Widow’s Son in Nain

How to cite this article:
David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Widow’s Son in Nain,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2014) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13167/].

Luke 7:11-17

(Huck 80; Aland 86; Crook 90)^[235]

Updated: 23 February 2025^[236]

וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל עִיר וּשְׁמָהּ נָעִין וַיֵּלֶךְ עִמּוֹ אֻכְלוּס גָּדוֹל וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִגִּיעַ אֶל פֶּתַח הָעִיר וְהִנֵּה מוֹצִיאִים מֵת יָחִיד לְאִמּוֹ וְהִיא אַלְמָנָה וַיִּרְאֶהָ הָאָדוֹן וַיְרַחֵם עָלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ אַל־תִּבְכִּי וַיִּקְרַב וַיִּגַּע בַּמִּטָּה וַיַּעַמְדוּ הַנּוֹשְׂאִים וַיֹּאמֶר נַעַרִי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְךָ קוּם וַיֵּשֶׁב הַמֵּת וַיָּחֶל לְדַבֵּר וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ לְאִמּוֹ וַיִפְחֲדוּ הָאֻכְלוּסִים וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר נָבִיא גָּדוֹל קָם בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ וּפָקַד אֱלֹהִים אֶת עַמּוֹ וַיֵּצֵא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּכָל יְהוּדָה

And after these thing Yeshua went to a town (its name was Nain). A large crowd went with him. When he reached the entrance of the town, behold! They were bringing out a corpse of a mother’s only child, and she was a widow. The Lord saw her and had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” And he approached and touched the bier and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young fellow, I say to you, arise!” And the dead person sat up and began to speak and Yeshua give him to his mother. The crowds were afraid and they blessed God saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us, and God has visited his people!” And this word went out into all Yehuda.^[237]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Widow’s Son in Nain click on the link below:

Conclusion

The story of the raising of the widow’s son in Nain attests to the Jewish eschatological hopes current toward the end of the Second Temple period. It may also preserve an authentic recollection of a Judean ministry early in Jesus’ career. The story highlights Jesus’ compassion for fellow humans in distress, which in turn reflects Jesus’ understanding of God’s character. Far from ignoring or transgressing the commandments pertaining to ritual purity, Jesus correctly prioritized the Torah’s requirements in accordance with God’s attribute of mercy, which is surely the essence of Judaism.

---

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

---

• ^[1] Notice the all-pervading parataxis, that is, the "and...and...and" syntax, in this pericope. The particle δέ, the typical Greek connector of clauses, appears 3xx in the 7 verses of this pericope (L5, L14, L19). However, these three instances of δέ do not necessarily indicate the hand of a Greek editor, but merely typical translation Greek style. Compare, for example, the frequency of δέ in LXX. The book of Genesis contains δέ 855xx in its 1,531 verses, or about one δέ for every 1.8 verses (c. 40 hits per 1,000 words), about the same frequency as in the seven verses of the Widow’s Son in Nain pericope. Notice, too, the beautiful Hebraic parallelism: “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” (L22-23; Luke 7:16). ↩
• ^[2] This structure (subjectless ἐγένετο + time phrase + finite verb) appears 22xx in Luke, 5xx in Matthew and 2xx in Mark. Note the nearly identical structure (subjectless ἐγένετο + time phrase + καί + finite verb) found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 1x; Luke 11x). Both constructions are Septuagintal equivalents of the biblical וַיְהִי (vay^ehi, “and it was”) structure. See David N. Bivin, “Hebraisms in the New Testament.” ↩
• ^[3] Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319), esp. 263-276; Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317), esp. 268-273 (Critical Note 5). ↩
• ^[4] See Metzger, 142. ↩
• ^[5] The LXX instances of ἑξῆς are: Exod. 10:1; Deut. 2:34; 3:6; Judg. 20:48; 2 Macc. 7:8; 3 Macc. 1:9. ↩
• ^[6] In the writings of Philo, for example, ἑξῆς appears 121xx; and in the writings of Josephus, 43xx. ↩
• ^[7] The NT instances of ἑξῆς appear in Luke 7:11; 9:37; Acts 21:1; 25:17; 27:18. The five instances of καθεξῆς in NT are also confined to Luke-Acts: Luke 1:3; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:4; 18:23. ↩
• ^[8] See LHNS, 64 §80. ↩
• ^[9] The phrase אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה appears 9xx in MT in the following locations: Gen. 15:1; 22:1; 39:7; 40:1; 1 Kgs. 17:17; 21:1; Esth. 2:1; 3:1; Ezra 7:1 (cf. אַחַר הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה in 1 Kgs. 13:33). In LXX, אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה is translated as μετὰ [δὲ] τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα 5xx (Gen. 15:1; 22:1; 39:7; 40:1; 2 Esd. 7:1); once as καὶ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους (Esth. 2:1); and twice as μετὰ [δὲ] ταῦτα (3 Kgdms. 17:17; Esth. 3:1). LXX did not translate אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה in 1 Kgs. 21:1. ↩
• ^[10] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:256-267 (γίγνεσθαι). ↩
• ^[11] See Dos Santos, 48. ↩
• ^[12] In Genesis (LXX) μετά + accusative occurs in Gen. 4:3; 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30; 6:4; 7:10; 8:3, 6; 9:9, 28; 10:1, 18, 32; 11:10, 11, 13 (2xx), 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 13:14; 14:17; 15:1, 14; 16:3; 17:7 (2xx), 8, 9, 10, 19; 18:5, 19; 22:1, 6, 20, 23:19; 24:36, 55; 25:11, 26; 26:18; 27:1, 30; 28:4; 30:21; 32:21; 33:7; 35:12; 38:24, 30; 39:5, 7; 40:1; 41:1, 3, 6, 30, 31; 45:15; 48:1, 4, 6. In Gen 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30; 6:4; 9:9, 28; 10:1, 18, 32; 11:10, 11, 13 (1^st instance), 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 13:14; 14:17; 15:1, 14; 17:7 (2xx), 8, 9, 10, 19; 18:5, 19; 22:1, 20, 23:19; 24:36, 55; 25:11, 26; 26:18; 30:21; 32:21; 33:7; 35:12; 38:30; 39:7; 40:1; 41:6, 30, 31; 45:15; 48:1, 4, 6 μετά + accusative occurs as the translation of אַחַר. ↩
• ^[13] In Genesis אַחַר occurs in Gen. 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30; 6:4; 9:9, 28; 10:1, 18, 32; 11:10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 13:14; 14:7; 15:1, 14; 16:13; 17:7 (2xx), 8, 9, 10, 19; 18:5, 10, 12, 19; 19:6, 17, 26; 22:1, 13, 20; 23:19; 24:5, 8, 36, 39, 55, 61, 67; 25:11, 26; 26:18; 30:21; 31:23, 36; 32:19, 20, 21 (2xx); 33:7; 35:5, 12; 37:17; 38:30; 39:7; 40:1; 41:3, 6, 19, 23, 27, 30, 31, 39; 44:4; 45:15, 30; 46:30; 48:1, 4, 6; 50:14. The LXX translators rendered אַחַר as μετά + accusative in Gen 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30; 6:4; 9:9, 28; 10:1, 18, 32; 11:10, 11, 13 (1^st instance), 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 13:14; 14:17; 15:1, 14; 17:7 (2xx), 8, 9, 10, 19; 18:5, 19; 22:1, 20, 23:19; 24:36, 55; 25:11, 26; 26:18; 30:21; 32:21; 33:7; 35:12; 38:30; 39:7; 40:1; 41:6, 30, 31; 45:15; 48:1, 4, 6. ↩
• ^[14] Participial forms of καλεῖν (καλούμενος, etc.) in naming formulae are found in Josh. 5:3 (no Hebrew equivalent); 1 Macc. 2:3, 4, 5; 3:1; 11:7; 12:31, 37; 16:15; 2 Macc. 10:12; and in a Greek addition to Job 42:17. ↩
• ^[15] See Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L39. ↩
• ^[16] See Call of Levi, Comment to L11. Less frequently in LXX the formula ᾧ/ᾗ ὄνομα + personal name serves as the translation of -שֵׁם + וְ + pronominal suffix (cf. Gen. 16:1; 22:24; 24:29; 25:1; 38:1, 2, 6; Josh. 2:1). ↩
• ^[17] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:1189-1194. ↩
• ^[18] See Dos Santos, 48-49. ↩
• ^[19] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1174-1180. ↩
• ^[20] See Dos Santos, 154. ↩
• ^[21] On the Hebraic use of πόλις to refer to a town or village, see Robert L. Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the ‘Minor’ Agreements,” under the subheading “A Hebraic Usage of Πολίς in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[22] It is likely that Josephus’ inconsistent use of πόλις in his writings is at least partly due to Hebrew interference. See Zeev Safrai, “The Description of the Land of Israel in Josephus’ Works,” in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 295-324, esp.320. ↩
• ^[23] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:995-999. ↩
• ^[24] See Dos Santos, 211. ↩
• ^[25] See David C. Pellett, “Nain,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (ed. George A. Buttrick; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 3:500. ↩
• ^[26] In 1974 Anson F. Rainey suggested in a personal conversation with Robert L. Lindsey that the Judean Nain could be the location of Jesus’ miraculous raising to life of the widow’s son. See LHNS, 64 §80. ↩
• ^[27] A variant in some mss. of J.W. reads Ἀΐν (Ain). ↩
• ^[28] “Ein Fara” and “Pheretae” might reflect the Hebrew name פְּרָת (P^erāt), possibly the Perath of Jeremiah 13:4-7. ↩
• ^[29] Wadi Kelt (sometimes spelled Qilt) stretches for some 10 miles (16 km) across the Judean Desert from a point 6 miles (9.6 km) northeast of Jerusalem to its outlet near Jericho. ↩
• ^[30] See Joseph Patrich, “The Cave-Encampment of Simeon bar Giora in the Ravine Called Pheretae” (מחנה המערות של שמעון בר גיורא בערוץ הנקרא פרתאי), Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, B.1 (Jerusalem, 1986), 21‑26 (Hebrew); idem, “‘Ein-Fara,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:236-237. ↩
• ^[31] Pace Plummer (Luke, 198) and Marshall (284), who identified the Nain mentioned by Josephus as a village east of the Jordan. According to Vermes (Authentic, 32 n. 16), “The only Nain...known to Josephus is a place lying somewhere in southern Judea, not far from the Idumean border, which is too distant to be relevant here.” ↩
• ^[32] See David N. Bivin, “Jesus in Judea.” ↩
• ^[33] See JRL, 61; TJS, 53. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. Edwin A. Abbot, The Fourfold Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 2:211. ↩
• ^[35] On the rearrangement of the stories in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, see David N. Bivin, “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[36] For instance, we find the name שַׁלּוּם spelled שַׁלּוּן in Neh. 3:15. In first-century inscriptions we find, e.g., variant spellings of the woman's name Shalom: שלום (see Rahmani, Inscriptions 13, 23, 24, etc.) and שלון (Inscriptions 27, 73, 700, etc.). Kutscher notes examples of this phenomenon in Mishnaic Hebrew, such as אָדָן and אָדָם, and the Galilean place name מֵרוֹן and מֵרוֹם (Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language [ed. Raphael Kutscher; Jerusalem and Leiden: Magnes Press and Brill, 1982], 121-122). ↩
• ^[37] See Bundy, 198. ↩
• ^[38] On the reference to the disciples in Luke 10:23, see Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[39] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1305-1306. ↩
• ^[40] See Segal, 131 §300. ↩
• ^[41] Examples of אֻכְלוּס are found in: t. Ber. 6:2 (cf. y. Ber. 9:1 [63b]; b. Ber. 58a); t. Pes. 4:12(15) (cf. b. Pes. 64b); t. Mak. 2:3(3:8) (cf. y. Mak. 2:6 [6b]; b. Mak. 10a); t. Men. 10:6(23); y. Dem. 4:1 [17b]; Gen. Rab. 5:7. For additional references, see Rudolf Meyer, “ὄχλος,” TDNT, 5:582-590, esp. 585-586. ↩
• ^[42] See Lindsey, JRL, 61. ↩
• ^[43] See Shimon's Mother-in-Law, Comment to L5. ↩
• ^[44] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1043. ↩
• ^[45] See Trommii, 2:315-318; Hatch-Redpath, 1181-1185. ↩
• ^[46] An example of ὄχλος μέγας occurs in 1 Kgs. 21:13. ↩
• ^[47] In the Pentateuch ὡς occurs as the translation of כַּאֲשֶׁר in Gen. 18:33; 27:4, 9; 29:10; 30:25; Exod. 33:1; Lev. 24:19; Num. 2:17; Deut. 1:31 (2^nd instance), 44; 8:5; 12:22; 22:26. ↩
• ^[48] Instances of וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר occur in Gen. 12:11; 20:13; 24:22, 52; 27:30; 29:10; 30:25; 37:23; 41:13; 43:2; Exod. 32:19; Deut. 2:16; Josh. 4:1, 11; 5:8; Judg. 3:18; 6:27; 8:33; 11:5; 1 Sam. 8:1; 24:2; 2 Sam. 16:16; 2 Kgs. 14:5; Jer. 39:4; Zech. 7:13; Neh. 3:33; 4:1, 6, 9; 6:1, 16; 7:1; 13:19; 1 Chr. 17:1; 2 Chr. 25:13. ↩
• ^[49] Among the instances of וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר in MT, the LXX translators rendered כַּאֲשֶׁר as ὡς in Gen. 29:10; 30:35; Josh. 4:11; Judg. 3:18; 6:27; 8:33; 1 Kgdms. 8:1; 24:2; 2 Esd. 14:1, 6; 1 Chr. 17:1; 2 Chr. 25:3. ↩
• ^[50] Note that the root נ‑ג‑שׁ in the qal and the nif‘al (נִגַּשׁ (nigash, “approach,” “come near”) stems has the same meaning. Although imperfect qal forms of נ‑ג‑שׁ occur, perfect forms of נ‑ג‑שׁ occur in the nif‘al stem. ↩
• ^[51] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:362-363. ↩
• ^[52] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 99 §80. ↩
• ^[53] The fortification of Judean Nain, which Josephus described, took place under the direction of Simon the son of Gioras. While it is possible that Simon merely reinforced a wall that already existed in the time of Jesus, Josephus gives no indication that this was the case. According to Notley (private communication), Josephus’ mention of a wall at the site of Judean Nain may refer to hastily erected barriers, not necessarily a wall in the traditional sense. At the site of Magdala (Taricheae), for example, a city Josephus claims to have fortified (Life 188), archaeologists have failed to uncover a typical wall (Rainey-Notley, 355), but they have discovered makeshift barriers at the ends of streets that may be the “fortifications” to which Josephus referred. On recent discoveries at Magdala, see R. Steven Notley, “Genesis Rabbah 98,17—‘And Why Is It Called Gennosar?’ Recent Discoveries at Magdala and Jewish Life on the Plain of Gennosar in the Early Roman Period,” in Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine (ed. Steven Fine and Aaron Koller; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), 141-157. ↩
• ^[54] See LSJ, 1553-1554. ↩
• ^[55] The eight instances where פֶּתַח is rendered πύλη are: Gen. 38:14; Num. 3:26; Ps. 23[24]:7, 9; Prov. 1:21 (פִתְחֵי שְׁעָרִים); Jer. 50[43]:9; Ezek. 40:13 (2xx). ↩
• ^[56] The ten instances where פֶּתַח is rendered πυλών are: Gen. 43:19; 3 Kgdms. 6:8, 33; 14:27; 17:10; Ezek. 33:30; 41:2 (2xx); 1 Chr. 19:9; 2 Chr. 12:10. ↩
• ^[57] The phrase פֶּתַח הָעִיר also appears in the following rabbinic texts: m. Sanh. 2:1 (cf. y. Sanh. 2:1 [10a]; y. Hor. 3:3 [17a]; b. Sanh. 19a); Sifra, Emor 2:5; Midrash Bereshit 69:14(19) to Gen. 28:19 (cf. 81:7[6] to Gen. 35:6); Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer chpt. 32. ↩
• ^[58] On the omission or replacement of ἰδού by the author of Luke, see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[59] Instances of וְהִנֵּה + participial phrase in vav-consecutive contexts are found, for example, in Gen. 15:12; 18:2; 24:15, 30, 63; 26:8; 28:12-13; 29:2, 6; 33:1; 37:15, 25; 41:5-6; Exod. 2:5, 13; 3:2; 4:6; 14:10; Num. 23:6; Josh. 5:13. ↩
• ^[60] See Dos Santos, 49-50. ↩
• ^[61] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:673-678. ↩
• ^[62] See Fitzmyer, 1:658. The verb ἐκκομίζειν appears, for example, 7xx in Philo and 7xx in Josephus. Note especially the linguistic parallel in J.W. 5:567:

  Μαννέος...διὰ μιᾶς ἔλεγεν ἐκκεκομίσθαι πύλης...μυριάδας ἕνδεκα νεκρῶν ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίοις ὀκτακοσίοις ὀγδοήκοντα....

  Mannaios...said that there were carried out through a single gate...115,880 corpses....

  Another option in Greek for “carry out” a corpse is ἐκφέρειν. Cf. Acts 5:10: “When the young men came in they found her dead, and carrying [her] out [ἐξενέγκαντες; act. aor. ptc. of ἐκφέρειν] they buried [her] beside her husband.” ↩

• ^[63] Cf., e.g., 11QT^a [11Q19] XLIX, 11-12; m. Shab. 10:5; b. Ket. 17a. ↩
• ^[64] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:653-654. ↩
• ^[65] See Dos Santos, 107 ↩
• ^[66] Exceptions include royal dignitaries and the tombs of prophets located within the walls of Jerusalem (cf. t. Bab. Bat. 1:7[11]). These were ancient burial sites from the period of the monarchy, but even in that period this practice was criticized in some priestly circles (Ezek. 43:7-9; cf. Kaufmann Kohler, “Burial,” JE, 3:437). In the Second Temple period the tombs of royal family members (e.g., the tombs of the Hasmonean monarchs and the tomb of queen Helena of Adiabene) were located outside the walls of the city. (For a discussion of queen Helena's tomb, see R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. García, “Queen Helena’s Jerusalem Palace—In a Parking Lot?” Biblical Archaeology Review 40.3 [2014]: 28-39, 62, 64-65.) Herod, king of Judea, was buried away from Jerusalem at the Herodium outside Bethlehem (J.W. 1:673; Ant. 17:199). (On the discovery of Herod’s tomb, see Ehud Netzer, “The Tomb Complex at Herodium,” in Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey [ed. Silvia Rozenberg and David Mevorah; Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 2013], 241-255.) ↩
• ^[67] On the location of Jewish burial grounds outside settled areas, see 11QTa [11Q19] XLVIII, 11-13; m. Bab. Bat. 2:9. Cf. Amy-Jill Levine, JANT, 115. ↩
• ^[68] See Ronny Reich, “Jewish Burial Customs in the First Century,” Jerusalem Perspective 33/34 (1991): 22 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/19631/]. ↩
• ^[69] In fact the phrase בֵּן יָחִיד (bēn yāḥid, “only son”) is quite rare, and never occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. There are, however, a few examples in rabbinic sources, two of which we cite below:

  קח נא את בנך את יחידך את יצחק והלא בידוע שהוא בנו יחידו

  Take your son, your only one, ...Isaac [Gen. 22:2]. And was it not known that he was his only son [בנו יחידו]? (Sifre Deut. §313 [ed. Finkelstein, 355])

  אמ′ ר′ שמעון בן יוחי למלך שהיה לו בן יחידי

  Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said, “[It may be compared] to a king who had an only son [בן יחידי]...." (Lev. Rab. 2:5 [ed. Marguiles, 1:43])

  ↩

• ^[70] See J. Vernon Bartlet, “The Sources of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), 323. Luke 8:42 and Luke 9:38 appear in TT stories, with close parallels in Matthew and Mark, but their versions omit μονογενής. ↩
• ^[71] See Moulton-Geden, 656. The author of Luke did, however, use the adjective ἀγαπητός, a synonmym of in Acts 15:25, which only strengthens our imporession that μονογενής in Luke comes from a source (or sources). ↩
• ^[72] See F. Büchsel, “μονογενής,” TDNT 4:737-741, esp. 738. ↩
• ^[73] See Rengstorf, 2:1219. ↩
• ^[74] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:933. In LXX μονογενής is the translation of יָחִיד in Judg. 11:34; Ps. 22:21; 25:16; 35:17. ↩
• ^[75] See Dos Santos, 80. ↩
• ^[76] Another option for HR is the loanword מוֹנְגִּינוֹס (mōnginōs, “only child”). See Jastrow, 744. Since this loanword from Greek is only attested in relatively late sources, and since we prefer to reconstruct narrative in a style closer to BH, we have preferred יָחִיד for HR. ↩
• ^[77] See Jastrow, 574. ↩
• ^[78] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:924-925. ↩
• ^[79] See Dos Santos, 12. ↩
• ^[80] The LXX translators supplied εἶναι in Gen. 1:7, 29 (1st instance); 2:5, 11, 12; 3:3, 6, 9; 4:9 (2xx), 22; 6:4 (2nd instance), 17 (2xx); 7:15, 19, 22, 23; 8:1, 9, 17; 9:12, 15 (1st instance) 16 (2nd instance), 17, 19; 11:4. The verb εἶναι occurs as the translation of הָיָה in Gen. 1:2, 6, 14, 15, 29 (2nd instance); 2:18, 24, 25; 3:1, 5; 4:2, 8, 10, 14 (2xx), 17, 20, 21; 5:32; 6:3 (2nd instance), 4 (1st instance), 9, 19, 21; 9:2, 3 (2nd instance), 11, 13, 14, 15 (2nd instance), 16 (1st instance), 18 (1st instance), 25, 26, 10:8, 9; 11:1, 3, 30. In Gen. 3:7, 10, 11, 19, 6:2, 3 (1st instance); 9:3 (1st instance), 18 (2nd instance) εἶναι occurs as the equivalent of a Hebrew pronoun. In Gen. 6:12 εἶναι occurs as the equivalent of הִנֵּה (hinēh, “behold”) and in Gen. 7:6 εἶναι occurs as the equivalent of בֵּן (bēn, “son”) in the Hebrew idiom for stating a person’s age. ↩
• ^[81] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1468. The two exceptions where χήρα translates a word other than אַלְמָנָה are: 2 Kgdms. 20:3, אַלְמְנוּת (’alm^enūt, “widowhood”); Isa. 49:21, גַּלְמוּדָה (galmūdāh, “barren”). The noun אַלְמָנָה appears 55xx in MT, 11xx in DSS and 53xx in the Mishnah. ↩
• ^[82] See Dos Santos, 11. ↩
• ^[83] See J. Gordon Harris, “Old Age,” in ABD, 5:10-12. ↩
• ^[84] Safrai notes: “This right is made explicit in a marriage contract published in DJD 11, no. 21, and is apparently also a basic assumption of other marriage contracts discovered in the caves of the Judean desert” (Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” [Safrai-Stern, 2:787 n. 6]). ↩
• ^[85] For more detailed discussions of widowhood in ancient Jewish society, see Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 2:728-792, esp. 787-789), Tal Ilan, Jewish Women In Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 147-151. ↩
• ^[86] See Safrai-Stern, 2:778. According to Josephus:

  The pious rites which it [i.e., the Torah—DNB and JNT] provides for the dead do not consist of costly obsequies or the erection of conspicuous monuments. The funeral ceremony is to be undertaken by the nearest relatives, and all who pass while a burial is proceeding must join the procession and share the mourning of the family. (Ag. Ap. 2:205; Loeb)

  Commenting on this passage, Thackeray cited Ben Sira: “Do not fail those who weep, but mourn with those who mourn” (Sir. 7:34). Cf. Paul’s instructions, “Rejoice with those who are rejoicing. Weep with those who are weeping” (Rom. 12:15).

  The duty to accompany a funeral procession is also mentioned in rabbinic literature (cf., e.g., b. Moed Kat. 24b; b. Ket. 17a; b. Ber. 18a; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, chpt. 4 [ed. Schechter, 18]; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 8 [ed. Schechter, 22]; Semahot 11:7 [49a]). A baraita states that it is even proper to interrupt Torah study for the sake of a funeral procession:

  תנו רבנן מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת

  Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: They suspend Torah study in order to bring out the dead. (b. Ket. 17a).

  ↩

• ^[87] See Moulton-Geden, 485. ↩
• ^[88] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 196; Buth and Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” 280 (Critical Note 10). The following table shows all the instances in Luke where ἱκανός is used as an adjective of quantity and the parallels in Matthew and Mark (if any):

  Luke 7:12 U Luke 8:27 TT (cf. Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2) Luke 8:32 TT (cf. Matt. 8:30; Mark 5:11) Luke 20:9 TT (cf. Matt. 21:33; Mark 12:1) Luke 23:8 U Luke 23:9 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[89] On use of the preposition σύν as a marker of Lukan redaction, see Bedridden Man, Comment to L28. ↩
• ^[90] See Marshall, 285. Cf. Fitzmyer (1:202-203) who wrote, “Whereas the absolute use of kyrios is found only once in the Marcan Gospel ([Mark] 11:3), the frequency of its use in the Lucan narratives, where the evangelist himself is speaking, is to be noted: Luke 7:13, 19; 10:1, 39, 41; 11:39; 12:42a; 13:15; 17:5, 6; 18:6; 19:8a, 31, 34; (20:44); 22:61bis; 24:3, 34.” ↩
• ^[91] The unique Lukan pericopae in which Jesus is referred to as “the Lord” in narration are: Widow’s Son in Nain (Luke 7:13); Miryam and Marta (Luke 10:39, 41); Daughter of Avraham (Luke 13:15); Persistent Widow (Luke 18:6); Zakkai the Toll Collector (Luke 19:8); Yeshua Interrogated in High Priest’s House (Luke 22:61 [2xx]). The final reference in this list (Luke 22:61) appears in a TT pericope, however, Luke 22:61a is unique to Luke. ↩
• ^[92] The DT pericopae where Luke uses “the Lord” in the narrator’s voice are Yohanan the Immerser’s Question, L13 (Luke 7:19; cf. Matt. 11:3); Yeshua’s Critique of the Pharisees (Luke 11:39; cf. Matt. 23:1-36); Faithful or Faithless Slave, L26 (Luke 12:42; cf. Matt. 24:45). ↩
• ^[93] In Yohanan the Immerser’s Question it appears that the author of Matthew radically abbreviated the pericope at the point where the narrator’s reference to Jesus as “the Lord” appears in the Lukan parallel (see Yohanan the Immerser’s Question, Comment to L1-13).

  The Matthean version of Faithful or Faithless Slave, appears in a chapter where Matthew has extensively revised Jesus’ discourse on the destruction and redemption of Jerusalem in order to transform it into an extended discourse on the appearance of the Son of Man. See the discussion in Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor,” Comments to L15, L84-86. Matthew’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave itself underwent a fair amount of redaction at the hands of the author of Matthew (see Faithful or Faithless Slave, under the subheading “Redaction Analysis: Matthew’s Version”), but in the end we attributed Luke’s use of ὁ κύριος in L26 to Lukan redaction (see Faithful or Faithless Slave, Comment to L22-26).

  In the Matthean version of Yeshua’s Critique of the Pharisees, we also find evidence of Matthew’s redactional activity: the author of Matthew inserted the abusive term “brood of vipers” (Matt. 23:33), which he took from the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7 ∥ Luke 3:7), and he added the Lament over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37-39) as the conclusion of Yeshua’s Critique of Pharisees in order to tendentiously implicate the Pharisees as those “who kill the prophets.” On the transfer of John the Baptist’s words to Jesus and Jesus’ words to John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew, see John P. Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99.3 (1980): 383-405, esp. 388-390. Cf. David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560, esp. 553). On the author of Matthew’s tendentious desire to implicate the Pharisees, see Flusser, Jesus, 244. We have yet to determine whether Lukes use of ὁ κύριος in Luke 11:39 is traditional or redactional. ↩

• ^[94] The TT pericopae where “the Lord” appears in the voice of the narrator are: Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, L27 (Luke 10:1; cf. Matt. 9:35-10:16; Mark 3:13-19; 6:6b-13); Boy Delivered from Demon (cf. Luke 17:5-6; Matt. 17:20); Yeshua Interrogated in High Priest’s House (Luke 22:61; no Matthean or Markan parallel).

  We found the use of ὁ κύριος to refer to Jesus in Luke 10:1 to stem from the author of Luke’s redactional pen. See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L26-28.

  In Boy Delivered from Demon, Matthew largely follows Mark’s highly dramatized version; however, Matthew uniquely inserts the saying about faith the size of a mustard seed (Matt. 17:20), which is also known to Luke, but presented in an entirely different context (Luke 17:5-6). Here, too, Luke’s Hebraic version of the mustard seed saying is more likely to preserve a reading from a pre-synoptic source than Matthew’s version, which has been reworked to fit a new literary context. See Faith Like a Mustard Seed, Comment to L4-5.

  In Yeshua Interrogated in High Priest’s House Mark’s influence on Matthew’s version is apparent. It is possible that Luke’s version (Luke 22:56-65), where the title ὁ κύριος is applied to Jesus in narration, preserves a more authentic version than Mark or Matthew of the events of Jesus’ final night in Jerusalem. ↩

• ^[95] Pace Werner Foerster, “κύριος,” TDNT 3:1039-1095, esp. 1094. ↩
• ^[96] Young and Flusser concluded that, “A careful study of the parallel texts indicates that this [i.e., the use of κύριε in Luke’s Gospel—DNB and JNT] is not a redactional tendency of Luke’s gospel but rather is derived from the better sources used by the evangelists.” See Brad Young and David Flusser, “Messianic Blesings in Jewish and Christian Tests,” (Flusser, JOC, 280-300, esp. 290 n. 24). See also, David Flusser, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 71-107, esp. 102.

  Young and Flusser also noted that Lindsey pointed out that in Luke’s Gospel only Jesus’ disciples or individuals who came to seek Jesus’ help address him as “Lord” (see Young and Flusser, “Messianic Blesings in Jewish and Christian Tests,” 290, 300) while Flusser added that in Luke only outsiders (i.e., non-disciples) refer to Jesus as “Rabbi” (see Flusser, Jesus, 32. Cf. Dalman, 327; Günther Bornkamm, “End-expectation and Church in Matthew,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [ed. Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth and Heinz Joachim Held; trans. Percy Scott; London: SMC Press, 1963], 41). Flusser’s statement requires some modification, since the address ῥαββί (rabbi, “Rabbi!”; var. ῥαββεί [rabbei]) never appears in Luke. Nevertheless, we do find the address διδάσκαλε (didaskale, “Teacher!”)—the Greek equivalent of רַבִּי (rabi, “Rabbi!”; see Preparations for Eating the Passover Lamb, Comment to L36)—in Luke’s Gospel: Luke 7:40 (by Simon the Pharisee); 9:38 (by the father of a boy with an evil spirit); 10:25 (by a νομικός [Torah expert]); 11:45 (by νομικῶν [Torah experts]); 12:13 (by someone in the crowd); 18:18 (by the "rich young ruler"); 19:39 (by Pharisees); 20:21 (by spies from the chief priests); 20:28 (by Sadducees); 20:39 (by scribes); 21:7 (by disciples?). Thus there appears to be one exception (Luke 21:7) to Flusser’s claim that in Luke only non-disciples refer to Jesus as “Rabbi” (= διδάσκαλε). However, it is possible that in Luke 21:7 we are to understand that the question came not from one of Jesus’ disciples, but from a member of the public that had gathered in the Temple to hear Jesus’ teaching (see Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor,” Comment to L3).

  Returning to Lindsey’s observation that in Luke only disciples and people in need address Jesus as “Lord,” we find κύριε as a vocative address to Jesus in the following contexts: Luke 5:8 (by Simon Peter); 5:12 (by a man with scale disease); 6:46 (2xx; Jesus: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’?”); 7:6 (by friends of centurion); 9:54 (by James and John); 9:59 (by a prospective disciple); 9:61 (by another prospective disciple); 10:17 (by the seventy-two returning disciples); 10:40 (by Martha); 11:1 (by disciples); 12:41 (by Peter); 13:23 (by an anonymous questioner); 17:37 (by disciples?); 18:41 (by a blind man); 19:8 (by Zacchaeus); 22:33 (by Peter); 22:38 (by disciples); 22:49 (by disciples). An epithet for Jesus unique to the Gospel of Luke is ἐπιστάτης (epistatēs, “commander,” “president”). This title only occurs in the vocative form, ἐπιστάτα (epistata, “Commander!”), and, like κύριε is found only on the lips of disciples (Luke 5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49) or the ten men afflicted with scale disease (Luke 17:13). This mirroring of the use of ἐπιστάτα and κύριε raises the question whether the use of ἐπιστάτα could be an indicator of Lukan redaction, or whether it might be an indication of the editorial work of FR. ↩

• ^[97] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:669-673. ↩
• ^[98] See Dos Santos, 188. ↩
• ^[99] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:800-839. ↩
• ^[100] Ibid. See also Trommii, 1:940-942. ↩
• ^[101] See Dos Santos, 3. ↩
• ^[102] See Montefiore, TSG, 2:425. ↩
• ^[103] Joseph is called אָדוֹן in Ps. 105:21; and אָדוֹן refers to the king twice in Jeremiah (Jer. 22:18; 34:5). ↩
• ^[104] According to Eissfeldt, “In the OT, ’adhon is used in reference to an earthly lord over 300 times and to a divine lord about 30 times, if we leave ’adhonai out of consideration.” See Otto Eissfeldt, “אָדוֹן,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (15 vols.; ed. G. Johannes Botterweck et al.; trans. John T. Willis et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006), 1:59-72; quotation on p. 61. ↩
• ^[105] Sarah refers to Abraham as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 18:12; the inhabitants of Hebron address Abraham as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 23:6, 11, 15; and Abraham’s servant refers to Abraham as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 24:12, 27, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 49. ↩
• ^[106] Rachel addresses Laban as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 31:35. ↩
• ^[107] Jacob refers to Esau as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 32:5, 19; 33:8, 13, 14, 15. ↩
• ^[108] Joseph’s brothers address him as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 42:10; 43:20; 44:18, 24; and Egyptians address Joseph as אֲדוֹנִי in Gen. 44:5; 47:25. ↩
• ^[109] Aaron addresses Moses as אֲדוֹנִי in Exod. 32:22; Num. 12:11. ↩
• ^[110] Dalman (324-331) cited many of the references we mention in a discussion entitled “‘The Lord’ as a Designation of Jesus.” ↩
• ^[111] Thus in 4Q221 7 I, 3, אשת אדונו (“the wife of his [i.e., Joseph’s] lord”) refers to Potiphar’s wife. Likewise, in a rabbinic description of the days of Joseph in Egypt the sages state: הקציף הקב″ה אדונים על עבדיהם (“The Holy One, blessed be he, incited masters [אדונים] against their servants”; Gen. Rab. 88:3). Similarly, the title אָדוֹן is used by the sages in a rabbinic discussion about Elijah and Elisha (t. Sot. 12:5). According to the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses, Joshua addressed Moses as domine (Latin for “lord” = אֲדֹנִי; As. Mos. 11:4, 9, 19). ↩
• ^[112] A doctor is addressed as אֲדֹנִי in the following parable:

  אמר רבי יודה בן פזי לאחד שגנב נרתיקו של רופא עם כשהוא יוצא נפצע בנו חזר אצלו אמר לו אדוני הרופא רפא את בני אמר לו לך והחזר את הנרתק שכל מיני רפואות נתונין בו ואני מרפא את בנך

  Rabbi Yudah ben Pazi said, “[It may be compared] to one who stole a doctor’s medical bag. As he [i.e., the thief—DNB and JNT] was going out his son was wounded. He [i.e., the thief—DNB and JNT] returned to him [i.e., to the doctor—DNB and JNT]. He said to him, “My lord [אֲדוֹנִי], the doctor, heal my son!” He [i.e., the doctor—DNB and JNT] said to him, “Go and return the medical bag, for all kinds of healing remedies are contained therein. Only then can I heal your son.” (y. Ber. 5:2 [38b]; cf. y. Taan. 1:1 [1b])

  ↩

• ^[113] A priest is addressed as אֲדֹנִי in the following parable:

  ר′ ברכיה בשם ר′ לוי לכהן שירד לגורן נתן לו אחד כור שלמעשר ולא החזיק לו טובה ונתן לו אחד קומץ שלחולין והחזיק לו טובה אמר לו אדני הכהן אני נתתי לך כור ולא החזקתה לי טובה וזה נתן לך קומץ והחזקתה לו טובה אמר לו אתה מחלקי נתת לי אבל זה נתן לי משלו

  Rabbi Berechiah said in the name of Rabbi Levi, “[It may be compared] to a priest who went down to the threshing floor. One person gave him a kor from his tithe, but he [i.e., the priest—DNB and JNT] did not receive it kindly. And one person gave him a handful of non-sacred grain and he did receive it kindly. He [i.e., the first person—DNB and JNT] said to him, “My Lord [אֲדֹנִי], the priest, I gave you a kor and you did not receive it kindly, but this one only gave you a handful and you received it kindly!” He [i.e., the priest—DNB and JNT] said to him, “From my own portion [i.e., the tithe due to priests—DNB and JNT] you gave to me, but this one gave to me from what is his own.” (Gen. Rab. 71:4 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:826-827])

  ↩

• ^[114] Rabbi Tarfon was addressed as אֲדוֹנִי in the following story:

  מעשה בר′ טרפון שהיה אוכל קציעות מפרדס שלו, בא עריס שלו ומצאו, הכהו מכה רבה, ולא אמר לו שאני ר′ טרפון, עד שעמד אותו אריס והכירו, כיון שהכירו קרע בגדיו ותלש בשערו, והיה צועק ובוכה, ומתנפל לפני רגליו, אמר לו אדוני מורי מחול לי

  An anecdote concerning Rabbi Tarfon, who was eating figs in his garden. His tenant came and found him, and beat him severely, but he did not say to him, “I am Rabbi Tarfon!” until that tenant stopped and recognized him. As soon as he recognized him he tore his clothes and pulled out his hair and was crying and weeping, and prostrating himself before his feet he said to him, “My Lord [אֲדוֹנִי], my teacher, forgive me!” (Kallah §21 [ed. Higger, 159-160])

  ↩

• ^[115] See the discussion in Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (New York: Viking Compass, 2001), 198-202. ↩
• ^[116] Examples of the disciples referring to Jesus as “the Lord” in the third person occur in Luke 19:34 (cf. Matt. 21:3; Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31) and Luke 24:34. ↩
• ^[117] For the generic use of הָאָדוֹן in rabbinic literature, note the following examples:

  וְהַנּירְצַע נִיקְנֵה בִירְצִיעָה וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹבֶל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן.

  ...and the pierced slave [cf. Exod. 21:5] is obtained through piercing, and he obtains his freedom through the jubilee or the death of his master [הָאָדוֹן, lit., “the lord”]. (m. Kid. 1:2)

  רבי אומר בא וראה שאין עולם אלא חמשים שנה שנאמר ועבדו לעולם עד שנת היובל הא כיצד הגיע היובל יצא מת האדון יצא

  Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi—DNB and JNT] says: Come and see then that “for ever” here cannot mean more than fifty years. It is said: And he shall serve him for ever, [Exod. 21:6] that is, up to the jubilee year. How so? When the jubilee arrives he goes out free. If his master [הָאָדוֹן, lit., “the lord”] dies sooner, he also goes free. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Nezkin chpt. 2 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:366])

  Additional examples can be found in the dictum of Resh Lakish discussed in b. Kid. 16a and b. Bab. Metz. 12b. ↩

• ^[118] Flusser believed that Nakdimon ben Gurion should be identified with the Nicodemus known from the Gospel of John (Flusser, Jesus, 148). See also David Flusser, “Character Profiles: Gamaliel and Nicodemus”; Ze’ev Safrai, “The Role of the Jerusalem Elite in National Leadership in the Late Second Temple Era,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai; Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 65-72, esp. 70; and idem, “Nakdimon b. Guryon: A Galilean Aristocrat in Jersualem,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2005), 297-314. ↩
• ^[119] Cf., e.g., Ps. 12:4; Exod. 21:5; 4Q221 7 I, 3; m. Kid. 1:2. ↩
• ^[120] See Preparations for Eating the Passover Lamb, Comment to L4-5. ↩
• ^[121] The term “messiah” (lit. “anointed one”) refers either to the high priest or to the king. ↩
• ^[122] See Marshall, 285-286. ↩
• ^[123] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups.” ↩
• ^[124] The nominal form σπλάγχνον (always in the plur. form σπλάγχνα in NT, and almost always in Greek literature since the time of Homer) appears once in Luke 1:78, but is not found elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels. In NT σπλάγχνα appears 11xx (Luke 1:78; Acts 1:18; 2 Cor. 6:12; 7:15; Phil. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phlm. 7, 12, 20; 1 John 3:17). ↩
• ^[125] Cf. Marshall, 286. ↩
• ^[126] T. Zeb. 4:2; 6:4; 7:1, 2; 8:1, 3, 4. According to Köster, “Considering the usage of Test. XII as a whole, we find that σπλάγχνα, σπλαγχνίζομαι, and εὔσπλαγχνος have completely replaced the LXX words οἱκτιρμοί, οἰκτίρω, and οἱκτίρμων.” See Helmut Köster, “σπλάγχνον κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT 7:548-599, esp. 552. ↩
• ^[127] Köster, “σπλάγχνον κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT 7:552. ↩
• ^[128] A survey of all the instances of ἐπί in Genesis (266xx) reveals that it occurs more often as the translation of עַל (approx. 150xx) than of any other Hebrew preposition. By comparison, in Genesis ἐπί occurs as the translation of -בְּ (b^e-, “in”) around 50xx and as the translation of אֶל (’el, “to,” “toward”) nearly 20xx. In LXX Genesis ἐπί occurs as the translation of עַל in Gen. 1:11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2:5 (2nd instance), 21; 3:14; 6:1, 12, 17 (1st instance); 7:3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21 (2xx), 23, 24; 8:1, 4, 9, 17 (1st instance), 19; 9:2 (2xx; 1st and 2nd instances), 14, 16, 17, 23; 11:4, 8, 9; 14:15; 15:11; 16:7 (2xx); 17:3, 17; 18:16, 19; 19:23, 24, 28 (2xx); 20:9 (2xx); 21:14; 22:2, 9 (2nd instance); 24:13, 15, 18, 22, 30 (3xx), 42 (2nd instance), 43, 45 (1st instance), 61; 26:10; 27:12, 13, 16 (2xx), 40; 28:13 (2xx), 18; 29:2 (2xx), 3; 30:3, 37; 31:10, 12, 17, 46, 50; 32:12, 33; 33:1, 4, 13; 34:27, 30; 35:5, 14 (2xx), 20; 37:8; 38:12, 21, 28, 30; 39:4, 5 (2nd instance); 40:2 (3xx), 13, 16, 19, 21; 41:1, 13, 33, 34, 40 (2xx), 41, 42, 43 (2nd instance), 56; 42:26, 36; 43:16, 19; 44:1 (1st instance), 4, 13; 45:14 (2xx), 15; 46:4, 29; 47:26, 31; 48:2, 6, 14 (2xx), 17 (2xx), 18; 49:17 (2xx), 26 (2xx); 50:1 (2xx), 23. In LXX Genesis ἐπί occurs as the translation of ‑בְּ in Gen. 1:22; 2:5 (1st instance); 4:12, 14; 6:4, 5, 6, 17 (2nd instance); 7:22; 8:17 (2nd instance), 20; 9:2 (2xx; 3rd and 4th instances), 7; 10:8, 32; 12:8, 10 (2xx); 16:12 (2xx); 17:13; 19:31; 21:33; 22:19 (2xx); 26:1, 22, 23; 28:12; 34:21; 37:27, 34; 39:5 (1st instance); 41:31, 43 (1st instance), 44; 43:1; 44:1 (2nd instance), 12; 45:7; 46:5; 47:27 (2xx); 48:16; 49:1, 8. In LXX Genesis ἐπί occurs as the translation of אֶל in Gen. 4:4 (2xx), 5 (2xx), 8; 14:3, 7; 22:3, 9 (1st instance), 12; 24:20, 29, 42 (1st instance); 37:29; 39:7; 42:21; 43:30; 49:33. ↩
• ^[129] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:384-401. ↩
• ^[130] See Dos Santos, 13. ↩
• ^[131] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:766. ↩
• ^[132] See Dos Santos, 26. ↩
• ^[133] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1213-1214. Of its 8 occurrences in Ben Sira, two appear where Hebrew fragments have been preserved. In both of these instances, the Hebrew root parallel to προσέρχεσθαι is ק‑ר‑ב (Sir. 6:19; 9:13). ↩
• ^[134] See Dos Santos, 185. ↩
• ^[135] See Dos Santos, 128. ↩
• ^[136] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:150-151. ↩
• ^[137] Cf. m. Ohol. 1:2; Kazen, 177. ↩
• ^[138] See, e.g., Marshall’s comment (286) that “Jesus ignores ritual uncleanness of the dead body (Nu. 19:11, 16) in approaching the bier and touching it,” and cf. J. Green (292): “simply by touching the bier Jesus has...crossed the boundaries of ritual purity.” ↩
• ^[139] Rabbinic halachah does not attempt to limit the number of people who contract corpse impurity by carrying a bier. To the contrary, the Mishnah mentions “those who bear the bier and they that relieve them, and they that relieve these” (m. Ber. 3:1)—in other words, there could be up to three teams of bier bearers in a funeral procession. Since each team presumably included at least four bearers (one for each corner of the bier), the Mishnah envisions a minimum of twelve bearers who intentionally contract corpse impurity. Evidently, the rabbis were more concerned with the honor due to the deceased than about people becoming impure. ↩
• ^[140] For an introduction to the concept of ritual impurity, see Joshua N. Tilton, “A Goy's Guide to Ritual Purity.” ↩
• ^[141] The scenario of rescuing persons trapped in a collapsed building gave its name to the rabbinic concept of piqūaḥ nefesh (lit., “digging out a soul”), the principle that the duty to save a life trumps other biblical commandments such as observance of the Sabbath day’s rest. ↩
• ^[142] Note that this ruling pertains to the period when the Temple was still standing, when lambs were still slaughtered at Passover. After the Temple was destroyed, the issue of whether or not a lamb should be slaughtered on behalf of one who might or might not become impure was moot. ↩
• ^[143] There is no hint of criticism for Jesus’ action in Luke’s narrative. ↩
• ^[144] N. T. Wright seems to advance the bizarre theory that Jesus was immune to the rules of ritual impurity: “Jesus’ touching of the dead and raising them to life should certainly have brought him uncleanness, but in fact had the effect of restoring them.” See N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 192. Does this mean that Wright thinks that Jesus did not (could not?) become impure? As an Israelite “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was certainly susceptible to ritual impurity just like any other Jew. Compare the rabbinic discussion of the case of the Shunammite woman’s son whom Elisha raised from the dead:

  אמרו, בנה שלש⟨ונמית⟩ משמת כל שהיה עימו בבית היה טמא טומאת שבעה, וכש⟨חיה⟩ היה טהור לקודש. חזרו ונגעו בו וטימוהו. הרי זה או′: מטמיך לא טימוני, אתה טמאתני.

  The Sages said: When the son of the Sh⟨unammite woman⟩ died, anything that was with him in the house contracted seven-day impurity, and when he ⟨came to life⟩ he was pure to the degree of eating sacrifices. [However, the objects which had been previously in the house with him when he was dead] and [now, following his revival] touched him a second time, defiled him. It is as if he [the boy] says [to these objects]: What made you impure did not render me impure; it was you who made me impure. (Sifre Zuta 15:11; text and translation cited according to Vered Noam, “Ritual Impurity in Tannaitic Literature: Two Opposing Perspectives,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1.1 [2010]: 89-90)

  According to this rabbinic tradition, everything in the house, including Elisha himself, was rendered ritually impure by the boy’s corpse. Thus, this text demonstrates that Wright’s scenarios (either Jesus becoming impure, or restoring the widow’s son to life) are false alternatives. See now JP Staff Writer, “What’s Wrong with Contagious Purity? Debunking the Myth that Jesus Never Became Ritually Impure,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29371/]. ↩

• ^[145] For examples of מִטָּה in the sense of “bier,” cf., m. Ber. 3:1; m. Moed Kat. 3:8-9; m. Sanh. 2:1, 3; m. Kel. 23:4. ↩
• ^[146] See m. Ber. 3:1 for an example of נוֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּטָּה. ↩
• ^[147] In LXX σορός translates אָרוֹֹן (’ārōn, “coffin”) at Gen. 50:26 and גָּדִישׁ (gādish, “tomb”) at Job 21:32. Σορός appears 2xx in the writings of Philo (Migr. 16, 23) and 2xx in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Reub. 7:2; T. Levi 19:5). In each instance the meaning is “coffin.” ↩
• ^[148] As Marshall (286) noted, “A closed coffin is impossible in view of 7:15,” because the son sat up in response to Jesus’ command. ↩
• ^[149] See Fitzmyer, 1:259. ↩
• ^[150] See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the ‘Minor’ Agreements,” under the subheading “A Written Hebrew Source Behind the Synoptic Gospels?” ↩
• ^[151] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:689-692 (ἱστάναι). ↩
• ^[152] See Dos Santos, 156. ↩
• ^[153] In the Synoptic Gospels we find σοὶ/ὑμῖν λέγω in the following verses:
  • Matt. 16:18 (no parallel)
  • Mark 2:11 (= Luke 5:24)
  • Mark 5:41 (cf. Matt. 9:25 [--]; Luke 8:54 [--])
  • Mark 13:37 (no parallel)
  • Luke 5:24 (= Mark 2:11)
  • Luke 6:27 (cf. Matt. 5:44 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν)
  • Luke 7:14 (no parallel)
  • Luke 11:9 (cf. Matt. 7:7 [--])
  • Luke 16:9 (no parallel)
  • Luke 23:43 (no parallel)

  The list shows that there is only one agreement in the Synoptic Gospels to use the order σοὶ/ὑμῖν λέγω (Mark 2:11; Luke 5:24), which can be explained as Mark’s copying from Luke. The other two examples in Mark are certainly redactional, as we see from the Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark 5:42, and the unparalleled instance in Mark 13:37. The only instance of σοὶ/ὑμῖν λέγω in Matthew occurs in a verse that is likely to be of Matthean composition as it is unparalleled in the other Synoptic Gospels and since it mentions the Church, which is never mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels except in Matthew. Of the two instances of ὑμῖν λέγω in Lukan DT pericopae, the first has the more Hebraic word order λέγω ὑμῖν in its Matthean parallel (Luke 6:27 ∥ Matt. 5:44), while in the second example the Matthean parallel omits “I say to you” altogether (Luke 11:9 ∥ Matt. 7:7). Thus it is likely that the order σοὶ/ὑμῖν λέγω is an indication of redactional activity on the part of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩

• ^[154] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:940-941. ↩
• ^[155] See Dos Santos, 134. ↩
• ^[156] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:863-872. ↩
• ^[157] See Dos Santos, 13. ↩
• ^[158] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:364. ↩
• ^[159] See Dos Santos, 181. ↩
• ^[160] On the rationale for basing the LOY reconstructions on a single NT manuscript, see the “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction’,” under the subheading “Codex Vaticanus or an Eclectic Text?” ↩
• ^[161] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:701-702. ↩
• ^[162] See Dos Santos, 87. ↩
• ^[163] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:941. ↩
• ^[164] See Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” 266-267 (Critical Note 4). ↩
• ^[165] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:163. In LXX ἄρχειν occurs as the translation of הֵחֵל in Gen. 6:1; 9:20; 10:8; 11:6; 41:54; 44:12; Num. 17:11; Deut. 2:31; 3:24; 16:9 (2xx); Josh. 3:7; Judg. 10:18; 13:5, 25; 16:19, 22; 20:31, 39, 40; 1 Kgdms. 3:2, 12; 14:35; 22:15; 4 Kgdms. 10:32; 15:37; 1 Chr. 1:10; 27:24; 2 Chr. 3:1, 2; 20:22; 29:17, 27 (2xx); 31:7, 10, 21; 34:3 (2xx); 2 Esd. 3:6, 8; 14:1; Esth. 6:13; Jonah 3:4; Jer. 32[25]:29; Ezek. 9:6 (2xx). ↩
• ^[166] See Dos Santos, 64. ↩
• ^[167] See Dalman, 27. ↩
• ^[168] Examples of הֵחֵל + infinitive in MT include Gen. 6:1 (הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב = ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι); Gen. 10:8 (הֵחֵל לִהְיוֹת = ἤρξατο εἶναι; cf. 1 Chr. 1:10); Gen. 11:6 (הַחִלָּם לַעֲשׂוֹת = ἤρξαντο ποιῆσαι); Gen. 41:54 (וַתְּחִלֶּינָה...לָבוֹא = καὶ ἤρξαντο...ἔρχεσθαι; cf. Jonah 3:4 וַיָּחֶל...לָבוֹא = καὶ ἤρξατο...εἰσελθεῖν); Deut. 2:25 (אָחֵל תֵּת = ἐνάρχου δοῦναι; cf. Deut. 2:31 הַחִלֹּתִי תֵּת = ἦργμαι παραδοῦναι); Deut. 2:31 (הָחֵל רָשׁ לָרֶשֶׁת = ἔναρξαι κληρονομῆσαι); Deut. 3:24 (הַחִלּוֹתָ לְהַרְאוֹת = ἤρξω δεῖξαι); Deut. 16:9 (תָּחֵל לִסְפֹּר = ἄρξῃ ἐξαριθμῆσαι); Josh. 3:7 (אָחֵל גַּדֶּלְךָ = ἄρχομαι ὑψῶσαί); Judg. 10:18 (יָחֵל לְהִלָּחֵם = ἄρξηται παρατάξασθαι); Judg. 13:5 (יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ = ἄρξεται τοῦ σῶσαι); Judg. 13:25 (וַתָּחֶל...לְפַעֲמוֹ = καὶ ἤρξατο...συνεκπορεύεσθαι αὐτῷ); Judg. 16:19 (וַתָּחֶל לְעַנּוֹתוֹ = καὶ ἤρξατο ταπεινῶσαι αὐτόν); Judg. 16:22 (וַיָּחֶל...לְצַמֵּחַ = καὶ ἤρξατο...βλαστάνειν); Judg. 20:31 (וַיָּחֵלּוּ לְהַכּוֹת = καὶ ἤρξαντο πατάσσειν; cf. Judg. 20:39 הֵחֵל לְהַכּוֹת = ἤρξατο πατάσσειν); Judg. 20:40 (הֵחֵלָּה לַעֲלוֹת = ἤρξατο ἀναβαίνειν); 1 Sam. 14:35 (הֵחֵל לִבְנוֹת = ἤρξατο...οἰκοδομῆσαι; cf. 2 Chr. 3:1, 2); 1 Sam. 22:15 (הַחִלֹּתִי לִשְׁאוֹל = ἦργμαι ἐρωτᾶν); 2 Kgs. 10:32 (הֵחֵל...לְקַצּוֹת = ἤρξατο...συγκόπτειν); 2 Kgs. 15:37 (הֵחֵל...לְהַשְׁלִיחַ = ἤρξατο...ἐξαποστέλλειν); Jer. 25:29 (אָֽנֹכִי מֵחֵל לְהָרַע = ἐγὼ ἄρχομαι κακῶσαι); Esth. 6:13 (הַחִלּוֹתָ לִנְפֹּל = ἦρξαι ταπεινοῦσθαι); Esth. 9:23 (הֵחֵלּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת; no equivalent in LXX); Ezra 3:6 (הֵחֵלּוּ לְהַעֲלוֹת = ἤρξαντο ἀναφέρειν); Neh. 4:1 (הֵחֵלּוּ...לְהִסָּתֵם = ἤρξαντο...ἀναφράσσεσθαι); 1 Chr. 27:24 (הֵחֵל לִמְנוֹת = ἤρξατο ἀριθμεῖν); 2 Chr. 29:17 (וַיָּחֵלּוּ...לְקַדֵּשׁ = καὶ ἤρξαντο...ἁγνίσαι); 2 Chr. 31:7 (הֵחֵלּוּ...לְיִסּוֹד = ἤρξαντο...θεμελιοῦσθαι); 2 Chr. 31:10 (מֵהָחֵל...לָבִיא = ἐξ οὗ ἦρκται...φέρεσθαι); 2 Chr. 34:3 (הֵחֵל לִדְרוֹשׁ = ἤρξατο τοῦ ζητῆσαι; הֵחֵל לְטַהֵר = ἤρξατο τοῦ καθαρίσαι). ↩
• ^[169] For more on ἄρχειν + infinitive and הֵחֵל + infinitive, see Buth and Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” 261-268 (Critical Note 4). ↩
• ^[170] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:841-846. ↩
• ^[171] See Dos Santos, 40. ↩
• ^[172] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:317-327. ↩
• ^[173] See Dos Santos, 138. ↩
• ^[174] We find examples of נָפַל פַּחַד עַל (nāfal paḥad ‘al, “fear fell upon”) in Exod. 15:16; 1 Sam. 11:7; Ps. 105:38; Job 13:11; Esth. 8:17; 9:2, 3). Examples of נָפְלָה אֵימָה עַל (nāflāh ’ēmāh ‘al, “fear fell upon”) are found in Exod. 15:16; Josh. 2:9; Ps. 55:5. There are no instances of נָפְלָה יִרְאָה עַל nāflāh yir’āh ‘al, “fear fell upon”) in MT. ↩
• ^[175] We find λαμβάνειν in combination with φόβος in Isa. 10:29; Ep. Jer. [Baruch 6:]4; 1 Enoch 1:5; 13:3; Letter of Aristeas 189; Jos., Life 148; Ant. 20:47. ↩
• ^[176] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1073-1102. ↩
• ^[177] See Dos Santos, 91. ↩
• ^[178] In LXX in δοξἀζειν translates כִּבֵּד in Judg. 9:9; 13:17; 1 Kgdms. 2:29, 30 (2xx); 15:30; 10:3; 1 Chr. 19:3; Ps. 14:4; 49:15, 23; 85:9, 12; 90:15; Mal. 1:6; Isa. 43:23; Lam. 1:8. ↩
• ^[179] See Dos Santos, 31. ↩
• ^[180] See Henry J. Cadbury, “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts IV. On Direct Quotation, With Some Uses of Ὅτι and Εἰ,” Journal of Biblical Literature 48.3 (1929): 412-425, esp. 418. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 200; Fitzmyer, 1:659. ↩
• ^[181] According to Segal (205 §424), “The use of -שֶׁ [in MH—DNB and JNT] to introduce direct narration is rare and doubtful.” ↩
• ^[182] See Return to the Galil, Comment to L16. ↩
• ^[183] Cf. Return of the Twelve, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[184] See R. Steven Notley, “Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel: An Inconvenient Truth” (JS2, 320-346, esp. 338). ↩
• ^[185] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1232-1233 ↩
• ^[186] See Dos Santos, 127. ↩
• ^[187] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:902-907. ↩
• ^[188] See Dos Santos, 34. ↩
• ^[189] Cf. ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις (Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men”; NIV). Cf. also, Jos., Ant. 5:277; 8:240, 268. ↩
• ^[190] Pace Nolland, Luke, 325. ↩
• ^[191] The belief that prophecy had ceased is already attested in 1 Maccabees 9:27 (ca. end of first cent. B.C.E.; the Hebrew original has been lost), and this belief appears to have been accepted by Josephus and also by the members of the Dead Sea sect. Although Josephus claimed to possess divine foreknowledge and likewise attributed prophetic-like qualities to the Essenes, Josephus refrains from adopting the title of prophet for himself or using it for others. The same is true for members of the Dead Sea sect, who nowhere apply the title of prophet to any of their members (cf. Sandt-Flusser, 357-360). ↩
• ^[192] Zuckermandel’s text, based on the Erfurt MS, reads משמת חגי זכריה ומלאכי נביאים האחרונים (“Since Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the later prophets, died....”). ↩
• ^[193] According to Flusser, “The belief in an eschatological prophet is itself based on the recognition that prophecy has ceased and that only such a figure can restore it.” See David Flusser, “Jewish Messianism Reflected in the Early Church” (Flusser, JSTP2, 272; cf. 273). ↩
• ^[194] Cf. 1 Macc. 4:46 where a decision regarding the stones of the desecrated altar is deferred “until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them” (RSV). On this verse Notley writes: “The involvement of the prophet in deciding a halakhic question suggests a prophet-like-Moses was envisioned.” See R. Steven Notley, “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances,” in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 287. Cf. Flusser, JSTP2, 271. ↩
• ^[195] 1 Maccabees is a pro-Hasmonean history that sought to legitimate the foundation of the Hasmonean dynasty. Establishing their right to reign until the appearance of a trustworthy prophet had the effect of legitimizing the Hasmonean rule into perpetuity. See Flusser, JSTP2, 273-274. ↩
• ^[196] See Notley, “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances,” 287-288. ↩
• ^[197] Cf. the striking parallel in 4QTest where the appearance of the prophet appears to depend on the people's obedience, just as it does in Philo:

  And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: “You have heard the sound of the words of this people that they spoke to you. They did well in all they said. If only it would be granted that they would have this heart to fear me and to keep all my commandments all the days, in order that it may be well with them and with their children forever, I would raise up a prophet for them from among their brethren like you and I would place my words in his mouth and he would say to them all that I command him. And the man who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name—I will require a reckoning from him.” (4Q175 [4QTest] I, 1-8)

  ↩

• ^[198] Both Peter (Acts 3:22) and Stephen (Acts 7:37) quote Deut. 18:15 and relate it to Jesus. Cf. John 7:40. ↩
• ^[199] Justin Martyr (ca. 150 C.E.) referred to the Oracles of Hystaspes (1 Apol. 44:12). Flusser aruged that Hystaspes was a Jewish work composed in Greek in the first century B.C.E. or first century C.E., and that Lactantius’ Divinae Institutiones VII, chapters 16-17 and 18, 1-3a and chapter 19 are mainly an epitome of the Jewish Oracles of Hystaspes (Lactantius wrote Divin. Inst. ca. 305-310 C.E.). See David Flusser, “Hystaspes and John of Patmos” (Flusser, JOC, 390-453). ↩
• ^[200] Translation according to William Fletcher, The Works of Lactantius, vol. 1 (Ante-Nicene Christian Library 21; ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871). ↩
• ^[201] Notley, “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances,” 288 n. 38. ↩
• ^[202] See Flusser, “Hystaspes and John of Patmos,” 422. Werman, on the other hand, cites the story of Elisha and the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom who fought against the king of Moab (2 Kgs. 3) in which the Moabites are tricked into believing that the water near the Israelite camp was blood (2 Kgs. 3:22). See Cana Werman, “A Messiah in Heaven? A Re-Evaluation of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Traditions,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity (ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2009). In this story, however, the illusion is ascribed to natural causes—the sun shining on the water—not to a miracle performed by Elisha. ↩
• ^[203] On ancient Jewish traditions related to Elijah, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Elijah Prays About Rain.” ↩
• ^[204] See David Flusser, “Judaism in the Second Temple Period” (Flusser, JSTP2, 6-43, esp. 34). ↩
• ^[205] Some ancient Jewish and early Christian sources regard Elijah as a priest. See Ginzberg, 2:996 n. 3. Nevertheless, a blending of the two roles (eschatological prophet and priestly messiah) may already be operative in Mal. 3:23 [ET 4:5], which refers to “Elijah the prophet.” On Elijah as the priestly Messiah, see John C. Poirier, “The Endtime Return of Elijah and Moses at Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 10.2 (2003): 221-242, esp. 227-236; idem, “Jesus and Elijah in Luke 4:16-30.” ↩
• ^[206] Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 also demonstrates a blending of prophet like Moses and Elijah traditions. In Acts 3:21 Peter states that Jesus must remain in heaven until all things are restored, echoing the LXX wording of Malachi 3:23 [Heb. Mal. 3:24] (cf. Sir. 48:10). While in Acts 3:22 Peter refers to the promise of the prophet like Moses. ↩
• ^[207] Pace Fitzmyer (1:660), who wrote: “The primary reference is surely to a prophet like Elijah...but it is difficult to exclude the further connotations.” ↩
• ^[208] Gill (7:569) reached this conclusion already in the late 1700s. See also Flusser, “Hystaspes and John of Patmos,” 419; idem, “Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 80-109, esp. 109 n. 95; Notley, “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances,” 288-289. ↩
• ^[209] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:527-528. ↩
• ^[210] See Dos Santos, 170. ↩
• ^[211] Hermann W. Beyer, “ἐπισκέπτομαι,” TDNT 2:599-605, esp. 600. ↩
• ^[212] See Beyer, “ἐπισκέπτομαι,” TDNT 2:602. ↩
• ^[213] Does this text allude to a prophet like Moses? The phrase ויקם להם מורה צדק resembles the wording of Deut. 18:15: נָבִיא...יָקִים לְךָ יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ. It is also possible that “lead them in the way of his heart” is an allusion to Elijah’s role as described in Malachi 4:6: “he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers” (RSV). ↩
• ^[214] David N. Bivin, “Semitic Background to the Nain Story.” Cf. Friedrich's comment that, “The two clauses ὅτι προφήτης μέγας ἠγέρθη ἐν ἡμῖν and ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ (Lk. 7:16) supplement one another.” See Gerhard Friedrich, “προφήτης,” TDNT 6:781-861, esp. 846. ↩
• ^[215] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:853-862. ↩
• ^[216] See Dos Santos, 156. ↩
• ^[217] See Daniel R. Schwartz, “Mattathias’ Final Speech (1 Maccabees 2): From Religious Zeal to Simonide Propaganda,” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 213-223, esp. 220. ↩
• ^[218] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:881-887. ↩
• ^[219] See Dos Santos, 40. ↩
• ^[220] So Vermes, Authentic, 32. ↩
• ^[221] Beare (Earliest, 99 §80) suggested that Luke 7:17 is an editorial bridge that Luke added to the story in order to explain how from prison John the Baptist heard about Jesus’ deeds, for “otherwise we should expect to read ‘in all Galilee’, rather than ‘in all Judaea and the country round about.’” Beare seems to accept the common assumption that John was imprisoned in Machaerus to the east of the Jordan. Against this assumption, see David Flusser, “A New Portrait of Salome,” under the subheading “The Place of John’s Execution.” ↩
• ^[222] See Plummer, Luke, 201. ↩
• ^[223] See Dos Santos, 91. ↩
• ^[224] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:989-990. ↩
• ^[225] See Hatch-Redpath, 3:85. ↩
• ^[226] In LXX, the noun περίχωρος (perichōros, “surrounding region”) translates כִּכָּר (kikār, “valley”) 8xx and פֶּלֶךְ (pelech, “district”) 7xx (always in Neh.). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1128. Neither term suits HR in Widow’s Son in Nain: כִּכָּר makes no sense, because the events did not take place in a valley; פֶּלֶךְ would have been an outdated term. Abbott (Fourfold, 2:208) suggested that περίχωρος represented the Hebrew noun פְּרִיכוֹרִין (p^erichōrin), but this loanword from Greek is only attested in late rabbinic sources. On פְּרִיכוֹרִין, see Jastrow, 1226. ↩
• ^[227] The noun περίχωρος occurs 2xx in Matthew (Matt. 3:5; 14:35); 1x in Mark (Mark 1:28); 5xx in Luke (Luke 3:3; 4:14, 37; 7:17; 8:37) and 1x in Acts (Acts 14:6). See Moulton-Geden, 800. There are only two instances of synoptic agreement on the use of the term περίχωρος; once in Matt. 3:5 ≈ Luke 3:3 (cf. Mark 1:4, 5) (see A Voice Crying, Comment to L32-33 and Comment to L73-74) and once in Mark 1:28 ∥ Luke 4:37. Except for the references to the Jordan Valley (Matt. 3:5 ≈ Luke 3:3) we believe all the instances of περίχωρος in the Synoptic Gospels originated with Lukan redaction. ↩
• ^[228]

  Widow’s Son in Nain
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ἐπορεύθη εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Ναῒν καὶ συνεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλος πολύς ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς ἦν σὺν αὐτῇ καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ μὴ κλαῖε καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ οἱ δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν καὶ εἶπεν νεανίσκε σοὶ λέγω ἐγέρθητι καὶ ἐκάθισεν ὁ νεκρὸς καὶ ἤρξατο λαλεῖν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ ἔλαβεν δὲ φόβος πάντας καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν λέγοντες ὅτι προφήτης μέγας ἠγέρθη ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάσῃ τῇ περιχώρῳ		καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐπορεύθη εἰς πόλιν καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῇ Ναῒν καὶ συνεπορεύετο αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ μὴ κλαῖε καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ βαστάζοντες καὶ εἶπεν νεανίσκε λέγω σοὶ ἐγέρθητι καὶ ἐκάθισεν ὁ νεκρὸς καὶ ἤρξατο λαλεῖν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ ἐφοβήθησαν δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν λέγοντες προφήτης μέγας ἠγέρθη ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ
  Total Words:	126	Total Words:	109
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	94	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	94
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	74.60%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	86.24%

  ↩

• ^[229] Alfred Loisy, Les Évangiles Synoptiques (Ceffonds: Près Montier-en-Der, 1907), 2:655. ↩
• ^[230] See, e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 230. Cf. Beare, 99. ↩
• ^[231] Cf. the similar list in Craig A. Evans, Luke (NIBC; Vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 115. ↩
• ^[232] Kazen, 174-176; cf. Knox, 1:42. ↩
• ^[233] Among such scholars are Beare, 99; E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 346 n. 4; Luke Timothy Johnson, “Prophet: The New Testament,” in ABD, 4:408-412. ↩
• ^[234] Cf. Beare, 99; Kazen, 176. ↩
• ^[235] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[236] Our thanks to Georgia Clifton for noting an error in an earlier version of the reconstruction document, which allowed us to correct it—DNB and JNT. ↩
• ^[237] 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. ↩