^{page 49 note 1} R. H. Lightfoot points out that in Matthew all trace of failure to understand on the part of the disciples and of any rebuke of them by Jesus has disappeared. So Mark's ‘asked of him the parables’ becomes ‘Why speakest thou unto them in parables?’ and Mark's ‘Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?’ becomes ‘Hear then ye the parable of the sower’. Matt, also adds vv. 16 f., which Luke gives in another context, pronouncing the disciples ‘blessed’. Cf. also Matt. 13.51. (Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 174 ff., 194 note.) Calvin had noticed this difference (see his Commentary on a Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, ad loc.).

^{page 50 note 1} For this see Gealy, F. D., op. cit., Riddle, D. W., op. cit., and Lohmeyer, , Das Ev. des Mkus, p. 82 and p. 83, note 1, Jeremias, op. cit., p. 8, note 5c.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} The Gospel of Mark(1937), pp. 78 f.

^{page 51 note 2} The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 48.

^{page 51 note 3} In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians(1904), pp. 234–240.

^{page 51 note 4} op. cit., pp. 13 f.

^{page 52 note 1} Amos 3.7.

^{page 52 note 2} Ps. 25.14.

^{page 52 note 3} Prov. 3.32.

^{page 52 note 4} Job 15.8.

^{page 52 note 5} Cf. Heaton, E. W., His Servants the Prophets (1949), pp. 29, 116Google Scholar. Mνσrηριoνis not used in the LXX to translate any Hebrew word in the canonical scriptures of the O.T., but it is used eight times in the LXX in Dan. 2 to translate the Aramaic raz(R.V. ‘secret’). In the other place where raz occurs (Dan. 4.6; R.V. 4.9) the translation of Theodotion has μνσrηριov, but the LXX omits the verse. The LXX also has μvσrηριovsome dozen times in the Apocryphal books: of a king's secret plan (Tob. 12.7, 11, Jud. 2.2), of a friend's secret which it is shameful to divulge (Ecclus. 22.22, 27.16, etc.), of a military secret (2 Mace. 13.21), and of God's mysteries (Wisd. 2.22; in 14.15, 23 the word is used of heathen religious practices in association with ‘solemn rites’, a use clearly reflecting the pagan use of the word). It is interesting that the other Greek versions sometimes render a Hebrew word by μνστ⋯ριov: e.g. Symm. and Theod. both use it for sodhin Job 15.8 and Theod. uses it for sodhin Ps. 25.14. It seems as if the earlier translators purposely avoided the word on account of its pagan religious associations, but that after it had passed into common usage in a neutral sense the later translators came to use it more freely. Perhaps this is behind the curious fact that, while in the LXX μνστ⋯ριov not used in Amos 3.7, it is used when that verse is quoted in Rev. 10.7. The word came to be used in Rabbinic writings as a loanword : for examples see Strack and Billerbeck, I.659 f., A. Schlatter, op. cit., pp. 429 f. For the occurrence of μνστ⋯ριovin an agraphon preserved by Clement of Alexandria (printed in Huck, 1949, English ed., p. 72) see Torrance, op. cit., p. 300.

^{page 53 note 1} op. cit., pp. 62 ff.

^{page 53 note 2} Isa. 55.8 f.

^{page 53 note 3} Isa. 29.13 f., 42.19.

^{page 53 note 4} Isa. 53.1 ff. is interesting in this connexion.

^{page 53 note 5} Jeremias, op. cit., p. 8. Matthew and Luke, however, use the plural. Was Matt, thinking of the ‘new law’ ?—the Rabbis used the loan-word of the Law. Should we say that the plural in Matt, and Luke gives a slightly moralistic or intellectualistic flavour and is not so clearly Christological as Mark's singular ?

^{page 54 note 1} Op. cit., p. 8, note 5d. Cf. his Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 2nd ed. (1949), p. 91, point 13.

^{page 54 note 2} Whether with Lohmeyer (ad loc.) we should see a distinction in meaning between Mark's ‘is given’ and Matt, and Luke's ‘it is given to know’ (‘Mk sagt mehr, so gewiss der Besitz mehr ist als die Erkenntnis’) is not certain. On the one hand ‘know’ has a strong sense in the Bible, something more than merely intellectual knowledge; on the other hand, the Hebrew verb nathan can mean something very like ‘reveal’ (see Brown, Driver and Briggs, Lexicon, meanings r and w) and this might be reflected in the use of ‘give’ here. But anyway what is meant here is a knowledge that amounts to what might be called ‘possession’, a real sharing in the thing known. Elsewhere Jesus speaks of God giving the kingdom itself (Luke 12.32) and the sense here is similar. The revelation of the mystery to the disciples means that they are made partakers in the kingdom, in Christ Himself, and also that it is entrusted to them to announce to others (cf. 1 Cor. 4.1).

^{page 54 note 3} ɛkɛívoις τoις ɛξω; Matt, has simply ɛkɛινoις and then aντoις; Luke has τoις λoιπις

^{page 54 note 4} Op. cit. p. 10.

^{page 55 note 1} V.xiv.3.

^{page 55 note 2} IV.lxvi.2.

^{page 55 note 3} 528.22.

^{page 55 note 4} TWzNT. II.572.

^{page 55 note 5} op. cit., p. 83.

^{page 55 note 6} Reff. in Strack and Billerbeck, II, p. 7.

^{page 56 note 1} The word παραβoλ⋯ occurs 47 times in the LXX. Of these 47 occurrences 33 are in the canonical books of the O.T. and 14 in the Apocrypha (12 in Ecclus.). In 28 out of the 33 occurrences in the O.T. it represents the Hebrew mashal. In the other 5 it is twice a mistake for the similar root which means ‘rule’, once it represents the verb of the same root as mashal(‘parable’), once it represents the Hebrew word holeloth (Eccles. 1.17, R.V. ‘madness’), while once it is in an extra phrase which is not in the Hebrew. In addition παραβoλ⋯ is sometimes used in the other Greek versions to render mashalwhere the LXX uses a different word (e.g. in Prov. 1.1, where LXX has παραβoλ⋯, and Isa. 14.4, where LXX has θρηvos). So it is clear that behind παραβoλ⋯ in the Gospels there stands mashal(with its Aramaic equivalent).

The noun mashal occurs 39 times in the O.T. In 28 of these occurrences, as we have seen, it is represented by παραβoλ⋯ in the LXX. In the remaining 11 it is represented by a number of Greek words: by πρooíμιov twice, παρανoμ⋯α once, δouΛɛíα once, αφανισμóς twice, θρηνoς once, παρoιμíα once, lσα + dative once, παιδεíα once (here Codex Alex, has παρoιμíα), and in the remaining instance the phrase in which it occurs in the Hebrew is omitted by the Greek. The word παρoιμíα only once represents mashal in the O.T., but as this is in Prov. 1.1, it was used as the title of the book, which in Hebrew is called M^eshalim. In the Apocrypha it occurs five times (in Ecclus.) and in the other Greek versions it sometimes stands for mashal, where LXX has παραβoλ⋯. The meaning of in the Synoptics and of παραβoλ⋯ in John is παρoιμíα in john is determined by the Hebrew mashal and its Aramaic equivalent and not by the significance the words have in pagan Greek.

For the various meanings of mashal see T. W. Manson, op. cit., pp. 60 ff. and also B. T. D. Smith, op. cit. The term covers a wide range including ethical maxims, short sentences of popular wisdom, proverbs generally, by-word, tauntsong, oracle, comparison, allegory, fable, parable. It is instructive to notice what other words are specially associated with mashal in the O.T. One particularly important such word is hidah, which means ‘riddle’, ‘dark saying’, something put indirectly and requiring interpretation, ‘allegory’ (Ezek. 17.2), ‘perplexing question’. It occurs 17 times in the O.T. and is represented in the LXX 10 times by πρóβλημα 5 times by and once each by and . Particularly interesting from our point of view are the following passages: Ezek. 17.2: ‘Son of man, put forth a riddle (hidah, δι⋯γημα in LXX, in Symm.), and speak a parable unto the house of Israel.’ Ps. 78.2: ‘I will open my mouth in a parable (mashal, ); I will utter dark sayings (hidah, πρóβληνα) of old’ (cf. Ps. 49.4). Prov 1.6: ‘To understand a proverb (mashal, παραβoλ⋯) and a figure σκοτεινόςλόγος the words of the wise, and their dark sayings (hidah, ).’ Cf. also Ezek. 20.49 (Hebrew 21.5). Perhaps most interesting of all for us is Num. 12.8, where God says with reference to Moses: ‘With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches. …’ Here mashal is not used; but is contrasted with mar'eh . Paul presumably had this sentence in mind when he wrote I Cor. 13.12: βλέποοεν γάρ άρτι δίέσόπτρου έν His reflects the Rabbinic explanation of mar'eh as meaning ‘in a mirror’ (cf. the interesting article in TWzNT, I, pp. 177 ff.).

From the above it would seem that mashal and ḥidah were felt to have much the same meaning and that bimeshalim and beḥidoth could be used indifferently to denote the indirectness of revelation and similarly έν παραβoλαις.δι' αινιγματων, It also becomes clear that there is a close connexion between sodh-raz-μνστ⋯ριoν on the one hand and mashal-ḥidah. Both groups of words are drawn into use to refer to divine plans and activity which cannot be known by men except by God's revelation and which can only be described in human language indirectly. Ṣodh-raz-μνστ⋯ριov concentrates attention more on the content that is secret; the other group of words concentrates attention rather on the form or manner in which the secret is revealed. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that the secret still partakes of the nature of a secret even for those to whom it has been given. It does not become something simple and selfevident. The contrast between τÒ μνστ⋯ριov δεδoται and εv παραβoλαις here is that between having, and not having, the clue to the secret, but it does not mean that those to whom the secret has been given are henceforth beyond the area of παραβoλαí, i.e. beyond the stage of indirect knowledge. The Fourth Evangelist similarly has a contrast between εv παρoιμíαις and παρρησíα (16.25–29); but whatever he does mean, it is certainly not that henceforth the apostolic Church's knowledge is altogether free from the indirectness of revelation. (Does Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 2.579 f., say too much?) That final release from indirectness does not take place before the Parousia. To imagine that it does is a dangerous Schwärmerei. Meantime even the Church, though it sees in a mirror , i.e. like Moses in a relatively direct manner as compared with others (cf. G. Kittel in TWzNT, 1.177 ff.), is nevertheless still only able to see now and not yet πρóσωπov πρòς πρóσωπov (1 Cor. 13.12).

^{page 57 note 1} Op. cit., pp. 8 f.

^{page 57 note 2} Is the quotation of the reference to seeing as well as of that to hearing perhaps a slight support to the view that the saying originally referred to the Ministry as a whole and not just to the teaching?

^{page 58 note 1} Isa. 6.9 f. in full or in part is quoted not only here and in the Matt, and Luke parallels but also in John 12.40 and Acts 28.26 f. There are differences between the Hebrew and the LXX. While the Hebrew has ‘Make the heart of this people fat, and make …, and shut … ’, the LXX has made the people the subject of these verbs. Matt. 13.14 f. reproduces the LXX text. It will be seen that the LXX thus makes the passage somewhat less offensive. The other difference is that the last verb in the Hebrew in v. 10 has the people for its subject — ‘and be healed’, but the LXX has ‘and I should heal them’. In Acts also the LXX is the text quoted. In John 12.40 the ending is as in the LXX, but the first part of the quotation is free: ‘He hath blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart … ’ This makes the passage more offensive by making God the subject of these verbs. Cf. Deut. 29.4, Ps. 69.22 f., Isa. 29.10, Rom. 11.8–10. There are further interesting differences between the Synoptics here. Matt, reproduces Mark 4.12 in an abbreviated and modified form in 13.13, and then quotes the Isa. passage in full in the two following verses. The main difference between Mark 4.12 and Matt. 13.13 is that Matthew replaces Mark's ἴνα by ⋯τι thus making the people's spiritual blindness the reason for Jesus' teaching in parables. It is not clear whether Matthew means that Jesus' intention in teaching in parables was to remove the people's ignorance by using a form of teaching they would understand or, as R. H. Lightfoot argues, to punish their ignorance by using a form of teaching they would not understand. Luke keeps the Marcan ἴνα but greatly abbreviates the quotation. One other point may be mentioned here. Mark has at the end of the quotation neither the LXX ‘and I should heal’ (or ‘I shall heal them’) nor the Hebrew ‘and be healed’, but ‘and it should be forgiven them’. The interesting thing about this is that it agrees with the Targum (cf. T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 77).

^{page 58 note 2} Though it is just possible to take it in a final sense in Rev. 22.14. See Pernot, op. cit. and Windisch, op. cit. Lohmeyer renders ἴνα in Mark 4.12 by ‘weil’ (pp. 83 f.).

^{page 58 note 3} See T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 78; M. Black, op. cit., pp. 153 ff.

^{page 58 note 4} III.324 ff.

^{page 59 note 1} Op. cit., p. 303.

^{page 60 note 1} Op. cit, p. 9. Cf. Manson, op. cit., pp. 78 f.

^{page 60 note 2} A prophecy after the event would have been more exact—‘on the third day’ as in Matt, and Luke and some MSS. of Mark.

^{page 61 note 1} Deut. 21.23.

^{page 61 note 2} John 9.39.

^{page 63 note 1} In what has been said above about men having freedom to make a personal decision there is no intention of denying that man cannot of himself believe. Of himself fallen man is only free for unbelief. But it is also true that there is no decision that a man ever makes that is so truly and fully his own free personal decision as that which he makes in the freedom which the Holy Spirit works in him!

^{page 63 note 2} Engl. trans., pp. 73 ff. Barth refers to Heidelberg Catechism, Quest. 37, which is most suggestive.

^{page 64 note 1} LXX: ὠνεíδισαν. The words ⋯νειδoς, ⋯νειδíζω, ⋯νειδισμóς, will repay study in this connexion. See J. Schneider in TWzNT, V. 238–242.

^{page 65 note 1} Rom. 8.17.

^{page 65 note 2} Heb. 13.13.