Hellenistic Misconceptions

During the span of the Classical and Hellenistic periods in Ancient Greece, many changes occurred that differentiated one from the other. There were many facets of society that were affected as a result from the Classical period leading to the Hellenistic period.

Starting with differences, in the Gospel of Matthew 15:21-28, Matthew seems to have actually referred to Jesus in the text a few times, whereas in the Gospel of Mark 7:24-30 Jesus is continually referred to as “he” by Mark. Not once is Jesus’ actual name mentioned anywhere throughout the text in which Mark is describing the events of what was going on. Although it might be worthy to note that in other portions throughout Mark’s Gospel Jesus is indeed mentioned by Mark.

All stories explained in the gospels have similar results and main ideas, like Mark, Matthew and Luke as to the Gospel of John is a little more different. The stories of Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as synoptic because

​There are two main periods in Greece history, Hellenic and Hellenistic period. They have some similarities but they are significantly different. Many people believe that the Classical era is the most impressive due to the success in literature, science, philosophy and architecture, which does not mean that the Ancient Greece is less significant. While in Hellenic era they saw rising and falling of the polis in Hellenistic era it was more about war and fighting for among the prevailing dynasties. The thing that they have in common is that they were consistent in discovering new philosophies and science also decreasing the role of gods.

In western ancient world, there were kings who tried to bring the world come together ideologically, culturally and politically. This caused lots of cultural exchange between people and help them understand and respect each other’s ways of life. On the other hand, politically, it created a lot of major wars. It took a large amount of resources and decades to end these wars. As a result of these wars, most kingdoms suffered from both economical and political problems. Therefore, it is fair to say that Greek/Hellenistic civilization could be characterized as being a period of intellectual and cultural achievement but political failure.

I have decided to compare and contrast the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In the book of Matthew, we begin with the angel coming to Joseph and telling him of the son that Mary will bare him. The angel says to name him Jesus and tells him that he will save the people from their sins. This clearly marks Christ as the savior from the start. It can be seen that Jesus is the healer of many when he is presented with sick people, because he heals them. He heals those who are sick, mental, and possessed. He is seen as a teacher when he goes to the top of the mountain and speaks to everyone that is listening, he teaches them what is right from then on. He is seen giving healing powers to his disciples and sending them forth to heal and teach the people of his ways. He is seen as a miracle worker, when he walks on the waters of the sea and calms them and then allows Peter to walk on the water toward him. He is seen as a leader as well, in the many times that he leads his people to where they need to be. He is seen as forgiving, in the many times he forgives and tells others to forgive. He is seen as the Messiah, which was clear from the

There are many different gospels that tell a similar story. Matthew and Mark are two Gospels written in a similar way but have different audiences. The story is the Last Supper and is about the last meal that Jesus experienced with his Apostles before his Sacrifice. There are many similarities, but not very many differences. Overall, the same story is told, but from two different perspectives.

It was “on the third day of rain” that the Pelayo family found “a very old man, lying face down in the mud…impeded by his enormous wings” (1). By stating in the first line that it had rained for three days, the significance of the rain is exemplified. Being a symbol of rejuvenation and rebirth, the old man can be seen as being reborn on this day. This imagery is further reinforced by the fact that Jesus also was reborn from the dead after three days. Being found in mud also correlates to how Jesus was born among commoners. Many people come to witness the flesh and blood angel. However, the “consolation miracles” performed by the angel were said to show his “certain mental disorder” (4). This again parallels the way God performs strange works. Like Christ, the old man’s apparent disillusion discredited him. All these similarities to Christ give the old man a particular significance.

The gospel of Mark is a short recollection of Jesus life, it has many details but is missing pieces or additions to his life. The Gospel of mark was said to have lost pieces, and also the first account of Jesus life. Although it is not as detailed in some areas as it is in others, it tells many accounts of Jesus life on earth and what kind of a person he was, the life he lived, his struggles and his ending.

Bible Scholar David Garland points to two possibilities as to why Mark’s Gospel is written in a narrative style or form. Garland believes the Gospel of Mark either came from an oral story circulating in the Jerusalem church or it came from a firsthand account of the Apostle Peter. Some bible scholars point to the idea that the Gospel of Mark was narrativized, so it could be heard rather than be read silently. Bible scholar Robert Tannehill believes the Gospel of Mark may even have been collected and delivered orally before it was ever written down. Michael Licona believes if a certain text appears in all three Synoptics, the Gospel of Mark is the most likely source for Matthew and Luke’s accounts. Licona notes that this rule should not be held hard and fast, since Mark may also have been using an oral story while Matthew and Luke choose another source or omitted material where it differs in each of their Gospel’s. The Apostle Peter seems to be the eyewitness account which Mark narrates into a single unified story, which centers around a single central figure Jesus and a group of His closest companions. If the author of Mark was using an oral story to write his gospel from, this would definitely explain its narrative style.

With the rise of Alexander “The Great” begins the Hellenistic Age which is used to describe a time which Greek culture spread to places like Egypt and Asia. Due to this Greek culture had changed from what it was during Classical Greece as they were able to achieve much more with this new diverse culture. The Classical Age of Greece is known for its work in philosophy and the arts. The work of Greek philosophers of this time such Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle cannot go unnoticed in these contexts as their accomplishments still have lasting effects on our world today. Along with the great work of these philosophers, came other great works in architecture and drama. Beginning in 448 B.C. Pericles began the construction of the Acropolis,

The genre of this specific pericope is best described as a narrative (Mann 398). This narrative is seen not only here in Mark but also in Luke 18:18-30 and Matthew 19:16-30. Thus, though the Markan story is written by Mark, it does not stand alone. The Book

The two books of the Bible, Matthew and Mark are alike in many ways, they do tell some of the same stories. On the other hand, if one takes a closer look there are small changes to the stories that bring a whole new meaning to the way that the story is told. I will focus on the stories of Jesus walking on water and the transfiguration of Jesus. In this paper, I will review the changes that Matthew made to the Gospel according to Mark. I will also explain the reasons why he may have made those changes and to what purpose those changes served.

This essay will be exploring the Hellenistic Philosophical movement of Skepticism in its beginnings in academia as well as the teachings and positions of Pyrrhonist skeptics. Hellenistic skepticism at its core is striving to “Suspended judgment”, as well as question the basis of truth. In accordance to this proverbial philosophical quest for truth, the Hellenistic skeptic would take a different path compared to their contemporary schools of the thought, by negating perceptual belief, and not affirming anything. To these ancient skeptics this will lead the philosopher down the path to “Suspended Judgement” in which, they seek. This “Suspended Judgement” will bring tranquility to the mind or at least these ancient Pyrrhonist skeptics believed this to be so, thus this being the key reason why this is the central goal

Matthew and Mark have the most similar writings in regards to this miraculous act, besides a few minor things. Matthew writes that Jesus feels pity for them and cures the sick but Mark on the other hand does write that Jesus feels pity, but does not mention healing the sick. In Matthew, the people heard the ship