1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Borges’s “Gospel According to Mark,” written 1,900 years after the first biblical Gospel by the same name, provides a compelling illustration of how translators always play a visible, creative role in the work they perform (even when they do not realize it or want this role). The characters’ interaction with the Bible is an ideal platform to explore some complex notions that stem from postmodern conceptions of translation, such as the complicated relationship established between translators, their translations and audience. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Mark had a considerable impact on two of the three other Gospel authors, and that the Bible has had immeasurable impact on the general interpretation and translation of texts around the world. Borges’s story may seem to portray an absurd misreading of the Mark, but I propose that this radical misreading is not altogether different from the millions of interactions with the texts that have been responsible for creating and disseminating the Bible. Through brief histories of both Mark and the Vulgate in tandem with Borges’s text, we can understand that millions of nameless translators, interpreters and scribes have been responsible for actually creating what is now, in a fragmented nature, the Bible.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.12.1.03van
2017-04-10
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. American Bible Society
    American Bible Society 2009 “Number of English Translations of the Bible.” Available online at: news.americanbible.org/article/number-of-english-translations-of-the-bible. Accessed17 April 2016.
  2. American Translators Association
    American Translators Association 2010 “Certification.” Available online at: https://www.atanet.org/certification/online_ethics_code.php. Accessed17 April 2016.
  3. Arrojo, Rosemary
    2014 “The Power of Fiction as Theory: Some Exemplary Lessons on Translation from Borges’s Stories.” Transfiction: Research into the Realities of Translation Fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl , 37–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.110.03arr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.110.03arr [Google Scholar]
  4. Blanchot, Maurice
    2003 “Literary Infinity: The Aleph,” trans. by Charlotte Mandell. InThe Book to Come, 93–96. Stanford: University of Stanford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borges, Jorge Luis
    1999 “The Gospel According to Mark,” trans. by Andrew Hurley . InCollected Fictions, 397–401. New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1999aCollected Fictions, trans. by Andrew Hurley . New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1999b “The Homeric Versions,” trans. by Eliot Weinberger . InVoice-Overs: Translation and Latin American Literature, ed. by Daniel Balderston and Mary Schwartz , 15–19. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2000 “The Translators of The Thousand and One Nights ,” trans. by Esther Allen . InThe Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 34–38. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown Scott G.
    2003 “On the Composition History of the Longer (‘Secret’) Gospel of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature122 (1): 89–110. doi: 10.2307/3268092
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3268092 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burrows, Millar
    1925 “The Origin of the Term ‘Gospel.’” Journal of Biblical Literature44 (1/2): 21–33. doi: 10.2307/3260047
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3260047 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chamberlain, William
    1991Catalogue of English Bible Translations. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chesterman, Andrew
    2014 “Translation Studies Forum: Universalism in Translation Studies.” Translation Studies7(1): 82–90. doi: 10.1080/14781700.2013.828904
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.828904 [Google Scholar]
  13. Deleuze, Gilles
    1989Cinema 2: The Time-Image, trans. by Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Man, Paul
    1964 “A Modern Master” New York Review of Books, Nov.19: 8–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Derrida, Jacques
    1985 “Roundtable on Translation,” trans. by Peggy Kamuf . InThe Ear of the Other, 91–161. New York: Schocken Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dewey, Joanna
    2004 “The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?” Journal of Biblical Literature123(3): 495–507. doi: 10.2307/3268044
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3268044 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ehrman, Bart D.
    2005Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperOne.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Foucault, Michel
    1977 “What is an Author,” trans. by Donald Bouchard and Sherry Simon . InLanguage, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. by Donald Bouchard , 113–138. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1994 “Preface.” InThe Order of Things, xv–xxiv. New York: Random House, Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodspeed, Edgar J.
    1905 “The Original Conclusion of the Gospel of Mark.” The American Journal of Theology9(3): 484–490. doi: 10.1086/478545
    https://doi.org/10.1086/478545 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gottlieb, Michah
    2007 “Spinoza’s Method(s) of Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered.” Jewish Studies Quarterly14(3): 286–317. doi: 10.1628/094457007783246518
    https://doi.org/10.1628/094457007783246518 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grabbe, Lester
    1988 “The Balshazzar of Daniel and the Balshazzar of History.” Andrews University Seminary Studies26(1): 59–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hall, Nancy Abraham
    2002 “Saving the Gutres: Borges, Sarmiento and Mark.” Revista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos26(3): 527–536.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Helms, Randel McCraw
    1997Who Wrote the Gospels?Altadena, CA: Millennium Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Holy See
    Holy See 1970 “Preface to The New American Bible.” Available online at: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM. Accessed17 April 2016.
  26. Hurley, Andrew
    (trans.) 1998Collected Fictionsby Jorge Luis Borges . New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kelber, Werner H.
    1979Mark’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kundera, Milan
    1995 “A Sentence.” InTestaments Betrayed, trans. by Linda Asher , 97–118. New York: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Brett
    2005 “Technology, Aesthetics and Populism in ‘The Gospel According to Mark.’” Discourse27(2/3): 3–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Metzger, Bruce M.
    1977The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198261704.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198261704.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1992The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nida, Eugene
    1998 “Bible Translation.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker , 22–28. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Phillips, J.B.
    1984 “Preface.” InEight Translation New Testament. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publications. doi: 10.1016/0079‑6727(84)90002‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6727(84)90002-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. Preston, Patrick and Allan Jenkins
    2007Biblical Scholarship and the Church a Sixteenth-Century Crisis of Authority. Hampshire, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Riddle, Donald W.
    1924 “The Martyr Motif in the Gospel According to Mark.” The Journal of Religion4(4): 397–410. doi: 10.1086/480446
    https://doi.org/10.1086/480446 [Google Scholar]
  36. Robinson, Douglas
    2002 “Editor’s Introduction to ‘Jerome.’” InWestern Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche, 2nd edition, ed. by Douglas Robinson , 22–23. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith, D. Moody
    2000 “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?” Journal of Biblical Literature119(1): 3–20. doi: 10.2307/3267965
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3267965 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stanton, Graham N.
    1997 “The Fourfold Gospel” New Testament Studies43(3): 317–346. doi: 10.1017/S0028688500016933
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500016933 [Google Scholar]
  39. Thuesen, Peter J.
    1999 InDiscordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Wyke, Ben
    2012 “Borges and Us: Exploring Translation Theory in the Classroom.” The Translator18(1): 77–100. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2012.10799502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10799502 [Google Scholar]
  41. Waisman, Sergio
    2005Borges and Translation: The Irreverence of the Periphery. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wolfson, Harry Austryn
    1970The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.12.1.03van
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Borges , postmodern translation theory , the Bible and “The Gospel according to Mark”
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error