Exegesis:

exeplēssonto (6.2; 7.37; 10.26; 11.18) ‘they were astonished’: the compound verb is from plessō ‘strike,’ ‘smite’ (cf. Rev. 8.12), and has a very strong meaning ‘they were amazed,’ ‘they were overwhelmed.’ Abbott-Smith: ‘strike with panic or shock, amaze, astonish.’ The third person plural of the verb is appropriately called an “impersonal plural” by Turner: “Mark meant … simply ‘people were astonished.’”

epi tē didachē autou ‘at his teaching.’

epi ‘at,’ ‘on the ground of’: after verbs which express feelings, opinions, etc. it means ‘at,’ ‘because of,’ ‘from,’ ‘with.’

didachē ‘teaching’: either in the active sense of the act of teaching itself (cf. 4.2; 12.38), or in the passive sense of that which is taught, teaching, doctrine (cf. 1.27; 11.18). There is difference of opinion over the meaning here ; the context, however, seems to favor the active sense of the word (in v. 27, however, didachē kainē ‘new teaching’ has the passive sense).

ēn … didaskōn ‘was teaching’: this verbal phrase is better translated into English by ‘he was teaching’ rather than by ‘he taught.’

hōs exousian echōn ‘as one having authority’: the phrase describes the “manner of an action”, here, of course, the manner of teaching (cf. the parallel Lk. 4.32).

echōn ‘having’: ‘as one who has authority’ (cf. O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada como quem tem autoridade). This participle, however, instead of being independent “one having” (as most translations have it), may modify the subject of the main verb ‘he was teaching them as though he had authority.’

exousian (1.27; 2.10; 3.15; 6.7; 11.28, 29, 33; 13.34) ‘authority’: the word has several shades of meaning: ‘freedom of choice, right to act’: ‘ability, capacity, might, power’; ‘authority, absolute power.’

The whole phrase has been examined by Daube, who concludes that it here refers to “Rabbinic [i.e. one ordained] authority, and not like the ordinary teachers.” The meaning ‘like a king’ has been advocated, receiving some support from Manson: ‘with a right to command.’

hoi grammateis (21 times in Mark) ‘the scribes.’ By the time of the N.T. the word had developed from its original sense of a copyist of the law to that of an authorized interpreter ‘a biblical scholar, teacher of the law,’ ‘experts in the law, scholars versed in the law.’ Luke uses also nomikoi ‘lawyers’ and nomodidaskaloi ‘teachers of the law.’

Translation:

To be astonished at, as might be expected of such a psychologically significant expression, is translated in a variety of ways, some of which are highly figurative, e.g. ‘confusing the inside of the head’ (Mende), ‘shiver in the liver’ (Uduk, Laka), ‘to lose one’s heart’ (Miskito, Tzotzil), ‘to shake’ (Southern Bobo Madaré), ‘to be with mouth open’ (Huanuco Quechua).

Since the subject of were astonished has not been previously identified, one must usually either specify a noun as the object of ‘taught’ (verse 21) or introduce a subject such as ‘the people’ as the subject of ‘were astonished’ in verse 22. More often than not, however, the verb ‘to teach’ requires an object, and hence an object introduced at the end of 21 provides the appropriate referent for the subject of verse 22. (For a discussion of some of the lexical problems in “teach” see 2.13).

Since teaching should probably be taken in the active sense in this context, it is often rendered best as ‘astonished at the way he taught.’ In Central Tarahumara this is rendered idiomatically as ‘when he taught them they kept quiet.’

Authority is a term with a very wide area of meaning, and in this situation it must usually be qualified in such a way as to make it contextually appropriate. In some languages, of course, one can speak of ‘power,’ ‘right,’ or ‘strength to command’; but in other languages one must say ‘taught them like a chief not like the writers of the law’ or ‘taught like a person who had the power to command them.’ Cf. Pamona ‘someone who thrones upon (sits on the chair of) authority.’

The scribes (see above) were more than mere writers of the law. They were the trained interpreters of the law and expounders of tradition. In Yaka, spoken in the Congo, the scribes are designated as ‘clerks in God’s house’ and in Amganad Ifugao these are ‘men who wrote and taught in the synagogue.’ In Navajo a compound expression ‘teaching-writers’ is used, as an attempt to emphasize their dual function. In Shipibo-Conibo, however, it seemed enough simply to call such people ‘book-wise persons’ (knowledge of books and writing would of necessity mean a distinct prestige class to these rather primitive Shipibo-Conibo people in Upper Amazonia). In San Blas Kuna an excellent descriptive phrase has been employed, namely, ‘those who knew the Jews’ ways.’ Among the Loma (Liberia) people of Liberia it has seemed quite enough to call the scribes ‘the educated ones,’ while in San Mateo del Mar Huave the area of learning is more circumscribed, e.g. ‘those knowing holy paper,’ and in Central Mazahua the equivalent is ‘writers of holy words.’ In Indonesian they are called ‘experts in the Torah’ and in Pamona ‘men skilled in the ordinances.’

Some languages require the full form of clauses which in Greek or English may be left elliptical, e.g. and not as the scribes becomes ‘he did not teach as the scribes taught’ (Southern Bobo Madaré).

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 .

Exegesis:

hoi par’ autou literally ‘those along with him’: this idiom may mean ‘his followers,’ ‘his friends,’ or ‘his family.’ King James Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version prefer ‘his friends’; it would seem, however that ‘his family,’ ‘his relatives’ is what is indicated, in the light of vv. 31ff.: this rendering is adopted by Manson, Moffatt, Goodspeed, The Modern Speech New Testament, Translator’s New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale.

kratēsai (cf. 1.31) ‘to seize,’ ‘to take control of’ (Translator’s New Testament), ‘to seize by force’ (The Modern Speech New Testament).

elegon gar ‘for they were saying’: there is division of opinion over who is referred to by ‘they were saying.’ Most translations assume that the subject is ‘his relatives’ (‘his friends’) of the previous clauses; following Turner, however, some see here another example of the impersonal plural (cf. 2.18) whose meaning would be ‘people were saying,’ ‘it was being said’: so Moffatt, Translator’s New Testament; Lagrange on disait. There is no way finally to determine which interpretation is correct.

hoti ‘that’: recitative, introducing direct speech.

exestē (cf. 2.12) ‘he is beside himself,’ ‘he has lost his senses.’ As Burton points out, this aorist describes a present state, the result of a past action, and is best translated by the present tense.

Translation:

It would seem from the context that a somewhat more intimate group than ‘friends’ were those so concerned about Jesus’ health as the result of his being constantly with the thronging crowd. Accordingly, one may use ‘those of his household’ (a common equivalent of family and relatives) or ‘those who were close to him’ (a close rendering of the Greek phrase). Indonesian and Javanese render ‘his blood-relations.’

Seize must be carefully translated or the wrong connotation may be given. After all, his family wanted to rescue him from the importuning crowd, not to manhandle him, a not uncommon connotation of words meaning ‘to seize.’

Two types of mistakes tend to occur in translating He is beside himself: (1) that Jesus was demented and (2) that he was demon possessed (particularly in view of the following charge by the scribes). There is no doubt that the Greek term is a strong one, and often does signify complete mental derangement, but in this context it means that Jesus’ family thought he was demented. It was this fear which prompted his solicitous associates to try to rescue him. In Tzeltal the appropriate equivalent is ‘his head had been touched,’ which is an expression to identify what might be called the half-way stage to insanity. In Amganad Ifugao one may say ‘he acts as though he were crazy.’ In Shilluk the equivalent is ‘he is acting like an imbecile,’ and in Shipibo-Conibo one may say ‘his thoughts have gone out of him.’ In Pamona the translation is ‘he is outside his senses,’ in Indonesian ‘he is not by his reason.’

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 pōs ‘how’ of all modern editions of the Greek text Textus Receptus has tini ‘with what.’

Instead of tini ‘with what’ (in the second clause) of all modern editions of the Greek text Textus Receptus has poia ‘what kind.’

Instead of thōmen ‘may we put’ of most modern editions of the Greek text Textus Receptus and Kilpatrick have parabalōmen ‘may we compare.’

Exegesis:

homoiōsōmen (only here in Mark) ‘shall we compare,’ ‘shall we liken.’

parabolē (cf. 3.23) ‘parable’: here the sense ‘figure’ (Goodspeed), ‘similitude’ (Taylor), ‘comparison’ is indicated, as the parallelism of the two clauses shows. In light of the whole Marcan context, however, parable as a technical Christian term is probably meant (cf. 4.11).

thōmen (cf. 4.21) ‘shall we place (it)’: the meaning is ‘present’ (O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada); cf. American Standard Version ‘set forth’; The Modern Speech New Testament, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale ‘represent’; Lagrange le mettre en.

Translation:

For kingdom of God see 1.15 and 4.11, and for parable see 3.23.

Compare must be rendered in some languages by a somewhat expanded descriptive expression, e.g. ‘saying what shall we say they are like’ (Central Tarahumara) and ‘with what things can we make it equal’ (Shipibo-Conibo).

Use for it is equivalent in some languages to ‘use in speaking about it.’

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 parakousas ‘ignoring’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has eutheōs akousas ‘immediately hearing’; Kilpatrick has euthus parakousas ‘then ignoring.’

Exegesis:

parakousas (only here in Mark) ‘ignoring,’ ‘disregarding,’ or, ‘overhearing’; the meaning of the verb here is disputed, with the majority of translations favoring the sense ‘ignoring,’ ‘disregarding’ (American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, Goodspeed, Moffatt, The Modern Speech New Testament, Montgomery, Williams, Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada; among the lexicons and commentators, Abbott-Smith, Thayer, Swete, Taylor); others, however, favor the meaning of ‘overhearing’ (Berkeley, Manson); the meaning ‘pretending not to hear’ is favored by Field and Souter.

ton logon laloumenon ‘the message being delivered’: i.e. while they were still talking, Jesus interrupted and spoke to Jairus.

mē phobou (cf. 4.11) ‘do not be afraid,’ ‘quit being afraid’: the further injunction ‘only believe’ shows that ‘do not be afraid’ in this particular context has the meaning ‘do not be unbelieving,’ ‘do not doubt.’

monon pisteue ‘only believe’: a command.

monon (6.8) ‘only’: an adverb, modifying the verb ‘believe’ (for monos ‘only’ as an adjective cf. 6.47).

Translation:

The meaning of ignoring may be translated as ‘he paid no attention.’ Overhearing may be rendered as ‘he heard what the men had just said to the ruler.’

For ruler of the synagogue, see 5.22, though note that since this is a title, more than a specific designation of his role in a particular synagogue, it may be more correct to translate ‘the ruler of the synagogue.’

Fear must refer in this context to ‘fearful of the outcome’ or ‘doubtful.’

For believe, see 1.15, but in this context difficulties may arise if the verb ‘to believe’ requires an object. In such instances it may be better to adopt an alternative expression such as ‘have confidence’ or ‘keep your heart firm.’

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:

deute humeis autoi kat’ idian eis erēmon topon ‘you yourselves come in private to an isolated spot.’

deute (cf. 1.17) ‘come.’

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

eis erēmon topon (cf. 1.35, 45) ‘to a lonely place,’ ‘to an isolated spot.’

anapausasthe (14.41) ‘rest ye.’

oligon is adverbial ‘a little (while)’ expressing time (cf. 1.19 where it expresses distance).

hoi erchomenoi kai hoi hupagontes ‘those (who were) coming and those (who were) going.’

hupagō (cf. 1.44) ‘go,’ ‘depart.’

kai oude phagein eukairoun ‘and they [i.e. Jesus and his disciples] did not have time even to eat.’

eukaireō (only here in Mark; cf. eukairos 6.21) ‘have a favorable time,’ ‘have opportunity’: here used of time (cf. Moulton & Milligan). For a similar situation cf. also 3.20.

Translation:

Said must in some languages be translated as ‘commanded’ or ‘urged,’ since the following expression is not a declarative sentence, but in the form of a command.

Come away by yourselves may be very misleading if translated literally, for it might mean that the disciples were to gather as a group without Jesus. The meaning is that they were to go together with Jesus to an isolated place. This may be rendered in some languages as ‘come away with me so that we can be alone together.’ Cf. Javanese ‘You come here and go alone with me.’

Many must refer to the people in general, the crowds. One may translate, ‘for many people were coming and going’ (literally, in some languages, ‘coming to where the disciples were and later leaving,’ or ‘joining with the disciples and then departing’). Coming and going must not be translated in such a way as to refer to the passing of people on the thoroughfare, but the coming of people to talk with Jesus and the disciples.

Leisure to eat is really ‘an opportunity (or ‘a chance’) to eat.’

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:

Hellēnis Surophoinikissa tō genei ‘Greek, Syrophoenician by race’: thus the evangelist defines her culture and religion (Greek, not Jew: perhaps the equivalent of Gentile, ‘pagan’ – cf. Lagrange païenne) and her nationality (Syrophoenician, as distinguished from the Libyophoenicians in North Africa).

genos (9.26) ‘nation,’ ‘people,’ ‘race’: the use of the word in this passage refers to her national (or racial) origin.

ērōta auton hina to daimonion ekbalē ‘she asked him to cast out the demon’: all of these words have already been dealt with: erōtaō (cf. 4.1) ‘make a request,’ ‘ask for (something)’; hina (cf. 5.10, 18) ‘that’ – indicating content, not purpose; to daimonion (cf. 1.34) ‘the demon’ – in this passage, as in the previous one, it is one and the same with ‘the unclean spirit’; ekballō (cf. 1.12) ‘cast out,’ ‘drive out.’

Translation:

A Greek, Syrophoenician by birth is not an easy expression to translate, without at least a little contextual setting, since in many translations the transliterated words Greek and Syrophoenician will mean absolutely nothing. Since the first of these denoted culture and the latter ethnic origin, one can say ‘Greek was her language and Syrophoenicia her tribe’ (Tzeltal, Southern Subanen). Syrophoenician may also be translated as ‘a native of that region,’ since Tyre and Sidon have already been mentioned in verse 24. The fact that person of a particular tribal background speaks the language of another group is a very common phenomenon in many parts of the world. Moreover, since language is the most universally recognized symbol of cultural relationship (that is, participation within a cultural group), this usage will properly reflect the meaning of the Greek text. Otherwise, there is an unresolved conflict involving two ethnic groups, and the meaning is often left quite obscure, not to say, entirely misleading. For example, in one language the literal translation really meant that she was born in the city of Syrophoenicia, a place in Greece, and in another rendering she was presumably from a Greek tribe called Syrophoenicia.

For cast the demon out see 1.26, 32, 34.

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:

epilabomenos (only here in Mark) ‘taking hold of,’ ‘grasping’: like the verb krateō ‘grasp,’ ‘seize’ (cf. 1.31) this verb takes the object in the genitive case tēs cheiros tou tuphlou ‘the hand of the blind man.’

exēnegken (only here in Mark) ‘he took out,’ ‘he led out.’

ommata (only here in Mark) ‘eyes’: this word is commonly found in poetry (cf. Moulton & Milligan). Cf. 8.18 for ophthalmoi ‘eyes.’

ei ti blepeis: ‘(if) you see anything?’: ei ‘if’ is used as an interrogative particle with direct questions, such as this one. Cf. Acts 1.6; 7.1.

The other words have already been dealt with: exō (3.31) ‘outside of’; kōmē (6.6) ‘village’; ptuō (7.33) ‘spit’; epitithenai tas cheiras (5.23) ‘to lay hand upon’; epērōtaō (5.9) ‘ask,’ ‘inquire.’

Translation:

Out of may be ‘away from’ in some languages, since one may go ‘out of a house,’ but only ‘away from a village.’

Spit on his eyes may also be rendered ‘spit into his eyes’ (cf. the Greek preposition eis ‘into’ or ‘on’). In some languages one must specify whether the eyelids are closed or not, since different words exist for the eyes closed or open.

Laid his hands upon him may not be sufficiently specific in reference in some languages, since the place on the body where Jesus touched the man is required. In some instances, one may speak of placing the hands on the ‘head’ or ‘face,’ but it is best to introduce ‘eyes’ (compare verse 25), ‘again he laid his hands upon his eyes’; cf. Toraja-Sa’dan ‘put His hands on his eyes.’

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 .