We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
When scholars discuss the compositional processes of the Gospel of Mark, one of the important questions is the extent to which the evangelist drew on earlier sources. Mark seems to have collected and reordered a great amount of disparate material and given it his own stamp in order to produce something new. But the details of this process of collection, redaction, and composition are not at all clear. To what extent were those traditions already gathered or collected before Mark? Were the pre-Marcan materials transmitted in oral or written form? What degree of freedom did the gospel writer employ in taking over, adapting, or rewriting earlier sources?
1 For the sake of clarity I capitalize ‘Interpretation’ when referring directly to the specific text in Mark 4. 14–20, i.e., ‘The Interpretation of the Sower’.Google Scholar
2 Lambrecht, J. (‘De vijf parabels van Mc. 4: Structuur en theologie van de parabelrede’, Bijdragen 29 [1968] 25–33Google Scholarand ‘Redaction and Theology in Mk., IV’, in L'Évangile selon Marc: tradition et rédaction (BETL 34; ed. Sabbe, M.; Leuven: Leuven University, 1974]) 269–307) tends in this direction,Google Scholarfollowed by Crossan, J. D., In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 69. Lambrecht believes that only the Sower and its Interpretation had already been joined before Mark.Google Scholar
3 On what follows see further Sellew, P., ‘Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue, Story, or Sayings Cluster?’, Foundations & Facets Forum 4.3 (1988) 93–108;Google Scholarmore generally, idem, Dominical Discourses: Oral Clusters in the Jesus Sayings Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, forthcoming). Cf. the interesting study of oral and written modes of Scripture in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hindu religion in Graham, W. A., Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987).Google Scholar
4 Wilder, , ‘The Parable of the Sower: Naïveté and Method in Interpretation’, Semeia 2 (1974)134–51.Google Scholar
5 ibid.
6 Koester, , ‘Three Thomas Parables’, in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of R. McL. Wilson (ed. Logan, A. H. B. & Wedderburn, A. J. M.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983) 195–203 (here 195).Google Scholar
7 Crossan, , In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983). Not all of the suggestions of Crossan and Kelber (see next note) have met with universal acceptance, but the clarification between an ‘oral’ and a ‘scribal’ use and redeployment of tradition is quite significant.Google Scholar
8 Also important in this context are the suggestions of Kelber, W. H. about dichotomous ‘orality’/‘textuality’ modes operative in first-century Christianity (The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983]).Google ScholarKelber, had earlier proposed the consequences of his theory of ‘orality’/‘textuality’ tensions in ‘Mark and Oral Tradition’, Semeia 16 (1979) 7–55.Google Scholar
9 On memorization in rabbinic tradition and its application to the first-century Jesus tradition, see esp. Smith, M., ‘A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition’, JBL 82 (1963) 169–76;Google ScholarNeusner, J., ‘Oral Torah and Oral Tradition: Defining the Problematic’, in idem, Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism (BJS 10; Missoula: Scholars, 1979) 59–75.Google Scholar
10 Cf. the criticisms of Dibelius' overly generalized descriptive approach in K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 13–19.Google Scholar
11 For a comprehensive review of scholarship on Mark 4 up to 1985 see Sellew, P., ‘Early Collections of Jesus' Words: The Development of Dominical Discourses’ (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985/6) 163–223.Google Scholar
12 Riddle, D. W., ‘Mark 4. 1–34: The Evolution of a Gospel Source’, JBL 56 (1937) 77–90. Riddle is rarely mentioned by later writers.Google Scholar
13 Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (2nd rev. ET; New York: Scribner's, 1972) 13–14 and passim.Google Scholar
14 Marxsen, W., ‘Redaktionsgeschichtliche Erklärung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie des Markus’, ZTK 52 (1955) 255–71;Google Scholarcited from the reprint in idem, Der Exeget als Theologe: Vorträge zum Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1968) 13–28.Google Scholar
15 Kuhn, H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (StUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 99–146.Google Scholar
16 Robinson, J. M., ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’, in Gnosis: Festschrift fur Hans Jonas (ed. Aland, B.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 125–43;Google Scholarcited here from the reprint in idem, The Problem of History in Mark and Other Marcan Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982). Robinson's suggestions about the ‘hermeneutical’ intent of his postulated source are of considerable value (see further below).Google Scholar
17 Even the most recent synthetic treatment of Mark 4, the insightful dissertation of Joel Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God(SBLDS 90; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), is hampered on this point by reliance on the Riddle/Jeremias model.Google Scholar
18 For these categories see Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Mohr/Siebeck, 1910) 1. 93–118;Google ScholarBultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ET; New York: Scribner's, 1968) 174;Google ScholarDodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Scribner's, 1961) 5–9;Google ScholarBoucher, M. suggests ‘tropical narrative’ (The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study [CBQMS 6; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1977] esp. 1125).Google Scholar
19 The use of aorist subjunctives in 4. 26 ff. is no real exception despite some worry in the commentaries: the construction of ώζ + subjunctive expresses indefinite time here; and note that in v. 28 Mark shifts to present indicative verbs.Google Scholar
20 Cameron, R. D. prefers ‘simile’ (Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James [HTS 34; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 8).Google Scholar
21 For lucid discussions of the improbability of locating the supposed ‘original’ wording of an orally transmitted saying or story see esp. Kelber, , The Oral and the Written Gospel, 1–43, and Crossan, In Fragments, 37–67.Google Scholar
22 Matthew's dependence is described in Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism (London: SPCK, 1969) 12;Google ScholarCarlston, Parables of the Triple Tradition, 3–9, 21–8; cf. Wilkens, W., ‘Die Redaktion des Gleichniskapitels durch Matt.’, TZ 20 (1964) 305–27.Google ScholarFor Luke see Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 1 (AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981) 699–700; Carlston, Parables, 70–6;Google ScholarDupont, J., ‘La parabole du semeur dans la version de Luc’, in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (BZNW 30; ed. Eltester, W.; Berlin: Tbpelmann, 1964) 97–108;Google ScholarSchramm, T., Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas (SNTSMS 14; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1971) 114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 The minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are too minimal (absence of άκούετε, use of the article τοû before infinitive) to suppose a Q version; cf. Neirynck, F., ed., The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative List (BETL 37; Leuven: Leuven University, 1974) 87–8; Carlston, Parables of the Triple Tradition, 5 n. 4.Google Scholar
24 Bellinzoni, A. J. has argued that Justin relied on a written source that harmonized the versions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr [NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1967] esp. 127–30).CrossRefGoogle ScholarBellinzoni does not account for the deviation in order of the rocky ground and thorns in Justin's version, however, which may instead point to either the use of independent tradition or even quotation from memory. Justin's order agrees with Hermas and the version cited in the third-century Ps.-Cyprian De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima §9 (PL Supp. I [Paris, 1958] 56–67).Google ScholarThough its wording includes moralizing features reminiscent of the Interpretation, here the sower casts the seed onto Justin's sequence of ‘soils’ — path, thorns, and rock: ‘Exiit, inquit, seminans seminare. unum cecidit in uia, aliud inter spinas, aliud in petra, aliud uero in terrain bonam.... ’ At least one scholar has argued that this and other differences may be due to an independent version (Daniélou, J., The Origins of Latin Christianity [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977 77–8). Bellinzoni also does not consider the possibility of harmonistic interference in the MS tradition of Justin, a question deserving more attention.Google Scholar
25 The comment on bearing fruit is lacking in Justin's version.Google Scholar
26 Kuhn, , Ältere Sammlungen, 122–9.Google Scholar
27 For recent lit. see esp. Fusco, V., Parola e regno: la sezione delta parabole (Me. 4,1–34) nella prospettiva marciana (Aloisiana 13; Brescia: Morcellina, 1980) 307xs–39; Marcus, Mystery of the Kingdom, 19–71 (esp. 19–25, 31–34, 37–59).Google Scholar
28 Weder, H. disagrees (Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978]) 108.Google Scholar
29 See Gnilka, J., Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6,9–10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker (SANT 3; Munich: Kosel, 1961) 60–1.Google Scholar
30 About fifty times, with considerable MS variation. This frequency means that some scholars tend to label as ‘redactional’ virtually any verse containing the word εύθύζ or εύθέωζGoogle Scholar
31 Weder, , Gleichnisse Jesu, 112–13.Google Scholar
32 Crossan, , In Parables, 44; for Klauck see n. 34 below.Google Scholar
33 The standard reference is still to Olrik's, A. ‘Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung’, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 51 (1909) 1–12;Google Scholaravailable in English as ‘Epic Laws of Folk Narrative’, in The Study of Folklore (ed. Dundes, A.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965) 129–41.Google Scholar
34 See Klauck's, H.-J. reconstructed text, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (NTAbh n.F. 13; Münster: Aschendorff, 1978) 188–9, and cf. Marcus, Mystery of the Kingdom, 22–3.Google Scholar
35 Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, ibid.. Marcus (Mystery of the Kingdom, 32 n. 52) considers the construction διά τό + infinitive to be non-Marcan (elsewhere only 5. 4 διά τό... δεδέσθαι). The expression is found only twice in Matthew, once in his version of the Sower (13. 5; 24.12) but is frequent with Luke (2. 4; 6. 48; 8. 6; 9. 7; 11. 8; 18. 5; 19.11; 23. 8; Acts 4. 2; 8.11; 12. 20; 18. 2,3; 27. 4, 9; 28. 18).
36 Crossan, In Parables, 40–1.Google Scholar
37 Also noted by [E.] Breech, J., The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 82.Google Scholar
38 Crossan, , In Parables, 42.Google Scholar
39 Note however that Crossan's explanation does not account for the Marcan-sounding elements τήν γ
ν or εύθύζ in his ‘original parable of Jesus’ (a further instance of the continuity of language exhibited when Mark re-presents traditional material).Google Scholar
40 Among the copious lit. see esp. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 146–9; Kuhn, Altere Sammlungen, 99–104; Crossan, In Parables, 45–9; Funk, R. W., ‘The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds: Ezekiel 17:22–24; Mark 4:30–32’, Int 27 (1973) 3–9; Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’, 291–7;Google ScholarAmbrozic, A. M., The Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark's Gospel (CBQMS 2; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972) 46–135, esp. 122–34;Google ScholarKlauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 210–18; Laufen, R., Die Doppeliiberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980) 174–200; Fusco, Parola e regno, 365–80; Breech, Silence of Jesus, 76–7; Marcus, Mystery of the Kingdom, 201–20;Google ScholarCameron, R. D., ‘Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,’ Foundations & Facets Forum 2.2 (1986) 3–39.Google Scholar
41 So e.g. Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’.Google Scholar
42 So e.g. W. Schrage, Das Verhaltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelieniibersetzungen (BZNW 29; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 61–6; J.Ménard, L'Évangile selon Thomas (NHS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 109also Lambrecht, ibid.; cf. contrariwise J. H. Sieber, ‘A Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with Regard to the Question of the Sources of the Gospel according to Thomas’, (Ph.D. diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1965) 171–80. For an up-to-date review of scholarship and traditio-historical analysis of individual units in Thomas, see S. J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas within the Development of Early Christianity1 (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1988) 1–163.
43 Cf. Lindemann, A., ‘Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evangelium’, ZNW 71 (1980) 226;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSehrage, Verhaltnis, 65–66; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 281; Marcus, Mystery of the Kingdom, 204 n. 9; this tendency is opposed by Koester, ‘Three Thomas Parables’, Cameron, ‘Parable and Interpretation in Thomas’, and Patterson, ‘Thomas within Early Christianity’ (passim).Google Scholar
44 Greeven imposes a grammatical difficulty similar to Mark's in his retroversion of GThom 20: κόκκω σινάπεωζ 
μικρότερον… (Huck, A., Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, 13th ed. newly revised by Greeven, H. [Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981]) 94.Google Scholar
45 Contra Crossan.Google Scholar
46 For criticism see Crossan, In Parables, 47.Google Scholar
47 Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 218–19; see further Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition., 172–3; Jeremias, Parables, 151–2; Crossan, In Parables, 84–5; Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’, 291–7; Ambrozic, Hidden Kingdom, 106–22; Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern, 117–20; Tolbert, M. A., Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 79–81; Fusco, Parola c regno, 341–64; Marcus, Mystery of the Kingdom, 163–200; Cameron, ‘Parable and Interpretation in Thomas’.Google Scholar
48 In addition to the previous note see Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 144.Google Scholar
49 So e.g. Jeremias, Parables, 151; Crossan, In Parables, 84–5.Google Scholar
50 Depending on how one construes the phrase ώς ούκ οίδεν αύτός in Mark 4. 27. Kuhn denies that the Thomas fragment could have existed as an independent saying (Ältere Sammlungen, 107 n. 39).Google Scholar
51 NHC 1. 7.22–32; see Cameron, Sayings Traditions, 17–30, and ‘Parable and Interpretation in Thomas’Google Scholaralso Hedrick, C. W., ‘Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in The Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction’, NTS 29 (1982/1983) 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 The most recent dissenter along these lines in Payne, P. B., ‘The Seeming Inconsistency of the Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower’, NTS 26 (1979/80) 564–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ’The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation’, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Gospels (ed. France, R. T. & Wenham, D.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 1.163–207 (with further lit.).Google Scholar
53 Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium (Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1973). Cf. also Fusco, Parola e regno, 92–8.Google Scholar
54 Zerwick, M., Untersuchungen zum. Markus-Stil: Ein Beitrag zur stilistischen Durcharbeitung des Neuen Testaments (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937) 57–75;Google Scholar see also Essame, W. G., ‘καί ἔ;λεγεν in Mark iv 21, 24, 26, 30,’ ExpTim 77 (1965/6) 121.Google Scholar
55 Räisänen, , Parabeltheorie, 93–102.Google Scholar
56 This is more obvious in the Marcan phrases setting the scene for Jesus' teaching, which often use the term ‘summoning’ (προσκαλεσάμενος) along with the phrase (καί) ἔλεγεν αὑτοîς,; see e.g. 3.23 and 7.14. In 8.1, 34 Mark employs different tenses.Google Scholar
57 On this point see further Sellew, P., ‘Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark's Gospel’, JBL 108.4 (1989) 613–34.Google Scholar
58 Räisänen, , Parabeltheorie, 92 (his emphasis).Google Scholar
59 Räisänen, , Parabeltheorie, 110–11.Google Scholar
60 Schweizer, E., ‘Marc 4,1–20’, ETR 43 (1968) 256–64,Google Scholarand Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 46–7.Google Scholar
61 Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 60–1, 67–70. It seems however that the use of καί λέγ≥ι αύτοἴς; in 4.35 does not fit Zerwick's model.Google Scholar
62 Zerwick, , Markus-Stil, 69–70.Google Scholar
63 Räisänen (Parabeltheorie, 107) oddly claims that it is illogical for tradition and redaction critics to use Zerwick's data, since his purpose was to argue that the Gospel of Mark is a stylistic unity not exhibiting literary seams. This appears to be the fallacy (familiar from recent work on the Synoptic problem) that confuses a critical history of scholarly opinions with invalidation of the data thought to be in support of those opinions.Google Scholar
64 Klauck, , Allegorie und Allegorese, 67–91;Google ScholarOppenheim, A. L., The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956);Google Scholar see further Horgan, M. P., Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979) 229–59.Google Scholar
65 See further Collins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula: Scholars, 1977);Google ScholarAune, D. E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) esp. 107–14;Google ScholarNiditch, S., The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30; Chico: Scholars, 1983), who sees a three-stage development of the form from Amos through Zechariah and Daniel; she terms the vision interpretations of Daniel 7 and 9 ‘baroque’.Google Scholar
66 For this tradition see esp. Buffièreé, F., Les mythes d' Homère et la pensie grecque (Paris: ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1956).Google Scholar
67 Klauck, , Allegorie und Allegores, 74 and passim.Google Scholar
68 Allegorie und Allegorese, 79–84, 205 n. 97, with many examples; cf. e.g. Herm. 51. 5–10; 56. 3–9; 60.–4; 72.1–6; 77.1–5; 78.1–10; 109.1–5.Google Scholar
69 Dodd, , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University,1963) 315–34;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLemcio, E. E. (‘External Evidence for the Structure and Function of Mark iv. 1–20, vii 14–23 and viii. 14–21’, JTS n.s. 29 [1978] 323–38) argues that the presence of the pattern in OT texts shows that for Mark (and John) the Hermetic parallels are unnecessary; he does not distinguish clearly enough the question of dependence from that of analogous or related development.Google Scholar
70 See esp. Horgan's survey of the texts in Pesharim, 10–228.Google Scholar
71 Horgan, Pesharim, 249–59; see also Klauck, , Allegorie und Allegorese, 75–9, 85–8; Niditch, The Symbolic Vision.Google Scholar
72 Horgan, , Pesharim, 1–3.Google Scholar
73 Klauck, , Allegorie und Allegorese, 84.Google Scholar
74 Klauck, Cf, Allegorie und Allegorese, 205.Google Scholar
75 Allegorie und Allegorese, 201.Google Scholar
76 Ibid.
77 Marcus also stresses the connections of the Interpretation to Jewish apocalyptic (Mystery of the Kingdom, 62–71).Google Scholar
78 On the tradition history of Mark 7 see most recently Booth, P. R., Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNT Sup 13; Sheffield: JSOT,1986).Google Scholar
79 Cf. further the parallel usage in Q (Luke 19. 26//Matt 25. 29) and the saying's frequent appearance in the Gospel of Thomas (logia 8, 21 e, 24, 63, 65, 96). See Robinson, ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’, 43–4, and Crossan, In Fragments, 69–73.Google ScholarDibelius, M. (‘wer Ohren hat zu hören, der höre’, TSK 83 [1901] 461–71) already recognized this tag's ‘hermeneutical’ significance.Google Scholar
80 Cf. BAGD, S. V. καθώς (391b);Google Scholar also Molland, E., ‘Zur Auslegung von Me 4,33 καθώςήδύναντο άκούειν’, SO 8 (1929) 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81 See Gnilka, , Verstockung Israels, 50–2;Google ScholarMinette de Tillesse, G., Le secret messianique dans I'évangile de Marc (Paris: du Cerf, 1968) 168–242, esp. 181–6;Google ScholarLambrecht, , ‘Redaction and Theology’, 273–7;Google ScholarKlauck, , Allegorie und Allegorese, 255–6;Google ScholarFusco, , Parola e regno, 195–9.Google Scholar
82 E.g., Carlston, , Parables of the Triple Tradition, 97–8.Google ScholarMarcus, (Mystery of the Kingdom, 88)Google Scholar suggests that Mark took over vv. 33–34a from his source, adding 34b along with vv. 11–12, since he judges that the phrase κατ ιδíαν is Marcan diction (following Best, E., ‘Mark's Use of the Twelve’, ZNW 69 [1978] 11–35, here 18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83 Cf. Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 255–6; for another perspective see Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’, 273–4.Google Scholar
84 Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’, 276.Google Scholar
85 For further examples and discussion of this form-critical category see Sellew, P., Dominical Discourses (n. 3 above).Google Scholar
86 For word statistics see esp. Gnilka, , Verstockung Israels, 57–8;Google ScholarKuhn, , Ältere Sammlungen, 137–9;Google ScholarLambrecht, , ‘Redaction and Theology’, 272–3;Google ScholarKelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 27;Google ScholarPryke, , Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel, 79–81, 96–7; Fusco, Parola e regno, 200–7.Google Scholar
87 NHC 1. 8. 16–30; 12. 22–27; see Cameron, , Sayings Traditions, 8–30, andGoogle Scholaridem, ‘Parable and Interpretation in Thomas’.Google Scholar
88 Cf. John, 20.30–31; 21.25.Google Scholar
89 Lemcio, External Evidence', cites several possible cases.Google Scholar
90 I work out the implications of this suggestion in my article ‘Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark's Gospel’ (n. 58 above).Google Scholar
91 E.g. 1 Clem. 24.5; Sim, Hernias. 9. 19–21; Justin Dial. 125. 1; Ps.-Clem. Recog. 3.14.Google Scholar
92 Mark 4. 30–32; Luke 13. 18–19; Thom, G. 20.Google Scholar
93 Matt 13. 24–30 and Thom, G. 57.Google Scholar
94 Note further that the saying on the sharing of the ‘mystery’ in Mark 4.11–12 is paralleled by GThom 62a. The sayings now collected in Mark 4.21–25 are nearly all known elsewhere: for 4.21 cf. GThom 33b and Q (Luke 11.33//Matt 5.15); for 4. 22 cf. GThom 5, 6 and Q (Luke 12. 2//Matt 10.26); for 4.23 cf. Mark 4.9 and GThom 8, 21e, 24 etc. (see n. 80 above); for 4.25 cf. Q (Luke 19.26//Matt 25. 29) and GThom 41.9 6 As noted by M. F. Wiles, ‘Early Exegesis of the Parables’, SJT 11 (1958) 287–301, here 293.Google Scholar
95 As noted by Wiles, M. F., ‘Early Exegesis of the Parables’, SJT 11 (1958) 287–301, here 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96 Koester, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vdtern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie, 1957) 20–1; ‘Three Thomas Parables’, 195–7.Google Scholar
97 Cf. also the discussion in n. 24 above.Google Scholar
98 Among the lit. see esp. Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 325;Google ScholarDodd, , Parables of the Kingdom, 140–4;Google ScholarDupont, J., ‘Le chapitre des paraboles’, NRT 89 (1967) 800–20;Google ScholarMinette de Tillesse, , Le secret messianique, 165–85;Google ScholarReploh, K. G., Markus — Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den J¨ngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969) 59–74;Google ScholarCarlston, , Parables of the Triple Tradition, 97–109;Google ScholarKelber, , Kingdom in Mark, 27–43;Google ScholarAmbrozic, , Hidden Kingdom, 46–135.Google Scholar
99 Cf. the comment of Marcus on the Sower and its Interpretation: ‘… in the parable itself, the primary horizon is the time of Jesus' ministry, while in the interpretation, the primary horizon is the time of the church’ (Mystery of the Kingdom, 69).Google Scholar
100 Among the literature on 4. 11—12 see (in addition to n. 99) esp. Windisch, H., ‘Die Verstockungsidee in Mk 4,12 und das kausale ἴνα der späteren Koine’, ZNW 26 (1927) 203–9; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 15;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCerfaux, L., ‘La connaissance des secrets du Royaume d'apres Matt xiii 11 et paralleles’, NTS 2 (1955/6);Google Scholarcited from reprint in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d exiges et d'histoire religieuse (Gembloux: Duculot, 1954–62) 3. 123–28;Google ScholarGnilka, , Verstockung Israels, 13–17;Google ScholarBrown, S., ‘“The Secret of the Kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11)’, JBL 92 (1973) 60–74; Lambrecht, ‘Redaction and Theology’, 281–5;Google ScholarLampe, P., ‘Die markinische Deutung des Gleichnisses vom Samann Markus 4, 10–12’, ZNW 65 (1974) 140–50;Google ScholarSchelkle, K. H., ‘Der Zweck der Gleichnisreden (Mk 4,10–12)’, in Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift fur Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. Gnilka, J.; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 71–5;Google ScholarKirkland, J. R., ‘The Earliest Understanding of Jesus' Use of Parables: Mark IV 10–12 in Context’, NovT 19 (1977) 1–21;Google ScholarKlauck, , Allegorie und Allegorese, 245–63; Fusco, Parola e regno, 223–78;94Google ScholarKoester, H., ‘ History and Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and “Canonical” Mark)’, in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (ed. Corley, B. C.; Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 35–57.Google ScholarThe apocalyptic connections are also emphasized by Marcus in ‘Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology’ JBL 103 (1984) 557–74 and Mystery of the Kingdom, 89–123.Google Scholar
101 So too Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 67; Schmahl, G., Die Zwbölf im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (TrThSt 30; Trier: Paulinus, 1974) 84; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 243.Google Scholar
102 Achtemeier, P. J., ‘Mark as Interpreter of the Jesus Traditions ’, in Interpreting the Gospels (ed. Mays, J. L.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 115–29 (here 122).Google Scholar
103 Marcus, , Mystery of the Kingdom, with this suggestion summarized on pp. 222–8.Google Scholar
104 Dahl, N. A., ‘The Parables of Growth’, StTh 5 (1951/2) 132–66,Google Scholar cited from the reprint in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976) 141–66Google Scholar (here 164). Cf. further Fusco, Parola e regno, 113–37, and idem, ‘L’èconomie de la révélation dans 1'évangile de Marc’, NRT 104 (1982) 532–4.Google Scholar
