You are on page 1of 29
Proof that the gospel of Mark was written in Latin
 David Bruce Gain
The gospel of Mark survives in Latin and Greek. It has beenthought that, since the tet of !ld Testa"ent #uotations in theGreek version is generall$ the sa"e as that in preeistingGreek versions of the original %ebrew &the 'eptuagint, L((),that Mark wrote in Greek. In *ppendi + I show that, grantedthat Mark, writing in Latin, used Latin translations of the L((,the agree"ents of the Greek tet of Mark with the L(( shouldbe eplained as use of established translation e#uivalents or the result of changes to our present "anuscripts &M'') toagree with the tet of another gospel, so"ething which, as"$ * reconstruction of the original Latin of the Gospel of Mark with an -nglish translation and a tetual co""entar$,found at http//"/doc/01234562 shows, hashappened all the ti"e to the tet of Mark.Because it has been thought that Mark was written in Greek,insufficient attention has been paid to the Latin tet. I presenthere evidence, al"ost all not adduced before, showing that the Greek so"eti"es "istranslates Latin or is based on cor7rupted Latin 7 clear proof that the Latin is the original.
Transliteration of the %ebrew/*ra"aic alphabet )bgdhw8t$kl"ns&pc#r9:
The "ost striking evidence that Mark was written in Latin is &+) Mark 6.4 reads &here and elsewhere I give the tet in "$ *reconstruction, to which I refer readers for a ;ustification of it).Pharisaei aute" et o"nes Iudaei nisi
 lauerint "anusnon "anducant, tenentes traditione" senioru" &the Phari7
sees and all the <ews do not eat unless the$ have washedtheir hands
for a short time
, "aintaining the tradition of theelders). The$ onl$ need to wash #uickl$ because the ob;ectis not to clean the hands, but to fulfil the ritual= thus theMishnah under Tohoroth &cleanness) $adai" &of the hands)+.+ states that a #uarter of a log of water &the a"ount contain7ed in one and a half eggshells) is sufficient for ritual washingof the hands. The Greek
οι γαρ φαρισαιοι και παντεσ οιΙουδαιοι εαν µη
νιψωνται τασ χειρασ ουκ εσθι−ουσιν, κρατουντεσ την παραδοσιν των πρεσβυτερων
 &thePharisees and all the <ews do not eat unless the$ havewashed their hands
with their fist,
"aintaining the tradition of the elders). >o sane author would write that all <ews alwa$swashed their hands with their fist. The Greek translator had atet in which pusillo &for a short ti"e) had been corrupted in7to pugillo &with the fist). M'
best M''
are "is7sing here) preserves the true pusillo in its s$non$"n "o"en7 to.5+1.57?et uenerunt pri"a sabbati
 dicentes @uis nobis reuoluetlapide" ab ostio
A 'ubito aute" ad hora" tert7ia" tenebrae diei factae sunt per totu" orbe" terrae et de7scenderunt de caelis angeli et surgunt in claritate uiui Dei=si"ul ascenderunt cu" eo et continuo lu facta est.
Tuncillae accesserunt ad
 et uident reuolutu" lapid7e" &*nd the$ ca"e on the first da$ of the week
sa$ing howill roll the rock fro" the entrance to the
for usA 'ud7denl$ at the third hour darkness covered the whole world andangels descended fro" heaven and rose in the splendour othe living God= the$ ascended with hi" and i""ediatel$ lightwas restored.
 Then the$ approached the
and saw thatthe rock had been rolled back).* scribeCs e$e in an ancestor of all M'' ecept
slipped fro"
causinghi" to o"it
and all words after it before
monu- mentum.
'uch "istakes are of constant occurrence= "an$
ea"ples fro" Mark can be seen in "$ * reconstruction.
was later corrected to
to give there#uired sense of the to"b. Mark states that, whereas, atthe third hour during the crucifiion, <esusC ene"ies were inthe ascendant &+0.50745) here, at the third hour, <esus is inthe ascendant. Matthew &hereafter Mt) lacking these words inhis Greek translation of Mark, found onl$ a $outh sitting inthe to"b &+1.0)= he naturall$ assu"ed it was he who had re7"oved the huge stone and so put this in his account &53.5),"aking the $outh an angel, a supernatural being, since itwould have been i"possible for a single $outh to have rolledawa$ the huge stone unaided.It will not do to sa$ that the o"ission was "ade in Greek b$ ascribe whose e$e slipped fro"
and anancestor of
was translated before the o"ission and an anc7estor of the other M'' after, because, as shown b$ reading"$ econstruction there was onl$ one original Latin tet.Differences between M'' co"e fro" e.g. corruptions leadingto "eaningless Latin or unlatin words, desire to "ake theLatin "ore st$lish E confor"ing it "ore closel$ to the Greekof Mark or to parallel Mt or Luke &hereafter Lk). The strikingagree"ents of the M'' in the sa"e words or constructionsin "an$ places rule out the theor$ of independent originaltets.It will not do either to sa$ that the passage found onl$ in
isthe work of an interpolator. *ll words ecept uiui are foundelsewhere in Mark. The work of a real interpolator in a pass7age of this length is blindingl$ obvious fro" the so7calledshorter ending in
, which is full of un"arkan language. Itreads o"nia aute" #uaecu"#ue praecepta erant eis #ui cu"Petro erant breuiter eposuerunt. Post haec et ipse Iesusapparuit et ab oriente us#ue in occidente" "isit per illossancta" et incorrupta" praedicatione" salutis aeternae.*"en &The$ briefl$ told those with Peter ever$thing the$ hadbeen taught. *fter this <esus hi"self appeared and fro" theeast to the west he pro"ulgated the sacred and uncorrupted"essage of eternal salvation. *"en). The first sentence con7tradicts verse 3, nor would Mark have used taught "erel$