Fig Tree Parable

Matt. 24:32-33; Mark 13:28-29; Luke 21:28-31

(Huck 220; Aland 293; Crook 333)^[94]

וּבִזְמָן שֶׁיַּתְחִילוּ אֵלּוּ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת הִזָּקְפוּ וּשְׂאוּ אֶת רָאשֵׁיכֶם שֶׁהִגִּיעָה גְּאֻלַּתְכֶם וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם מָשָׁל [לֵאמֹר] הֲרֵי הַתְּאֵנָה בִּזְמָן שֶׁחָנְטָה אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַקַּיִץ כָּךְ בִּזְמָן שֶׁאַתֶּם רוֹאִים אֶת אֵלּוּ דְּעוּ שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַקֵּץ

“But when these things begin to be done, straighten up and lift your heads, for your redemption has arrived.”

And he told them a parable, saying, “Take the fig tree. When it sprouts fruit buds, you know that the summer has arrived. Likewise, when you see these things, know that the time of redemption has arrived.”^[95]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Fig Tree parable click on the link below:

Conclusion

The assurance of Israel’s eventual redemption embedded in the Fig Tree parable forms a fitting conclusion to Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption.

---

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

---

• ^[1] See Bultmann, 173; Knox, 1:107; Jeremias, Parables, 119-120; Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 35. For a different view, see Manson, Sayings, 333. ↩
• ^[2] See Gaston, No Stone On Another, 36. ↩
• ^[3] Cf. R. Steven Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree” (JS1, 107-120, esp. 119). ↩
• ^[4] See David Flusser, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem” (Flusser, Jesus, 237-250, esp. 240-241). ↩
• ^[5] On the non-redactional use of ἄρχειν + infinitive in the writings of Luke, see Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317, esp. 266-267). ↩
• ^[6] The related noun λύτρωσις (lūtrōsis, “redemption”) does occur twice in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:68; 2:38), and the cognate verb λυτροῦν (lūtroun, “to redeem”) occurs in Luke 24:21. In each instance where these terms occur in Luke’s Gospel they refer to the redemption of Israel from a Judeocentric perspective. They do not evince the universalist outlook of the author of Luke. ↩
• ^[7] See Vincent Taylor, “A Cry from the Siege: A Suggestion Regarding a Non-Markan Oracle Embedded in Lk. XXI 20-36,” Journal of Theological Studies 26.102 (1925): 136-144, esp. 138-139; Paul Winter, “The Treatment of His Sources by the Third Evangelist in Luke XXI-XXIV,” Studia Theologica 8.1 (1954): 138-172, esp. 150-151; David Flusser, “The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem,” under the subheading “Lindsey’s Hypothesis and Jesus’ Prophecy”; idem, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 240-241. Cf. Nolland, 3:1006; Bovon, 3:119. ↩
• ^[8] The Hebrew noun זָמִיר (zāmir) can mean either “singing” or “pruning.” Both meanings make sense in Song 2:12, and rabbinic exegesis exploits both meanings. However Feliks suggested that the intended reference is to migratory songbirds such as the warbler or nightingale, since zāmir is coupled with “turtledove.” See Jehuda Feliks, The Animal World of the Bible (Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1962), 87. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Gill, 7:295. ↩
• ^[10] See Flusser, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 240-241; Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 112; Peter J. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” New Testament Studies 61 (2015): 429-447, esp. 438. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 3:1009. ↩
• ^[11] The reference to the Samaritans is probably a pejorative for the Christianized Roman Empire. Parallels in other rabbinic sources refer in one way or another to the Roman Empire. Yalkut Shim‘oni §986 reads, הגיע זמנה של מלכות הרביעית שתעבור מן העולם (“The fourth empire’s time has come that it should pass away from the world”). Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 5:9 (ed. Mandelbaum, 1:97) reads, הגיע זמנה של מלכות הרשעה שתעקר מן העולם (“The wicked empire’s time has come that it should be uprooted from the world”). Pesikta Rabbati 15:14/15 (ed. Friedmann, 75a) reads, הגיע זמנה של מלכות הרשעה הזאת שתעקר מן העולם (“This wicked empire’s time has come that it should be uprooted from the world”). ↩
• ^[12] See Shmuel Safrai, “Oral Torah,” in The Literature of the Sages (2 vols.; CRINT II.3; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:35-119, esp. 88. ↩
• ^[13] See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[14] See Buth and Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” 266-267. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. the question in Luke 21:7 with which the discourse began: καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι (“...and what is the sign when these things are about to happen?”). ↩
• ^[16] See Wolter, 2:430. ↩
• ^[17] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:78. ↩
• ^[18] On reconstructing ἀναστῆναι with קָם, see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L2-3. ↩
• ^[19] On reconstructing ἐγείρειν with קָם, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L15. ↩
• ^[20] So, for example, in rabbinic interpretations of Song 2:12 the sages constantly gloss עֵת (‘ēt, “time”) with זְמָן (z^emān, “time”). Cf., e.g., Song Rab. 2:13 §4, quoted above in Comment to L1-6. ↩
• ^[21] Delitzsch rendered ἀνακύπτειν in Luke 21:28 as הִתְעוֹדֵד, but we do not know of any examples of the ע-ו-ד root appearing in the hitpolel stem in rabbinic sources. The MHNT followed Delitzsch’s translation. ↩
• ^[22] And compare the following statement in Song of Songs Rabbah:

  עת הזמיר הגיע הגיע זמנן של ישראל להגאל

  The time of the zāmir [“singing/pruning”] has arrived [Song 2:12]—Israel’s time has come [הִגִּיעַ] to be redeemed [לְהִגָּאֵל]. (Song Rab. 2:13 §4 [ed. Etelsohn, 121])

  ↩

• ^[23] On the meaning of the term ἀπολύτρωσις, see Bovon, 3:119. ↩
• ^[24] Cf. Flusser, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 243 n. 15. ↩
• ^[25] See Gaston, No Stone on Another, 363. ↩
• ^[26] See Manson, Sayings, 333; Bundy, 469 §378; Marshall, 778; Fitzmyer, 1:599; Bovon, 3:120 n. 117. See also R. Steven Notley, “The Season of Redemption,” under the subheading “Luke’s Editorial Activity”; idem, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 108. ↩
• ^[27] See Buth and Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS,” 259-260. We find λέγειν/εἰπεῖν + παραβολή in the introduction to parables in Luke 4:23 (ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 5:36 (ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτούς); 6:39 (εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς); 8:4 (εἶπεν διὰ παραβολῆς); 12:16 (εἶπεν δὲ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων); 13:6 (ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολήν); 14:7 (ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κεκλημένους παραβολήν); 15:3 (εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων); 18:1 (ἔλεγεν δὲ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς); 18:9 (εἶπεν δὲ…τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 19:11 (εἶπεν παραβολήν); 20:9 (ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην); 21:29 (καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς). Cf. Luke 12:41 (πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγεις) and Luke 20:19 (ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην; cf. Mark 12:12). ↩
• ^[28] Cf. Knox, 1:110. ↩
• ^[29] It may be that the presence of such transitional phrases in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua and its Greek translation facilitated the Anthologizer’s segmentation of longer literary units (complexes) into smaller components consisting of stories, teachings and parables, which he then reorganized according to genre. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Beare, Matt., 472. ↩
• ^[31] Pace Bultmann (173), who believed Mark’s introductory phrase to be original. We encountered another such omission of a transitional phrase by the author of Mark in Tumultuous Times, L1. ↩
• ^[32] For this reading of Mark 11:14, see Richard H. Hiers, “‘Not the Season for Figs,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 87.4 (1968): 395-401; J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Figtrees in the New Testament,” Heythrop Journal 14.3 (1973): 249-265, esp. 251; Mann, 440-441; Douglas E. Oakman, “Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens: Pronouncement Stories Within Social-Systemic Perspective: Mark 11:12-15 and Parallels,” Semeia 64 (1993): 253-272, esp. 256, 262. ↩
• ^[33] Pace Bultmann (123), who denied that Mark referred to a particular tree. ↩
• ^[34] On the eschatological bending over and straightening up of a tree, see M. Kister and E. Qimron, “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2-3),” Revue de Qumrân 15.4 (60) (1992): 595-602; Menahem Kister, “Barnabas 12:1; 4:3 and 4Q Second Ezekiel,” Revue Biblique 97.1 (1990): 63-67, esp. 64-66. ↩
• ^[35] More puzzling is whether the author of Mark would have invented the story of the fig tree’s withering out of his approach to the Fig Tree parable or whether the author of Mark had a tradition about a fig tree that withered when it had failed to provide Jesus with fruit. ↩
• ^[36] Indirect support for our inclusion of λέγων in GR to L10 comes from our conclusion that εἶπεν + παραβολή + λέγων occurred elsewhere in Anth. See the Four Soils parable, Comment to L20, and the examples cited there. ↩
• ^[37] We have used the term “simile” for illustrations delivered in the form of questions. See Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L1. For example, the Lost Sheep simile begins, “Which of you, having a hundred sheep...?” ↩
• ^[38] Note that Notley-Safrai (69) include the “Budding Fig Tree” in their list of parables in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[39] On the omission or replacement of ἰδού by the author of Luke (or the First Reconstructor before him), see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[40] On reconstructing ἰδού (idou, “Behold!”) with הֲרֵי (h^arē, “Behold!”), see Preparations for Eating the Passover Lamb, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[41] See McNeile, 354. ↩
• ^[42] See Jeremias, Parables, 29, 120; Marshall, 778; France, Mark, 537. ↩
• ^[43] See Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” 438. ↩
• ^[44] As noted by A. B. Bruce, 622; Cadbury, Style, 115. ↩
• ^[45] See Coming From All Directions, Comment to L4. ↩
• ^[46] There appears to be unanimous agreement among scholars that Luke’s “and all the trees” is redactional. See Swete, 313; Bultmann, 123; Creed, 258; Manson, Sayings, 333; Taylor, 520; Bundy, 469 §378; Jeremias, Parables, 29; Marshall, 778; Fitzmyer, 2:1352; Bovon, 3:120 n. 117. See also Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan “Pick-ups” and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor,” Comment to L107; Notley, “The Season of Redemption,” under the subheading “Luke’s Editorial Activity”; idem, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 108 n. 3. ↩
• ^[47] Pace Bovon, 3:120. The following table shows all of the instances of ἤδη in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels, if any:

  Matt. 3:10 DT = Luke 3:9 Matt. 5:28 U Matt. 14:15 TT = Mark 6:35 (2nd instance) (cf. Luke 9:12) Matt. 14:24 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:47) Matt. 15:32 Mk-Mt = Mark 8:2 Matt. 17:12 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 9:13) Matt. 24:32 TT = Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30 Mark 4:37 TT (cf. Matt. 8:24; Luke 8:23) Mark 6:35 (1st) TT (cf. Matt. 14:15; Luke 9:12) Mark 6:35 (2nd) TT = Matt. 14:15 (cf. Luke 9:12) Mark 8:2 Mk-Mt = Matt. 15:32 Mark 11:11 TT (cf. Matt. 21:10, 17; Luke 19:45) Mark 13:28 TT = Matt. 24:32; Luke 21:30 (1st instance) Mark 15:42 TT (cf. Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50, 54) Mark 15:44 TT (cf. Matt. 27:58; Luke 23:52) Luke 3:9 DT = Matt. 3:10 Luke 7:6 DT (cf. Matt. 8:8) Luke 11:7 U Luke 12:49 U Luke 14:17 DT (cf. Matt. 22:4) Luke 19:37 TT (cf. Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9) Luke 21:30 (1st) TT = Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28 Luke 21:30 (2nd) TT (cf. Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28) Luke 23:44 TT (cf. Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33) Luke 24:29 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

  From the table above we see that the author of Matthew sometimes accepted ἤδη when it appeared in Mark, sometimes rejected it, and even occasionally added ἤδη where it was absent in Mark.

  The author of Mark used ἤδη at a proportionally higher rate than either of the other two synoptic writers, but Luke and Mark agree on the use of ἤδη in only a single instance (Mark 13:28 ∥ Luke 21:30 [1st instance]). We might suppose that the lack of Lukan-Markan agreement to use ἤδη stems from Luke’s aversion to this adverb, except that Matthew supports Luke’s omission of ἤδη on five occasions (Mark 4:37 [cf. Matt. 8:24; Luke 8:23]; 6:35 [cf. Matt. 14:15; Luke 9:12]; 11:11 [cf. Matt. 21:10, 17; Luke 19:45]; 15:42 [cf. Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50, 54], 44 [cf. Matt. 27:58; Luke 23:52]). These Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark’s use of ἤδη strongly suggest that the author of Mark inserted ἤδη, not that Luke avoided it. The same conclusion is supported by the ten instances of ἤδη in Luke’s Gospel. Apparently the author of Luke had no particular dislike for ἤδη and was often willing to copy it when it appeared in his source. But the author of Luke was probably not responsible for adding most of his instances of ἤδη, for otherwise it is hard to explain why ἤδη is so rare in Acts, where it occurs only 3xx (Acts 4:3; 27:9 [2xx]). The author of Luke’s failure to agree with Mark’s use of ἤδη is best explained by Lindsey’s conclusion that the Gospel of Mark was not used by the author of Luke as a source.

  According to Lindsey, it was the author of Mark who utilized the Gospel of Luke. But why would the author of Mark avoid most instances of Luke’s ἤδη only to use ἤδη elsewhere in his Gospel? First of all, we must point out that most instances of Luke’s ἤδη occur in pericopae that do not occur in Mark’s Gospel, so there was actually relatively little active avoidance of ἤδη by the author of Mark. From Lindsey’s perspective, there are only three occasions where the author of Mark avoided Luke’s ἤδη, which makes Mark’s behavior with respect to ἤδη in his source comparable to Matthew’s. Second, it was Lindsey’s belief that it was the author of Mark’s intention to deliver a dramatized paraphrase of portions of Luke’s Gospel, so verbal substitution was an essential part of Mark’s redactional program. Moreover, Lindsey noted that the strange pattern of rejecting Lukan terms in their Lukan context only to proliferate these same terms elsewhere in his Gospel, including in portions of Mark parallel to Luke where the author of Luke had not used them, is typical of Markan redaction. See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Mark’s Midrashic Technique”; and LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups. ↩

• ^[48] See Creed, 258; Marshall, 778; Wolter, 2:431. Some early copyists were so bothered by Luke’s poor Greek that they supplied προβάλλειν in Luke 21:30 with an object, namely τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν (ton karpon avtōn, “their fruits”). See Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 112. ↩
• ^[49] See Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 112. ↩
• ^[50] There is a grammatical ambiguity in Mark’s Greek, depending on whether εκφυη is accented ἐκφύῃ (ekfūē, “it [i.e., the branch] might put out”) or ἐκφυῇ (ekfūē, “they [i.e., the leaves] might come out”). The difference is minute and does not affect the meaning of the parable. See A. B. Bruce, 432; Plummer, Mark, 304; Taylor, 520; France, Mark, 537 n. 28; Luz, 3:207 n. 2. ↩
• ^[51] See Zohary, 58. Mark’s familiarity with fig trees was common knowledge. See, for instance, the following statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

  רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומ′ מהוצאת עלין עד הפגין חמשים יום מן הפגים ועד שיתין ונובלות חמשים יום ומשיתין ונובלות עד התאנים חמשים יום

  Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “From putting forth leaves until green figs: fifty days. From green figs until wild figs and prematurely cast-off fruit: fifty days. And from wild figs and prematurely cast-off fruit until [fully ripe] figs: fifty days.” (t. Shev. 4:20; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[52] Note, too, that whereas the verb for “seeing” in L11 and L21 is ἰδεῖν (idein), a different verb for “seeing,” βλέπειν (blepein), is used in L17. ↩
• ^[53] On reconstructing ἑαυτοῦ with עֶצֶם + suffix, see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L62. ↩
• ^[54] If original, the absence of “by yourselves” in the application could be due to the change of mood from the indicative to the imperative. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Wolter, 2:431. ↩
• ^[56] In LXX most instances of ἐγγύς occur as the translation of קָרוֹב. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:363-364. Likewise, the LXX translators rendered קָרוֹב more often as ἐγγύς than as any other equivalent. See Dos Santos, 186. ↩
• ^[57] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:649. ↩
• ^[58] See Dos Santos, 183. ↩
• ^[59] See Luz, 3:208 n. 7. ↩
• ^[60] See Gill, 7:295; Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” 438. Notley (“Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 111), on the other hand, concluded that the fruit rather than the season was intended, arguing that the appearance of green figs on a fig tree is a sign that the ripe figs are soon to appear. However, the parable makes no direct reference to green figs. ↩
• ^[61] See Gill, 7:295; Luz, 3:208. See also Azaria Alon, The Natural History of the Land of the Bible (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1969), 45-47. ↩
• ^[62] See Oded Borowski, “The Agricultural Calendar,” in his Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 31-44, esp. 33, 38. Cf., e.g., Isa. 28:4; Jer. 8:20; t. Ned. 4:7; Gen. Rab. 34:11 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:323). Ripe figs can be found from July to September. See Yoav Waisel and Azaria Alon, Trees of the Land of Israel (Tel Aviv: Division of Ecology, 1980), 40. ↩
• ^[63] See Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, L44. ↩
• ^[64] Cf. Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 111. ↩
• ^[65] See David Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” in his Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979), 150-209 (in Hebrew), esp. 199. ↩
• ^[66] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 490; Nolland, Matt., 987; Luz, 3:207 n. 5. ↩
• ^[67] Cf. Plummer, Mark, 305; Taylor, 520. ↩
• ^[68] Cf., e.g., McNeile, 354; Cadbury, Style, 150; Bundy, 469 §378; Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 108. ↩
• ^[69] See McNeile, 354; Gaston, No Stone on Another, 36; Pinchas Lapide, “Hidden Hebrew in the Gospels,” Immanuel 2 (1973): 28-34, esp. 29; Derrett, “Figtrees in the New Testament,” 259; Lachs, 386; Davies-Allison, 3:365-366; Nolland, Luke, 3:1008; Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 111; Marcus, 2:910; Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” 438; Miguel Pérez Fernández, “Midrash and the New Testament: A Methodology for the Study of Gospel Midrash,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 367-384, esp. 374, 377-378. Gundry (Matt., 490) and Vermes (Religion, 99) cast doubt on the presence of an underlying wordplay. In response to Gundry’s doubts, see R. Steven Notley, “Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel: An Inconvenient Truth” (JS2, 320-346, esp. 321 n. 7). ↩
• ^[70] It is unlikely that Jesus alluded to this passage in Amos in the Fig Tree parable, even though the terms involved in the wordplay are the same. In the first place, the basket of summer fruit (קַיִץ) symbolized the end (קֵץ) of the northern kingdom, whereas an underlying wordplay in the Fig Tree parable would make an analogy between the nearness of summer (קַיִץ) and the nearness of the time (of redemption) or the end (of the age) (קֵץ), not punishment. The different symbolism shows that Amos 8:1-2 and the Fig Tree parable would be playing on different senses of קַיִץ (Amos: summer fruit; Jesus: summer season) and probably of קֵץ as well (Amos: end; Jesus: time), since in Mishnaic Hebrew קֵץ had ceased to be used in the sense of “end” (the term for “end” was now סוֹף), but was regularly used in the sense of “time,” “period” or “era.”

  According to scholars, in the Hebrew dialect spoken in the northern kingdom in the time of Amos, both קַיִץ (“summer fruit”) and קֵץ (“end”) were pronounced the same: qētz. Amos, who was from the kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, spoke a dialect in which the two words were pronounced differently: qayitz (“summer fruit”) and qētz (“end”). See Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 254.

  Examples of wordplays on the nouns קַיִץ and קֵץ independent of Amos are attested in rabbinic sources. For instance:

  אמר ר′ אחא מי גרם להם שימרדו בי לא על ידי שזורעין ולא קוצרין יולדין ולא קוברין מיכן ואילך זרע וקציר יולדין וקוברין קור וחם חמה ואבבית קיץ וחורף מקייץ אני עליהם את העוף היך דאת אמר וקץ עליו העיט וכל בהמה הארץ עליו תחרף

  Rabbi Aha said, “Who caused them [i.e., the generation of the flood—DNB and JNT] to rebel against me [i.e., God—DNB and JNT]? Was it not because they sow but do not reap, give birth but do not bury? From now on there will be seedtime and harvest [Gen. 8:22]—they will give birth [to children] and bury [them]—cold and heat [Gen. 8:22]—[because of] fever and vomiting—summer [קַיִץ] and winter [Gen. 8:22]—I will cause the birds to summer [מְקַיֵּיץ] upon them, as it is said, and the carrion birds will summer [וְקָץ] upon him and all the wild animals will winter upon him [Isa. 18:6].” (Gen. Rab. 34:11 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:322])

  ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים. זש″ה כחלום מהקיץ ה′ בעיר צלמם תבזה

  And it happened at the end [מִקֵּץ] of two years [that Pharaoh dreamt] [Gen. 41:1]. This is in accordance with what Scripture says: Like a dream for the one who wakens [מֵהָקִיץ], the LORD, when he is roused, despises their phantoms [Ps. 73:20]. (Aggadat Bereshit 66 [67]:1 [ed. Buber, 131])

  ↩

• ^[71] In LXX the noun τέλος occurs as the translation of קֵץ in Judg. 11:39; 2 Kgdms. 15:7; 4 Kgdms. 19:23; 2 Chr. 18:2; 2 Esd. 23:6. On the equivalence between καιρός and קֵץ, see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L49. ↩
• ^[72] On the redactional nature of Luke 21:9, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[73] See Kutscher, 103 §165. ↩
• ^[74] There may be some support for our reconstruction of ὁ καιρός in L23 in Mark’s account of the Withered Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). We believe the author of Mark composed this account in light of the Fig Tree parable, which he reinterpreted as an eschatological sign (see above, Comment to L8-9). In Mark 11:13 the author of Mark explains that when Jesus approached the fig tree he was disappointed ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων (“because it was not the time for figs”). According to Mark’s reinterpretation of the Fig Tree parable, the withered fig tree’s θέρος (“summer,” “harvest time”) would not arrive until the Son of Man’s coming was “at the doors” (Mark 13:29). Only then would “the time for figs” for this particular tree finally be achieved. Thus, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων (“for it was not the time for figs”) in Mark 11:13 could be an echo of γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ὁ καιρός (“know that the time is near”) in Anth.’s version of the Fig Tree parable. ↩
• ^[75] See Notley, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 117 n. 38. ↩
• ^[76] See our discussion of the First Reconstructor’s version of The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, especially Comment to L8 and under the “Redaction Analysis” subheading. ↩
• ^[77] Gaston, No Stone on Another, 36 n. 3. J. Duncan M. Derrett (“Figtrees in the New Testament,” 259) was mistaken when he stated that the Hebrew and Aramaic terms for “‘(fig-) harvest’” are “qayiṣ.” This error prevented him from realizing that the pun works only in Hebrew. Gundry was aware that the pun does not work in Aramaic, but he drew the wrong conclusion, namely that since Jesus did not speak Hebrew, there cannot have been a wordplay in the original version of the Fig Tree parable. ↩
• ^[78] See Jastrow, 1357. ↩
• ^[79] See Jastrow, 1404. ↩
• ^[80] Gaston (No Stone on Another, 36 n. 3) admitted the likelihood that Jesus spoke Hebrew, but doubted that Hebrew would have been an appropriate language in which to deliver a parable. Apparently Gaston was unaware that all rabbinic parables, even those that appear in a context where the surrounding language is Aramaic, are preserved in Hebrew. 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. Thus, contrary to Gaston’s doubts, Hebrew was the only appropriate language in which to deliver a parable. Since parables were teaching aids designed for popular audiences, the fact that all rabbinic parables are preserved in Hebrew is a strong indication that Hebrew was widely spoken among Jews of the early centuries of the common era. ↩
• ^[81] Reconstructing with קֵץ גְּאֻלַּתְכֶם (“the time of your redemption”) would require us to amend GR to ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ὑμῶν (“the time of your redemption”), a phrase that has a close parallel in Dan. 4:34: ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως (“my time of redemption”). ↩
• ^[82] Notice the play on the Biblical versus the Mishnaic meanings of קֵץ at the end of this midrash on Exod. 12:41. ↩
• ^[83] Cf. Marshall, 779. ↩
• ^[84] See Cadbury, Style, 151-152. ↩
• ^[85] See Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan “Pick-ups” and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor,” Comment to L114; Notley, “The Season of Redemption,” under the subheading “Interpreting Jesus’ Fig Tree Saying”; idem, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree,” 111. ↩
• ^[86] See Swete, 315; McNeile, 354; Davies-Allison, 3:366. ↩
• ^[87] See Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan “Pick-ups” and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor,” Comment to L114. Cf. Notley, “The Season of Redemption,” under the subheading “Interpreting Jesus’ Fig Tree Saying.” Lindsey also detected allusions to the epistle of James in Mark 1:5 (cf. James 5:16); 4:6 (cf. James 1:11); 5:34 (cf. James 2:16); 6:13 (cf. James 5:14); 11:23-24 (cf. James 1:5-6). See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups. ↩
• ^[88]

  Fig Tree parable
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀρχομένων δὲ τούτων γείνεσθαι ἀνακύψατε καὶ ἐπάρατε τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν διότι ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς ἴδετε τὴν συκῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ δένδρα ὅταν προβάλωσιν ἤδη βλέποντες ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἤδη ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅταν ἴδητε ταῦτα γεινόμενα γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ		ὅταν δὲ ἄρξονται ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ἀνακύψατε καὶ ἐπάρατε τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς [λέγων] ἰδού ἡ συκῆ ὅταν προβάλῃ γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν οὕτως ὅταν ἴδητε ταῦτα γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ὁ καιρός
  Total Words:	54	Total Words:	41 [42]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	31	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	31
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	57.41%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	75.61 [73.81]%

  ↩

• ^[89]

  Fig Tree parable
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς μάθετε τὴν παραβολήν ὅταν ἤδη ὁ κλάδος αὐτῆς ἁπαλὸς γένηται καὶ ἐκφύῃ τὰ φύλλα γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅταν ἴδητε ταῦτα γεινόμενα γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις		ὅταν δὲ ἄρξονται ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ἀνακύψατε καὶ ἐπάρατε τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς [λέγων] ἰδού ἡ συκῆ ὅταν προβάλῃ γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν οὕτως ὅταν ἴδητε ταῦτα γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ὁ καιρός
  Total Words:	37	Total Words:	41 [42]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	17	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	17
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	45.95%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	41.46 [40.48]%

  ↩

• ^[90]

  Fig Tree parable
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς μάθετε τὴν παραβολήν ὅταν ἤδη ὁ κλάδος αὐτῆς γένηται ἁπαλὸς καὶ τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅταν ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα γεινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις		ὅταν δὲ ἄρξονται ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ἀνακύψατε καὶ ἐπάρατε τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγγίζει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις ὑμῶν καὶ εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς [λέγων] ἰδού ἡ συκῆ ὅταν προβάλῃ γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν οὕτως ὅταν ἴδητε ταῦτα γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ὁ καιρός
  Total Words:	36	Total Words:	41 [42]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	16	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	16
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	44.44%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	39.02 [38.10]%

  ↩

• ^[91] See Young, JHJP, 141. ↩
• ^[92] See Jeremias, Parables, 119-120; Gaston, No Stone on Another, 35-37; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “συκῆ, σῦκον, ὄλυνθος, κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT, 7:751-759, esp. 757. ↩
• ^[93] See Vermes, Authentic, 123. ↩
• ^[94] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[95] 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. ↩