Bernard Muller

I know for sure that most parables in GMark are an integral part of his gospel. I mean they are almost part of the narration. They fit in their niche precisely. They do not seem to come from an independant "pile".
Most of them are not even teaching, more like disguised prophecies, to say to the Christians: all what you endured so far or witnessed (up to70CE!), has been predicted by Jesus.
And yes, I found previous material imbedded in these parables. There are tidbits of imagery material from Paul's epistles to the Corinthians & Romans.
The big point I made about the parables: "Mark" himself said they were not meant for Jesus' audience. So why Jesus would bother to tell parables to crowds, knowing they had no salvation values for them, they were unexplained to them, and not enough understandable. Then, if it ever was done, the crowds would have been furious.

>>Mk4:2 "He taught them [the crowd] many things by parables, and in his teaching said:"
Jesus is said to have taught to the crowds by parables. But next, it appears this teaching to them is rather superficial:
Mk4:33-34 "And with many such parables He spoke the word to them **as they were able to hear it**. But **without a parable He did not speak to them**. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."
Jesus is reported to have spoken to the crowds only in parables and provided explanations solely to his entourage. They are certainly very necessary for understanding:
Mk4:13 "Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand that parable? how then will you understand any parable?""
Mk7:17b-18a "... his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. ..."
Mk4:10-12 "When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. **But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but not perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven**.'"
So according to GMark, Jesus' compatriots (except his followers) were not supposed to perceive/understand the parables, and since Jesus taught to them only in parables, they did not have the opportunity to be saved (or knowing the secret of the kingdom of God).<<

Here is a smoking gun telling parables were meant for Gentiles:
>>Here is one more example in Mark's gospel where Jesus is said to be talking to the crowds in parable:
Mk7:14-19 "When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand: there is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man ..."
[the so-called parable is obviously very vague and not meant to be understood. At Mk7:5, "things that defile" are from unwashed hands, with no further details]
` When He had entered a house **away from the crowd**, His disciples asked Him concerning the **parable**. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all food?"
[the NU-Text reads, (as a comment from "Mark"): "(This means all foods are clean.)", instead of the words in italics (by allegedly Jesus). If the later reflects the original writing (which is likely), then even the explanation to the disciples is not clear (but "Mark" knew what it meant!)]"
"Mark" used a (so-called) parable in order to explain Jesus went public on a particular controversial subject in a way the people (and even his followers!) could not understand! Of course, the food laws (or rather the lack of them) that Jesus advocates for his disciples (and Christians!) were heretical for a Jew and obviously could not have been explained to a Jewish crowd.
Mk7:14-19 is a good example where a parable is meant for Gentile Christians and not Jesus' audience (even if it is told to them!).<<

And GLuke knew what parables were all about:
>>Luke's gospel has the largest number of parables: twenty-eight. But "Luke" also wrote:
Lk8:9-10 "His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, `though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'""<<
We are not talking about teachings material for Jesus' crowds, just useless oracles for those. But then, why would Jesus bother to do that, risking to be the victim of an angry crowd. That stinks. Furthermore, they are two or three instances, where "Mark" got out of character and has Jesus talking to future Christians (including the readers of the gospel!) above the head of his disciples.
Here is my page:
Jesus' alleged parables
Where everything is better presented, fully explained.

Ya I agree, the parables were meant to be appreciated by the audience of "Mark"!
The "loaves 'n fishies" miracle is not a parable so I won't comment on that now, but I already did on my page HJ-2a (Jesus' public life).
Wondering is good, proving it is different.
In Q, I saw a progression from GMark. Actually, they are many instances where Q, relative to some GMark material, inserts (the overlaps), corrects, complements, fills some holes in, embellishes, rewrites, goes beyond, distorts into missionary directives, implies previous knowledge of.
I proved on my page on Thomas that at least two parables were drawn from GLuke and GMatthew, with the likeness others were, more so the parable of the tenants (from GLuke).

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

Bernard:

We cross posted. . . .

Hellenistic literature:

We are in total agreement. I think writers like Howard Kee [Community of the New Age--long before "New Age" involved harpsicord, insense, and hairy legs.--Ed.] try to deny Hellenistic influence in Mk because if it is Hellenistic it probably is not "original." Of course, Key tries to date Mk jjuuuuusssstttt before 70 CE! As you probably note, it is hard to write in a language and not be influenced by it! Furthermore, Mk certainly did not care about getting his OT quotations correct, and also felt he had to "translate" things for his readers.

Absolutely!

With all due respect I will have to defer to the Q scholars--I am too much of a neophyte to argue either way. However, as you note in your discussion below . . . why is not Mk the original . . . why is Luke an example of Q? Because it is also in G of T?

Next Post:

Interesting, do you think Mk shared Paul's theology at all, or did he just use some bits?

Understood. "The audience" is Mk's audience which "gets the point" that the disciples never get--and only a few of the "wandering crowd" gets. Indeed, I think there is some humor in Mk--and part of it is his painful explanation of a parable to the hapless disciples.

I will look over your links in the next few days.

Best,

--J.D.

RED DAVE

As a Jew, with a standard Jewish education, one of the things that always struck me about the Gospels was their completely alien nature to Jewish sensibility. Nothing much in the way they're written or in their world view ever struck me as familiar.

RED DAVE

Bernard Muller

Ya, I think many who accept a good chunk of Q & GThomas as pre-gospels do not know where that belief comes from.

You must be referring to the parable of the mustard seed. I addressed that on this board already, more so about Mark being the original.
Luke an example of Q, concerning the same parable, is because Matthew merged the Q version with Mark's. That's how it is thought Luke's version is Q. That has nothing to do with G of T. BTW, the Thomas' version is much closer of Mark's than Q's. Then one may wonder: if Q is early, & GTh is early, why GTh's version of the mustard seed parable is close to Mark's rather than Q?

Both, but Mark toned down considerably Paul's (final) theology/christology. No preexistence, but Son of God, 2 mentions of the Sacrifice. Themes/issues from Paul & 'Hebrews' show in GMark: The last supper, marriage laws, Jesus' temptation and last prayer, future (and demonstration of) resurrections, form of the resurrected bodies, etc.

Ya, the disciples do not get a lot of things in GMark (or are given a gag order by Jesus!). I make a big point from that in my pages.

I welcome your comments & critics, privately or on this board.

Best regards, Bernard