"God's Christian Warriors" With Scriptural Proofs
The Parable of the Sower: Analysis
This particular parable is found in the Gospels of Thomas(9), Mark(4:1-9), Matthew (13:1-9) and Luke
(8:4-8). The parable of the Sower exists, in its earliest form, in the
gospel of Thomas (as I will show). Mark seems to have taken the parable
from Thomas and fit it into his narrative. I am going to show that, in
all probability, Mark copied this parable from the Gospel of Thomas and
Matthew and Luke both seemed to have copied it from Mark, independently.
All of this information is revealed in the differences existing between
the books, of this parable.
Before going on, a word on the parable itself. The parable of the Sower relates to an agricultural practice of Israel
Thomas
is a sayings collection and scholars have dated it approximately around
60-70 AD. The reasoning is that a sayings source probably lost its
appeal after biographical books became common and also that the Gospel
of Thomas has Thomas as a main character while Peter and Paul seemed to
have gained prominence in early Christian literature after the first
century AD. Some have tried to date it later based on it ‘Gnostic’
trends but it is entirely possible that these trends existed earlier.
Another argument is that the Gospel of Thomas could have drawn from the
other gospels for its material and the ‘harmonization’ of Thomas with
other gospels is cited (using single words here and there as proof),
however, this can also be explained by copying since the people doing
such work would probably be familiar with the other gospels so would fit
the words to what they deem appropriate(as was very common in the
‘Coptic’ tradition). Though some words are similar, Thomas is far more
succinct than the other gospels and seems to indicate that it did not
copy from these other gospels, since many descriptions employed by the
other gospels are unused, as well as any kind of setting, for this
parable. This places the Gospel of Thomas as written around the same
time as Mark.
Out
of 36 sayings in Mark, 21 appear in Thomas which is quite a large
amount of sayings, since it seems that Thomas has not copied from Mark
we are left with two possibilities, either Mark copied from Thomas or
both copied from the same source(which no longer exits). In Thomas the
sayings tend to exist in a more primitive form while in Mark the sayings
are woven around a narrative. One example is Thomas 31, “a prophet is
not accepted in his own town; a physician does not heal those who know
him”, this becomes an elaborate narrative in Mark with a setting. In
fact throughout chapters 1-8:22 and 11-12 in mark, when Jesus speaks to
his associates in parables or in sayings not only do they parallel
Thomas in content and meaning but the words parallel those in Thomas as
well, though in Thomas the number of words are less. A good example,
that Mark may have built a narrative sequence using Thomas, comes from
the ‘wicked tenants’ parable and the explanation right after that
(Thomas 65 and 66). In Thomas there is no indication that the parable
refers to Jesus so it is entirely possible that sayings 65 and 66 are
separate free standing sayings. In Mark the sayings exist in the same
order though Mark relates it to Jesus and uses 66 as an explanation for
the parable. It seems likely that Mark would have used the sayings for
his own purpose and though they are free standing in Thomas, in Mark
they fit into a narrative. This supports the hypothesis that Mark used
Thomas, because the order of the sayings in both books are the same.
Though in one they are free standing, while in the other they are put
into a narrative sequence. Mark could easily have assumed that verse 66
explained 65. My final point in favor of Mark using Thomas comes from
the ‘secrecy motif’. In Thomas 13 this secrecy motif appears where
Thomas is taken aside and given a personal talk by Jesus. This secrecy
motif is continuos in Mark as he tries to show that no one understood
the identity of Jesus, so Mark may have been influenced by Thomas.
However, since Mark intends to show that ‘No One’ understood Jesus while
Thomas shows that ‘Thomas’ understood, it makes sense that Mark would
take this scenario and change it a little(8:27-33). He changes it to
lack of understanding of all disciples and turns Thomas into Peter.
Where Thomas says he can’t say who Jesus is because of inability to do
so, Peter says he is ‘the Christ”, which is a parallel in that in both
instances one disciple understands Jesus. The difference is that in
Thomas the understanding is complete while in Peter it is partial. A
difference which would make sense in Marks work as his purpose is to
show Jesus as misunderstood.
So
though I cannot prove beyond doubt that Mark used Thomas, it seems
possible that he did. The general trend in Mark is to take a saying and
expand on it, like with the Parable of the Sower. In this parable
(Thomas 9 and Mark 4), both Thomas and Mark start off in a similar way,
where Thomas says “Look!” Mark says “Listen”, both of the other gospels
have omitted this beginning. In Thomas the setting does not exist so
“Look” would fit in, as the original saying Jesus may have been pointing
to a Sower and reciting the parable, however, in Mark the setting is on
a sea and in the form of a lecture so the word “listen” fits far
better, therefore the change. For
the rest of the parable Mark has taken the same order and format, even
words to an extant but expanded on it trying to describe more fully the
process he is describing.
This
covers Marks relation to Thomas. The same parable occurs in the other
two gospels under consideration, Matthew(13:1-9) and Luke(8:4-8). The
parallels between the three are obvious enough to lend to the hypothesis
that one gospel used the other. However there are four separate
possibilities, that Mark condensed Matthew and Luke drew on
both(Augustine), Luke edited Matthew and Mark condensed both
(Griesbach), Matthew expanded Mark and Luke drew on both (Farrer) and
finally that Matthew and Luke independently edited Mark and another
document (which does not exist or hasn’t been found) labeled Q(two
source Hypothesis).
First,
did Mark edit Matthew? Matthew version is less wordy than Marks so if
Mark copied Matthew then he messed up his text as he added unnecessary
words to it. For example, replacing Matthew’s smooth transition from the
previous scene with a vague ‘and again’(which would make sense if Mark
is copying from a sayings source which has no setting), repeating the
conclusion of the opening sentence of Jesus being beside the sea twice(
‘on the sea’ and ‘beside the sea’), repeating the fact that Jesus is
teaching(third sentence), adding obvious distinctions to the parable
that the seed ‘yielded nothing’ or that it ‘yielded abundance’ and
finally adding an unnecessary transition ‘and he said’(on the aphorism
on hearing) with another unnecessary ‘to hear’. All
of this makes little sense if Mark copied Matthew but perfect sense if
Mark copied a sayings source (which I have argued earlier, could be
Thomas).
The
other possibility was that Mark condensed Matthew and Luke. Luke’s
version is even more succinct than Matthew’s which makes ‘condensing’ it
somewhat difficult. Unnecessary words and statements in Mark are not
echoed in either Matthew or Luke. Why would Mark make his narrative
lenghtier with useless words?
What
about Luke drawing from Matthew? One thing both Mark and Luke used are
singular words where Matthew used plural and both have the words ‘to
hear’ in the final aphorism as well as the introduction(i.e. that Jesus
said it), which Matthew excludes (i.e. in the earliest documents found,
Matthew leaves out the words ‘to hear’, scribes may have added it to
later copies). This suggests that Luke probably did not have use of
Matthew as he uses the word ‘to hear’ which Matthew dropped(as
unnecessary), given Luke’s tendency to refined grammar, it seems
unlikely that he would add an unnecessary word(i.e. ‘to hear’) if he was
copying his parables from Matthew. Luke may have seen the final
aphorism as complete and therefore saw it as unnecessary to alter it.
Another
possibility is that Matthew used Luke which seems improbable since
where Mark says the seed fell ‘into’ the earth, Matthew changes it to
‘on’ while Luke uses Marks wording. Also where Mark shows the return as
increasing (30-60-100), Luke at least retains the idea of a great return
on harvest though he shortens it to 100 fold, while Matthew uses the
same figures as Mark but reverses the order, which not only defeats the
purpose but may also indicate a need to avoid the same structure as
another’s writing.
All of the conclusions I have
arrived at , using the parable of the Sower, indicates that the
structure of copying in the gospels follows the order of, Mark copies
Thomas while Luke and Matthew both use Mark independently and not each
other. While Thomas is very succinct and is without setting, Mark is
wordy and has an unsmooth transition,
both which could be results of copying from Thomas, as there would be a
problem fitting a parable into a setting which could lead to a
difficult ‘fitting’ process. Also the lack of words in Thomas may lead
to a need for Mark to expand on the meaning to the point where the words
become redundant. Mark shows all the signs of being the earliest
biographical recording of the passage. On the other hand Matthew and
Luke have independently improved upon Marks work, in terms of polishing
off the narrative and grammar. Matthew preserves Marks setting while
Luke sees the setting as unnecessary and removes it. The only
commonality in use of the parable by Luke and Matthew is the change of
the word ‘very large’ to ‘great’(for the crowds), so both saw the word
as not fitting but still Luke uses the singular ‘crowd’ rather than
Matthew’s plural ‘crowds’ indicating he did not use Matthew.
In
conclusion, using the Parable of the Sower, I have shown that the two
source hypothesis fits most snugly with the evidence that I have brought
into focus with the analysis. Also it shows that in all probability
Mark copied Thomas (with the help of some other sources).
Note to scholars: I
have used Thomas, Mark, Matthew and Luke as names of the authors for
the books for simplicity. There is no indication in any of the books of
the identity of the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment