[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I am still hoping for a more direct answer to this question. Not whether this might lead to other difficulties, whether there is any Holy Spirit and Bible imperative that .. e.g. .. Mark had to be originally penned and transmitted in Greek.

Originally Posted by Steven

Matthew, do you actually see a difficulty anywhere at all if Mark was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin "originally". If so, where and why ?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

While we do not see the Autographs and therefore know by this what language Mark wrote in,

So up to here it looks like Matthew is agreeing with the possibility that the theories of an original non-Greek Mark are conceptually acceptable. Then it switches a bit in the other direction.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

it should not be used as an avenue to advance anything that would possibly undermine the Scripture, including the proper tradition of how it came to us.

Apparently you would like to imply that the historical tradition that Mark wrote in Latin (or a Graeco-Latin dialect) for a Roman and Latin target audience is "improper". If that is your view, please state so clearly, and why.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is one thing to reason in line with Scripture, it is another thing to just speculate (which is wrong if it be found to contradict Scripture).

While I have not gone to the effort to drop lots of URL's into the post, I clearly said above that this is not "speculation". There are strong language and grammatical indicators that are discussed in the Hoskier paper. And there are historical indicators in the early church writers (ironically, my understanding even in some early Peshitta Syriac texts there is a note that Mark wrote in Latin for a Roman audience).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

For example, if we examine Mark and historgraphy surrounding it, we could ask (hypothesise), Is it consistent that it could have been written not in Greek, but in "Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect"?

Sure, I believe it "could have been" written in Greek. Possibly. However, there is at least one significant difficulty, which I learned about in my earlier days in web-apologetics. Mark gives us a type of rough or simple Greek, very different than Luke and Paul and others. This is actually often attacked by those who would say that his Greek was deficient. However as a translational Greek, from Latin, the grammatical style of Mark fits very well. (Incidentally this is one base from which the incorrect theories that he wrote in Aramaic arose. They use similar input to come to an erroneous conclusion .)

Once I asked a friend of mine who knows Latin well (sans seminarian indoctrination) their opinion on reading Mark in English. Their view -- Latin-ish grammar was at base, it fit very well. That is anecdotal, so if you want it on a scholarly level you have to go to Hoskier.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There are some indications that we can find from Mark which help. A number of times Mark gives a word in Hebrew and then explains its meaning. Therefore, Mark did not write in Hebrew.

This is excellent as a counter to the theories that Mark wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew). It is pretty much a 100% refutation to those who believe in the integrity of scripture. However the very same internal interpretation from Aramaic or Hebrew fits 100% in Greek and Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect, since in every case the vocabularly is very different than Aramaic or Hebrew.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is often said that these words are "Aramaic". But even according to that objectionable theory, Mark's language was not "Aramaic".

The Aramaic theory has huge flaws, one of which you pointed out above, the internal translations. A second is the unlikelihood of a Roman target audience being familiar with Aramaic. A third is the early church writer traditions and notes, which can support a Latin original but not an Aramaic original.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark is not addressed specifically to a Latin audience.

That is true, it is not like the book of Romans in that regard. It is also not addressed specifically to a Greek audience.

However there is a good amount of tradition that places Mark with Peter in Rome. And there would be a need and desire to present the Gospel to those fluent in Latin, for many of whom Greek was a foreign language.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark contains Graecisms, like "Elias", etc.

Which can be "Greek words written in Latin", as you indicate in the reverse situation.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark was apparently written with Peter's input, a Greek speaker.

This is like those who claim Aramaic as an original language because many of the people who gave input to the NT text spoke Aramaic.

Thus we have a bit of a non sequitur. Whether or not Peter knew or learned Latin. Whether or not Mark was fluent in Greek or not. Whether or not Mark and Peter conversed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic or other languages. As long as Mark could write in Latin there is no difficulty based upon the languages written or spoken by others.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Also, Mark lived in a time when Greek was still dominant, and his missionary trip was into Greek areas.

Except that the common language of the Roman populace was Latin. Also Latin was the Roman governmental language so it had influence in a wider area. (As we see in the New Testament.) I think you are mistaken in saying that all the areas Mark was in were "Greek areas" based on Greek being the dominant scholastic language of the region. And whatever else you are basing this on.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It cannot be denied that Mark contains some Latin words, such as "Praetorium", but these can easily be seen to be as Latin words written in Greek.

See above.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The issue here is that if we begin to allow that Greek was not the language of the book of Mark, it could be used to further grow to the overthrowing of doctrines of Scripture

It might, "could be", also be used to grow to claiming the moon is made of green cheese but I am not sure that is relevant.

If you in fact claim this overthrows a Scripture doctrine you would have to be more specific, what doctrine and how.. If not, what is the point? Truth remains truth, even if some jump off the cart and go in another direction.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

like those who now dogmatise upon the inspiration of the 1611 translators.

There are some dots needing connecting here.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

liThe article above seems to blur the lines of tradition. No blurring is required if we believe that the KJB contains the inspired Word of God. The blurring occurs as people begin to ascribe inspiration to the translators,

I really have not made any comments on that view, nor have I looked closely at Herb's writing with that in mind (to see whether he puts inspiration on the men rather than the word of God). Personally I do not see how this relates directly to the language of the original autographs.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

l and begin to do other things against history, such as denying that the books of Moses could have existed in Greek before the birth of Christ

A totally separate issue, one where I assert rather forcefully that the Penteteuch would have been circulating, but likely not the whole OT, using Josephus as one source. How this relates to the Mark NT issue is curious and hard to fathom.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

or (on the other extreme) that the Hebrew of the New Testament was really "Aramaic", etc.

Yet I am quite sure that Herb Evans would strongly counter that view, as would I, so I do not see its connection to the NT autographs language issue.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That is why I said that the above article contains some flawed points of reasoning, and several points which are really devoid of proof.

If you are claiming that all the NT original autographs must be written in Greek, you have the burden of proof. I make no claim as to the original autograph language of the NT being only one language.

I am neither defending or opposing Herb's article in general. However I see he makes a lot of good points. Before I could get to looking at Herb's article and any criticisms I saw that you were taking a "Greek-only" position for the original NT autographs, which I find rather astounding. That has to be clarified first.

Shalom,
Steven