i. Mk 4" seems to be earlier in form than its 2)arallels ; for the context shows that the thing given or withheld is not certain elements of the gospel, conceived as /j.v(jT7jpLa and therefoi'e uttered only in j^arables (understood as enigmas ; cf. Mt 13^*, Jn 16^") — the sense conveyed by the use of the plural in the parallels (to. fjLvffTTjpca, Mt 13" = Lk 8'") — but is the gospel as a whole conceived as a 'mystery' in the Pauline sense, i.e. a Divine rev- elation (cf. Mt 13^^- "). The teaching in parables is regarded by ]Mk. (and still more by Mt. ) as a fulfilment of Is &^ conceived as a sentence of judicial blindness. In answer to the question (Mt 13^"), ' Why speakest thou to tliem (the motley Galilsean multitude) in parables ?' (i.e. enigmas), Jesus answers that it is a fulfilment of the prophetic curse of Isaiah upon a disobedient and gainsaying people, of Avhom such fruitless hearing had been foretold. Tlie inner cii'de (Mk 4}^ cf. S^^- *»• ^s) are alone intended to receive more than the husk. The parallels, in altering to to, fimrripia, give a dilution of this sense (cf. the secondary sense above under 1).
5. Not the word alone, but the entire context of Mk 4 and parallels are Pauline in aim. Ro 9-11 attempts a theodicy of the rejection of Israel the covenant })eople in favour of the Gentiles, based upon the same idea of judicial hardening, and em- ploying the same passage from Isaiah. In Ro 11* Paul writes after 30 years of di.sappointing ex- perience in preaching to the Jews: 'It is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.' To St. Paul, accordinglj', must be attributed the first utilization of Is 6*, which henceforth becomes the locus classicns to account for the rejection of the Messiah by His own people (with Mk 4" and parallels, cf. Jn PZ^y-"!, Ac 282-»-28). Manifestly an interpretation of parabolic utterance which supposes it adopted in order to fulfil the prophetic sentence of judicial blindness on Israel cannot be attributed to Jesus, since the end sought in the parables themselves is the reverse of intentional obscurity. Mk 4", accordingly, which does not stand alone in this
2U
MYTH
MYTH
Gospel as regards its Pauline phraseology (ef. ]Mk 1'^ with Mt 4^^), is equally Pauliue in the employ- , ment of this theory of the intention of the para- : bolic teaching.
6. Linguistically the results are at least equally \ conclusive. The word fivcrrripLov occurs 21 times in the Pauline Epp., elsewhere in the NT only here, and 4 times in the Apocalypse. The con- ception of the gospel itself as a ' mj\stery ' is found nowhere else save in tlie Pauline Epistles. With St. Paul it is fundamental ( I Co •2i-'«, Eph P S'*'", Col 1-", Ko I6-^'-'), usually involvhig the con- trast of philosophy versus i^evelation, the ' wisdom j of this world ' versus the spirit of prophecy. It is noteworth}- that the removal of vv.^'-^^ from the context of Mk 4'""-" produces a simpler and more intelligible connexion (cf. v.^** 'asked of him the parables ').
7. The agraphon quoted by Clement of Alex- andria (Strom. V. X. (39) from ' a certain Gosjiel ' : ' My mystery belongs to me and to the sons of my household ' (/xvcrrripiov ifj.bv iixol /cat rofs wots rod olkov fj-ov), and also found in Clem. Horn. XIX. xx. in the form, ' Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house,' is manifestlj' connected with Mk 4^^, but probablj' not dependent upon it, nor upon St. Paul. This, however, does not counteract the above conclusions. It is quite probable that Mk 4" rests upon a traditional lor/ion of some such form as this, rather tiian directlj' or exclusively on Ro IP. The utterance in this form is not indeed attributable to Jesus, to whose doctrine its .sug- gestion of esoteric teaching is abhorrent (cf. Philo, de Vict. Off. i. f., on the superiority of the Mosaic to heathen 'mysteries' as concealed from none; also Wis 6--) ; but proper appreciation of the Pauline use of the word ixvar-qpiov will show a common basis in the real teaching of Jesus. Mt 1 125-27 — Li^ l(j-'--"- is the canonical equivalent of the aqrnphon, and atibrds tiie real point of connexion between the teacliing of Jesus and the Pauline and post-Pauline application of the term /j.v(TTr]pLoi> to the gospel. In respect to the superhuman. Divinely revealed character of the one message, Jesus and St. Paul are both emphatic. The expressions of 1 Co 2'"'^ from this point of view are not only in agreement with Jesus' wiiole teacliing as ' with authority and not as the scribes,' but form a striking parallel to Mt 11^-*'. However open to suspicion the hujion of Mk 4'^ may be in its i^re.sent canonical or post-canonical form, the words are at bottom nothing more than the translation into Greek equivalents of a claim of Jesus that is un- questionably liistorieal, namely the claim for His teaching to be by revelation, a wisdom of God accessible to His ' little ones ' though ' hid from the wise and prudent.'
LiTERATi-RB. — Oo the word fLutrrhpat see, besides Grimm- Thayer, Hatch, E»»ays on NT Greek, p. 58 ; Lightfoot, Crnn. on Col. 126 ; Stewart, g.v. ' Mystery' in Hastings' DB ; Ramsay, «.!;. in Enc. Brit.^ ; and A. Jiilicher, s.v. in Enojc. Biblica. On the influence of the Greek mysteries on early Christianity, see Lobeck, Aijlaoijhamus, 1829 ; Anrich, Das aiitike Mysterienwesen in Beinein Einfluss a.d. Christenthum, 1894 ; and Wobbermin, Reliffiomgegchichtliche Stttdien zur Beein^usgung des Urchris- tenthwms durch d. Mysterien, 1896; also Cheetham, The Myntenes Pagan and Christian, 1897 ; and Hatch, The In/lit- ence of Greek Ideag and Usages %ipnn the Christian Church, ch. X. On XT use of terminology from the mysteries, see Carman m Bibliotheca Sacra l (1893). On the mysteries generallj as a phenomenon in the history of religion, see Rhode, Psyche; Frazer, Golden Bought; Harnack, Mission und Aus-