Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

To Jeffrey Gibson and all Listers,

On May 27, 2001 at 12:32 PM, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

"Recently I've been doing a little more work on my thesis that what we have
in Mk 14:38 is **not** an urging by Jesus that Peter, James, and John pray
to be spared their **experiencing** a test, but a command by Jesus that
Peter, James, and John pray for divine aid to resist putting
God to the test. In pursuit of this, I've been investigating the meaning of
Jesus' remark that follows immediately after the command and which seems, in
the Markan scheme of things, to be the grounds upon which Jesus tells his
disciples to pray what he orders them to pray, i.e., the remark that "the
Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"..

I wonder then if List members might give me some feedback on an idea I've
been toying with regarding this remark, namely that, it contains and/or is
meant to be seen as an allusion to Ps. 78:39-41."

Then on May 28, 2001 at 8:38 PM, Jeffrey Gibson wrote::

"For those who would like to see where my work on Mk 14:38 has been leading
me, please go to the XTalk articles for review page at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/ and
click on Mk 14:38htm   You'll then see a draft of the article I've been
writing on the intent behind the prayer Jesus urges upon the disciples at
the verse in question.   Comments and criticisms are welcome."

The following is my very lengthy essay, in which I have accepted your
invitation, Jeffrey, to provide feedback on your idea.   The exploration of
the cogency of your idea has not only convinced me you are correct in your
theory that Mark used Ps. 78:39-41 (LXX: Ps. 77:39-41), but it has also
stimulated my thinking and stretched my understanding of Mk. 14:38.    The
upshot of that stimulated thinking has led me to a different conclusion
about why Mark chose to draw upon Ps. 78:39-41 (LXX: Ps. 77:39-41) to
formulate 14:38, as well as a different conclusion about how EIS PEIRASMON
in that verse should be interpreted in the light of Mark's rhetorical and
theological purpose.    While I now see things in a different way from the
way you do, I am, nevertheless, indebted to you for being an important
catalyst in expanding my understanding of Mark, particularly as I try to
work on a commentary, which I am under contract to produce.   I hope that
Listers will engage us both in this discussion of Mk. 14:38.   I look
forward to critiques your and other critiques of my position.

To other Listers:
I am also cross posting this essay with Synoptic-L and XTalk, since Jeffrey
invited all three lists to respond to his theory.   Jeffrey has called my
attention off-list to his article on Q 11:4b,
http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/gibson.htm, which may be of
interest to Listers with respect to his position vis-a-vis my own as set
forth in my essay below.   For the benefit of the reader, I have divided my
essay into nine subheadings: I. Mk. 14:38 and Ps. 78:39-41 (LXX: 77:39-41);
II. EIS PEIRASMON---a Testing of God? III. Mark, Ps. 77:39-41 (LXX) and
Ideational Orientation; IV. EIS PEIRASMON and the LP Testing Petition; V.
EIS PEIRASMON  Denotes Apostasy; VI.  The Character of the Disciples'
Apostasy; VII  Options Available to the Disciples; VIII. Mark's Foreclosure
on the Disciples' Future; IX.  Conclusion.     I look forward to your
critiques.

Ted Weeden

Essay: "Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in Gethsemane"

I. Mk. 14:38 and Ps. 78:39-41 (LXX: 77:39-41)

Jeffrey, I  find your suggestion that Mark was dependent upon Ps. 78:39-41
(LXX: 77:39-41) for formulating Mk. 14:38 convincing for the following
reasons.  First, it is clear, in my judgment that Mark has created the
entire Gethsemane episode de novo, using as grist for his narrative
primarily the David saga of II Sam. 15-17 ( I have provided support for this
in my Kata Markon posts of 2/22/01, 3/14/01, 3/27/01), along with certain
Psalms (LXX: 41:6-7; LXX: 55:5-6 vis-a-vis the creation of Mk. 14:34; cf.
Raymond Brown, _The Death of the Messiah_, I,153f. and see Werner Kelber,
"The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples," in _The
Passion in Mark_, 43, with respect to LXX: 41:6).   Second, the fact that
Mark has already mined the Psalms to find material for creating Jesus'
psychological state in 14:34 suggests that at this point in his narrative a
psalm would have been a natural place Mark would have looked for other
scriptural antecedents to frame Jesus' admonition to the disciples in 14:38.
Third, LXX: Ps.77:39-41 is the only LXX passage in which the terms or
concepts SARC, PNEUMA, and PEIRAZEIN (77:41=EPEIRASAN) appear together in
close textual proximity.   And strikingly they appear in Ps. 77:39-41 in the
exact reverse order (SARC, PNEUMA, PEIRAZEIN) to the way they appear in Mk.
14:38: PEIRASMON (substantive instead of psalmic verb PEIRAZEIN), PNEUMA,
SARC).   Fourth, these three terms or concepts appear nowhere else in close
proximity to each other in the NT except in Mt. 26:41, in which case Matthew
renders Mk.14:38 almost verbatim (substituting only EISELQHTE for Mark's
ELQHTE).   So the evidence is quite convincing that Mark has drawn upon the
LXX: Ps. 77:39-41 for constructing Jesus' admonition to the disciples in
14:38.

II. EIS PEIRASMON---a Testing of God?

Now with respect to your interpretation of Mark's purpose in formulating
14:38 from Ps. 78:39-41/LXX: 77:39-41), I see Mark's reason for creating
14:38 differently.   Let me explain and do so by first rehearsing your
argument for your interpretation.   You begin by asking with respect to the
petition PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON in 14:38, "What, in
Mark's eyes, is the object of this petition?"   You go on to state that in
the case of the meaning of PEIRASMOS in 14:38 that you agree with others
that the term "bears the sense 'probing and proving of PISTIS.'"    And you
state that you agree with others also that the meaning Mark intends in his
use of PEIRASMOS is "a testing of faithfulness," and it is such a test of
faithfulness which "Jesus urges Peter, James, and John to pray that they be
kept from."    You go on to declare more specifically "that what Mark
presents Jesus as urging the disciples to ask for in praying MH ELQHTE EIS
PEIRASMON is help to avoid their *perpetrating* a "testing of faithfulness",
and more specifically a very *particular* "testing of faithfulness", namely,
the one expressly forbidden to any who would be among the faithful of
Israel -- the testing of the faithfulness *of God*" (emphasis: yours).

You then proceed to marshal your argument by making the point that "when the
construction MH + a form of ERCESQAI + EIS is used, as it is in Mk. 14:38,
in a command the object of which is something other than a place, the
resultant phrase ... [means] 'do not commit or engage in' that something."
You cite as support instances of this same construction in Ps. 142:2 (LXX),
Jer. 16:5 (LXX), Josh. 23:6 and Dan 3:2.    Then you state that "[i]n the
light of these observations, Jesus' words PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS
PEIRASMON must surely mean not what they have usually been understood to
mean, i.e., 'pray that you, Peter, James and John, are spared from
experiencing PEIRASMOS', but 'pray that you might be kept from *subjecting*
someone or something to PEIRASMOS.'   They constitute a command to Peter,
James, and John, to petition God for help against becoming *agents* rather
than victims of such a test" (emphases: yours).

Then you ask, "But what indicates that Mark intended the "testing" of *God
and his faithfulness* [emphasis: yours] to be what Jesus commands Peter,
James, and John to pray against perpetrating?"   You answer that question by
drawing attention to what prompts the Markan Jesus to issue "his command,"
as you put it, of 14:38.  You surmise: "As Mk. 14:37 shows, Jesus' command
is prompted by these disciples' refusal to be willing to 'stay awake' and
'to watch' as the hour finally arrives in which Jesus allows himself, in
obedience to the divine will, to be 'delivered up to suffer many things' and
to die on the cross.   Notably this is a refusal which culminates in the
disciples not only abandoning Jesus and his ways but also in their rejecting
as 'of God' how Jesus has called these disciples to follow him (cf. Mk.
14:50)."

You continue: "Now, as Mark indicates elsewhere [13:33-37], being willing to
'stay awake' and 'watch' is, among other things, to refuse to succumb to any
doubt that God will provide, especially when it seems otherwise.   And to
'fall asleep' and to be unwilling to 'watch' is equivalent to denying that
God is faithful and that his ways are adequate to what he claims are his
purposes.   The significance of this should not be overlooked.  For denying
that God is faithful and that his ways are adequate to what he claims are
his purposes, is something that Mark, in consonance with the Massah
tradition in the Hebrew Scriptures, holds to be *the very essence of testing
the faithfulness of God*.    Accordingly, what Mark presents as that which
prompts Jesus to utter the command to Peter, James, and John that they
should pray to be protected against becoming the agents of PEIRASMOS is the
realization on Jesus' part that these disciples *are on the verge of putting
God to the test* [emphases: yours].   This being the case --- that is to
say, since it is because Jesus, according to Mark, sees Peter James and John
as on the verge of putting God to the test that he [Jesus] commands these
disciples to pray to be protected against becoming agents of PEIRASMOS" --
then in Mark's eyes the "testing" which Peter, James, and John are commanded
by Jesus to pray against engaging in can be nothing other than the testing
of God and his faithfulness.   In the light of these considerations, it
follows then that the object of the petition embodied in MH ELQHTE EIS
PEIRASMON is help to avoid putting God and his faithfulness to the test."

And then you submit further: "Two things support this conclusion.   First,
there is the consideration arising from the fact that securing divine aid to
avoid putting God to the test is what Mark presents Jesus *himself*
[emphasis: yours] as praying for immediately before Jesus urges the command
PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON upon Peter, James, and John, when
he cries out for God to strengthen his failing resolve to carry out the
divine 'will' with respect to his appointed sufferings.     If, then,
according to Mark, securing divine aid to avoid putting God to the test is
the theme of Jesus' own Gethsemane prayer, it seems reasonable to assume
that it is also the theme of the prayer that Jesus urges Peter, James, and
John to pray. For as Mark indicates in 14:33, Jesus' situation in Gethsemane
vis a vis whether he will fall prey to his own doubts that God's ways should
be followed is also the situation of the disciples."

"Second, the explanation that Mark's Jesus gives at Mk 14:38b for why the
disciples should 'keep awake' and pray MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON, namely, that
'the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' (TON MEN PNEUMA PROQUMON hH DE
SARC ASQENHS), is grounded in the assumption that the disciples are on the
verge of 'testing God.'   For in its conjunction of the themes of "flesh"
(SARC) and spirit" (PNEUMA) with 'testing' (PEIRASMOS), the explanation
recalls Ps. 78 -- especially vv. 39-41 (LXX)--, a psalm which not only
recites the dark events during and after Israel's wilderness wanderings in
which Israel doubted the efficacy of God's ways to deliver them from 'the
foe' (cf. vv. 17-31 [compare Exod. 16-17]; 26-32 [compare Num. 11:31-35];
56-66), but does so in order to insure that 'coming generations' might not
repeat the mistakes of their ancestors who "did not keep in mind [God's]
power or the day when he redeemed them from the foe"( v. 42) and thereby
"put God to the test" (cf. vv. 18; 41; 56). Why make an allusion to this
Psalm unless those to whom the allusion is addressed are in need of hearing
what the Psalm has to say?"

And you conclude: "Given this, I think it reasonable to conclude that what
Mark presents Jesus as urging the disciples to ask for in praying MH ELQHTE
EIS PEIRASMON is not, as is usually supposed, succor from their being
themselves tested, but divine aid to avoid their following the example of
the faithless wilderness generation and subjecting *God* [emphasis: yours]
to a testing of his faithfulness."

Despite the forcefulness of your argument, Jeffrey, I read Mark's purpose in
formulating 14:38 from Ps. 78:39-41 (LXX 77:39-41) differently.   I do not
find Mark admonishing the disciples to pray MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON in order
to implore "divine aid to avoid their following the example of the faithless
wilderness generation and subjecting God to a testing of his faithfulness."
In fact, I do not find any allusion in the Markan narrative at this point to
the testing of God's faithfulness.    Let me explain why I see Mark's
purpose otherwise, though, I need to state, there are some points in your
argument, as you shall see, that I do agree with.

First, with regard to the issue of testing God and God's faithfulness, there
is no question that that issue occupies significant and on-going attention
in the OT, as well as in Judaism of the second Temple period.   Heinrich
Seesemann in his article, "PEIRA KTL" (_TDNT_, VI, 23- 36), underscores this
fact when he (1) states (27) that "[i]n OT and later Judaism we repeatedly
find the idea that man tests God," and then (2) proceeds to illustrate how
repetitive that idea is by citing occurrence after occurrence from, for
example, Exodus (17:1-7) to Deuteronomy (6:16) to the Psalms (LXX 77:17f.,
40f., 94:8f.) to  Isaiah (7:12) to the Wisdom of Solomon (1:2) to the
Assumption of Moses (9:4).   Yet as prominent and reoccurring the idea of
humans testing God is in the OT and later Judaism, that idea does not seem
to be an idea which is of much concern among early Christian communities,
the sociological and ideational milieu of Mark.   There are only three NT
texts outside of the Synoptics in which the idea of God being tested by
humans actually surfaces (Acts 5:9; 15:10; Heb. 3:8f.).

There is one other, non-Synotic text in which, depending upon which mss.
reading is followed, the object of testing could possibly be God.   The text
is I Cor. 10:9.   Early editions of Nestle accepted the mss reading: MNDE
EKPEIRAZWMEN TON  KURION, in which case KURION could be interpreted as
referring to either God or Christ.   The eighth revised edition of Nestle
accepted the mss. reading MNDE EKPEIRAZWMEN TON XRISTON as the original
text, in which case the object of testing is Christ.   Even so, it must be
acknowledged that the testing of Christ in this Corinthian text is seen by
Paul as analogous to the testing of God by the Israelites and Paul
establishes that connection by alluding to Num. 25:ff. and likely to LXX:
Ps.77:18 (see Hans Conzelmann, _1 Corinthians_, 168).

Turning to the Synoptics, there is not one text in the Gospel of Mark, 14:38
aside, that either refers to or alludes to the testing of God or God's
faithfulness.    Moreover, there is only one text in the entire Synoptic
Gospels in which the testing of God is mentioned.    That text is found
within the Q story of Satan's temptation of Jesus (Q: Lk. 4:1-13; Mt.
4:1-11).   In that story the reference to God being tested or tempted occurs
when Jesus responds to Satan's temptation by quoting scripture, namely: "You
shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Q: 4:12 [Lk. 4:12; Mt.4:7).   The
scarcity of NT texts dealing with the human testing of God prompts only one
conclusion: namely, concern over God being tested by humans was not a
particularly burning issue for early Christians.    What was in the
forefront of their apologia was the testing or tempting of Christ by  his
demonic and human adversaries (Q [Lk. 4:1-13; Mt. 4:1-11]; Mt. 4:1-11; Mt.
16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35; Mk. 1:3; 8:11, 33; 10:2; 12:15 ; Lk. 4:1-13; 10:25;
11:16; 22:28; Jn 8:6; I Cor. 10:9; Heb. 2:18).

With Mark showing no interest in the issue of God being tested, again 14:38
aside, and with so little attention given to the testing of God in the rest
of the NT, in my judgment, there is virtually no NT support for reading into
PEIRASMON, in its *hapax* occurrence in 14:38, the idea of the testing of
God and/or God's faithfulness.    The only substantial support for such an
interpretation lies finally with whatever hermeneutical connection Mark
intended to make between Ps 77:39-41 and his fashioning of 14:38 from that
LXX text.   There is no question, as you have noted, that Ps. 77:40f.
affords the possibility of making such a hermeneutical connection, such that
the testing of God cited in Ps. 77:41 (EPEIRASAN TON QEON) could be read
into Mark's appropriation of the text for his creation of Jesus' admonition
to Peter, James and John in Gethsemane.   But was that Mark's intent?   Did
he want his hearers, as you suggest, to think of Ps. 77:40f. when he has
Jesus admonish the disciples, PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON?
Did Mark want his hearers to make the connection with the psalm and draw the
conclusion that the temptation Jesus was warning the disciples against was
testing God and God's faithfulness?


III.  Mark, Ps. 77:39-41 (LXX) and Ideational Orientation

The answer to these questions lies in what interest, if any, Mark had in
appropriating the ideational orientation of the concepts he adopted from
LXX: Ps. 77:39-41.   In other words, when Mark adopted the concepts of SARC,
PNEUMA and PEIRAZEIN, did he also intentionally appropriate the ideational
orientation, the hermeneutical valence, inherent to each of these concepts
as they are found in LXX: Ps. 77:39-41?    Or to put it another way: what
evidence or reason do we have to believe that the specific and respective
ideational orientation of each of the concepts (SARC, PNEUMA and PEIRAZEIN),
which Mark borrowed from Ps. 77:39-41, was also taken over by Mark for his
own purposes when he appropriated those concepts for formulating 14:38?
To answer these questions let us look at how Mark appropriates each of the
psalmic concepts.

First, with respect to SARC, it is clear that in regard to SARC  Mark did
appropriate the full ideational orientation of SARC in LXX: Ps. 77:39 for
his use of SARC in 14:38.    SARC in LXX: Ps. 77:39 refers to the human
state or condition.    So also, SARC in Mk. 14:38 refers to the human state
or condition.   But with regard to PNEUMA, the same case cannot be made for
Mark transferring the ideational orientation of PNEUMA in Ps.77:39 into his
own orientation of PNEUMA in 14:38.    The orientation of PNEUMA in Ps.
77:39 is related to the phenomenon of weather: namely, PNEUMA is wind.
But the ideational orientation that Mark intends PNEUMA to have in his
appropriation of the term for 14:38 is ontological: that is, PNEUMA for Mark
in 14:38 refers to the spirit of God, not to wind (Some scholars, such as
Raymond Brown, _The Death of the Messiah_, I, 199, argue that PNEUMA in
14:38 is intended to refer to the human spirit; but I think, with Eduard
Schweizer, _The Good News according to Mark_, 313f., that Mark has in mind
the spirit of God.   In any event, Mark does not have in mind the weather
when he adopts the psalmic PNEUMA for his creative purpose).   What this
analysis of Mark's appropriation of SARC and PNEUMA from Ps. 77:39 shows is
that Mark is not consistent in appropriating the ideational orientation of a
term which he has borrowed from his source for 14:38.    If it suits his
purpose, the orientation of the source term is appropriated, as in the case
of SARC.    If it does not suit his purposes, Mark clothes his source's
term, in the case of PNEUMA, with the meaning he wishes it to carry for the
purposes of his drama.

Then what about Mark's appropriation of the idea of testing or temptation
from LXX: Ps. 77:41?    Did he appropriate the concept PEIRAZEIN with its
orientation in LXX : Ps.77:41, namely ancient Israel's testing of God and
God's faithfulness, as you argue?    Or did he appropriate the concept but
supply his own ideational orientation, an orientation that views the
temptation facing the disciples as something other than the testing of God
and God's faithfulness?    For the sake of argument, let us assume that Mark
intended the former.    Then, I must ask, why did he not use language to
express his testing motif that would make it more obvious to his hearers
that, when they heard his testing motif in his words, they were to associate
it with the psalmic EPEIRASAN  TON QEON and its testing-God orientation?
I do not think that Mark's choice of EIS PEIRASMON to express his temptation
motif offers the easiest or most direct way to cue the minds of Mark's
hearers that they should via association recall EPEIRASAN TON QEON of Ps.
77:41 and its testing-of-God motif.    To put the issue in another way,
using your question, cited above, but phrased differently: Why make an
allusion to this psalm unless the allusion easily enables those, for whom
the allusion is addressed, to hear by association what the psalm has to say
and what they are in need of hearing?

If it were, in fact, Mark's intent to evoke such an association in the minds
of his hearers, then, in my judgment, Mark could have done so in a much more
obvious way.   The more obvious and helpful way for him to have guided his
hearers' minds to pick up on an allusion to LXX: Ps. 77:41 would have been
to frame Jesus' admonition in 14:38 in such a way that the syntactic
construction and vocabulary of Jesus' warning about temptation correspond as
close as possible to the syntactical construction and the vocabulary of the
psalmist's reference to the Israelites testing of God, in order to aid his
hearers in making the association intended.    To explain what I mean,
consider the way syntactic construction and vocabulary expresses the testing
motif in Ps. 77:41: EPEIRASAN TON QEON.   This syntactical construction
expresses the motif of testing via a verb construct (EPEIRASAN) with the
object of testing expressed explicitly via an article (TON) and a
substantive (QEON).   I submit that, if Mark wanted to cue his hearers to an
allusion to and an association with this psalmic citation of God being
tested, when he has Jesus warn the disciples, he would have framed Jesus'
admonition so:  PROSEUXESQE,  hINA  MH  PEIRAZHTE  TON  QEON ("pray in order
that you may not test God").   The syntactic construction and vocabulary of
his temptation motif would thus be essentially the same as that of the
corresponding clause of Ps. 77:41 to which Mark wants to draw his hearers'
attention.   The motif of testing in Mk. 14:38 would be expressed via a
construct of the verb PEIRAZEIN (PEIRAZNTE), as is the case in Ps. 77:41
(EPEIRASAN), and the object of testing would be expressed via the same
article and noun construct as is found in Ps. 77:4 (TON QEON).    If Mark
wanted to cue his hearers into a mental association with Ps. 77:4, why,
then, did he choose to do so using EIS PEIRASMON, whose ideational
orientation is at best ambiguous and whose verbal correspondence to
EPEIRASAN TON QEON is not at all that obvious.

IV. EIS PEIRASMON and the LP Testing Petition

But that is not the most enigmatic aspect of Mark's decision to express the
temptation motif in 14:38 via EIS PEIRASMON.    The most puzzling aspect of
Mark's choice of EIS PEIRASMON to introduce the temptation motif at this
point in his drama is that the use of the substantive PEIRASMOS is
completely uncharacteristic of the way Mark introduces the tempting or
testing motif elsewhere in his Gospel.   Prior to 14:38 Mark always cites
the tempting or testing motif with a verb construct.   He uses the verb
PEIRAZEIN  to express the idea of testing or temptation in 1:13
(PEIRAZOMENOS); 8:11 (PEIRAZONTES); 10:2 (PEIRAZONTES); 12:15 (PEIRAZETE).
He never uses the substantive PEIRASMOS to denote the idea of tempting,
except in the case of 14:38.   PEIRASMON is a Markan *hapax legomena.*   It
is unMarkan.

Equally unMarkan and rare in the LXX and NT is the conjoining of the
preposition EIS with the substantive PEIRASMOS to produce the phrase EIS
PEIRASMON.    EIS PEIRASMON can be found in only one verse in all of the
LXX.   That one occurrence is found in Sir. 2:1: TEKNON  EI  PROSERCH
DOULEUEIN  KURIW  hETOIMASON  THN  YUCHN   SOU *EIS   PEIRASMON*  ("Child if
you come to serve the Lord, prepare your soul for testing").    And EIS
PEIRASMON occurs only seven times in the NT (Mt. 6:13; 26:41; Mk.14:38;
Lk.11:4; 22:40, 46; I Tim. 6:9).    In four of those instances it occurs in
the context of the respective Synoptic accounts of Jesus' admonition to his
disciples to watch and pray: namely, (1) Mk. 14;38, (2) Mt. 26:41, the
Matthean parallel to Mk. 14:38, (3) Lk. 22:46, the Lukan parallel to Mk.
14:38, and (4) Lk. 22:40, an occurrence dependent also upon Mk. 14:38 and
which Luke created, according to Fitzmyer, ( _Luke X-XXIV_,1441), as an
*inclusio*    Of the three other occurrences, two of them are the Matthean
(6:13) and Lukan (11:4) citations of the Lord's Prayer petition which each
derived independently from Q, namely, Q 11:4-MN EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS
PEIRASMON ("lead us not into temptation").    So aside from I Tim. 6:9,
which is considerably post-Synoptic, the origin of EIS PEIRASMON, as far as
the NT is concerned, can be traced to only two NT sources: Mark and Q.
Again, aside from I Tim. 6:9, all other occurrences of EIS PEIRASMON, those
found in Matthew and Luke, are secondary appearances of the phrase and are
either dependent on Q (Mt, 6:13; Lk. 4:12) or Mark (Mt. 26:41; Lk. 22:40,
46)..

So how then can we account for the occurrence of EIS PEIRASMON in Mark?   Of
course, one way to account for it is that Mark, while customarily using a
construct of the verb PEIRAZEIN to denote tempting or testing, decided, when
he came to formulating 14:38, to depart from his normal practice and to use
in this one instance the substantive PEIRASMOS, along with the preposition
EIS, to connote tempting or testing.   That is a possibility.   But I think
it is unlikely.   Rather, since the phrase EIS PEIRASMON is not found in Ps.
77:41(LXX) and only once in the LXX, and since it is so uncharacteristic of
Markan rhetorical style to express testing or tempting by using the
substantive PEIRASMOS, and since the setting of the occurrence of EIS
PEIRASMON is in the context of a prayer petition  (MH EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS
PEIRASMON ) of the Lord's prayer in Q 4:11 (Lk. 4:11;Mt 6:13), and since,
further, Mark introduces EIS PEIRASMON in the context of a prayer petition
pressed upon the disciples by Jesus, I posit that Mark must have derived the
phrase either from the Lord's Prayer as he knew it from oral tradition he
had access to or he derived it directly from the Lord's Prayer in Q.  I
think the latter is more likely, as I am convinced that Mark not only knew
but used Q.

Parenthetically, if Mark evidences awareness of the Lord's Prayer petition
on testing, then there is reason to believe that he is aware of the rest of
the prayer, and further that he may well allude to its other petitions in
his Gospel.   I have in mind the direct address to God as "ABBA, hO PATHR in
Mk. 14:35; a likely reference to the Lord's Prayer forgiveness petition
in11:25,  and possibly Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane in which he accepts God's
will over his own, as a reference to the divine will petition of the
Matthean version.    If the latter be the case, it raises the issue as to
what was the original version in Q and whether Matthew is dependent upon
Mark for its creation and addition to the prayer.   Raymond Brown, (_Death_,
I, 177), in recognizing the parallels to the Lord's Prayer in Mark,
nevertheless, declares "they should not be too simply explained, e.g., by
the thesis that Mark had the Lord's Prayer in his preGospel source but,
instead of reporting it as a unit, broke it up and used part of it...."
Contra Brown, I see no reason why Mark, if he knew the Lord's Prayer, was
bound to incorporate it in toto if he chose to draw upon it, or that he
could not have drawn upon different petitions of the Lord's Prayer, without
incorporating the whole prayer, in order to use the petitions in an allusive
way in his drama.

To return to the issue at hand, I submit that Mark intentionally expressed
the testing/temptation motif of 14:38 via the testing/tempting motif of the
Lord's Prayer petition.   His purpose in doing so was to cue his hearers
into the Lord's Prayer petition and its nuance rather than the nuance or
ideational orientation of his psalm source.  That is why, in my judgment, he
did not introduce the testing motif of 14:38 as PEIRAZNTE TON QEON (a la
LXX: Ps 77:41) but instead as EIS PEIRASMON.   Mark was trying to create an
allusion to the Lord's Prayer and not to the psalm.   Thus, just as he did
not appropriate the ideational orientation of PNEUMA from Ps. 77:39 as wind,
but instead as spirit, so also he appropriated the testing motif from Ps,
77:41 but not its ideational orientation.   The ideational orientation of
the motif of testing he did appropriate was that which was inherent to the
phrase EIS PEIRASMON as found in the Lord's Prayer petition.

V. EIS PEIRASMON  Denotes Apostasy

Then if that be the case-namely, that the temptation which Mark has in mind
is the temptation associated with the prayer petition of the Lord's
Prayer-what specifically is the temptation that is being nuanced in the Lord
's Prayer?    Seesemann states emphatically (31), "What is at issue here is
in no sense a test.   The Lord is rather teaching His disciples to ask God
not to withdraw His Hand from them, but to keep them agains temptation by
ungodly powers."   So then the phrase EIS  PEIRASMON in the Lord's Prayer
petition, according to Seesemann, does not denote the fact that the
petitioner is pleading for God's protection from putting God to the test.
No to the contrary, what the temptation of EIS PEIRASMON in the Lord's
Prayer petition, MH EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS PEIRASMON, is about, according to
Fitzmyer ( _Luke X-XXIV_, 899),  is a plea to God that the petitioner not be
"confronted with temptation to apostasy."  And furthermore, and related to
Mk. 14:38, Fitzmyer interprets (906) the Lukan version (22:40, 46) of Mk.
14:38 as Jesus instructing "his disciples to pray that God will not bring
them to the [emphasis: Fitzmyer] test (of apostasy)."   So building upon
Fitzmyer's interpretation of EIS PEIRASMON in the Lord's Prayer and the
Lukan parallel to Mark 14:38, I submit that in borrowing EIS PEIRASMON from
the Lord's Prayer petition to fashion the prayer about temptation, which the
Markan Jesus urged upon the three disciples, Mark wanted his hearers to
understand that the temptation the disciples in Gethsemane were succumbing
to was *apostasy.*
If this be the case, and if Mark did in fact borrow from the Lord's Prayer
petition about temptation, and if it is also the case that by using EIS
PEIRASMON as a part of Jesus' admonishment in 14:38, which Mark wanted his
hearers to associate with the Lord's prayer petition on temptation, why,
then, did Mark not just adopt the entire Lord's Prayer petition for Jesus'
admonishment to the disciples in 14:38, and in the process make the allusion
to that Lord's Prayer petition more obvious?    Already it is evident that
Mark has created a striking correspondence between the syntactical
construction and vocabulary of the petition and the admonishment: MH
EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS PEIRASMON (Q 4:11 [ Lk 11:4; Mt. 6:13) vis-a-vis namely
MN ELQNTE EIS PEIRASMON.     With the exception of the personal pronoun
hHMAS, which appears alone in the Lord's Prayer petition, the syntactical
construction is quite similar: the negative particle, MH, followed by the
verb in the subjunctive mood (the imperative, second person singular aorist
active EISENEGKHS in the Lord's Prayer petition vs. the second person plural
aorist active ELQNTE in 14:38), followed by the preposition EIS and the
substantive PEIRASMON.

There is also similar vocabulary in both the petition and the admonition,
namely: MH,  EIS, PERIASMON.   The vocabulary  would have been even more
similar if Mark had adopted the imperative EISENEGKHS of the Lord's Prayer
petition and substituted "T" + "E"for its final "S" to produce EISENEGKHTE,
the second person plural, aorist subjunctive form of the verb he would have
needed to fit the syntax of 14:38.   Had he done so, 14:38 would have read
after hINA, thus: MH EISENEGKHTE EIS PEIRASMON ("you may not be led into
temptaton"), which would be strikingly close to MH EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS
PEIRASMON of the Lord's Prayer petition and an unmistakable allusion to it.
Had he done so, the entire admonition of the Markan Jesus to his three
sleeping disciples would have read thus:  GRHGOREITE KAI PROSEUCESQE, hINA
MH EISENEGKHTE hUMAS EIS PEIRASMON ("Watch and pray in order that you may
not be led into temptation").

Why, then, if Mark wanted to draw attention to the Lord's Prayer petition
and make the association between it and Jesus' admonition in 14:38, why, I
repeat myself, did he not construct the admonition by adopting the verb
ERCESQAI from the petition, make the necessary alterations to its form in
the petition, as I have suggested,  for the benefit of his hearers' mental
association, rather than choosing the verb EISFEREIN instead for the
admonition?    The reason that he did make the switch in verbs, I submit,
was theological.   The theological reason lies, in my judgment, in Mark's
avoidance of any suggestion that God bore any responsibility for the
temptation to apostasy which the three disciples were succumbing to in
Gethsemane.    What do I mean by stating this?

In his discussion of the Lord's Prayer testing petition of  Lk.11:4,
Fitzmyer observes (_Luke X-XXIV_, 906) that the petition is in effect a
petition by petitioners "that God will not bring them to temptation/test."
The reason that the petition is put this way, Fitzmyer reminds us, is that
in "the OT God is often said to bring his people Israel to a/the test."
Fitzmyer cites the following texts in support of this OT theological
position: Ex 16:4; Deut 8:2, 16; 13:4; 33:8; Judg 2:22.    Fitzmyer then
goes on to elaborate and explain with respect to the Lord's Prayer petition:
"Echoing such a mode of thinking Jesus now instructs his disciples to pray
that God will not bring them to *the* [emphasis: Fitzmyer] test (apostasy).
As in the OT, there is involved here a protological way of thinking that
human beings may end up in a status of apostasy and that God is somehow the
cause of everything." (906)     A least one early Christian, however, sought
to correct that OT theological spin on God's role in temptation.   As
Fitzmyer observes,  "A reaction to the way of protological thinking present
in this petition of the 'Our Father' begins to appear in the NT, in Jas
1:13-15, 'Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for ...
he himself tempts no one.'" (907).

Therein, in my judgment, lies the theological reason that Mark chose to use
the verb EISFEREIN for his admonition instead of the verb ERCESQAI, which he
found in the testing petition of the Lord's Prayer.   Had he formulated
Jesus' admonition by adopting the verb EISENEGKHS and altering it to read
EISENEGKHTE, he would have created an admonition -PROSEUCESQE, hINA MH
EISENEGKHTE EIS PEIRASMON ("pray that you may not be led into
temptation") -that suggested that the disciples' temptation or testing
originated with God as the OT protological way of thinking understood it.
Mark, I submit, chose to express the admonition as he did -PROSEUCESQE, hINA
MH ELQNTE EIS PEIRASMON ("pray that you may not enter into temptation"- in
order to avoid any suggestion that God was responsible for the three
disciples' lapse into apostasy.  Mark was intent on making it unmistakably
clear that Peter, James and John's temptation to apostasy was their own
doing, or, better, undoing.

VI.  The Character of the Disciples' Apostasy

But what specifically was the form of apostasy which, as Mark depicts it,
the three disciples were succumbing to?   Erich Dinkler, in his article,
"Apostasy" (_Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible_, I, 170), indicates that
the term APOSTASIA, when used with a religious orientation in the LXX (see,
e. g.,  LXX: Josh. 22:22; II Chr. 29:19; 33:19; Jer. 2:19; and cf. II Macc.
5:8), denotes several apostate acts, "departure from the law of God or the
desertion of cause, worship, temple, or synagogue, or abandonment of
obedience toward God in general".  Dinkler also notes that the religious
orientation of the term appears in two New Testament texts: Acts 21:21,
where Paul is charged with apostasy for teaching Jews living amongst
Gentiles to forsake the Torah, etc., and II Thess. 2:3, where apostasy is
anticipated before the parousia.   It is not likely, at least it is not
clear, that any of these forms of apostasy are what the Markan Jesus has in
mind in his reference to the temptation that the disciples must pray to
avoid.

Then what is the form of apostasy that Jesus warns the disciples against in
Mk. 14:38?   From the content and the context of 14:38, the immediate answer
would be that the disciples are in danger of disobedience.   That is
suggested by the words GRHGOREIN and  KAQEUDEIN in their inherent
interrelationship with each other in this text and in 13:33-37.   Prior to
his initial prayer, Jesus entreats the disciples to GRHGOREITE (14:34).
But instead of watching, they sleep (14:37).    Prior to his second time at
prayer, Jesus, having found the disciples sleeping, admonishes them to watch
and pray.   Prayer, communing with God, is urged by Jesus, in this context,
as a way of observing watchful obedience and not falling asleep into the
apostasy of disobedience (cf. Fitzmyer, _Luke X-XXIV_, 1441).

That watchfulness is obedience and sleep is disobedience is suggested by
13:33-37.   Many commentators, as have you, Jeffrey, noted that GRHGOREIN
("to watch") occurs in Mark only in 13:34, 35, 37 and 14:34, 37, 38,
repeated three times in each case, and as an imperative (GRHGOREITE) twice
among each of the three cases (13:35, 37; 14:34, 38).   The focus of
13:33-37, where GRHGOREIN appears three times, along with a related
imperative AGRUPNEITE, is on eschatological watchfulness.   And within the
framing of the eschatological imperatives AGRUPNEITE ("watch,"13:33) and
GRHGOREITE ("watch," 13:35), a parable is told in which a doorkeeper is
charged with being watchful (ENETEILATO hINA GRHGORH) in the absence of his
master.    The eschatological point is that the Christian community must
remain vigilantly awake in anticipation of the parousia of the exalted Jesus
(13:26), lest he return and find the community asleep.   There can be no
question that overtones of this eschatological imperative for watchfulness
reverberate in the Markan Jesus' imperative charge (GRHGOREITE:14:34, 38).
The disciples failure to *watch* constitutes, in my judgment, a lapse into
apostasy.

It is at this point that the motif of sleep plays an important role as a
sign of apostasy also.    Werner Kelber has helpfully brought this to our
attention.   He notes ("The Hour," 48) that "MH ELQWN ECAIFNHS hEURH hUMAS
KAQEUDONTAS ['lest he come suddenly and find you alseep,'13:36] strikingly
parallels two clauses in the Gethsemane unit: KAI  ERCETAI  KAI    hEURISKEI
AUTOUS KAQEUDONTAS ['And he came and found them sleeping,' 14:37a], and KAI
PALIN ELQHN hEUREN AUTOUS KAQEUDONTAS ['And again he came and found them
sleeping,' 14:40a]."   This means for Kelber that it is not just the watch
motif of 13:33-37 that is important for understanding the point that Mark is
making in his portrayal of the disciples in Gethsemane, but the sleep motif
of Mk. 13:36 is of equal and complementary importance, along with the
corollary motifs of coming (13:35) and finding (13:36).    As Kelber puts it
(48), "Watching-coming-finding-sleeping forms a cluster of associations both
in 13:33-37 and in 14:32-42.     In both instances waking is virtue and
sleeping is fault.   In the parable waking is demanded by the expected
KAIROS of the master of the house, while sleeping causes one to miss the
eschatological coming of the Son of Man."    Kelber argues (48f.) that
"[t]he resumption of this watch-sleeping theme in 14:32-42 casts an
eschatological [and I would add existential] light on the conduct of the
disciples at Gethsemane....    Whatever it is the disciples fail to do by
'sleeping,'" Kelber concludes, "it carries consequences which far transcend
the particular moment of Gethsemane."

Sleeping, then, for Mark, I submit, is an eschatological sign of lapse into
apostasy; and, as the narrative of Gethsemane unfolds Mark portrays the
disciples' sleeping, their apostasy, deepening each time Jesus returns from
his prayer time with God.   Upon returning from his initial prayer Jesus
finds them asleep.  Upon Jesus' return after his second time of prayer, Mark
tells us that Jesus not only found them asleep again, but this time Mark
tells us that their depth of sleep (apostasy) increased, namely, he states
HSAN  GAR  AUTWN   hOI OFQALMOI KATABARUNOMENOI ("for their eyes were very
heavy").    They were burdened with sleep, apostasy.   Kelber (49), in
highlighting this increasing depth of somnolence upon the part of the
disciples, cites C. H. Bird's work on the Markan GAR clauses ("Some
*gar*-clauses in St. Mark's Gospel." _JTS_, 171-187) to point out that Mark
uses GAR-clauses "to draw the attention of the reader," and I would add
hearers, "to a level of perception lying beneath, or outside, the immediate
plot structure."   Pursuing the hermeneutical import of this insight, Kelber
observes (49), " It is only on the story level (linear plot structure) that
the three [disciples] close their eyes as a result of physical exhaustion.
On the discourse level (the narrator's communication to the readers) they
close their eyes to what essentially transpires at Gethsemane.   Their
natural sleepiness is but the outward manifestation of a nonphysical,
religious blindness."

This dimension of religious blindness on the part of the disciples, as
Kelber points out (49), is underscored by Mark's comment vis-a-vis their
response to Jesus in 14:40: OUK EDEISAN  TI APOKRIQOSIN AUTO ("they did not
know what to answer him").   The comment is reminiscent, as Kelber recalls,
of "Peter's mistaken reaction to the transfiguration epiphany (9:6: OU GAR
HDEI TI APOKRIQH.).  In the transfiguration story," Kelber notes (49), "Mk
had used the phrase to disqualify Peter's suggestion to build three booths;
Peter had not understood the significance of Jesus' metamorphosis.   In like
manner, the parallel statement in 14:40 records the disciples'
incomprehension.   They do not know how to respond properly to Jesus at
Gethsemane, not merely out of natural drowsiness, but due to their failure
to grasp the significance of the hour.   In sum, the principle theme of the
second visit is the disciples' continuing lack of understanding."

Turning his attention from Jesus' second visit to his third visit to the
sleeping disciples, and in my view, apostate disciples (14:41-42), Kelber
observes, "attention is one more time drawn to the weakness of the
disciples.  Jesus' response, his last words to the disciples, opens with a
rebuke: 'Do you still sleep and take your rest?'  And that rebuke is
followed by Jesus' cryptic closure to the matter of the disciples'
intransigent apostasy: APECEI  HLQEN hWRA (14:41).   Kelber notes that
APECEI in both Hellenistic and classical Greek is an expression used in
commercial transactions to denote that an account has been settled (55).
Bearing in mind this commercial nuance associated with APECEI, and bearing
in mind the point at which the disciple-sleeping (apostasy) stage has
reached, perhaps APECEI is best translated as "The matter is closed."   Or
taking into account the NRSV translation, "It is enough," and adding to it
the spin of the American colloquial expression, "Enough is enough!", perhaps
the full dramatic force of APECEI  HLQEN hWRA should be translated: "Enough
is enough!  The matter is closed!.  The hour of my death (14:35) is at
 hand."   That translation would certainly capture  the Markan Jesus'
frustrated resignation to the realization that the disciples are unmovable
from their obdurate apostasy.   As Kelber puts it (50): "Jesus' three visits
to the disciples [proved] futile because sleeping had been their inclination
from the outset, and sleeping [apostasy, again in my view] remains their
inclination to the end".

Kelber concludes, with respect to the second stage of the
praying-Jesus/sleeping-disciples drama (50): "Jesus' thrice-told visits form
the background against which the disciples' failure is displayed.   This,
then, is the internal function of the three stage dramatization of Jesus'
visits: it demonstrates the recurrent and incorrigible blindness of the
disciples."
This recurrent and incorrigible blindness of the disciples, this total lack
of understanding of Jesus, however, is not new to the Markan drama.   Not
only in Gethsemane and  on the mountain of transfiguration do Peter, James
and John fail to understand Jesus or not know what to say when befuddled by
an experience with him.   They and the rest of the twelve disciples'
constantly fail to understand Jesus throughout the Gospel drama.   It is a
repetitive theme of Mark's Gospel.   Consider, for example,  4:13, 34
vis-a-vis 4:10f., 8:14-21; 9:32.  This Markan portrayal of the disciples as
failing to understand Jesus, as I have argued in my _Mark-Traditions in
Conflict_, 23-51, is a carefully worked-out, Markan programmatic vendetta
against the Twelve.   Mark  intentionally depicts the disciples in an
increasingly deterioating and alienated relationship with Jesus.   Though
they start out in the Gospel drama as his chosen confidants, even APOSTOLOUS
(3:14), in the end they exit the stage (14:50, 66-72) as apostates,
betraying, denying and abandoning him (see my _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_,
26-51; so also Kelber, "The Hour," 47-60).   This vendetta in my view
focuses on the disciples' opposition, often represented by Peter, James and
John, to the Markan Jesus' suffering christology (8:31-33), as well as,
their persistence in seeking a discipleship model (9:33-34; 10:35-37, 41)
diametrically opposed to Jesus' advocacy of suffering-servant discipleship
(8:34-38; 9:35; 10:42-44).   They, in my view of Mark's polemic against
them, prefer a triumphal christology and discipleship.  Mark features them
in this way in his Gospel because the dramatis personae known as the Twelve
in Mark's drama, in reality are but narrative surrogates for Mark's real
opponents in his community (see my _Mark_, 52-69, and the "Preface to the
First Paperback Edition" of my _Mark_ (1979).   Kelber holds a somewhat
similar view (cf. his _The Kingdom in Mark_ ; _Mark's Story of Jesus_; and
"The Hour," 50f., 54).

It is clear, then, that the conclusion which Mark wants his hearers to draw
is that the disciples' apostasy is of the most reprehensible character.
The disciples are not just disobedient to Jesus.   They outright reject him
at the very core of his very being, who he is and who he is called to be.
They reject Jesus' suffering-servant christology.   That is unmistakably the
case, as is so dramatically exemplified in Peter's rejection of Jesus'
christology following Jesus' first passion prediction (8:31-32), a rejection
the Markan Jesus interprets as a Satanic temptation to renege on his passion
commitment (8:33).  As Kelber puts it (50), "At Caesarea Philippi the final
outcome of the Gospel story is already within sight.   Jesus is the Messiah
of the passion and committed to life through death-the cross is anticipated.
Peter rejects the necessity of suffering and thereby qualifies himself as
his master's leading opponent-the denial is anticipated."   And what is the
case for Peter is the case for the rest of the disciples.   They all
ultimately reject Jesus and his suffering messiahship and refuse to accept

his call to suffering-servant discipleship.

VII. Options Available to the Disciples

However, the possibility of the ultimacy of that final rejection of Jesus by
his disciples can still be avoided as late as Gethsemane, if the disciples
choose to do so.   And that, in my judgment, is the point of the Gethsemane
episode of the praying Jesus vs. the sleeping disciples.   Let me explain
what I mean by this.

As I have suggested, by the time the Markan drama reaches the Gethsemane
incident, Mark has intentionally and skillfully led his hearers to believe
that the disciples have chosen to pursue a path which leads to the ultimate
rupture in their relationship with Jesus, a rupture that turns the disciples
from apostles to apostates, colluding either actively (the betrayal of
Judas: 14:10f.; and the denial of Peter: 14:66-72) or passively (the flight
of the disciples: 14:50) with Jesus' arch enemies, the Judean Temple
establishment, in their determination to destroy Jesus (3:6; 11:18; 12:12;
14:1).  Everything in the drama up to Gethsemane would suggest that there is
no reversal of this ultimate outcome.   The Markan Jesus has already
"fingered" his betrayer (14:18-21) and prophesied the flight of the
disciples and the denial of Peter (14:27-30).   But as yet, as Mark has
constructed his drama, neither the death of Jesus nor the final rejection of
Jesus is inevitable until the completion of the Gethsemane praying/sleeping
episode.   Why do I see the Gethsemane drama in this way?

Mark has carefully constructed the Gethsemane episode in two distinct stages
(cf. also Kelber, "The Hour," 43ff.)    Stage one (14:32-36) focuses on
Jesus at prayer.    Stage two focuses on Jesus' encounter with the sleeping
disciples (14:37-42).   Each stage consists of three scenes.   In
dramatizing the stages with this tripartite structure, Mark utilizes his
customary rhetorical technique of triplification, a technique, employed
throughout his Gospel, of repeating key motifs and themes three times to
underscore their importance for his hearers in the oral performance of his
drama (cf. Kelber, "The Hour," 44, and _The Oral and Written Gospel_, 66).
In the stage featuring Jesus at prayer, Jesus goes to pray at three
different times.  Each time he prays the same prayer, or at least that is
the narrative intimation, as implied by Mark's statement that on the second
time he prayed the same prayer as he did the first time (14:39).
Presumably, Mark wants his hearers to understand that Jesus also prayed the
same prayer the third time.

It is striking that Mark only shares the content of Jesus' prayer on the
first occasion of his praying.   It is almost as though by the second and
third time, Jesus' prayer and Jesus' act of praying is no longer Mark's
focus of interest.   The references to Jesus praying the second and third
time are almost summarily pushed into the background of narrative interest.
As Kelber puts it ("The Hour," 47), Jesus' "continued prayers are mere
encores of the initial prayer, and his terror-stricken soul is no longer the
issue."   Nor is there any further interest in the psychology of Jesus and
how he might be internalizing the decision he has made.  "The tripartite
drama [of Jesus praying is], Kelber observes (47), "not staged to act out
Jesus' inner development.   There is no indication that 14:37-42 is designed
to dramatize the protagonist's [Jesus'] metamorphosis, as if each prayer
stage carried with it a new measure of insight, until at stage three Jesus
has arrived at the supreme decision to take the cross upon himself."

While interpreters often focus their attention on the Jesus prayer as the
central point of the Gethsemane narrative, the way Mark has constructed this
episode suggests that the Jesus-prayer stage only sets up the
disciple-sleeping stage; and that is where, I am convinced, the ultimate
message of this particular Gethsemane episode (14:32-42) is to found.   For
clearly in the foreground of the narrative interest, after Jesus' initial
prayer, is stage two, the disposition of Jesus' three confidants who have
been invited, apart from the other disciples, to support him in his time of
introspection and wrestling with the divinely ordained fate that has been
established for him (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.).   And I contend that this second
stage is not only at the center of the narrator's interest-its principal
theme, watching vs. sleeping, is already anticipated at the beginning of
stage one with Jesus' charge to his disciples: "remain here and GRHGOREITE
("watch", 14:34)-but he also dramatizes it as a foil to the first stage.
Thus the primary purpose of the first stage, particularly the first scene in
which Jesus' prayer is shared with us, is to set up in the sharpest possible
way the dialectic between it and its foil, the second stage.  In a real
sense stage one is created primarily to serve as a contrast to stage two;
and the message Mark wants to get to his hearers is really in stage two, a
message the points of which he highlights for his hearers first in stage
one.

In a sense, Mark does not need to narrate stage one in order to show that
the Markan Jesus is consistent with his character portrayal throughout the
Gospel.   There is never a point elsewhere in the Gospel were Jesus gives
even the slightest hint that he has any Hamlet-like reservations about his
ordained cruciform mission and his own personal resolve to fulfill that
mission.   So the issue, I contend, being surfaced in stage one is not Jesus
having second thoughts about his resolve to follow through with his divinely
appointed fate.    I  do not read Mark's intention in depicting Jesus in his
distressful state was to show that Jesus is being tempted to renege on or
disavow his divinely ordained fate (DEI: 8:31) fate (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.).
I do not see at this point Jesus having, as you and others have suggested
(see, e. g. Kelber, "The Hour," 42f.), a failure of "resolve to carry out
the divine 'will' with respect to his appointed sufferings" ( to quote you).
Rather what I read as Mark's purpose in stage one, Jesus' prayer experience,
is to establish issues that serve to highlight points Mark wants to score in
stage two, Mark's narrative arena of primary concern.    What are the issues
I have in mind?   The issues are three: (1) with God all things are
possible, (2) there is freedom of choice, and (3) there is a model prayer
for one to pray in order to be saved from apostasy.   I now address these
issues.

First, with respect to issue (1), the Markan Jesus declares as a matter of
faith in God that PANTA  DUNATA  SOI ("all things are possible to you;" it
is striking that Matthew and Luke omit this declaration of the Markan
Jesus).   So for Jesus to pray PANTA  DUNATA  SOI  would suggest that the
path to death which Jesus is on by divine necessity (DEI, see 8:31) is not
the only path by which God can achieve God's purpose in Jesus.   God could
(PANTA DUNATA SOI) at that point in time in Gethsemane entertain another
alternative path for Jesus to take and achieve the same results, *since all
things are possible with God.*   Thus, Jesus' prayer EI  DUNATON  ESTIN is
neither a temptation to test God nor an indication that he himself is
considering apostasy.   Rather his proffering of EI  DUNATON  ESTIN is a
demonstration of his faith that God, if God willed it so, could cause Jesus'
eschatological/existential hour to pass and the cup to be removed from him
(cf. Raymond Brown, _Death_, 167) .   And Jesus would prefer that, if God so
willed.

Furthermore, with respect to EI  DUNATON  ESTIN, I do not think by putting
these words on Jesus' lips that Mark intends at this point to make a case
for Jesus being tempted.    He certainly does not introduce the terminology
of testing/tempting (PEIRAZEIN) which he does use to indicate that Jesus is
being tested at other moments in the Gospel (see above on Mark's use of
PEIRAZEIN).   And as Raymond Brown points out (166f.), "In the biblical
outlook, it is not irreverent to ask God for a change of mind."   Brown goes
on to cite examples of persons reverently requesting the possibility of the
divine change of mind (Moses [Ex. 32:10-14]; Hezekiah [II Kgs. 20:1-6];
David [II Sam. 15:25-26]; Judas Maccabeus [I Macc. 3:58-60]).   He then
concludes by stating (167): "In such instances, the prayer is not one of
rebellion but of confidence in God's love and justice.   God will listen and
will grant the request if it is reconcilable with overall Providence."   So
Jesus himself is not being tempted in Gethsemane to lose his resolve to his
commitment to the divine purpose.   The narrative point is that *all things
are possible with God* and that in asking God EI  DUNATON  ESTIN Jesus
affirms his faith that, if it be God's will, God can empower other
possibilities for the future than that perceived in the present to be set
forth    This declaration has direct implications for the apostate condition
of the disciples in stage two.

The second issue (2) that is being dramatized in Jesus' Gethsemane prayer is
this: with God one always has the freedom to choose.   And Jesus' prayer
clearly underscores the fact that he does have the freedom to choose the
direction of his future.   Until the Gethsemane prayer of Jesus, Mark gives
us the impression that Jesus' course is irrevocably determined and that he
is bound, without choice, to follow that course.   But the prayer in
Gethsemane suggests that Jesus is not absolutely bound to that course.   He
does have a choice.   He can either choose his own will and reject the
divine imperative (DEI; see 8:31), or he can choose the will of Abba and be
obedient to Abba's will.   The narrative logic would suggest that until
Jesus accepts the divine will, the divine imperative can be thwarted by him.
He is not a pre-programmed agent of the divine will.  Jesus, however,
consistent with his resolve to be obedient to the divine will, avows in his
prayer that God's will shall be done.   The fact that with God one has a
freedom to choose, as the Markan Jesus demonstrates in his prayer, also has
direct implications for the apostate condition of the disciples in stage
two.

The third issue (3) that Mark is dramatizing in Jesus' prayer of stage one
is the model prayer which will save one from apostasy.   That prayer is OU
TI EGW QELW ALLA TI SOU ("not my will but your will be done").    Of course
narratively only Mark's hearers have the  benefit of learning what prayer
should be prayed when one is faced with the temptation to lapse into
apostasy or may have already fallen into apostasy.    The three disciples,
much less the other disciples who are not immediately present, never hear
Jesus pray this prayer.   For Jesus moves some distance away from Peter,
James and John to pray (14:35).    But Mark's interest here with respect to
the prayer is really at the discourse level of the story.   The prayer is
for those in his community, who are faced with being delivered up as Jesus
was delivered up (13:11), to hear the prayer and to know what to pray for
themselves when they are tested.    Nevertheless, this model prayer of Jesus
has direct implications for the apostate condition of the disciples in stage
two as Markan hearers are led to experience it.

I turn now to stage two (14:37-42), the sleeping/apostate-disciples stage,
to show how the three issues cited above are highlighted in this stage to
score the points Mark is making with respect to the apostasy of the
disciples.   The hermeneutical principle I apply as I move from the
discussion of stage one to stage two is this: narrative logic would suggest
that in the story world of this drama the same options available to Jesus
are also available to the disciples.   Thus, if all things are possible with
God for Jesus, then narrative logic would suggest that all things are
possible with God for the disciples also.   If Jesus has the freedom to
choose his own course, then narrative logic would suggest that the disciples
also have the freedom to choose their own course.   If Jesus can pray to
renounce his own will and accept God's will, then narrative logic would
suggest that the disciples also can offer a similar prayer in respect to God
's will vis-a-vis their will.

Now here is how I apply that hermeneutical principle with regard to the
issues featured in stage one as they have bearing on stage two.   First,
issue (1): all things are possible with God.    As I have stated above, by
the time the Markan drama reaches Gethsemane, Mark the narrator has given
every indication that the fate of the disciples is irrevocably sealed in
apostasy.   Judas has already joined the conspiracy against Jesus and is
about to consummate the plot against him (14:10f., 43ff.).    Jesus has
prophesied, using the authority of scripture (Zech. 13:7 vis-a-vis 14:27),
that the disciples, despite their avowals of loyalty, will abandon him.  And
Jesus has prophesied further, that, Peter's oath of faithfulness to the
contrary, Peter will deny him (14:27-31).   But if one accepts the logic of
Jesus' declaration,  PANTA DUNATA SOI, then all things are yet possible for
the disciples.   They, and even Judas, in the widest range of divine
possibilities, could, by the persuasive influence of the spirit of God
(14:38: TO MEN PNEUMA PROSEUCESQE ["The spirit is willing"]; here I
interpret PNEUMA, as stated earlier, to be a reference to the holy spirit;
cf. also 13:11), be saved, even at this late moment, from apostasy.

But the choice to be saved from apostasy lies with them.   That is what
issue (2) of stage one is all about, namely, the disciples have the freedom
to choose whether to remain in their apostasy or be saved from it. As in the
case of Jesus who had the freedom to choose his will or God's will, the
disciples can opt for either their own will or God's will.   The disciples
have the freedom to choose to respond to the willingness of the spirit
(14:38) to save them from their apostasy.   Or they can persist in their
apostate ways and choose to resist the prompting of the spirit to choose to
be saved from their apostasy.    In the case of the disciples, however, the
narrative suggests that the likelihood of the disciples choosing to respond
to the willingness of the spirit to save them from their apostasy is
minimal.   Their SARC, their psychological predisposition, has weakened
their ability to resolve to choose anything but the apostate condition they
are in (14:38).

Yet, the disciples still have a way out of their apostasy, if they have the
will to choose to be saved from it.   Their way out is to be found in the
third (3) issue of stage one, the model prayer.   They could pray what Jesus
has modeled for them, namely: OU TI EGW QELW ALLA TI SOU ("not my will but
your will be done") and be saved from their apostasy..    Of course within
the narrative itself, as I stated before,  the disciples are not privy to
that prayer and thus do not have the option to resort to it as a way out of
their apostasy.   But in the final analysis Mark is not concerned with the
logic of the story world of the  narrative at this point.

Mark's concern at this point is really outside of the narrative world
itself.   His concern, I submit, is at the discourse level and specifically
with persons in his community who have lapsed into apostasy.   Mark's hope,
I posit, is that these community members, when they hear in oral performance
the Gospel drama about the obdurate disciples' being confronted by Jesus
about their apostasy, will recognize that they are now themselves faced with
an existential decision, and, in Mark's mind, an existential decision with
eschatological consequences.   They can either be like Jesus-whose resolve
was undeterred by the trials he faced-and thus endure their own trials
(13:9, 12f.) to the eschatological end (13:13) when, with the other faithful
elect, they will be gathered to be united with the exalted Jesus at his
parousia (13:26f.).   Or they can be like the disciples and pursue the route
of apostasy, with the consequence that at the eschatological end Jesus will
be ashamed (honor-shame code; cf. Bruce Malina, _The New Testament World_,
28-60) of them when he comes in his glory with the angels (8:38).   If they
choose the route of apostasy, they will have, according to Mark, only
themselves to blame.   They cannot blame God and hide behind the OT
protological way of thinking which held God responsible for everything (see
above regarding Mark's careful avoidance of implying that God is responsible
for the disciples' temptation to apostasy).   The onus is on them, not on
God, for them to endure until the eschatological end (13:13, 24-27).   The
Holy Spirit is there and willing to help them endure the trials they face
(13:11; 14:38), but they must be open to receiving the support and guidance
the Holy Spirit offers.   If they will but learn to pray  Jesus' prayer of
accepting God's will, they will be saved from their apostasy-and that
apostasy, in Mark's view, is their reluctance or opposition to the
suffering-servant christology of  the Markan Jesus and their reluctance and
opposition to accepting the suffering-servant lifestyle for themselves.

The question could be legitimately asked at this point: what evidence do I
have that Mark is, as I have posited, projecting a concern about apostasy
from its dramatization within the narrative world to the historical reality
of Mark's world, and in particularly a problem with apostasy within his own
community?   What textual evidence do I have that Mark is by design linking
the narrative fate of apostate disciples with that of apostate members of
his own community?

Two textual settings suggests that Mark's concern at this point transcends
the narrative apostasy of Jesus' disciples to include apostasy in Mark's own
community.    The first textual setting is chapter 13, a chapter which
clearly focuses on issues of Christian discipleship in the time of Mark,
long after the narrative world of Jesus' public ministry comes to an end.
It is not accidental that, as in Gethsemane, Jesus takes the same three
disciples, Peter, James and John, along with Andrew, Peter's brother
(13:3-4), aside to unfold the events of the future which will lead finally
to the return of Jesus, exalted in glory (13:26).   Thus the disciples, and
particularly the principal three, who serve as surrogates for Mark's
opponents, are directly linked via Jesus' revelation of the future beyond
their narrative time with the  issues of discipleship facing the Markan
community (13:9-13, 32-37).   For example, the section of chapter 13, which
addresses the need for the followers of Jesus to watch and not sleep as they
await his parousia (13:32-37), is narratively related both to the behavior
of the three disciples in Gethsemane and the behavior of their counterparts
in the Markan community.

The second textual setting that provides evidence that Mark has linked the
narrative world of Jesus public ministry with the meta-narrative world of
Mark's community is the episode which narratively takes place at Caesarea
Philippi (8:27-9:1).   According to 8:27-33, Jesus, on his way to Caesarea
Philippi, for the first time engages the disciples over the concerning his
identity.   Upon being directly questioned by Jesus for a personal answer
regarding who he is, after the disciples have provided the conventional
wisdom of the day with respect to Jesus' identity (John the Baptist, Elijah,
one of the prophets; 8:28), Peter declares that Jesus is hO CRISTOS ("the
Christ", 8:29).    Whereupon the Markan Jesus for the first time reveals his
own suffering-servant christology (8:31).   With that Peter rebukes him.
Jesus in turn rebukes Peter and accuses him of being Satanic.   As I
indicated above, this is the first and perhaps clearest instance of Peter
and (with Peter as their spokesman) the rest of the disciples' rejection of
Jesus' suffering-servant christology.   Thus, already halfway through the
Markan drama Peter and the disciples' apostasy is evident.   They have
chosen TA TWN ANQRWPWN ("the things of humans") rather than TA TOU QEOU
("the things of God").   And in their apostasy they, again with Peter as
their narrative spokesman, seek to tempt Jesus to apostasy by him reneging
on his commitment to suffering-servant christology.

Then something quite strange, and according to narrative logic, quite
inexplicable happens.   Immediately following Jesus' rebuke of Peter for his
tempting Jesus to apostasy (8:33), Mark tells us KAI PROSKALESAMENOS  TON
OCLON SUN TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU EIPEN AUTOIS ("And he called to him the crowd
with his disciples and said to them," 8:34).   Where did this OCLON
 ("crowd") come from?    Mark makes no mention of a crowd in the Caesarea
Philippi area prior to this narrative statement.    In fact, what has
transpired just previous to this statement is clearly a private conversation
that Jesus has with his disciples as they make their way to the villages of
Caesarea Philippi (8:27).   How is it possible that Jesus can suddenly call
a crowd together with his disciples when there is no evidence that a crowd
has been present all along or has suddenly arrived at the scene?    What
narratively is going on here?

In an essay, entitled "Guidelines for Locating the Markan Community," which
I posted to
XTalk and Kata Markon on February 29, 2000, I have argued, using seven
methodological guidelines, that the provenance of Mark's community is the
village region of Caesarea Philippi.   Thus, I submit, the narrative has
moved with 8:27-9:1 into the setting of Mark's community.   And what I
submit, further, is that Mark on the narrative level for the first time
bridges the historical divide between the time of the public ministry of
Jesus and the time of his own community.  He does so in order to link
narratively the theological issue of apostasy which he presents at the
storyline level of the narrative about Jesus, and his relationship with his
disciples, with, on the discourse level, the same issue of apostasy, from
Mark's point of view, in his community in the village setting of Caesarea
Philippi.   For the first time the disciples, narrative surrogates for the
opponents of suffering-servant christology and discipleship in Mark's
community, are conjoined with the real-live opponents themselves in the
OCLOS which narratively represents Mark's community.   Note, too, that the
disciples at this point tend to fade into the background with respect to the
focus of address (thus: KAI PROSKALESAMENOS  TON OCLON SUN TOIS MAQHTAIS
AUTOU ["and he *called the crowd* with his disciples"]).   It is the crowd,
Mark's community, which is the primary audience to which Jesus address his
remarks, though of course Jesus' remarks are intended by Mark for the
disciples also.

And what message does Jesus preach to the OCLOS, Mark's community, as well
as to his own disciples?   Jesus sermonizes on discipleship, authentic
discipleship vs. apostate discipleship.    Authentic discipleship involves
denying the self and taking up the cross of the suffering-servant Christ.
Those who do so will save their lives (8:34f.).   They are the ones who will
be able to endure to the end (13:13).    Apostate discipleship is trying to
save oneself and to gain the world (8:35-37).    The Markan Jesus closes his
little homily by telling Mark's community, "whoever is ashamed [honor-shame
code] of me and of my words [turns apostate] in this adulterous and sinful
generation of that person will the Son of Humans also be ashamed, when he
comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (8:38; cf. 13:26).
And then, in his closing benediction, Jesus assures the members of the
Markan community that some of them (the faithful elect)  "standing here ...
will not taste death before the they see that the kingdom of God has come
with power" (the eschatological consummation, 13:24-27).   Dennis MacDonald
(_The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark_,  28) argues that the focus of
this benediction is on those disciples who will survive the end, which
MacDonald argues refers to the war (66-70 CE); and MacDonald thinks that
John "is the best candidate for the one among the Twelve who would not taste
death before seeing the arrival of the kingdom of God, ... before the coming
of the Son of Man."   I read Mark differently at this point.   Given the way
in which Mark forecloses on the future of the disciples (see below), in my
judgment Mark's focus in penning the words of Jesus in 9:1 is singularly
upon his own community and the imminent expectation of Jesus' parousia..

To return to the issue at hand, it is clear in sum, at least in my judgment,
that Mark intentionally portrayed the disciples as foils of Jesus in the
Gethsemane praying/sleeping episode.   Mark portrayed them in this manner in
order to highlight the disciples' apostasy narratively for the hearing of
those in his community who, like the disciples are themselves lapsing into
apostasy or, from Mark's perspective, already are apostates because of their
opposition to suffering-servant christology and discipleship.   Using Jesus
as a model, Mark presents, in the hearing of his community, the options
which were available to the disciples to be saved from their apostasy.  The
disciples had the option of recognizing that for them, as was true of Jesus,
all things are possible with God.   So they did not have to assume that
their apostasy was unredeemable.   The disciples had the option of the
freedom of choice, as Jesus did.   They could choose either to remain in
their apostasy or choose to end their apostasy.     The disciples had the
option of praying a prayer in the mode of Jesus which could save them from
apostasy by submitting to the will of God.   These options of the disciples
Mark narratively presents as options that are also available to the
apostates in his community, if they choose to exercise them.   The decision
as to the whether or not to exercise the options remains with them.

VIII.  Mark's Foreclosure on the Disciples' Future

Of course, it must be admitted that there is a caveat in all this line of
reasoning: namely, that, within the world of the narrative, all of things
are possible for the disciples, that they do have a choice not to be
apostates, and that their redemption is still theirs to be had if they will
only respond to Jesus, watch and pray a prayer of obedience to the divine
will as Jesus did.    The truth of the matter is that within the story world
none of Jesus' options are options available in reality to the disciples.
They are not given a range of possibilities for some other outcome.  They
have no freedom to choose in any way their future.   Their future has been
set from the beginning by the narrator, the deus ex machina of the narrative
world.   The disciples are predestined by Mark the narrator to fail to
understand Jesus, to oppose his christology, to refuse his invitation to
suffering-servant discipleship and to persist in a path that leads to a
total rupture of relationship with him, which causes them finally to betray,
deny and abandon him   They become, by dictate of Mark the narrator, the
ultimate apostates.

My point is that Mark, as creator of the story world, has ultimate control
over the fate of the disciples, unlike he does in the case of Jesus.   In
the case of Jesus, Mark cannot opt for a different fate for Jesus other than
that known and sealed in history.   Mark the narrator cannot remove the
cross from Jesus or he would lose his credibility with his hearers.   Of
course, he could have opted, as the Q community did, not to talk about Jesus
' ultimate fate and chosen not to narrate the death of Jesus.   In this
latter regard, he could have opted to end his narrative with Jesus
challenging the religious authorities, the Judean establishment.  He could
have not told the actual end of the Jesus story.   That is the route Luke
obviously took in creating his story of his hero Paul in Acts.   In his
account of Paul, Luke apparently felt it was necessary to show that Paul was
always right and his Jewish adversaries wrong.   Luke needed to prove that
the Gentiles of the Roman world were receptive to the Christian message and
any opposition to it came from the Jewish quarter.   He even turned Pilate
into Jesus' defense attorney in his story world about Jesus (Lk. 23:1-25) to
make a similar point with regard, in this case, to Jewish opposition to
Jesus over against Roman openness.

But Luke in trying to make his point that the Romans were receptive to Paul
and his gospel had backed himself into a corner.  His apologia made it
impossible for him to complete his story of Paul.    In his claim that the
Roman justice would exonerate Paul from all the charges brought against him
by Jewish authorities, Luke had Paul appeal to Caesar for vindication (Acts
25:8-12).    The only problem with that path to vindication was that Luke
apparently knew that Paul was martyred at Rome.   So Luke was stuck with an
impossible situation.   He had to get Paul to Rome for his hearing before
Caesar, but he dared not tell us what the outcome was-whether or not the
Pauline  appeal for a hearing is true or not-or his entire, carefully
constructed apologia would collapse like a house of cards.    So Luke did
the next best thing.   He got the prisoner Paul to Rome for his hearing,
but, in defense of his apologia, Luke gives the impression that his
imprisonment was not really an imprisonment at all.   For Luke tells us that
Paul "lived there [Rome] two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed
all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the
Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered" ( 28:31).   Luke concludes
Acts without telling us what finally happened to Paul.

Mark could have also told the story of Jesus in a similar way.   He could
have stopped short of telling us about Jesus' ultimate fate.   But if he was
going to narrate what ultimately happened to Jesus, he could not rewrite
history, provide a happy ending, and get away with it within the Christian
community.   However, Mark had almost boundless freedom to rewrite history
with respect to Peter, James, John, Judas and the others who make up the
cohort of the Twelve.    And Mark did rewrite history with regard to them.
Mark created the disciple Judas and his betrayal (My argument for Mark's
creation of Judas I cannot provide here but will at a future date.  In the
meantime, see Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar,_The Acts of Jesus_, 136f.,
and John Shelby Spong, _ Liberating the Gospels_, 257-276).    He created
the impression that the disciples were from the beginning out of sync with
Jesus, rejecting his suffering-servant Messiahship and refusing to accept
his call to suffering-servant discipleship.   Mark created the denial of
Peter (see my essay, "Markan Fabrications: the Denial of Peter," in the
XTalk archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/)
and, likely, the abandonment of the rest of the disciples.   He also rewrote
the ending of their relationship with Jesus.   He has them exit the Gospel
stage as apostates, never to be restored to apostleship.    He ends his
Gospel by aborting the delivery of the empty-tomb resurrection message for
the disciples (16:6-8).   And he denies the disciples any post-resurrection
experience of the resurrected Jesus, an experience which, according to Paul,
did happen (as the other Gospels also narrate), and was the sine-qua-non
credentialing experience by which one became an apostle (I Cor. 15:5-8).

So just as Mark rewrote history to produce a damning protrayal of the
disciples, he did have the freedom, if he chose to do so, to write an
entirely different ending with respect to the disciples.   He could have
scripted a happy ending for them, and that would have been both creditable
and widely accepted by the Christian community.   Just consider how well
Matthew, Luke and John's (I hold to the Johannine dependency on Mark)
rewrites of the Markan ending have been accepted, in contrast to Mark's
ending, as the "true" versions of what really happened to the disciples
after the empty tomb was discovered by the women..   Or consider how the
rewrites of Mark by the respective authors of the so-called "Shorter Ending"
and "Longer Ending" of Mark received acceptance in certain manuscript
traditions.   If Mark himself had chosen a more positive ending for the
disciples, he could have had the disciples recant their apostasy, humbly,
confessionally recite their mea culpas, admit that they were wrong in their
opposition to Jesus' christology and avow henceforth that they would be
faithful suffering-servant disciples in the cruciform mold that Jesus had
urged them to accept during his public ministry.    Mark could have
rewritten the ending in precisely that way.    But he did not.   From the
beginning to the end Mark had only one irrevocable narrative end for the
Twelve.   They must end up in the end as apostate reprobates.

And that finally is what stage one and stage two of the Gethsemane episode
of the praying Jesus and the sleeping disciples are all about.   Through
those stages Mark systematically engineers the final coup de grace to any
hope that the disciples will reverse their course of estrangement,
alienation and opposition to Jesus and everything most important to him.
Using Jesus as the ideal tragic protagonist, Mark presents the disciples, by
contrast, as Jesus' obdurate antagonists who are totally unsympathetic with
Jesus and the fate he faces.    In increasing degrees of deepening
unresponsiveness to Jesus' pleas and admonishments Mark orchestrates the
disciples' descent ever more intractably into the depths of apostasy.   And
on each step of the way he has Jesus mark those degrees of descent by his
responses to the disciples' incorrigible behavior.   Not the least of the
ways in which Mark has Jesus mark these increasing degrees of descent into
the depths of apostasy is the way that Mark has Jesus address Peter when
Jesus returns from his first time at prayer.   Jesus addresses Peter in this
way: SIMWN,  KAQEUDEIS; OUK ISCUSOUS MIAN hWRA (*Simon*, are you sleeping?
Could you not watch for one hour?).   It cannot be unintentional, as Kelber
points out, that Mark had Jesus address Peter as "Simon," when he rebukes
him for sleeping and not watching (14:37), as he had been charged to do
(14:34).    "Simon" was how Mark identified Peter when he first introduces
him in the Gospel drama (1:16).   Mark continues to identify him as "Simon"
until the point that he has Jesus establish the Twelve.    It is at that
point that Mark tells us that Jesus gave the surname "Peter" to Simon
(3:16).    After that moment Peter continues to be identified as Peter until
14:37, where Mark has Jesus address him as "Simon."   I think Kelber has
correctly perceived, contra Raymond Brown (_Death_, I, 194f.), Mark's
intended nuance in having Jesus address Peter as "Simon" in his rebuke of
him.   Kelber posits (_The Hour_, 54): "As the bestowal of the new name
["Peter'] had revealed Peter's ascendancy to apostolic leadership, so will
the one and only recurrence of the old name ["Simon"] on the threshold of
Jesus' passion signify the apostle's fall from power"

IX. Conclusion

Consequently, Jeffrey, and in conclusion, I see Mark's intention for
formulating 14:38 in a different way from you.  I do agree with you that
Mark drew upon Ps. 77:39-41 (LXX) and its concepts of SARC, PNEUMA and
PEIREIN, as concepts he wanted to weave into his construct of 14:38.   But
he made choices with respect to whether he was to be guided by the
ideational orientations of those particular concepts in the context of that
psalm.   He did appropriate the ideational orientation, the hermeneutical
valence, of SARC as representative of the human state or disposition.   But
in the case of PNEUMA and PEIREIN, he chose to clothe them in the ideational
orientation that best suited his purposes.    So PNEUMA, appropriated from
LXX: Ps. 77:39, takes on the ontological connotation of God's spirit, rather
than the psalmic connotation of wind.    And with respect to PEIREIN, he
chose to clothe it with the orientation he found in Q 11:4, and used instead
of the verb PEIREIN, which was his customary way of expressing tempting or
testing, its noun cognate PEIRASMOS as found in Q 11:4, where it was linked
with the preposition EIS, in the phrase EIS PEIRASMON.

In all of this, Mark was attracted actually to the syntactical construction
of the testing petition of the Lord's Prayer and adopted it for his way of
referring to disciples temptation to apostasy.   That is he adopted it with
one important change.   Because the verb EISFEREIN in the prayer petition of
the Lord's prayer still carried the baggage of the OT protological way of
thinking, which ascribed everything that happens in the human sphere to God,
good and ill, Mark could not tolerate using EISFEREIN and, thereby, giving
the possible impression that God was responsible for the apostasy of the
disciples.    So he substituted ERCESQAI for EISFEREIN in his appropriation
of the testing petition from the Lord's Prayer for 14:38.   By doing so he
made it clear to his hearers that the disciples came to their apostasy on
their own.  God had nothing to do with it.   (It is striking to note that
when Mark created the expression MN ELQHTE, he created an expression whose
only occurrence in the entire LXX and the Greek New Testament is in Mk.
14:38.)    In absolving God of any responsibility for the disciples'
temptation to apostasy, as well as other lapsed Christians, Mark preceded
James in declaring, to use the words of James: "Let no one say when he is
tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he
himself tempts no one" (1:13-14).

Thus, my judgment is that Jesus' words in 14:38, PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE
EIS PEIRASMON, are not a admonition to Peter, James and John to pray for God
to help them against putting God or God's faithfulness to the test, as you
have argued, Jeffrey, but rather a admonition to pray that God will save
them from the temptation of apostasy.   For all the reasons cited in my
argument above, EIS PEIRASMON in Mark's thinking, as I understand it, is a
reference to the temptation of apostasy to which the disciples have
succumbed and which became finally the reason, according to the logic of the
Markan narrative, for their ultimate undoing.