Book Review: The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 513 absence of influential bibliography pertaining to the matter (Wilckens, Klein, Räisänen) is symptomatic.The final section of surveys brings one of the two or three finest entries: "Jesus and Christology" (J. Reumann), where the 39-page bibliography matches the depth and coherent sweep of the coverage. R. Fuller, at the end of the volume, appears to leave NT theology stranded at the crossroads of historical and doctrinal approaches. No latter-day Bultmann or (NT) von Rad appeared in his crystal ball. Fordham UniversityRICHARD J. DILLON THE DISCIPLES ACCORDING TO MARK: MARKAN REDACTION IN CUR-RENT DEBATE. By C. Clifton Black. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Pp. 392. $37.50.Black examines redaction-critical studies of the role of the disciples in Mark as a test case for determining the value and viability of applying redaction criticism to Mark's Gospel. He begins by reviewing selected redaction-critical studies in order to discern their disciplinary bases and methodological procedures. He then narrows his focus to the disciples and the theme of discipleship. A "research review" of these issues reveals three distinct positions, each of which is advocated by numerous redaction critics: type 1, the "conservative" position, which emphasizes the favorable portrayal of the disciples; type 2, the "mediate" position, which emphasizes a tension in the portrayal of the disciples; and type 3, the "liberal" position, which emphasizes the unrelentingly negative portrayal of the disciples. B. selects a representative of each type and devotes a chapter to his work. Robert P. Meye represents the "conservative" position; Ernest Best, the "mediate"; and Theodore J. Weeden, Sr., the "liberal."Although B. has defined his terms carefully and identified traits peculiar to each position, his choice of terms seems puzzling. Terms used in debate and polemic invite value judgments where B. intends none. His language seems to defeat his purpose rather than promote it. Since his typology is central to his project, he might well have sought a terminology more intrinsic to the nature of the critical task and less susceptible to misunderstanding. More importantly, his choice of Weeden over Kelber as a representative of type 3 is at least questionable. It certainly sets up a schema defined by two extremes which are nuanced by a sober and clearer-headed middle position. The reader will not be surprised to discover that Black finds the mediate position most persuasive.However, B.'s study is not a simplistic setup of extremes against a middle way. In collating his three types of redaction critics, he discovers among them a high degree of agreement on method, even though their interpretations differ widely from one another. More to the point, their