198
n Mk.iv.17.adrév> 41. οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλὰ 3 πρόσκαιρός ἐστι:
2 Cor. iv.
18. Heb. γενομένης δὲ θλίψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον, εὖθὺς σκανδαλίζεται.
Xi. 25
ο. viii, 22. Ὁ δὲ eis τὰς ἀκάνθας σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων,
14; xxi.
34. 2 Cor. καὶ ἡ "μέριμνα τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου
xi. 28.
p Mk. iv.19. συμπνίγει τὸν λόγον, Kal ἄκαρπος γίνεται.
Eph. iv.22. ,
1 καὶ ἡ Ρ ἁπάτη τοῦ πλούτου
23. Ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
Col. ii. 8. τὴν καλὴν 3 σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιών 5 -
2 Thess.
ii. 10. Heb. ὃς 78 καρποφορεῖ, καὶ ποιεῖ ὁ 4 μὲν ἑκατόν, ὁ δὲ ἑξήκοντα, 6 δὲ
ili. 13.
2 Pet. ii, TptdKovTa.”
?). q Ee aia in Lk. ii. 15. Acts xiii. 4; xv. 36. x Cor. wvi.a20o. 2 Cor. xii.1(?). Heb. ii. 16 (with πον).
1 \8BD omit rovrov, which is an explanatory addition of the scribes. 2 SSBCLAE have επι την καλην γην instead of the reading in T.R., which echoes
ver, 8. 5 cuviets in SQBD.
(Meyer) or to the word (λόγον just before; Bengel, Weiss) ; sense the same. There is fruit in this case; the crop does not wither in the blade: it reaches the green ear, but it never ripens.—Ver. 23. ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς. The specific feature of the fourth and alone satisfactory type is not brought out either in Mt. or in Mk. but only in Lk. by his happy phrase: ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇῃ. The third type understands (Mt.) and receives into the heart (Mk.), but the fourth in addition receives into a clean, i.e.,a ‘*good and honest,’’ heart.—és δη: δὴ occurs here for the first time in Mt., and only a few times altogether in the N. T., but always with marked expres- siveness. According to Passow and Baimlein (Grammatik, § 669, and Unter- suchungen iber G. Partikeln, p. 98), connected with δῆλος in origin and meaning, and signifying that the thing stated is clear, specially important, natural in the given circumstances.—6s δὴ here = who, observe, or of course. Given such conditions, fruitfulness cer- tainly results. — καρποφορεῖ, bringeth forth fruit such as is desired: ripe, use- ful.—é in last clause may be pointed either 6 μὲν, 6 δὲ (T. R.) or 6 μὲν, ὃ δὲ (W. H.). Inthe former case the meaning is: this man brings forth 1oo fold, that man, etc.; in the latter, ὃ is accusative neuter after ποιεῖ, and refers to the fruit. Opinion very much divided, sense the same.
This interpretation of the Sower raises two questions: Was it needed? Does it really explain the parable? which is in effect to ask: Does it proceed from Jesus? As to the former: could not even the general hearer, not to speak of
* Vide below.
the Twelve, understand the parable well enough? True, no hint that it related to the kingdom was given, but, as already remarked, that might go without saying. Jesus had all along been using similitudes explaining His meaning rather than need- ing explanation. Then parabolic speech was common even in Rabbinical circles, a source at once of entertainment and of light to hearers. In Mt.’s report the disciples do not even ask an explanation, so that that given comes on us as a surprise (Holtz. in H. C.). Christ’s audience might at least carry away the general impression that He was dis- satisfied with the result of His ministry, in many cases in which His teaching seemed to Him like seed cast on unpro- ductive places. It might require further reflection, more than the majority were capable of, to comprehend the reasons of failure. Self-knowledge and observa- tion of character were needed for this. As to the interpretation given, it has been objected (Weiss, Julicher, etc.) that it is allegorical in method, and that, while going into details as to the various persons and things mentioned in the parable and their import, it fails to give the one main lesson which it, like every parable, is designed to teach; in short, that we cannot see the wood for the trees. As to this it may be remarked: (1) There is a tangible difference between allegory and parable. Allegory and inter- pretation answer to each other part by part ; parable and interpretation answer to each other as wholes. (2) Christ’s parables are for the most part not allegories. (3) It does not follow that none of them can be. Why should the use of allegory be interdicted to Him?