bread, loaf

The Greek term that is translated in English as “bread” or “loaf” is translated in Samo, it is translated as “Sago,” which serves “like ‘bread’ for the Hebrews, as a generic for food in the Samo language. It is a near-perfect metonymy that has all the semantic elements necessary for effective communication.” (Source: Daniel Shaw in Scriptura 96/2007, p. 501ff.)

In Chol it is translated as waj, the equivalent of a tortilla. (Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight)

John Beekman (in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 180f. ) explains: “The word ‘bread’ in Scripture primarily occurs as either a specific term for bread (including the Lord’s Supper), or as a generic term for food. It is not surprising, however, the some aboriginal groups use something other than bread as the staff of life. The Chols, with their cultural focus in the cultivation of corn, use waj, a type of thin corn flake. Since a meal is not complete without this main item of food, the term has been extended to include any other foods which may be served along with waj. While bread is known to them, its use is limited to a few occasions during the year when it functions as a dessert. In translating this term in the Chol New Testament, consistent use has been made of the word waj whenever the function of bread as a basic food was in focus. John 6:35, “I am the bread of life,” was thus translated with this word. If the word for bread had been used, it was feared that the Chol would compare Christ to the desirable, but not absolutely necessary, dessert.”

Robert Bascom adds his thoughts to this in relation to other Mayan languages (in Omanson 2001, p. 260): “In many Mayan languages, ‘bread’ can be translated waj or kaxlan waj. The first term literally means anything made from corn meal, while the second term literally means ‘foreigner’s waj,’ and refers to the local wheat-based sweet breads which are so popular within the broader European-influenced culture of the region. On the one hand, waj would be a better dynamic equivalent in cases where ‘bread’ meant ‘food,’ but in cases where the focus is literal or the reference well-known, kaxlan waj would preserve a flour-based meaning (though in biblical times barley was more in use than wheat) and not insert corn into a time and place where it does not belong. On the other hand kaxlan waj is not the staff of life, but refers to a local delicacy. In cases such as these, it is even tempting to suggest borrowing pan, the Spanish word for ‘bread,’ but native speakers might respond that borrowing a foreign word is not necessary since both waj and kaxlan waj are native terms that cover the meaning (though in this case, perhaps not all that well).”

staff, walking stick

The Greek that is translated as “staff” or “walking stick” in English is translated in Noongar as boorn-yaniny or “wood-walking” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

complete verse (Mark 6:8)

Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 6:8:

  • Uma: “Before they left, he taught them like this: ‘Don’t take anything on your trip, just a walking stick. Don’t take food or a food-bundle or money in your wallet.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “And he instructed them that they should not take along anything (lit. whatever) on their journey. They should not take food or a bag for putting (things) in or money in their belts. Only a walking-stick they could take.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He commanded them that while they were traveling they must only take a walking stick. They should not carry food, a bag, or even money.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “and he instructed them saying, ‘Don’t be taking anything with you on your trip (lit. walking), only a walking-stick. Don’t be taking-along food, backpack, and money.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Before he caused them to go, he instructed them that they weren’t to take any provisions for their trip. They weren’t to take food, money, and even a container for what would be given to them. Only a walking-stick was to be taken.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Mark 6:8 – 6:9

Exegesis:

kai parēggeilen autois hina ‘and he commanded them that…’: as in previous cases (cf. 5.18) hina ‘that’ does not indicate purpose, but the content of the command.

paraggellō (8.6) ‘give orders,’ ‘command.’

eis hodon ‘in the road,’ i.e. ‘for the journey.’

ei mē rabdon monon ‘except a staff only,’ not ‘except (for) one staff’: monon ‘only’ is an adverb (cf. 5.36), not an adjective, and modifies ei mē ‘except,’ ‘but.’

rabdos (only here in Mark) ‘staff,’ ‘rod’ used in traveling.

pēran (only here in Mark) ‘knapsack,’ ‘traveler’s bag’: here, more explicitly, a beggar’s bag. Lagrange points out it would be pointless to prohibit taking a bag for provisions when the taking of bread had already been forbidden.

mē eis tēn zōnēn chalkon ‘no money in their belts.’

zōnē (cf. 1.6) ‘girdle,’ ‘belt.’

chalkos (12.41) ‘copper,’ ‘brass’; ‘copper coin’; ‘money.’

In verse 9 the construction changes: instead of clauses governed by hina ‘that’ as in v. 8, there is one participial clause which is the direct object of the verb ‘he commanded,’ and one clause which is in the form of direct speech. For purposes of translation, however, there is no need literally to reproduce the Greek grammatical constructions; the content, not the form, is what matters.

alla hupodedemenous sandalia ‘but to wear sandals’ (i.e. rather than go barefooted).

hupodeomai (only here in Mark; cf. hupodēma 1.7) ‘bind under’: of sandals, ‘to put on,’ ‘to wear.’

sandalion (only here in Mark) ‘sandal’ (a synonym of hupodēma in 1.7).

kai mē endusēsthe duo chitōnas ‘and do not wear two tunics.’

enduō (cf. 1.6) ‘put on,’ ‘wear.’

chitōn (14.63; cf. himation 2.21) ‘tunic,’ ‘shirt,’ worn next to the skin: the command not to wear two tunics meant that one only was sufficient.

Translation:

Verses 8 and 9 present serious problems for translators because (1) the grammatical form shifts in the middle of the passage, from an indirect to a direct form, and (2) there are two awkward exceptions: the staff is an exception in what should be carried, and the extra tunic is forbidden in an otherwise positive command, i.e. to wear sandals and one tunic. This means that in a number of translations this passage must be recast to fit the requirements of the receptor language.

Charged them to take … may be altered in many languages into a form of direct command, for this greatly simplifies the syntactic problems in the rest of the passage, e.g. ‘he commanded them, Do not take….’

In verse eight there is a shift from negative to positive and again to negative in the Revised Standard Version order: nothing … except a staff; no …. In many languages this would be clearer if the exception to the negation were placed at the end, e.g. ‘do not take anything for your journey: do not take bread, a bag, or money in your girdles, take only a walking stick.’ In some languages (Southern Bobo Madaré), however, the positive would normally precede the negative, e.g. ‘take a stick in your hand, do not take anything else….’

Put on two tunics is equivalent in many instances to ‘wear two shirts.’ As Arndt and Gingrich point out the wearing of two tunics was a sign of effeminacy.

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 .