The earliest Christian gospel presents Jesus as hiding himself, his plans, and 'the truth' from people in many different ways. Why would the writer do this?
A German Lutheran theologian named William Wrede first posed this question in 1901. I am only in the early stages of investigating the question myself, but I am posting here on this page the textual basis for the theme along with incipient speculation regarding possible motivations, in case I may find others who can facilitate my investigations.
The format of this presentation is as follows:
The Evidence / Texts: First, let us look at the text of Mark to see just how often and in what manner Jesus is depicted as telling people NOT to tell others about himself or who he is.
Speculation as to Why. What circumstances in the author's environment would cause him to write the tale in such a way? Against what is the author reacting? What is he trying to explain?
Part 1: The Textual Evidence:
In Mark, during exorcisms, when unclean spirits know who Jesus is, he commands them to be silent.
Mk 1.23-25: After the spirit says, "I know who you are, the holy one of God," Jesus commands it to be silenced and come out of the man.
Mk 1.34: Jesus cast out many demons, but he didn't allow them to speak, because they knew him.
Mk 3.11-12: Unclean spirits would fall forward whenever they saw him, and they would cry out, "You are the son of God." And many times he commanded them not to make him known.
[N.B. the 3-fold nature of this point.]
In Mark, after healing people, Jesus tells them and others not to talk about it.
Mk 1.43-44: After he heals a leper, Jesus quite sternly tells the leper to say nothing to anyone, but to go make an appropriate offering at the temple.
Mk 5.43: Jesus asks Jairus and his wife "many times" not to tell anyone what happened to the daughter.
Mk 7.36: Jesus instructs those present not to tell anyone after he healed a deaf-mute man by putting his fingers in his ears, spitting and grabbing his tongue and saying "be opened."
[N.B. the 3-fold nature of this point.]
In Mark, Jesus does NOT want his disciples to tell others about him:
Mk 5.43: Only Peter, James, and John get to go into Jairus' house with Jesus. And after raising the 12-year-old girl, Jesus asks the father, mother, and disciples that they not talk about what happened.
Mk 8.29-30: Peter says he thinks Jesus is the messiah, but Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone about him.
Mk 9.9: Jesus takes only Peter, James, and John up onto the mountain to witness his transformation, his conversation with Moses and Elijah, and the voice of God from a cloud, and when they were all coming back down the mountain, Jesus ordered them to tell no one what they saw until after the resurrection.
[N.B. the 3-fold nature of this point.]
[N.B. In the Transfiguration Story of Mark 9: 7 characters, including the voice; 3 disciples; 3 signs; 3 figures conversing.]
In Mark, Jesus sometimes tries to hide his whereabouts.
Mk 6.48: Jesus wanted to pass by the disciples, but they saw him walking on water. In Mark, even the disciples are not always the best company.
Mk 7.24: Upon reaching the region of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus goes into a house and does not want anyone to know where he is, but he was unable to escape their notice completely.
Mk 9.30: Jesus was passing through Galilee, but did not want anyone to know it.
[N.B. the 3-fold nature of this point.]
In Mark, Jesus speaks only in metaphors when dealing with crowds, but he explains things in secret to disciples, and he gives them many more teachings:
Mk 3.32: "So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables . . ."
Mk 4.2, 9-12, 33-34: Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables, saying nothing apart from parables; but he explained everything to his disciples in secret.
4.2: "He taught them many things by parables . . ."
4.9-12: "Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” 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 never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
Isaiah 6.9-10: He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
4.33-34: 33. "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."
Mk 7.17-23: After Jesus tells a crowd that it is not what goes into a man but what comes from a man that makes him unclean, the disciples ask him what he meant by the parable, and he explains it.
7.17. "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19. For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”
Mk 13.3-37: Jesus reserves his Jewish War and end-times 'prophecies' for only 4 of his closest disciples.
13.3. "As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4. “Tell us, when will these things happen? . . ."
In Mark, Jesus has an inner group of only 3 disciples (4 in a 4th case), to whom he reveals more than he does with other disciples, and he asks them not to reveal such things to the others until later.
Mk 5:37: Jesus allows no disciples except Peter, James, and John go into Jairus' house with him. And after raising the 12-year-old girl, Jesus asks the father, mother, and disciples that they not talk about what happened (5:43). [7 people total]
Mk 9:2-9: Jesus takes only Peter, James, and John up onto the mountain to witness his transformation/transfiguration, his conversation with Moses and Elijah, and the voice of god from a cloud, and when they are all coming back down the mountain, Jesus orders them to tell no one what they saw until after the resurrection. [7 characters, including the voice; 3 disciples; 3 signs; 3 figures conversing]
Mk 14:33-3: Jesus takes only Peter, James, and John to share his most personal moments before his arrest.
Mk 13:3-37: Jesus reserves his Jewish War and end-times prophecies for only 4 of his closest disciples: Peter, James, John, and Andrew.
Why is Andrew suddenly in on this one? Perhaps because apart from this there were already 3 standard episodes in which the 3 favorite disciples alone get to participate. 3's, 7's, and 12's are favorites in gospel compositions as with so much other ancient literature.
In Mark, the triplet of Jesus' prophecies of his own death and resurrection after 3 days is also a mysterious, secretive set of episodes, to be shared only by his disciples, and even they do not understand. [n.b. the 3-fold occurrence.]
Mk 8.29-32: Jesus wants it to be secret that he is supposed to suffer, be rejected and killed, and rise again after 3 days.
8.29. “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.” 30. Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. 31. He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
Mk 9.30-32: Jesus does not want anyone except a select few to know that he is supposed to be betrayed, killed, and resurrected after 3 days. The disciples do not understand, but they are afraid to ask.
9.30. They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31. because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 32. But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
Mk 10.32-34: For a 3rd time, Jesus reveals only to his disciples that he will be handed over, condemned, made to suffer, killed, and raised after 3 days.
10.32. They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34. who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
Cf. 9.9-10 "As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.
Part 2: Speculation:
First, a smaller question: Why does the literature speak of an inner core of select disciples who were privy to more explanations/knowledge/secrets than the others?
In addition to other possible reasons, it may be that early Christianity was quite hierarchical with successive levels of initiation.
Cor. 12:1-4: Paul speaks of "a certain man" knowing secrets he is not permitted to tell.
1 Corinthians 3:2: Paul says he gave the people milk instead of solid food, because they were not ready for more advanced teachings. If his writings are "milk," what would that suggest?
Mt 7:6 has Jesus say not to give what is sacred to the dogs, nor to cast one's pearls before swine. In other word, the most precious and sacred information is not to shared with just anyone, but is to be reserved for those who show themselves worthy.
Having the concept of an inner circle of disciples can also allow certain believers to claim to have special knowledge only passed down to specially trusted individuals. This encourages members to aim to improve in the faith/religion in order to have access to the "deeper wisdom," etc. Such a set-up helps superiors to control inferiors. This also creates the impression of even greater authority for those claiming to have been "in the inner circle."
There are larger and better questions.
What circumstances in the author's environment would cause him to write the tale in such a way? To what is the author reacting? What is he trying to explain?
I do not know the answers to these questions, and I have only begun speculating.
Was there a historical Jesus behind the fictitious gospels? If so, was this historical Jesus a revolutionary and wanna-be messiah, who had to hide his political agenda from Rome, lest he be arrested and killed? If so, was he found out, arrested, and killed? Were some of his female followers unable to find his body among the dead after his political execution? Did that turn into a larger story over time? ... Did some of his followers steal his body and pretend he rose from the dead to try to build another revolutionary movement in his name? Did they develop the story over time to take in more and more symbols from Jewish literature? Did the effort eventually extend to non-Jewish cells in cities around the Roman Empire? To appeal to non-Jews, did the stories eventually borrow heavily from Greco-Roman myths and religions, from Roman imperial cult, etc.?
Was the author responding to an oft-heard question in his day, "If Jesus was the messiah, how could he be arrested? Why would Yahweh allow him to be crucified?"
Was he fabricating an excuse in reply, "It was part of his plan all along. He kept it hidden from most, but he did reveal it to 3 disciples who did not understand it."
Is Mark's story believable? Would a Jewish messiah (claimant to the throne) really plan all along to be executed?
No. But NT writers and early Christians spent a lot of time fabricating stories of "fulfilled prophecies" to make it look as if it had been destined all along.
If the fantasy Jesus presented in the gospels had been real, he certainly would not have needed to keep anything secret. If he could walk on water, then he could travel anywhere, anytime he wanted. He could have visited every country in the world on the same day and revealed the truth to everyone and then still had himself sacrificed (if that's really what a decent divinity would need in order to forgive humanity!). There would have been no logical need for keeping things secret if the basic premise of the Jesus myth had been true. The overall premise makes no sense if taken literally / at face value.
Is this yet another instance of NT authors fabricating stories and themes to forge ties to OT verses / "prophecies" in order to create the impression that their character was a fulfillment of ancient divinely inspired oracles?
Mark 4.9-12 alludes to Isaiah 6.9-10: He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
Was there a historical Jesus who was secretly a revolutionary and really did want to to keep his intentions quiet until the proper moment, but was found out, arrested, and executed anyway? Did his followers invent the story of his resurrection as a way to continue a movement in his name, using stories of his imminent return to symbolized a hoped-for revolt from Rome? In the process of spreading, especially after the failed Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE, did the religion morph over time into various forms, some of which would have shocked the initial creators of the fabricated resurrection?
Was the Jesus character itself originally a fabricated symbol for a Jewish revolutionary movement, or the hopes of the Jewish people?
[Note the theme of secrecy in the Gospel attributed to Mark.]
[Note the way Jesus is described as always teaching in parables that could not be understood by the masses, and often not by the disciples either. (Mk 4.2, 9-13, 33-34; Matthew 13.3, 13, 18, 24, 31, 33, 34; 15.15; 21.33, 45; 22.1; Luke 8.9, 11; 12.16, 41; 13.6; 18.1; 19.11; 20.9, 19; 21.29)]
Mark 4.34: "He did not tell them anything without using a parable."
Matthew 13.34: "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable."
[Note how Jesus is called "the son of man," and that alludes to the book of Daniel, where that phrase was symbolic of the hoped-for restablishment of an independant kingdom of Israel.]
Was the crucifixion a symbol of the Roman subjugation of Judea, his rising again from the dead a symbol of the resurrection of Jewish hopes, and the claims of his imminent return in the clouds a reference to the book of Daniel, in which the "Son of Man" represented a reestablished kingdom of Israel? Was the symbol originally used among rebels/ initiates? Was it used to recruit while trying to hide the group's political intentions from Rome? Was Saul/Paul a recruiter who decided to recruit members and raise money even among non-Jews?
[Note references to Paul's collections of money for Jerusalem in the 40s and 50s CE, before the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 CE (1 Cor 16.1-4; 2 Cor 8.1-9.15; Rom 15.14-32). Such efforts to collect money for Jerusalem spanned the entire course Paul’s missionary efforts, and Paul claimed he was prepared even to die during these efforts (Rom 15:30–33). Why would raising money for poor religious folk put one's life at risk? Answer: It would NOT! ... But if he motives were actually political, then certainly he was putting his life at risk.
Rom 15:25-33: "25. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28. So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ [messiah]. 30. I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ [Messiah] and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31. Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people there, 32. so that I may come to you with joy, by God’s will, and in your company be refreshed. 33. The God of peace be with you all. Amen."
Efforts in the 40s and 50s CE to raise money throughout the Roman Empire for a Jewish revolt in Judea (and maybe in other locations as well) would have been treasonous, and Saul/Paul would have been risking his life to raise money for an anti-Roman political rebellion. Anyone loyal to Rome would have turned him in for such behavior. Even fellow Jews who were against political rebellion might turn him in. So Saul/Paul was risking his life. However, if he disguised his plans and efforts well, maybe he could find a way to raise funds and recruits throughout the empire. If Saul/Paul disguised his work as an effort to help poor people, a benign religious cult (maybe one on par with a Greco-Roman mystery religion) pretending peaceful intentions, perhaps he could succeed in winning converts and raising money to help the Jewish war effort. He he used a Roman name "Paul" instead of his Jewish name "Saul," and he pretended he was raising money for "the poor" in Jerusalem. I am certain there were "poor" people throughout the Roman Empire, wherever Saul went, who could have used such money, but Saul took great pains to invent a theology that would motivate and compel people to contribute financially to Jerusalem.
Mt 5.3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (The "poor" will inherit "the kingdom.")
Mt 5.5: "5. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land/earth."
Mt 10.34-39: "34. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36. a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."
Matthew 11.4-5: "4. Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."
Lk 4.18-19: "18. The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, 19. to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Lk 7.22: "22. So He replied, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."
Lk 14.12-14: "12. Then Jesus said to the man who had invited Him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or brothers or relatives or rich neighbors. Otherwise, they may invite you in return, and you will be repaid. 13. But when you host a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, 14. and you will be blessed. Since they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Luke 14.21-23: "Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ 22. “ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ 23. “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full."
Luke 14.26: "26. If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."
The "poor, blind, crippled, and lame" are invited to the feast, but they need to be willing to hate those who are not part of the movement, even if they're family.
Luke 14.31: "31. Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? ... 33. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."
Luke 14: "34. “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35. It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
Why the salt talk? Parables referring to salt, yeast, small seeds, etc. referred to "God's people" (revolutionaries) scattered out but sticking to their secret work.
Matthew 13: "31. He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.” 33. He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.” 34. Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable."
Why parables? Because speaking clearly was too risky. The real intent of the original movement was political revolution.
Matthew 13. "36. Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37. He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39. and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40. “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil [pro-Romans]. 42. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth [the destruction of revolutionary war]. 43. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."
The coming kingdom, said the revolutionaries, was something necessarily hidden for now, something people should give up their whole lives for, risk everything for, give all their money for:
Matthew 13: "44. The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field."
Matthew 13: "45. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."
Did the stories grow over time, as they spread among Gentiles, adapting themes from Hebrew myth (3 hours of darkness at crucifixion = 3 days of darkness in the Exodus myth and Jonah story; story of Herod and Jesus' birth = the Exodus story of Moses' birth; Jesus' sermon on the mount = Moses and the Commandments; Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness = Israel's 40 years in the wilderness = Moses's and Elijah's 40 days of fasting), Greco-Roman myths (virgin birth, water into wine, After the failure of the Jewish Revolt in 66-70/73, was there still a remnant that did not give up, but continued to plot revolt, using the "Son of Man" symbol as code for their political intentions?
Investigate Dennis R. MacDonald's thesis in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (2000): Was the author of Mark consciously mimicking Greek literature, identifying Jesus in interesting ways with the main character of Homer's Odyssey? When Odysseus returned to Ithaka after the Trojan War, he had to disguise his identity in order to avoid his enemies. Does the author of Mark have Jesus act similarly to create literary parallels?
Was the author of Mark an apologist creating a response to skeptics of his time saying, "You are making this up. If there really was such a savior/messiah as this Jesus you are speaking of, why didn't people know about it? Why have we never heard of him or his exploits until now?"
Was his response, "Well, because he hid his plans from others on purpose as part of the divine plan. ... He really did amazing things, but few at the time knew or understood what was happening."
If you have feedback, theories, points to make, or questions of your own, please share such with me.