Mark 3:19

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { font-size: 1.8em; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h3 { font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 1.2em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 3px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1em; margin: 1em 0; color: #555; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
.greek-text { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Gentium Plus’, serif; }

An Exegetical Analysis of Mark 3:13-19: Textual, Lexical, and Translational Challenges

This exegetical study of Mark 3:16-19, titled “What a strange construction!”, is based on a b-greek discussion from Wed Jan 8 06:56:00 EST 2003. The initial query concerned the peculiar grammatical structure of Mark 3:16-19 as presented in a critical Greek text. Specifically, the discussion highlighted the introduction of Simon’s surname “Peter” without his given name being first presented, and the placement of descriptive phrases like “Sons of Thunder” within an ongoing list of disciples’ names, which appeared syntactically disruptive.

The main exegetical issue under consideration is multi-faceted, encompassing textual criticism, lexical semantics, and grammatical interpretation. The presence of bracketed text in critical editions for verses like Mark 3:14 and 3:16 raises fundamental questions about the original Marcan composition and subsequent scribal harmonization. Furthermore, the debate extends to the precise meaning and most appropriate English rendering of key Greek verbs such as ἐποίησεν (epoiesen, “made” or “appointed”) and ἐπέθηκεν (epethēken, “laid on” or “gave”), as well as the interpretation of proper names with inherent semantic value, like Πέτρος (Petros, “Peter” or “Stone”). Underlying these lexical choices is a broader discussion about translational philosophy: whether to prioritize hyper-literalism at the expense of idiomatic English or to adopt a more dynamic approach that risks obscuring potential Marcan rhetorical and metaphorical intent.

Mark 3:16-19 (Nestle 1904)

16 [καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα·] καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον,

17 καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ὄνομα Βοανηργές, ὅ ἐστιν Υἱοὶ Βροντῆς·

18 καὶ Ἀνδρέαν καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον καὶ Ματθαῖον καὶ Θωμᾶν καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖον καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν Καναναῖον

19 καὶ Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώτην, ὃς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• In Mark 3:14, the phrase οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν (“whom he also named apostles”) is absent in Nestle 1904, appearing only as a variant reading in some older critical apparatus, often bracketed in editions like NA27. SBLGNT (2010), however, includes this phrase without brackets, reflecting a different textual decision regarding its originality.
• In Mark 3:16, the phrase καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα (“And he made the twelve”) is bracketed in Nestle 1904, indicating that it is considered a secondary insertion by critical editors. SBLGNT (2010) entirely omits this phrase from its main text, deeming it a later scribal addition likely influenced by parallels in other Gospels or for textual harmonization.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The textual critical issues in Mark 3:13-19 are pivotal for interpreting the passage. Carl Conrad highlights that the pericope truly begins in Mark 3:13 and that significant textual problems exist, particularly regarding the bracketed material. The textual apparatus of NA28 (Nestle-Aland 28th edition), which largely aligns with the critical notes by Metzger, indicates that the phrase καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα in v. 16 is a secondary reading. Its omission in major early manuscripts (e.g., א B D W Ψ 0274 f¹ f¹³ Byz Lect sy^s co) strongly suggests it was not part of the original Marcan text. This interpolation likely aimed to clarify or reinforce the initial act of calling the Twelve, perhaps harmonizing with similar narratives in Luke (cf. Luke 6:13). Similarly, the phrase οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν in Mark 3:14, while present in SBLGNT, is bracketed in older critical editions like NA27, pointing to its variable textual status. The omission of these phrases simplifies the original narrative flow, making the “strange construction” less pronounced by removing redundancies or explanatory insertions.

Lexical considerations are also central to the exegetical debate:

• ἐποίησεν (epoiesen, Mark 3:14): This aorist active indicative of ποιέω (poieō) carries a broad semantic range. BDAG lists meanings such as “to make, construct, prepare,” “to do, carry out, perform,” and “to appoint, designate, establish.” KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) highlights its usage in the LXX for creation (Gen 1:1) and designation. The discussion debated “made” (suggesting creation or constitution of a group/title) versus “appointed” (designation to a role). The choice significantly influences whether Jesus is seen as creating the institution of “the Twelve” or merely selecting individuals for a pre-defined role.
• ἐπέθηκεν (epethēken, Mark 3:16-17): This aorist active indicative of ἐπιτίθημι (epitithēmi) generally means “to lay/place on.” BDAG’s entries include “to put, lay, or place on” and “to impose.” The debate centered on “laid on a name” (emphasizing a physical or metaphorical act of placing) versus “gave a name” (a more idiomatic expression). The nuance of “imposed” (as suggested by one participant) could imply a significant, perhaps burdensome, new identity.
• Πέτρον (Petron, Mark 3:16): This is the accusative singular of the proper name Πέτρος (Petros). BDAG notes its derivation from πέτρα (petra, “rock”) or πέτρος (petros, “stone”). The central discussion revolved around translating it as the transliterated proper name “Peter” versus its semantic meaning “Stone.” The argument for “Stone” emphasizes the potential metaphorical significance, especially in light of other New Testament passages (e.g., 1 Pet 2).
• εἰς (eis, Mark 3:13, 3:19): This preposition, commonly meaning “into, to, toward” (with motion) or “for, with a view to” (purpose), was debated in the phrase εἰς τὸ ὄρος (“into the mountain”). While standard translations render it as “up the mountain” or “onto the mountain” (suggesting movement to the summit or a location on it), one participant argued for a literal “into” to imply a metaphorical “penetration” or “inclusion” in the mountain’s essence, connecting it to stone imagery. BDAG confirms that εἰς can indicate direction toward something that is then entered or penetrated.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical “strangeness” noted by the initial contributor, particularly the naming of Simon as Peter without prior introduction, is largely resolved by the textual critical decision to omit the bracketed phrase καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα in 3:16. Without this phrase, the flow from Jesus appointing the twelve (3:14) to the immediate naming of Simon (3:16) becomes more direct, though the listing of names and accompanying surnames (James and John as Boanerges) still presents an asyndetic, paratactic style characteristic of Mark. The omission also clarifies that the first instance of ‘making’ the twelve occurs in 3:14, with the subsequent verses elaborating on *who* these twelve are and their initial designation.

Rhetorically, the discussion highlighted a tension between a “hyper-literal” translation approach, seeking a one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English words, and a “dynamic equivalent” approach, prioritizing natural English idiom. The argument for translating ἐποίησεν as “made” rather than “appointed” emphasizes the Gospel writer’s (Mark’s) interpretive role in establishing “the Twelve” as a distinct entity or assembly, rather than merely Jesus’s act of selecting. This challenges the common understanding of the verb in this context, where “appointed” often conveys the sense of delegation to a specific office.

Similarly, the translation of ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα as “laid on a name” instead of “gave a name” introduces a more concrete, almost tactile, imagery, reinforced by the metaphorical interpretation of “Peter” as “Stone.” The argument here is that Mark intends to evoke the physical property of a stone and its symbolic significance (e.g., as a foundation or building block, as seen in 1 Peter 2). This “dynamic” interpretation, however, faces the counter-argument that proper names often lose their etymological meaning in common parlance, becoming mere identifiers (e.g., “Christ” losing its immediate association with “Anointed One” in everyday English). The consistent use of “Peter” as a name in subsequent texts and tradition supports its treatment as a proper noun, rather than a descriptive title.

The interpretation of εἰς τὸ ὄρος as “into the mountain” also exemplifies this rhetorical debate. While idiomatic English would typically render this as “up the mountain” or “onto the mountain,” the proponent for “into” suggests a metaphorical reading where the disciples are “penetrating” or becoming integral to the mountain’s rocky substance, further connecting to the “Stone” motif. This suggests Mark might be employing a sophisticated, multi-layered metaphorical narrative, which a plain-language translation might inadvertently flatten.

Finally, the ambiguity of the pronoun “he” in the concluding phrase of Mark 3:19, καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον (“And he goes into a house”), raises a rhetorical question about the narrative’s focus. While contextually it refers to Jesus, the possibility of it referring to Judas, or even a collective “they,” momentarily destabilizes the reader’s expectation. This deliberate ambiguity, if indeed intended by Mark, could be a subtle narrative device to highlight Judas’s unique and ominous trajectory, particularly after his inclusion in the group endowed with authority to cast out demons.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical exploration of Mark 3:13-19 reveals a complex interplay of textual variants, lexical choices, and interpretive frameworks. The textual critical decisions regarding Mark 3:14 and 3:16 significantly shape our understanding of the passage’s grammatical structure and narrative flow. While a literal translation can provide insight into the original Greek, an effective rendering must also consider idiomatic English and the potential for Markan rhetorical and metaphorical depth.

Here are three translation suggestions for Mark 3:16-19, each highlighting a different interpretive emphasis:

1. And he surnamed Simon, Peter; and James the son of Zebedee and John, James’s brother, he also surnamed Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder; and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And he came into a house.
   This translation prioritizes the readings of modern critical texts (like SBLGNT) by omitting the bracketed phrase in v.16, rendering common verbs idiomatically, and treating “Peter” as a proper name. It aims for clarity and natural English expression while maintaining the narrative progression.

2. And he laid upon Simon the name Stone; and James the son of Zebedee and John, the brother of James, he laid upon them the name Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder; and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean; and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And he came into a house.
   This rendition leans towards a more interpretive and literal approach for key lexical items, emphasizing the semantic weight of “laid on a name” and translating Πέτρος as “Stone” to highlight its metaphorical potential, as argued by some participants. It seeks to make visible the underlying imagery.

3. He also designated Simon as Peter; and James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, he also designated as Boanerges, meaning Sons of Thunder; and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; and Judas Iscariot, who eventually betrayed him. And he then entered a house.
   This version focuses on the act of designation and appointment implied by the context, choosing “designated” for the naming acts to convey authority. It also smooths the “strange construction” through slight rephrasing for better English flow and provides an interpretive nuance for Judas’s betrayal.

“`