Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT earthreach.com>]

Shawn Kelley wrote:

> 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?

In the preface to the 1979 paperback edition (viii) of my _Mark-Traditions
in Conflict_, I stated that Mark intended a parabolic effect in juxtaposing
the miracle-working portrait of Jesus in the first half of the Gospel over
against the suffering servant portrait in the second half.   The Caesarea
Philippi episode (8:27-9:1) is the episode which contravenes the
miracle-working depiction of Jesus of the narrative prior to that episode
and which presents and advocates for the first time a suffering servant
christology in direct opposition to the triumphalist christology Mark
combats.  I still hold to that position.

Ted Weeden