Generations That Repented Long Ago

Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32

(Huck 87, 152; Aland 119, 191; Crook 141, 219)^[90]

מַלְכַּת תֵּימָן תָּקוּם בַּדִּין עִם הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה וּתְחַיֵּב אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֵת חָכְמַת שְׁלֹמֹה וַהֲרֵי [יֵשׁ] גָּדוֹל מִשְּׁלֹמֹה כָּן אַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה יָקוּמוּ בַּדִּין עִם הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה וִיחַיְּבוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהֵם עָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה בִּקְרִיאַת יוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי [יֵשׁ] גָּדוֹל מִיּוֹנָה כָּן

“At the final judgment the Queen of Teman will arise to testify against this generation and prove that it has no excuse. She came from the world’s end to listen to King Shlomoh’s wisdom, but a wisdom more profound than Shlomoh’s is right here in front of you, and still you haven’t listened!

“At the final judgment the inhabitants of Nineveh will arise to testify against this generation and prove that it has no excuse. They repented when Yonah proclaimed his message of doom, but a more dire message is being proclaimed to you, and still you haven’t changed your ways!^[91]

Updated: 29 September 2023

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Generations That Repented Long Ago click on the link below:

Conclusion

Generations That Repented Long Ago belongs to a cluster of sayings in which Jesus called his contemporaries to repentance, warning that many Gentiles would fare better in the final judgment than would the members of his own generation. In Woes on Three Villages Jesus cited Gentile cities that would have repented had they been given the opportunity granted to the towns where Jesus taught. In Generations That Repented Long Ago Jesus upped the ante by moving from hypotheticals to actual cases of Gentiles of the scriptural past who responded to the divine revelation in Solomon’s wisdom and Jonah’s prophetic activity.

---

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

---

• ^[1] Scholars who have noted that Generations That Repented Long Ago and Sign-Seeking Generation were originally distinct units include McNeile (182), Bultmann (112), Bundy (215 §126), Beare (103 §87), Davies-Allison (2:351), Kloppenborg (128), Catchpole (52, 244) and Luz (2:215). Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:651. See also Gerd Theissen, “Israel and the Nations: Palestine-Centered Cultural Perspectives in the Sayings of Jesus” (Theissen, Gospels, 43-59, esp. 44). For a recent discussion, see Kim Huat Tan, “The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions,” in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns (ed. Tobias Hägerland; London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 48-68, esp. 49-52. ↩
• ^[2] See John P. Meier, “The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead: An Incident from the Ministry of the Historical Jesus?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77 (2000): 3-24, esp. 17-19. ↩
• ^[3] Approximately 98% of Matthew’s wording in Generations That Repented Long Ago is identical to the wording of Luke’s parallel, and approximately 95% of Luke’s wording in Generations That Repented Long Ago is identical to the wording of Matthew’s parallel. See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[4] Lindsey attributed low levels of verbal identity in Double Tradition (DT) pericopae to Luke’s use of the First Reconstruction (FR) parallel to Matthew’s use of Anth. Redactional activity on the part of the author of Luke or (more often) the author of Matthew (or both) could also lower verbal identity in DT pericopae. Therefore, a relatively low level of verbal identity in a given DT pericope is not a foolproof indicator that the author of Luke depended on FR. Nevertheless, Luke’s verbal identity with Matthew is a fairly reliable indicator of which of his two sources the author of Luke used for a given pericope. ↩
• ^[5] Scholars who regard Luke’s order of the examples (Queen of the South→Men of Nineveh) as original include McNeile (182), Bultmann (112), Manson (Sayings, 91), Knox (2:65), Marshall (486), Gundry (Matt., 245-246), Davies-Allison (2:357), Catchpole (52), Luz (2:214) and Wolter (2:112). ↩
• ^[6] The fact that Luke’s order (Queen of the South→Men of Nineveh) coincides with the historical sequence of events (Solomon lived long before Jonah) has been cited as evidence both for and against the originality of Luke’s order. According to some scholars, the historical order of the examples in Luke’s version is natural, whereas Matthew’s unhistorical sequence must be secondary. According to other scholars, Luke the historian would have wanted to rearrange the examples in order to make them agree with the historical sequence.
  
  In our view, the argument from historical sequence is indecisive. On the one hand, we find that historical sequence did not bother the rabbinic sages who mentioned the prayers of Jonah ahead of the prayers of Solomon in their liturgy for fasting (m. Taan. 2:4). On the other hand, there is no reason why the fact that the Queen of the South lived prior to the Ninevites who heard Jonah’s preaching should have any bearing on the order of events on the Day of Judgment. Perhaps the judgment begins with the most recent generations and works backwards to Adam and Eve.
  
  What is decisive is the literary context in which the examples of the Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh appear. Matthew’s order of the examples is a vast literary improvement in as much as it firmly cements Sign-Seeking Generation and Generations That Lived Long Ago together. This Matthean improvement was so successful that to the present day many scholars continue to regard these two originally independent pericopae as a single unit. On the other hand, the author of Luke was hardly so pedantic as to destroy the literary unity of these two pericopae in order to adopt a forced historical sequence for eschatological events. ↩
• ^[7] Pace Schweizer, 291; Nolland, Luke, 2:650-651. ↩
• ^[8] On the basis of the absence of Luke 11:32 (Men of Nineveh) in Codex Bezae, Harnack (23-24) supposed that the original text of Luke’s Gospel omitted the example of the Men of Nineveh from Generations That Repented Long Ago. According to Harnack, a later Christian scribe reinserted Men of Nineveh into Luke’s version of Generations That Repented Long Ago following the example of the Queen of the South. Flusser later accepted Harnack’s hypothesis. See David Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man” (Flusser, JOC, 526-534, esp. 526 n. 1). However, Harnack’s theory does not explain why a scribe who was observant enough to realize that the example of the Men of Nineveh was missing from Luke’s version of Generations That Repented Long Ago, and sufficiently troubled by its omission to reinsert it, would nevertheless be so careless as to insert it at the wrong place.
  
  To the further detriment to Harnack’s thesis is the fact that the scribe who produced Codex Bezae clearly tampered with Luke’s version of Sign-Seeking Generation, and therefore Bezae’s version of Generations That Repented Long Ago in Luke is also suspect. The Bezae scribe replaced Luke’s original identification of the sign of Jonah as his preaching to the Ninevites (Luke 11:30) with Matthew’s secondary identification of the sign of Jonah as the prophet’s passage of three days and nights in the belly of the fish (Matt. 12:40). Rice has suggested that the Bezae scribe tendentiously altered Luke’s versions of Sign-Seeking Generation and Generations That Repented Long Ago (as well as the saying about Sodom in Conduct in Town and Woes on Three Villages) in order to eliminate the suggestion that Jews and Gentiles will stand together in the final judgment. See George E. Rice, The Alteration of Luke’s Tradition by the Textual Variants in Codex Bezae (Ph. D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1974), 167-173. In any case, no firm conclusions regarding Generations That Repented Long Ago should be drawn on the basis of Codex Bezae. ↩
• ^[9] Davies-Allison (2:359) and Nolland (Matt., 512 n. 111) note that the Testament of Solomon refers to the queen who visited Solomon as ἡ Σάβα βασίλισσα Νότου (hē Saba basilissa Notou, “Saba, the Queen of the South”; T. Sol. 19:3; cf. 21:1), but the Testament of Solomon is a Christian work indebted to the New Testament Gospels. The fact that T. Sol. 21:2 reports that Saba, the Queen of the South (a woman and a Gentile!), entered the Holy of Holies and viewed the ark of the covenant is but one glaring example of the thoroughly non-Jewish character of this pseudepigraphon. ↩
• ^[10] On Jesus’ reference to the Queen of Sheba as the “Queen of the South,” see David N. Bivin, “The Queen of Teman.” ↩
• ^[11] For doubts as to the historical veracity of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press, 2006), 167-171. For scholars who detect a historical kernel to the story, see William Fox Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (5th ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, [1942] 1968), 134-135; Cyrus H. Gordon, The World of the Old Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1958), 187; John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 194-195; Edward Ullendorff, “The Queen of Sheba,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45.2 (1963): 486-504, esp. 488. Pritchard believed a final verdict on the historicity of the Queen of Sheba’s visit is impossible. See James B. Pritchard, ed., Solomon & Sheba (London: Phaidon, 1974), 148-149. ↩
• ^[12] On identifying scriptural Sheba with the people and territory of Saba (or the Sabeans) in the southwestern corner of the Arabian peninsula (in the region of present-day Yemen), see Bright, A History of Israel, 194-195; Gus W. van Beek, “The Land of Sheba,” in Solomon & Sheba, 40-63, esp. 41; Christian Robin, “Saba’ and the Sabeans,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures From Ancient Yemen (ed. St John Simpson; London: British Museum Press, 2002), 51-58, 208, esp. 58; G. W. Bowersock, The Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 82. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 307. ↩
• ^[13] On the Roman incursion into the kingdom of the Sabeans, see G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 46-49. ↩
• ^[14] In his autobiographical text, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Caesar Augustus claimed:

  My army advanced into Arabia as far as the territory of the Sabaei [i.e., the Sabeans—DNB and JNT] to the town of Mariba. (Res Gestae 26:5 [ed. Cooley, 91])

  Text and translation according to Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Cf. Pliny, Nat. 6:32 §160. ↩

• ^[15] The reading of Matt. 12:42 in the medieval Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel preserved in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan is extremely telling. According to Howard’s critical edition, Shem Tov’s text reads מלכת שבא (“Queen of Sheba” [ed. Howard, 58]). Since no Greek translator would have rendered מלכת שבא as βασίλισσα νότου (“Queen of [the] South”)—each of the eight scriptural instances of the phrase מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא (malkat sh^evā’, “Queen of Sheba”; 1 Kgs. 10:1, 4, 10, 13; 2 Chr. 9:1, 3, 9, 12) were rendered as βασίλισσα Σαβα (basilissa Saba, “Queen of Saba”) in LXX—it is obvious that Shem Tov’s Hebrew version of Matthew is a translation and interpretation of a Greek (or Latin) text of the Gospel of Matthew. In other words, Shem Tov’s Hebrew version of Matthew is not the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, nor is it the ancient source upon which the canonical Gospels are based. For further refutation of the hypothesis that Shem Tov's Hebrew version of Matthew is none other than the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see the JP FAQ “Has a Hebrew Gospel Been Found?” under the Comments section. ↩
• ^[16] See Black, 68. ↩
• ^[17] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:214. ↩
• ^[18] See Dos Santos, 113. Of the few queens mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Queen of Sheba is the first. Other queens mentioned in the Hebrew Bible include Queen Vashti, Queen Esther and the “Queen of Heaven,” a pagan deity mentioned in Jeremiah. ↩
• ^[19] Instances where תֵּימָן means “south” are found in Isa. 43:6; Song 4:16. ↩
• ^[20] An example of יָמִין used to mean “south” is found in Ps. 89:13. ↩
• ^[21] The rabbinic sages took חֶדֶר in Job 37:9 to be a synonym for “south.” ↩
• ^[22] In Ps. 107:3 יָם (yām, “sea”) is paired with צָפוֹן (tzāfōn, “north”). ↩
• ^[23] In Isa. 49:12 אֶרֶץ סִינִים (’eretz sinim, “land of the Sinim”) is contrasted with צָפוֹן (“north”). ↩
• ^[24] Ullendorff mentioned מַלְכַּת יָמִין and מַלְכַּת תֵּימָן as the two probable Semitic phrases that stand behind βασίλισσα νότου in Matt. 12:42 ∥ Luke 11:31. See Edward Ullendorff, “The Queen of Sheba in Ethiopian Tradition,” in Solomon & Sheba, 104-114, esp. 114. In earlier publications Ullendorff had suggested that מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא (malkat sh^evā’, “Queen of Sheba”) might stand behind the phrase βασίλισσα νότου (“Queen of the South”). See Edward Ullendorff, “Candace (Acts VIII. 27) and the Queen of Sheba,” New Testament Studies 2.1 (1955): 53-56, esp. 54 n. 1; idem, Ethiopia and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 9 n. 9. Evidently, Ullendorff’s revised opinion was prompted by the realization that no Greek translator would have rendered מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא as βασίλισσα νότου. ↩
• ^[25] However, there is some evidence to suggest that in Mishnaic Hebrew יָמִין no longer conveyed the meaning “south.” The LXX translators rendered יָמִין in Ps. 89:13 (where it had the meaning “south,” being coupled with צָפוֹן [tzāfōn, “north”]) as θαλάσσας (thalassas, “seas”), as though the Hebrew text read יַמִּים (yamim, “seas”). Jastrow (580) did not include the meaning “south” in his entry for יָמִין. ↩
• ^[26] The kingdom of Himyar was the successor to the Sabean kingdom. ↩
• ^[27] Wellhausen suggested that the designation of the Queen of Sheba as the “Queen of the South” in Matt. 12:42 ∥ Luke 11:31 could be the earliest attestation of the tradition that located the Queen of Sheba in Yemen. See Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904), 65. Cf. Luz (2:220 n. 64). ↩
• ^[28] Arabia felix is the more familiar term (cf. Pliny, Nat. 5:21 §87; 12:30 §51), although the Greek appellation Ἀραβία εὐδαίμων (Arabia evdaimōn, “fortunate Arabia”) and its Latin form Arabia eudaemon are found in Augustus’ Res Gestae (26:5 [ed. Cooley, 90-91]). See also Strabo, Geogr. 16:2 §1, 20; 3 §1, 6; 4 §21, 25; Pliny, Nat. 6:31 §138. ↩
• ^[29] See Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1971), 837; Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, “Legends of the Queen of Sheba,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures From Ancient Yemen, 31-38, 208, esp. 33. ↩
• ^[30] See Jan Restö, “When did Yemen become Arabia felix?” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33 (2003): 229-235. ↩
• ^[31] The Sabeans were indeed fortunate to have withstood a Roman invasion. ↩
• ^[32] The LXX translators rendered תֵּימָן as νότος in Exod. 26:35; Ezek. 47:19; Zech. 6:6; Job. 9:9; 39:26; Song 4:16. ↩
• ^[33] See Berit Hadashah al pi Meshiah (London: London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, 1813). ↩
• ^[34] See Resch, 80. ↩
• ^[35] See Jehoshua M. Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 32-47, esp. 39. ↩
• ^[36] Klein assigned the use of תֵּימָן as a name for Yemen to “New Hebrew.” See Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary Of The Hebrew Language For Readers of English (Jerusalem: Carta, 1987), 700. ↩
• ^[37] See Ernst Axel Knauf, “Teman,” ABD, 6:347-348. ↩
• ^[38] The Greek term Αἰθιοπία (Aithiopia) was applied to regions south of Egypt including, but not limited to, Nubia and Abyssinia. See Ullendorff, “Candace (Acts VIII. 27) and the Queen of Sheba,” 53. ↩
• ^[39] Fitzmyer (2:936) and Wolter (2:114) indicate that Isa. 43:3 may be behind Josephus’ identification of the Queen of Sheba as the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. See also Marcus’ note in the Loeb translation of Josephus at Ant. 8:165. ↩
• ^[40] Note that the conflation of Sheba with Seba is not encouraged by the LXX translation of Isa. 43:3. This may be an indication that Josephus was informed by a Hebrew midrashic tradition rather than by his dependence on LXX. ↩
• ^[41] In Ps. 71:10 the LXX translators rendered שְׁבָא (sh^evā’, “Sheba”) as Ἀράβων (Arabōn, “Arabian”), clearly distinguishing it from סְבָא (s^evā’, “Seba”), which they rendered as Σαβα (Saba), and at the same time demonstrating that they knew full well where Sheba was really located. ↩
• ^[42] On the dates of LXX’s translation, see Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling; CRINT II.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 161-188, esp. 162. ↩
• ^[43] Perhaps Jer. 49:7, which asks, הַאֵין עוֹד חָכְמָה בְּתֵימָן (“Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?”), played a role in identifying the Queen of Sheba’s realm as Teman. The Queen of Sheba came to Solomon because she had heard of his great wisdom.
  
  Another factor that may have contributed to the identification of Sheba with Teman is the linkage in certain verses between Teman and Dedan on the one hand (Jer. 32[25]:23 [LXX]; Ezek. 25:13) and Dedan and Sheba on the other (Gen. 10:7; 25:3; Ezek. 38:13; 1 Chr. 1:9, 32). The LXX version of Gen. 25:3 (and so perhaps also a pre-Masoretic Hebrew vorlage) links all three names (τὸν Σαβα καὶ τὸν Θαιμαν καὶ τὸν Δαιδαν) together. ↩
• ^[44] The location of the Queen of Sheba’s kingdom on the continent of Africa likely had implications for the understanding of her ethnic identity. For musings on these implications, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Jesus, White Nationalism, and the Queen of Sheba,” on WholeStones.org. ↩
• ^[45] See Meier, “The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead,” 19 n. 29; Tan, “The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions,” 60. ↩
• ^[46] See Dalman, 64. ↩
• ^[47] The only exception is the anomalous phrase הַדּוֹר זוּ (hadōr zū, “this generation”) in Ps. 12:8, which the LXX translators rendered as τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης (tēs geneas tavtēs, “this generation”; Ps. 11:8). ↩
• ^[48] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 92; Marshall, 486; Fitzmyer, 2:936. For a different view, see Tan, “The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions,” 52-53. ↩
• ^[49] See Cadbury, Style, 189; cf. Lindsey, LHNC, 66. A glance at Lindsey’s Greek Concordance of the Synoptic Gospels reveals how frequently Luke has ἀνήρ where it is lacking in the Matthean parallel, even where Matthew displays independence from Mark. See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:39-40. Moreover, as Tan (“The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions,” 52) noted, there is a striking difference in the frequency of ἀνήρ compared to ἄνθρωπος in Luke as compared to Acts. Whereas the Gospel of Luke has approximately one instance of ἀνήρ for every three and a half instances of ἄνθρωπος (Luke: ἀνήρ 27xx; ἄνθρωπος 95xx), in Acts there are approximately two instances of ἀνήρ for every one instance of ἄνθρωπος (Acts: ἀνήρ 100xx; ἄνθρωπος 46xx). This dramatic difference strongly suggests that the author of Luke preferred to use the gendered noun ἀνήρ when writing on his own, but generally accepted ἄνθρωπος when it occurred in his sources. Thus, any instance of ἀνήρ in Luke uncorroborated by Matthew is immediately suspect of Lukan redaction. Surprisingly, Tan (“The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions,” 52) did not draw this natural inference. ↩
• ^[50] On women as witnesses in ancient Jewish society, see Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 163-166. ↩
• ^[51] On Essene acceptance of women’s testimony, see Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 163; idem, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 40-42. ↩
• ^[52] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:236-237. ↩
• ^[53] See Dos Santos, 42. ↩
• ^[54] See the “Story Placement” discussion in Woes on Three Villages. Cf. Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 531. ↩
• ^[55] Dalman (64) suggested that the Aramaic cognate חַיֵּב stood behind κατακρίνειν in Matt. 12:42 ∥ Luke 11:31. See also Joachim Jeremias, “Ἰωνᾶς,” TDNT, 3:406-410, esp. 408 n. 16. ↩
• ^[56] This parallel to Generations That Repented Long Ago was noted already by Gill (138). ↩
• ^[57] Hillel’s extreme poverty is described in a portion of b. Yom. 35b that we omitted from the quotation. ↩
• ^[58] On Eleazar ben Harsom’s wealth, see t. Yom. 1:22. ↩
• ^[59] See Gen. 39:6-15. ↩
• ^[60] See Ullendorff, “Candace (Acts VIII. 27) and the Queen of Sheba,” 54 n. 1. ↩
• ^[61] See Ginzberg, 2:961 n. 20. ↩
• ^[62] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1278-1280. ↩
• ^[63] See Dos Santos, 63. ↩
• ^[64] For an assessment of Jesus’ scriptural acumen, see David Flusser, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 71-107, esp. 93-94. ↩
• ^[65] For a similar case, see our reconstruction of the comparative adjective μείζων (meizōn, “bigger,” “greater”) with גָּדוֹל מִן in Yeshua’s Words about Yohanan the Immerser, L32 and L35. ↩
• ^[66] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1491. ↩
• ^[67] See Segal, 134 §294. ↩
• ^[68] See Segal, 136 §295. ↩
• ^[69] The Hebrew version of Matthew contained in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan renders καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε (“And behold! Something greater than Solomon is here”) as והנני גדול משלמה (v^ehinēni gādōl mish^elomoh, “And behold! I am greater than Solomon!” [ed. Howard, 58]). This christologically explicit declaration could never have given rise to the ambiguous Greek statement preserved in Matt. 12:42 ∥ Luke 11:31. The explanation for the medieval Hebrew version of Matthew is that it reflects an interpretation of the canonical Greek text of Matthew. In other words, the Hebrew version of Matthew preserved in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan is not the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, nor should it be confused with the Hebrew source (viz., the Hebrew Life of Yeshua) that stands behind the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[70] Other variations are possible, e.g., חָכְמָה גְּדֹלָה מֵחָכְמַתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה כָּן. Compare this reconstruction to the following statement in the Tosefta: קהלת אינה מטמאה את הידים מפני שהיא מחכמתו של שלמה (“Qohelet [i.e., Ecclesiastes—DNB and JNT] does not make one’s hands impure [i.e., is not canonical—DNB and JNT], since it merely came from Solomon’s own wisdom [i.e., and not from the Holy Spirit—DNB and JNT]”; t. Yad. 2:14 [ed. Zuckermandel, 683]). We may infer from this rabbinic statement that wisdom from the Holy Spirit was regarded as something greater than the wisdom of Solomon. ↩
• ^[71] The two main LXX equivalents of אִישׁ (’ish, “man”) are ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos, “person,” “man”) and ἀνήρ (anēr, “man”), the latter being much more common. See Dos Santos, 9. We also find that in LXX ἀνήρ is more frequently the translation of אִישׁ than of any other noun, with אֱנוֹשׁ (’^enōsh, “human”) taking second place. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:88-95. These combined data make אִישׁ the most probable and natural reconstruction of ἀνήρ. ↩
• ^[72] Pace Luz (2:220), who wrote, “Its [i.e., Jesus’ generation’s—DNB and JNT] guilt consists in, and only in, its rejection of Jesus.” ↩
• ^[73] This he did inter alia in his teaching on love for enemies, in his teaching on non-retaliation, in his sermon in Nazareth in which he refused to proclaim divine vengeance, and by his stance regarding the payment of tribute to Caesar. Several of Jesus’ public actions also reveal his rejection of, and active opposition to, violent Jewish nationalism. Such actions include his praise for a Roman centurion’s faith, his association with toll collectors, and his decision to ride a donkey (instead of a charging stallion or a raging elephant) when he approached Jerusalem. ↩
• ^[74] See Flusser’s comment that “the main guilt of Jesus’ generation was its apocalyptic fever [sic ‘fervor’?—DNB and JNT] which found its dangerous expression in Zealotism” (“Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 531). ↩
• ^[75] On reconstructing ἀνιστάναι with קָם, see Call of Levi, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[76] The fact that the medieval Hebrew version of Matthew preserved in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan has חזרו בתשובה (“they returned in repentance” [ed. Howard, 58]) as the equivalent of μετενόησαν (“they repented”) in Matt. 12:41 is further evidence that this Hebrew version of Matthew does not go back to the first century. The idiom חָזַר בִּתְשׁוּבָה is late. In tannaic sources we find the idiom עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה. ↩
• ^[77] In rabbinic literature שונאיהם של ישראל is a common euphamism for Israel. See Jastrow, 1537 (שׂוֹנֵא). ↩
• ^[78] The remaining instances of κήρυγμα are found in 2 Chr. 30:5; 1 Esd. 9:3; Prov. 9:3. ↩
• ^[79] See J. W. Roberts, “A Note on the Preposition eis in Matthew 12:41,” Restoration Quarterly 2.1 (1958): 19-21. ↩
• ^[80] See Segal, 103 §228. ↩
• ^[81] See Hatch-Redpath, 3:93. ↩
• ^[82]

  Generations That Repented Long Ago
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτούς ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε		βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε
  Total Words:	55	Total Words:	53
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	52	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	52
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	94.55%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	98.11%

  ↩

• ^[83]

  Generations That Repented Long Ago
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε		βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε
  Total Words:	53	Total Words:	53
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	53	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	53
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	100.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	100.00%

  ↩

• ^[84] Cf., e.g., Gundry, Matt., 246. ↩
• ^[85] A self-referrential “Someone greater than Solomon and Jonah is here!” can only make sense if Generations That Repented Long Ago is understood in isolation, divorced from a teaching context. Even so, it is difficult to believe that Jesus condemned his entire generation for not recognizing that he was the Messiah. However, if our placement of Generations that Repented Long Ago within the context of the “Choose Repentance or Destruction” complex is correct, than the "obvious" interpretation no longer holds. In this complex Jesus did not speak about himself or the failure of his contemporaries to appreciate his personal greatness, instead Jesus expressed his concern that his contemporaries were in far greater trouble than past generations because of the dangerous trend toward militant Jewish nationalism among his contemporaries that was putting Israel on a collision course with the Roman empire. ↩
• ^[86] It was on the grounds that claiming to be greater than Jonah and Solomon was boastful that Vermes (Authentic, 182) denied that Generations That Repented Long Ago was ever spoken by Jesus. ↩
• ^[87] For the supposition that Jesus referred to the Kingdom of Heaven as the “something greater,” see Montefiore, 2:202; Manson, Sayings, 91-92; Meier, “The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead," 18. ↩
• ^[88] See Bultmann, 112-113. ↩
• ^[89] While it is true that Solomon and Jonah were “someones,” it is also true that they were “somethings.” Solomon was a purveyor of wisdom. Jonah was a prophet of doom. Our work to reconstruct the context in which Jesus spoke Generations that Repented Long Ago suggests that Jesus’ point was that his generation had been offered wisdom greater than Solomon’s, but they had rejected it. They had been delivered a prophecy of doom more dire than the prophecy Jonah delivered against Nineveh, yet they had ignored it. As a result, Jesus generation was destined to suffer the consequences: the loss of the Temple, the loss of semi-statehood within the Roman Empire, and the loss of countless lives. ↩
• ^[90] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[91] 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. ↩