Text:

After mou ‘my’ Textus Receptus adds to ‘the,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Before diathēkēs ‘covenant’ Textus Receptus adds kainēs ‘new,’ which is omitted by all modern editions of the Greek text.

Exegesis:

to haima mou tēs diathēkēs ‘my blood of the covenant’: the phrase is perhaps consciously modelled after Ex. 24.8 “Behold the blood of the covenant (Septuagint to haima tēs diathēkēs) which the Lord has made with you.” “The blood of the covenant” is the blood which ratifies, or seals, the covenant God made with his people.

diathēkē (only here in Mark) ‘will,’ ‘testament,’ ‘compact,’ ‘covenant’: it is agreed that the meaning of the word in New Testament is to be derived from the use and meaning of berith in the O.T., with reference to the ‘covenant’ which God made with the people of Israel. Rather than translate the Hebrew word by sunthēkē, the normal Greek word for ‘agreement,’ ‘covenant,’ the Septuagint uses diathēkē, perhaps with the purpose of avoiding the implication in sunthēkē of an agreement reached by a settlement between two parties who stand as equals; for in the O.T. God’s berith with his people is, so to speak, drawn up, proposed and executed by God alone.

to ekchunnomenon (only here in Mark) ‘the (blood) poured out’: several commentators translate the present participle ‘(the blood) which is now being poured out,’ as though in the mind of Jesus his blood were already being shed. It is better, however, to take the participle as having a future force, in accordance with Aramaic usage, ‘(the blood) which will be poured out’ (cf. The Modern Speech New Testament, Goodspeed).

huper pollōn ‘in behalf of many,’ ‘for many’ (cf. the discussion on anti pollōn in 10.45).

Translation:

There are a number of expressions used to signify covenant, some of which closely resemble the force of the Greek diathēkē, while others are simply general terms for a contract or agreement, e.g. ‘to put mouths equal,’ signifying complete assent on the part of all (Conob); ‘helping promise’ (More); ‘a thing-time-bind,’ that is to say, an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time (Vai); ‘an agreement’ (Loma (Liberia)); ‘agreement which is tied up,’ i.e. secure and binding (Northwestern Dinka); ‘a word which is left’ (Chol); ‘a broken-off word,’ based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached (Huastec); ‘a death command,’ a special term for testament (Tetelcingo Nahuatl); ‘a promised word’ (Piro); ‘a word between’ (Eastern Krahn); and ‘promise that brings together’ (Yaka).

Perhaps a more difficult problem than finding a term for covenant is relating this expression to the preceding, namely, ‘blood,’ for the of in English cannot be reproduced by any possessive construction, as some translators have tried to do. The covenant does not possess the blood; it is only that the covenant is established or ratified by means of the blood. This relationship must be made explicit in some languages, e.g. ‘blood which establishes the promise…’ (Yaka), ‘blood which arranges…’ (Central Pame), ‘blood that makes the word between us strong’ (Eastern Krahn), and ‘blood which confirms the covenant’ (Mitla Zapotec). In Northern Grebo the entire construction is recast as ‘agreement made by shedding my blood.’

Poured out must be carefully translated to make sure that this does not refer to the pouring of blood from a glass or other type of receptacle. This is not a reference to the pouring out of animal’s blood, but the shedding of Jesus’ own blood, translated in some languages as ‘running out,’ ‘coming out,’ and ‘gushing out.’

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 .