Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

In the commencing verses of Mk. chapter 2, we encounter a terribly fascinating story. I've already approached this episode from one angle, arguing that is suggests that Jesus owned a home near Lake Galilee (click HERE to read that post). I've also argued that this story, as part of a larger narrative, was one that Mark used to begin to show mounting or building hostility towards Jesus by the political and religious leaders of His day. Here, I want to take yet another angle on the story and look at it through carpenter's eyes. Of course, the carpenter I'm referring to here is Jesus. I do not wish to get into the argument about the Greek term "tekton" but I would say that the evidence is clear that it refers to someone who has worked with wood, stone, etc. It is my view that Jesus, indeed, worked in the field of construction. I have wondered too, if being so close to the Lake, He ever helped build boats? But to get to the point, in Mk. 2, we read of an instance...

At present, I am fully persuaded that the author of Mark’s Gospel account was at the least, bilingual with some additional knowledge of Latin and perhaps Hebrew. However, Mark’s first language was the same as that of Jesus: Aramaic. Mark’s second language, which scholars have noted is incredibly rough and quite elementary was Greek. As Moulton has noted, as a translator, Mark’s Greek was always “translation Greek”. Indeed, when Mark wrote his account, he was translating from Aramaic into Greek. This accounts, I believe and so do other text-critics and biblical linguists, for a number of grammatical issues that often crop up in a close reading of Mark’s text. As of late, I’ve written a few posts on Mark 2.26 (the Abiathar passage) and I have continued studying that verse in both it’s immediate and broader literary context. In fact, I went through, found, analyzed and compared every occurrence of the terms “ rb ” and “ khna ” (Aramaic) and their Greek counterparts. If nothing else, the r...

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 ...

While studying the opening verses of Mark again recently, I happened upon an interesting translation issue. In the majority of our ancient manuscripts, Mk. 1.6 retains the term " ακριδας ", a term meaning "locusts". Mk. 1.6, of course, is the verse which notes that in addition to John's clothing habits, he also tended to eat "locusts ( ακριδας ) and honey". However, in a second-century manuscript known as The Gospel of the Ebionites , ακριδας is slightly manipulated and changed to εγκριδος (I found an online version of the text here ). Though the new rendering seems minimal, the meaning of the end-product is quite different: pancakes or tortillas. Of course, both foods were common in the ancient Mediterranean (much as they are all over the world today). Yet, it is fascinating to read this verse as, John ate "tortillas (or pancakes) and honey". (See: Exo. 16.31 where the Hebrew " צףיחת " in the LXX becomes " εγκρις ". ...

Mark 2.23-7 is an interesting pericope. It’s main focus is on Jesus and His disciples who, after picking some grain on the Sabbath, are confronted and challenged by the Pharisees. Though there could be two offenses here, 1) The picking of the grain on the Sabbath (e.g. viewed as work) or, 2) Walking more than the allotted and allowed on the Sabbath. It seems most likely that the first offense is in view. Within this story, though, there is yet another story: Jesus recounts an instance where King David, along with his followers, went into the temple and ate the consecrated bread because they were hungry. (I should say here that there is no reason to doubt that this event concerning David happened, though some have.) To this, I would also add that one need not resort to arguments that either Mark or Jesus got this story wrong or that they misquoted Scripture. It is common, in many commentaries at least, to find persons suggesting that this passage is a clear invention or that it is found...