Kata Markon

[RickR370 AT aol.com]

This is my third post on the subject of the opeing lines in the Gospel of Mark. Again
I was delited to see the comments. If I continue to respond to each and every question individually this post will become unbearably long. So I am opting to address the issues in summarizations. I hope this is acceptable to the moderator as my only concern is to keep the discussion manageable. Again I look forward to a continued dialogue as we move ahead and again I hope my responses are clear and to the points in question.

Rick Richmond original post  A new unpolished translation of Mark post 1

1 arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou qeou
 the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ son of God

 kaqws gegraptai en tw hsaia tw profhth
 just as it stands written in Isaiah the prophet

 break here completed statement

 Idou apostellw ton aggelon mou pro proswpou sou os kataskeuasei thn
 odon sou
 behold I send the messenger of me before face of you, he will prepare
 the way of you


questions and comments

I have translated the last line of the above text as direct address disconnected from what has gone before.  I am saying that it was intended as direct address from the writer to the reader, not a poorly constructed quotation from Mal. as has often
been stated. Neither is it some sort of conflated quotation. The one reading this will have the document before his face. Since the writen word contains the mind of the writer/messenger, the document itself is the sent messenger which when read will be before the face of the reader and will prepare the way first for the reader and then for the audience that will hear it read.



The task of translating the Gospel of Mark as I see it:

>From the questions I am seeing, I think it is helpful here to spell out what I understand to be the task when translating the Gospel of Mark.  I am not interested in debating exegetical rhetoric. I don't really want to cite the gurus of the discipline, so much as to understand the text that is before us. I want to know what was actually written and then what the writing meant, that is to say what did the writer/compiler mean by what he wrote. I think this task is more than enough to keep us occupied.  To the question regarding the criticisms of this section of Mark, I am referring to all of the previous comments in history regarding the text. This would include of course:

Anti and Post Nicean Fathers all the way up to modern criticism
V. Taylor 
W. Marxen
S.R. Driver
A. Plummer 
C.A. Briggs 
L. Hurtado
 
and the list goes on and on. You see, NO English translation that I have ever read translates this text as I do. They simply accept the opion of the experts and assume that the writer/compiler of Mark was some sort of poorly educated hick. Scribes from as early as the 4th century stuggle with it because they were attempting to translate the statement as a quotation. It is my position that the text in quesiton is not problematic when read as direct address. I further maintain that direct address was indeed what the writer intended. I would also advise that if the ones questioning my translation will see it through to the end  the ongoing text will confirm my point. I am asking you to susspend biases for the moment and read the text with me as though you were reading it for the first time. 

The Biblical Inerrancy Question
I am not at all interested in making a case for inerrancy. I do not personally hold that position and would not commend such a position to others. I am only saying that in the case of the opening lines of Mark, those who say he is a poor bible scholar are off the mark. Likewise those who wish to say that his text demonstrats a conflating of two passages are also mistaken.  He simply makes an imparative statement to his intended readers that implies his Gospel is word of God and will prepare the reader's way after the fashion that  Isaiah 40, and John's preaching prepared the way for those who see and perceive, hear and understand it. In the translation I have written I have simply applied the basic principal of all sciencetific investigation. This explanation is by far the simplest and most reasonable model to date. The translation is sound from a grammatical standpoint and Like Occam's razor it cuts through the rhetoric and makes sense in the context.

Any Lexical contentions concerning aggelos I would simply refer to Gerhard Kittle's discussion on the subject in volume one of his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament where he presents the position that any form of aggelia can mean message or messenger. I doubt anyone would argue that a message can either be spoken or written. Kittel has an extensive discussion of the subject from the perspective of the classics and from the Gospel of John. Kittle refers to Liddel and Scott in support of his position in his treatment on the subject. It is rather technical but I think most will get the gist without an extensive background in lexicography or philology.

Likewise in Greek thought a messenger could be a person or the written word of a person. This is precisely why the works (thoughts) of Homer came to be written down. Like the sung versions the written Epics were considered to be alive and pregnant with meaning. The Illiad and the Odyssey we the text books for 
education in the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ. The text will bear this out in the case of the author of Mark who I will contend was trained in just this way.

Again I want to press folks to read the text of Mark as though you were reading it fresh for the first time. Try to grasp what the writer intended to write (say). And then ask what the implications of what he wrote may be or have been. Most of the time we become so bogged down in technicalities that we miss the mark when it comes to the object right before our face. 

As one of my Greek professors use to say " It is difficult to observe the shape of the mountain with ones nose pressed hard against the rock". 

I want to give thanks to God for the opportunity to carry on this discussion.

Rick Richmond