Mustard Seed and Starter Dough Parables

Matt. 13:31-33; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-21
(Huck 97-98, 164; Aland 128-129, 209-210; Crook 150-151, 246-247)^[182]

Updated: 22 August 2024

‏[וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם מָשָׁל לֵאמֹר] לְמַה דּוֹמָה מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם וּלְמָה אֲדַמֶּה אוֹתָהּ לְעֵין הַחַרְדָּל שֶׁנָּטַל אָדָם וְנָתַן בְּגִנָּתוֹ וְצָמַח וְהָיָה לְאִילָן וְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁכְנוּ בְּבַדָּיו וְעוֹד אָמַר לְמָה אֲדַמֶּה מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם לִשְׂאֹר שֶׁנָּטְלָה אִשָּׁה וְטָמְנָה בְּקֶמַח שָׁלשׁ סְאִים עַד שֶׁחָמֵץ כֻּלוֹ

[And Yeshua told them this parable:] “What is the Kingdom of Heaven like? Or what comparison can I make to illustrate its vitality? It’s like a mustard seed that a man planted in his garden. It germinated and grew into a tree. Birds even perched in its branches.”

Then he added, “What other comparison can I make to illustrate the vitality of the Kingdom of Heaven? It’s like starter dough that a woman worked into three seahs of flour. Soon the whole batch of dough had risen.”^[183]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables, click on the link below:

---

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

---

• ^[1] Young’s reconstruction of the Mustard Seed parable appears in Young, JHJP, 209. The English translation of Young’s reconstruction is our own—DNB and JNT. ↩
• ^[2] Young’s reconstruction of the Starter Dough parable appears in Young, JHJP, 212. The English translation of Young’s reconstruction is our own—DNB and JNT. ↩
• ^[3] On the possible location of the Mustard Seed parable in Anth., see Darnel Among the Wheat, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[4] Perhaps the author of Mark omitted the Starter Dough parable because, unlike the three other parables he included in his excursus, Starter Dough does not have an agricultural theme. ↩
• ^[5] See Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[6] On the author of Matthew’s insertion of Whoever Has Will Be Given More into his version of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven saying, see Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L13-17. ↩
• ^[7] See our discussion in Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, under the subheading “Story Placement,” and cf. Blessedness of the Twelve, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[8] According to Streeter, Mark’s association of the Four Soils parable with the Mustard Seed parable formed the nucleus of Matthew’s parable discourse. See Burnett H. Streeter, “On the Original Order of Q,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 141-164, esp. 152. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Vincent Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 246-269, esp. 257 n. 3. ↩
• ^[10] According to Lindsey, it was the Anthologizer (the creator of Anth.) who deconstructed narrative-sayings complexes into their component parts and reorganized them according to genre. ↩
• ^[11] See Lindsey, JRL, 76-77; idem, “Jesus’ Twin Parables,” under the subheading “Jesus’ Parables and Their Contexts.” Cf. Flusser, Jesus, 110. On our reconstruction of Jesus’ saying in Matt. 11:12 ∥ Luke 16:16, see The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing. ↩
• ^[12] The opening lines of the hymn Adon Olam are an example of a suprahistorical view of the Kingdom of Heaven:

  אֲדוֹן עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ בְּטֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר נִבְרָא לְעֵת נַעֲשָׂה בְחֶפְצוֹ כֹּל אֲזַי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא וְאַחֲרֵי כִּכְלוֹת הַכֹּל לְבַדּוֹ יִמְלוֹךְ נוֹרָא

  Lord of the world, who reigned before any creature was made, in the time when all things were made according to his wish, then his name was declared to be “King,” and after all things are finished he will reign alone in awe.

  For the text of Adon Olam, see Joseph Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (rev. ed.; New York: Bloch, 1975), 7-8. On the conception of the Kingdom of Heaven in Adon Olam, see Warren Zev Harvey, “Kingdom of God,” in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought (ed. Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Nendes-Flohr; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1987), 521-525, esp. 522. ↩

• ^[13] See David Flusser, “The Stages of Redemption History According to John the Baptist and Jesus” (Flusser, Jesus, 258-275, esp. 266-267, 274-275). ↩
• ^[14] On the various nuances of the Kingdom of Heaven in the teachings of Jesus, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua.” ↩
• ^[15] See Joseph Frankovic, “The Power of Parables,” under the subheading “Grasping the Profound.” ↩
• ^[16] One of the meanings of the Hebrew verb פָּרַץ (pāratz) is “increase” or “expand” (cf., e.g., Exod. 1:12; Job 1:10; t. Shab. 1:7). It is possible that this connotation of פָּרַץ, which we believe occurred prominently in The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, may have suggested the images of the growth of a seed and the rising of dough. ↩
• ^[17] On high verbal agreement between Matthean and Lukan pericopae as an indicator of Anth. as their common source, see "LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae." ↩
• ^[18] For scholars who describe Matthew’s version of the Mustard Seed parable as a conflation of the versions in Mark and the source behind Luke’s version, see Bultmann, 172; T. W. Manson, 123; Knox, 2:79; Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” 246-269, esp. 257; Beare, Earliest, 115 §97; Davies-Allison, 2:416; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 373, 379. ↩
• ^[19] The versions of the Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables in the Gospel of Thomas read as follows:

  The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. He said to them: It is like a mustard-seed, smaller than all seeds. But when it falls on the tilled earth, it produces a large branch and becomes shelter for <the> birds of heaven. (Gos. Thom. §20 [ed. Guillaumont, 15])

  Jesus [said]: The Kingdom of the Father is like [a] woman, (who) has taken a little leaven [(and) has hidden] it in dough (and) has made large loaves of it. Whoever has ears let him hear. (Gos. Thom. §96 [ed. Guillaumont, 49])

  Fleddermann argued that the versions of the Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables in the Gospel of Thomas are later adaptations of the versions preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. See Harry Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (ed. David J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 216-236. ↩

• ^[20] Of the four instances of ἄλλη παραβολή in the Gospel of Matthew, three occur in the parable discourse (Matt. 13:24, 31, 33). The other occurrence is in Matt. 21:33. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L8-9; Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[22] Perhaps Matthew’s wording was influenced by the question ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν (“In what parable can we put it?”) in Mark 4:30, since Matthew’s παρατιθέναι is a compound form of the verb τιθέναι found in Mark 4:30. ↩
• ^[23] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:417; Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 217; Luz, 2:257 n. 7; Hagner, 1:385. ↩
• ^[24] See Robert L. Lindsey, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” under thesis 6. See thesis 7 for Lindsey’s argument against Lukan dependence on Mark for the use of ἔλεγεν in Luke 13:18. ↩
• ^[25] See John C. Hawkins, “Three Limitations to St. Luke’s Use of St. Mark’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 28-59, esp. 50; Marshall, 560; Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 218-219. ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Zeba Antonin Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78 (2000): 23-48, esp. 30. ↩
• ^[27] See Lindsey, HTGM, 28. ↩
• ^[28] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Stereotypes: Jesus’ Baptism.” ↩
• ^[29] 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). ↩
• ^[30] See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L8-9. ↩
• ^[31] See Harnack, 27; T. W. Manson, 123; Beare, Earliest, 115 §97; Davies-Allison, 2:417. ↩
• ^[32] Plummer (Mark, 133) noted that the verb ὁμοιοῦν (homoioun, “to make like”) occurs only once in the Gospel of Mark, and suggested that its appearance in Mark 4:30 might be due to the influence of the pre-synoptic source reflected in Luke’s version of the Mustard Seed parable. ↩
• ^[33] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 228. Crossan also believed that Luke’s opening double question was copied from his source, reasoning that if the author of Luke had “added any part of the opening in 13:8 he would presumably have done so again in the following 13:20.” See John Dominic Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.2 (1973): 244-266. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. Lindsey, HTGM, 101. ↩
• ^[35] See Swete, 86; Plummer, Luke, 344; Lindsey, HTGM, 83 n. 6; Marshall, 561. ↩
• ^[36] See Harvey K. McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33.2 (1971): 198-210, esp. 202. ↩
• ^[37] Cf. the phrase ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος (“I will show you to what it is like”; Luke 6:47). ↩
• ^[38] Examples from the Mishnah of parables beginning with לְמַה הוּא דוֹמֶה are found in m. Avot 3:17; 4:20. An example of a parable beginning with לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה is found in m. Suk. 2:9. ↩
• ^[39] See Hatch-Redpaht, 2:992. ↩
• ^[40] See Dos Santos, 44. ↩
• ^[41] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1015. On the author of Luke’s preference for “Kingdom of God,” see Bivin and 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’?” ↩
• ^[42] But see Lindsey, HTGM, 83 n. 6, where he explained his preference for the variant reading in Codex Bezae. ↩
• ^[43] See Young, JHJP, 209. ↩
• ^[44] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 220-221. ↩
• ^[45] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:993. ↩
• ^[46] See Dos Santos, 44. ↩
• ^[47] See Swete, 86; Plummer, Mark, 133. ↩
• ^[48] Lindsey referred to examples of this editorial quirk as “Markan pick-ups.” See Robert L. Lindsey, “My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution (1959-1969),” under the subheading “Markan Pick-ups”; David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups.” ↩
• ^[49] See Fitzmyer, 2:1016. ↩
• ^[50] As noted by Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 228. ↩
• ^[51] We suppose this to have been the case in the Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl parables. See Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comments to L2, L10. ↩
• ^[52] See Young, JHJP, 189-190. ↩
• ^[53] See McNeile, 198. ↩
• ^[54] The noun κόκκος occurs in Matt. 13:31; 17:20; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:19; 17:6. ↩
• ^[55] See Zohary, 93. ↩
• ^[56] Zohary, 93; H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), 472. ↩
• ^[57] See Jastrow, 715; Ryan S. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71.3 (2009): 527-543, esp. 533 n. 33. ↩
• ^[58] See, Young, JHJP, 209. ↩
• ^[59] References to the quantity כְּעֵין הַחַרְדָּל also occur in m. Nid. 5:2; y. Ket. 1:1 [3a]; b. Nid. 40a. Compare the unit of quantity כְּעֵין הַחַרְדָּל (“like a mustard seed’s bulk”) to the more common unit of quantity כְּזַּיִת (k^ezayit, “like an olive’s bulk”), which occurs numerous times in the Mishnah. Cf., e.g., m. Pes. 3:8; 8:3. ↩
• ^[60] See t. Maas. 3:7 (cited below); cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 19:54 §171; Luz, 2:261. ↩
• ^[61] See McNeile, 198. ↩
• ^[62] See Kutscher, 134 §227. There are only four instances in MT of verbs from the נ-ט-ל root (2 Sam. 24:12; Isa. 40:15; 63:9; Lam. 3:28). In Isa. 63:9 a pi‘el form of נ-ט-ל was translated using the compound verb ἀναλαμβάνειν. ↩
• ^[63] See Young, JHJP, 209. ↩
• ^[64] The phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς does not occur in the Lukan or Matthean parallels to Mark 4:1 (cf. Luke 8:4; Matt. 13:2). ↩
• ^[65] Luke 8:15, upon which Mark 4:20 depends, reads ἐν τῇ καλῇ γῇ; Matthew’s parallel to Mark 4:20 reads ἐπὶ τὴν καλὴν γῆν (Matt. 13:23). ↩
• ^[66] Cf. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 376. ↩
• ^[67] Lindsey (HTGM, 83 n. 6) referred to the author of Mark’s use of ἐπί + ἡ γῆ as a “Markan stereotype” because so many of Mark’s instances of this construction in TT pericopae are unsupported by the Lukan and Matthean parallels. The instances of ἐπί + ἡ γῆ in the Gospel of Mark are as follows:

  Mark 2:10 TT = Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24 Mark 4:1 TT (cf. Matt. 13:2 [--]; Luke 8:4[--]) Mark 4:20 TT = Matt. 13:23 (cf. Luke 8:15 [ἐν τῃ...γῇ]) Mark 4:26 U Mark 4:31 TT (cf. Matt. 13:31 [ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ]; Luke 13:19 [εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ]) Mark 4:31 TT (cf. Matt. 13:32 [--]; Luke 13:19 [--]) Mark 6:47 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:24 [ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς]) Mark 6:53 Mk-Mt = Matt. 14:34 Mark 8:6 Mk-Mt = Matt. 15:35 Mark 9:3 TT (cf. Matt. 17:2 [--]; Luke 9:29 [--]) Mark 9:20 TT (cf. Matt. 17:18 [--]; Luke 9:42 [--]) Mark 14:35 TT (cf. Matt. 26:39 [ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ]; Luke 22:41 [--]) Mark 15:33 TT = Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  The strongest evidence that the author of Mark redactionally proliferated the use of ἐπί + ἡ γῆ are six Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark’s use of this construction (Mark 4:1 [cf. Matt. 13:2; Luke 8:4], 31 [2xx; cf. Matt. 13:31-32; Luke 13:19]; 9:3 [cf. Matt. 17:2; Luke 9:29], 20 [cf. Matt. 17:18; Luke 9:42]; 14:35 [cf. Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:41]). Also indicative is the author of Matthew’s greater willingness to copy ἐπί + ἡ γῆ from Mark in Markan-Matthean pericopae, where the author of Matthew lacked a parallel in Anth. to challenge or corroborate Mark’s wording (Matt. 14:34 ∥ Mark 6:53; Matt. 15:35 ∥ Mark 8:6; cf. Matt. 14:24 ∥ Mark 6:47). Luke and Mark agree to write ἐπί + ἡ γῆ on only two occasions (Mark 2:10 ∥ Luke 5:24; Mark 15:33 ∥ Luke 23:44). ↩

• ^[68] Instead of σπείρειν the author of Mark used the verb βάλλειν (ballein, “to throw”; Mark 4:26), the same verb the author of Luke used for planting a seed in the Mustard Seed parable (Luke 13:19; L11)! ↩
• ^[69] In this discussion we have excluded instances of the substantive ὁ σπείρων (ho speirōn, “the sower”). Luke and Matthew also have σπείρειν 2xx in the Four Soils parable (Matt. 13:3 ∥ Mark 4:3 ∥ Luke 8:5; Matt. 13:4 ∥ Mark 4:4 ∥ Luke 8:5). ↩
• ^[70] Matthew’s version of the interpretation of the Four Soils parable also has six instances of σπείρειν, five in agreement with Mark (Matt. 13:18 [cf. Mark 4:13; Luke 8:11], 19 [2xx; = Mark 4:15; cf. Luke 8:12], 20 [= Mark 4:16; cf. Luke 8:13], 22 [= Mark 4:18; cf. Luke 8:14], 23 [= Mark 4:20; cf. Luke 8:15]). ↩
• ^[71] See Young, JHJP, 208. ↩
• ^[72] See Davies-Allison, 2:418; Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 234; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 375; Luz, 2:257 n. 7; Nolland, Matt., 550. ↩
• ^[73] Crook noted that Theophrastus, a classical authority on horticulture (ca. 371-287 B.C.E.), never used βάλλειν (“to throw”) when referring to planting a seed, but that Theophrastus did use σπείρειν (“to sow”) when referring to the planting of mustard (Enquiry into Plants 7:1 §2). Other verbs that might seem more appropriate than βάλλειν are φυτεύειν (fūtevein, “to plant”) or πηγνύναι (pēgnūnai, “to plant”). See Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 28 n. 16, 32. ↩
• ^[74] Cf. Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 222. ↩
• ^[75] See Davies-Allison, 2:418; Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 31-32. ↩
• ^[76] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 222. ↩
• ^[77] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 222; Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 30. ↩
• ^[78] Examples of Lukan and Matthean agreement to write ἑαυτοῦ in DT include Matt. 3:9 ∥ Luke 3:8; Matt. 8:22 ∥ Luke 9:60; Matt. 12:45 ∥ Luke 11:26. ↩
• ^[79] The textual witnesses for Luke 19:36 are divided. In Sinaiticus, Bezae and others we find αὐτός, while Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and others read ἑαυτοῦ. Nestle-Aland prefers to read αὐτός in Luke 19:36. ↩
• ^[80] See the examples cited in Moulton-Milligan, 102. ↩
• ^[81] See Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L40. ↩
• ^[82] The following are examples of נָתַן used in reference to planting seeds:

  אֵין נוֹתְנִין זֶרַע דַּלַעַת לְתוֹךְ הַחַלָּמִית

  They do not put [נוֹתְנִין] the seed of a gourd among mallows.... (m. Kil. 1:8)

  For a discussion of the above prohibition, see Irving Mandelbaum, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 55.

  אדם נותן זרעים בארץ ומעביר עליהן מים ומצמחין ומגדלין פירות וחיין מהן כל באי העולם וכל מעשה ידיו שברא בעולם

  A person puts [נוֹתֵן] seeds in the earth and pours water over them, and they sprout and grow fruit, and all the inhabitants of the world and all his handiwork that he created in the world live off them. (Eliyahu Rabbah 18:31 [ed. Friedmann, 105])

  ↩

• ^[83] Scholars who have made this faulty assumption, usually citing m. Kil. 3:2 and t. Kil. 2:8, include Strack-Billerbeck, 1:669; T. W. Manson, 123; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” TDNT, 7:287-291, esp. 288; Beare, Earliest, 115 §97; McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 201; Marshall, 561; Davies-Allison, 2:418; Lachs, 225; Guelich, 249; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 381-383; Nolland, Luke, 727; Hagner, 1:386; Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 28; Bovon, 2:298; Witherington, 268; Edwards, Luke, 399. ↩
• ^[84] The rabbinic ruling under discussion reads:

  כָּל מִין זְרָעִים אֵין זוֹרְעִים בָּעֲרוּגָה כָּל מִין יְרָקוֹת זוֹרְעִים בָּעֲרוּגָה הַחַרְדָּל וְ^הַאֲפוּנִים הַשּׁוּפִים מִן זְרָעִים

  Every variety of [plants grown for their] seeds they do not sow in a garden bed [containing multiple varieties of plants]. Every variety of vegetable they sow in a garden bed. The mustard plant and the smooth chickpea plant are a variety of [plants grown for their] seeds. (m. Kil. 3:2)

  For the dimensions of the garden bed under discussion, see m. Kil. 3:1. ↩

• ^[85] The passage in which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel voices his opinion regarding the planting of mustard in garden beds reads:

  רבן שמעון בן גמליאל או′ לערוגיות קטנות של ירק מקיפין אותן חרדל חריע

  Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “Regarding small garden beds of vegetables [containing multiple varieties of plants], they surround them with mustard or safflower.” (t. Kil. 2:5; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[86] For scholars who have taken a more cautious approach, see Young, JHJP, 207-208; 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), 318-321; Snodgrass, 220; Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 533-536. ↩
• ^[87] Cf., e.g., Beare, Earliest, 115 §97; McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 201; Marshall, 561. ↩
• ^[88] Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 387. Not only is Scott’s premise that the Mustard Seed parable describes a violation of the prohibition against mixing different varieties of plants invalid, but he is also mistaken to suppose that mixed varieties of plants are ritually impure. Moreover, Scott betrays a fundamental incomprehension of the ancient Jewish concept of ritual purity by citing Samaritans, leaven, women and rogues (= sinners?) as symbols of the impure outcast Jesus allegedly championed (Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 386). The rabbinic sages regarded Samaritans as more stringent in their observance of the Torah than average Jews (cf. t. Pes. 2:2), and they specifically cited Samaritan territories, ritual immersion pools and dwellings in the land of Israel to be ritually pure (t. Mik. 6:1). So it is not clear why Scott regards Samaritans as “unclean.” Leaven was not a symbol of impurity; leavened bread was the main staple of the ancient Jewish diet. And the baking of leavened bread was typically a woman’s responsibility in ancient Jewish households (see Comment to L32). So neither leavened bread nor women were especially regarded as impure. Moreover, sinners were not especially impure, since according to biblical and rabbinic halachah committing a sin did not contaminate the sinner with ritual impurity. See Call of Levi, Comment to L54. A saint who devoted himself or herself to good deeds such as tending the dead or visiting the house of mourners might find himself or herself in a state of ritual impurity more often than an “average” sinner. For an introduction to the ancient Jewish concept of ritual purity, see Joshua N. Tilton, “A Goy’s Guide to Ritual Purity.” ↩
• ^[89] See Ernest van Eck, “When Kingdoms Are Kingdoms No More: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Mustard Seed (Lk 13:18-19),” Acta Theologica 33.2 (2013): 226-254, esp. 245. ↩
• ^[90] It is not clear what van Eck wished to indicate by the bizarre term “kingdom of the Temple,” but due to its lack of definition it comes dangerously close to a designation for Judaism. ↩
• ^[91] Notley notes that rabbinic parables are not “Jewish,” in the sense that “the characters, the setting and the story lines are not culturally specific to the Jewish people.” See R. Steven Notley, “Reading Gospel Parables as Jewish Literature,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.1 (2018): 29-43, esp. 33. Cf. Notley-Safrai, 47. ↩
• ^[92] See Notley-Safrai, 47. The parable they cite is found in Eliyahu Rabbah 18:10 (ed. Friedmann, 93-94). ↩
• ^[93] See David Flusser, “Parables of Ill Repute.” The parables he cited are in b. Taan. 25b. ↩
• ^[94] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:763. ↩
• ^[95] The Hebrew text appears to be corrupt. The term מיצק does not occur elsewhere in rabbinic literature. Neusner translates t. Mik. 6:2 as though it read מֵצִיק (mētziq, “oppressor”). ↩
• ^[96] Another option would be to reconstruct κῆπος with עֲרוּגָה ( ‘^arūgāh, “garden bed”). However, the definition of עֲרוּגָה is much narrower than κῆπος, so it would be unusual for a translator to treat them as equivalents. In addition, we have not found examples of עֲרוּגָה with a pronominal suffix, which we would expect given our GR of εἰς κῆπον αὐτοῦ. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. David Wenham, “The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions About the Composition of Mark 4:1-34,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 3-38, esp. 21-22. ↩
• ^[98] Cf., e.g., Mann, 271; Guelich, 249; France, 527. ↩
• ^[99] Seeds of the black mustard plant are about a millimeter in diameter. See Zohary, 93. ↩
• ^[100] Witherington (268) cited two ancient Greek authors, Diodorus Siculus (1:35 §2) and Antigonus of Carystus (§91), for the notion that the seed of the mustard plant is the smallest of all seeds. But both of the passages—Antigonus of Carystus seems simply to be paraphrasing Diodorus Siculus—refer to the crocodile as being the largest of animals to grow from the proportionally smallest egg. Neither passage says anything about mustard seeds. ↩
• ^[101] According to Luz (2:257 n. 7), μέν...δέ is typical of Matthean redaction. That the construction μέν...δέ did sometimes occur in Anth. is shown by the Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to use the μέν...δέ construction in Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Preaching (Matt. 3:11 ∥ Luke 3:16; cf. Mark 1:7), and by the appearance of μέν...δέ in the Matthean and Lukan versions of “The Harvest Is Plentiful” (Matt. 9:37 ∥ Luke 10:2). Nevertheless, a glance at Lindsey’s concordance (GCSG, 2:127-128) shows that there are numerous examples of μέν...δέ in Matthew that are unsupported by the parallels in Mark and/or Luke, and many of these are likely the product of Matthean redaction. ↩
• ^[102] Apart from the Gospels, LSJ (98) cites Xenophon’s Oeconomicus 19:18 as an example of ἀναβαίνειν with reference to plants, but in that passage Xenophon describes a vine that climbs up a tree (ἄμπελος ἀναβαίνουσα μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ δένδρα). Taylor (253) cites Theophrastus, Enquiry into Plants 8:3 §2, but that, too, is an example of a bean plant climbing up a stake (ὁ δὲ δόλιχος, ἐὰν παρακαταπήξῃ τις ξύλα μακρά, ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται κάρπιμος), which is equally inappropriate for describing the growth of a mustard plant. Nor does Moulton-Milligan (29-30) cite any examples of ἀναβαίνειν used to describe plant growth.

  Note the verbal parallel between Theophrastus’ ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται κάρπιμος (“climbs and becomes fruitful”) and Mark’s ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται μεῖζον (“goes up and becomes greater”). Such parallelism justifies the observation of some scholars that Mark’s version of the Mustard Seed parable is really more of a description of the way things generally happen than the narration of a story about one seed in particular. Cf. Bundy, 232 §138. ↩

• ^[103] Cf. Gen. 41:5; Deut. 29:22; Hos. 10:8; Isa. 5:6; 11:1; 32:13. See Taylor, 253; Guelich, 250. ↩
• ^[104] Note that Luke’s version of the Four Soils parable, which we believe to be the source upon which Mark’s version is based, does not use the verb ἀναβαίνειν to describe the growth of the thorns (Luke 8:7). We therefore regard ἀναβαίνειν in Mark’s version of the Four Soils parable to be redactional. ↩
• ^[105] See Four Soils parable, Comment to L46. ↩
• ^[106] On the homogenization of vocabulary in the three agricultural parables in Mark 4, see above, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[107] The instances of γίνεται in the Synoptic Gospels are as follows:

  Luke 11:26 DT = Matt. 12:45 Luke 12:54 DT (cf. Matt. 16:3) Luke 12:55 DT (cf. Matt. 16:3) Luke 15:10 U Luke 20:33 TT (cf. Mark 12:23; Matt. 22:28) Mark 2:15 TT (cf. Luke 5:29; Matt. 9:10) Mark 2:21 TT = Matt. 9:16 (cf. Luke 5:36) Mark 4:11 TT (cf. Luke 8:10; Matt. 13:13) Mark 4:19 TT = Matt. 13:22 (cf. Luke 8:14) Mark 4:32 TT (cf. Luke 13:19; Matt. 13:32) Mark 4:37 TT (cf. Luke 8:23; Matt. 8:24) Mark 11:23 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:21) Matt. 9:16 TT = Mark 2:21 (cf. Luke 5:36) Matt. 12:45 DT = Luke 11:26 Matt. 13:22 TT = Mark 4:19 (cf. Luke 8:14) Matt. 13:32 TT (cf. Luke 13:19; Mark 4:32) Matt. 26:2 TT (cf. Luke 22:1; Mark 14:1) Matt. 27:24 U Key: TT = verse has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  From the above data we highlight these important observations: 1) The Gospels of Luke and Mark never agree on the use of γίνεται; 2) The Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark’s use of γίνεται indicate that γίνεται in Mark is often, perhaps always, redactional; 3) The author of Matthew often rejected Mark’s use of γίνεται; 4) Except for the Passion Narrative, where Matthew uses γίνεται 2xx without the support of Mark or Luke, the author of Matthew only used γίνεται if it appeared in his source. The one exception to this rule is in Matt. 13:32; however, even in this verse the author of Matthew saw γίνεται in Mark’s parallel (Mark 4:32), albeit at a different location in the same sentence.

  For more on the author of Mark’s redactional use of γίνεται, see Call of Levi, Comment to L25-26, where we suggest that the author of Mark wrote καὶ γίνεται where Anth. read καὶ ἐγένετο. See also Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L20. ↩

• ^[108] On the author of Mark’s homogenization of the vocabulary within his parables excursus, see above, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[109] On the author of Mark’s tendency to dramatize, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[110] Additional examples of the construction -לְ- + הָיָה + וְ + noun meaning “become” are found in Gen. 9:13; 17:11, 16; 31:44; Exod. 8:12; 9:9; 13:16; 30:4; Lev. 24:7; Isa. 5:5; 8:14; 19:20; 22:21, 23; Jer. 48:26; 49:2; Ezek. 17:23; 26:5. ↩
• ^[111] Examples of reconstructing καὶ ἐγένετο with וַיְהִי are found inter alia in Widow’s Son in Nain, L1; Call of Levi, L25; Lord’s Prayer, L1; Choosing the Twelve, L5. ↩
• ^[112] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:289-290. ↩
• ^[113] See Kutscher, 140 §243. ↩
• ^[114] See Zohary, 93. ↩
• ^[115] An additional report of an exceptionally large mustard plant is found in Sifre Deut. §317 (ed. Finkelstein, 360), which we have quoted in Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[116] McNeile (198) noted that Theophrastus, a classical authority on horticulture, sometimes used the term δενδρολάχανον (dendrolachanon, “tree-herb”) to describe large garden herbs. On the basis of this usage some scholars have argued that there was nothing hyperbolic in Jesus’ description of the mustard plant’s dimensions. See Kenneth W. Clark, “The Mustard Plant,” Classical Weekly 37.7 (1943): 81-83. Cf. Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” 289. But it is probably better to allow for Jesus’ use of humorous exaggeration in his parables.

  The passage in Theophrastus’ writings usually cited reads as follows:

  τῶν τε γὰρ φρυγανωδῶν καὶ λαχανωδῶν ἔνια μονοστελέχη καὶ οἷον δένδρου φύσιν ἔχοντα γίνεται, καθάπερ ῥάφανος πήγανον, ὅθεν καὶ λαλοῦσί τινες τὰ τοιαῦτα δενδρολάχανα, τά τε λαχανώδη πάντα ἢ τὰ πλεῖστα ὅταν ἐγκαταμείνῃ λαμβάνει τινὰς ὥσπερ ἀκρεμόνας καὶ γίνεται τὸ ὅλον ἐν σχήματι δενδρώδει πλὴν ὀλιγοχρονιώτερα

  For of under-shrubs and those of the pot-herb class some have only one stem and come as it were to have the character of a tree, such as cabbage and rue: wherefore some call these ‘tree-herbs’ [δενδρολάχανα]; and in fact all or most of the pot-herb class, when they have been long in the ground, acquire a sort of branches, and the whole plant comes to have a tree-like shape, though it is shorter lived than a tree. (Theophrastus, Enquiry into Plants 1:3 §4)

  Text and translation according to Arthur Hort, trans., Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs (Loeb; 2 vols.; New York: Putnam, 1916), 1:26-27. ↩

• ^[117] Lindsey, HTGM, 83 n. 6. ↩
• ^[118] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 227. ↩
• ^[119] See Four Soils parable, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[120] See T. W. Manson, 123; Jeremias, Parables, 147. ↩
• ^[121] Cf. Jesus’ explicit instruction to his apostles not to take their message to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5). On this prohibition, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L52. ↩
• ^[122] Cf. Hagner, 1:387. ↩
• ^[123] See Beare, Earliest, 115 §97. ↩
• ^[124] See Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible, 473; Luz, 2:261. ↩
• ^[125] See Friedrich Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek (trans. Henry St. John Thackeray; rev. ed.; London: Macmillan, 1905), 48 §22.3; Plummer, Mark, 133; McNeile, 198. ↩
• ^[126] Pace Davies-Allison, 2:420. See Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible, 473; Luz, 2:257 n. 2; Bovon, 2:298 n. 31. Jeremias’ claim (Parables, 147) that κατασκηνοῦν “is actually an eschatological technical term for the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God” has been discredited by scholars. See Davies-Allison, 2:420; Young, JHJP, 206-207; Snodgrass, 224. ↩
• ^[127] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:744. ↩
• ^[128] See Dos Santos, 208. ↩
• ^[129] See Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[130] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:766. ↩
• ^[131] See Jastrow, 310. ↩
• ^[132] Shihin was a village in the Lower Galilee, not far from Tzippori (Sepphoris). On this anecdote concerning the mustard plant in Shihin, see Zev Vilnay, Legends of Galilee, Jordan, and Sinai (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1978), 120-121. ↩
• ^[133] See Zohary, 93. ↩
• ^[134] Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta referred to owning a stalk (קֶלַח) of mustard that grew to the dimensions of a fig tree (y. Peah 7:3 [33a]; quoted above, Comment to L18). ↩
• ^[135] For the term בַּד, see Jastrow, 138. Young (JHJP, 209) suggested reconstructing κλάδος in the Mustard Seed parable with עָנָף (‘ānāf, “branch”), which is possible if Jesus intended the description of the branches to be as hyperbolic as the description of the plant itself as a tree. ↩
• ^[136] We also encountered a similar transitional phrase between Persistent Widow and Friend in Need (L1). Other scholars who suppose that Luke’s introduction to the Starter Dough parable was copied from his source include Harnack (26) and Fleddermann (“The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 218). ↩
• ^[137] We have found only two examples of וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד in the sense of “and he also said” in MT:

  וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה

  And God also [עוֹד] said to Moses.... (Exod. 3:15)

  καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν πρὸς Μωυσῆν

  And God also [πάλιν] said to Moses.... (Exod. 3:15)

  וַיֹּאמֶר יי לוֹ עוֹד הָבֵא נָא יָדְךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ

  And the LORD also [עוֹד] said to him, “Put your hand into your chest.” (Exod. 4:6)

  εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ κύριος πάλιν Εἰσένεγκε τὴν χεῖρά σου εἰς τὸν κόλπον σου

  But the Lord also [πάλιν] said to him, “Put your hand into your chest.” (Exod. 4:6)

  In LXX πάλιν (palin, “again,” "also") is used to translate עוֹד (‘ōd, “again,” “yet,” “also”) in Gen. 29:33; Exod. 3:15; 4:6. ↩

• ^[138] Below are additional examples of וְעוֹד אָמַר from the Mishnah:

  ר′ יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵ′.... וְעוֹד אָמַ′ רְ′ יְהוּדָה....‏

  Rabbi Yehudah says.... And Rabbi Yehudah also said.... (m. Yom. 6:1)

  וּרְ′ מַתַּתְיָה בֶן חָרָשׁ מַתִּיר וְעוֹד אָמַ′ ר′ מַתַּתְיָה בֶן חָרָשׁ....‏

  And Rabbi Matatyah ben Harash permits it. And Rabbi Matatyah ben Harash also said.... (m. Yom. 8:6)

  ר′ אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵ′.... וְעוֹד אָמַ′ ר′ אֱלִיעֶזֶר

  Rabbi Eliezer says.... And Rabbi Eliezer also said.... (m. Suk. 2:6; cf. m. Shab. 19:1)

  ר מֵאִיר אוֹ′.... וְעוֹד אָמַ′ ר′ מֵאִיר

  Rabbi Meir says.... And Rabbi Meir also said.... (m. Moed Kat. 1:5)

  ↩

• ^[139] On opening parables with questions, see above, Comment to L4. See also Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 190. ↩
• ^[140] One of the traits of twin parables is that they are of similar length, with the second twin being slightly shorter than the first. See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Criteria for Identifying Separated Twin Parables and Similes in the Synoptic Gospels.” While it is true that the Mustard Seed parable (40 Greek words in Luke) is longer than the Starter Dough parable (24 Greek words in Luke), both parables are really quite short, and each is only one sentence long. ↩
• ^[141] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:599. ↩
• ^[142] See Marshall, 561; Fitzmyer, 2:954; Davies-Allison, 2:422; Luz, 2:262; Bovon, 2:300; Nolland, Matt., 553. ↩
• ^[143] See Sandor Ellix Katz, The Art of Fermentation (White River Junction, Vt.; Chelsea Green, 2012), 231. ↩
• ^[144] Mitton’s dire warnings about the unhygienic nature and dangerous potentialities of sourdough starters, which, he claimed, were the true reason behind the biblical command to destroy all leaven annually, are overblown. See C. Leslie Mitton, “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: IV. Leaven,” Expository Times 84.11 (1973): 339-343. Starter doughs can be safely maintained for decades (see Katz, The Art of Fermentation, 232). The live culture naturally selects against dangerous bacteria. According to Wood, “Although the baker imposes no control over the types of microbe which can develop, the conditions [of the starter dough] so favour yeasts and lactic acid bacteria that they dominate the fermentation quite rapidly, and are in complete control by the next morning [after the preparation of a new starter—DNB and JNT].” See Brian J. B. Wood, “Sourdough Bread,” in Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology (ed. Carl A. Batt and Pradip D. Patel; 3 vols.; San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 2000), 1:295-301, esp. 297. Cf. Carl S. Pederson, Microbiology of Food Fermentations (2d ed.; Westport, Conn.: AVI, 1979), 262. ↩
• ^[145] See Wood, “Sourdough Bread,” 297. ↩
• ^[146] See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 324-325; Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 190-192 (cf. Witherington, 269); Bovon, 2:301; van Eck, “When Kingdoms Are Kingdoms No More,” 245-246; Edwards, Luke, 400.

  According to Plutarch (Roman Questions §109), leaven was a symbol of decay, and on that account the priest of Jupiter was forbidden to come into contact with leaven. Arguing on the basis of comparative religion, Jacob reasoned that a taboo against decay was likewise the true reason behind the prohibition against offering leavened bread on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple. See Heinrich E. Jacob, Six Thousand Years of Bread: Its Holy and Unholy History (trans. Richard and Clara Winston; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944; repr. New York: Lyons & Burford, 1997), 38-40. But the offerings that were to be accompanied by leavened bread, which we will discuss below, tell against Jacob’s hypothesis. ↩

• ^[147] On the offering of two leavened loaves in the Temple at Shavuot, see Lev. 23:17; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2:179; m. Men. 5:1. See Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 337. ↩
• ^[148] Philo’s statement gives the lie to Scott’s claim (quoting Abrahams, 1:51) that “Only the repeated though subtle Christian insistence that leaven is good can explain how a Jew could envision leavened bread as ‘more perfect food than unleavened’” (Hear Then the Parable, 328), since it is safe to assume that Philo of Alexandria was not subjected to subtle repeated insistence on the part of Christians that leaven is good. ↩
• ^[149] Pace Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 321. See Abrahams, 1:53; Hans Windisch, “ζύμη, ζυμόω, ἄζυμος,” TDNT, 2:902-906, esp. 905; Young, JHJP, 211-212; Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 337-339; Luz, 2:262 n. 61; Snodgrass, 229-230, 233; Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 540. ↩
• ^[150] Leaven is used as a metaphor for the evil inclination in the prayer of Rabbi Alechsandri (b. Ber. 17a), quoted in Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L14. ↩
• ^[151] See H. B. Green, 135; Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 341; Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 540. ↩
• ^[152] See Bivin and Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Criteria for Identifying Separated Twin Parables and Similes in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[153] On the realistic depiction of women in the parables of the Matthean-Lukan Double Tradition, see Tal Ilan, “The Women of the Q Community within Early Judaism,” in Q in Context II: Social Setting and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source (ed. Markus Tiwald; Göttingen: V&R Press, 2015), 195-209. ↩
• ^[154] See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 326. ↩
• ^[155] In addition to Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisḥa chpt. 10 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:57), see m. Ket. 5:5. Likewise, the Mishnah’s tractate Hallah reports several halachot pertaining to the dough offering in the feminine, since it was usually women who handled dough (see m. Hal. 3:1, 2, 3; 4:1). Pliny the Elder (first century C.E.) also described bread making as women’s work (Nat. Hist. 18:28 §107). On the expected duties of women within the household, see Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 185-186. ↩
• ^[156] See Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 339. ↩
• ^[157] See the entry for κρύπτειν in David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, "LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions" for instances where we have accepted κρύπτειν in GR. ↩
• ^[158] See Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” 224; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 322; Bovon, 2:295-296. ↩
• ^[159] Pace Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 326. ↩
• ^[160] Cf. Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 339. ↩
• ^[161] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:52-53. ↩
• ^[162] On the distinction between עִיסָה and בָּצֵק, see Jastrow, 1072. ↩
• ^[163] See Segal, 194 §394. ↩
• ^[164] Additional examples of the LXX translators' changing the Hebrew order "number→unit" to "unit→number" are found in Gen. 7:6, 24; 8:10, 12; 25:20, 26; 26:34; 30:20; 31:23; 41:50; 42:17; 50:26; Exod. 26:10; 2 Chr. 11:21; 13:2, 21, 23; 36:21. ↩
• ^[165] The text of the fragment inserted after T. Levi 18:2 is printed in Appendix III of R. H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 245-256. On the Mount Athos MS, see ibid., xi, liii; B. Roosen, “Athous, Koutloumousiou 39: An Interesting Case,” Sacris Erudiri 39 (2000): 219-252. The Greek fragment has partial parallels in Aramaic documents from the Cairo Geniza and Qumran. ↩
• ^[166] On the Aramaic derivation of σάτον, see Moulton-Howard, 153. On the term סָאתָא, see Jastrow, 948. ↩
• ^[167] See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[168] We can rule out LXX as Josephus’ source for his account of the siege of Samaria since in 4 Kgdms. 7:1 LXX used μέτρον (metron, “measure”) to translate סְאָה. We can also rule out an Aramaic Targum as the source for Josephus’ account due to the lack of evidence of the existence of a Targum of Kings in the first century C.E. On the scant evidence for Targums in the Second Temple period, see Randall Buth, “Where Is the Aramaic Bible at Qumran? Scripture Use in the Land of Israel.” ↩
• ^[169] On the use of the Aramaic-derived πασχα in LXX to represent the Hebrew term פֶּסַח in MT, see Randall Buth and Chad Pierce, “Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean ‘Aramaic’?” (JS2, 66-109, esp. 87-88); Bivin and Tilton, “LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels,” under the subheading “Hellenized Semitic Words in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[170] Unfortunately, the Hebrew text corresponding to Sir. 21:27 is no longer extant. Nevertheless, since Ben Sira was composed in Hebrew we can be certain that σατανᾶς in Sir. 21:27 represented a Hebrew, not an Aramaic, term. ↩
• ^[171] Aramaic remained an international language even after the conquest of the ancient Near East by Alexander the Great. As a consequence, there was much greater interaction between Greek and Aramaic than there was between Greek and Hebrew. ↩
• ^[172] In fact, sometimes the LXX translators did reinvent Hebrew-derived transliterations, such as σαταν (satan; 3 Kgdms. 11:14) for שָׂטָן (sāṭān, “Satan”), or φασεκ (fasek; 2 Chr. 30:1, 2, 5, 15, 17, 18) and φασεχ (fasech; 2 Chr. 35:1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18) for פֶּסַח (pesaḥ, “Passover”), but these neologisms did not supplant the already established Aramaic-derived equivalents. ↩
• ^[173] See Jeremias, Parables, 147; Marshall, 561. ↩
• ^[174] Cf., e.g., Robert W. Funk, “Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: The Parable of the Leaven,” Interpretation 25.2 (1971): 149-170, esp. 160-161; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 327. ↩
• ^[175] See Ze’ev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994), 106-107. ↩
• ^[176] See Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 728-792, esp. 740). The Jerusalem Talmud attributes the custom of baking a week’s supply of bread on Fridays to the time of Ezra (y. Meg. 4:1 [29b]). Even if the attribution to Ezra is spurious, the sages clearly regarded this custom as an ancient one. ↩
• ^[177] See Luz, 2:262. ↩
• ^[178]

  Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἔλεγεν οὖν τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦκαὶ πάλιν εἶπεν τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον		[εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων] τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον
  Total Words:	64	Total Words:	62 [68]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	57	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	57
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	89.06%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	91.94 [83.82]%

  ↩

• ^[179]

  Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἔλεγεν πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃς ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μεικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται μεῖζον πάντων τῶν λαχάνων καὶ ποιεῖ κλάδους μεγάλους ὥστε δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῖν		[εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων] τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον
  Total Words:	57	Total Words:	62 [68]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	8
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	14.04%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	12.90 [11.76]%

  ↩

• ^[180] See Bundy, 232 §138, 368 §263. ↩
• ^[181]

  Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ ὃ μεικρότερον μέν ἐστι πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῖν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον		[εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων] τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον
  Total Words:	73	Total Words:	62 [68]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	39 [40]	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	39 [40]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	53.42 [54.79]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	62.90 [58.82]%

  ↩

• ^[182] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[183] 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. ↩