Posted on 07/17/2019 9:38:37 AM PDT by Salvation
Being part of a discussion group on the Gospel of Mark led by one of the instructors from Mount Angel Abbey who mentioned many of these details was an honor. It was most interesting!
WOW fascinating!
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Not sure translation is the correct word.
I attended an oral presentation of The Gospel of Mark some years back. I was predicated on its apparent oral heritage prior to its formal written version. It had much of the immediacy spoken of in this article and certainly was inspirational.
I’ve just answered my own question, but I’ll post it here for others:
“Writers from the earliest days of the Church tell us that Peter’s disciple Mark wrote down the apostle’s account of the life of Jesus as he told it to the first Christians in Rome. The vivid, detailed, unadorned prose of the Gospel of Mark conveys the unmistakable immediacy of a first-hand account.”
Being written in Rome at that time Greek was the language of the Scholar.
What makes you say that?
I dont know. Maybe I’m wrong.
I guess I have nothing against it
I guess I have nothing against it although I do not need anything enterpreted to suit me, I just want the actual words as near as we can get them because even if it helps some people to see it better it is a paraphase and not
the actual scripture which make it a lie.
Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Beginning a sentence with “and” was unusual, but was common in Hebrew.
From an article about the Hebrew background of Mark:
“Carmignac, a Dead Sea Scrolls translator and an expert in the Hebrew in use at the time of Christ. . . he came at the problem from a different angle.
“In order to facilitate the comparison between our Greek Gospels and the Hebrew text of Qumran, I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran.
.....
“. . . He discovered the Greek translator of Mark had slavishly kept to the Hebrew word order and grammar.
” . . . could the awkward phrasings found in our Greek text have been nothing more than overly faithful translations (perhaps “transliterations” would be more accurate) of Semitic originals?
“If the second possibility were true, then we have synoptic Gospels written by eyewitnesses at a very early date.”
IOW, the translators into Greek tried as much as possible not to change a single word of what they had received, even when it made the grammar awkward.
Yep, and although they call every thing a translation many are just a paraphase or just words changed
to fit their belief, that is why I like the kj, it appears that he did not care what it said just as
long as we know what it says.
Interesting. :)
“He discovered the Greek translator of Mark had slavishly kept to the Hebrew word order and grammar.”
(Warning Moosie thinking out loud)
So I guess we can assume that the original was written in Hebrew and not translated from Hebrew verbiage to Greek text within the head of the original scribe.
However the passage I found states the transcription took place in Rome which would suggest the original document may be in Greek, or possibly the scribe wrote in his native Hebrew and translated later.
Maybe this accounts for the slavishly accurate transliteration (?)
The book of Mark I can’t (Probably logically) find in the list of Qumran scrolls.
So out of curiosity, if anyone knows for sure which is correct I would love to know.
Greek was also the language of the slave in Rome at the time—and usually the scholars were also slaves, but many slaves were not scholars.
The conquest of Greeks and importation of Greek-speaking teachers and Greek texts actually turned Rome into a predominantly Greek speaking city for several centuries.
The cradle of Ecclesiastical Latin was actually North Africa. The Liturgy in Rome didn’t switch to Latin until the time of Pope Damasus I in the later half of the fourth century.
BTW Check out my screen name. He was in the thick of it.
The old testament in ancient Hebrew was to most Hebrews an oral tradition, which continued in its written form, to tell a story and get the listener to engage in the story, to enter the story as their own, and in that process, more than memorizing words, to be inspired, to recieve inspiration by the same Holy spirit that inspired those who put the gospels together.
The new translation of Mark appears to be attempting something like that.
Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus
Will investigate tomorrow, thank you. :)
Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus
That would be my patron. Best known by the Latin form of the last name-—way too many Eusebii. Too many people think that simply by giving a kid a good name, he will worship well. It also takes more chutzpah than most people have to give a kid a truly Holy Name. But he had ample chutzpah. A balanced, middle ground would show more self-control.
You forget scriptures have been translated over the centuries. This is nothing new.
There is nothing new under the sun,true it is nothing new to God
But I have not been through it before, not in this life so it is new to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.