In this article I want to challenge the assertion by some scholars that Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words supports the argument that Mark was written for a Greco-Roman audience. I originally wanted to employ this argument in support of my own belief that Mark was indeed written for this audience; unfortunately, I have not found this Latin “loan word” argument to be persuasive.1
For example, James Edwards offers several arguments to substantiate his contention “that Mark wrote for Gentile readers, and Roman Gentiles in particular.”2 Edwards points to Mark’s infrequent quotations from the OT, his explanations of Jewish customs presumably “unfamiliar to his readers (7:3–4; 12:18; 14:12; 15:42),” his translation of “Aramaic and Hebrew phrases by their Greek equivalents (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34),” his incorporation of transliterated Latin words, and his presentation of “Romans in a neutral (12:17; 15:1–2, 21–22) and sometimes favorable (15:39) light.”3 While I agree with his conclusion regarding the intended audience, I need to challenge the validity of his appeal to Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words.4
BASIC OBSERVATIONS
The BDAG lexicon identifies at least thirteen Latin loan words that are used in the Synoptic Gospels.5 In the ESV, these words are translated as penny (assarion; e.g., Mt 10:29), denarius (dēnarion; e.g., Mk 6:37), centurion (kentyriōn; Mk 15:39–45); tax (kēnsos; e.g., Mk 12:14), penny (kodrantēs; e.g., Mk 12:42), “a guard of soldiers” (custodia; e.g., Mt 27:65), legion (legion; e.g., Mk 5:9), basket (modios; Mk 4:21), headquarters (praitōrion; e.g., Mk 15:16), handkerchief (soudarion; e.g., Lk 19:20), executioner (spekoulatōr; Mk 6:27), pot (xestēs; Mk 7:4), and scourged (phlagelloō; e.g., Mk 15:15).6 Edwards adds Caesar; however, I suggest that use of a recognized title for a ruler does not support the argument that Mark favors Latin transliterations more so than the other Synoptics, especially since Caesar appears frequently in all three Synoptics.7
In the assessment that follows, the use of these thirteen Latin loan words will be considered more closely. By my count, Matthew utilizes nine of these loan words, with eighteen instances; Mark utilizes ten, with fifteen instances; and Luke utilizes five, with seven instances. Hence, at a surface level it is difficult to claim that Mark is substantively more prone to the use of Latin loan words than Matthew.
UNIQUE EPISODES AND DESCRIPTIONS
For the most part, my observation is that variations in the use of loan words are largely driven by which episodes each Gospel includes and the level of detail provided. This is well illustrated in how the Gospels employ the loan word denarius (dēnarion). Notably, five instances of Matthew’s use of denarius are found within his parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23ff) and the parable of the laborers (Mt 20:1ff); these parables are both unique to Matthew. Similarly, Mark employs denarius within unique descriptive material not found in the other Gospels—as the disciples express concern over the cost of feeding the 5,000 (Mk 6:37) and the cost of the ointment poured on Jesus’ head (Mk 14:5). Likewise, Luke employs denarius in parables which are unique to that Gospel—the parables of the money lender (Lk 7:41ff) and of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35ff). At the same time, all three Synoptics employ denarius as part of the dialog over the payment of taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24). Thus, this one Latin loan word, whose use is most often found within unique episodes or descriptions, accounts for more than a fourth of the overall use of Latin loan words in the Synoptics.
This variability is also evident in the use of other words. Only Matthew speaks of the soldiers on-guard at the tomb (Mt 27:65-66; 28:11) and thereby uniquely includes three instances of custodia. Only Matthew and Luke refer to the buying of sparrows with pennies (assarion; Mt 10:29; Lk 12:06). Only Luke includes the parable of the ten minas, with its associated reference to a handkerchief (soudarion; Lk 19:20). Only Matthew has the dialog over the payment of the temple-tax, where Jesus revisits the question of paying taxes (kēnsos) to the king (Mt 17:25). Furthermore, while all three Synoptics discuss John’s execution, only Mark refers to an executioner (Mt 14:10; Mk 6:27; Lk 9:9). In the garden confrontation, only Matthew has Jesus referring to the twelve legions of angels (Mt 26:53; Mk 14:48; Lk 22:51). Only Matthew and Mark refer to the scourging (phlagelloō) of Jesus before Pilate (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; cf. Lk 23:25).
There is also an instance where Mark adds a Latin loan word to explain another word. Specifically, while Luke refers to the widow’s donation at the temple as being two small coins (lepton; Lk 21:2), Mark adds: “which make a penny (kodrantēs)” (Mk 12:42). This might appear to support Edwards’ loan word argument, except that elsewhere there is a contrast between how Matthew and Luke refer to coinage. In the teaching on reconciling with accusers, Matthew refers to paying “the last penny (kodrantēs)” (Mt 5:26), using Mark’s loan word above, whereas Luke’s similar lesson substitutes lepton (Lk 12:59). This suggests that we ought not put too much weight on which terms are used for coinage, unless we want to argue that both Matthew and Mark were written to a Greco-Roman audience, given their employment of kodrantēs.
A similar situation exists in the question of paying taxes to Caesar, where Luke chooses an alternate word. Matthew and Mark refer to the tax by employing kēnsos (twice in Mt 22:17–19; once in Mk 12:14), whereas Luke substitutes phoros, translated in the ESV as tribute (Lk 20:22).
There is also an instance where Mark employs a Latin loan word as part of an explanation for the Jewish washing of cups, pots (xestēs), and other vessels, in the context of a Pharisaic complaint that the disciples ate with unwashed hands (Mk 7:4). Matthew’s parallel of the Pharisaic complaint does not offer a similar explanation for the Jewish practice (Mt 15:2; also cf. Lk 11:38). Granted, this Latin loan word usage is unique to Mark, but what is more significant is that Mark is adding descriptive material, explaining Jewish customs.
In summary, I contend that this variability in the use of Latin loan words, which is predominantly due to unique episodes and descriptive material, or in the naming of coinage or of taxes, severely undermines any argument that Mark particularly favors these words to an extent that one might infer a Greco-Roman audience. Rather, we must defer to other arguments, such as Mark’s choice of content and of explanatory material, as the basis for claiming a Greco-Roman audience.
ONE INSTANCE WHERE MARK FAVORS A LATIN LOAN WORD
Per my assessment of these thirteen Latin loan words, the only one which might demonstrate that Mark favors Latin loan words in a way that Matthew, in particular, does not, is the word used for centurion. At the foot of the cross, Mark refers to the kentyriōn (three times in Mk 15:39–45), whereas Matthew and Luke employ hekatontarchos (ruler of 100; Mt 27:54; Lk 23:47). Similarly, at the healing of the centurion’s servant, Matthew and Luke also employ hekatontarchos (three times in Mt 8:5–13 and twice in Lk 7:2–6); although, Mark does not recount this episode. This difference might offer speculative support to my belief that Mark was written at the request of the centurion, Cornelius, and friends in Caesarea Maritima, as I have argued elsewhere. And yet, the existence of a single distinctively Markan term can hardly be taken seriously as unambiguous evidence for anything.
CONCLUSION
Quite simply, in my opinion there is simply insufficient evidence based on a review of the Synoptics that Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words implies a Greco-Roman audience. On the other hand, I yet contend that some of Edwards’ other arguments for a Greco-Roman audience do still have merit. Other lines of evidence, such as the “phrasal Latin idioms” highlighted by Rodney Decker may also suggest a Greco-Roman audience.8
- I am using the phrases “transliterated Latin words” and “Latin loan words” interchangeably. ↩︎
- James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Eerdmans, 2002), 10. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Others who use the Latin loanword argument include Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (MacMillan, 1959), 45; Mark L Strauss, Mark, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Zondervan, 2014), 34; Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2008), 11–12. Stein identifies additional Latin loan words in Mark (krabbatos, pygmē), but BDAG and EDNT assert that the origin of these is uncertain. Decker ↩︎
- Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2000). ↩︎
- BDAG identies xestēs as a corruption of sextarius. ↩︎
- Edwards, Mark, 10n18. ↩︎
- Rodney J. Decker, Mark 1-8: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Baylor University Press, 2014), 103. ↩︎
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
