By way of introduction, let me share with the list that I have been in
conversation with Joseph off-board about his earlier posting about the
three "predictions of the resurrection" now found in Mark, which he
seeks to explain in terms of how the original apostles revised their
views concerning Jesus as a result of their "Easter experiences."
Since it seemed to me that he was in effect offering an alternative to
Wrede's lodging this in the redactional editing of the author of Mark by
relocating this revision to the originating stage of "the Jesus
tradition." This is of course a possibility but as Tony has so ably
pointed out already, there are other ways of viewing the process which
led to what we now find in Mark.
I must admit that along with Tony I regret that Joseph has not yet
responded to the questions already raised but I do hope that Joseph
might yet respond to what Tony has asked on-board and which I have
raised off-board, although my own principal recommendation has been
is simply the suggestion that he really ought to read Wrede's book, "The
Messianic Secret (E.T.)."
But instead of pursuing this earlier theme/thread, we now find Joseph
raising other possibilities about other "oddities" found in the Gospel
of Mark by offering his own take about the "parable of the sower" in Mk.
4, to which Jeffrey has already asked Joseph to position his views in
terms of various notable scholars who have already treated this material
and treated it well.
But it seems to me that we must expand Jeffrey's suggested list, for I
find that the real issue has to do not so much with this parable as the
nature of parables in general, since the author of Mark offers a
particular explanation about why Jesus taught in parables, an oddity
which Joseph properly objects to. Thus, I would add to Jeffrey's list
at least C. H. Dodd, if only because he insisted that Jesus himself
never allegorizes the parables, which Dodd (correctly, I think) finds
in the Gospel of Mark; indeed, I would myself yoke up this particular
Marcan approach to Jesus' parables with the over-all theme we call "the
Messianic secret," since Mk. 4 seems to find as the "secret meaning"
of this parable (and the others as well) as that Jesus the Messiah is
already present and active as the "hidden agenda" of both his actions
and his teachings.
In this regard, Joseph has come close to "getting it right," at least in
terms of what we now find in the Gospel of Mark, but I do have one
slight but significant revision to the basis for his analysis, for he
>THE DUAL MEANING OF THE WORD "PARABLE"
>In Mark's fourth chapter, the word "parable" is used in two meanings.
>Normally a parable is an analogy which helps understand the spiritual
>reality of the Kingdom. But when the parable of the sower is told
>without its explanation, it becomes a riddle. Instead of helping
>understand the spiritual message, it obscures it. This amounts to a
>radical corruption of the concept and of the entire operation.
Almost but not quite on target - yes, a "parable" (which in the Greek
simply means to "lay alongside one another two different things," i.e.
to "make a comparison") is an analogy ... but not necessarily about
"spiritual things" or about just "the kingdom" or any other religious
topic or theme, since it is simply the common literary device of using a
"metaphor" or a "simle" by which the speaker seeks to assist the hearer
in understanding his/her points by using something familiar in order to
explain something unfamiliar. Yes, it might well be a topic of
theological or religious discourse but as a literary technique, it can
be employed in explicating any topic deemed unfamiliar to those
listening. In this case, the "things/subjecting being explained" is
surely "the kingdom," but why does this parable need any follow-up or
explanation, in order to be understood?
If any parable really does require a "part II" in order to be
understood, would not this simply mean that it is a "bab" parable, one
that has not "done the job"? Perhaps I have miread Joseph's point here,
but any parable or comparison that requires explanation or explication
is not so much a "riddle" but is simply a "bad parable," on that just
has not "done the job." And here is another point which Dodd (and
others) helped me learn, that despite the statements in the canonical
gospels, if Jesus in fact did use parables in his teachings then if he
were an effective public speaker then further explanation or commentary
would be quite unnecessary. Here I am reminded about what the poet
Robert Frost used to say about those who asked him about the meaning of
his poetry; his standard comment was that he saw these persons as asking
him to say in other AND WORSE words what he had already expressed! It
thus seems to me that "no explanation" ought be required or expected to
be attached to any of Jesus' parables, a view NOT held by the author of
Mark ... whom Joseph has apparently but unfortunately followed.
The problem then (as I see it) is not so much that this author has
separated the parable from its explanation but rather that the author
has presented Jesus' parables as riddles, which are NOT understandable
except for those who "know the secret" or have the "key" that unlocks
this secret or hidden meaning. Thus, I doubt the accuracy of Joseph's
claim that Mk. 4:33 means that Jesus spoke in order to be understood.
Yes, I think that such was likely the case "in actual history," just not
as we now find the presentation by the author of Mark.
>DID JESUS SPEAK SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND HIM?
>Was he so contemptuous of the crowds who came to hear him as to throw at
>them bones that had no meat on them? The evidence is overwhelmingly
>against this allegation.
>In the conclusion of the parabolic discourse, Mark writes:
>***With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able
>to hear it.*** (Mk 4:33)
>This implies that Jesus spoke the word in such a way as to make it
>understandable. He used the parables correctly, as analogies which were
>particularly conducive to help the audience understand the spiritual
>realities about which he was instructing them.
Thus, since the author in this chapter has already laid out his own
"theory" about "why Jesus taught in parables," we must turn our
attention back to vv. 10-12, which Joseph does in his next section,
where he says,
>A CONTRADICTION OF ANOTHER KIND
>Let us turn our attention to verses 10-12, which divide the parable in
>***10 When he was alone, those who were around him with the Twelve asked
>him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given
>the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything
>comes in parables (riddles); 12 in order that <<they may indeed look,
>but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that
>they may not turn again and be forgiven."
Yes, this IS a crucial part of this lengthy pericope, as it lays out
this author's surprising thesis, that Jesus taught in parables SO THAT
"the outsiders" could not grasp their meaning, but would indeed be
simply unintelligible riddles. Thus, Jesus "taught in parables" to
"keep secret things secret," which is as Joseph surmises NOT the reason
for employing comparisons in public discourse. But it clearly IS what
we find in Mark.
So yes, indeed, this author has created difficulties for us by his own
"take on things" but then my attitude is simply, "Welcome to the Gospel
of Mark"! But unlike Joseph who feels the need of some new hypothesis,
I find myself quite content with the hypothesis proferred so long ago by
Wrede, that this treatment of the parables is simply congruent with the
overall theme in Mark, that Jesus is already "the Christ/Messiah" and
already at work "doing the necessary things" but does not want such
"known to the public" ahead of time, knowing that when this "secret"
gets out that he will be killed, as in fact happens in c. 15!
So to Joseph, I now say in public what I have said off-board for the
past week, that both Jeffrey and Tony (and others) have been raising
good questions, which your continued inability or unwillingness to
answer is at least part of the reason for some of us not being able to
react with the respect for you ideas that you apparently consider would
be appropriate; you have joined in a conversation that has been going on
for more than a century now and while it is perfectly legitimate to
disagree with any of the note-worthy scholars of the past, to situate
your own presentation in terms of their views is an appropriate way to
present yourself. This is not "disrespect" but quite the opposite, for
it is an invitation to join in the continuing talk ... but not to ignore
what has preceeded us, as you seem to be doing! So please do address
the questions and concerns already raised.
Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)