Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Farmer posits that there are more Aramaisms and Hebraisms in Matthew than in Mark. Others postulate that the semitisms in Mark are transliterations made by someone who was illiterate in the source language. Furthermore, on the basis of latinisms, Farmer suggests that Mark has more in common with 2nd CE apocryphal literature than with the canonical gospels.

Firstly, can anyone recommend a scholarly treatment of these subjects?

Secondly, what is the forum's opinion on these topics, particularly the latin influence on Mark's gospel?

Ah, the fond memories your post evokes . . . . Some sources are cited in the following . . . . .

Do Mark’s Primitive Language, Aramaicisms and Theology Really Argue for Markan Priority?

Roll over Maurice Casey: Latin, not Aramaic, explains Mark’s bad Greek

Concluding Response of Blogger Neil Godfrey to Blogger Maurice Casey of TJP®©™

gmx wrote:
Secondly, what is the forum's opinion on these topics, particularly the latin influence on Mark's gospel?

Latin influence is best accounted for on the basis of a Roman provenance for Mark’s gospel

I suggest the authors may have spent time there, more so then placing the origin of said text there.

Others postulate that the semitisms in Mark are transliterations made by someone who was illiterate in the source language

It is obvious the source was Koine. and I do not think "others" are even considered a credible hypothesis.

The authors were Hellenist writing in the Diaspora to and for a Roman audience not that familiar with Judaism, who wanted to distance themselves from rebellious Jews. The problem here is that "source" material comes from a place with Aramaic as a primary language, so we should expect just about what we see from a Koine lens of a culture with shared languages.

Its my own opinion Mark was created due to the war and with the temple falling and the end of Passover traditions where Diaspora Hellenist Christians had to change how they shared information yearly at Passover. They use to gather and share "good new" and with the temple being demolished a new need for literary traditions had developed.

gmx wrote:Secondly, what is the forum's opinion on these topics, particularly the latin influence on Mark's gospel?

Ben, spin and I had some longer discussions about this topic in the last year. If I recall correctly Ben and spin share the majority view among scholars that the Latinisms are signs that Mark’s native language was Latin or that he wrote to Romans or that he was influenced by Latin language and Roman culture.

My impression was that Ben tends to think that the Latinisms and Semitisms point to different layers of GMark. spin’s opinion was that Mark used Semitisms not as normal language but like magic formulas so that it says nothing about Mark’s origin or culture or about layers in GMark.

My impression is that Mark used Latinisms and Semitisms as a rhetorical strategy and that it isn’t a sign of Latin or Semitic influences. This is a minority view among some modern scholars.