Call of Levi

Matt. 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32; 15:1-2
(Huck 53; Aland 44, 93; Crook 67, 97)^[210]

Updated: 22 February 2025

וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יָצָא וַיַּרְא מוֹכֵס וּשְׁמוֹ לֵוִי יוֹשֵׁב אֵצֶל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לֵךְ אַחֲרַי וַיַּנַּח אֶת הַכֹּל וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרָיו וַיַּעַשׂ לֵוִי מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל לוֹ וַיְהִי הוּא מֵסֵב בְּבֵיתוֹ וְהִנֵּה אֻכְלוּס גָּדוֹל שֶׁלְּמוֹכְסִים וּרְשָׁעִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִים לִשְׁמוֹעַ לוֹ וַיִּלּוֹנוּ הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְסוֹפְרֵיהֶם עַל תַּלְמִידָיו לֵאמֹר לָמָּה עִם הַמּוֹכְסִים וְהָרְשָׁעִים הוּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֵין צוֹרֶךְ לַבְּרִיאִים בְּרוֹפֵא אֶלָּא לַחֹלִים [לְכוּ וְלִמְדוּ מָה הוּא חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא זָבַח] לֹא בָּאתִּי לִקְרֹוא לַצַּדִּיקִים אֶלָּא לָרְשָׁעִים לִתְשׁוּבָה

Some time later, Yeshua went out and noticed a toll collector named Levi sitting at a toll house, and he said to Levi, “Follow me as my disciple!” So leaving everything behind, Levi got up and followed Yeshua.

Levi prepared a sumptuous banquet in honor of Yeshua. As Yeshua was eating in Levi’s home, a whole crowd of toll collectors and other sinners came to listen to him.

But the Pharisees and their leaders complained against his disciples by asking, “Why is he celebrating with toll collectors and other sinners?”

“Healthy people don’t need a doctor, but sick people do,” Yeshua replied. “[Instead of criticizing me, go find out what God meant when he said: Mercy is more desirable to me than sacrifice.] God sent me to invite sinners to repent, not righteous people.”^[211]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Call of Levi click on the link below:

---

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

---

• ^[1] See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[2] See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[3] On Mark’s periphrastic style, see Robert L. Lindsey, “My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution (1959-1969)”; David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style.” ↩
• ^[4] On the Epistle of Barnabas in relation to the Bar Kochva revolt, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Barnabas and Bar-Kokhba,” in his Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 147-153. ↩
• ^[5] In 2 Clement we read:

  καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.

  And another Scripture also says, “I have not come to call righteous [persons], but sinners.” (2 Clem. 2:4)

  Note that the author of 2 Clement claims to be quoting a written text.

  In Barnabas we find the following paraphrase of Jesus’ statement:

  οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς

  ...he did not come to call righteous [persons], but sinners.... (Barn. 5:9)

  According to Justin, Jesus said:

  Οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν. θέλει γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος τὴν μετάνοιαν τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ἢ τὴν κόλασιν αὐτοῦ.

  I did not come to call righteous [persons], but sinners to repentance. For the heavenly Father desires the repentance of the sinner rather than his punishment. (1 Apol. 15:8)

  It is possible that the second sentence in the above quotation is Justin’s commentary on Jesus’ saying. ↩

• ^[6] On the date of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224, see Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963-1966), 1:113-114. ↩
• ^[7] In Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224 we find the following:

  οι δε γραμματεις κα[ι Φαρισαι]οι και ιερεις θεασαμ[ενοι αυ]τον ηγανακτουν [οτι συν αμαρ]τωλοις ανα με[σον κειται. ο] δε Ιη{σους} ακουσας [ειπεν· ου χρειαν] [εχ]ουσιν οι υ[γιαινοντες] [ιατρου,] α[λλα....]

  But the scribes an[d Pharisee]s and priests see[ing h]im were angry [that with sinn]ers in the mid[st he reclined.] But Je{sus} hearing [said: no need ha]ve the h[ealthy for a doctor,] b[ut....] (P. Oxy. 1224 frag. 2 verso, column 2 [page 175])

  ↩

• ^[8] Cf., e.g., Hawkins, 43. ↩
• ^[9] In Luke the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα occurs in Luke 1:24; 5:27; 10:1; 12:4; 17:8; 18:4. ↩
• ^[10] In Mark the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα occurs in Mark 16:12. ↩
• ^[11] In LXX μετὰ ταῦτα is the translation of אַחֲרֵי כֵן in Gen. 15:14; 23:19; 41:31; 45:15; Exod. 3:20; 11:1, 8; 34:32; Lev. 16:26, 28; Num. 4:15; 8:15, 22; 9:17; Josh. 8:34; Judg. 16:4; 1 Kgdms. 9:13; 24:6; 2 Kgdms. 2:1; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 21:14, 18; 4 Kgdms. 6:24; 1 Chr. 18:1; 19:1; 20:4; 2 Chr. 20:1, 35; 24:4; 33:14; Joel 3:1; Isa. 1:26; Jer. 16:16; 21:7. ↩
• ^[12] In MT the formula וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן followed by a perfect occurs in Gen. 23:19; 25:26; 45:15; Exod. 34:32; Num. 8:22; Josh. 8:34; 2 Chr. 33:14. Of these instances, LXX translated וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן followed by a perfect with either μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα or καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα + aorist in Gen. 45:15; Exod. 34:32; Num. 8:22; 2 Chr. 33:14. In Gen. 25:26 וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן + perfect is translated as καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο + aorist, while in Josh. 8:34 וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן + perfect is translated as καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα οὕτως + aorist.

  Where μετὰ ταῦτα renders phrases such as אַחַר or וְאַחַר rather than וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן the underlying Hebrew text often (though not exclusively) has an imperfect verb (cf., e.g., Gen. 24:55; Lev. 14:8; 15:28; Num. 5:26; 6:20; 19:7; 31:24; 32:22; Josh. 2:16; Judg. 7:11; Hos. 3:5), which does not fit GR or HR. ↩

• ^[13] See Bundy, 142; Guelich, 98; Marcus, 228. ↩
• ^[14] On πάλιν (palin, “again”) as a Markan redactional word, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes.” ↩
• ^[15] Among the scholars who assume that Call of Levi took place in Capernaum are Allen, Matt., 89; France, Mark, 131; John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33.1 (1971): 39-61, esp. 54; Roland K. Harrison and Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Taxation,” in Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-biblical Antiquity (ed. Edwin M. Yamauchi and Marvin R. Wilson; 4 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2016), 4:226-236, esp. 227. ↩
• ^[16] In addition to the Call of Levi story, the Gospel of Mark mentions the sea when transitioning to the Yeshua Heals the Crowds narrative (Mark 3:7; cf. Matt. 12:15; Luke 6:17), the Gergesene Demoniac story (Mark 5:1; cf. Matt. 8:28; Luke 8:26) and Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (Mark 5:21; cf. Matt. 9:18; Luke 8:40). The Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark to omit reference to the sea at the opening of these stories suggests that these references to the Sea of Galilee are Mark’s editorial contribution to these narratives. Note that even in the Gergesene Demoniac story, although Luke mentions “sailing” and describes Jesus stepping out “on the land” (Luke 8:26), thereby recognizing that Jesus had crossed a body of water, he avoided using the term θάλασσα (“sea”), which appears in Mark’s parallel (Mark 5:1). On the term θάλασσα in the Gospel of Luke, see Cadbury, Style, 186. ↩
• ^[17] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Mark’s Midrashic Technique.” ↩
• ^[18] In LXX παράγειν is the translation of הֶעֱבִיר in 1 Kgdms. 16:9, 10; 20:36; 2 Esd. 12:7; Eccl. 11:10. In 2 Esd. 9:2, the LXX translators seem to have mistakenly translated וְהִתְעָרְבוּ (“and they mingled”) with καὶ παρήχθη (“and it passed by”), perhaps confusing the Hebrew root ע-ר-ב with the root ע-ב-ר. ↩
• ^[19] In LXX ἐκεῖθεν occurs over 120xx, usually as the translation of מִשָּׁם (mishām, “from there”). See Hatch-Redpath, 1:427-428. ↩
• ^[20] Matthean instances of ἐκεῖθεν in TT that are unsupported in the Markan and Lukan parallels include Matt. 4:21 (cf. Mark 1:19; Luke 5:2); 9:9 (cf. Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27); 12:9 (cf. Mark 3:1; Luke 6:6); 12:15 (cf. Mark 3:7; Luke 6:17); 14:13 (cf. Mark 6:32; Luke 9:10). In verses unique to Matthew and Mark, Matthew has ἐκεῖθεν 2xx where it is unsupported in Mark’s parallel: Matt. 15:29 (cf. Mark 7:31); 19:15 (cf. Mark 10:16). Matthew twice uses ἐκεῖθεν in verses unique to his Gospel: Matt. 9:27; 11:1. See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:311-312. ↩
• ^[21] In LXX θεάσασθαι occurs in 2 Chr. 22:6 (= רָאָה); Jdt. 15:8; Tob. 2:2; 13:7, 16; 2 Macc. 2:4; 3:36; 3 Macc. 5:47. ↩
• ^[22] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:669-673. ↩
• ^[23] Note, however, that two of the instances of θεάσασθαι in Acts occur in its second half, where the author of Luke’s personal writing style comes to the fore. ↩
• ^[24] See Wm. O. Walker, “Jesus and the Tax Collectors,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97.2 (1978): 221-238, esp. 235. In the same article, Walker speculated that τελώνης (“toll collector”) might have entered the Gospel tradition as an erroneous transliteration of the Aramaic term טְלָנֵי (ṭ^elānē), which he suggests might have referred to the male counterpart of women prostitutes, either “playboy,” “pimp” or “male prostitute” (237). In this way, Walker suggests, an Aramaic accusation that Jesus was a friend of sinners and “playboys” eventually gave rise to Greek stories about Jesus befriending toll collectors. However, Walker offers no evidence that the term טְלָנֵי ever had any of the meanings he proposed. According to Jastrow (538), טְלָנֵי refers to “night demons” or “urchins,” coming from the verb טְלַל (ṭ^elal), meaning “to play.” Walker’s suggestion therefore strikes us as incredible. Moreover, if the Call of Levi story descended from a Hebrew source there was no opportunity for stories about Jesus’ association with toll collectors to arise in Greek oral tradition from a misunderstanding of an Aramaic accusation leveled against Jesus. ↩
• ^[25] On Roman taxation, see A. H. M. Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” in his The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History (ed. P. A. Brunt; Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974), 151-185; Graham Burton, “Government and the Provinces,” in The Roman World (ed. John Wacher; 2 vols.; London: Routledge, 1987), 1:423-439, esp. 426-429; P. A. Brunt, “The Revenues of Rome,” in his Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 324-346, 531-540. ↩
• ^[26] On the likelihood that Levi’s tolls were collected on behalf of Antipas rather than on behalf of Rome, see Manson, Luke, 54; Taylor, 203; Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” 45; Mann, 229; Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 212; Brunt, “Publicans in the Principate,” in his Roman Imperial Themes, 354-432, esp. 409; France, Matt., 351. ↩
• ^[27] On the taxes imposed by local cities, see Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983), 132. ↩
• ^[28] In Egypt only men were liable for the poll tax, while in Syria both men and women were liable for the poll tax. See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 165. ↩
• ^[29] See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 173. ↩
• ^[30] See Jos., Ant. 14:206; F. M. Heichelheim, “Roman Syria,” in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (ed. Tenney Frank et al.; 6 vols.; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933-1940), 4:121-257, esp. 235. ↩
• ^[31] See Burton, “Government and the Provinces,” 427; Brunt, “The Revenues of Rome,” 335. ↩
• ^[32] See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 174. ↩
• ^[33] On indebtedness as a social concern in the late Second Temple period, see Shimon Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:631-700, esp. 691-692); idem, “Judaea as a Roman Province; the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.8 (1977): 355-386, esp. 368-373; Brunt, “Josephus on Social Conflicts in Roman Judaea,” in his Roman Imperial Themes, 282-287, esp. 285; Martin Goodman, “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 417-427. Cf. Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L18-21. ↩
• ^[34] See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 165; Menahem Stern, “The Province of Judea” (Safrai-Stern, 1:308-376, esp. 332); Burton, “Government and the Provinces,” 427, 429; Brunt, “Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes,” in his Roman Imperial Themes, 267-287, esp. 270. ↩
• ^[35] See Burton, “Government and the Provinces,” 428. ↩
• ^[36] See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 166, 171, 181. ↩
• ^[37] On toll-collecting corporations, see Brunt, “Publicans in the Principate,” 360-376. ↩
• ^[38] See Jones, “Taxation in Antiquity,” 171; Burton, “Government and the Provinces,” 428; Brunt, “Publicans in the Principate,” 386. ↩
• ^[39] On the difficulty of appealing to the Roman government in cases of tax abuse, see Stephen R. Llewelyn, “Tax Collection and the τελῶναι of the New Testament,” in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (ed. Greg H. R. Horsley, Stephen R. Llewelyn et al.; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976-2012), 8:47-76, esp. 75. ↩
• ^[40] See Brunt, “Publicans in the Principate,” 378. ↩
• ^[41] For an introduction to rabbinic views of toll collectors, see Shmuel Safrai, “A Friend of Tax Collectors.” ↩
• ^[42] According to Ginzberg, the reference to the royal estate in m. Ned. 3:4 indicates that this ruling originated in the Second Temple period, since “king” refers to a Jewish king, whereas the emperor is uniformly referred to as Caesar in tannaic sources. See Louis Ginzberg, “The Significance of the Halachah for Jewish History,” in his On Jewish Law and Lore (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 77-124, 246-253, esp. 86-87. ↩
• ^[43] See Jastrow, 206, 741; Plummer, Luke, 159; Lawrence M. Wills, “Methodological Reflections on the Tax Collectors in the Gospels,” in When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Daniel Harrington, and Jacob Neusner; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1:251-266, esp. 252 n. 4; Harrison and Yamauchi, “Taxation,” 234. ↩
• ^[44] See Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” 39-61; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 212. ↩
• ^[45] See Jeremias, Theology, 111. ↩
• ^[46] For a different view, see Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, 131. ↩
• ^[47] For the text and English translation of the Palmyrian Tariff, see George A. Cooke, A Text-book of North Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 313-340. On the Palmyrian Tariff, see Kenneth Lönnqvist, “The Tax Law of Palmyra and the Introduction of the Roman Monetary System to Syria—A Re-Evaluation,” in Jebel Bishri in Context: Introduction to the Archaeological Studies and the Neighbourhood of Jebel Bishri in Central Syria (ed. Minna Lönnqvist; BAR International Series 1817; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008), 73-88, esp. 76. ↩
• ^[48] See Otto Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:88-105, esp. 99 n. 115. ↩
• ^[49] See Hawkins, 44; Plummer, Luke, 159. The ὀνόματι + proper name formula occurs once each in Mark and Matthew: Mark 5:22 (ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος; “Yairos by name”); Matt. 27:32 (ὀνόματι Σίμωνα; “Simon by name”). In Luke-Acts, by contrast, the ὀνόματι + proper name formula occurs frequently: Luke 1:5 (ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας; “Zacharias by name”); 5:27 (ὀνόματι Λευίν; “Levi by name”); 10:38 (ὀνόματι Μάρθα; “Martha by name”); 16:20 (ὀνόματι Λάζαρος; “Lazarus by name”); 23:50 (ὀνόματι Ἰωσήφ; “Joseph by name”); 24:18 (ὀνόματι Κλεοπᾶς; “Kleopas by name”); Acts 5:1 (Ἁνανίας ὀνόματι; “Ananias by name”); 5:34 (ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ; “Gamaliel by name”); 8:9 (ὀνόματι Σίμων; “Simon by name”); 9:10 (ὀνόματι Ἁνανίας; “Ananias by name”); 9:11 (Σαῦλον ὀνόματι; “Saul by name”); 9:12 (Ἁνανίαν ὀνόματι; “Ananias by name”); 9:33 (ὀνόματι Αἰνέαν; “Aeneas by name”); 9:36 (ὀνόματι Ταβιθά; “Tabitha by name”); 10:1 (ὀνόματι Κορνήλιος; “Cornelius by name”); 11:28 (ὀνόματι Ἅγαβος; “Agabus by name”); 12:13 (ὀνόματι Ῥόδη; “Roda by name”); 16:1 (ὀνόματι Τιμόθεος; “Timothy by name”); 16:14 (ὀνόματι Λυδία; “Lydia by name”); 17:34 (ὀνόματι Δάμαρις; “Damaris by name”); 18:2 (ὀνόματι Ἀκύλαν; “Aquila by name”); 18:7 (ὀνόματι Τιτίου Ἰούστου; “Titius Justus by name”); 18:24 (Ἀπολλῶς ὀνόματι; “Apollos by name”); 19:24 (Δημήτριος...ὀνόματι; “Demetrius...by name”); 20:9 (ὀνόματι Εὔτυχος; “Eutychus by name”); 21:10 (ὀνόματι Ἅγαβος; “Agabus by name”); 27:1 (ὀνόματι Ἰουλίῳ; “Julius by name”); 28:7 (ὀνόματι Ποπλίῳ; “Publius by name”). ↩
• ^[50] In LXX the ὀνόματι + proper name formula occurs in Tob. 6:11 (ὀνόματι Σαρρα; “Sarra by name”) and 4 Macc. 5:4 (ὀνόματι Ελεαζαρος; “Eleazar by name”). ↩
• ^[51] Other examples of καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ/αὐτῇ as the translation of וְשֵׁם + pronominal suffix + proper name are found in Judg. 13:2; 16:4; 17:1; Ruth 2:1; 1 Kgdms. 1:1; 9:1, 2; 21:8; 2 Kgdms. 4:4; 9:2, 12; 13:1, 3; 14:27; 16:5; 17:25; 20:1; 1 Chr. 2:26, 34; Esth. 2:5. ↩
• ^[52] Other examples of ᾧ/ᾗ ὄνομα + proper name as the translation of וְשֵׁם + pronominal suffix + proper name are found in Gen. 24:29; 25:1; 38:2, 6; Josh. 2:1. ↩
• ^[53] Examples of the transliteration Λευι are found in Gen. 29:34; 34:14, 25, 30; 35:23; 46:11; 49:5. ↩
• ^[54] The spelling Λευίς is also attested in Let. Aris. §48; Jos. Asen. 22:7, 9; 23:8, 9, 10, 15; 26:27; 27:6; 28:15; 29:3, 5, 6. ↩
• ^[55] See Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE—200 CE (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2002), 182-185. ↩
• ^[56] See Menahem Stern, “Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes” (Safrai-Stern, 2:561-630, esp. 599). ↩
• ^[57] On the role of the Levites in the Temple see Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple” (Safrai-Stern, 2:865-907, esp. 872); R. Steven Notley, Jerusalem: City of the Great King (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 93. ↩
• ^[58] The role of Temple singers is assigned to the Levites according to Jos., Ant. 20:216; m. Bik. 3:4; m. Rosh Hash. 4:4; m. Arach. 2:6; m. Mid. 2:5; m. Tam. 5:6; 7:3, 4. ↩
• ^[59] Levites are described as Temple musicians in 1 Chr. 23:5; m. Suk. 5:4; m. Mid. 2:6. ↩
• ^[60] Levites are described as Temple gatekeepers in 2 Chr. 34:13; Philo, Spec. 1:156; Jos., Ant. 9:155; m. Mid. 1:1. ↩
• ^[61] The role of bailiff (שׁוֹטֵר) is ascribed to the Levites in 2 Chr. 34:13; 1QM VII, 14, 16; Sifre Deut. §15 (ed. Finkelstein, 25). ↩
• ^[62] Levites appear as scribes in 2 Chr. 34:13. In addition, Bickerman identified the “scribes of the Temple” mentioned in an edict of Antiochus III preserved in Jos., Ant. 12:142 as Levites. See Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1988), 182. ↩
• ^[63] On the name Alphaeus, see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L37. ↩
• ^[64] See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[65] Bauckham notes that the names recorded in the Gospels are highly compatible with the known onomasticon of first-century Jewish names in the land of Israel. Such compatibility hardly could have been achieved if the names had been made up at a later date, or by individuals unfamiliar with first-century Jewish naming customs in Israel. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 73-74, 84. ↩
• ^[66] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:700-701. ↩
• ^[67] See Dos Santos 87. ↩
• ^[68] See Gould, 41; Plummer, Luke, 159; Taylor, 203. ↩
• ^[69] The translation “sittynge in a tolbothe” is found as early as John Wycliffe’s 1389 translation of the New Testament. ↩
• ^[70] On the other hand, Goodman suggested that ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον in Call of Levi refers to the תֵּיבַת הַמּוֹכְסִין (tēvat hamōch^esin; “the tēvāh of the toll collectors”) mentioned in rabbinic texts such as t. Bab. Kam. 10:22. See Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, 131. Goodman defines תֵּיבָה as “bench,” whereas the meaning is “chest” according to Jastrow (1643). ↩
• ^[71] See Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 109-110. Cf. Luz, 2:32. ↩
• ^[72] John P. Meier, “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Public Ministry?” Journal of Biblical Literature 116.4 (1997): 635-672, esp. 638 n. 8. ↩
• ^[73] See Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 111-112. Kiley proposed a third scenario, namely that the author of Matthew changed the name of Levi to Μαθθαῖος (Maththaios, “Matthew”) because to the ear it resembles the word μαθητής (mathētēs, “disciple”). By making this change the author of Matthew transformed the Call of Levi story into a universal calling paradigm for all would-be disciples. See Mark Kiley, “Why ‘Matthew’ in Matt 9,9-13?” Biblica 65 (1984): 347-351. Hagner (237), with whom we concur, writes: “Kiley’s suggestion that the name Matthew was picked up becaused it served as a symbol of learning-discipleship remains, without indication from the evangelist, ingenious speculation. The similarity between Μαθθαῖος and μαθητής is probably only coincidental.” ↩
• ^[74] On the description of the apostle Matthew as a toll collector in Matt. 10:3, see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L7 and L35. ↩
• ^[75] See Hawkins, 31. In Matthew we encounter the following examples:
  • Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (“Jesus, the one called Christ”; Matt. 1:16; 27:17, 22)
  • πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ (“a city called Nazareth”; Matt. 2:23)
  • Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (“Simon, the one called Peter”; Matt 4:18; 10:2)
  • ἄνθρωπον...Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον (“a person...called Matthew”; Matt. 9:9)
  • τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα (“of the high priest, the one called Caiaphas”; Matt. 26:3)
  • εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης (“one of the Twelve, the one called Judas Iscariot”; Matt. 26:14)
  • εἰς χωρίον λεγόμενον Γεθσημανί (“to a place called Gethsemane”; Matt. 26:36)
  • δέσμιον...λεγόμενον Βαραββᾶν (“a prisoner...called Barabbas”; Matt. 27:16)
  • εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Γολγοθᾶ (“to a place called Golgotha”; Matt. 27:33)
  • ὅ ἐστιν Κρανίου Τόπος λεγόμενος (“which is called Place of a Skull”; Matt. 27:33)

  By contrast, in Mark we find one example:

  • ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς (“the one called Barabbas”; Mark 15:7)

  In Luke we encounter two examples:

  • ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα (“the feast of unleavened bread, the one called Passover”; Luke 22:1)
  • ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ("the one called Judas, one of the Twelve"; Luke 22:47)

  ↩

• ^[76] On introducing a name with λεγόμενος in LXX, see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[77] See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[78] Among the scholars who regard “and leaving everything” as a secondary Lukan addition are Beare, Earliest, 78 §53; Fitzmyer, 1:590; Nolland, Luke, 1:245. ↩
• ^[79] On the necessity for full-time disciples to leave behind property and give up their means of support, see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L32. ↩
• ^[80] On the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes as the original continuation of the Call of Levi story, see above, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[81] In LXX καταλείπειν is the translation of הִנִּיחַ in Exod. 16:23, 24; Lev. 7:15; Num. 32:15; 2 Kgdms. 16:21; 2 Chr. 1:14; Isa. 65:15; Jer. 34[27]:11; 50[43]:6. ↩
• ^[82] See Trommii, 1:128-130; Hathch-Redpath, 1:102-105.^[212] We also find that the LXX translators typically rendered קָם as ἀνιστάναι,^[213] See Dos Santos, 181. ↩
• ^[83] See Dos Santos, 156. ↩
• ^[84] Examples in LXX where καί + participle + participle + aorist translates three successive vav-consecutives include:

  καὶ ἀποσκηνώσας Αβραμ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν παρὰ τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρη

  And moving his tent, Abram came and settled by the oak of Mambre.... (Gen. 13:18; NETS)

  וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא

  And Abram tented, and he came, and he dwelt among the oaks of Mamre.... (Gen. 13:18)

  καὶ σχίσας ξύλα εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν ἀναστὰς ἐπορεύθη

  And splitting wood for a whole burnt offering, rising, he [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] went.... (Gen. 22:3)

  וַיְבַקַּע עֲצֵי עֹלָה וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ

  And he [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] split whole burnt offering wood, and he rose, and he went.... (Gen. 22:3)

  καὶ σπεύσας Μωυσῆς κύψας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν προσεκύνησεν

  And quickly, bowing down to the earth, Moyses did obeisance. (Exod. 34:8; NETS)

  וַיְמַהֵר מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקֹּד אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ

  And Moses hastened, and he bowed down toward the earth, and he did obeisance. (Exod. 34:8)

  We also have an example of καί + participle + καί + participle + aorist as the translation of three successive vav-consecutives:

  καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Αμαληκ καὶ ἀναλαβὼν τὴν παραβολὴν αὐτοῦ εἶπεν

  And seeing Amalek, and taking up his parable, he [i.e., Balaam—DNB and JNT] said.... (Num. 24:20)

  וַיַּרְא אֶת עֲמָלֵק וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר

  And he [i.e., Balaam—DNB and JNT] saw Amalek, and he took up his parable, and he said.... (Num. 24:20; cf. Num. 24:21, 23)

  ↩

• ^[85] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups.” ↩
• ^[86] See, for example, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, “ΤΗ ΟΙΚΙΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ: Mark 1.15 in Context,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 282-292; David M. May, “Mark 2.15: The Home of Jesus or Levi?” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 147-149. ↩
• ^[87] On Matt. 8:20 // Luke 9:58, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple. ↩
• ^[88] For analogous examples of the unexpected use of titles, names and pronouns in the writings of Josephus due to the reworking of his sources, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Many Sources but a Single Author: Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities,” in A Companion to Josephus (ed. Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers; Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2016), 36-58, esp. 39, 42-44. ↩
• ^[89] Examples of καὶ ἐποίησεν + name + accusative as the translation of וַיַּעַשׂ + name + direct object include:

  καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα

  And God made the firmament.... (Gen. 1:7)

  וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָרָקִיעַ

  And God made the firmament.... (Gen. 1:7; cf. Gen. 1:16, 21, 25, 27)

  καὶ ἐποίησεν Βεσελεηλ τὴν κιβωτὸν

  And Beseleel made the ark. (Exod. 38:1; NETS)

  וַיַּעַשׂ בְּצַלְאֵל אֶת הָאָרֹן

  And Bezalel made the ark.... (Exod. 37:1)

  καὶ ἐποίησεν Μωυσῆς ὄφιν χαλκοῦν

  And Moses made a bronze snake.... (Num. 21:9)

  וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת

  And Moses made a serpent of bronze.... (Num. 21:9)

  ↩

• ^[90] In LXX δοχή is the translation of מִשְׁתֶּה in Gen. 21:8; 26:30; Esth. 1:3; 5:4, 5, 8, 12, 14. ↩
• ^[91] Other examples where ποιεῖν δοχήν is the translation of עָשָׂה מִשְׁתֶּה are found in Gen. 26:30; Esth. 1:3; 5:4, 8. ↩
• ^[92] The drinking of wine is mentioned in passing in an account of a rabbinic discussion that took place at a banquet recorded in Sifre Deut. §38 (ed. Finkelstein, 74-75). ↩
• ^[93] On the association of wine and rejoicing, note the following rabbinic statement regarding wine which was drunk on the pilgrimage festivals:

  מצוה על אדם לשמח בניו ובני ביתו ברגל. במה משמחן, ביין, דכת′ ויין ישמח לבב אנוש

  It is a mitzvah for a person to make his children and the members of his household rejoice on the pilgrimage festivals. With what does he make them rejoice? With wine, as it is written, And wine will make the heart rejoice [Ps. 104:15]. (t. Pes. 10:4; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[94] On this point, see below, Comment to L54. ↩
• ^[95] The point of the similes is that God wants his people to rejoice with him when the wicked repent. See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, under the subheading “Conclusion.” ↩
• ^[96] Additional examples of עָשָׂה + recipient + מִשְׁתֶּה are found in Gen. 19:3; 26:30. ↩
• ^[97] According to Lindsey, when the author of Matthew had parallel versions of a story in Mark and Anth., it was Matthew’s practice to weave the two sources together, thereby producing a hybrid version of the story that reflected the wording of Anth. at some points and of Mark at others. 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.” ↩
• ^[98] See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[99] Instances of καὶ ἐγένετο + gen. abs. are found in Exod. 40:17; 2 Kgdms. 6:16; 11:1; 13:30; 3 Kgdms. 12:24x; 13:20; 21:26; 4 Kgdms. 2:11; 8:5, 21; 13:21; 19:37; Jer. 33[26]:8; 48[41]:4, 7. And cf. Exod. 12:29; 1 Kgdms. 25:30; 30:1; Jer 43[36]:23 where gen. abs. is introduced with the analogous καὶ ἐγενήθη/ἐγενήθη δὲ. ↩
• ^[100] In LXX the phrase καὶ γίνεται occurs only 5xx: 1 Kgdms. 5:9; 14:1; 25:42; 2 Kgdms. 14:27; Prov. 24:31. The construction καὶ γίνεται + infinitive never occurs in LXX. ↩
• ^[101] On sitting as the customary eating position among the poor, see Baruch M. Bokser, Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 62, 130 n. 48; Blake Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 29-61, esp. 30-31. According to Josephus (J.W. 2:130), the Essenes sat while eating rather than reclining. Their adoption of the sitting posture at meals was probably a sign of their voluntary poverty and a result of their preference for simplicity. ↩
• ^[102] See Safrai-Safrai, 55. ↩
• ^[103] On "entering the Kingdom of Heaven" as a synonym for becoming a full-time disciple of Jesus, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L64-65; 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: Jesus’ Band of Itinerating Disciples.” ↩
• ^[104] For other examples where we have concluded that an FR version of a Lukan Doublet preserves the wording of Anth. more faithfully than the version the author of Luke copied directly from Anth., see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L68; Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L98, L109; Return of the Twelve, Comment to L2, L5, L6. ↩
• ^[105] See Joüon-Muraoka, 2:475-476 §130e, 543 §146f n. 1; Segal, 189 §385. ↩
• ^[106] In LXX ἁμαρτωλός is the translation of רָשָׁע in 2 Chr. 19:2; Ps. 3:8; 7:10; 9:17, 18, 24 [10:3], 25 [10:4], 36 [10:15]; 10[11]:2, 6; 27[28]:3; 31[32]:10; 33[34]:22; 35[36]:12; 36[37]:10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 32, 34, 40; 38[39]:2; 49[50]:16; 54[55]:4; 57[58]:4, 11; 67[68]:3; 70[71]:4; 72[73]:3, 12; 74[75]:9, 11; 81[82]:2, 4; 90[91]:8; 91[92]:8; 93[94]:3 (2xx), 13; 96[97]:10; 100[101]:8; 105[106]:18; 108[109]:2, 6; 111[112]:10; 118[119]:53, 61, 95, 110, 119, 155; 128[129]:4; 138[139]:19; 139[140]:5, 9; 140[141]:10; 144[145]:20; 145[146]:9; 146[147]:6; Prov. 24:19; Isa. 14:5; Ezek. 33:8, 19; Dan. 12:10 (2xx). In LXX ἁμαρτωλός is the translation of חַטָּא in Gen. 13:13; Num. 17:3; 32:14; 3 Kgdms. 1:21; Ps. 1:1, 5; 103[104]:35; Prov. 23:17; Amos 9:8, 10; Isa. 1:28; 13:9. ↩
• ^[107] In LXX, where ἁμαρτωλός is paired with δίκαιος, the word behind ἁμαρτωλός in the underlying Hebrew text is רָשָׁע in Ps. 7:10; 36[37]:12, 16, 17, 32; 124:3, whereas the underlying word is חַטָּא only in Ps. 1:5. ↩
• ^[108] The adjective חַטָּא occurs 19xx in MT: Gen. 13:13; Num. 17:3; 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:18; 1 Kgs. 1:21; Isa. 1:28; 13:9; 33:14; Amos 9:8, 10; Ps. 1:1, 5; 25:8; 26:9; 51:15; 104:35; Prov. 1:10; 13:21; 23:17. Of these, only in Amos 9:8 does חַטָּא occur in the singular. There is only one example of חַטָּא in the entire corpus of the Mishnah (m. Sanh. 10:3), and it, too, occurs in the plural form. The paucity of examples of חַטָּא for “sinner” in the Mishnah is another reason for seeking an alternative reconstruction for ἁμαρτωλός, such as רָשָׁע. ↩
• ^[109] Substantival uses of רָשָׁע in the singular form are found in MT numerous times. Examples from the five books of Moses include: Gen. 18:23, 25 (2xx); Exod. 2:13; 23:1, 7; Deut. 25:1. In the Mishnah רָשָׁע appears in the singular and as a substantive. Cf., e.g., m. Sot. 3:4; m. Avot 5:10; m. Neg. 12:5. ↩
• ^[110] See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, L33, L60. ↩
• ^[111] The likelihood that רְשָׁעִים stands behind ἁμαρτωλοί in the Call of Levi story has also been discussed by other scholars. According to Sanders, “Behind hamartōloi stands, almost beyond question, the Hebrew word resha‘im (or the Aramaic equivalent).” See E. P. Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 5-36, esp. 8. Cf. Swete, 41; Manson, Teaching, 324-325. ↩
• ^[112] According to Ilan, the use of am haaretz in the sense of non-haver was original. At a later point, although already in the tannaic period, am haaretz acquired a different meaning, namely, one who does not fulfill the Torah’s commandments due to ignorance or carelessness. See Ilan, Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamzion and Other Jewish Women (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 103. ↩
• ^[113] On Jesus as an am haaretz, see Eyal Regev, “Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31.2 (2000): 176-202, esp. 200. ↩
• ^[114] See Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” 11-14. ↩
• ^[115] See Davies-Allison, 2:101; Hagner, 238. ↩
• ^[116] See above, “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” Cf. Montefiore, 1:519. ↩
• ^[117] In other words, when Luke polished the Greek of Anth. he sometimes polished it even more than had the First Reconstructor. ↩
• ^[118] 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. 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 LXX translators supplied εἶναι. 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 (hinē, “behold”) and in Gen. 7:6 εἶναι occurs as the equivalent of בֶּן (ben, “son”) in the Hebrew idiom for stating a person’s age. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. LHNS, 135. ↩
• ^[120] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:274, 299-300. ↩
• ^[121] On inversion of word order as characteristic of Markan redaction, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[122] On dropping possessive pronouns to improve Greek style, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[123] The fact that in the Gospels and the writings of Josephus “Pharisee” is transliterated in precisely the same manner probably indicates that Φαρισαῖος was a term that was commonly used among Greek-speaking Jews to refer to the Pharisees. ↩
• ^[124] Undoubtedly the neutrality and specificity of the term Φαρισαῖος was due to its derivation from a foreign language. The baggage the term “Pharisee” had in Hebrew was not carried over into Greek. ↩
• ^[125] That the noun פָּרוּשׁ need not necessarily mean “Pharisee” is a point that was underscored by Rivkin. See Ellis Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources,” Hebrew Union College Annual 40-42 (1970): 205-249. ↩
• ^[126] Hence, according to t. Ber. 3:24, the sages ordained a malediction against the פְּרוּשִׁין (i.e., “schismatics”), which was to be included among the Eighteen Benedictions. Compare Hillel’s dictum, אַל תִּיפְרוֹשׁ מִן הַצִּיבּוּר (“Do not separate from the public”; m. Avot 2:4), and the rabbinic condemnations of those who separate from the public (פּוֹרְשֵׁי מִדַרֵי צִבּוּר) described in Seder Olam chpt. 3 (ed. Guggenheimer, 42); Semahot 2:8. ↩
• ^[127] There are rare examples of פָּרוּשׁ used in a positive sense in rabbinic sources, for example:

  כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם קדושים. כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם היו פרושים

  Just as I [i.e., the LORD—DNB and JNT] am holy, so you must be holy. Just as I am set apart [פרוש], so you must be set apart. (Sifra, Shemini perek 12 [ed. Weiss, 57a])

  It is clear from the context, however, that this statement has nothing to do with the Pharisees, and the separation that is envisioned in this statement is not from the body of the Jewish people, as in the case of schismatics; the separation encouraged here is rather that of Israel from the Gentiles. ↩

• ^[128] On this point, see David Flusser, “Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata; Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 80-109, esp. 88-89; idem, “4QMMT and the Benediction Against the Minim” (Flusser, JSTP1, 70-118, esp. 99). ↩
• ^[129] See, for example, m. Yad. 4:6-8, where we repeatedly find the refrain קוֹבְלִין אֲנוּ עֲלֵיכֶן פָּרוּשִׁין (“We complain against you, O Pharisees...”). In one rabbinic text (b. Kid. 66a) we find “Pharisees” used as a synonym for “the sages of Israel,” but even in this case “Pharisee” is found only on the lips of their enemies. Likewise, the advice attributed to King Yannai regarding the Pharisees (“Do not be afraid of the Pharisees, or of those who are not Pharisees, but of the painted ones who seem like Pharisees, whose deeds are like the deed of Zimri, but who seek the reward of Phineas”; b. Sot. 22b) may have been a bit of Pharisaic propaganda, as Ilan and Noam suggest, but the fact remains that the term “Pharisee” is placed on the lips of the Sadducean high priest. The sages did not willingly use this term to refer to themselves.

  On the issues of dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees in m. Yad. 4:6-8, see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 157-170; Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Pharisees and Sadducees in the Mishnah: From Composition Criticism to History,” in Judaistik und nuetestamentliche Wissenschaft (ed. Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 133-145, esp. 137-140. On the baraita in b. Kid. 66a, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, "Introduction to 'The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction' Addendum: Linguistic Features of the Baraita in b. Kid. 66a," and the literature cited there. On Yannai’s advice concerning the Pharisees in b. Sot. 22b, see Tal Ilan and Vered Noam, “Remnants of a Pharisaic Apologetic Source in Josephus and in the Babylonian Talmud,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (ed. Menahem Kister, Hillel I. Newman, Michael Segal, and Ruth A. Clements; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 112-133, esp. 127-131. ↩

• ^[130] Rabbi Yehoshua, for example, voiced critical remarks regarding Pharisees:

  חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה רָשָׁע עָרוּם אִשַּׁה פְרוּשָׁה מַכֹּת פְּרוּשִׁים הָרֵי אֵילּוּ מְכַלֵּי{ה} עוֹלָם

  A foolish Hasid, a wicked person who is clever, a Pharisaic woman, the injuries of the Pharisees: these destroy the world. (m. Sot. 3:4)

  On Rabbi Yehoshua’s disparaging remarks, see Tal Ilan, “The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism During the Second Temple Period,” Harvard Theological Review 88.1 (1995): 1-33, esp. 9-11; idem, Silencing the Queen, 74-97.

  Likewise critical are the various enumerations of the seven kinds of Pharisee found in rabbinic sources:

  ז′ פרושים הם. פרוש שכמי. פרוש קוזי. פרוש מדוכיא. פרוש נקפי. פרוש (ארנע חובות) [אדע חובותי]. פרוש יראה כאיוב. פרוש אהבה כאברהם

  There are seven kinds of Pharisee: A shoulder Pharisee, a qvzy Pharisee, a mdvky’ Pharisee, a nqpy Pharisee, a “Make known to me my debt” Pharisee, a Pharisee of fear, like Job, and a Pharisee of love, like Abraham. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 45 [ed. Schechter, 124]; cf. Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 37:4 [ed. Schechter, 109]; y. Ber. 9:5 [67a]; b. Ber. 14b; b. Sot. 22a)

  Some of the types of Pharisee enumerated are obscure, and we have left these untranslated. Rivkin (“Defining the Pharisees,” 240) disputed the identification of the פְּרוּשִׁים in these lists with the Pharisees, but Flusser (JSTP1, 103) demonstrated the similarity between these lists and Jesus’ seven woes against the Pharisees, suggesting that Jesus knew an earlier form of this critique in which all seven stereotypes were negative. If Flusser is correct, then there can be little doubt that פְּרוּשִׁים in these lists refers to Pharisees. ↩

• ^[131] Another factor to consider is whether the author of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua used the term פָּרוּשׁ in the same way that Jesus had used it. It is possible, moreover, that פָּרוּשׁ was used in different ways in different contexts. ↩
• ^[132] Flusser (JSTP1, 100) supposed that “Pharisee” gained a wider currency among first-century Hebrew speakers than just among the opponents of the sages. ↩
• ^[133] If it is impossible to imagine using פְּרוּשִׁים without polemical overtones, then it is tempting to consider whether a word such as פָּרוֹשִׁים (pārōshim) occurred in the conjectured Hebrew Ur-text. Baumgarten suggested that the pre-70 C.E. sages may have called themselves פָּרוֹשִׁים (“specifiers”) in reference to the exactitude and specificity of their interpretation of Torah, speculating that this was the original name of the Pharisees and that their opponents twisted their name to mean “separatists.” Alternatively, Baumgarten suggests that “specifiers” could have been an attempt to put a positive spin on a derogatory name. See Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102.3 (1983): 411-428. We have not accepted this suggestion for HR, first because we agree with Flusser’s surmise that פְּרוּשִׁים came to be used by non-Pharisees in a neutral sense, and second because there are no examples in Hebrew sources where the sages definitely refer to themselves as פָּרוֹשִׁים. ↩
• ^[134] See Ellis Rivkin, “Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity,” Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978): 135-142. ↩
• ^[135] See Daniel R. Schwartz, “‘Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites’: Who are the ‘Scribes’ in the New Testament?” in his Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 89-101. ↩
• ^[136] See Dos Santos, 144, 207. In LXX γραμματεύς translates שׁוֹטֵר in Exod. 5:6, 10, 14, 15, 19; Num. 11:16; Deut. 20:5, 8, 9; Josh. 1:10; 3:2; 8:33; 23:2; 24:1; 1 Chr. 23:4; 27:1; 2 Chr. 19:11. In LXX γραμματεύς translates סוֹפֵר in 2 Kgdms. 8:17; 20:25; 3 Kgdms. 4:3; 4 Kgdms. 12:11; 18:18, 37; 19:2; 22:3, 8, 10, 12; 25:19; 1 Chr. 2:55; 18:16; 24:6; 27:32; 2 Chr. 24:11; 26:11; 34:13, 15, 18, 20; 2 Esd. 7:6, 11; 18:1, 4, 9, 13; 22:26, 36; 23:13; Esth. 3:12; 8:9; Ps. 44[45]:2; Isa. 36:3, 22; 37:2; Jer. 8:8; 43[36]:10, 12 (2xx), 23; 44[37]:15, 20; 52:25. ↩
• ^[137] The author of Matthew pairs γραμματεῖς with Φαρισαῖοι 10xx in his Gospel: 9xx he mentions γραμματεῖς before Φαρισαῖοι (Matt. 5:20; 12:38; 23:2, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29); he places γραμματεῖς subsequent to Φαρισαῖοι on only one occasion (Matt. 15:1; cf. Mark 7:1). The author of Mark associates γραμματεῖς with Φαρισαῖοι 3xx (Mark 2:16; 7:1, 5): in two of these instances Pharisees are mentioned first (Mark 7:1, 5). In the Gospel of Luke γραμματεῖς are paired with Φαρισαῖοι 5xx: γραμματεῖς are named first in Luke 5:21; 6:7; 11:53; Pharisees are mentioned first in Luke 5:30 and 15:2, and these two instances, as we have seen, are two versions of the same story. ↩
• ^[138] On the expression דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים in rabbinic sources, see Shmuel Safrai, “Halakha,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; CRINT II.3; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:121-209, esp. 151. ↩
• ^[139] Tefillin are among the artifacts discovered at Qumran. In addition, the wearing of tefillin is attested in the Letter of Aristeas §158-160 and in Matt. 23:5. ↩
• ^[140] See Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees,” 231-232; idem, “Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites,” 141. The dual attribution of the ritual impurity of the hands to the scribes and to the Pharisees in rabbinic literature led Rivkin to conclude that the scribes are identical to the Pharisees. ↩
• ^[141] Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the irony of referring to the champions of the traditions of the fathers that were specifically not written down as “scribes.” See, for instance, the comments of Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1988), 163. ↩
• ^[142] See Robert L. Lindsey, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” thesis 7. ↩
• ^[143] On the interrogative sense of ὅτι in Mark 2:16, see Taylor, 206; Moule, 159. ↩
• ^[144] On ὅτι as an interrogative in Luke 15:2, 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. 424-425; Jeremias, Parables, 39. ↩
• ^[145] On interrogative ὅτι in Mark, see Edwin A. Abbott, The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901), 76; Hawkins, 35; C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1925): 58-62. ↩
• ^[146] In LXX διὰ τί translates מַדּוּעַ in Exod. 5:14; 18:14; Lev. 10:17; Num. 12:8; 16:3; Josh. 17:14; Judg. 5:28 (2xx); 3 Kgdms. 1:6; 2 Chr. 24:6; 2 Esd. 12:2, 3; 23:11, 21; Job 18:3; 21:4, 7; 24:1; 33:13; Isa. 63:2; Jer. 2:14, 31; 8:5, 19, 22; 13:22; 26[46]:15; 30[49]:17[1]; 39[32]:3; 43[36]:29. In LXX διὰ τί is used to translate לָמָּה in Exod. 2:13; 5:22; Num. 11:11; 22:37; Josh. 9:22; 1 Kgdms. 26:15; Ps. 41[42]:10; Job 3:11; 7:20; 13:24; 19:22; Jer. 36[29]:27. In Job 9:29 διὰ τί translates לָמָּה זֶּה. ↩
• ^[147] Examples of מִפְּנֵי מָה in the Mishnah include m. Shab. 16:1; m. Yev. 14:1; m. Edu. 1:14; m. Avod. Zar. 2:5. ↩
• ^[148] See Gen. 25:22, 32; 32:30; 33:15; Exod. 17:3; Josh. 7:10; Judg. 13:18; 1 Kgdms. 26:18; 2 Kgdms. 12:23; 18:22; Amos 5:18; Jer. 20:18. ↩
• ^[149] See Segal, 141. ↩
• ^[150] Flusser, Jesus, 101 n. 22; cf. Young, Parables, 196 n. 26. ↩
• ^[151] Flusser, “Jesus’ Opinion about the Essenes” (Flusser, JOC, 150-168, esp. 165 n. 39). ↩
• ^[152] Flusser, Jesus, 101 n. 22. ↩
• ^[153] On the reasons for this unusual description of Rabbi Zera’s appearance, see Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Ze‘era,” JE, 12:651-652. ↩
• ^[154] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L95-96. ↩
• ^[155] The scholars who suggest that ritual purity was a main cause of the Pharisees’ concern include Manson, Luke, 55; Marshall, 219; Chana Safrai, “Jesus and his Disciples: The Beginnings of their Organization,” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 95-108, esp. 98; Witherington, 200. ↩
• ^[156] Manson (Luke, 55) mentions tithes as one of the issues that concerned the Pharisees in the Call of Levi story. ↩
• ^[157] Scholars who suppose that the food Jesus ate was a cause of concern include France, Mark, 134; Marcus, 227. ↩
• ^[158] Whether the Pharisees did strive to achieve a higher level of ritual purity than the Torah demands depends in part on whether the haverim described in rabbinic sources were identical to the Pharisees. This is a point that is disputed among scholars. For a recent argument in favor of this identification, see Ilan, Silencing the Queen, 101. On religious and social reasons that made achieving a high degree of purity an important goal for some Pharisees, see Regev, “Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism,” 192-199. ↩
• ^[159] As Rivkin noted, “The halaka no more requires one to be a ḥaver than a nazirite, but once one underakes the role, the halaka spells out the halakic consequences.” See Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees,” 245. ↩
• ^[160] Being a sinner did not make someone particularly likely to be impure, since sin did not, according to biblical and Pharisaic halachah, make a person impure. Ritual impurity, especially as it was understood by the Pharisees and their rabbinic successors, had practically zero correlation to morality. ↩
• ^[161] On this point, see Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” 13. ↩
• ^[162] Jeremias, Theology, 111. In his commentary on Mark, France wrote that “J. Jeremias has argued that the Jewish τελώνης, unlike the collector of the poll tax, was not obligated to enter unclean houses and therefore was not technically unclean in a ritual sense, so that to enter Levi’s house put Jesus’ moral standing rather than his ritual purity in question. It may be doubted, however, how far most people (even most scribes?) saw this as a significant distinction” (France, Mark, 133). We find France’s assessment to be incomprehensible, for if anyone could be expected to make fine distinctions with respect to purity it was surely the scribes. Klawans has shown that Scripture makes a clear distinction between ritual impurity and the moral desecration of an individual caused by sin. Whereas ritual impurity is natural, unavoidable and communicable, the moral desecration caused by sin is voluntary and non-transferable. Klawans also shows that the early rabbinic sages in particular compartmentalized the concepts of ritual and moral impurity. As Klawans writes, “In tannaitic literature, sinners are not ritually defiling unless they have been struck with...an affliction [such as leprosy—DNB and JNT].” See Jonathan Klawans, “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” Journal of Jewish Studies 48.1 (1997): 1-16, quotation on 12. For an introduction to the ancient Jewish concept of ritual purity, see Joshua N. Tilton, “A Goy’s Guide to Ritual Purity.” ↩
• ^[163] See David Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message” (Flusser, Judaism, 469-489); idem, Jesus, 101. More recently, Regev has suggested that Jesus’ openness toward sinners was a strategy for eliminating the dangerous effects of moral impurity by inviting sinners to repent. See Eyal Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology,” Harvard Theological Review 97:4 (2004): 383-411, esp. 402-409. ↩
• ^[164] On the relationship of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s instruction to the Two Ways doctrine, see Sandt-Flusser, 174-176; David Flusser, “‘Which Is the Straight Way That a Man Should Choose for Himself?’ (m. Avot 2.1)” (Flusser, JSTP2, 232-247). ↩
• ^[165] On Hillel as a Pharisee, see Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 44. On Hananiah the prefect of the priests as a Pharisee, see Flusser, Judaism, 477. ↩
• ^[166] For a discussion of Pharisees and legalism, see Jack Poirier, “Were the Pharisees ‘Legalistic’?” ↩
• ^[167] Examples of וַיַּעַן followed by וַיֹּאמֶר are found in Gen. 18:27; 24:50; 27:37, 39; 31:31, 36, 43; 40:18; Exod. 4:1; 24:3; Num. 11:28; 22:18; 23:12, 26; Josh. 7:20; 24:16; Judg. 7:14; 20:4; 1 Sam. 1:17; 4:17; 9:19, 21; 10:12; 14:28; 16:18; 20:32; 21:5, 6; 22:9, 14; 23:4; 25:10; 26:6, 14, 22; 29:9; 30:22; 2 Sam. 4:9; 13:32; 14:18; 15:21; 19:22, 44; 20:20; 1 Kgs. 1:28, 36, 43; 2:22; 3:27; 13:6; 18:24; 20:4, 11; 2 Kgs. 3:11; 7:2, 13, 19; Isa. 21:9; Joel 2:19; Amos 7:14; Hab. 2:2; Hag. 2:14; Zech. 1:10, 12; 3:4; 4:5, 6; 6:5; Job 1:7, 9; 2:2, 4; 3:2; 4:1; 6:1; 8:1; 9:1; 11:1; 12:1; 15:1; 16:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1; 21:1; 22:1; 23:1; 25:1; 26:1; 32:6; 34:1; 35:1; 38:1; 40:1, 6; 42:1; Ruth 2:6, 11; Ezra 10:2; 1 Chr. 12:18; 2 Chr. 29:31; 34:15. ↩
• ^[168] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:133-134. ↩
• ^[169] See Dos Santos, 158. ↩
• ^[170] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1474. ↩
• ^[171] See Even-Shoshan, Concordance, 995. ↩
• ^[172] Text and translation according to Frank Cole Babbit et al., trans., Plutarch: Moralia (Loeb Classical Library; 16 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-2004), 3:382-383.

  Other Hellenistic parallels to Jesus’ saying include the following:

  οὐδεπώποτε γοῦν ὤφθη κεκραγὼς ἢ ὑπερδιατεινόμενος ἢ ἀγανακτῶν, οὐδ᾽εἰ ἐπιτιμᾶν τῳ δέοι, ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἁμαρτημάτων καθήπτετο, τοῖς δὲ ἁμαρτάνουσι συνεγίνωσκεν, καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα παρὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν ἠξίου λαμβάνειν τὰ μὲν νοσήματα ἰωμένων, ὀργῇ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς νοσοῦντας οὐ χρωμένων

  He [i.e., Demonax—DNB and JNT] never was known to make an uproar or to excite himself or get angry, even if he had to rebuke someone; though he assailed sins, he forgave sinners, thinking that one should pattern after doctors, who heal sickness but feel no anger at the sick. (Lucian [mid-second century C.E.], Demonax §7; Loeb)

  ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτ᾽ἐπὶ τῷ πονηροῖς συγγενέσθαι, καὶ οἱ ἰατροί φησί μετὰ τῶν νοσούντων εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽οὐ πυρέττουσιν.

  One day when he [i.e., Antisthenes—DNB and JNT] was censured for keeping company with evil men, the reply he made was, “Well, physicians are in attendance on their patients without getting the fever themselves.” (Diogenes Laertius [third cent. C.E.], Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6:6; Loeb)

  Text and translation of Lucian according to K. Kilburn et al., trans., Lucian (Loeb Classical Library; 8 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933-1967), 1:146-147. Text and translation of Diogenes Laertius according to R. D. Hicks, trans., Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Loeb Classical Library; 2 vols.; New York: Putnam, 1925), 2:6-9.

  On Hellenistic parallels to Jesus’ saying, see Boring-Berger-Colpe, 75. ↩

• ^[173] See Randall Buth, “Evaluating Luke’s Unnatural Greek: A Look at His Connectives,” in Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn (ed. Steven E. Runge; Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 335-369, esp. 351. ↩
• ^[174] The Hebrew verb שָׁב (shāv) can mean either “return” or “repent,” and in the hif‘il stem could be understood to mean either “restore” or “cause to repent.” ↩
• ^[175] See David Hill, “On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI. 6 in Matthew’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 24.1 (1977): 107-119; Hagner, 237; Luz, 2:33. ↩
• ^[176] See Hill, “On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI. 6 in Matthew’s Gospel,” 110. ↩
• ^[177] See Preparations for Eating the Passover Lamb, Comment to L13-14. Examples of participle + imperative as the translation of double imperatives include:

  קְחוּ וָלֵכוּ

  ...take and leave. (Gen. 42:33)

  λαβόντες ἀπέλθατε

  ...taking, leave. (Gen. 42:33)

  מַהֲרוּ וַעֲלוּ אֶל אָבִי

  Make haste and go up to my father.... (Gen. 45:9)

  σπεύσαντες οὖν ἀνάβητε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου

  Hastening, therefore, go up to my father.... (Gen. 45:9)

  לְכוּ זִבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם

  Go, sacrifice to your God.... (Exod. 8:21)

  Ἐλθόντες θύσατε τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν

  Going, sacrifice to your God.... (Exod. 8:21)

  מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן

  Go and take sheep for yourselves.... (Exod. 12:21)

  Ἀπελθόντες λάβετε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς πρόβατον

  Going, take a sheep for yourselves.... (Exod. 12:21)

  בֹּאוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ

  Enter and possess the land.... (Deut. 1:8)

  εἰσπορευθέντες κληρονομήσατε τὴν γῆν

  Entering, possess the land.... (Deut. 1:8)

  עֲלֵה רֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יי אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ

  Go up, possess, just as the LORD the God of your fathers spoke to you. (Deut. 1:21)

  ἀναβάντες κληρονομήσατε, ὃν τρόπον εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν ὑμῖν

  Going up, possess, in the manner that the Lord the God of your fathers said to you. (Deut. 1:21)

  פְּנוּ וּלְכוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם

  ...turn and go to your tents.... (Josh. 22:4)

  ἀποστραφέντες ἀπέλθατε εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ὑμῶν

  ...turning back, go away to your houses.... (Josh. 22:4)

  בֹּאוּ הַכּוּם

  Enter, strike them. (2 Kgs. 10:25)

  Εἰσελθόντες πατάξατε αὐτούς

  Entering, strike them. (4 Kgdms. 10:25)

  ↩

• ^[178] Examples of הָלַךְ with לָמַד include:

  האחין שנטל אחד מהן מאתים זוז, והלך ללמוד תורה

  If there were brothers and one of them took two hundred zuz and went to learn Torah.... (t. Bab. Bat. 10:4; Vienna MS)

  רבי יהודה בן אילעי אומר אדם שמת והניח בן ולא למד תורה מאביו והלך ולמד תורה מאחרים הרי [זה] חנופה מבקש

  Rabbi Yehudah ben Ilai says, “A man who died and left behind a son who did not learn Torah from his father, and he [i.e., the son] went and learned from others—behold, this is one who seeks flattery.” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 26:6 [ed. Schechter, 83])

  לֵךְ וּלְמַד תּוֹרָתָן וְאַל תִּמּוֹל

  Go and learn their Torah, but do not be circumcised. (Exod. Rab. 30:12 [ed. Merkin, 6:45])

  ↩

• ^[179] This reconstruction was already suggested by Gill, 7:91. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 1:499; Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 129; Hill, “On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI. 6 in Matthew’s Gospel,” 111; Kiley, “Why ‘Matthew’ in Matt 9, 9-13?” 349; Luz, 2:34 n. 41. Hagner (239) refers to צא ולמד as an Aramaic formula without noting that צא ולמד is also equally Hebrew. Examples of יָצָא with לָמַד include:

  צא ולמד משלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרש בהן

  Go out and learn from the thirteen rules of exegesis by which the Torah is interpreted. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BaḤodesh chpt. 8 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:334])

  ר′ נתן אומר אין לך כל מצוה ומצוה שבתורה שאין מתן שכרה בצדה צא ולמד ממצות ציצית

  Rabbi Natan says: “There is not a single mitzvah in the Torah that does not give its reward in its wake. Go out and learn from the commandment of the tzitzit [i.e., fringes—DNB and JNT]...." (Sifre Num. §115 [ed. Horovitz, 128])

  צא ולמד ממשה, אבי חכמה, אבי הנביאים, שהוציא ישראל ממצרים ועל ידו נעשו כמה נסים במצרים, ונפלאות בארץ חם נוראות על ים סוף ועלה לשמי מרום והוריד תורה מן השמים

  Go out and learn from Moses, the father of wisdom, the father of the prophets, who brought Israel out from Egypt and by whose hand so many miracles were performed in Egypt, and wonders in the land of Ham, and dreadful works by the Red Sea, and who ascended to the highest heavens and brought down the Torah from heaven.... (Lev. Rab. 1:15 [ed. Margulies, 1:32-33])

  ↩

• ^[180] Examples of מָה הוּא and its contraction מָהוּ in exegetical contexts include:

  יי אלהי צבאות מי כמוך חסין יה מהו צבאות אות הוא בתוך צבא שלו

  O LORD God of hosts [צְבָאוֹת], who is mighty like you, O LORD? [Ps. 89:9]. What is [the meaning of] “hosts” [צְבָאוֹת]? He is a sign [אוֹת] in the midst of his host [צָבָא]. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata chpt. 1 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:175])

  לא אמרו איה יי המעלה אותנו מארץ מצרים המוליך אותנו במדבר בארץ ערבה ושוחה בארץ ציה וצלמות מהו צלמות מקום צל ועמו מות

  They did not say, “Where is the LORD who brought us up from the land of Egypt and led us in the wilderness in a land of desert and pits, a land of dryness and צַלְמָוֶת [tzalmāvet]?” [Jer. 2:6]. What is [the meaning of] צַלְמָוֶת? A place of shadow [צֵל], and with it, death [מָוֶת]. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ chpt. 1 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:224])

  עורי צפון זו העולה שהיתה נשחטת בצפון, מה הוא עורי דבר שהיה ישן ומתעורר

  Awake, O north wind! [Song 4:16]: this is the whole burnt offering that was slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. And what is [the meaning of] "Awake"? A thing that was asleep and that awakes. (Gen. Rab. 22:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:208])

  הן אראלם צעקו חוצה, מהו חוצה רבי עזריה אמר חוצה חיצה

  Behold, their mighty ones shout outside [חוּצָה] [Isa. 33:7]. What is [the meaning of] חוּצָה? Rabbi Azariah said, “Strange [חִיצָה].” (Gen. Rab. 56:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:600])

  וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחר וגו′ מהו אחר, אמר ר′ יודן אחר כל המעשים ישראל נאחזים בעבירות ומסתבכין בצרות וסופן להיגאל בקרניו שלאיל וי″י אלהים בשופר יתקע וגו′‏

  And Abraham raised his eyes and looked and behold: A ram is behind [אַחַר] him! [Gen. 22:13]. What is [the meaning of] אַחַר [“behind,” “after”]? Rabbi Yudan said, “After [אַחַר] all the things that happened [in Scripture], Israel is still caught in sins and subject to hardships, but their destiny is to be redeemed by the horns of the ram, [as it is said,] And the LORD God will sound the ram’s horn, etc. [Zech. 9:14]." (Gen. Rab. 56:9 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:605])

  וידר יעקב נדר לאמר וגו′.... מהו לאמר לאמר לדורות כדי שיהיו נודרין בעת צרתן

  And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, etc. [Gen. 28:20]. What is [the meaning of] “saying”? “Saying” to the generations to come that it is advisable to make vows in a time of their distress. (Gen. Rab. 70:1 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:799])

  ויכו בהם אביה ועמו מכה רבה מהו מכה רבה ר′ אבא בר כהנא אמ′ העביר הכרת פניהם

  And Aviyah and his people struck them with a mighty blow [2 Chr. 13:17]. What is [the meaning of] “a mighty blow”? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, “[It means that] he disfigured their faces.” (Lev. Rab. 33:5 [ed. Margulies, 2:763])

  ↩

• ^[181] Robert H. Gundry, The use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With special reference to the Messianic hope (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 111. ↩
• ^[182] See Nolland, Matt., 387. ↩
• ^[183] In LXX the perfect form ἐλήλυθα is found only in 2 Macc. 14:7, an original Greek composition. ↩
• ^[184] Schweizer (226) suggests that the author of Matthew added γάρ in order to stress that Jesus’ actions were a fulfillment of Hos. 6:6. ↩
• ^[185] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:712-716. ↩
• ^[186] See Dos Santos, 185. ↩
• ^[187] See Tomson, If This Be, 134. ↩
• ^[188] On Jesus’ self-perception as God’s emissary, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Jesus the Apostle,” and the literature cited there. ↩
• ^[189] See Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L77. ↩
• ^[190] Examples of δίκαιος as the translation of צַדִּיק include Gen. 6:9; 7:1; 18:23, 24, 25, 26, 28; 20:4. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:330-332. ↩
• ^[191] Cf. Albright-Mann, 106. In MT צַדִּיק is paired with רָשָׁע in Gen. 18:23, 25 (2xx); 2 Sam. 4:11; Isa. 5:23; Ezek. 21:8, 9; Hab. 1:4, 13; Mal. 3:18; Ps. 1:6; 7:10; 11:5; 34:22; 37:12, 16, 17, 21, 32; 75:11; Prov. 3:33; 10:3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 20, 25, 28; 11:23; 12:5, 12, 21, 26; 13:5, 9; 14:19; 15:29; 17:15; 18:5; 21:12, 18; 24:15, 16; 25:26; 28:1; 29:7, 16, 27; Eccl. 3:17; 9:2. Examples of the pairing of צַדִּיק with רָשָׁע in the Mishnah include m. Sanh. 6:5; 10:3, 5; m. Avot 1:8; 4:15; m. Neg. 12:5. ↩
• ^[192] Among the scholars who regard εἰς μετάνοιαν in Luke 5:32 as a Lukan addition are Bultmann, 92; Taylor, 207; Knox, 1:14 n. 1; Bundy, 145; Beare, Earliest, 78 §53; Marshall, 221; Fitzmyer, 1:592; Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” 6; Nolland, Luke, 1:146-247; Marcus, 1:228. ↩
• ^[193] See Sanders, “Jesus and Judaism,” 23-27. For a discussion of Sanders’ view, see Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity,” 402-403. ↩
• ^[194] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L95-96. ↩
• ^[195] On Jesus’ expectation that literal debt forgiveness would be practiced among his followers, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[196] On “enter the Kingdom of Heaven” as a technical term for becoming a full-time member of Jesus’ traveling school of disciples, see 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: Jesus’ Band of Itinerating Disciples.” ↩
• ^[197] For Jesus’ scathing remarks toward certain Pharisees who blocked people’s entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, see Matt. 23:13 (cf. Luke 11:52). ↩
• ^[198] See David N. Bivin, “Hebraisms in the New Testament,” reissued from Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (ed. Geoffrey Khan; 4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2:198-201. ↩
• ^[199] The noun μετάνοια occurs in Pr. Man. 8 (2xx); Prov. 14:15; Wis. 11:23; 12:10, 19; Sir. 44:16. ↩
• ^[200] See Shmuel Safrai, “Oral Tora,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; 2 vols.; CRINT II.3; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:35-119, esp. 108-111. Cf. Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 1:462. ↩
• ^[201] Further examples include:

  לֹא הָיוּ אוֹפִין אֶת פִּתָּן גְּרִיצוֹת אֶלָּא רְקִיקִים

  They did not bake their bread in large loaves, but in small cakes. (m. Betz. 2:6; m. Edu. 3:10)

  חבר שמת והניח בנים חברים ועמי הארץ לא יוריש טהרותיו לעמי הארץ אלא לחברים בלבד

  A haver who died and left behind sons who were haverim and sons who were ame haaretz: they do not cause his pure foods to be inherited by the ame haaretz, but the haverim alone. (t. Dem. 6:8)

  המוכר הבית לא מכר את החצר אלא אוירה של חצר

  The one who sells the house does not sell the courtyard, but the open space of the courtyard. (t. Bab. Bat. 3:1; Vienna MS)

  לא היו קוברין אותו בקברות אבותיו אלא בקברות בית דין

  They did not bury him in the tombs of his fathers, but in the tombs of the bet din. (t. Sanh. 9:8 [ed. Zuckermandel, 429])

  לא אותה בנה אלא אחרת בנה

  He did not build the same city, rather he built another one. (t. Sanh. 14:10; Vienna MS)

  רצועה לא היתה ארוכה אלא קצרה

  The lash was not long, but short. (t. Mak. 5:15; Vienna MS)

  לא היה טוחנן ברחים אלא כותשן במכתשת לא היה טוחנן בקורה אלא באבנים

  They did not grind them [i.e., olives—DNB and JNT] in a mill, but crushed them in a press. They did not grind them with a beam, but with stones. (t. Men. 9:6; Vienna MS)

  לא בעבדי דברתם אלא בי דברתם

  Not in my favor did you speak, but against me you spoke. (Sifre Num. §103 [ed. Horovitz, 102])

  לא פדאם לשום בנים אלא לשום עבדים

  He did not redeem them to be sons, but to be slaves. (Sifre Num. §115 [ed. Horovitz, 127])

  לא שמעה כל בריה אלא המקום בלבד

  The whole creation did not hear it, but the Omnipresent one alone. (Sifre Deut. §1 [ed. Finkelstein, 5])

  לא נגלה עליהם מרוח אחת אלא מארבע רוחות

  He did not appear to them from one wind, but from four winds. (Sifre Deut. §314 [ed. Finkelstein, 356])

  לא בלשון אחד נגלה אלא בארבעה לשונות

  It was not revealed in one language, but in four languages. (Sifre Deut. §343 [ed. Finkelstein, 395])

  לא יקנח אדם עצמו בימין אלא בשמאל

  A person does not wipe himself with his right hand, but with his left hand. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 40:13 [ed. Schechter, 128])

  לא היה ראוי לבא בימי דוד אלא בימי שאול

  By rights it should not have been in the days of David, but in the days of Saul. (Gen. Rab. 25:3 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:242])

  לא באו כלם בימי בני אדם שפופים אלא בימי [בני] אדם גבורים

  They did not come in the days of lowly people, but in the days of mighty people. (Gen. Rab. 25:3 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:242])

  לא היה לשם זנות אלא לשם שמים

  It was not for the sake of sexual indulgence, but for the sake of Heaven. (Gen. Rab. 51:10 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:540])

  ↩

• ^[202]

  Call of Levi
  Luke’s Anth. Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην ὀνόματι Λευεὶν καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ καὶ ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην Λευεὶς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἦν ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἄλλων οἳ ἦσαν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατακείμενοι καὶ ἐγόγγυζαν οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίετε καὶ πείνετε καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν		καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Λευεὶς καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐποίησεν Λευεὶς δοχὴν μεγάλην αὐτῷ καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν οἳ ἦσαν ἐλθόντες ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγόγγυζον οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες [πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν] οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν
  Total Words:	93	Total Words:	99 [109]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	82	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	82
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	88.17%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	82.83 [75.23]%

  Call of Levi
  Luke’s FR Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἦσαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγγίζοντες πάντες οἱ τελῶναι καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ καὶ διεγόγγυζον οἵ τε Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτος ἁμαρτωλοὺς προσδέχεται καὶ συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς		καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Λευεὶς καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐποίησεν Λευεὶς δοχὴν μεγάλην αὐτῷ καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν οἳ ἦσαν ἐλθόντες ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγόγγυζον οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες [πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν] οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν
  Total Words:	28	Total Words:	99 [109]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	10	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	10
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	35.71%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	10.10 [9.17]%

  ↩

• ^[203]

  Call of Levi
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς καὶ παράγων εἶδεν Λευεὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ γείνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρεισαίων ἰδόντες ὅτι ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν ἔλεγον τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς		καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Λευεὶς καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐποίησεν Λευεὶς δοχὴν μεγάλην αὐτῷ καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν οἳ ἦσαν ἐλθόντες ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγόγγυζον οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες [πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν] οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν
  Total Words:	110	Total Words:	99 [109]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	47	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	47
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	42.72%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	47.47 [43.12]%

  ↩

• ^[204] On redactional changes characteristic of the author of Mark, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style.” ↩
• ^[205]

  Call of Levi
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ παράγων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ καὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδόντες οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι ἔλεγον τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας εἶπεν οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς		καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Λευεὶς καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐποίησεν Λευεὶς δοχὴν μεγάλην αὐτῷ καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν οἳ ἦσαν ἐλθόντες ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγόγγυζον οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες [πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν] οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν
  Total Words:	93	Total Words:	99 [109]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	61 [51]	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	61 [51]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	65.59 [54.84]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	61.61 [46.79]%

  ↩

• ^[206] For a discussion of how the various religious groups within Second Temple Judaism related to one another, see Eyal Regev, “Flourishing Before the Crisis: Mapping Judean Society in the First Century CE,” in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write Their History (ed. Peter J. Tomson and Joshua Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 52-69. ↩
• ^[207] See, for example, Bultmann, 18; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 215-216. Cf. Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” 9-10. ↩
• ^[208] On this point, see Allen, Matt., 90; Marshall, 219-220. ↩
• ^[209] See Nolland, Luke, 1:245; Buchanan, 1:413. ↩
• ^[210] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[211] 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. ↩