Stevan Davies on Thomas Sayings in Mark Part II, Unit 3

The following passage which is covered in the second article on the use of Thomas in Mark by Stevan Davies, consists of a passage, Mark 4:1-34, which is almost entirely built from Thomas Logia. First, here is the Markan material (NIV):

Mark 4

The Parable of the Sower

 ¹Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge. ²He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: ³"Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. ⁴As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. ⁵Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. ⁶But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. ⁷Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. ⁸Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times."  ⁹Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
 ¹⁰When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. ¹¹He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables ¹²so that,
   " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
      and ever hearing but never understanding;
   otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'^[a]"
 ¹³Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? ¹⁴The farmer sows the word. ¹⁵Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. ¹⁶Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. ¹⁷But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. ¹⁸Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; ¹⁹but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. ²⁰Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."

A Lamp on a Stand

 ²¹He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? ²²For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. ²³If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."  ²⁴"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. ²⁵Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

The Parable of the Growing Seed

 ²⁶He also said, "This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. ²⁷Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. ²⁸All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. ²⁹As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come."

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

 ³⁰Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? ³¹It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. ³²Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade."  ³³With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. ³⁴He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

The majority of this material seems to be straight from the Thomas Gospel, with the exception of lines 3-8, 14-20, and 33-34, which Davies thinks were an addition by Mark. We are thus left with the following quotes from Thomas in Mark:

• Mk 4:3-8 cf. Logion 9, in Mk 4:5-6 this is extended somewhat, in the typical explanatory interpolations which we've seen elsewhere, but not so as to change the meaning dramatically.
• Variations of the ears to hear theme are in Logia 8, 21, 24, 63, (65), 96. They occur here in 4:9, and 4:23, and Davies treats them as a "traditional admonition," and there is no evident way that their meaning is construed much differently from the original, although in Christianity statements like this get terribly abused later, since they become the fuel for proselytizing first, and religious wars later, when it gets more strident. There the normal mechanism of projection is hard at work, and people don't use the statements in the introspective way which is still the dominant mode of the Thomas text, but it is turned against others, in a proselytizing and judgmental way. (Note: Pursah's version skips Logion 65)
• Mark 4:10-13 is related to Thomas Logion 62, and the Markan construction per se does not necessitate the later Christian misuse of the passage, which increasingly becomes fodder for the obfuscation of religion, covering up all seemingly unexplainable issues as "mysteries of the faith," as opposed to Jesus' original intention of communicating in a way that could only be validated by experience, which is really the essence of the meaning of mysterion also in the Greek mystery religions, which were essentially directed to experience of the mystery, in the full awareness that words alone were not enough. In Christian parlance the mysteries of the faith are glib constructs to explain away that which seems at odds with accepted perceptions, they are a way for theology to gloss over the seemingly unlikelier aspects of the faith, exactly because it confines itself to mental constructs, and avoids the experiential aspect which is so decisively important.
• Davies also notes that Mark labels many of the materials he borrows from Thomas Logia as "parables," which connects exactly to the observation above, namely that parables point with words to the experience of something that will reveal itself to us only if we do follow Jesus in fact, and will forever remain a closed book, if we confine ourselves to talking about doing it, as most religion does.
• Next interestingly in 4:21 is a parallel to Logion 33, which Pursah rejects for her version, and which material evidently occurs in the sources in several variations. In Christianity this type of a saying proved conducive to fueling the fires of proselytizing.
• Then comes Mk 4:22, an apparent adaptation from Logion 5, and the latter part of 6 (which Pursah disallows). There is nothing here that denotes a pronounce shift in interpretation.
• Mk. 4:25/Logion 41 have nothing particular to offer they are nearly identical. I can't vouch for how this has been interpreted...
• Mk. 4:26-29 Would correspond to Logion 21, which Pursah rejects. It is also a quotation from Joel 3:13 as Davies points out, and so it may be one thing that was put in Jesus' mouth for an editorial  purpose.
• Mk. 4:30-32 parallels Logion 20 closely. Most meanings are obvious by association. One meaning that was probably not intended was the collection of vast real estate holdings.

While in some points we saw here a shift of meaning towards what we might regard as a more Christian mold, none of it was as dramatic perhaps as some of the examples I covered earlier, related to the first Davies article, where there was so much editorial around the sayings that it clearly shifted their meaning in a specific direction. In general it is simply interesting to see how bits and pieces from other traditions are woven into a somewhat coherent narrative by Mark. This stuff just makes a living tradition like this come to life, if you contemplate it a bit.

Stevan Davies on Thomas Sayings in Mark, Part II, Unit 2

Stevan Davies' 2nd article on the transition from Thomas to Mark focuses on the section Mark 3:20-35, and in it he sees Logia 35, 44, and common themes with 61, 64,  and 99, and then some usage that is present in 57, 76, 96. 97, 98, 113.

To make it easy, I'm quoting the Markan passage here from the NIV:

Mark 3:20-35 (New International Version)

Jesus and Beelzebub

 ²⁰Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. ²¹When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

 ²²And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub^[a]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

 ²³So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? ²⁴If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. ²⁶And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. ²⁷In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. ²⁸I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. ²⁹But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
 ³⁰He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

Jesus' Mother and Brothers

 ³¹Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³²A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."  ³³"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
 ³⁴Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Funnily enough I remember one thing about this passage in relation to Christianity, or particularly Roman Catholicism. My ex-wife got upset with me one day when I made reference to Jesus's siblings, convinced that I was making it up. I showed her this passage and other similar passages. Later we found out that someone wrote a whole book about facts from the Bible that were generally suppressed in Catholic teachings. All of which was possible of course particularly pre Vatican II, because studying the Bible generally was not "done" in that environment. A lot has changed since then, and the RC crowd has now joined the Protestants in the search for the "historical" Jesus, which the Protestants originally, in the 19th century conceived as their best defense against the catholics playing footloose and fancy free with the "facts" of the Bible.
Davies traces the opening passages (through 3:26) of the above section to the Q tradition, and sees essentially Thomas quotes after that, starting with 3:27, Logion 35 (skipped in the Pursah version); 3:28-29, Logion 44 (skipped in the Pursah version); 3:31-35, Logion 99 (Present in the Pursah version). In other words, right away we have a strong hint here that some of the sources may be dubious from Pursah's standpoint, as she skips the first quotes on which this is based. We may also notice however that here way of expressing her views on the matter is rather mild, and she never does say that none of the other sayings are even partially authentic, but in essence she's saying there are too many corruptions with them, but these 70/71 in the collection she feels she can vouch for, based on her recollection.
While we once again see how the narrative process is at work using various known elements to weave its story, this passage actually does make sense if you read it the right way. Speaking strictly from the standpoint of a Course student, the Markan passage may make sense on many levels. The first is the accusation of Jesus being possessed by the devil, which if you think about it, really finds its corollary in the notion in the Course that to the ego the guiltless are guilty, although that relates more specifically to the scene in front of Pontius Pilate, but I'll quote it here in full:

Much of the ego's strange behavior is directly attributable to its definition of guilt. To the ego, the guiltless are guilty. Those who do not attack are its "enemies" because, by not valuing its interpretation of salvation, they are in an excellent position to let it go. They have approached the darkest and deepest cornerstone in the ego's foundation, and while the ego can withstand your raising all else to question, it guards this one secret with its life, for its existence depends on keeping this secret. So it is this secret that we must look upon, for the ego cannot protect you against truth, and in its presence the ego is dispelled. (ACIM:T-13.II.4)

The whole point here is that from the Course's point of view Satan or Beelzebub are understandable projections, personifications of the ego thought itself, and it's most basic form of defense IS projection, accusing the other of what it itself does. Thus also the ego IS the house divided against itself, for at the most abstract level it is the thought that the separation of God (splitting off from God, respectively "dividing" itself from God) is possible, which then gives rise to the phenomenon of the split mind, which not only splits itself off from God, but completely identifies itself with the split off part to the point of forgetting its immortal self as the Son of God completely, except for the quiet presence of the Holy Spirit, which is always still present in part of our mind, regardless of how much we try to repress and ignore it. And of course the ego's house will not stand, for the ego thought and all that it makes up subsequently by definition live on borrowed time, they are not the creations of love of our eternal, immortal Self, they are the substitute relaties which are manifested, projected from the split mind, and nothing is permanent about them.
We should not have to wonder why Pursah would have rejected Logia 35 and 44 from her collection, as 35 is murky to say the least, and 44 is the diametrical opposite of what Jesus taught, and so certainly does not make any sense being in the collection. This is one of the hallmarks of Christianity, that it did incorporate a lot of corruptions, because it is completely reflective of the taught system of the wrong mind, and so it continues the mistakes of the Old Testament tradition, in which God is alternately loving and hateful. Jesus on the other hand represents oneness, and a thoughtsystem that is entirely consistent, because it reflects nothing else but oneness.
The final statement, reflecting Logion 99, makes complete sense, and acts here as the punch line. In Course terms, what Jesus is advocating here is the point that special relationships are of the ego, be they family/heredity, or any other, and that the Holy Relationship as the Course calls it is the way in which we are joined with our brothers, and the only way in which we can join with our brothers is in the mind, and never with the body. And of course, where two or three are together in my name, there I am in their midst (again: in the mind), or as the Course puts it:

You who are now the bringer of salvation have the function of bringing light to darkness. The darkness in you has been brought to light. Carry it back to darkness, from the holy instant to which you brought it. We are made whole in our desire to make whole. Let not time worry you, for all the fear that you and your brother experience is really past. Time has been readjusted to help us do, together, what your separate pasts would hinder. You have gone past fear, for no two minds can join in the desire for love without love's joining them.  (ACIM:T-18.III.7)