Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Mark 4.1–34 is a stretch of the Gospel where it is specially important for the English-speaking student working under the guidance of Rawlinson's great commentary to be aware that much water has flowed under the bridge since 1925; for during the last quarter of a century much has been published that bears directly on the exegesis of this section. The problem of the parables of Jesus is so fascinating, so tantalisingly difficult, and of such obvious importance, that we are forced to return to it again and again. In the first part of this article we shall look at vv. 3–9 and 13–20; in the second part we hope to look at the structure of the whole section and then to concentrate our attention on the notorious crux interpretum, vv. 11 and 12.
page 398 note 1 Rawlinson, A. E. J., The Gospel according to St. Mark (1925, 7th ed. 1949)Google Scholar
page 398 note 2 The following list may be of some use, though it is by no means complete and the present writer does not claim to have seen all the literature mentioned in it. A. van Veldhuizen, articles in Nieuwe Theologische Studiën, 8 (1925), pp. 129–133; 10 (1927), pp. 42–44, on the tvain Mark 4.12; Dalman, G., Viererlei Acker, in Palastinajahrbuch 22 (1926), pp. 120–132Google Scholar; Pernot, H., Greek and the Gospels, in ET 38 (1926), pp. 103–108Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Die Verstockungsidee in Me. 4.12 vnd das kausale Iva der späteren Koine, in ZNW 26 (1927), pp. 203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlatter, A.Der Evangelist Matthäus (1929), pp. 424 ff.Google Scholar; Fiebig, P., Rabbinische Gleichnisse (1929)Google Scholar; Weinel, H., Die Gleichnisse Jesu (5th ed. 1929)Google Scholar; W. Lowrie, Jesus according to St. Mark (1929), pp. 127–132, 189–202; Bultmann, R., Die Geschichle der synoptischen Tradition (2nd ed. 1931), pp. 179–222Google Scholar; A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus (1931); Hoskyns, E. C. and Davey, F. N., The Riddle of the New Testament (1931, 3rd ed. 1947) 1 pp. 116–145Google Scholar; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1931), PP. 57–81; Nygren, A., Agape and Eros, Part I (Eng. trans. 1932), pp. 56–65Google Scholar; Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (1934, 5th ed. 1949)Google Scholar; R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (1935), pp. 74 fif.; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (1935); W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the light of their Jewish Background (1936); Gealy, F. D., The Composition of Mark iv, in ET 48 (1936), pp. 40–43Google Scholar; Riddle, D. W., Mark 4.1–34: The Evolution of a Gospel Source, in JBL 56 (1937), pp. 77–90Google Scholar; B. T. D.Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels (1937); Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium desMarkus (1937, 2nd ed. 1951)Google Scholar; also Vom Sinn der Gleichnisse Jesu, in Z. f. syst. Theol.(1938), pp. 319–346; W. Michaelis, Es ging ein Sämann aus zusäen (1938); E. Stauffer, 398 article on fra in Kittel's TWzNT, III (1938), pp. 324–334; R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (English trans. 1938), pp. 138–146; R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church (1938), pp. 62–64, on Mark 4.11; Wendland, H. D., Von den Gleichnissen Jesu und ihrer Botschaft, in Die Theologin 11 (1941), pp. 17–29Google Scholar; Roux, H., L'Evangile du Royaume (1942), pp. 163–175Google Scholar; W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (1943), pp. 36, 46–49, 55; Lohmeyer, E., Das Gleichnis von der Saat, in Deutsche Theologie (1943), pp. 20–39Google Scholar; Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1946), pp. 153–158, on Mark 4.12Google Scholar; J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (1947), from which some of this bibliography is derived; C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (1947), pp. 88 f., 92; G. S. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man (1948), pp. 313–217; Stauffer, E., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (4th improved ed. 1948), pp. 36, 163Google Scholar; A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1948); Wallace, R. S., The Parable and the Preacher, in SJT 2 (1949), pp. 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgenthaler, R., Formgeschichte und Gleichnisauslegung, in Theol. Zeitschrift 6 (1950), pp. 1–16Google Scholar; Torrance, T. F., A Study in New Testament Communication, in SJT 3 (1950), pp. 298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. M. Hunter, The Work and Words of Jesus (1950), p. 45; J. A. Findlay, Jesus and His Parables (1950); G. H. Boobyer, The Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus, in ET 62 (1951), pp. 131–134; we may also mention articles on “Mystery” by G. S. Hendry and“Parable” by A. G. Hebert in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. by A. Richardson. Kittel's TWzNT has not yet reached παραβoλ⋯, and μυστ⋯ριov comes in the part of Vol. IV that is at present not easily accessible in Britain; but reference should be made to the articles on both these words in Bauer's, W.Gríechisch–Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des NTs usw (3rd ed. 1937, 4th ed. in progress).Google Scholar
page 399 note 1 Cf. Lohmeyer, , Das Ev. des Markus, p. 82Google Scholar: “So reich hat Mk nicht wieder die Umgebung Jesu bei einer Rede geschildert; diese Lehre ‘in Gleichnissen’ wird so zur Mitte des Evangeliums.”Schniewind also (op. cit., p. 73) notes that the parables in this section “vor anderen als wichtig herausgehoben werden”.
page 399 note 2 Cf. Swete ad loc, though he also compares such examples as Gen. 23.5.
page 399 note 3 Cf. Roux, op. cit., p. 168: “En ce sens [that it describes the situation of the hearers in the face of the proclamation of the Gospel] elle est bien, comme le laisse entendre Jésus dans Marc (4.13), la clef de toutes les autres paraboles.” Lohmeyer further notes that the wörding of this parable is almost exactly the same in Mark and Matt.—“ein Zeichen der Treue und der Wichtigkeit, die gerade diese Parabel hat” (op. cit., p. 83).
page 400 note 1 op. cit., p. 50.
page 400 note 2 op. cit., pp. 196, ig8 f.
page 401 note 1 op. cit., pp. 182 f.
page 401 note 2 op. cit., p. 126.
page 401 note 3 op. cit., p. 112 (my transl.). See also p. 6 for Palestinian background of the parable.
page 402 note 1 op. cit., p. 74 (my transl.).
page 402 note 2 op. cit., p. 216.
page 402 note 3 op. cit., pp. 39–51.
page 402 note 4 op. cit., pp. 168 f. (my transl.).
page 403 note 1 The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 55.
page 403 note 2 Oesterley also (op. cit., p. 51) says: “This parable was spoken to Christ's closest disciples, and explained something to them which at first they found difficult to understand: why do so few respond?”
page 404 note 1 op. cit., pp. 126–135.
page 405 note 1 “zweifellos sekundar”—op. cit., p. 202.
page 405 note 2 op. cit., p. 181.
page 405 note 3 For which see Dodd, op. cit., pp. 11 f.
page 406 note 1 Hoskyns and Davey, op. cit., p. 128.
page 406 note 2 cited by T. W. Manson, op. cit., pp. 57 f.
page 406 note 3 See further Part II.
page 406 note 4 Jeremias, op. cit., p. 42. See whole section on “Die Allegorisierung” pp. 41–59.
page 406 note 5 But Bultmann says that he does not regard the interpretation as unauthentic because it allegorises the parable—he thinks that actually it does not allegorise it—but on other grounds. So too B. T. D. Smith—op. cit., pp. 127 f.
page 406 note 6 Cf. Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 47.
page 407 note 1 See further Part II.
page 407 note 2 op. cit., p. 202.
page 407 note 3 Dodd, op. cit., p. 181. Cf. B. T. D. Smith, op. cit., p. 128, and Bultmann, “Inkonzinnität der Deutung der Einzelzüge”.
page 408 note 1 op. cit., p. 51.
page 408 note 2 McNeile on Matt. par. (p. 193) has a subtle—too subtle?—explanation.
page 408 note 3 op. cit., p. 78. Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 84: on the following page he says: “Die Bindung an die Sache bleibt also eng und streng; nur die an das iiberlieferte Wort ist hier loser geworden.”
page 408 note 4 Quoted by Schlatter, op. cit., p. 433 f.: 
page 408 note 5 B. T. D. Smith, op. cit., p. 128.
page 408 note 6 Schlatter, op. cit., p. 437 f., says: “Darin, dass die abnormen Vorgänge, die die Wirkung des Wortes zerstoren, in der Deutung plastischer hervortreten als das normale Verhalten, zeigt sich wieder, dass die Aufmerksamkeit des Mat. [he writes on the Matt, par.] vor allem der Abwehr des siindlichen Verhaltens gilt. Dass das Wort Frucht schafft, beruht auf Gottes Wirken und bleibt Geheimnis. Was dagegen das Wort zerstört, das liegt im Bereich des menschlichen Blicks und Willens und wird der Kirche deutlich gezeigt.”
page 408 note 7 B. T. D. Smith, op. cit., p. 128.
page 408 note 8 op. cit., p. 197.
page 408 note 9 John 6.66.
page 409 note 1 Cf. Robinson, C. E., The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 82Google Scholar: “to forecast such coming trials and their inevitable results needed no special foresight for the founder of a religion such as His.”
page 409 note 2 Dodd, op. cit., pp. 13 f.
page 409 note 3 ibid., p. 14 (note 1).
page 411 note 1 op. cit., pp. 49–51.
page 411 note 2 πρóσκαιρos also occurs in 4 Mace. 15.3.
page 411 note 3 Cf. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 52, Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 85.
page 411 note 4 Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 51, 112.
page 411 note 5 ibid., p. U2. Cf. Smith, op. cit., p. 59.
page 412 note 1 op. cil., p. 78.
page 412 note 2 The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 56. Cf. Schlatter, op. cit., p. 434 f.: “Deutlich ist aber, dass nicht erst die Deutung, sondern der Aufbau des Bildes selbst die vierfache Wirkung des Worts im Auge hat. Wie ein Gleichnis aussieht, wenn es nur den festen Zusammenhang zwischen der Saat und der Ernte darstellen soil, zeigt Mark 4.26–29. Wer die Deutung ablehnt, muss auch das Gleichnis ablehnen und betritt damit den Bereich der ratenden Konjektur.”
page 412 note 3 For another reference by Jesus to the cares of this age see Matt. 6.24–34 and to the deceitfulness of wealth see Mark 10.23 ff.; Luke 12.13–21, 33 f., 16.19–31.
