Abstract
In this second edition of the work, Black repeats his original test of redaction criticism along with a substantial afterword in which he reflects on his original reasons for writing, the responses of his critics, the developments in scholarship since he first wrote, and the merits of his original conclusions.
In the book proper, Black seeks to answer the question, ‘When taken on its own terms does Markan redaction criticism work?’ (p. 5). To answer, Black analyzes the work of three scholars who use redaction criticism to investigate the role of the disciples in Mark to reach disparate conclusions: Robert Meye represents the ‘conservative’ position (disciples as positive); Ernest Best, the ‘mediate’ position (disciples as complex); and Theodore Weeden, the ‘liberal’ position (disciples as negative). Black finds that these scholars abandon redaction criticism to reach their respective conclusions in favor of channeling their particular perspectives and assumptions through the method. Black proposes his own interpretive model, a synthesis of five methods (historical, tradition, literary, authorial-theological, and reader-response) that privileges the text and its literary interpretation and has the other methods yielding ‘mutually corrective insights’ (p. 285).
In the afterword, Black reflects on his original critique and conclusions. First, he expands on why and how he wrote. He recalls moving from his original research question to the determination of the method and scope necessary for answering it, and he identifies the scholarly models for his critical analysis. Second, Black reveals a conversation with Ernest Best, beginning with Best’s review of the first edition and continuing with a private correspondence. The corresponding excerpts between his and Best’s letters exhibit a robust yet respectful critical dialogue. Third, Black surveys and evaluates twenty-five years of scholarship pertaining to redaction criticism. He concerns himself with Mark’s source material in Septuagint and Proto-Mark studies, and discusses a study that transposes a redaction-critical approach into a semiotic analysis of Mark’s surface text. This reader would have liked to see Black mention other approaches that build upon the concerns of redaction criticism, such as literary methods, sociological approaches, and social memory studies.
Specifically, Black discusses how scholars have interpreted the disciples in Mark and what methods they have used. He notes that scholars have continued to represent all three views from the template of his original study (conservative, mediate, liberal) and have employed all five methods of the interpretive model he proposed. Moreover, he observes that each one of the five methods has been used to reach the mediate position, demonstrating a ‘working exegetical consensus’ (p. 330, fn. 121) that verifies the success of his model. A weakness of the first edition lies in its failure to offer a full-bodied alternative to the approach it critiques by demonstrating its validity. In other words, Black did not pursue his own question about his own model: Does it work? He has rectified this problem in the afterword of the second edition.
The book offers a useful appraisal that students of Mark should continue to read. But now they should read the second edition. The inclusion of the afterword provides a window into a scholar’s creative process at several stages of his career and is a model for those who research, write, and desire to reflect carefully on their own work.