Ben C Smith wrote:But the issue in Mark 15.16 is a bit different. It is not just a matter of Mark having used a Latin loan word. In this case, he has used a fairly ordinary Greek word and glossed it with a Latin loan word. No one blinks when Mark glosses Aramaic or Hebrew terms with Greek translations, as in Mark 3.17 (Boanerges); 5.41 (talitha kum); 7.11 (korban); 7.34 (ephphatha); 14.36 (abba) 15.22 (Golgotha); 15.34 (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani). (Or, rather, if one blinks, it is because nobody is quite certain what Boanerges really means.) Everyone seems to understand what is (at least purportedly) going on: a story which originally transpired and was told in Aramaic or Hebrew is being told in Greek now; a few Aramaic or Hebrew words are being retained in order to convey a feel for the local color (at least), but they are being glossed with Greek terms to make sure that the readers understand what is going on.
One of Farmer's arguments for Markan posteriority is his many latinisms, at the same time noting that he always translates Aramaic words for the reader. But I'm still at a loss as to Mark's use of Aramaic words. For example
- how the witnesses misunderstand Jesus in 15:34
- Boanerges is apparent gobbledygook