parables as allegories had begun, a process which for centuries con-
cealed the meaning of the parables under a thick layer of dust. Many
circumstances contributed to this result. At first there may have been
an unconscious desire to discover a deeper meaning in the simple
words of Jesus. In the Hellenistic world it was usual to interpret the
myths as vehicles of esoteric knowledge, and in Hellenistic Judaism
allegorical exegesis was highly esteemed; hence it was to be expected
that Christian teachers would resort to the same method. ⁶ In the
succeeding period a stimulus was given to the tendency by the fact
that there were four Gospel parables which had received a detailed
allegorical interpretation of individual features ( Mark 4.14-20 par.;
Matt. 13.37-43, 49-50; John 10.7-18). But above all, the 'hardening'
theory which regarded the parables as intended to conceal the
mystery of the Kingdom of God from outsiders, led to the pre-
dominance of the allegorical method of interpretation.

We shall discuss the allegorizing interpretation of the parables on
p. 77 ff., 81 ff., but here, in view of the fundamental importance of
the passage, something must be said about Mark 4.10-12 par., the
'hardening' theory.

In order to understand the passage it is necessary first of all to
recognize that the grouping of the parables in Mark 4.1-34 is an
artificial one. This is shown (1) by the contradictory details in the
description of the situation: according to v. 1 Jesus is teaching the
crowd out of the boat, and v. 36 resumes this detail: the disciples
row him over the lake 'even as he was, in the boat'. But in v. 10
this detail has been long since forgotten. (2) Parallel with this break
in the situation goes a change of audience: in vv. 1 f. Jesus is ad-
dressing the crowd, as also in v. 33, cf. v. 36; but this is incompatible
with v. 10, where we find Jesus replying to the questions of a nar-
rower circle (οἰ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοĩς δω+́δεϰα). Hence v. 10 reveals a
join in the narrative. (3) This join in v. 10 is explained by the recog-
nition of the fact that on decisive linguistic grounds (see pp. 77 f.)
the interpretation of the parable of the Sower (4.14-20) must be
assigned to a later stage of the tradition than the parable itself. (4) But
the recognition that Mark 4.10-20 does not belong to the oldest layer
of tradition fails to exhaust the literary-critical problems with which
Mark 4.10-12 presents us. It must further be observed that the ques-
tion which is put to Jesus in v. 10 ('they asked him about the

-13-