Text:

After geennan ‘hell’ Textus Receptus adds eis to pur to asbeston ‘into the unquenchable fire,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

Most of the words in this verse have already been dealt with in v. 43.

duo podas ‘two feet,’ ‘both feet.’

chōlon (only here in Mark) ‘lame,’ ‘crippled.’

blēthēnai ‘to be cast,’ ‘to be thrown.’

Translation:

Many languages do not distinguish ‘foot’ from ‘leg,’ in speaking of a person’s lower limbs. Either term is quite acceptable, for the emphasis here is upon one’s ability to walk, not the possession of a particular part of the anatomy. The important thing is that the resulting loss would make one lame, translatable in some instances as ‘having just one foot’ or ‘having just one leg.’

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:

ērxato legein ‘he began to say.’ Revised Standard Version is probably justified in giving full force to archomai ‘begin’ in this verse, rather than regarding it as virtually meaningless auxiliary (cf. 1.45), as does Translator’s New Testament.

idou hēmeis ‘behold we’: the pronoun ‘we’ is probably emphatic, in contrast with the rich man who was not willing to leave anything (cf. Gould).

For aphiēmi ‘leave’ cf. 2.5, and akoloutheō ‘follow’ cf. 1.18. Gould and Taylor call attention to the use of the aorist aphēkamen ‘we left,’ describing the decisive act of renunciation, and the perfect ēkolouthēkamen ‘we have followed,’ describing the permanent role of discipleship.

Translation:

Lo in some languages is equivalent to ‘look here’ or ‘mind you.’ It is an emphatic element, designated to call special attention to what is said. It does not imply literal ‘looking.’

Left everything may require expansion to ‘left all that we had,’ in order for it to be understood in the sense of renunciation rather than merely of getting up and departing, or of inadvertently leaving things behind.

For follow see 1.17.

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:

Some words in this verse have already been dealt with: for kathizō ‘sit’ cf. 9.35; katenanti ‘opposite,’ ‘in front of’ cf. 11.2; chalkos ‘copper,’ ‘money’ cf. 6.8; plousios ‘rich’ cf. 10.25.

gazophulakeion (12.43) ‘treasury’: presumably one of the thirteen contribution boxes, or receptacles, in the form of trumpets, with broad bases and narrow openings at the top, which were placed under the colonnade in the Court of the Women. It may be that the particular area, in which the thirteen boxes were placed, was known popularly as the ‘treasury.’

etheōrei pōs ‘he was watching how’: for similar constructions cf. 5.16 diēgēsanto … pōs ‘they explained … how’; 11.18; 14.1 ezētoun pōs ‘they were seeking how’; 14.11 ezētei pōs ‘he was seeking how.’

eballon polla ‘they were putting in much (money)’: Burton calls attention to the imperfect here, describing the repeated acts, and the aorist ebalon ‘they put’ in v. 44, a summary statement of the incident.

Translation:

The treasury is often translatable as ‘the place where the money was received (or ‘kept’),’ or ‘the place where the people put in the money.’

Watched the multitude putting … must in some languages be broken up into two clauses, e.g. ‘watched while the crowd of people put their money…,’ or ‘watched the many people; they were putting money….’

Rich people may often be rendered as ‘those who possess much money’ and in this context, therefore, one may translate as ‘those who had much money put in a lot of money.’

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:

hotan idēte tauta ginomena ‘when you see things happening’: in the context ‘these things’ refers primarily to the events described in vv. 24-27, but would include also those described in vv. 14-23.

ginōskete ‘you are to know’: probably here an imperative form (in v. 28 the identical form is clearly indicative).

eggus estin ‘it is near’: the majority of English translations have ‘he is near,’ with obvious reference to ‘the Son of man’ in v. 26 (Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale actually translates le Fils de l’homme est proche). Others, for example Lagrange, regard the saying as “mysterious and veiled,” in the style of v. 14, and they believe that one should not attempt to supply any definite subject, e.g. que c’est proche (cf. O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada que est próximo; Luther has es ‘it’; Translator’s New Testament ‘it is near’).

epi thurais ‘at the door’: this figure of speech denotes immediate nearness.

Translation:

Though in English the present tense forms see and know are applicable to a future condition, in many languages this type of condition must have special tense forms applicable to such a future event, ‘when you will see…, then you will know….’ This future usage also requires the use of the future in the dependent clause, e.g. ‘that he will be near.’

At the very gates may be quite meaningless in some languages, for it has no possible relationship to a temporal contract. In fact, its use may completely distort the meaning of the passage in such a way as to cause people to think of the Son of man as standing at the gate of the corral or by the roadside. On the other hand, if the subject of ‘is near’ refers to a general event, then the meaning is even more difficult, for ‘happenings’ cannot be spoken of as being ‘at the very gates,’ unless one is to assume that all these apocalyptic happenings are to take place at the gates. Accordingly, in languages in which the metaphor ‘at the very gates’ is going to be inevitably misunderstood, one may employ ‘is come very near indeed’ (Tabasco Chontal).

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 mou ‘my’ Textus Receptus adds to ‘the,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Before diathēkēs ‘covenant’ Textus Receptus adds kainēs ‘new,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

to haima mou tēs diathēkēs ‘my blood of the covenant’: the phrase is perhaps consciously modelled after Ex. 24.8 “Behold the blood of the covenant (Septuagint to haima tēs diathēkēs) which the Lord has made with you.” “The blood of the covenant” is the blood which ratifies, or seals, the covenant God made with his people.

diathēkē (only here in Mark) ‘will,’ ‘testament,’ ‘compact,’ ‘covenant’: it is agreed that the meaning of the word in New Testament is to be derived from the use and meaning of berith in the O.T., with reference to the ‘covenant’ which God made with the people of Israel. Rather than translate the Hebrew word by sunthēkē, the normal Greek word for ‘agreement,’ ‘covenant,’ the Septuagint uses diathēkē, perhaps with the purpose of avoiding the implication in sunthēkē of an agreement reached by a settlement between two parties who stand as equals; for in the O.T. God’s berith with his people is, so to speak, drawn up, proposed and executed by God alone.

to ekchunnomenon (only here in Mark) ‘the (blood) poured out’: several commentators translate the present participle ‘(the blood) which is now being poured out,’ as though in the mind of Jesus his blood were already being shed. It is better, however, to take the participle as having a future force, in accordance with Aramaic usage, ‘(the blood) which will be poured out’ (cf. The Modern Speech New Testament, Goodspeed).

huper pollōn ‘in behalf of many,’ ‘for many’ (cf. the discussion on anti pollōn in 10.45).

Translation:

There are a number of expressions used to signify covenant, some of which closely resemble the force of the Greek diathēkē, while others are simply general terms for a contract or agreement, e.g. ‘to put mouths equal,’ signifying complete assent on the part of all (Conob); ‘helping promise’ (More); ‘a thing-time-bind,’ that is to say, an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time (Vai); ‘an agreement’ (Loma (Liberia)); ‘agreement which is tied up,’ i.e. secure and binding (Northwestern Dinka); ‘a word which is left’ (Chol); ‘a broken-off word,’ based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached (Huastec); ‘a death command,’ a special term for testament (Tetelcingo Nahuatl); ‘a promised word’ (Piro); ‘a word between’ (Eastern Krahn); and ‘promise that brings together’ (Yaka).

Perhaps a more difficult problem than finding a term for covenant is relating this expression to the preceding, namely, ‘blood,’ for the of in English cannot be reproduced by any possessive construction, as some translators have tried to do. The covenant does not possess the blood; it is only that the covenant is established or ratified by means of the blood. This relationship must be made explicit in some languages, e.g. ‘blood which establishes the promise…’ (Yaka), ‘blood which arranges…’ (Central Pame), ‘blood that makes the word between us strong’ (Eastern Krahn), and ‘blood which confirms the covenant’ (Mitla Zapotec). In Northern Grebo the entire construction is recast as ‘agreement made by shedding my blood.’

Poured out must be carefully translated to make sure that this does not refer to the pouring of blood from a glass or other type of receptacle. This is not a reference to the pouring out of animal’s blood, but the shedding of Jesus’ own blood, translated in some languages as ‘running out,’ ‘coming out,’ and ‘gushing out.’

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:

epseudomarturoun (cf. 10.19) ‘they gave false testimony,’ ‘they bore false witness.’

isai (14.59) ‘equal,’ ‘alike’: the adjective is in the feminine nominative plural form, agreeing with hai marturiai ‘the testimonies.’ In the context the adjective means ‘consistent,’ ‘coherent’: the accusations brought against Jesus by the witnesses were not consistent one with the other.

Translation:

Bore false witness against may be rendered as ‘spoke against him but they were lying’ or ‘they told lies about him’ (Highland Puebla Nahuatl).

Their witness did not agree might be quite simply translated as ‘they did not say the same thing’ (Huehuetla Tepehua) or idiomatically as ‘they did not mate their words’ (Tzeltal).

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 .