Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §13.1
what had actually happened: many/most had been finally puzzled and antagonized
by what Jesus had taught.
In the spirit of Isaiah (6.9-10) the outcome was understood as in line with
God's intention, even as intended by God. 29 But the basic fact of widespread rejection
must have been evident to Jesus himself well before the end of his mission:
many heard and did not understand, many saw but did not perceive, many
failed to turn and accept the healing offered by God through Jesus' mission. 30
The Jesus who denounced Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida for their failure
to respond to his message (§12.4e) would hardly have been surprised to find that
his parables were off-putting for so many. The fact that there is almost a
predestinarian dogma of divine intention coming to expression at this point is not
necessarily a signal of subsequent Christian reflection. Here again we need to ask
with Schweitzer whether such a 'dogma' was not first given expression by Jesus
himself. 31
The likelihood that we are on the right trail here is strengthened by the related
motif of hiddenness/openness. Mark, no doubt deliberately, includes the
motif within his collection of parables (Mark 4.21-22) and is presumably followed
by Luke 8.16-17. But Luke also knows similar versions of the same sayings,
presumably from Q (Matt. 5.15/Luke 11.33; Matt. 10.26-27/Luke 12.2-3)
and Thomas {GTh 6.4; 33.1-2). 32
ture of fascination and bemusement with which many of Jesus' first disciples must have heard
his teaching.
29. This conclusion is unavoidable in exegesis of Mark 4.12. The hina clause followed
by the mepote clause can hardly express other than purpose (Black, Aramaic Approach 212-14;
Marcus, Mark 1-8 299-300; pace Manson, Teaching 78-79; Chilton, Galilean Rabbi 92-94).
The fact that Matthew and Luke have both softened Mark's rigour (both omit the mepote clause
and Matthew reads hoti instead of hina) strongly suggests that they read Mark in the same way.
30. See also Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 105-107; Evans, To See 103-106.
31. See above, chapter 4 nn. 118-20. For further discussion on the detail of Mark 4.10-
12 see particularly Guelich, Mark 1-8 199-212.
32. The Mark 4.22/Matt. 10.26/Luke 8.17/12.2 saying is also attested in Oxy.Pap. 654
5.2, 4 and GTh 5.2 — a rather impressive multiple attestation; it is consequently ranked highly
by Crossan (Historical Jesus 350, 436). The Jesus Seminar agrees that Mark 4.21 pars, may
well go back to Jesus in some form and that Jesus may well have said something like GTh 5.2,
the earliest form of Mark 4.22 pars. (Funk, Five Gospels 56-57, 475-76); and Lüdemann concludes
that both elements in Mark 4.21-22 'might very well go back to Jesus' (Jesus 30, 169).
On Matt. 10.26-27/Luke 12.2-3 see S. McKnight, 'Public Declaration or Final Judgment? Matthew
10:26-27 = Luke 12.2-3 as a Case of Creative Redaction', in Chilton and Evans, eds., Authenticating
the Words of Jesus 363-83, especially 378-81. See also Matt. 11.25/Luke 10.21;
13.35; Luke 18.34; 19.42.
496