The Parable of the Sower and Mark's Jewish Leaders

TCRENCE J. KEEGAN, O.P.

Providence College Providence, RI 02918

DOES MARK'S GOSPEL DRAW A DISTINCTION between the Pharisees of Galilee and the chief priests, scribes, and elders of Jerusalem, or do they together form a united bloc of opposition against Jesus? Historical critics, especially redaction critics, see solid grounds for distinguishing them. Literary critics, especially those concerned with plot development, claim they constitute a single character group. Both methodological approaches recognize Mark's creative use of geography. Studies of redaction and some literary studies find a strong correlation between geography and the distinct groups of Jewish leaders opposed to Jesus.1 Other literary studies see various roles played by Mark's geographical distinctions,2 but they often claim that the

1 M. Cook, Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 82; E. S. Malbon, "The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark: A Literary Study of Marcan Characterization," JBL 108 (1989) 272-73. 2 For C. W. Hedrick ("What is a Gospel? Geography, Time, and Narrative Structure," Perspectives in Religious Studies 10 [1983] 257) and J. Dewey ("Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience," CBQ 53 [1991] 223-24), geography provides the framework for individual episodes. For E. van Eck ("Die ideologiese funksie van ruimte in die Markus-vertelling: 'n Verkenning," Hervormde Teologiese Studies 47 [1991] 1010-41), the way from Galilee to Jerusalem expresses the narrator's ideological perspective of following Jesus in suffering. For E. S. Malbon ("Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation," CBQ 44 [1982] 242), Marcan geopolitical locations represent a nonmanifest mythological system. For M. A. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989] 113-15), geography distinguishes the two main phases

501

502 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 unified opposition to Jesus on the part of all of the groups of leaders transcends geographical boundaries.3 Those who would distinguish the groups of Jewish leaders point out that the Pharisees appear mainly in Galilee, do not confront Jesus directly, and challenge him primarily on matters of religious, legal observance. The chief priests, scribes, and elders appear as a distinct group only after Jesus has entered Jerusalem; they confront Jesus directly and challenge him on the issue of authority.4 There is, however, some overlapping, with the Pharisees continuing to appear after Jesus has left Galilee (once [10:2] after he has entered Judea, and once [12:13] after he has entered Jerusalem), and with the scribes appearing both alone and with the Pharisees in Galilee, and both alone and with the chief priests or elders, or with both, in Jerusalem.5 Robert Mowery, however, has shown that when one considers the formal features of the Marcan references this overlapping does not diminish the clarity of the distinction drawn between the two groups. Most of the Galilean references to the Pharisees use the collective designation "the Pharisees," while the two non-Galilean references (10:2; 12:13) do not.6 Most of the references to the scribes in narrative material set in Jerusalem use the collective designation "the scribes," while none of the six narrative references to scribes outside of Jerusalem use this designation.7 There are four nonnarrative references to scribes outside of Jerusalem. All four use the collective designation "the scribes," but all four refer to scribes who were absent.8 Mowery can conclude, then, that in spite of the apparent overlap there is strong textual support for
of the story and the dominant type of action in each: Jesus preaching the word, and the messiahking coming into his city. For M. Boring ("Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel," Semeia 52 [1990] 45-46), geography structures not the biography of Jesus but narrative Christology. 3 J. D. Kingsbury, "The Religious Authorities in the Gospel of Mark," NTS 36 (1990) 46. 4 Cook, Mark's Treatment, 29, 81-82; D. Lhrmann, "Die Phariser und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium," ZNW7& (1987) 172. For S. H. Smith ("The Role of Jesus' Opponents in the Markan Drama," NTS 35 [1989] 171), up to 8:11-13 the Pharisees'"role has been confined to debating matters of halakhah related . . . to the eating motif." For Malbon ("Jewish Leaders," 266-67), "the scribes and the Pharisees raise religious objections. . . . The chief priests, scribes, and elders raise also what must be called political objections, based on their struggle with Jesus for authority and influence over the people." 5 Smith ("Role of Jesus' Opponents," 167), rejecting the claim of some redaction critics that the scribes of the passion narrative differ from those of the Galilean controversies, maintains, from a literary perspective, that they are the one group that draws the story of Jesus' conflict with the religious establishment into a coherent whole. 6 R. L. Mowery, "Pharisees and Scribes, Galilee and Jerusalem," ZNW &0 (1989) 266. 7 In 2:6,16; 3:22; 7:1,5; 9:14 (ibid., 267). 8 In 1:22; 8:31; 9:11; 10:33 (ibid.)

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 503 maintaining that "the Pharisees" pertain to Galilee and "the Scribes" pertain to Jerusalem.9 Those who see the Jewish leaders as a unified character group are usually concerned with plot development. Mary Ann Tolbert holds that as the plot of the gospel develops the response of the Jewish groups "from first to last" never wavers.10 She can speak, therefore, of the "consistent, almost monolithic stance of the Jewish groups."11 Jack Dean Kingsbury, who likewise is concerned with plot development, rejects the redaction-critical claim that the two groups of leaders are to be distinguished on the basis of the subject of their dispute with Jesus.12 For him, as the plot involving the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders develops, what is at issue is always the question of authority.13 He similarly rejects any geographical basis for distinguishing the two groups, noting both the scribes challenging Jesus' authority in Galilee and the Pharisees continuing their attack on Jesus' authority from Galilee to Jerusalem.14 While it is not unusual for diverse methodologies to yield diverse and even contradictory results, the disagreement noted above is somewhat disconcerting. If Mark the redactor so clearly distinguishes the Pharisees of Galilee from the chief priests, scribes, and elders in Jerusalem, should not Mark's narrative exhibit a reason for this distinction? Conversely, if the plot of Mark's narrative employs all of the Jewish leaders as a composite character group, why did Mark the redactor so clearly distinguish them? Stephen Smith and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon are two literary critics who recognize the distinction between the Jewish groups.15 Smith, in presenting the unity of the plot, tends to blur the distinction. Malbon, on the other hand, offers literary grounds for maintaining the distinction;16 for her it is because of the mythic meaning of narrative space in Mark that the Pharisees are associated
Ibid., 268. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel 139-40. 11 Ibid., 147. F. J. Matera ("The Prologue as the Interpretive Key to Mark's Gospel," JSNT 34 [1988] 10) likewise speaks of "a monolithic bloc of opposition." 12 Kingsbury, "Religious Authorities," 46. 13 See J. D. Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 69, where he suggests that there is a "trend from matters dealing implicitly with the issue of authority to matters dealing explicitly with this issue." For Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 233), "The issue of Jesus' authority to do and say what he does has been at the center of his conflict . . . from the beginning of the story." 14 Kingsbury, "Religious Authorities," 45-47. 15 Smith, "Role of Jesus' Opponents," 161-82; Malbon, "Jewish Leaders," 259-81. 16 Smith ("Role of Jesus' Opponents," 167) suggests that the scribes draw the conflict with the authorities into a coherent whole; he also suggests (pp. 172-73) that the Pharisees* challenges to Jesus in 8:11 and 10:2 bring their opposition into line with that of the chief priests.
10 9

504 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 with Galilee and kept distinct from the chief priests and their allies in Jeru 17 salem. Malbon's insight, however, may not be sufficient to satisfy those whose concern for the unity of the plot leads them to consider any distinction 18 of character groups based on geography as artificial. In the discussion that follows it will be proposed that the parable of the sower viewed as a plot synopsis provides solid grounds for drawing a clear distinction between the Pharisees of Galilee and the chief priests, scribes, and elders of Jerusalem. This parable also helps clarify how this distinction relates to the subordinated plot of conflict with the disciples, as well as how it furthers the rhetorical effect of the gospel. It will then be shown how the proposed interpretation can be strengthened by con sidering the passage in which Jesus warns about the leaven of the Phari sees and the leaven of Herod (8:15). 19

I. Mark's Plot Those literary analyses that insist on the unity of the Jewish opposition to Jesus usually do so in the context of a discussion of the plot involving the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. Most analyses recognize this plot as the main plot of Mark's gospel, the plot to which all others are subordinated. 20 The main plot reaches its climax, as many have noted, when the Jewish leaders succeed in having Jesus executed.21 Their motivation for desiring his death is the threat he poses to their privileged position of power and prestige. While it is true that "Mark . . . intends the story of opposition to Jesus to stand as a continuous thread throughout the development of the
Malbon, "Jewish Leaders," 273 Kingsbury, "Religious Authorities," 46 19 While open to the solid contributions of other methodologies, the methodology em ployed in this study is a text-centered, reader-response form of narrative criticism 20 In the words of Davis ("Mark's Chnstological Paradox," JSNT 35 [1989] 4) "There can be little doubt that the crucifixion of Jesus is the goal toward which the whole Gospel moves As early as 2 6fif, Jesus is in conflict with the religious authorities, and his death is mentioned already in 3 6, from 8 31 on, Mark rarely departs from this or related themes " See D Rhoads, "Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark," J AAR 50 (1982) 415-16, D Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington, DE Glazier, 1984) 131 21 For R Fowler (Let the Reader Understand Reader Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark [Minneapolis Fortress, 1991] 174), the crucifixion is the culmination of the plot of causality, while the plot of predestination remains unresolved For Davis ("Mark's Chnstologi cal Paradox," 4-5), the passion is the climactic element of the gospel, but the passion has a climax of its own, the centurion's confession (15 39) For Kingsbury (Conflict in Mark, 53-54), m the story, the death on the cross is the climax, while for the reader, the centurion's acclamation is climactic
18 17

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 505 plot,"22 one needs still to ask whether all of the Jewish leaders constitute a single character group in the development of this plot. Kingsbury and most other literary critics seem to think they do.23 Seeing the leaders as a unified group, they also hold that this plot involved an intensifying conflict. If one assumes a united front, it is possible to see intensification from the oblique assaults of the Pharisees on Jesus in Galilee to their direct attack on his authority in 8:11, then to their alliance with the chief priests in Jerusalem in a final challenge to his authority which results in his death. There are, how ever, two major problems with the understanding above: first, the plot of Mark's Gospel involves much more than the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, and second, even within the plot of conflict with Judaism differences among the Jewish leaders do exist. Literary critics who discuss plots in the gospels focus on various elements either in isolation or in concert in arriving at understandings of what the plot of a given gospel really is. Some focus their concern on narrative flow, others on causality, others on analysis of conflict, and still others on rhetorical effect.24 Many recognize that plot involves all of the above, although the goal of many plot analyses seems to be to arrive at a simple, succinct formulation that summarizes the inner dynamics of the narrative, the plot in a nutshell. There are some, however, who have concluded that Mark's plot is too complex for a simple formulation. An image sometimes used to describe Mark's Gospel is that of an interwoven tapestry.25 The plot is multilayered and many faceted. Though complex, it is carefully woven throughout the text, in order to have a profound effect upon the reader. While most plot analyses see the plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders as primary, it is clear that Mark's Gospel involves other conflicts as well, most notably Jesus' conflict with his disciples.26 Although the conflict with the
Smith, "Role of Jesus' Opponents," 180. Kingsbury ("Religious Authorities," 44) claimed that "on the most elemental level" all of the Jewish groups formed a united front. 24 M. A. Powell ("The Plot and Subplots of Matthew's Gospel," NTS 38 [1992] 187-98) provides a good discussion of different approaches to plot analysis, as well as an excellent bibliography (p. 187 n. 2) on literary concepts of what constitutes a plot. 25 Dewey, "Mark as Interwoven Tapestry," 224; S. E. Johnson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (Black's NT Commentaries; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960) 24, 47. 26 For F. J. Matera (" Saved Others; He cannot Save Himself: A Literary-Critical Perspective on the Markan Miracles," Int 47 [1993] 15-16), the plot "is one of conflict: conflict between Jesus and Satan; conflict between Jesus and his contemporaries... the religious leaders and his own disciples." See Rhoads, "Narrative Criticism," 415-16; E. S. Malbon, "Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?" Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. J. Anderson and S. Moore; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 33. For W. Kelber (Mark's Story
23 22

506 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 disciples is usually subordinated to the conflict with the Jewish leaders, there is general recognition that the disciples are the most important characters in the gospel after Jesus.27 All of the characters in the gospel react to Jesus, but "the reaction of the disciples to Jesus is the most complicated of all." 28 Using the language of E. M. Forster,29 David Rhoads speaks of them as the most rounded characters. 30 Tolbert holds that it is their story that provides dramatic impetus to the narrative and notes that they are the only characters in the gospel to change in the course of the narrative. 31 Robert Tannehill has observed that while the disciples' story is not the sole interest of the author, it has major importance within the larger story being told.32 Many others have observed that it is through plot developments involving the disciples that the main rhetorical effect of the gospel is achieved.33 Because of the interwoven nature of Mark's plot it is possible to see the plot of the gospel, or a significant part of the plot, summarized in isolated passages. Frank Matera saw the prologue (1:2-13) as the interpretive key to Mark's Gospel.34 Isabelle Parlier saw the story of the paralytic (2:1-12) as a summary of the whole gospel (condens de l'vangile)}5 For Stephen Barton, the story of the anointing woman (14:3-9) "expresses 'in a nutshell' the
of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 88), "Mark's story is essentially that of the conflict and break between Jesus and the Twelve." For N. Petersen ("The Reader in the Gospel," Neot 18 [1984] 49), Mark's plot is "the problem of the disciples' ignorance." J. P. Heil ("Mark 14,1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader-Response," Bib 71 [1990] 330-31) sees Jesus' relationship with his disciples as one providing an undercurrent of optimism to the story of his progressive movement to the cross. 27 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 295. 28 Matera, "Prologue," 11. 29 See Malbon, "Narrative Criticism," 29. 30 Rhoads, "Narrative Criticism," 418. See Malbon, "Narrative Criticism," 29. 31 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 195. In her opinion, the crowds do not change. Others disagree. The significance of the changing crowds for the plot will be discussed below. 32 R. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," JR 57 (1977) 405. 33 Heil, "Mark 14,1-52," 330-31; E. S. Malbon, "Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark," Semeia 28 (1983) 30-31; idem, "Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Markan Characters and Readers," NovT2% (1986) 104-30. 34 Matera, "Prologue," 15. 35 I. Parlier, " L'autorit qui rvle la foi et l'incrdulit: Marc 2/1-12," ETR 67 (1992) 243. Interestingly, . Petersen ("Point of View in Mark's Narrative," Semeia 12 [1978] 105), wishing to establish Mark as a true narrative and not merely a redaction, used 2:10 to prove that there is a systematic rhetoric pervading the entire text; he showed that points of view found in 2:1-10 are frequently found elsewhere, while contrary points of view are not.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 507 message of Mark as a whole."36 Robert Fowler, who distinguished the plot of causality from the plot of predestination,37 saw the verbal paradox on the lips of mockers (15:31) as "a reliable plot summary of the plot of predestination."38 A number of studies have found the plot summarized in the parable of the tenants in the vineyard (12:1-11),39 but the most frequently cited passage in recent literary studies of plot summaries is the parable of the sower and its interpretation (4:3-9,13-20).40 For Tolbert it is the hearing-response typology of chap. 4 that organizes the entire plot of the gospel.41 II. The Parable of the Sower Those who view the parable of the sower as a plot summary see it either as a summary of the entire plot or as a summary of the first part of the plot.42 In either case an attempt is made to identify elements in the narrative that are represented by elements in the parable and its interpretation. While it is generally recognized that the Jewish leaders are alluded to in the seed that fell along the path, and that the disciples are alluded to in the seed that fell on stony ground, there are some who disagree.43 Who are represented, respectively, by the seed that fell among
S. Barton, "Mark as Narrative: The Story of the Anointing Woman (Mk 14:3-9)," ExpTim 102 (1990-91) 233. 37 Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 138, 153. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 112) similarly distinguishes two levels of the plot, the human and the divine. 38 Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 161. 39 E. van Eck and A. G. van Aarde, "A Narratological Analysis of Mark 12:1-12: The Plot of the Gospel of Mark in a Nutshell," Hervormde Teologiese Studies 45 (1989) 796. 40 R. Garafalo ("The Family of Jesus in Mark's Gospel," ITQ 57 [1991] 274) agrees with those commentators who suggest "that the Parable of the Sower is the key to interpreting Mark's Gospel." B. M. F. van Iersel ("The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations," Semeia 48 [1989] 95-96) holds that 4:3-8 and 12:1-12 "are related to each other in a special way and taken together have a typical and significant function in the book"; for van Iersel, who sees Mark's Gospel as having two main parts, proclamation of the word and Jesus' violent death, the two parables function as mirror stories that represent in miniature what either part tells about Jesus (p. 97). For Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 239), however, while the parable of tenants is a plot synopsis for the final episodes of the gospel, the parable of the sower illuminates the whole action. 41 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 163. 42 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 156) sees this parable as a summary of the first part of the gospel (chaps. 1-10), but also (p. 239) holds it to be a summary of the entire gospel. 43 J. P. Heil ("Reader-Response and the Narrative Context of the Parables about Growing Seed in Mark 4:1-34," CBQ 54 [1992] 275) associates the disciples and others with the fourth type of seed and sees the first two types as responses the disciples can expect. E Belo (A Materialist Reading of the Gospel of Mark [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1981] 122) likewise sees the disciples in the fourth type of seed.
36

508 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 thorns and by the seed on good soil is not so clear. There is even wider disagreement about the stage at which the reader is likely to recognize these allusions.44 The diversity of opinions not only on what is illustrated by the various kinds of seed and ground but also on when the reader is likely to recognize these allusions is due, at least in part, to the fact that a reader seldom recognizes these allusions on a first reading. The Gospel of Mark achieves its rhetorical effect by teasing the reader into rereading and rethinking what has already been read. A more careful pondering of previous elements in the narrative in the light of subsequent disclosures gradually brings into focus the multilayered, intricate patterns which constitute the plot of Mark's narrative. Recognizing that the plot involving conflict with the disciples is the primary means by which the rhetorical effect of the gospel is achieved, one can reread the parable of the sower in the light of subsequent developments in the narrative. By this rereading, one can come to understand how this parable serves as a summary of the entire plot and which character groups in the plot are referred to by the various elements in the parable. A. Seed along the Path The seed that fell along the path and was eaten by birds is interpreted by Jesus as referring to those who hear the word and immediately have it taken away by Satan. The obvious reference is to those who, as soon as they encounter Jesus, ally themselves with Satan and oppose Jesus.45 Already, in chaps. 1-3, the reader has read about various Jewish leaders who seem to fit this category: scribes, Pharisees, and Herodians. Are all of these referred to? Are there others to be included? Some see here a reference to Peter, who is already on the scene, but who subsequently, when he hears for the first time what Jesus is really all about, will choose to ally himself with Satan and oppose Jesus.46 What about the scribes from Jerusalem and the chief priests
44 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 144) claims that by Mark 6:7 the reader should realize that the disciples are represented by the second kind of seed. Heil ("Reader-Response," 275) holds that by chap. 4 the reader is ready to associate all those following Jesus, including the disciples, with the fourth type of seed. 45 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 153) holds that this group is reasonably easy to identify, since there is only one group utterly opposed to Jesus. She identifies this group as that of the Pharisees and Herodians together with the Jews of Jerusalem. 46 J. R. Donahue (The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 47), in suggesting some possible allusions for the various types of seed, associates Peter with the first but makes no mention of any other possibilities.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 509 and elders, who will not appear on the scene until the final days of the 47 story? As one continues to read the narrative, additional clues are provided. Apart from taking away the word (4:15), Satan is described in the narrative 48 as doing only one thing, tempting Jesus (1:13). Matthew and Luke detail what is involved in Satan's tempting Jesus. Mark does not. Perhaps for Mark, Satan's tempting has something to do with taking away the word. It has not escaped the notice of both redaction critics and narrative critics that the word used to describe Satan's tempting () is used just three times in the subsequent narrative (8:11; 10:2; 12:15), each time to describe the activity of the Pharisees. As will be explained later, the Phari sees' activity amounts to their trying to take away the word by tempting Jesus to abandon his mission. The Pharisees and those who behave like them are clearly illustrated in the seed that fell along the path. Whether or not the chief priests and their allies are to be included remains to be seen. B. Seed on Rocky Ground The seed that fell on rocky ground is the seed whose interpretation occupies the greatest amount of discourse time, a fact that should lead one to suspect that it is more important than the rest. The description of those who receive the word with joy but subsequently fall away in time of perse cution clearly fits the behavior of the disciples.49 It is generally maintained that the reader is led to have a favorable view of the disciples throughout the first part of Mark's Gospel.50 Tannehill holds that they are treated positively through 6:30 but that the foundation has already been laid for a negative
47 Belo (Materialist Reading, 122) initially associates the first type of seed with the Phari sees and their associates in Galilee, the scribes and Herodians. Later in his analysis (p. 181), he includes the chief priests in this group. 48 Elsewhere, Jesus asks hypothetical questions about Satan's behavior (3:23,26) and accuses Peter of being allied in some way with Satan (8:33). 49 Donahue (Gospel in Parable, 47) would also include the family of Jesus. 50 The question whether the disciples in Mark are good, bad, or something in between is strongly disputed. Weeden and Kelber see them as negative foils; Tannehill, Malbon, and Dewey treat them much more positively. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 195 n. 31) provides a good discussion of the various views. Fowler, in his noteworthy contribution (Let the Reader Under stand, 206,256-60), distinguishes the levels of story and of discourse in the narrative. In the story the disciples emerge as bad characters who serve as foils to Jesus, while at the level of discourse their role is to educate the reader in true discipleship. In the present discussion, the plot about the conflict between Jesus and his disciples involves the initial positive portrayal of the disciples giving way to an entirely negative portrayal of them. The aspect of the plot involving rhetorical effect is carried out at the level of discourse, where Malbon ("Fallible Followers," 29-48) accu rately characterizes the disciples as fallible followers.

510 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 judgment. 51 Succeeding sections of the narrative portray them as having hardened hearts (6:35-8:21) and disclose the human traits that lie behind this hardening (8:22-10:52).52 Although the identification of the disciples with this type of seed is clearest at the end of the narrative, 53 rereading the nar rative in light of the ending uncovers many earlier hints, some even prior to the parable, which connect the disciples to this second kind of seed.54 The abundance of narrative clues that connect this kind of seed to the disciples confirms the suspicion that the disciples and their role in the plot is of central importance for the rhetorical effect of the gospel. C. Seed among Thorns The amount of discourse time devoted to the seed that fell among thorns is second only to that devoted to the seed that fell on rocky ground. Apart from the rich man (10:17-22),55 and possibly Herod and the death of John (6-.17-29),56 few illustrations of this type of seed and ground have been found.57 Tolbert suggests that the dearth of illustrations indicates that Mark is not overly interested in this type of seed.58 If that is the case, why is so much discourse time devoted to it? A careful rereading of Mark can show that Herod is indeed an excellent illustration of this type of seed and ground, more so than the rich man. Herod hears John the Baptist; in fact, he hears him "gladly" (, Mark 6:20); nevertheless, in the presence of his guests he succumbs to the cares of the world, and yielding to the request of the daughter of Herodias he has John executed, thus choking the word he heard so gladly. The subject of the parable, however, is not John's word but Jesus'. Since, as many have recognized, the story of the death of John in Mark serves
51 Tannehill, "Disciples in Mark," 398. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 196) agrees but else where (p. 171) holds that the reader is given a negative view of the disciples in 4:35-5:43. 52 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 198. 53 Garafalo ("Family of Jesus," 272) suggests that over a period of time, in response to a variety of circumstances, a new evaluation emerges. 54 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 196) suggests that the narrator associates the disciples with Jesus' future troubles in their harassing him (1:36) and causing some controversies, (2:18,23-24), and in Jesus' predicting betrayal (3:19) and the demise of divided houses (3:23-25). 55 Donahue, Gospel in Parable, 47. 56 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 157) regards this illustration as less pronounced than that of the rich man but "rather fascinating." 57 G. Fay ("Introduction to Incomprehension: The Literary Structure of Mark 4:1-34," CBQ 51 [1989] 65-81) sees the interpretation of the parable as the center of a seven-part con centric structure which introduces the motif of the disciples' incomprehension. In his view, both of the two central types of seed refer to the disciples. Belo (Materialist Reading, 122) likewise groups these two types of seed together, but he holds that there is no correspondence to them in the narrative and that they illustrate, instead, Mark's Roman readers. 58 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 156.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 511 to prefigure the story of the death of Jesus, one might suspect that Mark's primary interest in this third type of seed and ground is to be found in the story of Jesus' death. While the immediate reference of the parable is to the fate of the word, there is a further reference to the idea that "the seed and its sower should suffer the same fate."59 The story of Jesus' death does indeed yield a clear illustration of this third type of seed and ground, one that closely parallels the story of Herod. The only group in the gospel, apart from the disciples, that hears Jesus and subsequently is negatively portrayed is the crowds.60 Although some main tain otherwise, it is clear that the crowds, like the disciples, change in the course of the narrative.61 Like Herod hearing John, the crowd heard Jesus gladly (, 12:37, the only other use of this adverb in the entire gospel).62 Stirred up by the chief priests, however, the crowd soon cries out for Jesus' crucifixion (15:13), and Pilate, playing a role that parallels Herod's in wishing to satisfy the crowd, orders Jesus' crucifixion (15:15). The crowd illustrates the seed that hears the word and subsequently yields to concerns that result in the word's being choked. In the previous section of the parable, the stony ground prevented the seed from having deep roots and withstanding hardships. In this section, the thorns play a more active role. It is the thorns that actually choke the word. The crowd which receives the word finds itself among thorns. The crowd, however, does not choke the word; it is the thorns illustrated by the chief priests and their allies, the scribes and elders, that Mark holds responsible for the choking of the word. Thus far, several diverse character groups that appear in the Gospel of Mark have been seen to be illustrated by elements in the parable of the sower: the Pharisees of Galilee are the seed that fell along the path; the disciples are the seed that fell on rocky ground; the crowds, prefigured by Herod, are the seed that fell among thorns; and the chief priests, scribes, and elders are the
van Iersel, "Reader of Mark," 105. Malbon ("Disciples/ Crowds/ Whoever," 104-30) holds that both the disciples and the crowds are portrayed both positively and negatively in the gospel and that the gospel's rhetorical effect involves both the disciples and the crowds. 61 S. H. Smith ("'Inside' and Outside' in Mark's Gospel: A Response," ExpTim 102 [1990-91] 365-66) assigns to the crowds a neutral role. They have no perception. They are simply awestruck. The gospel "tends to use them as a dramatic chorus." Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 278 n. 13) similarly regards the crowds as a narrative chorus. J. P. Heil ("The Progressive Narrative Pattern of Mark 14,53-16,8," Bib 73 [1992] 334 n. 8) rejects these views and offers evidence that the crowds are an important character group whose members change from supporting Jesus to opposing him. 62 That the parallel is deliberate is supported by the fact that the other words in the clause, , are also identical in 6:20 and 12:37.
60 59

512 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 thorns responsible for choking the word. This analysis illustrates the distinctive role that the Pharisees (tempting Jesus) and the chief priests and their allies (killing Jesus) have in the plot of conflict. It also suggests a reason, beyond this plot of conflict, for this Marcan distinction. The reason will be discussed below. D. Seed on Good Soil The only major group not accounted for is that of those isolated individual persons who are treated positively in the discourse, those who respond to Jesus with faith and (or) are healed by him. Tolbert identifies this group as the fourth type of seed, that which fell on good soil.63 She seems rather thoroughly convinced of this identification, and she claims that the audience should have made it after 5:1-43, a series of miracle stories that distinguishes the seed that fell on rocky ground from the seed that fell on good soil.64 If, however, at this point in the narrative the audience is still holding a favorable view of the disciples, as Tolbert admits it is,65 the audience would still be inclined to see the disciples as a group represented by the good seed.66 It is in the rereading of the story that it becomes clear that the disciples are not represented by the good seed. It is also clear in the rereading that, while there are isolated instances of unqualified positive responses to Jesus within the gospel's story, the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold response awaits fulfillment in the anticipated future that is beyond the limits of the story time of the Gospel.67 Within the story, those isolated individual persons who respond positively to Jesus can be seen as persons prefiguring what will be represented by the good seed, just as Herod prefigured what was to be represented by the seed among thorns.
Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 171 Ibid , 181 65 Ibid , 196 66 Heil ("Reader-Response," 275) holds that by chap 4 the audience has already experienced the sower's success and associates this type of seed with all those following Jesus, from the first four called (Mark 1 10-20) to the large crowd on land listening to the parable Belo (Materialist Reading, 122) associates this type of seed with the disciples, whom he sees as having broken with Satan 67 Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 237) recognizes that the events of chap 13 are predictions of future events but claims that the others to whom the vineyard is given m chap 12 are those whose faith has already made them fruitful Others (C Breytenbach, "The Gospel of Mark as Episodical Narrative Reflections on the 'Composition' of the Second Gospel," Scriptura special issue 4 [1989] 11, Petersen "Reader in the Gospel," 47-49, Tannehill, "Disciples m Mark," 404) recognize that both consequences of the parable of the tenant, the punishment described m chap 13 as well as the fruitfulness described in chap 4, belong to the future of the narrated story time
64 63

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 513 The analysis given above shows how the parable of the sower with its interpretation can be viewed as a summary of the plot of the entire gospel. According to this analysis, the main characters in the gospel, after Jesus, are the disciples. Malbon has shown how all of the other characters of the gospel are used by Mark to illustrate both the strengths and the weaknesses of the disciples.68 The analysis above offers the possibility of clarifying further how this illustration unfolds in the development of the gospel's plot. The distinctive roles that the Pharisees on the one hand and the chief priests and their allies on the other have in the plot of conflict with Jesus illustrates distinct negative responses to Jesus against which the disciples (and the readers) are warned, both in the parable of the sower and in the gospel story which it synopsizes. III. Leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod The interpretation set out above can be strengthened by considering the important but enigmatic passage in which Jesus warns the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (8:15). Both Matthew and Luke, in similar passages, spell out the meaning of the metaphor of leaven.69 Mark does not. Here as elsewhere, however, the temptation exists for the reader to fill gaps and resolve ambiguities by reading Mark through the lens of Matthew and Luke.70 Reading Mark on its own terms, however, forces the reader to search the text for clues to the meaning of this metaphor. The reader's emerging appreciation of the parable of the sower provides such a clue. On the one hand, the plot of conflict between Jesus and his disciples involves the desired positive response illustrated by the fourth type of seed, a response that does not occur within the story but is anticipated in the predicted future of the story and is prefigured in the positive responses of a variety of isolated individual persons within the course of the story. On the other hand, this plot also involves a variety of possible negative responses which do occur within the story and which likewise are predicted or warned against by Jesus. The response illustrated by the second type of seed characterizes the disciples in general and is clearly predicted by Jesus at the Last Supper. The responses illustrated by the first and third types can be seen as those against which Jesus is warning in the leaven
68 E. S. Malbon, "The Poor Widow in Mark and Her Poor Rich Readers," CBQ 53 (1991) 601; idem, "Jewish Leaders," 277-80, and "Disciples/Crowds/Whoever," 104-30. 69 For Matthew it is teaching, for Luke it is hypocrisy. 70 See R. Fowler, "Thoughts on the History of Reading Mark's Gospel," Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 4 (1984) 127.

514 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 passage.71 The Pharisees have their own agenda, as does Herod. Pursuing their own agendas leads them to exemplify in their behavior what is illustrated by the seed on the path and the seed among thorns. Leaven then refers to their evil inclinations.72 Reading the narrative in the light of the parable of the sower illustrates what these evil inclinations are. A. Leaven of the Pharisees The Pharisees have allied themselves with Satan. They have decided that Jesus must be destroyed, but they never engage in any direct attack on him. As redaction critics have shown, all of their verbal assaults on him are indirect and involve matters of religious observance. They play no role in the events leading to Jesus' death. Three times the Pharisees do confront him directly. Each time they do exactly what Satan does: they tempt him. It has often been suggested that when the Pharisees seek a sign from Jesus in chap. 8 they are challenging his authority, that is, that they are doing what the chief priests, scribes, and elders will do in chap. 11. The text, however, provides no details on what the Pharisees intend in asking for a sign other than the statement that their motive is to test him. If one assumes that the Jewish leaders form a united bloc of opposition (as they clearly do in Matthew), it is easy to read 8:11 as a challenge to Jesus' authority.73 It is often assumed that in asking for a sign they are seeking proof of Jesus' messianic destiny.74 Kingsbury, for
71 For Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 200), when Jesus accuses the disciples of having hardened hearts (8:17) he suggests that they failed to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod, exemplifying the first and second types of seed, the seed on the path and the seed on rocky ground. 72 This position accords with the understanding of leaven in rabbinic thought as "evil inclinations." Kingsbury ("Religious Authorities," 56) suggests that most recent critics agree with this understanding. 73 Matera ("Prologue," 19 n. 39) actually speaks of those who tempt Jesus three times as "the religious leaders." 74 For Matera ("'He Saved Others'," 20-21), "the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign . . . presumably as authentication of his mission . . . a sign from heaven that will relieve them of the need to believe." Even Smith ("Role of Jesus' Opponents," 171-72), sees 8:11 representing an attitudinal shift on the part of the Pharisees. They no longer merely debate matters of halakah but now seek proof of Jesus' messianic destiny. Smith (p. 174) also sees 10:2-9 representing a shift in the plot; he interprets it as a direct assault on the integrity of Jesus' own person. In both instances he goes beyond the textual evidence in the temptation scenes. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 182) parallels the Pharisees' request for a sign in 8:11 with the chief priests' and scribes' challenge in 15:31-32 that he come down from the cross "that we may see and believe," thus understanding the Pharisees' request for a sign as a request "so that they can believe." Like Kingsbury, Smith ("Role of Jesus' Opponents," 180) uses this passage to unite the Pharisees' opposition to Jesus with that of the Jerusalem leaders, holding that "the demand for a messianic sign is at the root of all opposition to Jesus."

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 515 example, holds that "the authorities challenge Jesus to prove by a sign from heaven that the source of his authority is not Satan but God."75 The text, however, provides no evidence that authority is what is at issue in the request for a sign. In fact, as Michael Cook in his redaction-critical study points out, "whenever Jesus' messianic credentials are under discussion, the Pharisees are absent."76 Does Mark provide any clues about what is at issue in this passage? One possible clue is the only other instance in his gospel where a character, Peter at Caesarea Philippi (8:33), is said to be allied with Satan.77 Peter wants Jesus to follow a course that is in keeping with what Peter understands a messiah should do, rather than the course that Jesus has been destined to follow. Peter is, in effect, tempting Jesus to self-destruct by compromising the integrity of his mission.78 Three times the Pharisees, allied with Satan, tempt Jesus to self-destruct by compromising the integrity of his mission.79 When the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign to tempt him (8:11), they are attempting to sidetrack him, to get him to pursue an agenda other than that to which God has called him. Each of the three times the Pharisees tempt him, Jesus resists the temptation, maintaining the integrity and purity of his mission. The Pharisees question Jesus about legal matters, they tempt him to abandon his mission, but they never directly assault his person. When Jesus warns about the leaven of the Pharisees (8:15), he is warning the disciples not to succumb to the agenda of the Pharisees by allowing their own perceptions not only to prevent them from seeing things God's way but also to thrust
75 Kingsbury (Conflict in Mark, 64, 74; "Religious Authorities," 56) sees Mark 8:11 as the culmination of a trend that began with the charge in Mark 3:22 that Jesus was possessed by Beelzebul, which he sees as a charge that Jesus derived his authority from Beelzebul. The charge in 3:22, however, was delivered not by the Pharisees but by scribes from Jerusalem who would indeed, later in the story with the chief priests and elders, challenge Jesus' authority. 76 Cook, Mark's Treatment, 82. 77 It has been suggested that the scribes from Jerusalem who accuse Jesus of being pos sessed by Beelzebul (3:22) are themselves in league with Satan, but there is no evidence in the text for drawing this conclusion. See Belo, Materialist Reading, 122. 78 J. P. Heil (The Gospel of Mark as a Model of Action [New York/ Mahwah, J: Paulist Press, 1992] 181) recognizes that "Peter's rebuke . . . amounts to a diabolical temptation.... Peter is trying to prevent him from going on his 'way'." For Matera (" 'He Saved Others'," 22), "Peter tempts Jesus to abandon his destiny." P. Kea ("Perceiving the Mystery: Encountering the Reticence of Mark's Gospel," Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 4 [1984] 185) maintains that an indicatory aspect of the passage in Mark 1:3-15, the lonely place, con nects it with the wilderness struggle with Satan and suggests that the disciples' bringing Jesus back from Capernaum would block the performance of Jesus' mission. 79 Heil (Gospel of Mark, 169) repeats the common assumption that they ask for a sign which will confirm that Jesus operates through the power of God, but he adds that they are not seeking a basis for belief. Rather, their real aim in testing him is deceptive and destructive.

516 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 them into the camp of Satan, where they would tempt Jesus to abandon his mission, would try to take away the word. Peter, however, does succumb. B. Leaven of Herod In a similar fashion one can see that when Jesus warns about the leaven of Herod he is warning about the response illustrated by the third type of seed, the seed that fell among thorns, a response prefigured by Herod in the execution of John the Baptist and fulfilled by the crowds and the chief priests. He is warning the disciples not to be swept up by earthly concerns into a course of action that will result in the choking of the word, the death of Jesus. As Peter succumbs to the warning about the Pharisees, Judas succumbs to the warning about Herod. Some might find it difficult to see such a strong parallel between Peter and Judas. This difficulty probably comes from reading Mark through the lenses of Matthew and Luke, in which both the positive fate of Peter and the negative fate of Judas are clearly spelled out. In Mark, the fate of Judas is left just as ambiguous as the fate of Peter.80 IV. Jewish Leaders in Mark's Plot As noted earlier, those who assume that the Jewish leaders constitute a united front against Jesus see a gradual intensification of the conflict and read 8:11 as a significant moment in that intensification, with the Pharisees now directly attacking Jesus' person. When Mark is read on his own terms, however, there is no textual support for a gradual intensification of conflict. Unlike the disciples and crowds, the Jewish leaders do not change in this gospel. Malbon describes the Jewish leaders as flat and negative characters, while the disciples are round and are both positive and negative.81 The actions of the Pharisees unfold in the story, but their basic position with respect to Jesus remains constant throughout. From the moment the Pharisees appear, they are irrevocably opposed to Jesus. It remains only for the narrative to disclose the nature and cause of this opposition. Their own agenda allies them with Satan. They try to take away the word. They seek to destroy Jesus by tempting him to abort his mission. In a similar way the chief priests and their allies in Jerusalem remain constant throughout the narrative. From the moment they appear they are irrevocably opposed to Jesus, but their motivation and their behavior are different from those of the Pharisees. From their first encounter with Jesus they are determined to kill him. Their jealous concern for their own prerogatives initiates a course of action that within a matter of days results in the death of Jesus.
80 81

See Fowler, "Thoughts on the History," 129. Malbon, "Narrative Criticism," 29.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER 517 Smith, who correctly distinguishes the two groups, suggests that the Pharisees set the stage of conflict but that it remains for the chief priests actually to accomplish the death of Jesus.82 His observation is correct, but how does this distinction serve the plot development? If one looked only at the plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders there would be no good reason for distinguishing the elements of this corporate group. It would be easy, therefore, to read into the story a gradual intensification, especially since, as Kingsbury notes, the various groups overlap in the discourse of the story, with the Jerusalem opponents appearing early on in Galilee and the Galilean opponents appearing in Jerusalem. Malbon has proposed a solid literary explanation for the distinction. For her, there is a unified plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders that escalates as the geographical locale shifts.83 Unlike those who see a gradual intensification of hostility, she maintains a sharp distinction which serves the literary purpose of bringing out the mythic meaning of narrative spaces.84 Her proposal is insightful, but one could still wonder why, or even if, the leaders are distinct. The shift in geography accompanies an ideological shift, but the characters cross the geographical boundaries, as Kingsbury maintains.85 There is no doubt that the Gospel of Mark presents the plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders as a unified plot, but it is also true that the story clearly distinguishes two separate groups of Jewish leaders whose responses to Jesus are constant throughout the story, the response of each group being clearly distinguishable from that of the other group. When the plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders is considered in relation to the plot of conflict with the disciples, an adequate explanation can be offered for the distinction of the Jewish groups. The distinct groups of Jewish leaders not only fit into the geographical development of the main plot but also serve to illustrate the plot of conflict with the disciples and to heighten the rhetorical effect of the gospel. In the plot of conflict with the Jewish leaders there is an escalation, but not a gradual one. There is, rather, a quantum leap as Jesus passes from Galilee to Jerusalem, from the place where he encountered Pharisees, who challenged him on religious grounds, tempting him to abandon his mission, to the place where he will encounter the chief priests and their allies, who will
82 Smith ("Role of Jesus' Opponents," 181), as a literary critic who distinguishes the groups of Jewish leaders, suggests that while the Pharisees draw Jesus into conflict with the system, the dramatic effect of a narrative involving the conflict between Jesus as messiah and Judaism requires that Jesus be delivered into the hands of the chief priests and their associates, since they best represent Judaism as a complete institution 83 Malbon, "Jewish Leaders," 270 84 Ibid , 272-73 85 Kingsbury, "Religious Authorities," 46

518 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 56, 1994 challenge him on political grounds and bring about his execution. The parable of the sower not only illustrates this clear distinction in the role of the Jewish leaders in the plot of conflict with Jesus but also illustrates how their distinctive responses to Jesus serve the rhetorical effect of the gospel. In the subordinated but rhetorically more important plot of conflict with the disciples, the parable of the sower illustrates how the disciples are warned to avoid the responses of the Pharisees, on the one hand, and of the chief priests, scribes, and elders on the other.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.