Translation commentary on Mark 1:36 – 1:37

Exegesis:

katediōxen (only here in N.T.) ‘he followed’: the verb literally means ‘to track down,’ ‘hunt down,’ and has a hostile sense in such passages as Gen. 31.36; it may also have a good sense as in Ps. 23.6. More is indicated by the verb than the Revised Standard Version ‘followed’ there is an intentness, a determination, not present in the word ‘follow.’ Cf. Manson “tracked him down”; Swete “tracked him to his retreat”; O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada ‘searched diligently.’

Simōn kai hoi met’ autou ‘Simon and those with him,’ i.e. the other three mentioned in v. 29.

hōti ‘that’: here recitative, introducing direct speech, and thus correctly omitted in translation.

pantes ‘all’: notice the same use of this word in 1.5, 32, and similar expressions in 1.28, 33.

Translation:

Simon and those who were with him means ‘Simon and those who were with Simon,’ presumably, Andrew, James, and John, but it may have included others. However, the word him in this phrase does not refer to Jesus, but to Simon.

Followed is a misleading word, especially when translated literally in some languages, for it might imply that the disciples got up immediately after Jesus did and followed him (keeping him in view all the time) as he went out of the town. This of course is not the case. Evidently, the disciples awoke to find that Jesus had already left, and then they went looking for him. Accordingly, Mezquital Otomi has simply ‘went looking’ and Shipibo-Conibo ‘went to seek him.’ Other languages use expressions which imply that the disciple followed his tracks. The important thing is that the translation realistically reflect what happened.

Many languages have two words corresponding to English found: (1) a word which implies that something was discovered which people were not at the time trying to find and (2) a term which indicates that the object found is the result of a planned search. The latter expression is, of course, the one desired here.

The Greek verb zēteō, translated in the Revised Standard Version as “searching,” could perhaps be better translated as “looking for you.” It may also imply that the people were ‘asking about,’ ‘inquiring for,’ etc.

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 2:24

Exegesis:

hoi Pharisaioi ‘the Pharisees’: cf. 2.16.

ide (3.34; 11.21; 13.1, 21; 15.4, 35; 16.6) ‘look!,’ ‘see!’: no longer strictly an imperative of the verb but an interjection (cf. hora ‘see’ in 1.44).

ti; ‘why…?’: again a rhetorical question (cf. 2.7): this is not a request for information, but is an accusation of wrong doing). Cf. Moffatt: “Look at what…! That is not allowed.”

ho ouk exestin ‘that which is not lawful’: i.e. reaping, which the Mosaic law prohibited on the sabbath (cf. Ex. 34.21). It is to be noticed that the disciples are not accused of stealing or plundering someone else’s field; the charge has to do with work prohibited on the sabbath.

exestin (2.26; 3.4; 6.18; 10.2; 12.14) ‘it is lawful,’ ‘it is permitted,’ ‘it is proper’ (an impersonal verb).

Translation:

Said may need to be translated as ‘asked,’ because of the interrogative form of the following.

They must be rendered in some languages more specifically as ‘your disciples.’

Not lawful is a somewhat complex idea, which in a number of languages must be translated in a more descriptive manner, e.g. ‘what the law does not allow’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘what the law says should not be done,’ ‘what the law prohibits people from doing,’ or ‘what the law says is bad,’ if specific reference is to be made to the ‘law’ as codified rules of behavior. Rather, however, than the ‘law speaking’ (which it cannot do in some languages), one can translate ‘what people read in the law should not be done.’ On the other hand, it is more satisfactory in some instances to translate ‘what people should not do’ (Toraja-Sa’dan has simply ‘that which is not done’), without attempting to identify the codified form of the commandment, though the Greek text clearly implies a challenge to the authority of the Law.

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 4:5 – 4:6

Exegesis:

epi to petrōdes hopou ouk eichen gēn pollēn ‘on rocky (stony) ground where it did not have much soil’: what is meant is a shallow layer of soil covering the outcropping of an underlying bedrock.

Grammatically allo ‘other (seed)’ is the subject of ouk eichen ‘it had not’ and to mē echein ‘not to have’: this other portion of seed did not have much soil, and it sprang up immediately because it did not have any depth of soil. The same meaning, however, may be achieved in another way: ‘where there was not much soil … because there was no depth of soil’ (cf. Goodspeed, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada).

euthus exaneteilen ‘immediately it sprang up,’ ‘quickly it sprouted.’

hote aneteilen ho hēlios (16.2) ‘when the sun rose,’ ‘after the sun had risen’ (cf. 1.32 ‘when the sun set’). This does not mean ‘at sunrise’: what is meant is that the sun, high in the sky, was sufficiently hot to scorch the newly sprouted plant.

ekaumatisthē (only here in Mark) ‘it was burned,’ ‘it was scorched.’

dia to mē echein rizan ‘because it had no root’: dia ‘on account of’ with the infinitive indicates cause.

riza (4.17; 11.20) ‘root’: due to lack of soil the roots barely developed.

exēranthē (cf. 3.1) ‘it was withered,’ ‘it was shriveled up.’

Translation:

Rocky ground in this passage must be translated in such a way that people understand it not as soil having many stones, but as soil consisting of a thin overlayer on bedrock. This is done in some languages by saying ‘fell into thin soil which was lying on huge rocks’ (as a way of combining the first two clauses into one).

Some translators have failed to translate the second part of verse 5 correctly because they themselves did not understand it. This passage refers to the fact that in the spring of the year thin soil over bedrock or near outcroppings becomes warm faster than deep soil. This contributes to the more rapid germination of the seed. Hence, the seeds do actually spring up quickly, precisely because the soil is thin.

In the English text the seed is referred to collectively, and the pronominal reference in the singular it identifies the portion of seeds which fell in one place or another. In many languages, however, plurals are required, e.g. ‘other seeds fell … and immediately they sprang up….’

When the sun rose should not be restricted merely to the position of the sun in the eastern sky (a typical mistake), but to the sun high in the heavens, scorching the vegetation (the early morning sun is not likely to scorch any vegetation).

In verse 6 it refers to the germinated seeds, hence, ‘the plants.’ Accordingly, in some languages one must speak of ‘the seeds’ in verse 5 and ‘the small plants’ in verse 6.

Since it had no root must not be taken in the absolute sense, or these plants would be quite miraculous. The meaning therefore is ‘because they did not have much root’ or ‘because they did not have deep roots.’

It might seem that in indicating the extent to which a translator is required in some languages to be more specific than the text we are being unnecessarily pedantic or quibbling. This is not the case. We are only calling to the attention of the translator the fact that in many languages, especially of predominantly horticultural peoples, lexical distinctions between words require the selection of forms which are more specific than the corresponding Greek text.

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 5:10

Exegesis:

kai parekalei auton polla ‘and he entreated him strongly’: the subject could be ‘the unclean spirits’ (with which auta ‘them’ would be in agreement) as Moffatt, Taylor, Manson and Goodspeed interpret it (cf. the parallel Lk. 8.31 ‘and they begged him’); it is probable, however (with American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, The Modern Speech New Testament, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada, Lagrange and others), that the subject is ‘he’ (the man himself), as it is in the identical form parekalei ‘he begged’ in v. 18 (and notice the plural of the verb parekalesan ‘they (the spirits) begged’ in v. 12).

polla (cf. 1.45; 3.12) is adverbial ‘insistently,’ ‘strongly,’ ‘urgently.’

hina mē auta aposteilē ‘that he did not send them off’: the clause begun with hina ‘that’ denotes the content of the request – it is not a purpose clause (cf. 3.9, 12).

apostellō (cf. 1.2) ‘send away,’ ‘send.’

exō tēs chōras ‘outside the region’ (i.e. of the Gerasenes, v. 1): for chōra ‘region’ see 1.5.

Translation:

Begged him eagerly indicates the heart-felt nature of the entreaty, expressed in Tzotzil as ‘he asked with his heart coming out.’

In many languages the object of the entreaty must be in the form of direct discourse, e.g. ‘the man asked Jesus strongly, Do not send the unclean spirits away from this place.’ This type of expression need not imply any fond attachment which the man had for the demons which possessed him, but he uttered this request as the spokesman of the demons.

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 6:8 – 6:9

Exegesis:

kai parēggeilen autois hina ‘and he commanded them that…’: as in previous cases (cf. 5.18) hina ‘that’ does not indicate purpose, but the content of the command.

paraggellō (8.6) ‘give orders,’ ‘command.’

eis hodon ‘in the road,’ i.e. ‘for the journey.’

ei mē rabdon monon ‘except a staff only,’ not ‘except (for) one staff’: monon ‘only’ is an adverb (cf. 5.36), not an adjective, and modifies ei mē ‘except,’ ‘but.’

rabdos (only here in Mark) ‘staff,’ ‘rod’ used in traveling.

pēran (only here in Mark) ‘knapsack,’ ‘traveler’s bag’: here, more explicitly, a beggar’s bag. Lagrange points out it would be pointless to prohibit taking a bag for provisions when the taking of bread had already been forbidden.

mē eis tēn zōnēn chalkon ‘no money in their belts.’

zōnē (cf. 1.6) ‘girdle,’ ‘belt.’

chalkos (12.41) ‘copper,’ ‘brass’; ‘copper coin’; ‘money.’

In verse 9 the construction changes: instead of clauses governed by hina ‘that’ as in v. 8, there is one participial clause which is the direct object of the verb ‘he commanded,’ and one clause which is in the form of direct speech. For purposes of translation, however, there is no need literally to reproduce the Greek grammatical constructions; the content, not the form, is what matters.

alla hupodedemenous sandalia ‘but to wear sandals’ (i.e. rather than go barefooted).

hupodeomai (only here in Mark; cf. hupodēma 1.7) ‘bind under’: of sandals, ‘to put on,’ ‘to wear.’

sandalion (only here in Mark) ‘sandal’ (a synonym of hupodēma in 1.7).

kai mē endusēsthe duo chitōnas ‘and do not wear two tunics.’

enduō (cf. 1.6) ‘put on,’ ‘wear.’

chitōn (14.63; cf. himation 2.21) ‘tunic,’ ‘shirt,’ worn next to the skin: the command not to wear two tunics meant that one only was sufficient.

Translation:

Verses 8 and 9 present serious problems for translators because (1) the grammatical form shifts in the middle of the passage, from an indirect to a direct form, and (2) there are two awkward exceptions: the staff is an exception in what should be carried, and the extra tunic is forbidden in an otherwise positive command, i.e. to wear sandals and one tunic. This means that in a number of translations this passage must be recast to fit the requirements of the receptor language.

Charged them to take … may be altered in many languages into a form of direct command, for this greatly simplifies the syntactic problems in the rest of the passage, e.g. ‘he commanded them, Do not take….’

In verse eight there is a shift from negative to positive and again to negative in the Revised Standard Version order: nothing … except a staff; no …. In many languages this would be clearer if the exception to the negation were placed at the end, e.g. ‘do not take anything for your journey: do not take bread, a bag, or money in your girdles, take only a walking stick.’ In some languages (Southern Bobo Madaré), however, the positive would normally precede the negative, e.g. ‘take a stick in your hand, do not take anything else….’

Put on two tunics is equivalent in many instances to ‘wear two shirts.’ As Arndt and Gingrich point out the wearing of two tunics was a sign of effeminacy.

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 6:49

Exegesis:

edoxan (10.42) ‘they thought,’ ‘they supposed.’

phantasma (only here in Mark) ‘apparition,’ ‘ghost.’

anekraxan (cf. 1.23) ‘they cried out,’ ‘they screamed’ in terror.

Translation:

Ghost is usually quite easily translated, for most peoples claim to have seen apparitions of dead people moving in shadowy forms, and for such spectres they usually have a name. In fact, in some languages there are several different names, depending upon the size and definiteness of form of the object in question.

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 7:29 – 7:30

Exegesis:

dia touton ton logon ‘on account of this saying (of yours),’ ‘because of your reply’: a word of praise.

exelēluthen ‘it has (already) gone out’: the verb exerchomai ‘go out’ is used in connection with unclean spirits (or demons) in 1.25, 26; 5.8, 13; 7.29, 30; 9.25, 26, 29.

beblēmenon ‘lying’: either in repose, as an indication of normal health, or exhausted as a result of a final paroxysm caused by the demon’s withdrawal (cf. 9.20).

epi tēn klinēn (cf. 4.21) ‘on the bed.’

Translation:

Go your way may need to be shifted to ‘return’ or ‘go to your home,’ since a literal translation may imply setting out for a further destination.

Demon has left must be translated in conformity to regular idiomatic ways of describing this type of event (see 1.26).

In some languages one must be careful to avoid making the child lying in bed parallel with the demon gone. The first is a very logical object of the verb ‘to find,’ for she actually found the child in this state. However, she did not ‘find the demon,’ but simply discovered that he had left. This difference in the nature of the objects of the verb may be rendered as ‘saw the child lying in bed and realized (or, ‘learned’) that the demon had gone.’

One must make certain that the entire clause does not seem to be a rebuke, e.g. ‘because you said this, get out,’ an interpretation which has been implied in a number of translations.

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 8:26

Text:

Instead of mēde eis tēn kōmēn eiselthēs ‘do not even enter the village’ of the great majority of modern editions of the Greek text, Taylor and Kilpatrick have mēdeni eipēs eis tēn kōmēn ‘do not tell anyone in the village.’

At the end of the verse Textus Receptus adds mēde eipēs tini en tē kōmē ‘nor tell (it) to anyone in the village,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text; cf. Taylor and Kilpatrick, however, above.

Exegesis:

The words in this verse have already been dealt with: apostellō (1.2) ‘send,’ ‘send away’; eis oikon autou (8.3) ‘to his home,’ ‘home’; kōmē (6.6) ‘village.’

The ‘village’ is Bethsaida (v. 23): the man did not live in the village, however (v. 22).

Translation:

He sent him away must be rendered in some instances as ‘Jesus sent the man away,’ since there is again a shift of subjects from the preceding clause.

Sent him away must not contain the connotation of rejection. An equivalent may be ‘told him, Go to your home and do not go right back into the village.’

Do not even enter the village must not be translated by a verb form which would imply a permanent prohibition of such an action. What Jesus evidently wished to avoid was the man’s immediate return to the waiting crowd.

Negative commands, such as contained in the expression occurring in the Textus Receptus and the Kilpatrick text, may contain several negatives, depending of course upon the grammatical constructions of the receptor language in question. The following rendering in Copainalá Zoque is not unusual, ‘nor do not say nothing to nobody,’ in which the negatives reinforce, rather than cancel out, each other.

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 .