22 Thomas R. Hatina typical structural cluster which unites independent aphorisms (5). The disjunction, therefore, is better identified as kai; meta; hJmevra" e}x in 9,2, which is consistent with Mark’s tendency to use shifts in temporality to signify new episodes. While the connection of the Transfiguration scene with my proposed reading of 9,1 is a question which inevitably will arise, suffice it to say in the interest of space and focus that the entire scene can function apocalyptically as an assurance of the son of man’s glory pointing forward to the resurrection, and hence the assurance of the coming judgment (6). If 9,1 is the conclusion of the pericope, then in light of the sequence of the story the bystanders must be identified as a group of individuals (i.e., “some”) from among the “crowd and his disciples” whom Jesus summons in 8,34 (7). More specifically, they must be either from among those who “wish to save their life” or “those who wish to lose it” (8,35) (8). In typical fashion, Mark sets up a scenario which limits the reader’s options to either the “in-group” or the “out- (5) J.D. CROSSAN, In Fragments. The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco 1983) 164-68. (6) I do not intend to convey that the Transfiguration scene only conveys judgment, for both vindication and judgment must be preserved. My point is that given the immediate focus on judgment in 8,36–9,1, the Transfiguration scene can be understood as a support and not as a disjunction. Having said that, the location of the Transfiguration in the story contributes to the difficulty of taking Mark as a straightforward narrative. As observed by Frank Kermode, Mark “grows awkward and reticent... The story moves erratically, and not always forward; one thing follows another for no very evident reason. And a good deal of the story seems concerned with failure to understand the story” (The Genesis of Secrecy. On the Interpretation of Narrative [Cambridge, Mass 1979] 69). (7) E.g. H. GIESEN, Glaube und Handeln. Beiträge zur Exegese und Theologie des Matthäus- und Markus-Evangeliums (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Frankfurt am Main 1983) I, 128-129; K. BROWER, “Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power”, JSNT 6 (1980) 29. Cranfield (The Gospel According to St. Mark, 285) offers the suggestion that Luke’s (9,27) levgw de; uJmi'n ajlhqw'" may be a clue that Mark’s kai; e[legen aujtoi'" indicates an independent saying, but this proposal begs the question of the relationship of Mark 9,1 to its immediate narrative context. (8) It is possible, though unlikely, that this contrast is not intended to be descriptive of the groups, but simply as a representation of theoretical options in a rhetoric of exhortation. Historically, it is more probable that Mark’s aural audiences sought to identify with one group over and against another. Such contrasts would have been heard as real descriptive categories rather than theoretical ones. See the insights into audience perceptions in aural cultures in H.R. JAUSS, “Levels of Identification of Hero and Audience”, New Literary History 5 (1974) 299-302.