Biblica - Vol 91 (2010) Van Oyen, Geert, The Vulnerable Authority of the Author of the Gospel of Mark. Re-Reading the Paradoxes (2010)

The article proceeds in three steps. The paradoxes in Mark 8,35; 9,35; 10,43-44 tell in their own way that the mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus is to be experienced by the followers of Jesus in daily life. They are not only anticipations but also actualizations of that mystery. These paradoxes cannot be understood without the Christological foundation that God has saved Jesus from the dead. The use of paradoxes is in agreement with Mark’s theology and Christology which as a whole is presented as a paradoxical story.

Biblica - Vol 89 (2008) Schmidt, Ulrich, Zum Paradox vom 'Verlieren' und 'Finden' des Lebens (2008)

Jesus’ paradox of losing and finding one’s life is well attested. According to its contexts, interpreters relate the logion predominantly to martyrdom and death. But a closer look reveals that this word is an assertion in favour of life which functions as a maxim of Jesus’ teaching and view of life. It is the context many of his sayings and behavorial patterns. The issue of a 'recompense' after death is merely a consequence of the original intention.

Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol 24 (2011) Koskenniemi, Erkki, The Famous Liar and the Apostolic Truth (2011)

The words Kretes aei pseustai, kaka theria, gasteres argai. in Tit 1:2 are traditionally attributed to Epimenides, and, for example, Nestle – Aland27 (ad locum) refers to his work “de oraculis / peri kresmon”. However, we can only discern a shadow of the man, a pre-Socratic philosopher, or of several men. We do not have his works, and a work peri kresmon is never mentioned in ancient sources. Clement of Alexandria mentions Epimenides, but not his work; Jerome is the first who certainly attributes the work to Epimenides. This article proposes a new reconstruction of the history of the tradition. In the beginning was the proverb that the Cretans were famous liars, and in the second stage, this reputation was used to construct a logical paradox. In the next stage, Epimenides, the famous Cretan philosopher, was involved in the paradox. It is thus not correct to claim that Tit refers to Epimenides’ work peri kresmon: Epimenides is only ahistorically involved in this paradox. Consequently, the verse does not prove that the writer knew Classical literature well.