Darnel Among the Wheat Parable

Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43
(Huck 96, 100; Aland 127, 131; Crook 149, 153)^[135]

Updated: 11 July 2024

‏[וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם מָשָׁל] לֵאמֹר לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאָדָם זוֹרֵעַ זֶרַע טוֹב בְּשָׂדֵהוּ וּבִשְׁכִיבָתוֹ בָּא אוֹיְבוֹ וְזָרַע זוֹנִים בֵּין הַחִטִּים וְהָלַךְ וּכְשֶׁעָלָה הָעֵשֶׂב אַף עָלוּ הַזּוֹנִים קָרְבוּ אֶצְלוֹ עֲבָדָיו וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֲדוֹנֵנוּ רְצוֹנְךָ נֵלֵךְ וּנְקוֹשֵׁשׁ אוֹתָם וְאָמַר לֹא שֶׁמָּא תְּקוֹשְׁשׁוּ אֶת הַזּוֹנִים וְתַעַקְרוּ עִמָּם אֶת הַחִטִּים הַנִּיחוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לִצְמוֹחַ עַד הַקָּצִיר וּבִשְׁעַת הַקָּצִיר קוֹשּׁוּ תְּחִילָּה אֶת הַזּוֹנִים וַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָם חֲבִילוֹת וְתִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ וְאֶת הַחִטִּים הַכְנִיסוּ לְאוֹצָרִי

And Yeshua told them this parable: “What is the matter like? It’s like someone who sowed good seed in his field. While he lay sleeping his enemy came into his field and sowed darnel seeds on top of the wheat that had already been sown. Then the enemy crept away.

“When the blades of wheat sprouted up from the soil, the darnel sprouted up, too. When the man’s servants saw this, they approached him and asked, ‘Lord, do you want us to go collect the darnel?’

“‘Don’t do that,’ he replied, ‘for you might accidentally uproot the wheat along with the darnel. Allow the two to grow side by side until the harvest. At harvest time I want you to first gather the darnel, bundle it up, and burn it on a fire. As for the wheat, gather it all up into my storehouse.’”^[136]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Darnel Among the Wheat parable click on the link below:

---

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

---

• ^[1] See Burnett Hillman Streeter, “Synoptic Criticism and the Eschatological Problem,” in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 423-436, esp. 432; T. W. Manson, 192; Bundy, 231 §137; Taylor, 265; David R. Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” Scottish Journal of Theology 31.6 (1978): 557-570, esp. 557; Luz, 2:253. The coordination of Darnel Among the Wheat with the Spontaneous Growth parable was recognized as early as Tatian (second cent. C.E.), who placed Darnel Among the Wheat immediately following the Spontaneous Growth parable in his Diatessaron (16:49-17:7). See Swete, 83; Plummer, Mark, 130. ↩
• ^[2] On our reasons for regarding Darnel Among the Wheat as original and Spontaneous Growth as derivative, see Spontaneous Growth, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” There we noted that 1) Darnel Among the Wheat, unlike Spontaneous Growth, reverts reasonably well to Hebrew; 2) Darnel Among the Wheat makes sense within the context of Jesus’ teaching; and 3) parallels to Darnel Among the Wheat exist in rabbinic sources. ↩
• ^[3] On twin parables in the Gospels, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Jesus’ Twin Parables”; LOY Excursus: Criteria for Identifying Separated Twin Parables and Similes in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[4] See Beare, Earliest, 104 §§90-104. ↩
• ^[5] From our foregoing discussion it seems that despite separating parables from their literary contexts, the Anthologizer was not responsible for separating parables from their twins. Several sets of twin parables have survived intact in at least one of the Synoptic Gospels due to their appearance together in Anth. (Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl [Matt. 13:44, 45-46]; Tower Builder and King Going to War [Luke 14:28-30, 31-32]; Lost Sheep and Lost Coin [Luke 15:4-7, 8-10]; Mustard Seed and Starter Dough [Matt. 13:31-32, 33; Luke 13:18-19, 20-21]). It appears that the author of Matthew was responsible for separating Darnel Among the Wheat from Bad Fish Among the Good in order to create an eschatological inclusio in his parables discourse. Likewise, the author of Luke appears to have been responsible for separating the Persistent Widow parable from Friend in Need. See Persistent Widow, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[6] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115-122. ↩
• ^[7] Pace Plummer, Mark, 130; Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism (Richmond, Va.; John Knox Press, 1969), 64; France, Matt., 524. See Streeter, “Synoptic Criticism and the Eschatological Problem,” 423-436, esp. 432 n. 3. Luz (2:253) noted that the distinctive vocabulary shared by the Darnel Among the Wheat and Spontaneous Growth parables even occurs in roughly the same order:

  First Occurrence of Common Vocabulary in...
  Darnel Among the Wheat	Spontaneous Growth
  ἄνθρωπος	ἄνθρωπος
  καθεύδειν	καθεύδειν
  σῖτος
  βλαστάνειν	βλαστάνειν
  	πρῶτος
  χόρτος	χόρτος
  	σῖτος
  καρπός	καρπός
  θερισμός	θερισμός
  πρῶτος

  ↩

• ^[8] See Plummer, Mark, 130; T. W. Manson, 192. ↩
• ^[9] A version of Darnel Among the Wheat occurs in the Gospel of Thomas:

  Jesus said: The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night, he sowed a weed among the good seed. The man did not permit them (the workers) to pull up the weed. He said to them: Lest perhaps you go to pull up the weed and pull up the wheat with it. For on the day of harvest the weeds will appear, they (will) pull them and burn them. (Gos. Thom. §57 [ed. Guillaumont, 32-33])

  Crossan and Meier regard the version of Darnel Among the Wheat in Thomas to be later than, and possibly dependent upon, Matthew’s. See John Dominic Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.2 (1973): 244-266, esp. 261; John P. Meier, “The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30): Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?” Journal of Biblical Literature 131.4 (2012): 715-723. ↩

• ^[10] The author of Matthew used παρατιθέναι twice in his Gospel to introduce parables, with both instances occurring in his parables discourse (Matt. 13:24, 31). See Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L1-2. ↩
• ^[11] Cf. Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, L8-9; Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, L1; Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, L3. ↩
• ^[12] On Matthew’s use of aorist passive and future passive forms of ὁμοιοῦν, see Johannes Schneider, “ὅμοιος, κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT, 5:186-199, esp. 189; D. A. Carson, “The ΟΜΟΙΟΣ Word-Group as Introduction to Some Matthean Parables,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 277-282. ↩
• ^[13] The author of Matthew may have been influenced in this regard by Mark’s Spontaneous Growth parable, which compares the Kingdom of God to a man who is sowing seed (Mark 4:26). ↩
• ^[14] See Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L4-6; cf. Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comments to L2, L10. ↩
• ^[15] The question and answer -לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְ (“To what is the matter similar? To a...”) introduces parables in, e.g., m. Suk. 2:9; t. Ber. 1:11; 6:18; t. Hag. 2:5; t. Sot. 11:3; 15:7; t. Bab. Kam. 7:2, 3, 4, 13; t. Sanh. 1:2; 8:9; t. Nid. 2:8; 3:5; t. Zav. 1:11. ↩
• ^[16] We find the order noun→καλός in Matt. 3:10 (καρπὸν καλόν); 7:17 (καρποὺς καλούς), 18 (καρποὺς καλούς), 19 (καρπὸν καλόν); 12:33 (δένδρον καλόν; καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν); 13:8 (τὴν γῆν τὴν καλήν); 26:10 (ἔργον...καλόν). The one exception is in Matt. 5:16 (καλὰ ἔργα). ↩
• ^[17] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:411-412. ↩
• ^[18] See Jeremias, Parables, 100-101; Carson, “The ΟΜΟΙΟΣ Word-Group as Introduction to Some Matthean Parables,” 277; Hagner, 1:383. ↩
• ^[19] See Shmuel Safrai, “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” under the subheading “Parables”; R. Steven Notley, “Reading Gospel Parables as Jewish Literature,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.1 (2018): 29-43, esp. 32-33. ↩
• ^[20] See Dos Santos, 56. ↩
• ^[21] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1282-1283. ↩
• ^[22] See Oded Borowski, “The Agricultural Calendar,” in his Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 31-44, esp. 34. ↩
• ^[23] See McNeile, 196; Davies-Allison, 2:412. ↩
• ^[24] So Davies-Allison, 2:412. ↩
• ^[25] See Moulton-Howard, 450-451; Moule, 76. ↩
• ^[26] There are at least thirty-four examples in the Pentateuch alone in which -בְּ + infinitive construct + pronominal suffix was translated as ἐν τῷ + infinitive + accusative pronoun:

  Gen. 4:8 ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτούς = בִּהְיוֹתָם Gen. 9:14 ἐν τῷ συννεφεῖν με = בְּעַנְנִי Gen. 11:2 ἐν τῷ κινῆσαι αὐτούς = בְּנָסְעָם Gen. 19:33, 35 ἐν τῷ κοιμηθῆναι αὐτήν = בְּשִׁכְבָהּ Gen. 28:6 ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτόν = בְּבָרֲכוֹ Gen. 32:20 ἐν τῷ εὑρεῖν ὑμᾶς = בְּמֹצַאֲכֶם Gen. 32:26 ἐν τῷ παλαίειν αὐτόν = בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ Gen. 35:1 ἐν τῷ ἀποδιδράσκειν σε = בְּבָרְחֲךָ Gen. 35:7 ἐν τῷ ἀποδιδράσκειν αὐτόν = בְּבָרְחוֹ Gen. 38:28 ἐν τῷ τίκτειν αὐτήν = בְלִדְתָּהּ Exod. 3:12 ἐν τῷ ἐξαγαγεῖν σε = בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ Exod. 29:36 ἐν τῷ ἁγιάζειν σε = בְּכַפֶּרְךָ Exod. 34:29 ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν αὐτόν = בְּדַבְּרוֹ Lev. 15:23 ἐν τῷ ἅπτεσθαι αὐτόν = בְּנָגְעוֹ Lev. 15:31 ἐν τῷ μιαίνειν αὐτούς = בְּטַמְּאָם Lev. 16:1 ἐν τῷ προσάγειν αὐτούς = בְּקָרְבָתָם Lev. 18:28 ἐν τῷ μιαίνειν ὑμᾶς = בְּטַמַּאֲכֶם Lev. 20:4 ἐν τῷ δοῦναι αὐτόν = בְּתִתּוֹ Lev. 22:16 ἐν τῷ ἐσθίειν αὐτούς = בְּאָכְלָם Lev. 23:22 ἐν τῷ θερίζειν σε = בְּקֻצְרֶךָ Lev. 23:43 ἐν τῷ ἐξαγαγεῖν με = בְּהוֹצִיאִי Lev. 24:16 ἐν τῷ ὀνομάσαι αὐτόν = בְּנָקְבוֹ Lev. 26:26 ἐν τῷ θλῖψαι ὑμᾶς = בְּשִׁבְרִי לָכֶם Lev. 26:43 ἐν τῷ ἐρημωθῆναι αὐτήν = בָּהְשַׁמָּה Num. 10:34 ἐν τῷ ἐξαίρειν αὐτούς = בְּנָסְעָם Num. 15:18 Ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαι ὑμᾶς = בְּבֹאֲכֶם Num. 26:61 ἐν τῷ προσφέρειν αὐτούς = בְּהַקְרִיבָם Deut. 16:13 ἐν τῷ συναγαγεῖν σε = בְּאָסְפְּךָ Deut. 28:6 ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαί σε = בְּבֹאֶךָ; ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαί σε = בְּצֵאתֶךָ Deut. 28:19 ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαί σε = בְּצֵאתֶךָ; ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαί σε = בְּבֹאֶךָ Deut. 34:7 ἐν τῷ τελευτᾶν αὐτόν = בְּמֹתוֹ

  ↩

• ^[27] Instances of the construction -בְּ + infinitive construct of שׁ-כ-ב + pronominal suffix are found in Gen. 19:33, 35; Deut. 6:7; 11:19; Prov. 6:22; Ruth 3:4. ↩
• ^[28] See Segal, 165 §344. ↩
• ^[29] See Segal, 103 §228. ↩
• ^[30] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:700. ↩
• ^[31] See Dos Santos, 208. ↩
• ^[32] Examples of שְׁכִיבָה are found in m. Suk. 1:11 (2xx); m. Kel. 24:8, 13. ↩
• ^[33] Neither LSJ (756) nor BDAG (429) cite any examples of ζιζάνιον from Classical Greek sources. The term ζιζάνιον occurs once in the Apocalypse of Moses, in which the devil is portrayed as asking the serpent in the Garden of Eden the following question:

  διὰ τί ἐσθίεις ἐκ τῶν ζιζανίων τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ παραδείσου

  Why do you eat from the darnel of Adam and his wife, and not from the fruit of the garden? (Apoc. Mos. 16:3)

  The authorship and date of the Apocalypse of Moses are uncertain; it could be a Christian, Jewish-Christian, or Jewish work. For a brief introduction to the Apocalypse of Moses, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984): 89-156, esp. 110-118. ↩

• ^[34] See LSJ, 756. ↩
• ^[35] See T. W. Manson, 192. ↩
• ^[36] See Zohary, 161. ↩
• ^[37] See Luz, 2:254 n. 25. In a Christian addition to the Sibylline Oracles describing the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the humiliation of the Jewish people we read:

  πολλὴν δέ τοι αἶραν ἐν σίτῳ μίξουσι

  ...and, indeed, much darnel [αἶραν] in their wheat they will mix.... (Sib. Or. 1:396-397)

  It is possible that the oracle alludes to the Darnel Among the Wheat parable, but if so, the author of the Christian interpolation used the more common term, αἶρα, for darnel. ↩

• ^[38] Text and translation according to Arthur Hort, trans., Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs (Loeb Classical Library; 2 vols.; New York: Putnam, 1916), 182-183. ↩
• ^[39] For other ancient authorities who described the toxicity of darnel, see J. R. C. Cousland, “Toxic Tares: The Poisonous Weeds (ζιζάνια) in Matthew’s Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13.24-30, 36-43),” New Testament Studies 61 (2015): 361-410, esp. 404-405. ↩
• ^[40] See H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), 487; Zohary, 161. ↩
• ^[41] See Young, Parables, 291; A. J. Kerr, “Matthew 13:25. Sowing Zizania Among Another’s Wheat: Realistic or Artificial?” Journal of Theological Studies 48.1 (1997): 108-109; David H. Tripp, “Zizania (Matthew 13:25): Realistic, If Also Figurative,” Journal of Theological Studies 50.2 (1999): 628. ↩
• ^[42] On the realism of Jewish parables, see Notley-Safrai, 44-47. ↩
• ^[43] See Jastrow, 388; Young, Parables, 291. ↩
• ^[44] In a survey of all the instances of ἀνὰ μέσον in the book of Genesis, we found that it was the translation of בֵּין in Gen. 1:4 (2xx), 6, 7 (2xx), 14 (2xx), 18 (2xx); 3:15 (4xx); 9:12 (2xx), 13, 15 (2xx), 16 (2xx), 17 (2xx); 10:12 (2xx); 13:3 (2xx), 7 (2xx), 8 (3xx); 15:17; 16:5, 14 (2xx); 17:2 (2xx), 7 (3xx), 10 (2xx), 11; 20:1 (2xx); 23:15; 26:28 (2xx); 30:36 (2xx); 31:37, 44, 48, 49, 53; 32:17; 42:23; 49:14. ↩
• ^[45] See LSJ, 1602. ↩
• ^[46] Evidently, birds are immune to the toxins in darnel. The Roman author Columella recommended feeding boiled darnel to chickens (De re rustica 8:4 §1), and the Jerusalem Talmud notes that in some places darnel was used as food for doves (y. Kil. 1:1 [1a]). See Robert K. McIver, “The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43) and the Relationship Between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114.4 (1995): 643-659, esp. 647 n. 10; Cousland, “Toxic Tares,” 401. ↩
• ^[47] Jacobs mentioned a handful of fables in rabbinic literature that might preserve Aesopic fables that are otherwise lost. See Joseph Jacobs, ed., The Fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, with those of Avian, Alfonso and Poggio (2 vols; London: David Nutt in the Strand, 1889), 1:115-116. The parable in Agadat Bereshit §23 is not among the fables Jacobs mentioned. On Aesop’s Fables in rabbinic sources generally, see Haim Schwarzbaum, “Aesop’s Fables and the Parables of the Sages,” WholeStones.org. ↩
• ^[48] Examples of the collocation of בָּא with יָצָא are found inter alia in Gen. 12:5; 31:33; Exod. 21:3; Lev. 16:17; Num. 27:21; Deut. 9:7; 23:11; 28:6, 19; 31:2; Josh. 6:1; 14:11; 1 Sam. 18:13; 29:6; 1 Kgs. 3:7; 15:17; 2 Kgs. 11:8; 19:27; Isa. 37:28; Jer. 17:19; 37:4; Ezek. 44:3. ↩
• ^[49] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:121-122. ↩
• ^[50] See the entry for ἀπέρχεσθαι in LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions. ↩
• ^[51] The table below shows the instances in LXX where ὅτε + aorist is the translation of -בְּ + infinitive construct.

  Gen. 2:4 ὅτε ἐγένετο = בְּהִבָּרְאָם Gen. 12:4 ὅτε ἐξῆλθεν = בְּצֵאתוֹ Gen. 25:20 ὅτε ἔλαβεν = בְּקַחְתּוֹ Gen. 25:26 ὅτε ἔτεκεν = בְּלֶדֶת Gen. 33:18 ὅτε ἦλθεν = בְּבֹאוֹ Gen. 35:9 ὅτε παρεγένετο = בְּבֹאוֹ Gen. 41:46 ὅτε ἔστη = בְּעָמְדוֹ Num. 26:10 ὅτε κατέφαγεν = בַּאֲכֹל Num. 32:8 ὅτε ἀπέστειλα = בְּשָׁלְחִי Deut. 4:10 ὅτε εἶπεν = בֶּאֱמֹר Deut. 9:23 καὶ ὅτε ἐξαπέστειλεν = וּבִשְׁלֹחַ Deut. 29:24 ὅτε ἐξήγαγεν = בְּהוֹצִיאוֹ Josh. 14:7 ὅτε ἀπέστειλέν = בִּשְׁלֹחַ 2 Kgdms. 2:10 ὅτε ἐβασίλευσεν = בְּמָלְכוֹ 2 Chr. 21:20 ὅτε ἐβασίλευσεν = בְמָלְכוֹ Esth. 1:5 ὅτε δὲ ἀνεπληρώθησαν = וּבִמְלוֹאת Esth. 2:8 ὅτε ἠκούσθη = בְּהִשָּׁמַע Job 28:26 ὅτε ἐποίησεν = בַּעֲשׂתוֹ Job 38:7 ὅτε ἐγενήθησαν = בְּרָן Jer. 21:1 ὅτε ἀπέστειλεν = בִּשְׁלֹחַ Jer. 34[27]:20 ὅτε ἀπῴκισεν = בַּגְלוֹתוֹ Jer. 42[35]:11 ὅτε ἀνέβη = בַּעֲלוֹת Jer. 44[37]:11 ὅτε ἀνέβη = בְּהֵעָלוֹת Ezek. 29:7 ὅτε ἐπελάβοντο = בְּתָפְשָׂם; καὶ ὅτε ἐπανεπαύσαντο = וּבְהִשָּׁעֲנָם

  ↩

• ^[52] See Dos Santos, 162. ↩
• ^[53] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1473. ↩
• ^[54] See LSJ, “χόρτος,” 2000. ↩
• ^[55] Usually, Matthew has the Hebraic order ποιεῖν καρπόν (Matt. 3:8, 10; 7:19; 21:43 [redactional]). The order ποιεῖν καρπόν also occurs in Luke 3:8, 9; 6:43 (2xx); 8:8; 13:9; Rev. 22:2. ↩
• ^[56] See Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” 568. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Luca Marulli, “The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:26–30): A Quest for its Original Formulation and its Role in the Preaching of the Historical Jesus,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 40.2 (2010): 69-78, esp. 73. ↩
• ^[58] The pericope on false prophets (Matt. 7:15-20) has a doublet in Matt. 12:33-35. This doublet, which does not mention false prophets, has a parallel in Luke 6:43-45. The Gospel of Matthew mentions false prophets 3xx (Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24), whereas the Gospels of Luke and Mark each mention false prophets only once (Luke 6:26; Mark 13:22). Note that in the Lukan example false prophets are regarded as a phenomenon of the past rather than a contemporary concern. The Didache, on the other hand, which may have been a product of the same community as the Gospel of Matthew, treats false prophets as a current problem (cf. Did. 11:3-12; 16:3). On the ties between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, see Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew.” ↩
• ^[59] Lindsey (LHNS, 160) regarded Matt. 21:43 (no parallel in Luke or Mark) as a Matthean addition. See also David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (JOC, 522-560, esp. 558-559); idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40, esp. 33-34); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels,” under the subheading “Matthew’s ‘True Israel’”; Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317, esp. 304-306). ↩
• ^[60] Nolland (Matt., 561) suggested that the description of the wheat's producing fruit was intended to contrast with the darnel, which is identified as those who “produce lawlessness” in Matthew’s allegorical interpretation (Matt. 13:41). ↩
• ^[61] On the parallels between the Darnel Among the Wheat and Spontaneous Growth parables, see Spontaneous Growth, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[62] On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[63] See Hawkins, 34; Lindsey, GCSG, 266-267. The following table shows all of the instances of the verb φαίνειν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke with synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 1:20 U Matt. 2:7 U Matt. 2:13 U Matt. 2:19 U Matt. 6:5 U (cf. Matt. 23:6-7; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:46-47) Matt. 6:16 U Matt. 6:18 U Matt. 9:33 TT (cf. Matt. 12:23; Mark 3:[--]; Luke 11:14) Matt. 13:26 U Matt. 23:27 DT (cf. Luke 11:44) Matt. 23:28 DT (cf. Luke 11:44) Matt. 24:27 DT (cf. Luke 17:24) Matt. 24:30 TT (cf. Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) Mark 14:64 TT (cf. Matt. 26:65; Luke 22:71) [Mark 16:9] U Luke 9:8 TT (cf. Matt. 14:2; Mark 6:15) Luke 24:11 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  ↩

• ^[64] Cf. Luz, 2:254. ↩
• ^[65] Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” 566-567. The table below shows all the instances of οἰκοδεσπότης in Matthew and the parallels (if any) in Luke and Mark.

  Matt. 10:25 DT (cf. Luke 6:40) Matt. 13:27 U Matt. 13:52 U Matt. 20:1 U Matt. 20:11 U Matt. 21:33 TT (cf. Mark 12:1; Luke 20:9) Matt. 24:43 DT = Luke 12:39 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  As the above table shows, only one instance of οἰκοδεσπότης in Matthew is supported by another Synoptic Gospel (Matt. 24:43 // Luke 12:39). ↩

• ^[66] McNeile (197) took a different approach to the problem of the abrupt reference to the “man who was sowing” as a “landlord” by suggesting that Matt. 13:24 originally opened the Darnel Among the Wheat parable by comparing the Kingdom of Heaven to ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ (“a man, a landowner”; cf. Matt. 13:52; 20:1; 21:33), and that οἰκοδεσπότῃ was accidentally omitted by later scribes. ↩
• ^[67] See Dos Santos, 147. ↩
• ^[68] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:346-348. ↩
• ^[69] On participle + δέ + aorist as the equivalent of vav-consecutive + vav-consecutive, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L37-41. ↩
• ^[70] See Luz, 2:252. ↩
• ^[71] The table below shows all the instances of σός that occur in the Synoptic Gospels and their parallels (if any).

  Matt. 7:3 DT (cf. Luke 6:41) Matt. 7:22 (3xx) DT (cf. Luke 13:26) Matt. 13:27 U Matt. 20:14 U Matt. 24:3 TT (cf. Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7) Matt. 25:25 DT (cf. Luke 19:20) Mark 2:18 Lk-Mk = Luke 5:33 Mark 5:19 TT (cf. Matt. 8:[--]; Luke 8:39) Luke 5:33 Lk-Mk = Mark 2:18 Luke 6:30 DT (cf. Matt. 5:42) Luke 15:31 U Luke 22:42 TT (cf. Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  ↩

• ^[72] On the redactional character of Matt. 7:22, see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L49-50. On Matthean redaction in Matt. 13:27, see above, Comment to L14, Comment to L16-21, Comment to L16 and Comment to L18. Matthean redaction in Matt. 24:3 is evident in the question τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος (“What is the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”), since παρουσία (parousia, “coming”) and συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος (sūnteleia [tou] aiōnos, “end of [the] age”) are Matthean redactional terms. On παρουσία as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L10. On συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see above, Comment to L51. ↩
• ^[73] See 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), 187. ↩
• ^[74] Cf. Marulli, “The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:26–30),” 73. ↩
• ^[75] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1423-1424. ↩
• ^[76] See Davies-Allison, 2:413-414. ↩
• ^[77] The table below shows all the examples of Matthew’s use of φάναι and the parallels (if any) in Luke and Mark.

  Matt. 4:7 DT (cf. Luke 4:12) Matt. 8:8 DT (cf. Luke 7:6) Matt. 13:28 U Matt. 13:29 U Matt. 14:8 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:25) Matt. 17:26 U Matt. 19:18 [Vaticanus] U Matt. 19:21 TT (cf. Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22) Matt. 21:27 TT (cf. Mark 11:33; Luke 20:8) Matt. 22:37 TT (cf. Mark 12:29; Luke 10:27) Matt. 25:21 DT (cf. Luke 19:17) Matt. 25:23 DT (cf. Luke 19:19) Matt. 26:34 TT (cf. Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34) Matt. 26:61 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 14:58) Matt. 27:11 TT = Luke 23:3 (cf. Mark 15:2) Matt. 27:23 TT (cf. Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22) Matt. 27:65 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

  ↩

• ^[78] See Stephanie L. Black, “The Historic Present in Matthew: Beyond Speech Margins,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 120-139, esp. 133 n. 36. ↩
• ^[79] On the village of Bet Meqoshesh, see Ben-Zion Rosenfeld, “The History of the Resettlement of Two High Priestly Families in the Second Temple Period,” under the subheading “Bet Meqoshesh,” WholeStones.org. ↩
• ^[80] In LXX עִמָּם (‘imām, “with them”) was rendered with μετ᾿ αὐτῶν (met avtōn, “with them”) in Gen. 18:16; Lev. 26:41; Josh. 11:4; Judg. 1:22; 8:10; 1 Kgdms. 10:6; 13:16; 2 Kgdms. 3:22; 15:36; 3 Kgdms. 11:18; 4 Kgdms. 6:33; 2 Esd. 23:25; Ps. 82[83]:9; Hos. 5:5; Zech. 10:5; Isa. 34:7. ↩
• ^[81] See the entry for αὐξάνειν in LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions; Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L32. ↩
• ^[82] In LXX ἀμφότερος is the translation of שְׁנֵיהֶם in Gen. 21:27, 31; 22:8; 40:5; Exod. 22:8, 10; 26:24; Lev. 20:11, 12, 13, 18; Num. 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79; 12:5; 25:8; Deut. 22:22, 24; 23:19; Judg. 19:6, 8; Ruth 1:5; 1 Kgdms. 2:34; 14:11; 20:11; 23:18; 2 Kgdms. 14:6; 3 Kgdms. 11:29; 4 Kgdms. 2:6, 7, 8, 11; Prov. 20:10, 12; 24:22; 27:3; 29:13; Zech. 6:13; Jer. 26[46]:12. ↩
• ^[83] See Dos Santos, 163. ↩
• ^[84] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:706-708. ↩
• ^[85] See Borowski, “The Agricultural Calendar,” 36. ↩
• ^[86] See T. W. Manson, 193; Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” 565; Luz, 2:255. ↩
• ^[87] Pace Nolland (Matt., 546), who regarded the harvesters as extra help who will assist the servants in the harvest. ↩
• ^[88] See Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 190. ↩
• ^[89] In addition to the phrase עָשָׂה חֲבִילָה (‘āsāh ḥ^avilāh, “make a bundle”), which we will cite shortly, cf. the phrase עָשָׂה כְּרִיכָה (‘āsāh k^erichāh, “make a small bundle”), examples of which are found in m. Men. 10:3, 9; t. Men. 10:31. ↩
• ^[90] In the Mishnah we encounter references to “bundles of stubble and bundles of wood and bundles of shoots” (חֲבִילֵי קָשׁ וַחֲבִילֵי עֵצִים וַחֲבִילֵי זְרָדִים; m. Shab. 18:2; m. Suk. 1:5), “bundles of branches” (חֲבִילֵּי זְמוֹרוֹת; m. Sanh. 7:2) and “bundles of reeds” (חֲבִילֵּי קָנִים; m. Neg. 12:5; m. Mik. 7:7). ↩
• ^[91] In LXX books corresponding to MT the πρὸς τό + infinitive construction occurs 15xx (Judg. 17:10; Jer. 34[27]:10, 15; 39[32]:29, 35, 40; 41[34]:9; 42[35]:8, 9, 14; 43[36]:25; 45[38]:26; 49[42]:13; 51[44]:5, 7). ↩
• ^[92] Cf. Hawkins, 32-33. The πρὸς τό + infinitive construction occurs 5xx in Matthew (Matt. 5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12). The first four instances occur in verses that have no parallel in Mark or Luke. The final instance is a paraphrase of Mark 14:8, where the πρὸς τό + infinitive construction does not occur. The only instance of the πρὸς τό + infinitive construction in Mark occurs in a verse that has no parallel in Luke, and is likely redactional (Mark 13:22). The sole occurrence of πρὸς τό + infinitive in Luke occurs in the Lukan-composed introduction to the Persistent Widow parable (Luke 18:1), on which, see Persistent Widow, Comment to L2-3. ↩
• ^[93] The LXX translators occasionally omitted an equivalent to בָּאֵשׁ (bā’ēsh, “in the fire”), usually translated ἐν πυρί (en pūri, “in fire”), because they deemed the instrumental phrase to be self-evident (cf., e.g., Lev. 2:14; Judg. 18:27; 4 Kgdms. 25:9; Isa. 33:12; 54:16; Jer. 43[36]:32; 45[38]:23; Ezek. 23:47). If such was the practice of Greek translators, how much more inclined might a Greek redactor, such as the author of Matthew, be to omit the superfluous ἐν πυρί? ↩
• ^[94] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:732-733. ↩
• ^[95] See Dos Santos, 201. ↩
• ^[96] Commands in MT to burn objects are phrased as תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ (tisr^efūn bā’ēsh, “you will burn in the fire”) in Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:3. ↩
• ^[97] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1242-1244. ↩
• ^[98] See Dos Santos, 18. ↩
• ^[99] See McNeile, 203; Bultmann, 187; Beare, Earliest, 116 §100; John Dominic Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.2 (1973): 244-266, esp. 261; Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” 560-561; Davies-Allison, 2:426-427; Nolland, Matt., 558; Luz, 2:267. Snodgrass (211) is virtually alone in his opinion that “we hear the voice of Jesus in both the parable and its interpretation.” ↩
• ^[100] Jeremias (Parables, 81-85) offered an exhaustive discussion of the Matthean traits in the interpretation of the Darnel Among the Wheat parable. ↩
• ^[101] See Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 206. ↩
• ^[102] Cf. Bundy, 236 §141. ↩
• ^[103] See T. W. Manson, 195; McIver, “The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43) and the Relationship Between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” 643-659. ↩
• ^[104] The suggestion that Matthew’s polemics are aimed specifically against Pauline Christianity are probably correct. See T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 223; David C. Sim, “Matthew’s Anti-Paulinism: A Neglected Feature of Matthean Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 58.2 (2002): 767-783, esp. 779. The apostle Paul expected Jewish believers to remain Torah observant, but he did not require Gentile believers to take on Jewish practices. See Peter J. Tomson, “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law Teaching in 1Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 251-270; Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 232-252. Paul’s nuanced position regarding the Torah did not prevent his teaching from being distorted into full-blown antinomianism by his critics or, indeed, by his later adherents (cf., e.g., Ign. Magn. 10:3). ↩
• ^[105] See David Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 204. ↩
• ^[106] Cf. Bundy, 235 §141; Jeremias, Parables, 82 n. 52. ↩
• ^[107] See Bundy, 235 §141; Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L4. ↩
• ^[108] See Davies-Allison, 2:427. The verb διασαφεῖν (diasafein, “to clarify,” “to make plain”) occurs 2xx in NT, both in unique Matthean pericopae (Matt. 13:36; 18:31). Note that there are only two instances of διασαφεῖν in LXX books corresponding to MT (Deut. 1:5; Dan. 2:6). ↩
• ^[109] In Mark 7:17 (// Matt. 15:15) the disciples ask Jesus about the parable, but the verse does not contain a verb for “explain.” In Luke 8:9 we find something similar, where the disciples ask τίς αὕτη εἴη ἡ παραβολή (“What might this parable be?”). The author of Mark interpreted this question as concerning parables in general (Mark 4:10). The author of Matthew took this one step further, changing the question to “Why do you speak to them in parables?” (Matt. 13:10). See our discussion in Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[110] See Jeremias, Parables, 83 n. 62; Albright-Mann, 168; Luz, 2:268 n. 13. ↩
• ^[111] See Luz, 2:267. ↩
• ^[112] All of the references to the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew are presented in the following table:

  Matt. 8:20 DT = Luke 9:58 Matt. 9:6 TT = Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24 Matt. 10:23 U Matt. 11:19 DT = Luke 7:34 Matt. 12:8 TT = Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 Matt. 12:32 TT = Luke 12:10 (cf. Mark 3:28) Matt. 12:40 DT = Luke 11:30 Matt. 13:37 U Matt. 13:41 U Matt. 16:13 TT (cf. Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18) Matt. 16:27 TT = Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26 Matt. 16:28 TT (cf. Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27) Matt. 17:9 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:9 Matt. 17:12 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:12 Matt. 17:22 TT = Mark 9:31; Luke 9:44 Matt. 19:28 DT (cf. Luke 22:30) Matt. 20:18 TT = Mark 10:33; Luke 18:31 Matt. 20:28 Mk-Mt = Mark 10:45 Matt. 24:27 DT = Luke 17:24 Matt. 24:30 TT = Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27 Matt. 24:37 DT = Luke 17:26 Matt. 24:39 DT = Luke 17:30 Matt. 24:44 DT = Luke 12:40 Matt. 25:31 U Matt. 26:2 TT (cf. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1) Matt. 26:24 TT = Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22 Matt. 26:45 TT = Mark 14:41 (cf. Luke 22:46) Matt. 26:64 TT = Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69 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 word and/or verse

  From the data above we can see that Matthew includes references to the Son of Man in TT (Matt. 16:13 [cf. Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18]; Matt. 16:28 [cf. Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27]; Matt. 26:2 [cf. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1]) and DT (Matt. 19:28 [cf. Luke 22:30]) pericopae that are not supported in the parallels in the other Synoptic Gospels and are likely to be redactional. Therefore, one must carefully weigh the authenticity of Son of Man references in pericopae unique to Matthew. While some references to the Son of Man in unique Matthean pericopae may indeed derive from Anth. (e.g., Matt. 25:31), others may have been added by the author of Matthew. ↩

• ^[113] Cf. David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 88. ↩
• ^[114] See McNeile, 202; Davies-Allison, 2:409, 428. ↩
• ^[115] The Matthean community did not have the backing of a political entity, as the proto-Orthodox church did under Emperor Constantine, and therefore it lacked the power to coerce Christians who dropped out or never had been a part of the Matthean church. ↩
• ^[116] See Jeremias, Parables, 83 n. 68. ↩
• ^[117] See David Flusser, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (JOC, 561-574, esp. 568 n. 16). ↩
• ^[118] This is the translation preferred by Nolland (Matt., 559). ↩
• ^[119] Jeremais (Parables, 83 n. 69) preferred the translation “sons of the evil one.” ↩
• ^[120] See Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L23. ↩
• ^[121] See Jeremias, Parables, 84 n. 71; Davies-Allison, 2:429. The phrase συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος occurs in Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20. The only other instance of this phrase in NT is found in Heb. 9:26, where, however, συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων is already in the past. ↩
• ^[122] See Jeremias, Parables, 82. ↩
• ^[123] See Jeremias, Parables, 82. ↩
• ^[124] See Montefiore, TSG, 1:212; T. W. Manson, 195; Jeremias, Parables, 84 n. 78. ↩
• ^[125] In addition to Matt. 13:41, ἀνομία occurs in Matt. 7:23; 23:28; 24:12. ↩
• ^[126] See Jeremias, Parables, 84 n. 81. ↩
• ^[127] See Jeremias, Parables, 84 n. 85. ↩
• ^[128] See Meier, “The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30): Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?” 724-725. ↩
• ^[129] See Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” New Testament Studies 29.1 (1983): 25-37, esp. 36-37. ↩
• ^[130] See Jeremias, Parables, 84 n. 88. ↩
• ^[131] See The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, Comment to L16. ↩
• ^[132]

  Darnel Among the Wheat
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν δὲ τῷ καθεύδειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐχθρὸς καὶ ἐπέσπειρεν ζειζάνια ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σίτου καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὅτε δὲ ἐβλάστησεν ὁ χόρτος καὶ καρπὸν ἐποίησεν τότε ἐφάνη καὶ τὰ ζειζάνια προσελθόντες δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου εἶπον αὐτῷ κύριε οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ πόθεν οὖν ἔχει ζειζάνια ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο ἐποίησεν οἱ δὲ αὐτῷ λέγουσιν θέλεις οὖν ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωμεν αὐτά ὁ δέ φησιν οὔ μήποτε συλλέγοντες τὰ ζειζάνια ἐκριζώσητε ἅμα αὐτοῖς τὸν σῖτον ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα ἕως τοῦ θερισμοῦ καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζειζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δέσμας πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά τὸν δὲ σῖτον συνάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου		εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων τίνι ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι σπέρμα καλὸν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ ἐν δὲ τῷ καθεύδειν αὐτὸν ἦλθεν ὁ ἐχθρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσπειρεν ζιζάνια ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σίτου καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὅτε δὲ ἐβλάστησεν ὁ χόρτος καὶ ἐβλάστησαν τὰ ζιζάνια προσελθόντες δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ εἶπον αὐτῷ κύριε θέλεις ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωμεν αὐτά εἶπεν δὲ οὔ μήποτε συλλέγοντες τὰ ζιζάνια ἐκριζώσητε ἅμα αὐτοῖς τὸν σῖτον ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα ἕως τοῦ θερισμοῦ καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δέσμας καὶ κατακαύσετε αὐτὰ ἐν πυρί τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου
  Total Words:	136	Total Words:	105
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	84	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	84
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	61.76%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	80.00%

  ↩

• ^[133] The extent of Matthean redaction may be the reason Martin (Syntax 1, 115 no. 25) found Darnel Among the Wheat to be “original” Greek composition. ↩
• ^[134] See Beare, Earliest, 118 §100; Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, 74; Vermes, 141. ↩
• ^[135] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[136] 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. ↩