PETER’S POOR GREEK
When the Gospel of Mark is compared with those of Matthew and Luke, a pattern is seen. According to literary analysis, the grammar, vocabulary, sentence construction, style and idiom of Mark’s gospel is in poorer Greek than that found in the parallel verses of the others.
Examples will illustrate this: In Mark 1:12, we read ‘drove’, while Matthew has ‘led up’ and Luke ‘led`. Both of these are more refined styles.
In Mark 2:4, the paralytic is described as
lying on a ‘pallet’. This was a slang word for ‘bed’. The other two are using better Greek.
In Mark 10:20, the aorist middle of the Greek
verb ‘ephylaza’ is used instead of the aorist active The aorist active is correctly used by the other two writers.
Literary analysis highlights other differences between the Gospels.
1. There are clear Aramaic expressions to be found in Mark, which are missing in five parallel accounts in Luke. They are also missing in five of the seven parallel accounts in Matthew. These are: Boanerges (3:14-17), Talitha cumi (5:40-41), Corban (7:9-13), Ephphatha (7:32-35), Abba (14:13-36), Golgotha (15:22-23) Eloi Eloi (15:34).
2. Mark`s gospel has a primitive freshness
and a vivid style compared to those of Matthew and Luke. This unsophisticated style can be seen in the frequent
use of ‘Immediately’ or ‘And’ when commencing a paragraph.
4. Mark’s Gospel has apparently added unimportant
pieces of information, such as the reference to a cushion (Mark 4: 38). This can be explained as Peter, while reading
from Matthew 8; 23-27, remembers the scene and the cushion.
10/11/2014 [G 295]