Text:

Before potērion ‘cup’ Textus Receptus and Kilpatrick add to ‘the,’ which is omitted by all other modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

potērion (cf. 7.4) ‘cup’ containing the wine.

eucharistēsas (cf. 8.6; 6.41) ‘giving thanks’: as already seen, the same as eulogēsas ‘blessing.’ Jeremias calls the verb eucharisteō a “Graecising” of the Semitic term eulogeō. Bengel (on Mt. 26.26) says of the two: “Each verb explains the other.”

epion ex autou pantes ‘they all drank from it,’ i.e. ‘they all drank some of its contents’: the cup was passed from disciple to disciple until they had all drunk of the wine.

Translation:

Had given thanks may require an object, e.g. ‘gave thanks to God.’

Gave it means ‘he gave the cup.’

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:

holon to sunedrion (15.1; cf. the plural sunedria 13.9) ‘the whole Sanhedrin,’ ‘the entire (High) Council’: the Sanhedrin was the supreme governing body of the Jews, presided over by the current high priest, possessing both spiritual (ecclesiastical) and juridical (political) powers.

ezētoun kata (cf. 3.22) ‘they were seeking against.’

marturian (14.56, 69) ‘witness,’ ‘testimony.’

eis to thanatōsai auton ‘to put him to death’: the preposition eis ‘into’ with the infinitive of the verb, indicates here purpose – ‘they were seeking (adverse) testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death.’

thanatoō (cf. 13.12) ‘put to death,’ ‘hand over to be killed.’

kai ouch hēuriskon ‘but they were not finding (it)’: the kai is adversative.

Translation:

The whole council is in some languages ‘all the men who decided things’ or ‘all the important men,’ another way of designating membership of the council.

Sought testimony against is a very compact phrase involving two quite separate processes: (1) the seeking of persons who might testify and (2) the testimony of the men against Jesus. Moreover, the preposition against implies the statements made by Jesus’ accusers. Accordingly, in some languages this succinct expression must be somewhat expanded, e.g. ‘looked for men who would accuse Jesus’ (Highland Puebla Nahuatl) and ‘sought testimony as to the sin of Jesus’ (Tzeltal). In the first instance testimony is rendered as ‘men who would accuse,’ supplying what is essentially a subject-verb expression for the event noun of Greek and English. In the second case, against is expanded so as to indicate the hostility of the testimony.

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:

stratiōtai (only here in Mark) ‘soldiers’: these are probably soldiers of Pilate himself (as Mt. 27.27 has it).

apēgagon (cf. 14.44) ‘they led away,’ ‘they took off.’

esō tēs aulēs (cf. 14.54) ‘inside the court’: here aulē is the ‘court’ of a prince, from which the sense ‘palace’ derives. By Suidas the word was defined as ‘the house of the king’ (cf. Moulton & Milligan).

esō ‘within,’ ‘inside’: only here in the N.T. does esō function as a preposition.

praitōrion ‘praetorium’ is a Latin loanword praetorium, the governor’s official residence (cf. the many examples in Moulton & Milligan).

sugkalousin (only here in Mark) ‘they call together,’ ‘they summon.’

holēn tēn speiran (only here in Mark is speira used) ‘the whole cohort,’ ‘the entire contingent (of men),’ ‘the whole detachment’ speira is the Greek word which translates the Latin cohors, normally composed of 600 men (i.e. one-tenth of the legion). It is not necessary to suppose, however, that anywhere near that number of soldiers were there present or took part in the mockery.

Translation:

Palace is often ‘the house of the ruler’ or ‘the governor’s building.’

That is, the praetorium may be treated as an explanatory phrase, involving a transliteration of praetorium, but this may not be very meaningful, for explanatory additions are supposed to elucidate, while in this instance praetorium would mean much less than a translation of palace. Accordingly, some translators have rendered the passage as ‘that is the place called praetorium,’ in order that the word may be readily identified as a borrowing.

The whole battalion may be ‘the rest of the group of soldiers,’ for the soldiers mentioned as subject of the sentence also belonged to this same battalion.

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:

diagenomenou tou sabbatou ‘the sabbath having passed’: this would be any time after 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, when the first day of the week would begin. In the context, it would have been Saturday evening when the women bought the spices.

diaginomai (only here in Mark) ‘to go through’: of time, ‘to pass,’ ‘to elapse.’

For Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James cf. 15.40.

ēgorasan (cf. 6.36) ‘they bought.’

arōmata (only here in Mark) ‘spices,’ ‘aromatic oils (or, ‘salves’)’: used in the Jewish practice of anointing the dead, for burial.

aleipsōsin (cf. 6.13; cf. murizō in 14.8) ‘they might anoint’: it is to be noticed that this is an anointing, and not the (Egyptian) art of embalming. Therefore Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale pour embaumer and O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada para … embalsamá-lo may be misleading.

Translation:

The phrase and Salome may require a transposition in order to avoid the meaning of Mary being the mother of both James and Salome, e.g. ‘Mary from Magdala, Salome, and Mary the mother of James.’

Spices must not be translated in such a way as to refer only to spices used as condiments, a not infrequent error. In Tzeltal the proper equivalent is ‘fragrant medicines,’ in which ‘medicines’ is a general term for any kind of ointment or salve, regardless of its function. In Navajo, the only phrase which may be employed is ‘herbs for anointing,’ in which ‘herbs’ covers all types of substances derived from plants. In Amganad Ifugao a descriptive equivalent is ‘sweet-smelling things.’

Evidently the buying of the spices took place in the evening after the sabbath had ended at sundown, but the actual going to the tomb was early the following morning.

Anoint him is ‘anoint his body’ in many languages; otherwise there is an implicit reference to Jesus as still living.

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:

ekērussen ‘he proclaimed’ (cf. v. 4): the imperfect continues to describe John’s habitual activity, the message which accompanied his baptism.

ekērussen legōn ‘he preached saying’: this construction, consisting of a verb plus the participle of another verb, which is practically a synonym of the first, is common and reflects Semitic influence. There is no need, in English translation, to reproduce both verbs (cf. Translator’s New Testament, Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Knox, Zürcher Bibel).

erchetai ‘he comes’: the present tense is often used with a future meaning (Moffatt “is to come”); in this verse there is an emphasis on the immediacy of the action, ‘is coming’ (Translator’s New Testament), ‘is on the way.’

ho ischuroteros mou ‘the one stronger than I’: ischus ‘strength’ refers primarily to physical strength – by extension it takes on the idea of power, might, greatness (cf. 3.27): ‘mightier’ (The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Manson, Knox), ‘greater’ (Translator’s New Testament).

opisō mou ‘behind me’: the phrase goes with erchetai ‘is coming behind me.’

opisō (1.17, 20; 8.33, 34; 13.16) ‘behind,’ ‘after’: as an adverb it refers both to time and place (not used of time in the N.T.); as a preposition, with the genitive case, as here, it is also used of time and place (Abbott-Smith sees Septuagint influence). Here the idea is clearly that of time (cf. Acts 13.25 erchetai met’ eme ‘comes after me’), although some commentators see the idea of rank, ‘a follower of mine.’

hou … autou ‘whose … of him’: this use of the relative hos ‘who’ and the pronoun autos ‘he,’ both in the genitive case, is a construction which reflects Semitic influence, although, as Lagrange points out, it is not unknown in Greek itself. In translation, therefore, there is no need to reproduce both the relative hou ‘whose’ and the pronoun autou ‘of him’ since both refer to the same thing, i.e. ton himanta tōn hupodēmatōn ‘the thong of the sandals’ (cf. a similar construction in 7.25, and see Taylor, 60 and literature referred to). The relative hou ‘whose,’ it is to be noticed, does not refer to hikanos ‘worthy’ as though it meant ‘worthy of him’: rather, like autou ‘of him,’ it refers to ‘the thong of the sandals.’

hikanos (10.46; 15.15) “competent, qualified, able, with the connotation worthy … for something.”

kupsas lusai ‘stooping to loose’: such a verbal construction is quite common, in which two different actions are described by the participle of one verb plus the regular form (required by grammar) of the other. The meaning is the same it would be if both verbs were in the infinitive: kupsai kai lusai ‘to stoop and to loose.’

kuptō (only here in Mark) ‘stoop (down)’: the participle modifies the subject of eimi ‘I am,’ not ‘the thong of his sandals.’

luō (7.35; 11.2, 4, 5) ‘loose,’ ‘unbind,’ ‘release’: to untie the thong of the sandal was the menial task of a slave.

Translation:

In most translations the first problem to be encountered in this verse is the existence of the double verbs of speaking, preached, saying. In many languages one must use one verb or the other, but not both, or people will say, “What did he do, preach or say?” Often these terms are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, there are a number of languages, e.g. several of the Quechua dialects of South America, which use double verbs of speaking, but one is used at the beginning of an utterance, and the other at the end, somewhat parallel to “he said … said he.” In a sense they serve in the place of quotation marks and as such are very convenient. In still other instances this Semitic type of expression fits quite naturally, e.g. in Barrow Eskimo.

Having noted (Mark 1.4) that some indirect expressions must be turned into direct ones, we must also indicate the fact that frequently the reverse process is obligatory. For example, in Eastern Maninkakanverses 7 and 8 must be cast into an indirect form: ‘he said that after him would come one….’

Comparatives, such as mightier than I are seemingly very awkward to translate in some languages, for in such instances comparison is only accomplished by means of a combined positive-negative statement, e.g. ‘there is more his power; more there is not my power’ (Tzotzil), ‘he has great power; I do not have great power’ (as in the case of a number of so-called Bantu tongues). These types of positive-negative statements must not be interpreted on the basis of their literal retranslation into English. They are just as much genuine “comparatives” (if we may use the term) as the construction with which we are familiar in Indo-European languages. Another common form of comparative uses a verb meaning ‘to surpass,’ e.g. ‘his power surpasses my power.’

What, however, adds to the difficulty of this verse is the fact that the adjective worthy is difficult to translate in many languages, for close equivalents are often not adjectives. This should not be surprising, for worthy is not an abstraction of easily definable qualities (cf. red, good, beautiful), but of relative social position and capacity. In Guerrero Amuzgo the phrase I am not worthy to is translated ‘I can’t be used to….’ In Huichol worthy is ‘to have the right to….’ In Inupiaqthe equivalent is ‘to be on the same level so as to…’; in Tzotzil a possible rendering is ‘measure up to…’; and in San Mateo del Mar Huave one must say ‘reach to.’

The expression after me comes must be treated in some languages as a kind of comparative. For example, in the Highland Oaxaca Chontal this verse reads ‘I come first; he comes later.’

Mightier must be interpreted in terms of authority, and not physical strength, e.g. ‘will order more people around’ (Huichol) or ‘will be more a chief’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave).

Sandals must often be translated by a type of footgear with parallel functions, even though some details of construction are dissimilar, e.g. ‘boots’ (Barrow Eskimo) or ‘thongless sandals’ (Yatzachi Zapotec), which are ‘removed’ rather than ‘untied’ (‘removing’ is the functional equivalent).

In any translation the arrangement of the constituent parts of this verse must be entirely dependent upon requirements of the structure involved, e.g. ‘He spoke God’s word, saying, Someone is coming after me, his power surpasses mine. I am not worthy to bend over and untie his shoestrings’ (Kpelle).

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:

lepros (14.3) ‘a leper’ (cf. the parallel Lk. 5.12 anēr plērēs lepras ‘a man full of leprosy’). The exact meaning of lepra (and of the Hebrew saraʿath, of which it is the translation) is by no means certain. Arndt & Gingrich point out that in pre-Biblical Greek the term meant psoriasis: there is widespread agreement that, even if the term sometimes denoted leprosy in the Bible, it also included other skin diseases. Dr. K. P. C. A. Gramberg argues that saraʿath and lepra did not denote leprosy at all. Dr. J. L. Swellengrebel, in a review of the Biblical evidence, shows that these terms certainly denoted some kind of disease which could be of a serious nature and which carried with it ceremonial uncleanness.

parakalōn … kai gonupetōn legōn ‘pleading … and kneeling saying’: the three participles describe the manner in which the man erchetai ‘came’ to Jesus.

parakalōn (5.10, 12, 17, 18, 23; 6.56; 7.32; 8.22) ‘entreating,’ ‘pleading,’ ‘beseeching.’

gonupetōn (10.17) ‘kneeling’: literally ‘to fall (piptō) on the knee’ (gonu).

hoti ‘that’: again recitative, introducing direct speech (cf. v. 37).

katharisai (1.41, 42; 7.19) ‘to make clean’: in the Septuagint the verb is used of physical and ceremonial cleansing, and means ‘to make clean’ or ‘to declare clean.’ Here it is used in the former sense, ‘to make clean.’

Notice that the request of the leper is conditioned not on Jesus’ ability to make him clean (“you can make me clean”) but on his desire or willingness (“if you will” or “if you wish”).

Translation:

A great deal of confusion has existed with respect to the word leper (and leprosy), for the area of meaning of this word is not the same in the Bible as it is in contemporary medical usage (see above). Moreover, leprosy is not known in certain parts of the world, and in other areas where it does exist, it may be spoken of in quite idiomatic ways, e.g. ‘lazaro sickness’ (Shipibo-Conibo, an expression borrowed into Shipibo-Conibo from Spanish, which associates leprosy with Lazarus) and ‘disease of animals’ (Shilluk).

Where leprosy is not known, it is necessary to employ some type of descriptive expression which will indicate something of the seriousness of the disease, but not badly distort its real significance. The following types of expressions are used: ‘sickness of skin rotting’ (Huichol), ‘ulcer sickness’ (Tzeltal, in which ulcer refers generally to all types of skin diseases), and ‘decaying sores’ (Barrow Eskimo).

However, even where leprosy is known, since the meaning of the Biblical term is uncertain, it may be wise to use a more general term or descriptive phrase which none the less conveys the seriousness of the condition, and if possible also carries the connotation of ceremonial uncleanness, e.g. as suggested in Balinese ‘ominous disease.’ A meaningless loan-word should certainly be avoided.

Beseech may be translated as ‘to ask strongly’ or ‘to ask insistently.’ In Huichol the equivalent is ‘to give one a desire,’ an interesting shift of psychological viewpoint.

Kneeling must sometimes be described more specifically as ‘kneeling in front of,’ depending upon local idiomatic requirements.

If you will means ‘if you desire to’ or ‘if you want to.’

Though the “cleansing of lepers” seems to us to be an entirely normal way of speaking, this is quite impossible in many languages. Lepers may ‘be healed,’ but ‘not cleansed,’ for cleansing would imply only washing out of wounds. For example, in several translations it was found that this expression ‘to cleanse’ or ‘to make clean’ meant only ‘to give a bath to’ or ‘to wash.’ Accordingly in such instances a translator must render the passage as ‘if you want to heal me, you can do so.’ Moreover, it may be necessary to choose between different words for ‘heal,’ e.g. in Southern Bobo Madaré kiri means to heal external diseases and kuru internal ones. Without a careful distinction at this point the reader could become quite confused.

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:

palin ‘again’: refers back to 1.21.

eis sunagōgēn ‘into a synagogue’: the exact shade of meaning would be akin to the idiom in English “he went to church” (cf. Taylor); Lagrange translates en synagogue.

anthrōpos … echōn ‘a man … having’ i.e. ‘a man who had.’

exērammenēn … tēn cheira ‘withered … the hand’: the definite article tēn ‘the’ is customary with parts of the body, and means ‘his hand’ (cf. 1.41).

xēraino (4.6; 5.29; 9.18; 11.20, 21) ‘dry up,’ ‘wither’: what is indicated is a stiffness, an inability to use the hand . It is an overrefinement to see in the use of the perfect passive participle an indication that the paralysis of the hand was due to an accident, rather than being congenital (as do Swete, Vincent).

Translation:

For synagogue see 1.21.

Withered, which is in itself a figurative expression, corresponds to different types of figurative and descriptive terms, e.g. ‘dead hand’ (Amganad Ifugao, Southern Subanen, Farefare), ‘a weak hanging-down hand’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘a crooked-grown hand’ (Javanese), ‘dried up hand’ (Southern Bobo Madaré), ‘stiff hand,’ ‘a hand which could not be moved,’ and ‘a hand without flesh’ (Shipibo-Conibo).

Languages differ considerably in the divisions of the human anatomy. For example, one term may include only the hand, and not the wrist, but in another language a word for the hand may include the entire forearm, or even the arm as a whole. In other instances the palm of the hand is distinguished from the fingers. The Greek term may itself even include the entire arm, but probably in this context the best correspondence is what we would understand by hand, wrist, and probably forearm, since the ‘withering’ often includes the entire portion.

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:

For the whole expression cf. 4.23; 7.16, and in the O.T. Deut. 29.4; Psalm 115.6. The meaning is “If any one is able (and willing) to learn, let him pay attention!”

ōta (4.23; 7.33; 8.18) ‘ears.’

akouein ‘to hear’: the infinitive indicates purpose (cf. 4.3).

Translation:

This aphoristic expression is a very effective one, but in some languages it must be slightly modified in order to be intelligible. In the first place, its generic quality sometimes must be altered from singular to plural ‘all those who have….’ In the second place, in a number of languages the ears must be the inner ears, by which one hears, not the outer projections from the head (cf. Spanish, Highland Totonac). In the third place let him hear is not an expression of permission, but of exhortation, therefore, equivalent to ‘he ought to listen’ or ‘they should pay attention’ (Shilluk). Ears to hear may be rendered as ‘ears with which he (or ‘they’) can hear.’

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 .