2023.06.06 | Jonathan Rivett Robinson. Markan Typology: Miracle, Scripture and Christology in Mark 4:35–6:45. LNTS 678. London: T&T Clark, 2023.

Review by Kendall A. Davis, University of Edinburgh.

In his recently revised dissertation, Jonathan Rivett Robinson explores the use of typology in several miracle passages in Mark’s Gospel. Robinson’s study contributes to the study of intertextuality in the Gospels by focusing on typology as a particular dynamic of intertextual discourse. He also seeks to contribute to discussions of divine Christology in Mark’s Gospel, engaging in dialogue with Richard Bauckham, Richard Hays, and Daniel Kirk. 

When Robinson uses the term “typology,” he does not seek to distinguish typology from other terms like “allegory” or “analogy.” Rather, in talking about “typology,” Robinson has in mind the ways that authors draw correspondences between people or events in different texts. Specifically, “a Markan type is a correspondence between persons or events in the Gospel with persons or events from scripture which Mark has used in the composition of the Gospel and which can be expected to contain hermeneutical significance” (p. 3). Robinson argues that this was a common strategy of composition in Second Temple Jewish literature. Additionally, Robinson further distinguishes between different ways that typology can be used in ancient Jewish texts, such as literary typology, real typology, fulfillment typology, or even theomorphic typology. Thus, it is not enough to simply identify the presence of a typological relationship, one must also understand what an author wants to do in establishing a scriptural correspondence. Often, according to Robinson, such correspondences serve not only to draw similarities, but also to highlight differences between figures.

Robinson focuses in particular on typology in a number of Markan miracle texts and thereby seeks to demonstrate: (1) how these miracle texts use scripture and (2) how they contribute to Mark’s Christology. Robinson is particularly interested in the question of divine Christology—that is, in what sense Jesus is portrayed as divine in Mark’s Gospel. He positions his discussion of Christology in distinction from Bauckham and Kirk who, in his estimation, both err in constructing “a paradigm from Jewish literature to then apply to Mark” (p. 13). In contrast Robinson attempts to offer an account of the Christology of the miracle stories in Mark’s Gospel “according to its own categories” (p. xi). 

After introducing his study in the first chapter, Robinson discusses typology as a literary strategy employed by ancient Jewish authors in chapter 2. He discusses several examples of typology in Josephus, the Pentateuch, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Pseudo-Philo, and Paul. Robinson argues that this survey demonstrates the plausibility of typology as a literary strategy used by Mark and establishes some of the conventions of its use by various Jewish authors of the period. In the third chapter Robinson offers an overview of the typology and Christology of Mark’s Gospel by focusing on a few typological and Christological “high points” of the Markan narrative, namely, Jesus’ baptism, his transfiguration, and his suffering and death. Robinson identifies numerous typological correspondences in these texts between Jesus and figures from Israel’s scriptures, especially Isaac, Moses, Elijah, and David. Through this overview Robinson shows the various ways that Mark uses typology. For example, Mark sometimes alludes to single episodes or a collection of texts or a scriptural theme found across a number of texts. Mark is also interested in showing how Jesus is similar to these figures while also going well beyond the scriptural description of these figures. This is what he calls “fulfillment typology.” Robinson also finds that in these high points of Mark’s narrative, Mark typologically “identifies Jesus with Israel’s God to an extraordinary extent” (p. 80). This is “theomorphic typology.” 

In the next four chapters Robinson offers extended studies on the typology of several miracle stories found in Mark 4–6. Robinson is particularly keen to show that the typological correspondences he identifies were part of the intentional compositional strategies of the author and were intended to be perceived by the reader through the correspondence of details like the sequence of similar events or the use of similar terminology. Chapter 4 examines the stilling of the storm in Mark 4:35–41 and argues against an intertextual correspondence to Psalm 107, instead favoring a typological correspondence to Jonah through the story in Jonah 1. For Robinson, Mark thus presents Jesus as the inverse of the prophet Jonah while also portraying Jesus in the role of God who stills the storm. Chapter 5 discusses Mark 5:21–43, the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the flow of blood, and the typological correspondence with Elisha, especially with respect to 1 Kings 17:17–24 and 2 Kings 4:18–37. Chapter 6 takes up Mark 5:1–20, the healing and exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac. Robinson discounts an intertextual correspondence with Isaiah 65 and in light of the tradition of the watchers (as contained, for example, in 1 Enoch) explores the typological correspondence with David as the one who sends away evil spirits and defeats giants like Goliath (1 Sam 16:14–18:9). Finally, in chapter 7 Robinson discusses the feedings of the five thousand and the four thousand (Mark 6:30–44; 8:1–20). He finds a number of overlapping typological correspondences in these texts, namely, Elisha (2 Kgs 4:42–44), the shepherd of Psalm 23, and Moses (Num 11). 

In a final chapter Robinson summarizes the observations of his study, including that Jesus is often portrayed typologically in the role of God even while he is portrayed as a type of human scriptural figures, that Jesus is a typological “prototype for the early church’s own missionary activity among the nations” (p. 184) and that “typology is…vital to Mark’s Christological presentation and is a channel for Mark’s hermeneutical, theological, and ethical convictions” (p. 184). Robinson also concludes that in his key texts Mark’s Jesus does not fit the paradigm of an exalted human figure as argued by Kirk nor does he fit the category of divine identity as argued by Bauckham. Rather, Mark’s Jesus “represents God to such an extent that it is as if the God of Israel has gained a human identity, Jesus Christ the son of God” (p. 194). 

Robinson’s study is to be commended for a number of reasons. It is simultaneously broad insofar as he attempts to speak to larger hermeneutical issues in the study of Mark and deep as he offers detailed analyses of discrete texts and their proposed intertexts. He seeks to avoid the common errors of many intertextual studies by insisting on the application of concrete criteria for identifying intertexts. He is also sensitive to both Jewish and Greco-Roman points of comparison even as he emphasizes the Jewish background for his analysis.

However, in my estimation, Robinson’s work also suffers from a number of flaws. At times it seems the study tries to do too much. Space does not allow Robinson to do justice to all that he desires to say about divine Christology, intertextuality, and typology. I remain unpersuaded that he has offered a convincing rebuttal of either Kirk or Bauckham or that his alternative proposal offers a clear and better alternative. For example, he criticizes Kirk and Bauckham for imposing artificial categories onto the text of Mark, yet it is unclear why categories like “theomorphic christology” are less artificial than “divine identity.” It was also unclear to me how exactly Robinson’s position is different theologically from the rather divergent positions of either Kirk or Bauckham. Is it just a question of framing and terminology or does Robinson have a different reading of Mark’s theology than his interlocutors? Furthermore, Robinson’s extensive arguments against certain intertexts and for his preferred intertexts were frequently unconvincing and often tedious. Robinson seemed limited by his insistence that intertextuality in general and typology in particular is something that authors do in their composition of texts rather than, for example, something that readers do in their reading of texts. These and other methodological assumptions lead him to insist on identifying the particular texts that have had a literary influence on Mark’s composition. However, it was not clear to me why such identifications, even if they are right, were necessary for the typological and Christological analysis that Robinson is interested in.

This all being said, Robinson offers a careful and nuanced analysis of typology in Mark’s Gospel. Robinson is at his best when he shows how typology is a complex and dynamic strategy of exegesis and narration. Readers will do well to take these observations to heart.

Kendall A. Davis
University of Edinburgh
K.A.Davis-3 [at] sms.ed.ac.uk