Translation commentary on Mark 15:38

Exegesis:

to katapetasma tou naou ‘the veil of the sanctuary,’ ‘the curtain of the temple’: it is generally assumed that the katapetasma (only here in Mark) was the veil separating the holy place from the holy of holies. This curtain is described by Edersheim as being sixty feet long, thirty feet wide, and the thickness of the palm of a man’s hand.

naos (cf. 14.58) ‘sanctuary.’

eschisthē (cf. 1.10) ‘was rent,’ ‘was torn.’

ap’ anōthen heōs katō ‘from top to bottom.’

Translation:

Curtain is not always easily translated, since in many societies such objects are not known. In Copainalá Zoque the closest equivalent is ‘cloth-closure,’ literally equivalent to ‘cloth door.’ In a number of languages curtain has been rendered by a borrowed form. It is important, however, to avoid a literal translation of veil, since this may apply only to veils worn by women, and accordingly the veil of the temple would be quite meaningless.

Was torn is a passive construction without the mention of a specific agent; nor would it be justifiable to introduce a specific grammatical subject of a transitive expression, e.g. ‘God tore the curtain.’ Accordingly, it is best, in such instances, to shift the verb expression to an intransitive equivalent, e.g. ‘the curtain split into two pieces,’ or ‘divided into two parts.’

From top to bottom is a highly elliptical expression, requiring some fuller statement in some languages, e.g. ‘the curtain began to split first at the top and then continued to split to the bottom.’

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 1:29

Text:

exelthōn ēlthen ‘he left and came’ of the Revised Standard Version is the text preferred by Swete, Merk, Taylor; the reading exelthontes ēlthon ‘they left and came’ is preferred by the majority. Turner is of the opinion that the plural is correct since it would be easier for scribes to change the plural to the singular than vice-versa.

Exegesis:

meta Iakōbou kai Iōannou ‘with James and John’ goes with ‘they left and came.’ Cf. The Modern Speech New Testament: “They came at once, with James and John, to the house….”

Translation:

Immediately in this kind of context is in many languages equivalent to ‘and then’ or ‘and next.’

Because this verse begins a new section, which is often set off by some sort of section heading or title, it may be advisable to employ ‘Jesus’ rather than ‘he,’ since the reference tends to be ambiguous, especially when four other persons are specifically named in this verse.

With James and John must be so translated that it does not mean that these two men were also co-owners of the house with Simon and Andrew, a meaning which has been inadvertently implied in a number of translations. In order to avoid the difficulty one may (1) combine James and John with the subject, ‘Jesus, accompanied by James and John, …’ (Chol, San Blas Kuna) or ‘he besides James and John they went into…’ (Kpelle), (2) set off James and John as a separate clause or sentence at the end of the verse, ‘… James and John went along’ (Central Mazahua), ‘followed by James and John’ (Balinese).

In order to specify that a house belongs to two different people, it is necessary in some languages to be quite specific, e.g. ‘house of Simon; he owned it with Andrew’ (Sayula Popoluca).

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 2:17

Text:

After hamartōlous ‘sinners’ Textus Receptus adds eis metanoian ‘to repentance’ (assimilated from the parallel passage Lk. 5.32): all modern editions of the Greek text reject eis metanoian.

Exegesis:

autois ‘to them’: that is, to those who asked the question.

chreian (2.25; 11.3; 14.63) ‘need,’ ‘necessity’: echein chreian means ‘be in need,’ ‘lack something’ .

iatrou (5.26) ‘of a physician.’

hoi ischuontes ‘those who are strong,’ ‘those who are healthy’: the verb ischuō ‘be strong,’ ‘be able’ occurs further in 5.4; 9.18; 14.37. In contrast, in this verse, with hoi kakōs echontes (cf. 1.32) ‘those who are ill,’ hoi ischuontes are ‘those who are well,’ ‘those who are in good health.’

ēlthon ‘I came’: the meaning here is more than merely local and temporal (cf. the same use of the verb in 10.45). There is reference here to the whole mission and purpose of Jesus’ ministry (whether or not we understand, with Lagrange, that ‘I came’ means ‘I came into the world’ with a reference to his preexistence).

kalesai ‘call’: the word in this passage carries theological content, and does not mean ‘invite to eat.’

dikaious … hamartōlous ‘righteous … sinners’: the words reflect the attitude of the Pharisees toward themselves (cf. Lk. 16.15) and others (cf. John 7.49). There is, perhaps, a tinge of irony in Jesus’ use of these words (cf. Rawlinson).

Translation:

Heard it may be in some languages best translated as ‘heard what they said,’ in order to make the reference precise.

To them, referring to the scribes, must often be made quite explicit, for there are three other intervening third person plural referents: the sinners, the tax collectors, and the disciples.

Well is often ‘strong,’ ‘healthy’ or just ‘not sick.’

To have no need may be variously rendered: ‘do not go looking for’ (Southern Subanen), ‘do not have to consult’ (Barrow Eskimo), ‘do not go in search of a physician’ (Pamona).

Physician should be translated by a respectful term applied to the medical profession. This may be either the word used for the foreign mission doctor (if there is a special usage applied to this type of person) or the name of the indigenous medicine man, who may not be highly regarded by foreigners but who may enjoy a great deal more prestige among the local people than a translator may suspect.

The extent of ellipsis which may be employed in translating the clause but those who are sick depends upon the syntactic requirements of the receptor language. In some instances the full form must be given, ‘but those who are sick need a doctor.’

In order that came may mean more than simply ‘to come to this banquet,’ it may be useful to employ the most generic expression possible, which would also be used in phrases referring to ‘the coming of the Lord.’ This would then permit this phrase to express more of its theological content.

There is a tendency to translate righteous merely as ‘the good ones.’ This may be all that can be done in some languages, but wherever possible it is advantageous to attempt to find some word which will indicate more of the idea of conformity to standard, so that a differentiation may be made between ‘good’ and ‘righteous.’ On the other hand, it is not advisable to translate righteous as ‘to have no sin,’ for this involves many theological problems which are better not introduced in such a general word as ‘righteous.’

The most common expression for righteous involves the concept of ‘straightness,’ though this may be expressed in a number of ways: ‘to be straight’ (Bambara, Southern Bobo Madaré, Chokwe, Amganad Ifugao, Chol, Maninka, Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona, Batak Toba), ‘to follow the straight way,’ ‘to straight-straight,’ a reduplicated form (Laka), and ‘to have a straight heart’ (Highland Puebla Nahuatl, Kekchi). Some languages imply conformity to truth, e.g. ‘to do the truth’ (Kipsigis), ‘to do according to the truth’ (Mesquital Otomi), and ‘to have truth’ (Huautla Mazatec). The sense of obligation is highlighted in other instances, e.g. ‘to fulfill what one should do’ (Piro), ‘people who are true’ (Indonesian), ‘to do just so’ (Navajo), and ‘to do as it should be’ (Anuak). In some languages, of course, certain highly figurative expressions are used, e.g. ‘to have a white stomach’ (Mossi ).

In Nuer there is a complex concept of ‘right’ vs. ‘left,’ in which ‘right’ indicates that which is masculine, strong, good, and moral, and ‘left’ denotes what is feminine, weak, and sinful (a strictly masculine viewpoint!) The ‘way of right’ is therefore righteousness, but of course women may also attain this way, for the opposition is more classificatory than descriptive.

But sinners may need expansion into its fuller implied form, i.e. ‘but I came to call sinners.’

If the translation in question must follow a text having to repentance, see 1.4 for comments on the lexical problems involved in repentance. The syntactic problems often require an expansion, e.g. ‘call sinners so that they would change their hearts.’

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 3:29 – 3:30

Text:

Instead of hamartēmatos ‘sin’ Textus Receptus has kriseōs ‘judgment,’ ‘condemnation’: this clearly inferior reading is rejected by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

eis to pneuma to hagion ‘into the Holy Spirit’: eis here has a hostile meaning ‘against.’

aphesin (cf. 1.4) ‘forgiveness’ (for the verb aphiēmi ‘forgive’ see 2.5).

eis ton aiōna ‘into the age,’ i.e. the ‘future age.’

eis ‘into’ indicates duration of time.

aiōn (4.19; 10.30; 11.14) ‘age’: the word reflects the Hebrew concept of time as divided into ages, generally the present age (cf. 4.19) and the future age, the age to come (cf. 10.30). In this passage the phrase means ‘eternally,’ ‘forever’ as the parallel in Mt. 12.32 makes explicit: ‘either in this age or in the coming age.’ Cf. Vulgate in aeternum; Lagrange à jamais.

enochos (14.64) ‘guilty of,’ ‘charged with,’ here indicates the crime of which the man is guilty, not the punishment to which he is liable.

aiōniou ‘of the age,’ ‘age-long’: that is ‘eternal,’ ‘endless.’

hoti elegon ‘because they were saying’: these are words of explanation which the evangelist adds. hoti is causative ‘because,’ giving the reason why Jesus said what he did concerning the unforgivable sin.

elegon ‘they were saying’ is better than ‘they had said’ of Revised Standard Version. ‘They’ are the scribes referred to in v. 22.

pneuma akatharton ‘unclean spirit,’ the same as saying ‘he has Beelzebul’ (v. 22) or ‘he has a demon’ (cf. 1.34).

Translation:

Blasphemes against the Holy Spirit may be rendered as ‘to speak against the Holy Spirit’ or ‘to say evil words about the Holy Spirit’ (for “Holy Spirit” see 1.7).

Has forgiveness is a difficult expression to translate literally, for in general one must speak of ‘to be forgiven’ or ‘to receive forgiveness’ (but for numerous idioms for forgiveness see 1.4). In languages in which an active form of the verb is required the subject ‘God’ must be introduced, ‘God will never forgive a man who speaks evil of the Holy Spirit.’

To be guilty of an eternal sin can only rarely be translated literally. Rather, this phrase must be rendered by various types of idiomatic expressions, e.g. ‘his sin stays on his head for the time that never ends’ (Farefare), ‘he carries the weight of his sin that lasts forever’ (Yaka), ‘his sins will be continually taken into account’ (Pamona), ‘he will always have his sin’ (Highland Oaxaca Chontal), and ‘he has a sin that will never be taken away’ (Huichol).

In some way, the abrupt transition before the clause for they had said … must be marked, either by some kind of a dash, or by a complete new sentence, or by some transitional expression, e.g. ‘Jesus said this because they had said…’ (South Bolivian Quechua). The reason for making this break evident is that one must not translate as ‘he is guilty of an eternal sin because of what they had said’ (though indirectly this is true). Nevertheless, the last sentence must be construed with all that precedes, not merely with the last clause.

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 4:39

Exegesis:

diegertheis (only here in Mark) ‘awakening,’ ‘arousing.’

epitimēsen (cf. 1.25) ‘he stopped,’ ‘he checked.’

pephimōso (cf. 1.25) ‘Be silent!,’ ‘Be quiet!’ (used with the unclean spirit in 1.25).

ekopasen (6.51) ‘it abated,’ ‘it ceased,’ ‘it stopped.’

galēnē (only here in Mark) ‘calm,’ ‘stillness.’

Translation:

Rebuked is equivalent in some instances to ‘scold,’ but in many instances must be translated as ‘commanded the wind strongly.’

The sea is ‘the lake’ or ‘the water in the lake.’

Peace is often translated by two different types of expressions: (1) a term indicating cessation of war and (2) one denoting quietness, inactivity, or calm. It is the latter meaning which is important here, e.g. ‘be quiet,’ ‘be calm.’ In Southern Subanen one may say ‘calm; that’s enough.’

In Greek the word translated in the Revised Standard Version as be still refers primarily to quietness, in contrast with noise. However, in some languages the figure of cessation of violent movement (speaking of the waves) would be more meaningful, especially as the second part of the command to the waters of the lake.

The wind ceased is expressed in a number of ways ‘the wind stopped,’ ‘the wind went down,’ ‘the wind stood still,’ ‘the wind passed over’ (Tabasco Chontal), and ‘the wind healed’ (South Bolivian Quechua).

There was a great calm is in Piro ‘the water was doing nothing at all.’ ‘There were no waves’ can also be used.

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 5:43

Exegesis:

diesteilato … polla ‘commanded … much,’ i.e. ‘gave strict orders.’

diastellomai (7.36; 8.15; 9.9) ‘command,’ ‘order.’

polla (cf. 3.12; 5.10, 23) is adverbial ‘much,’ ‘strictly.’

hina ‘that’ denotes content (cf. 5.18), not purpose.

eipen dothēnai autē phagein ‘he said to be given to her to eat,’ i.e. ‘he said that she be fed.’

Translation:

Strictly charged may be rendered as ‘strongly commanded’ or ‘spoke to them in hard words.’

In some languages the rendering seems to imply a complete inconsistency between Jesus’ order to the parents of the child and the fact that others should not know. What was really meant in the command of Jesus was that they should not tell others what had happened. Hence, one may translate as ‘that no one else should come to know about,’ or ‘that no other people should hear about it,’ or ‘that they should not tell others about.’

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 6:41

Exegesis:

labōn (cf. 4.16) ‘taking.’

anablepsas eis ton ouranon ‘looking up to heaven’ in an attitude of prayer.

anablepō (7.34; 16.4) ‘look up’; in 8.24; 10.51, 52 it means ‘to recover sight,’ ‘see again.’

eulogēsen (8.7; 11.9, 10; 14.22) ‘he blessed’: here and in 8.7 and 14.22 (and parallels in the other Gospels) the word may mean (1) ‘invoke God’s blessing upon,’ or (2) ‘give thanks (to God),’ ‘praise (God)’ as the equivalent of eucharisteō ‘give thanks,’ ‘praise.’ Arndt & Gingrich reflect lack of finality in the matter by refusing to classify these passages definitely under one or other heading.

A study of the passages which deal with the two feedings of the multitudes, the Supper, and the related passages, shows that eulogeō and eucharisteō are used interchangeably. In the feeding of the five thousand, eulogeō is found in Mk. 6.41 // Mt. 14.19 // Lk. 9.16, and eucharisteō in Jn. 6.11, 23. In the feeding of the four thousand, eucharisteō is used in Mk. 8.6 // Mt. 15.36, and eulogeō in Mk. 8.7. In the institution of the Supper eucharisteō is used of the loaf Lk. 22.19 // 1 Co. 11.24, and of the cup Mk. 14.23 // Mt. 26.27 // Lk. 22.17; eulogeō is used of the loaf Mk. 14.22 // Mt. 26.26 (and of the cup in 1 Co. 10.16). In the Emmaus incident eulogeō is used of the bread Lk. 24.30. It would be precarious to try to establish a difference between the actions described by the two verbs in all these passages as though eulogeō always meant exclusively ‘to call God’s blessing upon’ and eucharisteō ‘thank God for.’ The conclusion appears inevitable that the two verbs describe the same action of praise or thanksgiving offered in prayer to God.

It should be noticed, however, that in two passages eulogeō takes a direct object: the loaves and fish in Lk. 9.16 and the fish in Mk. 8.7. In these two passages it would be natural to assume that the meaning is ‘ask God to bless,’ ‘invoke God’s blessing upon’ (although Taylor, 360, maintains that in Mk. 8.7 no difference is to be established between eulogeō [of the fish] and eucharisteō in the previous verse [of the loaves]: “The act is one of thanksgiving to God”). In 1 Co. 10.16 ‘the cup of blessing which we bless’ would seem to mean ‘the cup of blessing for which we bless (i.e. praise) God.’

The Vulgate consistently translates eulogeō by benedicere and eucharisteō by gratias agere. The Syriac always translates eulogeō by b-r-k ‘bless’; used of God, ‘bless God,’ it means ‘praise God’ (cf. Koehler). This same verb is also used to translate eucharisteō in Mk. 8.6, Jn. 6.11, 23, and 1 Co. 11.24. Elsewhere eucharisteō is translated by y-d-ʾ ‘confess,’ ‘give thanks,’ ‘praise’ (Hebrew yadah); in Mk. 14.23 both y-d-ʾ and b-r-k are used, and in Mt. 15.36 sh-v-ch ‘praise,’ ‘give thanks.’ The evidence from the Syriac would seem to indicate that the two Greek verbs are practically synonymous in meaning.

English translations, as a rule, translate eucharisteō ‘give thanks,’ and eulogeō ‘bless.’ The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt and Goodspeed always have a direct object for ‘bless,’ either the loaves and fish, or the bread and cup of the Supper. Revised Standard Version has followed American Standard Version by using ‘bless’ as an intransitive verb, with no object following, meaning (presumably) ‘said a blessing.’ O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada always translates eulogeō ‘bless’ with a direct object (as do The Modern Speech New Testament and others), and eucharisteō ‘give thanks’; Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale translates both words ‘give thanks’ (with the exception of Lk. 9.16 and 1 Co. 10.16 where eulogeō is translated ‘bless’ with a direct object); Zürcher Bibel translates both words ‘say a prayer of thanks for it’ (sprechen das Dankgebet darüber).

From this it is evident that there exists no uniformity in translating the two terms. That the two are practically equivalent, in these passages, seems to be indicated by the Gospel narratives themselves, and there is good precedent for translating them in this manner.

kateklasen (only here in Mark: cf. klao 8.6, 19; 14.22) ‘he broke,’ ‘he broke into fragments.’

paratithōsin (8.6, 7) ‘that they should set before (them)’: though there is no way of determining the question, it would seem probable, in light of the customs of that time, that the Twelve carried the bread and fish and placed them before the various groups of fifty and one hundred, and not before each person individually.

emerisen (cf. 3.24) ‘he divided,’ ‘he distributed.’

Translation:

Taking must in some languages be ‘took in his hands,’ since the instrument or agent of the taking must be specified.

Looked up to heaven is ‘looked up toward heaven’ not ‘looked into heaven,’ as in some translations.

Blessed involves a number of problems for the translator because of (1) the ambiguous nature of the Greek expression, (2) the tendency to interpret any blessing of an object as involving some magical practices, and (3) the confusion between ‘blessing’ and ‘making taboo.’ Where there is an object of the process of blessing, the tendency is to understanding consecration or sanctifying, e.g. ‘place holiness on’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave) or ‘to cause it to be holy.’ In some languages there is a more indirect way of dealing with this problem by saying ‘give it his good word’ (Chol) and ‘prayed about it’ (Central Tarahumara, Southern Subanen). However, in order to avoid a manifestly incorrect interpretation, which presumes that Jesus employed some word ritual to increase the food magically, it may be better to translate ‘spoke to God on behalf of the food’ or ‘gave thanks to God for the food.’

Broke the loaves means breaking them apart in his hands, not, as implied in one translation, smashing them like stones.

Gave them must refer here to the pieces of bread.

To set before, as noted above, probably refers to supplies distributed to the groups which would in turn distribute them among those in the group.

Divided the two fish among them all does not mean that Jesus divided the fish and personally served all the people. In some languages one must say ‘divided the fish for all the people’ or ‘divided the fish so all the people could have some.’

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 7:21 – 7:22

Exegesis:

esōthen (7.32) ‘from within,’ ‘from the inside.’

hoi dialogismoi (only here in Mark; cf. dialogizomai 2.6) ‘thoughts,’ ‘deliberations,’ ‘designs,’ ‘reasoning.’

It is to be noticed in the list of twelve sins which follows that the first six are plural, referring to acts, and the last six are singular, referring more directly to the sin itself.

porneiai (only here in Mark) ‘sexual vice,’ ‘unlawful sexual intercourse,’ ‘immoral sexual acts.’

klopai (only here in Mark) ‘thefts,’ ‘acts of thievery.’

phonoi (15.7) ‘murders,’ ‘killings.’

moicheiai (only here in Mark) ‘adulteries’ (as distinguished from porneiai above; sometimes the word may be the equivalent of porneiai ‘sexual vice’).

pleonexiai (only here in Mark) ‘avarice,’ ‘greed,’ ‘covetousness,’ ‘cupidity’: the word often has a sexual connotation, and so is translated ‘lust’ by Moffatt (cf. Taylor).

ponēriai (only here in Mark) ‘acts of wickedness,’ ‘malicious deeds.’

dolos (14.1) ‘deceit,’ ‘cunning,’ ‘treachery.’

aselgeia (only here in Mark) ‘licentiousness,’ ‘debauchery’; with the connotation of open and flagrant excess, ‘wantonness’ (Goodspeed ‘indecency’).

ophthalmos ponēros (only here in Mark) ‘an evil eye’: in Jewish thinking ‘envy,’ ‘malice.’ Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale le regard envieux; Zürcher Bibel neidischer Blick.

blasphēmia (3.28) ‘blasphemy’: here directed not to God but to men, ‘slander,’ ‘defamation,’ ‘abusive speech.’

huperēphania (only here in the N.T.) ‘haughtiness,’ ‘pride,’ ‘insolence.’

aphrosunē (only here in Mark) literally ‘foolishness,’ ‘stupidity’: in the Bible not simply to be equated with intellectual stupidity, but rather with ‘moral … wrongheadedness of unbelief and sin’ (Swete; cf. Gould, ‘morally foolish’). Lagrange hébétude morale; Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale le dérèglement de l’esprit. Some English translations have it ‘recklessness’ or ‘reckless folly’; Translator’s New Testament has ‘godlessness’ (in the Glossary this meaning of the word is defended). A translation should convey the moral and spiritual connotation of the word.

Translation:

Any passage such as this, in which there are a number of Greek nouns describing processes, e.g. evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, etc., is likely to cause difficulty for translators, since in so many instances the only natural way of speaking about such activities is to employ verbs. If this is done, one cannot easily say that these ‘come out of the heart.’ Rather, the more usual expression is ‘because of what is in the heart people think evil, are immoral…’ (Guerrero Amuzgo, Southern Bobo Madaré) or ‘from the heart they think evil, they molest women…’ (Eastern Highland Otomi, South Bolivian Quechua).

For heart see 2.6.

Evil thoughts in a verbal form may be ‘they think evil’ or ‘they make evil plans.’

Fornication and adultery both occur in this list of sins, but even in Greek there is some degree of overlapping. Fornication is the more general term, and specifically denotes sexual relations with prostitutes (porneia the common term for prostitution and pornē is a prostitute). Adultery involves some degree of marital infidelity, whether on the part of the man or the women, but in most contexts this word would refer to the marital status of the woman involved. That is to say, a married man who had sexual relations with a prostitute would be charged with fornication, but if the sex act were with someone else’s wife, he would be guilty of adultery. Theoretically the same would be true of women, but in general these terms are employed from the “masculine viewpoint.” In many societies there is a more or less parallel distinction between fornication and adultery, but where prostitution does not exist the distinction is between unmarried and married “lovers.” The following contrastive sets are interesting of the ways in which this distinction is made: (see table|fig:Table_MRK7-21.htm)

In some languages there are highly specialized idioms for illicit sexual relations, e.g. ‘to do something together’ (Highland Totonac), which would seem to be quite an “innocent expression”, but has a very specific denotation. In Yucateco one speaks of ‘sowing sin,’ while adultery, on the other hand, is ‘pair-sin.’ In Ngäbere fornication is ‘robbing self-possession’ (that is, to rob what belongs to a person), and adultery is ‘robbing another’s half self-possession.’ In Kaqchikel and Chol adultery is ‘to act like a dog,’ and in Southern Subanen an adulterer is ‘one who can’t be trusted.’ In Loma (Liberia) fornication is described by a euphemism, ‘they go out for a purpose,’ and in Toraja-Sa’dan the equivalent of adultery is somewhat poetic, ‘they measure the depth of the river of (another’s) marriage.’

Theft may be translated as ‘they steal from people.’ Note that this is not robbery, which is done by threat of violence, but the unnoticed activity of carrying away other’s possessions.

Murder is ‘killing,’ but this should not be a term denoting only killing in war or in defense of clan rights. It should be the most general term which would denote socially unsanctioned killing.

Coveting may be rendered as ‘they want what other people have.’

Wickedness may correspond to ‘they do bad things’ or ‘they behave bad.’

Deceit may be ‘they deceive people,’ ‘they lie,’ or ‘they trick.’

In some languages it is difficult to distinguish between wickedness and licentiousness, though the second involves a greater degree of moral abandon. In Inupiaqthe term translating wickedness covers such a wide area of meaning that lasciviousness had to be rendered as ‘complete disrespect for commandments,’ a rather indirect way of denoting moral perversity.

‘The evil eye,’ translated in the Revised Standard Version as envy, cannot be rendered literally in many languages without complete distortion of the meaning. For example, in Shipibo-Conibo ‘evil eye’ refers only to sexual designs. The local equivalent of the Greek expression is ‘to have a big liver.’ In Tzeltal the correct expression is ‘sick eye.’ In some languages ‘evil eye’ means the capacity of casting spells upon people, e.g. ‘their eyes bite’ (Tzotzil), but the fundamental meaning of ‘envy’ (or ‘stinginess’) is what should be indicated.

Slander may be rendered as ‘they speak evil against’ or ‘they destroy people’s names’ (San Blas Kuna).

Pride may be ‘they are always talking about themselves,’ ‘they think they are big,’ ‘they continually boast’ (Amganad Ifugao), ‘they lift themselves up’ (Tzeltal), ‘they answer haughtily’ (Yucateco).

Foolishness can sometimes be interpreted as ‘they do not think’ or ‘they do not use their livers,’ but the meaning is not so much the lack of employment of some faculty, as a kind of perversity and moral failure. The San Blas Kuna people say ‘they have no livers,’ that is to say, they are incapable of intelligent, thoughtful behavior.

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 .