Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

JEFFREY GIBSON
And since you are noting that my views on Mk 14:38 are not without their 
supporters within the professional NT guild, I hope you'll indulge (forgive) 
**me** for  noting that my view on the meaning of the parallel to Mk 14:38 in 
the LP...has been accepted and subsequently advanced by N.T. Wright. 

JOE ALWARD

Well, let us ask Wright to present his argument in support of your view that 
Mark was not having Jesus say, "Pray for God's help to resist your body's 
test (peirasmos) of your willpower."

Then, I would show Wright that the message of the first parable was that 
servants must remain awake and watchful, for their master might return at any 
time.  The message to Mark's audience, who probably had begun lose patience 
after waiting seventy years for Jesus' promised return, was that they must 
nevertheless remain watchful, for Jesus might return at any time.

Next, I would point out that all through Mark's gospel, he had the disciples 
be foolish, even dim-witted.  They couldn't figure out that divine 
intervention caused the multiplication of the loaves, and they just couldn't 
understand that it was with God's help that Jesus was able to walk out to 
them on the sea.  You can expect the disciples to do something stupid was the 
secret shared between the audience and the author.  Sure enough, Mark has the 
disciples fall asleep even after he had warned them that they needed to pray 
to be given the strength to remain awake.  Once again, the disciples fail 
Jesus.  The message to Mark's audience was clearly, Don't you too be foolish. 
 Keep awake.  Keep waiting for Jesus.

Why would Wright deny that this is the most probable intended meaning in 
Mark's two parables?

I would also like to ask Wright why he thinks the message in the parable of 
the sleeping disciples is that the disciples must not test God, while the 
antecedent parallel parable of the sleeping servants has nothing whatsoever 
to do with testing.  On the other hand, with the explanation I've provided, 
the transition from antecedent to the dependent passage is nearly perfect.  
Why does Wright reject it? 

Then, I would ask Wright why he believes that Mark's audience would have 
understood what he and Gibson only discovered after two thousand years.  
Would not Mark have known how hidden his message is, especially given the 
fact that his readers were being guided in their understanding by the simple 
parable in the previous chapter?

I would also ask him why, if Jesus was having his disciples pray not to test 
God, Jesus mentioned the body being weak?  I've seen the effort you had to go 
to explain away the reference to the weak body, and Occam's Razor comes to 
mind.  Doesn't it make FAR more sense for Jesus simply to be saying that the 
weak body's need for sleep would close the disciples eyes, and that they 
should pray for God's power to prevent that?  Why do you and Wright (and 
Goodacre?) reject this simple, common sense explanation in favor of the 
hidden meaning you advance?  

Now, if Wright cannot come on this forum to answer these questions himself, 
it would be very nice if you were to do so, not necessarily first in your 
paper, but right here in this forum.  I would also very much like to have 
Mark Goodacre--who was the supporting professional I referred to in an 
earlier post--likewise answer these questions.  

Joseph F. Alward, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific 
Stockton CA 95201
email:  JFAlward AT aol.com

Web Page:  "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html