Could Mark been written in LATIN?

[g_a_kowalski]

Ok, title is a bit provocative, but I wanted you to see quotations from some Syriac christian writers about this:
http://pl.scribd.com/doc/58108415/Extrac...n-in-Latin

There are some interesing discussions around. Here for example is "Latin, not Aramaic, explains Mark?s bad Greek": http://vridar.org/2010/12/06/roll-over-m...bad-greek/. Interesting question are being asked(this one is from me): http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/qu...-the-verse.

I hope you find it interesting or at least entertaining.

[ScorpioSniper2]

I find it very unlikely that an Israeli Jew like John Mark would have been able to speak Latin well enough to write in it. Josephus states that few Jews in Israel could even speak Greek well, so how could we expect one to be able to know Latin well enough to write a Gospel in it?

[sestir]

Interesting subject!

This quote made me want to examine the conjunctions in the gospel:
Eutychius: "In the time of Nero Caesar Peter, the leader of the apostles, wrote, with Mark, the Gospel of Mark in Latin at Rome, but he ascribed it to Mark".

I was thinking maybe Peter wrote most of it and Mark filled out the voids, but nay.

It looks like it was written by a single person in a single language, except maybe for some sentences. I made a graphic on my blog:
Waw-consecutive of Mark
(and scroll down some)

I wonder, was it feasible to write latin like this?
Et dicebat illis Iesus ... (Mark 6:4)
Maybe if the author was far from fluent in Latin?

[Andrej]

Mark mentions Peter more than any other Gospel. It is to be assumed that Peter was involved at least in some ways, at the very least as a source of information.

Peter had the responsibility to lead the church, of course he would have an interest in the production of an accurate Gospel. They knew they are committing scripture to paper, it needed to be perfect. i suppose Mark and Peter worked together. It is to be assumed that Peter chose someone worthy for the task, someone wise that knows much of language, and that can copy the result perfectly. We should assume Mark was highly educated. It is likely Peter guided and directed Mark as Paul guided and directed Luke.

What i don't like is that people always think the apostles would produce scripture in a single language. Peter was active in Rome, a Latin Gospel makes some sense. Mark may have spoken Latin, and that may be one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit chose him. However, the Apostles knew that the Faith was for the entire world. They were actively involved in the creation of translations. It is quite possible a translation was produced at the very same time the Gospel was written. That would explain why people think Latin was its original form, though i think it is quite unlikely.

However, even if it was so, the only pure Gospel of Mark we have is Aramaic, and it has Apostolic blessing.

[ScorpioSniper2]

Peter was not active in Rome, but in Babylon. Peter's ministry was to the Jewish people while Paul's was to the Gentiles. When the Gospel was spreading West by the ministry of Paul, Peter's ministry was spreading the Gospel East. Babylon had the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel. There is no evidence that Rome was referred to as Babylon until after the Book of the Revelation was written.