Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:27:14.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Seeming Inconsistency of the Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

P. B. Payne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interpretation of the parable of the Sower, Mark 4. 14–20, is frequently said to be inconsistent since it seems to identify the seed which is sown both with the word and with people.1 When this inconsistency is excused it is usually in light of the lack of concern for logical consistency which characterizes Semitic parables.2 A similar shift in usage occurs in Col. 1. 6, 10 where the metaphor of ‘bearing fruit and growing’ is applied first to the gospel and then to believers.3 The similarity of this passage and Mark 4. 14–20 in terminology, shift in metaphorical usage, and focus on proper reception of the word (Col. 1. 5 ff.) may indicate that before the writing of the gospels Paul was already familiar with the parable of the Sower and its interpretation. IV Ezra also pictures as seed both men sown by God (8. 41) and God's word (9. 31).

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , July 1980 , pp. 564 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This has been cited as a basis for rejecting the authenticity of the interpretation of the Parable of the Sower as dominical by: Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen, 1910 2), 11, 524 and 532 fGoogle Scholar.; Loisy, A., Les Évangiles Synoptiques (Ceffonds, 1907s), 1, 753Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1936), p. 181Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, trans. by Hooke, S. H. (London, 1972 3), p. 79Google Scholar; Nineham, D., The Gospel of St. Mark (London, 1968), pp. 139 f.Google Scholar; Johnson, S., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1972), p. 92.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Fiebig, P., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Licht der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen, 1912), pp. 222–78Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘St. Mark 4. 1–34’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 4 (1951), 408CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen, 1958), p. 78Google Scholar; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1953), p. 84Google Scholar. A similar expression to ‘these are they’ is found in Tanhuma 29. 103.

3 Cf. Moule, C. F. D., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 50 fGoogle Scholar. and 54, and ‘Mark 4: 1–20 Yet Once More’ (Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, M., Edinburgh, 1969), p. 112Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge, 1963), p. 160.Google Scholar

4 Sausen, F., Joannis Maldonati, Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas (Mainz, 1840), 1, 385Google Scholar. The same point is made by Moule, C. F. D. in ‘Mark 4: 1–20 Yet Once More’, p. 112.Google Scholar

5 Maximilian Zerwick, , Biblical Greek (Rome, 1963), notes on p. 35Google Scholar that εíσ may stand for ἐν without a sense of motion in Mark, Luke and Acts and on p. 42 that ἐπí with the accusative can answer the question ‘Where?’ rather than ‘Whither?’; cf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 254, 271 f.

6 Cohn, Leopold, Wendland, Paul and Leisegang, Johannes, Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt (Berlin, 1896–1915)Google Scholar, VI, 110, 4, found in the Loeb edition of Philo IX, 270f. Two other occurrences may indicate the sowing of land: Cohn 1, 28, 1 (Loeb 1, 64 f.) and Cohn IV, 305, 2 (Loeb VII, 86 f.). Josephus, Antiquities XII. 192 also used soil as the object of σπεíρω.

7 Passive uses of with soil are found in Targum Neofiti 1 (T.N.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (T. J.), and Targum Onkelos (T.O.) in: Deut. 21. 4 T.J. and T.O. (unless is transferred elliptically); Deut. 29. 22 (23 MT) T.O. (unless is transferred elliptically); Jer. 2. 2 T.J.; Ezekiel 36. 9 T.J. Active uses of with soil introduced with the sign of the direct object are found in: Gen. 47. 23 T.O., T.J. and T.N. (marginal variant); Exod. 23. 10 T.N., T.O., and T.J.; Isa. 30. 23 T.J. Other active uses of with soil are found in Lev. 19. 19 T.N., T.O. and T.J.; Lev. 25. 3, 4 T.O. and T.J.; Judges 9. 45 T.J. (with a double accusative, ‘sowed it [the city] with salt’); Ps. 107. 37 (Lagardiana Recension of the Targum). For further occurrences in Aramaic literature of referring to land being sown with seed, cf. the dictionaries of Levy and Jastrow.

8 or σπεíρω occurs in the MT and LXX of the OT with accusative of land in Gen. 47. 23; Exod. 13. 10; Lev. 25. 3, 4; Deut. 21. 4, 29. 23; Ps. 107. 37 (LXX 106. 37); Jer. 2. 2 (not in LXX); Ezekiel 36. 9; and with two accusatives for both land and seed in Lev. 19. 19; Deut. 22. 9; Judges 9. 45; Isa. 30. 23 (not in LXX). Cf. Siegfried Schulz, ‘σπεíρω’, T.W.N.T. VII, 544 for Rabbinic references.

9 These clues include the interpretation's fourfold parallelism, the frequency of redundant definite articles (4. 15, 16, 18, 20), the use of birds symbolizing Satan (cf. Jubilees XI. 5–24; the Apocalypse of Abraham XIII, compare XXXI; B. Sanhedrin 107a; Rev. 18. 2), the uninterpreted threefold ἐν (cf. the Bible Societies' text ed. by Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren) probably representing the Aramaic sign of multiplication , and its striking parataxis. Cf. David Wenham, , ‘The Composition of Mark 4: 1–34’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester, 1970), pp. 240 f.Google Scholar

10 This proposal has been worked out in detail in consultation with Dr Sebastian P. Brock in Cambridge. I am indebted to his expertise in Aramaic. His evaluation is that the accounts in each of the Synoptics give a reasonable translation of the following proposed Aramaic original.

11 The inclusion of òμοíωσ follows the text of Nestle, A B K π 1009 it 0133 pm; òμοíωσ εíωσ εíσìν is found in C L δ 33 892 1071 1241 Lect. copbo…; òμοìσ is omitted from D W Θ f1 f13 28 565 700 1216 it syrsp copss arm geo Origen Diatessaron.

12 Since ‘those are they’ is put in the first clause, as in the Greek text of Mark 4. 16, Syriac or Aramaic would more naturally introduce the second clause with the conjunction than the relative pronoun to avoid a piling up of clauses. could be used instead of .

13 Aramaic necessitates putting in a relative pronoun while Greek and English tend to omit it (ellipsis) when locative prepositional phrases are used adjectivally. Therefore the first (‘who’) is not included in the translation.

14 If such were the original form of the Greek translation, it is obvious why copyists, especially of an unaccented unpunctuated manuscript, would want to omit this relative pronoun ol. It would seem redundant, particularly if it was read as the definite article ol, since the preceding ol could cover all of οι ἐπι τà πετρωδη σπεóμενοι. Even if not dropped intentionally, the repetition of similar, forms in ΟΙ C∏ΕΙΡΟΜΝΟΙ, ò λóγοιrather like homoeoteleuton, could have led to omission.

15 B* and 48lect also omit ol at this point. W has οίτινεσ.

16 The dropping of (‘and’) in translating by ὄταν is no more than a stylistic change which is almost standard since , being more frequent in Aramaic than καí is in Greek, need not be translated. Haplography could also explain the dropping of ;

17 Cf. the redundant definite articles in Mark 4. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26; ἀναΒαíνω describing growth in Mark 4. 7, 8; έδíδου καρπὀν in Mark 4. 7, 8; έν…ἐν…ἑ;ν in Mark 4. 8, 20; and the use of the idiom for ‘going on board’ which may suggest a different meaning in Greek: ἐμΒáντα καθηῆσθαι ἐν τῇ θαλáσση cf. Harris, J. Rendel, ‘An Unnoticed Aramaism in St. Mark’, Exp. T. 26 (1914–1915), 248–50Google Scholar; Doudna, J. C., The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 128–36.Google Scholar

18 The variant from ὅπου σπου σπεíρεται Ò λóλοσ in Mark 4. 15 to οīσ σπεíρεται òλòλοσ in D 692 Latin versions ff g1 l and the Syriac Peshitta is of special interest because the dative ‘to whom the word is sown’ shows the focus to be on the reception of what is sown. All of the variants from εíσ αὐτους in Mark 4. 15 focus on the place sown, and in all but one of them they focus on personal reception: ἐν αὐτοῖς C L δ 579 892 copss, bo; ἐν ταῖς καρδíαισαὐτῶν D E F G H K M S U V θ π σ γ ω 22 33 124 131 157 346 565; εισ τἡν καρδíαν αὐτῶν syrsp; áπó τῆς καρδìας αὐτῶν A Latin version 1 eth.

19 Cf. the variants of òμοíως above, footnote 11. òμοíωσ shows the continuity in imagery of people receiving the word as soils receive seed. This favours taking σπειρóμενοι as focusing on soil as receiving seed. Many manuscripts change the āλλοι of Mark 4. 18 to οτοι to parallel the first two groups: A C2 E F G H K M S U V π σ Φ γ ω 22 33 131 157 579 pm. The same change from ἐκεῑνοι to οτοι is made in Mark 4. 20 by A D E F G H K M S U V π σ Φ γ ω f1 f13 22 33 157 543 579 700 1071 it pm (οτοι δέ in W. Latin versions e ff cop88). By increasing the parallelism they indicate that they recognized the fourfold pattern in the Sower and its interpretation.

20 Luke has no significant variations in regard to sowing. The Old Syriac omits any reference to ‘were sown’ in Mark 4. 16, which suggests a recognition of awkwardness, as does Luke. The next page of the Old Syriac, on which Mark 4. 18 and 20 would have been, is missing. There is a minor variation from the perfect to the present passive participle in Matt. 13. 19: most MSS. τò ἑσπαρμἐνον D W have τò σπειρóμενον. Syrp has τóν ἐσπαρμενον λòγον, further heightening the association of seed and word.