“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #2C3E50; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
h2 { font-size: 1.8em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.3em; }
h3 { font-size: 1.4em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: justify; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #BDC3C7; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
An Exegetical Examination of the Genitive Phrase in Mark 1:1
This exegetical study of “An Exegetical Examination of the Genitive Phrase in Mark 1:1” is based on a recent b-greek discussion concerning the opening verse of Mark’s Gospel. The discussion initially posed questions regarding the grammatical function of the genitive phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Iēsou Christou) in Mark 1:1, specifically whether it should be understood as a possessive modifier of εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion, “Gospel”) in the first clause. Furthermore, it raised the possibility of the phrase being a later textual addition, citing its perceived “clumsiness” or “hanging” position at the end of the initial statement as potential evidence for its non-originality.
The main exegetical issue at stake involves two interrelated problems: the precise semantic relationship expressed by the genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in its context, and the textual integrity of this phrase itself, often intertwined with the presence or absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”) in some manuscripts. Interpreters must determine whether the genitive denotes ownership, origin, content, or subject, and concurrently evaluate the manuscript evidence for its inclusion, considering internal criteria such as perceived stylistic awkwardness against external manuscript support.
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
(Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) reads: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (Archē tou euangeliou Iēsou Christou Huiou Theou).
- The primary difference is the inclusion of Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (“Son of God”) in SBLGNT, which is not present in Nestle 1904 (nor in critical editions like NA28 which bracket it).
- Apart from this significant textual variant, punctuation and orthography are largely consistent.
Textual Criticism (NA28):
The NA28 apparatus for Mark 1:1 indicates significant textual variation regarding the phrase Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. While Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is almost universally attested, the subsequent phrase Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ is present in many important manuscripts (e.g., א, B, L, W, Δ, Θ, 083, 0274, f¹³, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Byz, lect), but notably absent from others (e.g., A, D, it, syrˢ, co). The NA28 places Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ in square brackets, indicating strong doubt about its originality. The original query’s suggestion that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ might be a later addition, based on its perceived “clumsiness,” does not find substantial external manuscript support. The external evidence overwhelmingly supports the inclusion of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The internal criterion of stylistic awkwardness is subjective and, in this case, insufficient to override the strong external attestation. Mark often begins with succinct, somewhat abrupt statements (e.g., Mark 1:4), and the genitive phrase can be understood naturally in several ways, as discussed below. Therefore, the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is widely accepted as original, while Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ remains a contested reading.
Lexical Notes (BDAG, KITTEL):
- Ἀρχὴ (Archē): BDAG defines this primarily as “beginning” (of a process or series), or “first cause/principle.” In this context, it marks the commencement of the Gospel narrative. Kittel (TDNT) notes its broad usage in antiquity, ranging from temporal beginning to origin or foundational principle, emphasizing its theological weight when applied to the divine.
- Εὐαγγελίου (Euangeliou, genitive of εὐαγγέλιον): BDAG defines this as “good news” or “gospel.” In the NT, it refers specifically to the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Kittel highlights its transformation from a secular announcement of good news (e.g., imperial decrees) to the specific divine message of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus and his apostles, making it a distinctly theological term in Christian usage.
- Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Iēsou Christou, genitive of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός):
- Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous): Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua/Joshua, meaning “the Lord saves.” BDAG notes it as the personal name of Jesus of Nazareth.
- Χριστός (Christos): Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning “Anointed One.” BDAG notes its use as a title for Jesus, identifying him as the promised deliverer. Kittel thoroughly explores its messianic roots in the OT and its reinterpretation and fulfillment in the person of Jesus, signifying his unique role as King, Prophet, and Priest.
The genitive construction itself is crucial for interpretation. It can be a:
- Subjective genitive: “the good news that Jesus Christ proclaimed.”
- Objective genitive: “the good news about Jesus Christ.”
- Possessive genitive: “Jesus Christ’s good news” (i.e., originating with or belonging to him).
- Genitive of content/source: “the good news consisting of/coming from Jesus Christ.”
The phrase establishes the central figure and content of the narrative from its very outset.
Translation Variants
The grammatical structure of Mark 1:1, “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” presents a genitive phrase, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, modifying εὐαγγελίου. This genitive can carry multiple semantic nuances, leading to various English translations, each emphasizing a slightly different aspect of the relationship between “Gospel” and “Jesus Christ.”
Grammatical Analysis: The genitive case in Greek is highly versatile, expressing a wide range of relationships. In the context of “Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the primary candidates for interpretation are:
- Possessive Genitive: Suggesting ownership or source, where the Gospel “belongs to” Jesus Christ or “originates from” him. This implies Jesus is the author or the one who initiates the proclamation.
- Objective Genitive: Indicating the object of the verb implicit in the noun. Here, “Gospel about Jesus Christ” implies Jesus is the subject matter or content of the good news.
- Subjective Genitive: Indicating the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the noun. Here, “Gospel that Jesus Christ proclaims” suggests Jesus is the one doing the proclaiming.
All three are grammatically plausible. However, the common understanding of εὐαγγέλιον in the New Testament as “the message *about* Jesus Christ” makes the objective genitive a very strong candidate. Yet, Jesus is also the primary proclaimer of the good news (Mark 1:14-15), lending credence to the subjective sense. He is also the source and embodiment of the good news, supporting the possessive/origin view. Modern English translations often seek to capture this ambiguity or favor one emphasis.
Rhetorical Analysis: The placement of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ directly after εὐαγγελίου immediately identifies the subject matter and central figure of the entire narrative. The initial question regarding its “clumsiness” or “hanging” at the end likely stems from a modern English sensibility where such a long modifying phrase might precede the noun. However, Greek word order is more flexible and often emphasizes the final element. In this case, placing Jesus Christ at the very end of the opening clause gives it climactic importance, signaling that he is the ultimate focus and content of this “beginning of the good news.” It functions as an immediate and unequivocal declaration of the Gospel’s identity, establishing the Christological framework from the first word.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Mark 1:1 is integral to the text and foundational for understanding the Gospel’s purpose. While grammatically capable of expressing various nuances, a comprehensive translation should attempt to convey the richness of this genitive, which encompasses both the message *about* Jesus and the message *proclaimed by* Jesus, ultimately originating *from* him. The rhetorical placement underscores his centrality.
- The beginning of the good news concerning Jesus Christ.
This translation favors the objective genitive, emphasizing Jesus Christ as the primary subject matter and content of the good news. It is concise and widely accepted. - The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This more literal rendering retains the ambiguity of the genitive in English, allowing for interpretations of possession, origin, or content, thereby inviting the reader to ponder the multifaceted relationship. - This is the start of the good news that Jesus Christ proclaimed.
This option highlights the subjective genitive aspect, focusing on Jesus Christ as the active agent who announced this transformative message. It can also imply that the good news is “his” in that he initiated it.
“`
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ὶησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]. ARXH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU XRISTOU [hUIOU QEOU].
I would take this to be an objective genitive, but I am reminded of the theme song of the old “Mr. Ed” show “A horse is a horse, of course, of course …” Similarly, a genitive is a genitive so it’s a matter of interpretation. You say “potaytoe” and I say “potahtoe.” As to the awkwardness of the ending υἱοῦ θεοῦ hUIOU QEOU, what awkwardness? The attestation is reasonably good, and I would hesitate to exclude something solely because of my criticism of its literary style — particularly in a language other than my native language. Admittedly, there are times when some text can appear glaringly obvious, but not always. I’m thinking particularly of Re 16.15 where we suddenly find the announcement “Behold, I come as a thief …” What is so glaring about that is that it simply seems as though it is dropped into the middle of an unrelated matter. Nevertheless, all Mss contain it and so it remains in the text. Most often changes are made in a text to smooth them out rather than to make them more difficult. The scribe seems to say, “I can write better Greek than that.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the replay. Perhaps you meant:
All MSS [do not] contain it. Metzger claims it is omitted in a* Q28^C /al/ which is a bit major.
At the same time, Michael Turton writes: “The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9).”
Hense my question: Is it a simple addition OR a Roman proclamation formula whereas the intended meaning was: “the Gospel …. OF the Son of God” ?
Dony
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
I meant precisely what I said. If you are referring to Metzger’s _A Textual Commentary_, he says nothing regarding it whatsoever. Even Tischendorf only comments on matters such as ἔρχομαι / ἔρχεται ERXOMAI / ERXETAI but says nothing regarding the presence or absence of the passage as a whole.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I neglected answering your question at the end of your reply. As I said, I take it to be an objective genitive. It is the gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ. In Re 1.1 we have “The revelation of Jesus Christ …” which could mean that it belongs to him (Note that it states that God gave it to him) or it could mean that Jesus Christ is the source (Note that it says that he sent it to his servant John) or it could mean that it is ABOUT Jesus Christ. In answer to a question “Is it A or B or C?” I tend to say, “Yes.” In other words, take your pick. Is it a “Roman proclamation formula”? Perhaps. The term εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION was used for such things as the announcement of the Emperor’s accession or his birthday, but that was not the only use made of the term so why should we insist on restricting it to that? It was also used to refer to the reward given to a messenger among other uses. Sometimes we try too overinterpret texts which is part of the reason we don’t discuss theology here. As Sgt Friday in the old Dragnet series would say, “Just the Greek, ma’am.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me amplify my remarks. I’m not attempting to say that the understanding of εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION as a proclamation of the Emperor’s arrival is incorrect. I’m saying that you must marshall your arguments for that position. I can think of two points offhand without even trying: (1) John (immediately following) as the κῆρυξ KHRUC announcing the impending visitation. (2) The triumphal entry of Mk 11.1-11 riding on a donkey (the traditional transportation of the pretender about to acceed to the throne in Jerusalem (See 1 Kg 1.28-40). Nevertheless, that is not determined by either the lexicography or the syntax of the Greek and is therefore not the subject for this forum. It could, however, well be argued elsewhere.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Dony,
George’s original comment that you’re referring to was about the verse in the Revelation not having any variants regarding the statement “I come as a thief” being odd where it was placed. He wasn’t saying that your verse in Mark doesn’t have any variants. I think you misunderstood his reference there.
Regards, Jason Hare Rehovot, Israel
Actually, my original question was much simpler and did not involve Revelation at all, which is irrelevant here (as I am persuaded it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not about).
I was simply asking if the phrase “of the Son of God” in Mark 1:1 is a modifier of the /evangelieon/. Meaning if the verse should be translated:
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
OR
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, of the Son of God (2^nd of to reflect on the Genitive)
Consecutively, I encountered Metzger, where the Committee was aware of the lack of the phrase in several major sources, but considered to leave the phrase in brackets.
On the other hand, I mentioned Turton who sees the combination of “evangelion …. of the Son of God” as direct resemblance to the way Roman emperors addressed the people. The presence of such formula, however, greatly disagrees with the “slave” symbolism used by Mark to describe Jesus. My main concern, therefore, was if the imperial form was added later, which raised my question about the grammatical appropriateness of “of Jesus Christ” hanging at the end of the clause.
I understand that when rendered in English the question makes little difference, but let’s remember that there are other language groups subscribed to this great list (hence, examples like potatoes and patatas, Mr. Ed and so on may be perceived as offensive by some).
Thank you all for your helpful input.
Dony K. Donev
I note that Holmes leaves out not only the brackets (good,) but the whole phrase (bad.) 🙂
Maybe somebody could post the exact wording of the inscription about Augustus, so we can see how compelling the parallel is.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
_*METZGER:*_
*1.1*Cristou/ @ui`ou/ qeou/#{C}
The absence of ui`ou/ qeou/in a* Q28^C /al/ may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the /nomina sacra/. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)^1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W /al/ in support of ui`ou/ qeou/is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets.
_*TURON (as found here *_http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html_*):*_
v1: The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9). Craig Evans (2000, p69-70) offers a translation of one such inscription, the Priene Inscription:
“It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swthvr], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [fanei’n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [hrxen de; tw’i kovsmwi tw’n di? aujto;neujangelivwnhJ genevqlio” tou’ qeou’],”which Asia resolved in Smyrna…”
Evans observes:
“Comparison of Mark’s incipit with this part of the inscription seems fully warranted. First, there is reference to good news, or ‘gospel. In Mark the word appears in the singular, while in the inscription it probably appears twice in the more conventional plural. Secondly, there is reference to the beginning of this good news. In Mark the nominal form is employed, while in the inscription the verbal form is employed. Thirdly, this good news is brought about by a divine agent. In Mark this agent is ‘Jesus the Anointed’, (either in the incipit, or as declared elsewhere in the Markan Gospel), while in the inscription the agent is ‘Augustus’, the ‘savior’ and ‘benefactor’….” [Greek removed].
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ὶησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]. ARXH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU XRISTOU [hUIOU QEOU].
I would take this to be an objective genitive, but I am reminded of the theme song of the old “Mr. Ed” show “A horse is a horse, of course, of course …” Similarly, a genitive is a genitive so it’s a matter of interpretation. You say “potaytoe” and I say “potahtoe.” As to the awkwardness of the ending υἱοῦ θεοῦ hUIOU QEOU, what awkwardness? The attestation is reasonably good, and I would hesitate to exclude something solely because of my criticism of its literary style — particularly in a language other than my native language. Admittedly, there are times when some text can appear glaringly obvious, but not always. I’m thinking particularly of Re 16.15 where we suddenly find the announcement “Behold, I come as a thief …” What is so glaring about that is that it simply seems as though it is dropped into the middle of an unrelated matter. Nevertheless, all Mss contain it and so it remains in the text. Most often changes are made in a text to smooth them out rather than to make them more difficult. The scribe seems to say, “I can write better Greek than that.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the replay. Perhaps you meant:
All MSS [do not] contain it. Metzger claims it is omitted in a* Q28^C /al/ which is a bit major.
At the same time, Michael Turton writes: “The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9).”
Hense my question: Is it a simple addition OR a Roman proclamation formula whereas the intended meaning was: “the Gospel …. OF the Son of God” ?
Dony
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
I meant precisely what I said. If you are referring to Metzger’s _A Textual Commentary_, he says nothing regarding it whatsoever. Even Tischendorf only comments on matters such as ἔρχομαι / ἔρχεται ERXOMAI / ERXETAI but says nothing regarding the presence or absence of the passage as a whole.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I neglected answering your question at the end of your reply. As I said, I take it to be an objective genitive. It is the gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ. In Re 1.1 we have “The revelation of Jesus Christ …” which could mean that it belongs to him (Note that it states that God gave it to him) or it could mean that Jesus Christ is the source (Note that it says that he sent it to his servant John) or it could mean that it is ABOUT Jesus Christ. In answer to a question “Is it A or B or C?” I tend to say, “Yes.” In other words, take your pick. Is it a “Roman proclamation formula”? Perhaps. The term εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION was used for such things as the announcement of the Emperor’s accession or his birthday, but that was not the only use made of the term so why should we insist on restricting it to that? It was also used to refer to the reward given to a messenger among other uses. Sometimes we try too overinterpret texts which is part of the reason we don’t discuss theology here. As Sgt Friday in the old Dragnet series would say, “Just the Greek, ma’am.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me amplify my remarks. I’m not attempting to say that the understanding of εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION as a proclamation of the Emperor’s arrival is incorrect. I’m saying that you must marshall your arguments for that position. I can think of two points offhand without even trying: (1) John (immediately following) as the κῆρυξ KHRUC announcing the impending visitation. (2) The triumphal entry of Mk 11.1-11 riding on a donkey (the traditional transportation of the pretender about to acceed to the throne in Jerusalem (See 1 Kg 1.28-40). Nevertheless, that is not determined by either the lexicography or the syntax of the Greek and is therefore not the subject for this forum. It could, however, well be argued elsewhere.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Dony,
George’s original comment that you’re referring to was about the verse in the Revelation not having any variants regarding the statement “I come as a thief” being odd where it was placed. He wasn’t saying that your verse in Mark doesn’t have any variants. I think you misunderstood his reference there.
Regards, Jason Hare Rehovot, Israel
Actually, my original question was much simpler and did not involve Revelation at all, which is irrelevant here (as I am persuaded it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not about).
I was simply asking if the phrase “of the Son of God” in Mark 1:1 is a modifier of the /evangelieon/. Meaning if the verse should be translated:
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
OR
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, of the Son of God (2^nd of to reflect on the Genitive)
Consecutively, I encountered Metzger, where the Committee was aware of the lack of the phrase in several major sources, but considered to leave the phrase in brackets.
On the other hand, I mentioned Turton who sees the combination of “evangelion …. of the Son of God” as direct resemblance to the way Roman emperors addressed the people. The presence of such formula, however, greatly disagrees with the “slave” symbolism used by Mark to describe Jesus. My main concern, therefore, was if the imperial form was added later, which raised my question about the grammatical appropriateness of “of Jesus Christ” hanging at the end of the clause.
I understand that when rendered in English the question makes little difference, but let’s remember that there are other language groups subscribed to this great list (hence, examples like potatoes and patatas, Mr. Ed and so on may be perceived as offensive by some).
Thank you all for your helpful input.
Dony K. Donev
I note that Holmes leaves out not only the brackets (good,) but the whole phrase (bad.) 🙂
Maybe somebody could post the exact wording of the inscription about Augustus, so we can see how compelling the parallel is.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
_*METZGER:*_
*1.1*Cristou/ @ui`ou/ qeou/#{C}
The absence of ui`ou/ qeou/in a* Q28^C /al/ may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the /nomina sacra/. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)^1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W /al/ in support of ui`ou/ qeou/is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets.
_*TURON (as found here *_http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html_*):*_
v1: The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9). Craig Evans (2000, p69-70) offers a translation of one such inscription, the Priene Inscription:
“It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swthvr], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [fanei’n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [hrxen de; tw’i kovsmwi tw’n di? aujto;neujangelivwnhJ genevqlio” tou’ qeou’],”which Asia resolved in Smyrna…”
Evans observes:
“Comparison of Mark’s incipit with this part of the inscription seems fully warranted. First, there is reference to good news, or ‘gospel. In Mark the word appears in the singular, while in the inscription it probably appears twice in the more conventional plural. Secondly, there is reference to the beginning of this good news. In Mark the nominal form is employed, while in the inscription the verbal form is employed. Thirdly, this good news is brought about by a divine agent. In Mark this agent is ‘Jesus the Anointed’, (either in the incipit, or as declared elsewhere in the Markan Gospel), while in the inscription the agent is ‘Augustus’, the ‘savior’ and ‘benefactor’….” [Greek removed].
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
I luv you guys. “No rest for the wicked…” and I could use it.
I luv you guys. “No rest for the wicked…” and I could use it.