (only here in Mark) ‘they discussed’: more expressly ‘they had an argument,’ ‘they had entered into controversy.’ The aorist of the verb, in this context, is to be translated as a past perfect, ‘they had argued.’

tis meizōn ‘who is greater?’ i.e. ‘who is the greatest?’ For use of the comparative form with the superlative meaning cf. 4.31, 32.

Translation:

Were silent is often rendered as ‘said nothing,’ ‘did not reply.’

On the way, as in the preceding verse, should be translated in many languages as ‘when they were going along the road’ or ‘as they were walking along.’

Discussed may require the introduction of direct discourse, in which case the pronouns must be changed, e.g. ‘discussed with one another, Which one of us is the greatest,’ or ‘asked one another, Which of us, do you think, is the greatest’ (in the sense of ‘most important’).

Superlative expressions have a variety of forms, e.g. ‘surpasses all in being…’ (as in many Bantu languages), ‘finds more…’ (Copainalá Zoque), and ‘is the first in being….’

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:

ekporeuomenou autou eis hodon ‘as he was setting out on the journey,’ ‘as he was leaving for the trip.’

ekporeuomai (cf. 1.5) ‘go out,’ ‘proceed.’

eis hodon (cf. 6.8) ‘in the road,’ ‘on the way.’

prosdramōn heis kai gonupetēsas auton ‘a man running up and kneeling before him.’

prostrechō (cf. 9.15) ‘run to.’

heis ‘one’: here is the same as the indefinite pronoun tis ‘a certain one,’ ‘someone.’

gonupeteō (cf. 1.40) ‘kneel.’

didaskale agathe ‘good teacher’: the word ‘good’ here means ‘kind,’ ‘beneficent,’ ‘generous,’ not ‘efficient’ or ‘capable,’ as though the man were complimenting Jesus on his ability as a teacher; neither does it refer to the moral character of Jesus in the sense of ‘holy’ or something similar (cf. Lagrange).

hina zōēn aiōnion klēronomēsō ‘in order that I inherit eternal life?’

klēronomeō ‘inherit’: although the word may mean simply ‘obtain,’ ‘acquire,’ ‘possess,’ the literal meaning ‘to receive by lot,’ ‘to come into the inheritance of,’ better fits in with the Jewish concept of the people of Israel as God’s lot and eternal life as a gift, an inheritance, that man receives from God (cf. Ps. 37.11; Lagrange refers to Ps. Sol. 14.5, 10, which speak of Israel as the lot and inheritance of God, and of the just inheriting life).

zōē aiōnion (10.30) ‘eternal life’ (cf. 3.29 for aiōnion ‘age-long,’ ‘eternal’). It should be observed that the question is eschatological, from the point of view of Jewish theology of that time: “What must I do that in the resurrection from the dead eternal life be my lot?” The earliest expression of this eschatological concept is to be found in Dan. 12.2.

Translation:

Since this verse often begins an entirely new section, the use of ‘Jesus’ in place of ‘he’ may be required.

Where required by the cultural patterns, knelt before him may be expressed as ‘stooped down before’ or ‘bowed down before’ leaving implicit the exact position of the knees.

For teacher see 2.13.

Good Teacher as a phrase of direct address may not be permitted, since – though nouns as titles may be so used – they are often restricted in such a way that attributive adjectives cannot be used with them as modifiers. However, an expanded, attributive clause can often be employed, ‘Teacher, you who are good.’

Inherit cannot be translated literally in many languages since it would imply that someone has died and that the life which is inherited is the one which has just been given up, which has given some readers the impression that the Bible is talking about metempsychosis. In such instances one must use a verb meaning ‘receive,’ ‘come to possess,’ or ‘have.’

For certain problems related to eternal see 3.29, but in this context the difficulties are somewhat different because eternal is combined with life. Often eternal is translated as ‘lasting’ or ‘continuing,’ or by some idiomatic equivalent which indicates some type of continuity, e.g. ‘day with day’ (Laka) or ‘of all the years’ (Yaka). However, there are certain problems in this usage. For example, in Navajo the expression ‘continuous life,’ which had seemed for some time to be satisfactory, proved entirely erroneous, for the Navajos believe that all people possess ‘continuing life,’ in the sense that each succeeding generation is a demonstration of this continuing stream of life within the family unit. Accordingly, in Navajo it was necessary to translate ‘life without end.’ The same type of expression is used in Barrow Eskimo, Highland Puebla Nahuatl, Yucateco, Guerrero Amuzgo, and Pamona.

Inherit eternal life must undergo certain changes in languages in which life must be translated as a verb, e.g. ‘do in order to be able to live without end.’

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 .