Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

In study #76 of my “Studies in Mark” series, I explored some issues surrounding the “time” of Jesus’ crucifixion in the four Gospel accounts. In the main, I gave some thoughts on how time was viewed, understood and used in Mediterranean antiquity and how these factors should be borne in mind when reading the various NT accounts. In the end, I concluded that in the work titled “John” (and the same is true of Luke) the author’s are using temporal approximations—in more simple terms: they were saying “Jesus was crucified at about or around such and such time of day.” John says Jesus was crucified at about Noon while Mark says it was 9am. The fact is, John is clearly approximating when he uses the word “about” (again, Luke does the same). Mark does not offer a specific word that denotes approximation; at first glance he seems to be more specific. However, given the cultural norms of time-telling back then, any seemingly specific time that was given should still be taken lightly. To find o...

Doug Chaplin has come out with arguments against my previous post titled " Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2 ". Though Doug's comments on non-biblical not being the same as unbiblical are thought provoking, I am wholly unconvinced by the rest of his argument. Here is the last paragraph (you can read the column in full, here ), which I will argue against in this post: "Non-biblical is not the same as unbiblical. Anyone who wants to protest at the cave tradition in order to maintain the integrity of the canonical narratives, will need first to make up their mind which narrative to maintain. If you can’t have a cave, then you must also choose between shepherds versus Magi, or a journey to Bethlehem versus a flight into Egypt. Or you can expound both narratives with integrity, still delight in an overarching Christmas narrative, adore the Christ-child through a typical crib scene, and bring the whole into a creative interaction." Doug's traditional approa...