28 Thomas R. Hatina However, if the earliest renditions of Mark’s story were performances — whatever the actual interaction between orality and textuality — then retrospective connections must not be equated with rigid dictional parallels. Oral performances in oral-aural cultures were not fixated on verbatim re-presentations or re-tellings, even if the general story remained the same (24). With this context in view, it is legitimate to compare the types of characters which will experience (or “see”) the apocalyptic manifestation of God in 8,38–9,1, 13,26 and 14,62. I shall here argue that since Jesus’ prediction of the apocalyptic event is directed at the out-group in 13,26 and 14,62 and thus regarded as judgment, Mark’s early audiences would have understood, in retrospect, the prediction in 9,1 in the same way (25). I am not, however, saying that the audience would have understood 9,1 in this manner only after hearing 13,26 and 14,62. The idea of retrospection assumes prior knowledge of the overall story and with it specific function of language. Although Mark 9,1 has the aorist i[dwsin (from ei\don), whereas 13,26 and 14,62 respectively have the future o[yontai and o[yesqe (oraw), this dictional Jv dissimilarity would have made little difference in a performance (26). The same visual experience is conveyed. A comparison of Mark 8,38-9,1, 13,26 and 14,62 is common practice since each is more or less an allusion to Dan 7,13-14. However, to reiterate, comparisons usually extend to the mythical language and not to the characters at whom the language is aimed. The closest parallel to Mark 8,38–9,1 is 13,26-27 given the inclusion of the accompanying angels and more importantly the synthesis of the manifestation of the kingdom’s power with the coming of the son of man in glory (27). (24) DEWEY, “The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event”, 157-158; W.J. ONG, The Presence of the Word. Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History (Minneapolis 1967) 24-30. (25) Within the mythological framework of early Christianity, the predictions of “seeing” should be understood as a physical “beholding” instead of non- physical “experiencing”. See BROWER, “Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power”, 25, n. 39. (26) In Hellenistic Greek, the aorist function of oJravw was often taken over by forms deriving from ei\don. (27) E.g. R. PESCH, Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (KBANT; Düsseldorf 1968) 241-243. Barrett (The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, 73) even claims that in the use of duvnami" 13,26 helps to determine the meaning of 9,1.