Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

but what of Ecce Homo in the mean time!?

Originally Posted by Terral

Your question is based upon the wrong supposition that the Gospel of Mark stopped at 16:8.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Matthew, John and Luke show know such signs, although I agree that Mark's Greek seems a little simple and uneven at times.

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

It is often stated that Mark has poor Greek, and I do not doubt it. However, I would like to have more knowledge. How long a list of Mark's solecisms can be put together? Has someone done this in a book, or can you point out the verses?

Originally Posted by Mark 8:28

Originally Posted by Matthew 16:14

Originally Posted by Mark 8:28

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Is there a plausibility that the author of Mark knew Aramaic? Or, that the author of Mark knew Latin?

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I wonder if Mathetes has seen arguments from traditionalists that Mark's "bad Greek" is evidence that he was a Palestinian Jew struggling in a second language.

Originally Posted by Mathetes

I've read it argued here (Spin?) that Mark has a number of words from Latin, like "Praetorium". Can't find it using the search feature.

Originally Posted by spin

In point #2 above, I said that Mark was written in Greek for a Roman audience. It was normal that texts were written in Greek to be read by Roman audiences. Josephus a companion of the Flavian emperos of Rome wrote in Greek to a Roman audience, so the idea is not strange. However, writing in Aramaic to a Roman audience would make no sense at all, for, while upper class Romans often learnt Greek, they never learnt Aramaic.

There are a number of pointers that show that Mark was written for a Roman audience:

1. an ordinary guard to a Jewish king was called a spekoulatwr in Greek, a term derived from Latin, but why called a Jewish king's soldier by a Latin term? to make it easy for the audience to understand. This Roman word is also transliterated into Aramaic, 'SPQLTR' -- [ ' = alef]. Why use a Latin word for a Jewish soldier in Aramaic? Because it was the term in the original Greek and the Aramaic translator didn't know a better way to translate it.
2. money is either referred to in Roman currency or Greek currency, which is then sometimes related to Roman currency. The coins in Judea were shekels and prutahs and during Roman times the procurators produced these coins. So why do we find Mark 6:37 mentioning Roman denarii? Because his Roman audience understood them. We also find the denarius mentioned in the Aramaic. Why? Because it was in the Greek source. Mk 12:42 talks of Greek coins, lepta duo, two leptas, which Mark tells us are equivalent to a kordantes, or Roman quadrans.
3. When Mark 15:16 tells us that they took Jesus to a palace, the writer explains that this palace was a praitwrion, the Latin term praetorium. Yet again we have an explanation for a Roman audience, for the text has already said that he was brought to a palace which should have been sufficient, but Mark is catering to his audience, and amusingly the term has been kept when translated into Aramaic.
4. I have already mentioned the fact that Mark has borrowed the Latin term, flagello, which becomes fragellw in Greek ("l" -> "r"), then sometimes PRAGELA in Aramaic when fragellw is found in the Greek original ("f" -> "p"). The important evidence here is that the source language for the word once again is Latin.
5. One of the most interesting manifestations of Latin intruding into the Greek of Mark is the verb "satisfacio" (= to satisfy), made up of two words, "satis" (= sufficient) and "facio" (=to make). This is translated into Greek literally from the Latin parts to get ikanon (= sufficient) poiew (= to make), the problem is that this compound doesn't normally exist in Greek: it only exists here. The Greek has clearly come from the Latin idea. (The Aramaic uses its own word meaning "to satisfy", CB'.)

There are various other Latin words to be found in Mark, all of which are best explained because Mark is catering to a Roman audience which could read Greek.

To imagine an Aramaic original to Mark would make what is transparent extremely contorted and rather difficult to explain. It is not sufficient to plead that these are just foreign words in circulation in Aramaic, for the coins weren't used in Palestine, and the logical idea of "satis facio" isn't found in Aramaic, so the Greek form cannot be explained from Aramaic (or even from simple Greek). Aramaic as a source for Greek Mark simply doesn't make sense, whereas a Greek writer steeped in Roman culture does.


spin

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What do you think their first languages were if not Greek? I can't see anything in Luke-Acts, Matthew or John to suggest anything but a Greek background. Their exclusive use of the Septuagint indicates that they did not know Hebrew and their use of Greek sayings traditions suggests that they did not know Aramaic.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Although the Septuagint is certainly the major source for the OT quotations in the Gospels, exclusive use of the Septuagint may be putting it too strong.

Andrew Criddle