The Sower is the ignorant Demiurge in Mark 4:27-28

[Giuseppe]

Mark 4:27-28:

27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head.

Hence, if the Sower is the ignorant demiurge in virtue of his ignorance of the identity of the victim (the disiecta membra of the Logos), then the Parable of Sower allegorizes the creation of the world by the Demiurge/Sower using the fragments (=seeds) of the Logos debtly crucified/dismembered before said creation.

This explains why Matthew insists on the fact that the Sower is good insofar he is distinct from the evil sower (Satan):

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

But in the original parable, the Sower was only one and was evil and ignorant: the Marcion's Demiurge.

[Giuseppe]

This explains why "Mark" (editor) felt the need of "explaining" the too much simple Parable of Sower, writing the not so useful passage 4:13-20.

The passage 4:13-20 was not a a mere "explanation" of the Parable.

It was an apology to exorcize the risk that the Parable of Sower was interpreted as allegory of the crucifixion of the Logos well before the creation of the world.

[Giuseppe]

So the apologist Orosius reports the Marcionite interpretation of the Parable of Sower:

In it [the heretic work Memoria apostolorum] the Savior is seen to be secretly questioned by the disciples and showing from the Gospel parable which begins “The sower went out to sow” that the sower was not good. It claims that, if he had been good, he would not have been negligent, scattering his seed neither beside the path, nor in stony soil, nor on uncultivated ground. It wants this sower to be understood as the one who scatters captured souls in various bodies as he wishes.

https://books.google.it/books?id=Z3DYAA ... er&f=false

[cora]

I think you are right. The original small story was gnostic. This was reworked and expanded by the editor (= Irenaeus) and called Mark, to become a catholic gospel. So Mark did not go with Peter to rome, because everybody is indicating that this gospel of Mark came from Egypt. Egypt was one of the major centres of Gnosticism (see Philo).
Irenaeus always has been more of an editor/forger, than of a writer himself.
Thank you so much!!!! Cora.