[bibleprotector]

One irony (and this is one purpose of Herb Evan's article) is that if we put an unscriptural emphasis on "the Greek" -- the opponents of the King James Bible understandably use that as a wedge to attack our Bible. They claim that all translational authority into English or any other language would be both derivative and inferior. While this is a false claim, it is largely based on the idea that we should be searching for and identifying some "Greek autographs" and using that ethereal text as our base text of perfection.

I agree with these good points.

[bibleprotector]

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.

Is there a Scriptural/doctrinal reason that Greek must be the language that Mark originally wrote in? I think so.

We know that Mark is correct in English, and we know that it was gathered from TR Greek and with reference to Latin, etc. Therefore, we know that the latter end of its preservation is correct.

If the Greek form is viewed as the primary preserved form TO the Reformation, this would indicate that Greek was the original form.

We should be cautious about even allowing things which defy tradition, especially if there is Scripturally-consistent reasons for keeping things as they have been understood.

If we allow that Mark may have been originally written in Latin for the reason of deemphasising Greek, then that would be the wrong motive. We know that translations are right without having to make a theory that says that the primary preservation was in a translation (i.e. that the pre-Reformation Greek was the preserved form of the original Latin). We know that the primary preservation is now in English, which is a translation, but we do not need to apply this idea to the originals as though to bolster our correct translation.

There are those who have gone to extremes, such as the thinking that Adam to Babel spoke English.

I believe that Mark did write Greek, because I believe that this is what Scripture does imply:

"And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16).

If Mark was writing to a Latin audience in Latin, he would not have need to explain that "Praetorium" was the name for the common hall. This shows that his audience did not come from Latin culture. This Latin word stands out from his normal writing, i.e. original language.

In summary: While there is not always a need to dogmatise upon which language an autograph was written in, it is traditional and Scripturally-consistent that Mark was written in Greek.

[MC1171611]

I'm afraid some "Bible Believers" are putting too much emphasis on the "Originals" now! Come on, let's get it together: it doesn't matter if Mark wrote in PIG Latin: God was and still is able to preserve His words through the centuries, in whatever language He chooses!

[bibleprotector]

I'm afraid some "Bible Believers" are putting too much emphasis on the "Originals" now!

If the Scripture says something about it, or if we find indications from Scripture as to what the original language was, we could then point to an "original language".

I believe there are several reasons why we should retain the idea of Greek authenticity of the New Testament (but even if it wasn't all in Greek, that is not going to change the purity of our Bible today, of course).

The problem is not with arguing for Greek, the problem is where arguing for Greek undermines or leads to undermining our pure English Bible. Just because many scholars argue for Greek with a view to undermine the KJB does not mean that we should be quick to reject the Greek originality of the New Testament.

Come on, let's get it together: it doesn't matter if Mark wrote in PIG Latin

It would pose a problem if the Bible were written in pig latin, as opposed to "Biblical Greek", because God's Word needs to be given in a high form, not low. Every indication is that the original languages of the Bible, namely, Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Syriack and Biblical Greek are the superior forms of communicating in their respective times.

God's works are perfect, His works are glorious, it would not be befitting if His Word were in pig latin as opposed to "Biblical original languages".

This view could undermine the 1611 men as TRANSLATORS, and begin to have them as reissuers of God's words: this is the problem of putting inspiration to all men rather than to just the original penmen.

God was and still is able to preserve His words through the centuries, in whatever language He chooses!

Though God is able to do so, this "choice" of God is not high and mysterious and beyond our comprehension, as though if defies being understood. Rather, we do see that God has been able to and has in practise preserved his Word through history, and has used various languages. The fact is that He favoured some languages in the past, and favours English today and the future.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I believe that Mark did write Greek, because I believe that this is what Scripture does imply:

"And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16).

If Mark was writing to a Latin audience in Latin, he would not have need to explain that "Praetorium" was the name for the common hall.

In Latin as well as Greek as well as English, simply to call the locale the 'atrium' (Latin) or the aulhV (Greek) would be far less specific. This was the hall named Praetorium the atrium named Praetorium, the Aule (Gr) named Praetorium. In our Bible John and Luke specifically call it the judgment hall, while in Matthew it is the governor's (Pilate) common hall.

This is a common construction in any language, to go from the general to the specific.

eg. we may say in English:

We met in/at:

the building (or mansion) called the White House
the street named Avenue of the Americas
the mausoleum named Grant's Tomb

(In New York City, Grant's Tomb is actually in a park.)

The key point is that Praetorium is not at all the Latin translation for the word atrium.

Interpretation is what occurs when Mark or another NT writer has a Hebrew or Aramaic word where simple translation of a name from one language to another is helpful to the reader. This is not from the general to the specific, this is direct translation of a name. Here are examples where the name is a place. (More common is a personal name interpretation.)

Mark 15:22
And they bring him unto the place Golgotha,
which is, being interpreted,
The place of a skull.

John 9:7
And said unto him,
Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,
(which is by interpretation, Sent.)
He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

In such a case the word itself has the meaning embedded in the native language.

By contrast, What we have in

Mark 15:16
And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium;
and they call together the whole band.

is from the general to the specific, and is analogous to:

Mark 14:32
And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane:
and he saith to his disciples,
Sit ye here, while I shall pray.

Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God unto a city of Galilee,
named Nazareth,

Where an alternate phrasing could be shorter, omitting 'named', or even omitting 'place' or 'city'. This is a question of writing style, not whether Gethesemane, Nazareth or Praetorium are Greek or Latin words.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

"And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16).

I read the words "called Praetorium" as parenthetical (like an aside in brackets), and would be explanatory to those readers and hearers who were not so familiar with Latinity. It does not read as a mere linguistical construction of going to the general to the specific. It is always explanatory as though the reader is not familiar with the specific technical (and foreign) word, e.g., "But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon." (Acts 27:14).

Our understanding of Mark cannot be on the basis of how it is in Greek or Latin, but how the English is provided to us, specifically according to Burgon's "maxim": “we can but conjecture that they [the KJB translators] conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” And, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 ... produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists or Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”. (Burgon).

This at once dashes the misuse of “higher criticism”.

Then, further, since we compare Scripture with Scripture in our pure English Bible where every word, letter and dot is in its right and rightful place, we may have confidence to rely upon and use the King James Bible itself to interpret.

Writing style is therefore judged in English, and is judged by what we see in the English Scripture. Since it is not normal in plain and simple English to write, “into the hall, called Praetorium;” but, “common hall” (Matt. 27:27), we can conclude that Mark’s special added information was a reference to something that was not immediately understood by all his audience. We may then see that it was because it was a Latin word being explained to the reader/hearer.

Hoskier has a hypothesis that “Mark was written originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately—that the Latin went to Latin Africa—thence to Greek Egypt, where it was translated into Greek.” Thus, a separate Greek Mark then appeared in Egypt differing from the Greek Mark of Asia, etc. (of which Codex Bezae is said to be an example of).

Occam’s rasor is the better: it were first written in Greek, quickly turned into Latin, after which Latin particularities arose. Moreover, Hoskier’s view is that there must be two autographs, and implies differences between them.

Hoskier’s view is that since Mark wrote in or for a Roman audience, that he would have used the language of the local lower class Latins, or a Graeco-Latin dialect (which is, I think, an invention). Hoskier then points out how he thinks there is flux in Greek and Latin at the time, and demonstrates several Roman words which are written in Greek letters and vice versa, especially in the catacombs. The problem here is that Hoskier is allowing outside interpretations on history to dictate his view of Scripture. (The catacomb period was later than Mark’s writing anyway.) Even if Mark was in Rome, we find that Romans is written to the Church there by Paul, and it is in Greek. At the latest, Mark cannot have been written much after Paul’s two year stay at Rome, and is very likely to have been earlier. There is nothing to indicate a Latin-first or a Latin-concurrent original view.

I believe that Scripture shows that Mark wrote in Greek first, and soon it was translated into Latin. The use of Greek forms like "Elias", the explanation of Latin words, and the unsatisfactoriness of proto-Latin explanations indicates that Greek was really the autographical language, and hence, used as the particular authoritative original language by the Reformers.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16).

"But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon." (Acts 27:14).

Thanks for the excellent example that shows my point.

In Acts 27:14 there is the very same type of language Greek on Greek as you are trying to claim would be a problem if Latin on Latin in the verse Mark 15:16.

Verse..........Language.......General............. .Specific Proper Name

Acts 27:14....Greek......tempestuous wind..........Eurocydon

Mark 15:16....Latin...............hall................. ...Praetorium

Exactly what I was asserting in my previous post, that the language of Mark 15:16 is perfectly proper within one language, there is no difficulty at all if Mark's autograph is in Latin (or a Graeco-Latin dialect) and the word Praetorium is in Latin. Just as there is no difficulty at all in Acts 27:14 with Luke writing in Greek and the word Eurocydon being native Greek.

Thanks for the verse to use as an example, Matthew.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thus, if Mark 12:16 provides a logical argument that Mark was written in Greek rather than Latin, then Acts 27:14 provides the same (mirror image) logical argument that Luke was writing Acts in Latin rather than Greek.

Neither argument has substance. And the discussions of the language authorship of Mark have to look at other factors.

Since I am just pointing out that a non-Greek autograph is a reasonable possibility (mostly based on a Latin-ish grammatical substratum and the historical understandings of Mark writing for a Roman audience) I believe that case is essentially shown. ie. The possibility. The factors that are strong in refuting an Aramaic Mark (a mildly popular scholastic theory about a century ago) are essentially of no import at all in looking at the Greek and Latin issues.

And I see absolutely no difficulty at all to the purity of the King James Bible if the original autograph of Mark or another NT book was other than Greek. None whatsoever.

And many of the opponents attacks are based on their unexamined (sometimes implied rather than stated) claims about "the Greek" - claims that falsely presume a certainty of the autographs having been written in Greek. There is no such certainty. Nor any such spiritual imperative, one of the points of the article by Herb Evans.

Going into the details of the Hoskier article is a bit superfluous and also out of our league. The basics are uncomplicated. The two main factors, mentioned above (grammatical structure and historical understandings) are far simpler than Hoskier's type of detailed technical study. And Hoskier, like many scholars, was prone to augmenting sound analysis with conjectures. I will say that there is no difficulty at all with Paul writing to the Romans in Greek (he may not even have been fluent in Latin) and Mark writing in Latin (with or without a dual-autograph-language theory per Hoskier). None whatsoever. There are many churches in the USA today that receive literature in English and Spanish, without any eye blinks or concern. Some people in the receiving churches understand both languages, others understand one or the other well.

The Latin audience could have been reached with the Gospel of Mark, and yet, with the Greek NT being the center of compilation and interest in the early centuries, the result would have been that the Greek NT, one unit, become the center of preservation and transmission.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

{Mark was} writing in Latin (with or without a dual-autograph-language theory per Hoskier).

I would argue strongly against dual autographs. However, I think that it is very possible that Mark or people close to him translated from his Greek original into a Latin translation. This way the Latin was not the autograph, but Mark could have at a later stage of his life been preaching in Latin from a Latin translation of his own penned book. This actually would show that a. copies were considered as true Scripture as autographs, b. translations were considered as true Scripture as the original language, c. that there was no neccessity to stay in the Greek or have a Greek-only view of Scripture from the earliest days.