Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

To Kata Markon Listers:

I share with you a lengthy essay-post which was generated as the result of
exchanges among XTalk listers on the Parable of the Sower and its parabolic
jolt.   I share the essay-post it with those of you on Kata Markon who may
have an interest in it.   The opening paragraphs are addressed to XTalk
listers.   I would appreciate any feedback any of you Kata Markon listers
may have.

Yours,

Ted Weeden

Recently this list [XTalk] has been pursuing the thread of the parabolic
jolt in the Parable of the Sower, a thread that had its catalyst in my
reference to the "Sower" and its parabolic jolt in my essay-post, "MEN...DE:
Markan Priority and Matthean Dependency" (6/24).   Much discussion in
various posts by listers has focused around the size of the yield in the
Markan ending, 30-60-100, as well as the curious reversal of the numerical
order of the yield in Matthew's ending, 100-60-30.   Many authorities have
been drawn upon in support for either the realism of the seed's production
or its lack of realism, as Mark depicts it.   That discussion has also led
to questioning whether or not the parable was told to evoke a parabolic jolt
in the first place, as well as to questioning just what was the meaning the
parabler (Jesus) intended in telling the parable originally.

The latter issue, the purpose of the parable, is quite relevant to the issue
of whether there is a parabolic jolt in the parable and what hermeneutical
purpose it serves, if there is such a jolt..    And, of course, it is
difficult to know what the meaning the parabler intended unless we can
determine what was the original story that the parabler told.    We have
four versions of the Parable of the Sower, one found in each of the three
Synoptics and one in the Gospel of Thomas.   Each of the respective versions
has its own inherent thrust or spin which affects the judgment made as to
the possible original meaning of the parable.    Thus, the only way to
determine--- if it is possible to do so --- the meaning intended in telling
the parable, and the purpose of the parabolic jolt (if there is such, and I
am convinced there is) is to attempt to reconstruct the original parable as
Jesus delivered it, recognizing that in saying this Jesus could well have
told the parable differently on various occasions.

All that having been said, I am now presenting my most recent attempt (I
have tried this before, as I will note below) at reconstructing the original
Parable of the Sower.    This present reconstruction may not finally
clarify, much less settle, the issues that have surfaced amongst us.  I may
only be mudding the waters.   But I will let those who wish to venture forth
with me into this hermeneutical thicket be the judge of that.   This very
long essay-post is divided into the following parts: I. Crossan's First
Reconstruction; II. Crossan's Second Reconstruction; III. My First
Reconstruction; IV. Crossan's Critique of My First Reconstruction; V. My
Second Reconstruction: A. The Stages of the "Sower" Evolution, B. Sternberg'
s Insights on Biblical Gap-Filling, C. Gap-Filling in the Parables of Jesus,
D. Gap-Filling and the Pre-Markan Redaction of the "Sower," E. The Stage 3
Redaction by Mark; VI.  Episode Two: the Lukan and Thomistic Versions; VII.
The Original Parable; VIII. The Original Parable and Its Parabolic Jolt.

I look forward to your critiques.   I begin my reconstruction by turning
first to insights that John Dominic Crossan has offered us regarding the
Parable of the Sower..

On three separate publishing occasions Crossan has turned his attention to a
reconstruction of the original version of the "Sower": "The Seed Parables of
Jesus, _JBL_ (1973:244-66) [henceforth here:_JBL_]; _In Parables: The
Challenge of the Historical Jesus_ (1973:39-44, 50f.) [henceforth here:_In
Parables_]; _Cliffs of Fall_ (1980:25-64) [henceforth here: _Cliffs_].    In
all three of his attempts to reconstruct the original parable, Crossan comes
to the conclusion that, of the four extant sources of the parable (Mt.
13:3-8; Mk. 4:3-8; Lk. 8:5-8; Thom. 9:1-5) Mark's version is closest to the
parable as it was originally conceived by Jesus, not in the sense of Jesus'
*ipsissima verba* but, as Crossan puts it, "what one might term the
*ipsissima structura* of that original story" (_Cliffs_, 27).   What
impresses Crossan most about the parable's inherent structure, as evidenced
to one degree or another in all four of the sources, is its generally terse,
paratactic and triadic character.   This is clearly so in the cases of the
first and third episodes of agricultural failure, and to a much lesser
extent in the second episode of failed sowing and in the final episode of
sowing success.    Let us look at each of these episodes structurally,
beginning with the first and third.  I do so with English translation,
however, without including the term "seed" which appears in English
translations, but is absent in the Greek.   The English translation of the
Gospel of Thomas cited here is taken from the translation by Hans-Gebhard
Bethge et al, as found in Stephen Patterson and James Robinson's _The Fifth
Gospel_.

(1) With respect to the first episode, all four versions are terse,
paratactic and triadic:

Mt: Some fell along the path/and the birds came/and devoured them.
Mk: Some fell along the path/and  the birds came/and devoured it.
Lk: Some  fell along the path/ and was trodden under
                                                 /and the birds devoured it.
Th: some fell on the path/and the birds came/and pecked it.

(2) With respect to the third episode all four versions are terse and
paratactic.   All but Mark's are triadic::

Mt: Other fell upon thorns/and the thorns grew up/and choked them.
Mk: Other fell among thorns/and the thorns grew up/and choked them
                   /and it yielded no fruit.
Lk: And some fell among thorns/and the thorns grew with it/and choked it.
Th: And others fell among thorns/they choked the seed/and worms ate them.

(3) With respect to the second episode of agricultural failure, the seed
sown on rocky ground, every version except the Thomistic version
structurally countervails the terse, paratactic and triadic narrative
formula followed generally in the first and third episode.   Thus:

Mt: Others fell on rocky ground/ where they had not much soil
       /and immediately they sprang up/since they had no depth of soil
       /but when the sun rose they were scorched
       /and since they had no root they withered.
Mk: /Other fell on rocky ground/where it had not much soil
       /and immediately it sprang up/since it had no depth of soil
       /and when the sun rose it was scorched
       /and since it had no root it withered.
Lk: And some fell on the rock/and it grew up/it withered.
       /since it had no moisture.
Th: Others fell on the rock/and did not take root in the soil
          /and they did not put forth ears.

So in the case of the first three episodes at least one version of each
episode is structurally terse, paratactic and triadic.  And it happens that
the Gospel of Thomas version in all three of the failed agricultural sowings
consistently represents the structure of the parable as terse, paratactic,
and triadic.

(4) With respect to the fourth episode, there is some evidence of terse,
paratactic and triadic structure in two of the four versions: Thomas, in the
initial depiction of sowing to yield, and Mark, in the citing of the yield.

Mt: Others fell on good soil/and gave grain
 some a hundred/ some sixty/ some thirty.
Mk: And others fell into good soil/and gave grain/
 growing up and increasing/and bore
 one, thirty/one, sixty/one, one hundred.
Lk: And some fell into good soil/and grew up/it yielded
 one hundred.
Th: And others fell on good soil/and it produced good fruit.
         /It yielded
 sixty per measure/   and twenty per measure.

The structural formula consisting of terse, paratactic, triadic narration of
the episodic components of the parable seems to underline the compositional
character of the parable.

Yet, if there is such an underlying structure inherent in the parable, one
that is intentionally designed to be terse, paratactic and triadic, why is
there such variance from that structure in the Matthean, Markan and Lukan
versions of the episode of the seed sown on rocky ground, as well as such
variance from that structure in all the versions in at least some phase of
the episode of successful sowing on good soil?   Crossan saw that the answer
to that question could provide the key to the reconstruction of the original
parable and how it evolved through its different versions from Jesus into
the Life of the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas.   Crossan's
first attempt at identifying the key was in his _JBL_ article.

I.  Crossan's First Reconstruction

In his article,  Crossan contends (244-46), with respect to the episode of
seed sown on rocky ground, that that episode must have been intentionally
embellished and reshaped.   He presents three reasons for this conclusion:
(1) its length is longer than the other episodes, particularly the final
episode of the grain-producing seed; (2) the triple reference to the
deficiency of the rocky-ground soil (OUK EICEN GHN POLLHN, DIA  TO  MH
ECEIN  BAQOS GHS, DIA TO MH hRIZAN) is unwarranted and unusual in the face
of the parable's otherwise terse narrative style; and (3) the two images
depicting the fate of the seed, withered as a result of shallow rootage and
scorched by the sun are in conflictual tension with each other.

In his _JBL_ article Crossan identified the expanded, secondary elements as
the following: "where it had not much soil," "and immediately it sprang up,
since it had no depth of soil," and "and since it had no root it withered
away."   Freed of those embellishments, Crossan's reconstructed version of
the second sowing episode is worded thus (246): KAI ALLO  EPESEN EPI TO
PETRWDES KAI OTE ANETEILEN  hO  hHLIOS EKAUMATISQN  ("And other fell on
rocky ground/ and when the sun rose/ it was scorched."

In scanning the rest of the parable, Crossan identified one additional
element that seems to have been introduced secondarily into the parable in
4:8, namely, "growing up and increasing" (ANABAINOTA KAI AUXANOMENA).
Crossan argues (_JBL_, 246, 248) that this growth detail is a secondary
elaboration which introduces an awkwardness in the narrative logic in that
it is positioned anachronistically after the end of the growth process has
already been indicated by the statement, "it brought forth grain."   All of
these additions to the parable (4:5-6, 8), as Crossan notes, have one thing
in common.  They "effect the same type of emphasis: it is one of time and of
growth, negative in 4:5-6 and positive in 4:8" (248).

While Crossan did not provide a full reconstruction of the original parable,
sans these secondary interpolations, such a reconstruction, following
Crossan's logic, would be thus (with the word "seed" unexpressed, as is the
case in the Greek text)::

Some fell along the path/and the birds came/and devoured it.
And other fell on rocky ground/ and when the sun rose/ it was scorched.
And other fell among thorns/ and the thorns grew up/ and choked it.
And it yielded no grain.
And other fell on good soil/ and gave grain/ and bore
 one, thirty/ one, sixty/ one, one hundred.

II. Crossan's Second Reconstruction

Crossan thought differently about what was expansion and what was not
expansion in Mk. 4:5-6, when he published his _In Parables_, which appeared
in the same year as his _JBL_ article.   In his book Crossan decides he had
gotten the original parabolic material and the expansions backwards in his
_JBL_ article.   In _In Parables_ Crossan now argued (40) that the second
episode originally was constructed thus; "Other seed fell on rocky ground,
where it had not much soil, and immediately sprang up [and] since it had not
root it withered away."   What was it that caused Crossan to change his mind
and reverse himself on the fate of the seed sown on rocky ground, contending
now that the seed withered away from lack of root rather than being scorched
by the sun?   It was the Markan redactional technique of intercalation that
he spied in 4:5 and 6, a technique which is sure sign of Markan redaction.
There it was, Crossan declared,  in the repetition of the clause "since it
had no" (DIA TO  MH ECEIN) in 4:5b and 6b.  Crossan argued that Mark, using
intercalation, linked "depth of soil and when the sun rose it was scorched"
to the initial occurrence of  DIA TO  MH ECEIN in 4:5b and, following that
insertion, repeated  DIA TO  MH ECEIN ("since it had no," 4:6b) as a suture
for the continuation of the original parabolic wording which followed,
namely, "root it withered."

Crossan argues in _In Parables_ (41f.) that the scorching-sun motif is not
only redactional because of it being spliced into the parable via Markan
intercalation technique, but it is a motif that corresponds to the
allegorical theme of Christians confronted by tribulation and persecution,
as is the focus in the Interpretation's counterpart to the second episode of
seed sown on rocky ground (4:16-17).   Crossan argued that Mark needed a
feature in the parable that would serve as an allegorical symbol for
tribulation and persecution and the scorching-sun motif fit the bill.

III. My First Reconstruction

In my article "Recovering the Parabolic Intent in the Parable of the Sower"
( _JAAR_, 1979:97-120) I argued (98-103) that Crossan's instincts about the
way in which the second episode was framed in the original parable was right
the first time.   I argued against his reconsidered version for the
following reasons.   First, the amount of descriptive attention devoted to
the seed on rocky ground in Crossan's second version of the original parable
is almost twice that given to either of the other two instances of wasted
seed.   Second, the crisp, terse and paratactic movement, characteristic of
triadic structure of the episodes of sowing along the path and among thorns,
and characteristic also of the first two scenes of the rocky-ground episode,
is significantly compromised by the extended depiction of the fate of the
seed on rocky ground, namely, "and since it had not root it, withered."

Third, there is a symmetry and consistency in structure and thematic
development of each episode in Crossan's _JBL_ reconstruction of the
original that is lost in his _In Parable_ reconstruction of the original
parable.   In the _JBL_ reconstruction, the seed in each episode remains
essentially passive when it is sown on the three diverse soils found along
the path, on rocky ground and among thorns.   As the thematic development of
each of the three episodes unfolds, an external agent (birds, sun, thorns,
respectively), which proves hostile to the fruition of the seed, interjects
itself to thwart the sower's purpose.  And in the end in each episode the
external agent destroys the seed violently ("devoured it," "scorched it,"
"choked it," respectively).  That structural and thematic symmetry is lost
in Crossan's _In Parable_ reconstruction.   In his second reconstruction, as
pertains to the rocky-ground episode, following the sowing the seed assumes
an active role, namely, on its own, it springs up.   And rather than an
external agent being the cause of its demise, the seed is responsible for
its own failure to survive, namely, it could not establish rootage and
therefore it withered and died.

For these reasons and others cited in my article in _JAAR_ (99f.), I stated
there that Crossan's initial reconstruction of the episode of the seed sown
on rock ground was more persuasive than his reconsidered reconstruction.
I agreed in that article with Crossan that the expansions of the parable in
4:5-6 and 4:8 were the result of the creator(s) of the Interpretation.
However, I saw the expansions of the parable as Crossan saw them in his
_JBL_ article and not in his _In Parables_.   Moreover, I agreed with
Crossan in his _JBL_ article that the expansions he identified there
(4:5a-6a and 8) functioned as part of a growth motif in the parable, but I
went further to argue that the growth motif originated with the creator(s)
of the Interpretation and was  central to their allegorical vision.

As I put it in my _JAAR_ article (102f.), "close examination of the
Interpretation reveals that there is a programmatic development of
progressively advanced degrees of Christian growth as one moves
categorically from the first type of response to the kerygma [the word] to
the last.  The first category dramatizes the situation  in which sowing of
the word leads to immediate miscarriage (4: 15).   The secondary category
images the situation in which commitment to the faith initially grows,
endures for a period, and then lapses (4:16-17)....   The third category
portrays the church's experience of Christians who commit themselves to the
faith, but subsequently become preoccupied with worldly concerns and thus
prove to be barren (4:18-19).   The fourth category represents the faithful
who in their response to the word reach full maturity and bear fruit
 4:20)."

Thus, I submit, the growth motif is central to the allegorical vision of the
Interpretation.   However, the growth motif is peripheral to the parabolic
vision.    From the perspective of the parable, the growth motif, as
depicted in the expansions of 4:5-6 and 8 identified by Crossan, contributes
nothing essential to the message of the parable.   In addition to these
expansions, I went beyond Crossan to argue that Mk. 4:7c ("and it yielded no
grain") should also be considered a secondary interpolation related to the
growth motif.    For the statement, "and it yielded no grain," does evoke,
even if negatively, a consideration of the growth process, the failure of
seed to reach full maturation.   And its presence in the parable at its
particular location in the story is superfluous, if not anticlimactic.

This summary comment of 4:7c, I argued in my article (103) "strains thematic
consistency because it introduces the concept of an active role for the
wasted seed in a narration which to that point has portrayed all ill-fated
seeds as...passive.   And it tends to confuse the narrative focus operative
to that point in the parable.   Whereas the wasted-seed passage focuses on
the disastrous fates experienced by the seeds, the comment in 4:7 shifts
attention to the issue of productivity or lack of productivity.    The
[summary] comment also strains structural consistency because its presence
in the parable produces a fourfold paratactic construction for the episode
of the seed among thorns which stands in stylistic tension with the
threefold paratactic construction characteristic of the rest of the parable.
Deletion of the comment robs the parable of nothing --- an opinion Matthew
and Luke apparently shared since they both deleted it (Matt 13:7/ Luke
 8:7)."

"A modification of the comment in 4:7c can be found at a corresponding point
in 4:19c of the Interpretation ("and it proves unfruitful").   The comment
in the Interpretation in the context  of 4:19 ("the cares of the world, and
the delight in riches and the desire for other things, enter in and choke
the word, and it proves unfruitful") appears more natural in that context
and less superfluous than does its counterpart in the parable.  The
expression in 4:19c ("it proves unfruitful') helps to mark not only the
high-water mark of one stage of growth amongst four in the Interpretation,
but in the allegorical vision of the Interpretation the comment serves as an
important explanation of the consequence of what happens when Christians
"sellout " to the concerns of the world: the "word "in them becomes
unfruitful.   Thus the comment in the Interpretation is far more important
to the logic of the Interpretation than is its counterpart to the logic of
the parable.  Matthew and Luke apparently thought so too, since they
preserved the comment (Luke, in modified form) in their versions of the
Interpretation (Matt 13:22/ Luke 8: 14).  In my judgment Mark 4:7c is an
interpolation.   As in the case of the additions in 4:5-6 and 8, it was
inserted to cohere with the needs of whoever created the Interpretation."

Thus, it was my view in my article (104), that, while the growth motif, as
such, is essential to the allegorical message and ecclesiological meaning of
the Interpretation, the growth motif is not necessary in itself to the
parable in order to drive home the message and meaning of the parable.
Quite the contrary, the growth motif, in the form of these parabolic
interpolations, tends "to blunt the parable's terseness, confuse its
narrative logic, blur its focus and soften its parabolic impact.   If [the
interpolations] are removed from the parable, the dramatic thrust of the
parable is enhanced."   Consequently, in my article I argued that it was the
creator(s) of the Interpretation who inserted the elements of the growth
motif found in 4:5-6, 7c and 8 (the aforementioned expansions) in order for
the parable to correlate with the Interpretation and, thereby, provide
ideational support and referential meaning for the allegorical vision of the
Interpretation.

Moreover, I argued (104) that the Interpretation was created prior to Mark,
another point at which I differed from Crossan's position.   Based upon the
work of H. W. Kuhn, _Aeltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium_, I argued that
the Interpretation was pre-Markan.  Kuhn has shown (99-126) that the
collection of the parables, the creation of the Interpretation of the
Parable of the Sower, and the secondary expansion of the parables of the
Seed Growing Secretly and the Mustard Seed were all motivated by the
peculiar sociological and theological problems of some pre-Markan Christians
(Kuhn in his analysis does not suggest that the parable itself has undergone
secondary expansion).

As a result of this analysis of the parable and its paratactic and triadic
structure, the apparent expansions which compromise that structure or appear
superfluous, as well as the controlling interests of the creator(s) of the
Interpretation to make the parable conform to the needs of the allegorical
themes of the Interpretation, I proposed in my article this reconstruction
of the original Parable of the Sower (slightly modified in translation for
this essay):

A sower went out/        to sow/           and in the sowing
Some fell along the path/ and the birds came/ and devoured it.
Other fell on rocky ground/ and the sun rose/ and scorched it.
Other fell amongst thorns/ and the thorns rose up/ and choked it.
Others fell on good soil/     and gave grain/           and bore
         one, thirty/   one, sixty/    one, one hundred.

The resulting reconstruction is a tightly composed, crisp, terse, paratactic
and triadic structure of balanced symmetry.

IV. Crossan's Critique of My First Reconstruction

In his book, _Cliffs _, Crossan challenged my reconstruction of the second
episode of seed sown on rocky ground, which I based upon his _JBL_ article.
He averred that his reconstruction of that episode in _In Parables_ was the
correct one.   Once again he cited the evidence of Markan intercalation in
4:5b and 6b, as noted above, as compelling proof that the original parable
featured the fate of the seed as death by withering, as a result of
rootlessness rather than death by sun-scorching.    He also supported this
argument, once again, from the perspective of the content of the
Interpretation in 4:17b which Crossan contended matched the motif of the
sun-scorched fate of the seed in the second parabolic episode of sowing
(32f.).    Only in his _Cliffs of Fall_ he states that he is persuaded by my
argument that the Interpretation itself, aside from 4:17b, was not created
by Mark but rather that Mark received it and the parable as one piece (34).
Crossan also in _Cliffs_ indicates that he is convinced by my argument that
4:7c also was an interpolation into the parable by the creator(s) of the
Interpretation and was not the result of Markan redaction (39).

While Crossan does not formerly reconstruct the original parable in full in
_Cliffs_, based upon his arguments as to what in the Markan version of the
parable was endemic to the parable in its original formulation and what in
the parable constitutes secondary expansion, the parable formally
reconstructed, according to Crossan as I understand him, would be the
following (again, the term "seed" remains unexpressed as it is unexpressed
in the Greek text).:

A sower went out/        to sow/           and in the sowing
Some fell along the path/ and the birds came/ and devoured it.
Other fell on rocky ground/ and immediately it sprang up/
                                    and since it had no root it withered.
Other fell amongst thorns/ and the thorns rose up/ and choked it.
Others fell on good soil/     and gave grain/           and bore
               one, thirty/     one, sixty/      one, one hundred.

V. My Second Reconstruction
   A. The Stages of the "Sower" Evolution

Over twenty years after Crossan's critique of my reconstruction of the
second episode of sowing, I returned to the issue of the reconstruction of
the Parable of the Sower almost two weeks ago, as a result of the then
current XTalk thread on the parable's parabolic jolt.    Even though I find
my _JAAR_ version of the reconstruction to be more symmetrical and tightly
composed than Crossan's, and even though I think my reconstruction offered a
thematic consistency of each seed sowing being frustrated by the incursion
of an external agent (birds, sun, thorns, respectively), which ultimately
violently destroy the seed ("devoured it, "scorched it," "choked it"), I
could not deny that fact that there is evidence in the expansion of 4:5-6 of
Markan redaction via intercalation.   Such evidence weighs strongly in favor
of Crossan's contention that the depiction of the fate of the seed in the
second episode was possibly formulated originally as "since it had no root,
it withered away," rather than formulated as "the sun scorched it."

Yet, as I examined the structural symmetry and balance of the three episodic
triptychs of agricultural failure, I still found Crossan's rendition of the
second episode to be in tension with the crisp, terse and paratactic style
of the other episodes precisely at the point at which the fate of the seed
is narrated.    To illustrate let us look at the three accounts
synchronically:

Some fell along the path/ and the birds came/ and devoured it.
Other fell on rocky ground/ and it sprang up/ and since it had
                                                  no root it withered.
Other fell among thorns/ and the thorns rose up/ and choked it.

By this schema, the depiction of the fate of the seed sown on rocky ground
still seems unusually long compared to the depictions of the fates of the
other seeds.   And it is the clause, "since it had no root," that is the
problem.   Its presence in the structure creates an unduly cumbersome syntax
compared to the tight and terse syntax of the rest of the episodes of
agricultural failure.

As I pondered why there should have been such an anomalous way of depicting
the fate of the seed sown on rocky ground when compared to the depictions of
other fated seeds, I began to wonder if Crossan was right in sensing the
presence of Markan intercalation in 4:5-6, but had misidentified it.   One
of the things that made me uncomfortable with Crossan's pre-Markan history
of the parable and its interpretation is that he viewed the redactional
expansions of the parable to have occurred in two stages prior to it coming
into Mark's "hands."     In _Cliffs_ (34), Crossan submits that in the
antepenultimate stage of the parable, the second episode was worded: "Other
seed fell on rocky ground and immediately it sprang up, since it had no
root, it withered away."   At a pre-Markan stage, according to Crossan, the
clause "where it had not much soil" was inserted (cited now within
parentheses) into the antepenultimate version of the second episode to
produce: "Other seed fell on rocky ground (where it had not much soil) and
immediately it sprang up, since it had no root it withered away."   Then,
Crossan argues, based upon the repetition of the clause "since it had no,"
that Mark introduced the interpolation "depth of soil" and when the sun rose
it was scorched" [cited below within brackets] into the revised
antepenultimate version of the second episode to produce, thus: "Other seed
fell on rocky ground (where it had not much soil) and immediately it sprang
up [since it had no depth of soil; and when the sun rose it was scorched],
since it had no root it withered away."  In Crossan's view the first of the
clauses "since it had no" belongs to the antepenultimate version.   Mark, in
this view, inserted the bracketed material, repeated the clause "since it
had no" and continued on with the antepenultimate version of the story.

But I see the Markan intercalation in the passage differently.   When the

intercalation, as I view it, is taken into account and the Markan
redactional material introduced, via the intercalation is removed, then a
different ending of the second episode emerges.   In my present
reconstruction, the episode was originally formulated in the following way:
"Some fell on rocky ground/ and it sprang up/ and it withered."   Now why do
I think that was the original way in which the parable was formulated?   I
think so because I have spotted what I believe are two revisions of the
parable.   When those revisions are identified and accounted for, then the
original wording of the parable emerges.  The two revisions are the one
performed by the creator(s) of the Interpretation and the one performed by
Mark.    Let me proceed to show this by sequentially laying out the three
different versions of the parable's rocky-ground episode as it evolved, as I
view it, through three stages of formulation or reformulation: from stage
one, its original formulation, to stage two and three, its subsequent
reformulations.    I will indicate first how, in my judgment, this
particular episode appeared in its three stages and then explain the
rationale for the versions in each of the stages.   In what follows I have
indicated pre-Markan revisions of the episode of the rocky ground within
brackets and Markan revision within parentheses.

Stage 1, the original oral-text:
"And some seed fell on rocky ground, and it sprang up, and it withered."

Stage 2,  pre-Markan redaction:
"And some seed fell on rocky ground, [where it had not much soil] and it
sprang up [since it had no root], and it withered.

Stage 3, Markan redacton:
"And some seed fell on rocky ground, [where it had not much soil], and it
sprang up, (since it had no depth, when the sun rose up it was scorched),
and [since it had no root] it withered."

The advantage of reconstructing the original version of the rocky-ground
episode, stage 1, in this way is that the second episode of agricultural
failure now has the same crisp, paratactic pattern of three distinct,
sequential events as is the case of the first and third episodes of
agricultural failure.   All of them now are of essentially the same length.
The three episodes as reconstructed look like this:

Some fell along the path/ and the birds came/ and devoured it.
Other fell on rocky ground/ and it sprang up/ and withered.
Other fell among thorns/ and the thorns rose up/ and choked it.

Now I submit, with regard to stage 1, that the original version of the
parable, that the parabler (Jesus) presented did not need the root motif for
the second episode.   The fact that seed which fell on rocky ground would be
understood logically by hearers' of the parable to suggest that there is
virtually no likelihood that seed which falls on rocky ground could
establish rootage that would allow it to survive and produce grain.   It is
not necessary for the parabler to tells his hearers that the seed perished
*because it had no root.*    Such information is superfluous in this
parabolic narrative, which is so tersely constructed with a premium placed
upon the economy of words.    It is the nature of parabolic discourse that
parablers do not feel the need to "fill in blanks" or  to dot all the "i's"
or cross all the "t's" of informative detail in parabling.    The obvious
remains unspoken and even the ambiguous is not often clarified for the
hearers.   Quite the opposite, sparsity of detail and the unclarified of
ambiguity is a parabling technique used by the parabler to hook the hearer
into trying to make sense and find meaning in the performance of a parable.
Meir Sternberg's _The Poetics of Biblical Narrative_ is seminal for
recognizing and understanding this stylistic technique in story telling.

   B. Sternberg's Insights on Biblical Gap-Filling

In his exhaustive and detailed study (over 500 pages) of numerous biblical
narratives, Sternberg notes that it is typical for the biblical narrator to
narrate in a laconic style, with a reticence to say more than is absolutely
necessary to maintain the progression and coherence of his narration.  As
Sternberg puts it (191f.), "Biblical narratives are notorious for their
sparsity of detail."   The biblical narrator, as a general principle, avoids
superfluity and the use of repetition.   He invariably errors on the side of
under-treatment of his subject matter rather than over-treatment (365).  Not
only does the biblical narrator not tell all that a reader would like to
know about characters, events, motives, etc., he often intentionally does
not tell enough.  "He abstains from (1) sharing with the reader all the plot
information accessible to him; (2) elucidating structure and significance;
(3) passing judgment by way of commentary" (184).  "E]ven in commentary the
narrator remains less than forthright.     He may supply exposition but not
the exposition, sketch character but often leave the essentials out,
formulate motive but only in bare outline...." (122)--- all with the
intention of pursuing "the strategic principle of maneuvering between truth
and whole truth" in order to produce "the play of ambiguity and the
processing of meaning" (184f.).   This rhetorical technique of sometimes
revealing but many other times concealing is all the means by which the
narrator seeks to draw the reader into the role of being both a spectator
and participant (98).

If one reads a biblical narrative closely, according to Sternberg, it
immediately becomes apparent how little the narrator actually tells his
reader, how few answers to questions generated in the reader's mind are
explicitly given to the reader.   It is the reader who must provide the
answers to his/her questions the best he/she can from whatever leads the
narrator chooses to give.  "The world of situations and dramas constructed
by the reader --- causal sequence and all- is," Sternberg finds (186), "far
from identical with what he[/she] encounters in the form of over statement.
>From the viewpoint of what is directly given in the language, the literary
work *consists* of *bits* and fragments to be *linked* and pieced together
*in* the process of reading: *it* establishes a system of gaps that must be
filled in" (emphases: Sternberg).

What does Sternberg mean by "gaps."   "A gap," he clarifies (235), "is a
lack of information about the world - an event, motive, causal link,
character trait, plot structure law of probability- contrived by temporal
displacement....   What happened (or existed) at a certain temporal point in
the world may be communicated in the discourse at a point earlier or later,
or for that matter not at all".  Gapping, Sternberg contends (365), is the
dominant logic of biblical story telling.   Gapping is a biblical
story-telling technique to hook the reader and to make him/her actively
engaged in the search of understanding and, finally, meaning of a narrative.
Gaps "result from a chronological twisting whereby the order of presentation
does not conform to the order of occurrence.   The sequence devised for the
reader thus becomes discontinuous... and gap-filling consists exactly in
restoring the continuity that (235) the narrator broke.

The reader is left to fill any gaps on his/her own as best he/she can,
"forming and revising and if possible deciding between alternative closures
as he[/she] goes along, till the end either resolves or fixes the play of
ambiguity" (239).    Often the narrator, by withholding information, will
intentionally create gaps to produce discontinuity to breed ambiguity (236).
The "play of ambiguity" then induces the reader to formulate hypotheses to
fill in the gaps in order to bring about the satisfaction of closure.
"This gap-filling ranges from simple linkages of elements, *which* the
reader performs automatically, to intricate networks that are figured out
consciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and *with* constant modifications *in*
the light of additional information disclosed in later stages of the
 reading" (186; emphases: Sternberg).

Gaps, Sternberg states, are often strategically "left open precisely at key
points, central to the discourse as a dramatic progression as well as a
structure of meaning and value.   Hence [the readers' gap] filling ... is
not automatic but requires considerable attention to the nuances of the
text, both at the level of the represented events and at the level of
language; far from a luxury or option, closure becomes a necessity for any
reader trying to understand the story even in the simplest terms of what
happens and why" (191f.).   Sometimes the biblical narrator never supplies
information to the reader to close the gaps, which leaves the reader on
his/her own to decide upon the best hypothesis to resolve any ambiguity,
fill the gaps and arrive at closure.
Yet, "[f]or all [the] attempts at restoration, however, the breaches remain
ambiguous-and hypotheses multiple- as long as the narrator has not
authoritatively closed them" (236)..

With a Hebrew nursery rhyme, "Little Jonathan," Sternberg illustrates how
the reader can be left in the ambiguous situation of unfilled gaps and with
the need to formulate hypotheses to resolve the ambiguity, fill the gaps and
bring understanding and meaning to satisfactory closure.    In using a
nursery rhyme as an illustration, Sternberg draws attention to the fact,
also, that it is not just in sophisticated literature but even in simple
children's stories the gap-filling technique is used by the story teller.
The nursery rhyme (187) is as follows:

"Every day, that's the way
Jonathan goes out to play.
Climbed a tree. What did he see?
Birdies: one, two, three!

Naughty boy! What have we seen?
There's a hole in your new jeans!"

What follows is Sternberg's commentary upon the gapping he finds in "Little
Jonathan:

"How did the jeans get torn?   The reader is quite sure that the tree is
responsible for the big hole in little Jonathan's trousers; it hardly occurs
to him[/her] that the hole could, perhaps, be from some fence that the boy
crawled under the previous evening.   The reader automatically opts for the
first of the two possibilities, even though there is no explicit statement
in the song to the effect that the trousers got torn in tree climbing or
that there had not been any hole in them before Jonathan approached the
tree.   The hole could have been mentioned, after all, simply as part of a
description of Jonathan's jeans.   But the reader prefers the hypothesis
that the tree is to blame, because it enables him[/her] to link the tree
(just indicated in the song) and the hole into a causal chain.   This
hypothesis offers the simplest and most probable explanation for the
coexistence and unfolding of the different givens in the text: it creates
maximal relevance among the diverse features and levels (that's what happens
to children who climb trees to harm little birds-even the pointed "What have
we seen?" is thus justified) and brings together more elements than the
alternative hypothesis (the hole was already there before the boy climbed
the tree).  Hence its appeal and validity.  All the same, this still remains
a hypothesis, whose preference over others entirely derives from the logic
of gap-filling.  The closure of the central gap in "Little Jonathan" is (a)
automatic (so that it is absurd to discuss it at such length); and yet (b)
essential to the reader's making sense of the "poem" as a whole."

   C. Gap-Filling and the Parables of Jesus

I have devoted extensive discussion to Sternberg's insights on biblical
narratives and their narrators because those insights have direct bearing on
the reconstruction of the original wording of the rocky-ground episode in
the "Sower."   While recognizing that Sternberg's insights are directed to
textuality and not orality, which was the medium of Jesus' story telling, I
would submit, nevertheless, that Jesus also employed gaps in his parables,
gaps which he never filled, so that his hearers would be led into the "play
of ambiguity" and, thereby, be hooked into  actively participating in the
parable, as well as engaged in filling in the gaps in order to resolve
ambiguity in favor of satisfactory closure.    I illustrate Jesus' gapping
technique with two of his parables: the Parable of the Prodigal
(Lk.15:11-24) and the Parable of the Treasure (Mt. 13:44).

Jesus concluded his Parable of the Prodigal without bringing the story to
completion, or, at least, satisfying closure.   What happened finally in the
end?   Did the elder son accept the father's invitation and join the party
for his returned, prodigal brother?   Or did the elder son reject the
invitation and remain in the field, refusing to accept either the father's
rationale for the party for his prodigal brother or to accept his brother
again?   Jesus never tells us.   He leaves his hearers caught up in the play
of ambiguity.   Or, on the other hand,  with respect to the meaning of the
parable, is the point of the parable that repentant sinners can be accepted
through the gift of grace without having to do penance for their sins?    Or
is the point that the righteous (the elder son) need to accept sinners
restored and reconciled through grace, which is the point Luke sought to
make with the parable (15:1-3).   Is the point of the parable one or the
other, or both?    Jesus leaves his hearers to decide.

And now I turn to the Parable of the Treasure.  In telling the parable,
Jesus says that the man who found the hidden treasure in the field first
covered it up and then went to sell all he had to buy the field and thus the
treasure (Mt. 13:44).    Why did the man cover the treasure up?    Was it to
hide it so no one else would take it before he could buy the field and have
it for himself?    Or did he hide it so that the owner would not discover
the unearthed treasure and sell the field at its full value, the value of
the land plus the value of the treasure?     Did the finder of the treasure
tell the owner about his discovery and offer a fair price for the field and
treasure together?    And after the finder liquidated *all* his assets to
buy the field, as Jesus tells the story, what then did he who now possessed
the treasure, have left to live on?   Jesus never says.  He leaves the gaps
in the story intentionally unfilled so that his hearers are forced to
wrestle with the play of ambiguity, into which Jesus lured them, until they
can arrive at hypotheses that bring more complete understanding and meaning
to the story.

Returning now to the Parable of the Sower and the episode of seed sown on
rocky ground, I submit that when Jesus told the episode he left gaps in it
for his hearers to fill, much as in the case of the two parables I have just
cited and, quite similar to the gap in the Hebrew nursery rhyme, "Little
Jonathan," to which Sternberg has drawn our attention.  I have posited that
Jesus' original wording of the second episode of sowing was, "Other fell on
rocky ground, and it sprang up and it withered."   There in lies the gap.
Jesus leaves unanswered why the seed withered.     His hearers are left with
closing the gap by drawing upon a range of hypotheses.   So what are the
possible hypotheses that might be offered to explain why the seed withered?

One possible hypothesis for why the plant withered is one which is supplied
in Luke's version.  Luke explains the plant's withering as due to a lack of
moisture.    Thus Luke (8:6): "And some fell on the rock and grew up [and]
it withered, since it had no moisture."   Another possible hypothesis is
that the heat of the sun withered the plant before it could get a good
start.   That is a hypothesis Mark added to the parable in order to align it
with his allegorical interest in using this episode as a signification of
what happens to some Christians subjected to the "heat" of persecution.
And of course, there is the hypothesis, implanted in the pre-Markan version
of the parable, that the plant could not establish rootage on rocky ground.
Without rootage, it could only wither and die.   There is yet one more
hypothesis, a hypothesis which can is found in Isaiah 40:7, "The grass
withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it."
But given the parabolic context and thrust, it is doubtful that Jesus
intended his hearers to fill in the gap he left in the parable by concluding
that the plant withered because God blew upon it.

Jesus did not supply any information to fill the gap to explain why the seed
sown on rocky ground withered.   He did not fill in the gap here or in his
other parables for the same reason that the biblical narrators before him
traditionally underplayed the supplying of detail in their stories,
providing only enough detail to give the narrative coherence and move it
along to its intended closure, as well as intentionally creating gaps to
spur engagement with a story..

   D. Gap-Filling and Pre-Markan Redaction of the "Sower"

Now how did it happen that the gap, in Jesus' sparse description of the fate
of the withering plant, was closed by introducing the explanation that the
seed withered because it had no root?   Well, I have already indicated that
the creator(s) of the Interpretation thought up that hypothesis up in order
for it to conform to their allegorical interpretation of those Christians
who respond to the "word," but once they received it the word only a
short-life in them.   What led the creator(s) to chose the image of root and
of being rooted in themselves or of not being rooted in themselves, as the
case may be, as the imagistic analogy for their allegorical interpretation?

It was Bob Schacht who insightfully pointed out that link to us in his post
of 7/1.   Bob directed  our attention to Isaiah 37:31: "The surviving
remnant of the house of Judah shall again take *root* downward, and bear
*fruit* upward."   That is a helpful insight.  The same prophetic saying can
also be found in II Kgs. 19:30.   And there are many other passages in the
LXX which correlate root with fruit and lack of root with lack of fruit, as
well as speak of root and withering in the same context.    Let me cite an
assortment of such passages:

Job 18:16: Their *roots* dry up beneath, and their branches *wither* above.
Prov. 12:12: The wicked covet the proceeds of wickedness, but the *root* of
the righteous bears  *fruit*.
Isa. 27:6:  In days to come Jacob shall take *root*, Israel shall blossom
and put forth shoots, and  fill the whole world with *fruit*.
Isa. 40:24: Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their
stem taken *root* in the earth, when he [God] blows upon them, and they
*wither*..."
Jeremiah 12:2: You [God] plant them, and they take *root*; they grow and
bring forth *fruit*; you are near in their mouths yet far from their hearts.
Ezek. 17:9  Will he [God] not pull up its *roots*, cause its *fruit* to rot
and *wither*...?
Hos. 9:16: Ephraim is stricken, their *root* is dried up, they shall bear no
*fruit*.
Sir. 23 25: Her [adulterous woman] children will not take *root*, and her
branches will not bear *fruit*.

It is clear that in the LXX there was a common imaging associated with the
concepts of roots, withering and fruit.  It is logical then to surmise then
that the LXX imagery related to these concepts was accessed by creator(s) of
the Interpretation to use as allegorical signification for those
shallow-faith Christians, who initially responded enthusiastically to the
"word" but then lapsed and became apostates.   To set that signification up
for the Interpretation, the creator(s) of the Interpretation first
introduced the gap-filling, root-motif clause DIA TO MH EXEIN hRIZAN ("since
it had no root") into the parable (4:6b).   Then with the parable "fixed"
the way it was needed for the designated allegorical theme of the
Interpretation, the wording of the Interpretation was then crafted to serve
as the allegorical meaning of the parable.   Thus Mk. 4:16-17 came into
being: KAI OUTOI EISIN  hOI EPI TA PETRWDH  SPEIROMENOI, hOI  hOTAN
AKOUSWSIN  TON  LOGON   EUQUS  META CARAS  LAMBANOUSIN AUTON,  KAI OUK
ECOUSIN  hRIZAN  EN hEAUTOIS ALLA PROSKAIRO EISIN, EITA SKANDALIZONTA ("And
these are those sown on rocky ground, who, when they hear the word,
immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but
endure for a while, then they fall away.").

But if creator(s) of the Interpretation, for purposes of the Interpretaton,
filled the gap of the original parable with the root motif which now
explained why the seed which sprung up withered, then what about the other
expansion in the second episode of sowing, namely 4:5a:  hOPOU OUK EICEN GHN
POLLHN ("where it had not much soil").   That subsidiary information is
clearly a superfluous commentary upon the character of rocky ground, an
ancillary commentary which would be uncharacteristic for a biblical
narrator, as well as Jesus, to supply in the course of telling a story.
The commentary is unnecessarily redundant.   The very nature of rocky ground
is that it does not have much depth of soil.   Any Palestinian peasant would
have known that from experience.   The added description is supefluous.

Why then was that superfluous detail added to the parable as both Crossan
and I argue it was?    It was added by the creator(s) of the Interpretation,
I submit first of all, to restore symmetrical balance to the second episode
of sowing made asymmetrical by the addition of the explanatory subordinate
clause, "since it had no root."  By the insertion of the root motif into the
parable, the parable's inherent syntactical symmetry of the rocky-ground
episode was rendered unbalanced, thus: "Other seed fell on rocky ground, and
it sprang up, and, since it had no root, it withered."    So to restore the
balance, the interpreter(s) added yet another subordinate clause into the
first part of the tripartite episode, namely, the subordinate clause  hOPOU
OUK EICEN GHN POLLN ("where it had not much soil").    This redaction of the
episode caused it to read thus: "Other seed was sown on rocky ground, where
it had not much soil, and it sprang up, and, since it had no root, it
withered."   The addition of the subordinate clause after "rocky ground"
restored the syntactical symmetry inherent in the original parable, a
syntactical symmetry which, I submit, would been made asymmetrical by the
insertion of the subordinate clause, "since it had no root," alone.

In addition, this subordinate clause, "where it had not much soil," also
functions to perform one other thematic service.   It prepares for and
anticipates the root motif.   For with the interpolation of the clause into
the parable, the effect is to underscore redundantly the fact that the seed
which fell on rocky ground had only minimal soil at best in which to
germinate.   Therefore, it now comes as no surprise when it is shortly
revealed that the seed sprang up and withered.   Of course!    With no depth
of soil, the seed had virtually no chance of rooting.    The subsequent
explanation that the withering was a result of lack of rootage only confirms
the obvious already strongly suggested.   The effect of the introduction of
"where it had not much soil," moreover, is to move to fill the gap on why
the seed failed to survive before the gap is finally filled and the
ambiguity resolved by the explicit explanation that the seed failed to root.

By the interpolation of the two subordinate clauses, "where it had not much
soil" and "since it had no root," the parable in its revised form fits hand
in glove with the allegorical analogy the interpreter(s) set out to
establish through the parable.    For similar reasons of creating conformity
to the allegorical interpretation, the creator(s) of the Interpretation, as
I have noted earlier on, added the additional superfluous comments in 4:7c
and 4:8 as expansions to the original parable to meet the needs of the
growth theme in the allegorical schema of the Interpretation..

   E. The Stage 3 Redaction by Mark

In stage 3 of the evolution of the Parable of the Sower, the Markan
redaction, as Crossan has argued, Mark wanted to expand the message of the
allegory with respect to the ecclesiological meaning of the fate of the seed
falling upon rocky soil to include the experience of Christians facing
"tribulation and persecution" in Mark's time.  Mark knew that some of these
Christians had recanted their faith as result of facing such trials.   So to
include this motif of Christians renouncing their faith under the "heat" of
tribulation and persecution, Mark revised the original Interpretation by
inserting his own wording in 4:17b.   Namely, between the term EITA and the
term SKANDALIZONTA in the Interpretation, Mark inserted GENOMENHS QLIYEWS  H
DIWGMOU  DIA TON  LOGON EUQUS ("when tribulation and persecution arises on
account of the word immediately").    Then in order to have the parable
provide a motif compatible with the idea of the rise of tribulation and
persecution, a motif which would anticipate and prepare for his own
allegorical commentary in the Interpretation, Mark inserted, as Crossan
maintains, the depiction of the sun scorching the seed via his
interpolation: hOTE ANETEILEN  hO  hHLIOS EKAUMATISQH ("when the sun rose up
it scorched the seed").

To insert this depiction into his parable, Mark drew upon his redactional
technique of intercalation.   But he used intercalation this time with a
twist.   Rather than picking up on a clause or phrase in a source text just
prior to his interpolating his own material, and then repeating that phrase
as a suture to what follows in the source text, as he usually does, Mark
this time adopted the clause in the source text, which would immediately
follow what he interpolated, and then created a near-copy of it to serve as
the lead-in suture for his interpolation.  That is, Mark attached his
insertion to the parabolic text's subordinate clause --- the clause created
by the redactor(s) in stage two --- and produced, via that clause, his own
subordinate clause, namely, DIA TO MH ECEIN  BAQOS GHS, to serve as the
initial link between the parabolic text as he found it and his
interpolation.

I said Mark created a near-copy of the clause in his source text.  For in
this particular instance Mark chose not to repeat the source-clause DIA TO
MN  ECEIN hRIZAN verbatim, when he used it as his link clause to introduce
his interpolation.  Rather he chose instead to substitute, in place of
hRIZAN, the term BAQOS ("depth") to serve as a bridge term that would, on
the one hand, continue to accentuate the character of the shallow, rocky
ground, the motif being pressed at that point in the parable.   And on the
other hand, BAQOS  anticipates the term hRIZAN.   For both depth of ground
and rootage are compatible terms in a larger agronomic context.   Depth of
ground is both the locus and the necessity for rootage.   Without depth of
ground, rootage is almost impossible or certainly frustrated.

One final point on stage 3 Markan redaction: I have not touched thus far on
the presence of EUQUS ("immediately") in the Parable of the Sower and in the
Interpretation, and its likely origin.   It has long been established that
Mark has a preference throughout his Gospel for the adverb EUQUS.    Of the
fifty times that EUQUS occurs in the New Tesament, five of those occurrences
are found in Matthew, two in Luke-Acts, three in John and forty in Mark.
With eighty percent of the occurrences of EUQUS in the New Testament found
in Mark, there is every reason to conclude that Mark inserted the adverb
into the Interpretation and the parable when he received them in the
tradition to which he had access.

VI. Episode Two: the Lukan and Thomistic Versions

Before concluding this reconstruction of the original Parable of the Sower,
I need to return to the Lukan and Thomistic version of the "Sower,"
particularly with respect to the second episode of the fate of the seed on
rocky ground.   Each of these two versions is so remarkably different from
the way in which the second episode is depicted in the Markan and Matthean
Gospels that the difference raises the question: from whence did these
versions come?   For purposes of recall, I cite the Lukan and Thomistic
versions of the sowing of seed on rocky ground again:

Lk. 8:6: "And some fell on rock/ and grew up/ it withered
   /because it had no moisture.
Th. 9:3: Others fell on the rock/ and did not take root in the soil
   /and they did not put forth ears.

The Lukan version, with the exception of the explanatory clause, "since it
had no moisture, is unusually close conceptually, if not in exact Greek
vocabulary to my proposed reconstruction of the original parabolic episode.
The Greek of Lk 8:6, sans the explanatory clause, reads KAI hETERON
KATEPESEN EPI THN PETRAN, KAI  FUEN EXHRANQN and the Greek of my
reconstructed version is, KAI ALLO EPESEN EPI TO PETRWDES, KAI EXANETEILEN,
EXHPANQH.   With conceptually so similar and vocabulary so different, is it
possible that Luke possessed an early of the parable and used it, perhaps
along with what he found in Mark?     Crossan raises the same question
(_Cliffs_, 35-38).   But, while conceding the possibility that Luke could
have possessed another version of the Parable, Crossan finally concludes
that Luke just abbreviated and rephrased Mark.   I am inclined to see it the
other way.   I think it is quite possible that Luke had another version of
the parable which was an earlier casting of the original, to which a
redactor had added the clause "since it had no moisture" to fill in the gap
left in Jesus' telling of the parable regarding the cause which led to the
seed-plant withering.

I turn now to the Thomistic version of the sowing episode on rocky ground.
At first blush there appears to be strong reason to conclude that Thomas'
version comes close to the original version I have propopsed, and could, as
a result, antedate that version.    The strength of such an argument is
based upon the terse, paratactic and triadic character of the Thomistic
account.    But two important facets of the version in the Gospel of Thomas
weigh against it antedating my reconstructed version.    The first is the
presence of the root motif.   The presence of the root motif in the
Thomistic version appears again to be a late insertion made in the parable
with purpose of filling the gap left in the original when the cause of the
plant's failure to produce fruit was left unexplained.

Moreover, the statement that "they did not put forth ears" sounds
suspiciously close to the final redactional comment of the creator(s) of the
Interpretation inserted into the pre-Markan parable following the third
episode of agricultural failure (Mk. 4:7c), namely, KAI KARPON  OUK EDWKEN
("and it gave no fruit/grain").   In my view the Thomistic version, aside
from the fact that the seed is sown on rock (as in the case of Luke's
version), is--- following the phase depicting the actual sowing--- actually
a conflation of the root motif and the growth motif which is found in the
pre-Markan version created by the creator(s) of the Interpretation.

In any event, I posit, based upon the principle of the "harder reading" that
my reconstructed version of the second episode of sowing is a more original
version than the Thomistic version.  I posit this to be the case based upon
Sternberg's insights on gaps in biblical narratives.   In my judgment, my
reconstructed version, "Some fell on rocky ground/ and it sprang up/ and it
withered" is the harder reading because the gap related to the possible
cause of the demise of the seed remains unfilled in my reconstructed
version, whereas the Thomistic version has already moved to close the gap by
clearly stating that the seed on rock could not establish rootage.

Obviously, if seed cannot not get a root structure started, it cannot
survive.   Moreover, I would argue that my reconstructed version which
depicts the seed as being sowed on PETRWDES (rocky ground), in contrast to
the Thomistic (and Lukan version), which depicts the seen being sown on
rock, is the harder reading.   I state this, again drawing upon Sternberg's
insights, because in the depiction of  the seed being sown on rocky grounds
lies ambiguity.   Rocky ground by definition is not all rock.   Even in
rocky ground there is some soil.  So there is in rocky ground the
possibility of seed falling into soil, no matter how minimal, and having a
chance to survive.   That is precisely what is suggested in my reconstructed
version.   Following the sowing the seed did spring up, which suggests that
it must have established sufficient initial rootage to enable it to spring
up.

By contrast, seed sown on rock has no hope of survival, there is not even a
modicum of soil on rock for a chance, however minimal, for the seed even to
begin to develop a root structure.   To state at the outset, as the
Thomistic and Lukan versions do, that the seed fell on rock makes it
unambiguously clear that the seed will not germinate.   My judgment is that
whoever changed the consistency of the ground where the seed fell from rocky
ground to rock did so to fill one more gap and remove the ambiguity in the
original version that left open the possibility that the seed might
germinate for a short time, if lucky, on rocky ground.   Since the final
outcome of that sowing was the demise of the seed before it could get
started, some redactor substituted PETRON for PETRWDES to remove any initial
ambiguity with respect to the future for the sown seed.

Following a somewhat similar line of reason, I would argue that the
reconstructed version I am proposing for the second sowing episode also
antedates the Lukan version.   Again, the Lukan version, which has tacked on
to the depiction of the fate of the seed the explanation that it died
because there was not sufficient moisture to live, is a secondary attempt to
fill the gap and remove the ambiguity inherent in the original version, as I
have proposed, for why it was that the seed-plant withered.   I posit,
therefore, that the order of the evolution of the three versions, the
Thomistic, the Lukan and my reconstructed version, was thus: my
reconstructed version, followed by the Lukan version, followed by the
Thomistic version, for all the reasons cited above.   With respect to the
Matthean version, it is obvious that, with the exception of the difference
in singular (ALLO=Mark) and plural (ALLA=Matthew) reference to the seed and
different preferences for the use of KAI/DE (KAI=Mark, DE=Matthew) and
EUQUS/EUQEWS (EUQUS=Mark, EUQEWS=Matthew), the Matthew and Markan versions
are exactly the same.  The fact that Matthew's version, therefore, contains
the Markan intercalation of Mk. 4:5-6 is a clear indication that the
Matthean version is dependent upon Mark.   That would be the case whether
one agrees with my identification of the Markan intercalation or Crossan's
(see _Cliffs_ ,35, where Crossan makes a case for Matthean dependency upon
Mark based upon the Matthean appropriation of the Markan intercalation).

VII.  The Original Parable

To complete the thrust of this discussion, I submit, with the removal of the
interpolations of Mk. 4:5-6, 4:7and 4:8b as identified above, that the
original Parable of the Sower (or at least the earliest version of an
original performance that can be reconstructed from our sources) was as
follows (in English translation)::

"A sower went out              / to sow/       and as he sowed,
Some fell along the path/ and birds came/ and devoured it.
Other fell on rocky ground/ and it sprang up/ and it withered.
Other fell among thorns/ and the thorns rose up/ and choked it.
And others fell on good ground/ and gave grain/ and bore
         one, thirty/        one, sixty/         one, one hundred.

The resulting reconstruction is a crisp, nicely balanced, symmetrical,
paratactic and triadic story.  The character of the resultant Greek text of
this reconstructed version of the parable would provide even stronger reason
to argue that "behind" the Greek lies an Aramaic original (cf. Crossan's his
reference, _JBL_, 247, n.12, to the work of Matthew Black and Helmut Koester
on a likely Aramaic original of the parable).

VIII. The Original Parable and Its Parabolic Jolt
Now I turn to the issue of the parabolic jolt in the parable, a parabolic
jolt which I identified in my earlier posts as being present in the final
Markan sequencing of numbers, 30-60-100.    A number of theories, as I
stated at the outset of this essay, have been proposed by various
contributors to this list, with regard to the whether the yield represented
by those figures is idealistic or realistic.   A number of authorities have
been quoted on both sides of the argument.   Let me add to them one more,
which I do not remember any one mentioning.   Joel Marcus (_Mark 1-8_)
contributes the following with regard to the significance of the size of the
yield of grain on the good soil (292f.):

"The yield was calculated by comparing the amount of seed sown with the
amount of grain harvested see e.g. *b. Ketub*. 112a: 'One *se'ah* in Judaea
yielded five: one *se'ah* of fine flour, one *se'ah* of bran and one *se'ah*
of cibarium.'   The Talmud text, as well as ancient passages from non-Jewish
sources (e.g. Columella _On Agriculture_3.3.4; Cicero _Against Verres_
2.3.47), suggests that yields of thirty-, sixty-, and a hundredfold would
have been considered quite remarkable.   Indeed, they would be extraordinary
even in the twentieth century, in which yields of sevenfold to elevenfold
are typical of countries using traditional cropping systems.   If other
ancient writers (e.g. Varro _On Agriculture_ 1.44.2; Strabo _Geography_
15.3.11) occasionally describe yields of fifty- and one hundredfold or
better, these reports are in the nature of tall tales told by foreigners
returning from exotic locations ...; similarly legendary are the hundredfold
yields reported in Gen. 26:12 and _Sib. Or._ 3:261-64."
But see also the opposite view of B. Brandon Scott, _Hear Then the Parable_,
357.

I agree with Marcus and many others that the depiction of size of the yield
of grain from seed sown on good soil was intended by Jesus as a description
of an extraordinary, even incredibly, bountiful harvest.   However, in the
final analysis I do not think that the message of the parable finally hangs
on whether the figures are idealistic or realistic.   The parabolic message
is a message of contrast.  Jesus, as was his practice in parabling, guides
his hearers, via the parable, first into a world of experience well known to
them, a world of failure, loss, tragedy (represented by the common
experience of agricultural failure), then Jesus introduces his hearers to
the character and vision of God's dawning domain, a world where the
extraordinary abundance of goodness (represented by the extraordinary
harvest) far exceeds the devastation of the tragic.

Furthermore, I am convinced that the point of the parable is driven home via
the numerical sequencing, 30-60-100.   In recent posts on XTalk, the many
imaginative ways of showing how there is a logical mathematical relationship
inherent amongst the numbers 30, 60, 100 in the numerical sequencing
30-60-100, neglects to consider one thing.  The original parable of Jesus,
as I understand, was proclaimed to non-elite, illiterate Galileans, persons
without any formal education or sophistication in higher math.   I am
doubtful that they would have been able to envision the mathematic theories
that some of the listers have suggested.    Finally, with respect to the
Markan numerical sequencing of 30-60-100 as both the original ending of the
parable, as well as containing what I would call a parabolic jolt to hook
the hearers to grapple with the parable's message, I quote an important
observation and conclusion drawn by Crossan (_Cliffs_, 43).

"Against such a repeated triadic structure [of the parable] there can be
only one answer on the original content of the terminal unit.   It had to be
30, 60, 100, with (1) a double triad in the last unit: fell/brought
forth/yielding, and then 30/60/100; (2) a triadic decimal progression in
30/60; (3) climaxed not by the expected 90 or 120 but by the terminal 100.
My explanation for this is as before [_In Parables_, 43-44].  'The 60/120 of
Thomas may be better mathematics than the 30/60/100 of Mark but it is not
good poetry.   B. H. Smith [Barbara H. Smith, _Poetic Closure_] has
discussed the special problems of poetic closure especially for paratactic
structures and concluded that "one of the most common and substantial
sources of closural effects in poetry is the terminal modification of a
formal principle" [Smith, 92].'   The constant use of threesomes [the formal
and thematic pattern inherent to the parable] is broken here [in the
concluding numerical sequence, 30-60-100] by the terminal 100 (rather than
90 or 100) which is itself a number representing consummation or
completeness."

As I have read Smith's discussion of poetic closure, there is much in her
insights that reinforces by judgment that Jesus has skillfully led his
hearers through formal and thematic elements inherent to the structure of
the parable in such away as to challenge the conventional worldview of his
hearers and challenge them to entertain and accept Jesus' vision of the
dawning domain of God.    Unfortunately, space does not allow me to show how
Smith's insights provide significant support to my thesis that the Markan
closure is a parabolic jolt.  Perhaps another time.

But let me close by again drawing on the insights of Sternberg as they have
application to the parabolic jolt in the numerical sequencing 30-60-100.
This sequencing, in lieu of Sternberg's insights on the penchant biblical
narrators had for creating gaps to produce ambiguity--- as well as Jesus'
interest in doing the same in his parables, as I demonstrated above- is an
excellent example of Jesus once again intentionally bringing his parable to
closure (a la Smith) and leaving his hearers caught up in the ambiguity of
the gap created when he moved from 60 to 100 in his closing enumeration,
rather than from 60 to 90 or 60 to120.    By "jumping" from 60 to 100, Jesus
leaves his hearers perplexed as to why he did so.   With 3 serving as the
dominant numerical factor driving the triadic sequences of the parable, as
Crossan notes, the hearers are prepared for an enumeration that has inherent
within it the constant factor of 3.   The question that rises in the mind,
as soon as 100 is heard following 30 and 60, is why?   What is Jesus' point
in doing so?    Is he trying to immediately move to a number representing
consummation or completion?   But why choose 100 when the series he begins
with is already prejudiced by the dominant factor of 3, for which 100 has no
obvious arithmetic relationship of normal progression?   Why?  As Brandon
Scott puts it (358), "...a hearer is left in a quandary: What has happened?"

And therein lies the parabolic jolt.   By leaving his hearers searching for
an explanation, a way to fill the gap and resolve the ambiguity in Jesus
sequencing of 30-60-100, Jesus lures his hearers back into the parable,
causing them to ask themselves what does Jesus' numerical sequencing in his
parable's closure have to do with the parable itself, its understanding and
its parabolic meaning.

Ted Weeden