Four Soils Interpretation

Matt. 13:10, 18-23; Mark 4:10, 13-20; Luke 8:9, 11-15
(Huck 91, 93; Aland 123, 124; Crook 145, 146)^[125]

Updated: 23 May 2024

וַיִּקְרְבוּ תַּלְמִידָיו וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ מַה הוּא הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה וַיֹֹּאמֶר לָהֶם זֶה הוּא הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּרַע זֶה דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים וְהֵם עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים אֶת הַדָּבָר וְאֵינָם מְקַבְּלִים אוֹתוֹ וּבָא הַשָּׂטָן וְעוֹקֵר אֶת הַדָּבָר מִלִּבָּם וְהֵם עַל הַסֶּלַע אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים אֶת הַדָּבָר וּמְקַבְּלִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׂמְחָה וְעִקָּר אֵין לָהֶם וּבִשְׁעַת נִסָּיוֹן הֵם סָרִים וְהֵם בַּחוֹחִים אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים אֶת הַדָּבָר וּמְקַבְּלִים אוֹתוֹ וְהִרְהוּרִים וְהוֹן וְתַעֲנוּגֵי הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה הוֹלְכִים וְחוֹנְקִים אוֹתָם וְהֵם בָּאֲדָמָה הַטּוֹבָה אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים אֶת הַדָּבָר וּמְקַבְּלִים אוֹתוֹ בְּלֵב טוֹב

Yeshua’s disciples approached him and said, “What is the meaning of this parable?”

So Yeshua replied, “The meaning of the parable is this: the seed represents the word of God. The scenario of the seed on the path represents those who hear God’s word but do not accept it, so Satan comes and uproots it from their hearts. The scenario of the seed on the rock represents those who hear God’s word and joyfully accept it, but since they have missed the point they turn away in times of testing. The scenario of the seed among the thistles represents those who hear God’s word and accept it, but worries, possessions and worldly pleasures choke them more and more. The scenario of the seed in the good soil represents those who hear God’s word and accept it with a sincere determination to put it into practice.”^[126]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Four Soils interpretation click on the link below:

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] The reconstruction of the Four Soils parable that Flusser and Lindsey produced was published in David Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” in his Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979 [in Hebrew]), 150-209, esp. 184. ↩
• ^[2] The English translation of the Flusser-Lindsey reconstruction of the Four Soils parable is our own—DNB and JNT. ↩
• ^[3] See Young, Parables, 273. ↩
• ^[4] The English translation is that which was provided by Young (Parables, 273). ↩
• ^[5] On FR as the source for Luke’s version of the Four Soils parable, see Four Soils parable, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” On FR as the source of the Four Soils interpretation, see the discussion under the subheading "Conjectured Stages of Transmission" on this webpage. ↩
• ^[6] See Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[7] In an essay Malcolm Lowe co-authored with David Flusser, Lowe expressed his opinion that “the lengthy interpretation of the Sower is a thoroughly Greek composition which cannot be literally translated into any kind of Hebrew.” See Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” New Testament Studies 29.1 (1983): 25-47, esp. 36. Evidently, Flusser did not fully accept Lowe’s opinion, since he had previously collaborated with Lindsey on a reconstruction of the Four Soils interpretation (see “Reconstruction” subheading above) and discussed the Jewish background of the Four Soils interpretation in the essay in which that reconstruction was published (Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 184-191[Hebrew]), as well as in his monograph, David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981). ↩
• ^[8] Unlike Payne, we distinguish between parable interpretations, in which the individual elements of a parable are identified and explained, and parable (or simile) applications, in which the correlation between the parable and the external reality is made explicit. Thus, according to our definition, “Let the one with ears to hear, hear!” is the application of the Four Soils parable, not its interpretation. Only two parables in the Synoptic Gospels—the Four Soils parable and Darnel Among the Wheat (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)—receive fully developed interpretations. Bad Fish Among the Good (Matt. 13:47-50) receives something more than an application but less than a fully developed interpretation. We would classify the imperatives (“Ask and it will be given to you,” etc.) at the conclusion of Friend in Need (Luke 11:9-10) and the rhetorical question at the conclusion of Fathers Give Good Gifts (Luke 11:13) as applications rather than interpretations. See Philip Barton Payne, “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and its Interpretation,” Gospel Perspectives 1 (1980): 163-207, esp. 171-172. ↩
• ^[9] See Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 183-191 [Hebrew]. ↩
• ^[10] Young (Parables, 267 n. 34) questioned whether the attribution of this saying to Rabban Gamliel the elder might be a mistake. The class-oriented outlook that characterizes this saying seems more characteristic of Rabban Gamliel the elder’s grandson, Rabban Gamliel the younger, who adhered to the views of bet Shammai, which was of the opinion that only members of wealthy families should be admitted as disciples (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 3:1 [ed. Schechter, 14]). On Rabban Gamliel the younger’s adherence to the views of bet Shammai, see Shmuel Safrai, “Halakha,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; CRINT II.3; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:121-209, esp. 192 n. 337, 193, 197. ↩
• ^[11] The key to understanding Rabban Gamliel’s fish metaphor is knowing that he evaluated disciples along two axes: socio-economic status (poor vs. rich) and ability (understanding and ability to answer). Thus, the four types of fish can be plotted on a diagram as follows:

  
  Rabban Gamliel assigned the non-kosher fish (i.e., a prospective disciple from the lower classes) zero marks. The kosher fish (i.e., a prospective disciple from the upper classes) received marks for his socio-economic status and for his ability to understand (but no marks for his ability to answer), but he had not been admitted to the most elite class of all (from Rabban Gamliel’s point of view), “the disciples of the sages.” The fish from the Jordan (i.e., an accepted disciple from the elite rabbinic class) is able to understand rabbinic discourse, but lacks the ability to contribute. The fish from the sea (i.e., an accepted disciple from the elite rabbinic class who excels in his studies) understands rabbinic discourse and actively participates in the discussions.

  In the Four Soils parable we also see a progression from worst to best-case scenario: the seed on the path did not even have a chance to germinate, the seed on the rock sprouted but quickly withered, the seed among the thorns grew but was eventually choked out, while the seed in good soil grew to full maturity. ↩

• ^[12] See Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 189-190 [Hebrew]. On Jesus’ affinities with this group of Galilean charismatics, see Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim.” ↩
• ^[13] On the designation of the Hasidim as “men of deeds” because of their involvement in public affairs, see Shmuel Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 15-33, esp. 16, 32. ↩
• ^[14] See Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” 16 n. 11; Notley-Safrai, 22-23. ↩
• ^[15] The Kaufmann and Parma MSS read בלמידים (“among learners”), whereas the Cambridge MS reads בתלמידים (“among disciples”). ↩
• ^[16] Examples of "four types"—two of which are average or mediocre, which are offset by an example of excellence and an example of utter failure—are found elsewhere in rabbinic sources: four types of temperament (m. Avot 5:11), four types of almsgiver (m. Avot 5:13) and four types of son (Passover Haggadah). Philo also discussed four types of son/student (Sobr. §35). ↩
• ^[17] Scholars regularly cite the lack of Hebraisms in the Four Soils interpretation as an argument against its originality. Cf., e.g., Taylor, 258; Davies-Allison, 2:397; Snodgrass, 164. But these scholars generally assume that Mark’s version is the earliest and closest to the original; as a consequence, the Hebraisms in Luke’s version of the Four Soils interpretation are ignored. ↩
• ^[18] On καί + participle + aorist as the translation equivalent of vav-consecutive + vav-consecutive, see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[19] On the omission of possessive pronouns equivalent to Hebrew pronominal suffixes by Greek translators and editors, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[20] See Lindsey, HTGM, 69-70. ↩
• ^[21] Below are all the examples of οἱ δώδεκα (“the Twelve”) used as a title for a select group of Jesus’ followers in the Synoptic Gospels:

  Matt. 20:17 (but critical eds. place μαθητάς in brackets after τοὺς δώδεκα in Matt. 20:17) TT = Mark 10:32; Luke 18:31 Matt. 26:14 TT = Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3 Matt. 26:20 TT = Mark 14:17 (cf. Luke 22:14 [οἱ ἀπόστολοι]) Matt. 26:47 TT = Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47 Mark 3:16 U Mark 4:10 TT (cf. Matt. 13:10 [οἱ μαθηταί]; Luke 8:9 [οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ]) Mark 6:7 TT = Luke 9:1 (cf. Matt. 10:1 [τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ]) Mark 9:35 TT (cf. Matt. 18:1 [--]; Luke 9:46 [--]) Mark 10:32 TT = Matt 20:17 (but critical eds. place μαθητάς in brackets after τοὺς δώδεκα in Matt. 20:17); Luke 18:31 Mark 11:11 TT (cf. Matt. 21:17 [--]; Luke 19:[--] [--]) Mark 14:10 TT = Matt. 26:14; Luke 22:3 Mark 14:17 TT = Matt. 26:20 (cf. Luke 22:14 [οἱ ἀπόστολοι]) Mark 14:20 TT (cf. Matt. 26:23 [--]; Luke 22:21 [--]) Mark 14:43 TT = Matt. 26:47; Luke 22:47 Luke 8:1 U Luke 9:1 TT = Mark 6:7 (cf. Matt. 10:1 [τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ]) Luke 9:12 TT (cf. Matt. 14:15 [οἱ μαθηταί]; Mark 6:35 [οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ]) Luke 18:31 TT = Matt 20:17 (but critical eds. place μαθητάς in brackets after τοὺς δώδεκα in Matt. 20:17); Mark 10:32 Luke 22:3 TT = Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10 Luke 22:47 TT = Matt. 26:47; Mark 14:43 Key: TT = verse has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[22] Examples of the question מַה הוּא in DSS include the following:

  ומה הוא איש תהו ובעל הבל להתבונן במעשי פלאך

  And what is a man of emptiness or the owner of fleetingness to understand your wonderful deeds? (1QH^a XV, 32)

  מה הוא היותר

  What is the benefit? (1Q27 1 II, 3)

  ומה {ו}הוא אשר יעשה ג[בר -- ]

  And what is it that a m[an] will do...? (4Q299 3 II, 7)

  מה הוא המצו[ה -- ]

  What is the command[ment]? (4Q299 32 I, 2)

  ↩

• ^[23] For examples of מַה הוּא/מָהוּ with the sense “What is the meaning of...?” see Call of Levi, Comment to L63. ↩
• ^[24] See Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, under the subheading “Redaction Analysis: Matthew’s Version.” ↩
• ^[25] Mark’s sentence, οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην (Mark 4:13), could be construed either as a statement or as a question. Plummer (Mark, 124) preferred reading it as a statement, noting that in Luke 20:44 and John 12:34 καὶ πῶς (“And how...?”; cf. L15) is preceded by a statement. Nevertheless, we think it is more likely that the author of Mark intended οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην to be understood as a question. First, the author of Mark had a habit of changing statements in Luke into questions (see Sign-Seeking Generation, L26-29; Temple’s Destruction Foretold, L14-15). Second, the author of Mark liked to include rapid-succession questions that gave the interrogated person no opportunity to respond. On the conversion of statements into questions as a redactional trait of the author of Mark and on rapid-succession questions as a stylistic feature of Mark’s Gospel, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[26] On the author of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ character, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Portrait of Jesus.” ↩
• ^[27] See A. B. Bruce, 198; Bundy, 227 §132. ↩
• ^[28] Cf. McNeile, 193; Hagner, 1:377. ↩
• ^[29] Cf. Schweizer, 301; Nolland, Matt., 539; France, Matt., 519. ↩
• ^[30] See Jeremias, Parables, 83 n. 62; Albright-Mann, 168; Luz, 2:268 n. 13. ↩
• ^[31] The prozbol was a legal way (according to rabbinic halachah) of circumventing the biblical commands relating to the cancellation of debts. ↩
• ^[32] Additional examples of the explanatory phrase זֶה הוּא in the Mishnah include m. Yev. 3:8 (זֶה הוּא סְפֵק גֵּירוּשִׁין [“this is a doubtful divorce”]); m. Ned. 8:7 (וְזֶה הוּא כְבוֹדִי [“but this is my honor”]); m. Sanh. 7:10 (זֶה הוּא הָאוֹמֵ′ נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה [“this is the one who says, ‘Let us go and perform idolatrous worship’”]); m. Bek. 7:2 (אֵין לוֹ גְבִינִים אִם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גְבִין אֶחָד זֶה הוּא הַגִבֵּן הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה [“If he has no eyebrows or if he has a unibrow, this is the gibēn spoken of in the Torah”]). ↩
• ^[33] Cf. Geza Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (London: SCM Press; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 96. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. David Wenham, “The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” New Testament Studies 20.3 (1974): 299-319, esp. 307. ↩
• ^[35] On the genitive absolute as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see our LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Matthew.” ↩
• ^[36] On the author of Mark’s redactional use of ὁ λόγος as a technical term for Jesus’ proclamation, see Bedridden Man, Comment to L15. ↩
• ^[37] See Dalman, 95. ↩
• ^[38] For two examples of absolute uses of הַמַּלְכוּת (“the Kingdom”) in ancient Jewish sources, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L26. See also, Wenham, “The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” 299-319, esp. 308 n. 1. ↩
• ^[39] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:630-648. ↩
• ^[40] See Dos Santos, 10. Dos Santos is, however, somewhat misleading. In addition to the entry for אֱלֹהִים, the entry for אֱלוֹהַּ must also be consulted. ↩
• ^[41] Cf. the LXX translation of כֹּל חָרֵד בְּדִבְרֵי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (“all who tremble at the words of the God of Israel”; Ezra 9:4) as πᾶς ὁ διώκων λόγον θεοῦ Ισραηλ (“everyone pursuing [the] word of [the] God of Israel”; 2 Esd. 9:4). ↩
• ^[42] Cf. b. Eruv. 13b; b. Yom. 35b; b. Git. 6b; y. Ber. 1:3 [9a]; y. Yev. 1:6 [9a]; y. Sot. 3:4 [16a]. ↩
• ^[43] Cf. McNeile, 193; Luz, 2:238; Nolland, Matt., 539. ↩
• ^[44] Cf. Wenham, “The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” 310. ↩
• ^[45] On אֵלּוּ (’ēlū, “these”) as the MH equivalent of BH אֵלֶּה (’ēleh, “these”), see Segal, 41 §72; Kutscher, 124 §203. ↩
• ^[46] Some scholars have noted this deficiency in the canonical versions of the Four Soils interpretation. Cf., e.g., A. B. Bruce, 519; Taylor, 259. ↩
• ^[47] On the importance of repentance for hasidic thought, see t. Suk. 4:2 and our discussion of that rabbinic text in relation to Jesus’ teaching in Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L38. ↩
• ^[48] On the redactional use of εὐθύς in the Gospel of Mark, see the discussion in Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes.” See also the entry for Mark 1:10 in LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups; Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[49] The noun διάβολος occurs 5xx in Luke (Luke 4:2, 3, 6, 13; 8:12), and the noun σατανᾶς also occurs 5xx in Luke (Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3, 31). ↩
• ^[50] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:299. ↩
• ^[51] See Dos Santos, 199. ↩
• ^[52] Cf., e.g., Plummer, Matt., 188. ↩
• ^[53] See Raymond E. Brown, “Parable and Allegory Reconsidered,” Novum Testamentum 5.1 (1962): 36-45, esp. 43; Michael P. Knowles, “Abram and the Birds in Jubilees 11: A Subtext for the Parable of the Sower?” New Testament Studies 41.1 (1995): 145-151. ↩
• ^[54] Fragments of Jubilees were discovered at Qumran. To what extent the Qumran library was representative of the literary interests of the wider society is another question. ↩
• ^[55] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:34-36. ↩
• ^[56] An example of עָקַר in an agricultural context is found in the book of Ecclesiastes:
  

  עֵת לָטַעַת וְעֵת לַעֲקוֹר נָטוּעַ

  A time to plant and a time to uproot the planting. (Eccl. 3:2)

  For additional examples of עָקַר in agricultural contexts, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L25. ↩

• ^[57] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:719-723. ↩
• ^[58] See Dos Santos, 97. ↩
• ^[59] We do, however, find an example of מִלְּבָבְךָ (mil^evāv^echā, “from your heart”) in Deut. 4:9. ↩
• ^[60] The absolute use of ὁ λόγος in the Four Soils interpretation was one of the primary reasons that scholars such as Bultmann (187) and Jeremias (Parables, 77-78) denied that the interpretation could be traced back to Jesus. These scholars assumed that ὁ λόγος in the Four Soils interpretation was employed as a technical term for the Christian gospel (cf., e.g., ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [ho logos tou Christou, “the word of Christ”]; Col. 3:16). Indeed, this might be how the authors of Mark and Matthew, and perhaps even the author of Luke, understood ὁ λόγος in the Four Soils parable. But as we have seen, in ancient Jewish sources “the words of God” (parallel to Luke 8:11) were equated with Torah (see above, Comment to L21). Likewise, the absolute use of הַדָּבָר (“the word”) in Deut. 30:14, to which the Four Soils interpretation alludes, refers to the Torah of Moses. Thus, in its earliest form the Four Soils interpretation referred not to the Christian Gospel but to the Jewish Torah. Bultmann and Jeremias were misled by their assumption of Markan priority to deny the authenticity of the Four Soils interpretation. ↩
• ^[61] In ancient Greek sources, as well as in Hebrew, the heart, rather than the brain, is the seat of the intellect. For examples in Greek sources, see LSJ, 877. ↩
• ^[62] In the Mishnah, for example, we find several instances of שָׂדֶה זְרוּעָה (“a sown field”; m. Kil. 2:3, 5; 3:3, 6, 7), as well as statements like שָׂדֶה תִיזָּרַע (“a field may be sown”; m. Shev. 4:2), שָׂדֶה נִיזְרַעַת (“a field is sown”; m. Ohol. 18:3, 4) or גָּנָּהּ קְטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא מּוּקֶּפֶת תִיזָּרַע (“a small garden that is walled in may be sown”; m. Edu. 2:4). By contrast, we have found only one example of a seed that is said to be sown: כִּיסְבָּר שֶׁהִיא זְרוּעָה בֶחָצֵר (“coriander that was sown in a courtyard”; m. Maas. 3:9). ↩
• ^[63] See P. B. Payne, “The Seeming Inconsistency of the Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” New Testament Studies 26.4 (1980): 564-568, esp. 565. ↩
• ^[64] “Believe and be saved” also occurs in the spurious ending of Mark (Mark 16:16), but since it did not belong to the original text of Mark this example is not relevant to the present discussion. ↩
• ^[65] Foerster and Fitzmyer attributed the wording in L34 to the author of Luke, whereas Young entertained the possibility that the author of Luke inherited this secondary addition from a source. See Werner Foerster and Georg Fohrer, “σῴζω, κτλ.,” TDNT, 7:965-1004, esp. 981; Fitzmyer, 1:713; Young, Parables, 271. ↩
• ^[66] In the Gospel of Mark there are two instances where σώζειν refers to deliverance from end-time upheavals (Mark 13:13, 20), both of which were picked up by the author of Matthew (Matt. 24:13 [cf. Luke 21:19], 22 [no Lukan parallel]). A similar usage of “to be saved” is found in 4 Ezra 9:7. Deliverance from end-time upheavals should be distinguished from eternal salvation in the eschatological age. ↩
• ^[67] See Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L85-93. ↩
• ^[68] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1251-1252. ↩
• ^[69] See Dos Santos, 217. ↩
• ^[70] The noun עִקָּר occurs in m. Ber. 6:7; m. Kil. 6:1; 7:1, 2; m. Shev. 2:4; 7:2; m. Maas. 3:10; m. Orl. 1:7; m. Shab. 7:1; 14:3; m. Eruv. 3:6; 4:7; m. Pes. 4:5; m. Betz. 3:6; m. Avot 1:17; m. Kel. 19:9, 10; 20:1; 22:7; m. Neg. 4:4; m. Par. 2:5; m. Nid. 6:12. ↩
• ^[71] The baraita to which we refer states:

  והתנן זה הכלל כל שיש לו עיקר יש לו שביעית וכל שאין לו עיקר אין לו שביעית

  It was taught [in a baraita]: This is the general rule: Everything that has a root has Sabbatical year restrictions, and everything that has no root [אֵין לוֹ עִיקָּר] has no Sabbatical year restrictions. (b. Nid. 62a; cf. Shab. 90a; b. Avod. Zar. 14a)

  ↩

• ^[72] On the identification of the Shimon of m. Avot 1:17 as the son of Hillel, see R. Travers Herford, ed., The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York: Schocken, 1962), 35-37. ↩
• ^[73] The author of Mark likely picked up εἶτα (eita, “then”) from Luke 8:12, the Lukan version of the seed-on-the-path explanation (L30). ↩
• ^[74] Cf., e.g., Taylor, 260. ↩
• ^[75] In Acts the noun θλῖψις occurs 5xx (Acts 7:10, 11; 11:19; 14:22; 20:23); the noun διωγμός occurs 2xx (Acts 8:1; 13:50). ↩
• ^[76] The following table shows all the instances of θλῖψις in the Synoptic Gospels:

  Mark 4:17 TT = Matt. 13:21 (cf. Luke 8:13) Mark 13:19 TT = Matt. 24:21 (cf. Luke 21:23) Mark 13:24 TT = Matt. 24:29 (cf. Luke 21:25) Matt. 24:9 TT (cf. Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12) Key: TT = verse has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels

  From the data above we learn that the author of Matthew accepted θλῖψις wherever it occurred in Mark, and he added an additional instance of θλῖψις in Matt. 24:9. Although the instances of διωγμός are more limited, the pattern of distribution in the Synoptic Gospels is similar:

  Mark 4:17 TT = Matt. 13:21 (cf. Luke 8:13) Mark 10:30 TT (cf. Matt. 19:29; Luke 18:30) Key: TT = verse has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels

  ↩

• ^[77] See LHNS, 73 §93. ↩
• ^[78] For examples of בְּנִסָּיוֹן, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L22-23. ↩
• ^[79] Cf. Bovon, 1:309 n. 40. ↩
• ^[80] Delitzsch employed וּבְעֵת הַנִּסָּיוֹן as the translation of καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ in Luke 8:13. ↩
• ^[81] Examples of construct phrases built with שָׁעָה include בְּשַׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ (“in the time of her obligation”; m. Peah 4:7); בְּשַׁעַת הַקְּצִירָה (“in the time of the harvest”; m. Peah 4:10); בְּשָׁעַת הַבְּצִירָה (“in the time of the grape harvest”; m. Peah 7:3); בְּשַׁעַת הַזֶּרַע (“in the time of seeding”; m. Shev. 5:8); בְּשַׁעַת הַקְּצִיעָה (“in the time of the fig harvest”; m. Maas. 2:7); בְּשָׁעַת סַכָּנָה (“in a time of danger”; m. Maas. Shen. 4:11); בְּשַׁעַת מְלָאכָה (“in a time of work”; m. Shab. 12:1); בְּשַׁעַת הָרֶגֶל (“in the time of a pilgrimage festival”; m. Shek. 7:2); בְּשָׁעַת הַהַלֵּל (“in the time for reciting Hallel”; m. Rosh Hash. 4:7); etc. ↩
• ^[82] See Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L28. ↩
• ^[83] See Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible (4 vols.; ed. James Carleton Paget, Joachim Schaper et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013-2015), 1:22-45, esp. 43-44. ↩
• ^[84] See Delitzsch’s translation of Rev. 3:10. ↩
• ^[85] The following table displays all the instances of the verb σκανδαλίζειν in the Synoptic Gospels:

  Matt. 5:29 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:47 (= Matt. 18:9) Matt. 5:30 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:43 (= Matt. 18:8) Matt. 11:6 DT = Luke 7:23 Matt. 13:21 TT = Mark 4:17 (cf. Luke 8:13) Matt. 13:57 TT = Mark 6:3 (cf. Luke 4:22) Matt. 15:12 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:17) Matt. 17:27 U Matt. 18:6 TT = Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 Matt. 18:8 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:43 (= Matt. 5:30) Matt. 18:9 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:47 (= Matt. 5:29) Matt. 24:10 TT (cf. Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17) Matt. 26:31 TT = Mark 14:27 (cf. Luke 22:31-34) Matt. 26:33 (2xx) TT = Mark 14:29 (1x) (cf. Luke 22:31-34) Mark 4:17 TT = Matt. 13:21 (cf. Luke 8:13) Mark 6:3 TT = Matt. 13:57 (cf. Luke 4:22) Mark 9:42 TT = Matt. 18:6; Luke 17:2 Mark 9:43 Mk-Mt = Matt. 5:30; 18:8 Mark 9:45 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 18:8) Mark 9:47 Mk-Mt = Matt. 5:29; 18:9 Mark 14:27 TT = Matt. 26:31 (cf. Luke 22:31-34) Mark 14:29 TT = Matt. 26:33 (cf. Luke 22:31-34) Luke 7:23 DT = Matt. 11:6 Luke 17:2 TT = Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42 Key: TT = verse has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[86] On the phenomenon of “Markan stereotypes,” see Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes”; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups. ↩
• ^[87] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:184-185 (ἀφιστᾶν, ἀφιστάναι, ἀφιστάνειν). ↩
• ^[88] See Dos Santos, 140. ↩
• ^[89] See LHNS, 73 §93. ↩
• ^[90] See A. B. Bruce, 520; Marshall, 326. ↩
• ^[91] See Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, under the subheading “Results of This Research,” question 2. ↩
• ^[92] Knowles (“Abram and the Birds in Jubilees 11,” 149) noted that “the various impediments to the ‘seed’ are more at home in the itinerant ministry of a charismatic Galilean preacher than is usually allowed.” ↩
• ^[93] An alternate version of the tradition in m. Avot 6:6, which omits the theme of moderation, is found in Midrash Proverbs:

  א″ר ישמעאל גדולה היא התורה שהיא גדולה מן הכהונה וגדולה מן הכהונה ומלכות, שהמלכות נקנית בשלשים מעלות, והכהונה נקנית בעשרים וארבע מעלות והתורה נקנית בארבעים ושמונה דברים בישוב בשמיעת האוזן בעריכות שפתים ובהטבת פנים ובלב טוב ובדעה ובחכמה מכיר את מקומו וקונה לו חבר ומדקדק בתלמודו ומעין במשמעתו ואומ′ על הטמא טמא ועל הטהור טהור ועל הן הן ועל לאו לאו ואומ′ דבר משום אומרו שכל מי האומר דבר משום אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם שנ′ ותאמ′ אסתר למלך בשם מרדכי נושא בעול עם חבירו ומכריעו לכף זכות ומקביל פני חברים ואוהב פלפיל חכמים ושמח בתלמודו ואין גס לבו בהוראה ואין מורה לפני רבו ואין יושב במקום מי שהוא גדול ממנו ואוהב את הבריות ואוהב את התוכחות ומודה על האמת ונותן ונושא במשמעתו ומיסר בנו לתלמוד תורה יש לו תקוה ואחרית, שנ′ יסר בנך כי יש תקוה ואל המיתו אל תשא נפשך

  Rabbi Ishmael said, “Great is Torah, for it is greater than the priesthood, and greater than the priesthood and kingship. For the kingship is acquired with thirty virtues and the priesthood is acquired with twenty-four virtues, but the Torah is acquired with forty-eight things: with calmness, and with the hearing of the ear, and with the ordering of the lips, and with a gracious countenance, and with a good heart, and with knowledge, and with wisdom, knowing one’s place, and acquiring a companion, and precision in his study, and penetrating its meaning, and declaring impure the impure, and pure the pure, and ‘Yes’ when meaning ‘Yes,’ and ‘No’ when meaning ‘No,’ and reporting a matter in the name of the one who said it, for everyone who reports a matter in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world, as it is said, And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordecai [Esth. 2:22], bearing the yoke with his companion, and weighing in the scale of merit, and visiting friends, and loving the discussion of the sages, and being happy in his study, and his heart does not take pride in making decisions, and he does not teach in the presence of his master, and he does not sit in the place of one who is greater than he, and he loves his fellow [human] creatures, and he loves reproof, and he testifies to the truth, and he gives and takes the meaning, and he disciplines his son in the study of Torah, he has hope and a future, as it is said, Discipline your son, for there is hope, and do not set yourself [on a course] that will put him to death [Prov. 19:18].” (Midrash Prov. 19 [ed. Visotzky, 138])

  ↩

• ^[94] See Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, L4, L23, L30, L44, L60, L62. ↩
• ^[95] The connection between the proof text and Hananyah’s claim that the Torah banishes anxious thoughts is the enlightening of the eyes (מִצְוַת יי בָּרָה מְאִירַת עֵינָיִם; Ps. 19:9). According to 1 Sam. 14:29, the hungry Jonathan’s eyes became bright after he ate honey (אֹרוּ עֵינַי כִּי טָעַמְתִּי מְעַט דְּבַשׁ הַזֶּה). Note that in Ps. 19:11 the Torah is said to be sweeter than honey. Since the proof text only explains how the Torah can dispel anxious thoughts about hunger, it is possible that the other kinds of anxious thoughts enumerated in Hananyah's saying (“thoughts of foolishness, thoughts of sexual impropriety...”) are a later addition. ↩
• ^[96] Marshall (326) noted that in Luke 16:8 and Luke 20:34 the author of Luke was willing to accept the qualifier τοῦ αἰῶνος (“of the age”) when it occurred in his source. Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that τοῦ αἰῶνος did not occur as a qualifier in FR’s version of the Four Soils interpretation. ↩
• ^[97] In LXX ἀπάτη occurs in Jdt. 9:3, 10, 13; 16:8; 4 Macc. 18:8. ↩
• ^[98] See Dos Santos, 48 (הוֹן), 163‎ (עשֶׁר). ↩
• ^[99] See Shmuel Safrai and David Flusser, “The Slave of Two Masters” (Flusser, JOC, 169-172); Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” under the subheading “Poverty and Wealth.” ↩
• ^[100] On this section of the Damascus Document, see Hans Kosmala, “The Three Nets of Belial: A Study in the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965): 91-113. ↩
• ^[101] See LHNS, 73 §93. ↩
• ^[102] In Mark λοιπός occurs only in the Four Soils interpretation (Mark 4:19), the Gat Shemanim pericope (Mark 14:41 [= Matt. 26:45; no Lukan parallel]), and in the spurious ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:13). ↩
• ^[103] See Gill, 147. ↩
• ^[104] Note that the phrase ἡδονῶν τοῦ βίου (“pleasures of life”; Luke 8:14), which occurs in an FR pericope, is similar to ἐν...μερίμναις βιωτικαῖς (“with...anxieties of life”; Luke 21:34), which also occurs in an FR pericope. ↩
• ^[105] On the other hand, the author of Matthew sometimes omitted the third item of a triplet for no apparent reason. For instance, he omitted the story of the third prospective disciple in Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, and he omitted the third condition for discipleship in Demands of Discipleship. ↩
• ^[106] See Dos Santos, 223. In LXX τρυφή not only renders תַּעֲנוּג, it also renders עֵדֶן (‘ēden, “delight,” “delicacy,” “Eden”) and its cognate מַעֲדַנִּים (ma‘^adanim, “delicacies”). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1377-1378. The nouns עֵדֶן and מַעֲדַנִּים (which occurs only in the plural form) also have a gastronomic connotation, as we see in Gen. 49:20 (מֵאָשֵׁר שְׁמֵנָה לַחְמוֹ וְהוּא יִתֵּן מַעֲדַנֵּי מֶלֶךְ [“Of Asher, his food will be rich, and he will give royal delicacies”]) and Jer. 51:34 (מִלָּא כְרֵשׂוֹ מֵעֲדָנָי [“he has filled his belly with my delicacies”]). The following rabbinic tradition concerning the serpent in the Garden of Eden presents us with a possible alternative for reconstructing “pleasures of life/this world”:

  מה חשב נחש הרשע באותה שעה. אלך ואהרוג את אדם ואשא את אשתו ואהיה מלך על כל העולם כולו ואלך בקומה זקופה ואוכל כל מעדני עולם א″ל הקב″ה...אתה אמרת אוכל כל מעדני עולם לפיכך עפר תאכל כל ימי חייך

  What did the wicked serpent think at that time? “I will go and kill Adam and I will marry his wife and I will become king over all the world and I will walk with a straight stature, and I will eat all the delicacies of the world [מַעֲדַנֵּי עוֹלָם].” The Holy One, blessed is he, said to him, “...You said, ‘I will eat all the delicacies of the world [מַעֲדַנֵּי עוֹלָם],’ therefore you will eat dust all the days of your life [Gen. 3:14].” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 1:7 [ed. Schechter, 5])

  ↩

• ^[107] Scholars have noted that Luke’s “going, they are being choked” is awkward in Greek. Cf., e.g., A. B. Bruce, 520; Nolland, Luke, 1:386. Markan priorists have failed to give a satisfactory explanation for why the author of Luke would have exchanged Mark’s wording for incomprehensible Greek. ↩
• ^[108] See Teaching in Kefar Nahum, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[109] See Randall Buth, Living Koiné Greek: Part Two (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Biblical Language Center, 2008), 2:24. Cf. the Hebrew reconstructions of the Four Soils interpretation offered by Flusser-Lindsey and Young, cited in the "Reconstruction" section of this LOY segment. ↩
• ^[110] Cf. Creed, 116. ↩
• ^[111] The sole instance of τελεσφορεῖν in LXX occurs in 4 Macc. 13:20. ↩
• ^[112] Explaining a parable using the parable’s own imagery would be like defining a given term by using that term in the definition. ↩
• ^[113] Cf. Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L85-93. The adjective ἄκαρπος occurs 3xx in LXX, two of these in books originally composed in Greek (4 Macc. 16:7; Wis. 15:4). The remaining instance of ἄκαρπος occurs in Jer. 2:6, where the underlying Hebrew text reads צַלְמָוֶת (tzalmāvet, “deep darkness,” “shadow of death”). ↩
• ^[114] On γίνεται as an indicator of Markan redaction, see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L17. ↩
• ^[115] On the author of Mark’s “homogenization” of the vocabulary within his parables excursus, see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[116] See Creed, 117; A. B. Bruce, 520; Fitzmyer, 1:714; Nolland, Luke, 1:387. ↩
• ^[117] See Walter Grundmann and Georg Bertram, “καλός,” TDNT, 3:536-556, esp. 538-539. N.B.: In Nazi Germany Walter Grundmann served as director of the Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung des jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben (Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life). All of Grundmann’s scholarship must, therefore, be approached with due caution. Our citation of Grundmann’s scholarship in no way endorses his anti-Semitic worldview. On Grundmann, see Susannah Heschel, “Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life,” Church History 63.4 (1994): 587-605. ↩
• ^[118] Josephus, too, referred to the reputation of the Essenes for καλοκἀγαθία (Ant. 15:379). Wacholder argued that for their descriptions of the Essenes both Philo and Josephus relied on a common source, possibly a treatise by Nicolaus of Damascus. See Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962), 71-72. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. McNeile, 194; Luz, 2:238. ↩
• ^[120] The verb παραδέχεσθαι is rare in LXX, occurring 3xx (Exod. 23:1; 3 Macc. 7:12; Prov. 3:12). Therefore, like many other compound verbs, it is not typical of translation Greek. ↩
• ^[121] A prayer from the early Hasmonean period, which is preserved in Greek, also alludes to the phrase in question in 1 Chr. 28:9:

  καὶ ἀγαθοποιήσαι ὑμῖν ὁ θεὸς καὶ μνησθείη τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ τῆς πρὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ τῶν πιστῶν· καὶ δῴη ὑμῖν καρδίαν πᾶσιν εἰς τὸ σέβεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ποιεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ θελήματα καρδίᾳ μεγάλῃ καὶ ψυχῇ βουλομένῃ· καὶ διανοίξαι τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασιν καὶ εἰρήνην ποιήσαι καὶ ἐπακούσαι ὑμῶν τῶν δεήσεων καὶ καταλλαγείη ὑμῖν καὶ μὴ ὑμᾶς ἐγκαταλίποι ἐν καιρῷ πονηρῷ.

  And may God do good to you, and may his covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, his faithful servants, be remembered. And may he give you all a heart to worship him and to do his will with a big heart and a willing spirit [καρδίᾳ μεγάλῃ καὶ ψυχῇ βουλομένῃ]. May he open your heart with his law and his ordinances, and may he make peace. May he listen to your prayers and be reconciled to you, and may he not forsake you in a time of evil. (2 Macc. 1:2-5)

  Either μέγας (megas, “big”) was intended as an equivalent of טוֹב or שָׁלֵם, or this prayer attests to yet another variant reading in 1 Chr. 28:9, בְּלֵב גָּדוֹל (“with a big heart”). Note, in any case, the connection that is made between having a “big heart” and doing God’s will by means of the Torah. ↩

• ^[122]

  Four Soils interpretation
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἐπηρώτων δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τίς αὕτη εἴη παραβολή ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἡ παραβολή ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οἳ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τὸν λόγον καὶ αὐτοι ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἳ πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται τὸ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας πεσόν οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες καὶ ὑπὸ μεριμνῶν καὶ πλούτου καὶ ἡδονῶν τοῦ βίου πορευόμενοι συνπνείγονται καὶ οὐ τελεσφοροῦσιν τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ καλῇ γῇ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἵτινες ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον κατέχουσιν καὶ καρποφοροῦσιν ἐν ὑπομονῇ		καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἶπαν αὐτῷ τίς εἴη ἡ παραβολὴ αὕτη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς αὕτη ἔστιν ἡ παραβολή ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ οὐ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται οἱ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ μέριμναι καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ ἡδοναὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου πορευόμενοι συνπνείγουσιν αὐτούς οἱ δὲ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ καλῇ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀγαθῇ
  Total Words:	119	Total Words:	123
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	79	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	79
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	66.39%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	64.23%

  ↩

• ^[123]

  Four Soils interpretation
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ μόνας ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα τὰς παραβολάς καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην καὶ πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε ὁ σπείρων τὸν λόγον σπείρει οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν ὅπου σπείρεται ὁ λόγος οἳ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν εὐθὺς ἔρχεται ὁ σατανᾶς καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐσπαρμένον εἰς αὐτούς καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν ὁμοίως οἱ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπειρόμενοι ὅταν ἀκούσωσι τὸν λόγον εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀλλὰ πρόσκαιροί εἰσιν εἶτα γενομένης θλείψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζονται καὶ ἄλλοι εἰσὶν οἱ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας σπειρόμενοι οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον ἀκούσαντες καὶ αἱ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου καὶ αἱ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιθυμίαι εἰσπορευόμεναι συνπνείγουσιν τὸν λόγον καὶ ἄκαρπος γείνεται καὶ ἐκεῖνοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν καλὴν σπαρέντες οἵτινες ἀκούουσιν τὸν λόγον καὶ παραδέχονται καὶ καρποφοροῦσιν εν τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν		καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἶπαν αὐτῷ τίς εἴη ἡ παραβολὴ αὕτη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς αὕτη ἔστιν ἡ παραβολή ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ οὐ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται οἱ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ μέριμναι καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ ἡδοναὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου πορευόμενοι συνπνείγουσιν αὐτούς οἱ δὲ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ καλῇ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀγαθῇ
  Total Words:	158	Total Words:	123
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	58	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	58
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	36.71%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	47.15%

  ↩

• ^[124]

  Four Soils interpretation
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ διὰ τί ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖς αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς οὖν ἀκούσατε τὴν παραβολὴν τοῦ σπείραντος παντὸς ἀκούοντος τὸν λόγον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ μὴ συνιέντος ἔρχεται ὁ πονηρὸς καὶ ἁρπάζει τὸ ἐσπαρμένον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σπαρείς ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀλλὰ πρόσκαιρός ἐστιν γενομένης δὲ θλείψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζεται ὁ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας σπαρείς οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ ἡ μέριμνα τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου συνπνείγει τὸν λόγον καὶ ἄκαρπος γείνεται ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν καλὴν γῆν σπαρείς οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς ὃς δὴ καρποφορεῖ καὶ ποιεῖ ὃ μὲν ἑκατόν ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα		καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἶπαν αὐτῷ τίς εἴη ἡ παραβολὴ αὕτη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς αὕτη ἔστιν ἡ παραβολή ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ οὐ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται οἱ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτόν καὶ μέριμναι καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ ἡδοναὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου πορευόμενοι συνπνείγουσιν αὐτούς οἱ δὲ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ καλῇ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον καὶ δέχονται αὐτὸν ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀγαθῇ
  Total Words:	140	Total Words:	123
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	41	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	41
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	29.29%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	33.33%

  ↩

• ^[125] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[126] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩