Exegesis:

hina de eidēte ‘but in order that you may know’: as it stands the sentence is grammatically incomplete. Properly something like the following is to be understood: ‘But, in order that you may know … I will do this’ or, ‘I will say this.’ Instead of saying it, however, Jesus directly addresses himself to the paralytic, thus saying and doing what was necessary in order that the scribes should know.

exousian (cf. 1.22) ‘authority’ rather than ‘power’ of American Standard Version.

ho huios tou anthrōpou ‘the Son of man’: much has been written on the origin and meaning of this title in the Gospels. In order that the meaning of the phrase, as used by Jesus in the Gospels, be properly carried over into modern languages, it is necessary either literally to translate the words as a Christian technical term, a title, “The Son of man” or else use some phrase or title that will convey if possible a (messianic) sense of dignity, authority, and responsibility. Strictly to be avoided is any translation which would equate the title merely with ‘man,’ ‘a human being.’ In Mark the title appears here and in 12 other passages (2.28; 8.31, 38; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33, 45; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62).

epi tēs gēs ‘upon earth’: Revised Standard Version rightly connects the phrase with ‘has authority’ (cf. Manson, The Modern Speech New Testament, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada).

Translation:

There is no easy way to resolve the problem of a grammatical break at the end of the first clause. The expression is simply not completed. However, the sense is relatively clear, and for the most part readers can understand the transition. It is best to leave the expression incomplete, rather than try to edit it, for the translator’s task is not to try to improve on the original (which contains the break), but to attempt to discover its closest equivalent. Accordingly, the only thing is to leave the incomplete statement as it is, but to employ some type of mark of punctuation which will reflect this fact.

The phrase Son of man is one of the most difficult in the entire N.T., for there are almost innumerable problems, many of which have subtle theological implications. The principal difficulties with this phrase are caused by (1) highly specialized terms for ‘son,’ e.g. ‘son of a man,’ ‘son of a woman,’ ‘son of a person’ without specification of sex, (2) the absence in some languages of a generic term for ‘mankind’ (though all languages may speak of mankind in the aggregate as ‘people’), and (3) the fact that this expression has a double semantic value in the N.T. In the first place, it is related to the numerous other idioms, having the structure ‘son of…,’ e.g. ‘son of peace,’ ‘son of perdition,’ ‘sons of thunder,’ in which the meaning is ‘one who has the essential quality of…’; and in the second place, in the N.T. Son of man has become a kind of title with Messianic import, whether derived primarily from the book of Daniel or not. A still further complication exists in this verse by virtue of the fact that in many occurrences of this phrase Jesus speaks of himself in the third person. This is, of course, possible in some languages, but in many translations one must add ‘I,’ e.g. ‘I who am the Son of man’ or people will insist that Jesus is speaking of someone else, not himself.

In some translations the expression used for Son of man has constituted a complete denial of the virgin birth. In some of these languages there are two words for son, one used in speaking of the son of a woman and the other the son of a man. Quite understandably, because of the last part of the phrase ‘of man,’ the latter word for ‘son’ was chosen, but the resultant meaning was to state emphatically that Jesus was the offspring of a male. Even if a generic term for ‘mankind’ had been used, the very occurrence of the specialized word for ‘son’ would have resulted in essentially the same meaning. Accordingly, in these languages, including a number in South America, the phrase which was ultimately chosen meant ‘he who was born man’ or ‘he who was truly man,’ expressions which would not deny his being the Son of God, but which would be a stereotyped expression to emphasize his humanity. In other languages ‘he who became man’ or ‘he who was born for man’ have been employed (cf. Toraja-Sa’dan ‘the Son who descended into the world as man’) but in any case a good deal of teaching must be undertaken if people are to understand the appropriate significance of the Biblical title. However, the basic phrase should be such as not to suggest immediately an entirely wrong meaning.

Authority is the ‘right’ or the ‘power.’ In some languages this is expressed figuratively or in descriptive phrases, e.g. ‘power in his hand’ (Loma (Liberia)), ‘being able to command’ (Chanca Quechua), ‘place to show power,’ ‘to hold the handle’ (Ngäbere).

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 .