Text:

Instead of egeneto Iōannēs ho baptizōn en tē erēmō kērussōn ‘John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness preaching’ of the majority of editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus and Soden have egeneto Iōannēs baptizōn en tē erēmō kai kērussōn ‘John was baptizing in the wilderness and preaching.’

Punctuation:

This verse stands as the conclusion of v. 1: ‘As it is written … John the Baptizer appeared….’ (cf. v. 1)

Exegesis:

ho baptizōn (6.14, 24) ‘the one baptizing’: this is a title, ‘the Baptizer,’ equal in meaning to ho baptistēs ‘the Baptist’ in 6.25; 8.28 (and in Matthew and Luke). For a discussion of the verb baptizō ‘baptize’ see v. 5.

egeneto ‘appeared’: the verb ginomai has several shades of meaning, including that of ‘come,’ ‘go,’ ‘appear’ (cf. Jn. 1.6, 2 Pet. 2.1, 1 Jn. 2.18). The phrase egeneto en tē erēmō could conceivably mean ‘was in the wilderness’ or ‘came into the wilderness’ (for this use of en see 1.16, en tē thalassē ‘into the sea’) In keeping with the O.T. passages being quoted, however, John, as a voice, appears, rather than comes, for nothing is said about his previous history (cf. Taylor). egeneto could be taken with kērussōn ‘came … preaching.’ It is more probable, however, that egeneto functions as the principal verb, while kērussōn is an independent participle which modifies ‘John.’

erēmos ‘wilderness’ (cf. v. 3): here refers to the wild uncultivated country west of the Dead Sea (cf. Taylor)

kērussōn (1.7, 14, 38, 39, 45; 3.14; 5.20; 6.12; 7.36; 13.10; 14.9; 16.15, 20) ‘announcing,’ ‘proclaiming.’ The word has an official, authoritative sense: it is not simply a shouting, as such, but the public announcement or proclamation by an authorized herald (kērux) who is, in this case, God’s own messenger.

baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartiōn ‘a baptism of repentance for remission of sins’: the whole phrase is the direct object of the participle kērussōn ‘preaching,’ and as such describes the content of John’s proclamation.

baptisma metanoias (cf. Lk. 3.3, Acts 13.24, 19.4 for the same phrase) ‘a baptism of repentance.’ The genitive metanoias ‘of repentance’ qualifies and defines the baptism John proclaims: the rite was characterized by repentance. Grant: “a Semitism, meaning ‘a baptism which symbolized or expressed repentance.’”

baptisma (10.38, 39; 11.30) ‘baptism’: a noun with the ending -ma ordinarily expresses the result of the action contained in the verb. In the N.T., however, baptisma is the rite itself, not the result of the practice of the rite (see v. 5 for baptizō).

metanoia (here only in Mark) ‘change of mind,’ ‘repentance.’ The word indicates more than an intellectual process: it involves a deliberate ‘turning’ (cf. O.T. shuv, and see Taylor, 167, on 1.15), involving heart and will, as well as mind. Moulton & Milligan: “a coming to one’s sense, resulting in a change of conduct.” The implication is that of turning from (apo Acts 8.22, Heb. 6.1) sin and to (eis Acts 20.21, epi Acts 26.20) God. The rite John proclaimed was qualified by metanoia ‘repentance’: as the next verse shows, the performance of the rite, by John, included the open confession of sin, by the candidate, as an expression of his repentance. Cf. the following translations: “a baptism based on repentance” (Manson); auf Grund der Busse (Zürcher Bibel).

eis aphesin hamartiōn ‘for (leading to, pointing toward) remission of sins.’

eis ‘to,’ ‘into’ may indicate, in this context, either purpose or result. Moule prefers the former: “with a view to.” What is the exact shade or significance of eis in this passage is determined not by grammar alone, but by the context as well. The English preposition for with its various shades of possible meanings, and its equivalent in other languages, is the best translation (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt; Manson “leading to”; Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale pour; Zürcher Bibel zu; O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada para).

aphesis (3.29) ‘remission,’ ‘passing over,’ ‘forgiveness’ (from aphiēmi ‘send away,’ ‘drive out’). The word corresponds to the O.T. nasaʾ ‘lift up,’ ‘carry away.’ The Biblical meaning of the word is that of the act of God whereby sin, as a debt, is canceled, or, as a transgression of the Law, is pardoned or remitted (Moulton & Milligan give examples from the papyri of this use of the word in connection with remission from debt or punishment). N. H. Smith connects the word with the rites of the Hebrew sacrificial system, “by which the taking away of sins involved in the forgiveness which follows repentance was symbolically set forth.”

hamartia (1.5; 2.5, 7, 9, 10) ‘sin’: this is the common N.T. word for sin, conceived of, fundamentally, as disobedience to the revealed will of God. The verb from which it is derived, hamartanō means “to miss the mark” (cf. O.T. chataʾ).

On the whole phrase Grant comments: “a baptism of immersion, undertaken at John’s direction and in response to his preaching, preceded by repentance … and followed by the divine forgiveness.”

Translation:

This verse may seem to be simple, but it is probably the most difficult verse in the entire Gospel of Mark, not only because of some of the difficult terms, but because of the unsuspected complication in the syntax.

For a discussion of ‘baptize’ see Mark 1.5, but in this verse there is a problem of relating the participial form of Greek baptizōn to the proper name ‘John.’ If, of course, the language in question has a regular means of designating a person who habitually or professionally does a particular type of work, such a form may be used in this context (such formations occur in a number of Bantu languages).

In order to obtain an adequate equivalent for preaching one needs to discover the way in which so-called “official pronouncements” are made within a particular society, for this is essentially the meaning of the Greek term. It is unfortunate that in English preach has acquired such a specialized meaning that it is understood almost entirely as a religious activity. This was not true of the Greek word kērussō. Accordingly, one should not attempt to import religious connotations (these will come soon enough); what is more important is the emphasis upon the authoritative character of the pronouncement. This means that one will want a term more equivalent to ‘declare,’ ‘announce,’ or ‘proclaim.’ In Tzeltal there is a fascinating kind of compound meaning ‘he explains, they hear’ (the goal of all preachers) and in Copainalá Zoque a preacher is ‘one who speaks-scatters’ (a figure based on the scattering of seed in the process of sowing).

Forgiveness is a concept, which though it exists in all languages, is expressed in quite varied ways. Perhaps the most common figures of speech involved in describing forgiveness are (1) ‘forgetting about’ (Tswa, Barrow Eskimo, Huanuco Quechua), (2) ‘to give back’ based on the idea that sin produces an indebtedness, which only the one who has been sinned against can restore (Navajo), (3) ‘erase,’ ‘wipe out,’ ‘blot out’ (Huichol, Shipibo-Conibo, Eastern Highland Otomi, Uduk), (4) ‘to lose,’ ‘cause to be lost,’ ‘to make lacking’ (Highland Totonac, Huautla Mazatec) and ‘to lose another’s sin out of one’s heart’ (Tzeltal), (5) ‘to be released’ or ‘to be freed’ (Lahu, Burmese), (6) ‘to level off’ (Chanca Quechua), (7) ‘to cast away’ (Yatzachi Zapotec), (8) ‘to pass by’ (Chol) or ‘to make pass’ (Wayuu), (9) ‘to turn one’s back on’ (Kpelle), (10) ‘to cover over’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), a figure of speech which is also employed in Hebrew, but which in many languages is not acceptable, because it implies ‘hiding’ or ‘concealment,’ (11) ‘to take away sins’ (Tabasco Chontal, Huichol), and (12) ‘to do away with sins’ (Toraja-Sa’dan, Javanese).

In some instances figures of speech conveying the meaning of forgiveness are highly specialized in form and cultural significance. In both the San Blas Kuna (‘to erase the bad heart’) and in Sierra de Juárez Zapotec (‘to repair the peace of heart’) the emphasis is upon the guilt felt by the sinner rather than upon the sins, certainly a perfectly valid viewpoint. In the Shilluk language forgiveness is expressed as ‘spit is returned to the ground for us by God’ or more idiomatically ‘God spit on the ground in front of us.’ This is an expression arising from the requirement that the plaintiff and the defendant, upon the conclusion of a trial and the termination of punishment or the payment of fines, spit on the ground in front of each other to signify that the case is finished, forgiveness has been accomplished, and the accusations can never come into court again – a very apt analogy to God’s forgiveness.

In Kipsigis forgiveness is expressed as ‘healing the neck,’ for since sin is spoken of as causing a mortal wound in the neck of the offender, so forgiveness is the healing of this wound.

It is generally not too difficult to find a word meaning ‘forgiveness,’ but what may be more of a problem is choosing between two or three alternative forms, which may have slightly different connotations and which may be required in different types of context. For example, in Huichol there are three expressions: (1) ‘to pass over’ (meaning essentially ‘to excuse’), (2) ‘to rub out,’ ‘sweep out,’ ‘wipe off,’ and (3) ‘to take away.’ All of these expressions are useful in particular contexts. On the other hand, one may find that some expressions may be widely used, but not fully adequate, at least in some contexts, as for example in Palau in the use of ‘to throw away,’ for which ‘to erase’ would be in most instances a better substitute. In some languages it is wise to choose the most intensive of any alternative expressions. For example, in Conob one could say ‘to erase,’ but the more adequate equivalent is a rather full, descriptive phrase, ‘to erase and make fall,’ implying that the sin has been made to disappear completely.

The difficulties encountered in discovering an adequate term for sin are not the result of the scarcity of the phenomenon, but the utterly diverse ways in which people regard it. In general the translator’s problems are of five types: (1) classifying words according to the various grades and types of transgressions, (2) distinguishing between words indicating acts and those implying guilt, (3) eliminating terms which apply almost exclusively to certain special sins or which may have ranges of meaning quite different from the Biblical expressions, (4) determining the degree of moral responsibility which is involved in the use of any one word, and (5) discovering a sufficient number of expressions, so that if possible, one may be able to parallel such Biblical distinctions as are implied in such words as sin, transgression, trespass, evil, wickedness, and iniquity (this last problem is beyond the immediate scope of this volume, but needs to be taken into consideration by any translator right from the beginning of his work).

It is quite common for languages to have several words for sins, ranging from terms which designate very mild kinds of ‘mistakes’ to words used almost exclusively of ‘horrible crimes.’ The tendency in such languages is usually to play down the extent of a person’s sins (especially in speaking of one’s own) by using as the most common term one which tends to excuse the offender. As the result such a word may mean little more than ‘error.’ For example, a word which may be said to be equivalent to English sin may actually be restricted in most contexts to the meaning of ‘adultery,’ which in some societies is the one sin which acquires the greatest social significance, but its very frequency may seem to make it more excusable. Such a term is unlikely therefore to imply much guilt. On the other hand, one does not wish to use a term for ‘sin’ which means only ‘guilt,’ even though the implication of guilt should not be missing in the expression chosen. In Ngäbere the transgression and the guilt are rather neatly linked in the phrase ‘that which makes one guilty,’ implying not only a transgression of an established norm (i.e. violation of the law and will of God) but the resultant guilt which inevitably follows.

One of the more serious problems in analyzing the meanings of words for sin is the tendency for terms to be too specific in their significance or to include areas of meaning quite outside the Biblical range. For example, in Huichol it was found that the term xuriki, which at first seemed to be quite acceptable because it included stealing, murder, and adultery, was not correct, for it also meant getting married and harvesting a cornfield. The underlying meaning was ‘destroying the value or character of something,’ and in the latter two instances xuriki referred to destroying the virginity of the bride and ruining the cornfield by gathering the ears of corn. As a result, in Huichol there are now in use two expressions, (1) meaning ‘bad action,’ used to denote the act of sin and (2) describing a ‘bad heart,’ employed to designate the sinner.

Quite frequently one finds that where there are several words for sin, some may be almost totally lacking in the connotation of moral responsibility. That is to say, people speak of sin as happening, but do not always assign a factor of choice or decision to such an act. This is overcome to some extent in Conob by designating sinners as ‘people with bad hearts’ (not just people who do bad things). The fact of decision is expressed in Loma (Liberia) by describing certain types of sin as ‘leaving the road,’ an expression which also implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin. This same concept of violation of standard is contained in the Navajo expression for sin: ‘that which is off to the side.’

Once a translator has found the appropriate equivalents for the lexical units of this verse, the problem has in a sense only begun, for an even more complex difficulty is involved in stating accurately the relationships between the parts. The first half of the verse, of course, presents no special problems, but the latter half involves very special difficulties. The syntactic problems of this verse are caused by two types of factors: (1) the series of process words linked by prepositions (i.e. in English, but by case endings in certain of the Greek forms), and (2) the abrupt shifts in the persons participating in these processes. In the first place, we find that in a high percentage of languages most processes, e.g. walking, running, eating, speaking, and also baptizing, repenting, forgiving, and sinning, are expressed by verb forms. In some cases these verbs may be made into noun-like words, but such noun formations may be quite uncommon in actual usage and especially in the complex kind of arrangement such as occurs in this verse. That is to say, in the series of processes involving baptism, repentance, forgiveness, and sins the predominant pattern in many languages is to treat such words as verbs. However, as verbs such words require the explicit indication of the persons who participate in these processes, and this involves the second major difficulty, the fact that there are such abrupt changes in the participants. For example, after the introductory verb of which John is the subject, it is John who does the baptizing and the people who are baptized, but the people are the subject of the repenting, God is the subject of the process of forgiving, and the people do the sinning.

There is a further problem involved in relating the four components baptism, repentance, forgiveness, and sins (these four are, of course, all the object of the preaching). The relationship between the third and fourth units is clear enough, for sins are the goal (i.e. object, in grammatical terms) of the process of the forgiving: cf. Toraja-Sa’dan ‘repentance which treads forgiveness as path.’ On the other hand, what is the relationship between the processes of baptism and repentance? The grammar books describe the second unit as a “genitive of characteristic” but that is not much help. However, if the second process is to characterize the first process, just how can this be stated clearly, when the two processes are to be treated as verb expressions, with their own subject constituents? There are probably two most satisfactory means of dealing with this problem: (1) the repenting can be described as simply preceding the baptism (in which case the character or quality is implied by the temporal sequence) e.g. ‘preached that the people should repent and be baptized’ or ‘preached that the people should be sorry on account of their sins and be baptized’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui) and (2) the baptism can apply specifically to those who repent, e.g. ‘whosoever had changed his mind, he ought to be baptized….’ (Balinese) The same meaning is conveyed in Tzotzil, but in a different order ‘declares that he gives baptism to whoever receives his heart’ (the last expression is the Tzotzil idiom for repentance).

One further complication is involved in the relationship between the preaching and the rest of the clause, namely, that in many languages such a verb of speaking demands direct, rather than indirect discourse (in the Balinese translation, noted above, there is a shift in this direction, but not the use of the second person). That is to say, one must render this passage as, ‘John preached, You must repent and be baptized….’ If then, we put the entire second clause together, it could be rendered in the indirect form as ‘John preached that the people should repent and be baptized so that their sins would be forgiven’ (changes into the direct form would be more or less automatic). On the other hand, in languages which have no passive form of the verbs, the problems are even more complex, for the subjects of the corresponding active verbs must be introduced and the resultant translation may be roughly parallel to, ‘preached that the people should repent and he would baptize them so that God would forgive the bad deeds which they had committed.’

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 .