Talk:Mark 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Septuagint

Catholic Encyclopedia: Septuagint Version

"We know also that the writers of the New Testament made use of it, borrowing from it most of their citations; it became the Old Testament of the Church and was so highly esteemed by the early Christians that several writers and Fathers declared it to be inspired. The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion)."

Yes, Mark clearly used the Septuagint but this statement "...linking the good news of Jesus with a fulfillment of the Septuagint..." definetly needs better cite than that. Did Mark hold this version to be inspired? Is it a given why he used it, or that he chose the Septuagint because he thought Jesus fulfilled this version only? Did he not think Jesus fulfilled what the original authors wrote? Roy Brumback 06:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. You've cited this article, Novum Testamentum Graece, for the conclusion about Mark's sources and the version of Isaiah used. I think you are correct, but that info is not in that article. Roy Brumback 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And this statement "Mark has taken part of Exodus 23:20 of the Septuagint" contradicts my info on subject, where it is not taken from but perhaps patterned on this verse. What's your source for this conclusion? Thanks for your input on these articles. It's much appreciated. Roy Brumback 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see three issues. Number one is "linking the good news of Jesus with a fulfillment of the Septuagint". I'm open to other wording, those are not my original words. "Fulfillment" I think is correct, and "Septuagint" is the correct version, "Old Testament" or "Jewish Bible" is vague, which version? Clearly the Septuagint version is the particular version, for example the quote of Isa "a voice in the wilderness" is clearly Septuagint. Mark is stating that that is the verse, not the verse of other Greek translations, or Hebrew or Aramaic Targums. Why is not known, but clearly Mark is claiming fulfillment of the Septuagint version and occasional variants. Number two, Novum Testamentum Graece is the standard critical edition of the Greek New Testament, it cites direct quotes and parallels and lots of other information. Number three, "patterned on" sounds ok to me, as the text stands now you can see the "pattern", my source for this conclusion is my copy of Novum Testamentum Graece which lists it as a direct quote. If you have a copy of the Scholar's Version, its notation is similar, for v.1:2-3 it shows an arrow, which means "Old Testament reference: an Old Testament passage quoted or alluded to, or Old Testament laws or customs presupposed in a gospel passage" and lists Mal 3:1, Is 40:3(LXX), Ex23:20. LXX=Septuagint.

You say why is not known, but to me that's the whole point, as you then say Mark is claiming fulfillment of Septuagint, which is a why reason for Mark using it. Mark certainly knew these were Jewish books, so the claim he thought Jesus' actions fulfilled the translation but not original definetly needs a reputable scholarly citation. I for instance only use English translations as that's what I speak, but that doesn't mean I would argue Jesus fulfilled the english version of passage x. We can certainly discuss Mark's use of septuagint version in article, but it seems more reasonable to me to assume Mark was using what he thought was original authors intent. And for your cites just cite the page of your book and list its ISBN and other info in the References section Roy Brumback 09:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Define "original"? Dead Sea Scrolls?

I see your point about not having an autograph copy, but Mark clearly says the gospel begins with what Isaiah wrote, not what a translation says. I love the pics, but is that ruin of Peter's house generally accepted by historians and archeologists or is it just some tourist attraction? Roy Brumback 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details but I suspect it is the ruins of "a house" that "could" have been Peter's. I got it from the article on Capernaum 75.15.201.189 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus called/not called Son of God in early manuscripts

I noticed the claim that almost half the early manuscripts do not call Jesus the Son of God was changed to only the Codex Sinaticus. and then to a few manuscripts. My sources clearly say almost half, but are not specific about which ones. Do you guys have more detailed info? Roy Brumback 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've got specfic info. As far as Greek manuscripts go, it's only the (original reading of) Codex Sinaticus (4th century), Θ (9th century) and (corrected reading of) miniscule 28 (11th century). So only one of the earliest. However, there are other witnesses - like the Palestinian Syriac translation (6th century) and a number of references in the Church Fathers. All this information is from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. IMO, BTW, the evidence in favour of including the phrase is overwhelming. StAnselm 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

"The absence of [Son of God] in [Sinaticus, Θ, 28c, and others] may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nominia sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed) to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W [and others] in support of [Son of God] is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."