Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

One question that has intrigued Gospels scholars for centuries, especially those with Markan affinities, is: Why is the wilderness temptation narrative so short (and pretty much absent) from Mark's Gospel? This is something that I have pondered for a while too and until now, I have not said much about it. Before I offer my thoughts on the matter, though, it might be best to say a little more about the subject. Usually, this topic comes up when bible scholars are discussing the "synoptic problem" (a discussion that focuses on the order in which the Gospel accounts were written; for example, was Mk. written first or was Mk. based on Mt. & Lk.?). As I have said a number of times in this series and on this site, in my opinion, the so-called "synoptic problem" is not really much of a "problem" at all. Anyway, I won't get into that again in this post. But in regards to the temptation narrative and the synoptic problem, text and literary critics often...

For those of you who frequent Pisteuomen, you are well aware that I have had an ongoing study of Mark's Gospel since the commencement of this blog. For those of you who are newer to Pisteuomen or are visiting for the first time, well, now you know! At the summons of others, I have decided to take the fruits of my labors and place them on a page all of their own. So, if you look at the top of the site, just below the header, you will see the words "Studies In Mark". Click that and it will take you to the aforementioned page. From this point on, I will add each new study to the page so that the ongoing list will always be updated and maintained. Enjoy! *Note: I have also updated the "Misc." page quite a bit. I have placed things in categories and tidied the page up a bit. If you notice sermon or audio links that say something about "Mozart" be warned that this is not an error of my doing and that I am currently working to fix those links.

A couple of weeks ago, I had one of those “aha” moments while reading through Mk. 13. I have argued in a previous post that there is no validity to referring to that chapter as apocalyptic (much less “the little apocalypse”). I argued in that same post that it is errant to read Mk. 13 as an eschatological treatise as well—that is, if by “eschatological” one is referring to the “end times” or the Second Coming of Christ, etc. A close, sensible contextual reading of Mk. 13 rules out any of the above readings (I realized this when, in a Bible study I was leading, one of a few recovering backwoods Dispensationalists said: “Michael, any person with a lick of sense or a shred of reading ability can see that this [Mk. 13] is not about the end of the world but about the Temple’s destruction in Jerusalem). I must say, a straightforward reading of Mk. 13 is one that results in understanding that this chapter is about the Temple’s destruction, not the world’s end and it is certainly not about the...

First of all, this is post #500 for me, sort of a blogger milestone for most people. That's kind of neat, I guess. Anyway... Some time ago, I wrote a post that dealt with the Aramaisms, Hebraisms and Latinisms is Mark’s Gospel ( to read it click here ). I contended there that, Mark’s work was oriented towards a predominantly Gentile/Roman people group; it is likely, in my view, that the beginning stages of the Gospel According to Mark were composed in the city of Rome. I still maintain these views. I do wish, however, to note that while the majority of Mark’s audiences may have been Roman, it seems sensible to suggest that he would have shared his story with Hebrew/Israelite people too. A question to posit here is: If to Hebrews/Israelites, why, then, would Mark include all of the Hebraisms, Aramaisms, etc. along with explanations of them? Actually, this question leads into my working theory on how Mark’s audiences (and the internal evidence of the text) may help us understand some...

I do not find it unusual or surprising that Markan commentaries all say the same thing when it comes to Mk. 3.31-5. It is in those verses that Jesus, before His blood kin, points to the crowds and says, “These are my family” (paraphrase). Every commentator says of these verses, something like: “Here, Jesus is redefining kinship relations.” The same comments are made concerning Mk. 10.29-30. There, Jesus appears to be telling the people “Leave your families and God will bless you.” It is my view that Jesus is not saying that at all (I may do a post on those verses in the future). But I wonder if we should pause and think through Mk. 3.31-5 a little more? I’m not so sure that Jesus is attempting to redefine kinship there. For starters, I don’t think He’s shunning His blood kin. Secondly, I don’t think He’s relegating them to a lower status. Thirdly, the fact that Peter (ch. 1) and Jesus (ch. 6) both return to their families in Mk. suggests to me that the Jesus Movement was not attempting...

For the most part, commentaries on Mark’s Gospel tend to offer some very unsatisfying answers when it comes to Mk. 11.5, the scene where Jesus’ disciples untie the donkey (and colt) and take them for a ride up to the Jerusalem Temple. Early commentators wrestled with an ethical dilemma that they thought this passage posed: Jesus advocating stealing. (Of course, this also posed a theological dilemma as well.) So, theological arguments were concocted so as to explain that it was impossible for Jesus to advocate stealing. Yet, all of the ethical and theological misgivings disappear when we stop taking this story on its own and begin reading it with the larger narrative of Mark’s Gospel in mind. In fact, we see very quickly that there is no ethical dilemma and that Jesus was in fact, not thieving. First of all, Jesus picked the donkey(s) up in Bethany (11.5) and brought them back the same night (11.11). Stealing? Not quite. Borrowing? Yes. Usually, when we borrow something from someone, we...

With a little help from C. Clifton Black and some bible dictionaries, I offer here the maximalist’s approach to Mark’s Gospel (not because I agree with all of it!). Of course, there are a number of nuances when it comes to this view but what follows is, in general, the usual approach. It should also be said that there are minimalist methods that shoot down all of what follows (a method, which also has it’s own nuanced viewpoints) but ultimately, one must decide which is approach is the best or they must strive to see if there is yet another way to think about Mark’s work (which, isn’t out of the question)! I want to start by listing all of the New Testament verses that talk about or mention the fellow named “John”, “Mark” or “John Mark”. Usually, maximalists approach texts this way in order to try to reconstruct Mark’s identity and his role within the early Jesus Movement. Here are the verse references, in a specific order, which will help construct the profile that follows: Acts ...

It is quite common these days to hear persons make the following argument (usually related, in some way to the issues of inerrancy, inspiration or the Bible’s authority): “Faith comes by hearing not by reading.” In fact, it is my belief that this point is argued so often that it has now become mainstream. Recently, I came upon it while reading an article by one of my favorite scholars. In the article, the scholar attempted to bolster this argument by saying things such as: 1) Jesus never said, “Faith comes by reading” and, 2) The culture of the New Testament was oral in nature and the literacy rate was below 10%. This is one of the reasons why Jesus never said that faith comes by reading. However, I think when persons make such arguments they are doing so in a manner that is theologically and Scripturally irresponsible. Indeed, the New Testament alone suggests that in addition to faith coming by hearing (see the oft-cited passage, Rom. 10.17), faith also comes by reading! Before moving...

I want to say "thanks" to WJK publishers for sending me a copy of the New Testament Library commentary on Mark (by Eugene M. Boring). I'm excited about engaging this text and I'll post a review of it on Pisteuomen after working through it. This gift is very much appreciated.

( based on Mk. 7.24-30 ) There once was a woman from Tyre She had a daughter with demons inside her She saw Christ and fell down Then He called Her a hound Good thing she wasn't a biter

One of the things that I love about Mark’s account of the Gospel is that when it comes to showing the emotions of Jesus, Mark is “no holds barred.” For example, Mark repeatedly shows the angry side of Jesus; a side that few of us ever think of except when we hear about the temple episode (a.k.a. the temple tantrum). Yet, there are a few places where Mark shows Jesus getting upset. For example, in Mk. 1.41, the text in English reads: 40. “A man with leprosy came to Him and begged Him on his knees, ‘If You are willing You can make me clean.’ 41. Jesus was compassionate (or indignant). He reached out His hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ He said, ‘Be clean!’” Now if you noticed, in verse 41, the term “indignant” or “angry” can stand in the place of compassionate. Indeed, a number of early manuscripts have orgistheis (angry) instead of the traditional splagchnistheis (compassionate). Of course, the term “compassionate” fits the story well and makes for a simple reading. However, ...

This post is the beginning of a new study series that I'm going to be doing on Mark's account of the Gospel. Actually, I might consider the old post " Did Jesus Own a Home " the first of these but I wrote that about a month ago; by the way, you might want to check this out again, some more discussion is being generated from it. As I noted in a brief post yesterday, I am going to try to offer more thoughts on Mark's work more frequently on this blog. I hope this generates some good discussion. Enjoy. When I was a child, I grew up listening to some of the great musicians of the 70’s and 80’s. One of my favorites—who I still enjoy listening to today—includes Bob Seger. Thanks to Chevy, Seger is probably best known for his hit song “Like A Rock.” And though he does have quite a repertoire of songs, his second most famous tune is “Ol’ Time Rock-n-Roll.” The lyrics say, “Just take those ol’ records off the shelf, I sit and listen to them by myself…” And though that was ...

Just wanted to post a note that starting tomorrow, I will begin a series of posts on issues in Mark's account of the Gospel. I will try to add posts in this series about every other day. I want to do it this way so that I can use the in-between days to address various other topics. Anyways, I hope to generate some good thought and discussion. --Michael