As part of an article that maintains that the Gospel of Mark has some connection to Paul's letter to the Romans, Michael P. Theophilos argues ("The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark," in Paul and Mark, part 1, pp. 50-51):
Early testimony and Patristic tradition place the writing of Mark’s gospel in Rome in the mid to late 60s CE.³¹ Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius H.E. 6.14.5-6), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), and the Anti-Marcionite prologue attest to the Gospel’s composition in Rome or the regions around Italy.³² Furthermore, several dimensions of internal evidence also point towards Rome as the provenance of the Gospel.
First, of the 18 occurrences of Latinisms in the New Testament, 10 are found in Mark,³³ a frequency which is higher than any other Greek literary text of the period.³⁴ Add to this that several of the Latinisms are unattested in any Greek texts prior to the first century, a portion of which appear uniquely within Mark or sources that have clearly used Mark as a literary source (κῆνσος, ξέστης, πραιτώριον, σπεκουλάτωρ, τίτλος, φραγελλόω),³⁵ and one may legitimately question Morna Hooker’s bold claim that the connection between Mark and Rome based on Latinisms “has no substance.”³⁶ Although James Keenan et al. have suggested that “penetration of Latin terms into everyday Egyptian Greek was limited, artificial, and superficial,”³⁷ Brian J. Incigneri argues, upon investigating several higher order linguistic features including word construction and syntax, that “the most likely place for Latinisms to predominate is in the city of Rome, where the Latin and Greek languages were closely intermingled as nowhere else at that time.”³⁸
Second, Hengel points to the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 as additional evidence of a Roman provenance for the Gospel. Mark 7:26 refers to the woman as ̔Ελληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσατῷ γένει (Greek-speaking, Syrophoenician born). Hengel regards the addition of Συρο to Φοινίκισσα as redundant, and argues that it would seem nonsensical, if indeed the Gospel came from Syria/Palestine.³⁹ A Roman provenance however would necessitate the need to distinguish between Συροφοινίκισσα (Syrophoenician) and Λιβυφοινίκες (Carthaginian), as is the case in several occurrences in literature of the period (Lucilius 15.fr.496ff.; Juvenal 8.159ff.; Pliny Natural History 7.201).⁴⁰
[31] This testimony however, is not unanimous as John Chrysostom claims Mark was written in Egypt (Homily on Matthew 1.7). However, others have noted that Chrysostom’s attribution of Mark to an Egyptian provenance may be due to his misinterpretation of Eusebius’ comments in H.E. 2.16; see Henry B. Swete, Commentary on Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indexes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1977), xxxix
[32] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990), 243 notes that the Anti-Marcionite prologues were “originally composed in Greek [and] appear in several dozen Latin Bible manuscripts…a date in the second half of the 4th century is likely for…Mark.”
[33] δηνάριον (=denarius in 12:15); κεντυρίων (=centurio in 15:39.44.45); κῆνσος (=census in 12:14); κοδράντης (=quadrans in 12:42); λεγιών (=legio in 5:9.15); μόδιος (=modius in 4:21); ξέστης (=sextarius in 7:4); πραιτώριον (=praetorium in 15:16); σπεκουλάτωρ (=speculator in 6:27); φραγελλόω (=flagellum in 15:15).
[34] Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985), 29. See further Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 3rd edn 1919), 108-11; Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn 1975), 6-9.
[35] See the helpful table in Allan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 150.
[36] Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark, (London: A & C Black, 1991), 7; also contra Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007), 9-10.
[37] James G. Keenan, “Review of Il lessico latino nel Greco d’Egitto (Barcelona: Institut de Teologia Fondamental, Seminario de Papirologia, 2ndedn, 1991) by S. Daris.” BASP 29 (1992): 219-20.
[38] Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 102. See further Peter Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums: Eigentümlichkeiten der Sprache des Markus-Evangeliums und ihre Bedeutung für die Redaktionskritik (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 276-78; and Adam Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 82-83.
[39] Hengel, Studies, 29.
[40] Cited in Hengel, Studies, 29
First, of the 18 occurrences of Latinisms in the New Testament, 10 are found in Mark,³³ a frequency which is higher than any other Greek literary text of the period.³⁴ Add to this that several of the Latinisms are unattested in any Greek texts prior to the first century, a portion of which appear uniquely within Mark or sources that have clearly used Mark as a literary source (κῆνσος, ξέστης, πραιτώριον, σπεκουλάτωρ, τίτλος, φραγελλόω),³⁵ and one may legitimately question Morna Hooker’s bold claim that the connection between Mark and Rome based on Latinisms “has no substance.”³⁶ Although James Keenan et al. have suggested that “penetration of Latin terms into everyday Egyptian Greek was limited, artificial, and superficial,”³⁷ Brian J. Incigneri argues, upon investigating several higher order linguistic features including word construction and syntax, that “the most likely place for Latinisms to predominate is in the city of Rome, where the Latin and Greek languages were closely intermingled as nowhere else at that time.”³⁸
Second, Hengel points to the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 as additional evidence of a Roman provenance for the Gospel. Mark 7:26 refers to the woman as ̔Ελληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσατῷ γένει (Greek-speaking, Syrophoenician born). Hengel regards the addition of Συρο to Φοινίκισσα as redundant, and argues that it would seem nonsensical, if indeed the Gospel came from Syria/Palestine.³⁹ A Roman provenance however would necessitate the need to distinguish between Συροφοινίκισσα (Syrophoenician) and Λιβυφοινίκες (Carthaginian), as is the case in several occurrences in literature of the period (Lucilius 15.fr.496ff.; Juvenal 8.159ff.; Pliny Natural History 7.201).⁴⁰
[31] This testimony however, is not unanimous as John Chrysostom claims Mark was written in Egypt (Homily on Matthew 1.7). However, others have noted that Chrysostom’s attribution of Mark to an Egyptian provenance may be due to his misinterpretation of Eusebius’ comments in H.E. 2.16; see Henry B. Swete, Commentary on Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indexes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1977), xxxix
[32] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990), 243 notes that the Anti-Marcionite prologues were “originally composed in Greek [and] appear in several dozen Latin Bible manuscripts…a date in the second half of the 4th century is likely for…Mark.”
[33] δηνάριον (=denarius in 12:15); κεντυρίων (=centurio in 15:39.44.45); κῆνσος (=census in 12:14); κοδράντης (=quadrans in 12:42); λεγιών (=legio in 5:9.15); μόδιος (=modius in 4:21); ξέστης (=sextarius in 7:4); πραιτώριον (=praetorium in 15:16); σπεκουλάτωρ (=speculator in 6:27); φραγελλόω (=flagellum in 15:15).
[34] Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985), 29. See further Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 3rd edn 1919), 108-11; Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn 1975), 6-9.
[35] See the helpful table in Allan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 150.
[36] Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark, (London: A & C Black, 1991), 7; also contra Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007), 9-10.
[37] James G. Keenan, “Review of Il lessico latino nel Greco d’Egitto (Barcelona: Institut de Teologia Fondamental, Seminario de Papirologia, 2ndedn, 1991) by S. Daris.” BASP 29 (1992): 219-20.
[38] Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 102. See further Peter Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums: Eigentümlichkeiten der Sprache des Markus-Evangeliums und ihre Bedeutung für die Redaktionskritik (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 276-78; and Adam Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 82-83.
[39] Hengel, Studies, 29.
[40] Cited in Hengel, Studies, 29
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:35 pm
