Exegesis:

ekērussen ‘he proclaimed’ (cf. v. 4): the imperfect continues to describe John’s habitual activity, the message which accompanied his baptism.

ekērussen legōn ‘he preached saying’: this construction, consisting of a verb plus the participle of another verb, which is practically a synonym of the first, is common and reflects Semitic influence. There is no need, in English translation, to reproduce both verbs (cf. Translator’s New Testament, Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Knox, Zürcher Bibel).

erchetai ‘he comes’: the present tense is often used with a future meaning (Moffatt “is to come”); in this verse there is an emphasis on the immediacy of the action, ‘is coming’ (Translator’s New Testament), ‘is on the way.’

ho ischuroteros mou ‘the one stronger than I’: ischus ‘strength’ refers primarily to physical strength – by extension it takes on the idea of power, might, greatness (cf. 3.27): ‘mightier’ (The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Manson, Knox), ‘greater’ (Translator’s New Testament).

opisō mou ‘behind me’: the phrase goes with erchetai ‘is coming behind me.’

opisō (1.17, 20; 8.33, 34; 13.16) ‘behind,’ ‘after’: as an adverb it refers both to time and place (not used of time in the N.T.); as a preposition, with the genitive case, as here, it is also used of time and place (Abbott-Smith sees Septuagint influence). Here the idea is clearly that of time (cf. Acts 13.25 erchetai met’ eme ‘comes after me’), although some commentators see the idea of rank, ‘a follower of mine.’

hou … autou ‘whose … of him’: this use of the relative hos ‘who’ and the pronoun autos ‘he,’ both in the genitive case, is a construction which reflects Semitic influence, although, as Lagrange points out, it is not unknown in Greek itself. In translation, therefore, there is no need to reproduce both the relative hou ‘whose’ and the pronoun autou ‘of him’ since both refer to the same thing, i.e. ton himanta tōn hupodēmatōn ‘the thong of the sandals’ (cf. a similar construction in 7.25, and see Taylor, 60 and literature referred to). The relative hou ‘whose,’ it is to be noticed, does not refer to hikanos ‘worthy’ as though it meant ‘worthy of him’: rather, like autou ‘of him,’ it refers to ‘the thong of the sandals.’

hikanos (10.46; 15.15) “competent, qualified, able, with the connotation worthy … for something.”

kupsas lusai ‘stooping to loose’: such a verbal construction is quite common, in which two different actions are described by the participle of one verb plus the regular form (required by grammar) of the other. The meaning is the same it would be if both verbs were in the infinitive: kupsai kai lusai ‘to stoop and to loose.’

kuptō (only here in Mark) ‘stoop (down)’: the participle modifies the subject of eimi ‘I am,’ not ‘the thong of his sandals.’

luō (7.35; 11.2, 4, 5) ‘loose,’ ‘unbind,’ ‘release’: to untie the thong of the sandal was the menial task of a slave.

Translation:

In most translations the first problem to be encountered in this verse is the existence of the double verbs of speaking, preached, saying. In many languages one must use one verb or the other, but not both, or people will say, “What did he do, preach or say?” Often these terms are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, there are a number of languages, e.g. several of the Quechua dialects of South America, which use double verbs of speaking, but one is used at the beginning of an utterance, and the other at the end, somewhat parallel to “he said … said he.” In a sense they serve in the place of quotation marks and as such are very convenient. In still other instances this Semitic type of expression fits quite naturally, e.g. in Barrow Eskimo.

Having noted (Mark 1.4) that some indirect expressions must be turned into direct ones, we must also indicate the fact that frequently the reverse process is obligatory. For example, in Eastern Maninkakanverses 7 and 8 must be cast into an indirect form: ‘he said that after him would come one….’

Comparatives, such as mightier than I are seemingly very awkward to translate in some languages, for in such instances comparison is only accomplished by means of a combined positive-negative statement, e.g. ‘there is more his power; more there is not my power’ (Tzotzil), ‘he has great power; I do not have great power’ (as in the case of a number of so-called Bantu tongues). These types of positive-negative statements must not be interpreted on the basis of their literal retranslation into English. They are just as much genuine “comparatives” (if we may use the term) as the construction with which we are familiar in Indo-European languages. Another common form of comparative uses a verb meaning ‘to surpass,’ e.g. ‘his power surpasses my power.’

What, however, adds to the difficulty of this verse is the fact that the adjective worthy is difficult to translate in many languages, for close equivalents are often not adjectives. This should not be surprising, for worthy is not an abstraction of easily definable qualities (cf. red, good, beautiful), but of relative social position and capacity. In Guerrero Amuzgo the phrase I am not worthy to is translated ‘I can’t be used to….’ In Huichol worthy is ‘to have the right to….’ In Inupiaqthe equivalent is ‘to be on the same level so as to…’; in Tzotzil a possible rendering is ‘measure up to…’; and in San Mateo del Mar Huave one must say ‘reach to.’

The expression after me comes must be treated in some languages as a kind of comparative. For example, in the Highland Oaxaca Chontal this verse reads ‘I come first; he comes later.’

Mightier must be interpreted in terms of authority, and not physical strength, e.g. ‘will order more people around’ (Huichol) or ‘will be more a chief’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave).

Sandals must often be translated by a type of footgear with parallel functions, even though some details of construction are dissimilar, e.g. ‘boots’ (Barrow Eskimo) or ‘thongless sandals’ (Yatzachi Zapotec), which are ‘removed’ rather than ‘untied’ (‘removing’ is the functional equivalent).

In any translation the arrangement of the constituent parts of this verse must be entirely dependent upon requirements of the structure involved, e.g. ‘He spoke God’s word, saying, Someone is coming after me, his power surpasses mine. I am not worthy to bend over and untie his shoestrings’ (Kpelle).

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 .