Exegesis:

ēn … endedumenos ‘was clothed’; this verbal phrase, consisting of the auxiliary verb eimi ‘to be’ plus the participle of the main verb enduō ‘to clothe’ does not mean, as it would in classical Greek, ‘had been clothed’; it rather denotes the habitual nature of John’s dress. ‘And John clothed himself,’ or ‘was clothed.’

enduō (6.9; 15.20) ‘clothe,’ ‘dress’: the forerunner’s dress and diet mark him as a man of the wilderness, an ascetic, a Nazirite (Lk. 1.15); his clothing is similar to that worn by Elijah (2 Kings 1.8; cf. Zech. 13.4). Such simple and hardy manner of life was characteristic of one who lived in the wilderness (Lk. 1.80) and was the object of comment by Jesus (Mt. 11.8, Lk. 7.25).

trichas kamēlou ‘hairs of a camel’ does not mean a camel’s skin. It stands for a robe, long and loose (cf. Mt. 3.4, to enduma autou ‘his garment’) woven from camel’s hair (cf. Moulton & Milligan; cf. Zürcher Bibel: Und Johannes war bekleidet, mit [einem Gewand aus] Kamelhaaren).

zōnēn dermatinēn ‘leather girdle’: a waistband, or girdle, which holds the robe at the waist, enabling it to be tucked up for rapid walking. The zōnē is not exactly a belt, such as used by modern Western men, but more in the nature of a waistband wherein money (cf. Mk. 6.8) and other things could be kept.

osphus (only here in Mark) ‘waist’: the place where a belt or girdle is fastened.

kai (ēn) ēsthōn ‘and was eating’: this verbal phrase, consisting of the imperfect of the verb eimi ‘to be’ plus the present participle of the main verb is quite common in Mark (16 instances in all – cf. Taylor, 45). ‘He (habitually) ate,’ ‘his food was….’

akris ‘locust’: to this day the locust is eaten especially by the poorer people in Arabia, Africa, and Syria.

meli agrion ‘wild honey’: there is no need to think of vegetable substances which are found on the leaves of certain trees. Natural wild honey is meant.

Translation:

The word now used to introduce this verse in the Revised Standard Version (cf. “and” in American Standard Version and King James Version), is an attempt to represent the transitional value of Greek kai, literally ‘and.’ It should not, of course, be taken in any temporal sense. In most translations it is probably best to omit any transition, though if some appropriate particle can be found to soften the abrupt transition between verses 5 and 6, such would be justified.

In parts of the world in which camels are not known, one is immediately confronted with the problem of what to do with the name of this strange animal. Some people have thought that Eskimos would want to say ‘cloth made of polar bear fur’ and people from the South Pacific would understand most satisfactorily if one used ‘rough cloth made from palm fiber.’ These types of adaptations can be meaningful, but they do not solve the real problems. In the first place, even the most isolated peoples after the introduction of reading, soon become familiar with many areas of the world around them, and very quickly they learn that people in other parts of the world are quite different. Even a very rudimentary education soon teaches them that the life of the Middle East is not similar to their own. Accordingly, they tend to react to such artificially adapted translations as being paternalistic, since they seem to imply that the native people would never learn about the differences in the outside world. On the other hand, it is not very meaningful simply to borrow the word camel in transliterated form and give the people no idea what sort of creature this is. One way to solve this problem is to employ certain descriptive classifiers, which may be used in initial translations and then discarded as the level of education in an area rises. For example, one may say ‘hair of an animal called camel,’ which helps to identify the transliterated form as a name and specifies the class of objects involved. In some of the Quechua dialects of South America translators have used ‘hair of a llama-like animal called camel,’ a somewhat fuller descriptive classifier. In general, however, it is preferable to use the shortest possible expression which will provide the basis for correct, even though partial, understanding.

Since many different peoples in the world eat one or more varieties of locusts or grasshoppers, this verse does not seem to them so strange as it does to us. However, it is important that in obtaining a word for locusts one be sure an edible variety is specified. In some languages, for example, there must be as many as ten different words for such insects, and only certain classes are regarded as edible.

In regions where such insects are not known, one can likewise use a descriptive device, e.g. ‘insects called locusts’ or simply a generic term ‘a kind of insect.’

‘Wild honey’ is most often translated ‘honey from the forest’ (cf. Indonesian ‘wood-honey’). In Copainalá Zoque it is actually called ‘gentle honey,’ since it is made by wild bees in the forest, which, however, are stingless.

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 .