Words

For my Narrative Criticism class I had to write a response to Jean Starobinski’s article on Mark 5:1-20. The response was to define his thesis and support of that thesis and my response to his approach to Scripture. Here are my thoughts, his article can be found in the winter 1973 edition of New Literary History, pages 331 through 356.

Starobinski argues for a parabolic interpretation of the pericope. A parabolic interpretation is one that contains two levels, the first being a historical literal understanding, and the second is a figurative or spiritual understanding (349-350). This parabolic interpretation allows the reader to make his or her own application, but still requires the reader to understand its meaning along historical temporal lines. It is a simultaneous holding of the literal and figurative meanings of the narrative. Each interpreting and informing one another in a circular effect (354-355).

He supports this conclusion throughout his work. He notes figures and prefigures in the various areas he explores. The demoniac’s evangelistic actions are a figure of the actions of the author of the narrative himself and also a prefigure of the apostles actions (336). The fall of the pigs are a prefigure for the fall of all rebellious spirits into the abyss (339). The human opposition against Jesus and his allowing that opposition to remain is a prefigure, anticipating the final day when Jesus will return and be victorious over all (346-347). He finds figures of passage and crossing, those of departure and entry, as related to the passage from literal to figurative (349). Even the singularity and plurality of the demoniac is related to the singularity of the eschatological meaning and “the plurality of the examples in which it is expressed and reiterated” (351).

This figurative understanding of the text is rooted in the validity of the historical temporal nature of the narrative. Since the narrative maintains the tangible presence of Jesus, there is a simultaneous implication of both literal and spiritual meaning (351). Nonetheless, Starobinski allows for a universal application, showing, for example, that the torture of the demons to the man can be related to the torture of unrestrained sexual desire to the reader. Thus the victory of Jesus over the demons is a nontemporal one, one that can be appealed to by all who suffer temporal torment (350). Even at the outset of his article he notes that since the audience is not mentioned, the narrative calls for readers of all times to recognize the text (334-335).

Starobinski’s careful analysis of the spatial structures, the persons, and recognition of Jesus should be applauded. He pulls together geography, topography, characters, movement, individuality versus plurality, and more to establish understanding. He examines both this pericope and others in Mark to gain understanding of the authorial intent for the narrative. Pulling all these pieces together, he assimilates them into a parabolic interpretation.

This approach that Starobinski uses to understand the meaning of the text demands careful thought. On the one hand, it seems to me that we must be careful as we find figurative meaning in the text. Allegorical interpretation, albeit at times warranted when biblical, can be dangerous –as is found with Augustine’s treatment of the parable of the good Samaritan. It can lead one down a path that the text never meant to travel. Is this figurative understanding in this passage necessary?

On the other hand, it seems clear that Mark is displaying this victory of Jesus over the demon and his concession to the townspeople as representative of something larger than just this temporal occurrence. Similarly, the application of Christ’s victory, freeing the demoniac from torture, does seem to apply to his liberation of the sinner from their bondage of sin. But is a figurative handling necessary to come to these conclusions?

All Entries on Mark 5:1-20
Plot
Point of View
Jean Starobinski’s Article
Characterization
Setting
Rhetorical Devices