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?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

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

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

If the author wrote the book in Rome then I suppose it's plausible he might have known Latin but I'm really not aware of anything in the text of the Gospel to indicate that it was his first Language.

I have only studied Latin and Greek, though, so I'm not qualified to address any alleged Aramaisms in Mark.

Peter Kirby

How could you tell that Latin was Mark's first language if that were the case; what would reveal it?

Someone growing up in Rome would/could be exposed to both Latin and Greek from an early age. Thus, it could just be a matter of knowing one language better than the other.

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Latin idoms, I suppose. I really don't know. That level of linguistic criticism is really beyond abilities. I'm not trying to claim that I've authoritatively examined the Greek and have ruled out Latin as Mark's first language, I just meant that I've never seen or heard of an argument for it.
I agree. I was answering your question about whether it was plausible to believe Mark might have known Latin. I think we're on the same page here. Yes, it's plausible he knew Latin but I'm not aware of any argument that it was his primary language, that it shows in the Greek (and any Latinisms in the Greek would have to be glaringly obvious for me to spot them. so it's possible there are subtle ones I don't know about) or that Greek was not Mark's first language.

Mark did not exactly show a gift for literary Greek but just because someone does not have literary training in a language does not mean it's not their primary language. God knows there are enough English speakers who write horribly in English.

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.

JoeWallack

JW:
The primary objective of "Mark" is to indict the Disciples, not "The Jews". The tragic irony is not that Jesus' supposed enemies didn't believe him but that his friends didn't. This is an Apology as to why the Jesus movement stoped with Jesus' death. They didn't realize he was still alive. The purpose of the Original ending of Mark is to Contrast the behaviour of the Enemy Joseph with the Friend "The Woman":

Mark 15: (NIV)
42 "It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
16:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?�
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6“Don't be alarmed,� he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ �
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Note that in the Original Gospel, "Mark", Joseph is part of The Enemy:

"They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!� And the guards took him and beat him."

Liars For Jesus like "Matthew" and "Luke" rehabilitated Joseph as a Friend.

Here is the Markan contrast between the enemy Joseph and the Friend "The Women":

Joseph is Courageous

The Women are Afraid


Joseph asks for Jesus without being told

The Women are told of Jesus but don't ask for him


Joseph asks for a dead Jesus

The women don't ask for a live Jesus


Joseph takes Jesus and rolls the stone

The women don't have to roll the stone but leave Jesus


The perfect Ironic Tragic ending for an Artistic, unhistorical story.



Joseph

Chili

Maybe it is not so wrong to have two endings for Mark since Matthew dropped a hint that this possibility is real.

Of the two endings, one is short and the other is long for good reason!

After the short ending there is no story to tell because the first day of the week never came for Jesus the crucified who was raised into the everlasting seventh day. This everlasting day is the seventh day that was created in Gen.1 that must find its existence after the crucifixion of the rational left brain identity that goes by the light of common day. This identity was Jesus the crucified here now raised to the right side of the mind that was identified by the young man dressed in white. The left side of the cave is empty to show that Joseph had actually found the reign of God. Ie, it is nice to bring Joseph back into the story but why would Mark do that if he really is not part of the story. So the return of Joseph here indicates that this gospel takes place in the mind of Joseph who had supplied the cave that he had hewn as if out stone with his own hands.

The comedy is found in that there is nothing else to say because the tomb was empty, and should be empty if Nazareth was an imaginary city in the mind of Joseph. I could add here that Mary was released from heaven and send to Nazareth to give birth to this savior in the mind of Joseph, and next, to help him to get back into Eden from where she came (there still is no sin in Eden today).

The tragedy begins if Jesus did rise from the death on the first day of the week which would be a contradiction because it violates the never ending seventh day of creation. Matthew recognized (or foreshadowed) this alternate ending in verse 27:64 when the chief priests cautioned Pilate to make sure that Jesus was dead so he would not be raised by curiosity and follow the light of common day once again when 'Monday morning' came rolling around. This indeed would make him the final imposture (Jesus was an impostor to make a premature raised Jesus a final impostor) who is much worse than the first because he had a taste of the divine and therefore could, and surely would, preach the good news to the whole world in the name of Jesus while using the name of Jesus to perform all kinds of signs and wonders to help persuade innocent people to believe for the wrong reason (this condemnation here is a human judgment that is very common among self proclaimed believers today (Mt.16:16)).

The longer ending may have been added later but it also may have been an alternate ending to make the distinction between a comedy and a tragedy. I see there to be a distinct difference between these two endings wherein the first one ends in a comedy and the second in a tragedy; again, because the light of common day returns on the first day of the week in the second ending. But maybe not.

Celsus

With modern languages, you can sometimes make a guess from the points where the writer makes grammatical mistakes, and see which other language's grammar uses the forms his does. I go buy book tomorrow.

Joel

Vorkosigan

I'd like to see this laid out too.

Clivedurdle

Naa

Latin play written by Seneca, badly translated into Greek by someone labelled Mark...I suppose we will have to wait for them to excavate that buried library in Italy to prove it, but what of Ecce Homo in the mean time!?