Latin influence in Mark's Gospel

[calvinist]

This is something I just stumbled upon and never heard about before: http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1205 The argument is that the author of Mark may have spoken Latin or at least his Greek was influenced by Latin idiom. I've noticed the loanwords before and didn't think much of them, but the idioms are interesting. I've always assumed that the authors of the NT did not speak Latin, or maybe only "phrasebook" Latin. Anyone else have any info/thoughts on this?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I read the Rod Decker's post and Carl Conrad's reply. I think that language transfer/interference in multilingual cultural context should not come as any sort of surprise. On the other hand drawing any sort of conclusions about the provenience of a text because we find "Latinisms" is questionable. Anyone who can recall how many idioms from the King James Bible were in use 60 years ago in the USA and elsewhere and how may of these idioms represent imitations of Hebrew or Greek syntax ... this should serve as caution about jumping to conclusions based on language interference. The user of Hebrew/Greek idiom mediated through a 500 year old translation of the bible isn't directly in contact with the culture that produced the ancient Hebrew/Greek idiom.

Of course that modern scenario isn't identical to the scenario with the author of a Gospel. All I am arguing is that language interference is a vague sort of historical evidence. In a scenario where language groups mixed with each other trying to locate the region where a text was composed is going to be speculative at best and biblical studies is weighed down with too much speculation about matters that are of little exegetical importance. Where was the gospel of Mark compiled/composed? Who cares?

[jeidsath]

Where was the gospel of Mark compiled/composed? Who cares?

I've seen some analysis of these question for the various books of the New Testament based on the quality of the geographical detail in each. I think you can get the closest to a good regional answer for Acts, of course.

Who cares? The Gospels read differently and perhaps have a different message if instead of being eyewitness accounts, they are written by holy men describing the rumor of great events, separated from these events by time, distance, and language.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Who cares? The Gospels read differently and perhaps have a different message if instead of being eyewitness accounts, they are written by holy men describing the rumor of great events, separated from these events by time, distance, and language.

I have been feeding at the trough of Historical Criticism for half a century. Some of us have developed a distaste for the fodder. For every argument there is counter argument[1] producing an endless stream of publications with thousands of footnotes. Qoheleth had something to say about the writing of many books.

[1] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

[calvinist]

I don't think it says anything about where (or when) the gospel was written, but I find it interesting that the NT authors may have spoken Latin. I've always thought that in the 1st century Latin was still restricted to Rome and the surrounding regions. How much do we know about the spread of Latin during the 1st century? Greek was of course widespread, but what about Latin?

Also, thank you for the book mention, Stirling, looks like a book I'll have to put on my wishlist.

[Elexi]

'How much do we know about the spread of Latin during the 1st century?'

As a happy providence I was just reading Professor Eleanor Dickey's book Learning Latin the Ancient Way when I read this post. She doesn't give a full answer but she says on pp.2-3 that between the 2nd Century BCE and 6th century CE Latin was learned in the eastern part of the Empire by Greek and possibly Aramaic speakers. Professor Dickey says it 'was largely a utilitarian enterprise' - i.e. people in the Eastern part of the Empire didn't generally learn Latin for the joy of it but did so 'as a foreign language' mainly for dealing with the Roman army and to assist them in the law courts.

However, she also says that Greek speakers who were not ethnically Greek (which I suppose would include Greek speakers in the Levant) 'had a different attitude [to Latin]: often their ancestors had learned Greek relatively recently because of the social and economic benefits attached to doing so, and they in turn were perfectly happy to learn Latin if it would benefit them.'

Dickey's study shows that much of the Latin language learning material for Greek speakers was colloquia based on 'useful' dialogues with soldiers and lawyers together with basic grammar. She goes on to say that just like today many Greek speakers started on Virgil, but few finished got beyond its first pages.