Kata Markon

[Shawn J Kelley <skelley AT daemen.edu>]

With apologies for cross posting.

I'm doing some research into the influence of the parable scholarship of 
Funk and Crossan in other areas of NT scholarship.  I am currently 
exploring the way that Mark is conceived of as a parable.  There are a 
number of important figures who argue this: Norman Perrin, John Donahue, 
Werner Kelber, Robert Fowler, and Stephen Moore all come to mind.  Mary Ann 
Tolbert wrote a book arguing against this thesis- arguing that Mark is not 
a parable and is not parabolic.

This debate (i.e. Mark is or is not parabolic) is now 10 years old and I 
haven't kept up with what's been out in the last 5 years or so.  (I know, 
shame on me- but I do intend to catch up).  I'm wondering where current 
Mark scholars would stand on the question.  Have recent critics taken up 
the question?  Are there implicit assumptions for or against the category 
in recent research?  For those of you working in Mark, do you find the 
category "parable" or "parabolic" helpful in reading Mark?  Do you find 
that it fits well with how you read Mark?  Or does it seem to stand in the 
way of your reading of the text?

Thanks in advance for any responses
Shawn Kelley
Assistant Professor
Department of Religion and Philosophy
Daemen College