Mark 3:19

Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Wed Jan 8 06:56:00 EST 2003

Sorry for Repeat Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! Hi all, I am reading Mark. This time it goes well. I hope to finish it this timeMark 3:16 – 19:[KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS DWDEKA](1) KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA TWi SIMONI PETRON, (2a) KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI OWANNHN TON ADELFOU TOU IAKWBOU (2b) KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS NONMA[TA] BOANHRGES, …,(3) KAI ANDREAN KAI FILIPPON KAI ….. KAI IOUDAN ISKARIWQ.I expect the paragraph (1)-(3) to be a list of names. (3) is a list of names. (2a) is a list of names, and (2b) isan explanation about the listed names. Because (2h),as a sentence, is added to a list of names, it looks strange.But if we think (2b) as a parenthetical remark, it is acceptable.However, (1) presents a real problem. It talks about Simon, withoutfirst presenting his name. If I had SIMON KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA AUTWi PETRON,I would not complain, because I can take KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA AUTWi PETRONas a parenthetical remark. Is there any way to make sense of the above construction?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

Sorry for RepeatMark 3:16-19: what a strange construction!

Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 8 07:20:38 EST 2003

Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! The scope of flashback: Mark 3:20-31 At 6:56 AM -0500 1/8/03, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Hi all,> >I am reading Mark. This time it goes well. I hope to finish it this time> >Mark 3:16 – 19:> >[KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS DWDEKA]>(1) KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA TWi SIMONI PETRON,>(2a) KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI OWANNHN TON ADELFOU TOU IAKWBOU> (2b) KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS NONMA[TA] BOANHRGES, …,>(3) KAI ANDREAN KAI FILIPPON KAI ….. KAI IOUDAN ISKARIWQ.> >I expect the paragraph (1)-(3) to be a list of names.>(3) is a list of names. (2a) is a list of names, and (2b) is>an explanation about the listed names. Because (2h),>as a sentence, is added to a list of names, it looks strange.>But if we think (2b) as a parenthetical remark, it is acceptable.>However, (1) presents a real problem. It talks about Simon, without>first presenting his name. If I had> > SIMON KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA AUTWi PETRON,> >I would not complain, because I can take KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA AUTWi PETRON>as a parenthetical remark.> >Is there any way to make sense of the above construction?Two points need to be considered: (a) this sequence really begins with Mk3:13 and continues through 3:19; (b) there are critical problems with thetext: you’re evidently reading what the editors of the critical text havebracketed as a legitimate part of the text; thus you’re reading (1), (2a),(2b) and (3) above as if they were intended by the original writer/redactorto follow upon the bracketed EPOIHSEN TOUS DWDEKA. You ought rather to seethe key verse in Mk 3:14, KAI EPOIHSEN DWDEKA [hOUS KAI APOSTOLOUSWNOMASEN] hINA WSIN MET’ AUTOU KAI hINA APOSTELLHi AUTOUS KHRUSSEIN …It’s pretty clear that this pericope presents several text-criticalproblems that need to be resolved before one starts asking the discoursequestions–or at least one needs to deal with them at the same time.Moreover, I think it would also behoove one studying this passage in Markto consider the parallels in Matthew (5:1 and 10:1-4) and in Luke (6:12-16and 9:1-2). We don’t discuss Source-Critical and Redaction-Critical matterson , but I think that one studying any of these passages needs totake the formulation of the same (oral?) gospel tradition into these threevariants. It is certainly not unlikely that the MS tradition has beenimpacted by comparison of the synoptic gospels with each other and someeffort to harmonize their formulation–and I suspect that’s what’s involvedin these bracketed segments within the Marcan text. Metzger (_TextualCommentary on the Greek New Testament_ 2nd edition) has notes on thebracketed material in Mk 3:14 and 3:16 which I won’t reproduce here butwhich I think are worth looking at.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction!The scope of flashback: Mark 3:20-31

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dan Gleason dan- at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 15 01:29:56 EST 2005

[] thank you Carl, [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Mark 3:13-19 Translation IssuesHere is a traditional translation:He went up into the mountain,and called to himself those whom he wanted,and they went to him.He appointed twelve, that they might be with him,and that he might send them out to preach,and to have authority <to heal sicknesses and> to cast out demons:Simon, to whom he gave the name PETER;James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he surnamed them Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.(World English Bible)_______________*** Here is my translation of the Greek text for which I have four questionsAnd he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …and he called to him whom he himself wished …and they went away towards (PROS = in front of?) him.And he made (EPOIHSEN) Twelve … [whom also he named apostles] …so-that they-might be with him …and so-that he-might send them to proclaim …and to have authority to cast out the Demons.And he made (EPOIHSEN) the Twelve.And he layed on (EPIQHKEN) a name to-Simon … the STONE (PETRON).And James, the-son of Zebedee …and John, the brother of James …and he layed on (a name to them … Boanerges … which is “Sons of Thunder.”And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the-son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean.And Judas Iscariot who also betrayed him. And he goes into a house …________________Text questions:1) I think “made” for epoihsen is just as accurate as “appointed.”Jesus may be “appointing” but the author of the gospel is “making” the number “twelve” into a title, a term he will use a lot in future verses.Here is an observation, I see Mark and Jesus “making” the twelve into an “assembly.”Comments?2) I think “layed on a name” is preferrable to “gave a name” because we are talking about placing a physical object on someone (BDAG).In this case it’s a metaphorical object called a stone.Comments?3) I think “the STONE” (BDAG) is an infinitely better “dynamic” translation than “PETER.”The name Peter is a phonetic translation – it is the only English name that most closely sounds like Petros.Maybe there was a very good reason Jesus gave Simon the name of this particular non living object.After all, 1 Pet 2 contains numerous stone metaphors such as “living stones.” Is this a coincidence?Who first made this decision (and when) to translate the word Petros as Peter and why has it persisted so long? Has anyone ever disagreed with this tradition?Here is another observation, after this verse, Mark only refers to this disciple by his title, the “Stone” – although in verse 14:37 the reader is reminded by Jesus that he still owns the name Simon.Is there a good reason why we shouldn’t call a Stone a Stone?4) Any other comments on the above translation?——————————————-Answer these questions OFF LIST1) Does anyone see a connection with the titles “the stone” and “sons of thunder.” Or the “stone” with all twelve disciples?2) All 12 were given authority to cast out demons including Judas who is mentioned last. If the first eleven come from Galilee and Judas Iscariot is a Man of Kerioth from Judea, isn’t Judas “cast out” geographically from the 12 to begin with? Even by the way the text is composed he seems to be “cast out.” Do you think Judas is already secretly possessed with a demon? Can the info about Judas being a betrayer be a hint?3) Verse 19 ends with “And he goes into a house.” Ok – from the “context” of the following story the pronoun “he” seems to mean Jesus. This is not obvious to me. Could it also mean Judas or Jesus … one or the other or both? Anyone see a connection between Judas and this “house?” More on this in a future post …Dan Gleason_________________________________________________________________Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today – it’s FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[] thank you Carl,[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Tue Nov 15 07:02:05 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues On Nov 15, 2005, at 1:29 AM, Dan Gleason wrote:> Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues> > Here is a traditional translation:> > He went up into the mountain,> and called to himself those whom he wanted,> and they went to him.> He appointed twelve, that they might be with him,> and that he might send them out to preach,> and to have authority <to heal sicknesses and> to cast out demons:> Simon, to whom he gave the name PETER;> James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he > surnamed them Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;> Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of > Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;> and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.> (World English Bible)> _______________14 KAI ANABAINEI EIS TO OROS KAI PROSKALEITAI hOUS HQELEN AUTOS, KAI APHLQON PROS AUTON. 14 KAI EPOIHSEN DWDEKA [hOUS KAI APOSTOLOUS WNOMASEN] hINA WSIN MET’ AUTOU KAI hINA APOSTELLHi AUTOUS KHRUSSEIN. 15 KAI ECEIN EXOUSIAN EKBALLEIN TA DAIMONIA; 16 [KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS DWDEKA] KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA TWi SIMWNI PETRON, 17 KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOUKAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA[TA] BOANERGHS, hO ESTIN hUIOI BRONTHS; 18 KAI ANDREAN KAI FILIPPON KAI BARQOLOMAION KAI MAQQAION KAI QWMAN KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ALFAIOU KAI QADDAION KAI SIMWNA TO KANANAIAN KAI IOUDAN ISKARIWQ, hOS KAI PAREDWKEN AUTON.Well, nobody can say, Dan, that you can’t stand the heat. You keep coming backwith these translation questions despite the fact that you have not, so far as I cansee, won much approval for the phrasing of your own translations. You havesaid that you would use only traditional versions hereafter. Here you have citedone of the more literal of the existing English versions and still proceed to offeryour own, apparently on grounds that you want to be MORE literal than theWorld English Bible. And again, the question that I would have to raise iswhether it is the meanings of the Greek words as conveyed into English thatis important to you or whether it is the English words and meanings that youprefer that is your chief concern. IF you are endeavoring to understand andconvey into authentic intelligible English what the Greek means, I honestlydo not think you’re doing it. But then, I may be misunderstanding what it reallyis that you are endeavoring to do.> *** Here is my translation of the Greek text for which I have four > questions> > And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …I’m very curious why you convey EIS as “into”: by derivation EIS is EN + S;EN means “in” or “on” and the -S is a directional suffix appended as Englishin some instances appends “-ward(s)” to directional prepositions and adverbs.EIS can be “onto” or “into” depending on whether we understand movementpenetrating the surface of the object or coming to rest upon the surface of theobject. I note that the WEB which you cite also has “into the mountain”: I thinkthat’s misleading; I think it should be “onto.” But if the mountain is thought ofas a timbered height, then I suppose that “into” could imply that a location atsome point up the height might be thought of as the “interior” of the mountainthat is penetrated in the course of the climb.For my part, I would think that the simplest English conveying the sense ofthe Greek text is: “he went up the mountain” or “he climbed the mountain.”> and he called to him whom he himself wished …> and they went away towards (PROS = in front of?) him.“went away” reproduces the composite derivation of the original wordAPHLQON, but, as is the case with many Koine verbs, older uncompoundedverbs have been replaced in usage by compound verbs. The AP- has noforce here; APHLQON here means simply “they went” or better “they came.’for PROS “towards” is perfectly adequate. PROS means “forward to”(original PRO “in front” with the directional -S). I think you could say”they came before him” — the sense is the presented themselves to him.> And he made (EPOIHSEN) Twelve … [whom also he named apostles] …> so-that they-might be with him …> and so-that he-might send them to proclaim …> and to have authority to cast out the Demons.> And he made (EPOIHSEN) the Twelve.> > And he layed on (EPIQHKEN) a name to-Simon … the STONE (PETRON).> And James, the-son of Zebedee …> and John, the brother of James …> and he layed on (a name to them … Boanerges … which is “Sons of > Thunder.”> And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, > and James the-son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean.> And Judas Iscariot who also betrayed him. And he goes into a house …> ________________> > Text questions:> > 1) I think “made” for EPOIHSEN is just as accurate as “appointed.”> Jesus may be “appointing” but the author of the gospel is “making” > the number “twelve” into a title, a term he will use a lot in > future verses.> Here is an observation, I see Mark and Jesus “making” the twelve > into an “assembly.”> Comments?I appreciate your distinction between what Jesus did and what the authorof GMk intended to do. I think you are saying that the author of thegospel is imposing a distinct interpretation upon any tradition that hemay have employed in his own composition.My problem with “made” is that it seems to point to manufacture orproduction of a product: I go into the kitchen and make bread; I gointo the workshop and make a chair. When the verb is used in the LXXof Genesis 1:1 EPOIHSEN means “created” and maybe that is the wordyou want here. What I don’t understand is why you see “appointed” inthis instance as meaning something different.You’ve hinted at this before but I’m not sure that you’ve ever beenexplicit about it: are you seriously intending to use THE VERY SAMEENGLISH WORD/EXPRESSION to convey EVERY GREEK WORDin Mark’s gospel in your version? I honestly don’t believe that can bedone without distorting the meaning in a translation.> 2) I think “layed on a name” is preferrable to “gave a name” > because we are talking about placing a physical object on someone > (BDAG).> In this case it’s a metaphorical object called a stone.> Comments?Text: EPEQHKEN ONOMA TWi SIMWNI PETRONI think “imposed” would do very well for EPEQHKEN: it could implythe laying of a heavy burden upon Simon’s back and it even has anetymological equivalence to EPEQHKEN.The problem, as I see it, is that you’re selecting a glossfor EPEQHKEN that is based upon the predicate complementPETRON rather than the direct object ONOMA.> 3) I think “the STONE” (BDAG) is an infinitely better “dynamic” > translation than “PETER.”Why “THE” stone? There’s no article there. You could verywell say “he put the name Stone on him.”> The name Peter is a phonetic translation – it is the only English > name that most closely sounds like Petros.> Maybe there was a very good reason Jesus gave Simon the name of > this particular non living object.> After all, 1 Pet 2 contains numerous stone metaphors such as > “living stones.” Is this a coincidence?> Who first made this decision (and when) to translate the word > Petros as Peter and why has it persisted so long? Has anyone ever > disagreed with this tradition?> Here is another observation, after this verse, Mark only refers to > this disciple by his title, the “Stone” – although in verse 14:37 > the reader is reminded by Jesus that he still owns the name Simon.> Is there a good reason why we shouldn’t call a Stone a Stone?I think you’re asking some rhetorical questions here. Is it not obviousthat PETROS became a proper name that generally ceased to beassociated with a “stone” in common parlance, just as “Christ”became a proper name and ceased to be regularly associatedwith anointing?I’d have no objection to using “Stone” as a name, but “THE Stone” isnot what we have here. But you may not find it so easy to sustainthe overtones of the name throughout the gospel; there’s somethingparallel in Genesis 1-4, where “Eve” ceases to be “Life” and becomesonly the proper name of a particular person.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 15 07:34:33 EST 2005

[] English vs Greek Perfect [] Zodhiates Greek NT CDs On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:29:56 -0600 “Dan Gleason” <dan- at hotmail.com>writes:> Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues> > Here is a traditional translation:> > He went up into the mountain,> and called to himself those whom he wanted,> and they went to him.> He appointed twelve, that they might be with him,> and that he might send them out to preach,> and to have authority <to heal sicknesses and> to cast out demons:> Simon, to whom he gave the name PETER;> James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he > surnamed them > Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;> Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of > Alphaeus; > Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;> and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.> (World English Bible)> > _______________> > *** Here is my translation of the Greek text for which I have four > questions> > And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …> and he called to him whom he himself wished …> and they went away towards (PROS = in front of?) him.> > And he made (EPOIHSEN) Twelve … [whom also he named apostles] …> so-that they-might be with him …> and so-that he-might send them to proclaim …> and to have authority to cast out the Demons.> And he made (EPOIHSEN) the Twelve.> > And he layed on (EPIQHKEN) a name to-Simon … the STONE (PETRON).> And James, the-son of Zebedee …> and John, the brother of James …> and he layed on (a name to them … Boanerges … which is “Sons of > > Thunder.”> And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, > and James > the-son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean.> And Judas Iscariot who also betrayed him. And he goes into a house >> ________________> > Text questions:> > 1) I think “made” for epoihsen is just as accurate as “appointed.”> Jesus may be “appointing” but the author of the gospel is “making” > the > number “twelve” into a title, a term he will use a lot in future > verses.> Here is an observation, I see Mark and Jesus “making” the twelve into > an > “assembly.”> Comments?> > 2) I think “layed on a name” is preferrable to “gave a name” because > we are > talking about placing a physical object on someone (BDAG).> In this case it’s a metaphorical object called a stone.> Comments?> > 3) I think “the STONE” (BDAG) is an infinitely better “dynamic” > translation > than “PETER.”> The name Peter is a phonetic translation – it is the only English > name that > most closely sounds like Petros.> Maybe there was a very good reason Jesus gave Simon the name of this > > particular non living object.> After all, 1 Pet 2 contains numerous stone metaphors such as “living > > stones.” Is this a coincidence?> Who first made this decision (and when) to translate the word Petros > as > Peter and why has it persisted so long? Has anyone ever disagreed > with this > tradition?> Here is another observation, after this verse, Mark only refers to > this > disciple by his title, the “Stone” – although in verse 14:37 the > reader is > reminded by Jesus that he still owns the name Simon.> Is there a good reason why we shouldn’t call a Stone a Stone?> > 4) Any other comments on the above translation?> > ——————————————-> > Answer these questions OFF LIST> > 1) Does anyone see a connection with the titles “the stone” and > “sons of > thunder.” Or the “stone” with all twelve disciples?> > 2) All 12 were given authority to cast out demons including Judas > who is > mentioned last. If the first eleven come from Galilee and Judas > Iscariot is > a Man of Kerioth from Judea, isn’t Judas “cast out” geographically > from the > 12 to begin with? Even by the way the text is composed he seems to > be “cast > out.” Do you think Judas is already secretly possessed with a demon? > Can the > info about Judas being a betrayer be a hint?> > 3) Verse 19 ends with “And he goes into a house.” Ok – from the > “context” of > the following story the pronoun “he” seems to mean Jesus. This is > not > obvious to me. Could it also mean Judas or Jesus … one or the > other or > both? Anyone see a connection between Judas and this “house?” More > on this > in a future post …> > Dan Gleason______________I would suggest that you go learn Greek before you proceed to attempt totranslate the GoMk and comment on it. I really think you are deficientin your understanding of the language.georgegfsomsel___________

[] English vs Greek Perfect[] Zodhiates Greek NT CDs

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Nov 15 14:02:10 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dear Dan,I’d propose that you recast any English formulation in which an ordinaryreader would say to you, “I know what this means, but you wouldn’t say itthat way in English.” If your translation doesn’t convey what the person said in Greek as a personwould say it in English, then you haven’t really translated it into English,but only into Greenklish or something.Greek words do not necessarily correspond one-to-one with English words, norare the principles of word order and grammar particularly similar betweenthe two languages. Trying to compose English on the basis of an ideal thatthese should correspond (when they don’t) is, in my opinion, a fruitless andeven counter-productive task. This reality no doubt comes home totranslators working with languages that are much, much farther away fromancient Greek than English is (e.g. Chinese).I certainly believe in making the process and issues of translation astransparent as possible (e.g. by using footnotes and putting words suppliedfor sense in different formatting). But I think it’s worth letting go of theideal of hyper-literalism.Peace,Webb MealySample comment:And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain … No English speaker would use the word “ascended” to describe a personwalking up a mountain. Mountain climbing, maybe… In English you say “goinginto the mountains” or “going up the mountain”, or “going up on themountain”, but never “going into the mountain”. English and Greekprepositions simply don’t correspond one to one, and there is no point inpretending that they do.

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com
Tue Nov 15 14:08:43 EST 2005

[] John 18:37 EK THS ALHQEIAS [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Hi Dan,I don’t follow your thoughts on Judas and BGreek. I think you would do better understanding Judas through the eyes of the Psalmist, see Ps 109 and compare it to your current thoughts on Judas.Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.Tejas ValleySan Antonio, Texas> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:29:56 -0600 “Dan Gleason” <dan- at hotmail.com>> writes:> > Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues> > > > Here is a traditional translation:> > > > He went up into the mountain,> > and called to himself those whom he wanted,> > and they went to him.> > He appointed twelve, that they might be with him,> > and that he might send them out to preach,> > and to have authority <to heal sicknesses and> to cast out demons:> > Simon, to whom he gave the name PETER;> > James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he > > surnamed them > > Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;> > Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of > > Alphaeus; > > Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;> > and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.> > (World English Bible)> > > > _______________> > > > *** Here is my translation of the Greek text for which I have four > > questions> > > > And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …> > and he called to him whom he himself wished …> > and they went away towards (PROS = in front of?) him.> > > > And he made (EPOIHSEN) Twelve … [whom also he named apostles] …> > so-that they-might be with him …> > and so-that he-might send them to proclaim …> > and to have authority to cast out the Demons.> > And he made (EPOIHSEN) the Twelve.> > > > And he layed on (EPIQHKEN) a name to-Simon … the STONE (PETRON).> > And James, the-son of Zebedee …> > and John, the brother of James …> > and he layed on (a name to them … Boanerges … which is “Sons of > > > > Thunder.”> > And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, > > and James > > the-son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean.> > And Judas Iscariot who also betrayed him. And he goes into a house > > …> > ________________> > > > Text questions:> > > > 1) I think “made” for epoihsen is just as accurate as “appointed.”> > Jesus may be “appointing” but the author of the gospel is “making” > > the > > number “twelve” into a title, a term he will use a lot in future > > verses.> > Here is an observation, I see Mark and Jesus “making” the twelve into > > an > > “assembly.”> > Comments?> > > > 2) I think “layed on a name” is preferrable to “gave a name” because > > we are > > talking about placing a physical object on someone (BDAG).> > In this case it’s a metaphorical object called a stone.> > Comments?> > > > 3) I think “the STONE” (BDAG) is an infinitely better “dynamic” > > translation > > than “PETER.”> > The name Peter is a phonetic translation – it is the only English > > name that > > most closely sounds like Petros.> > Maybe there was a very good reason Jesus gave Simon the name of this > > > > particular non living object.> > After all, 1 Pet 2 contains numerous stone metaphors such as “living > > > > stones.” Is this a coincidence?> > Who first made this decision (and when) to translate the word Petros > > as > > Peter and why has it persisted so long? Has anyone ever disagreed > > with this > > tradition?> > Here is another observation, after this verse, Mark only refers to > > this > > disciple by his title, the “Stone” – although in verse 14:37 the > > reader is > > reminded by Jesus that he still owns the name Simon.> > Is there a good reason why we shouldn’t call a Stone a Stone?> > > > 4) Any other comments on the above translation?> > > > ——————————————-> > > > Answer these questions OFF LIST> > > > 1) Does anyone see a connection with the titles “the stone” and > > “sons of > > thunder.” Or the “stone” with all twelve disciples?> > > > 2) All 12 were given authority to cast out demons including Judas > > who is > > mentioned last. If the first eleven come from Galilee and Judas > > Iscariot is > > a Man of Kerioth from Judea, isn’t Judas “cast out” geographically > > from the > > 12 to begin with? Even by the way the text is composed he seems to > > be “cast > > out.” Do you think Judas is already secretly possessed with a demon? > > Can the > > info about Judas being a betrayer be a hint?> > > > 3) Verse 19 ends with “And he goes into a house.” Ok – from the > > “context” of > > the following story the pronoun “he” seems to mean Jesus. This is > > not > > obvious to me. Could it also mean Judas or Jesus … one or the > > other or > > both? Anyone see a connection between Judas and this “house?” More > > on this > > in a future post …> > > > Dan Gleason>

[] John 18:37 EK THS ALHQEIAS[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 15 14:41:37 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:02:10 -0800 “Webb” <webb at selftest.net> writes:> Dear Dan,> Sample comment:> And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain … > No English speaker would use the word “ascended” to describe a > person> walking up a mountain. Mountain climbing, maybe… In English you > say “going> into the mountains” or “going up the mountain”, or “going up on the> mountain”, but never “going into the mountain”. English and Greek> prepositions simply don’t correspond one to one, and there is no > point in> pretending that they do. __________If I were to read that someone went “into the mountain”, I would assumethat he entered a cave or, more likely yet, a mine.georgegfsomsel___________

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dan Gleason dan- at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 15 16:06:31 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Regarding the word ASCENDWM wrote:>Sample comment:>And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …>No English speaker would use the word “ascended” to describe a person>walking up a mountain.Mountain climbing, maybe… In English you say “going>into the mountains” or “going up the mountain”, or “going up on the>mountain”, but never “going into the mountain”. English and Greek>prepositions simply don’t correspond one to one, and there is no point in>pretending that they do.DG: Dear WebbI think you are totally wrong on this point. The words ascent, ascend, and ascending are standard mountain climbing terminolology. Please check if the same term is not used in Greece as well as all over the English speaking world.here ia an excerpt from Encarta:Mountain Climbing, ascending mountains, most commonly as a recreational activity. Mountain climbing is popular worldwide, wherever hills rise high enough to provide challenge. The activity’s rewards include the physical exertion it requires, the satisfaction of overcoming difficulties by working with others, the thrill of reaching a summit, and the unobstructed view from a mountaintop. Exploration and research are other reasons that people climb mountains.Ascents can be either nontechnical (a hike up a path or a scramble over rocks, not requiring the safety of a rope), or technical (a climb up more difficult terrain that requires the use of rope and other specialized equipment). This article focuses on technical climbs, which involve all the elements of simple hikes but also require advanced knowledge and equipment. Making technical climbs is also known as mountaineering.Since ancient times, people have viewed mountain peaks as towering objects of myth, spiritual inspiration, and romantic beauty. Early peoples made ascents only to hunt game, to rescue lost or strayed animals, or to gain a military advantage over an enemy. Eventually, the unknown and inaccessible ceased to be something to be feared and avoided, and the conquest of the major mountain peaks and ranges of the world began. Mountaineering as a sport was born on August 8, 1786, with the first ascent of Mont Blanc (4,810 m/15,782 ft), one of Europe’s tallest peaks. Since that ascent, mountain climbing has evolved into three related sports: alpine climbing, ice climbing, and rock climbing. These sports require the same fundamental techniques.The first recorded mountain ascent in the Common Era is Roman Emperor Hadrian’s ascent of Etna (3,350 m) to see the sun rise in 121.Regarding the word INTO (EIS)If Mark wanted to avoid confusion maybe he should have worded the verse some other way. I think he purposely chose EIS (meaning into) for a good reason.Lets assume the reader “can’t see too good” when it comes to understanding metaphor. Let’s assume the reader is like the blind man of Bethsaida after Jesus spit in his eyes. Jesus asked him if he was seeing anything and the man said “I see Men like Trees walking around.” Jesus then had to put his hands on the man’s eyes (a 2 step cure) before the man could see everything clearly.Look at verse 13 from a stagecraft, set design point of view. The narrater in this metaphorical play could be describing a mountain off in the distance as seen by a semi-blind reader. The mountain is made of boulders, rocks, and stones. Because he can’t “see too good” the mountain looks like a silhoette. His eyes don’t have the resolution to make out the 12 people ascending what looks like a big triangle. The twelve look like “living stones” or “moving stones” ascending up into or inside the triangle.So, speaking metaphorically, “INTO” makes perfect sense.My translation “doesn’t convey what the person said in Greek as a person” because Mark is no ordinary person. Even when Mark seems to be “speaking plainly” he can be speaking in metaphor. The reader can’t pick and choose when he thinks Mark is speaking metaphorically or not. His words can mean almost anything at any time. He has stories within stories at all times. But the semi blind reader can’t see this.Are-you- not yet understanding? (Mk 8:21)Dan Gleason>From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>>Reply-To: <webb at selftest.net>>To: “‘Dan Gleason'” <dan- at hotmail.com>, < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Subject: RE: [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:02:10 -0800> >Dear Dan,>I’d propose that you recast any English formulation in which an ordinary>reader would say to you, “I know what this means, but you wouldn’t say it>that way in English.” If your translation doesn’t convey what the person >said in Greek as a person>would say it in English, then you haven’t really translated it into >English,>but only into Greenklish or something.>Greek words do not necessarily correspond one-to-one with English words, >nor>are the principles of word order and grammar particularly similar between>the two languages. Trying to compose English on the basis of an ideal that>these should correspond (when they don’t) is, in my opinion, a fruitless >and>even counter-productive task. This reality no doubt comes home to>translators working with languages that are much, much farther away from>ancient Greek than English is (e.g. Chinese).>I certainly believe in making the process and issues of translation as>transparent as possible (e.g. by using footnotes and putting words supplied>for sense in different formatting). But I think it’s worth letting go of >the>ideal of hyper-literalism.>Peace,>Webb Mealy> > _________________________________________________________________Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Mike Sangrey MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Tue Nov 15 16:07:46 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues May I just say (and then not deal again with the issue that Dan’spostings bring up):One of the fundamental rules I follow in exegesis (ie. understandingwhat the original text says) is this: If you can’t convey in plainEnglish what you think the original Greek says, then you don’tunderstand what the original says.If we can’t convey the meaning in the language we are fluent in, theneither we are not fluent in the language we think we’re fluent in, or wedon’t understand the meaning we want to convey, or the meaning we wantto convey doesn’t make sense to begin with.– Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)Exegetitor.blogspot.comLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dan Gleason dan- at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 15 16:12:18 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dear GeorgeYou’ve got to open up your mind a little bit to some new translation paradigms.Read my reply to Webb re this “ascended into” issue.Dan Gleason>From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>>To: webb at selftest.net>CC: dan- at hotmail.com, at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:41:37 -0500> >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:02:10 -0800 “Webb” <webb at selftest.net> writes:> > Dear Dan,> > Sample comment:> > And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …> > No English speaker would use the word “ascended” to describe a> > person> > walking up a mountain. Mountain climbing, maybe… In English you> > say “going> > into the mountains” or “going up the mountain”, or “going up on the> > mountain”, but never “going into the mountain”. English and Greek> > prepositions simply don’t correspond one to one, and there is no> > point in> > pretending that they do.>__________> >If I were to read that someone went “into the mountain”, I would assume>that he entered a cave or, more likely yet, a mine.> >george>gfsomsel>____________________________________________________________________________FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Tue Nov 15 16:26:30 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Dan Gleason wrote:> Dear George> > You’ve got to open up your mind a little bit to some new > translation paradigms.Well, it doesn’t appear that you are going to do that; you continue to ask forcomments on your translations, but none of the comments seems to be veryhelpful to you.> Read my reply to Webb re this “ascended into” issue.I have read it — with incredulity, never imagining that what Jesus was doing in the hill country of Galilee was what we now understand as the sport of “mountain-climbing.”>> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>>> To: webb at selftest.net>> CC: dan- at hotmail.com, at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:41:37 -0500>> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:02:10 -0800 “Webb” <webb at selftest.net> writes:>> > Dear Dan,>> > Sample comment:>> > And he ascended into (EIS) the Mountain …>> > No English speaker would use the word “ascended” to describe a>> > person>> > walking up a mountain. Mountain climbing, maybe… In English you>> > say “going>> > into the mountains” or “going up the mountain”, or “going up on the>> > mountain”, but never “going into the mountain”. English and Greek>> > prepositions simply don’t correspond one to one, and there is no>> > point in>> > pretending that they do.>> __________>> >> If I were to read that someone went “into the mountain”, I would >> assume>> that he entered a cave or, more likely yet, a mine.>> >> george>> gfsomsel>> ___________> > _________________________________________________________________> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http:// > toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 15 16:33:51 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] 1Cor1:17 and 1Cor15:1; Question about def. articles On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:06:31 -0600 “Dan Gleason” <dan- at hotmail.com>writes:> > Regarding the word INTO (EIS)> > If Mark wanted to avoid confusion maybe he should have worded the > verse some > other way. I think he purposely chose EIS (meaning into) for a good > reason.> > Lets assume the reader “can’t see too good” when it comes to > understanding > metaphor. Let’s assume the reader is like the blind man of Bethsaida > after > Jesus spit in his eyes. Jesus asked him if he was seeing anything > and the > man said “I see Men like Trees walking around.” Jesus then had to > put his > hands on the man’s eyes (a 2 step cure) before the man could see > everything > clearly.> > Look at verse 13 from a stagecraft, set design point of view. The > narrater > in this metaphorical play could be describing a mountain off in the > distance > as seen by a semi-blind reader. The mountain is made of boulders, > rocks, and > stones. Because he can’t “see too good” the mountain looks like a > silhoette. > His eyes don’t have the resolution to make out the 12 people > ascending what > looks like a big triangle. The twelve look like “living stones” or > “moving > stones” ascending up into or inside the triangle.> > So, speaking metaphorically, “INTO” makes perfect sense.> > My translation “doesn’t convey what the person said in Greek as a > person” > because Mark is no ordinary person. Even when Mark seems to be > “speaking > plainly” he can be speaking in metaphor. The reader can’t pick and > choose > when he thinks Mark is speaking metaphorically or not. His words can > mean > almost anything at any time. He has stories within stories at all > times. But > the semi blind reader can’t see this.> > Are-you- not yet understanding? (Mk 8:21)> > Dan Gleason___________This has got to be one of the worst excuses for a translation I have everseen. Go study Greek. Indeed, go study ENGLISH!georgegfsomsel___________

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] 1Cor1:17 and 1Cor15:1; Question about def. articles

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues Dan Gleason dan- at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 15 16:28:28 EST 2005

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues [] English vs Greek Perfect Dear MikeMS wrote:If you can’t convey in plain>English what you think the original Greek says, then you don’t>understand what the original says.DG: Where did you get the idea that Mark ever speaks in “plain Greek?”That may just be a false assumption.Dan GleasonPS to Mike: I think I sent this to you off-list but it was meant for the list>From: Mike Sangrey <MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org>>To: Biblical Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Subject: Re: [] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:07:46 -0500> >May I just say (and then not deal again with the issue that Dan’s>postings bring up):> >One of the fundamental rules I follow in exegesis (ie. understanding>what the original text says) is this: If you can’t convey in plain>English what you think the original Greek says, then you don’t>understand what the original says.> >If we can’t convey the meaning in the language we are fluent in, then>either we are not fluent in the language we think we’re fluent in, or we>don’t understand the meaning we want to convey, or the meaning we want>to convey doesn’t make sense to begin with.> >>Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)>Exegetitor.blogspot.com>Landisburg, Pa.> “The first one last wins.”> “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/_________________________________________________________________Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today – it’s FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[] Mark 3:13-19 Translation Issues[] English vs Greek Perfect

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>