Ted Hoffman

1. Introduction

This is a review of Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which is a work in progress. The review aims at offering suggestions to improve the work whilst at the same time analyzing it and scrutinizing its method, interrogating the assumptions behind it and generally subjecting it to a critical assesment.

Close to a century ago, German scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), arguably the father of form criticism, set about exploring oral traditions, genres and settings in life of the old testament texts and developed comparisons between the Bible and literature scattered all over the world (Gunkel H., Legends of Genesis, 88-122). With respect to Genesis, he showed Egyptian influence in the Joseph romance, Moabite influence in the Lot legends and Babylonian influence in the stories of creation, flood and tower of Babel. His work exposed Greek parallels in narratives such as the three visitors to Abraham, Reuben’s curse, and the quarrel between Esau and Jacob. He showed how Israel adapted foreign themes and content to serve her own religious interests. This pursuit for parallels, Phyllis Tribble notes, “dislodged provincial interpretation to show that, far from being an isolated document, the Bible belonged to world literature� (Trible P., Rhetorical Criticism, Context, Method and the Book of Jonah, 1994, p.23)

Since Gunkel’s efforts, several studies have been carried out on the Bible involving application of literary methods and the field of literary study of the Bible has expanded tremendously. It is from that background that Turton’s work unfolds like a tapestry, weaving modern approaches in New Testament scholarship with a literary analysis of the Gospel of Mark and meshing these with a historico-critical approach, exposing the literary structure of the Gospel of Mark and the resulting historical implications. Turton’s work identifies the dominant and recurring themes in Mark and explicates the content (inventio), structure (dispositio) and style (elocutio) and shows how the narrative units in Mark work together, exposing the gospel as an artistic and aesthetically beautiful text, fulfilling James Muilenberg’s words: Scripture as artistic composition engages the ultimate questions of life (Muilenberg J., Form Criticism and Beyond, p.18). The other pillar that hoists Turton’s work, other than the literary analysis of the gospel of Mark, is his detailed exposition of the literary borrowing by Mark from Old Testament scriptures and illustration of how Mark employed Hellenistic literary and dramatic conventions in the composition of the gospel.

Turton’s central thesis is that a literary analysis of the Gospel of Mark demonstrates that it is a fictional product from the writer of the gospel. For example, the character of Peter, whose name means “the rock�, is ironically not strong enough to even acknowledge Jesus and is the only disciple that breaks down and weeps (Mark 14:72). Turton argues that in the parable of the sower in Mark 4, in the typology of the gospel, Peter represents rocky ground which fails to support the germinated seeds in the same way Peter fails to recognize and respond to Jesus. The conclusions Turton draws regarding the historicity of the characters and events in Mark present a remarkable contribution to the quest for the historical Jesus and Turton’s work is therefore of interest to anyone interested in historical Jesus studies.

Read the entire review here.

Ben C Smith

Ted:

I enjoyed reading the section of your critique on the Marcan chiasms. I have questions about them myself, though I think I may be softening on them a bit.

You wrote in your review:

Of course Michael can give his own response, but I think the brackets in question (from Mark 4.23-25) admit of an explanation from rule 6 (emphasis mine):

Speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts, when the audience has shifted. This typically takes place when there is a shift from an address to persons present in the narrative to a general saying, often signaled by a formula like "Truly I say" or "But I tell you...."

In this case, Mark 4.21-22 (right before the brackets you siphoned off) is clearly addressed to the disciples (to them, verse 21), but then 4.23 is a general saying (if any man has ears). In 4.24-25 Jesus is once again addressing the disciples (to them, verse 24).

Unless I have misunderstood the thrust of rule 6, this looks like a legal set of brackets.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Hi Ben,
I read your commentS on Turton's chiasms and enjoyed it and gleaned a lot from it.
I think the above should be split to:

.....E If any man has ears to hear, let him hear And he said to them
.....E' Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

Vorkosigan

Thanks, guys. I'll be here Friday.

Michael