IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND?

[Secret Alias]

And in case spin wants to wiggle out of acknowledging ὅ ἐστιν as a Latinism it should be noted that here he says on the subject:

This is not Greek Greek. This is a Latin form (id est/quod est) translated literally into Greek. It functions in Latin, but not so well in Greek. In fact a search of the gospels shows ho estin used nine times in Mk, twice in Mt (including a new exemplar, 1:23), but not at all in Lk. Not a functional idiom in Greek.

[Secret Alias]

Smoking gun? Pretty close IMHO. There is just so little Greek to sample in Irenaeus.

[Secret Alias]

The same Latinism appears later in Adv Haer too = “Καὶ ἔχρισε μὲν ὁ Πατήρ, ἐχρίσθη δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ χρῖσις.” (3.18.3). What you are seeing in the gospels are the fingerprints of Irenaeus's editing.

[Ben C. Smith]

Having recently read much of Roger David Aus' work, I think that it is useless to deny that many of the stories found in the gospel of Mark have Palestinian, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew origins. They use Jewish exegetical materials which were probably not available in Greek or Latin, and some of the Aramaisms seem to be of the same kind as the deeper Latinisms found in Mark: not just those (often but not always) clumsy surface translations of Aramaic or Hebrew words retained in the narrative, but phraseology and syntax which seem to derive from a Semitic tongue (and not just from the LXX). The case has often been much overstated, but it cannot be eradicated completely.

To my mind, the simplest solution is to recognize that Mark has layers. This seems obvious to me at this stage, but seems considerably less obvious to some others on this forum. The gospel is comprised of at least some materials of Palestinian provenance (which is not in any way to vouch for the historicity or authenticity of their contents; it is simply a geographical observation), but at least one of the hands is of vernacular (vulgar) Greek influence and at least one of its hands is of Latin influence. There is no linguistic conspiracy, whether stemming from Irenaeus or from any of the other usual bogeymen whom conspiracy theorists like to finger, though of course a Roman provenance would have served certain interests well. The stories have been dragged through Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin milieux, and they have retained markers from each milieu. The urge to tack a Roman provenance to the text and the urge to edit the text for Roman consumption do not contradict each other; indeed, they complement each other.

[Ben C. Smith]

And in case spin wants to wiggle out of acknowledging ὅ ἐστιν as a Latinism it should be noted that here he says on the subject:

This is not Greek Greek. This is a Latin form (id est/quod est) translated literally into Greek. It functions in Latin, but not so well in Greek. In fact a search of the gospels shows ho estin used nine times in Mk, twice in Mt (including a new exemplar, 1:23), but not at all in Lk. Not a functional idiom in Greek.

Why would spin want to wriggle out of this Latinism?? If both Irenaeus, writing in Greek in the Latin West, and "Mark", writing ex hypothesi in Greek in the Latin West, evince the same Latinism in their respective Greek texts, how does this contradict spin's argument?

[Secret Alias]

Because Irenaeus corrupted more than Mark. The longer Greek is filled with these Latinisms:

From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers (ὅ ἐστιν στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα)

WTF is an Antiochene bishop doing writing in Latinized Greek? The answer is as always Irenaeus tampered with all the texts. Consider also Lucian's statement about the continuing production of these documents after the death of 'Peregrinus' and Irenaeus (in the Martyrdom of Polycarp Moscow MS) in Rome 'hearing' about the death of Polycarp (whom the figure of Peregrinus is one and the same with) being involved in the Polycarp literary tradition. The pattern is clear for those who can hear. The texts were rewritten by one figure.

[Secret Alias]

All this Latinized Greek in early Christianity. Even where it is not supposed to be! Thank god Irenaeus preserved it all for us.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus cites from this section in Adv Haer

"As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: "I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.

Cited from:

Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain. From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers ...

What a coincidence!

[Secret Alias]

And odd that we should find by Luke:

Τότε ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου Ἐλαιῶνος, ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς Ἰερουσαλὴμ σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν.

[Secret Alias]

And at the beginning of Matthew:

ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν· καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ· ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός.

Another line cited by Irenaeus (coincidentally of course):

Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, "The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep."(6) Of what Lord he does himself interpret: "That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son."(7) "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us."(3.9.2)

So let's get this straight. Matthew spoke Latinized Greek and was cited by Irenaeus another Latinized-Greek speaking Christian. Su-u-u-u-r-e. The best explanation isn't that Irenaeus wrote the words. No, no, no. Can't be that!