Indiscriminate Catastrophe

Matt. 24:40-41; Luke 17:34-35

(Huck 184, 224; Aland 235, 296; Crook 288, 336)^[63]

אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם [בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא] יִהְיוּ שְׁנַיִם עַל הַמִּטָּה אֶחָד נָטוּל וְאֶחָד מוּנָּח יִהְיוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּשָּׂדֶה אֶחָד נָטוּל וְאֶחָד מוּנָּח יִהְיוּ שְׁתַּיִם טוֹחֲנוֹת בָּרֵחַיִם אַחַת נְטוּלָה וְאַחַת מוּנַּחַת

“Yes! And I’ll tell you what: [On the day calamity strikes] two people will be lying on a bed: one of them will be removed, and one of them will be left unharmed. Two people will be in a field: one of them will be removed, and one of them will be left unharmed. Two women will be grinding flour with a mill: one of them will be removed, and one of them will be left unharmed.^[64]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Indiscriminate Catastrophe click on the link below:

Conclusion

In Indiscriminate Catastrophe Jesus underscored the reason why it would be prudent to take flight without concern for one’s possessions when the war with Rome finally erupts: when the legions come sweeping through the land of Israel, the soldiers will not stop to ask whether individual Jews are “good” or “bad”; they will reconquer the land with swift and merciless expediency.

---

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

---

• ^[1] See David Flusser, “The Literary Relationship Between the Three Gospels,” in his Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979 [in Hebrew]), 28-49, esp. 46. The English translation of Flusser’s retroversion is our own. ↩
• ^[2] See our discussion in Days of the Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[3] On the secondary attachment of the eschatologically oriented Like Lightning pericope to the pre-existing Son of Man block pertaining to the Son of Man’s role in the present and the coming destruction in the near future, see Days of the Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[4] On Jesus’ role as a sign of doom to his generation, see Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L39. ↩
• ^[5] On Jesus’ warnings against the rising tide of anti-Roman Jewish nationalist militancy, see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L12-13. ↩
• ^[6] Pace Fitzmyer (2:1167), who maintained that Luke 17:34-35 ∥ Matt. 24:41 emphasizes “the discretionary or discriminatory aspect of the judgment which will occur on the day(s) of the Son of Man.” As Guenther rightly observed, the basis upon which one is taken and the other left is never stated. See Heinz O. Guenther, “When ‘Eagles’ Draw Together,” Forum 5.2 (1989): 140-150, esp. 143. We think this omission of a rationale for the taking of some and the leaving of others is intentional. Who is taken and who is left is entirely arbitrary, a matter of chance. Hence the title we have given to this pericope: Indiscriminate Catastrophe. Cf. Gill, 7:674. ↩
• ^[7] Cf. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 366. Note that the flood in the days of Noah and the overturn of Sodom in the days of Lot, to which Jesus compared the coming catastrophe, were natural phenomena. The wicked were not sucked up in a supernatural vacuum hose, neither were the righteous transported to safety via divinely controlled pneumatic tubes. Jesus did, of course, describe the calamity he anticipated in apocalyptic terms, as was natural in a first-century Jewish context. However, Jesus’ use of apocalyptic imagery and vocabulary does not exclude the historical realization of these predictions in mundane events. ↩
• ^[8] It is possible that Jesus’ developing realization that it was not only in his teaching and exhortation but also in his manner of death that he would be a portent of doom to his generation contributed to a shift in Jesus’ use of Son of Man terminology. Initially, Jesus used Son of Man terminology to refer to his Jonah-like function as a prophet of doom to his generation, but eventually Jesus began using Son of Man terminology in the predictions of his martyrdom. If he understood both his teaching and his manner of death as signs of a coming judgment, this would go a long way in explaining why Jesus used Son of Man terminology in both contexts. ↩
• ^[9] For precise measurements of verbal agreement in Indiscriminate Catastrophe, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. Low levels of verbal agreement in DT pericopae are often an indication that the author of Luke relied on FR, whereas the author of Matthew relied on Anth. ↩
• ^[10] See Days of the Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[11] Thus, for instance, the doublet of Preserving and Destroying that appears in Luke 9:24 belongs to a “string of pearls” characteristic of FR, it contains distinctive FR vocabulary, and it exhibits a christological soteriology not present in the Luke 17:33 (Anth.) version of the saying. See further Preserving and Destroying, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[12] The parallel to Indiscriminate Catastrophe in the Gospel of Thomas reads:

  Jesus said: Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, the one will live. (Gos. Thom. §61 [ed. Guillaumont, 33-35])

  ↩

• ^[13] Cf., e.g., Marshall, 667; Fitzmyer, 2:1172; Kloppenborg, 162.

  In support of tracing λέγω ὑμῖν to Luke’s source, Fitzmyer (2:1172) claimed that this formula “is characteristically non-Lucan.” However, it is not easy to substantiate Fitzmyer’s claim. The Gospel of Luke has a total of forty-eight instances of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν, compared to sixty instances in Matthew and nineteen instances in Mark (see table below). Of Luke’s forty-eight instances, twenty-five have no corroboration from Mark or Matthew (9xx in pericopae unique to Luke; 5xx in TT pericopae but in verses that have no parallel in Mark or Matthew; 1x in a TT pericope with parallel verses in Mark and Matthew; 10xx in DT pericopae). In these twenty-five instances of uncorroborated λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν in Luke, we must either suppose that Luke copied λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν from his source(s)—difficult in the case of the TT pericopae if one is a Markan Priorist—or that he added λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν to his text. We think it is probable that most of Luke’s instances of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν do reflect the wording of his source(s), but each instance must be weighed on its individual merits. So far we have concluded that the uncorroborated instances of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν in Luke 7:14; 11:9 (cf. Matt. 7:7); 13:3, 5; 15:10 (cf. Matt. 18:14); 18:8 stem from Luke’s source(s). To this list we may now also add Luke 17:34 (cf. Matt. 24:40). On λέγω + σοι in Luke 7:14, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L15; on λέγω + ὑμῖν in Luke 11:9, see Friend in Need, Comment to L21; on λέγω + ὑμῖν in Luke 13:3, see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L12; on λέγω + ὑμῖν in Luke 13:5, see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L20; on λέγω + ὑμῖν in Luke 15:10, see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comments to L53 and L55; on λέγω + ὑμῖν in Luke 18:8, see Persistent Widow, Comment to L25.

  We note, too, that there are eight instances in DT pericopae where Matthew’s use of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν is not reflected in Luke (Matt. 5:39 [cf. Luke 6:29]; 8:11 [cf. Luke 13:29]; 10:27 [cf. Luke 12:3]; 11:22 [cf. Luke 10:14], 24 [cf. Luke 10:14]; 12:36 [cf. Luke 6:45]; 17:20 [cf. Luke 17:6]; 18:22 [cf. Luke 17:4]). Some or all of these could be instances where the author of Matthew added λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν to his text, but if not, they might indicate that the author of Luke was not always willing to accept λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν from his source, and perhaps as a corollary we might suspect that the author of Luke was unlikely to add λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν on his own initiative.

  The following table shows all the instances of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν in the Synoptic Gospels with parallels (if any):

  Matt. 3:9 DT = Luke 3:8 Matt. 5:18 U Matt. 5:20 U Matt. 5:22 U Matt. 5:26 DT = Luke 12:59 Matt. 5:28 U Matt. 5:32 TT (cf. Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) Matt. 5:34 U Matt. 5:39 DT (cf. Luke 6:29) Matt. 5:44 DT = Luke 6:27 Matt. 6:2 U Matt. 6:5 U Matt. 6:16 U Matt. 6:25 DT = Luke 12:22 Matt. 6:29 DT = Luke 12:27 Matt. 8:10 DT = Luke 7:9 Matt. 8:11 DT (cf. Luke 13:29) Matt. 10:15 DT = Luke 10:12 Matt. 10:23 U Matt. 10:27 DT (cf. Luke 12:3) Matt. 10:42 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:41 Matt. 11:9 DT = Luke 7:26 Matt. 11:11 DT = Luke 7:28 Matt. 11:22 DT (cf. Luke 10:14) Matt. 11:24 DT (cf. Luke 10:14) Matt. 12:6 TT (cf. Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4) Matt. 12:31 TT = Mark 3:28 (cf. Luke 12:10) Matt. 12:36 DT (cf. Luke 6:45) Matt. 13:17 DT = Luke 10:24 Matt. 16:18 TT (cf. Mark 8:[--]; Luke 9:[--]) Matt. 16:28 TT = Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27 Matt. 17:12 Mk-Mt = Mark 9:13 Matt. 17:20 DT (cf. Luke 17:6) Matt. 18:3 TT (cf. Mark 9:35; Luke 9:48) Matt. 18:10 U Matt. 18:13 DT = Luke 15:7 Matt. 18:18 U Matt. 18:19 U Matt. 18:22 DT (cf. Luke 17:4) Matt. 19:9 TT (cf. Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) Matt. 19:23 TT (cf. Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24) Matt. 19:24 TT (cf. Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25) Matt. 19:28 TT = Mark 10:29; Luke 18:29 Matt. 21:21 Mk-Mt = Mark 11:23 Matt. 21:27 TT = Mark 11:33; Luke 20:8 Matt. 21:31 U Matt. 21:43 TT (cf. Mark 12:[--]; Luke 20:[--]) Matt. 23:36 DT = Luke 11:51 Matt. 23:39 DT = Luke 13:35 Matt. 24:2 TT (cf. Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6) Matt. 24:34 TT = Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32 Matt. 24:47 TT = Luke 12:44 (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Matt. 25:12 U Matt. 25:40 U Matt. 25:45 U Matt. 26:13 Mk-Mt = Mark 14:9 Matt. 26:21 TT = Mark 14:18 (cf. Luke 22:21) Matt. 26:29 TT = Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 Matt. 26:34 TT = Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34 Matt. 26:64 TT (cf. Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69) Mark 2:11 TT = Luke 5:24 (cf. Matt. 9:6) Mark 3:28 TT = Matt. 12:31 (cf. Luke 12:10) Mark 5:41 TT (cf. Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:54) Mark 8:12 TT (cf. Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29) Mark 9:1 TT = Matt. 16:28; Luke 9:27 Mark 9:13 Mk-Mt = Matt. 17:12 Mark 9:41 Mk-Mt = Matt. 10:42 Mark 10:15 TT = Luke 18:17 (cf. Matt. 19:14) Mark 10:29 TT = Matt. 19:28; Luke 18:29 Mark 11:23 Mk-Mt = Matt. 21:21 Mark 11:24 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:22) Mark 11:33 TT = Matt. 21:27; Luke 20:8 Mark 12:43 Lk-Mk = Luke 21:3 Mark 13:30 TT = Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32 Mark 13:37 TT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]; 25:13; Luke 12:40; 21:[--]) Mark 14:9 Mk-Mt = Matt. 26:13 Mark 14:18 TT = Matt. 26:21 (cf. Luke 22:21) Mark 14:25 TT = Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18 Mark 14:30 TT = Matt. 26:34; Luke 22:34 Luke 3:8 DT = Matt. 3:9 Luke 4:24 TT (cf. Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4) Luke 4:25 TT (cf. Matt. 13:[--]; Mark 6:[--]) Luke 5:24 TT = Mark 2:11 (cf. Matt. 9:6) Luke 6:27 DT = Matt. 5:44 Luke 7:9 DT = Matt. 8:10 Luke 7:14 U Luke 7:26 DT = Matt. 11:9 Luke 7:28 DT = Matt. 11:11 Luke 7:47 U Luke 9:27 TT = Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1 Luke 10:12 DT = Matt. 10:15 Luke 10:24 DT = Matt. 13:17 Luke 11:8 U Luke 11:9 DT (cf. Matt. 7:7) Luke 11:51 DT = Matt. 23:36 Luke 12:4 DT (cf. Matt. 10:28) Luke 12:5 DT (cf. Matt. 10:28) Luke 12:8 DT (cf. Matt. 10:32) Luke 12:22 DT = Matt. 6:25 Luke 12:27 DT = Matt. 6:29 Luke 12:37 TT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]; Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Luke 12:44 TT = Matt. 24:47 (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Luke 12:51 DT (cf. Matt. 10:34) Luke 12:59 DT = Matt. 5:26 Luke 13:3 U Luke 13:5 U Luke 13:24 DT (cf. Matt. 7:13) Luke 13:35 DT = Matt. 23:39 Luke 14:24 DT (cf. Matt. 22:[--]) Luke 15:7 DT = Matt. 18:13 Luke 15:10 DT (cf. Matt. 18:14) Luke 16:9 U Luke 17:34 DT (cf. Matt. 24:40) Luke 18:8 U Luke 18:14 U Luke 18:17 TT = Mark 10:15 (cf. Matt. 19:14) Luke 18:29 TT = Matt. 19:28; Mark 10:29 Luke 19:26 DT (cf. Matt. 25:29) Luke 19:40 TT (cf. Matt. 21:[--]; Mark 11:[--]) Luke 20:8 TT = Matt. 21:27; Mark 11:33 Luke 21:3 Lk-Mk = Mark 12:43 Luke 21:32 TT = Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30 Luke 22:16 TT (cf. Matt. 26:[--]; Mark 14:[--]) Luke 22:18 TT = Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 Luke 22:34 TT = Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30 Luke 22:37 U Luke 23:43 TT (cf. Matt. 27:[--]; Mark 15:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = pericope unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[14] On the author of Luke’s tendency to omit or replace ἀμήν when it occurred in his source(s), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115. ↩
• ^[15] See Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 494. On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[17] See Bovon, 2:522-523. ↩
• ^[18] On reconstructing ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ with בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, see Lesson of Lot’s Wife, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[19] For the view that Matthew changed the pair-in-bed scenario into his pair-in-the-field scenario, see Gundry, Matt., 494; Bovon, 2:523. ↩
• ^[20] McNeile (357), Knox (1:114 n. 2) and Davies-Allison (3:382) entertained the possibility that the source behind Luke and Matthew contained all three scenarios. Manson (Sayings, 146) and Nolland (Luke, 2:857; Matt., 994) championed this view. ↩
• ^[21] See Luz, 3:212. ↩
• ^[22] The suggestion of Davies and Allison that the author of Matthew omitted the pair-in-bed scenario because “the saying put him in mind of homosexuality” (Davies-Allison, 3:382) seems improbable. ↩
• ^[23] See Davies-Allison, 3:382. ↩
• ^[24] On the many problems involved with this strange apocalypse, see Richard Bauckham, “Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986): 97-117, esp. 100-103. ↩
• ^[25] In Charlesworth this passage is designated as Apocalypse of Zephaniah 2:1-5. ↩
• ^[26] Translation according to H. F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). ↩
• ^[27] See Charlesworth, 1:509-510. ↩
• ^[28] For additional examples from rabbinic sources of שְׁנַיִם as the subject of a sentence, see Comment to L5. ↩
• ^[29] Cf. Bovon, 2:523. ↩
• ^[30] While it was possible for the author of Luke to write ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς (“on a single bed”), he did not find it convenient to write ἐν μύλῳ ἑνί (en mūlō heni, “at a single mill”), and had he retained the pair-in-the-field scenario, writing ἐν ἀγρῷ ἑνί (en agrō heni, “in a single field”) would have done little to emphasize intimacy, since two people might be quite distant from one another despite being in the same field. ↩
• ^[31] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:771. ↩
• ^[32] See Dos Santos, 110. ↩
• ^[33] The combination ἐπί (+ ἡ) + κλίνη occurs as the translation of עַל (הַ)מִּטָּה in Gen. 48:2; 2 Kgdms. 4:7; 3 Kgdms. 17:19; 20[21]:4; 4 Kgdms. 4:21, 32; 2 Chr. 24:25; Esth. 7:8; Prov. 26:14; Amos 6:4; Ezek. 23:41. ↩
• ^[34] See Plummer, Luke, 409; Manson, Sayings, 146; Fitzmyer, 2:1172. ↩
• ^[35] Among the Jewish peasant class it was normal for unrelated men (e.g., two hired workers) to share a bed (cf. m. Kid. 4:14) or for an entire family to sleep together. See Friend in Need, Comment to L13; cf. Bovon, 2:523. Manson’s suggestion (Sayings, 146) that the three scenarios depict a landowner and his wife (pair-in-bed), their two menservants (pair-in-the-field) and their two maidservants (women-grinding-flour) is pleasing, but cannot be proven. One wonders, too, why the children of the married couple are omitted if the scenes were intended to give “a complete picture of a Palestinian household,” as Manson believed. ↩
• ^[36] See Call of Levi, Comment to L25-26. ↩
• ^[37] See Blake Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 29-61, esp. 30. ↩
• ^[38] See Harnack, 108; Cadbury, Style, 193. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:383. ↩
• ^[40] See Kloppenborg, 163 n. 273; Nolland, Luke, 2:857. ↩
• ^[41] On reconstructing λαμβάνειν with נָטַל, see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L10. For instances where we have reconstructed λαμβάνειν with נָטַל, see LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions. ↩
• ^[42] In LXX most instances of παραλαμβάνειν occur as the translation of לָקַח (lāqaḥ, “take”), but as we noted in Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, לָקַח came to mean “buy” in MH, while נָטַל became the usual verb for “take.” ↩
• ^[43] See Metzger, 168; Bovon, 2:512, 524; Wolter, 2:313. Manson (Sayings, 146), on the other hand, viewed Luke 17:36 as original, but his arguments are weak. ↩
• ^[44] Pace Davies-Allison, 3:383, who regard ἔσονται as a Lukan addition. ↩
• ^[45] See Flusser’s Hebrew retroversion of Indiscriminate Catastrophe under the Reconstruction subheading near the top of this page. ↩
• ^[46] See Resch, 141. ↩
• ^[47] See Segal, 71 §153; Kutscher, 125 §208. ↩
• ^[48] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:53. ↩
• ^[49] See Dos Santos, 73. ↩
• ^[50] Cf. Marshall, 668; Fitzmyer, 2:1172-1173; Davies-Allison, 3:383; Nolland, Matt., 994 n. 141; Bovon, 2:523. ↩
• ^[51] The phrase ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό also occurs in Acts 4:26 as part of a scriptural quotation. ↩
• ^[52] In LXX ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό occurs as the translation of יַחְדָּו (yaḥdāv, “together”) in Deut. 22:10; 25:5, 11; Josh. 9:2; 11:5; Judg. 6:33; 19:6; 2 Kgdms. 2:13; 12:3; 1 Chr. 10:6; 2 Esd. 14:2; 16:2, 7; Ps. 4:9; 18[19]:10; 33[34]:4; 36[37]:38; 47[48]:5; 54[55]:15; 70[71]:10; 82[83]:6; 101[102]:23; 121[122]:3; Hos. 2:2; Amos 1:15; 3:3; Isa. 66:17; Jer. 3:18; 6:12; 26[46]:12; 27[50]:4. In 2 Kgdms. 10:15; 21:9; 2 Esd. 4:3; Ps. 2:2; 40[41]:8; 48[49]:3; 61[62]:10; 73[74]:6, 8; 97[98]:8; 132[133]:1; and Mic. 2:12 ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό occurs as the translation of יַחַד (yaḥad, “together”). Cf. Wolter, 2:313. In Mishnaic Hebrew, however, יַחְדָּו and יַחַד fell into disuse and were replaced with כְּאַחַת (k^e’aḥat, “as one,” “together”). See Segal, 139 §298. ↩
• ^[53] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:936. ↩
• ^[54] See Dos Santos, 192 (רֵחֶה). ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Harnack, 108; Cadbury, 193; Nolland, Luke, 2:862. ↩
• ^[56] On the morphology of מוּנַּחַת, see Segal, 85 § 186. ↩
• ^[57]

  Indiscriminate Catastrophe
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  λέγω ὑμῖν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλείνης ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό ἡ μία παραλημφθήσεται ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται		ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν [ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλῳ μία παραλαμβάνεται καὶ μία ἀφίεται
  Total Words:	29	Total Words:	34 [38]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	12 [13]	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	12 [13]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	41.38 [44.83]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	35.29 [34.21]%

  ↩

• ^[58]

  Indiscriminate Catastrophe
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τότε ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλῳ μία παραλαμβάνεται καὶ μία ἀφίεται		ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν [ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλῳ μία παραλαμβάνεται καὶ μία ἀφίεται
  Total Words:	21	Total Words:	34 [38]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	20	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	20
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	95.24%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	58.82 [52.63]%

  ↩

• ^[59] We first encountered the view that Indiscriminate Catastrophe describes the eschatological removal of the wicked (for judgment) in Brian Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 103-104. This view has found favor with Witherington (455) and France (Matt., 941). ↩
• ^[60] See the Story Placement discussion above. ↩
• ^[61] For this view of Indiscriminate Catastrophe, see Gill, 7:674; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 366. ↩
• ^[62] Of the two possibilities, taking away to judgment strikes us as the most probable. Cf. Gen. 7:23, according to which Noah and those with him on the ark are the only ones to “remain,” and Jub. 22:22, according to which the people of Sodom were “taken” away from the earth. Also compare 4 Ezra 6:25 (“And it shall be that whoever remains after all that I have foretold to you shall himself be saved and shall see my salvation and the end of my world”; RSV). ↩
• ^[63] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[64] 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. ↩