^{page 166 note 1} See J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (7th ed. 1965), pp. 75–7, 149–50, with special reference to C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (4th ed. 1938), pp. 18 f., 24 f., 182. A. Julicher's detailed analysis of our parable is to be found in Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2nd ed. 1910), II, 514–38.

^{page 166 note 2} Cf. X. Léon-Dufour, Études d'Évangile (1965), pp. 255–301Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 1} , e.g. M Ber. II. 2.—Note the custom of inserting after the phrase ‘JHWH is one’ the benediction ‘Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever’ (e.g. Sifre Deut. §31); H. Strack–P. Billerbeck, Komm. II, 28–30 and IV, 194 f.

^{page 167 note 2} Note also the context in Deut., e.g. iv. I ff.; v. I, 29 ff.; vi. I ff., 17 f., 24 f.; vii. II f.; viii. I ff., where great stress is laid upon the duty to hear , guard and do the words God gives his people in and through the covenant.

^{page 167 note 3} MT: ; the LXX have μιμήσκεσθαι.

^{page 168 note 1} Cf. also other passages where Israel is exhorted to ‘hear’; note for example the rabbis' commentaries on Exod. xv. 26 (e.g. Mek. Vayassa I). A difficulty in the exegesis of both biblical and rabbinic texts on this subject is that the verb עמש mutates between a wider meaning (= ‘to hear effectively’, i.e. ‘to hear and do’ or ‘to hear, understand and do’) and a narrower ( = ‘to hear’ differentiated from ‘[understand and] do’).

^{page 168 note 2} See Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (1954), pp. 72–6.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 3} This demand for congruence led to the 'al-tiqrey reading ׇדַע֔ׄבׇמַ, ‘your reason’, instead of ך֢דְאׁפְ, ‘your property’. This reading is only one of the many puns which the expositors made on this relatively rare word. The different readings did not rule out each other.

^{page 168 note 4} See Gerhardsson, B., The Good Samaritan—the Good Shepherd? (1958), pp. 24–31, and idem, Memory and Manuscript (2nd ed. 1964), pp. 33–55, 65 f.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 5} For a more detailed presentation see my The Testing of God's Son (Matt 4: 1–11 and par): an analysis of an early Christian midrash (1966), fasc. 1, pp. 71–6.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1} Cf. Hos. x.2 and the Qumran community's polemic against חוקלתישרוד, 4QpNah 3, iQH ii. 15, 32; cf. iQH iv. 7–18.

^{page 169 note 2} Gerhardsson, , Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (1964), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} In the Markan version Jesus says ‘with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole reason [δινοιο] and with your whole might [׀σχς]; i.e. four elements. The scribe is represented as being in full agreement with Jesus, but when he repeats the commandment in his reply it is ‘with your whole heart, and with your whole understanding [σνεσις] and with your whole might’: three elements, and only two of these agree with Jesus' version. It is per se possible that the fourfold version is the result of a scribal interpretation aided by an elaborating 'al-tiqrey reading of the Hebrew text. Both δινοια (reason) and ׀σχς (might, resources, mammon) could stem from the word רדאמ (see the two readings noted above, p. 168, n. 3). If such is the case, this double interpretation has made it possible to read out of the text not only the objective factor (mammon) but also the subjective (human reason which treats with mammon); see further below. But there is nothing to suggest that Mark has understood this or has attached any specific significance to the various elements in the manifold formulations of the commandment.

The Matthean form seems to be more carefully composed. First of all, die reply to the scribe, widi its unnecessary repetition of the commandment, is omitted. Further the text of the Shema‘ on Jesus' lips has only three elements. The preposition is in all cases ν, not κ. Jesus says here ‘with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole reason [δινοια]. The problem is how to interpret the last word. It is possible that the evangelist means that the reason must not be distracted or obscured by riches or worldliness—the motif we find, for example, in Herm. Mand. x. 1, 5 and Sim. iv. 7; cf. also II Clem. xx. I—a reason which does not submit to scepticism or worry (μριμνα). If this is so, the evangelist has carefully considered the various elements in accordance with the scribal interpretation we have described above. It is doubtful, however, whether we are justified in giving such a special interpretation to δινοια. For the present I leave the question open.

Luke presents us with a parallel pericope which has probably been handed down another way and has therefore taken on another form. Yet this pericope also consists of a conversation between Jesus and a scribal jurist (halakist). The two are agreed in principle. But here it is Jesus who asks and the scribe who replies. Luke has four elements in his version but with different prepositions to Mark and a different order; ‘from your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole might and with your whole reason’. It is difficult to determine how significant these variations are (1 + 3?), but it seems clear that the scribal threefold pattern which we have described was not in the mind of the evangelist. We can see this also in his versions of the temptation narrative and the ‘parable chapter’ (see below).

^{page 170 note 2} See above, p. 168, n. 5.

^{page 171 note 1} See the forthcoming fasc. 2 of The Testing of God's Son, ch. 5. On the part played by the Shema ‘scheme in the Matthean version of the crucifixion narrative (xxvii. 33–54) see my article ‘Utlämnad och övergiven’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XXXII (1967).Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} For a more detailed analysis, see W., Wilkens, ‘Die Redaktion des Gleichniskapitels Mark. 4 durch Matth.’, Th. Z. xx (1964), 305–27.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} On how the rabbis could take another attitude to their disciples than they did to outsiders, see Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956), pp. 141–50.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 3} Note the textual variants. If the reading in D it sy^s should be the original—which can be doubted—the saying would be more obscure, but ξελθών remains in v. 1, corresponding to v. 36.

^{page 172 note 4} The owner of the house has followed the ancient rule attributed to Jose ben Joezer of Zereda in M Ab 1. 4: ‘Let your house be a meeting place for the wise…’

^{page 173 note 1} On the forms of esoteric instruction see J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (3rd ed. 1960), pp. 119–25. Mark also has the saying about how the hidden shall be revealed in this context (vv. 21 f.). Note particularly the more elaborate version of this saying in Matthew (x. 26 f.): ‘for nothing has been covered except that it should be uncovered, and nothing is hidden except in order to be made known. What I tell you in the dark, you shall say in the light, and what you hear [whispered] in your ear, you shall call out from the housetops.’ The implications of this saying can only be appre- ciated when one recalls that it was the practice of the scribes to imitate their teacher in everything. The principle ‘teach with the same voice that you hear’ (Mek. Pischa 1. 136, ed. Lauterb.) means: pass on aloud what you have received aloud, and whisper what you heard your teacher whisper.

^{page 173 note 2} If comparison is made with Hellenistic material we should not think of the polemic between different religions or schools but of the relations between those who chose the ascetic way of wisdom and those who stayed ‘in the world’, which were in many ways similar to relations between the rabbis and the ‘amme haaræz’. Has not ol χλοι in Matt. xiii. 34–6 pejorative overtones?

^{page 173 note 3} On this logion cf. L. Cerfaux, ‘La connaissance des secrets du Royaume d'aprés Mt., xm, 11 et paralléles’, Recueil L. Cerfaux, in (1962), 123–38, which, however, must be complemented with material from the Wisdom tradition. The Qumran scrolls are also illuminating on this theme: W. D. Davies, ‘“Knowledge” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew xi. 25–30’, H. Th.R. XLVI (1953), 113–39.

^{page 174 note 1} Prov. i. 5; ix. 9; see, on Exod. xv. 26 (עמשת עומש םא), Mek. Vayassa 1. 148–85, Mek. Bachod. 11, 39–42, b Ber 40a. For further instances see Billerbeck, Komm. 1, 660 f.

^{page 174 note 2} This is a variation of the late Jewish doctrine of God's ‘adequate recompense’ (Klostermann). Cf. Rom. i. 18—32 and O. Michel, Komm. ad loc.

^{page 174 note 3} Note how the contrast between the uncomprehending crowd and the disciples is expressed in the emphasized pronouns at the beginning of the sentences: μίν (v.), μὦνδ (v. 16), μείς ο (V. 18).

^{page 174 note 4} The direct undisguised revelation is regarded as an incomparable privilege. According to the tradition, men of God in olden times had usually to be content with visions and dreams, parables and riddles. See Num. xii. 6 and Hos. xii. 11 and the illuminating argument in Mek. Shir. m. 28–39, Mek. Bachod. in. 38–40. Note Moses' privilege in Num. xii. 8, when God speaks to him mouth to mouth, ‘clearly and not in riddles’.

^{page 174 note 5} See further Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel (3rd ed. 1964), pp. 145 f., and Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted (1966), pp. 242–4 (with references).Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 6} On this see Trilling, , op. cit., and R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Malthäusevangelium (2nd ed. 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} On the phenomenon see Memory and Manuscript, pp. 143–6 (esp. p. 145, n. 3). Note that in this case the parable has received its name from its introduction (in Greek), although the evangelist is aware of its meaning. The parable of the tares, on the other hand, is named after its main content: παραβολ דν נιנν׀ων נο γρο, Matt. xiii. 36.

^{page 175 note 2} The problem is whether he is Jesus alone or whether he is Jesus and all the other proclaimers of the word of the kingdom. X. Léon-Dufour (op. cit. pp. 298 f.) sees a connexion between v. 1 (Jesus went out) and v. 3 (the sower went out) and thereby an indication that the sower is Jesus (cf. v. 37).

^{page 175 note 3} Since σπε׀ρειν in the ‘parable chapter’ (and in the New Testament as a whole) always has as its object that which is scattered (the seed), not that upon which it is scattered (the soil), it is more natural to interpret the passive ο׀ σπειρόμενοι as indicating ‘what is sown’ rather than as ‘what is sown upon’. Possibly, however, the formulation was vague, or even intended to have a double meaning. Contra H. Ljungvik, ‘Översättningsförslag’ in Sv. Exeg. Årsbok, xxx (1965), 102–5.

^{page 176 note 1} The following themes from the Old Testament may illustrate the associations here: Isaiah, the prophet of good news (lii. 7–10) speaks of how JHWH allows the heart of his people to be ‘thickened’ or ‘hardened’ (vi. 9 ff.; lxiii. 17); the apostate goes the ‘way of his own heart’ (lvii. 17), a synonym of ‘to go astray’ (liii. 6; lviii. 13, etc.). Jeremiah speaks words of judgement and also of comfort about the lively fear and knowledge of God which will take hold of the heart of the people of God in the new covenant (xxiv. 7; xxxi. 33 f.; xxxii. 39 ff.). We find the blinding and hardening theme also in Ezekiel (xii. 2; ii. 4) and also the passage about the ‘stony heart’ being replaced by ‘a heart of flesh’ (xi. 19 f.; xxxvi. 26 f.). The following passage from a judgement of Zechariah (vii. 12) is also significant: ‘They made their hearts like adamant lest they should hear the law and the words which JHWH Sebaoth had sent by his spirit through the former prophets.’

^{page 176 note 2} See for example IV Mace. xv. 2, 8, 23; II Cor. iv. 17 f.; Heb. xi. 25; Diogn. x. 8. I have above attempted to reproduce πρόσκαιρος with ‘having the inconsistency of time itself’. The usual translation ‘wetterwendisch’ (Luther), ‘fickle’, ‘inconsistent’ loses a nuance which the term undoubtedly has in the martyr texts: the transitoriness is a temporal quality in contrast to the heavenly and eternal.

^{page 177 note 1} The righteous is compared to a tree or plant firmly rooted in ground which is plentifully watered (e.g. Ps. i. 2 f.; Jer. xvii. 7–8; Ezek. xxxi. 2–18; Job xiv. 7–9; xxix. 19). The ungodly, on the other hand, is compared to one which quickly withers away or is torn up by the roots, ‘like grass on the housetops, blighted before it is grown’ (II Kings xix. 26; Ps. cxxix. 6; Isa. xxxvii. 27; cf. Job viii. 11–19; Hos. ix. 16), etc. Wisd. iv. 3 says of the offspring of the ungodly, ‘because their seed is illegitimate, they will not strike a deep root or take a firm hold’, and the parallel passage in Ecclus. xl. 15, ‘impure roots growing upon sheer rock’ (cf. also Ecclus. xxiii. 25). A pregnant formula in Prov. xii. 3 remarks of the righteous: ‘the root of the righteous will never be moved’.

^{page 177 note 2} Several exegetes quote here the phrase in Jer. iv. 3, ‘sow not among thorns’.

^{page 177 note 3} Note the expression ‘the good ground’ (הבוטה ץדאӔ, ἠ γῆ ἠ γαθή) is found in the Shema ‘itself (Deut. xi. 17). This word, which originally referred to the land of Canaan, had with the passage of time acquired other meanings. Cf. the development in the meaning of expressions such as ‘the lot’, ‘the inheritance’.

^{page 177 note 4} Cf Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (4th ed. 1965), pp. 98–104. ‘Das συνιναι bezeichnet daher kein Geschehen, das seinen Grund in der natiirlichen Vernuft des Menschen hätte; die Jünger sind nicht intellektuell mehr begabt als das Volk, das sehend nicht sieht. Sein Gegenteil ist die Verstockung. Es ist ein Öffnen des Herzens, ein Verstehen dessen, dass Gott jetzt redet… Dennoch bleibt dabei der Intellekt des Menschen nicht ausgeschaltet, da es sich ja auch um Verstehen von Gleichnissen handelt… Dennoch bleibt dabei wohl die Entscheidung des Menschen nicht ausgeschaltet, das Verstehen ist auch ein Anerkennen' (Barth, pp. 102 f.). Cf. also G. Strecker, Der Weg der Cerechtigkeit (1962), pp. 228–30.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} ‘To make (do) fruit’, ποιε׀ν καρπν: of trees, iii. 10; vii. 17–19; xii. 33; of seed, xiii. 26; of men, iii. 8; xiii. 23; xxi. 43. ‘Fruit’ in the sense of ‘works’, vii. 16, 20.

^{page 178 note 2} ‘To do the (heavenly) Father's will’, vii. 21; xii. 50; xxi. 31. Note also ‘to do my (Jesus') words’, uv. 24, 26. Cf. the polemics against the pharisees and their scribes that they certainly teach in a proper way, but do not do, xxiii. 3.

^{page 178 note 3} White, K. D. points out, contra Dalman and Jeremias, that a yield of a hundredfold is not a symbolic number of pure fantasy. Varro (De re rustica 1. xliv. 2) states that a yield of a hundredfold could be obtained in, for example, the foothills of Gilead, near Gadara; White, ‘The Parable of the Sower’ in J. T. S. xv (1964), 302. See further Jeremias's rejoinder to White in N. T. S. xiii (1966–7), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} The context, as well as the language, suggests that the proclamation of the kingdom of God by Jesus (and the early church) is meant here. ‘The word of the kingdom’ is a (condensed) Christian formula. The rabbis distinguished between ‘the kingdom’ (the earthly ruler) and the ‘kingdom of heaven’ (or the ‘kingdom of God’). Our text however gives us an important reminder: Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God must be seen against the background of the traditional covenant-ideology; both the old word and the new were words of the heavenly kingdom (see above, p. 167, n. 1).

^{page 179 note 1} For another opinion about the scriptural background of our parable, see C. H. Cave, ‘The Parables and the Scriptures’, in N.T.S. xi (1964–1965), 380–3.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} Cf Gärtner, B., The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas (1960), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} Cf. the analysis in Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse, pp. 9–14. On the composition as a whole see also B. Noack, Markusevangeliets Lignelseskapitel (1965).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} The ‘localization’ was naturally not uniform. But this is a context where some formulations were normal and others were exceptional.

^{page 182 note 1} Cf. on the other side Mark viii. 17–18 (and vii. 14–19). Matdiew omits or tones down such passages (Barth, op. cit. pp. 99 ff.).

^{page 183 note 1} Cf Dupont, J., ‘La parabole du semeur dans la version de Luc’, Apophoreta. Festschrift für E. Haenchen (1964), pp. 97 f., 108.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Cerfaux, ‘Fructifiez en supportant (l'épreuve)’, Recueil L. Cerfaux, ni, 111–22, and Dupont, op. cit. pp. 97–108, give a more detailed analysis of the peculiarities of the Lukan version.

^{page 185 note 1} The version of the parable in the Gospel of Thomas is not of interest in our context.

^{page 185 note 2} Cerfaux, op. cit., p. 112.

^{page 185 note 3} Concerning the increasing opinion that the parables of Jesus can have a midrashic function (i.e. are intended to expound creatively words from the scriptures) see, for example, my The Good Samaritan, pp. 22–31, J. D. M. Derrett, ‘Law in the New Testament’, in N. T. S. xi (1964–5), 22–37, and Cave, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 4} On the problem, cf. Daube, op. cit., pp. 422–36.

^{page 185 note 5} See Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (2nd ed. 1954), pp. 45 and 119–21.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} Cf., for example, Cave, op. cit., p. 380.

^{page 187 note 1} Rightly pointed out by Fridrichsen, A., Fyrahanda sadesdker (3rd ed. 1966), p. 174.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} See for example Lev. xxvi. 4, 19 f.; Deut. xi. 14, 17; Isa. lv. 10; Jer. v. 24; Joel ii. 23 f.; Zech. x. i; Acts xiv. 17; Jas. v. 7. Note especially II Esdras viii. 43 f.

^{page 187 note 3} Cf. the eschatological orientation which the imagery of growth can sometimes have, e.g. in II Esdras. On this see N. A. Dahl, ‘The Parables of Growth’ in Stud. Theol. v (1951), 132–66 passim. The interplay between consistency and variability in the biblical tradition of imagery is discussed with many examples by Engnell, I. and Riesenfeld, H., in the article ‘Bildsprak’ in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, 1 (2nd ed. 1962), cols. 283–320.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} Cf. the remarks by Vincent, J. J., ‘Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Learn by Heart?’, T.U. LXXXVIII (1964), 105–18.10.1515/9783112718971-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} See the brief statements above, especially notes on pp. I76f.

^{page 189 note 2} Charles's transl. The passage is quoted by Dahl and Jeremias (opera cit.). I take this quotation only as an example of what could be said in the synagogues in the time of Jesus. It is not maintained that this particular passage must have been known in Capernaum at this time.

^{page 189 note 3} Cave (op. cit. p. 66) remarks rightly that the Hiph ‘il form of הדי ‘cast’, ‘shoot’, is used both of sowing and of teaching.

^{page 189 note 4} For literature and discussion see lately Gnilka, J., Die Verstockung Israels (1961), Trilling, op. cit. pp. 76–8, Barth, op. cit. pp. 101–4, Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 7–12, and Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Marhtsevangelium (1965), pp. 145–52.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 5} See Baird, J. A., ‘A Pragmatic Approach to Parable Exegesis’, J.B.L. LXXVI (1957), 201–7.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} See above, p. 173, n. 1.

^{page 191 note 1} Contra Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 75–7, which overlooks the possibility that the quasi-technical terminology of the early church was taken over from an older Jewish tradition.

^{page 193 note 1} I think we have here an important subject not only for research and for Christian theology but also for the dialogue between Christianity and Judaism.

^{page 193 note 2} The article has been translated by the Rev. John Toy.