Phrases like dvo 8vo 6^, av/xTroa-ia cvixirbcna &^, Trpaa-ial Trpaaiai Q^" are Aramaic or Hebrew idioms. Also several other Aramaic phrases have been noted, as 'sons of the bridechamber ' 2'^ (so Mt. Lk. ), 'sons of men' 3^^ (see § vii. 2 below), elire SodTjvai 5^, fiia TU!v aa^^dTiov 16- (positive for super- lative), yiverai Kai 2'^ (so Mt., not Lk. ), eyevero fjXdev P (Mk. only) ; and the indefinite use of eh = ■in (for TLz) 9" 10^^ 12^8 13^ 14«- se (Allen, loc. cit.). Dalman also has made a collection of Hebraisms and Aramaisms in the Gospels ( Words of Jesus, p. 20fl'. ), though he considers that they do not con- stitute a proof of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Of these the following are found in Mk. ■.—tXdovdo. redundantly used with a finite verb 7-^ {i. wpoai-
ireae) ; d(j)ds with a term signifying departure where the idea of ' leaving ' is not emphasized ^^ 8^^ 12^- ; Kadrj/jLerov and aTTjKeTe where they are superfluous 214 ips. avacTTds used redundantly 2^^ 7^^ IQi- ^o (AC) ; ' answer and say ' 3^^ 7-^ 9^ 10" IP^ 12^5 15», often when no question has been asked ; eXdX-qaev . . . Kai X^7et 6*" (?) ; ijp^aro (-avro) with infinitive when nothing follows developing the action, 26 times ; evdews or evdvs, a favourite form in Mk. (45 times) = Aram. i:a ; the use of wpoawTrov, not only in a quotation like 1-, but in the i)hrase ^Xeireis els irp. dvdpihwuv 121'*, and some others.
2. Original language of Mark.— The Aramaic tinge in our Gospel is thought by some, e.g. Blass (Philology of the Gospels, ch. xi.) and Allen (loc. cit.), to show that it was originally written in Aramaic. A large number of the real or alleged Aramaisms given above are found in Mt. and Lk. ; but it is argued that as they had ex hypothcsi ^Ik. before them, they merely retained a certain number of the Aramaisms of their source. Moreover, the Aramaisms are found not only in the words of our Lord, in which case they might be explained as being due to the faithful reporting of His ipsissima verba, but also in the framework of the Gospel. On the tlieory of an Aramaic original, Allen ex- plains the frequent use in ^Ik. of Kai as a connect- ing link (cf. Aram. 1), and of five particles constantly used, evdvs (see above), irdXiv, 54, ydp, dXXd, other particles being rare. He also explains the favourite historic present in Mk. as coming from the use of an Aramaic present participle for this purpose. In
Syriac it is so found only in the verb r-^ I ' to
say' (Noldeke, Syr. Gramm. § 274, p. 190), except in syr i^^^', where it is a literal translation. But in the other Aramaic dialects this usage is not so limited ; the idiom is found with other verbs, e.g. in Daniel and Tobit, and its presence in an original Aramaic Mk. would bring us to the frequent his- toric presents in tlie Greek Mk. The irregularity noticed above (§ iii. 5) of their being mixed up with past tenses occurs also in Aramaic. It is also thought that the difficult ds rpiaKovra Kai els (v. I. iv Westcott-Hort) e^-fjKovTa Kai els (v. I. iv WH) eKarbv in 4^ (cf. 42") is explained by the eis (i.e. els) repre- senting -\n, cf. Dn 3'" (but equally well els might represent an Aramaic 3 ' at the rate of ') ; and that the ^pxerai of 4^^ and iv 6v6p.aTi on. of 9^' and iin- paXwv of M''- (see above, § iii. 4 (h)) come from a mis- translation of some (unknown) Aramaic original. In the JThSt ii. 298, Allen suggests that the word €Ke^aXiwaav (12^) is due to a confusion of is^'n^n ' they injured' with it^'Nix, which would be a puzzle to the translator, Avho rendered it by this coined word, taking it from Aram, b'ni 'a head.' Simi- larly, Prof. Marshall (Expositor, 4th series, iv. 377) thinks that Mk 5^'> ^fco ttjs x^P"-^ and || Lk 8^' eh Tvv d^vaaov (Mt. different) are the result of trans- lations of one Aramaic original, yiti meaning both ' earth ' or ' land ' and ' below. '
Blass brings difierent arguments on the same side. They, run in two lines, (a) He suggests that St. Luke in Ac 1-12 used an Aramaic source, while the rest of the book was his own independ- ent work. In these tAvelve chapters Aramaisms abound, while in the rest of the book they are comjiaratively scarce ; and the style of the twelve chapters is rough as compared with St. Luke's own. Blass conjectures that Mark, who, as son of a prominent Christian lady in Jerusalem, was Avell fitted for the task, wrote the Aramaic source. [With this we may compare Weiss's idea that Mark ended his Gospel at 16** because he went on to write a second work, which began with the Resur- rection appearances]. If so, the first work, i.e. the Gospel, would be in Aramaic, (b) Bla.ss thinks that
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 131
the various readings in the present MSS of Mk., and those shown by Patristic quotations, are relics of dillerent translations of an original Aramaic.
In reviewing these considerations, we must re- mark that Dr. IJlass's first argument rests on pure conjecture. Why should Mark be tiie writer of the supposed Aramaic source of Ac 1-12? And if so, why must he have written two books in the same language? He was confessedly bilingual, able to write in both Greek and Aramaic. This argument, then, is a halting one. And the second seems scarcely less precarious. The suggestions of Mr. Allen are more substantial. But these also appear to be inconclusive. They certainly show that the Aramaic tinge, strong in all the (Synoptics, is strongest in Mark. But this need mean no more than that Aramaic was St. Mark's niitive l.anguage, that in which he thought, as most of the Pales- tinian Jews would do. The Greek spoken in Pales- tine was doubtless saturated with Aramaic forms and idioms, and Mark, whose style is compara- tively unpolished, discarded them less than the other Synoptists. The theory of an Aramaic ori- ginal has some formidable difficulties to overcome. Papias had evidently never heard of any but a Greek Mk. , and no ecclesiastical writer suggests that the latter is a translation. The external evidence is all against the hyi)othesis which we have been examining. But so, also, when we look closely, is the internal evidence. It is true that there are many Aramaisms in Mark. Of these, however, we maj' dismiss, for our present purpose, the proper names, which would be used in Palestine equally whether an author wrote in Aramaic or in Greek. The influence of Aramaic grammar and diction may also probably be dismissed, seeing that the writer doubtless thought in Aramaic. There remain, then, the suggestions of mistrans- lation, which, however, are too ingenious for veri- similitude, and the transliterations like Talitha Cumi. But the fact that practically in each case of transliteration a Greek interjjretation is added, is fatal to the idea that we have here traces of a conservative translator who incorj)orated bodily the words which he found in the book before him. As Swete remarks (St. Mark, p. xlii), a translator might have either translated the Aramaic or trans- literated it ; but transliteration followed by in- terpretation savours of an original writer. A still more fatal objection is the freshness of the style of our Gospel. Even the best ti'anslation loses the individuality of the author. But here we have a book in which the individuality is most strongly marked. It can hardly be a second-hand repro- duction of any one's work.