Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The most striking evidence that Mark was written in Latin is:
(1) Mark 7.3 reads (here and elsewhere I give the text in my "A
reconstruction", to which I refer readers for a justification of
it).
Pharisaei autem et omnes Iudaei nisi pusillo lauerint manus
non manducant, tenentes traditionem seniorum (the Phari-
sees and all the Jews do not eat unless they have washed
their hands for a short time, maintaining the tradition of the
elders). They only need to wash quickly because the object
is not to clean the hands, but to fulfil the ritual; thus the
Mishnah under Tohoroth (cleanness) yadaim (of the hands)
1.1 states that a quarter of a log of water (the amount contained in one and a half eggshells) is sufficient for ritual washing
of the hands. The Greek:
(the
Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they have
washed their hands with their fist, maintaining the tradition of
the elders). No sane author would write that all Jews always
washed their hands with their fist. The Greek translator had a
text in which pusillo (for a short time) had been corrupted into pugillo (with the fist). MS a (the best MSS k and e are missing here) preserves the true pusillo in its synonymn momento.
2:16.2-4
et uenerunt prima sabbati 3 dicentes "Quis nobis reuoluet
lapidem ab ostio monumenti?" Subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per totum orbem terrae et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgunt in claritate uiui Dei;
simul ascenderunt cum eo et continuo lux facta est. 4 Tunc
illae accesserunt ad monumentum et uident reuolutum lapidem (And they came on the first day of the week 3 saying "Who
will roll the rock from the entrance to the tomb for us?" Suddenly at the third hour darkness covered the whole world and
angels descended from heaven and rose in the splendour of
the living God; they ascended with him and immediately light
was restored. 4 Then they approached the tomb and saw that
the rock had been rolled back).
A scribe's eye in an ancestor of all MSS except k slipped from
monumenti to monumentum, from tomb to tomb, causing
him to omit monumenti and all words after it before monumentum. Such mistakes are of constant occurrence; many
glorify him because they had never seen anything like this
before). e's reading eum makes good sense - praising him
(eum) (Jesus) since he cured the paralysed man; they go on
to say that they had never seen anyone else do what Jesus
had done, continuing the focus on Jesus. "Praising God"
(deum) of the other MSS contains the idea that the people
there assumed that God was responsible for Jesus' actions;
this idea is not suggested anywhere else in the passage. If
this were what Mark actually wrote one would expect him to
continue with something like what Mt 9.8 says: praising God
who gave such power to men. Someone very familiar with the
idea of praising God changed eum to Deum, and this was in
the MS translated by the Greek translator and has come into
all copies except e and into Mt and Lk (5.26) whose accounts
are based on Mark.
2.16
et scribae Pharisaeorum et Pharisaei dicebant discentibus
eius: "Quare cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat?"
(and the writers of the Pharisees and the Pharisees were saying to his learners: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and
wrongdoers?") An omission explains the textual variants. It is
very hard to believe the omission occurred in Greek (passing
over (of the Pharisees and) before
(the Pharisees) but one can readily believe that it
occurred in Latin (passing over Pharisaeorum et before
Pharisaei); the resultant text scribae * Pharisaei dicebant (the
writers * the Pharisees said) is clearly corrupt. Two texts turn
this into sense - the other MSS have et (and) at **; b has scribae Pharisaeorum dicebant (the Pharisees' writers said), but
it is very hard to see why anyone would want to change
either into the text I have printed; b's text is open to the further objection that it makes the only people objecting to Jesus
the Pharisees' writers, i.e people employed by Pharisees to
copy sacred scrolls; what could have induced the Pharisees
to send only their copyists and not also come themselves?
3.9
et dixit discipulis suis ut nauicula deseruirent sibi propter turbas, ne premerent eum (and he told his learners that a boat
should be ready for him because of the crowds, in case they
pressed on him). The translator translated nauicula deseruirent sibi with (boats should be
ready for him) (preserved in the best MS B and in the Sahidic)
unaware that nauicula is feminine singular, not neuter plural
(deseruirent being a mistake for deseruiret) (he also mistook
the gender of naui - see the discussion on 4.36); the correction to (a boat) (from 4.1) has come into all the inferior MSS.
3.21
Vt audierunt de eo exierunt tenere eum (when they heard
about him they went out to seize him) ("him" is Jesus). The
Greek translator, with '
(and when they heard from him they went
out to seize him) gives de a possible sense, but one which is
nonsensical in the context; Jesus obviously did not say
"Come and get me"; hence someone emended by adding
before ' (and when those around him heard they went out
to seize him); but this is still nonsense; obviously it was
Jesus' enemies, not his associates, who wanted to seize him.
3.32
uenerunt ad eum turbae (the crowds came to him). ne was
lost after ue, giving the nonsensical uerunt, which was
emended to fuerunt: fuerunt ad eum turbae (the crowds were
with him), which the Greek translator translated with
4.21
Numquid accenditur lucerna ut sub modium ponatur aut sub
lectum sed super candelabrum (a light is not lit to be put
under a bushel measure or under a bed, but on a stand). In
the text used by the Greek translator accenditur (is ... lit) had
been corrupted. Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959), in "L'
Evangile de Marc a ete ecrit en Latin", page 18 of the reprint
at scribd.com/doc/19185520, suggests it was corrupted to
accedit. It could also have been corrupted to acceditur.
Whichever was in his text, the Greek translator translated it
with (a light does not come to be put under a bushel
measure ... ), giving odd Greek. The LXX and Vulgate have
/accedo at Dt 26.3 and Jdc 9.52. The Greek and Old
Latin have it at Mt 9.18 (in all MSS except k d) and Mk 11.27
(b d q).
4.36
In the Jerusalem Talmud the word is found in the commentary on Ber 6.7 (Schwab Vol 1 p.405), Scheb 9.2 (2.415), Maas
1.2 (3.141), 3.7 (3.173), Bicc 1.11 (3.369), Hagh 2.1 (7.272) and
twice in Meg 1.1 (7.200) - in the second occurrence the plural
is found. The rabbi is commenting on the spelling found at
Jos 12.3. He says: Does the plural mean that there are two
Gennesars? (knrwt m(th $ny gynwsrywt). The form
is found in Greek at 1Mcc 11.67, Josephus BJ 2.573, 3.463, 3.
506, 3.515, 3.516 and in the adjectival form
in AJ 13.158 and it occurs as the
adjective derived from this form () in AJ 18. 28,
18.36, V 349 and Strabo 16.2.16. In Latin Pliny NH 5. 15 has
lacum quem plures Gennesaram uocant (note that he says
that many call it Gennesara). It will not do to say that the
identification of with Hebrew knrwt caused Mark's
Greek translator to invent the form . Hebrew t
becomes in Greek not but . Hence, for example, at Jos 19.
35 knrwt becomes
7.4
baptismata calicum et urceorum et aeramentorum et electrorum (washing of cups and jars and bronzeware and amberware). Amberware was not made of amber but of a metal alloy
of the colour of amber. The Greek:
(washing of cups and
jars and bronzeware and beds). Beds are odd objects to find
in a catalogue of cups and pots. The Greek translator read a
text in which electrorum (amberware) (found in r w) had been
corrupted into the lectorum (beds) of the other MSS (e, k are
missing).
7.18-19
omne ... 19 nec enim introiit in cor eius sed in uentrem et in
secessum exit, purgans escam (everything ... 19 as it has not
entered his heart but his stomach and goes out outside,
clearing food). The Greek: ... 19
'
(same meaning). Purgans, agreeing with the
neuter omne, is neuter, but in form could also be masculine.
The Greek translator incorrectly renders it with the masculine
8.2
miseror super turbam quoniam tres iam dies sunt mecum
manentes et non habent quod manducent (I am sorry for the
crowd because they have been with me now for three days
and have nothing to eat). The Greek translator:
(I am sorry for the crowd because three days now remain for me and they have nothing
to eat). Nonsense caused by his taking tres dies, an accusative of extent of time (for three days) as a nominative, and so
the subject of the verb.
8.38
Qui autem me confessus fuerit et meos in natione adultera et
peccatrice, filius hominis confitebitur illum cum uenerit in
claritate patris sui cum angelis sanctis (one who acknowledges me and mine in a false and guilty race, the son of man will
also acknowledge him when he comes in the brightness of
his father with the dedicated angels). The Greek:
(the same, except for "is
ashamed of" and "will also be ashamed of" instead of
"acknowledges" and "will also acknowledge"). The others
are compared favourably with the false and guilty race, hence
the Latin gives the right sense. The Greek translator read a
text in which confessus and confitebitur (acknowledges and
will acknowledge) had been corrupted to confusus and confundetur.
9.6
Non enim sciebat quid responderet; in metu enim fuerat (he
did not know what answer to give; he was afraid). The Greek:
(he did not
know what answer to give; they were afraid). The Latin is
better, as it is Peter's fear, not the others', that makes him incapable of answering. The Greek translator read a text in
which fuerat (he was) had been corrupted to fuerant (they
were).
9.12
Helias primo disponit omnia, quia scriptum est super filio
hominis quia multa patiatur et innulletur (Elijah has first made
everything ready, because it is written of the son of man that
he must suffer many things and be made of no account). The
Greek:
(if
salt has lost its flavour, how will you flavour it? Have salt in
yourselves; be at peace with one another). Mark's statement
comes, like other analogies of Jesus in his gospel, from
everyday life and is very readily understandable. The "it"
refers to food. In the question in the Greek however, the "it "
refers to salt and the question "How can you put flavour back
in salt?" is vulnerable to an obvious retort; "I don't need to;
I'll get other salt". The Greek translator read a text in which
one fatuum had been lost after the other one, a very common
phenomenon. Couchoud (pages 15-17 in the scribd reprint)
discusses the passage on the basis that the Latin is the
original.
10.23
Et circumspexit xii Iesus et dixit (and Jesus looked around at
the 12 and said). The Greek:
(and Jesus looked around and
said to his learners). The Greek translator read a text in
which xii (at the 12) had been omitted after xit, so he supplied
"to his learners" to indicate who Jesus was referring to.
10.32
Fuerant autem in uia ascendentes Hierosolyma et admirabantur qui sequebantur illum (they were on the road climbing to
Jerusalem and those who were following him were astonish-
eye slipped from one iam (now) to the next, causing the omission of the intervening words and creating the absurdity of
Jesus saying the idiotic "Sleep because I am about to be
betrayed" ( a rational man would say "we must all try to escape, because I am about to be betrayed") then immediately,
and impossibly, contradicting himself and saying "wake up".
14.44 (dederat autem is qui tradebat signum) (the traitor had
given a sign) 15.7 (fuit autem qui uocabatur Barabbas in carcere cum seditiosis qui in seditione fecerant homicidium)
(there was a man called Barabbas in gaol with insurgents
who had murdered in an insurrection) & 15.10 (sciebat enim
quia per inuidiam tradiderant eum pontifices) (he knew the
chief priests had handed him over out of hatred). The Greek
has the peculiar pluperfects and
for the Latin pluperfects dederat, fecerant,
tradiderant where Greek requires the aorist, showing the
Greek is a translation from Latin.
14.60
Et surrexit pontifex in medio et interrogabat Iesum "Nihil respondisti de his quae aduersum te dicunt? (and the high
priest rose in the middle and was asking Jesus "Have you
made no reply to the accusations they are making against
you?") De his was missing from the translator's text (a
scribe's eye skipped from the final i of respondisti to the is of
his); hence he wrote (what
are they accusing you of?) This is nonsense. If the high
priest for some strange reason thought Jesus did not know
what the accusations were, how could he have expected him
to answer them?
14.72
Et continuo gallus cantauit et rememoratus est Petrus sermonem quem dixit illi Iesus et coepit plorare (and immediately a
cock crowed and Peter remembered what Jesus had said to
him and began to weep). The Greek translator, I suggest:
(and immediately a cock crowed and Peter remembered what Jesus had
said to him and, taking, he cried). The Greek translator read a
text in which coepit plorare (he began to cry) had been corrupted into cepit plorare (he took to cry). The Greek MSS
read but I suggest the original was as
this fits cepit.
15.16
Milites autem abduxerunt eum in praetorium, continuo cogentes totam cohortem (the soldiers took him away to the
headquarters, immediately mustering the whole cohort). In
the copy used by the translator a scribe's eye had slipped
from con to cog, so omitting continuo (immediately), which is
thus not translated in the Greek.
Appendix 1: The Greek's agreements with the Septuagint are
coincidences or later alterations
1.2-3
It has often been supposed that these verses are not genuine
but, since Mark refers to them in 9.13 (see my "Reconstruction") they must be. 1.2 has a quotation from Malachi 3.1,
reading in the Latin ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem
tuam, qui praeparabit uiam tuam. The (exact) Greek translation is
The LXX has
thing else. His agrees with Mark's tuam, not with the
LXX's His is a different word to the LXX's
His Greek is an exact translation of the Latin
andany resemblance to the LXX is coincidence.
1.3 has a quotation from Isaiah 40.3 which reads uox clamantis in deserto: "Parate uiam Domini; rectas facite semitas".
The Greek:
The LXX is the
same. The Greek translator translates uox with desertus with paro with never with anything
else, and, with this construction, facio with Rectus and
semita do not occur elsewhere in Mark but, in the Old Latin
texts in the Vulgate we find uia recta at Sap.
10.10 and in the Vulgate Psalms from the Greek 26.11 semita
recta 106.7 uiam rectam
Only clamo is not translated with its usual words, 6X
and 3X; is not used elsewhere to translate it,
although it does translate exclamo at 15.34. I suggest that the
Greek translator used one of the usual words here but it was
later changed to accord with the of the LXX. Luke 3.4 is
a very likely source, as he continues Mark's quotation from
the LXX. Contamination of the Greek translation of Mark
from parallel (II) Matthew or Luke is constant.
4.12
Videntes non uideant et audientes non intellegant, ne quando
conuertantur et remittatur illis: The Greek:
The
Greek translator always translates audio with intellego with and conuerto with and nequando and are standard equivalents (found in the
OldLatin of Prv 25.17, Sir 42.10 & 42.11 & 1Mcc 4.60, as well
'
The LXX
agrees, except that it makes the third word instead of
the first, reads instead of and the last
three words are the reading of only a minority of the MSS.
The Greek translator also translates populus with at 14.
2. It is true that he translates it with (crowd) 4X, but that
translation would not be suitable here, where the people referred to are the Jewish leaders the Pharisees and the Writers. Labium does not occur elsewhere in Mark, but labia
is found in the Old Latin Sap 1.6, Sir 12.15 (16), 21.19
(16), 21.28 (25) and so on and they are the standards words
for lips in both languages. is also the translation of
honoro in Mark 7.6 and honorifico in 10.19 and sine honore
at 6.4 is translated neither word occurs elsewhere in
Mark. In the Old Latin in the Vulgate we find honoro at
Sap 14.17 & 20, Sir 3.3 &5 (6) and so on. Note that the Greek
translator has kept the Latin order (me colunt) of the verb last
(whereas the LXX has the Greek order
is the only word used to translate cor (10X). Longe
by itself is only found in one other passage (12.34), where it is
translated by It is found only twice in the Old Latin
A
translator would not have come up with for relinquo or for introeo. Matthew (19.5) has altered the translation to accord with the LXX and the Greek
translation of Mark has been changed to agree with his.
10.19
This reads in k (adding ne occidas from b d l q r1 and omiting ne adulterium commiseris written to replace ne fornicatus
fueris) ne occidas, ne fornicatus fueris, ne furatus fueris, ne
falsum testimonium dixeris. The Greek:
the LXX of
Ex 20.13:
De 5.17-20 is the same but with
the order 13 15 14 16. Mt 19.18 is also the same, but with the
order 15 13 14 16 (the order in Mark). Mt has taken the verbs
from the LXX and Mark's translation has been modified from
him.
11.9
This reads benedictus qui uenit in nomine Domini. The Greek
(from Ps 118.26)
Benedico is translated with 5X,
once and once. Venio is very
common, as is nomen and dominus Agreement with the LXX is coincidental.
11.17
This reads domus mea domus adorationis uocabitur. The
Greek (from Is 56.7)
Domus is very common, uoco common.
translates adoratio here and oratio at 9.29. Agreement with the LXX is coincidental. Mark continues speluncam
latronum. The Greek (from Je 7.11)
is the obvious translation of the similar sounding
spelunca and is the translation of latro elsewhere
(14.48 & 15.27).
12.10 This reads lapidem quem reprobauerunt aedificantes,
hic factus est in caput anguli; a Domino factus est hic; est
admirabilis in oculis nostris. The Greek (& Ps 118.22-3 & Mt
21,42)
Mt has altered
the text to agree with the LXX and II Mt has been substituted
for Mark.
12.26
This reads ego sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus
This reads non est praeter ipsum. The Greek (& Dt 4.35)
is standard for non est,
for ipsum; is an obvious supplement, a
standard translation of praeter.
12.36
This reads in k dicit Dominus domino meo "Sede ad dexteram meam quoadusque ponam inimicos tuos suppedaneum
pedum tuorum". The Greek (& Ps 109.1 & Lk 20.42-3)
Luke has
changed the quotation to agree with the LXX and the Greek
translation of Mark has been changed to agree with his.
13.14
exsecrationem desolationis. The Greek (& Mt 24.15)
Da 12.11 The
Old Latin in the Vulgate: Sir 1.24 (26), 13.20 (24), 17.23 (26), 19.
20 (23) exsecratio Vulgate Psalms from the Greek
72 (73) 19 desolatio Vulgate Da 12.11 (& Old Latin
MSS apart from k with the exception of i (which has aspernatio)) abominatio instead of k's exsecratio. The agreement of k
and the Old Latin in the Vulgate shows exsecratio is earlier
than abominatio.
13.26
This reads in k filium hominis uenientem in nube. The Greek
Dn 7.13
The Latin singular nube has been changed to the Greek plural agreeing with the LXX, from II Mt 24.30.
14.27
This reads in k percutiam pastorem et oues dispergentur.
The Greek
Za 13.7 reads
Percutio occurs here and in 3 other
passages, which have 3 different transations, none being the
found here. Greek Mk has been accommodated to
II Mt 26.31, which is closer to the LXX.
Appendix 2: The Greek reads like a translation from Latin
1: The Greek translation of Mark has verbs in the Latin order
Couchoud, in La place du verbe dans Marc (Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1928) 47-51, noting that the normal Latin
word order is verb last, whereas that is not the case in Greek,
quotes the Latin together with the Greek translation of various passages of Mark. I give his references. A * quotes or
refers to the II passage of Luke, who has followed the translation of Mark, but given the verb in the normal Greek order:
3.10 ut eum tangerent
3.11, *5.10, 8.22 obsecrarunt ut eum tangeret
Note that, when adding
not present in the Latin, the translator has written it in the
normal Greek order but, when translating eum tangeret, he
has put in the Latin order. *9.18 (twice), *9.37, *12.12,
*12.13, *14.1, 14.10, *14.11. Infinitifs complements: 5.4, *9.32:
timebant illum interrogare
*10.32, *12.12, *12.34. Propositions interrogatives: *5.31, *9.19. Propositions directes 14.30
ter me negabis Mt
14.65; 16.7.
2: Latinisms in the Greek translation of Mark
I take this list from R.H. Gundry: Mark, a commentary on his
apology for the cross, 1993, pp.1043-5, supplying discussion
and references. # indicates that it is found in all the Old Latin
MSS of Mark, * that the word also occurs elsewhere in Greek.
04.21#* modius. Also Mt 5.15, from Mk. At Lk 11.33 it
seems to be an interpolation from Mk.