Text:

At the end of the verse, after paidion ‘child’ Textus Receptus, Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Kilpatrick add anakeimenon ‘lying,’ which is omitted by Tischendorf, Nestle, Souter, Westcott and Hort, Lagrange, and Taylor.

Exegesis:

kategelōn (only here in Mark) ‘they were laughing at,’ ‘they were jeering,’ ‘they were ridiculing.’

ekbalōn (cf. 1.12) ‘expelling,’ ‘driving out,’ i.e. forcibly.

paralambanei (cf. 4.36) ‘he takes along,’ ‘he takes with (him).’

tous met’ autou ‘those who were with him,’ i.e. the three disciples he allowed to accompany him (v. 37).

eisporeuetai hopou ēn to paidion ‘he entered (the room) where the child was.’

eisporeuomai (cf. 1.21) ‘go in,’ ‘enter.’

Translation:

There is generally no problem in finding an equivalent of laughed at, but this type of expression of scorn is in some languages translated idiomatically, e.g. ‘burped at him’ (Shilluk).

Outside may be rendered as ‘outside the house.’

Went in no doubt refers to a separate room in which the child lay.

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:

houtōs kai humeis asunetoi este; ‘Are you also thus without understanding?’ For similar questions and statements cf. 4.13 (not understanding the parable), 4.40 (being fearful), 6.52 (not understanding the miracle of the loaves), and 8.17 (again not understanding about the loaves). The charge, of course, is not that they do not have any sense, but that they are failing to use their senses.

asunetos (only here in Mark) ‘senseless,’ ‘foolish,’ ‘without understanding.’

ou noeite ‘do you not understand?’

noeō (8.17; 13.14) ‘perceive,’ ‘understand,’ ‘apprehend.’

Translation:

Without understanding may be rendered in various ways, e.g. ‘do you not understand,’ ‘do you not hear with your hearts’ or ‘do you not see clearly.’

See must often be translated as ‘understand,’ ‘realize,’ or ‘know,’ for this is not literal sight, but mental perception which is involved.

Goes into a man should be relatable to ‘eating’ (see 7.15), e.g. ‘enters into a man’s mouth’ (Yaka). For defile see 7.2, but in this particular verse Huautla Mazatec has ‘cannot dirty the heart,’ an expression which, by the use of ‘heart,’ implies moral contamination.

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 echousin ‘they have’ of the majority of modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus, Tischendorf, Souter, Kilpatrick and Revised Standard Version have echomen ‘we have.’

Exegesis:

dielogizonto (cf. 2.6) ‘they were pondering,’ ‘they were discussing.’

hoti ‘that’: if echousin ‘they have’ is read (see Text, above), hoti introduces indirect discourse and may be translated (1) ‘that,’ as is the usual case with indirect discourse; (2) ‘(it is) because’ is preferred by Gould; Translator’s New Testament takes hoti as the equivalent of ti ‘why.’

echomen ‘we have’ is adopted by American Standard Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version: in this case hoti is not translated, since it introduces direct discourse.

Translation:

It may here need to be identified as ‘what he said.’

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 to ek nekrōn anastēnai ‘the rising from the dead’ of all other editions of the Greek text, Lagrange and Taylor, based on the evidence mainly of some Western mss. and some of the early versions, prefer hotan ek nekrōn anastē ‘when he should rise from the dead.’

Exegesis:

ton logon ekratēsan ‘they kept the word,’ i.e. ‘they obeyed the command,’ ‘they observed the recommendation’: for this use of krateō ‘hold’ in the sense of observing or keeping an instruction, cf. 7.3, 4, 8 (cf. Lagrange, Rawlinson). Others, however, understand it differently: Arndt & Gingrich take it to mean that they kept the saying in order to occupy themselves with it later (so Revised Standard Version). Taylor combines the two: ‘they kept it in mind and observed the charge.’ Translator’s New Testament has ‘They seized on the saying, discussing it among themselves….’

pros heautous ‘to themselves,’ ‘with themselves’: although some (Revised Standard Version and others) take this phrase with the verb ekratēsan ‘they kept,’ others take it with the participle suzētountes ‘discussing’ (cf. American Standard Version, Goodspeed, Moffatt, The Modern Speech New Testament, Translator’s New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada, Zürcher Bibel, Lagrange). From the use of the verb suzēteō in vv. 14, 16, it would appear that the verse here should be read, “They observed the command, questioning among themselves….”

suzētountes (cf. 1.27) ‘questioning,’ ‘discussing,’ ‘debating.’

ti estin to ek nekrōn anastēnai ‘what is the to rise from the dead.’ Depending on the use of the definite article to ‘the,’ this phrase may be understood in two different ways: (1) ‘what is the rising from the dead,’ ‘what is the resurrection from the dead’: in this case to anastēnai ‘to rise’ is understood as a verbal noun ‘the rising,’ ‘the resurrection’; this is the position of Arndt & Gingrich: ‘what is the meaning of the saying, To rise from the dead’: in this case to ‘the’ is used to introduce the following words which are taken as a saying, the equivalent in many modern languages to quotation marks, “what is ‘To rise from the dead’ .” The context would seem to favor the second interpretation: it is hardly conceivable that the disciples – Jews all – should not know what was meant by the resurrection from the dead, since it was a well-known article in Jewish faith; rather, they would be puzzled by what Jesus meant in saying that the Son of man should rise from the dead. Their question would have to do with this ‘to rise from the dead.’

Translation:

Depending primarily upon the variety of ways in which this verse may be interpreted (see above), the renderings may be quite diverse, e.g. ‘they did what they were told,’ ‘they obeyed what he had said,’ or ‘they kept to themselves the knowledge of what had happened.’

Questioning may be two quite different verbs in some languages, depending upon whether one assumes that this questioning was reciprocal among the three or entirely within the thinking of each person. If the first interpretation is taken, then the translation would be ‘asked each other’ or ‘talked about it to each other.’ If the second meaning is assumed, then one may translate ‘they thought about it in their hearts’ (Southern Subanen).

In rendering what the rising from the dead meant it is rare that one can conserve as much of the ambiguity as the Revised Standard Version has done, for in general one must choose distinctly between the first of the second interpretation (see above). In the first instance, one must often translate ‘questioned what was meant by the fact that a person may rise from the dead’ or ‘questioned how people might rise from the dead.’ The second interpretation, which seems distinctly preferable, could be rendered as ‘questioned what Jesus meant when he spoke of rising from the dead,’ thus relating Jesus’ statement to a specific occurrence, no to the general belief.

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 tōn pisteuontōn ‘those who believe’ Textus Receptus and Kilpatrick add eis eme ‘in me,’ which is omitted by all other modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

skandalisē (cf. 4.17) ‘he should cause to stumble’ (Montgomery, Manson, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada); ‘cause to fall’ (Goodspeed, Translator’s New Testament ‘cause to fall away’; The Modern Speech New Testament ‘occasion the fall of’); ‘is a hindrance’ (Moffatt). ‘Cause to (fall into) sin’ (Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, Revised Standard Version) is too specific a translation of skandalizō.

hena tōn mikrōn toutōn tōn pisteuontōn ‘one of these little ones who believe’: perhaps, ‘one of the least of these who believe.’ The Revised Standard Version addition ‘in me’ is not part of the genuine text, in the opinion of most editors of the Greek text.

kalon estin (cf. 4.8) ‘it is good’: the use of the absolute form ‘good’ for the comparative ‘better’ appears to be thoroughly Semitic.

mallon (cf. 5.26) ‘rather,’ ‘instead.’

ei perikeitai … kai beblētai ‘if it had been placed … and he had been thrown’: the two perfects (the verb perikeimai is itself a perfect, meaning ‘to have been placed’ – cf. Souter) are here used with the force of past perfects: it would be better if, before causing a little one to stumble, he had had a millstone hung around his neck and had been thrown into the sea.

mulos onikos (only here in Mark) ‘a large millstone’ i.e. the large upper millstone that required an ass to turn it, instead of being hand-turned, as in the case of the small mills.

Translation:

Clauses introduced by whoever must be shifted to conditional clauses in some languages, e.g. ‘if a man does … it would be better….’

Little ones is ‘little children,’ to be understood in this context as being a reference to the child of verses 36 and 37.

Though the better texts all have only ‘believe,’ it is necessary in many languages to have some object to the verb of believing, and hence ‘in me’ is a very natural addition (cf. Textus Receptus and the Revised Standard Version).

Causes … to stumble is only rarely translatable in a literal manner. In one instance this was done, and the people were utterly surprised that Jesus would speak of such a dire penalty for anyone playing a practical joke. In this particular language the translation had to be changed to read ‘to cause his heart to be spoiled,’ for only this type of expression would convey the idea of moral offense. In Tzeltal the appropriate equivalent is ‘to cause to go wrong’ and in Highland Totonac one must say ‘to show such little children the wrong road.’ In Tabasco Chontal the correct idiom is ‘to cause them to leave the way’; in Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is ‘whoever causes that one of these little ones come into misfortune through sin.’

Great millstone is more meaningfully translated in many languages than in English, for so few English speaking people really know from personal experience what millstones are. In Tzeltal the equivalent expression is ‘large metate’ (metate is the name for the indigenous type of grinding stone). In some languages however, grinding stones are not used, and hence one must say simply ‘a big rock’ (Barrow Eskimo). Toraja-Sa’dan must render ‘large stone which is placed under the piles on which the house rests,’ while Batak Toba has ‘stone block in which the rice is beaten’ (to remove the husks).

One must make certain that the stone is not literally ‘hung round his neck,’ for in one language the people were intrigued by this kind of stone, which could be put as a wreath around a person’s neck. An appropriate equivalent may be ‘tied round his neck’ or ‘tied to him, with a rope around his neck.’

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 are clear and precise in their meaning: there is no doubt as to how they are to be translated. The camel was the largest animal in Palestine and the eye of a needle the smallest opening: the metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle vividly defines an impossibility.

eukopōteron (cf. 2.9) ‘easier.’

tēs trumalias tēs raphidos (only here in Mark) ‘the eye of the needle.’ For the fanciful conjecture that there was a small gate into Jerusalem with the name ‘eye of a needle’ in the time of Jesus, cf. the commentaries.

plousion (cf. 12.41) ‘a rich man.’

Some details of the syntax of the Greek should not be overlooked: the subject of the main verb esti ‘is’ is the infinitive dielthein ‘to go through,’ with kamēlon in the accusative case as the subject of the infinitive (according to normal Greek construction; some grammarians call this “the accusative of general reference”); eukopōteron ‘easier’ is the predicate, and is neuter because eiselthein ‘to enter,’ the subject of the verb esti ‘is,’ is neuter. In the second clause the same construction prevails: plousion ‘a rich man’ is the subject of the infinitive eiselthein ‘to go in’ (while the main verb and the predicate of this second clause, esti eukopon ‘is easy,’ are implied).

Translation:

A number of problems all seem to conspire to make this verse a very difficult one to translate: (a) the form of the comparative, (b) the use of camel, (c) the idiom eye of a needle, and (d) the phrase enter the kingdom of God.

Neat comparative expressions, applicable to the comparison of activities (rather than merely objects), are not too common in languages throughout the world. Very frequently one must use paratactically combined expressions, often with a positive-negative contrast and frequently with some more limited form of comparison, involving ‘more,’ ‘surpassing,’ ‘beyond,’ or ‘very much.’ For example, in Tzeltal this verse reads ‘it is difficult to thread the eye of a needle with a camel, but it is beyond difficult that rich men enter God’s government’ (this latter phrase does not refer to participation in the government, only to their entrance within the realm of his rule). In Navajo this passage is translated as ‘it is not hard for a camel…; it is hard for a rich man….’ In Chicahuaxtla Triqui one says ‘it is hard to pass…; it is more hard….’ (For related problems of comparison see 1.7.)

Easier may be translated in some languages as ‘less hard’ or ‘not difficult,’ since such qualities are often paired by positive-negative terms using different poles of meaning from those with which we may be accustomed. (For example, in Yucateco the word for ‘good’ is literally ‘not bad.’)

Camel is most often rendered by a borrowed word, with or without a classifier, e.g. ‘animal called camello,’ using a borrowing from Spanish (Cashibo-Cacataibo). In some instances, however, ‘llama-like animal’ has been used in the Andean area of South America (see 1.6). In Inupiaqa descriptive term has been employed, e.g. ‘big-humped animal.’

Eye of a needle is rendered variously in different languages: ‘foot of a needle’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘hole in the foot of the needle’ (Guerrero Amuzgo), ‘nostril of a needle’ (Piro), ‘mouth of a needle’ (Hakha Chin), ‘ear of a needle’ (Tedim Chin), ‘nose of a needle’ (Lahu), ‘channel of a needle’ (Rawang).

For kingdom of God see 1.15, 4.11, and 10.15.

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 .