Mark 1:9-11

The text and translation of Mark 1:9-11 with commentary

Greek Text: Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου. 10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν· 11 καὶ φωνὴ [ἐγένετο] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

KJV Translation: And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.  And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

My Translation: And in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of the Galilieans and was  baptized in the Jordan by John.  10 And as he emerged upright from the water, he saw the skies splitting and the Spirit as a dove descended to him: and a voice came from the heavens: “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased.”

This is an interesting slice of text to translate.  The reasons for this are the several participles in verse 10, which can be taken either as straight participles (equivalents leyendo or reading), or as temporal circumstantial participles.  I find it difficult, without throwing grace completely to the wolves, to translate present circumstantial participles well because the normal idiomatic way to translate an English temporal (as) statement is to put the verb (emerged) into what is formally equivalent to a past tense.  The translation of αναβαινων as a circumstantial rather than a normal participle is one of the ways that my translation differs from the KJV.  Several things led to this translation: for one the participle has no accompanying article, for another αναβαινων strictly speaking lacks tense but contains aspect. and as such informs us as to the relation of the action denoted by the participle to the verb.  The present participle denotes action that is “coincident” with the main verb — here ειδεν is an aorist, which gives the entire passage a kind of frozen in time, snapshot feel.  The participle occurs at the same time as the aorist main verb, and the aorist here, not ingressive, denotes a simple past completed action.  At the end of the day though, the choice to use an English temporal clause (me) rather than an English participle (KJV), is a stylistic choice, where I prefer making the simultaneity of the participle with ειδεν explicit with “as” rather than suffixing an “-ing” to “emerge.”

What really caused me, though, to take this chunk of Greek and comment on it, rather than a larger chunk, is the final part of verse 11: σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.  The KJV translates this: “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  While I take no issue with the first clause, the second clause we cannot grammatically allow.  The text reads εν σοι = super literally: “in you.”  In reality, εν may only exist to strengthen the dative force (with you) of σοι.  This may seem a quibbling point — except that it shapes the perspective and tone of the passage.  To take it as the KJV does makes the last part of the verse outward looking, and awkward besides.  It seems to speak of Christ (and therefore be demonstrative to the world) rather than to him.  The actual force of the Greek makes the speech a direct address to Christ.  It is not a statement about him, as the KJV would have it, but a loving statement to Him.  The KJV misses that point.  Apologetically, to read the Greek as it actually is, rather than as the KJV wants it to be is also more effective.  Part of why the text of the Gospel is compelling is because it does unexpected things in unexpected places.  We would expect a direct heavenly endorsement — afterall, if Christ is God, he knows that the Spririt is well pleased with him.  Christ knows already; we need to.  Instead you get the Spirit affirming to Christ the love he has for Him.  To be sure, this functions as an effective public endorsement but it comes in a way that is other than that which we might expect.  Incidentally, it also makes the text seem more like a first hand account, and less like a document fashioned after the fact for a specific purpose.  If the latter is true (and it, doubtless to some extent, is), it is interesting that it retains the qualities of the former, and interesting that the KJV translates it as what a modern man might it expect it to be, rather than what it, textually, is.

As a final note, this is a really rich passage, and a full analysis of all the different and very worthy poetic material here goes well beyond the scope of this blog.

Credo Ut Intellegam
JS