Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I see a conflict between Mark 4:11-12 :

He answered them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that

‘they may look and see but not perceive,
and hear and listen but not understand,
in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’”

and Mark 12:12 :

They were seeking to arrest him, but they feared the crowd, for they realized that he had addressed the parable to them. So they left him and went away.

If the outsiders are condemned to ignorance about the parables, why do they know the esoteric meaning of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard ?

The problem is so evident that I am inclined to consider Mark 12:1-12 as interpolation.

And if Roger Parvus is right about the absence of John the Baptist in proto-Mark, then the interpolation would be even more large: Mark 11:27-12:12.

The argoment of this kind may be applied in every occurrence where 'Mark' cares explicitly to explain the meaning of verba et acta of Jesus. There is no reason for Mark of explaining the meaning of the parables when the parables are meant to be read correctly only by the insider readers.

Examples where Mark is very much ''clear'' (and therefore possibly interpolated):

Mark 1:2-8 (explicit quote of Scripture)

2:1-12 (will of redemption of the outsiders by explicit correction of what they thought)

2:18-21 (will of explaining the difference between Jesus and John)

2:23-28 (explicit quote of Scripture)

4:13-20 (will of explaining the Sower parable)

6:1-6 (will of redemption of the inhabitants of Nazaret by explicit correction of what they thought)

6:17-29 (will of explaining the words of Herod about JtB)

7:1-23 (explicit quote of Scripture + will of explaining the parable to save the outsiders)

7:24-30 (an explicit explanation of the healing is given by Jesus)

9:11-13 (explicit quote of Scripture)

9:28-29 (an explicit explanation of the failure of the disciples is given by Jesus)

9:38-41 (an explicit explanation of the tolerance of the independent exorcist is given by Jesus)

9:42-50 (explicit quote of Scripture)

10:1-12 (explicit quote of Scripture)

10:17-31 (explicit quote of Scripture)

11:15-20 (explicit quote of Scripture)

11:27-12:12 (will of explaining the parable to save the outsiders)

12:18-38 (explicit quote of Scripture)

13:1-37 (explicit quote of Scripture)

14:27-31 (explicit quote of Scripture)

14:48-49 (explicit quote of Scripture)

14:62-64 (explicit quote of Scripture)

14:66-72 (explicit will of redemption of the outsider Peter + his realized redemption)

15:28 (explicit quote of Scripture)

15:34-36 (explicit quote of Scripture)

By removing these passages, the effect is that the Mark's Jesus becomes an even more unknown and enigmatic figure (already an evident intention of canonical Mark), insofar his same inventor didn't care to explain that figure by giving more information about him with explicit quoting of Scripture or by himself. The mere message is that a Jesus from Nazarene comes, teaches and does a lot of mirabilia, is not understood and is killed without giving a minimal good reason of the his condemnation.

Obviously Mark quotes always implicitly Scripture to invent his Jesus. But the explicit quote of Scripture betrayes the need of explaining very much who is Jesus for the outsiders.

Or it could just be that the author of Mark was inconsistent...