“It is only in the reading and the hearing of the story itself that we experience its magic and its capacity to change us.” -David Rhoades

Sitting in the nosebleed seats of Centennial Hall, my father and I wept over Jean Valjean’s salvation in Victor Hugo’s masterpiece, Les Miserables. I grew in a deeper understanding of Christ’s forgiving love simply by watching a character’s onstage redemption. Our adventures to the theatre were special, but only made up a part of our family’s love affair with narrative. My own Christian faith was routinely edified through hearing the gospel over eggs and toast, my father’s voice narrating Mark’s words out loud. I grew up engrossed in salvific stories.

The most transformative stories connect with me because of the art of storytelling. Rhetorical devices, most commonly used in theatre, create powerful connections with the audience. In the gospel of Mark, the author understands the power of creating this intimate bond between narrator and reader. Mark puts the recipient of the gospel at the very forefront of his writings. Similar to theatre, Mark prioritizes the audience’s involvement in his gospel by using asides, foreshadowing, structural arrangement, and an abrupt conclusion to his narrative. These tools form the basis of the powerful hermeneutical strategy known as reader-response criticism.

ORIGINS OF READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM

Reader-response criticism lends understanding to Mark’s approach in his gospel. In the late 1960s, reader-response theory gained popularity in the United States and Germany. The reader, in this context, actively constructs texts rather than passively consumes them. Later, in the 1980s, the hermeneutical model was further developed in relation to biblical texts and narrative criticism. The narrator of Mark is an omniscient narrator who records events that even the followers of Jesus do not know about. By probing the inner thoughts of Jesus and others in the gospel, the narrator gives the reader unique insight into the story. In the words of Markan scholar John Donahue, “The characteristics of the narrator establish rapport with the reader and also increase the authority of the narrative.” Donahue insists the author’s method of communication connects the reader to the text and helps the reader to trust the narrator’s authority. 

In his book, The Gospel of Mark, Donahue connects the narrator, or “implied author” to the “implied reader.” The implied author, in this case, is a purely textual concept, distinct from the historical person who wrote Mark. Critics are concerned with the implied author’s use of communication to portray the strategy, values, and objectives of the text. The implied reader is a theoretical construct enabled by the implied author that the text presupposes. John Paul Heil explains in his book, The Gospel of Mark as Model for Action, that “The reader is anticipated and created by the text in the process of reading or listening to it…the one to whom the narrator of the Gospel tells the story.” At the conception of Mark’s gospel, the narrator crafts his ideal reader. This implied reader influences how the narrator weaves the story, how he communicates. Reader-response criticism studies a text such as Mark, seeking to discern how the narrator hoped to involve the reader to evoke a specific response. While most varieties of the reader-response criticism share a preeminent concern for the reader and their experience, scholars differ on the reader’s ability to create meaning. James Resseguie argues in Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels, that the reader contributes to the production of textual meaning: a reader’s interpretation would create a new meaning of the text. 

However, Resseguie’s argument has the potential for overstated conclusions. While I agree that every reader brings bias in interpreting a text, I am hesitant to claim that the reader creates new meaning within the text. As Steve Walton, a New Testament scholar, rightly points out, “the text itself sets some limits on the meanings that can be legitimately attributed to it.” Literal interpretation of the text creates boundaries for the reader’s understanding: the test is still authoritative. While Mark was written for readers’ benefit, readers must be mindful to approach the text with humility, recognizing it to be the divinely inspired word of God. Mark invites the reader to deploy their imagination in engaging his gospel, but that invitation still has set boundaries.. Donald Juel explores the dichotomy between reader and interpretation well in his book A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. He states, 

I am continually reminded about the indispensability of imagination. Slavish adherence to one method or another often succeeds in killing the imagination, rendering the results of interpretation sterile and inaccessible. Imagination needs to be subjected to critique; interpretation ought to be responsible to other readers.

Interpretation cannot flow wherever one fancies; it needs to be subject to other readers: the body of Christ. Yet, the beauty of imagination and individual interpretation brings sweet richness to the reader’s relationship with God. Mark recognizes the beauty of imagination and so prioritizes the reader’s involvement through his use of asides, foreshadowing, arrangement, and the conclusion of his narrative.

MARK’S USE OF READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM

Mark’s use of asides contributes to the reader’s involvement in his text. From the first words of his narrative he informs the reader of the secret of Jesus’ identity; he is “the Son of God” (Mk 1:1). Just eight verses later, Mark tells of the baptism of Jesus Christ, where the reader is given unique insight. Unlike the characters in the story, the reader is told that Jesus saw the heavens torn open, and the Spirit descended on him like a dove. The reader is the actual subject of Mark, as it is the reader who sees and hears the unfolding drama, just like a spectator would witness on a stage. Going further, it is the reader who hears God call Jesus his “beloved son,” and follows him to the desert where he is tested by Satan (Mk 1:10-13). By disclosing Jesus’ identity that the reader alone is privy to, Mark trusts the reader with valuable information. David Rhoads emphasizes the honor of the reader’s position in Mark as a Story, when he explains that the readers are on the “inside,” in contrast to the characters of the story, who do not know the truth of Jesus’ identity. From the first moments, the readers know the authority that Jesus carries and are placed in a position of privilege. Being in the narrator’s confidence from the outset gives the reader confidence in who Jesus is amidst his radical teachings. The reader is affirmed that Jesus is the “Son of God,” and can therefore believe his challenging directives. By beginning his story with parenthetical remarks and details that only the reader is privy to, Mark prioritizes the reader. This is the start of a reciprocal relationship: because of the narrator’s trust in the reader, the reader will more easily trust the narrator. 

Another significant aside is found in Mark 13:14. Jesus speaks about the challenging subject of the “abomination of desolation,” where Mark concludes with the aside, “let the reader understand” (Mk 3:14). According to Craig Evans in Word Biblical Commentary, this parenthetic comment may be intended to alert readers to Daniel 12:5-13, a passage in which Daniel questions the angel with wording similar to the disciples of Jesus, “When will these things be?” In this comment, Mark is advising his audience to read Daniel, where the appearance of abomination that will leave the temple desolate is not only explained, but in Daniel 12:11 it is specified that those with insight will “understand.” Mark connects the teachings of Daniel and Jesus to help the reader understand Jesus’ connection with the greater narrative of God’s redemptive narrative. This parenthetical remark was only written for the reader’s benefit, as only the reader would have the perspective to compare the text of Mark with the text of Daniel. Rhoads explains that by specifically addressing the reader through asides, the narrator “establishes a rapport by taking hearers into confidence and assures them in subtle ways that they are not forgotten…In this way the narrator’s increasing influence over the hearers’ responses encourages them to embrace the demands presented by the story and to accept the difficult meanings that the story is showing.” Mark seeks to communicate a message to the reader. By establishing a rapport with his reader through his use of asides, Mark encourages readers to trust his authority and subsequently recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Not only does Mark utilize asides to gain the confidence of the reader, but his use of foreshadowing emphasizes his priority of the reader. Eric Havelock, in his analysis of oral composition in both Mark and Oedipus Tyrannus, notes that “All oral narrative is in structure continually both prophetic and retrospective…Though the narrative syntax is paratactic– the basic conjunction of being ‘and then’, ‘and next’- the narrative is not linear but turns back on itself in order to assist the memory to reach the end by having it anticipated somehow in the beginning.” He argues that while Mark utilizes short phrases to keep his narrative moving quickly, the narrative itself is not completely chronological. In using “prophetic” and “retrospective” phrases throughout the gospel, he helps the reader reach the end by having anticipated it from the beginning.

One specific example of prophetic and retrospective phrases can be found in Mark 2:6-8. Jesus has just healed the paralytic man, and the scribes question “in their hearts” how Jesus could speak like this. Is it not blasphemy? Mark writes, “And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them ‘Why do you question these things in your heart?’” (Mk 2:8) Mark emphasizes the urgency of Jesus’ response by moving the story quickly forward, while at the same time clues the reader into Jesus’ divinity. Both retrospectively echoing his previous claim of Jesus as the “Son of God” in Mark 1:1, and foreshadowing the ultimate realization of Christ as the saving sacrificial son, Mark tells the reader that Jesus “perceived in his spirit.” Jesus has the divine ability to discern the hearts of the scribes surrounding his miracle. The reader is again assured of Jesus’ divinity, which foreshadows the conclusion of the Gospel. By looking both backwards and forwards as Mark  navigates the present reality of the narrative, the reader benefits from richer interactions with the text.

Martin Hengel, in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, argues for the arrangement of Mark as a dramatic narrative. In what Hengel calls the “Prologue,” John the Baptist calls Jesus to his messianic office. “Act I” is the account of Jesus in Galilee before his appointing of the twelve disciples. John is arrested and Jesus proclaims that history has been fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, so all must repent and believe in the gospel (Mk 1:15). “Act II” marks the climax of the narrative; Jesus appoints the disciples and performs miracles. Meanwhile, the Pharisees begin to refuse him, hardening their hearts. “Act III” is the turning point that leads to the anagnorisis, the unveiling of the messianic secret in Peter’s confession. Now, like the audience, the disciples know who Jesus is and must stay silent. “Act IV” is fraught with tension. Jesus enters Jerusalem, cleanses the temple, is in contention with representatives of different groups, and closes with the final instructions for the disciples. The fifth and final act begins with the confession of the Gentile centurion and ends with the crucified Christ. In the “Epilogue” a deus ex machinae ending appears in the deposition and discovery of the empty tomb. Such intentional weaving of the text corresponds to the formula of ancient tragedy as worked out by Aristotle in his Poetics. The story arc is written with tension, anticipation, tragedy, and victory. Similarly in theatre, audience members are physically confronted with the incarnation of story. This physical incarnation of narrative allows for a deeper, more intimate connection between the story and the audience. In Mark’s case, there is no longer a degree of separation from author to audience; the writing is direct, engaging the audience to grapple with the message. By presenting the gospel as drama, Mark makes the story more accessible to the reader, allowing space for the truths to resonate, in the hearts of the listener. 

Donal Juel believes that even the stunted ending of the Gospel contributes to the reader’s involvement. He believes that the mystery of the abrupt conclusion “can be solved only by the reader who must supply a conclusion that moves beyond the end of the story.” What unique engagement the reader is invited into! By not concluding the gospel, Mark invites the reader to become the narrator. 

Juel also recognizes that the parables of Jesus, in nature, are open-ended. While the parable itself may reach a conclusion, ultimately the fruit of the parable rests on the responsibility of the reader. In Mark 4:10-12, the parable of the sower and the seed, introduces momentum that drives beyond the ending into the future, when the results of Jesus’ planting must begin to emerge. Mary Ann Tolbert, reflecting on the sower and the seed and its relation to the end of the Gospel, impactfully captures the heart of Mark. She writes: 

In the end, Mark’s gospel purposely leaves each reader and hearer with the urgent and disturbing question: What type of earth am I? Will I go and tell? Indeed, one’s response to the seed sown by the gospel of Mark reveals in each listener‘s heart, as did Jesus’ earlier preaching, the presence of God’s ground or Satan’s.

Salvific questions ring in the mind of the reader at the end of the gospel. Questions of life or death that need answering. The responsibility then falls to the reader to take the reality of their sin and decide how they will respond to Jesus. Just as Jesus creates dramatic tension between himself and the hearer as he tells the parables, Mark creates hands-on involvement between author and audience. By telling the good news in this way, readers are more personally challenged by the truth of Jesus, and must wrestle with its implications. 

Following in a similar fashion, Robert Fowler, in his book Let the Reader Understand, claims that Mark is ambivalent and leaves the reader with contradictory feelings. 

Mark’s rhetoric is powerfully, insistently direct and tantalizingly, intriguingly indirect. This narrative pulls the reader so vigorously in different directions simultaneously, that it is ultimately an ambivalent narrative. When its rhetoric of direction is particularly compelling, this narrative tells us exactly what to see, hear, understand, think and believe. When its rhetoric of indirection is particularly enticing, it lures us into pondering puzzles and clarifying opacities for ourselves. An impressive advocacy of the exercise of readerly freedom and response-ability.

One example of the rhetoric Fowler speaks of can be found in Mark’s assertion that Jesus is divine. An example of indirection is the conclusion of the parables, or asides (such as in Mark 3:14), where the responsibility of application ultimately rests on the reader. Fowler also remarks, “unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark is comfortable telling a story rich with ambiguity.” Mark is both boldly unapologetic about his beliefs and conservative in his application. Mark invites readers to ponder the reality of the gospel tangibly, not from arms length. This is not a book for the ivory tower, but for real people to grapple with. It is up to the reader to determine the application of the truth. By leaving his gospel open-ended, Mark calls readers to action.

READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM IN THEATRE
Similar to Mark, theatre seeks to tell stories that engage audiences, challenging them through ambivalence, asides, foreshadowing, and conclusions. Theatre is an incredible medium of art that takes the page and places it in motion. Authors engage their reader through ink and paper, while playwrights utilize actors, connecting with their audience physically. Theatrical arts take literature to spoken word, breathing life into text.  

Ambivalence in theatrical narrative is the goal of many playwrights. Effective realistic playwrights approach their works with a grayscale morality. Each character has both flaws and strengths: sin mixed amongst hope. Through conversations and circumstances, characters grow in an arc throughout the story’s progression, but no matter the conclusion, there is ultimately a responsibility that falls to the audience. Plays are conflict incarnate, and characters represent different viewpoints in contention with one another. Questions and emotions amalgamate at the conclusion of any theatrical production. Though the drama presents many arguments through its characters, ultimately the audience must determine its application. 

A perfect example of ambivalent storytelling is found in A Doll’s House Part 2 by Lucas Hnath. Responding to Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, Hnath uses his play to explore questions that Ibsen posits. In A Doll’s House Nora Helmer is married to Torvald Helmer, who belittles her status and so Nora decides to leave him and their children. Hnath uses four characters to argue four different perspectives on Nora’s decision: Nora, the feminist; Torvald, the misogynist; Anne Marie, the pacifist; and Emmy, the traditionalist. When these four radically different perspectives are in dialectic with each other, the audience is challenged to consider each perspective in its own right. At the end of the play, very little has been accomplished, and Nora decides once again to leave. What should the audience do with this ambivalent ending?  Whose view was right? Which character does one resonate with? Which character is repulsive? Audiences must look internally to come up with answers to the questions asked. They must challenge their own beliefs, and must discern for themselves an application amidst ambivalence.  

Similar to Mark, theatre also utilizes asides in order to key the audience into the characters inner thoughts. Possibly, the most famous playwright of all time, William Shakespeare, sees the value of utilizing asides with his audience. Examples of asides can be found in many of his plays, including A Midsummer’s Night Dream, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet. In A Midsummer’s Night Dream, Puck ends the play with an aside to the audience, asking the audience to forgive the players for any offense they caused to persuade them that all shall indeed be mended. In Romeo & Juliet, Juliet uses an aside to share her true feelings about Romeo, cluing the audience into her unwavering intentions. In Macbeth, Shakespeare utilizes asides to let the audience see Macbeth’s mental decline (into an unstable, power-obsessed shell of a man) and his internal battle (of how to engage and respond to his surroundings). In Hamlet, the title character is also bent on murdering a man in charge, using an aside to tell the audience exactly who he plans to kill. By utilizing asides, Shakespeare creates a sense of intimacy by gifting privileged knowledge to his viewers. This intimacy is not only confined to a live performance but also connects readers to the text. Shakespeare’s works are timeless largely because readers easily connect to his honest characters.

By using foreshadowing, the author encourages the audience to anticipate an ending already hinted at through explicit clues, and other clever rhetorical devices. Victor Hugo uses foreshadowing in his award-winning musical Les Miserables. In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean has spent most of his life in prison for having stolen a loaf of bread. He ends up escaping prison, running away to the countryside, and staying in the home of a welcoming priest. During the night, Jean Valjean waits for the priest to fall asleep before stealing his silver and running away. The next morning when caught by the police, Jean Valjean lies, claiming the priest gave it to him as a gift. When the constables throw him down on the priest’s doorstep, demanding the priest tell the truth, the priest responds: 

That is right, but my friend you left so early, surely something slipped your mind. You forgot I gave these also, would you leave the best behind? [Offers him silver candlesticks] So messieurs, you may release him, for the man has spoken true. I commend you for your duty, now God’s blessing go with you. [Turning to Jean Valjean] but remember this my brother, see in this some higher plan, you must use this precious silver to become an honest man. By the witness of the martyrs, by the passion and the blood, God has raised you out of darkness, I have bought your soul for God.

The priest has excused this man’s sin and not only forgiven him, but pardoned and blessed him. Through this reversal the priest challenges Jean Valjean to become an honest man, knowing that he has been bought for God. It was by this act of generosity that Jean Valjean’s entire life changed. 

Over the course of the musical, JeanValjean continues to act from the place of his new redeemed identity. It is by his new identity that he craves something beyond this mortal life, desiring eternal rest, peace, and glory in his Father’s arms. As he dies, Jean Valjean asks God “to bring him home,” to “forgive me all my tresspasses, and take me to your glory” remembering that “to love another person is to see the face of God.” When he dies, he is welcomed into heaven by the priest holding the candlesticks of his redemption. The embrace between Jean Valjean and the priest is the culmination of forgiveness and a life hard fought for the future reality of glory. 

From the second song of the play, Jean Valjean is granted a pardon, foreshadowing his ultimate redemption at the end of the play. At this moment, the audience is given the vision of the entire play: a glimpse of heavenly forgiveness that can only be completely fulfilled in heaven. Without this moment of foreshadowing, the power of his ultimate salvation would be seriously diminished. In this moment, seeds of eternity are sown in Jean Valjean’s heart. Foreshadowing tips the audience off to the conclusion, by having anticipated it from the beginning. Yet, conclusions are not always satisfying for the observer. 

An abrupt conclusion engages the audience’s involvement further because they need to finish the story for themselves. One such playwright who was dedicated to move the audience from observer to participant was Bernolt Brecht; a German playwright known for his stark plays. Brecht hoped that through his work people would become active participants for change in their communities. In contrast to Hugo’s Les Miserables, Brecht’s play The Good Woman Of Setzuan culminates with a completely unfulfilling ending. 

At the beginning of The Good Woman Of Setzuan, three gods determine that there is only one good human they can discover on the earth: a prostitute by the name of Shen Te. She claims that she could do more good if she had more money, so the gods gift her a thousand silver dollars and disappear. Quickly, the town finds out about the extra money and begins attempting to take advantage of Shen Te’s generosity. In order to protect herself and her assets, Shen Te disguises herself as a ruthless man named Shui Tai, her “cousin.” While the aggression of Shui Tai allows for Shen Te to regain some of her life back, her issues are unresolved. For example, Shen Te is pregnant by a man who decided not to marry her. Shen Te is forced to become Shui Tai (to disguise her pregnancy), and the town suspects Shui Tai of murdering Shen Te. Ultimately Shui Tai (i.e., Shen Te) is placed in court under three judges, who are the three gods at the beginning of the play. Shen Te confesses the truth, sharing that she feels torn in two; her bad deeds being rewarded and her good ones punished. Mournfully, she begs the gods to help her escape from the mess she has made. The gods affirm their decision that she was the only good person they found, and as they ascend to the heavenly void they tell her to “just be good and everything will turn out alright!” Her last line in the play is “Help!”

That’s abrupt. Luckily, Brecht recognizes the considerable lack in his ending and invites out one of the actors to deliver an epilogue. In these lines the actor confesses their own failure to complete the story and responds by asking the audience to do it for them. The play closes with: 

There’s only one solution that comes to mind. 

That you yourself should ponder till you find

The ways and means and measures tending

To help good people to a happy ending.

Ladies and gentlemen in you we trust,

The ending must be happy. Must, must, must!

By utilizing such an unsatisfying ending, Brecht invites his audience to solve the problem of the play for themselves. Instead of returning to “normal life” upon exiting the theatre, the audience must consider what they have witnessed. In order to gain a satisfactory experience, they must solve the issues themselves. They must determine how “good people” gain a “happy ending.” Are there even “good people” at all? Do humans tend toward selfishness or altruism? Through the abrupt conclusion, Brecht invites the observer to more critically examine and consider not only the story, but their own lives as well, just as Mark hopes to do in his abrupt ending.

ALEC McCOWEN’S USE OF MARK

The Gospel of Mark begs to be united with theatre because of the shared intersections of ambivalence, asides, foreshadowing, and conclusions. This is not a new discovery. In January of 1978, actor Alec McCowen devised and directed a solo performance of the Gospel of Mark. Memorizing the gospel, McCowen performed its entirety on stages from West End to New York for eighteen months. This production was extremely successful across London and America. He received critical acclaim, was nominated for a Tony Award for his performance in 1979, and was described as a “cultural, religious, and dramatic tour de force.” Afterwards, he wrote Personal Mark, a book that explored his relationship with the text. In his book, McCowen emphasized his need to make Jesus a “personal” man. He reflects that “until I could form an image of the personality of Jesus, I did not really care. Then it fired me to write this book.” Once he formed an image of the personality of Jesus, he then felt inspired to act out the story and write the book. It is through engaging with the text that the character of Jesus is illuminated. In Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees, McCowen sees a spunky young man, filled with jests and humor. In his time with the disciples, McCowen appreciates the deep bonds of friendship that Jesus makes. By personally connecting with the reality of who Jesus is, as presented in the Gospel of Mark, McCowen helped thousands of people to experience Mark’s Gospel and further understand different aspects of Jesus’ character. 

Interestingly, McCowen attempts to first consider Jesus as a man. McCowen divulges that he is tired of the Church’s representation of Jesus as a stiff-postured, white-washed God; he wants to explore the humanity of Jesus in his work. McCowen sets an example for all people who read Mark’s gospel. Mark asks his readers to personally engage with the text, and McCowen does just that. He arrives at a personal conclusion by humbly engaging with the narrative and then boldly proclaiming the truth of Jesus through his perspective. This is exactly what Mark calls his readers to do. McCowen then furthers the mission of Mark by presenting his Gospel to thousands of people in theatres across the globe. Mark calls the readers to question and experience the text for themselves, placing both gospel and theatre in the conversation of reader response criticism. 

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

While reader response criticism offers valuable insights into how audiences engage with a text, there are some potential areas for misinterpretation. If a critic values audience interpretation over the text, they may ignore or distort what the text is actually communicating. Resseguie’s argument that the reader contributes to the production of textual meaning, is a dangerous claim. By overemphasizing the reader, one may unintentionally diminish authorial intent and inappropriately add a variety of biases into the hermeneutical enterprise. This could result in either crude misinterpretation or an ignorance of contextual evidence. By diminishing the authorial role, one wades into a dangerously subjective territory. However, if texts are read while honoring and esteeming the author, then readers can appreciate their personal experience. Balancing both Mark’s authorship and audience interpretation creates space for interesting interpretation and discussion. If a text is not approached by the reader with humility, then there is a greater danger of overstated conclusions. Ultimately, both author and reader should be considered together (with a balanced approach that includes both author and the text itself), valuing both in conversation with each other.  

CONCLUSION

Mark does not write his book for himself or the biblical characters; he writes for the reader. Mark prioritizes the reader’s involvement in his gospel through his use of asides, foreshadowing, arrangement, and the conclusion of his narrative. Like theatre, there is a rich value to reading Mark as an involved participant. Scripture is not just an ancient text or an academic discourse, but a personal invitation to the heart of who Christ is and his relentless longing for you: the reader.  David Rhoads reflects on the Gospel of Mark.“It is only in the reading and the hearing of the story itself that we experience its’ magic and its’ capacity to change us.” The Christian claim is that we need Christ to upheave and change us. Scripture was not intended to be relegated only to the pulpit, but to move outward and infiltrate the Christian’s entire life. In grappling with the gospel of Mark through the lens of theatrical rhetoric, one can see the universal application of Scripture in each unique individual. This is Mark’s aim: a personally transformative gospel.

Bibliography

Berkvist, Robert. “Alec McCowen: British Actor Who Played a Saint and Fool, Dies at 91.” The New York Times. February, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/theater/alec-mccowen-dead-british-actor.html 

Brecht, Bernolt.Translated by Ralph Manhiem. The Good Woman of Setzuan: A Parable Play. New York: Penguin Classics, 1970. 

Donahue, John and Daniel Harrington. The Gospel of Mark: Sacra Pagina Volume 2. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2002.

Evans, Craig.  Edited by Bruce Metzger, and Thomas Nelson. Word Biblical Commentary 34b: Mark 8:27-16:20. (Columbia: 2001).

Fowler, Robert. Let the Reader Understand: Reader- Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Havelock, Eric. “Oral Composition in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles.” New Literary History 16, no. 1 (1984): 183.

Heil, John Paul. The Gospel of Mark as Model for Action : a Reader Response Commentary. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1992.

Hengel, Martin. Translated by John Bowden. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM LTD, 1985.

Hnath, Lucas. A Doll’s House Part 2. New York: Dramatists Play Services, 2017.

Hugo, Victor, and Herbert Kretzmer. Les Miserables: Libretto and Vocal Book. New York: Musical Theatre International, 2011. 

Juel, Donald. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Juel, Donald. “Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark” Society of Biblical Literature 31, no.1, (1977): 188. 

McCowen, Alec. Personal Mark. London, Great Britain: Harper Collins, 1984. 

Pellico, Linda and Peggy Chinn. “Narrative criticism: a systematic approach to the analysis of story” Journal of holistic nursing 25, no.1. (2007): 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010106295188

Powell, Mark. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Resseguie, James L. “Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52, no. 2 (1984): 307-324. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1464001. Accessed 27, February 2025. 

Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel: Third Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Shakespeare,William, edited by Stephen Orgel. A Midsummer’s Night Dream. New York: Penguin Classics, 1600, 1959. 

Shakespeare, William, edited by Stanley Wells. Romeo and Juliet. New York: Penguin Classics, 1600, 1956.

Shakespeare, William, edited by Stephen Orgel. Macbeth. New York: Penguin Classics, 1600, 1971.

Shakespeare, William, edited by A.R. Braunmuller. Hamlet. New York: Penguin Classics, 1600, 1957.

Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing The Gospel: Marks World in Literary-Historical Perspective.  Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. 

Walton, Steve. “Exploring the New Testament : Gospels and Acts” SPCK 1, (2001): 22-27.