Argument Summary: Mark uses several Aramaic words in his text which are eliminated by Matthew. These are more likely to be removed by Matthew for reasons of embarrassment (i.e., at Jesus using a "magic word") or for lack of intelligibility.

We will deal with these issues on a per case basis, but a general observation from Farmer [Farm.SP, 172-3] is also helpful. It is quite possible that these foreign words were used for dramatic effect by Mark/Peter, as esoteric words were used for effect in later Christian literature; or as Ireneaus speaks of those who use Hebrew words in churches "the more thoroughly to bewilder" the initiate, or as writers today may insert an obscure Latin phrase for effect. Farmer also notes an example of this added to an account derived from Luke, in the Acts of Pilate, which shows that this is not necessarily a sign of a primitive character. In fact this generally favors no theory of dependence, though it does point to Mark using Peter's oral preaching as a source (in which such "effect" would be particularly dramatic). It should also be noted that Matthew has some "untranslated" Aramaic in his text (Raca, 5:22; treasury, 27:6) so that this is hardly a uniquely Markan phenomenon; Mark also uses corban (7:11) but does not interpret it.