Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven

Matt. 13:11-15; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:10

(Huck 91; Aland 123; Crook 145)^[122]

Updated: 12 November 2021

וַיֹּאמֶר לָכֶם נִתַּן לָדַעַת אֶת רָזֵי מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם וְלִשְׁאָר בִּמְשָׁלִים כִּי רָאוֹ לֹא רָאוּ וְשָׁמוֹעַ לֹא שָׁמְעוּ וְלֹא הֵבִינוּ

Then Yeshua said to his emissaries: “God has permitted you to experience the mysteries the Kingdom of Heaven had in store. But until now those mysteries were only hinted at through the symbolic language of the prophets, for ‘no eye could see, and no ear could hear, and no heart could understand’ beforehand the full scope of redemption the Kingdom of Heaven would bring.^[123]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven click on the link below:

---

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

---

• ^[1] For Lindsey’s main presentations of his solution to the Synoptic Problem, see Robert. L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark”; idem, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke”; idem, “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.” ↩
• ^[2] The differences between Luke 8:10 and Isa. 6:9 become clear when the two verses are presented in parallel columns:

  Luke 8:10	Isaiah 6:9
  ...so that
  seeing they might not see,
  and hearing they might not understand.	Be ever hearing but do not understand.
  	Be ever seeing but do not know.

  The differences between Isa. 6:9 and the couplet in Luke 8:10 include:

  1. The order “hear→see” in Isaiah versus the order “see→hear” in Luke.
  2. The consequence “see→do not know” in Isaiah versus “see→might not see” in Luke.
  3. Second-person verbs in Isaiah versus third-person verbs in Luke.

  According to Nolland (Luke, 1:380), “Luke’s allusion to Isa 6:9-10 is brief to the point of being almost cryptic. This slight allusion is probably original and has been expanded in Matthew and Mark (or their sources).” We would go even further and argue that the differences between Isa. 6:9 and the couplet about the inability to see or understand in Luke 8:10 are sufficient to cast doubt on whether an allusion to the Isaiah 6 passage in Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven was originally intended at all. We will return to this question below in Comment to L26. ↩

• ^[3] See Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” New Testament Studies 29.1 (1983): 25-47, esp. 39, 46 n. 80; David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[4] Only in Matthew’s version of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying do we find an explicit quotation of Isa. 6:9-10. See Brad Young and David Flusser, “Messianic Blessings in Jewish and Christian Texts” (Flusser, JOC, 280-300, esp. 293). ↩
• ^[5] Black (157) opined that “the shorter form of the words [of the seeing and hearing couplet—DNB and JNT] in Matthew and Luke may well be original.” Likewise, Nolland (Matt., 534) writes, “Probably inspired by his second source (cf. Lk. 8:10b), Matthew abbreviates Mark’s allusion here to Is. 6:9 because he intends to provide an extended quotation in vv. 14-15.” ↩
• ^[6] The signs of redaction in Luke’s version of Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven are better explained as the result of Luke’s own editorial activity, rather than due to his reliance on the First Reconstruction (FR), Luke’s second source. The minor agreements of Luke and Matthew in this pericope suggest that the same source stands behind both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. For further reasons supporting our conclusion that the author of Luke copied Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven from Anth., see our discussion under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[7] Wenham argued for the opposite direction of dependence (i.e., Matt.→Mark→Luke) in this pericope, but the retreat from an explicit quotation of Isa. 6:9-10 in Matthew to an allusion in Mark to a barely perceptible hint in Luke defies probability. See David Wenham, “The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions About the Composition of Mark 4:1-34,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 3-38. ↩
• ^[8] See Bundy, 224. The disjuncture between the disciples’ question about the interpretation of the Four Soils parable and the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying is most keenly felt in the way the disciples ask about the sense of a specific parable (ἡ παραβολή; “the parable [sing.]”) in Luke 8:9, but Luke 8:10 appears to offer a justification for Jesus’ use of all parables (ἐν παραβολαῖς; “in parables [plur.]”). ↩
• ^[9] Compare the awkwardly phrased ἠρώτων αὐτὸν...τὰς παραβολάς (“they asked him...the parables”) in Mark 4:10 with ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν...τὴν παραβολήν (“they asked him...the parable”) in Mark 7:17. According to Abbott (Fourfold, 4:11), “Verbally, though ‘ask’ could be used with two accusatives in such phrases as ‘ask him the name,’ ‘ask him the meaning,’ it could hardly be used in ‘asked him the parables,’ unless it meant ‘asked him what secret meaning he implied.’” ↩
• ^[10] According to Bultmann (325 n. 1), “There is a question in [Mark 4] v. 10 concerned with the telling of parables in general, and vv. 11f. constitutes the answer. But v. 13 presupposes that the question has been concerned with the parable that has just been told. So the question in the source [behind Mark—DNB and JNT] must have read very much as Lk. 8⁹.” Likewise, according to Jeremias (Parables, 14 n. 7), “The plural τὰς παραβολάς...should be regarded as a Marcan alteration due to the insertion of vv. 11 f.” Cf. Taylor, 255; Guelich, 204-205. ↩
• ^[11] See Allen, Matt., 144; Bundy, 225; Hagner, 371. Pace Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 37. ↩
• ^[12] Other scholars who have likewise concluded that the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying originally had nothing to do with the Four Soils parable include: Friedrich Hauck, “παραβολή,” TDNT, 5:744-761, esp. 757; Jeremias, Parables, 14; Edward F. Siegman, “Teaching in Parables (Mk 4,10-12; Lk 8,9-10; Mt 13,10-15),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961): 161-181. ↩
• ^[13] See Young and Flusser, “Messianic Blessings” (Flusser, JOC, 293-294); Notley-Safrai, 29-30. Cf. Taylor, 258. ↩
• ^[14] We have already discussed how the author of Matthew added an explicit quotation of Isa. 6:9-10 to the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying. In Blessedness of the Twelve the author of Matthew changed the wording from “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see, etc.” to “Blessed are your eyes that see, etc.” (Matt. 13:16). This subtle change in wording allowed for a drastic change of meaning, turning an originally temporal distinction between the days of the prophets and the days of the Kingdom of Heaven into a sectarian distinction between the blind Jews and the seeing disciples. See Blessedness of the Twelve, under the subheading “Redaction Analysis.” ↩
• ^[15] For a discussion of the reasons why we believe the Mission of the Seventy-two in Luke 10 is based on the Mission of the Twelve as recorded in Anth., see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[16] According to Davies and Allison, “The close parallel in Lk 10.23-4 means that Mt 13.16-17 belonged to Q. In Luke the lines follow the great thanksgiving (Lk 10.21-2 = Mt 11.25-7), and that probably preserves the Q sequence” (Davies-Allison, 2:394). Cf. Plummer, Luke, 283. ↩
• ^[17] In his decision not to describe the apostles’ return to Jesus or to include Jesus’ response, the author of Matthew was probably influenced by Mark’s version of Return of the Twelve, which gives only the barest report of the apostles’ return and omits any reaction from Jesus (Mark 6:30). The author of Mark, for his part, relied on the equally sparse description of the apostles’ return in Luke 9:10, which derived from the First Reconstruction’s (FR’s) abbreviated version of Success of the Twelve. See Return of the Twelve, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[18] Although Woes on Galilean Villages probably was not originally a part of Jesus’ Sending of the Twelve discourse, it probably did occur in Anth.’s version of the Mission of the Twelve. The Anthologizer (the creator of Anth.) seems to have inserted Woes on Galilean Villages into Jesus’ Sending discourse for thematic reasons. See Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[19] According to Taylor (256), “Misled by ἐν παραβολαῖς, Mark, or an earlier compiler, has interpreted the passage as concerned with parables and has introduced it ad vocem...at this point.” Cf. Siegman, “Teaching in Parables,” 176. We, of course, regard the author of Luke as “the earlier compiler” who came before Mark. ↩
• ^[20] According to Abbott (Fourfold, 4:13), “In literary Greek ‘parable’ [i.e., παραβολή—DNB and JNT] means comparison or illustration, without any suggestion of obscurity, paradox, or riddle.” Cf. LSJ, “παραβολή,” 1305. See below, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[21] See Taylor, 257-258; Jeremias, Parables, 14, 17-18. ↩
• ^[22] See Robert L. Lindsey, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” under thesis 7. ↩
• ^[23] See Hawkins, 12, 52; Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups,” under the entry for Mark 2:16. ↩
• ^[24] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Significance of the Minor Agreements”; idem, “A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels,” under the subheading “Mark Secondary to Luke.” ↩
• ^[25] Hawkins (210) included the Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark 4:11 in his list of those for “which it seems almost impossible that Matthew and Luke could have accidentally concurred in making them.” Nevertheless, Streeter (313) and Davies-Allison (2:390-391) made various attempts to explain away these important agreements. ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:707. ↩
• ^[27] See below, Comment to L7. ↩
• ^[28] See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the ‘Minor’ Agreements,” under the subheading “From Non-Hebraisms to the Synoptic Problem.” ↩
• ^[29] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L116. ↩
• ^[30] Hagner (372) regards Matthew’s ὅτι as causal rather than as introducing direct speech. Cf. Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 37. ↩
• ^[31] Examples of נִתַּן followed by a preposition with pronominal suffix include the following:

  נִּיתַּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה

  ...it was given to him as a gift. (m. Maas. Shen. 4:3; 5:5; m. Sot. 8:2; m. Bech. 9:3; m. Arach. 9:4)

  נִיתַּן לִי בֶן בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם

  A son was given to me while overseas. (m. Yev. 15:9; cf. 15:10)

  חֲבִיבִים יִשְׂרָא′ שֶׁנִּיתַּן לָהֶם כְּלִּי שֶׁבּוֹ נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם

  Beloved is Israel because was given to them [i.e., God gave them—DNB and JNT] the vessel through which the world was created. (m. Avot 3:14)

  ↩

• ^[32] Note, moreover, that in the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying the passive voice is simply a polite way of saying “God has given.” There are numerous passages where, in the active voice, God promises לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה (“To you I will give it [i.e., the land—DNB and JNT]”; Gen. 13:15, 17; 28:13; 35:12; cf. Ps. 105:11; 1 Chr. 16:18), or where he reminds Israel לָכֶם נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ (“To you I have given the land to possess it”; Num. 33:53). In each of these examples the preposition with pronominal suffix is in the emphatic position before the verb. ↩
• ^[33] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:267-270. ↩
• ^[34] See Dos Santos, 77. ↩
• ^[35] Note, too, the following passage in DSS:

  ולא יתבונן כול בחוכ[מתכה] וב[סוד] רזיכה לא יביט כול

  Not everyone will understand [your] wis[dom] and not everyone will see the [counsel of] your mysteries. (1QH^a XVIII, 2-3)

  ↩

• ^[36] In DSS we encounter construct phrases such as רָזֵי דַעַת (rāzē da‘at, “mysteries of knowledge”; 1QS IV, 6), רָזֵי שֶׂכֶל (rāzē sechel, “mysteries of understanding”; 1QS IV, 18; 1QH^a V, 19) and רָזֵי עָרְמָה (rāzē ‘ormāh, “mysteries of cleverness”; 1QpHab VII, 14). We also find statements such as the following:

  כי הודעתני ברזי פלאכה

  For you have made known to me your wondrous mysteries. (1QH^a XII, 27-28)

  אודכ[ה אדו]ני כי השכלתני באמתכה וברזי פלאכה הודעתני

  I will give thanks to you, my [Lor]d, for you have instructed me in your truth, and you have made me know your wondrous mysteries. (1QH^a XV, 26-27)

  καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν μυστήρια θεοῦ

  ...and they did not know the mysteries of God.... (Wis. 2:22)

  ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ

  ...knowledge of the mystery of God.... (Col. 2:2)

  ↩

• ^[37] The noun רָז occurs in Dan. 2:18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47 (2xx); 4:6. ↩
• ^[38] In tannaic sources the noun occurs only in a later addition to the Mishnah’s tractate Avot (m. Avot 6:1) and in a blessing recorded in the Tosefta:

  הרואה אכלסין אומ′ ברוך חכם הרזים לפי שאין פרצופותיהן דומין זה לזה ואין דעתן דומות זו לזו

  The one who sees a crowd of people says, “Blessed is the Knower of Mysteries [רזים], for none of their faces are alike, and none of their opinions are the same.” (t. Ber. 6:2; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[39] On the term רָזֵי אֵל (“the mysteries of God”) in DSS, see Anthony R. Meyer, “The ‘Mysteries of God’ in the Qumran War Scroll,” in The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Kipp Davis, Dorothy M. Peters, Kyung S. Baek, and Peter W. Flint; Leiden: Brill, 2016. ↩
• ^[40] See Lindsey’s comments on Petuchowski’s essay on Jesus’ parables in Jakob J. Petuchowski, “The Theological Significance of the Parable in Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament,” under the subheading “Robert L. Lindsey’s Response.” ↩
• ^[41] See Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L63. ↩
• ^[42] See Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[43] See Jastrow, 806; Even-shoshan, 721. ↩
• ^[44] See John W. Bowker, “Mystery and Parable: Mark iv. 1–20,” Journal of Theological Studies 25.2 (1974): 300-317, esp. 312-313. ↩
• ^[45] Hirshman even questions whether מִסְטֵירִין (var. מִסְטוֹרִין) is the original reading in the above-cited midrash. See Marc Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity (trans. Batya Stein; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996), 17-18. ↩
• ^[46] The expression רָזֵי אֵל is found, for example, in 1QS III, 23; 1QpHab VII, 8; 1QM III, 9; XVI, 11, 16. Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:708; Nolland, Luke, 1:379. ↩
• ^[47] See David Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables of the Sages,” in Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (ed. Chana Safrai; Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979), 150-209, esp. 197 n. 52 (Hebrew); Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 46 n. 76; Young and Flusser, “Messianic Blessings” (Flusser, JOC, 294 n. 29). Cf. Young, Parables, 269. ↩
• ^[48] In support of the reading τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ (“the mysteries of God”) in Luke 8:10, Young (Parables, 269) cites “W, 579, 716, l253, l1761, as well as Lvt, (ff2), PET-C, and Eusebius.” Bovon (1:312 n. 61) suggests that “The mss. that omit τῆς βασιλείας (‘the kingdom,’ as does Eusebius) probably do so for stylistic reasons, in order to avoid a double genitive.” It is also possible that some manuscripts read “the mysteries of God” because the phrase τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ was familiar from other NT passages (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1; Col. 2:2; Rev. 10:7). ↩
• ^[49] See our discussion in David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” under the subheading “Which is correct: ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ or ‘Kingdom of God’?” ↩
• ^[50] Dalman (106) reconstructed “the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven” in Aramaic as רָזֵי מַלְכוּתָא דִשְׁמַיָּא (rāzē malchūtā’ dishmayā’). It should be noted, however, that whereas the Hebrew phrase מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם is common in rabbinic sources as early as the Mishnah, the Aramaic phrase מַלְכוּתָא דִשְׁמַיָּא does not occur in sources earlier than the completion of the Babylonian Talmud (ca. 500 C.E.). ↩
• ^[51] In Mark’s version of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (Mark 3:31-35), which in Mark comes immediately before the Four Soils parable, the mother and brothers of Jesus are twice said to be “outside” (ἔξω; Mark 3:31, 32). Noting the proximity of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying to this passage, Goulder suggested that “those outside” in Mark 4:11 refers back to Jesus’ family members mentioned in Mark 3:31-35. Goulder further suggested that Jesus’ family members stand for the Jerusalem church, headed by James, the brother of Jesus, and that the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying attests to the tension between the Jerusalem church and the Pauline Gentile churches for whom the Gospel of Mark was composed. See Michael D. Goulder, “Those Outside (MK. 4:10-12),” Novum Testamentum 23.4 (1991): 289-302. While his suggestions are provocative, we do not share his conclusions. ↩
• ^[52] See Notley-Safrai, 28. The use of the term “outsiders” in Mark is only one example of the author of Mark’s sectarian tendencies. The author of Mark also refers to the members of his community as “the elect” (Mark 13:20, 22, 27), which is reminiscent of the sectarian vocabulary of DSS. See David Flusser, “The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem,” under the subheading “Mark’s Sectarian Redaction.” Marcus drew parallels between the Gospel of Mark and DSS in Joel Marcus, “Mark 4:10-12 and Marcan Epistemology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103.4 (1984): 557-574. ↩
• ^[53] See Notley-Safrai, 30. ↩
• ^[54] This quotation is based on our reconstruction of Jesus’ saying in Hebrew and therefore does not exactly conform to either Matt. 13:17 or Luke 10:24. ↩
• ^[55] See Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L7. ↩
• ^[56] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai characterized his student Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (first century C.E.) as “a plastered cistern that loses not a drop” (m. Avot 2:8). In other words, Rabbi Eliezer was not known as an innovator, but as a collector of received traditions (cf. Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 13 [ed. Schechter, 32]). It is probable, therefore, that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement about the maidservants at the Red Sea was not his own invention, but a received tradition that may date to the period of the Second Temple (noted by Marc Hirshman in his course “Introduction to Aggadic Midrash” at the Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007). Note that according to Kister, “aggadic statements in rabbinic literature should be regarded principally as traditions, and the sages to whom these utterances are attributed as tradents of ancient material. Studies that consider rabbinic literature together with writings of the Second Temple period (such as Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Philo, Josephus, and Gospels) validate time and again this assertion.” See Menahem Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity (ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 133-183, quotation on 142. ↩
• ^[57] On the periodization of history in the teachings of Jesus, see David Flusser, “The Stages of Redemption History According to John the Baptist and Jesus” (Flusser, Jesus, 258-275). See also Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L16-19; David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Temporal Aspect.” ↩
• ^[58] The expectation that the final redemption would be patterned after Israel’s redemption from Egypt is found as early as the biblical period (e.g., Jer. 23:7-8). In rabbinic literature, examples of this expectation include the comment “I am who I am [Exod. 3:14]: As I am with the past redemption, so I am with the future redemption” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 38 [ed. Schechter, 100]), and Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement that “In that night [14th of Nisan] they were redeemed, and in that night [14th of Nisan] they will be redeemed in the future” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisḥa chpt. 14 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:79]; cf. b. Rosh Hash. 11a). A variation of this concept is expressed in the saying “As with the first redeemer [i.e., Moses—DNB and JNT], so with the final redeemer [i.e., the Messiah—DNB and JNT]” (cf., e.g., Num. Rab. 11:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6). ↩
• ^[59] Jesus explicitly paralleled the redemption from Egypt and the redemption that was coming about through the Kingdom of Heaven when he claimed to drive out demons by the finger of God (Luke 11:20; cf. Matt. 12:28). See R. Steven Notley, “By the Finger of God.” ↩
• ^[60] Compare the claim made in the New Testament that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20; NIV). In support of the NIV’s translation of 2 Peter 1:20, see Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Dallas, Tex.: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 229-233. ↩
• ^[61] See David Flusser, “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect” (Flusser, JOC, 3-20, esp. 14); idem, “‘The Secret Things Belong to the Lord’ (Deut. 29:29): Ben Sira and the Essenes” (Flusser, JSTP1, 293-298, esp. 297). ↩
• ^[62] This midrash is based on a perceived failure to meet expectations in the story of Jacob’s blessing of his sons. Jacob begins by promising to tell his sons what will happen to them in the future (Gen. 49:1), but after this dramatic build up, the first thing Jacob reveals to Reuben is “you are my firstborn son” (Gen. 49:3), a disappointingly mundane bit of common knowledge. ↩
• ^[63] The limits of prophetic vision are also attested in a rabbinic catalog of synonyms for the word "prophecy":

  עשרה שמות נקראת נבואה משא. משל. מליצה. חידה. הטיפה. צווי. דיבור. אמירה. חזון. נבואה.‏

  By ten names was prophecy called: burden, parable [משל], metaphor, riddle, sermon, command, speech, saying, vision, prophecy. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 37 [ed. Schechter, 95])

  Compare this catalog to the parallel in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 34:7 (ed. Schechter, 102), where in place of synonyms for “prophecy” we find synonyms for "the Holy Spirit." On the association of the Holy Spirit with prophecy, see Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L1-3. ↩

• ^[64] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:888. ↩
• ^[65] In LXX λοιπός is the translation of שְׁאָר in 1 Chr. 16:41; 2 Esd. 4:7; 21:20 (Sinaiticus); Esth. 9:16; Isa. 17:3. Note that in 1 Chr. 16:41, 2 Esd. 4:7; and Esth. 9:16 the plural of λοιπός is used to translate the singular form שְׁאָר.‎ ↩
• ^[66] Recall that in Matt. 13:10 the disciples ask Jesus, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” ↩
• ^[67] On the anti-Jewish bias that can be detected in much of Matthew’s editorial activity, see David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560); idem, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (Flusser, JOC, 561-574); idem, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew” (Flusser, JSTP2, 351-353); and R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[68] See Comment to L13-17. ↩
• ^[69] See Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[70] See H. Streeter, “On the Original Order of Q,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 141-164, esp. 154; Bundy, 225; Hauck, “παραβολή,” TDNT, 5:757; Davies-Allison, 2:391; Nolland, Matt., 534. ↩
• ^[71] See Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 39. ↩
• ^[72] See Kilpatrick, 87. ↩
• ^[73] See the discussion under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[74] See Jeremias, Parables, 16. ↩
• ^[75] On the evangelists’ unfamiliarity with story parables, see R. Steven Notley, “Reading Gospel Parables as Jewish Literature,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.1 (2018): 29-43, esp. 33. ↩
• ^[76] The phrase מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל (“they told a parable”) is used to introduce a story parable in t. Hag. 2:5; t. Sot. 11:4; 15:7; t. Bab. Kam. 7:3, 4; and in numerous other instances. The phrase אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל (“I will tell you a parable”) is used to introduce a parable in Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh chpt. 6 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:325); Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 6:2 (ed. Schechter, 29); 9:2 (ed. Schechter, 41); 16:3 (ed. Schechter, 64); and also in many other locations. ↩
• ^[77] According to Lindsey, the proliferation of certain Lukan phrases was a characteristic feature of Mark’s editorial style. See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; idem, “My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution (1959-1969),” under the subheading “Markan Pick-ups”; Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups.” ↩
• ^[78] See Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1889), 64-71; Manson, Teaching, 59. In LXX παραβολή is the translation of the noun מָשָׁל in Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23; Deut. 28:37; 1 Kgdms. 10:12; 24:14; 3 Kgdms. 5:12; 2 Chr. 7:20; Ps. 43[44]:15; 48[49]:5; 68[69]:12; 77[78]:2; Prov. 1:6; Eccl. 12:9; Mic. 2:4; Hab. 2:6; Jer. 24:9; Ezek. 12:22, 23; 17:2; 18:2, 3; 21:5; 24:3. ↩
• ^[79] In LXX παραβολή is the translation of the verb מָשַׁל in 2 Kgdms. 23:3; Ezek. 12:23; 16:44; 19:14. ↩
• ^[80] See Notley-Safrai, 3, 31. ↩
• ^[81] A parallel to this statement is found in the Jerusalem Talmud:

  תני רבי ישמעאל זה אחד משלשה מקריות שנאמרו בתורה במשל

  Rabbi Yishmael taught, “This is one of three verses that are stated in the Torah במשל [i.e., figuratively—DNB and JNT].” (y. Ket. 4:4 [26a]; cf. y. Sanh. 8:8 [43b])

  ↩

• ^[82] Examples in MT where מָשָׁל is used in parallel with חִידָה include Ezek. 17:2; Ps. 49:5; 78:2; Prov. 1:6. ↩
• ^[83] The formula וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר is found in Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23. ↩
• ^[84] Early Christian writers bear indirect witness to the Jewish notion that the prophets spoke in metaphors, and perhaps even indirect witness to the use of the phrase דִּבֵּר בִּמְשָׁלִים by the rabbinic sages. As we mentioned above, “riddle” was not a common meaning of the noun παραβολή except in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Nevertheless, early Christian writers such as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr sometimes used the term παραβολή to describe the enigmatic sayings of the prophets, for example:

  τί οὖν λέγει· Εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν, γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι; εὐλογητὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀδελφοί, ὁ σοφίαν καὶ νοῦν θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τῶν κρυφίων αὐτοῦ. λέγει γὰρ ὁ προφήτης παραβολὴν κυρίου·

  Why, then, does he [i.e., Moses—DNB and JNT] say, Into a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey [Exod. 33:3]? Blessed be our Lord, brothers, who has put into us the wisdom and knowledge of his secrets. For the prophet [i.e., Moses—DNB and JNT] speaks a parable [παραβολή] of the Lord. (Barn. 6:10)

  In this polemical passage the author of Barnabas asserts that Moses did speak in parables (i.e., riddles), contrary to the rabbinic assertion that direct revelation was what distinguished Moses from the other prophets. The similarity of this Barnabas passage to the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying is strong, but the application is different from what appears in the Synoptic Gospels. Whereas the Synoptic Gospels made the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying into a justification for Jesus' use of story parables, the author of Barnabas seems to have known that the original contrast was between the hiddenness of the mysteries in the days of the prophets versus the revelation of the mysteries in the present time. On the awareness of Jewish traditions by the author of Barnabas, see Tim Hegedus, "Midrash and the Letter of Barnabas," Biblical Theology Bulletin 37.1 (2007): 20-26.

  A similar use of παραβολή for the words of the prophets is found in the writings of Justin Martyr:

  ἐν παραβολαῖς καὶ ὁμοιώσεσι πολλάκις λαλοῦν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα

  ...the Holy Spirit oftentimes announces such events by parables [ἐν παραβολαῖς] and similitudes.... (Dial. chpt. 77 [ed. Trollope, 2:11-12])

  τὸ εἰρημένον πρὸς Δαβὶδ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἐν μυστηρίῳ διὰ Ἠσαΐου ὡς ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι ἐξηγήθη. Εἰ μήτι τοῦτο οὐκ έπίστασθε, ὦ φίλοι...ὅτι πολλοὺς λόγους, τοὺς ἐπικεκαλυμμένως καὶ ἐν παραβολαῖς ἢ μυστηρίοις ἢ ἐν πράξαντας γενόμενοι προφῆται ἐξηγήσαντο.

  ...Isaiah has explained how that which was spoken by God to David in mystery would take place. But perhaps you are not aware of this, my friends, that there were many sayings written obscurely, or parabolically [ἐν παραβολαῖς], or mysteriously, and symbolical actions, which the prophets who lived after the persons who said or did them expounded. (Dial. chpt. 68 [ed. Trollope, 1:139])

  ὅσα εἶπον καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ προφῆται...παραβολαῖς καὶ τύποις ἀπεκάλυψαν, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίως τὰ πλεῖστα ὑπὸ πάντων νοηθῆναι, κρύπτοντεσ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς άλήθειαν

  ...what the prophets said and did...they veiled by parables [παραβολαῖς] and types, so that it was not easy for all to understand most [of what they said], since they concealed the truth by these means.... (Dial. chpt. 90 [ed. Trollope, 2:44])

  Ὅτι γὰρ λίθος καὶ πέτρα ἐν παραβολαῖς ὁ Χριστὸς διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ἐκηρύσσετο, ἀποδέδεικταί μοι.

  For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables [ἐν παραβολαῖς] a Stone and a Rock. (Dial. chpt. 113 [ed. Trollope, 2:88])

  It is likely that Justin borrowed the notion that the revelations the prophets received were mediated ἐν παραβολαῖς (i.e., through metaphors) from Judaism, and that he used this notion to score points against his Jewish debate opponents. On Justin’s awareness of Jewish exegetical traditions, some of which are attested in rabbinic sources, see Marc Hirshman, "Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho," Jewish Quarterly Review 83.3-4 (1993): 369-384; idem, A Rivalry of Genius, 31-41, 55-66.

  On the use of παραβολή in the Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Justin Martyr, see Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 68-69; Abbott, Fourfold, 4:12-13. The translation of Justin is according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986). ↩

• ^[85] Further demonstrations of Moses’ superiority to the other prophets include the following midrashic texts:

  או חולם חלום, מכלל שנאמר למשה פה אל פה אדבר בו יכול אף הנביאים כן תלמוד לומר או חולם חלום

  Or a dreamer of dreams ([Deut.] 13:2): Since concerning Moses it is said, With him do I speak mouth to mouth (Num. 12:8), one might think that this would be the case also with all the prophets; hence the verse adds, Or a dreamer of dreams. (Sifre Deut. §83 [ed. Finkelstein, 149]; trans. Hammer)

  מה בין משה לכל הנביאים, ר′ יהודה בר′ אילעאי ורבנן. ר′ יהודה א′ כל הנביאים ראו מתוך תשע איספקלריות, הה″ד וכמראה המראה אשר ראיתי כמראה אשר ראיתי בבואי לשחת את העיר ומראות כמראה אשר ראיתי על הנהר כבר ואפל על פני (יחזקאל מג, ג). ומשה ראה מתוך איספקלריה אחת, ומראה ולא בחידות (במדבר יב, ח). ורבנן אמ′ כל הנביאים ראו מתוך איספקלריה מלוכלכת, הה″ד ודברתי על הנביאים ואנכי חזון הרביתי וגו′ (הושע יב, יא). ומשה ראה מתוך איספקלריה מצוחצחת, הה″ד ותמונת י″י יביט (במדבר יב, ח).‏

  What differentiates Moses from all the other prophets? Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Ilai and the Rabbis disagree. Rabbi Yehudah said, “All the prophets saw through nine glasses. This is according to what is written, And the visualization of the vision that I saw was like the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city, and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the River Kebar, and I fell upon my face [Ezek. 43:3]. But Moses saw through a single glass [in accordance with what is written], and a vision and not in riddles [Num. 12:8].” The Rabbis said, “All the prophets through a soiled glass, in accordance with what is written, And I have spoken to the prophets and I increased visions [Hos. 12:11] etc. But Moses saw through a polished glass, in accordance with what is written, and the form of the LORD he sees [Num. 12:8].” (Lev. Rab. 1:14 [ed. Margulies, 1:30-31])

  Young pointed out the similarity of the above quotation to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 13:12. See Brad H. Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 107-110. Note, too, the statement in the Babylonian Talmud:

  כל הנביאים נסתכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה, משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאירה

  All the prophets peered through a glass that was not clear, Moses our teacher peered through a clear glass. (b. Yeb. 49b)

  ↩

• ^[86] Such a reconstruction would require us to assume that the author of Matthew tendentiously negated the verb he found in his source, an assumption that is not inconsistent with Matthew’s editorial style. According to Flusser, “Matthew’s dependence upon his written sources is at times somewhat paradoxical: when he wants to reveal his own opinion, he does not change his source radically, but manipulates his Vorlage by small modifications and a clever rearrangement of material” (Flusser, JOC, 559). Cf. idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40, esp. 31). ↩
• ^[87] Marshall (322) noted the ambiguity caused by the lack of a verb in Luke’s version of this sentence. ↩
• ^[88] Matthew’s “I speak to them in parables” echoes the disciples’ question, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” (Matt. 13:10). ↩
• ^[89] According to Hauck, “The softer reading of ἵνα in the sense of ἵνα πληρωθῇ [“in order that it might be fulfilled”—DNB and JNT]...is an illegitimate alleviation of the difficulty” (“παραβολή,” TDNT, 5:758 n. 102). The view Hauck rejected is advanced by, inter alios, Johannes Horst, “οὖς, κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT, 5:543-559, esp. 555; Jeremias, Parables, 17. ↩
• ^[90] See Gundry, Use, 33-34; cf. France, Matt., 513. ↩
• ^[91] Some NT MSS have ἵνα + subjunctive instead of ὅτι in Matt. 13:13 as well. This is almost certainly due to the scribal impulse to harmonize the Gospels. See Metzger, 32-33. ↩
• ^[92] In the Gospel of Luke it is likely that a large percentage of the instances of ἵνα + subjunctive should be attributed to Lukan redaction. The following table shows all the examples of ἵνα + subjunctive in the Gospel of Luke and the Matthean and Markan parallels (if any):

  Luke 1:4 U Luke 1:43 U Luke 4:3 DT = Matt. 4:3 Luke 5:24 TT = Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 Luke 6:7 TT = Matt. 12:10; Mark 3:2 Luke 6:31 DT = Matt 7:12 Luke 6:34 DT (cf. Matt. 5:47) Luke 7:6 DT = Matt 8:8 Luke 7:36 U Luke 8:10 TT = Mark 4:12 (cf. Matt. 13:13) Luke 8:12 TT (cf. Matt. 13:19; Mark 4:15) Luke 8:16 TT = Mark 4:21 (cf. Matt. 5:15) Luke 8:31 TT = Mark 5:10 (cf. Matt. 8:[--]) Luke 8:32 TT = Mark 5:12 (cf. Matt. 8:31) Luke 9:12 TT = Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36 Luke 9:40 TT = Mark 9:18 (cf. Matt. 17:16) Luke 9:45 TT (cf. Matt. 17:23; Mark 9:32) Luke 10:40 U Luke 11:33 TT = Mark 4:21 (cf. Matt. 5:15) Luke 11:50 DT (cf. Matt. 23:35) Luke 12:36 TT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]; Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Luke 14:10 U Luke 14:23 DT (cf. Matt. 22:10) Luke 15:29 U Luke 16:4 U Luke 16:9 U Luke 16:24 U Luke 16:27 U Luke 16:28 U Luke 17:2 TT = Matt. 18:6 (cf. Mark 9:42) Luke 18:5 U Luke 18:15 TT = Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13 Luke 18:39 TT = Matt. 20:31; Mark 10:48 Luke 18:41 TT = Matt. 20:33; Mark 10:51 Luke 19:4 U Luke 19:15 DT (cf. Matt. 25:19) Luke 20:14 TT (cf. Matt. 21:38; Mark 12:7) Luke 20:20 TT = Mark 12:13 (cf. Matt. 22:15) Luke 20:28 TT = Mark 12:19 (cf. Matt. 22:24) Luke 21:36 TT (cf. Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32) Luke 22:8 TT (cf. Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:13) Luke 22:30 TT (cf. Matt. 19:28; 20:28; Mark 10:45) Luke 22:32 TT (cf. Matt. 26:32; Mark 14:28) Luke 22:46 TT = Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  The table above documents 44 instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke’s Gospel. Because we do not have direct access to Luke’s sources assessing the precise extent of Lukan redaction is difficult. Nevertheless, Matthean agreement with Luke to use ἵνα + subjunctive in DT pericopae (3xx; Luke 4:3 // Matt. 4:3; Luke 6:31 // Matt 7:12; Luke 7:6 // Matt 8:8) and Matthean agreement with Luke against Mark to use ἵνα + subjunctive in TT pericopae (1x; Luke 17:2 // Matt. 18:6 [cf. Mark 9:42]) are instances in which it is practically ceratain the author of Luke copied ἵνα + subjunctive from a source. These four instances acount for 9% of the instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke. There are two categories where ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke is especially doubtful: DT pericopae without Matthean agreement (4xx; Luke 6:34 [cf. Matt. 5:47]; 11:50 [cf. Matt. 23:35]; 14:23 [cf. Matt. 22:10]; 19:15 [cf. Matt. 25:19]), and TT pericopae with Lukan-Markan agreement but Matthean disagreement (6xx; Luke 8:10 [cf. Matt. 13:13], 16 [cf. Matt. 5:15], 31 [cf. Matt. 8:⟨--⟩], 32 [cf. Matt. 8:31]; 20:20 [cf. Matt. 22:15], 28 [cf. Matt. 22:24]). In these two categories, which amount to 23% of the instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke, the author of Matthew may have rejected ἵνα + subjunctive on the basis of Anth. (however at least once we have accepted Luke’s ἵνα + subjunctive in a DT pericope where it was absent in the Matthean parallel [Luke 11:50; Innocent Blood, L13]). The remaining 30 instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke (= 68%) are more difficult to asses. Some may have come from Luke’s sources, but most are likely to have come from Lukan redaction. In other words, up to around 90% of the instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke could be the product of Lukan redaction.

  On ἵνα + subjunctive in Mark’s Gospel as largely a product of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.”

  On ἵνα + subjunctive in Matthew’s Gospel as frequently a product of Matthean redaction, see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L61.

  ↩

• ^[93] See Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 38. ↩
• ^[94] On the various ways that LXX rendered the infinitive absolute, see Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 1:47-50. ↩
• ^[95] Examples of emphatic denials expressed with the construction inf. abs. + לֹא + finite verb are found in Exod. 5:23 (הַצֵּל לֹא הִצַּלְתָּ; “you definitely did not deliver”); 8:24 (הַרְחֵק לֹא תַרְחִיקוּ; “you must definitely not go far off”); 34:7 (נַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה; “he definitely will not acquit”); Lev. 7:24 (אָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻהוּ; “you definitely must not eat it”); Num. 14:18 (נַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה; “he definitely will not acquit”); 23:25 (קֹב לֹא תִקֳּבֶנּוּ; “you definitely must not curse them”); 23:25 (בָּרֵךְ לֹא תְבָרֲכֶנּוּ; “you definitely must not bless them”); Deut. 21:14 (מָכֹר לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה; “you definitely must not sell her”); Josh. 17:13 (הוֹרֵשׁ לֹא הוֹרִישׁוֹ; “he definitely did not drive him out”); Judg. 1:28 (הוֹרֵישׁ לֹא הוֹרִישׁוֹ; “he definitely did not drive him out”); 15:13 (הָמֵת לֹא נְמִיתֶךָ; “we definitely will not put you to death”); 1 Kgs. 3:27 (הָמֵת לֹא תְמִיתֻהוּ; “you definitely must not put him to death”); Isa. 30:19 (בָּכוֹ לֹא תִבְכֶּה; “you definitely will not cry”); Jer. 6:15 (בּוֹשׁ לֹא יֵבוֹשׁוּ; “they definitely were not ashamed”); 8:12 (בּוֹשׁ לֹא יֵבֹשׁוּ; “they definitely were not ashamed”); 11:12 (הוֹשֵׁעַ לֹא יוֹשִׁיעוּ; “they definitely will not save”); 13:12 (יָדֹעַ לֹא נֵדַע; “we definitely do not know”); 23:32 (הוֹעֵיל לֹא יוֹעִילוּ; “they definitely do not profit”); 30:11 (נַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֵּךָּ; “I definitely will not acquit you”); 46:28 (נַקֵּה לֹא אֲנַקֶּךָּ; “I definitely will not acquit you”); Ezek. 20:32 (הָיוֹ לֹא תִהְיֶה; “it definitely will not be”); Amos 3:5 (לָכוֹד לֹא יִלְכּוֹד; “it definitely did not capture”); Nah. 1:3 (נַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה; “he definitely will not acquit”); Dan. 10:3 (סוֹךְ לֹא סָכְתִּי; “I definitely did not anoint”). ↩
• ^[96] For example, in Exod. 5:23 LXX rendered הַצֵּל לֹא הִצַּלְתָּ (“you definitely did not deliver”) as οὐκ ἐρρύσω (“you did not deliver”), and in Ezek. 20:32 LXX rendered הָיוֹ לֹא תִהְיֶה (“it definitely will not be”) as οὐκ ἔσται (“it will not be”). ↩
• ^[97] For instance, in Jer. 23:32 LXX rendered הוֹעֵיל לֹא יוֹעִילוּ (“they definitely do not profit”) as ὠφέλειαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν (“a profit they will not profit”), and in Dan. 10:3 LXX rendered סוֹךְ לֹא סָכְתִּי (“I definitely did not anoint”) as ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλειψάμην (“with oil I did not anoint”). ↩
• ^[98] Similar treatments of the inf. abs. + לֹא + finite verb construction are found in Num. 23:25, where LXX rendered בָּרֵךְ לֹא תְבָרֲכֶנּוּ (“you definitely must not bless them”) as εὐλογῶν μὴ εὐλογήσῃς αὐτόν (“blessing you may not bless him”), and in Jer. 13:12 where LXX rendered יָדֹעַ לֹא נֵדַע (“we definitely do not know”) as μὴ γνόντες οὐ γνωσόμεθα (“not knowing we will not know”). ↩
• ^[99] See Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 39. ↩
• ^[100] See Gundry, Use, 117. ↩
• ^[101] According to Lowe and Flusser, the author of Matthew “recognized Mark’s innovation as a mutilated version of Is. 6.9-10, but also noticed how far it was from the Proto-Matthean ὅτι βλέποντες.... He therefore both retained the latter and added to it the complete and unabridged prophecy from Isaiah in the exact Septuagint form as Mt. 13.14-15” (“Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 39). Lowe and Flusser’s “Proto-Matthew” is roughly equivalent to Lindsey’s “Anthology.” ↩
• ^[102] See above, Comment to L21. ↩
• ^[103] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:45-49. ↩
• ^[104] See Dos Santos, 212. ↩
• ^[105] Translation of L.A.B. according to Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum With Latin Text and English Translation (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:138. ↩
• ^[106] There are significant differences between the wording of Isa. 64:3 as it appears in MT and LXX and the ways Paul and Pseudo-Philo allude to this verse in their writings. The only sensory organ mentioned in Isa. 64:3 is the eye, although hearing and seeing (in that order!) are both mentioned. Understanding with the heart, which is found both in 1 Cor. and L.A.B., does not appear in Isa. 64:3, but is picked up from Isa. 65:17 (וְלֹא תַעֲלֶינָה עַל לֵב). The shared order see-hear-understand, the shared mention of eyes, ears and heart, and their agreement to splice a phrase from Isa. 65:17 into their allusions to Isa. 64:3 demonstrate that both Paul and Pseudo-Philo were familiar with a midrashic treatment of this verse that was probably well known in the first century C.E. (See the discussion in Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 2:776, and the attestations to this midrash on Isa. 64:3 collected in Michael E. Stone and John Strugnell, The Books of Elijah: Parts 1&2 [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979], 45-73.) Underlying this conjectured midrash on Isa. 64:3 appears to be the notion that the words עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ should be interpreted as “no eyes have seen except yours, O God,” whereas a more natural interpretation would be “the eye has not seen any God except you,” which is theologically problematic. The same approach to this exegetical difficulty also underlies a rabbinic comment on Isa. 64:3:

  אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח אבל לעולם הבא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך

  Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah. But as for the world to come, the eye has not seen, O God, except you [Isa. 64:3].” (b. Ber. 34b; cf. b. Shab. 63a; b. Sanh. 99a)

  ↩

• ^[107] In the Gospel of Thomas we find a parallel to the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying that does allude to Isa. 64:3:

  Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven	Gos. Thom. §17 (ed. Guillaumont, 13)
  To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven,	Jesus said: I will give you
  but for the rest it was in parables,
  because they did not see or hear	what eye has not seen and what ear has not heard
  	and what hand has not touched
  or understand.	and (what) has not arisen in the heart of man.

  Is this logion from the Gospel of Thomas a variant of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying? And does this logion preserve an authentic recollection that the verse Jesus originally alluded to in the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying was Isa. 64:3? ↩

• ^[108] See Davies-Allison, 2:394. ↩
• ^[109] At Matt. 13:14 Codex Bezae reads καὶ τότε πληρωθήσεται επ᾽αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία τοῦ Ἠσαΐου λέγουσα (“and then will be fulfilled on them the prophecy of Isaiah, saying...”). This variant may be a scribe’s attempt to assimilate the introduction of the Isaiah quotation in Matt. 13:14 to the fulfillment formulae found elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel. ↩
• ^[110] See the discussion in Gundry, Use, 116-118. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 535; France, Matt., 513 n. 16. ↩
• ^[111] On the textual witnesses to Isa. 6:10, see David S. New, “The Occurance of ΑΥΤΩΝ in Matthew 13.15 and the Process of Text Assimilation,” New Testament Studies 37.3 (1991): 478-480. ↩
• ^[112] See Manson, Teaching, 77; Black, 154; Jeremias, Parables, 15. ↩
• ^[113] Lindsey believed that the author of Mark may have relied on an Aramaic targum as a source of some of his paraphrastic changes to Luke. (See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; idem, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” thesis 4; idem, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke,” under the subheading “Further Proof of Mark’s Dependence on Luke.”) However, it may be preferable to suppose that the author of Mark was familiar with Jewish traditions that are later attested in the Aramaic targumim than to suppose that the author of Mark relied on a written targum. On the liturgical use of targumim in the synagogue, see Ze’ev Safrai, “The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue,” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 187-193. ↩
• ^[114] Note that Martin rated Luke’s version of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying as the closest to translation-style Greek, and Mark’s version to be closest to original Greek composition. See Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), 42. ↩
• ^[115]

  Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς ἵνα βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες μὴ συνιῶσιν		ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν
  Total Words:	25	Total Words:	28
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	18	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	18
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	72.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	64.29%

  ↩

• ^[116] See Lowe and Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” 38. From the conclusion of Acts we know this Isaiah verse was important to the author of Luke because it seemed to explain Paul’s failure to convince the Jewish people of the truth of the Gospel (Acts 28:25-28). ↩
• ^[117]

  Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσι καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς		ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν
  Total Words:	37	Total Words:	28
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	11	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	11
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	29.73%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	39.29%

  ↩

• ^[118]

  Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται ὅστις γὰρ ἔχει δοθήσεται αὐτῷ καὶ περισσευθήσεται ὅστις δὲ οὐκ ἔχει καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λαλῶ ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα ἀκοῇ ἀκούσατε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς		ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν
  Total Words:	107	Total Words:	28
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	26	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	26
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	24.30%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	92.86%

  ↩

• ^[119] On the community for which the Gospel of Matthew was composed and its relations with the Jewish community, see Tomson, If This Be, 272-276, 407-408. ↩
• ^[120] On the pedagogical purpose of parables, see Notley-Safrai, 27-35. See also Joseph Frankovic, “The Power of Parables.” ↩
• ^[121] On the generally positive portrayal of Jews and Judaism in Luke and Acts, see Peter J. Tomson, “Gamaliel’s Counsel and the Apologetic Strategy of Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 585-604; idem, “Luke-Acts and the Jewish Scriptures,” Analecta Bruxellensia 7 (2002): 164-183; idem, If This Be, 214-247. ↩
• ^[122] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[123] 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. ↩