Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)
For older conversations, see the archives: Archive 1.
I respectfully disagree with the proposed translation of Mark 9:3. The words "so as no fuller on earth can white them" refer to a fuller, i.e., one who cleans wool through fulling. The Greek text confirms this reading. Therefore, we might want to say something like "whiter than any launderer on earth could make them." Thanks. DavidE 12:06, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
- Your insight is excellent. Thank you. The original is a statement about perfection beyond what ordinary man can achieve, and our proposed translation loses that important message. Please edit directly as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 12:12, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
- Thank you. I've made the change. DavidE 18:28, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Joseph then purchased a quality shroud - that sounds like something from a shopping channel, why not simply say then Joseph bought a fine shroud? AugustO 08:03, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
- I considered using "fine", but it has many different meanings. "Fine shroud" lacks the clarity of "quality shroud." Would anyone say "purchased a fine blanket"? The listener would wonder what that meant, and might think "fine" was a brand or type of blanket. But "purchased a quality blanket" is clear and unambiguous.--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
", John was baptizing in the desert, preaching repentance and the forgiveness of sins. "
That's not what the verse says: βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν has a structure - it is a baptism of repentance for forgiveness!
--AugustO 06:04, 22 January 2013 (EST)
Diacritic marks are often let out just because of technical difficulties. An easy way around this problem is to get setting for polytonic Greek for your keyboard. Anybody who has learned classical or Biblical Greek knows hwo helpful and necessary these marks are, so I try to add them whenever possible. --AugustO 01:50, 27 January 2013 (EST)
Transliteration vs. phontic spelling
At a few places someone erroneously used the phonetic spelling instead of the usual transliteration. I'll fix it! --AugustO 01:53, 27 January 2013 (EST)
Redirect of the talk-page
At sometime in the past, the article Gospel of Mark (Translated) was split into two parts: Mark 1-8 (Translated) and Mark 9-16 (Translated). At the moment, the talk-pages of these new articles both redirect to Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated). That's confusing and now would be a good time to rectify this problem: Most of the old talk-page comments to Mark 1-16 can be found in Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)/Archive 1. So what could be more natural to get rid of the redirect on Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated) and Talk:Mark 9-16 (Translated), but link at the top of the pages to the common archive? This way, the (page-tab) on top of the talk-pages would be usable! --AugustO 02:00, 27 January 2013 (EST)
- KJB: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
- CBP: The voice of a messenger preaching among skeptics, 'Prepare for the way of the Lord and make straight His path.'"
I agree with the annotation: The wilderness is a metaphor for the unrepentant crowd. But when did we start to substitute metaphors with the intended meaning? The picture can be translated very well into English, any reader can be helped by the annotation, any preacher can interpreted it the right way. Indeed, CBP's current version is more of an interpretation than a translation. --AugustO 02:23, 27 January 2013 (EST)
- KJB: And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
- CBP: John survived on bare necessities, wearing a camel's hair habit with a leather loin wrap; his food consisted of locusts and wild honey;
surviving on bare necessities is an implication drawn from the description of his cloths, but it isn't mentioned in the original text: only his cloths and his diet is described. Such implications are befitting a commentary (and should be mentioned in the annotations), but not a translation, so I'll change the verse. --AugustO 03:54, 27 January 2013 (EST)
- KJB: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
- CBP: And as soon as Jesus emerged from the water, the heavens opened and the Divine Guide descended like a dove upon Him:
The CBP omits he saw, a phrase which is clearly in the Greek original εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς. It shifts the perspective of the verse slightly and shouldn't be left out!
--AugustO 03:25, 27 January 2013 (EST)
Mark 2:22 - unwarranted teetotalling
sorry about the jump, this caught my eye
The Greek word οινος, translated "wine," actually meant "fruit of the vine" and was not fermented, as it commonly is today. Repeated references in the Book of Proverbs tell their readers specifically to avoid fermented grape juice. Furthermore, at least five methods of preservation were known to the ancients, methods that avoided fermentation, long before Louis Pasteur would invent his pressure-cooking method.
That's just wrong: ever since the days of Homer οἶνος means "wine made from grapes", i.e., fermented grape juice. When the Septuaginta translates Noah's unfortunate adventure (Gen 9:21), it renders the Hebrew as καὶ ἔπιεν ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου καὶ ἐμεθύσθη καὶ ἐγυμνώθη ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. - he got drunk on οἶνος, i.e. wine, not just grape juice!
The Book of Proverbs advises to be careful with wine, it doesn't forbid the use! Again, the Septuaginta (Prov 20:1)
ἀκόλαστον οἶνος καὶ ὑβριστικὸν μέθη, πᾶς δὲ ὁ συμμειγνύμενος αὐτῇ οὐκ ἔσται σοφός. - Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (KJB)
There may have been other methods to preserve grape juice, but fermentation was the easiest one. Personally I don't know anything about a flourishing pasteurization industry in Galilee - but even if there were one, grape juice would quickly go off, while wine can be preserved (even in old bottles).
--AugustO 02:17, 28 January 2013 (EST)
Reply to the above
August, your suggestions are all fine up until your one about Mark 1:3, whereupon the issues become more subtle. I disagree that "wilderness" is better or more precise than "skeptics". The topic of whether it was grape juice or wine is a thorny unresolved issue. As to the others, I suggest that you make your suggested substantive changes but only with a clear explanation in the comment section. Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 18:04, 31 January 2013 (EST)
- Mark 1:3 We can talk about whether to call it wilderness or desert - or something else. But we should use the picture: it is easily understandable even in modern parlance. Sceptics doesn't fit - it covers only those who heard the message, but keep doubtful, while it excludes those who shut their ears against Jesus's words. Andrew, are you afraid that we have here a statement which is obviously not to be taken literally, but as a picture?
- Mark 2:21 The topic of whether it was grape juice or wine is a thorny unresolved issue. I don't think so - it is an obvious example of shoehorning a modern concept - or wishful thinking (abstinence is good - therefore Jesus was abstinent) - into the Bible. You really have to bend scripture to make this point.
- --AugustO 01:57, 2 February 2013 (EST)