There is a theory that Mark's Gospel was originally written in Latin.

I've already argued on this Blog from Biblical References that John Mark spent time in Rome but not Peter.

Mark contains over half of the New Testament's Laitnisms, Laitnisms are inevitable just because of Rome's influence at the time.  But Mark a couple of times actually explains Semitic words using Latin ones.

Now I should clarify that no one proposing this thinks The Vulgate version of Mark is the original Latin version of Mark.  That text is still viewed as Jerome's translation of a Greek Mark as it is for the rest of the New Testament.

David Bruce Gain is one scholar who's been a proponent of this theory.  He has made his own personal reconstruction of what he thinks the original Latin text was, and his own English Translation of that Latin version.  I do disagree with him sometimes, for one he ends Mark with Mark 16:8 which is a theory I reject and may be the subject of it's own post in the future.

And on the subject of Mark 16:1 I disagree with "the Sabbath was past" being an interpolation "based on Matthew 28:1".  What Mark says here is distinct form how it's phrased in Matthew, and because neither Latin or Greek had a word for "week" in the first century this detail was necessary to clarify that the Sabbath following the Passion was over.  Torah literate readers would see it as referring to the instructions for First Fruits.

There is a limit to how much I'd be willing to change Mark based on this theory.  If Mark was originally in Latin I still feel the Textus Receptus (not any Alexandrian manuscripts) version of Mark is a very accurate Greek Translation of that Latin.  And I also think the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of the original Latin not the Greek.

I believe the Simon of Matthew 16 and Mark 14 was a Jar-Maker not a Leper, what that would mean for the textual history of Mark or Matthew (which I believe was originally written in Hebrew) I can't say for certain yet.  Though the ablity of the Peshita to get it right if it was using a Latin source even though the Greek got it wrong from the same source implies that Latin text transliterated rather then translated the title.

The robe placed on Jesus at his Trial and Execution I believe was a red robe that the soldiers described as purple mockingly and that's how we reconcile apparent contradictions there.  What's interesting is how only Mark mentioned the Color Purple.  So Mark has Jesus seemingly clothed in Purple with a Crown of Thrones and a staff, and presumably blood on his face.  Mark is making Jesus look like the Triumphitor of a Roman Triumph.  Yet there are two roles in the Triumph Jesus is playing, he's also the enemy of Rome (proclaimed King of The Jews) being humiliated and sacrificed to the Heavenly Father.

Now there are reasons why my Universal Salvation allies might be a little worried about suggesting any book was originally in Latin, we like to blame Latin translations for the issues we have with how certain passages read in modern English.

However Mark has no equivalent to Matthew 25's parables, I have argued for Universal Salvation being compatible with the KJV, and again we don't think the Vulgate is the original.  4th and 5th Century Latins are a factor in these problems, but Greek speakers like Cyril of Alexandria also helped.  I think we've perhaps been too hard on Tertullian for example.

David Bruce Gain's translation of his reconstruction of Mark 3:29, the only verse in Mark where the KJV uses "Eternal" in reference to punishment.  "but one who blasphemes against the dedicated breath will be penalized.He will be guilty of wrongdoing for ever".

This reading fits pretty well with how I interpret the "unpardonable sin" issue based on studying it mainly via Matthew.  This is the one sin where you can't get out of the punishment by genuinely repenting.  But that doesn't mean the punishment is Endless Torment or Annihilation.

Later in Chapter 9 David Bruce Gain's proposed original Latin does use a Latin transliteration of Gehenna every time you see Gehenna in the Greek, it's never simply "translated" infernus like the Vulgate often does.  I don't know if he has pre-Vulgate texts to support that or if it's just an inference.

However I do feel Gain is wrong on verse 49, he removed all references to Salt and has that verse just refer to being consumed by fire.  Now I think it's possible his version of verse 50 could be correct, but even he still has salt being referenced in verse 50, he has pay off with no set up.

He recognizes that this section is drawing on the very last verse of the book of Isaiah.  But that's not the only Old Testament reference in mind here, there is also Leviticus 2:13 and Deuteronomy 29:23., and maybe also Ezekiel 16:4, 43:24 and 47:11.

Update:  I'm starting to feel like I'm guilty of some hypocrisy in how I treated the Vulgate up above.

I strongly advocate for favoring the Received Text when it comes to the Greek (Textus Receptus over Alexandrian variations) the Aramaic (Peshita) and even for favoring the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter over the Akhmim manuscript IF I were to entertain treating it as canonical.  But once I became aware of the possibility of a book being originally in Latin the anti Vulgate sentiments of my Protestantism clouded my judgment.

My interpretation of Mark 3:29 is perfectly compatible with the Vulgate reading, since the word it uses in place of the KJV's "Damnation" is "delicti" which Google translate says simply means "offense" and "in danger of " actually means "guilty of".  So "is guiltily of an eternal offense" works perfectly.  I still consider Matthew closer to what Jesus actually said, but this can be a valid expression of the same idea.

Also, I was flat out wrong on Gehenna, the Vulgate never "translates" it Infernus, every single time Gehenna is in the Greek the Vulgate says Gehenna too.  Now David Bruce Gain's reconstruction has a different transliteration, but that's not a difference worth slipping hairs over.

Hades is what the Vulgate likes to "translate" infernus, but Hades doesn't appear in Mark.  Hell in the context of what Hel/Hella was in Norse mythology was originally a perfectly fine equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades, it's using the same word for Hades that caused what Hell means to be confusing.  In 1 Corinthians 15:55 the Hades/Grave/Hell half of the verse is dropped entirely which mutilates the very poetic structure of the passage.  Somehow the Vulgate uses both inferni and tartarum in 2 Peter 2:4.

My belief that Infernus was fundamentally wrong was a mistaken understanding of Latin combined with my nerdy reasons for thinking it should have been Orcus.  I had it in my head that it meant fiery first and became a name for Hell when used in Bible translations.  It's the reverse however, it's literal Latin meaning is "the lower world".   The Aeneid, a Latin epic poem inspired by Homer's epics uses Infernus of Hades.

I think every place where I explicitly expressed disagreement with Gain would put me in agreement with the Vulgate.

Except for what I hypothesized about Simon the Leper, the Vulgate like Gain definitely says Leper here.  I'm also starting to doubt Hebrew Matthew will support the Jar-Maker reading given what I've seen from people talking about the known texts so far.  So it seems like the Peshita may be the one guilty of a scribal error there.

The fact that the name of Bethany probably comes from "House of the Poor" or "House of affliction" supports the idea that Lepers would be concerned.  I do believe the Bethany siblings themselves were wealthy, probably devoting much of their time to helping the poor in this area.  It's possible Simon wasn't called "The Leper" because he was a Leper but because of an association with helping and caring for them.

Maybe the meaning of the name of Simon/Simeon/Simonis is the key, which means hearing or to regard.  Maybe it meant the House of hearing the Lepers?

There is also the theory that Simon the Leper and Lazarus are the same person.  I've long been unsatisfied by the theory that the etymology of Lazarus is a form of the Hebrew Eleazer, every Hebrew name that begins with El still has the E in their NT Greek forms.  And Josephus used Lazarus in Wars 5.18.7 even though he used Eleazar often.  Well the Hebrew word Leper used in the Torah in Leviticus 13 and 14 is Tsara or Zara, the Hebrew letter Tzadi usually becomes a Zeta in Greek.  And L' is a Hebrew prefix usually interpreted to mean "to" but seems to sometimes be used as an alternate definitive article.  During Greco-Roman times if people knew the Hellenic/Latin words for this condition began with an L the L prefix here could have been wordplay.  The other Lazarus in The Bible in Luke 16 seems to be described as a Leper even though traditionally no word for Leper is used there, and since it's a parable personal names shouldn't be used there.

Another Update: Vetus Latina

I had thought that Pre-Vulgate versions existed only in fragments.  But this is an independent received tradition that existed along side the Vulgate virtually until Trent, and there is a roughly 350 dated manuscript of the Gospels.