Search Results

Michael Vicko Zolondek

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8 (2010) 237–253 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/174551911X571076 brill.nl/jshj Th e Authenticity of the First Passion Prediction and the Origin of Mark 8.31-33 Michael Vicko Zolondek University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland

. Vearncombe Redistribution and Reciprocity: A Socio-Economic Interpretation of the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20.1-15) ......................................................... 199 Michael Vicko Zolondek Th e Authenticity of the First Passion Prediction and the Origin of Mark 8

Ray Mckinnis

6 AN ANALYSIS OF MARK X 32-34 BY RAY MCKINNIS Birmingham, Alabama, U.S.A. The third passion prediction in Mark has suffered from a lack of close attention. Mark x 33-34 is of course often referred to and sometimes discussed, but in general the assertions made about it are general and are

Elizabeth Struthers Malbon

like an unclean spirit and called “Satan” by Jesus (8:33). The bright light of “Christ” appears as a complex red/orange/yellow/green/ blue/violet spectrum when refracted by Jesus’ “Son of Man” state- ment, his first of three passion predictions. The christological sur- prise of Mark’s Gospel is that

Michael Licona

against affi rming the historicity of the predictions: supernatural knowledge is beyond the purview of historians, the predictions are inventions of the early Church, and Jesus’ disciples act as though he never made the passion predictions. Upon examination, I con- clude that only the third carries weight

Robert Webb

- tions of Jesus’ day—of precisely how the analogy functions between the world of the parable and the understanding of God’s unexpected good- ness portrayed in the parable. Our second essay, from Michael Zolondek, explores the issues sur- rounding the authenticity of Jesus’ fi rst passion prediction in

Vernon K. Robbins

, Mark viii 27-x 45 contains a unified structure that gives the section a central position in the theology of Mark. Recent analysis has shown a more subtle three-part progression in this section of Mark 1). Each one of the passion predictions itself stands within a unit characterized by three parts (viii

Melanie A. Howard

McWhirter distinguishes Luke from its sources. For example, in a discussion of Jesus’ passion predictions (61–64), McWhirter makes the point that the Lukan Jesus predicts the Messiah’s rejection, but she notes that four of the six predictions in Luke are from Mark or Q and thus not original to Luke. It is

Rikk Watts

reconciled l4 -imply that the glorified Jesus is the com- ing Lord whose way they must prepare (Mal. 3:1; cf. Mark 1:1-3). Thus on this new Sinai, Ps. 2:7 undergirds the summons to accept not Torah per se (Mal. 4:4) but Jesus' words, and in particular the imme- diately preceding passion prediction and the

Questioning Divine δεῖ

On Allowing Texts Not to Say Everything

Peter-Ben Smit

first “passion prediction” as well? Such reluctance would suit the two later passion predictions in 9:31 and 10:33-34, from which a notion of “divine will” is absent, all emphasis is on the prediction as such. Yet, Peter’s reaction in Mark 8:32-33 and Jesus’ vehement response to this might seem to