Translation commentary on Mark 1:38

Text:

allachou ‘elsewhere’ is omitted by Textus Receptus; all modern editions of the Greek text, however, include it.

Exegesis:

agōmen (13.11; 14.42) ‘let us go’: the subjunctive mode, in this context, has almost the force of an imperative. Here it is not so much a plea, a request, as an exhortation.

allachou (only here in the N.T.) ‘elsewhere.’ Arndt & Gingrich prefer the meaning ‘in another direction’ for this passage.

eis tas echomenas kōmopoleis ‘to the neighboring towns.’

tas echomenas (cf. Lk. 13.33, Acts 20.15, 21.26) ‘neighboring.’ The present participle of the verb echomai ‘have’ is used in the specialized sense of ‘next,’ ‘adjoining,’ ‘neighboring’ either with reference to time or to space.

kōmopolis (only here in the N.T.) ‘town,’ ‘village,’ ‘market town’ . Swete quotes Lightfoot who defines the word as referring to a small country town.

kai ekei ‘and there’: kai here has the meaning of ‘also.’

kēruxō ‘I may proclaim,’ ‘I may preach’ (see v. 4).

exēlthon ‘I came out.’ The ordinary meaning of ‘I came out (from Capernaum)’ is understood by most commentators (Gould, Turner, Rawlinson, Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament); Vincent Taylor takes it to mean ‘I came out (on the Galilean mission).’ Swete and Lagrange, however, see a theological meaning ‘I came forth (from the Father)’; this meaning, however, has not commended itself to many (although it appears that Luke understood the words in this sense; at least that is what Lk. 4.43 means).

Translation:

If it is necessary to be more specific in the pronominal reference he and them may be translated by the appropriate noun expressions. However, all such substitutions, whether of nouns for pronouns or pronouns for nouns must conform to the syntactic requirements of the receptor language in question.

Towns (in Greek a compound word meaning literally ‘village-city’) in this context refers to places half-way between cities and villages. In some languages this would be ‘big villages’ and in others ‘small cities,’ depending of course upon the more acceptable way of designating such a place.

For preach see 1.4, but note that in this context there is no object of the verb. In many languages, however, one must add a grammatical object to the verb of speaking, e.g. ‘to hand down the Way’ (Union Version in Chinese), ‘declare the word’ (Kekchi), or ‘speak God’s word’ (Kpelle).

If it is possible to preserve the ambiguity of ‘that is why I came out,’ well and good, but for the most part one must be more specific about the meaning of came out, hence stating specifically either ‘I came to this earth’ or ‘I came out of the city.’ The second meaning is recommended, though some translations have followed the first, e.g. Balinese.

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 Luke 1:1

Exegesis:

epeidēper ‘inasmuch as,’ ‘since,’ implying a reference to something which is already known to the reader, in this case to Theophilus. There is no reason to treat it as a solemn or stately conjunction.

polloi ‘many’ refers to unknown members of the Christian community who have been engaged in writing a Gospel account; that the reference is to writers follows from v. 3.

epecheirēsan ‘have attempted.’

epicheireō ‘to set one’s hand to,’ ‘to attempt.’ The question whether the use of this verb with regard to the work of his predecessors implies a criticism of their work, is much debated. But it should be pointed out (1) that the verb as such is neutral in this respect, and (2) that it was in accordance with Greek literary usage for a writer to refer to work of predecessors in the preface of his own work.

anataxasthai ‘to reproduce,’ or ‘to compile.’

anatassomai either ‘to repeat from memory,’ hence ‘to reproduce’ (Zahn, Moulton-Milligan) or ‘to draw up,’ ‘to compile’ (modern translations). Because of what follows the latter is preferable.

diēgēsin peri tōn peplērophorēmenōn en hēmin pragmatōn ‘an account concerning the things which have been accomplished among us.’

diēgēsis ‘narrative,’ ‘account.’ The use of the preposition peri ‘concerning’ instead of a simple genitive is either due to the literary character of the passage or intentionally somewhat vague because Luke does not want to commit himself as to the completeness of the accounts of his predecessors.

plērophoreō ‘to fill,’ ‘to fulfil,’ or ‘to convince fully.’ Here the participle peplērophorēmenōn admits of two explanations, i.e.: (1) ‘fulfilled,’ i.e. ‘accomplished,’ which means that the events in question “lie now before us a complete whole” (Bruce). Several versions give a rendering which is more general, as e.g. “that have happened” (New English Bible, Phillips), or, “which have taken place” (Williams). The force of the past participle should however be brought out: the “things that have happened” are not described as belonging to the past (which would have been expressed by the aorist) but as something the influence of which is still felt; hence also en hēmin ‘among us’ (see below); (2) ‘fully convinced,’ i.e. “on which there is full conviction among us” (Rengstorf; the most recent edition has “which have been fulfilled”, which belongs to (1)); cf. also Schonfield, “held by us to be fact”. Moffatt‘s “the established facts of our religion” seems to combine both interpretations; An American Translation‘s “the movement which has developed among us” may imply that the preface of the Gospel was intended for both the Gospel and Acts.

en hēmin ‘among us’ but used in a rather broad sense, ‘in our circles,’ ‘in our group as Christians,’ and not denoting the writer and his contemporaries but rather the writer and his fellow Christians.

pragma ‘thing,’ ‘event.’

Translation:

Inasmuch, or ‘because…, as you know,’ or ‘because…, indeed.’ When the casual connection is not expressed here but in v. 3 (see remarks on vv. 1-4), v. 1 should still contain some expression conveying the other idea, e.g. ‘indeed (or ‘as you know’) many people have already tried…’ (Balinese, Kituba).

Have undertaken, or, ‘have lifted the (writing-) brush’ (Chinese Union Version), ‘have-exerted-themselves,’ or, more generically, ‘have begun.’

Compile a narrative of. In languages that have no detailed terminology for stages and genres of literary activity one may say, ‘to gather and (or, in order to) write down,’ or, ‘to write down the full story about.’

Things which have been accomplished among us. The verb may be rendered, ‘have become complete,’ ‘have run their full course’ (Nieuwe Vertaling). The aspect of continuing effect (see Exegesis), if not sufficiently expressed by the form of the verb, or implied in the phrase ‘among us,’ ‘in our midst,’ may have to be indicated by other means, e.g. by adding, ‘and still affect (or, are important for) us,’ hence, ‘the important things that became complete (or, that happened) among us,’ cf. “the momentous happenings in our midst” (The Four Gospels – a New Translation). The other possible interpretation, ‘on which there is full conviction among us,’ results in a clause structure that often has to be simplified, e.g. ‘which have-certainty among us’ (Malay), or recast, e.g. ‘the reality of which is believed among us’ (Balinese); when active forms must be used, it may become, ‘which we know really/truly to have happened,’ taking ‘among us’ as referring to the agents. — Us is usually rendered as exclusive, cf. Exegesis on v. 3. It should be kept in mind, however, that the choice between inclusive and exclusive pronouns is not always dependent only on the question whether the audience is included or not; it may be influenced also by intersecting trends and considerations. Thus in Santali the inclusive pronoun expresses friendly respect (compare the “epistolary we”); similarly in Tae’ common knowledge and interest may induce a speaker to use the inclusive ‘we’ although the person addressed is not in actual fact a member of his group. On the other hand, in languages using honorifics it may be felt impolite to include the speaker and the person addressed in the same group, when the latter’s status is higher than the former’s, as is the case here; this would lead to the use of the exclusive ‘we,’ even if Theophilus is supposed to have been a Christian or catechumen, i.e. a member of the speaker’s group.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.

Translation commentary on Mark 1:44

Exegesis:

hora (8.15, 24; 9.4; 13.26; 14.62; 16.7) ‘see to it!’: the command enforces the prohibition ‘say nothing to any one.’

hupage (15 times in Mark) ‘depart,’ ‘go,’ ‘away with you.’

seauton deixon tō hierei kai prosenegke ‘show yourself to the priest and make (the) offering’: cf. Lev. 14.2-32 where Levitical laws concerning purification rites are set forth.

tō hierei (2.26) ‘to the priest’: that is, the serving priest, the officiating priest. There is division of opinion whether this means the priest in Jerusalem or a local priest, but the majority of commentators seem to agree that Jerusalem is implied (cf. Rawlinson).

eis marturion autois (6.11; 13.9) ‘for a testimony to them.’ There is general agreement that marturion here means ‘proof,’ ‘evidence’ (cf. Manson, Moffatt, Abbott-Smith). There is no agreement, however, concerning autois ‘to them.’ Who is meant? “People” in general is the opinion of some (Revised Standard Version, Lagrange, Creed, Moffatt). Lagrange conjectures that when the rites had been completed the priest certified in writing that the man had been pronounced clean, and this document would serve as proof for one and all. Others, however, think that “priests” is meant, i.e. those upon whom would devolve the task of officiating at the purification rites (Swete, Turner, Taylor). For translation purposes, if language allows, it is probably better to retain the ambiguity of the Greek and say simply ‘to them.’

Translation:

See must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, as it has been in some translations. It is equivalent to ‘beware lest you’ or ‘be sure that you do not….’

In contrast with the prophet, who spoke to the people on behalf of God, the priest represents the people before God. However, in many instances the small, growing Christian community is so strongly opposed to the ways of the religious practices of the paganism around them that they cannot readily accept a word for priest which is even neutral in its connotation. For example, in one area a translator insisted on using a word for priest which carried a very bad connotation whenever the Scriptures spoke of Jewish priests (especially those whom Jesus condemned). In this way the translator thought he could indirectly undermine the influence of the local pagan priests. However, when Jesus is called “our high priest” in Hebrews, this same translator wanted to use an entirely different term. At the same time the problem is complicated by the fact that the priest had many functions: sacrificing of animals, burning of incense, pouring of libations, offering of prayers, and participation in processions. An additional difficulty is that in many areas there are two levels of priesthood. For example, among the Huichol in Mexico there are (1) the local priests (shamans) of the indigenous religion and (2) the Roman Catholic priests, whom the people respect, but of whose ministry they understood very little. In such instances should one use the indigenous term which would imply a shaman-like person or borrow the Spanish term, which would seem to imply that the priests of the Bible were similar to Roman Catholic priests?

However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher’; ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Maninka), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle), and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Toro So Dogon); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal). (See also Bible Translating, pp. 113, 139, 235.)

Offer for your cleansing may be translated in this context as ‘make an offering, seeing that now you have been healed’ (or ‘cleansed’), or ‘… because you have been healed.’ Because of the temporal sequence involved, the Greek preposition peri, which normally would mean ‘about,’ ‘concerning,’ must here imply ‘with regard to the fact that…’ or ‘because of…’ (Union Version of Chinese).

What Moses commanded may be expanded, because of its elliptical form, to read ‘what Moses commanded you to offer.’ In some translations this entire expression reads, ‘now that you have been healed, offer what Moses commanded you to offer.’

For a proof to the people may be rendered as ‘this will show the people that you are healed’ (Southern Bobo Madaré) or ‘to show the people that you have been cleansed’ (Southern Subanen). If, of course, one understands the priests as implied in the expression for a proof to them, such an interpretation may be suggested by the rendering ‘in order to show the priests that you are healed.’

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 Luke 1:4

Exegesis:

hina epignōs ‘in order that you may know exactly.’

hina with following subjunctive ‘in order that,’ here indication of purpose.

epiginōskō ‘to know,’ ‘to know exactly,’ ‘to learn,’ ‘to recognize.’ In the present context katēchēthēs, however interpreted (see below), implies that Theophilus had already some knowledge of the Gospel facts but not enough to be sure of their trustworthiness. Hence epiginōskō; carries here the nuance of ‘knowing exactly.’ The majority of translations do not bring out this nuance but the idea of ‘knowing exactly’ is also suggested by the object of epignōs, i.e. asphaleian ‘reliability,’ cf. Phillips, “that you may have reliable information”. That epiginōskō would mean ‘to have additional knowledge’ is improbable.

peri hōn katēchēthēs logōn tēn asphaleian ‘the reliability of the things that you have been taught.’ The connexion of the whole clause is as follows: hina epignōs tēn asphaleian tōn logōn peri hōn katēchēthēs; the relative clause peri hōn katēchēthēs logōn (with incorporation of the antecedent logōn) has been placed between the main verb epignōs and its object asphaleian in order to give greater emphasis to the latter, and because it is in accordance with literary usage.

katēcheō ‘to inform,’ or ‘to teach.’ When understood in the latter meaning the reference is to some form of instruction in the fundamentals of the Christian faith but not necessarily to what later became known as the instruction of the catechumens. In either meaning, therefore, katēchēthēs does not implicitly decide whether or not Theophilus was a Christian. If it is assumed that he is, then the more logical translation is ‘to teach,’ but this assumption then is based on other grounds than the meaning of katēcheō, cf. on v. 3, and the most that can be argued from the present phrase is that it does not exclude the possibility that Theophilus was already a Christian at the time Luke’s Gospel was written. Hence the mere fact that the meaning ‘to teach’ is favoured is in itself no indication of the translator’s choice in this question. Both interpretations are well represented among commentators and translators, but the majority favour ‘to teach.’

logos ‘word’; here it must either be understood in the very general meaning ‘matter,’ ‘thing,’ or in the rather special meaning ‘story,’ preferably the former.

asphaleia ‘truth,’ ‘trustworthiness,’ ‘reliability,’ preferably the last.

Translation:

Know, or, ‘understand,’ ‘discern clearly’ (Chinese RC), se rendre compte (Bible de Jérusalem); the aspect is ingressive. In some languages ‘to know/perceive’ and ‘to see’ are rendered by the same term (Sranan Tongo); elsewhere exact knowledge is referred to by a figurative expression, ‘to be clear to the self’ (Toraja-Sa’dan).

The truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. This complex phrase usually has to be recast as a clause, e.g. ‘that the things … are true,’ or, trying to reproduce the emphasis of the Greek, ‘that the things … have actually occurred (Telugu), or, are perfectly certain (Tamil), or, are entirely reliable.’ A further shift is found in Apache, ‘that you may truly know the things…, how they happened.’ Cf. also the Kituba and Shipibo-Conibo quotations in the note on vv. 1-4. The things of which you have been informed, again, will often have to be restructured, e.g. ‘what people have taught you’ (Sranan Tongo), ‘the words they told you’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘the way you have learned’ (Chinese Union Version), ‘the things you have heard’ (Tboli).

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.

Translation commentary on James 3:13

Who is wise and understanding among you?: James continues with his favorite style by asking another rhetorical question. He addresses those among his readers who consider themselves to be wise and understanding. This pair of terms is found often in the Old Testament (Deut 1.13; 4.6), describing a person who lives in accordance with the insight given by God. The wise person is not someone who possesses intellectual capacity or abstract knowledge, but someone who has moral insight on practical matters in daily life. The Greek word translated understanding appears only here in the New Testament. It is rendered as “endued with knowledge” by King James Version, “clever” by New English Bible, and “learned” by Revised English Bible, and is used to describe someone who possesses expert knowledge with deep perception and understanding. There is, however, no need to press for a precise and distinct difference of meaning between the two. Rather, comparable to their usage in the Old Testament as a pair, the two words are perhaps best taken as having the same sense, so Contemporary English Version “wise and sensible.” In languages not accustomed to using similar words like this, the pair may be rendered as “truly wise,” “having great spiritual insight,” “a person who considers everything very carefully,” or idiomatically, for example, “a person with a very big mind.” The clause Who is … among you? may also be expressed as “Are there any of you…?” (Good News Translation), “Are any of you…?” (Contemporary English Version) or, “Do any of you…?”

James goes on to answer his own question by mentioning two things that are evidence of true wisdom, namely that true wisdom should show itself in deeds, and that it should manifest itself in meekness. First, the person who is truly wise and understanding should prove it by the quality of his or her own conduct. It is proven By his good life. The word life is not the usual word for life; it refers not so much to private and inner life, but to life in relation to others as shown in conduct. It is a favorite word in 1 Peter, referring to the whole manner and style of Christian living intended to be a witness to nonbelievers. The King James Version rendering “conversation” is misleading, since in modern usage it is used almost exclusively to mean “oral expression,” namely “talk.” In the present context it means more or less the Christian way of life, conduct, or behavior. To show here means to “prove” or to “demonstrate.” The force of the imperative let him show may therefore be brought out more clearly as “You are to prove it” (Good News Translation), “he must demonstrate” (Barclay), or “he must give evidence of.” Other ways to express this clause are “show it by living right” (Contemporary English Version) or “Show you are truly wise by walking a straight life.”

By his good life let him show his works: what exactly is the relationship between good life and his works, as the two expressions appear to be needless repetition of the same idea? What is to be shown is his works: and his good life is the means to be used. Since his works is the content of what is to be shown, it may be clearer in English to add the function word “that” to introduce a subordinate clause, thus “Show by his good life that his works….” In this case we can either make his works a verbal statement like “what he does is done…” (Goodspeed) or supply a verb like “his works are done…” (so Barclay, New Revised Standard Version). Another possibility is to take his works as in apposition to good life, thus “by your good life, by your good deeds…,” as Good News Translation has done (similarly Contemporary English Version). This alternative is the more likely one. We may also express this as “by walking his life well and doing good deeds.”

Secondly, true wisdom should show itself in the meekness of wisdom. The genitive construction “A of B” is ambiguous, as it may be understood in so many different ways.
(1) It is most often taken as “B modifying A” or “B as descriptive of A,” reflected in all literal translations, resulting in the meaning “wise meekness [humility]” (so Chinese Union Version [CUV], Chinese New Translation).
(2) It is also understood as a coordinate construction, “A and B,” as seen in the rendering of Good News Translation “with humility and wisdom” (so also Luther 1984, Bible en français courant; similarly Contemporary English Version).
(3) It can be interpreted as “A characterizing B,” apparently the sense favored by Barclay when he renders the phrase as “that gentleness which is the hallmark of wisdom.”
(4) It is also taken as “A agreeing with B,” for example, “meekness that is in accord with wisdom” (so Japanese colloquial version, Japanese Franciscan Translation).
(5) Finally, it is interpreted as “A originating from B,” resulting in the rendering “the humility that comes from wisdom” (New American Bible; similarly Phillips, Translator’s New Testament, Revised English Bible). This is the option favored by many modern scholars and translators.

To sum up, (2) and (5) appear to fit the context best and therefore are recommended by this Handbook.

Meekness is the opposite of arrogance. It is often understood as self-effacement or submissiveness and is therefore considered by many as a weakness rather than a virtue. In Jesus’ teaching, however, it is a desirable quality. In one of the beatitudes he pronounces “Blessed are the meek” (Matt 5.5). The “meek” there means people with genuine humility and awareness that they are unworthy before God and are totally dependent on him. In the present context the word has been rendered in various ways; for example, “modesty” (Revised English Bible), “gentleness” (Barclay), and “humility” (Good News Translation, Translator’s New Testament, New International Version). Indeed this sort of “humility” can come only from true wisdom—the wisdom from God! For more discussion on the meaning of “meekness,” see the discussion in 1.21.

The following are possible alternative translation models for this verse:
• Are any of you truly wise? If you are, then you must show this by living [or, walking] a good life, and also by doing good deeds with the humility [or, gentleness] that comes from your wisdom.
• Is there any person among you who is wise or sensible? You must show it by living a right [or, correct] life and by being humble and wise in everything you do.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Luke 1:17

Exegesis:

The syntactic structure of this verse is rather loose. The main clause proeleusetai enōpion autou ‘he will go before him,’ etc. is followed by two infinitive clauses, one (1) with the loosely attached final epistrepsai ‘to turn,’ the other (2) with the unconnected final hetoimasai ‘to prepare.’ Clause (2) is either subordinate to (1), or dependent upon the main clause and then co-ordinate with (1). The former interpretation (represented by The Four Gospels – a New Translation, Willibrord, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée) seems to be slightly more probable, since clause (2) is the more general and comprehensive of the two, but the syntactic pattern is too vague to admit of clear distinctions. The semantic function of the clause beginning with hetoimasai however is clear: it serves to indicate with what intention John will ‘turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just’: it is to prepare a people for the Lord.

kai autos proeleusetai enōpion autou ‘and he will go before him.’

kai autos ‘and he,’ unemphatic: there appears to be no reason for referring explicitly to the subject because it is the same as that of the preceding verb epistrepsei ‘he will turn’ (different in 1.22; 2.28, which see).

proerchomai ‘to go before,’ as a forerunner (here) or as a leader (22.47).

enōpion autou ‘before him,’ cf. on v. 15. Here it has both a local meaning, ‘some distance in front of him,’ and a temporal one ‘going and coming sometime before him.’ From the general usage of enōpion it follows that the local meaning is predominant.

en pneumati kai dunamei Eliou ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ i.e. “possessed by the spirit and power of Elijah” (New English Bible). en means here as in 2.27 ‘under the influence of,’ or ‘guided by.’ The genitive Eliou is not possessive but qualifying: John will be possessed by the same spirit as Elijah. pneuma does not refer to the human spirit but to the divine spirit, as usually when accompanied by a semantically related noun.

dunamis ‘power,’ often connected with pneuma (4.14; Acts 1.8; Rom 15.13, 19; 2 Tim. 1.7) and here practically synonymous with it as in 1.35. Hence both words may be rendered as one concept, ‘powerful spirit.’

epistrepsai kardias paterōn epi tekna ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ a free quotation of Mal. 4.6 (3.24 in the Hebrew text); the emphasis is on the restoration of mutual relationship between fathers and children. Translations like “to reconcile father and child” (New English Bible, cf. Phillips, An American Translation) are based on the idea of the Hebrew of Mal. 3.23 rather than on the exact wording of Lk. 1.17! The clause may refer to a restoration of parental affection (Plummer, Creed, Klostermann, Weiss) or to the winning of the older generation for the religious ideals of the younger generation (Zahn, Grundmann).

kai apeitheis en phronēsei dikaiōn ‘and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous.’ The phrase is still dependent upon epistrepsai, which implies that en phronēsei is equivalent to eis phronēsin, indicating to which John will turn the disobedient. For dikaios cf. on v. 6.

apeithēs ‘disobedient,’ here in the religious sense of ‘disobedient towards God.’

phronēsis ‘way of thinking,’ or, ‘insight,’ ‘understanding.’ The translation “wisdom” (Revised Standard Version and many others) goes back to the latter, “ways” (New English Bible) to the former, which seems to suit the context better.

hetoimasai kuriō laon kateskeuasmenon ‘to make ready for the Lord a people prepared,’ indicating the final purpose of the preceding clause.

hetoimazō ‘to make ready,’ ‘to prepare,’ virtually synonymous with kataskeuazō, but used with a different function: hetoimasai, qualified by kuriō, refers to the act done by John for the Lord, kateskeuasmenon, past participle, refers to the outcome of the act (as brought out by Translator’s New Testament, “thoroughly prepared”). Some translations take kuriō to go with kateskeuasmenon and render hetoimasai and kateskeuasmenon by one expression, cf. “to make a people perfectly ready for the Lord” (An American Translation), but the position of kuriō immediately after hetoimasai and separated from kateskeuasmenon does not point to this interpretation.

kataskeuazō (also 7.27) ‘to make ready,’ ‘to prepare.’

Translation:

Him, or, ‘the Lord,’ because the mere pronoun sounds disrespectful (Malay), cf. on 3.22.

In the spirit and power. As shown in Exegesis the function of “in” often has to be described, e.g. by ‘bearing,’ ‘endowed with’ (Kannada), ‘having received’ (Shipibo-Conibo); with necessary further shifts and expansions this may lead to such renderings of the phrase as, ‘being dressed-in the spirit and having-as-attribute the power’ (Javanese), ‘having-as-spirit the spirit and having-as-power the power,’ ‘having received the powerful/strong spirit,’ or to corresponding verbal clauses. For spirit, preferably to be rendered as in ‘Holy Spirit,’ see references on v. 15; for power on v. 35.

Of Elijah, i.e. that (the prophet) E. had, cf. ‘bespirited and bepowered as E. (was)’ (Batak Toba 1885), ‘his strength of spirit (will be) like the strength of spirit of E.’ (Tae’ 1933), ‘and the spirit and power that have influenced (or, driven/strengthened) E. also will influence (etc.) him.’

To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children repeats the verb of v. 16 but in different context; hence, the rendering may have to differ more or less radically, as in, ‘make the fathers love their children’ (Pohnpeian), ‘direct the hearts of the fathers towards their children’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘cause men to think well again of their children’ (Apache, where ‘father’ cannot be used without definite possessor; hence, ‘men’). The plural in ‘hearts’ is distributive, that in ‘fathers’ and ‘children’ collective, expressing a category; in both cases some languages use a singular. The word (also occurring in 1.51, 66; 2.19, 35, 51; 3.15; 5.22; 6.45; 8.12, 15; 9.47; 10.27; 12.34; 16.15; 18.1; 21.34; 24.25, 32, 38) stands for the centre of the personality, the seat of emotions and/or intellect, etc. Here, as in some other cases, its use helps to signal the metaphorical meaning the verb has. In other languages, however, a direct reference to the person concerned is preferable, see some of the renderings quoted above. In Kituba a literal rendering would imply that a physical transaction was taking place, a quite dangerous idea in the local cultural context, which is avoided by saying, ‘to return fathers to love their children.’ — Fathers. The plural is distributive. For the noun, here used in the sense of a person’s biological father (also in 1.59, 62, 67; 8.51; 9.42, 59; 11.11; 12.53; 14.26; 15.12, 17f, 20ff, 27ff; 16.27; 18.20; and in 2.33, 48. For father(s), i.e. ‘ancestor(s)’ cf. below on 1.32 and 55; for Father in the sense of Jesus’ or the believers’ heavenly Father on 2.49.

And the disobedient to the wisdom (preferably, way of thinking) of the just. To clarify the clause structure the verb rendering “to turn” often has to be repeated here, or a synonymous verb that fits this phrase better, cf. ‘cause the hard-headed to accept the same thoughts as the people who do right’ (Sranan Tongo), ‘cause those who do not hear/obey to hear/obey the wisdom of the men who are good’ (Apache), ‘change the rebellious ones to think as the righteous think’ (Western Highland Purepecha). For disobedient, i.e. ‘those who do not obey God’ (Tboli), cf. the above quotations, and Shipibo-Conibo’s ‘the not to be talked to,’ i.e. people who, though you tell them, do not want to do. For the verb ‘obey’ see on 2.51. For just cf. references on “righteous” in v. 6.

To make ready … prepared, or as a co-ordinated clause, ‘and so (he will) make ready prepared.’ In translating this phrase the main problem is to prevent its sounding repetitive, or becoming a tautology. This will influence the way the verb and the participle must be rendered. Make ready for the Lord, or, ‘form … for the Lord’ (Willibrord, Bible en français courant), ‘makes the hearts soft for the Lord’ (Huanuco Quechua); or again, because the phrase emphasizes the beneficiary, ‘to put at the Lord’s disposal,’ ‘to provide the Lord with.’ A people prepared, or, ‘a people fit to be used’ (Chinese Union Version). If the aim of preparation has to be made explicit, one may say, .’.. prepared for (or, to serve) him.’ — People may have a generic meaning, ‘several persons,’ or it may refer, as it does here, to a particular political and/or racial entity, such as Israel, and then has been rendered, ‘nation’ (see on 7.5), ‘race,’ ‘tribe,’ ‘the hundred (sur)names’ (Chinese Union Version, traditional for the totality of the Chinese people), or a term for the collective citizens (Lü Zhenzhong). When that entity is seen in its relationship to a ruler or overlord, one may have to say, ‘the subjects.’ When that ruler is God, the same rendering often can be used (as is done here in Balinese), or a specific term designating a people as a religious community, e.g. the followers of a prophet or the worshippers of a god (Bahasa Indonesia). In some cases the term is used to indicate the common people in contrast to their leaders, see on 7.29.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.

Translation commentary on Luke 2:27 – 2:28

Exegesis:

kai ēlthen ‘and he came.’ With this clause the description of the event, already announced by kai idou ‘and behold’ in v. 25 (cf. note there), begins; kai therefore resumes the opening words of v. 25. Hence Knox translates “he now came”.

en tō pneumati ‘in the Spirit,’ i.e. “guided by the Spirit” (New English Bible), not on his own account or initiative.

eis to hieron ‘into the temple,’ i.e. the temple in Jerusalem.

hieron ‘temple’; as compared with naos ‘temple’ (1.9, 21, 22) hieron includes the whole temple with its buildings, courts, etc. and is often used when the scene of action is not the temple building itself.

kai en tō eisagagein tous goneis to paidion Iēsoun ‘and after the parents had brought in the child Jesus,’ scil. eis to hieron ‘into the temple,’ omitted in order to avoid repetition. en with following articular accusative and infinitive in the aorist tense indicates events preceding the event expressed in the main clause (cf. 9.36; 11.37; 14.1; 19.15).

eisagō ‘to bring in,’ or, ‘into.’

tou poiēsai autous kata to eithismenon tou nomou peri autou ‘in order to do concerning him according to the custom of the law.’ tou with following articular infinitive has final force and the clause expresses the purpose of their entering the temple. autous is the subject of the infinitive poiēsai, not expressed in English. peri autou ‘concerning him’ goes with poiēsai; the phrase does not mean that the child Jesus himself is to be submitted to a rite but only that what his parents do, concerns him.

to eithismenon, past participle of ethizō ‘to accustom,’ lit. ‘that which is accustomed’ i.e. ‘that which has become a custom,’ synonymous with to ethos (cf. on 1.8) ‘custom,’ ‘tradition’; to eithismenon tou nomou ‘the custom of the law’ is the custom which the law prescribes.

(V. 28) kai autos ‘and he.’ autos refers to a subject already mentioned, i.e. that of ēlthen ‘he came.’ kai is used here in a redundant way to introduce the apodosis after a subordinate clause (cf. 2.21).

edexato auto eis tas agkalas ‘he received it in his arms.’

dechomai ‘to take,’ ‘to receive.’ The use of this verb here suggests that the initiative is not with Simeon but that the child is handed over to him.

agkalē ‘bent arm,’ usually in order to receive something.

kai eulogēsen ton theon kai eipen ‘and he praised God and said.’ For eulogeō cf. on 1.64. The two verbs of this clause may be taken to refer to two different acts, or to one single act, preferably the latter, cf. The Four Gospels – a New Translation, “blessed God in these words”.

Translation:

Inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple. The activity of the Spirit has also been described as, “impelled by” (The Four Gospels – a New Translation), ‘moved by’ (Ekari), ‘on instruction of’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘on instigation/command of’ (Tamil); or, changing the syntactic pattern, ‘the Holy Spirit led him into, or, caused Simeon to enter’ (Sranan Tongo, Tboli). Spirit may have to be specified, cf. ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘Spirit of God.’ — The temple (Gr. to hieron, occurring in 2.37, 46; 4.9; 18.10; 19.45, 47; 20.1; 21.5, 37f; 22.52f; 24.53) is preferably to be distinguished in translation from the more specific ho naos (for which see on 1.9). Commonly used descriptive renderings are, ‘Holy/Sacred House,’ ‘Divine Abode,’ ‘House of God.’ In order to indicate the uniqueness of Jerusalem’s temple Balinese has to use ‘Great Temple.’ The Chinese Union Version did not choose the term for the temple of popular religion (in which also the participation of the state was centred), but a word (lit. ‘palace’) indicating the main worship hall of the Buddhists. A similar term is used in Thai to translate ho naos, and an expression built on that term is employed as rendering of to hieron, i.e. ‘environs-of the main-audience-hall’ (preferred to the existing term for a temple compound because of the strong Buddhist connotations of the latter). Some other renderings used (most of them both for hieron and naos) are, ‘God’s compound’ (Zarma), ‘big church of the Jews’ (Otomi), ‘big house on top (i.e. most important)’ (Zapotec of Villa Alta), ‘festival longhouse of God’ (Guhu-Samane), ‘sacrosanct house,’ lit. ‘house where-the-belly-gets-swollen’ (i.e. because taboo is violated) (Toraja-Sa’dan, using a term that is also applied to a Muslim mosque).

The parents brought in the child Jesus. Where ‘parents’ should preferably be possessed one may shift to, ‘the child J. was brought in by his parents’ (Indonesian languages), ‘father and mother of that child J. brought-in him’ (Kituba), or, ‘Jesus’ parents brought in the little one.’ Parents is often rendered by a combination of the words for father and mother, cf. on v. 33. — Brought in, or, ‘brought/carried enter (the temple),’ ‘came in there, carrying’; cf. also on “brought him up” in v. 22. — The child Jesus. This combination of noun and proper name is awkward in some languages; then one may have to say, ‘the young/little one called Jesus,’ or simply, ‘the little one,’ or, ‘Jesus’ (Tboli); or again, shifting to a term for descendant (cf. on 1.7), ‘their child (called Jesus).’

To do for him, or, ‘concerning him,’ ‘with him’; or, ‘to act/perform with regard to him.’ In some languages the very generic character of the clause cannot be maintained. Since it refers backwards to v. 22b, it is defensible in such a case to say ‘to present him (to the Lord).’

According to the custom of the law, ‘as was the custom prescribed by the law,’ ‘as the law had made them accustomed to do’ (Sranan Tongo); or, making the phrase the object of ‘to do,’ “what was customary under the Law” (New English Bible), ‘custom required by the law’ (Tagalog), ‘custom that started from their own commandment/law’ (Tboli). Where ‘custom’ and ‘law’ are incompatible in an expression like this, one may have to shift to, “what the Law required” (Good News Translation), ‘the prescriptions of the Law’; then the rendering may become more similar to, or coincide with, that of “according to the law” in v. 22.

(V. 28) He took him up in his arms. One or both of the pronouns may have to be specified, ‘Simeon’ and ‘the child’ respectively. To take in one’s arms (in some languages expressed by one verb), or, with a slight semantic shift ‘to take/hold-to-one’s-breast’ (Bahasa Indonesia, Javanese). Elsewhere one has to add a verb, cf. ‘he took and held-in-his-arms’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘Simeon took him, held-him-to-his-breast’ (Malay).

Blessed God and said, preferably, ‘praised God, saying (or, in/with these words),’ see on 1.42 sub (2).

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.

Translation commentary on Luke 3:1 – 3:2

Exegesis:

Vv. 1f consist of (a) a series of indications of time, serving to fix the events to be described in vv. 2ff in the setting of world and regional history, the latter both political and religious, and (b) the main clause egeneto rēma theou epi Iōannēn ‘the word of God came to John,’ etc.

en etei de pentekaidekatō tēs hēgemonias Tiberiou Kaisaros ‘in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.’ de is transitional and serves to introduce a new narrative.

hēgemonia ‘rule,’ here referring to the reign of the Roman emperor but in itself as general a term as the verb hēgemoneuō (used in the next phrase), cf. on 2.2.

Tiberiou Kaisaros ‘of Tiberius Caesar,’ cf. on 2.1.

tēs Ioudaias ‘of Judea,’ cf. on 1.5. Here it is used in an administrative sense, including Samaria but not Galilee, as the next phrase shows.

kai tetraarchountos … Hērōdou ‘and when Herod was tetrarch.’

tetrarcheō ‘to be tetrarch,’ i.e. originally the governor of one of the four provinces of Thessaly, later denoting the ruler of any small country or region who was not a king.

tēs Itouraias kai Trachōnitidos chōras ‘of Ituraea and Trachonitis,’ both going with chōras which admits of many translations, cf. e.g., “district” (Translator’s New Testament), “territory” (Phillips), “country” (Moffatt). Their tetrarch Philippus was Herod’s older brother, of a different mother.

epi archiereōs Hanna kai Kaïapha ‘in the time of the high priest Annas and Caiaphas.’ archiereōs, though in the singular, refers to both names mentioned, and Luke may have thought of Annas and Caiaphas as being a kind of joint high priests.

archiereus ‘high priest.’

egeneto rēma theou epi Iōannēn ‘the word of God happened, or, came to John.’ This phrase occurs frequently in the Septuagint, denoting the divine inspiration of a prophet by God and the entrusting of a divine message or commission (cf. e.g. Gen. 15.1; 1 Sam. 15.10; Jer. 1.2). It implies that the person to whom the word of God comes, comes under the power of that word, not just that the word is communicated to him.

en tē erēmō ‘in the desert’ refers to the same area as hai erēmoi in 1.80.

Translation:

The elaborate way in which Luke states the date of the events to be told has the stylistic function of marking that he now comes to the main part of his narrative. In several languages this can be imitated approximately, but it may be advisable then to divide the one long sentence in small units, introducing the main event (‘the word … came …’) by a recapitulating expression, e.g. “It was the fifteenth year of the rule of Emperor T.; Pontius P. was governor of Judea, Herod was ruler of G…. It was at that time that the word of God came…” (Good News Translation). Other languages may require an introductory word or phrase, such as, ‘To-begin-with’ (Malay; cf. also above on 1.5), ‘What will be told now is this.’ If according to receptor language usage the main event has to be mentioned early in the utterance, the sentence may have to be recast in such a way that first the emperor, next John and what happened to him, and last the secular and religious rulers are referred to (Manobo), whereas in a language as Sateré what happened to John will have to come at the very beginning.

The noun reign may have to be expressed in a clause, e.g. ‘when T. C. had been reigning/ruling, or, had been emperor’; and cf. on 1.33.

Governor, see on 2.2.

Tetrarch. The rendering to be chosen should denote an indigenous ruler that is subject to higher authority, cf. the following renderings of ‘tetrarch’ and ‘emperor’ respectively, ‘prince’—‘king-of-princes’ (cf. Balinese), ‘chief’—‘chief of greatness’ (Kituba), ‘king who has been apportioned a fief,’ i.e. feudal Lord—‘(one who is) on the throne,’ using a well known idiom that expresses sovereiGood News Bibley (Chinese Union Version); in Kekchí the distinction is indicated by a reference to areas of different size, e.g. ‘who had power in Galilee’ (etc.)—‘who had power in all the land.’ A cultural equivalent has been used in, ‘at the time of these four chiefs: Herod in the region G., Phillip in the region I….’ (Batak Toba, adapting an expression employed in several parts of Sumatra for groups of high dignitaries, which are called ‘the four chiefs/grandees,’ even if their number is not complete). Attempts at a literal rendering, often a neologism in the receptor language, usually result in a long and cumbersome phrase, in some cases even a misleading one, suggesting some such meaning as ‘chief over four parts,’ or ‘fourth ruler.’ The renderings of “tetrarch” and “governor” are the same in some languages (e.g. Kituba, Ekari, Sranan Tongo); this is acceptable, because the distinction is of no relevance here (cf. the fact that in Pilate’s case the Greek does not mention his precise rank).

Brother, see below on 6.14.

(V. 2) In the high-priesthood of A. and C., or, ‘when A. and C. were high-priests.’

The word of God came to John. Though the wording of this Hebraistic phrase should preferably be preserved, yet receptor language idiom may compel the translator to the use of more or less radical adjustments. He may have to mark the expression as a simile, e.g. ‘the word of God came, as it were, to/over John’; or to rephrase it so that the connexion between ‘word of God’ and the verb becomes less direct, e.g. by speaking of ‘the power/guidance of God’s word,’ or so that ‘the word of God’ is no longer the agent, e.g. by shifting to a rendering like, ‘John was-commissioned with God’s word’ (Javanese), or, ‘John received the word of God’; or again, he may have to treat the ultimate agent, i.e. God, as subject of the sentence, e.g. ‘God made J. the one to speak his (i.e. God’s) words,’ ‘God made-known his message to him’ (Kituba). ‘God commanded/commissioned/told John to preach.’ — For word of God cf. on 5.1. In some Bantu languages the choice is between two terms for ‘word,’ the one used in contexts of social communication in the meaning voice, ‘word (that is heard and awaits response),’ the other in that of ‘word (as power, or as expression of intention),’ ‘command,’ ‘message’; as the exegesis shows the latter term will usually best fit the present context. — Came to, has been rendered by ‘came over’ (Willibrord), ‘took possession of’ (Schonfield), ‘found’ (Nyakyusa), ‘arrived in the heart of,’ indicating that John is merely an instrument of God in receiving the word (Tzeltal), ‘arrived at/reached’ (Shona 1963, employing a verb that, when given a suffix indicating purpose or aim, is used in ritual contexts of a god, or spirit, that takes possession of a medium).

In such phrases as John the son of Zechariah the appositional phrase functions approximately as does the surname in modern western languages; in some languages it forms a closely knit linguistic unit, signalled as such by a specific term or construction.

When name and apposition do not form such a unit one should make clear that in the wilderness does not go with Zechariah, but with John, cf. ‘then God’s voice found J., the son of Z., it found him in the woods’ (Nyakyusa), .’.. to John there in the wilderness. This J. was the child of Z.’ (Manobo); cf. also, ‘at that time Z.’s son J. was in the desert (and) the word of God came down to him’ (Chinese Union Version, locative clauses in Chinese normally preceding that part they qualify) for wilderness.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.