Kata Markon

["Eric Eve" <eric.eve AT harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk>]

Joe Alward wrote:

> Too much emphasis I think has been paid to the esoterica of Greek grammar,
> and this has allowed some members, in my opinion, to pay less attention to
> context and obvious surface meaning than I believe they deserve.

> I do not think we should imagine that the translation committees of dozens
of
> different Bible versions were all wrong about the context.  They all made
it
> clear that they believed that Jesus was asking the disciples to pray for
the
> strength to stay awake until Jesus returned from his prayer, and I have a
> hunch that most members of this forum have a strong inkling that they were
> correct, no matter whether it is possible to see in the syntax and grammar
> alone the completely different meaning Gibson is proposing.

> I think that if one doesn't let grammatical construction (using Sid's
words
> here) be a tail wagging a dog, and instead lets common sense and context
> rule, then just on the basis alone of the outline I have presented above,
I
> think we have no choice but to choose the first one, never mind all of the
> other reasons I mentioned elsewhere.

This argument is very odd. I should have thought that many people on this
list would imagine that paying attention to Greek grammar and the semantic
range of Greek words were fundamental prerequisites to determining what the
"obvious surface meaning" of a Greek text actually is. Jeffrey's argument is
that Mark's audience could not have heard MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON as "lest
you be tempted/tested", and there must be limits to the extent that context
can determine meaning. If you cannot meet Jeffrey's arguments at this level,
you haven't got a case - you simply make yourself sound like someone who
repeatedly urges that Einstein must be wrong because common sense shows we
live in Newtonian universe and then refuses to engage in any argument that
involves mathematics on the grounds that the mathematical dog is wagging the
tail of common sense observation.

> The story goes like this:

> 1.  Jesus says, do not fall asleep

> 2.  Jesus goes away.

> 3.  Jesus returns and finds them asleep.

> 4  Jesus tells them to pray that God give them the strength

>     a.  not to fall asleep, again
>     b.  not to test God.


You have previously urged a connexion between this scene and Mark 13.32-37.
Mark 13 is surely not concerned with literal, physical sleep, as if Jesus
were commanding his followers to suffer permanent sleep deprivation until
his return. This might be a clue that 'sleep' and 'watchfulness' have
metaphorical connotations which could be carried over into this passage.
Instead of taking GRHGOREITE to mean "don't fall asleep" at Mk 14.34, one
might translate it "Watch out!" (for what is unspecified at this point). The
disciples' sleepiness then shows their failure to watch out, but it isn't
the main point. What you don't explain is why, in this context, Jesus should
be so concerned about purely physical sleep (since having the disciples stay
awake when they're tired serves no obvious purpose in the story).

Nowhere does Mark 14.38 mention praying for strength, so your alternatives
4. a and b are already a misrepesentation. To render MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON
as 'for strength not to fall asleep, again' is surely highly questionable -
one might even see it as an attempt to foist a meaning onto the text. Your
reasoning, as I understand it, is that (despite Jeffrey's evidence to the
contrary), 'enter into testing' means 'be tested' and that the test in
question is that of staying awake when one wishes to fall asleep. But, quite
apart from any other problems with this reading, at the point in Mark's
story that Jesus utters these words, the disciples have already failed this
test (assuming for the sake of argument that the text sees it as a test). A
fortiori, they must already be subject to this test. To pray not to be
subjected to this test would then be plain daft (amongst other things it
would be a prayer to change the past). So despite what you assert, it seems
to me that common sense and context fail to support your reading of the
text.

Best wishes,

Eric
----------------------------------
Eric Eve
Harris Manchester College, Oxford