Lexicographical analysis

Grammar and statistical data
Meaning of the word in the passage analysed
1. The different meanings of the word
2. Specific meaning in the passage analyzed
The origin of the word and its place in the evangelist's vocabulary

The evangelist uses Greek words. It is therefore important for the analyst to have a minimum knowledge of ancient Greek. For he will have to define the meaning of the words or expressions used by the evangelist. This involves grasping the syntax, the meaning of the word in general and the particular meaning in a pericope, and even pinpointing the source of the word or expression if necessary. There are a number of tools available for this task.

For syntactic analysis, a good online tool is one that presents an interlinear analysis either by chapter: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1.htm, or by verse: https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-1.htm. In book format, there is always the Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci, from Max Zerwick s.j.

For definitions of Greek words, there are a number of tools available. You can use the following lexicon: after selecting a Greek word, the web page of the selected word will provide you a link to access the Perseus Dictionary. I make extensive use of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Grimms Wilkes and translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, which can be found in PDF format on this site: http://www.christianresearcher.com/uploads/1/6/2/9/16298120/01greekenglishlexicongrimmthayer.pdf. In book format, I use A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, that is part of the The Greek New Testament as an appendix. For the Septuagint, you can download in PDF format the A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint from this site : https://archive.org/details/a-greek-english-lexicon-of-the-septuagint.-revised-edition.

To locate occurrences of Greek words, I offer you a tool I created myself, but which is mainly focused on occurrences of the word in the Johannine Gospels-Acts-Letters, even if on occasion I also present occurrences in the Greek translation of the Septuagint: https://www.mystereetvie.com/lexique0_e.html; this lexicon has the advantage of presenting statistics on occurrences of the word in the Gospels-Acts. If you wish to obtain all the occurrences of New Testament words throughout the entire Greek Bible, there is this site: https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?diacritics=on. In book format, use A Concordance of the Greek Testament, Moulton (W.F.) and Geden (A.S.).

Finally, for grammar, there's the classic work by F. Blass and A. Debrunner that can be downloaded from this site: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.

It should be noted that the https://biblehub.com/ offers a wealth of resources for both the Old and New Testaments.

In this chapter on lexicographical analysis, we will focus on three aspects of the analysis: grammar and statistical data, the meaning of the word or expression, and its origin and place in the evangelist's vocabulary.

Grammar and statistical data

Part of speech

The first question in the grammatical analysis of a word is: what role does this word play in the sentence, or what is its part of speech? In Greek, a word can be:

A verb
A noun
An article
Adjective
Pronoun
Number
Adverb
A preposition
A conjunction
An interjection
A particle

The verb

Before a verb, there are four questions to ask: which voice, which mode, which tense, which number.
1. Voices: in Greek, there are 4 voices. There are:
  - Active: What the subject does
  - Passive: What the subject undergoes
  - Middle: It corresponds to the reflexive verb and the action is carried out in the interest of the subject.
  - Deponent: The verb has no active, but its meaning corresponds to the average voice.
2. Mood: we distinguish between personal and impersonal moods
  1. Personal moods:
    - Indicative: factual mood
    - Imperative: order mood
    - Subjunctive: mood of potential or possible
    - Optative: wish mood, very rare in the NT
  2. Impersonal moods
    - Infinitive
    - Participle
3. Tense: in the NT, we encounter six tenses that can be grouped as follows
  1. Primary tense:
    - Present: an action in progress
    - Future: an action that will take place
    - Perfect: an action that took place
  2. Secundary tense:
    - Imperfect: an action that began in the past and continues today
    - Pluperfect: an action that took place before the moment in the past being recounted
    - Aorist: an action that took place in the past and is now over; a point in time
4. Number: singular and plural
The grammatical analysis of the verb often gives us the first indications of the evangelist's style. For example, Mark likes to tell a story in the present tense (the historical present), whereas Matthew and Luke prefer the aorist. For example, Mark writes: “And he says to them (present tense): ‘Let us go elsewhere...’” (Mk 1:38), whereas Luke, when he takes up this passage, writes: “But he said to them (aorist tense): ‘To the other cities also I must...’”.

In the NT, the participle is widely used, and so we encounter it regularly. When preceded by the article, it becomes a noun and can play all the roles of a noun. For example, it plays the role of direct object complement in the sentence: “eat the [things] being presented to you” (Lk 10:8); or the role of subject in the sentence: “the handing over me drew near” (Mt 26:46). Frequent examples include: Mt 2, 15: to rhēthen (the having been said = the word); Lk 8:56: to gegonos (the having happened = the event), Lk 9:7: ta ginomena (the things happening = the events).

A special case is that of the genitive absolute. The sentence is a participial proposition with an independent meaning and plays the role of a conjunctive subordinate proposition, i.e. one that gives us the context of the scene. For example, Mk 5:18: “And he (gen.) going up (gen.) into the boat, the man...” = “As he was getting into the boat, the man...”; Mt 27:17: “They (gen.) having therefore been gathered (gen.), Pilate...” = “As they had been gathered, Pilate...”.

In Greek, the verb sometimes contains its subject, e.g. Mt 26:46a: egeiresthe, agōmen = get up, let's go, or Mt 2:9: eporeuthēsan = they went. But very often, the subject is a noun or a substantival participle. In such cases, it's easy to find the subject, especially if it's in the same sentence, but sometimes it takes a bit of analysis to spot it. This is often the case with Mark, who assumes that the reader knows who the subject of the action is, in particular Jesus. For example, in Mk 1:16-45, the name “Jesus” only appears in v. 17 and v. 25. Yet throughout these 30 verses, it is Jesus who is the subject of all the actions. But Mark simply repeats “he”.
Noun, adjective, article, pronoun and number

These five word categories can be broken down by case, gender and number.

The case expresses the role a word plays in the sentence. There are five, including the four main ones, plus the vocative.
1. Nominative: designates the subject of the action: Who? and its attribute.
2. The vocative: expresses the direct call out or invocation of a person (or thing); it is relatively rare. Mt 15:28: “Then answering, Jesus said to her, ‘O Woman (vocative), great is your faith’.
3. The accusative: designates the object of the action: What or Who? It expresses movement in space and time. Note that in Greek we can have a double accusative with certain verbs such as to question, to ask, to teach, to dress. For example, Mk 4:2: “He taught them (accusative) many things (accusative) in parables”.
4. The genitive: designates the origin: From what or from who? It's a verb or noun complement. It's the most frequently used in the NT. Under the influence of Hebrew, the genitive of quality is found in NT Greek, often replacing the adjective. For example, Lk 16:8: “And the master praised the steward of injustice (genitive)”, instead of: “And the master praised the unjust steward”.
5. The dative: it designates attribution: to whom or to what? Its essential function is to mark attribution, possession and, by extension, interest. It also marks the place where we are, the precise point in time where we are. For example, Mt 8:15: “she arose and began to serve him (dative)”.

Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections and particles

These five word categories are invariable, and therefore indeclinable.

Adverbs. As their name suggests, adverbs modify a verb, but also an adjective or another adverb. They can be grouped into three main categories: adverbs of place (where are you? Where are you going? Where do you come from?) For example, Mt 4:6: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down (kato)”; the adverb of time (When? Since when? How many times?) For example Mt 25:38: “When (pote) did we see you a stranger...”; the adverb of quantity or manner (How? How many times?) For example, Mk 7:37: “He has done all things well (kalos)...”.

Finally, there are affirmative and negative adverbs. For affirmations, we usually use the adverb nai (e.g. Mt 15:27: “Yes (nai), Lord! she said”), but we sometimes use the particle ge to give an affirmative twist to the sentence (e.g. Mt 7:20: “So indeed (ge), it is by their fruits that you will recognize them”. For negations, we use the adverb ou or ouch (not) with verbs in the indicative, and mē with other modes, and its derivatives, namely:
- Ouketi : no longer (Mt 19:6 "So they are no longer (ouketi) two, but one flesh”.),
- Ouchi : absolutely not, a reinforced negation (Lk 1:60 : "But, answering, his mother said: "No (ouchi), he be called John")
- Oude: neither...nor, not even (Mt 22:46 "No one was able to answer him, not even (oude) a word"),
- Ou mē: very strong negation: by no means (Lk 6:37: "condemn not, and you will not (ou mē) be condemned")

Prepositions are used to link ideas in a sentence, or more precisely to mark the relationship between the complement and the word being completed. There are three categories of prepositions: prepositions that command a single case for complement, prepositions that command two possible cases, and propositions that command three possible cases.

		Accusative (expresses the move towards)	Genitif (the move from)	Dative (lack of motion)
With a single case	ana	from bottom to top
	eis	to, into
	anti		instead of, in place of
	apo		from, away from, since
	ek (ex)		from, out from
	pro		before, in front of
	en			in, to
	syn			with
With two cases	dia	because of, on account of	through, during
	kata	along, according	down, against
	meta	after (time)	among, with
	peri	around, near	about, concerning
	hyper	over, beyond	on, in favor of
	hypo	under	by
With three cases	epi	on, unto, during, for	upon, at the time when	in addition to, upon
	para	by, along, more than, contrary to	beside, from	by, near
	pros	towards, to, in order to	on the side of, for the sake of	at, near, by

Here is a list of adverbs or phrases used as prepositions and which always require the genitive:

In front of, opposite of: emprosthen, enōpion, enantion, katenōpion
Before, against: enanti, apenanti, katenanti
Behind: opisō, opisthen
Over, above: epanō, hyperanō
Under, beneath: hypokatō
Between: metaxy, ana meson, en mesō, dia mesou, ek mesou
Until: achri, achris, mechri, mechris, heōs
Separately, without: chōris, aneu, plēn
Because of, for this cause: heneka, heneken, heineken, charin

Conjunctions are used to join two words, two groups of words, two propositions or two sentences. They fall into two categories:
- Coordinating conjunctions that closely link two members of a sentence, such as kai (and, also), oute… oute; mēte… mēte (neither... nor, not even), ē (or), ē kai (or also), ē… ē (either… or), alla (but), gar (for), dio (therefore), dioti (because), oun (therefore), homōs (nevertheless)
- Subordinating conjunctions that introduce a subordinate proposition, such as hote (that, because), hoti (that), hotan (whenever), epan (when), ean (if), ei (if), hina (in order that), hōste (os that), heōs (until), epei (since), epeidē (since), epeidēper (since), kathōs (as), mēpote (less that), katha (as).
Interjections are words that can be used in isolation to express, in the form of an exclamation or a question, a sudden strong emotion, or to restart communication. There are four in the Gospels:
- idou (before), for example: Mt 3:17: "And behold (idou) a voice from heaven said, ..."
- ouai (woe), for example: Mt 11:21: "Woe (ouai) to you, Chorazin! Woe (ouai) to you, Bethsaida!",
- ide (see, look), for example: Mk 2:24: "The Pharisees said to him, "Look (ide), why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?'",
- ō (O!), for example: Mk 9:19: "He answered them, 'O (ō) Generation faithless, how much longer must I be among you?'". Other gospel interjections include: ea (Ha!) in Lk 4:34, oua (aha!) in Mk 15:29.
Particles are small words that sometimes act on whole clauses, becoming conjunctions or complements of the conjunction they help to underline or qualify, and sometimes underline the meaning of a word, becoming adverbs. The particle is one of the hallmarks of the Greek language. In particular, they give intonation to dialogue. In the Gospels, we find eleven particles, which can be ordered by importance:
- de (then, but) which appears almost every other verse, and is used to link the different moments of a story, which the evangelists use in a way almost equivalent to kai (and). The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.
- te (and, both, also), found especially in the Acts of the Apostles, but absent from Mark. The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.
- men (indeed, on the one hand), found in all four Gospels, but especially in the Acts of the Apostles. The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.
- hōsper (as), found mainly in Matthew, but absent in Mark. The particle is sometimes used as a subordinating conjunction, sometimes as an adverb of manner.
- ge (indeed, moreover), found only in Matthew and Luke. It is never found on its own, but is used to underline the preceding word to emphasize its meaning. It gives a positive turn to the sentence without explicitly saying: yes.
- mēti (is it not?) is an interrogative particle expecting a negative response. It appears in all four Gospels.
- mentoi (yet) is found only in the Gospel of John and the epistles of James and Jude in the NT, and in the book of Proverbs in the Septuagint. The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.
- dē (but, now) is very infrequent throughout the NT. The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.
- pote (once, at one time) is found only in Luke and John's Gospels. The particle is used as an adverb of time.
- ēper (than) found only in John throughout the NT. The particle is used as a comparative conjunction.
- toinyn (then) found only in Luke's Gospels. The particle is used as a coordinating conjunction.

Literal meaning

When performing a lexicographical analysis of the Greek text, it is important to make the translation as literal as possible. This is true for every word. Why is this so? It's a way of feeling the spirit of the Greek language. Because very often there is no exact equivalence between two languages, and our Bibles use different words to translate the same Greek word in different contexts.

Let's take the example of the verb apolyō, which literally means “to untie”. The Greek world uses this word in a variety of circumstances.
- It is first used when someone is released from prison, because having been chained there, they are freed from their chains. Our Bibles translate this verb, for example, as “to release” or “to let go”.
- This verb is also used in the context of a crowd that is gathered together, and so ties are formed between people, and untying these ties means asking the crowd to leave. Our Bibles, for example, translate this verb as “to send away” the crowd.
- The verb is also used in the context of matrimonial ties, so to untie means to put an end to them. Our Bibles translate this verb, for example, as “repudiate” or “dismiss” or “divorce”.
- Finally, this verb is used in reference to an offense against someone, an offense that is seen as a debt such as that which binds two individuals by contract, and thus to untie the debtor means to tear up the contract, and thus to remit the debt. Let's add that in ancient times, an infirmity or illness was seen as having its source in sin, and so forgiving the debt of sin meant severing the ties with the forces of evil. Our Bibles, for example, translate this verb as “to forgive” or “to deliver”.
For a list of occurrences of this word in the New Testament, see the lexicon on apolyō.

A special situation concerns verbs with the same root, but distinguished by different prefixes. Take, for example, the verb bainō, which literally means “to walk”. But in the Greek language, different prepositions have been added as prefixes to modify its meaning. For example:
- Adding ana (from bottom to top): anabainō, literally: to walk upwards, and so: to go up
- Adding apo (from, away from, since): apobainō, literally: to walk away from, and so: to go out
- Adding dia (through): diabainō, literally: to walk through, and so: to cross over
- Adding en (in): embainō, literally: to walk in [a boat], and so: to embark
- Adding epi (unto): epibainō, literally: to walk unto [a donkey, a city], and so: to go upon
- Adding kata (a move downward): katabainō, literally: to walk downward, and so: to descend
- Adding meta (after, away): metabainō, literally: to walk after or away, and so: to move after or away (from a place)
- Adding para (beside): parabainō, literally: to walk beside, and so: to turn aside
- Adding pro (before): probainō, literally: to walk before, and so: to advance
- Adding pros (towards) and ana (a move up): prosanabainō, literally: to walk up towards, and so: to move up
- Adding syn (with) and kata (a move downward): synkatabainō, literally: to walk together downward, and so: to come down with
- Adding syn (with): symbainō, literally: to walk with, and so: to happen
- Adding syn (with) and ana (a move up): synanabainō, literally: to walk upward with, and so: to come up with
Finding the literal meaning of words allows us to better grasp the author's thought. Take the example of Lk 10:2b, translated as follows by the NRSV: “therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out (ekballō) laborers into his harvest”. Now, what is the literal meaning of the verb ekballō, formed from the preposition ek (out of), and the verb ballō (to throw)? It means: to drive out or expel. How can the NRSV translate this verb as: to send out? In the previous verse, Luke mentions the disciples being sent on mission, using the appropriate verb: apostellō (to send). Why is it different in v. 2? By retaining the literal meaning, we can grasp the nuances of the author's thought. Indeed, the verb ekballō can take on several nuances around the basic meaning “to throw out”, like that of to extract. For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke writes: “The next day, he extracted (ekballō) two denarii [from his purse] and gave them to the innkeeper” (10:35a). And above all we have this passage from John 10:4: “When he has extracted (ekballō) [from the pen] those that are his, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.” All this sheds light on our v. 2. The prayer addressed to the Lord asks that certain Christians be taken out of the comfort of the community's enclosure to go on mission: in a way, it's a request to be expelled from the community for a good cause. By translating ekballō as “to send”, as many Bibles do, and not as “to extract”, we miss the nuance of the author's thought.

Another example of the benefit of literal translation is the word misthos, which literally means: what is due. It is translated as either salary or reward. Unfortunately, while we can make a correlation between “salary” and what is due, we cannot do so with “reward”, as the latter is optional and cannot be considered as due. So when we read a phrase like Mt 5:12 (“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward (misthos) will be great in heaven”), we get the impression that we're referring to a “gift” from God, whereas the phrase literally refers to “what is due”.

An interesting example of a literal translation concerns the verb metanoeō, formed from the preposition meta (among, alongside, after) and the verb noeō (to perceive with the mind, to understand), and so literally means: to perceive alongside or otherwise, hence to change one's mind. Our Bibles usually translate this verb as “to repent”, or “to convert”. The problem with “repent” is that the word is synonymous with regret and emphasizes the emotional aspect, whereas metanoeō expresses above all a new understanding of things. Similarly, the verb “to convert” is too closely associated with religious conversion and emphasizes a change, without specifying at what level. The verb metanoeō describes a change in the perception of things: there are things we didn't see before that we now see. Of course, a change in perception leads to a change in behavior, but that represents a different stage.
Statistical data
1. General comments
  
  What do we mean by “statistical data”? It's the calculation of the number of occurrences of a word or expression in reference to a particular book or author. Why are these statistics important? They enable us to identify an author's favorite words, which sheds light on both his style and his theology. That's why I've created a lexicon focusing on the Gospels, with the number of occurrences of different words in each book.
  
  Mt Mk Lk Jn Acts 1Jn 2Jn 3Jn Total
  
  Greek words total 18,346 11,304 19,482 15,635 18,450 2,141 245 219 85,822
  
  Different Greek words 1,680 1,346 2,034 1,020 2,012 233 96 108 3,756
  
  A first glance at these statistics reveals that Luke's Gospel is by far the most voluminous, not only in terms of the total number of words in his Gospel (19,482 words), but also in terms of the number of different Greek terms used to write his Gospel (2,034 words). He thus offers us a very rich vocabulary, which presupposes that Greek was his mother tongue.
  
  In contrast, the Gospel according to John was written with the minimum number of words: when we look at the total number of words (15,635), it's a little more voluminous than Mark's Gospel, but it uses only 1,020 different Greek terms; these are often the same terms that he repeats throughout his Gospel, like someone whose Greek language was learned late, but who knows how to use his vocabulary up its limits to express a thought of great spiritual depth.
  
  When we now consider the number of different terms in relation to the total number of words in the gospel, we get this:
  
  Mt Mk Lk Jn Acts
  
  18,346 11,304 19,482 15,635 18,450
  
  1,680 1,346 2,034 1,019 2,011
  
  9.2% 11.9% 10.4% 6.5% 10.9%
  
  Mark takes the cake among evangelists with 11.9%. What does this mean? This shows a good deal of variety in his knowledge of Greek words, leading biblical scholars to consider him a Greek speaker. By contrast, John manages to write a text of 15,635 words with only 6.5% different words.
  
  Finally, a word about the letters of John, which I have included in my statistics on the Gospels. Why should I do this? The kinship between the Gospel of John and the three so-called letters of John is so great that, if they are not by the same author, they must be attributed to the same school of thought. Think of all the vocabulary around knowledge, like ginōskō (to know), oida (to know), theaomai (to contemplate), phaneroō (to reveal), parrēsia (visibility), logos (word), phōs (light), alētheia (truth), alēthēs (true), alēthōs (truly), alēthinos (true), and its opposite as skotia (darkness), pseudos (liar), pseustēs (liar), typhloō (to blind), amartanō (to wander, to sin), amartia (sin). Similarly, couples appear like agapaō (to love) / miseō (to hate), kalōs (well) / kakos (evil). It has the atmosphere of a big trial, with words like martyreō (to testify), martyria (testimony), homologeō (to profess), diabolos (adversary). Love is associated with works using words like ergon (work), entolē (precept), ergazomai (to work). John's frequent words also appear in the letters, such as zaō (to live), zōē (life), aiōnios (eternal), kosmos (world). God is named patēr (father), and Jesus either christos (christ), or monogenēs (only begotten), and to express the relationship with the believer the verb menō (to stay) is used extensively. So, in a lexicographical analysis of the Gospels, John's letters must be taken into account.
2. Specific comments
  
  Having made the grammatical observations of the word we are analyzing and determined its literal meaning, it is then a good idea to examine the frequency of this word in the evangelists, and in particular in the evangelist we are studying. This allows us to anticipate the importance the gospel attaches to this word. Let's give some examples according to the evangelists.
  1. Mark
    
    In Mark, the grammateus (scribes) figure prominently among Jesus' opponents and recur regularly throughout his gospel, and the statistics are as follows: Mt = 22; Mk = 21; Lk = 14; Jn = 1; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. One might have the impression that the word is more frequent in Matthew, and that Luke's Gospel is not far behind, but if we remove from Matthew and Luke the occurrences that are simply a copy of Mark, we end up with Mt = 13; Mk = 21; Lk = 4; Jn = 1; Acts = 4. Thus, Mark is the evangelist who gives the greatest prominence to the scribes, those learned Bible specialists, and it is to them, with the participation of the high priests, that he attributes Jesus' death.
    
    Another example of what statistical data allows concerns Mark's style, such as the adverb euthys (immediately): Mt = 5; Mk = 41; Lk = 1; Jn = 3; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. And since Matthew's five occurrences come from a copy of Mark, more accurate statistics give: Mt = 0; Mk = 41; Lk = 1; Jn = 3; Acts = 1. Mark seems to use “immediately” to link together certain scenes or actions, or to express the force of Jesus' action, word and call.
    
    Statistical data tells us that Mark is very fond of the verb eperōtaō (to question): Mt = 8; Mk = 25; Lc = 17; Jn = 2; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. And if we remove from Matthew and Luke the occurrences that are simply a copy of Mark, we obtain these new data: Mt = 5; Mk = 25; Lk = 10; Jn = 2; Acts = 2. In Mark, Jesus questions the people and his disciples a lot, and the disciples question him a lot; the evangelist has a preference for this form of dialogue.
  2. Matthew
    
    A good example of Matthew's style is his recurrent use of the verb proserchomai (to draw near): Mt = 51; Mk = 5; Lk = 10; Jn = 1; Acts = 10; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Most of the time, it's people, especially his disciples, who approach Jesus. This is his way of introducing a story and bringing all the attention to the main characters in the scene, turning the spotlight on the dialogue or action that follows.
    
    Another example of a verb that is particular to him, especially if we consider the Synoptics, is the verb proskyneō (to prostrate oneself): Mt = 13; Mk = 2; Lk = 3; Jn = 11; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. The number of occurrences in John is misleading, for of the 11 occurrences of the verb, nine appear in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman, where the place of worship is discussed. In Matthew, of the 13 occurrences, 10 are addressed to Jesus, and these ten occurrences are specific to him. This is Matthew's expression of a “high theology”, in which Jesus is presented in his divine guise, the one we know through faith in the resurrection.
    
    A revealing clue from the author of the Gospel according to Matthew is the use of the word ouranos (heaven): Mt = 82; Mk = 18; Lk = 35; Jn = 18; Acts = 26; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. For of the 82 occurrences of the word in Matthew, 37 are euphemisms for God. This way of speaking is very specific to the Jewish world, where God is not referred to by name, but rather by dwelling place. All this reflects Matthew's Judaism.
  3. Luke (the gospel and the Acts of the Apostle)
    
    There are countless statistical examples of Luke's particularities. Let's limit ourselves to a few, starting with a feature of his literary style, that of regularly accompanying the subject of the verb, especially in the parables, with the indefinite pronoun tis (a certain [man]): Mt = 21; Mk = 34; Lk = 81; Jn = 54; Acts = 112; 1Jn = 6; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1. This is a way of designating any individual, and one that it matters little to identify.
    
    But most of the time, his own emphases reflect his theology. For example, his frequent use of kyrios (lord): Mt = 80; Mk = 18; Lk = 104; Jn = 52; Acts = 107; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. And it's noteworthy that for him, the term designates Jesus first of all (40 times in the Gospels, 53 times in Acts), then God (37 times in the Gospels, 45 times in Acts); it's the Jesus of faith that he considers. Likewise, his theology gives pride of place to the Holy Spirit: Mt = 5; Mk = 4; Lk = 14; Jn = 4; Acts = 42; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.
    
    The statistical data also reveal his vision of the Christian life. For this presupposes a conversion presented as the action of turning around, hypostrephō, a verb he is the only one to use in the Gospels: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 21; Jn = 0; Acts = 11; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Likewise, in the image of Jesus who walks for 10 chapters (from Lk 9:51 to 19:28), the Christian life takes the form of a long journey with the verb poreuō (to go, to walk): Mt = 29; Mk = 3; Lk = 52; Jn = 16; Acts = 37; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.
    
    Finally, let's mention that Luke presents us with a clearly gendered universe: for rather than using the generic term anthropos (man as generic human being), he very often opts for the gendered term anēr (male, husband): Mt = 8; Mk = 4; Lk = 27; Jn = 8; Acts = 100; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0; and it is Luke who most often features a gynē (woman) : Mt = 29; Mk = 17; Lk = 41; Jn = 22; Acts = 19; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.
    
    Let's conclude by pointing out that if we consider only the four Gospels, we find 646 words in Luke's Gospel that are totally absent from the other three Gospels. An echo of the singularity and richness of his vocabulary and style.
  4. John
    
    Let's start with John's language. General statistics have already revealed that he uses the fewest number of different words. In fact, he makes very frequent use of the basic words of any language: the verb echō (to have) : Mt = 74; Mk = 70; Lk = 77; Jn = 87; Acts = 44; 1Jn = 28; 2Jn = 4; 3Jn = 2; the verb eimi (to be): Mt = 289; Mk = 191; Lk = 362; Jn = 445; Acts = 278; 1Jn = 99; 2Jn = 6; 3Jn = 2; the verb erchomai (to come) : Mt = 114; Mk = 85; Lk = 101; Jn = 157; Acts = 50; 1Jn = 4; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 2.
    
    John's Gospel has the reputation of being the Gospel of love. And indeed, the statistical data remembers this claim, with the presence of the verb agapaō (to love) : Mt = 8; Mk = 5; Lk = 13; Jn = 37; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 28; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 1, and the verb phileō (to love) : Mt = 5; Mk = 1; Lk = 2; Jn = 13; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. At the same time, this emphasis on love goes hand in hand with the instance on pisteuō (to believe): Mt = 11; Mk = 14; Lk = 9; Jn = 98; Acts = 37; 1Jn = 9; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.
    
    Finally, a particular element of John's theology is expressed by the verb doxazō (to glorify): Mt = 4; Mk = 1; Lk = 9; Jn = 23; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. The verb “to glorify” means to reveal glory, in particular the glory of Jesus, which is already present in his ministry, a glory that is expressed through the signs he performs, which are both saving actions and the revelation of his identity as the only-begotten Son; the summit of this glory is his elevation on the cross, the ultimate victory over evil and the revelation of this being that he shares with the Father. The words “glory” and “glorify” are intended to signify the revelation of Jesus' identity and that of his Father.

Meaning of the word in the passage analysed

How does one go about determining the meaning of a word? The first reflex is to consult a dictionary, such as The Greek New Testament's Geek-English Dictionary of the Greek New Testament of the American Bible Society. But there are many online tools, such as the Wiki Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, or the Grimm's Wilke's Clovis Novi Testamenti or the Bible lexicon from Study Light or the Bill Mounce Greek Dictionary that gives you the Strong number which is the key to use The Blue Letter Bible dictionary. But this is a general definition, not the specific one for the pericope under study. So, to understand the meaning of a word or expression, I propose to proceed in two stages: first, to understand all the meanings that the word can take on, and then, among these various meanings, to determine the one that is appropriate to the verse under study.

The different meanings of the word

The context of the Gospels-Acts

The first step is to consider all the occurrences of the word in the Gospels-Acts. This allows us to observe the different contexts in which the word has been used, and therefore the different meanings it takes on according to these contexts. These meanings can then be grouped into appropriate categories.

Let's take gē (earth) as an example. When we consider all occurrences of gē in the Gospels-Acts (Mt = 43; Mk = 19; Lk = 25; Jn = 13; Acts = 33; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0), they can be grouped into five categories according to their context.
1. There is earth here below as opposed to heaven, and thus the world of men in its relationship to the world of God. Earth and heaven are the two components of the universe. For example:
  - Mt 11:25: "At that time Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth (gē), because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants"
2. Earth refers to our planet, humanity's living environment, and could be replaced by “the world”. For example:
  - Mt 12:42: "The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the world (gē) to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!"
3. Earth refers to a political territory, and could be replaced by land or country. For example:
  - Mt 2:21: "Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land (gē) of Israel."
4. Earth is the ground on which we walk, as opposed to being on water or in the air. For example:
  - Mt 10:29: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground (gē) apart from your Father."
5. Finally, the earth is humus, fertile soil that can be sown to grow fruit and vegetables. For example, we can
  - Mt 13:23: "But as for what was sown on good soil (gē), this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
We can signal these different meanings with colors, as I did in my lexicon for the word gē.

After observing all the occurrences in the Gospels-Acts, it is sometimes fruitful to put them together in table form.

Mt Mk Lk Jn Acts

Earth vs heaven 15 3 6 3 6

Our universe or world 9 3 8 1 9

Soil for cultivation 4 7 4 1 0

Land, firm ground 6 6 6 7 7

Country, political territory 9 0 1 1 11

Total 43 19 25 13 33

A table like this allows us to make a number of observations, such as :
- Matthew uses the word “earth” the most in the earth-heaven pairing. This is an entirely Jewish perspective, in which cosmic reality is represented as follows: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gn 1:1).
- Mark's frequent reference to the soil to be cultivated is explained by his parables about the sower and the seed that springs up of its own accord.
- Luke (Gospel and Acts) has a preference for this global view of the universe represented by the word earth.
- In John, two scenes account for the majority of references to the mainland, the firm ground: the scene of the miraculous catch where the disciples leave the boat for the mainland, and the episode of the adulterous woman where Jesus writes on the ground.
The context of the entire New Testament

But sometimes the Gospels-Acts domain doesn't provide all the information we want on a word, either because the number of occurrences is too limited, or because we suspect that the other books of the NT will provide even more relevant information.

Let's take the example of ergatēs in Lk 10:2: "He said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers (ergatēs) are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers (ergatēs) into his harvest". What does ergatēs mean, translated as “laborer”? This word comes as a surprise, as we would have expected theristēs (reaper): there is a shortage of reapers, not workers. The Gospels-Acts are of little help (Mt = 6; Mk = 0; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0), as the two occurrences in Luke and two of the occurrences in Matthew all come from the same passage in the Q Document. Moreover, three of Matthew's occurrences come from the parable of the workers of the eleventh hour, and so ergatēs refers to salaried workers; this only thickens the incomprehension: why would Jesus refer to salaried workers?

But when we look at the whole of the NT, we can gain a lot more insight, especially from 1 Tim 5:17-18.
Elders who lead the Church well deserve double pay, especially those with the heavy responsibility of preaching and teaching. For the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer (ergatēs) deserves to be paid."

In early communities, preachers, catechists and missionaries were paid. In the second letter to Timothy, the latter is called “a laborer (ergatēs) who has nothing to be ashamed of, a faithful dispenser of the word of truth.” When Paul attacks missionaries who sabotage his teaching, he calls them “evil laborers (ergatēs)” (Phil 3:2). Note also that Paul had the right to be paid for his missionary work, but he gave it up.

Thus, Lk 10:2 makes symbolic use of the image of the harvest, which designates the newly baptized, and refers to the practice of the first communities of calling missionaries and pastors called to train the newly baptized “laborers”.
The context of the whole Bible

Sometimes we need to widen the scope of our analysis to the whole Bible when the Gospels or the New Testament don't give us all the information we need.

Let's take the example of the word hypodēma (shoe) in Lk 10:4: "Carry no purse, no bag, no shoes (hypodēma); and greet no one on the road.". In the NT, it occurs only in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 1; Lk = 4; Jn = 1; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. So we need to extend the scope of our analysis to the whole of the Old Testament in its Greek version, called Septuagint. How to proceed?

The first step is to identify all occurrences of hypodēma in the Septuagint. My lexicon on hypodēma display them all. Otherwise, we can use the Wiki Lexicon of the Greek New Testament with respect to the word hypodēma. Then, for all occurrences of the Greek term, we need to examine which Hebrew word the Septuagint translator translated as hypodēma. To do this requires a minimal knowledge of Hebrew, at least an ability to recognize the alphabet. For example, among the occurrences of the word hypodēma, there is Gn 14, 23. We then use the analysis tool https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-1.htm, and on the drop-down menu at the top left of the page, we choose: Genesis, then ch. 14, v. 23, which presents us with the Hebrew text of this verse and its English translation: we can then see the Hebrew word naʿal which has been translated into English as “sandal” and, to the left of the line, the numbering of the term according to James Strong's Concordance. The word naʿal has been given the number 5275. Now it's a matter of finding out the full definition of this word with the online tool: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5275/kjv/wlc/0-1/. Once on this site's page, simply enter the code “H5275” (H = Hebrew) under the title line “Word / Phrase / Strong's Search” to obtain the page devoted to naʿal. At the beginning of the page, all the meanings of the word (sandal, shoe) are presented, including its root in the verb nāʿal, which means “to lock”, suggesting the idea of a sole locked around the foot; then follows the Brown-Driver-Briggs index of occurrences of the word, and finally, at the bottom of the page, the English translation of all occurrences according to the King James.

Of course, if you know the Hebrew word naʿal in advance, you can use Solomon Mandelkern's concordance on paper format (The Mandelkern Biblical Concordance. Lipsiae: Veit et Comp., 1896) to obtain all occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible.

When we compare the list of occurrences of hypodēmata and the list of occurrences of naʿal, we see two almost identical lists. But there are two exceptions, two cases where a reference to naʿal is not on the list of references to hypodēma. There is first Isa 20: 2 ("The Lord spoke to Isaiah, son of Amos, saying: Go, and take off the hair shirt from your loins; untie the sandals [gr. sandalon, Hebrew: naʿălâ] of your feet, and do as I tell you; travel naked and barefoot." And there is Josh 9: 5 ("The side [koilos] of their shoes [hypodēma] as well as their sandals [sandalon] were worn and patched, their garments showed the cord, and the bread of their supply was dried up, moldy, eaten away." This last case is surprising, for the Hebrew text simply says, "they had old sandals (naʿălâ), worn and sewn up, and they wore old, worn clothes; all the bread of their provisions was dry and in crumbs". Thus, the translator of the Septuagint felt the need to use two Greek words to translate naʿălâ, first hypodēma with the attribute koilos (lit. hollow), as if the shoe had an "edge", like a boot, then sandalon. Thus, it would seem that one could wear either simple sandals or a slightly more "dressed" shoe which could cover the foot more. But this example seems an exceptional case, and in general the Hebrew always has the same word naʿălâ for the shoe on the feet, and the Septuagint almost always translates by hypodēma, which our Bibles most often translate as "sandal".

What do we know about hypodēma? Several times the straps of this shoe are mentioned: John the Baptist says he is unworthy to untie the straps of Jesus' shoes (Mk 1: 7; Lk 3: 16; Jn 1: 27). Thus, when we speak of taking off one's shoes, one says "to untie the straps of one's shoe" (Isa 5: 27), or simply "to untie one's shoe" with the Greek verb lyō or hypolyō (Acts 7: 33; 13: 25; Ex 3: 5; Deut 25: 9.10; Jos 5: 15; Rt 4: 7.8.).

As one can imagine, the shoe, which was not worn while staying at home, was used for walking. Thus the Israelites walked in "sandals/shoes" for forty years in the wilderness, and thanks to God, their sandals did not wear out (Deut 29:4). On the other hand, the Gibeonites who went to meet Joshua and his people complain that "our clothes and shoes have worn out during our long journey" (Josh 9:13). When Isaiah evokes this period of the Exodus when the Israelites were able to cross the sea, in order to announce the return from exile in the present time, he says: LXX "The Lord will cause his arm to fall on the river, and he will strike the seven mouths of it, so that one will cross them with sandals" (Isa 11:15). And if during the celebration of the Passover, sandals were required ("You shall eat in this way: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and you shall eat in haste: it is the Passover of the Lord", Ex 12:11), it is because it was necessary to leave quickly for the journey of the transhumance.

But beyond its utilitarian side, the shoe/sandal had a symbolic value. First of all, it symbolized what was of little value. The prophet Amos denounces those who exploit the poor and needy, and buy them with cheap gifts, like a pair of sandals (Amos 2:6; 8:6). And when one makes a plea of one's honesty, one claims that one has not even taken a pair of sandals, not even the strap of a pair of sandals (Gen 14:23; 1 Sam 12:3; Sir 46:19).

Since one takes possession of a territory by walking through it, the shoe becomes the symbol of taking possession of a thing and exercising one's rights. Thus, Ps 60:10: LXX "And Moab, the vessel of my hope; I will lay my sandal upon Idumea; the strangers are subject to me" (see also Ps 108:10). Thus, to express the fact that one was giving up a right of possession, one untied the shoe of one's right foot and handed it over to the person who became the purchaser. This is what is described in the book of Ruth: LXX "Now this rule has existed in Israel for a long time concerning redemptions, and markets: to confirm any word, the man untied his shoe and gave it to his relative, who took back his right of redemption. Such was the testimony in Israel" (4:7; see also 4:8). This practice is found in the administration of the levirate, so that when a relative did not want to marry the widow of his brother who had died without children, the relative had to untie his sandal from one of his feet to express the fact that he was not exercising his right of levirate, while the widow spat in his face (Deut 25:9); and the text of Deuteronomy concludes: "And the house of that man shall be called in Israel the house of the one who has untied his sandal" (25:10).

Shoes are therefore a symbol not only of possession, but also of authority and domination. In this perspective, we must understand this passage from Solomon's Psalm: "Foreign nations have come up to your altar and have trampled it with their shoes because of their pride" (2:2). They are also a symbol of dignity and nobility: "How beautiful are your feet in your sandals, daughter of a prince! The contours of your thighs are like necklaces, the work of an artist's hands" (Song 7:2). Conversely, walking barefoot was a symbol of loss of power and grief. When Job says: "The Lord makes the priests go barefoot; he overthrows the most stable authorities", he refers to the humiliation of the priests. To announce to Egypt its defeat and humiliation, God said this to Isaiah: "Go, untie the sackcloth from your loins and take off your sandals from your feet"; Isaiah did so, he walked naked and unshod (Isa 20:2). In the funeral ceremony, to express mourning, one walked barefoot. It is in this context that we must understand the word of God addressed to Ezekiel who, announcing his imminent death, asks that no funeral rites be performed: "You shall have a sigh of blood, a pain of loins; your hair on your head shall not be braided, and your sandals shall be on your feet; no lip shall comfort you, and you shall not eat the bread of men" (Ezek 24:17); since sandals were not worn at funerals, keeping one's sandals on was a way of not doing a funeral rite.

All this helps us to understand the scene at the burning bush when God tells Moses: "Do not come near here; take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground" (Ex 3:5). Why ask to remove the sandals? The first answer comes from the affirmation that the land is sacred, and therefore from the need to separate the sacred from the profane, the sandals representing the profane, they who have traveled the roads and collected dust; removing the sandals is equivalent to the rite of ablution with water before prayer and religious gestures. But there is more. The sandals are a symbol of possession, power and authority. To remove them is to give up one's authority and submit to God's, to humble oneself out of respect for God.

Extend to other words in the same category

When performing a lexicographical analysis, you sometimes need to broaden your search to include words of the same category, in order to capture the nuances that the author gives them. A good example is polis (city). What is a city? By modern standards, a city is an agglomeration of at least 2,000 people, governed by a mayor and a municipal council. What was it like in ancient times, and more specifically in Palestine at the time of Jesus? The Gospels give us few clues.

Three different entities are named: the smallest being the farm (agros), followed by the village or burgh (kōmē), and finally the city (polis).

And wherever Jesus went, whether villages (kōmē), cities (polis) or farms (agros), they put the sick in the squares and begged him to let them touch even the fringe of his cloak, and all who touched him were saved (Mk 6:56)

While it's easy to distinguish the village from the farm, it's not so easy to distinguish the city or town from the village. For example, Luke, Matthew and John treat Bethsaida as a city, but Mark as a village.

Matthew 11: 20	Luke 9: 10	John 1: 44	Mark 8: 23
Then he began to reproach the cities (polis) (Chorazin, Bethsaida) in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent.	On their return the apostles told Jesus all they had done. He took them with him and withdrew privately to a city (polis) called Bethsaida.	Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city (polis) of Andrew and Peter.	He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village (kōmē) (Bethsaida); and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, "Can you see anything?"

The same observation can be made about Bethlehem, called a city by Luke 2:4, but a village by John 7:42.

We can guess that the number of inhabitants, without being more precise, was a criterion to distinguish a city from a village. But there is probably mainly the fact that a city was usually fortified to protect itself, and one entered by a door. This is how, in the Old Testament, for example, we speak of the "city gate": Gen 19: 1 (Sodom); Josh 2: 5 (Jericho); Josh 8: 29 (Ai); Judg 9: 35 (Sichem); Judg 16: 2 (Gaza); 2 Kings 23: 8 (Jerusalem); Jdt 8: 3 (Bethulia). In the Gospels, Luke mentions the gate of the city of Nain: "When he was near the gate of the city (of Nain), there was a dead man born, an only son whose mother was a widow; and there was with it a considerable crowd of the city" (7: 12). And we know that the city of Jerusalem was a fortified city.

Which cities were named by the evangelists? i.e. where a specific name is explicitly associated with the word polis. Everyone goes from their own list.

For Matthew, there are Nazareth (2: 23), Jerusalem (4: 5; 5: 35; 21: 10; 26: 18; 27: 53), Chorazin and Bethsaida (11: 20),
For Mark, there is Capernaum (1: 33), Jerusalem (11: 19; 14: 16)
For John, there are Bethsaida (1: 44), Sychar (4: 5), Ephraim (11: 54), Jerusalem (19: 20)
For Luke, there are Nazareth (1: 26; 2: 4.39), Bethlehem (2: 4), Capernaum (4: 31), Nain (7: 11), Bethsaida (9: 10), Jerusalem (19: 41; 22: 10; 23: 19), Arimathy (23: 51)

The only consensus among all is the city of Jerusalem. Luke has the longest list, but his knowledge of Palestine, where he has probably never set foot, is rather poor, and one can imagine that he could have projected his Greek universe on the geography of Palestine.

As for villages, they are referred to without naming them, with a few rare exceptions: Bethsaida (Mk 8: 23), Bethphage (Mk 11: 2), Emmaus (Lk 24: 13), Bethlehem (Jn 7: 42), Bethany (Jn 11: 1).

The context of the classical Greek world

Occasionally, certain words can be illuminated by exploring their origins and meanings in classical Greek culture. What tools are available for such an incursion into ancient Greece? The traditional tool of biblical scholars is the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), 10 vol. Gerhard Kittel et Gerhard Friedrich, ed., an English translation of the German work Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (TWNT). But an abridged version is available online for download in PDF format. : TDNT, abridged in one volume. Online, you can also use the https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?diacritics=on. On the page listing the occurrences of the word you're looking for, you can click on the Greek word to access the Perseus dictionary, which lists all the classical Greek authors using this word and the meaning they give it.

Let's look at a few examples of how the classical Greek world shed light on certain words.
1. Let's start with the Greek vocabulary of love. In Homer's Odyssey (late 8th century BC), the verb agapaō is used when Odysseus is told “Are you not content (agapaō) to eat with us...”. From the expression “to be content with” develops the idea of: to welcome with affection, or to show affection. And when the word is used in connection with things, it has a meaning close to phileō, i.e. to desire a thing.
  
  The noun philos expresses membership of a social group, without sentimental connotations. When the adjective philos is used with people, it means: loved, cherished, dear. For its part, the verb phileō means: to cherish, to love, to have friendship for.
  
  In classical Greek, it's the verb eraō and the noun erōs (which gave rise to our adjective: erotic) that are used to express desire and amorous passion. However, no terms from the erotic vocabulary made it into the New Testament.
2. Then there's the word christos (anointed, Christ), which the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew māšîaḥ (messiah). In the classical Greek world, the term christos (anointed, coated) is known as early as the 5th century BC. It is an adjective derived from the verb chriō (to touch lightly, to graze). It is used in poetry to describe being “greased” either with oil in the case of a person emerging from the bath, with ambrosia in the case of a corpse, or with poison in the case of an arrow. In the OT, this is how the king is anointed at the inauguration of his reign. Thus, the messiah is the one who has been “greased” or “coated with oil”, a way of signifying that he has been chosen by God to carry out his function.
3. Let's now consider the word daimōn (demon). In ancient Greece, daimōn appears alongside the word theos (God) to designate the divine power that influences human destiny for good or ill, from which derives the meaning of “hateful fate” or “good fortune” or “happiness” (see also Isa 65:11). The philosopher Plato considers these divinities to be mixed beings, situated in a space between men and gods. As for daimonion, the term is the diminutive of daimōn, and so Plato considers it a divine but inferior being. According to the root of the word, daimōn designates that which disturbs and tears, and would have an animistic origin to describe the positive or negative powers that influence the course of human life. But in the hierarchy of otherworldly forces intervening in history, they are the lowest, and therefore the closest, and hence the most feared. This is how the translator of the Septuagint used daimōn to translate the Hebrew Gad, a false god meaning: Luck. Similarly, the Septuagint translator used daimonion to translate various words from Hebrew, such as ĕlōhîm (god, idol), or śāʿîr (hairy goat), or leḇēnâ ([altar] of brick), etc., in short anything connected with pagan worship.
4. Finally, the meaning of doxa (glory) in classical Greece. Etymologically speaking, the feminine noun doxa is derived from the verb dokeō (to appear, to seem, to think, to be of opinion), and therefore refers to the subjective aspect of things: what seems to me, what appears to me. In the philosopher Parmenides (5th century BC), it expresses the idea of opinion, as opposed to truth. In Plato, it denotes opinion as opposed to science, i.e. the sensible world of appearances, which can only be a reflection of the world of ideas, and therefore can only be a conjecture, a product of the imagination. In the same vein, it refers to the subjective opinion of a person, negative or positive, and therefore to his reputation, hence the idea of his “glory”, i.e. his great reputation. As a corollary, the verb doxazō means “to have a thought, to imagine” and, in relation to a person, “to glorify”. It is this word doxa that the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew kaḇôd, which derives from the verb kbd meaning: to be heavy, to have weight. It is applied to a person who is “heavy”, i.e. who has a lot of influence, and this on several levels: financial, political, military. The word is also applied to God, to describe His person in a visible way, sometimes His intimidating aspect; we can't see God, but we can see His glory, His influence.

Specific meaning in the passage analyzed

Having explored the whole semantic field of a word, it's time to return to the verse we're analyzing, and choose from among the possible meanings the precise one that the word takes on in the passage we're analyzing.
1. Take, for example, the word gē (earth), which, according to our analysis of the Gospels, can take on five main meanings: the earth here below as opposed to heaven, our universe or world, the soil to be cultivated, the ground or mainland, and the country or political territory. If we analyze Mt 14:14 (“Then the boat was already several stadia from the land, being troubled by the waves, for the wind was contrary”), we can conclude that the word “land” here refers to firm ground as opposed to water. In this context, the mainland is a symbol of what is reassuring, as opposed to the sea or lake where the disciples' boat experiences turbulence.
  
  On the other hand, if we analyze Mt 2:6 (“And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah”), we must conclude that the term here designates the land as a political territory, a region, a country, and that it is under Matthew's pen that this meaning recurs most often (9 times out of the 11 occurrences in the Gospels-Acts); we have an echo of a structure of Jewish thought that speaks of “the land of Egypt” or “the land of Canaan” or “the land of Israel” or “the land of Judah” to designate a region or country.
2. The term kyrios (lord) provides another example. Its analysis reveals that it can designate various realities: 1) God, to avoid pronouncing his name; 2) after Easter, the first Christians took the habit of invoking Jesus under the name of Lord, the title that a Jew attributed to God; 3) the term can designate the owner of an estate over which he exercises lordship and for which servants work; 4) there is also the reference to the Septuagint version of Psalm 110:1, a psalm that has been given a messianic meaning: kyrios designates the messiah; 5) it is used in a number of other circumstances, such as the master-disciple relationship, or as a title of honor when addressing an individual (the equivalent of “sir”), or as an adjective in the expression “to be master of”.
  
  When we analyze Lk 10:1 (“Then, after these events, the Lord (kyrios) appointed others, seventy-two, and sent them two by two before his face to every city and place where he himself was about to come”), we must conclude that the title given here to Jesus is the one that will be attributed to him after Easter. This is surprising, given that we are in the midst of Jesus' ministry, and that, historically speaking, he was to be called either “Jesus” or “rabbi” or teacher. All this reminds us that the author, Luke, is telling this story after Easter, to a community of believers for whom Jesus is truly Lord.
3. Lk 10:1 offers us an interesting example of a hermeneutical challenge, even if we know the various meanings of a word. We read: “Jesus sent them two by two before (pro) his face to every city and place where he himself was about to come”. Analysis of the preposition pro (before) reveals two dimensions: a temporal dimension, and therefore refers to what precedes in time, and a spatial dimension, and therefore serves to designate what is in front of something else, such as being in front of a door. Here, in v. 1, pro primarily has a temporal meaning: the envoys precede Jesus' arrival in time. But it can also have a spatial connotation, for by preceding Jesus on a path that Jesus will also follow later, the envoys are ahead of Jesus in space.
  
  That said, what does this precedence of the disciples mean? This isn't the first time Luke has spoken of precedence in sending out on mission. A few verses earlier (Lk 9:52), Jesus had sent messengers ahead of him to the Samaritans to prepare for his coming, though we don't know what this preparation consisted of. Then, in the next verse, we are told simply that Jesus was not welcomed, as if everyone had left at the same time and there had been no preparatory work on the part of the disciples. As for the sending out of the 72 before the coming of Jesus, mentioned in v. 1, we learn only a little later (v. 17) that the demons were subject to them. But how does this prepare for Jesus' coming, especially since he will be on the road until chap. 18, when he reaches Jerusalem? Luke never describes this preparation, or why it is necessary. In fact, the sending that precedes the coming of Jesus is probably to be understood in the context of the Christian community of the '85s: the Christian's mission is to open the way to faith through his witness, and thereby prepare the coming of Jesus; when Luke speaks of the messengers and the 72, he's talking about us who are sent to prepare the coming of Jesus in people's hearts.
4. Yet another example of hermeneutical challenge despite lexicographical analysis comes from Lk 10:1: “Then, after these events, the Lord appointed others (heterous), seventy-two...”. Heteros (other) is an adjective used here as a noun, a word that Luke uses regularly (of the 60 occurrences in the Gospels-Acts, 49 come from Luke's pen). But by definition, “other” is an attribute of a noun. But here, “other” refers to whom? In the preceding pericope, Luke recounts the interaction with three people: one wants to follow him, but Jesus seems to discourage him with his demands; Jesus calls another, but the latter replies that he must first bury his father; and a third wants to follow him, but only after bidding farewell to his family. So would “other” be the attribute of these people, and so Luke would like to tell us: Jesus chose other disciples than those who didn't want to follow him right away? This is unlikely, since the attribute “other” refers to people whom Jesus had previously designated (anadeiknymi). Unfortunately, this is the only time this verb appears in Luke's Gospel.
  
  We have to go back to the beginning of ch. 9 to find a parallel, particularly in the section from v. 1-6, when Jesus gathers the Twelve and sends them out on a mission to proclaim God's reign and heal the sick, just as he will do with the Seventy-Two. So Luke means: Jesus appointed “other” disciples than the Twelve for the mission. Why wasn't Luke clearer? The problem is that he juggles several sources. In his section 8:4 - 9:50, Luke takes Mark's material and follows his sequence, but section 9:51 - 19:28, to which our pericope belongs, is a section of his own, where he abandons Mark's sequence, and inserts traditions of his own and pages from the Q Document, as Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem over ten chapters. Luke then seems to forget that these additions lose the link with what was presented earlier.
  
  This is not Luke's only blunder. A typical example is Luke's rearrangement of the story of Peter's denial (22:56-62): whereas Mark cut the drama into three episodes, Luke preferred to combine them into one long episode, but when he later makes the connection with the Jews' mockery, after the scene where Peter weeps bitterly, he simply writes: “The men who guarded him mocked him” (Lk 22:63); grammatically, the pronouns ‘him’ that designate the captive person being mocked would refer to Peter, who is the subject of the preceding sentence, whereas the reader knows full well that the person being mocked is indeed Jesus. So, in his editing work, Luke forgot to make the connection with Mark's sequence, a little “oversight”.

The origin of the word and its place in the evangelist's vocabulary

Another stage in the lexicographical analysis aims to answer the questions: where does the word analyzed come from? What place does it occupy in the evangelist's vocabulary? What importance does he give it? Is it a clue to his style and theology?

Unfortunately, for this stage, the four Gospels do not present the same level of facility in answering these questions. Such an analysis assumes the theory of two sources, i.e. Matthew and Luke had in hand Mark's Gospel, which they took up and modified, as well as the Q Document. From this perspective, to enter their literary and theological universe, we must first observe how Matthew and Luke modified Mark. Analyzing Matthew's and Luke's use of the Q Document is trickier, as we don't have a copy of this document; conclusions become highly hypothetical. What about the analysis of Mark and John? We know they relied on sources to write their gospels, but it's often foolhardy to draw a line between what is a source and what is redactional. Often, it is the recurrence of vocabulary and themes that allows the biblical scholar to glimpse their literary and theological universe. On this point, we must acknowledge the remarkable work of M.E. Boismard in two major works: Synopse des quatre évangiles, t. II and t. III. Paris: Cerf, 1972 and 1977, which presents an in-depth analysis of the stylistic characteristics of each evangelist. But his approach moves away from the two-source theory to that of four initial documents (A, B, C, Q) used to write the Gospels, each of which would have known at least two editions. This theory has not met with much enthusiasm among biblical scholars, as it appears highly hypothetical and overly complex.

Let's start with the easy part, the editorial work that can be observed in Matthew and Luke. In the passages they take from Mark, all we have to do is compare what they add or omit from their source.

Matthew's editorial work

Let's take the term kyrios (lord) in Matthew. When we compare a number of passages from Mark taken up by Matthew, we get this:

Mark	Matthew's version
"If you want, you can cleanse me."	(8,2) "Lord, if you want, you can cleanse me."
(4: 38: storm stilling) And they awakened him and said to him: "Teacher (didaskale), do you not care that we perish?"	(8:25) And they awakened him, saying, "Lord, save us, we are about to perish.
(7: 26) the woman...syrophenician... was begging him to drive the demon out of her daughter	(15: 22) A Canaanite woman... cried out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, son of David: my daughter is being mistreated by a demon."
(8:32: Announcement of passion) And Peter, taking him to himself, began to admonish him.	(16: 22) And Peter, taking him to himself, admonishing him, said to him, "Be it far from you, Lord.
(9: 5: transfiguration) And when Peter spoke, he said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here"	(17: 4) And when Peter spoke, he said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here
(9: 17: healing of the epileptic child) someone... replied: "Teacher (didaskale), I have brought my son to you."	(17: 14) a man came ... and said: "Lord, have mercy on my son."
(10: 47-51: (blind man/men of Jericho) And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me! "...but he cried out much more, "Son of David, have mercy on me! "Jesus said, "What do you want me to do for you? "The blind man said to him, "Rabboni, let me see!"	(20: 30-33) When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, son of David! "...but they cried out more loudly, saying, "Lord have mercy on us, Son of David! "Jesus said, "What do you want me to do for you? "They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened!"
(14: 19: announcement of Judas' betrayal) They began to be saddened and said to him one after the other: "(Could it be) me?"	(26: 22) And they were very sad and began to say to him, one by one, "Could it be me, Lord?"

As we can see, Matthew replaces terms like “you”, Jesus, master, rabbi or rabboni found in Mark with the title Lord. Or, when Mark's narrative is in indirect style, he transforms it into direct style and adds the vocative “Lord”. What can we conclude? Two things.

Firstly, Matthew likes to clarify and standardize vocabulary; he designates the same realities with the same words.
Secondly, we find in Matthew the beginnings of a high Christology that will reach its peak with John, i.e. Jesus takes on more and more of the traits proper to God. Remember that Mark's Gospel is usually dated around 67 AD, and Matthew's around 80 or 85 AD. Over this period of more than 10 or 15 years, thinking about the person of Jesus has evolved and been refined, and the features that associate him with God or with faith after Easter become more important than those that reflect historical data as it stands. Thus, in Matthew's eyes, the Canaanite woman expresses her faith by calling him : Lord.

Luke's editorial work

Let's turn to Luke, who belongs to the Greek world. We can observe his redactional work when he takes up three passages from Mark concerning the unclean spirit.

Mark 1:23	Luke 4:33
And immediately there was a man in their synagogue in unclean spirit and he shouted	And in the synagogue there was a man having the spirit of an unclean demon and he cried out
Mark 5	Luke 8:29
8 For he said to him, "Come out, unclean spirit, of the man." [4 because he had often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been broken by him, and the fetters broken, and no one could tame him.]	For he commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For many times it had taken hold of him, and he was kept bound with chains and fetters, and breaking the bonds, he was dragged by the demon into the deserts.
Mark 9	Luke 9:42
20 And they brought it to him. And when they saw him, the spirit immediately shook him... 25 Now Jesus... commanded the unclean spirit... 27 (taking him by his hand) straightened him out and he stood up.	While he was still approaching, the demon threw him (to the ground) and (shook him). Now Jesus commanded the unclean spirit and healed the child and delivered him to his father.

What do we observe? Luke clarifies for his audience that an unclean spirit is the equivalent of a demon. Why is this? In the Greek world, people were more familiar with the notion of demon than that of unclean spirit, which was part of the Jewish universe. We saw earlier that daimonion is the diminutive of daimōn, and someone like Plato considered it a divine but inferior being. According to the root of the word, daimōn designates that which disturbs and tears, and would have an animistic origin to describe the positive or negative powers that influence the course of human life.

So is it any wonder that Luke prefers the term “demon” to “unclean spirit” when referring to the forces of evil? In Lk 10:17, for example, the disciples say: “Even the demons submit to us”.

Matthew and Luke's use of the Q Document

When Matthew and Luke insert passages from the Q Document into their gospels, the analysis to determine their redactional work is much more delicate, as we have no copy of this source, and so it's impossible for us to establish parallels as we can with Mark. We therefore have to resort to other criteria, such as our knowledge of the familiar vocabulary of an evangelist, or of their theology. Let's take the example of the pericope on the “Our Father”.

Let's compare the most literal translation of Matthew's Greek text with that of Luke's, underlining similar words.

Matthew	Luke
6: 9 "Thus therefore pray yourselves, 'Father of us the (one) in the heavens, may be hallowed the name of you.	11: 2a Then, he said to them, "When you might pray, say: 'Father, may be hallowed the name of you.
6: 10 May come the kingdom of you. May happen the will of you, as in heaven also on earth.	11: 2b May come the kingdom of you.
6: 11 The bread of us the sufficient give us today.	11: 3 The bread of us the sufficient give us the by day.
6: 12 And remit us the debts of us, as also, us, we remit to the debtors of us.	11: 4a And remit us the sins of us, for also we, we remit to all having debts with us.
6: 13 And you should not bring us into trial, but deliver us from the evil.'"	11: 4b And you should not bring us into trial'"

A first observation: while Luke presents us with five requests in Jesus' prayer (1. hallowed name; 2. kingdom come; 3. sufficient bread; 4. remission of sins; 5. avoidance of trial), Matthew presents us with seven (1. hallowed name; 2. kingdom come; 3. do God's will; 4. sufficient bread; 5. remission of sins; 6. avoidance of trial; 7. deliverance from the evil). Did the Q document contain five or seven requests?

As he did with the Beatitudes, Matthew seems to have amplified his source. The first amplification is this phrase: “Let your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth”. This theme of God's will (thelēma) is an essential one in Matthew's theology, appearing in passages peculiar to him, such as 7:17 ("It is not by saying to me: Lord, Lord, that one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is by doing the will (thelēma) of my Father who is in heaven“), as 21: 31 with the parable of the two sons (”Which of the two has done the will (thelēma) of the father“) and especially 26:42 in Gethsemane (”My Father, he said, if this cup cannot pass without my drinking it, your will (thelēma) be done! “). Matthew, like every good Jew, insists on action, orthopraxis, conformity to God's will.

Matthew's second amplification concerns deliverance from the Evil One, which basically refers to Satan, the tempter, as he indicates in the account of Jesus' trials / temptations (Mt 4:10). The term Evil One (ponēros) appears in his parable of the tares, for it is he who sows the tares. He alone speaks of the Evil One as a person, as in 5:37 ("Let your language be: Yes? Yes, No? No: whatever more is said comes from the Evil One (ponēros)"). Never elsewhere in the Gospels does the term “evil” refer to a person.

Matthew's other modifications are noteworthy: the adjective “our” in the expression “Father of us” or “our Father”. He transforms this prayer of Jesus into a community prayer to make it more universal, as he did with the beatitudes about the poor by transforming it into “poor in spirit”, spiritualizing poverty. But we can easily guess that the original expression is that to which Luke bears witness, i.e. simply “Father”, as shown by Jn 17:1 (“Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son...” and Mk 14:36 (“He said, ‘Abba, Father, to you all things are possible’”). Similarly, the expression “the one in heaven” is typical of Matthew's vocabulary, and he is practically the only one to use it (13 times in his Gospel, the only exception being Mk 11:25).

But Luke, too, seems to make some modifications to the Q Document, even if they are less significant. Firstly, the expression “the per day” (to kathʼ hēmeran), i.e. daily, which qualifies the bread, a thoroughly Lucan expression (see Lk 9:23; 16:19; 19:47; 22:53; Acts 2:46.47; 3:2; 16:5; 17:11; 19:9). Secondly, Luke speaks of the forgiveness of “sins”, while Matthew speaks of the forgiveness of “debts”. Now, in Aramaic, the word “debt” was often understood in the sense of “sins”. So, in the Q Document, the word “debts” must have been present, and Luke wanted to interpret its meaning for his Greek audience. Moreover, he returns to the word “debts” at the end of 11:4a (“those who are indebted to us”).

It is also likely that the Q Document text had this form (a very literal translation of the Greek):

Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
the bread we need give us today,
and forgive us our debts
and do not bring us into trial.

Mark's editorial work

Analyzing Mark's redactional work poses a particular challenge: how can we determine whether what he writes is a literary creation from his pen or simply a copy from his source? And yet, it's quite possible that many of the features of his Gospel are from his own pen.

For Marc is an excellent storyteller, and like all good storytellers he likes to hold attention in various ways, such as using exotic vocabulary, for example Aramaic words: abba (dad), elōi (my God), ephphatha (be opened), korban (offering to God), talitha koumi (Little girl, get up), rhabbouni (my teacher), hōsanna (come to our aid).

Another trait of a good storyteller is amplification: to stimulate the imagination, he exaggerates. This is most apparent in certain miracle stories. Take, for example, the story of the healing of an epileptic child, where Mark probably merged two sources, an exorcism story and an epilepsy story. This story was taken up by Matthew and Luke. All Mark's words taken up by Matthew or Luke have been underlined. In blue are the words shared by Matthew and Luke.

Mark 9	Matthieu 17	Luc 9
14 And having come toward the disciples, they saw a crowd large around them and scribes discussing toward them.	14 And having come toward the crowd	37 Then, it came to pass the next day, them having come down from the mountain, met him a crowd large.
15 And immediately all the crowd having seen him, they were struck with stupor and running forward they were greeting him.
16 And he questioned them, "What are you discussing with them?"
17-18a And answered to him one of the crowd: "Teacher, I brought the son of me toward you, having a spirit mute. And whenever if it might catch him, it dashes him and he foams and he gnashes the teeth and he is withered.	15 they approached him a man kneeling to him and saying: "Lord, have mercy on the son of me, for he is epileptic and badly suffers. For often he falls into the fire and often into the water.	38-39 And behold a male from the crowd cried out saying, "Teacher, I implore you to look upon the son of me, for only son to me he is, and behold a spirit takes him and suddenly it cries and it convulses him with foam and with difficulty it go away from him breaking him.
18b And I said to the disciples of you in order they might cast it out, and they did not have strength.	16 And I brought him to the disciples of you and they were not able to treat him.	40 And implored the disciples of you in order that they might cast out it, and they were not able.
19 Then, him, having answered to them he says, "O generation faithless, until when toward you will I be? Until when will I bear with you? Bring him toward me."	17 Then, having answered, the Jesus said: "O generations faithless and having been perverted, until when with you will I be? Until when will I bear with you? Bring him to me here."	41 Then, having answered, the Jesus said, "O generations faithless and having been perverted, until when will I be toward you and will I bear with you? Lead toward [me] here the son of you.
20 And they brought him toward him. And having seen him, the spirit immediately convulsed him, and having fallen upon the ground he was rolling foaming.		42a Then, when him approaching, it dashed him the demon and it convulsed.
And he questioned the father of him, "How much time it is like this has been happening to him?" Then, him he said, "Out of childhood.
22 And often and into the fire him he threw and into water, in order it might destroy him. But if anything you are able to, help us having been with compassion over us."	[15b For often he falls into the fire and often into the water.]
23 Then, the Jesus said to him, "The [word] if I am able, all [things are] possible to the [one] believing.
24 Immediately having cried the father of the child said, "I believe. Help me in the unbelief.
25 Then, having seen the Jesus that running together a crowd, he rebuked the spirit the unclean saying to him, "the mute and deaf spirit, I, order you, come out from him, and no longer enter into him."	18a And he rebuked him the Jesus	42b Then, the Jesus rebuked the spirit the unclean
26-27 And having cried and having convulse a lot, it came out. And he became like dead, so that the many [of them] would say that he died. Then, the Jesus seized the hand of him, he rose him up, and he stood up.	18b and it came out from him the demon and was treated the child from this hour.	42c and was healed the child and he gave back him to the father of him.
		43a Then they were amazed at God's greatness.

The first purpose of this parallel is to show how much longer Mark's version of this miracle is than those of Matthew and Luke. And this observation can be applied to many other accounts.

A second observation comes from a close reading of Mark's account. This reading reveals several anomalies and a sloppy style. Mark writes in v. 14a: “And coming to the disciples”. What is the subject of “coming”? In the previous verse, Jesus speaks to Peter, James and John at the end of the account of the transfiguration on a mountain. We must then assume that this is Jesus, Peter, James and John coming down from the mountain. But Mark writes that these people are going to the disciples. But aren't Peter, James and John also disciples? So they are disciples coming to the disciples. Why didn't Mark clarify things by saying “the other” disciples who remained at the bottom of the mountain?

The rest of v. 14 raises questions when Mark writes: “they saw a large crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them”. We must assume that “them” refers to the “other” disciples. But what is surprising is the presence of scribes, who only appear in this verse and play no role in the rest of the story?

V. 15 is strange: “And immediately all the crowd, seeing him, were astonished and ran to him, greeting him”. For one thing, this verse interrupts the narrative. Indeed, v. 14 ends with the scribes' discussion with the other disciples. And v. 16 seems to be a continuation of v. 14, as Jesus questions the disciples on the subject of the scribes' discussion with them; v. 15 is therefore out of place. On the other hand, it's hard to understand why in v. 15 the crowd is seized with amazement (ekthambeo) on seeing Jesus; this verb ekthambeo is unique to Mark (Mt = 0; Mk = 4; Lk = 0; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0) in the whole of the NT, and is used elsewhere only in Gethsemane to describe Jesus' state (14:33) and after the resurrection to describe the state of the women before the young man who tells them of Jesus' resurrection (16:5-6). Similarly, the verb “to greet” (aspazomai) is not used again until the Passion, when the soldiers greet Jesus clad in purple and wearing the crown of thorns, saying: “Hail, King of the Jews”.

V. 16: "And he asked them, What were you discussing with them?" We must assume that “he” refers to Jesus, as the pronoun is singular. But what does “them” mean? This personal pronoun could refer to the “other” disciples or scribes. But since in v. 14 Mark writes that the scribes were discussing with the disciples, i.e. the initiative for the discussion came from the scribes, we must assume here that “they” refers to the scribes.

V. 17a is surprising: “And he said to him, one of the crowd, ‘Teacher, I have brought my son to you with a mute spirit’”. In v. 16, Jesus put a question to the scribes, but here the answer comes from the child's father.

The child's illness also raises questions. First, in v. 17, the father tells us that the child has a mute spirit. But in v. 18a (“And where he seizes him, he throws him, and he foams and gnashes his teeth and withers”), he gives all the symptoms of a case of epilepsy.

V. 19: “Then he answered them and said, 'O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I endure you? Bring him to me”. What does Mark mean by “them”? Who is meant by “unbelieving generation”? The disciples, the crowd, the scribes?

V. 20: “And they brought him to him. And seeing him the spirit immediately shook him violently, and falling to the ground, he rolled about foaming”. Here we have four occurrences of the personal pronoun “him”. This is a typical Markan sentence. On the one hand, he remains imprecise about the characters (“him” sometimes refers to Jesus, sometimes to the child), which sometimes leaves us confused; for example, in the expression “seeing him”, what does “him” refer to? Jesus or the child? Probably Jesus, but a few words later, “him” obviously refers to the child. On the other hand, why describe the symptoms of epilepsy a second time? Finally, Mark tells us for the 2nd time that the child is being brought (he had already been brought in v. 17). The probable merge of two sources helps to amplify and lengthen the story.

V. 21: “And he asked his father, 'How long has this been happening to him?' Then he said, 'Since childhood'”. Why does Mark introduce this question, which does nothing for the child's healing? Is it possible that the evangelist, even if he receives these details from a source, is keen to add them, because wanting to be a good storyteller, he is keen to make his account come alive with lots of detail.

V. 22 : “And often also into a fire he casts him and into a water that he may destroy him. But if you are capable of anything, help us, being moved with compassion over us”. Once again, the father describes the child's illness. But this response goes beyond Jesus' question in v. 21, who simply asked how long the illness had been going on. All this amplifies the story.

V. 25: “Then, seeing the Jesus that a crowd was running to him, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him: ‘The mute and deaf spirit, I command you, go out of him and never enter him again.’” Mark seems to be saying that Jesus hurried to heal the man before the crowd arrived. But this contradicts v. 15 and 17, where the crowd is already there to greet Jesus, and the child's father was one of the crowd. What's more, we forget here that the child was epileptic and go back to the father's first description of the illness, in which the child is mute.

V. 26-27: “And having cried out and shaken much, he came out. And he became as if dead, so that many said he was dead. Then the Jesus having seized his hand, awoke [egeiro] him, and he arose [anistemi].” Once again, we note the imprecision of the personal pronouns: “he” came out; “he” became as if dead. Who does “he” refer to? We can guess that the first “he” refers to the “unclean spirit”, and the second “he” to the child. Mark forces us to assume many things, without bothering to clarify. Finally, let's note that Jesus' taking hold of the hand and causing the healed being to rise is typical of a scene in Mark, since it takes place in Mk 1:31 with Peter's mother-in-law (“He caused her to awaken [egeiro] by taking hold of her hand”) and in Mk 5:41 with Jairus' daughter (“And having taken hold of the child's hand... ‘Awake [egeiro]’... and... she stood up [anistemi]”). The verbs egeiro (wake up) and anistemi (stand up) are part of the typical NT vocabulary for describing Jesus' resurrection. This vocabulary is found here in v. 26-27. To emphasize the parallelism, Mark insists that the child is considered dead.

What can we conclude? According to M.E. Boismard, Synopse des quatre évangiles, II, p. 256-257, Mark would have merged two healing accounts here, that of a mute child, and that of an epileptic child. Unfortunately, this fusion is a little clumsy: Mark doesn't bother to rationalize the whole and smooth out the connections, so we sometimes end up with a rough, chaotic narrative. At most, he amplifies the details, which not only makes the story gripping, but also emphasizes Jesus' power. And, of course, he dresses the whole story in the colors of Jesus' death/resurrection.

There are few accounts of Mark that allow us to draw an independent parallel with other versions of this story, since it is usually Matthew and Luke who copy Mark. Nevertheless, we can find a few. The parable of the mustard seed is one such story, for it has come down to us in two versions, the one presented by Mark, and the one from the Q Document, mostly taken up by Luke. We have underlined the words in Mark that are taken up by Matthew and Luke, and highlighted in blue the similar words in Matthew and Luke that come from the Q Document.

Mark 4	Matthew 13	Luke
30 And he was saying, "How should I compare the kingdom of God or in what parable I should put it?	31a Another parable he put before to them saying,	18 Therefore he was saying, "To what comparable is the kingdom of God and to what will I compare it?
31-32 As a grain of mustard, that when it would be sown upon the earth, smallest being of all the seeds the ones upon the earth, and when it would be sown, it goes up and becomes greater of all the garden plants and it makes branches large, so as it is able under the shade of it the birds of the sky to dwell.	31b-32 "Comparable is the kingdom of heavens to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he sowed in the field of him. On the one hand, the smallest it is of all the seeds, on the other hand when it is grown greater of the garden plants it is and it becomes a tree, so as to come the birds of the sky and to dwell in the branches of it."	19 Comparable it is to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he cast into a garden of him, and it grew and became into a tree, and the birds of the sky dwelt in the branches of it."

Here are a few observations.

Luke seems to have respected the Q Document the best. His modification would be the word “garden” to replace the word “field”: addressing a Greek audience living mainly in towns, he wanted to adapt the scene to an urban environment; on this point, the word “field” in Matthew would better reflect the Palestinian agricultural milieu of Q Document. Luke, on the other hand, better reflects the Jewish milieu of the Q Document with the word “to cast” [mustard seed], a Semitic term.

The Q Document could therefore have the following form:

The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that having taken a man and cast into his field, and it grew into a tree, and the birds of the air took shelter in its branches.

Note that the mention of birds in the branches is an echo of Dan 4:7-9 (LXX: Dan 4:10-12): this is the story of a tree that becomes immense, an image of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom, and ends thus: “and in its branches sheltered the birds of the air”, i.e. the peoples of the earth.
Mark's account comes from the same source, but in a different version. M.E. Boismard calls this source “Document A”, and according to him, the story appeared in this form:

The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which, when sown on the earth, grows up and makes great branches so that the birds of the air can take shelter under its shade.

Note the ending, which is no longer “the birds of the air took shelter in the branches of him”, but rather: “the birds of the air can take shelter under its shade”; the birds are no longer in the branches, but under the shade of the tree's branches. This is an echo of Ezek 17:22-24, where the restoration of God's people, under the impetus of their king, is compared to a newly planted cedar, and the text ends thus: “It will bear branches, produce fruit, become a magnificent cedar. All kinds of birds will dwell in it, they will dwell in the shade of its branches”, i.e. the peoples of the earth come to find protection in its shade.
If we accept this hypothesis, what do we observe from Mark's pen? He would have added two phrases: first “it is the smallest of all seeds”, then “it becomes larger than all vegetable plants”. Why would he do this? It's easy to imagine that the first recipients of his gospel, an urban milieu (probably Rome), couldn't have guessed that the mustard seed was a small seed and that, as it grew, it reached impressive proportions. Mark felt it important to make these clarifications for those uninitiated in agriculture, as there was a risk of losing the point of the parable, which asserts that despite the very modest beginnings of the kingdom through mission, that of Jesus and his disciples, this mission would one day unfold in all its force when all the tribes of Israel, foreshadowed by Jesus' formation of the circle of Twelve, were gathered together. Mark, as a pastor, found this hermeneutical effort essential.

Another passage from Mark allows us to draw a parallel with another version of this passage: Mk 10:11 || Mt 19:9 || Mt 5:32 || Lk 16:18.

Mark 10	Matthew 19	Matthew	Luke
11 And he said to them, "Whoever releases (from a marriage bond) his woman and marries another, he is an adulterer to her;	9 Then, I say to you that " Whoever releases (from a marriage bond) his woman, apart from sexual immorality, and marries another, he is an adulterer	5: 32a Then, I, I say to you that everyone releasing (from a marriage bond) his woman, except for on account for sexual immorality, makes her to be adulteress,	16: 18a Everyone releasing (from a marriage bond) his woman and marrying a different commits adultery.
		and whoever shall marry her having been released (from a marriage bond), he is an adulterer.	16: 18b and who marrying her having been released (from a marriage bond) by a husband commits adultery.
12 And if she, having released (from a marriage bond) her husband, marries another, she is an adulteress.

Let's recall the account in Mk 10:1-9, where some Pharisees ask Jesus what he thinks of the ticket for repudiating a wife required by Jewish law, which was traced back to Moses. In Jewish circles, only the man could repudiate his wife, and the reason could be anything, including the fact that a woman had burnt a dish or that the man had found a more beautiful woman (this is how Deut. 24:1, which speaks of a “blemish” or “something to be ashamed of” in the wife, was interpreted; see Philo of Alexandria, De Specialibus Legibus, 3.5 #30-31 and Mishna, Nachin). Now, through Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24, Jesus recalls as a prophet the deep commitment God intended marriage to imply, where the man leaves his family to become one with his wife. The story ends with Jesus saying: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. Then, in v. 10, Mark shifts the scene to the house where the disciples question Jesus, a way of situating us in the time of the first Christian communities and showing us how, following discussions, they applied Jesus' teaching. We are witnessing the beginnings of canon law.
Mark, Matthew and Luke reflect two versions of this early canon law. Matthew and Luke merge what they receive from Mark with what they receive from the Q Document. This Q Document probably had this form:

Any man who repudiates his wife, makes her an adulteress and who would marry a repudiated woman commits adultery.

Why does repudiating a woman make her an adulteress? Let's not forget that in the Palestinian environment, women have no social status and their only means of support is through a husband. However, if she is repudiated, she no longer has a husband to support her, so she must urgently find another if she is to survive. So she has no choice but to commit adultery. Note that Matthew introduced an exception to the indissolubility of marriage: a case of porneia, a Greek word for any kind of sexual immorality. This exception was in force in the Matthaean community (probably in Antioch). Biblical scholars do not agree on its content. As this community was made up of a large number of Jewish converts, it is likely that porneia refers to everything that was abominable for a Jew: consanguineous relations and adultery, which was punishable by death.

Mk 10:11 for its part probably reflects a version similar to the Q Document, where we find the same key words: apolyō (to untie), gynē (woman), gameō (to marry), moichaō (to commit adultery). But what is remarkable is that Mark's version is adapted to the Roman milieu where, unlike the Jewish milieu, the woman could also initiate divorce. The other remarkable point is that the Markan version is presented under a casuistic-type structure, with a protasis and an apodosis:

Protasis:	If, perchance, someone releases (from the bonds of marriage) his wife and marries another
Apodosis:	[Then] he commits adultery with her
Protasis:	If, perchance, having released [from the bonds of marriage] her husband, she marries another,
Apodosis:	[Then] she commits adultery.

It may come as a surprise to find such a well-defined casuistic structure. But let's not forget that we're probably in Rome, and the Romans had a reputation for great legal culture. Does this explain the strange expression in v. 11: [adulterer] “to her” (ep' autēn)? What does “to her” mean? Our Bibles have ruled for the first wife: the man commits adultery with his first wife. What does this mean? Adultery is not seen as a moral state (i.e. being in a state of adultery), but as an action that offends someone, like a broken contract that penalizes someone. The expression “to her” therefore refers to the person who has been wronged. It's surprising that, in this casuistic structure, we don't use the same expression when it's the woman who breaks the contract, as if the man wasn't really injured. This suggests that, in the 1st century, women had more to lose than men, even in Roman society.

John

With John, we enter a different universe, and many words take on a meaning of their own. We can assume that he knew both oral and written sources; certain parallels with the Synoptics bear witness to this, such as the stories around John the Baptist, the sellers driven from the temple, the multiplication of the loaves, the miraculous catch, Jesus' last supper, the passion with Peter's denial and Judas' betrayal, the trial before Pilate, the empty tomb. What interests us here is the specific color that the Fourth Gospel gives to words that also appear in the Synoptics.
1. Take this sentence from the discourse on the bread of life (literal translation): “No one is able to come to me unless the Father has sent him, let him draw near, and I will make him rise (anistēmi) on the last day” (Jn 6:44). Let's take a closer look at this verb anistēmi, frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 4; Mk = 17; Lk = 27; Jn = 8; Acts = 45; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It literally means: to stand up.
  
  When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we notice that it can designate four different realities.
  - The gesture of rising up to get going. For example, Lk 1:39: "In those days Mary rose up (anistēmi) and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country".
  - The fact that Jesus was raised from the world of the dead and passed into the world of God. For example, Lk 24:46: "and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise (anistēmi) from the dead on the third day".
  - The Jewish belief that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead. For example, Mk 12:25: "For when they rise (anistēmi) from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
  - The fact that a person comes back to life, which could be translated as resuscitation. For example, Lk 9:19: "They answered, "John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has risen (anistēmi)".
  Among these four major realities, it is the first that largely dominates, as can be seen from these statistics.
  
  anistēmi Mt Mk Lk Jn Acts
  
  To stand up 4 9 21 1 36
  
  Jesus who has risen from the dead 0 6 3 1 7
  
  Return to life or resuscitation 0 0 3 1 2
  
  Final resurrection of the dead 0 2 0 5 0
  
  Total 4 17 27 8 45
  
  Here, in v. 44, John refers to the resurrection of the dead. However, when we look at the whole New Testament, we notice a certain ambiguity: who will be risen up, believers only, or everyone. Several texts speak only of the resurrection of the righteous or of those attached to Christ: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are judged worthy to share in this age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Lk 20:34-35); thus only those who are judged worthy will be resurrected. Paul says similar things: "Since we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also those who have fallen asleep in Jesus, God will take with him" (1 Thess 4:14); it seems that only those who have died believing will be raised. On the other hand, other passages in the New Testament speak of a resurrection for all, such as this one where Paul speaks to the governor Felix: "having hope in God, as they themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and of sinners" (24:15); everyone is resurrected, even if the fate of each one is different.
  
  The same ambiguity is found in John. On the one hand, he seems to assume that only the believer will be risen: "Yes, this is my Father's will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (6:39); clearly, only the believer will inherit eternal life and be raised by Jesus at the last day. But on the other hand, in a speech addressed to the Jews, Jesus says: "Do not be surprised, for the hour is coming when all those who are in the tombs will hear his (son of man's) voice and come out: those who have done good, to a resurrection of life; those who have done evil, to a resurrection of judgment (5:28-29); clearly, those who have done good and those who have done evil are risen, even though it is not clear what will be the fate of those undergoing judgment. And here, in v. 44, the promise of resurrection concerns only believers.
  
  This ambiguity cannot be resolved without addressing another ambiguity, that which concerns what has already been given and what will be given later: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (Jn 5:24); thus, the believer already has eternal life. The Pauline letters will say similar things: "buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him, because you believed in the power of God who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:12); for the believer, the resurrection has already taken place. Yet, even though he already has eternal life, the believer seems to be missing something. In fact, he seems to be missing two things.
  1. For, in spite of having eternal life, physical death awaits him ("He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live", Jn 11:25); he must therefore overcome this physical death, as Paul expresses it in this way: "And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom 8:11)
  2. Then there is the prospect of being able to live in true intimacy with Jesus: "Father, I want those whom you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they may behold my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world" (Jn 17:24). This point will be taken up again in his first letter: "Beloved, even now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made manifest. We know that in that manifestation we will be like him, because we will see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).
  A key to resolving these ambiguities is that of first century Judaism, a framework that permeated Jesus and the first Christian communities, an eschatological framework in which history is not infinite, but will have an end, an end seen with an apocalyptic vision, i.e. of intervention and final revelation of God that will be accompanied by a judgment ("until the coming of the Ancient One who rendered judgment for the saints of the Most High, and the time of the coming of the Holy One"). The end is seen with an apocalyptic vision, i.e., the intervention and final revelation of God, which will be accompanied by a judgment ("until the coming of the Ancient One, who will render judgment for the saints of the Most High, and the time will come for the saints to possess the kingdom", Dan 7:22). Another aspect of this framework is the obligation to have a body in order to live; in the Jewish universe, there is no "soul" without a body. This is how Paul must answer the question, "But how do the dead rise? With what body do they come back? (1 Cor 15:35). His answer will be to speak of a "spiritual" body (1 Cor 15:44), which all will have to put on as one puts on a dawn. In this context, the Jewish milieu envisaged a resurrection of the dead for all the deceased, in order first to identify them well, and then to exercise a final judgment, sending some to the light, others to the night (for an example of this vision, see 1 Enoch).
  
  It is in this context that we must read our v. 44. Even though the believer has already passed from death to life, he needs divine intervention to overcome physical death. This victory over physical death seems to be reserved for the end of human history, when everyone will be given a pneumatic body. At that time, the believer, having become like his master, will be able to contemplate him in all his glory.
2. Jn 16, 14 nous révèle d'autres particularités de Jean : « Celui-là me glorifiera (doxazō), parce que de ce qui est mien il recevra et annoncera à vous ». Le verbe doxazō (glorifier, rendre gloire, transfigurer, honorer, vanter, louer, célébrer) se rencontre surtout dans l’évangile de Jean : Mt = 4; Mc = 1; Lc = 9; Jn = 14; Ac = 2). Il faut aussi mentionner le substantif doxa (bonne opinion, honneur, estime, gloire, éclat, splendeur) qui se rencontre également surtout chez Jean : Mt = 7; Mc = 3; Lc = 13; Jn = 19; Ac = 4). Sur le plan étymologique, doxa est dérivé du verbe dokeō (paraître, sembler, penser, être d’avis), et donc renvoie à la réputation d’une personne, à sa renommée. D’ailleurs, la Septante s’est servie de doxa pour traduire l’hébreu kěbôd, dont la racine signifie avoir du poids : en effet, quelqu’un qui a du poids renvoie à quelqu’un qui a de l’influence, qui est « pesant », qui est connu et a une grande réputation.
  
  Let's start with the word doxa. Throughout the Gospels, the word “glory” is given a variety of meanings, which can be grouped into five categories.
  - The first category is purely human. Glory refers to the wealth and power of certain human beings. For example, this was one of the temptations Jesus had to endure: “Again the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with their glory (doxa)” (Mt 4:8; see also Mt 6:29; Lk 4:6; 12:27).
  - The glory reflects the divine milieu, in particular his authority and power, which enables him to play the role of judge. It is into this world that the risen Jesus enters, for example: “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory (doxa)” (Mk 13:26; see also Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; Mk 8:38; 10:37; Lk 9:26; 21:27; 24:26).
  - In a few rare cases, and only in Luke, glory reflects the divine milieu, but without any connotation of authority or power, but under the symbolism of light, like the brilliance of a precious and mysterious stone through which a message is heard: “The Angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory (doxa) of the Lord enveloped them in its brightness; and they were seized with great fear” (Lk 2:9; see also 9:31).
  - There is also the expression “to give glory to God”, which means to recognize God's action and power, and to accept to be under his authority. For example: “Glory (doxa) to God in the highest, and on earth peace to those who are the objects of his pleasure” (Lk 2:14).
  - Finally, there is the meaning found only in John, introduced in the prologue: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory (doxa), the glory (doxa) which he received from his Father as the only Son, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). This glory is something that can be seen and contemplated, like someone's face or personality (see also 17:24). This glory is particularly evident at certain moments, such as when Jesus performs extraordinary actions that are traditionally called miracles, as at Cana, when water becomes wine (2:11), or at Bethany, when Lazarus is raised from the dead (11:4,40).
  Let's turn now to doxazō (to glorify). Unsurprisingly, the use of the verb follows the same logic as that of the noun.
  - The synoptic gospels first use the verb “to glorify” in the same sense as “to give glory”, i.e., to acknowledge God's action and power, and to place oneself under his authority: “So shall your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify (doxazō) your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:16; see also 9:8; 15:31; Mk 2:12; Lk 2:20; 5:25-26; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43; 23:47).
  - Secondly, the verb is mostly used in the passive to express the human action of bestowing great reputation or honors on someone: “When therefore you give alms, do not go about trumpeting it before you; so do the hypocrites, in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be glorified (doxazō) by men; verily I say unto you, they have already their reward” (Mt 6:2; see also Lk 4:15; Jn 8:54a).
  - There is the unique case of “glorify” in John (Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 0; Jn = 15; Acts = 0), which extends the meaning of glory as an expression of God's unique quality of being.
    - The object of this glorification is sometimes God the Father (11: 4; 12: 28; 13: 32; 17: 1,4; 21: 19), sometimes Jesus (8: 54; 11: 4; 12: 3; 13: 32; 16: 14; 17: 1,10).
    - Similarly, the source of this glorification is sometimes God (8: 54; 12: 28; 13: 32; 17: 1), sometimes the Spirit (16: 14), sometimes Jesus (17: 4), sometimes an event like Lazarus' illness (11: 4) or, implicitly, death on the cross (12: 23), sometimes a person like Peter (21: 19).
      
      Only a few details emerge when we try to find out how the glorification takes place:
    - the raising of Lazarus reveals Jesus' quality of being, which in turn reflects on God's quality of being (11: 4a);
    - death freely accepted in love is the way for both Jesus and God to express their quality of being (13: 32), just as it is for Peter to reveal who God is (21: 19);
    - by answering the prayer of Christians, Jesus reveals who he is, and through him, reveals who God is (14: 13), just as the role of the Spirit is to continue to reveal who Jesus is (16: 14);
    - Jesus revealed God through his works, such as all his healing gestures (17: 4);
    - finally, the communion of disciples who welcomed Jesus' word reveals the very communion between Jesus and his Father (17: 10).
    Glorifying becomes in a way synonymous with “revealing”, and ties in with what we said about glory in John, which is a reality that is manifested and contemplated.
  - Finally, there is the unique case found only in Acts (Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 0; Jn = 0; Acts = 1) where “to glorify” means: to be risen up, to be exalted, to enter the divine world: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and denied before Pilate, even though he was determined to release him” (3, 13).
  Let us now return to v. 14. The word “glorify” is linked to the fact that the Spirit of truth will explain things to come, specifically the meaning of the cross, which is the expression of love that goes so far as to give one's life, reflecting not only Jesus' love, but also the Father's love. The word has an apocalyptic meaning, i.e. the revelation of the meaning of things, and more particularly of Jesus' identity. The original meaning of glory is radiance, but here we're talking about the radiance of Jesus' identity, and thus of the Father. It is therefore legitimate to translate the radiance of identity as “extraordinary quality of being”. This is what the Spirit of truth will reveal about Jesus.
3. Let's give a final example from Jn 2:11: “As he began signs the Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested the glory of him, and they believed (pisteuo) in him the disciples of him”. What does it mean to believe? It's a word that appears regularly in the Gospels, especially in John: Mt = 11; Mk = 14; Lk = 9; Jn = 98; Acts = 37; 1Jn = 9; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. In the synoptic narratives, the verb generally means: to trust in someone. This someone can be Jesus (his person, his word, his gospel), John the Baptist, God (in prayer or in Scripture). Only Mark's appendix hints at the beginning of a technical meaning, where faith becomes faith in the risen Christ.
  
  When we turn to John's Gospel, certain aspects of faith in the Synoptic Gospels disappear.
  - There is no longer a call to believe that Jesus can perform a miracle; rather, faith comes after the miracle: Jesus said to him, "Go, your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him and went his way (4:50; see also our scene at Cana: This was the beginning of the signs that Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee...his disciples believed in him; see also 2:23; 4:48; 6:30; 7:31; 11:15.45; 12:11; 14:11)
  - There is no more faith in John the Baptist; he is only the instrument to bring people to believe in Jesus
  - There is no longer a warning against faith in a false Christ
  Faith is centered on the very person of Jesus, on his identity. To be more precise,
  - To believe is to believe:
    1. That God sent him (6: 29; 11: 42; 17: 8.21)
    2. That Jesus is the Holy One of God (6: 69)
    3. That he is the Son of Man (9: 35)
    4. That the Father is in him and he is in the Father (10: 38; 14: 10)
    5. That he is the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world (11: 27)
    6. That he is the One who is (13: 19)
    7. That he came out of God (16: 27.30)
    There is therefore something just in the reproach of the Jews who accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God (5: 8; 10: 33)
  - Faith in Jesus seems to have different levels of depth
    1. There is faith in Jesus as a prophet: A good many of the Samaritans of that city created in him because of the word of the woman, who testified, "He has told me all that I have done." , 4:39; this is a good start, but there is much more, as Jesus tells Nathanael: Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' you believe! You will see even better." (1: 50)
    2. A deeper faith sees him as the savior of the world: and they (the Samaritans) said to the woman, "It is no longer on your sayings that we believe; we ourselves have heard him and know that he is truly the savior of the world. " (4: 42)
    3. Then there is finally the recognition of Jesus' lordship: Then he (the blind man who was born after being healed) said, "I believe, Lord," and he bowed down to him (9:38); and there is especially this word of Thomas: My Lord and my God (20:28), to whom Jesus said, Because you see me, you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed (20: 29)
  - The act of believing or not believing is not neutral, it has consequences. The one who believes:
    1. Becomes a child of God (1: 12)
    2. Has eternal life (3: 15-16.36; 5: 24; 6: 40.47; 20: 31)
    3. Is not judged (3: 18; 5: 24)
    4. Will never be hungry or thirsty (6: 35)
    5. Will rise again on the last day (6: 40)
    6. Will receive the Spirit (7: 39)
    7. If he dies, he will live; he has passed from death to life (11: 25; 5: 24)
    8. Will never die (11: 26)
    9. Will see the glory of God (11: 40)
    10. Becomes a son of light (12: 36)
    11. Believe also in Him who sent him (12: 44)
    12. Do not remain in darkness (12: 46)
    13. Will do the same works as Jesus, and even greater ones (14: 12)
    He who does not believe:
    1. Is already judged (3: 18)
    2. Shall not see life and the wrath of God is upon him (3: 36)
    3. Is guilty of a sin and will die in his sin (16: 8-9; 8: 24)
  - The very fact that some believe and others do not creates a division, a separation, a schism (So there was a split in the crowd because of him, 7:43; And there was a split among them, 9:16; Again there was a split among the Jews because of these words, 10:19).
    
    On the one hand, there are those who believe:
    1. His disciples believe in him (2:11)
    2. In Jerusalem many believed in him because of the signs he did (2: 23)
    3. A good number of Samaritans believe in him (4: 39)
    4. In the crowd that listened to him in the temple at the Feast of Tabernacles, many believed in him (7: 31; 8: 30)
    5. The healed blind man believes in him (9: 38)
    6. Those who knew John the Baptist and his baptism believe in him (10: 40-42)
    7. Many Jews who witnessed the raising of Lazarus believe in him (11: 45)
    8. Some of the public figures believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not declare themselves for fear of being excluded from the synagogue (12: 42)
    On the other hand, there are those who do not believe:
    1. The Jews who hear the discourse on the bread of life do not believe in him (6: 36)
    2. Judas does not believe in him (6: 64)
    3. His brothers do not believe in him (7: 5)
    4. The nobles and the Pharisees do not believe in him (7: 48)
    5. The Jews who heard him at the feast of the Dedication did not believe in him and even wanted to stone him (10: 25.31)
    6. The chief priests and the Pharisees were moved by the number of those who believed in him and resolved in council to kill him (11: 53)
    7. The crowd that heard him speak of the death of the Son of Man six days before the Passover did not believe in him (12: 37)
  - For people to believe, certain conditions are necessary
    1. One must not seek the glory that comes from men, but that which comes from God (5: 44)
    2. One must believe in the Scriptures and in Moses (interpret them well), because they speak of Jesus (5: 45-47)
    3. One must be seekers of truth (8: 44-46)
    4. One must be of God (8: 47)
    5. One must be of the sheep that listen to his voice, because God has given them to Jesus (10: 26-29)
  So we understand that for John, the act of believing is not optional, but vital, and is the very reason why he wrote his gospel.
  
  Here, v. 11, which concludes the Marriage at Cana, confirms that in John, the “miracle”, presented as a “sign”, is what arouses faith, and not the other way round, as in the Synoptics. This faith is a recognition of Jesus' identity, his being of an exceptional quality, called “glory”, a quality he derives from God himself. Thus, for John, from the very beginning of his ministry, the disciples recognized Jesus' unique identity.
  
  -André Gilbert, April 2025

All chapters