Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For older conversations, see the archives: Archive 1 (common archive of Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated) and Mark 9-16 (Translated))

Diacritic Marks

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)

Mark 1:3

  • 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)

Mark 1:4

", 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)

Mark 1:6

  • 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)

Mark 1:10

  • 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 1:11

The current translation for σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα is "You are my beloved Son whom I value greatly." I object to the use of "to value" instead of "to be (well) pleased":

  • for "to value", the author would have used a word like τιμάω, but not εὐδοκέω.
  • I couldn't find any other translation which uses a word similar to value: most go for "I'm (well) pleased/delighted".

--AugustO 05:20, 6 February 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)

Mistaken translation of Mark 4:39

The verse includes the command Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο - "Silence, be still" (or if you prefer: "be kept in check!") - that's the imperative, a direct quote of what Jesus said. After uttering these words, the wind calmed down. Do you think that Mark invented these words?

Luke and Mark use the verb ἐπιτιμάω - which implies a spoken command, too (as you can see in the many places in the Bible where this verb is used!)

I'll remove the retrofitted quantum analogy --AugustO 19:17, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

PS: This goes a step to far: Andy, you are omitting an obviously spoken command, and then, you claim that no words were spoken - all to bend this verse to your pet theory. I cannot find any excuse for this. May I remind you of Rev 22:18-20? --AugustO 19:42, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

I assume that some English speaker have troubles with the idea of conjugations and declinations showing up in the actual words: πεφίμωσο is unambiguously identifiable as perfect passive imperative. Therefore, it is an exclamation, and not some inner monologue. The idea that He actually uttered these words is stressed by the verb εἶπεν - which is the 3rd person singular aorist indicative active of our old favourite λέγω and means something like: "He said" or "He commanded"

BTW: φιμόω is derived from φῑμός "the muzzle" and means "to muzzle", a direct translation of πεφίμωσο is "Be muzzled!"

--AugustO 04:37, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

I will let you two debate the merits of the translations but, AugustO, you mean "quiet," not "quite." MelH 12:01, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
Thank you! --AugustO 14:09, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
We've fully discussed this in Essay:Calming the Storm. Time to accept the basic physics and other indications that Jesus did not speak verbally to the sea, as some mistranslations claim.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
" Jesus did not speak verbally to the sea, as some mistranslations claim." Some mistranslations? Don't be so modest - every single translation and interpretation claims that Jesus spoke verbally to the sea. Why? Because your "translation" is just wrong. Take it to any Greek seminary, any place where Koine Greek is taught, any teacher of Koine Greek and they all will tell you the same (more or less politely): your "translation" looks as if you have taken the words, semi-randomly looked up an English meaning for each word in a dictionary, and then assembled the English to build a sentence without regard for the original Greek syntax.
Moreover, you make Mark looking bad - as if he wanted to deceive his readers and listeners (see #Making Mark look bad)
--AugustO (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Making Mark look bad

Mark uses a straightforward, simple language in his Gospel. This makes it easy to spot figures like direct speech, though there are no quotation marks. Generally, he announces upcoming direct speech by the verb λέγω, while the part which makes up the direct speech will be a new sentence. Take e.g., the eleven occurrences of direct speech in Mark 4:

Mark 4:2-3 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς ἐν παραβολαῖς πολλά, καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ Ἀκούετε. ἰδοὺ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων σπεῖραι.
Mark 4:9 καὶ ἔλεγεν Ὃς ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.
Mark 4:11 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται,
Mark 4:13 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην, καὶ πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε;
Mark 4:21 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ;
Mark 4:24 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε. ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν, καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.
Mark 4:26 Καὶ ἔλεγεν Οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
Mark 4:30 Καὶ ἔλεγεν Πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν;
Mark 4:35 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν.
Mark 4:39 καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη.
Mark 4:41 καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;

Each time the same routine: a form of the verb λέγω (marked red), then a new sentence (lightblue) - which can easily be identified because the first word of the sentence (blue) is capitalized. Though that wasn't a feature of the earliest manuscripts, capitalization was used quite early on and just highlighted the new sentence - which can be recognized in other ways, too.

There is nothing fanciful in this method - Mark doesn't put the λέγω in the midst of the speech, or at its end, there are no surprises. But Andrew Schlafly wants to make us believe that in Mark 4:39 Mark deliberately used the same language which indicates a verbal exchange over and over again to mean the opposite: a silent command to the sea.

A far more simple explanation is that Andrew Schlafly's "translation" is just wrong. That is not so surprising, as he had demonstrated at Essay:Calming the Storm and Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm, that he has difficulties

  • differentiating between the Greek letters
  • recognizing derived forms of Greek words
  • differentiating between the Greek cases
  • reading his own sources diligently

--AugustO (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

August, I've already pointed out your fallacy of relying on other uses of the word in dissimmilar contexts. There is no analogy to be drawn between an obviously non-verbal command -- as confirmed by an eyewitness -- and other verbal commands. The logical fallacy in attempting such an analogy is obvious.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
"Dissimilar contexts"? Are you kidding me? The context only gets dissimilar artificially as ten times the construction is translated correctly, and one time falsely! Really, try to be a little bit more open-minded and get some second opinions on this! Talk to scholars! Please!!! --AugustO (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
  • It is not only a similar, it's nearly the same context: regarding the formalistic usage, regarding the syntax, even regarding the time (surrounding verses). Therefore, the translations should be similar. If Mark wanted to express a very different action, he would have chosen another way - otherwise he would mislead his readers.
  • the account of your eyewitness is consistent with a verbal command.

--AugustO (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

The translation should not change with each new development in physics

A physicist in the 19th century could have been fascinated by wave theory and could have explained the miracle thus:

well, troubled sea, storm, that are just waves. Waves can be superimposed. Jesus could have yelled such a fantastically cleverly modulated and powerful wave that it extinguished the incoming waves of storm and sea. The Greek original may say εἶπεν, but basic physics demand the translation yelled!
This idea is not more far-fetched than your idea of an observed, then unobserved, then again observed storm (See: Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm#Invoking quantum mechanics is justwrong.)

--AugustO (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Mark 1:23-27 vs. Mark 4:39-41

In Mark 1:23-24, a man who was possessed by an impure spirit recognizes Jesus in a synagogue and addresses Him. Jesus rebukes (ἐπιτιμάω) the spirit, giving a verbal command (Mark 1:25) "Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ" ("Be silent and come forth out of him".) Mark 1:26 describes how the spirit leaves the body, and in Mark 1:27, the astonished audience marvel that He even commands (ἐπιτάσσω) the spirits, and that the spirits are listening (ὑπακούω) to Him!

It should be impossible to miss the parallels to Mark 4:39-41, where Mark chooses the same words and structures to describe Jesus's interaction with the sea: Mark 4:39 - the wind is rebuked (ἐπιτιμάω) and there is a similar command "Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο." (πεφίμωσο and φιμώθητι as used in Mark 1:25 are both derived forms of the same verb, φιμόω.) In Mark 4:40, Jesus addresses his pupils (λέγω), and in Mark 4:41, the frightened pupils marvel that even the wind and the sea are listening (ὑπακούω) to Him!

Andy, you claim that Mark in 4:39 wants to convey that no verbal command was given. Why does Mark use such similar way in 1:23-27 do describe a verbal exchange?

--AugustO (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

You make a good point, but there are enormous differences between the two contexts, including:
  • Jesus made an entire statement, and was speaking for the benefit of non-believers in Mark 1:23-24
  • There are not contrary accounts in Matthew and Luke for Mark 1:23-24
  • The utterance was not spontaneous, which would have been in Aramaic in Mark 4:39
  • spirits are living and it makes sense to speak them; seas are not
  • people do speak in a synagogue as described, but not in a boat as purported
Argument by analogy works only when the contexts are similar. Otherwise, the arguments by analogy mislead. Strong's is sometimes defective for the same reason.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
  • You make a good point Yes, I know.
  • Jesus made an entire statement, and was speaking for the benefit of non-believers in Mark 1:23-24 Wrong, Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ was addressed at the unclean spirit.
  • There are not contrary accounts in Matthew and Luke for Mark 1:23-24 There are no contrary accounts in Matthew and Luke to Mark 4:39 neither. All counts work with a spoken command!
  • The utterance was not spontaneous, which would have been in Aramaic in Mark 4:39 You know that how? Another insight? Your "logic"?
  • spirits are living and it makes sense to speak them; seas are not nevertheless, non-living things get spoken to all the time.
  • people do speak in a synagogue as described, but not in a boat as purported ???
  • Argument by analogy works only when the contexts are similar. You have it the wrong way around: the reports are similar in form and in vocabulary. It is logical to infer that they describe similar behavior.
  • Otherwise, the arguments by analogy mislead. Indeed. Just lucky that this is not the case here.
  • Strong's is sometimes defective for the same reason. You declaring Strong defective, that could be the very definition of hubris.
--AugustO (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2017 (EDT)


The current format isn't easy to read and hard to use as a reference. As I'm afraid that no great changes will be made, here a proposal to make it at least easier to link to chapters and verses:

--AugustO 07:23, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

Those are welcome suggestions but the chapter designations by themselves do not carry any special significance, so I don't see value in so many redirects.
The verses have the significance and so the span links are valuable for key verses, and some are there already. But it would be a fair amount of time to insert a "span id" for each verse, unless you know a shortcut.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 24 June 2015 (EDT)
Indeed, instead of the chapter, one can always link to the first verse...
I don't know shortcuts, but regular expressions: s/\|\-\n\|(\d+)/\|\-\n\|<span id="1:$1">$1<\/span>/. Usually that what bots are for, but I can do it - at least for the Gospels - over the next days.
(and you should really address the problems with Essay:Calming the Storm. It makes you look bad)
--AugustO 11:57, 24 June 2015 (EDT)