36 Paul Danove (Theme) into sinners’ hands (Goal).11 The conceptualization gives primary emphasis to the realized Goal and secondary emphasis to the unrealized Source, which is retrieved from the Agent. The primary emphasis provides an appropriate narrative introduction to the following description of what happens to Jesus when he is in the hands of sinners (14,43-15,41). This interpretation distinguishes the referents of the Agent of “hand over” in 14,41, which has verbal parallels to previous statements about the Son of Man in which the referent of the Agent is unspecified (9,31; 10,33a), and the occurrence of the verb in 14,42, where Judas is the specified referent of the Agent (cf. 3,19; 14,43). The occurrence in 14,41 then may be interpreted as a “theological passive” in which the passivized form of an active usage with no definite referent for the verb’s Agent is taken to allude to God’s agency.12 The theological passive interpretation coheres with Mark’s theme concerning God’s agency in Jesus’ passion and death.13 Even if this interpretation is rejected, the verb continues to admit to interpretation with a contextually unspecified Agent14. Thus, this traditional interpretation is narratively and thematically viable in this context. With the second interpretation (mot. pass.), Jesus the Son of Man (Theme) comes over into sinner’s hands (Goal). The conceptualization places exclusive emphasis on the Goal of motion, which again provides an appropriate narrative introduction to 14,43-15,41. This interpretation coheres with and develops Mark’s theme of Jesus’ obedience to God’s will, as recently evoked in Jesus’ statement that God’s will and not his own be done (14,36).15 The attribution of the weak agentive property of initiation These English translations follow the interpretation of the Vg: “Filius hominis trade- 11 tur in manus peccatorum”. The theological passive receives introduction in J. Jeremias, New Testament Theol- 12 ogy: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York 1971) 10-13. A consideration of its frequent use in Mark appears in J. Donahue, “A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark”, JBL 101.4 (1982) 565-68. The theological passive interpretation of Mark 14,41 is recommended by Donahue, “Neglected Factor”, 66; E. La Verdiere, The Beginning of the Gospel: An Introduction to the Gospel According to Mark (2 vols.; Collegeville, MN 1999) 248; and M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans. J. Smith; Rome 1985) 76. P.L. Danove, The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus’ Disciples 13 in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSS 290; New York 2005) 31-32; cf. D. Juel, A Master of Sur- prise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis 1994) 34, 100-104; M.A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis 1989) 281; F. Matera, “The Prologue as the Interpretive Key to Mark’s Gospel”, JSNT 34 (1988) 14-15; and H.L. Chro- nis, “The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39”, JBL 101.1 (1982) 109. The theological passive interpretation is not demanded, because Mark never explicitly 14 identifies God as the referent of the Agent that hands over the Son of Man. A.Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2007) 679; cf. J.R. 15 Donahue and D.L. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SPS 2; Collegevill, MN 2002) 411; and W.L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI 1974) 518.