spin

If Stephan actually means that, he has no basis for such a suggestion. But then you don't seem to need a basis for anything you say.

stephan huller

By secondary I mean - is canonical Mark a loose retelling of the original Mark text? Remember Mark is the only gospel never to have a commentary developed for it (I think Victor of Antioch said that). When I get a moment (I've been crazy busy) I'd like to see if any of Mark's Latinisms appear naturally in Irenaeus. I've always thought long Ignatius was expanded by Irenaeus. I am not fighting with any one. I don't have a pre-existent agenda. I only wonder if the Latinisms are fingerprints of Irenaeus

It's curious that the Latinism appears in 3:17 as part of an explanation of something in Aramaic or Hebrew. The author clearly thought he was trilingual like Irenaeus

judge

17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
references:Mark 3:17

Stephan as just one example of a supposed latinism. There is nothing at all that makes this uniquely latin. One could go on through the list

stephan huller

I am partial to some of the arguments for the presence of Latinisms. I just wonder if they are essential to Mark. I haven't found them in Clement yet but Clement's citation of Mark are so rare.

judge

delete please

stephan huller

Clement of Alexandria's use of ὅ ἐστιν. Curiously it is entirely absent in the three volume Paedagogus but appears over ten times in Stromata. I am doing this quickly right now will follow up with English translation and analysis later:

τὰ γὰρ δύο ἔτη προσλαμβάνεται τοῖς Ὄθωνος καὶ Γάλβα καὶ Οὐιτελλίου μησὶ ιζʹ ἡμέραις ηʹ καὶ οὕτω γίνεται ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνες ʹ, ὅ ἐστι τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς ἑβδομάδος, καθὼς εἴρηκε ∆ανιὴλ ὁ προφήτης. [1.21.146]

εἴρηκεν δὲβτʹ ἡμέρας γενέσθαι ἀφ' οὗ ἔστη τὸ βδέλυγμα ὑπὸ Νέρωνος εἰς τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν μέχρι τῆς καταστροφῆς αὐτῆς. οὕτω γὰρ τὸ ῥητὸν τὸ ὑποτεταγμένον δείκνυσιν [ibid]

καὶ μή τι ἡ παρ' ἡμῖν ἀπόδειξις μόνη ἂν εἴη ἀληθής, ἅτε ἐκ θείων χορηγουμένη γραφῶν, τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τῆς θεοδιδάκτου σοφίας κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον. μάθησις γοῦν καὶ τὸ πείθεσθαι ταῖς ἐντολαῖς, ὅ ἐστι πιστεύειν τῷ θεῷ. καὶ ἡ πίστις δύναμίς τις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἰσχὺς οὖσα τῆς ἀληθείας. αὐτίκα φησίν [2.11.48 - 49]

ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμῶν, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραότητα, μακροθυμίαν, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστι σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειό4.7.55.4 τητο [4.7.55]

ἐνδυσάμενοι σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραότητα, μακροθυμίαν, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν· καθὼς καὶ ὁ 4.8.66.3 Χριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ἡμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις ἡ ἀγάπη, ὅ ἐστι σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητο [4.8.66]

5.4.25.5 τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐρευνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ. πνευματικὸν γὰρ καὶ γνωστικὸν οἶδεν τὸν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μαθητὴν τοῦ ἐκ θεοῦ χορηγουμένου, ὅ ἐστι νοῦς Χριστοῦ ὥστε ἄλλα μὲν τὰ μυστήρια τὰ ἀποκεκρυμμένα ἄχρι τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὑπ' αὐτῶν παραδοθέντα ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου παρειλήφασιν (ἀποκεκρυμμένα δὲ ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ διαθήκῃ), ἃ νῦν ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ πίστις καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡ εἰς Χριστόν, ὃν ἀλλαχῇ θεμέλιον εἴρηκε [5.10.61]

τὸ γὰρ ὑπολειφθὲν σημεῖόν ἐστι μονὰς ὡς εἰπεῖν θέσιν ἔχουσα, ἧς ἐὰν περιέλωμεν τὴν θέσιν, νοεῖται μονάς. εἰ τοίνυν, ἀφελόντες πάντα ὅσα πρόσεστι τοῖς σώμασιν καὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀσωμάτοις, ἐπιρρίψαιμεν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Χριστοῦ κἀκεῖθεν εἰς τὸ ἀχανὲς ἁγιότητι προΐοιμεν, τῇ νοήσει τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἁμῇ γέ πῃ προσάγοιμεν <ἄν>, οὐχ ὅ ἐστιν, ὃ δὲ μή ἐστι γνωρίσαντες [5.11.71]

ἐντεῦθεν ὁ ἀπόστολος βλέπομεν νῦν ὡς δι' ἐσόπτρου φησί, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, κατὰ μόνας ἐκείνας τὰς ἀκραιφνεῖς καὶ ἀσωμάτους τῆς διανοίας ἐπιβολάς. δυνατὸν δὲ κἀν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι τὸ καταμαντεύεσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐὰν ἐπιχειρῇ τις ἄνευ πασῶν τῶν αἰσθήσεων διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐπ' αὐτὸ ὅ ἐστιν ἕκαστον ὁρμᾶν καὶ μὴ ἀποστατεῖν τῶν ὄντων, πρὶν <ἄν>, ἐπαναβαίνων ἐπὶ τὰ ὑπερκείμενα, αὐτὸ ὅ ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῇ νοήσει λάβῃ. ἐπ' αὐτῷ γινόμενος τῷ τοῦ νοητοῦ τέλει κατὰ Πλάτων [5.11.74]

οὐ μόνον προφητικῶς λέγων καὶ τοὺς ἐξ Ἑλλήνων πιστεύοντας Ἕλληνας εἴσεσθαι τὸν θεόν, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνο μηνύων, ὡς δυνάμει μὲν ὁ κύριος καὶ θεὸς πάντων ἂν εἴη καὶ τῷ ὄντι παντο κράτωρ, κατὰ δὲ τὴν γνῶσιν οὐ πάντων θεός· οὔτε γὰρ ὅ ἐστιν οὔθ' ὅπως κύριος καὶ πατὴρ καὶ ποιητής, οὐδὲ τὴν ἄλλην ἴσασιν οἰκονομίαν τῆς ἀληθείας, μὴ οὐ πρὸς αὐτῆς διδαχθέντε [5.14.135]

οὐ γὰρ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κύριος καὶ ἀγαθὸς εἶναι εἴληφεν ὁ θεὸς ὢν ἀεὶ ὅ ἐστιν, οὐδὲ μὴν παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοποιῶν, κἂν εἰς τέλος ἀγάγῃ ἕκαστα. μεταλαμβάνει δὲ τῆς εὐποιίας ἕκαστος ἡμῶν πρὸς ὃ βούλεται, ἐπεὶ τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς ἐκλογῆς ἀξία γενομένη ψυχῆς αἵρεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις πεποίηκε [5.14.145]

ἐπύρωσάς με καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀδικία, ὅπως ἂν μὴ λαλήσῃ τὸ στόμα μου τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τί λέγει τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων; αὐτὴν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν γνωρίζει, οὐ παραχθεῖσαν ἐπὶ μετάνοιαν (κοινὸν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πιστῶν), ἀλλ' ὅ ἐστιν ἁμαρτία· [6.12.97]

Αὕτη μὲν οὖν, ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρομῇ φάναι, ἡ τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ θεοσέβεια. εἰ δὴ καθηκόντως ταῦτα ποιεῖ καὶ κατὰ λόγον τὸν ὀρθόν, εὐσεβῶς ποιεῖ καὶ δικαίως. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, μόνος ἂν εἴη τῷ ὄντι εὐσεβής τε καὶ δίκαιος καὶ θεοσεβὴς ὁ γνωστικός. οὐκ ἄρα ἄθεος ὁ Χριστιανός (τουτὶ γὰρ ἦν τὸ προκείμενον ἐπιδεῖξαι τοῖς φιλοσόφοις), ὥστε οὐδὲν κακὸν ἢ αἰσχρόν, ὅ ἐστιν ἄδικον, κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον 7.9.54.4 ἐνεργήσει ποτέ. [7.9.54]

Τὸ "τινῶν ἐστιν αἴτιον" λέγεται τριχῶς, τὸ μὲν ὅ ἐστιν αἴτιον, οἷον ὁ ἀνδριαντοποιός, τὸ δὲ οὗ ἐστιν αἴτιον, <οἷον> τοῦ γίνεσθαι τὸν ἀνδριάντα, τὸ δὲ ᾧ ἐστιν αἴτιον, ὥσπερ τῇ ὕλῃ· τῷ χαλκῷ γὰρ αἴτιός ἐστι τοῦ γίνεσθαι τὸν ἀνδριάντα. [8.9.26]

spin

We are dealing with the collection of disparate quanta of tradition, which are processed through the same mill, getting explained as it is redacted.

It is silly to look at the ο εστιν examples separately from all the rest of the Latinisms. One must consider them all. Divide and conquer is crass stupidity. Here's a temporary overview of the matter. The syntactic issue should be gone into in more detail, but that's not suitable for a Wiki page and it would mean more work than I'm prepared to put in. However, along with ο εστιν and the loan translations (idioms), the syntactic issues make a complex web of Latin influence that must be considered in its entirety.

But look at the example of 5:41. Couldn't the native speaker have hit upon something more generic than the naff "little girl, get up"? Worse still, why does the scribe include "I say to you", ie "little girl, I say to you, get up"? It's just not there in the Aramaic. The other stunner chosen, 7:34, is "be opened"! Is this stuff the best that this supposed Aramaic speaker could come up with? I strongly doubt that the person responsible was Aramaic at all with such trivia.

Vorkosigan

I'll take poetic expansion on 2 here. I don't think it is Markan explanation going on.

stephan huller

I agree about the strangeness of the Aramaic citations. It has always struck me that they were thrown in almost to devalue Mark. Why include these translations at all? The only answer is that the editor wants us to be aware that what we are reading in Mark is a copy of something. Yet this is precisely my point about Irenaeus. Irenaeus tells us front and center that there is a 'Hebrew' gospel which is behind Matthew and is the earliest text. It suits Irenaeus's purpose to have included the Aramaic citations. I certainly think the two examples you cite are secondary.

Don't mistake my purpose here. I am not denying the Latinisms are present. But - along with the overt and intentional signs of Aramaic originality - they are secondary additions to Mark. I can't prove any of this yet. But my supposition would be that the original Gospel of Mark (referenced by Irenaeus in 3:11.7) was longer than our present canonical edition and likely more like a Diatessaron.

I will likely die before formulating all of this correctly. Yet my supposition is that EVEN MARK'S PLACE in the canon is secondary. Someone wants to present Mark as being derived from 'the Hebrew gospel' in order to bring harmony to the Church. There must have been two principal gospels attached to basically two hostile communities and someone (Irenaeus?) has arbitrarily decided to transform ur-Mark into what appears to be a copy of 'the Hebrew text' that would naturally be associated with Peter. The story of Mark being a scribe of Peter is a further extension of this effort. Interestingly Peter is never explicitly connected with Matthew which gives the Markan community an opening. This was presented as something other than subordination. It was overt falsification to further the goal of greater ecumenism in third century.

stephan huller

The obvious problem that we have connecting Irenaeus to Mark is that so little of his material survives in Greek.