Innocent Blood

(Matt. 23:34-36; Luke 11:49-51)

(Huck 154, 210; Aland 194, 284; Crook 224, 321)^[164]

Updated: 27 July 2023

לְפִיכָךְ אַף חָכְמַת אֱלֹהִים אָמְרָה אֶשְׁלַח בָּהֶם נְבִיאִים וּשְׁלִיחִים וַחֲכָמִים וְסוֹפְרִים מֵהֶם יַהֲרֹגוּ מֵהֶם יִרְדֹּפוּ וְיִדָּרֵשׁ כָּל דָּם נָקִי שָׁפוּךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ מִיַּד הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה מִדַּם הֶבֶל וְעַד דַּם זְכַרְיָה הָאוֹבֵד בֵּין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּבֵין הַבַּיִת אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם יִדָּרֵשׁ מִיַּד הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה

“Thus Lady Wisdom herself declared, ‘I will send them prophets and emissaries, sages and scribes. They will kill the former and harry the latter. Therefore, this generation will have to answer for all the innocent blood poured out on the holy land, from the murder of Hevel down to that of Zecharyah, who died between the altar and the Temple.’

“Alas, what Lady Wisdom said is also true of you! God will demand from this generation all the innocent blood ever poured out because you will not repent.”^[165]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Innocent Blood click on the link below:

Conclusion

In Innocent Blood Jesus indicated that the threat to his generation was as real and as serious as the threat that had loomed over the generation of the Babylonian exile prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus’ generation was liable to suffer the same fate as the generation of the exile because his generation was guilty of the same sins as that earlier generation: resorting to violence as a solution to its problems. Therefore, what the Wisdom of God had declared concerning the generation of the Babylonian exile would also prove true for Jesus’ generation: from “this generation” God would demand all the innocent blood ever poured out on the earth.

---

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

---

• ^[1] Cf. Luz, 3:151. ↩
• ^[2] See our introduction to the “Yohanan the Immerser and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex. ↩
• ^[3] See Woes on Three Villages, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[4] Cf. Marshall, 502. ↩
• ^[5] See Woes on Three Villages, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[6] On low levels of verbal agreement in DT pericopae as an indicator of the use of different sources by the authors of Luke and Matthew, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[7] See David Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man” (Flusser, JOC, 526-534, esp. 532). ↩
• ^[8] In Generations That Repented Long Ago Jesus’ contemporaries are condemned for not paying attention to wise counsel and not repenting. The wise counsel to which Jesus referred was probably to walk in the ways of peace, as he recommended in the Sermon on the Mount. The sin for which his contemporaries needed to repent was probably violent Jewish nationalism. Nineveh was notorious for its violence, so it would make sense for the people of Nineveh to condemn Israel for refusing to renounce violence, as they had done when Jonah warned them of their impending judgment. ↩
• ^[9] Some scholars (cf. Knox, 1:99; Beare, 166 §154) have supposed that the apocryphal work from which Jesus quoted was entitled Wisdom of God, but that need not have been the case. ↩
• ^[10] Most scholars are agreed that the Zechariah to which Innocent Blood refers is Zechariah the priest, whose murder is described in 2 Chr. 24:17ff. See Plummer, Luke, 314; McNeile, 340; Manson, Sayings, 103; Marshall, 506; Beare, Matt., 459; Gundry, Matt., 471; Fitzmyer, 2:951; Davies-Allison, 3:318-319; Nolland, Luke, 2:668-669; Luz, 3:154-155. See also Isaac Kalimi, “The Story About the Murder of the Prophet Zechariah and its Relation to Chronicles,” Revue Biblique 116.2 (2009): 246-261; Eyal Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 131. ↩
• ^[11] The Jubilees parallel to the source quoted in Innocent Blood has been largely ignored by New Testament scholars, despite having been noted by Charles and discussed in several of Flusser’s articles. See R. H. Charles, trans., The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), 37 n. 8; David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560, esp. 553); idem, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 532; idem, “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. 88 n. 56; idem, “Martyrology in the Second Temple Period and Early Christianity” (JSTP2, 248-257, esp. 255). N.B. the important corrections to the last of these articles which are compiled in our blog post “Corrections and Emendations to Flusser’s Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” ↩
• ^[12] See Charles, The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis, 37 n. 7; James C. VanderKam, Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1-21 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018), 151-152. ↩
• ^[13] Translation according to Charles, The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis, 36-37. ↩
• ^[14] Bultmann (114) thought Innocent Blood was based on a prophetic saying recorded in a lost Jewish source. Cf. Bundy, 355 §240. Suggs believed that the source from which Jesus quoted was a lost wisdom-apocalypse. See M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), 19-20. Cf. Montefiore, 2:303. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. McNeile, 339. ↩
• ^[16] On the concept of defilement of the holy land, see Jonathan Klawans, “Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 29.4 (1998): 391-415. ↩
• ^[17] In 2 Kgs. 24:3-4 it is the innocent blood spilled by King Manasseh in Jerusalem that made the exile inevitable. These verses refer back to 2 Kgs. 21:16, which states, "And in addition, Manasseh poured out vast quantities of innocent blood until Jerusalem was filled from one entrance to the other." Commenting on this verse the rabbinic sages stated:

  בעון שפיכות דמים שכינה נעלית ומקדש נטמא

  On account of the sin of pouring out blood the divine presence is withdrawn and the Temple is rendered impure. (t. Yom. 1:12 [Vienna MS])

  Exile is a corollary to the withdrawal of the divine presence and the defilement of the Temple. ↩

• ^[18] See Ginzberg, 2:1037-1039. ↩
• ^[19] See Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 10, 35-36. ↩
• ^[20] The conclusion that Jesus quoted from an otherwise unknown Second Temple-period Jewish source obliterates the hypothesis that Innocent Blood is a late accretion to the Jesus tradition added by some anonymous Christian prophet who spoke in the name of the risen Lord who styles himself as the Wisdom of God. For scholars who posit a post-Easter Christian origin of Innocent Blood, see Knox, 1:99; Bovon, 2:165 n. 84. See also Robert J. Miller, “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107.2 (1988): 225-240. ↩
• ^[21] See Boring-Berger-Colpe, 214. ↩
• ^[22] See Marshall, 502; Miller, “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q,” 227; Davies-Allison, 3:315; Bovon, 2:165. ↩
• ^[23] On sentences opening with לְפִיכָךְ, see Segal, 243 §517. ↩
• ^[24] See Harnack, 103; John Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” The Journal of Theological Studies 51 (1912): 398-410, esp. 409; McNeile, 339; Bultmann, 114; Knox, 1:100; Bundy, 453 §356; Schweizer, 435; Marshall, 502; Nolland, Luke, 2:667; Hagner, 2:674; Davies-Allison, 3:313; Luz, 3:151; Bovon, 2:165 n. 85. ↩
• ^[25] Pace Flusser, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” 88 n. 56; 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: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 195-209, esp. 206. ↩
• ^[26] Apart from the author of Matthew’s literary motivation to transform the speech Jesus attributed to the Wisdom of God into Jesus’ own prediction of the future persecution of the Church, this shift from the Wisdom of God to Jesus is a typically Matthean move. Compare “because of the Son of Man” (Luke 6:22) ∥ “because of me” (Matt. 5:11); “the Son of Man will acknowledge” (Luke 12:8) ∥ “I will acknowledge” (Matt. 10:32). ↩
• ^[27] Pace Harnack, 103. ↩
• ^[28] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 469; Hagner, 2:674; Davies-Allison, 3:315. ↩
• ^[29] See Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 532 n. 15. ↩
• ^[30] See Gundry, Matt., 470. ↩
• ^[31] See Nolland, Matt., 944. ↩
• ^[32] Cf. Marshall, 504; Davies-Allison, 3:315. ↩
• ^[33] See Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 406; McNeile, 339; Creed, 167; Schweizer, 435; Marshall, 505; Nolland, Luke, 2:668; Catchpole, 270; Wolter, 2:126. ↩
• ^[34] See Manson, Sayings, 102. ↩
• ^[35] See Francis W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 458. ↩
• ^[36] See Wolter, 2:126. ↩
• ^[37] See McNeile, 339; Bultmann, 114 n. 1; Hagner, 2:274. ↩
• ^[38] On the roles of scribes and sages, see Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), 161-176. ↩
• ^[39] On the association of scribes with wisdom, see Sir. 38:24. ↩
• ^[40] See Schweizer, 435; Nolland, Matt., 944. In fact, it is more common for wisdom to be associated with sages and scribes than with prophets. But see Wis. 7:27. ↩
• ^[41] See Luz, 3:150. ↩
• ^[42] Gundry (Matt., 469) regarded “sages” in Matt. 23:34 as compensating for the omission of the Wisdom of God in L2. ↩
• ^[43] See Harnack, 103 n. 1. ↩
• ^[44] The following is a classic statement about the sages succeeding the prophets:

  עַד כַּאן הָיוּ הַנְּבִיאִים מִתְנַבְּאִים בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, מִּכַּאן וָאֵילַךְ הַט אָזְנְךָ וּשְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים

  Until this point the prophets were prophesying by the Holy Spirit, from then on bend your ear and listen to the words of the sages [Prov. 22:17]. (Seder Olam §30 [ed. Guggenheimer, 259])

  ↩

• ^[45] Since not all sages were rabbinic sages, we need not assume that the pseudepigraphon from which Jesus quoted was of Pharisaic-rabbinic origin. The rabbinic sages may have appropriated the idea that the sages are the successors of the prophets from earlier sources. ↩
• ^[46] See Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 553. Flusser, who did not have the benefit of the Hebrew fragment of Jubilees from Qumran at the time his article was written, supposed that “seekers of the law” was the equivalent of דּוֹרְשֵׁי הַתּוֹרָה (“interpreters of the Torah”). However, according to VanderKam (Jubilees 1, 152), seeking the Torah probably involved careful study, so the difference between דּוֹרְשֵׁי הַתּוֹרָה and מְבַקְּשֵׁי הַתּוֹרָה is negligible. Torah study is closely associated with the roles of Jewish sages and scribes. ↩
• ^[47] Pace Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 14. ↩
• ^[48] Cf. David Flusser, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew” (JSTP2, 351-353, esp. 353). ↩
• ^[49] Cf. Harnack, 103. ↩
• ^[50] See McNeile, 339; Luz, 3:152 n. 15. ↩
• ^[51] See Wolter, 2:126-127. ↩
• ^[52] See 1 Enoch 89:51-53; Mart. Isa. 2:12-16; 5:1-16. On the ancient Jewish motif of killing and persecuting the prophets, see Flusser, “Martyrology in the Second Temple Period and Early Christianity,” 254-255; Serge Ruzer, “Jesus’ Crucifixion in Luke and Acts: The Search for a Meaning vis-à-vis the Biblical Pattern of Persecuted Prophet,” in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (ed. Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 173-191, esp. 176-180. On the Second Temple origin of the Martyrdom of Isaiah, see David Flusser, “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect” (Flusser, JOC, 3-22); George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT II.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 33-87, esp. 52-56. For doubts, see John J. Collins, “The ‘apocryphal’ Old Testament,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible (4 vols.; ed. James Carleton Paget, Joachim Schaper, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013-2015), 1:165-189, esp. 185-188. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 406; Harnack, 104; Bultmann, 114; Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 14-15; Gundry, Matt., 470; Hagner, 2:674; Nolland, Luke, 2:667; Davies-Allison, 3:316. ↩
• ^[54] See Allen, 250; Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 406; McNeile, 339; Harnack, 104; Bultmann, 114; Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 15; Gundry, Matt., 470; Hagner, 2:674; Nolland, Luke, 2:667; Davies-Allison, 3:316; Luz, 3:151. See also Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 553-554. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Hagner, 2:676. On dissociative language with reference to Jewish religious institutions as typical of Matthean redaction, see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[56] We use the term “church” deliberately, since the Gospel of Matthew is unique among the Synoptics in using the term ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia, “church”) to refer to the Christian community (Matt. 16:18; 18:17). ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 945. ↩
• ^[58] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:338-339. ↩
• ^[59] See Dos Santos, 190. ↩
• ^[60] On Matt. 10:23, see the LOY segment entitled Completion. ↩
• ^[61] See Allen, 250; Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 406; McNeile, 339; Harnack, 104; Bultmann, 114; Gundry, Matt., 470; Hagner, 2:675; Davies-Allison, 3:316; Luz, 3:151; Nolland, Matt., 945. ↩
• ^[62] See Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 408; McNeile, 341; Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 554; idem, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew,” 353. ↩
• ^[63] See Hagner, 2:675-676. ↩
• ^[64] See Nolland, Matt., 945-946. ↩
• ^[65] Pace Harnack, 103. ↩
• ^[66] See Gundry, Matt., 472; Davies-Allison, 3:316. ↩
• ^[67] For this reason, Jewish aggadic traditions concerning the murder of Zechariah, such as the following, place great emphasis on his blood, which is never explicitly mentioned in the scriptural text.

  רבי יודן שאל לרבי אחא איכן הרגו את זכריה בעזרת הנשים או בעזרת ישראל אמר לו לא בעזרת ישראל ולא בעזרת הנשים אלא בעזרת הכהנים. ולא נהגו בדמו לא כדם האיל ולא כדם הצבי תמן כתיב ושפך את דמו וכסהו בעפר ברכם הכא כי דמה בתוכה היה על צחיח סלע שמתהו. כל כך למה להעלות חימה ולנקם נקם נתתי את דמה על צחיח סלע לבלתי הכסות. שבע עבירות עברו ישראל באותו היום הרגו כהן ונביא ודיין ושפכו דם נקי וטימאו את העזרה ושבת ויום הכיפורים היה. וכיון שעלה נבוזראדן לכאן ראה את הדם תוסס אמר להן מה טיבו של זה אמרו לו דם פרים וכבשים ואילים שהיינו מקריבין על גבי המזבח מיד הביא פרים ואילים וכבשים ושחטן עליו ועדיין הדם תוסס וכיון שלא הודו לו תלו תליין בגרדון אמרו הואיל והקב"ה רוצה לתבוע דמו מידינו. אמרו לו דם כהן ונביא ודיין הוא שהיה מתנבא עלינו כל מה שאתה עושה לנו ועמדנו עליו והרגנוהו מיד הביא שמונים אלף פירחי כהונה ושחטן עליו ואדיין הדם תוסס. בההוא שעתא נזף ביה א"ל מה את בעי נובד כל אומתך עלך. מיד נתמלא הקב"ה רחמים ואמר מה אם זה שהוא בשר ודם ואכזרי נתמלא רחמים על בני אני שכתוב בי כי אל רחום ה' אלהיך לא ירפך ולא ישחיתך ולא ישכח את ברית אבתיך על אחת כמה וכמה מיד רמז לדם ונבלע במקומו

  Rabbi Yudan asked Rabbi Aha, “Where did they kill Zechariah? In the Court of Women or the Court of Israel?” He said to him, “Neither in the Court of Israel nor in the Court of Women, but in the Court of the Priests.” And they did not treat his blood like the blood of a ram or like the blood of a gazelle, which is covered, as it is written, and he must pour out its blood and cover it with dust [Lev. 17:13], but here it says, for her blood is within her, on bare rock she has placed it [she has not poured it on the earth to cover it with dust] [Ezek. 24:7]. Why did all this happen? To arouse wrath to take vengeance I have put her blood on the bare rock, so that it cannot be covered up [Ezek. 24:8]. With seven transgressions Israel transgressed in that day: they killed a priest and a prophet and a judge, and they poured out innocent blood, and they made the court [of the Temple] impure, and it was a Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. And as soon as Nebuzaradan ascended there and saw the blood boiling, he said to them, “What is the meaning of this?” They said to him, “It is the blood of bulls and sheep and rams, which we were offering on the altar.” He brought forthwith bulls and rams and sheep and slaughtered them upon it, but still the blood boiled. And when he saw that they would not confess to him, he hung them on gallows. They said, “It is because the Holy One, blessed be he, wants to require his blood from our hands.” So they said to him, “It is the blood of a priest and prophet and judge, for he was prophesying against us all that you are doing to us, so we rose against him and we killed him.” He brought forthwith eighty thousand apprentices of the priests and slaughtered them, and still the blood boiled. At that moment he grew angry [at the blood], saying to it, “What do you want? Should we destroy your entire nation on your account?” Immediately the Holy One, blessed be he, was filled with mercy and he said, “If this person, who is [merely] flesh and blood and cruel, can be filled with mercy for my children, how much more should I be? For it is written about me, For the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not forsake you and will not destroy you and will not forget the covenant of your fathers [Deut. 4:31]. Immediately he spoke to the blood and it was swallowed in its place. (y. Taan. 4:5 [25a]; for the words in bold, which occur in Aramaic, we have relied on Neusner’s translation of the Yerushalmi)

  For additional references, see Ginzberg, 2:1037-1039. ↩

• ^[68] Detecting an allusion to 2 Chr. 24:19-22 anywhere in Innocent Blood would have been nearly impossible for the author of Luke if the reading Αζαριας (Azarias, “Azariah”; 2 Chr. 24:20), which is accepted in critical editions of the LXX as the equivalent of זְכַרְיָה (z^echaryāh, “Zechariah”), is original. Cf. Gundry, Use, 86. But see Marcus’ note to Ant. 9:168 in the Loeb edition of Josephus’ works. The reading Αζαριας in 2 Chr. 24:20 also prevented most Greek-speaking Church Fathers from identifying the Zechariah mentioned in Innocent Blood with this individual. See Edmon L. Gallagher, “The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation,” New Testament Studies 60 (2014): 121-138, esp. 123-129. ↩
• ^[69] As noted by Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 408; Gundry, Matt., 470. Cf. LSJ, 506. Nolland (Luke, 2:668; cf. Nolland, Matt., 946) admitted that ἐκζητεῖν αἷμα ἀπό (“to seek blood from”) is “an OT idiom,” but he attributed the occurrence of this idiom in Luke 11:50 to imitation of LXX despite the absence of this idiom in the LXX version of 2 Chr. 24:22! ↩
• ^[70] See Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 408; Gundry, Matt., 472; Luz, 3:155 n. 42. ↩
• ^[71] See Manson, Sayings, 103; Wolter, 2:127. ↩
• ^[72] The options are 1) the Wisdom of God sends prophets, etc., in order that blood might be required; 2) the people to whom the Wisdom of God sent prophets, etc., kill them in order that blood might be required of them; 3) the people to whom the Wisdom of God sent prophets, etc., kill them with the result that blood will be required of them. ↩
• ^[73] On reconstructing ἵνα + subjunctive with -וְ + imperfect, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L28. ↩
• ^[74] See Luz, 3:155 n. 42. ↩
• ^[75] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:430-431. ↩
• ^[76] See Dos Santos, 45. ↩
• ^[77] The LXX translators also consistently rendered the synonymous Hebrew idiom בִּקֵּשׁ דָּם (biqēsh dām, “demand blood”), which occurs in 2 Sam. 4:11; Ezek. 3:18, 20; 33:8, with the verb ἐκζητεῖν. ↩
• ^[78] Pace Gundry, Matt., 470; Hagner, 2:675. ↩
• ^[79] None of the verses Peels cited (Gen. 20:7; Ps. 105:15; 1 Chr. 16:22; Acts 3:25; 7:52) support the identification of Abel as a prophet. See H. G. L. Peels, “The Blood »from Abel to Zechariah« (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113.4 (2001): 583-601, esp. 598 n. 44. ↩
• ^[80] See, for instance, the following aggadic statement:

  וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל בָּלָק בְּנֵה לִי בָזֶה שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת—וְלָמָּה שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת שֶׁבָּנוּ שִׁבְעָה צַדִּיקִים מֵאָדָם וְעַד משֶׁה וְנִתְקַבָּלוּ אָדָם וְהֶבֶל וְנֹחַ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב וּמשֶׁה

  And Balaam said to Balak, “Build me in this place seven altars” [Num. 23:1]. And why seven altars? To offset the seven altars that seven righteous men built from Adam until Moses and they were accepted: Adam and Abel and Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses. (Num. Rab. 20:18 [ed. Merkin, 10:262])

  Second Temple sources trace the proto-priesthood as far back as Noah (Jub. 21:10; Aramaic Levi Document 10:10 §57). See Michael E. Stone, “The Axis of History at Qumran,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 133-149, esp. 136-141. ↩

• ^[81] See Manson, Sayings, 103. ↩
• ^[82] Davies and Allison suggested that “the blood of all the prophets” could be redactional because πάντες οἱ προφῆται (pantes hoi profētai, “all the prophets”) is a Lukan phrase (Davies-Allison, 3:317). The phrase πάντες οἱ προφῆται occurs 1x in Matthew (Matt. 11:13), 0xx in Mark, 3xx in Luke (Luke 11:50; 13:28; 24:27) and 2xx in Acts (Acts 3:24; 10:43). Although πάντες οἱ προφῆται does occur more often in the writings of Luke than in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, we are not convinced that five instances in the entire Lukan corpus make πάντες οἱ προφῆται especially Lukan. Cadbury (Style, 115) made a stronger argument for attributing “all the prophets” to Lukan redaction, namely that it was typical of Luke’s editorial style to make generalizing statements together with citing specific examples. For instance, the appending of “and all the trees” to “look at the fig tree” in Luke 21:29 is clearly a secondary addition. See Fig Tree parable, Comment to L12. Since we have identified examples of such generalization in pericopae the author of Luke copied from Anth. rather than FR, the redactional generalizations must be attributed to the author of Luke. On Lukan generalizations, see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[83] Text according to Louis Finkelstein, ed., The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah (New York: Columbia University Press, 1926; repr. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2009). ↩
• ^[84] Text and translation according to Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; New York and London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 424 (text), 435 (trans.). ↩
• ^[85] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:445-446. ↩
• ^[86] See Dos Santos, 215. ↩
• ^[87] Cf. McNeile, 339; Davies-Allison, 3:317. As we noted in Conjectured Stages of Transmission above, the Hebrew Scriptures warn that the spilling of innocent blood defiles the land and results in expulsion (Num. 35:33-34; Lev. 18:24-28). ↩
• ^[88] The phrase καταβολῆς κόσμου also occurs in a Greek fragment of the Testament of Moses corresponding to T. Mos. 1:14. Fitzmyer’s examples of ἐκ καταβολῆς (Polybius, Hist. 1:36 §8; 24:8 §9; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 12:32 §2), all of which have to do with boat building, are not particularly similar or illuminating. See Fitzmyer, 2:950. Wolter (2:127) erroneously credited an example of ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to the third-century B.C.E. Greek philosopher Chrysippus (Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 2:289 §989). The citation actually comes from Origen (De oratione [On Prayer] 6:3), who appears to be quoting the New Testament. Does the fact that the only known examples of καταβολῆς κόσμου occur in NT and para-biblical literature suggest that this phrase was especially common in Hellenistic Jewish circles? ↩
• ^[89] Our best attempt to reconstruct καταβολῆς κόσμου (“foundation of [the] world”) is בְּרִיאַת עוֹלָם (b^eri’at ‘ōlām, “creation of [the] world”). ↩
• ^[90] Pace Hagner, 2:675. ↩
• ^[91] Cf. Harnack, 103-104; Catchpole, 207. ↩
• ^[92] See Bovon, 2:165 n. 20; Luz, 3:151 n. 7. ↩
• ^[93] Pace Gundry, Matt., 471; Luz, 3:151 n. 7. ↩
• ^[94] See Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 554. ↩
• ^[95] Pace Harnack, 104. ↩
• ^[96] We find examples of דָּרַשׁ דָּם מִיָּד (“demand blood from [the] hand”) in Gen. 9:5 and Ezek. 33:6. Examples of בִּקֵּשׁ דָּם מִיָּד (“demand blood from [the] hand”) occur in 2 Sam. 4:11; Ezek. 3:18, 20; 33:8 (cf. 1 Sam. 20:16). ↩
• ^[97] In the Pentateuch alone, the LXX translators rendered מִיָּד as ἐκ (τῆς) χειρός/(τῶν) χειρῶν in Gen. 4:11; 9:5 (2xx); 32:12; 37:21, 22; 39:1; 43:9; 48:22; Exod. 3:8; 14:30; 18:9, 10 (2xx); 29:25; 32:4; Lev. 22:25; Num. 5:25; 24:24; Deut. 3:8; 7:8; 25:11; 26:4; 32:39. ↩
• ^[98] The LXX translators rendered מִיָּד as ἀπὸ (τῆς) χειρός/(τῶν) χειρῶν in Exod. 32:19; Judg. 15:17; 2 Chr. 16:7; Eccl. 2:24; Ezek. 39:3 (2xx). ↩
• ^[99] The LXX translators rendered מִיָּד as παρά in Gen. 21:30; 31:39; 33:19; 38:20; Lev. 25:14; 2 Chr. 30:6; Isa. 37:14. ↩
• ^[100] The LXX translators rendered מִיָּד as ἐκ in 1 Kgdms. 10:18; 4 Kgdms. 17:39; 1 Chr. 29:14; Job 6:23; Prov. 6:5 (2xx); Isa. 47:14. ↩
• ^[101] The LXX translators rendered מִיָּד as ἀπό in Exod. 2:19; Num. 35:25; Ps. 140[141]:9; Dan. 8:7. ↩
• ^[102] The LXX translators also omitted an equivalent to מִיָּד in Jer. 45[38]:18, 23. ↩
• ^[103] Manson, Sayings, 103. Note that Josephus introduced the theme of repentance into his retelling of the story of Zechariah’s murder in the Temple (Ant. 9:168). ↩
• ^[104] Cf. Harnack, 105. ↩
• ^[105] See Davies-Allison, 3:317 n. 40; Hagner, 2:675. Pace Fitzmyer, 2:951. ↩
• ^[106] See Marc Turnage, “Jesus and Caiaphas: An Intertextual-Literary Evaluation” (JS1, 139-168, esp. 164 n. 78). The rest of the sources Turnage mentioned (Matt. 23:35; Heb. 11:4; 1 John 3:12; T. Ben. 7:4; T. Iss. 5:4; Ascension of Isaiah 9:9, 28; Apostolic Constitutions 8:12 §21) are Christian compositions or have been thoroughly reworked by Christian writers. ↩
• ^[107] See Hatch-Redpath, 3:3. ↩
• ^[108] See Peels, “The Blood »from Abel to Zechariah« (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament,” 599. ↩
• ^[109] According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (late first to early second cent. C.E.), the altar upon which Adam sacrificed, the altar upon which Noah sacrificed and the altar in Jerusalem were one and the same (Gen. Rab. 34:9 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:317]). See also Ginzberg, 1:151. Presumably, Cain and Abel sacrificed at Adam’s altar. ↩
• ^[110] See Harnack, 105. ↩
• ^[111] See Gill, 281; Plummer, Luke, 314; A. B. Bruce, 286; Allen, 250; McNeile, 339; Bundy, 355 §240; Marshall, 506; Gundry, Matt., 472; Lachs, 372; Hagner, 2:677; Nolland, Luke, 2:668; Davies-Allison, 3:319; Luz, 3:155; Bovon, 2:166 n. 91; Witherington, 433. See also Sheldon H. Blank, “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature,” Hebrew Union College Annual 12/13 (1937-1938): 327-346, esp. 331. Gallagher (“The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation,” 136) traces the “canonical” interpretation back to Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, who adopted it in 1780. ↩
• ^[112] According to Suggs (Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 21 n. 30), “It is unfortunate that the oracle was not originally written in English, since then we could speak of all the prophets of Wisdom—from A(bel) to Z(echariah)! This is precisely the idea.” Cf. Witherington, 433. ↩
• ^[113] See Peels, “The Blood »from Abel to Zechariah« (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament,” 590, whose use of the phrase “from cover to cover” is tongue-in-cheek. ↩
• ^[114] Gundry (Use, 87 n. 1) acknowledged the problem of anachronism, but adopted this interpretation regardless. ↩
• ^[115] See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 69-74. ↩
• ^[116] Pace Keener (556 n. 67), who suggested that “many MSS ended here [i.e., with 2 Chronicles—DNB and JNT], presumably including some known to Jesus.” Keener is mistaken. No such scroll ever existed in the time of Jesus. ↩
• ^[117] Cf. m. Yad. 4:5. See Peels, “The Blood »from Abel to Zechariah« (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament,” 583-601; Tal Ilan, “Canonization and Gender in Qumran: 4Q179, 4Q184, 2Q18 and 11QPsalms^a,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture (ed. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 513-545. ↩
• ^[118] Evidence for a tripartite division of Scripture is found in the prologue to Ben Sira; 2 Macc. 2:13; 4QMMT^d 7-8 I, 10; Luke 24:44. See Daniel R. Schwartz, “Special People or Special Books? On Qumran and New Testament Notions of Canon,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity (ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 49-60. ↩
• ^[119] See Gallagher, “The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation,” 133-135. Kalimi’s opinion that the reference to Abel and Zechariah in Innocent Blood “confirm[s] a rising tripartite Biblical canon in the first century CE, but the precise contents of the third part—Ketuvim—cannot be discerned from these sources” should be regarded as a maximalist view. See Kalimi, “The Story About the Murder of the Prophet Zechariah and its Relation to Chronicles,” 252. Cf. Peels, “The Blood »from Abel to Zechariah« (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament,” 595 n. 40. ↩
• ^[120] See Chapman, “Zacharias, Slain Between the Temple and the Altar,” 408-409; McNeile, 341; Blank, “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature,” 336-338; Hagner, 2:677. ↩
• ^[121] For a discussion of the fresco, see Carl H. Kraeling, The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Final Report VIII, Part I (New York: Ktav, 1979), 194-202. ↩
• ^[122] In a previous footnote we cited Num. Rab. 20:18 (ed. Merkin, 10:262), which includes an example of וְעַד→מִן in a rabbinic source. ↩
• ^[123] This is the position Flusser defended in “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew,” 352. ↩
• ^[124] Scholars who identify the Zechariah of Innocent Blood with the Zechariah son of Baris who was murdered by the Zealots point out that Zechariah son of Jehoiada was a priest, not a prophet, and argue that “from Abel to Zechariah” ought to bring the murders up to more recent times than the pre-exilic period. The first of these two arguments is weak because 1) the categories of prophet and priest are not mutually exclusive (Isaiah and Ezekiel were priests); 2) Jewish tradition (cf. y. Taan. 4:5 [25a]) identified Zechariah son of Jehoiada as a priest and a prophet; and 3) the identification of Zechariah as a prophet is explicit in 2 Chr. 24:19-22 itself. Moreover, it is only Luke’s version that requires the victims mentioned in Innocent Blood to be prophets. The second argument only holds true if Jesus is not quoting a pseudepigraphon in which the Wisdom of God addresses the generation of the Babylonian exile. ↩
• ^[125] See Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE—200 CE (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 84. ↩
• ^[126] As we discuss in Yerushalayim Besieged, it does not appear that the author of Matthew had any interest in the catastrophic events of 70 C.E. ↩
• ^[127] Cf. Allen, 250. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was sometimes confused or conflated with other Zechariahs in rabbinic sources. See Blank, “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature,” 327-334. ↩
• ^[128] See Luz, 3:150-151. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 947. ↩
• ^[129] See Fitzmyer, 2:251. ↩
• ^[130] See Ginzberg, 2:1078 n. 30; Bundy, 453 §356. Gundry (Matt., 471) suggested that the author of Matthew identified the Zechariah in Innocent Blood as the son of Berechiah in order to forge a link between this murdered prophet and the story of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, since the author of Matthew regarded the betrayal as a fullfilment of Zech. 11:13. Gundry’s suggestion lacks merit, however, since the author of Matthew erroneously attributed the Zechariah quotation to the prophet Jeremiah (Matt. 27:9). ↩
• ^[131] In addition to his reference to the prophet Zechariah in Innocent Blood (Matt. 23:35), the author of Matthew also alluded to or quoted the book of Zechariah in Matt. 21:5 (cf. Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31); 24:30 (cf. Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27); 26:31 (= Mark 14:27); 27:9 (unparalleled). ↩
• ^[132] Cf. Harnack, 104; Marshall, 506. ↩
• ^[133] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 471. ↩
• ^[134] Cf. Hagner, 2:275; Nolland, Matt., 947. ↩
• ^[135] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 947. ↩
• ^[136] Cf. Marshall, 506. ↩
• ^[137] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 947 n. 119. ↩
• ^[138] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:666-668. ↩
• ^[139] See Dos Santos, 108. ↩
• ^[140] See Eberhard Nestle, “‘Between the Temple and the Altar,’” Expository Times 13.12 (1902): 562. ↩
• ^[141] See Kloppenborg, 55-57. ↩
• ^[142] The use of בַּיִת as a synonym for the Temple shrine continued in Mishnaic Hebrew, as we see in the use of the designation הַר הַבַּיִת (har habayit, “the mountain of the house”) to refer to the Temple Mount. On the term הַר הַבַּיִת, see David Goodblatt, “The Temple Mount: The Afterlife of a Biblical Phrase,” in Le-David Maskil (ed. Richard Elliott Friedman and William H. C. Propp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 91-101. Likewise, the use of the phrase בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת (bifnē habayit, “in the presence of the house”; cf., e.g., m. Bik. 2:3; m. Shek. 8:8) to mean “when there is a Temple” also attests to this Hebrew usage. ↩
• ^[143] See Kalimi, “The Story About the Murder of the Prophet Zechariah and its Relation to Chronicles,” 257, cf. 260. ↩
• ^[144] We similarly encounter in Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth the detail that the famine in Elijah’s time lasted three years and six months (Luke 4:25). The length of the famine is not specified in the scriptural account, but giving a precise length of the famine serves no clear purpose in Jesus’ sermon. Here, too, the latent detail preserved in the Gospels likely reflects an earlier midrashic tradition in which the length of the famine was important. Jesus’ reference to the Queen of Sheba as the “Queen of the South” (Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:31) likewise probably reflects a pre-existing midrashic tradition. The specification of her kingdom as “the south” serves no function (other than to provoke questions) in Generations That Repented Long Ago. ↩
• ^[145] The affirmation ἀμήν is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew אָמֵן and was not familiar to non-Jewish Greek speakers. See LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels. In Hebrew אָמֵן was used to affirm a previous statement or declaration. See Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[146] See Harnack, 105; Marshall, 506. Other scholars believe that it is Luke’s ναί that is original. See Davies-Allison, 3:319 n. 20. ↩
• ^[147] On the tendency of Luke’s Gospel to omit or replace ἀμήν when it occurred in Anth., see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115. ↩
• ^[148] See Miller, “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q,” 229; Nolland, Luke, 2:669; Bovon, 2:166; Wolter, 2:128. ↩
• ^[149] Pace Harnack, 105; Hagner, 2:675. As Flusser noted, Matthew’s “all this will come upon” not only echoes the redactional statement “so that it might come upon you” in Matt. 23:35 (L13), it anticipates the redactional self-condemnation of the Jews in Matt. 27:25. See Flusser, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew,” 353. Moreover, modern critical editions of NT indicate that the original text of Matthew read ἥξει ταῦτα πάντα ἐπί in L25. The word order ταῦτα πάντα is characteristic of Matthean redaction. See Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L48. ↩
• ^[150] See Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 554. ↩
• ^[151] On the occasional sloppiness we encounter in Matthean redaction, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[152] See Gundry, Matt., 472. ↩
• ^[153] See Jeremias, Theology, 135 n. 3; Luz, 2:148. ↩
• ^[154] On anti-Jewish sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew, see R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[155] Text and translation according to Elias J. Bickerman, “The Warning Inscriptions of Herod’s Temple,” Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946-1947): 387-405, esp. 388. ↩
• ^[156] The meaning of cursing by Kosem is uncertain. ↩
• ^[157] The case of an officiating impure priest was, by definition, Temple-related. Similarly, there was certainly more opportunity to steal a sacred vessel in the Temple than anywhere else. We do not know what is meant by cursing by Kosem, while striking down a man who has married a Gentile woman would make sense in a scenario in which the man attempted to bring his proselyte wife into the Temple courts. ↩
• ^[158] On differences of opinion concerning conversion to Judaism, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Doing Like Jews or Becoming A Jew? Josephus on Women Converts to Judaism,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (ed. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 93-109. ↩
• ^[159] Notice how similar Rabbi Zadok’s actions in response to the murder next to the altar are to Zechariah son of Jehoiada’s delivery of his oracle to the people of Judah. Rabbi Zadok’s standing on the steps of the porch is very much like Zechariah’s standing above the people to deliver his prophetic message (2 Chr. 24:20). ↩
• ^[160] See David Flusser, “The Sign of the Son of Man” (Flusser, JOC, 526-534, esp. 531-532). ↩
• ^[161]

  Innocent Blood
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ διώξουσιν ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν προφητῶν τὸ ἐκκεχυμένον ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἀπὸ αἵματος Ἅβελ ἕως αἵματος Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἀπολομένου μεταξὺ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης		διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν διώξουσιν ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἀπὸ αἵματος Ἅβελ ἕως αἵματος Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἀπολομένου μεταξὺ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης
  Total Words:	58	Total Words:	60
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	48	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	48
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	82.76%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	80.00%

  ↩

• ^[162]

  Innocent Blood
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω πρὸς ὑμᾶς προφήτας καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε καὶ σταυρώσετε καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστειγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν καὶ διώξετε ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ἥξει πάντα ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην		διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν διώξουσιν ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἀπὸ αἵματος Ἅβελ ἕως αἵματος Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἀπολομένου μεταξὺ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης
  Total Words:	72	Total Words:	60
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	33	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	33
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	45.83%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	55.00%

  ↩

• ^[163] For a responsible approach to dealing with the anti-Jewish portions of the New Testament, see Peter J. Tomson, Presumed Guilty: How the Jews Were Blamed for the Death of Jesus (trans. Janet Dyk; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). ↩
• ^[164] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[165] 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. ↩