ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ ⸂υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ⸃ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. – Galatians 2.20 I need to write this down to clear it up some and to have on recall for later. So… As you know, my dissertation proposes a unique model of atonement in Galatians based on Jesus’s voluntary death — he voluntarily surrendered himself to die for/in order to bring about/X the new creation/covenant. I usually just drop the suicide bomb. While I will explain the actual
One of the essential tools of mimetic criticism is the use of cues early in the text. We look for these as early as possible in the primary text so that as we read through, the secondary texts come through. This intertextuality is important — because it doesn’t just make cute allusions, but uses the previous text (preserving it, often times) to build an ideological (in our case, theological) aural atmosphere in which to read the text. This is the case with the Gospel of Mark. If we miss these cues, we miss the points Mark is trying to
This is part of my CTP class, and… well, my book, and studies, etc… I know people will disagree, but I think Mark writes in such a way as to constantly question his audience — to drive them into self-realization.
“The word of God.” That is a title we often use for Scripture and as such, it seems that this is the intent of Hebrews 4.12-13. The message of God. The Law. The Gospel. Something dealing with God’s utterance. I hear that interpretations to the contrary are largely abandoned. The christological explanation has been generally abandoned since Calvin, even by A. T. Hanson 1965, who interprets the previous passage christologically. If the word of God were intended to mean Christ, one would not expect him to be compared with an inanimate object such as a weapon.1 What sayeth ye?
These are notes from my CTP Class – but I wanted to put them here for a few reasons. And look… I made a video: Why Isaiah and not “the prophets” or at least Malachi? Why is Mark… wrong? He’s not. He’s trying to draw your mind into something. He wants his hearers to understand something profound about Jesus. These are what I would call mimetic cues. He begins by calling it Isaiah…something clearly “wrong… but this is a way to draw your attention. I think it is meant to draw your attention to at least two levels of
There may be simply several sources for Mark 1.1. I tend to think it comes directly from the Priene Calendar inscription, setting GMark as the anti-Roman Gospel. This is Mark 1.1 in the Greek: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. This is the calendar inscription: ἦρξεν δὲ τῶι κὀσμωι τῶι δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίων ἡ γενέυλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ But, what if it is pointing to Genesis 1.1? ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν Another possibility is that it comes from Greek Hosea, 1.2 Ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ωσηε What would Mark 1.1 mean depending on the
This was posted in 2009, but written some time before that. My Thursday Morning CTP class is going to study Mark’s Gospel next and I wanted to do something different. I maintained then and still do so today that Mark is meant to be read as mad-dash play-by-play commentary. This is an early work and I will be updating it over the coming weeks, adding to it, refining it. I have two more chapters to work on as well and then to finish the entire book. My goal is to make GMark readable, but rushed, and live-action. I have left