Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

It is not uncommon when reading a Lukan commentary or article, to find that commentator repeatedly pointing out that Luke loves role reversal. One of the best examples that persons often point to in Luke’s story is that of Lazarus and the rich man. As the story goes, Lazarus is poor here on earth where the rich overlook him. However, in the next life, it is Lazarus who is higher in rank than the man who had previously been wealthy. While it is commonplace to find such statements among Lukan scholars, it is rarely (if ever) pointed out that in Mark’s narrative, this also happens quite frequently. This notion of reversal, which I refer to in literary terms as “cruciality” is sometimes easy to spot and other times more difficult. This device of pivot, which produces a radical reversal or complete change of direction can be used by a speaker or author to illumine the material on either side of the pivot. Just as well, the cruciality can have major narrative as well as social & theologi...

While I am quite comfortable with the decisions I've made concerning the beginning of Mark's Gospel, the end has left me in a rather enigmatic state. Lately, I've been wondering if it might be the case that Mark's beginning helps us make sense of his ending? Here's what I've been thinking (and two papers at SBL helped me clarify some issues surrounding this matter, notably, those of Eve-Marie Becker and James McGrath): If Mark's beginning is "Isaianic", that is, drawing on and shaped by Isaiah, then this affects how we understand whether or not 16.9-16 were originally included or not. So, for instance, when Mark quotes Isa. 40.3 at the start of his text, he is surely being purposeful about it. But what is the purpose? My thinking is that, if one goes back to Isa. 40.3 (and the surrounding texts), they will see that Isaiah is concerned with "the sin of the people being paid for", a comforting message, "the glory of the Lord revealed...

Below are some statistics from my own study of the first chapter of Mark's Gospel. Of course, this is one of sixteen chapters, so, it's only part of the picture-hence the lack of commentary on all of the details. Still, I have included a few thoughts on a number of items I found interesting in the course of my data gathering. · 433 Words (repeats are not counted as separate words, however, derivatives are) · 20 Most Used Terms (mostly connectives, conjunctions or pronouns—makes it clear that this is a narrative): 1. και (76) 2. εις (15) 3. εν (15) 4. αυτου (13) 5. ο (12) 6. την (12) 7. ευθυς (11) 8. αυτον (10) 9. αυτω (10) 10. τον (9) 11. του (8) 12. ην (7) 13. η (6) 14. προς (6) 15. τη (6) 16. το (6) 17. τω (6) 18. της (5) 19. λεγων (5) 20. δε (5) · No words that begin with “ksee”, “rho” or “psi” · 142 Nouns · 82 Pronouns · 30 Adjectives · 101 Verbs · 27 Adverbs (majority coming after 1.15) · 94 Articles · 61 Prepositions It is clear from the above elements that Mark is tellin...

Some thoughts on Mk. 1.1 in regards to translation(s): Grk : Αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιησου Χριστου υιου Θεου Arm : רשא דאונגליון דישוע משיחא ברה דאלהא Frn : Le commencement de l'Evangile de Jésus-Christ, Fils de Dieu; Grm : Dis ist der anfang des Euangelii, von Ihesu Christo, dem Son Gottes, The first word of the Markan account raises some questions as it lacks a definite article or a temporal marker. For example, before Αρχη one might have expected to see τη , εν or some other referent (see Mk. 13.8 for example, the only other place in Mk. where αρχη shows up). The addition of such terms (often supplied in modern translations) would have suggested a specific time. However, with the absence of any such term, the text reads: “A Beginning” or more stringently, “Beginning”. (*Note: This same phenomenon occurs in the Hebrew--and LXX--at Gen. 1.1. Read my brief post about that here .) The reader might also notice that Αρχη is the only nominative in verse 1. The other six terms are a...

As we all know, the Synoptic Gospels are not in arranged in any strict chronological order. One only needs to sit the Gospel accounts side-by-side to realize this. Today, scholars are more prone to finding a literary arrangement of the materials in each work, as opposed to a chronological one. For example, it has been suggested that each work is arranged thematically. Others have suggested that the Gospel accounts are ordered theologically. I could list many similar arguments but I will abstain from doing so. As a student of Mark’s Gospel, I am becoming more and more inclined to seeing Mark’s work as chronological. I think there are many evidences of this—even literary markers seem to suggest so. In the remainder of this post, then, I want to give some thoughts on why, at my present level of understanding, I think Mark’s Gospel is chronologically arranged. Before I delve into that, though, I should qualify this statement with a couple of comments. Firstly, when I say “chronological” I ...