Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Critique of Gibson's Conference Paper

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JFAlward AT aol.com
  • To: gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Critique of Gibson's Conference Paper
  • Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:45:13 EDT


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page