Foreign word or phrases in Greek texts.

[Stuart]

There is no indication Matthew or Mark are aware of Cephas.

I use the term legend rather than person for a reason. Note, it is my view all the NT literature grew up in response to each other - the borrowing and adjusting of legends is an indication of such interaction. When I speak of the Cephas legend and the Peter legend, I separate the notion from any real person; same for the Paul, Simon, Mary (Martha? who seems something of a doppelganger for theological use), and Joseph.

Joseph (Joses), shows up in various roles, including the supposed husband of Mary, human father of Jesus (noted in the genealogies), and as a guy picking up Jesus' body, as well as this person from Cyrene known as Barnabas. Like the Peter and Paul legends, we need to consider all of Joseph legends as related. Simon is another morphing name that seems to have many legends, including being a brother of Jesus, a leper, a Magician, possibly the name of Paul, and also Peter, also Cephas, also Bar-Jona, and among the secondary Apostles with either a Cananaean a Zealot designation, or as Simon Iscariot the father of Judas, not to mention somebody named Simeon (Luke 2:25-35). I think what I'm trying to say is we need to consider all the Joseph legends together in the same way we do the Paul legends, and I say the same for the Simon legends.

As for other non-biblical examples, I'm not the guy to ask. My view on Mark's Gospel is similar to Kunigunde Kreuzerin, in that I see a patterns in his usage and word formatting. The section of verses 15:33-39 shows many Markan features and style. This leads me to suspect the entire passage between καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ in 15:34 and ἐξέπνευσεν in 15:37 was his own invention.

The Gospels in my view were revised, especially on critical points like this, at least a few times, making it impossible to say which one leads to which based purely on mechanics. Although I think Mark wrote this passage which found it's way into Matthew, I do not think Mark was written before Matthew or more specifically that Matthew knew Mark, rather that after various minor revisions (mostly to harmonize with each other), the version we have of Matthew came to includes the Markan passage, although the style is half lost.

[Ben C. Smith]

Aaron Pelttari, in "Approaches to the Writing of Greek in Late Antique Latin Texts," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (pages 461-482), gives the example of Augustine, who wrote in Latin but sometimes used Greek terms:

Augustine, City of God:

11.23: In libris enim, quos appellat [Origenes] Peri archon, id est De principiis.

11.34: pituitam, quod graece phlegma dicitur.

12.2: sicut enim ab eo, quod est sapere, vocatur sapientia, sic ab eo, quod est esse, vocatur essentia, novo quidem nomine, quo usi veteres non sunt Latini sermonis auctores, sed iam nostris temporibus usitato, ne deesset etiam linguae nostrae, quod Graeci appellant usian.

13.24: Sive autem formavit sive finxit quis dicere voluerit, quod Graece dicitur eplasen, ad rem nihil interest.

13.24: Semper autem iste Spiritus in Scripturis sanctis Graeco vocabulo pneuma dicitur.

13.24: non ait Graecus pneuma, quod solet dici Spiritus Sanctus, sed pnoen, quod nomen in creatura quam in Creatore frequentius legitur; unde nonnulli etiam Latini propter differentiam hoc vocabulum non spiritum, sed flatum appellare maluerunt.

13.24: Quod itaque Graece pnoe dicitur, nostri aliquando flatum, aliquando spiritum, aliquando inspirationem vel aspirationem, quando etiam Dei dicitur, interpretati sunt; pneuma vero numquam nisi spiritum.

13.24: quantum ad Graecos adtinet, non pnoen videmus scriptum esse, sed pneuma; quantum autem ad Latinos, non flatum, sed spiritum.

13.24: si Graecus non pnoen, sicut ibi legitur, sed pneuma posuisset... pneuma.

13.24: non Graecus pneuma sed pnoen dixerit.

13.24: in Graeco non dixit pneuma, sed pnoen.

14.8: Quas enim Graeci appellant euphatias, Latine autem Cicero constantias nominavit.

14.8: et illas tres esse constantias, has autem quattuor perturbationes secundum Ciceronem, secundum autem plurimos passiones. Graece autem illae tres, sicut dixi, appellantur euphatiae; istae autem quattuor pathae.

14.9: aphatia graece dicitur, quae si Latine posset impassibilitas diceretur... apathia... apathia... apathia.

15.5: exemplo et, ut Graeci appellant, archeotypo.

15.23: Qui enim graece dicitur angelos, quod nomen latina declinatione angelus perhibetur, Latina lingua nuntius interpretatur.

16.4: Quod non intellegentes nonnulli ambiguo Graeco falsi sunt, ut non interpretarentur contra Dominum, sed ante Dominum; enantion quippe et contra et ante significat.

16.21: quam Graeci vocant yperbolen.

16.26: sciat aeternum a nostris interpretari, quod Graeci appellant aeonion, quod a saeculo derivatum est; aeon quippe graece saeculum nuncupatur... aeonion autem quod dicitur, aut non habet finem aut usque in huius saeculi tenditur finem.

16.37: sine fictione … quod est Graece aplastos.

Pelttari also notes that Augustine writes, in Ad Simplicianum 2.1.1, aut per demonstrationem in extasi, quod Latini nonnulli pavorem interpretantur; in Contra Epistolam Parmeniani 10, cata iohannē (for κατὰ Ἰωάννην); and, in Contra Epistolam Parmeniani 29, informem quamdam materiem... confusum nescio quid atque omnino expers omni qualitate, unde illud quidam doctores Graeci apaeon vocant (for ἄποιον).

Pelttari adds:

Aaron Pelttari, "Approaches to the Writing of Greek in Late Antique Latin Texts," page 467: Augustine clearly intended that they be understood as Greek. For example, in 12.2 he draws attention to the difference between Latin and Greek: what the Romans call essentia, the Greeks call usia. At 13.23 he cites eplasen, the conjugated form of the verb rather than the infinitive. And at 15.23 he gives both the Latin declension of and a Latin translation for angelos. Augustine was not using these Greek words as loan words, i.e. foreign words already incorporated into his own language.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also:

Alex Mullen, "'In Both Our Languages': Greek-Latin Code-Switching in Roman Literature," page 4: The second-century AD author Aulus Gellius, who knew the letter writer Fronto, provides us with testimony of conversations between Fronto and various interlocutors which contain a total of seventeen (all but one intra-sentential) code-switches from Latin into Greek. Seven of these may not properly be considered code-switches as they are simply the citation of the Greek words under discussion, but the other ten have functions which seem to reflect relatively accurately those in Fronto’s correspondence: 6 'Greek term more appropriate'; 1 literary quotation; 1 proverb; 1 title of a comedy; 1 quotation of an interlocutor.

Alex Mullen, "'In Both Our Languages': Greek-Latin Code-Switching in Roman Literature," page 9: Forty-seven letters [in the Fronto collection], or c. 20%, display code-switching. Marcus writes letters containing code-switching marginally more often than Fronto, at a ratio of roughly 26%:20%, though the latter switches slightly more times in total than the former (63:61). The other correspondents provide so few letters that percentages are not meaningful.