Exegesis:
dia ton anthrōpon ‘on account of man,’ ‘for the sake of man’: the preposition dia indicates here the reason for the institution of the sabbath.
egeneto ‘became,’ i.e. ‘was made,’ ‘was established.’
hōste (with the indicative, 10.8) ‘therefore,’ ‘consequently,’ ‘so,’ ‘accordingly.’
kurios ‘lord,’ ‘owner,’ ‘ruler,’ ‘master.’
ho huios tou anthrōpou ‘the Son of man’ (cf. 2.10).
kai tou sabbatou ‘even of the sabbath’ (for this use of kai ‘and’ see 1.27); the meaning could possibly be ‘also (i.e. in addition to being lord of other things) of the sabbath’: most translations and commentators, however, prefer the first meaning.
Translation:
Since Jesus is not only the one who asked the question beginning in verse 25, but who also made the statement in this and the succeeding verse, it is sometimes necessary to make this relationship explicit, frequently by repeating the noun subject, i.e. ‘Jesus.’ Them refers to the Pharisees and may be translated as such if there is danger of any other intervening third person plural referent being understood.
Such aphoristic expressions as occur in this verse are almost always difficult to translate because of (1) their shortness (much is left implicit), (2) the double meanings of words involved (it is one thing to speak of man being ‘made,’ but for ‘a sabbath to be made’ is often quite a different matter), and (3) the somewhat tenuous relationship to the context. In this instance the context assists materially in the understanding of the passage, but this is not always true, and even in this instance what is evident to the translator may not be equally clear to the reader.
For sabbath see 1.21.
In many languages one must use different verbs in speaking of instituting the sabbath and of creating man (in Greek and in English the verb ‘to make’ serves quite well). For example, in some instances one must say ‘the sabbath was set aside’ (or ‘ordained,’ ‘commanded’), or if an active rather than passive expression is required ‘God ordered the day of rest for the sake of people; he created people, but not just in order that they could keep the laws of the rest day.’ This expansion involves several matters: (1) the need of employing a fully generic term for man (in English and Greek we may use a singular for a generic, but in many languages a plural is necessary for the same meaning), (2) the necessity of placing a negative with the element negativized (e.g. one cannot say in some languages ‘he did not create men for the sabbath,’ for by placing the negative particle with the verb one would imply a negation of creation; the negative must go properly with the negativized element, namely, the purpose), and (3) the lack of parallelism in (a) the principal verbs (‘ordered’ and ‘created’) and (b) the expressions of ‘for,’ since something done for a person often requires quite a different type of expression than the fact of a person existing for the sake of a particular institution. This means that one must employ quite different descriptions of the relationships between the individuals and the institutions, depending upon the so-called actor-goal relationship. The complex relationships are expressed in a temporal context in Chicahuaxtla Triqui ‘God first made people, then the day of rest for the sake of people; he did not first make the day of rest and then make people for the day of rest.’ The relationship between the sabbath and man is defined somewhat more explicitly in Central Mazahua as ‘the day of rest was made to help people; people were not created to help the day of rest’; Batak Toba ‘the sabbath was instituted for man; man has not been formed for the sabbath.’
For Son of Man see 2.10.
Because of the third person reference to himself in this passage, it may be necessary to specify the relationship between the speaker and the subject by saying ‘I, the Son of man’ (cf. 2.10).
Lord of … is equivalent to ‘has the right to command’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave) or ‘has control over’ (Central Tarahumara), or ‘says what should be done on the rest day’ (Huastec).
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 .

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.