An Exegetical Study of Mark 6:8b: The Grammatical Function of `ει μη` in the Missionary Instructions
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of Mark 6:8b: The Grammatical Function of `ει μη` in the Missionary Instructions is based on a b-greek discussion from Sat May 27 18:04:26 EDT 2006. The initial discussion raised a critical query regarding the standard translation of Mark 6:8b, specifically the phrase ει μη ῥαβδον μονον, which is conventionally rendered as “except a staff.” The primary concern was that this rendering appeared to contradict the parallel accounts of Jesus’ missionary instructions in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, which seem to prohibit taking a staff.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical function and semantic scope of the Greek conjunction ει μη in Mark 6:8b. The question at hand is whether ει μη functions as a singular compound conjunction meaning “except,” applying solely to ῥαβδον μονον (“only a staff”), or if ει and μη should be understood separately, with μη initiating a series of negations that would prohibit a staff along with other items. Resolving this issue has significant implications for understanding Mark’s unique portrayal of the missionary mandate and for navigating potential harmonistic challenges with the other Synoptic Gospels.
Greek text (Nestle 1904):
καὶ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον, μὴ ἄρτον, μὴ πήραν, μὴ εἰς τὴν ζώνην χαλκόν,
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For Mark 6:8b, the text of Nestle 1904 is identical to SBLGNT 2010 regarding the phrase εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον and the subsequent list of prohibited items. Both editions maintain a singular ῥάβδον. Textual variants for this specific clause are not significant in critical editions like NA28 or SBLGNT.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
From a textual critical perspective, the wording of Mark 6:8b, particularly the phrase εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον, is remarkably stable across the major New Testament manuscripts and critical editions such as NA28. There are no significant variants that would alter the grammatical or semantic understanding of this clause. This stability confirms that the interpretive challenge lies not in textual uncertainty but in grammatical and rhetorical analysis.
Lexically, the key terms are:
- εἰ μή (ei mē): This is a compound conjunction or adverbial phrase. BDAG defines it as “except, unless, but.” It typically introduces an exception to a preceding negative statement. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk’s *A Greek Grammar of the New Testament* (§376) elaborates on its use, noting that it often appears without a finite verb following, implying an elliptical construction. It is crucial to understand ει and μη as a single unit in this context.
- ῥάβδος (rhabdos): This noun refers to a “rod, staff, stick.” In ancient contexts, it commonly denoted a walking stick or shepherd’s staff, essential for travel in rugged terrain.
- μόνον (monon): This adverb means “only, merely.” It functions to restrict the preceding noun, emphasizing singularity or exclusivity.
- μηδέν (mēden): This is the neuter accusative singular of the indefinite pronoun μηδείς, meaning “nothing.” It acts as the direct object of αἴρωσιν (“they should take up”), establishing a comprehensive prohibition.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The primary grammatical question in Mark 6:8b hinges on the interpretation of εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον. Standard translations consistently render this as an exception: “except only a staff.” This interpretation rests on understanding εἰ μή as a compound conjunction that introduces a single allowed item amidst a general prohibition. Carl Conrad and George Somsel, referencing BDF §376, affirm this understanding, emphasizing that εἰ μή functions as an adverbial conjunction meaning “except.” Conrad further clarifies the elliptical nature of the Greek by supplying the implied verb [αἴρωσιν], demonstrating that the structure is “not to take anything for the journey if they do not take just a staff.”
This grammatical interpretation leads to the perceived contradiction with Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3, where the staff (or “staves” in some Matthean textual traditions) appears to be prohibited. However, denying the “except” interpretation of εἰ μή in Mark 6:8b, as initially proposed by the discussion’s initiator, would create a grammatical anomaly in Mark. Attempting to sever ει from μη and treat the subsequent μη‘s as a continuous series of negations would leave ει syntactically unmoored and disregard the established usage of εἰ μή as an inseparable unit.
Rhetorically, the perceived contradiction can be addressed by considering the nuances of the Synoptic accounts. Iver Larsen proposes that the Gospels may reflect a “Semitic thought pattern,” where a general statement is followed by specific elaborations. In Mark 6:8-9, the instruction “take nothing for the journey” is followed by “except just a staff” as a general allowance, which is then elaborated upon by further prohibitions (“no bread, no bag, no money”) and an allowance for sandals. This suggests that Mark is not permitting a staff *in addition to* an otherwise completely unburdened journey, but rather as the *only* permissible item of specific equipment for the travel, alongside essential clothing. Harold Holmyard reinforces this by suggesting that the prohibitions in Matthew and Luke, especially regarding sandals and staffs, might refer to “extras” or superfluous items, rather than the essential equipment for travel. For instance, prohibiting “two tunics” (Luke 9:3) implies that one tunic (the one being worn) is allowed. Similarly, “no sandals” in Matthew 10:9 could mean “no *extra* sandals,” as wearing sandals was a practical necessity. Applying this “extras” interpretation, the staff in Mark would be the single *essential* item allowed, while the prohibitions in Matthew and Luke would refer to *additional* staffs.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the grammatical analysis and the common usage of εἰ μή in Hellenistic Greek, the phrase in Mark 6:8b clearly functions as an exception clause. The stability of the text in critical editions reinforces this. The perceived contradiction with the Synoptic parallels is best resolved through a rhetorical and theological understanding of the varying emphases and narrative purposes of each evangelist, rather than by reinterpreting the clear grammatical structure of Mark. Mark’s instruction permits a single staff as an essential item for the journey, distinguishing it from other prohibited provisions.
Here are three translation suggestions for Mark 6:8b, reflecting different emphases:
- “And he instructed them that they should take nothing for the road, except a staff only, no bread, no bag, no copper money in their belt.”
This translation emphasizes the literal grammatical structure, highlighting the staff as the sole exception to a broad prohibition. - “And he commanded them to take nothing for the journey; only a staff was permitted, no bread, no knapsack, and no money in their belts.”
This version reformulates the exception clause for greater clarity in English while retaining the restrictive sense of “only.” - “And he charged them to carry nothing for the journey apart from a walking staff, no provisions, no personal bag, nor any coins for their money-belt.”
This translation attempts to convey the broader sense, using “apart from” to capture the exceptional nature of the staff, and employing more idiomatic English for the prohibited items, suggesting that the staff is an allowed essential, while other items are prohibited as non-essentials or “extras.”