Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

I present in this post a condensed version of my argument against Gibson's 
interpretation of Mark 14:38.  Readers will find the complete argument at 
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Sleeping_Disciples.htm

In Mark 13:32-37, Jesus tells the story of the type of failure servants must 
not be guilty of:  closing their eyes while the master is away.  There is not 
the slightest hint in this parable that Mark wanted the readers to think of 
the servants' failure in terms of their testing God.  No one will deny that 
the second parable at Mark 32-42 was meant by Mark to read in light of the 
first parable, so since there is zero reference to testing God, how could 
Mark ever have expected his readers to impute that meaning to Mark 14:38, as 
Gibson thinks they should have?  Did he expect his audience to undertake the 
comprehensive rumination, and extensive and deep probing of the Greek, while 
reading between the lines, that Jeffrey Gibson has done?  Of course not.  
Mark would have wanted them to see and accept the direct, surface meaning of 
the words he had Jesus speak.  Why make it hard on his audience?

The message in the sleeping servants parable in Mark 13 is very simple:  Keep 
awake while the master is away.  Since this parable is obviously the 
antecedent to the parable Mark tells of the sleeping disciples, the absence 
of any reference to testing God is strong evidence against Gibson's 
interpretation.

The message in Mark's sleeping disciples parable in Chapter 14 is exactly the 
same as the message in the sleeping servants parable in Chapter 13, and just 
as simple, just as direct. I'll explain what I think was Mark's message and 
motivation below.

In constructing his parable, Mark was mindful that Jesus was already about 
seventy years late in keeping his promise to return with the angels and the 
trumpets in the heavens.  People were starting to wonder whether Jesus was 
ever coming back, and were losing their faith.  Naturally, Mark would have 
wanted to warn them not let their eyes be closed to the message of God, and 
to be patient and continue to wait for Jesus' return, and not be tempted to 
abandon their faith (close their eyes).  

To present this warning to his audience, Mark told them a story about the 
disciples doing exactly the thing that Jesus warned against in his sleeping 
servants parable:  closing their eyes while Jesus was away, because the 
temptation to do so was so great.  The message would not be lost on the 
audience:  they should keep their eyes open, waiting for Jesus to return, 
even though they may be tempted to abandon him. This interpretation is so 
simple, so sensible, so direct, that it is very hard to understand how anyone 
could think that it is more complicated than this, no matter what they think 
they see in the underlying Greek.  

What I believe Gibson and others have done is to construct a very convoluted 
"how-it-can-be-much-more-complicated-than-people-think" scenario based 
largely on a possible interpretation of a single Greek word.  They see things 
that have not been seen even by the greatest scholars of past centuries, and 
was beyond the understanding of all of those translators that Sid Martin 
mentioned. To accept their "testing God" interpretation, one is forced to 
abandon the far more natural and sensible one, and to ignore completely the 
fact that the antecedent parable has nothing whatever to do with testing.  
Basically, these folks are blinding themselves to the obvious simplicity of 
Mark's message, seeing things with their hearts--not their minds--in the 
manner of the "Bible code" people, who need the Bible to contain messages 
hidden to everyone but them.  

Now, we know what Larry Swain thinks about this simpler interpretation; he 
rejects it, evidently, as does Gibson.  Now, Gibson's other supporter on this 
issue in this forum (the only other one I know about), Mark Goodacre, has yet 
to present his views, at least not since I first offered my observations to 
the forum, so let me ask Mark this:  Do you believe with Gibson that 14:38 is 
NOT a request by Jesus that his disciples pray that they do not fall 
asleep--essentially pray that they do not lose the contest being body and 
mind?  Do you instead believe with Gibson that 14:38 is a request by Jesus 
that they pray that they do not test God?  If the latter, what do you do with 
Jesus' reference to the body being weak, and how do you explain the fact that 
the antecedent parallel seems to have nothing to do with testing God, and 
only to do with staying awake--showing patience--while the master is away?



Joseph F. Alward, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific 
Stockton CA 95201