Lost Sheep and Lost Coin Similes

Matt. 18:10-14; Luke 15:3-10

(Huck 133, 172; Aland 169, 219, 220;
Crook 188, 265, 266)^[158]

Updated: 3 August 2024

וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם אֶת הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה לֵאמֹר מִי אָדָם בָּכֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מֵאָה צֹאן וְנִדַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן הֲלֹא יַנִּיחַ אֶת הַתִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה עַל הֶהָרִים וְיֵלֵךְ וִיבַקֵּשׁ אֶת הָאֹבֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּמְצָא אֹתָה וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹצֵא אֹתָה שָׂם עַל כְּתֵפוֹ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבָא לְבֵיתוֹ וְקֹרֵא לְאוֹהֲבָיו וְלִקְרוֹבָיו לוֹמַר לָהֶם שִׂמְחוּ עִמִּי שֶׁמָּצָאתִי אֶת הַשֶּׂה שֶׁלִּי הָאֹבֶדֶת אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם כָּךְ יֵשׁ שִׂמְחָה בַּשָּׁמַיִם עַל רָשָׁע אֶחָד שֶׁעֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה מֵעַל תִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה צַדִּיקִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם צוֹרֶךְ בִּתְשׁוּבָה

וּמִי אִישָׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָה עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים וְהִיא מְאַבֶּדֶת דִּינָר אֶחָד הֲלֹא תַּדְלִיק נֵר וּתְכַבֵּד אֶת הַבַּיִת וּתְבַקֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא אֹתוֹ וּכְשֶׁהִיא מֹצֵאת אֹתוֹ קֹרֵאת לְאוֹהֲבוֹתֶיהָ וְלִקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ לוֹמַר לָהֶן שְׂמַחְנָה עִמִּי שֶׁמָּצָאתִי אֶת הַדִּינָר שֶׁאִבַּדְתִּי אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם כָּךְ יֵשׁ שִׂמְחָה לִפְנֵי מַלְאֲכֵי שָׁמַיִם עַל רָשָׁע אֶחָד שֶׁעֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה

Then Yeshua told them this parable: “Imagine you have a hundred sheep and one of them strays from the flock. Won’t you leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go search for the one that got lost until you’ve found it? And when you’ve finally found it, won’t you carry it home on your shoulders and invite all your nearest and dearest and tell them: ‘Come celebrate with me! I’ve found my missing sheep!’?

“Yes! And I’ll tell you what: God rejoices over one sinner who repents even more than he does over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need to repent.

“Or can you imagine a woman who has ten coins each worth a day’s wage, but she’s lost one of them? Won’t she light a lamp, sweep the house, and search until she’s found it? And when she’s finally found it, won’t she invite all her nearest and dearest and tell them: ‘Come celebrate with me! I’ve found the coin I lost!’?

“Yes! And I’ll tell you what: God has this kind of joyful celebration in the presence of the angels over every single sinner who repents.”^[159]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes click on the link below:

Conclusion

The Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes offer down-to-earth illustrations of God’s response to repentance: God feels about repentant sinners the way a man feels who has just found a sheep that strayed from the flock, or the way a woman feels who has just found a coin that had gone missing. Jesus’ purpose in telling these similes was to explain why he didn’t mind eating and drinking in the home of Levi with toll collectors and other sinners. Like the owner of the lost sheep and the woman who found her missing coin, God wants those who are closest to him to come and rejoice with him that a sinner has repented. It would be nothing short of rude to refuse God’s invitation. Jesus had joined in the celebration over the recovery of lost sinners. By telling the twin similes he invited his critics to do the same.^[160]

---

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

---

• ^[1] In “The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction” we distinguish between parables (illustrations given in narrative form) and similes (illustrations given in the form of a question). See Tower Builder and King Going to War Similes, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[2] Among the scholars who agree that the original purpose of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes was to explain Jesus’ association with toll collectors and sinners are Jeremias, Parables, 40; Beare, Earliest, 178 §172. ↩
• ^[3] See Jeremias, Parables, 40. ↩
• ^[4] On the author of Matthew’s compilation of the Sending the Twelve discourse, see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[5] See Jeremias, Parables, 38-40; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 406; Jacobus Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), 420. Adapting his sources in order to apply Jesus’ teachings to contemporary circumstances within his community was one of Matthew’s editorial strategies. We observed this strategy in the way the author of Matthew “updated” the Sending the Twelve discourse in order to curtail abuses on the part of itinerant teachers, which the Matthean churches had evidently experienced. See Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comments to L52-62, L62, L68, L70 and Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comments to L82-83, L97. ↩
• ^[6] See Bundy, 324; Beare, Earliest, 150 §133; Hagner, 2:526. ↩
• ^[7] For the date of Lindsey’s discovery, see LHNS, 135. An account of this discovery is found in Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “Restoration of Narrative-Sayings Complexes.” See also, idem, “Jesus’ Twin Parables,” under the subheading “The Full ‘Call of Levi’ Story.” ↩
• ^[8] A version of the Lost Sheep simile is found in the Gospel of Thomas:

  Jesus said: The Kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them went astray, which was the largest. He left behind ninety-nine, he sought for the one until he found it. Having tired himself out, he said to the sheep: I love thee more than ninety-nine. (Gos. Thom. §107 [ed. Guillaumont, 53])

  Distinctive features of the version in the Gospel of Thomas include the following: 1) the comparison to “the Kingdom”; 2) the description of the man whose sheep went missing as a shepherd (in Luke and Matthew he is the owner of the sheep, not necessarily a shepherd); 3) the description of the lost sheep as the largest; 4) the shepherd’s fatigue; and 5) the shepherd’s declaration to the rescued sheep that he loves it more than the ninety-nine.

  Petersen argued that the version of the Lost Sheep simile in the Gospel of Thomas is more original than either of the canonical versions, and proposed that the original message was about God’s love for Israel in contrast to the Gentiles. See William L. Petersen, “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum 23.2 (1981): 128-147. Nevertheless, Liebenberg points out that since the lesson of the Gospel of Thomas version of the Lost Sheep simile—that God's love is not unconditional but reserved only for those who deserve it—is diametrically opposed to the lesson given by the synoptic versions, it is more likely that the version in the Gospel of Thomas was written in response to the earlier canonical and/or pre-synoptic versions of the Lost Sheep simile. See Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 430. ↩

• ^[9] For a catalog of the Type 1 and Type 2 Double Tradition pericopae, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Double Tradition.” ↩
• ^[10] See, for instance, the author of Matthew’s redactional activity in Blessedness of the Twelve, summarized under the subheading “Redaction Analysis: Matthew’s Version.” ↩
• ^[11] See Bundy, 377; Luz, 2:438. ↩
• ^[12] See Marshall, 601-602. ↩
• ^[13] Manson (Sayings, 283), Davies-Allison (2:769) and Luz (2:438) are among the scholars who suppose that the author of Luke found the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes already joined in his source. ↩
• ^[14] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Unlocking the Synoptic Problem: Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus,” under the subheading “Lukan Doublets”; idem, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew,” under the subheading “Lukan Doublets.” ↩
• ^[15] Lindsey believed that it was the Anthologizer who was mainly responsible for separating parables and sayings from their narrative contexts. On the whole, Lindsey was probably correct in this regard, but in the present case we are forced to conclude that the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes were still joined to the Call of Levi narrative in Anth., for otherwise we cannot explain how the First Reconstructor knew that Jesus told the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes in defense of his free association with toll collectors and sinners. ↩
• ^[16] See Davies-Allison, 2:769. The command ὁρᾶτε/ὅρα occurs once in Luke (Luke 12:15), 2xx in Mark (Mark 1:44; 8:15) and 5xx in Matthew (Matt. 8:4 [= Mark 1:44]; 9:30; 16:6 [= Mark 8:15]; 18:10; 24:6). ↩
• ^[17] On Matt. 10:42 see Sending the Twelve: Apostle and Sender, Comment to L151-156. ↩
• ^[18] See Davies-Allison, 2:770-771; Luz, 2:441. ↩
• ^[19] See Metzger, 44-45. ↩
• ^[20] On the phrase ἐν παραβολαῖς (en parabolais), see Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[21] See Cadbury, Style, 106-107. The construction λέγειν/εἰπεῖν + παραβολή is used to introduce a parable in Luke 4:23 (ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 5:36 (ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς); 6:39 (εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς); 8:4 (εἶπεν διὰ παραβολῆς); 12:16 (εἶπεν δὲ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων); 13:6 (ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολήν); 14:7 (ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κεκλημένους παραβολήν); 15:3 (εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων); 18:1 (ἔλεγεν δὲ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς); 18:9 (εἶπεν δὲ...τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 19:11 (εἶπεν παραβολὴν); 20:9 (ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 21:29 (καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς). Cf. Luke 12:41 (πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγεις) and Luke 20:19 (ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην; cf. Mark 12:12). ↩
• ^[22] The LXX examples where λέγειν/εἰπεῖν + παραβολή translates מָשַׁל מָשָׁל are:

  וּמְשֹׁל מָשָׁל אֶל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל

  ...and tell a parable to the house of Israel.... (Ezek. 17:2)

  καὶ εἰπὸν παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ

  ...and tell a parable to the house of Israel.... (Ezek. 17:2)

  אִם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עוֹד מְשֹׁל הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

  ...if there will still be for you the telling of this parable in Israel. (Ezek. 18:3)

  ἐὰν γένηται ἔτι λεγομένη ἡ παραβολὴ αὕτη ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ

  ...if there might still be this parable spoken in Israel. (Ezek. 18:3)

  הֲלֹא מְמַשֵּׁל מְשָׁלִים הוּא

  Is he not a teller of parables? (Ezek. 21:5)

  οὐχὶ παραβολή ἐστιν λεγομένη αὕτη

  Is not this parable told? (Ezek. 21:5)

  וּמְשֹׁל אֶל בֵּית הַמֶּרִי מָשָׁל

  ...and tell the rebellious house a parable.... (Ezek. 24:3)

  καὶ εἰπὸν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τὸν παραπικραίνοντα παραβολὴν

  ...and tell the rebellious house a parable.... (Ezek. 24:3)

  ↩

• ^[23] Examples of מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל are found, inter alia, in t. Hag. 2:5; t. Sot. 11:4; 15:7; t. Bab. Kam. 7:3, 4. ↩
• ^[24] Examples of אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל are found, inter alia, 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); b. Yom. 76a. ↩
• ^[25] Jeremias (Parables, 93 n. 13) likewise opined that Luke’s λέγειν/εἰπεῖν + παραβολή construction came from his source(s). See also Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” (JS1, 259-317, esp. 259-260. ↩
• ^[26] See Hawkins, 33. In NT the question τί ὑμῖν/σοι δοκεῖ is found in Matt. 17:25; 18:12; 21:28; 22:17, 42; 26:66. Cf. τίς...δοκεῖ σοι in Luke 10:36. ↩
• ^[27] An example of the question מָה אַתֶּם סְבוּרִים occurs in Sifre Deut. §12 (ed. Finkelstein, 20). Examples of מָה אַתָּה סָבוּר occur, inter alia, in Gen. Rab. 19:5 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:174); 20:8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:191); 46:9 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:466). ↩
• ^[28] See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 406; Luz, 2:438; Bovon, 2:407. ↩
• ^[29] See Davies-Allison, 2:773. ↩
• ^[30] See Tower Builder and King Going to War, L1, where τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν reached Luke from Anth. via FR. The interrogative phrase τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν occurs in Matt. 6:27; 7:9; Luke 11:5; 12:25; 14:28; 15:4; 17:7; cf. τίνα...ἐξ ὑμῶν in Luke 11:11. See Hawkins, 46. ↩
• ^[31] See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Criteria for Identifying Separated Twin Parables and Similes in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[32] See Bendavid, 337. ↩
• ^[33] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:96-102. ↩
• ^[34] See, for example, Marshall, 598; Bailey, 1:147; John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988), 148. ↩
• ^[35] Negative opinions of shepherds are expressed, e.g., in m. Kid. 4:14 (printed editions); t. Bab. Kam. 8:15 (a shepherd who repents of his profession as a shepherd); b. Sanh. 25b (shepherds disqualified as judges and witnesses); b. Sanh. 57a (shepherds compared to Samaritans); Midrash Tehillim 23:2 (ed. Buber, 198) (shepherds have the most despised profession in the world). It should be noted that the claim in the midrash on Psalm 23 that shepherding is more despised than any other trade is for rhetorical effect. ↩
• ^[36] Shepherds are portrayed positively in a story about the high priest Shimon haZadik, who commended a shepherd who became a Nazirite (t. Naz. 4:7; b. Ned. 9b; b. Naz. 4b), and in a story about how Rabbi Yehudah haNasi accepted the testimony of an elderly shepherd when setting the Sabbath limits in a certain town (t. Eruv. 4:16). ↩
• ^[37] Rabbi Eleazar ben Dalgai (m. Tam. 3:8) and Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba (t. Bab. Kam. 8:13) are two examples of sages who raised sheep and/or goats. Hanina ben Dosa is also said to have raised goats (b. Taan. 25a). ↩
• ^[38] Cf. Plummer, 368. According to Safrai, it was common for well-to-do farmers to hire shepherds to care for their sheep (cf. m. Betz. 5:3; m. Bab. Kam. 6:2). See Ze’ev Safrai, “Agriculture and Farming” (OHJDL, 246-263, esp. 257). ↩
• ^[39] Examples of the phrase מֵאָה צֹאן in rabbinic texts include the following:

  קבל ממנו מאה צאן במאה של זהב

  If he accepted from him a hundred sheep for a hundred gold pieces.... (t. Bab. Metz. 5:1; Vienna MS)

  היה לפניו מאה צאן ואמ′ לו

  If there was before him a hundred sheep and he said to him.... (t. Bab. Metz. 6:6; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[40] See Shimon Applebaum, “Animal Husbandry,” in The Roman World (ed. John Wacher; 2 vols.; London: Routledge, 1987), 504-526, esp. 510. ↩
• ^[41] See Jeremias, Parables, 133. ↩
• ^[42] This example from Ps. 118:176 is particularly instructive for GR, for in it the verb πλανᾶν describes the sheep’s action, while the participle ἀπολωλός describes the condition the sheep is in on account of its having strayed, just as we have it in our reconstruction. ↩
• ^[43] Additional examples of πλανᾶν used to describe sheep going astray include the following:

  πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν

  All we like sheep have gone astray [ἐπλανήθημεν].... (Isa. 53:6; NETS)

  Πρόβατον πλανώμενον Ισραηλ, λέοντες ἐξῶσαν αὐτόν

  Israel is a wandering [πλανώμενον] sheep; lions drove him away. (Jer. 27:17; NETS)

  καὶ τὰ πρόβατά μου οὐ βόσκετε τὸ ἠσθενηκὸς οὐκ ἐνισχύσατε καὶ τὸ κακῶς ἔχον οὐκ ἐσωματοποιήσατε καὶ τὸ συντετριμμένον οὐ κατεδήσατε καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἐπεστρέψατε καὶ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς οὐκ ἐζητήσατε

  ...but you do not feed my sheep. You did not strengthen the weakened and did not build up the unwell and did not bind up the crushed and did not turn about the one that strayed [τὸ πλανώμενον] and did not seek the lost.... (Ezek. 34:3-4; NETS; cf. Ezek. 34:16)

  ↩

• ^[44] Davies-Allison (2:769), Young (Parables, 191-192), Nolland (Matt., 742), Luz (2:439) and Snodgrass (105) are among the scholars who detect the influence of Ezekiel 34 on the Lost Sheep simile. Ezekiel 34:4 not only mentions retrieving strayed sheep and seeking lost ones, but also healing sheep that were injured. Perhaps the shepherds’ duty to heal the injured of their flock originally helped tie the twin similes to the previous saying about the sick who need a doctor (Luke 5:31). ↩
• ^[45] Nevertheless, the author of Matthew betrayed his knowledge that his source also used ἀπολλύειν. See Comment to L61.
  Since both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the Lost Sheep simile each lost some of the original imagery derived from Ezekiel 34, we cannot accept the opinion of Davies-Allison (2:769) that the allusions to Ezekiel 34 are secondary. ↩
• ^[46] Marshall (601) also regarded Matthew’s use of πλανᾶν as original. ↩
• ^[47] Cf. LHNS, 109, 135. ↩
• ^[48] The verb καταλείπειν occurs in Matthew 4xx (Matt. 4:13; 16:4; 19:5; 21:17), in Mark 4xx (Mark 10:7; 12:19, 21; 14:52), and in Luke 4xx (Luke 5:28; 10:40; 15:4; 20:31). The verb ἀφιέναι, on the other hand, occurs over 40xx in Matthew, over 30xx in Mark, and over 30xx in Luke. ↩
• ^[49] On the rationale for basing the reconstruction documents on Codex Vaticanus, see the Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction’, under the subheading “Codex Vaticanus or an Eclectic Text?” ↩
• ^[50] This was already noted by Lightfoot (2:253). See also Manson, Sayings, 208; Bundy, 324; Fitzmyer, 2:1076; Nolland, Luke, 771. ↩
• ^[51] See E. F. F. Bishop, “The Parable of the Lost or Wandering Sheep,” Anglican Theological Review 44.1 (1962): 44-57, esp. 45; Jeremias, Parables, 133; Marshall, 601. ↩
• ^[52] Snodgrass (104-105) argues this point admirably. ↩
• ^[53] Some scholars have attempted to explain “in the wilderness” and “on the hills” as translation variants in Matthew and Luke of a single Aramaic term. See F. Bussby, “Did a Shepherd Leave Sheep upon the Mountains or in the Desert?” Anglican Theological Review 45.1 (1963): 93-94; Jeremias, Parables, 133; Snodgrass, 104. This explanation, however, founders on strong evidence that the authors of Luke and Matthew worked with Greek sources, not Hebrew or Aramaic texts. For a refutation of the hypothesis that translation variants can account for differences between Lukan and Matthean versions of a pericope, see John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 54-59. A better explanation of the variation between “on the hills” and “in the wilderness” in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Lost Sheep simile may be that ὄρος and ἔρημος were considered synonymous in Greek. See Henry J. Cadbury, “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts. I.,” Journal of Biblical Literature 44.3 (1925): 214-227, esp. 221-223. ↩
• ^[54] In LXX ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος is the translation of עַל (הָ)הָר in Gen. 8:4; Exod. 19:11, 20; 24:16; Deut. 12:2; Judg. 11:37, 38; 1 Chr. 12:9; Ps. 103[104]:6; 132[133]:3; Song 2:8; Amos 3:9; Joel 2:2; Obad. 16; Nah. 2:1; 3:18; Hag. 1:11; Zech. 14:4; Isa. 29:8; 31:4; 52:7; 65:7; Jer. 9:9; Lam. 4:19; Ezek. 11:23; 18:15; 32:5; 39:2, 4, 17. ↩
• ^[55] In LXX of the Pentateuch alone ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ is the translation of בַּמִּדְבָּר in Gen. 16:7; 21:20, 21; 36:24; 37:22; Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:24; 14:11, 12; 15:22; 16:32; Lev. 7:38; Num. 1:1, 19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12, 31; 12:16; 14:2, 16, 22, 29, 32, 33 (2xx), 35; 15:32; 16:13; 21:5, 11, 13; 26:64, 65; 27:3, 14; 32:13, 15; 33:15, 36; Deut. 1:1, 31; 4:43; 8:2, 16; 9:7, 28; 11:5; 29:4. ↩
• ^[56] Cf. Hagner, 2:527. ↩
• ^[57] That ancient readers found Matthew’s version troubling is demonstrated by the variant reading in many witnesses, οὐχὶ ἀφεὶς τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα, ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη πορευθεὶς, ζητεῖ τὸ πλανώμενον (“Will he not, leaving the ninety-nine, going on the hills, seek the strayed one?”), a reading that is still reflected in older translations such as the KJV. See Bishop, “The Parable of the Lost or Wandering Sheep,” 46. ↩
• ^[58] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1014-1017. ↩
• ^[59] See Dos Santos, 50. ↩
• ^[60] See Davies-Allison, 2:774. Examples of πορεύεσθαι + ἐπί + accusative in the writings of Luke include Luke 15:4; Acts 8:26; 9:11; 17:14; 25:12. ↩
• ^[61] Harnack, 92. ↩
• ^[62] The verb ζητεῖν (zētein, “to seek"), or a compound thereof, is found in Ezek. 34:4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16. If we are correct that the First Reconstructor omitted the verb ζητεῖν, this is probably an indication that he did not recognize the allusions to Ezekiel 34 in the Lost Sheep simile. ↩
• ^[63] See above, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[64] If we are correct that the author of Matthew replaced ἀπολωλός with πλανώμενον, this is probably an indication that he did not recognize the allusions to Ezekiel 34 in the Lost Sheep simile. ↩
• ^[65] See Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[66] See Segal, 154 §316. ↩
• ^[67] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:774. ↩
• ^[68] If Genesis may be used as a representative example, we find that ἕως is usually the translation of עַד (Gen. 3:19; 6:7 [2xx]; 7:23; 8:5, 7; 10:19; 11:31; 12:6; 13:3 [2xx], 15; 14:6, 14, 15, 23; 15:16, 18; 19:11, 22, 37, 38; 22:5; 24:19, 33; 25:18; 26:13, 33; 27:44; 28:15; 29:8; 32:5, 25, 33; 33:3, 14; 34:5; 35:20; 38:1, 11, 17; 39:16; 41:49; 43:25; 46:34; 47:21, 26; 48:15; 49:10). The second most common Hebrew antecedent of ἕως is בֹּאֲכָה (bo’^achāh, lit., “your coming [to/towards]”; Gen. 10:19 [2xx], 30; 13:10; 25:18), but in these instances LXX translates the Hebrew with ἕως ἐλθεῖν (εἰς/πρός). ↩
• ^[69] Examples where עַד אֲשֶׁר was translated as ἕως τοῦ + infinitive are found in Gen. 27:44; 28:15; 29:8; 33:14; Ruth 3:18; 1 Chr. 19:5; Mic. 7:9. ↩
• ^[70] Examples where עַד אֲשֶׁר was translated as ἕως ἂν + subjunctive are found in Exod. 23:30; Lev. 22:4; Num. 11:20; 20:17; 32:17; Deut. 3:20; Josh. 1:15; Isa. 6:11. ↩
• ^[71] Examples where עַד אֲשֶׁר was translated as ἕως οὗ + subjunctive are found in Ruth 1:13; Ps. 111[112]:8; Eccl. 2:3; 12:2; Hos. 5:15; Jonah 4:5. In addition, we find examples of עַד אֲשֶׁר translated as ἕως ὅτου + subjunctive in 1 Kgdms. 22:3; 2 Esd. 14:5; Eccl. 12:1, 6. ↩
• ^[72] We saw an example of this tendency in FR in Luke 15:1-2, FR’s parallel to Anth.’s Call of Levi story, where only the barest details of the story are preserved (see above, “Conjectured Stages of Transmission”). ↩
• ^[73] Examples where LXX has “shoulders” (plural) when MT has “shoulder” (singular) include Gen. 24:15, 45; Exod. 12:34; Num. 7:9; Josh. 4:5; Judg. 9:48; 2 Chr. 35:3; Job 31:36; Isa. 14:25; 46:7; 49:22; Ezek. 12:6, 7, 12; 34:21. Note that “shoulder” is yet another lexical item found in both Ezekiel 34 and the Lost Sheep simile. ↩
• ^[74] In the Mishnah alone we find עַל כָּתֵף in m. Kil. 9:4; m. Shev. 3:9; m. Bik. 3:4, 6; m. Shab. 10:3; m. Pes. 5:9 (4xx); m. Betz. 4:1; m. Hag. 1:1; m. Bab. Metz. 7:3; m. Ohol. 16:1, 2; m. Neg. 13:9; m. Par. 7:9. ↩
• ^[75] See Return of the Twelve, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[76] See Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[77] In LXX συγκαλεῖν is the translation of -קָרָא אֶל/לְ in Exod. 7:11; Josh. 9:22; 10:24; 22:1; 23:2; 24:1; Zech. 3:10; Jer. 1:15. ↩
• ^[78] An example of חָבֵר in close proximity to שָׁכֵן, though not a pair, is found in the following passage:

  אָמַ′ לָהֶם צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אֵי זוֹ הִיא דֶרֶךְ טוֹבָה שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בָּהּ הָאָדָם ר′ אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹ′ עַיִן טוֹבָה ר′ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹ′ חָבֵר טוֹב ר′ יוֹסֵה אוֹ′ שָׁכֵן טוֹב

  He said to them, “Go out and see what is the good path that a person should stick to.” Rabbi Eliezer says, “A good eye.” Rabbi Yehoshua says, “A good companion [חָבֵר].” Rabbi Yose says, “A good neighbor [שָׁכֵן].” (m. Avot 2:9)

  ↩

• ^[79] In LXX φίλος is the translation of אוֹהֵב in Esth. 5:10, 14; 6:13; Ps. 37[38]:12; 87[88]:19; Prov. 14:20; 27:6; Jer. 20:4, 6. In addition, φίλος serves as the equivalent of אוֹהֵב in James 2:23, which alludes to Isa. 41:8 (אֹהֲבִי). ↩
• ^[80] The pairing of אוֹהֵב with קָרוֹב may be observed in the following examples:

  מִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָקְטֹרֶת הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת הַבָּזֶךְ מִתּוֹךְ הַכַּף וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְאוֹהֲבוֹ אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ

  The one who was awarded the incense would take the dish from his hand and give it to his friend [לְאוֹהֲבוֹ] or his relative [לִקְרוֹבוֹ]. (m. Tam. 6:3)

  משל למלך שהיה מבקש ליתן מתנה לאחד מבניו והיה המלך מתירא מפני אחיו ומפני אוהביו ומפי קרוביו

  A parable: [It may be compared] to a king who was seeking to give a gift to one of his sons, but the king was afraid of his [i.e., the son’s] brothers, and of his friends [אוהביו], and of his relatives [קרוביו]. (Sifre Deut. §343 [ed. Finkelstein, 397])

  אין אומר ממי במקדש אלא הממונה היה מגביה מצנפתו של אחד מהן והן יודעין שממנו היה הפייס מתחיל וחש לומר שמא לאוהבו או לקרובו

  In the Temple one does not say, “From whom [does the counting start]?” Rather, the one who was appointed would lift one of their turbans, and they all would know that the count would start with him. And one should not say that he selected his friend [אוהבו] or his relative [קרובו]. (y. Yom. 2:1 [10b])

  ↩

• ^[81] In LXX γείτων is the translation of שָׁכֵן in Exod. 3:22; 12:4; Ruth 4:17; 4 Kgdms. 4:3; Ps. 30[31]:12; 43[44]:14; 78[79]:4, 12; 79[80]:7; 88[89]:42; Jer. 6:21; 12:14; 30:4 [49:10]. ↩
• ^[82] Examples of שָׂמַח עִם include the following:

  וכל המתאבלים עליה בעולם הזה שמחים עמה לעולם הבא

  And all who mourn over her [i.e., Jerusalem—DNB and JNT] in this world rejoice with her [שמחים עמה] in the world to come. (t. Sot. 15:15; Vienna MS; cf. t. Taan. 3:14; t. Bab. Bat. 2:17)

  מפני מה אמרו אלמנה ליום החמישי שאם נושא אותה באחד מכל ימות השבת מניחה והולך למלאכתו התקינו שיהא נושא אותה בחמישי שיהא בטיל שלשה ימים חמישי וערב שבת ושבת שלשה ימי בטילה נמצא שמח עמה שלשה ימים

  Why did they say, “A widow [is to be married] on the fifth day of the week [i.e., Thursday—DNB and JNT]?” Because if someone married her on any other day of the week he might leave her and go to his work. They ordained that he should marry her on the fifth day so that he would suspend [work] for three days: the fifth day of the week, the day before the Sabbath, and the Sabbath—three days of suspension [from work]. We find that he rejoices with her [שמח עמה] three days. (t. Ket. 1:1; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[83] On causal clauses introduced with -שֶׁ, see Segal, 227 §482, and cf. the examples we cited in Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[84] See Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[85] In LXX (Gen.-Deut.) ὅτι is the translation of אֲשֶׁר in Gen. 34:13; 38:10; 42:21; Exod. 5:21; 18:9, 10; Lev. 26:40 (2xx); Num. 20:13; Deut. 9:19; 17:15; 23:5. ↩
• ^[86] The LXX translators rendered -שֶׁ as ὅτι in Jud. 5:7; 6:17; Ps. 123:1, 2, 135:23; Song 1:6 (2xx); 5:2, 8, 9; 6:5; Eccl. 1:17; 2:13, 14, 15, 18: 3:18; 7:10; 8:14 (2xx); 9:5; 12:9; Lam. 5:8. By way of comparison, the LXX translators rendered -שֶׁ as ὅς in Judg. 5:7; 2 Esd. 8:20; Ps. 121:3; 122:2; 123:6; 128:6, 7; 134:8, 10; 136:8 (2xx), 9; 143:15 (2xx); 145:3, 5; Song 1:7, 12; 2:7, 17; 3:1, 2, 3, 4 (3xx), 5, 11; 4:1, 2 (2xx), 6: 6:5, 6 (2xx); 8:8; Eccl. 1:3, 7; 2:11, 12, 18, 19 (2xx), 20, 21 (2xx), 22, 24; 3:13, 22; 5:15, 17; 6:3, 7, 24; 10:5, 16, 17; 11:3; 12:3; Jonah 4:10; Lam. 2:15, 16. ↩
• ^[87] Examples of צֹאן + pronominal suffix in MT are plentiful. Examples in rabbinic sources include m. Hul. 11:2 and m. Arach. 8:4. ↩
• ^[88] Cf. וְשֶׂה אַחַת מִן הַצֹּאן (“and one sheep from the flock”; Ezek. 45:15). ↩
• ^[89] Note that in LXX both צֹאן and שֶׂה are translated as πρόβατον. ↩
• ^[90] See Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[91] Cf. LHNS, 135. ↩
• ^[92] For an identical reconstruction of λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L102; Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, L116; and Blessedness of the Twelve, L10. ↩
• ^[93] See Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[94] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1035-1039. ↩
• ^[95] See Jastrow, 637; Segal, 134 §294. The LXX translators rendered most instances of כָּכָה as οὕτως. See Dos Santos, 91. ↩
• ^[96] So Jeremias (Parables, 39, 135-136) and Fitzmyer (2:1077). ↩
• ^[97] Nolland (Luke, 773) suggests that the future tense in Luke should be understood as “a logical future and not a distinctly eschatological future.” ↩
• ^[98] Examples of שָׂמַח עַל in MT include Jonah 4:6; Isa. 9:16; 39:2; Lam. 2:17; 1 Chr. 29:9; 2 Chr. 15:15; 29:36. Cf. Neh. 12:44. ↩
• ^[99] An example of שָׂמַח עַל occurs in 4QCatena^a [4Q177] III, 15. ↩
• ^[100] An example of שָׂמַח עַל in a rabbinic text is found in Lev. Rab. 26:7 (ed. Margulies, 2:606). Cf. ...לא היתה שמחה...על (“there was no joy...over...”) in Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata chpt. 1 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:172). ↩
• ^[101] Further examples of עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה are found, inter alia, in m. Yom. 8:9; m. Ned. 9:3; m. Avot 5:18; t. Shev. 8:11; t. Yom. 4:6 (quoted in Comment to L35); Sifre Deut. §43 (ed. Finkelstein, 102); Pesikta Rabati §44 (ed. Friedmann, 184a; cited in Comment to L38). ↩
• ^[102] On the LXX equivalence of ὅστις and אֲשֶׁר, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L4. ↩
• ^[103] Rabbi Meir’s statement occurs in several variant forms that aim to temper the anthropomorphic description of God in this saying. Cf. y. Sanh. 6:8 [29b]; b. Hag. 15b; b. Sanh. 46a. ↩
• ^[104] See Plummer, Luke, 369; Nolland, Luke, 773; Luz, 2:35; Bovon, 2:410; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 436. ↩
• ^[105] According to Shmuel Safrai, no distinction is to be made between the Hasidim and men of deeds. “Men of deeds” was simply an additional epithet by which the Hasidim were known. See Shmuel Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 15-33, esp. 16 n. 11. ↩
• ^[106] On the mixing of metaphors of sin forgiveness and debt cancellation, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[107] We possess very little information about how the Hasidim attracted sinners to their way of life, but the Tosefta passage cited above suggests that it may have had to do with their emphasis on God’s mercy (“but all who have sinned he will cancel their debt”). Shmuel Safrai, who greatly advanced the scholarly study of the Hasidim, suggested that they were known as “men of deeds” because of their active involvement in society. See Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” 16, 32. In other words, the Hasidim did not practice their piety in cloistered seclusion. They did so by interacting with people from all walks of life. Safrai also demonstrated that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings bear a strong resemblance to the conduct rabbinic literature ascribes to the Hasidim. See Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim.” Perhaps the Call of Levi story and the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes offer us an additional glimpse at how the Hasidim attracted sinners to their way of life. ↩
• ^[108] See Plummer, Luke, 370; Nolland, Luke, 775. ↩
• ^[109] In LXX δραχμή occurs 7xx, but never as the translation of דַּרְכְּמוֹן: Gen. 24:22 (= בֶּקַע); Exod. 39:3 (= בֶּקַע); Tob. 5:15; 2 Macc. 4:19; 10:20; 12:43; 3 Macc. 3:28. ↩
• ^[110] The four instances of דַּרְכְּמוֹן in MT are found in Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:69, 70, 71. ↩
• ^[111] See BDB, 204. ↩
• ^[112] Klausner suggested that אדרכמון is the Hebrew equivalent of δραχμή, but Jastrow does not have an entry for אדרכמון in his Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, nor have we been able to locate any instances of אדרכמון in DSS or rabbinic texts. See Joseph Klausner, “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” in The World History of the Jewish People: The Herodian Period (ed. Michael Avi-Yonah; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1975), 179-205, esp. 191. ↩
• ^[113] On the pure Greek style of Matt. 17:24-27, see Moule, Idiom, 173; idem, Birth, 217. Martin classified this unique Matthean pericope as indeterminate according to his criteria for testing whether a source is a translation from a Semitic language or whether it is a purely Greek composition. See Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1987), 115. ↩
• ^[114] See A. H. M. Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History (ed. P. A. Brunt; Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974), 75. ↩
• ^[115] The instances of δραχμή in Philo’s works occur in Her. §145, 186, 187, 189; Congr. §113 (2xx); Ios. §258; Spec. 2:33 (4xx). ↩
• ^[116] The instances of δραχμή in Josephus’ works occur in J.W. 1:308, 658; 7:218; Ant. 3:195, 320; 8:189; 9:233; 11:16, 297; 12:25, 28, 33, 146, 168, 198; 13:55; 14:26, 28, 417; 17:172; 18:67; 19:247; Life §75 (2xx), 224 (2xx). ↩
• ^[117] In the Pentateuch δέκα occurs as the translation of עֶשֶׂר/עֲשָׂרָה in Gen. 5:14; 16:3; 18:32 (2xx); 24:10, 22; 31:7; 32:16 (2xx); 42:3; 45:23 (2xx); 50:22, 26; Exod. 26:1, 16; 27:12 (2xx); 34:28; 37:1[36:8], 10[38:12] (2xx); Lev. 26:26; 27:5, 7; Num. 7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80; 11:19, 32; 29:23; Deut. 4:13; 10:4. ↩
• ^[118] In the Pentateuch δέκα occurs as the translation of עָשָׂר/עֶשְׂרֵה in Gen. 5:10; 7:20; 14:14; 17:25; 31:41; 37:2; 46:18, 22; 47:28; Exod. 26:25; 27:15; 28:21; Num. 17:14; 29:13 (2xx), 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32; 31:46, 52. ↩
• ^[119] In Gen. 24:55 δέκα occurs as the translaton of עָשׂוֹר (‘āsōr, “tenth”). In Exod. 27:13 δέκα occurs twice without a Hebrew equivalent. ↩
• ^[120] See Klausner, “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” 198. ↩
• ^[121] Another example of עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין is found in m. Ket. 6:4. ↩
• ^[122] See Jeremias, Parables, 134. Plummer (370) rejected the headdress interpretation long before it was popularized by Jeremias. Cf. Young, Parables, 194 n. 15; Bovon, 2:412. ↩
• ^[123] See Tob. 5:15; Matt. 20:2. According to Klausner (“The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” 191), “There was little change in wage rates from the time of the Persians to the reign of Nero.” Applebaum, citing b. Yom. 35b, according to which Hillel worked for half a denarius a day, suggested that a denarius per day wage reflects post-70 C.E. rates. Nevertheless, it is questionable how much weight should be given to this late evidence when evaluating the average pay for workers in the first century, especially since the story in b. Yom. 35b is meant to emphasize the exceptional poverty of Hillel the Elder when he was a student of Shemiah and Avtalion. In another story about Hillel, day laborers in Jerusalem claim to earn from one to two denarii for a day’s work (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, chpt. 26 [ed. Schechter, 54]). On daily wages and living expenses in the Roman period, see also F. M. Heichelheim, “Roman Syria,” in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (6 vols.; ed. Tenney Frank et al.; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1933-1940), 4:121-257, esp. 178-188. ↩
• ^[124] See Fitzmyer, 2:1080. ↩
• ^[125] Hif‘il forms of ד-ל-ק, however, are rare in MT, occurring only in Isa. 5:11 and Ezek 24:10. ↩
• ^[126] See also Tob. 8:13 (Sinaiticus); 1 Macc. 4:50; 2 Macc. 1:8, where ἅπτειν/ἐξάπτειν are used to refer to lighting a lamp (λύχνος). ↩
• ^[127] Additional examples of הִדְלִיק נֵר in rabbinic sources occur in m. Shab. 2:7; t. Ter. 10:9; Gen. Rab. 3:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:18-19). ↩
• ^[128] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:891. ↩
• ^[129] See Dos Santos, 136. ↩
• ^[130] See Plummer, Luke, 370; Jeremias, Parables, 135; Marshall, 603; Fitzmyer, 2:1081; Bovon, 2:413. ↩
• ^[131] See Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 2:734). ↩
• ^[132] See Segal, 48 §88. ↩
• ^[133] For a discussion on the b. Meg. 18b passage, see Randall Buth, “A More Complete Semitic Background for בר־אנשא, ‘Son of Man,’” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 176-189, esp. 184-186. ↩
• ^[134] See Segal, 48 §88. ↩
• ^[135] Another example of כִּבֵּד in the sense of “sweep” occurs in m. Mik. 8:4, where, however, the verb is employed euphemistically. ↩
• ^[136] A similar anecdote to the one reported in b. Yev. 59b occurs in the external tractate Arayot (Kaufmann §10) Tosefta Derek Erez 3:7 (ed. Higger, 269, ET: 97). ↩
• ^[137] In LXX ἐπιμελῶς occurs in Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 13:24. ↩
• ^[138] In LXX σφόδρα is the translation of הֵיטֵב in Deut. 9:21; 13:15; 17:4; 27:8. ↩
• ^[139] In LXX ἀκριβῶς is the translation of הֵיטֵב in Deut. 19:18. ↩
• ^[140] In LXX ἀγαθῶς is the translation of הֵיטֵב in 4 Kgdms. 11:18. ↩
• ^[141] An example of the feminine participle מֹצֵאת (motzē’t, “finding”) is located in 2 Sam. 18:22. ↩
• ^[142] See above, Comment to L14. Cf. Plummer, 369. ↩
• ^[143] Marshall (603-604) wondered whether ἀμήν might originally have opened the application of the Lost Coin simile. ↩
• ^[144] On ἔμπροσθεν as the translation of לִפְנֵי, see Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L10-11. On ἐνώπιον as the translation of לִפְנֵי, see Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 1:42. Examples of ἐνώπιον as the translation of לִפְנֵי include, inter alia, Gen. 24:51; 30:33; Exod. 21:1; Lev. 4:4, 18, 24; 24:3; Num. 17:25; 19:3; 32:4; Deut. 1:8, 42; 4:8, 44; 11:26, 32; Josh. 8:32; Judg. 4:15, 23; 6:18; 8:28; 11:9, 11; 13:15; 20:23, 28, 32, 42; 21:2. ↩
• ^[145] An example where Luke and Matthew agree to write ἔμπροσθεν is found in Matt. 11:26 ∥ Luke 10:21 (see Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, L11). Other examples include Matt. 11:10 ∥ Luke 7:27 and 2xx in Matt. 10:32 ∥ Luke 12:8. ↩
• ^[146] Compare Luke’s “not one of them is forgotten before God” (Luke 12:6) to the rabbinic statements אין שכחה לפני המקום (“there is no forgetfulness before the Omnipresent one”; t. Yom. 2:7; y. Yom. 3:9 [20a]) and אין שכחה לפני כסא כבודך (“there is no forgetfulness before the throne of your glory”; b. Ber. 32b). ↩
• ^[147] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:7-9. ↩
• ^[148] See Dos Santos, 112. ↩
• ^[149] In LXX the phrase οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (hoi angeloi tou theou, “the angels of God”) is the translation of מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים (mal’^achē ’^elohim, “the angels of God”) in Gen. 28:12; 32:2. ↩
• ^[150] See Matt. 10:32 ∥ Luke 12:8; Matt. 10:33 ∥ Luke 12:9; Matt. 18:14 ∥ Luke 15:10. ↩
• ^[151] See 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’?” ↩
• ^[152] In Comment to L1-6, we noted that the author of Matthew likely composed Matt. 18:10 using vocabulary from Anth.’s conclusion of the Lost Coin simile. If this theory is correct, then “their angels in heaven” in L4 might have been inspired by “the angels of heaven” mentioned in L58-59. ↩
• ^[153] See A. F. Walls, “‘In the Presence of the Angels’ (Luke XV 10),” Novum Testamentum 3.4 (1959): 314-316. ↩
• ^[154] On the angelic opposition to repentance, see Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1961), 321. ↩
• ^[155] The following table shows all the examples of ἵνα + subjunctive in the Gospel of Matthew and the Markan and Lukan parallels (if any):

  Matt. 1:22 U Matt. 2:15 U Matt. 4:3 DT = Luke 4:3 Matt. 4:14 U Matt. 5:29 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 18:9; Mark 9:47) Matt. 5:30 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43) Matt. 7:1 DT (cf. Luke 6:37) Matt. 7:12 DT = Luke 6:31 Matt. 8:8 DT = Luke 7:6 Matt. 9:6 TT = Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24 Matt. 10:25 DT (cf. Luke 6:40) Matt. 12:10 TT = Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7 Matt. 12:16 U Matt. 12:17 U Matt. 14:15 TT = Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12 Matt. 14:36 Mk-Mt = Mark 6:56 Matt. 16:20 TT = Mark 8:30 (cf. Luke 9:21) Matt. 17:27 U Matt. 18:6 TT = Luke 17:2 (cf. Mark 9:42) Matt. 18:14 DT (cf. Luke 15:10) Matt. 18:16 DT (cf. Luke 17:3) Matt. 19:13 TT = Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15 Matt. 19:16 TT = Mark 10:17 (cf. Luke 18:18) Matt. 20:21 Mk-Mt = Mark 10:35 Matt. 20:31 TT = Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39 Matt. 20:33 TT = Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41 Matt. 21:4 U Matt. 23:26 DT (cf. Luke 11:41) Matt. 24:20 TT = Mark 13:18 (cf. Luke 21:[--]) Matt. 26:4 TT (cf. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2) Mark 26:5 TT (cf. Mark 14:2; Luke 22:2) Matt. 26:41 TT = Mark 14:38; Luke 22:46 Matt. 26:56 TT = Mark 14:49 (cf. Luke 22:53) Matt. 26:63 TT (cf. Mark 14:61; Luke 22:67) Matt. 27:20 TT = Mark 15:11 (cf. Luke 23:18) Matt. 27:26 TT = Mark 15:15 (cf. Luke 23:25) Matt. 27:32 TT = Mark 15:21 (cf. Luke 23:26) Matt. 28:10 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  The above table shows that Matthew’s Gospel has 38 instances of ἵνα + subjunctive. The author of Matthew accepted 16 instances of ἵνα + subjunctive from Mark and 5 instances from Anth. (1x in a TT pericope in agreement with Luke against Mark; 4xx in DT with Luke’s agreement). Thus, at least 21 of Matthew’s instances of ἵνα + subjunctive (= 55%) came from his sources. Five instances ἵνα + subjunctive in Matthew (= 13%) belong to uniquely Matthean fulfillment formulae (ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος), and are therefore almost certainly redactional. Of the remaining 12 instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Matthew (= 32%) some may have come from a source, but most are likely to be the product of Matthean redaction. In other words, up to 45% of the instances of ἵνα + subjunctive in Matthew are redactional.

  ↩

• ^[156]

  Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ ἀπολέσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἓν οὐ καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ πορεύεται ἐπὶ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ἕως εὕρῃ αὐτό καὶ εὑρὼν ἐπιτίθησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ χαίρων καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας λέγων αὐτοῖς συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὸ πρόβατόν μου τὸ ἀπολωλός λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως χαρὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἔσται ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα δικαίοις οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν μετανοίας ἤ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπιμελῶς ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ καὶ εὑροῦσα συγκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας λέγουσα συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα οὕτως λέγω ὑμῖν γείνεται χαρὰ ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι		εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐχὶ καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ αὐτό καὶ εὑρὼν αὐτὸ ἐπιτίθησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας λέγων αὐτοῖς συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὸ πρόβατόν μου τὸ ἀπολωλός ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως γείνεται χαρὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα δικαίοις οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν μετανοίας ἤ τίς γυνὴ ἔχουσα δέκα δηνάρια καὶ ἀπολέσῃ δηνάριον ἓν οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ζητεῖ ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ αὐτό καὶ εὑροῦσα αὐτὸ συγκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ τὰς γείτονας λέγουσα αὐταῖς συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὸ δηνάριον ὃ ἀπώλεσα ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως γείνεται χαρὰ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι
  Total Words:	141	Total Words:	151
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	120	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	120
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	85.11%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	79.47%

  ↩

• ^[157]

  Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ ἐὰν γένηταί τινι ἀνθρώπῳ ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐχὶ ἀφήσει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα πρόβατα ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ πλανώμενον καὶ ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν αὐτό ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι χαίρει ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα τοῖς μὴ πεπλανημένοις οὕτως οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μεικρῶν τούτων		εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐχὶ καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ αὐτό καὶ εὑρὼν αὐτὸ ἐπιτίθησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας λέγων αὐτοῖς συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὸ πρόβατόν μου τὸ ἀπολωλός ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως γείνεται χαρὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα δικαίοις οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν μετανοίας ἤ τίς γυνὴ ἔχουσα δέκα δηνάρια καὶ ἀπολέσῃ δηνάριον ἓν οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ζητεῖ ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ αὐτό καὶ εὑροῦσα αὐτὸ συγκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ τὰς γείτονας λέγουσα αὐταῖς συγχάρητέ μοι ὅτι εὗρον τὸ δηνάριον ὃ ἀπώλεσα ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως γείνεται χαρὰ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι
  Total Words:	66	Total Words:	151
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	30	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	30
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	45.45%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	19.87%

  ↩

• ^[158] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[159] 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. ↩
• ^[160] See Otto Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:88-105, esp. 105 n. 157. ↩