"Inside The Veil": Behind The "Secret" Teachings Of Jesus

[Tod Stites]

*In the traditions of Pythagoras it was recalled that "listeners" who heard the sage
from "outside the veil" received only summary versions of the master's teaching,
without elaborate exposition, while it was the "learners" who listened from "inside
the veil"(1).
*This Pythagorean model may provide our best analogy for the tradition that Jesus
gave a fuller revelation to his inner circle because he expected a fuller commitment
from them: "from whom much is given much is expected"(Luke 12:48), a lesson
established in the prophets and applied to all Israel (Amos 3:2):(2).
*For as the founders of the Hellenistic mystery cults concealed their teachings
behind mythical stories, so Jesus is remembered for having cloaked his meaning in
parables (Mark 4:10-12).
*But such a tradition could also be exploited as an explanation as to why more of
his people did not believe in Jesus-because God had "blinded" them.
*God had blinded Israel before, according to the Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10), and this
motif became a staple of early Christian thought, from Paul (Rom 11:7-8),to Mark
(4:10-12),to Acts (28:25-27),to John (12:40):(3).
*Such anti-Jewish explanations no doubt facilitated the mission to a Greco-Roman
population already enamored of the God of Israel but uncomfortable with the laws
of Israel, and who already understood that "it is usually the case that heaven
perverts the judgment of the man whose fortune it means to reverse"(4).
*The most notorious saying attributed to Jesus about "secret teaching" is without
doubt Mark 4:10-12,where Jesus is made to assure the disciples that "to you has
been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God", but "for those on the
outside" everything comes in parables, so that:
"they may indeed look but not perceive, and
listen, but not understand, so that
they may NOT turn again and be forgiven"
*Here we will see evidence justifying the proposal of an Aramaic original made
subject to an intentional adaptation and interpretation of an Old Testament
quotation, in order to prevent repentance, but leaving the question:"is this
what Jesus really said ?"(5).
*This Markan presentation of the purpose of the parables "is so intolerable
that from earliest times (i.e. the time of Matthew and Luke) it has been
questioned" (6). Yet still today many see the passage as indicative of a
"purposive ambivalence" on the part of Jesus (7).
*Now while the call of the kingdom is clearly given in public, in this passage
the call is revealed as already made (which alone should be enough to raise
suspicions about authenticity), so that Jesus can reject his hearers forever (8).
*And since the use of parables was quite normal in rabbinic teaching, the
question of why Jesus taught in parables, let alone such a perplexing answer,
probably never came up (9).
*In the Hellenistic world however, myths allegorically interpreted became the
vehicles for esoteric doctrine, so that the interpretation of parables got going
along the wrong lines (9), and we sense the polemics of the Hellenized church
against the unbelieving Jews at work in this passage, for it contains seven
words akin to the vocabulary of Paul but not proper to the Synoptic tradition (10).
*Still some scholars think Mark 4:10-12 is best explained by considering it as
coming from something Jesus actually said (11), for it's departure from the
wording of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10) and it's resemblance
to both the Peshitta and the targum support the hypothesis of a Palestinian origin
as well as that of authenticity (12).
*And while Mark's meaning must be that for those who are not disciples,
the purpose of the parables is to conceal the truth, and to prevent
repentance and forgiveness (13), similar wording in John (9:39) may
indicate the existence of a pre-Gospel tradition that Jesus emerged in
public in order to "blind" certain people.
*It is also not unlikely that the saying originally made reference to the Jesus
ministry in general, even as John's Jesus "came into this world..so that those
who..see may become blind", and that Mark believed it referred to the
purpose of the parables and so inserted it into it's present context (14), or
that Mark took an originally free-floating saying in which the "secret" was the
dawning of the new Age, as we find in Q (Matt 16:2-3=Luke 12:54-56), and
associated it with the parables (15).
*It is perhaps best to consider Mark 4:10-12 as derived from a wholly independent
tradition to be interpreted apart from it's surrounding context (16), and as
providing a classic example of why the Aramaic of the historical Jesus which lies
behind the Greek of the Gospels is so important.
*For the words attributed to Jesus reach most people through two language filters.
First the Greek of the Gospels masks the Aramaic spoken by Jesus, then the Greek
is translated into our own modern languages (e.g.English)=(17).
*Now two key words must be taken into consideration if we are to unlock the
"mystery" of Mark 4:10-12.
*First is the Aramaic "mathla", which means "riddles", but which Mark renders as
"parables", so that the original meaning was that "those on the outside" are
confronted by "riddles"(18).
*The second key word is the Aramaic "dil'ma", which can mean "in order that not",
lest perhaps", or "unless"(18),but which in the Aramaic translation of Scripture,
the targum, means "unless"(19),but which Mark renders in Greek as "mepote"
("lest")=(19).
*Let us look at a reconstruction of what the original Aramaic of this saying would
have looked like:
"to those on the outside, everything comes in
riddles, so that 'they may look but not perceive,
and may indeed listen but not understand,
UNLESS they turn again and be forgiven".
*So the dominical meaning of this passage, and the intention of Jesus, was more
likely to be that everything comes in riddles unless people turn to God and be
forgiven, a lesson entirely consistent with the divine promise of a new
Covenant (Jer 31:33-34),with the "everything" originally referring to all that
Jesus has taught, and not just the parables (20).
*This proposal finds strong support in the sayings handed down in John, where
it is declared that anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether
or not what Jesus teaches comes from God (7:17), especially if in Mark and the
other Synoptics we see the seeds out of which grew the exotic expressions of
John's Christology (21).
*John of course was determined that Jesus had never taught anything in secret
(18:20), even if the tradition known to Matthew (10:27), and possibly Q, knew
otherwise. Perhaps more likely is that Mark 4:10-12 "shows itself as a scornful
comment on dull-witted listeners", even as in Mark (4:24) people are warned
to be careful how they listen, rather than as a programmatic attempt by Jesus
to mislead his listeners using parables (22).
*But in any case the parables did not always succeed in confusing people (Mark
12:12), even if meant to do so (23), and if Jesus threatened those who had not
sought him out (Matt 12:42)=(Luke 11:31), he would hardly have wandered from
town to town (Mark 1:38) in order to make sure people did NOT repent (Mark 4:
11), or gathered disciples in Judea (John 7:4) only to befuddle them (24).
*We should also recall that elsewhere in Mark (3:28) Jesus is made to declare
that "people will be forgiven for their sins"(NRSV,RNT,NAB,RSV,JB,NJB,CCB):
(25), yet at Mark 4:10-12 the plan is to block repentance and therefore forgiveness.
*And in Q Jesus complains that opponents are withholding the key of knowledge
(Luke 11:52), and therefore locking people out of the kingdom (Matt 23:13):
(26), yet at Mark 4:10-12 Jesus is guilty of doing the very same thing !
*What is more, the urgency of the end times must have compelled Jesus
to be crystal clear: For "if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get
ready for battle ?"(1Cor 14:8)=(27).And if Jesus intended to be a sign of
repentance to his people (Matt 12:41)=(Luke 11:32), then what is the purpose
of trying to muddy the waters so that they do NOT repent ?
*"The Markan interpretation leaves the impression of a later reflective and
perhaps Hellenistic attitude towards the Jews", with preclusion of them from
repentance and forgiveness having been supposedly proclaimed by Jesus himself.
*But "it is most unlikely that he was in any way responsible for the grim
adaptation which we find in Mark" (28). It has in fact been asserted that those
Gospel passages expressing animosity towards the synagogue and the Jews,
which blame Jews for the death of Jesus, cannot be retranslated literally from
the Greek back into Hebrew or Aramaic, indicating that they were written by
gentile Christians or Hellenized Christian Jews, and that the ancient Christian
opposition to Jews and Judaism is primarily, or even exclusively, a product of
the emergence of gentile Christianity (29).
*Yet we have another possible strand of evidence on how the original polemic
against specific opponents became widened to include all "the Jews".
*And this comes from Qumran, where the scrolls condemn the indifference
that accompanied the chastisement of the Community Teacher at the hands
of the "Wicked Priest": "O traitors, why do you stay silent when the wicked
man swallows up the one more righteous than he ?"(30).
*Thus the polemic of Q has been seen as aimed as much at complacency as
against hostile opposition (31), while Paul held "the Jews" responsible for
killing Jesus (1Thess 2:14-15), because whoever had not helped Jesus had
opposed him (Matt 12:30)=(Luke 11:23), and those who failed to speak up
against the injustice done to him, failed because they "loved human glory
more than the glory that comes from God"(John 12:42-43).
*It has been said that the foregoing analysis of Mark 4:10-12 "brilliantly
exemplifies how the evangelists" who wrote the Gospels "provide an old
saying with a new context"(32), and the passage is seen as surely reflecting
the doctrine of the primitive church, that God had "blinded" the Jews.
*But the idea that Jesus sought NOT to be understood "cannot be made
credible on any reasonable reading of the Gospels"(33).In fact,"the persistence
of a Judaism that did not accept Jesus was a thorn in the side of (a mostly
gentile) Christianity, and Christians progressively began to distort Judaism
in order to intensify and justify it's rejection (34), and "it is the duty of the
historian who comes upon a cruel injustice which contains the seed of future
crimes to evaluate it as such"(35).
*To this we can only add that it was not only Judaism but the very words of
Jesus which seem to have been distorted, and that the cruel injustices which
form one of the saddest chapters in Christian history were committed not
only against the Jews but against the historical truth as well.




1.Hermann "To Think Like God" p.90.Rengstorf in "Theological Dictionary
Of The New Testament" vol.4,p.421n44,tradition indicates different grades
among the disciples of Pythagoras; the esoteric core of his teaching was
not accessible to all of them. Stahlin in "Theological Dictionary Of The New
Testament" vol.4,p.777-8,the founders of the Hellenistic mystery cults
concealed their own teachings behind mythical stories; the same is true of
the Pythagoreans, by which they supported their ascetic teachings.
2.Cohen "The Beginnings Of Jewishness" p.230-1,the rabbinic literature too
calls for scanty instruction for prospective converts, with fuller instruction
to come only after conversion. Cf. Matt 7:6.MacDonald "Theology Of The
Samaritans" p.247,because of the revelations they had received, the
Samaritans believed they had been given greater opportunity and therefore
bore greater responsibility.
3.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.1006-7/n225,however argues that
Paul's final word (Acts 28:25-28) has not written off the Jews; the restoration
of Israel is accomplished with a view toward the rest of humanity seeking the
Lord. When it comes to the Johannine use of Isa 6:9-10 we may note Brown
"Community Of The Beloved Disciple" p.40-1,supposing that the antipathy of
Jesus to the Law/Jews is that of the Johannine community, for whom the
Law and Judaism are now the hallmarks of another culture. Hengel "Studies
In The Gospel Of Mark" p.43, thinks Mark 4:10-12 was meant to explain why
more of Israel did not believe.
4.Velleius Paterculus "History Of Rome" 2.118.4.Shipley "Compendium Of
Roman History" p.301.Such thinking applied to Palestinian Jewry could only
have intensified after the events of 66-70 C.E.
5.Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" p.214-5.
6.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257
7.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.94-5. Hauck in "Theological
Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.757-8,lists scholars who apply
critical understanding to Mark 4:10-12, which echoes the anti-Israel orientation
of the primitive Christian community. Conzelmann in "Theological Dictionary
Of The New Testament" vol.7,p.894,with Marxsen and Bultmann places Mark
4:12 in Mark's editorial material. Bornkamm in "Theological Dictionary Of The
New Testament" vol.4,p.817-8n133, on Mark 4:11-12,acknowledges that "it is
not easy to bring the total character of the parables of Jesus into accord with
the view that the parabolic mode of expression is a method of" concealment.
Oepke in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.3,p.581, considers
Mark 4:11-12 to have been spoken "in a moment of discouragement", and agrees
that the program was not to deceive people.
8.Daube "The New Testament And Rabbinic Judaism" p.150.
9.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.4-5.
10.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.3.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible"
p.95-6,"outside" used of non-church members seems a tendency of the post-
Easter church (1Thess 4:12)=(1Cor 5:12-13)=(2 Cor 4:4), in contrast to the
attitude attributed to Jesus himself (Mark 9:38-40). Vermes "Authentic Gospel
Of Jesus" p.8,thinks the normal admonition to "secrecy" in Mark is for Jewish
areas only; in gentile provinces broadcast is appropriate (5:1-19). But polemics
against the Jews continued strong into the second century, when Barnabas (4.6)
warns readers not to increase their sins by accepting the doctrine that God's
Covenant embraces both Jews and Christians (cp.Rom 11:26-32);cf.Lang in
"Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.7,p.1096.Dunn "Christianity
In The Making" vol.1,p.495n28,also notes that the special revelation given to
the disciples here is in tension with Mark's overall theme of the disciples' failure
to understand Jesus. Jacobson "Wisdom Christology In Q" p.142,thinks the similar
Q saying at Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22 is likely to be a later addition to Q,
comprehensible in light of the failed mission to Israel.
11.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257
12.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.256.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.15.Dunn
"Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.494,the passage reflects distinctive features
of the targum to Isa 6:9-10,indicating a retelling established in the Aramaic-
speaking churches.
13.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257
14.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.255
15.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17-8
16.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.13-4.Hauck in "Theological Dictionary
Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.757-8/n99,notes that the "behind the veil"
motif is an apocalyptic concept found in the pre-Christian literature (Dan
2:18-19,27-30)=(1Enoch 41.1,3),elsewhere in the New Testament (Rev 1:
20), and in the rabbinic literature, but nowhere else referred to by Jesus
in the Synoptics.The motif however was developed by the gnostics
according to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
17.Casey "The Aramaic Sources Of Mark's Gospel" p.111-2,in studying the
Aramaic behind Mark, finds that the Greek translations make excellent
sense for the target culture, but that some of the original Jewish
assumptions have been lost in the translation process. Hanson and Oakman
"Palestine In The Time Of Jesus" p.4,remind us that "the further one stands
from the original situation of a document, the more discipline one needs to
bridge the gaps". Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.371,"Translators often produce
translations with the needs of the target culture primarily in mind".
18.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.16-8.Cranfield "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.148,
154-5.Dunn (CIM)vol.1,p.494/n23,while the similar "mashal" normally denoted
proverbial wisdom, in wider usage it often referred to an obscure or puzzling
saying, so that the Greek "parabole" should not be allowed to obscure the
original term's essential ambivalence.
19.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17n26.
20.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17-8.Metzger "Textual Commentary On The
Greek New Testament" p.39,in this vein notes that textual evidence allows
that the word "this" might not be original to Matt 19:11, thus declaring that
"not everyone can accept (any) teaching from Jesus". See John 6:60.
21.Thus Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.3,p.355
22.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.108. Horst in "Theological
Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.554-5/n116,in a similar vein thinks
that "though the prophecy of Isa 6:9f is so terribly serious, a possibility of
grace and conversion is thus left open".
23.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.112.Vermes "The Authentic Gospel
Of Jesus" p.171,notes that since only two of forty parables in the Gospels offer
exegesis of the Old Testament, and only two have an explanation appended to
them, then clearly the parables were intended to speak for themselves.Mason
"Josephus And The New Testament" p.87:"Rhetorical education and it's widely
disseminated values meant that no one took speech at face value".
24.Kelber "The Oral And Written Gospel" p.70:"Jesus' doings and sayings, his
relations and confrontations, and the pattern of his travel, spell out a didactic
rationale".
25.Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.2,p.345-6,
interpret Mark 3:28/Matt 12:31/Luke 12:10 as teaching that all is forgiven
except opposing the end-time work of God's Spirit.
26.Cf.Jeremias in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.3,p.748.
Horsley and Draper "Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.287n6,note the Qumran
criticism of "smooth interpreters who withhold the drink of knowledge".
27.Cf.Hauck in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.756.
The "bugle" saying might support Luke's claim of Paul having "taught..publicly
from house to house"(Acts 20:20);cf.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,
p.950.Cf.John 18:20.
28.Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" p.214-5.Vermes
"Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.171,177,thinks "the best explanation (of Mark
4:10-12)..is that the evangelists antedated general Jewish belief to the time
of Jesus and portrayed him as one who wished to hide the significance of his
preaching from his competitors".
29.Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" p.643.Chilton "The Temple
Of Jesus" p.120:"Any language that alleges Jesus' rejection or transcendence of
Judaism is to be dismissed from the outset as an instance of apologetic". It is
plausible that Jesus the Galilean aimed much of his invective not at "the Jews"
but at the "Judeans", since both meanings are possible for the Greek "ioudaioi".
Horsley "Archaeology, History And Society In Galilee" p.94,"it seems highly likely
that most of the inhabitants of Galilee in late Second Temple times were
descendants of the northernmost Israelite tribes", as distinct from "Judeans".
Casey "An Aramaic Approach To Q" p.103-4,warns however about those who
brand as inauthentic the dominical denunciation of opponents, considering such
verdicts as given "in accordance with a cultural circle, concealing the Jesus of
history who did not speak in accordance with notions of what is politically
correct". Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.67,however finds "quite unconvincing"
Mark's "theory" that the parables were meant to conceal the "mystery" of the
kingdom; this is considered contrary to the nature of Jesus' ministry.
30.1QpHab 5.8-12.Stemberger "The Jewish Contemporaries Of Jesus" p.127.
31.Tuckett "Q And The History Of Early Christianity" pp.284-96.
32.Chilton in (ed.) Chilton "The Kingdom Of God": intro.: p.12
33.Dodd "The Parables Of The Kingdom" p.4. Davies and Allison "Gospel
According To Saint Matthew" vol.2,p.387-8.
34.Milavec "The Didache" p.561.See Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,
p.564/n98,565n99,on legitimate twentieth century scholars who think Jesus
did away not only with the Law but with Judaism itself as a religion, together
with a refutation of their views by Vermes, Sanders and Flusser. Metzger
"Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.98-9, notes alterations
made to the passion narrative in some of the later manuscripts of Mark, where
Pilate's question: "What should I do (with Jesus) ?"(15:12) is altered to read:
"What do you (the Jewish crowd) want me to do (with Jesus) ?", serving to
further shift blame for the death of Jesus away from the Romans and onto the
Jews;p.307,337-8,also notes the obvious attempts to distance Christians from
Judaism in the later manuscript history of Acts, where "our fathers" becomes
"your fathers" in the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (7:39), and in the
omission of "believers" made in reference to the "circumcised"(11:2); and
neither were Paul's letters exempt from tampering, for in some manuscripts of
Romans the Greek "proton"(first) is omitted from the phrase "to the Jew first"
(1:16),obviously because the privileged status of the Jews had become
unacceptable.
35.Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" p.575.Dunn "Christianity In
The Making" vol.2,p.48,thus points out that the old Covenant is a product of
grace according to normative Judaism, and good works do not "earn" divine
grace but respond to it. Thus Nickelsburg "Jewish Literature From The Bible
To The Mishna" p.2, thinks "Christian study of Judaism has often been
imperialistic", with the latter often "mocked as the dark 'background' against
which is played the glorious drama of Christian origins".

[Garon]

Without spacing reading this gives me a headache.

[MrMacSon]

*In the traditions of Pythagoras it was recalled that "listeners" who heard the sage from "outside the veil" received only summary versions of the master's teaching, without elaborate exposition, while it was the "learners" who listened from "inside the veil"(1).

*This Pythagorean model may provide our best analogy for the tradition that Jesus gave a fuller revelation to his inner circle because he expected a fuller commitment from them: "from whom much is given much is expected"(Luke 12:48), a lesson established in the prophets and applied to all Israel (Amos 3:2):(2).

*For as the founders of the Hellenistic mystery cults concealed their teachings behind mythical stories, so Jesus is remembered for having cloaked his meaning in parables (Mark 4:10-12).

*But such a tradition could also be exploited as an explanation as to why more of his people did not believe in Jesus-because God had "blinded" them.

*God had blinded Israel before, according to the Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10), and this motif became a staple of early Christian thought, from Paul (Rom 11:7-8), to Mark (4:10-12),to Acts (28:25-27),to John (12:40):(3).

*Such anti-Jewish explanations no doubt facilitated the mission to a Greco-Roman population already enamored of the God of Israel but uncomfortable with the laws of Israel, and who already understood that "it is usually the case that heaven perverts the judgment of the man whose fortune it means to reverse"(4).

*The most notorious saying attributed to Jesus about "secret teaching" is without doubt Mark 4:10-12,where Jesus is made to assure the disciples that "to you has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God", but "for those on the outside" everything comes in parables, so that:

• "they may indeed look but not perceive, and listen,
  but not understand, so that they may NOT turn again and be forgiven"

*Here we will see evidence justifying the proposal of an Aramaic original made subject to an intentional adaptation and interpretation of an Old Testament quotation, in order to prevent repentance, but leaving the question:"is this what Jesus really said ?"(5).

*This Markan presentation of the purpose of the parables "is so intolerable that from earliest times (i.e. the time of Matthew and Luke) it has been questioned" (6). Yet still today many see the passage as indicative of a "purposive ambivalence" on the part of Jesus (7).

*Now while the call of the kingdom is clearly given in public, in this passage the call is revealed as already made (which alone should be enough to raise suspicions about authenticity), so that Jesus can reject his hearers forever (8).

*And since the use of parables was quite normal in rabbinic teaching, the question of why Jesus taught in parables, let alone such a perplexing answer, probably never came up (9).

*In the Hellenistic world however, myths allegorically interpreted became the vehicles for esoteric doctrine, so that the interpretation of parables got going along the wrong lines (9), and we sense the polemics of the Hellenized church against the unbelieving Jews at work in this passage, for it contains seven words akin to the vocabulary of Paul but not proper to the Synoptic tradition (10).

*Still some scholars think Mark 4:10-12 is best explained by considering it as coming from something Jesus actually said (11), for it's departure from the wording of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10) and it's resemblance to both the Peshitta and the targum support the hypothesis of a Palestinian origin as well as that of authenticity (12).

*And while Mark's meaning must be that for those who are not disciples, the purpose of the parables is to conceal the truth, and to prevent repentance and forgiveness (13), similar wording in John (9:39) may indicate the existence of a pre-Gospel tradition that Jesus emerged in public in order to "blind" certain people.

*It is also not unlikely that the saying originally made reference to the Jesus ministry in general, even as John's Jesus "came into this world..so that those who..see may become blind", and that Mark believed it referred to the purpose of the parables and so inserted it into it's present context (14), or that Mark took an originally free-floating saying in which the "secret" was the dawning of the new Age, as we find in Q (Matt 16:2-3=Luke 12:54-56), and associated it with the parables (15).

*It is perhaps best to consider Mark 4:10-12 as derived from a wholly independent tradition to be interpreted apart from it's surrounding context (16), and as providing a classic example of why the Aramaic of the historical Jesus which lies behind the Greek of the Gospels is so important.

*For the words attributed to Jesus reach most people through two language filters. First the Greek of the Gospels masks the Aramaic spoken by Jesus, then the Greek
is translated into our own modern languages (e.g.English)=(17).

*Now two key words must be taken into consideration if we are to unlock the "mystery" of Mark 4:10-12.

*First is the Aramaic "mathla", which means "riddles", but which Mark renders as "parables", so that the original meaning was that "those on the outside" are confronted by "riddles"(18).

*The second key word is the Aramaic "dil'ma", which can mean "in order that not", lest perhaps", or "unless"(18),but which in the Aramaic translation of Scripture, the targum, means "unless"(19),but which Mark renders in Greek as "mepote" ("lest")=(19).

*Let us look at a reconstruction of what the original Aramaic of this saying would have looked like:

• "to those on the outside, everything comes in riddles, so that 'they may look but not perceive,
  and may indeed listen but not understand, UNLESS they turn again and be forgiven".

*So the dominical meaning of this passage, and the intention of Jesus, was more likely to be that everything comes in riddles unless people turn to God and be forgiven, a lesson entirely consistent with the divine promise of a new Covenant (Jer 31:33-34),with the "everything" originally referring to all that Jesus has taught, and not just the parables (20).

*This proposal finds strong support in the sayings handed down in John, where it is declared that anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether
or not what Jesus teaches comes from God (7:17), especially if in Mark and the other Synoptics we see the seeds out of which grew the exotic expressions of
John's Christology (21).

*John of course was determined that Jesus had never taught anything in secret (18:20), even if the tradition known to Matthew (10:27), and possibly Q, knew otherwise. Perhaps more likely is that Mark 4:10-12 "shows itself as a scornful comment on dull-witted listeners", even as in Mark (4:24) people are warned to be careful how they listen, rather than as a programmatic attempt by Jesus to mislead his listeners using parables (22).

*But in any case the parables did not always succeed in confusing people (Mark 12:12), even if meant to do so (23), and if Jesus threatened those who had not sought him out (Matt 12:42)=(Luke 11:31), he would hardly have wandered from town to town (Mark 1:38) in order to make sure people did NOT repent (Mark 4:11), or gathered disciples in Judea (John 7:4) only to befuddle them (24).

*We should also recall that elsewhere in Mark (3:28) Jesus is made to declare that "people will be forgiven for their sins"(NRSV,RNT,NAB,RSV,JB,NJB,CCB):(25), yet at Mark 4:10-12 the plan is to block repentance and therefore forgiveness.

*And in Q Jesus complains that opponents are withholding the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52), and therefore locking people out of the kingdom (Matt 23:13):(26), yet at Mark 4:10-12 Jesus is guilty of doing the very same thing !

*What is more, the urgency of the end times must have compelled Jesus to be crystal clear: For "if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle ?"(1Cor 14:8)=(27).And if Jesus intended to be a sign of repentance to his people (Matt 12:41)=(Luke 11:32), then what is the purpose of trying to muddy the waters so that they do NOT repent ?

*"The Markan interpretation leaves the impression of a later reflective and perhaps Hellenistic attitude towards the Jews", with preclusion of them from
repentance and forgiveness having been supposedly proclaimed by Jesus himself.

*But "it is most unlikely that he was in any way responsible for the grim adaptation which we find in Mark" (28). It has in fact been asserted that those Gospel passages expressing animosity towards the synagogue and the Jews, which blame Jews for the death of Jesus, cannot be retranslated literally from the Greek back into Hebrew or Aramaic, indicating that they were written by gentile Christians or Hellenized Christian Jews, and that the ancient Christian opposition to Jews and Judaism is primarily, or even exclusively, a product of the emergence of gentile Christianity (29).

*Yet we have another possible strand of evidence on how the original polemic against specific opponents became widened to include all "the Jews".

*And this comes from Qumran, where the scrolls condemn the indifference that accompanied the chastisement of the Community Teacher at the hands of the "Wicked Priest": "O traitors, why do you stay silent when the wicked man swallows up the one more righteous than he ?"(30).

*Thus the polemic of Q has been seen as aimed as much at complacency as against hostile opposition (31), while Paul held "the Jews" responsible for killing Jesus (1Thess 2:14-15), because whoever had not helped Jesus had opposed him (Matt 12:30)=(Luke 11:23), and those who failed to speak up against the injustice done to him, failed because they "loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God"(John 12:42-43).

*It has been said that the foregoing analysis of Mark 4:10-12 "brilliantly exemplifies how the evangelists" who wrote the Gospels "provide an old saying with a new context"(32), and the passage is seen as surely reflecting the doctrine of the primitive church, that God had "blinded" the Jews.

*But the idea that Jesus sought NOT to be understood "cannot be made credible on any reasonable reading of the Gospels"(33).In fact,"the persistence of a Judaism that did not accept Jesus was a thorn in the side of (a mostly gentile) Christianity, and Christians progressively began to distort Judaism in order to intensify and justify it's rejection (34), and "it is the duty of the historian who comes upon a cruel injustice which contains the seed of future crimes to evaluate it as such"(35).

*To this we can only add that it was not only Judaism but the very words of Jesus which seem to have been distorted, and that the cruel injustices which
form one of the saddest chapters in Christian history were committed not only against the Jews but against the historical truth as well.



1.Hermann "To Think Like God" p.90.Rengstorf in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.4,p.421n44,tradition indicates different grades among the disciples of Pythagoras; the esoteric core of his teaching was not accessible to all of them. Stahlin in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.4,p.777-8,the founders of the Hellenistic mystery cults concealed their own teachings behind mythical stories; the same is true of the Pythagoreans, by which they supported their ascetic teachings.

2.Cohen "The Beginnings Of Jewishness" p.230-1,the rabbinic literature too calls for scanty instruction for prospective converts, with fuller instruction to come only after conversion. Cf. Matt 7:6.MacDonald "Theology Of The Samaritans" p.247,because of the revelations they had received, the Samaritans believed they had been given greater opportunity and therefore bore greater responsibility.

3.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.1006-7/n225,however argues that Paul's final word (Acts 28:25-28) has not written off the Jews; the restoration of Israel is accomplished with a view toward the rest of humanity seeking the Lord. When it comes to the Johannine use of Isa 6:9-10 we may note Brown "Community Of The Beloved Disciple" p.40-1,supposing that the antipathy of Jesus to the Law/Jews is that of the Johannine community, for whom the Law and Judaism are now the hallmarks of another culture. Hengel "Studies In The Gospel Of Mark" p.43, thinks Mark 4:10-12 was meant to explain why more of Israel did not believe.

4.Velleius Paterculus "History Of Rome" 2.118.4.Shipley "Compendium Of Roman History" p.301.Such thinking applied to Palestinian Jewry could only have intensified after the events of 66-70 C.E.

5.Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" p.214-5.

6.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257

7.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.94-5. Hauck in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.757-8,lists scholars who apply critical understanding to Mark 4:10-12, which echoes the anti-Israel orientation of the primitive Christian community. Conzelmann in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.7,p.894,with Marxsen and Bultmann places Mark 4:12 in Mark's editorial material. Bornkamm in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.4,p.817-8n133, on Mark 4:11-12, acknowledges that "it is not easy to bring the total character of the parables of Jesus into accord with the view that the parabolic mode of expression is a method of" concealment.

Oepke in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.3,p.581, considers Mark 4:11-12 to have been spoken "in a moment of discouragement", and agrees
that the program was not to deceive people.

8.Daube "The New Testament And Rabbinic Judaism" p.150.

9.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.4-5.

10.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.3.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.95-6,"outside" used of non-church members seems a tendency of the post-Easter church (1Thess 4:12)=(1Cor 5:12-13)=(2 Cor 4:4), in contrast to the attitude attributed to Jesus himself (Mark 9:38-40). Vermes "Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.8,thinks the normal admonition to "secrecy" in Mark is for Jewish areas only; in gentile provinces broadcast is appropriate (5:1-19). But polemics against the Jews continued strong into the second century, when Barnabas (4.6) warns readers not to increase their sins by accepting the doctrine that God's Covenant embraces both Jews and Christians (cp.Rom 11:26-32); cf.Lang in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.7,p.1096.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.495n28, also notes that the special revelation given to the disciples here is in tension with Mark's overall theme of the disciples' failure to understand Jesus. Jacobson "Wisdom Christology In Q" p.142,thinks the similar Q saying at Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22 is likely to be a later addition to Q, comprehensible in light of the failed mission to Israel.

11.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257

12.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.256.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.15.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.494,the passage reflects distinctive features of the targum to Isa 6:9-10,indicating a retelling established in the Aramaic-speaking churches.

13.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.257
14.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.255

15.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17-8

16.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.13-4.Hauck in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.757-8/n99,notes that the "behind the veil" motif is an apocalyptic concept found in the pre-Christian literature (Dan 2:18-19,27-30)=(1Enoch 41.1,3),elsewhere in the New Testament (Rev 1:20), and in the rabbinic literature, but nowhere else referred to by Jesus in the Synoptics.The motif however was developed by the gnostics according to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

17.Casey "The Aramaic Sources Of Mark's Gospel" p.111-2,in studying the Aramaic behind Mark, finds that the Greek translations make excellent sense for the target culture, but that some of the original Jewish assumptions have been lost in the translation process. Hanson and Oakman "Palestine In The Time Of Jesus" p.4,remind us that "the further one stands from the original situation of a document, the more discipline one needs to bridge the gaps". Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.371,"Translators often produce
translations with the needs of the target culture primarily in mind".

18.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.16-8.Cranfield "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.148,
154-5.Dunn (CIM)vol.1,p.494/n23,while the similar "mashal" normally denoted
proverbial wisdom, in wider usage it often referred to an obscure or puzzling
saying, so that the Greek "parabole" should not be allowed to obscure the
original term's essential ambivalence.

19.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17n26.

20.Jeremias "Parables Of Jesus" p.17-8.Metzger "Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.39,in this vein notes that textual evidence allows that the word "this" might not be original to Matt 19:11, thus declaring that "not everyone can accept (any) teaching from Jesus". See John 6:60.

21.Thus Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.3,p.355

22.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.108. Horst in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.554-5/n116,in a similar vein thinks that "though the prophecy of Isa 6:9f is so terribly serious, a possibility of grace and conversion is thus left open".

23.Chilton "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.112.Vermes "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.171,notes that since only two of forty parables in the Gospels offer exegesis of the Old Testament, and only two have an explanation appended to them, then clearly the parables were intended to speak for themselves. Mason "Josephus And The New Testament" p.87:"Rhetorical education and it's widely disseminated values meant that no one took speech at face value".

24.Kelber "The Oral And Written Gospel" p.70:"Jesus' doings and sayings, his
relations and confrontations, and the pattern of his travel, spell out a didactic
rationale".

25.Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.2,p.345-6,
interpret Mark 3:28/Matt 12:31/Luke 12:10 as teaching that all is forgiven
except opposing the end-time work of God's Spirit.

26.Cf.Jeremias in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.3,p.748.
Horsley and Draper "Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.287n6,note the Qumran
criticism of "smooth interpreters who withhold the drink of knowledge".

27.Cf.Hauck in "Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament" vol.5,p.756. The "bugle" saying might support Luke's claim of Paul having "taught..publicly from house to house"(Acts 20:20);cf.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2, p.950.Cf.John 18:20.

28.Black "An Aramaic Approach To The Gospels And Acts" p.214-5.Vermes "Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.171,177,thinks "the best explanation (of Mark 4:10-12)..is that the evangelists antedated general Jewish belief to the time of Jesus and portrayed him as one who wished to hide the significance of his preaching from his competitors".

29.Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" p.643.Chilton "The Temple Of Jesus" p.120:"Any language that alleges Jesus' rejection or transcendence of Judaism is to be dismissed from the outset as an instance of apologetic". It is plausible that Jesus the Galilean aimed much of his invective not at "the Jews" but at the "Judeans", since both meanings are possible for the Greek "ioudaioi". Horsley "Archaeology, History And Society In Galilee" p.94,"it seems highly likely that most of the inhabitants of Galilee in late Second Temple times were descendants of the northernmost Israelite tribes", as distinct from "Judeans". Casey "An Aramaic Approach To Q" p.103-4,warns however about those who brand as inauthentic the dominical denunciation of opponents, considering such verdicts as given "in accordance with a cultural circle, concealing the Jesus of history who did not speak in accordance with notions of what is politically correct". Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.67,however finds "quite unconvincing" Mark's "theory" that the parables were meant to conceal the "mystery" of the kingdom; this is considered contrary to the nature of Jesus' ministry.

30.1QpHab 5.8-12.Stemberger "The Jewish Contemporaries Of Jesus" p.127.

31.Tuckett "Q And The History Of Early Christianity" pp.284-96.

32.Chilton in (ed.) Chilton "The Kingdom Of God": intro.: p.12

33.Dodd "The Parables Of The Kingdom" p.4. Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.2,p.387-8.

34.Milavec "The Didache" p.561.See Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1, p.564/n98,565n99,on legitimate twentieth century scholars who think Jesus did away not only with the Law but with Judaism itself as a religion, together with a refutation of their views by Vermes, Sanders and Flusser. Metzger "Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.98-9, notes alterations made to the passion narrative in some of the later manuscripts of Mark, where Pilate's question: "What should I do (with Jesus) ?"(15:12) is altered to read: "What do you (the Jewish crowd) want me to do (with Jesus) ?", serving to further shift blame for the death of Jesus away from the Romans and onto the
Jews;p.307,337-8,also notes the obvious attempts to distance Christians from Judaism in the later manuscript history of Acts, where "our fathers" becomes "your fathers" in the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (7:39), and in the omission of "believers" made in reference to the "circumcised"(11:2); and neither were Paul's letters exempt from tampering, for in some manuscripts of Romans the Greek "proton"(first) is omitted from the phrase "to the Jew first" (1:16),obviously because the privileged status of the Jews had become unacceptable.

35.Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" p.575.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.48,thus points out that the old Covenant is a product of grace according to normative Judaism, and good works do not "earn" divine grace but respond to it. Thus Nickelsburg "Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.2, thinks "Christian study of Judaism has often been imperialistic", with the latter often "mocked as the dark 'background' against which is played the glorious drama of Christian origins".

[Garon]

Thank you Mr MacSon.
Now I've got a secret teaching. Only my inner group of students are authorized to hear and those outside the inner group get whatever my students want to tell them? The cat is out of the bag but people don't get it. Typical way of feeding the institution by Priests, Popes, Rabbis, Preachers, Imams. We got the secret words of God and you must come to us (the institution) to learn it. Yet Mark 14: 49 Jesus says "I was daily with you in the temple teaching (teaching what) and ye took me not): but the scriptures must be fulfilled." So Jesus lied about teaching the truth to the people so they wouldn't repent? Sounds like a conspiracy to start a new belief system? Jesus taught his disciples the secrets in One to three years and people still have not figured it out yet in 2000 years....SMH The secret teaching about "The Prodigal" is how the Father acts not either Son.. But that's a secret.

[Bernard Muller]

*God had blinded Israel before, according to the Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10), and this
motif became a staple of early Christian thought, from Paul (Rom 11:7-8),to Mark
(4:10-12),to Acts (28:25-27),to John (12:40):(3).
*Such anti-Jewish explanations no doubt facilitated the mission to a Greco-Roman
population already enamored of the God of Israel but uncomfortable with the laws
of Israel, and who already understood that "it is usually the case that heaven
perverts the judgment of the man whose fortune it means to reverse"(4).

In Ro 11:7-10, I rather see an explanation of the obvious: the Jews were not converting to Christianity, even if Jesus had been a Jew preaching to other Jews. I do not see anything anti-Jewish in these verses.

*Here we will see evidence justifying the proposal of an Aramaic original made
subject to an intentional adaptation and interpretation of an Old Testament
quotation, in order to prevent repentance, but leaving the question:"is this
what Jesus really said ?"

"Seeing" an Aramaic original behind the Greek wording seems to be wishful thinking in order to suggest authenticity for this declaration.

"to those on the outside, everything comes in
riddles, so that 'they may look but not perceive,
and may indeed listen but not understand,
UNLESS they turn again and be forgiven".

But how Jesus' Galileans would turn again and be forgiven if they could not fully understand these parables? After all, "Mark" wrote Jesus was teaching these folks only in parables without explanations, and they needed to be explained for his own disciples (Mk 4:13,34).
The UNLESS does not make any sense. The saying only says to me that the Jews who heard Jesus did not get converted to Christianity. And that was an observable fact some 40 years later.

*So the dominical meaning of this passage, and the intention of Jesus, was more
likely to be that everything comes in riddles unless people turn to God and be
forgiven, a lesson entirely consistent with the divine promise of a new
Covenant (Jer 31:33-34),with the "everything" originally referring to all that
Jesus has taught, and not just the parables (20).

According to "Mark", Jesus "taught" his countrymen only by unexplained parables:
Mar 4:33-34 "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;
he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything."

while Paul held "the Jews" responsible for killing Jesus (1Thess 2:14-15)

This is widely believed to be a late interpolation. Otherwise Paul was not anti-Semitic and just lamented Jews did not embrace Christianity (and explained why from the prophetic scriptures), but had hopes they will later.

So what about the parables in gMark? They were meant for later Christians who could understand them because they were disguised prophecies about what happened, did not happen, was happening and will happen soon (after the fall of Jerusalem), most of times bad things (against John the Baptist' later followers, not everyone accepting Christianity, the tardiness of the Kingdom arrival, the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, etc), raising doubts about their faith: the message of these parables was, don't worry about past & presents events, even if they question the veracity of Christian teachings and then hope for the Kingdom to come soon: Jesus had predicted these happenings, they are part of God's plan, they do not mean what was heard is bogus, keep the faith because the Kingdom will come very soon (as suggested in the last parables).

And it is all explained here, for each parable: http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

*God had blinded Israel before, according to the Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10), and this
motif became a staple of early Christian thought, from Paul (Rom 11:7-8),to Mark
(4:10-12),to Acts (28:25-27),to John (12:40):(3).
*Such anti-Jewish explanations no doubt facilitated the mission to a Greco-Roman
population already enamored of the God of Israel but uncomfortable with the laws
of Israel, and who already understood that "it is usually the case that heaven
perverts the judgment of the man whose fortune it means to reverse"(4).

In Ro 11:7-10, I rather see an explanation of the obvious: the Jews were not converting to Christianity, even if Jesus had been a Jew preaching to other Jews. I do not see anything anti-Jewish in these verses.

Bernard,
*No, I don't see these verses as totally "anti-Jewish", and I think Paul harbored confident
hope that in the end all (old) Israel would be saved (Rom 11:26-32).But Paul picks
up on the motif that God had "blinded" the Jews (Rom 11:7-10) and, I think, as a
way of explaining why more of old Israel did not believe the kerygma. The Jews
had not "stumbled" so as to fall, but they HAD stumbled (Rom 11:11), and their
"blindness" was to continue until the full measure of gentiles had come in (Rom
11:25).

*Here we will see evidence justifying the proposal of an Aramaic original made
subject to an intentional adaptation and interpretation of an Old Testament
quotation, in order to prevent repentance, but leaving the question:"is this
what Jesus really said ?"

"Seeing" an Aramaic original behind the Greek wording seems to be wishful thinking in order to suggest authenticity for this declaration.

TS:"seeing an Aramaic original" is indeed wishful thinking, as we know from the warnings
of several scholars. That is why I chose my words carefully in offering "evidence of a
PROPOSAL of an Aramaic original". You are I think fully justified in urging caution. But
the reconstruction is a speculative suggestion based mostly on the work of the Aramaicist
Jeremias.
*Horsley and Draper in 1999 declared that "after a prolonged debate, scholars in the
main have concluded that we cannot move behind the Greek of our texts into a
reconstructed Aramaic"("Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.12).
*In 1998 Crossan informed us that the period of oral transmission of the Jesus tradition
constitutes an "irrevocable barrier" to the historical Jesus ("Birth Of Christianity" p.403).
*In 2011 Dunn expressed his belief that reconstructing the "pre-literary forms" of the
Jesus tradition "must become increasingly speculative", because "unknown factors and
variations characteristic of oral tradition put the tradition history..beyond reach"
("The Oral Gospel Tradition" p.7,77).
*And so we speculate, because "if you cannot believe in something produced by a
reconstruction, you may be left with nothing to believe in"(Crossan "Historical Jesus"
p.425-6).
*For "hypotheses are all we have and all we ever will have"(Kloppenborg Verbin
"Excavating Q" p.54).

"to those on the outside, everything comes in
riddles, so that 'they may look but not perceive,
and may indeed listen but not understand,
UNLESS they turn again and be forgiven".

But how Jesus' Galileans would turn again and be forgiven if they could not fully understand these parables? After all, "Mark" wrote Jesus was teaching these folks only in parables without explanations, and they needed to be explained for his own disciples (Mk 4:13,34).
The UNLESS does not make any sense. The saying only says to me that the Jews who heard Jesus did not get converted to Christianity. And that was an observable fact some 40 years later.

*So the dominical meaning of this passage, and the intention of Jesus, was more
likely to be that everything comes in riddles unless people turn to God and be
forgiven, a lesson entirely consistent with the divine promise of a new
Covenant (Jer 31:33-34),with the "everything" originally referring to all that
Jesus has taught, and not just the parables (20).

According to "Mark", Jesus "taught" his countrymen only by unexplained parables:
Mar 4:33-34 "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;
he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything."

while Paul held "the Jews" responsible for killing Jesus (1Thess 2:14-15)

This is widely believed to be a late interpolation. Otherwise Paul was not anti-Semitic and just lamented Jews did not embrace Christianity (and explained why from the prophetic scriptures), but had hopes they will later.

So what about the parables in gMark? They were meant for later Christians who could understand them because they were disguised prophecies about what happened, did not happen, was happening and will happen soon after Jesus' crucifixion, most of times bad things (against John the Baptist' later followers, not everyone accepting Christianity, the tardiness of the Kingdom arrival, the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, etc), raising doubts about their faith: the message of these parables was, don't worry about past & presents events, even if they question the veracity of Christian teachings and then hope for the Kingdom to come soon: Jesus had predicted these happenings, they are part of God's plan, they do not mean what they heard is bogus, keep the faith because the Kingdom will come very soon (as suggested in the last parables).

And it is all explained here, for each parable: http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

*God had blinded Israel before, according to the Scriptures (Isa 6:9-10), and this
motif became a staple of early Christian thought, from Paul (Rom 11:7-8),to Mark
(4:10-12),to Acts (28:25-27),to John (12:40):(3).
*Such anti-Jewish explanations no doubt facilitated the mission to a Greco-Roman
population already enamored of the God of Israel but uncomfortable with the laws
of Israel, and who already understood that "it is usually the case that heaven
perverts the judgment of the man whose fortune it means to reverse"(4).

In Ro 11:7-10, I rather see an explanation of the obvious: the Jews were not converting to Christianity, even if Jesus had been a Jew preaching to other Jews. I do not see anything anti-Jewish in these verses.

Bernard,
*No, I don't see these verses as totally "anti-Jewish", and I think Paul harbored confident
hope that in the end all (old) Israel would be saved (Rom 11:26-32).But Paul picks
up on the motif that God had "blinded" the Jews (Rom 11:7-10) and, I think, as a
way of explaining why more of old Israel did not believe the kerygma. The Jews
had not "stumbled" so as to fall, but they HAD stumbled (Rom 11:11), and their
"blindness" was to continue until the full measure of gentiles had come in (Rom
11:25).

*Here we will see evidence justifying the proposal of an Aramaic original made
subject to an intentional adaptation and interpretation of an Old Testament
quotation, in order to prevent repentance, but leaving the question:"is this
what Jesus really said ?"

"Seeing" an Aramaic original behind the Greek wording seems to be wishful thinking in order to suggest authenticity for this declaration.

TS:"seeing an Aramaic original" is indeed wishful thinking, as we know from the warnings
of several scholars. That is why I chose my words carefully in offering "evidence of a
PROPOSAL of an Aramaic original". You are I think fully justified in urging caution. But
the reconstruction is a speculative suggestion based mostly on the work of the Aramaicist
Jeremias.
*Horsley and Draper in 1999 declared that "after a prolonged debate, scholars in the
main have concluded that we cannot move behind the Greek of our texts into a
reconstructed Aramaic"("Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.12).
*In 1998 Crossan informed us that the period of oral transmission of the Jesus tradition
constitutes an "irrevocable barrier" to the historical Jesus ("Birth Of Christianity" p.403).
*In 2011 Dunn expressed his belief that reconstructing the "pre-literary forms" of the
Jesus tradition "must become increasingly speculative", because "unknown factors and
variations characteristic of oral tradition put the tradition history..beyond reach"
("The Oral Gospel Tradition" p.7,77).
*And so we speculate, because "if you cannot believe in something produced by a
reconstruction, you may be left with nothing to believe in"(Crossan "Historical Jesus"
p.425-6).
*For "hypotheses are all we have and all we ever will have"(Kloppenborg Verbin
"Excavating Q" p.54).

"to those on the outside, everything comes in
riddles, so that 'they may look but not perceive,
and may indeed listen but not understand,
UNLESS they turn again and be forgiven".

But how Jesus' Galileans would turn again and be forgiven if they could not fully understand these parables? After all, "Mark" wrote Jesus was teaching these folks only in parables without explanations, and they needed to be explained for his own disciples (Mk 4:13,34).
The UNLESS does not make any sense. The saying only says to me that the Jews who heard Jesus did not get converted to Christianity. And that was an observable fact some 40 years later.

*So the dominical meaning of this passage, and the intention of Jesus, was more
likely to be that everything comes in riddles unless people turn to God and be
forgiven, a lesson entirely consistent with the divine promise of a new
Covenant (Jer 31:33-34),with the "everything" originally referring to all that
Jesus has taught, and not just the parables (20).

According to "Mark", Jesus "taught" his countrymen only by unexplained parables:
Mar 4:33-34 "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;
he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything."

Bernard,
*I believe Mark's understanding was that before he did any teaching, Jesus called on
the Jews to repent (1:15), but that after encountering hostility (3:6), he began to
cloak his teachings in parables (4:10-12).Such an interpretation is offered in the New
American Bible (p.1122).This is what Mark perpetuated, not necessarily how the
Jesus ministry unfolded. Mark's Jesus is God's agent of deception, like the prophet
Isaiah (Isa 6:9-10), because Mark follows the party line, that most Jews did not believe
because God had "blinded" them.
*At Qumran the mysteries entrusted by God to the Community Teacher were first
preached by him to wider circles. But when many refused to believe his words, "his
message was strictly embargoed and made available to strictly enrolled members"
(1QpHab 2.1-3)=(7.5-14)=(1QS 9.18)=(Vermes "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.81-2).
Considering the many parallels that exist between the Qumran scrolls and the New
Testament, I think this analogy provides some support for the interpretation I have
offered above.

while Paul held "the Jews" responsible for killing Jesus (1Thess 2:14-15)

This is widely believed to be a late interpolation. Otherwise Paul was not anti-Semitic and just lamented Jews did not embrace Christianity (and explained why from the prophetic scriptures), but had hopes they will later.

So what about the parables in gMark? They were meant for later Christians who could understand them because they were disguised prophecies about what happened, did not happen, was happening and will happen soon after Jesus' crucifixion, most of times bad things (against John the Baptist' later followers, not everyone accepting Christianity, the tardiness of the Kingdom arrival, the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, etc), raising doubts about their faith: the message of these parables was, don't worry about past & presents events, even if they question the veracity of Christian teachings and then hope for the Kingdom to come soon: Jesus had predicted these happenings, they are part of God's plan, they do not mean what they heard is bogus, keep the faith because the Kingdom will come very soon (as suggested in the last parables).

And it is all explained here, for each parable: http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

Further,
The Greek "eis to" ("so as") almost always expresses purpose in Paul
according to Abraham Malherbe ("Anchor Bible" vol.32B,p.170), and
thus it is Malherbe's view that for Paul the Jews filling up the measure
of their sins is part of God's plan.
*Thus the doctrine that God had "blinded" the Jews may have been
established in the church even before our earliest Christian document
was written.
*Again, Paul considers the indifference of "the Jews" to the Sanhedrin's
treatment of Jesus as making them responsible for his death, with the
Qumran analogy cited in my original post offered in support.
*My Metzger says nothing about 1Thess 2:14-15, so I am assuming
that those verses are present in all the ancient manuscripts of 1Thess
("Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.561). If so,
this would ostensibly weaken the case for later interpolation.
*As the Qumran sectarians considered outsiders "sinners", yet hoped
that in the end times all Israel would join their sect, so Paul, in a
similar way, holds the Jews responsible for the killing of Jesus (1Thess
2:14-15), yet still has hope that all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26-32):
(Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Matthew" vol.1,p.243-4,307).

[Bernard Muller]

to Tod Stites,

*I believe Mark's understanding was that before he did any teaching, Jesus called on
the Jews to repent (1:15), but that after encountering hostility (3:6), he began to
cloak his teachings in parables (4:10-12).Such an interpretation is offered in the New
American Bible (p.1122).This is what Mark perpetuated, not necessarily how the
Jesus ministry unfolded. Mark's Jesus is God's agent of deception, like the prophet
Isaiah (Isa 6:9-10), because Mark follows the party line, that most Jews did not believe
because God had "blinded" them.

But the problem is there is not hint of the theme "need to repent" in the parables of gMark. And these parables make a lot more sense from a later Christian perspective than for Jesus' audience. The parables are just another tool used by "Mark", other than the more blunt statements he put in the mouth of Jesus, about disconcerting future happenings (as in the mount of olives discourse).

because Mark follows the party line, that most Jews did not believe
because God had "blinded" them.

Party line or not, it was a way to explain why the Jews were not converting and it was part of a God's plan. So the message was: don't worry, these bad things had been foreseen; the main plan is still on track: the Kingdom will arrive soon.

*My Metzger says nothing about 1Thess 2:14-15, so I am assuming
that those verses are present in all the ancient manuscripts of 1Thess
("Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.561). If so,
this would ostensibly weaken the case for later interpolation.
*As the Qumran sectarians considered outsiders "sinners", yet hoped
that in the end times all Israel would join their sect, so Paul, in a
similar way, holds the Jews responsible for the killing of Jesus (1Thess
2:14-15), yet still has hope that all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26-32):
(Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Matthew" vol.1,p.243-4,307).

I am very surprised you do not know that many critical and liberal scholars identified interpolations in almost all canonical texts, even if these deemed interpolations appear in all the ancients manuscripts.
The epistles of Paul were added on by most crucial items, in order to "update" or "homogenize" his Christology or theology. More, I think, with some other scholars, some of his epistles were edited and combined together. More, others wrote epistles in Paul's name (such as the pastorals) as soon as the 1st century.
The first manuscript (with missing parts) of the Pauline epistles dates from around 200 CE and a lot could have been going on before that: https://www.umass.edu/wsp/conferences/w ... interp.pdf. Even a Christian bishop complained his own letters were being modified:
"For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, ..." Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (165-175), fragments from a letter to the Roman church
Christian writers did not have scruples about deleting, modifying and adding on Christian (and sometimes Jewish) texts. For example, see how "Matthew" & "Luke" handled gMark & Q.

Cordially, Bernard

[Tod Stites]

to Tod Stites,

*I believe Mark's understanding was that before he did any teaching, Jesus called on
the Jews to repent (1:15), but that after encountering hostility (3:6), he began to
cloak his teachings in parables (4:10-12).Such an interpretation is offered in the New
American Bible (p.1122).This is what Mark perpetuated, not necessarily how the
Jesus ministry unfolded. Mark's Jesus is God's agent of deception, like the prophet
Isaiah (Isa 6:9-10), because Mark follows the party line, that most Jews did not believe
because God had "blinded" them.

But the problem is there is not hint of the theme "need to repent" in the parables of gMark. And these parables make a lot more sense from a later Christian perspective than for Jesus' audience. The parables are just another tool used by "Mark", other than the more blunt statements he put in the mouth of Jesus, about disconcerting future happenings (as in the mount of olives discourse).

TS:no, the theme "need to repent" is not present in the Marcan parables, because Mark's
Jesus has encountered resistance (3:6), and has decided to disguise his instruction in
parables (4:10-12), understood only by those who believe. Others (viz. the Jews) will not
understand because God has blinded them. This I believe is the post-Easter apologetic
meant to explain why most of the Jews had not accepted, and were not accepting, the
Christian "good news".

because Mark follows the party line, that most Jews did not believe
because God had "blinded" them.

Party line or not, it was a way to explain why the Jews were not converting and it was part of a God's plan. So the message was: don't worry, these bad things had been foreseen; the main plan is still on track: the Kingdom will arrive soon.

*My Metzger says nothing about 1Thess 2:14-15, so I am assuming
that those verses are present in all the ancient manuscripts of 1Thess
("Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.561). If so,
this would ostensibly weaken the case for later interpolation.
*As the Qumran sectarians considered outsiders "sinners", yet hoped
that in the end times all Israel would join their sect, so Paul, in a
similar way, holds the Jews responsible for the killing of Jesus (1Thess
2:14-15), yet still has hope that all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26-32):
(Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Matthew" vol.1,p.243-4,307).

I am very surprised you do not know that many critical and liberal scholars identified interpolations in almost all canonical texts, even if these deemed interpolations appear in all the ancients manuscripts.
The epistles of Paul were added on by most crucial items, in order to "update" or "homogenize" his Christology or theology. More, I think, with some other scholars, some of his epistles were edited and combined together. More, others wrote epistles in Paul's name (such as the pastorals) as soon as the 1st century.
The first manuscript (with missing parts) of the Pauline epistles dates from around 200 CE and a lot could have been going on before that: https://www.umass.edu/wsp/conferences/w ... interp.pdf. Even a Christian bishop complained his own letters were being modified:
"For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, ..." Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (165-175), fragments from a letter to the Roman church
Christian writers did not have scruples about deleting, modifying and adding on Christian (and sometimes Jewish) texts. For example, see how "Matthew" & "Luke" handled gMark & Q.

Cordially, Bernard

TS:yes, I have heard and read many theories about "the orthodox corruption of Scripture".
The problem I have with them is that there are so many crucial things missing from the
acknowledged epistles of Paul:
*Paul invokes no dominical command to go out and preach to the nations. If Jesus had
given such a command, Paul would have surely used it to support his gentile mission,
but he does not. And if Paul's writings were "corrupted" to a great degree by the centralized
church, I believe we would find such a "command" among his writings.
*Paul never invokes the teachings of Jesus in order to support his own teachings about
setting aside the primacy of the law, how people are justified by faith apart from works
of the law. This also became a central pillar of orthodox Christian theology, and if the
letters of Paul had been extensively tampered with by the later church, I believe we would
also have at least one forged attribution of antinomian teachings made by Paul to the
Christian Lord.
*Atonement theology is also not placed on the lips of Jesus in the acknowledged letters of
Paul. While the cross became the center of Paul's theology, and an undoubted cornerstone
of the later church, we find no reference from Jesus to the atoning significance of his own
death anywhere in the Pauline corpus.
It is the things that are missing, the central planks of the Christian platform, that should
caution us about embracing the notion that the letters of Paul, or the Gospels, were
extensively edited and interpolated by the later church.
*The heritage of all Israel, the Torah, prohibited adding or subtracting from the laws
(Deut 4:2).
*The Essenes were sworn to pass on their doctrines exactly as they had received them
(Josephus "Judean War" 2.8.7.142)
*The Rabbi Hillel was remembered for declaring that "it is a man's duty to state (a tradition)
in his teacher's words"(Gerhardsson "Memory And Manuscript" p.131).
*Paul warned his congregations:"Nothing beyond what is written.."(1Cor 4:6)
*The Didache (11.2) warns against anyone teaching in a different tradition so as to overturn
the existing tradition, and (4.13) against adding or subtracting from the words of the Lord
*On the issues of unmarried women (1Cor 7:25,40), the gentiles (Acts 15:28), and kosher
foods (Mark 7:19), the evangelists stop short of attributing their rulings to Jesus
(Gerhardsson "Memory And Manuscript" p.314-5).

*Yes, I believe the New Testament manuscripts were tampered with, but the manuscript
evidence itself should be our first guide to just how much tampering took place. When we
see Jesus going to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4,9), when
the later doctrine of the church was that he knew no sin, we are probably on safe ground,
but not only in supposing that his baptism is not a fabricated tradition, but that the earlier
manuscripts of the New Testament were not doctored wholesale in order to make them
conform to later church doctrine.
*When we see no salvific importance attached to the death of Jesus in the Q sayings,when
we see prophecies attributed to Jesus that did not come to pass, when we see Jesus
predict figuratively that his body will be "thrown out"(Mark 12:8),we see also that at least
some things got through to us unfiltered by the later church, and that the recent trendiness
of "orthodox corruption" is nothing to get carried away with.