^{page 300 note 1} This failure to analyse the gospel material in the sort of open-minded way suggested may partly reflect the changing fashions in gospel criticism: scholars grew tired of the painstaking and often tedious methods of the older source critics, and they turned to other aspects of gospel studies that interested them more, taking the general conclusions of the consensus of source critics for granted. This lack of enthusiasm for source criticism is still prevalent today. The average redaction critic, for example, is more interested in trying to understand the theological motifs that characterize the different gospels than in taking up what he expects to be a fruitless quest for a new solution to the Synoptic Problem.

^{page 300 note 2} Mark iv. 7 καΙ καρπόν ούκ αδ ωκεν; v. 8 άναßαίνοντα καì αύξανόμενα καì έφερεν….

^{page 300 note 3} Matthew's ‘Υμεīς ούν άκούσατε… (v. 18) links with his immediately preceding saying about the blessedness of the disciples, ὂτι άκούουσιν (v. 16). Luke's verse 11 is the answer to the question in his verse 9. In all probability Mark's verse 13 originally followed on immediately from a question about the meaning of the parable of the Sower; however, verses 11 and 12 have been added in, spoiling the sequence, and in verse 10 the original singular παραβολέν has become a plural παραβολάς. The evidence for this view may be summarized as follows: (1) A question about the parable of the Sower fits better immediately after the parable than a question about parables in general. (2) Mark's verse 13 presupposes a question about the parable of the Sower, not a general question about the purpose of parables. (3) A study of Mark's use of tenses shows that answers to questions are regularly introduced by a present tense or an aorist of the verb of saying (cf. v. 13), not by an imperfect as in verse 11. The imperfect may suggest that the author is conscious of a break in continuity. (4) The unusual doublebarrelled οΙ περì αύτόν σύν τοīζ δώδεκα may possibly indicate a conflation of two traditions. (5) A study of Mark vii. 17–19, a parallel passage to the passage in Mark iv, confirms strikingly the plausibility of the conjectures about Mark iv. This understanding of Mark's structure in Mark iv is not new. See among others Zerwick, M., Untersuchungen zum Markus-Stil (Rome, 1937), pp. 69 f.Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (E.T. London, 1963 ²), p. 14;Google ScholarMarxsen, W., Z.Th.K. LII (1955), 259 f.Google Scholar; also my own article The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions about Mark 4: 1–34Google Scholar in the Tyndale Bulletin XXIII (1972), 3–38.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1} In v. 16 Mark has the slightly improved ‘these are the ones sown on the rocky places, who when they hear… ’in v. 18 it is better still: ‘others are the ones sown into the thorns; these are those who hear… ’ but in u. 20 he reverts to: ‘these are the ones sown on good ground, who hear the word…’ On four occasions we have three different constructions, only one of them very comfortable (v. i8), and three different pronouns.

^{page 301 note 2} For this sort of explanation see Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin, 1903), p. 68;Google ScholarKlostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium (Tübingen, 1927 ²), p. 118;Google ScholarKingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London, 1969), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 1} Luke's text may be taken to illustrate the sort of modification Matthew could have opted for. If Matthew just wished to improve the grammar, why did he omit the identification of the seed and the word? And why did he postpone the reference to the type of ground ό παρά τή όδόν … until the end of his verse 19? Later in the pericope he goes for the opposite, i.e. the Marcan, order, putting the reference to the type of ground at the start of the interpretation, where it fits more naturally (vv. 20, 22, 23).

^{page 302 note 2} Kingsbury, , The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, p. 53,Google Scholar paraphrases: ‘Just as in the case of the seed which was sown…so it is with the person who hears…’

^{page 302 note 3} The difficulty for anyone trying to answer this sort of question is that he knows Mark and Luke as well as Matthew; and he will tend to interpret the one on the basis of the others. Usually this will be a safe enough procedure; but sometimes a particular nuance present in one gospel but not the other will be missed.

^{page 302 note 4} An alternative view is that Matthew thought that Mark's concentration on the ‘word’ was misplaced; all the attention should be on the hearer, i.e. on the Christian community. This view seems rather too subtle: it can scarcely be said that the word is stressed in Mark at the expense of the hearer, or that Matthew's alteration makes a decisive difference.

^{page 302 note 5} Arguments about what seems ‘attractive’ must be used with great caution, especially as we are not familiar with the author's situation or intentions. As Palmer, N. H. says: ‘What we would do, if we were the evangelists, is just irrelevant. What they would do can be discovered only by inspecting what they did’ (Logic of Gospel Criticism (London, 1968), p. 121).Google Scholar In this case our judgement may be affected by our knowledge of Mark and Luke; it is difficult to consider Matthew's version for itself.

^{page 303 note 1} Mark never admits to identifying the seed and the hearer, though he does slip into that way of speaking.

^{page 303 note 2} The alternative to this is to accuse the evangelist of an extraordinary confusion of thought: at one moment he speaks of what is sown in a man's heart; then he speaks of the man as what is sown. Such confusion would be unlikely in someone who was deliberately trying to clarify the Marcan interpretation.

^{page 303 note 3} Matthew is, therefore, not expounding the parable allegorically identifying each item referred to. (The seed, of course, is not explicitly referred to in the parable.)

^{page 303 note 4} Contrast Mark's present στιερόμενοι; it is hard to avoid the implication that the people are ‘sown’ here!

^{page 304 note 1} The only difference between the two gospels is that Matthew is probably less embarrassed than Mark by the question of whether the seed should be identified with the hearer or the word. Mark makes the identification explicit in his verse i, and, as will be seen at a later stage in the article, he is forced into apparent contradictoriness later in the interpretation.

^{page 304 note 2} It is true that the lack of an adequate explanation of Mark's text form by those advocating Marcan priority does not mean that one might not be forthcoming; but it may be that a fresh approach to the question of synoptic relationships will also throw light on this particular unsolved problem.

^{page 305 note 1} See above p. 300, n. 3.

^{page 305 note 2} The category of seed is introduced in the nominative (Matt. ό δέ είς τάκάνθα?ς σπαρείς…, Luke τό δέ είς τάς άκάνθας πεσόν…), and then this is picked up and explained in the main clause, which starts with the demonstrative ούτος followed by εστιν/είσιν.

^{page 305 note 3} Mark has άγγοι είσίν οί είς τάς άκάνθας σπειρόμενοι, and then carries on like Luke ούτοί είσιν οī…. Although Mark's construction is not identical to that in Matthew and Luke, it is close to it and much closer than that found in the other parts of his interpretation.

^{page 308 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen, 1937), p. 207,Google Scholar says that the absolute use of ‘the kingdom’ is Matthean; and Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburg, 1959), p. 220,Google Scholar compares Matthew's use of the expression ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ in iv. 23, ix. 35. Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus (E.T. Edinburgh, 1902)Google Scholar says that in Aramaic and Hebrew the unqualified term was used only of the secular government. If this is so, then Hoffmann's, L. R. A. view that the original expression may have been ‘word of the kingdom of God/heaven’ may be worth considering (Das Markusevangelium und seine Quellen, Königsberg, 1904, p. 178)Google Scholar. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls may cast some doubt on Dalman's conclusion: there is no example in the Qumran texts, so far as I know, of the expression ‘kingdom of God’ or of the expression ‘kingdom of heaven’; but there are possible parallels to the absolute use ‘the kingdom’ in IQSb iv. 25, 26 and IQM vi. 6. (Translators differ in the way they render these passages.)

^{page 308 note 2} See later discussion on this alternative wording.

^{page 308 note 3} To derive Matthew from Mark, one must probably assume that Matthew wished to avoid identifying the seed and the word; and once that is assumed, there is still the order of Matthew's opening and the postponement of his ού;τός έστιν ό παρά τήν όδόν… to be explained, as well as his rather odd opening construction. E. Lohmeyer (Matthäus, p. 200) and Holdsworth, W. W. (Gospel Origins, London, 1913, p. 98)Google Scholar both recognize the independence of Matthew and Mark here. Cf. also Gerhardsson's, B. recent article in N.T.S. XIX (1972), pp. 16–37.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 4} The construction may be regarded as asort of cross between a genitivie absolute and a casus pendens (cf.Jülicher, , Die Gleichnisreden Jesus, 11, 525;Google ScholarLohmeyer, , Matthäus, p. 207;Google Scholar both compare Matt. xxv. 29b).

^{page 308 note 5} This conclusion is important for a discussion of the redactional ideas of the evangelist Matthew. Building particularly on the evidence of this chapter with its there references to understanding (vv. 19, 23, 51; cf. also vv. 13, 15), Barth, G. has said that for Matthew: ‘It is precisely the συνιέναι that differentiates the disciples from the obdurate multitude.’ (Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by Bornkamm, G., Barth, G., Held, H. J., E.T. London, 1963, pp. 105 f.)Google Scholar (Cf. also Wilkens, W., T.Z. xx (1964), 314.)Google Scholar However, we have suggested that Matthew was forced to add something like his καì μήσυνιέντος in v. 19 by his reversal of the construction. He could not say: ‘Everyone who hears the word…the devil comes and removes it.’ It is hard to think of any good alternative to συνιέναι that he could have used, and the combination of άκούειν and συνιέναι was ready at hand in the preceding quotation from Isaiah vi άκοῆ άκούσετε καì Ού μeegr; συν⋯τε… (Cf. Fenton, J. C., The Gospel of St Matthew, London, 1963, p. 218).Google Scholar This observation should make us cautious about reading much significance into the use of the word here; and it follows too that similar caution is in order where the use of συνιεΙς in v. 23 is concerned, since this may be regarded as a not very significant echo of theearlier usaze. Matthew nay well have used it, instead of an original verb ‘receive’ (cf. Mark), for the sake of stylistic variation and interest. He uses ther verb ‘receive’ in v. 20 of the seed on the rocky ground, ‘he…immediately receives it with joy’; this contrasts with the previous category, who heard and did not understand and from whom Satan took the seed. One might legitimately infer from this contrast that Matthew did not think only of the last category (the good ground) of faithful disciples understanding the word; those represented by the seed on stony ground and among the thorns also understood it, but failed to bear fruit. (Contra Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, London, 1969, p. 57.Google Scholar) If this conclusion is justified, then it is not understanding that characterizes the disciples, the good ground; rather it is obedient action (cf. Matt. vii. 15–27). It is our view that the other occurences of the word‘understand’ in Matthew have as little significance for Matthew's undersatnding of discipleship as those in the interpretation of the Sower, and that Matthew's supposed ‘understanding’ Tendenz may turn out to be an illusion.

^{page 309 note 1} There is no substantial evidence to suggest that Matthew diverges from the pre-Marcan tradition very widely in the later sections of the interpretation; the exception is in his verse 23, where his phrase καλ συνιελς and his κα.λ ποιει may be regarded as secondary by comparison to Mark (see footnote above).

^{page 310 note 1} For the view that Matthew and Luke could have introduced a reference to the ‘heart’ independently, see Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesus, II, 525;Google Scholar cf. also Dupont, J., Z.N.W. Beiheft xxx (1964), 101.Google ScholarWernle, P., Die Synoptische Frage (Freiburg, 1899), p. 55,Google Scholar suggests that Matthew and Luke may both have had access to the text of Mark attested in D, it., syr^{s, c, h}. The strength of the argument, however, lies in the fact that the use of καρδΙα is only one of several pieces of evidence that suggest that Matthew and Luke have links.

^{page 310 note 2} Contrast the view of Schramm, T. in Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar He claims that Luke knows a non-Marcan version of the parable of the Sower, but not of the interpretation of the parable.

^{page 311 note 1} On the other hand, as we saw, it is not easy to see why Matthew should have suppressed the phrase, if it was original.

^{page 311 note 2} Even Bussmann, W., Synoptische Studien (Halle, 1925–), 1, 152,Google Scholar accepts that it is Lukan. McNeile, A. H., The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1915), p. 193,Google Scholar comments appropriately: ‘The wording recalls Pauline teaching, but the thought is not foreign to the context’.

^{page 312 note 1} If we were not acquainted with the Matthean version, we might explain Luke's changes in construction in various ways. His adoption of the casus pendens will partly reflect Mark's change of construction in his parallel verse (v. 18). His use of the neuter singular and of the verb πΙπτειν will be a reversion to the form of expression used in the parable (cf. Jülicher, , Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 11, 524Google Scholar).

^{page 312 note 2} We have not compared the later parts of the Lukan interpretation with the Matthean tradition in any detail. Had we done so, we would have found that Luke has some overlap with Matthew, some divergences that are simply explained as Lukan modifications of the tradition, and some other that may reflect the influence of Mark. (On this see further discussion below.)

^{page 312 note 3} In iv. 31 Mark's ός őταν σπαρῆ is probably his replacement for the earlier form of wording őν λαβών άνθρωπος έσπειρεν…. There too his modernization of the text gets him into trouble. (See the author's discussion of the difficulties of Mark iv. 31, 32 in his article in the Tyndale Bulletin.) Mark's use of different pronouns in the interpretation of the Sower (vv. 15, 17, 20) may also reflect the evangelist's desire to write interesting Greek. It should be pointed out that casus pendens, though a characteristic Semitic usage, is not exclusively Semitic. (Cf. Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and acts (Oxford, 1967 ³), pp. 51 f.)Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 4} Mark's love of καλ is well known. As he cannot use the participle of άκούειν, he has a όταν clause. (Compare his use of ότε in v. 6, and also in vv. 31, 32, where there is also reason to think that the construction is Marcan.)

It may seem surprising that Mark, when he experienced such difficulties of construction, did not stop and start again. But there is evidence elsewhere in the chapter, which indicates that Mark was not writing with great care for literary style. In iv. 10 f. and iv. 31 f. the text is somewhat disjointed, and in both cases this is probably the result of Mark's inexpert use of sources. He seems to have been an editor who was content if what he wrote made sense, even if it did not flow smoothly. Could it be that the evangelist was writing in haste? If so, would this be a clue to the abruptness of the ending of the gospel in xvi. 8?

^{page 313 note 1} It is probably simplest to imagine Mark working in the way suggested if his source was in Aramaic. Had he had a regularly constructed Greek source, the temptation to reconstruct it would not have been so great.

^{page 313 note 2} It should be pointed out that the Syriac translators were probably influenced in their translation by Matthew (cf. the phrase ‘sown in their hearts’ in the Syriac of Mark). Professor C. F. D. Moule, who kindly read this article, has drawn my attention to R. L. Lindsey's translation of the opening of Mark's interpretation: (A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, Jerusalem, 1969, p 99Google Scholar). It is interesting to observe that Lindsey also restores the casus pendens. His rendering of the Greek τόν λόυον by is striking.

^{page 314 note 1} It is true that an expansive, repetitious style is typical in teaching and that later writers might be expected to prune and simplify a repetitious source (cf. Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark, London, 1952, p. 259).Google Scholar In this case, however, there is reason to believe that the όπου clause is not a redundant explanation–see argument of text.

^{page 314 note 2} If we have to choose between an account like Matthew's that lacks any explicit identification of the seed and an account like Mark's or Luke's that makes it explicit, we shall probably pot for the former as the more primitive (Hoffmann, cf. L. R. A., Das Markusevangelium und seine Quellen (1904), p. 177)Google Scholar, unless there is any good reason why an editor might have wanted to excise an explicit identification. One way of looking at it would be to say that Mark and Luke have tried to make an allegory out of a parable and that they have got into trouble, precisely because the parable is not an allegory, but rather a multi-point parable or a parable with certain allegorical features. The tradition lying behind Matthew does not try to identify the seed, and may be regarded as less allegorical and more primitive. It may be doubted, however, wheather it is helpful to use this sort of allegoryparable distinction in trying to decide which version is earlier; but the general argument of probability still stands: the pre-Matthean pre-Marcan tradition appears unconscious of the problem of the identity of the seed; Mark and Luke are clearly conscious of it, and their version is trying to clarify something that is not spelled out in the tradition. (The editor of our Matthew was also probably aware of the problem to some extent; by using the Participle τό έσπαρμένον he identifies the seed and the word in the first section of the interpretation.)

^{page 314 note 3} B. Gerhardsson comments on the use of σπαρείζ in Matthew's version: ‘ This tendency to exact repetition is familiar from the didactic style of the rabbis’ (N.T.S. XIV (1968), 175).Google Scholar Of course, the primitive text need not have been regularly constructed throughout; Mark's irregularity does not in itself prove his version to be secondary. However, there is good reason in this case for supposing that Mark has deliberately modified the original symmetrical scheme.

^{page 315 note 1} The one major point in Mark's v. 15 left unexplained by the hypothesis is at the end, where Mark has αĩρει τόνλόγον τόν έσπαρμένον είς αύτούς. The tradition presupposed by Matthew probably had άρπάзει τòν λóγον έκ τῆς καρδίας αύτο⋯ (or something similar), and our Matthew has something between this and the Marcan version άρπάзει τò έσπαρμένον έν τῇ καρδίά αύτο⋯. We will have to discuss the relationship of our Matthew to Mark; but for the moment all that need be noted is the two conclusions which we reached earlier, first, that the reference to the ‘heart’ was part of the primitive tradition, and, second, that Luke with his simple αīρει τόν λóγον άπό τῆς καρδίας αύτῶν is probably nearer the original than Matthew with his τò έσπαρμένον έν τῇ αύτο⋯. Mark's text may also be regarded as secondary in these respects, but we shall have to consider the question of the precise relationship of Mark to the pre-synoptic tradition together with the question of the relationship to Matthew.

It woul have been possible to go on and show how the hypothesis under consideration illuminates the later parts of the Marcan interpretation in similar sorts of ways. The odd constructions and the use of different pronouns throughout the interpretation are explicable if Mark was working from knowledge of a tradition of the sort postulated (probably from an Aramaic tradition).

^{page 315 note 2} There is a further link between Mark and Luke in the interpretation of the seed among thorns. Matthew describes ‘the care of the age and the deceit of riches’ choking the word; Mark modifies this and add ‘desire for other things’, and Luke has a comparable phrase. A good case can be made out for Preferring the Matthean wording. (See Weiss, J., T.S.K. LXIV (1891), 308;Google ScholarHoffmann, L. R. A., Das Markus-Evangelium und seine Quellen, p. 183;Google Scholar and the present writer's thesis, The Composition of Mark 4: 1–34, submitted to Manchester University in 1970, p. 229 f.)

^{page 315 note 3} Broadly speaking these are the possibilities, though the picture could be more complicated with unknown documents to be fitted into the general scheme.

^{page 316 note 1} Cf. Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Matthew 13 (1969), p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} Cf. Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 523 f.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} Bussmann, W., Synoptische Studien, I, 152,Google Scholar postulates a similar development: (a) the original άπò τῆζ καρδΙαζ became έσύαρμένον έν τῆ καρδΙα; (b) this is simplified in the Marcan version έσπαρμένον έν αύτοīς (reading of ℵ C L).

^{page 317 note 1} It is also, of course, found in the introductory phrase that occurs at the start of the parable of the Sower (Mark iv. 3). Mark's ‘The sower sows the word’ at the start of the interpretation is parallel to the sentence ‘The sower went out to sow’, Which is found in all three versions at the start of the parable. Mark may intentionally have created this parallelism.

^{page 317 note 2} The absolute use of ‘the word’ is found in Mark i. 45; ii. 2; iv. 33; Luke iv. 2; frequently in Acts; less frequently in the epistles, e.g. Gal.vi. 6; II Tim. iv. 2. Jeremias’ claim that ‘the use of ό λόυοζ absolutely is a technical term for the gospel coined and constantly used by the primitive Church’ (The Parables of Jesus, p. 77)Google Scholar seems to me an exaggeration, though the use certainly exists. I can see no very good reason for denying that Jesus might have used the word absolutely (cf. Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci, Berlin, 1903, p. 33;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., N.T.S. XIV (1968), 191);Google Scholar it is not a difficult usage to understand, and it has OT precedent. If Jesus used it, the chruch's use may have derived from his use.

^{page 317 note 3} As for other parts of the interpretation, it has already been hinted that Mark's v. 19 is probably to be regarded as less primitive in form than the Matthean equivalent; in his v. 20, however, he has retained some of the primitive elements that have been lost in Matthew. For fuller discussion of these and other points (e.g. on the authenticity of the interpretation) see the author's thesis, The Composition of Mark 4: 1–34.

^{page 318 note 1} Like Mark he uses the őταν construction rather than the participle of the underlying tradition.

^{page 318 note 2} I am conscious of having omitted discussion of many detailed points; for example, Matthew uses a singular, Mark a plural of those who hear the word.

^{page 318 note 3} The conclusions reached about the history of the traditions must have a considerable effect on the understanding of the evangelists' intentions. As we saw, for example, the arguments based on the occurrence of the word ‘understand’ in the Matthean interpretation are very questionable.

^{page 318 note 4} In this pericope the situation appears to be this: each evangelist was familiar with a primitive tradition of the interpretation, likely enough an oral tradition; in addition Mark knew Matthew, and Luke knew Mark.

^{page 318 note 5} If our conclusions about the original form of the interpretation are true, they suggest that it goes back very early indeed; there is some reason to think that an Aramaic version of the interpretation lies behind the Greek that we know. Many of the arguments about the authenticity of the interpretation need re-examining in the light of our argument, and some will be found to be very insubstantial. For example, it has been said that the confusion over the identity of the seed shows that the interpretation is not original. This has never been a very convincing argument and is seen to be completely unconvincing when the original form of the interpretation is recovered.