Malbon Review of Broadhead - Mark Commentary

8/12/2019 Malbon Review of Broadhead - Mark Commentary

1/4

This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

RBL 10/2002

Broadhead, Edwin K.

Mark

Readings: A New Biblical Commentary

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 163, Cloth, $57.50, ISBN 1841271888.

Elizabeth Struthers MalbonVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Throughout this short but full-packed book, Edwin Broadhead refers not to theimplied reader, a term commonly used by narrative critics, but to the alert reader orthe attentive reader. The term is an apt description of Broadhead himself, who, as hepoints out in the Preface, has been attending to reading Marks Gospel for a decade. Thetitles of his three previous books on Mark (all also published by Sheffield) are worthmentioning here because their echoes are heard in the present commentary on Mark:Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark,NarrativeForm and Function in Mark 14-16, andNaming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospelof Mark. Miracles, christology, and form are dominant themes in the current book. Infact, I would judge Broadheads dominant sensibility here to be not narrative critical, as

he indicates in the Preface (pp. 14, 20), but form critical. Broadhead does, of course,discuss issues of plot, setting, characterization, and rhetoric, but form critical commentsare equally frequent. Furthermore, Broadhead explicitly identifies the literary form thatdominates this Gospel [as] the miracle story (p. 92). Broadheads more cautiousobservation, that The most frequent story type is the miracle story (p. 140) would beeasier to defend, for some scholars have argued well that the literary form that mostinfluences Marks Gospel is not miracle but parable. Thus Broadheads commentary onMark seems to be a rich condensation of his previous readings.

Two explicit observations Broadhead makes of the attentive reader certainlyapply to his work here. First, The attentive reader has learned to read reflectively:stories within stories interpret each other; cycles of repetition are employed; scenes are

interpreted by previous accounts (p. 127). Even the way Broadhead has organized thechapters of his commentary makes plain such reflective reading. Broadhead treats Mark1.1-20: The Gospel Begins as an opening that stakes out the story (1:1-8), stakes out theidentity of Jesus (1:9-13), and stakes out the ministry and message of Jesus (1:14-20).After this opening Marks material is organized by Broadhead into eight acts, each witha varying number of scenes. The first three acts, which are considered generallyparallel, establish the ministry of Jesus in Galilee: Mark 1.21-3.7a: The Authority of


2/4


Jesus, Mark 3.7-6.6: Parables and Signs, Mark 6.6b-8.27a: Beyond the Borders.The fourth act, Mark 8.27-10.52: From the Galilee to Jerusalem, describes thedifficulty of discipleship and defines Jesus as the one who suffers and serves and dies

(p. 102). Act five, Mark 11.1-13.37: Ministry in Jerusalem, shapes the story to theethos of a new settingJerusalem where conflict between Jesus and the religiousleadership of Israel dominates the scenes (p. 102). The final three acts present thepassion of Jesus Mark 14.1-42: The Preparation and Betrayal, Mark 14.43-15.15:The Arrest and Trial, Mark 15.16-16.8: The Death of Jesus. Scholarly outlines ofMark are legion and disagreements legendary, especially for Mark 1-8, but Broadheadsdivisions are exegetically interesting, even though they (like all such divisions) hide somerelationships in the process of highlighting others.

Second, The attentive reader also knows that the world of this Gospel is framedagainst the world of the Hebrew Scriptures (p. 127). Broadhead is an attentive reader in

this area too, listing and discussing briefly many Markan citations and allusions to theHebrew Scriptures.

I was surprised, however, at a number of places where Broadhead did not seem tome an attentive readeralthough it would probably be equally accurate to say that atthose places he and I are attending to different Markan emphases. Two of his translationssurprised me: "Lake" (Mark has thalassa, sea, consistently) of Galilee and "in the way"(en te hodo). The latter translation could be regarded as more literal, although, at least intypical American English, "in the way" sounds more like being an obstruction than beingin process. The former translation is certainly less literal, but Broadhead is as consistentin his reference to the "lake" as Mark is to the thalassa, thus, and surprisingly, missingpotential allusions to the "sea" and God's power over the "sea" in the Septuagint.

I was also surprised by Broadhead's downplaying of the symbolic significance ofthe numbers twelve and seven in the two feeding stories. Although Broadhead realizesthat the major difference between these two stories is wherethey take place, whichindicates that "When the new exodus of God's people takes place, it will include bothJews and Gentiles" (p. 74), he argues that the differing numbers "do not appear to hidedeep symbolism" (p. 73). Perhaps the symbolism is so obvious that it is not "deep," buttwelve for Jews and seven for Gentiles is commonly thought to undergird the point thatBroadhead recognizes Mark is making about Jews and Gentiles.

At another point I was surprised not by downplaying of symbolic significance butby what seemed to me playing it up. Broadhead asserts that the "young man" at the

empty tomb "represents the voice of an external witness" and links him with the only twoother such external witnesses in the Gospelthe voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism(1:11) and the voice from the cloud at Jesus' transfiguration (9:7)all three of whichprovide keys to Jesus' identity (p. 136). While I admit that the message of the young manat the empty tomb is significant for the story, I am not convinced that the young manhimself "completes a triad of external witnesses" (p. 138). He seems more comparable to


3/4


Mark's only other "young man" (neaniskos) at 14:51 (also with a white garment) than toGod.

While no commentary can comment on every aspect of every Markan pericope, Iwas surprised at a couple of omissions from Broadhead's narrativecommentary. Hemakes no reference to Jesus' sending his disciples "ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida"(6:45) while he goes up on the mountain to pray after the feeding of the 5,000. In fact,Broadhead discretely includes 6:45-46 in his section entitled "Bread in the Desert (Mark6.32-46)," without commenting on vv. 45 or 46, before moving on to the next section,"An Appearance Scene (Mark 6.47-53)." Nor does Broadhead mention Bethsaida at itsother Markan reference 8:22 (p. 75), thus being inattentive to the narrative structure ofthe detour (between Jesus' request that the disciples go ahead to Bethsaida at 6:45 andtheir arrival there with Jesus at 8:22), during which the Markan narrative further developsthe theme of the inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews, an important aspect of what

Broadhead recognizes as Mark's focus on "crossing boundaries."As a final example, I found it surprising that Broadhead not only does not

mention the likely oral context of the Gospel in his discussion of "the first reader" buteven states that "The Gospel of Mark is not an oral presentation, . . . ." Well, I myselfhave experienced it in that mode on a number of occasions, and a number of scholarshave argued that its first audience was literally thatan audience who listened to andobserved an oral presenter.

Mark's storytelling style is not picked up by Broadhead in his Markancommentary, which, unlike Mark's Gospel, relies on telling more than showingwithone delightful exception. Broadhead brings each chapter to a close with a well-writtensummary section entitled "The Story Thus Far." Then, after commenting on Mark's openending, he brings his book to a close with a chapter entitled "The Story Thus Far"!

Unfortunately I liked the suggestive chapter title better than the concludingchapter itself because, in his effort to tie things together neatly, Broadhead seems tooversimplify the process of interpretation. He reviews Markan "structure" as"morphology," "strategy" as "syntax," "significance" as "signification," and "meaning" asthe involvement of the reader. "Significance," Broadhead states boldly, "resides in a text:it is created by the interaction of narrative elements and strategies." "Significance is thework of the text. Meaning is something altogether different. A text has meaning onlywhen a reader takes up that text and appropriates it is some way" (p. 146). Thediscussion under the heading "Significance" does not clarify things for me; it presents

five "signs" Broadhead regards as central to Mark. The first "sign," for example, is "thecoming of the Kingdom of God"; the Gospel's "second major sign is found in its portraitof Jesus" (p. 143). Earlier Broadhead had identified these themes as "major concerns" (p.17), terminology I can more easily understand. I had already run into difficulty with adifferent use of the term "sign" in the chapter on "Mark 3.7-6.6: Parables and Signs"because Broadhead uses in a positive way this term "sign" that Mark only usesnegatively. Broadhead's opening chapter, which I found thoughtful and inviting, seems


4/4


more open-ended on this point: "The most productive realm of interpretation is found inthe interplay between what the text offers to the reader and what the reader brings to thetext" (p. 14). I agree, but I am uncomfortable with the further assumption that one can

separate the two precisely into "significance" (what the text offers) and "meaning" (whatthe reader brings).

I have tried to be an "attentive reader" of Broadhead's commentary as he is ofMark's Gospel. I have also asked myself who is "the implied reader" of his commentary?In his Introduction, Broadhead states that his analysis "presumes an engaged reader"one who is "presumed to be able to pick up basic literary cues" and "presumed to care"(p. 15). His discussion of "the modern [not post-modern] reader" in the conclusion,however, seems to presume a Christian reader who seeks to understand what "the religionof Jesus" (p. 149) means in this age. Undergraduate and lay readers will likely appreciatethe freedom from footnotes but perhaps not the frequent overlaying of abstract (formal or

form critical) terms and the lack of familiar names for pericopes. Graduate students andscholars might miss the footnotes but appreciate the five-page Bibliography and Index ofReferences. As a Markan scholar and teacher I found here much with which to agree, anumber of new ideas to appreciate (e.g., the detailed comparison of the Gethsemanescene and the eschatological discourse [p. 112], the discussion of the four scenes of15:38-47 as "Signs [perhaps not the best word] of Hope" [pp. 131-35]), as well as somesurprises like those I have mentioned.

What I most appreciate is the density of this brief commentaryits scholarlyweight. One senses the author's years of attentively reading Markand reading othersreading Markthat support this work. Such concentration has produced a concentratedvolume; I feel the need to add re-readings and stir.

Documents

Malbon Review of Broadhead - Mark Commentary