occultism in textual writers - Hoskier, Ginsburg, Westcott-Hort - also Mark in Latin

Steven Avery

PBF - sister threads.

Westcott and Hort occultism - seance and 'communion of saints'

occultism in textual writers - Hoskier, Ginsburg, Westcott-Hort - also Mark in Latin

Hort's secrecy Roby curse for the Cambridge Apostles

This is an interesting paper. Even from my Reformation Bible perspective, I would have liked to see a bit more about his occult dabbling. (A similar question arises with Christian David Ginsburg, although not as clear-cut.)

However, there seems to be a glaring omission.


Juan Hernandez, Jr.

"Aramaic Originals
Hoskier’s theory also serves to bring us closer to the original. That is to say, to the original language * or languages * of the New Testament. Hoskier thought it probable that books like Matthew, the Apocalypse, Mark, and even Luke were originally written in Aramaic. ... The idea of Aramaic originals, of course, was not distinctive to Hoskier." p. 4

Now I realize that this review is focusing on his Apocalypse writings,

When we go to:

Codex B and Its Allies (1914)
Chapter IV. Concerning the Genesis of the Latin Version of St. Mark's Gospel

We get a strong linguistic and historical case (one made by numerous other scholars over the years) that Mark was written in Latin. (Allowing alternative possibilities like two editions or a Graeco-Latin dialect.)


Hoskier Quotes on Mark

"To put the matter into as few words as possible, before the new Greek ms W was discovered my studies had already led me to consider that the ancients were probably right when they said that St. Mark had both preached and written his Gospel in the Latin tongue [see subscription to the Syriac vulgate and to some of our Greek manuscripts].

My impressions to-day are that the Gospel of Mark was written originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately*that the Latin went to Latin Africa*thence to Greek Egypt, where it was translated into Greek. [But see the quotation further on from St. Jerome in connection with the testimony of Clement of Alexandria.] Hence a double Greek recension visible all along the line. .......

Thus Blass. I do not think there is much which points to an Aramaic original. - p. 126

It is quite unnecessary to repeat that St. Mark probably wrote his Gospel at Rome for Roman readers, and it is beside the mark to say that Greek was the current or polite language of the city or that the names of the early leaders and Popes were Greek names. The oral Gospel appealed first as thoroughly to the oppressed servants and slaves of the Roman households as to their masters; and what was the language of the common people ? Of the converted butchers, bakers and purveyors to these households? Of the masons, blacksmiths, carpenters etc? Of the Christian attaches and employes of the baths and places of public entertainment ? The catacombs tell us, and the inscriptions speak in no uncertain voice that the Latin and Greek tongues were in a state of flux in St. Mark’s day. ... p. 130

This is totally different than what is said about the language of Mark in the paper.
Did Hoskier simply do a 180 turn-around? Did Juan Hernandez Jr. miss something?

In the bigger picture, I do not believe the Mark in Latin understanding is given proper consideration in New Testament Scholarship -- worldwide ! :)

Your help on this appreciated!

Steven Avery
Last edited: