Quieting a Storm

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Quieting a Storm,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2022) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/25610/].

Matt. 8:18, 23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25

(Huck 49, 50, 105; Aland 89, 90, 136;
Crook 93, 94, 158)^[1]

Updated: 4 December 2025

וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיֵּרֶד לִסְפִינָה הוּא וְתַלְמִידָיו [וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם נַעֲבֹר לְעֵבֶר הַיָּם ⟨וַיַּעַבְרוּ⟩] וְהָיוּ בָּאִים וְהִנֵּה סַעַר גָּדוֹל עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם בַּיָּם לְטֹבְעָן וְהוּא שָׁכַב בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה וַיֵּרָדֵם וַיִּקְרְבוּ וַיָּעִירוּ אוֹתוֹ לֵאמֹר אֲדוֹנֵנוּ אֲדוֹנֵנוּ נֹאבֵד וַיֵּעוֹר וַיִּגְעַר בָּרוּחוֹת וּבַמַּיִם וַיָּנַח [הַיָּם ⟨מִזַּעְפּוֹ⟩] וַיְהִי שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַאֲמִינוּ בֵּאלֹהִים וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה וַיִּתְמְהוּ לֵאמֹר מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא מְצַוֶּה אַף לָרוּחוֹת וְאַף לַמַּיִם וְהֵם שׁוֹמְעִים לוֹ

Sometime around then Yeshua boarded a boat—he and his disciples. [And Yeshua said to them, “Let’s cross over to the opposite shore.” ⟨So they crossed over.⟩] Now as they were sailing, a huge storm overtook them on the lake that was liable to sink them. But Yeshua had lain down at the back of the boat and was sound asleep. So the disciples went to Yeshua and woke him up. “Lord! Lord!” they exclaimed. “We’re all about to die!”

At that, Yeshua woke up and rebuked the blowing winds and splashing waters, whereupon the lake stopped its raging and a profound calm took its place. Then Yeshua said to his disciples, “Trust God!”

Yet the disciples were very much afraid. Looking in awe at one another, they said, “How is it that Yeshua commands the elements and they obey him?”^[2]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Quieting a Storm click on the link below:

“Power of Faith” complex

Quieting a Storm ・ Faith Like a Mustard Seed

Story Placement

Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm does not give precise information regarding when the events it describes took place, nor even the location from which Jesus and his companions launched the boat in which they crossed the lake.^[3] Unlike the Markan and Matthean versions of Quieting a Storm, Luke’s version does not even provide an indication as to the time of day (or night) when Jesus and his companions set sail.

Nevertheless, Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm (Luke 8:22-25) occurs in the same chapter as Luke’s parables excursus (Luke 8:4-18), which is followed by Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (Luke 8:19-21). The proximity of Quieting a Storm to Luke’s parables excursus is probably what inspired the author of Mark to set Quieting a Storm (Mark 4:35-41) on the same day as Jesus’ delivery of his parables discourse (Mark 4:1-34), all of which takes place in Mark following Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (Part 2) (Mark 3:31-35).^[4] This being the case, we regard Mark’s connection of the events described in Quieting a Storm to the events described in Mark’s parables discourse as entirely artificial.^[5] The Markan placement of Quieting a Storm on the same day as Jesus’ delivery of a parables discourse is a literary construct, not a historical recollection.

Perhaps because the author of Matthew did not find Quieting a Storm connected to a parables discourse in the Anthology (Anth.), he felt free to relate these events in a context different from Mark’s. In Matthew, Quieting a Storm takes place on the same day as Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5-13), Shimon’s Mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15) and Healings and Exorcisms (Matt. 8:16-17), all of which are presented as having taken place in Capernaum. As was the case in Mark, the Matthean setting of Quieting a Storm is also artificial. The author of Matthew combined events his sources indicated had taken place in Capernaum and presented them as having occurred on a single day. Matthew’s “day in Capernaum” is likewise a literary construct, not a historical recollection.

Into the framework of Quieting a Storm the author of Matthew inserted his version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple (Matt. 8:19-22).^[6] Thus, in Matthew’s Gospel, Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, like the previous events in Matthew 8, takes place in or near Capernaum. In Luke’s version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, by contrast, there is no Capernaum connection. Splicing one episode or saying into another pericope occurs in all three Gospels,^[7] and it is often an indication of redactional activity.

Having concluded that the placements of Quieting a Storm in Mark and Matthew are secondary, and given the fact that Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm supplies no detailed information regarding chronology or location, all that can be surmised is that the event took place during the Galilean stage of Jesus’ ministry sometime after Jesus had acquired a following of disciples. If the placement of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory as the sequel to Quieting a Storm in all three Synoptic Gospels preserves a historical reminiscence, then Jesus and his companions must have launched their boat somewhere on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, since their destination lay on the eastern shore of the lake. There are no stories of Jesus having visited Tiberias or any village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee south of that city, so a starting point at Magdala, Capernaum or any of the villages that lay between is probable.

We have placed Quieting a Storm close to the end of the Galilean stage of Jesus’ ministry on the assumption that Jesus must have resumed itinerating with his disciples following the mission of the twelve apostles. The high expectations Jesus has of his companions in Quieting a Storm implies an advanced stage of discipleship appropriate for the post-apostolic mission period. Perhaps news of John the Baptist’s execution was the occasion for Jesus’ withdrawal from the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas.

For reasons we will discuss in Faith Like a Mustard Seed, we believe Quieting a Storm may once have belonged to a larger literary unit consisting not only of a narrative incident, but continuing with a certain amount of teaching material. For an overview of how this larger literary unit, which we call the “Power of Faith” complex, may have been shaped, click here.

.

.

Click here to view the Map of the Conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Adherents to the Two-source Hypothesis must assume that both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Quieting a Storm are independently based upon Mark’s. However, those who subscribe to Robert Lindsey’s solution to the Synoptic Problem, which posits that Luke’s Gospel is a source for Mark’s, and Mark’s Gospel is a source for Matthew’s, cannot help but notice that of the three versions of Quieting a Storm Luke’s version is the most coherent. According to Luke’s account, Jesus and his disciples are caught in a storm while crossing the Sea of Galilee by boat. Jesus, who had fallen asleep, is wakened by the disciples, who inform him that they are in mortal danger.^[8] Instead of being frightened, Jesus rebukes the elements, asks the disciples what has become of their faith, and the astonished disciples wonder how Jesus is able to command the forces of nature. Mark’s version is different. According to Mark, when the disciples are frightened by the storm, they awake Jesus with an accusatory question: “Don’t you care that we are going to die?” The question presupposes both that Jesus was aware of the present danger and that he was able to do something about it. But since Jesus had been sleeping, the presumption that he was aware of their peril is illogical.^[9] Just as illogical in Mark is the disciples’ amazement at Jesus’ ability to command the storm to cease, since their question presupposes their belief that he was able to do just that. Why should they be astonished when Jesus did precisely what they expected him to do? Matthew’s version of Quieting a Storm suffers from a similar inconsistency. Fearing for their lives, the disciples wake Jesus with the prayer “Lord! Save us!” It is obvious from their petition that they believed Jesus was able to deliver them from their dangerous predicament. But Jesus responds to the disciples’ plea by rebuking them for having little faith. Yet how can the disciples’ faith have been deficient when they fully expected Jesus to save them?

The Two-source Hypothesis also struggles to explain (or explain away) the numerous Lukan-Matthean “minor agreements” against Mark in this pericope. Taken individually, the various explanations Markan priorists offer for how the authors of Matthew and Luke independently made identical changes to Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm seem plausible. But the sheer number of “minor agreements” in Quieting a Storm is staggering. It boggles the mind to assume that two independent authors would have made so many of the same “corrections” to Mark’s story. The Lukan-Matthean “minor agreements” against Mark can be grouped into two classes: positive agreements of wording and negative agreements of omission.

Positive Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark in Quieting a Storm include:

• L1: δέ in Matthew and Luke vs. καί in Mark
• L9: ἐμβαίνειν in Matthew and Luke vs. παραλαμβάνειν in Mark
• L11: εἰς [τὸ] πλοῖον in Matthew and Luke vs. ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ in Mark
• L13: οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ in Matthew and Luke vs. the absence of a direct reference to the disciples in Mark
• L22: preposition + definite article + noun for body of water in Matthew and Luke vs. the absence of a reference to the body of water in Mark
• L31: προσελθόντες in Matthew and Luke vs. the absence of anyone “approaching” Jesus in Mark
• L33: λέγοντες in Matthew and Luke vs. καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ in Mark
• L34: use of a title indicating mastery in Matthew (κύριε) and Luke (ἐπιστάτα) vs. “teacher” in Mark
• L53: ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες in Matthew and Luke vs. καὶ ἔλεγον in Mark
• L58: ὑπακούουσιν in Matthew and Luke vs. ὑπακούει in Mark

Negative Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark in Quieting a Storm include:

• Omission of evening (ὀψίας γενομένης) in L3
• Omission of “leaving” (καὶ ἀφέντες) the crowd in L8
• Omission of Jesus’ prior locality in the boat (ὡς ἦν) in L10
• Omission of other boats accompanying Jesus in L12-13
• Omission of Jesus’ lying in the stern on a pillow in L28-29
• Omission of a question addressed to Jesus in L35-36
• Omission of an equivalent to “he said” (εἶπεν) in L42
• Omission of direct speech (σιώπα πεφείμωσο) in L43
• Omission of a reference to the wind in L44
• Omission of “big fear” (φόβον μέγαν) in L52

Agreements of omission are, admittedly, less weighty as evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of a non-Markan version of Quieting a Storm, since two authors who sought to pare down the wording of their source might well select the same items for deletion, but two authors agreeing to use the same (or nearly the same) wording at precisely the same points while independently reworking Mark’s text strains credulity.^[10] The Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark in Quieting a Storm are hardly negligible and demand a more satisfactory explanation than mere chance.^[11]

It is far more credible that most of the Lukan-Matthean minor agreements against Mark reflect the use of a non-Markan source by the authors of Luke and Matthew. Luke, which according to Lindsey was composed prior to Mark, is entirely free of Markan influence. Matthew, which according to Lindsey is the latest of the Synoptic Gospels, combines Mark’s wording with that of a pre-synoptic source. Luke and Matthew agree against Mark whenever the author of Matthew preferred the wording of his non-Markan source to Mark’s and the author of Luke reproduced the wording of his pre-synoptic source.

The explanation Lindsey’s hypothesis offers for the Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark in Quieting a Storm is that these verbal agreements ultimately originated from the same pre-synoptic source, a source Lindsey called the Anthology (Anth.). For Quieting a Storm the author of Luke made use of a redacted version of Anth.’s account from a parallel source Lindsey called the First Reconstruction (FR). The author of Matthew blended the wording of Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm with Anth.’s. The “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke were achieved whenever two conditions converged: 1) when the author of Matthew preferred Anth.’s wording to Mark’s and 2) when Luke’s source (FR) retained the wording of Anth. When these two conditions were met, the authors of Matthew and Luke agreed, not by chance, but on account of literary dependence on non-Markan sources.

What are the reasons for supposing the author of Luke copied Quieting a Storm from FR rather than directly from Anth.? First, we have found that the pericopae preceding Quieting a Storm in Luke 8 were copied from FR,^[12] and since the author of Luke tended to copy large sections from his sources rather than alternating between sources for every other story, FR is a likely candidate as the source behind Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm. Second, portions of Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm, particularly at the opening of the narrative, are difficult to reconstruct in Hebrew. Resistance to Hebrew retroversion is more typical of pericopae the author of Luke copied from FR than of those copied from Anth., since it was the First Reconstructor’s method to polish Anth.’s Hebraic-Greek style. Third, Quieting a Storm contains vocabulary (e.g., ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν, L2; διέρχεσθαι, L15; λίμνη, L16, L22; ἐπιστάτης, L34) typical of pericopae copied from FR (see below, Comment to L2, Comment to L15 and Comment to L34). These three reasons explain our conclusion that the author of Luke copied Quieting a Storm from FR.

Crucial Issues

1. Is Quieting a Storm a kind of exorcism narrative?
2. How would first-century readers understand Quieting a Storm’s significance?

Comment

L1 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς (Mark 4:35). In numerous ways the author of Mark sought to tie his version of Quieting a Storm to the parables discourse that precedes it. One strategy he used to achieve this goal was to use pronouns to refer to the main characters (Jesus and the disciples) rather than calling them by name.^[13] As a result, readers had to refer back to Mark 4:34 to identify the “them” in L1 as the disciples,^[14] and all the way back to Mark 3:7, well before the parables discourse, to identify the speaker as Jesus. The effect of using pronouns is to give the impression of continuity between one pericope and the next.

Nevertheless, the author of Mark’s use of the historical present (λέγει [legei, “he says”]) in L1 is un-Hebraic, especially in comparison to the ἐγένετο δὲ + temporal marker + finite verb construction with which Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm opens. Since the use of the historical present is typical of Markan redaction,^[15] we can safely attribute Mark’s wording in L1 to the author of Mark’s editorial activity rather than to his non-Lukan source.^[16]

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matt. 8:18). Matthew’s description of Jesus seeing the crowds likewise creates continuity between Quieting a Storm and that which went before. In Matthew’s case, Healings and Exorcisms (Matt. 8:16-17) precedes the introduction to Quieting a Storm (Matt. 8:18). Since a link between Healings and Exorcisms and Quieting a Storm exists only in Matthew’s Gospel, the connection is more likely to be a literary construct of the author of Matthew’s making than a historical recollection. This conclusion has led to our rejection of Matthew’s wording in L1 for GR.

καὶ ἐγένετο (GR). Simply because we rejected Mark’s and Matthew’s introductions to Quieting a Storm we cannot automatically accept Luke’s wording for GR. This is especially the case in pericopae the author of Luke copied from FR, since there is no guarantee that the First Reconstructor preserved the wording of Anth.

In the present case, however, the construction with which Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm opens (ἐγένετο δὲ + time marker + finite verb) is highly Hebraic,^[17] as we have already noted. It therefore seems likely that Luke’s opening is based on something that appeared in Anth., even if that something has been slightly altered in the course of transmission. Even more Hebraic than ἐγένετο δὲ + time marker + finite verb would be καὶ ἐγένετο + time marker + finite verb, and it may be that this is one case where the Lukan-Matthean “minor agreement” against Mark to write δέ (de, “but”) instead of Mark’s καί (kai, “and”) is merely a coincidence, the result of two redactors (Matthew and FR) improving the Greek of their respective sources (Mark in the case of Matthew; Anth. in the case of FR). Thus, we have adopted a slightly modified version of Luke’s wording in L1 for GR.

L2 ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις (GR). As in L1, so in L2 we have adopted a slightly modified version of Luke’s wording for GR. Luke’s phrase ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν (en mia tōn hēmerōn, “in one of the days”) never occurs in LXX,^[18] and although this phrase could be reconstructed as בְּאַחַד הַיָּמִים (b^e’aḥad hayāmim, “in one of the days”), no such phrase occurs as the introduction to a story in MT, DSS or early rabbinic sources. But while “in one of the days” may be unheard of in Hebrew, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם (bayāmim hāhēm, “in those days”) is attested in MT at the opening of narratives.^[19] The LXX translators typically rendered בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם as ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (en tais hēmerais ekeinais, “in those days”).^[20] We might, therefore, regard ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν in Luke 8:22 as a paraphrase of ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις in Anth. Mark’s ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (en ekeinē tē hēmera, “in that day”) could then be seen as, inter alia, an attempt to reconcile Anth.’s plural phrase “in those days” with Luke’s singular phrase “in one of the days.” Of course, the author of Mark was also interested in synchronizing Quieting a Storm with his earlier parables discourse, so we cannot rely too heavily on Mark’s testimony. In any case, we believe ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις is a good option for GR. We adopted precisely this phrase for GR in Yerushalayim Besieged, L33.

The temporal phrase ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν also occurs elsewhere in Luke (Luke 5:17; 20:1), but it never appears in Mark or Matthew. We have yet to determine whether the other pericopae in which ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν occurs are derived from Anth. or FR, so we cannot say whether ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν is characteristic of Lukan redaction or the vocabulary of FR. However, the fact that the phrase ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν never occurs in the book of Acts hints that it may be the First Reconstructor who is responsible for ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν in Luke.

בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם (HR). On reconstructing ἡμέρα (hēmera, “day”) with יוֹם (yōm, “day”), see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L1.

L3 ὀψίας γενομένης (Mark 4:35). Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm opens with two time markers: “on that day” in L2 and “at evening” in L3. The author of Mark undoubtedly added the second time marker in order for his placement of Quieting a Storm on the same day as the parables discourse to make sense. The author of Mark depicts the events described in Quieting a Storm as taking place late in the day after Jesus had spoken to the crowds in parables.^[21] There may be an additional reason that motivated the author of Mark to add “at evening,” however. The timing of the narrative late in the day goes some way toward explaining how Jesus could have slept through the raging storm.^[22] The author of Mark’s explanation was that the storm overtook the seafarers at the normal time for sleeping.

Two considerations strengthen our supposition that Mark’s temporal phrase in L3 is redactional.^[23] First, the time marker is expressed with a genitive absolute construction. Genitives absolute are un-Hebraic; as a consequence, they rarely appeared in Anth. On the other hand, the insertion of genitive absolute constructions is characteristic of Markan redaction. All genitive absolute constructions in Mark must therefore be eyed with suspicion. Second, genitives absolute involving ὀψία (opsia, “latter part of the day,” “evening”) are particularly Markan.^[24] Four of Matthew’s seven instances of a genitive absolute phrase including the time marker ὀψία are taken over from Mark (Matt. 8:16 [= Mark 1:32]; 14:23 [= Mark 6:47]; 26:20 [= Mark 14:17]; 27:57 [= Mark 15:42]). Genitive absolute phrases including ὀψία never occur in Luke and are unlikely to have occurred in Anth. on account of their un-Hebraic quality. Thus, it is likely that all six of Mark’s instances of genitive absolute involving ὀψία are redactional.

While Mark’s setting of Quieting a Storm at evening helps explain how this story could have taken place on the same day as Jesus’ parables discourse, it creates a difficulty in his overall narrative.^[25] If Quieting a Storm took place at evening, at what time did Jesus reach the opposite shore? According to all three Synoptic Gospels, when Jesus reached the shore he encountered a man (or men) afflicted by demons. Jesus drove the demons out, and the people nearby asked Jesus to leave, whereupon Jesus crossed the lake once more. Could all of this have happened on the same evening? It seems unlikely. To resolve this difficulty some scholars have proposed that Jesus and his companions spent the entire night crossing the lake and that the author of Mark simply failed to note that the events described in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory took place on the following morning.^[26] But an all-night boat trip to cross the lake, which at its broadest is only eight miles wide, seems excessive. It is true that we do not know Jesus’ starting point (see the Story Placement discussion above) nor the exact time of Jesus’ departure according to Mark’s chronology, but according to one ancient testimony it took only two hours to cross the lake by boat.^[27] Therefore, the suggestion that it took Jesus and the disciples all night to cross the lake—were they rowing around in circles for hours on end?—beggars belief.^[28]

This chronological difficulty does not exist in Luke’s Gospel, since the Lukan version of Quieting a Storm does not include a reference to evening. In Matthew’s version of Quieting a Storm ὀψίας γενομένης is missing, too, but the author of Matthew could afford to omit this time marker because he had already signaled the late hour in his version of Healings and Exorcisms (Matt. 8:16) (see above, Comment to L1).

L4 ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν (Matt. 8:18). According to Matthew, it was the presence of the many persons seeking to be healed that prompted Jesus to depart (see above, Comment to L1). However, the term ὄχλος (ochlos, “crowd”) does not occur in any synoptic version of Healings and Exorcisms (Matt. 8:16-17; Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40-41). The author of Matthew evidently picked up ὄχλος from Mark 4:36 (L8). It is unlikely, therefore, that Matthew’s wording in L4 was taken from Anth. We have accordingly omitted the contents of L4 from GR and HR.

L5-6 διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν (Mark 4:35). In Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm it is Jesus’ command that sets the action in motion. In Luke, on the other hand, Jesus and the disciples board the boat before Jesus indicates his desired destination. Either sequence is credible, so it is difficult to decide which sequence is more original. As we will discuss below (see Comment to L19), the First Reconstructor was not averse to rearranging details if he felt doing so made for a smoother, more logical presentation. Therefore, it is not impossible to suppose that the First Reconstructor transposed the order of events by placing the embarkation ahead of Jesus’ command. But it is hard to see how doing so would have been a literary improvement, and Luke’s Greek in L14-16, where Jesus issues the command, reverts reasonably well to Hebrew (see below). We have, therefore, adopted the Lukan order of events for GR and HR.

ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν (Matt. 8:18). The author of Matthew converted the direct speech recorded in Mark 4:35 into narrative. That this conversion is redactional, and not a reflection of Anth., is suggested by the author of Matthew’s use of the verb κελεύειν (kelevein, “to command”) in L5. In the Synoptic Gospels κελεύειν is almost entirely concentrated in Matthew, occurring 7xx in Matthew, 0xx in Mark, and only 1x in Luke.^[29] It is unlikely that the author of Luke would have avoided κελεύειν had it occurred in his source(s), however, for although κελεύειν appears only once in Luke’s Gospel, this verb occurs seventeen times in Acts (Acts 4:15; 5:34; 8:38; 12:19; 16:22; 21:33, 34; 22:24, 30; 23:3, 10, 35; 25:6, 17, 21, 23; 27:43).^[30] All of this suggests that κελεύειν is usually, if not always, redactional in Matthew. We therefore conclude that in L5-6 the author of Matthew was paraphrasing Mark rather than copying Anth.^[31]

L7 Having described how Jesus gave an order to depart for the opposite shore of the lake, the author of Matthew interrupted the progression of Quieting a Storm by inserting into it his version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple.^[32] This insertion of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple into Quieting a Storm is a literary construct created by the author of Matthew. It is not a historical reminiscence of the day on which Quieting a Storm took place. Thus, France’s suggestion that the limited capacity of the boat into which Jesus was about to embark was the (or a) reason why Jesus turned away the prospective disciples mentioned in Matt. 8:19-22^[33] is certainly not correct.

L8 καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον (Mark 4:36). Writing “and leaving the crowd” is one of the ways the author of Mark tied his version of Quieting a Storm to the preceding parables discourse.^[34] The crowd is the same as that mentioned in Mark 4:1, whose gathering had forced Jesus to enter the boat. Moreover, as Gundry noted, in Mark 4:36 it is only the disciples who do the “leaving” (L8) and “taking” (L9); Jesus was already located in the boat.^[35]

On the redactional character of Mark’s setting of the parables discourse, see Four Soils Parable, Comment to L4-5, 11-17.

L9 παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν (Mark 4:36). Whereas in Matthew and Luke Jesus actively boards the boat, in Mark Jesus is passively taken along in the boat by the disciples. Jesus’ passivity in Mark 4:36 foreshadows Jesus’ sleep in Mark 4:38.^[36]

καὶ ἐνέβη (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to describe Jesus’ embarkation using the verb ἐμβαίνειν (embainein, “to embark”) strongly suggests that some such description appeared in Anth. Nevertheless, both Luke’s wording and Matthew’s resist Hebrew retroversion. Luke’s wording defies normal Hebrew word order, while Matthew’s dative absolute construction has no Hebrew counterpart. It is likely, therefore, that both authors (or perhaps the First Reconstructor in Luke’s case) paraphrased Anth.’s description rather than copying it exactly. While Luke’s pronoun αὐτός (avtos, “he”) is out of Hebrew word order in L9, αὐτός would fit perfectly in L13 (see below), so perhaps the First Reconstructor moved αὐτός from there to a more emphatic position in L9. GR in L9 and L13 reflects this supposition.

וַיֵּרֶד (HR). Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew expressed “embark” with the verb יָרַד (yārad, “descend”), as the following examples illustrate:

וַיָּקָם יוֹנָה לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יי וַיֵּרֶד יָפוֹ וַיִּמְצָא אָנִיָּה בָּאָה תַרְשִׁישׁ וַיִּתֵּן שְׂכָרָהּ וַיֵּרֶד בָּהּ לָבוֹא עִמָּהֶם תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יי

And Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from before the LORD, and he went down to Jaffa and found a boat bound for Tarshish. And he paid the fare and embarked [וַיֵּרֶד; LXX: καὶ ἐνέβη] upon it to sail with them to Tarshish from before the LORD. (Jonah 1:3)

טיטוס הרשע נכנס לבית קדש הקדשים וחרבו שלופה בידו וגידד שתי פרכות ונטל שתי זונות והציע ספר תורה תחתיהן ובעלן על גבי המזבח ויצאת חרבו מליאה דם. מן דאמ′ מדם הקדשים ומן דאמ′ מדם שעיר שליום הכיפורים. התחיל מחרף ומגדף כלפי למעלה…מה עשה כינס כל כלי בית המקדש ונתנן לתוך גרגותני אחת וירד לו לספינה….‏

Titus the wicked entered the Holy of Holies, and his drawn sword was in his hand, and he cut the two curtains. And he took two prostitutes, and he spread out a Torah scroll under them and had sexual relations with them on the altar, and his sword came out full of blood. There are some who say it was from the blood of the sacrifices, and there are some who say^[37] it was from the blood of the goat for the Day of Atonement. He began reviling and blaspheming concerning the Exalted One…. What did he do [next]? He gathered all the Temple’s vessels and he put them in a single net and he embarked on a boat [וְיָרַד לוֹ לִסְפִינָה]…. (Lev. Rab. 22:3 [ed. Margulies, 2:499-500])

Jesus’ embarkation is the first of several parallels between Quieting a Storm and the story of Jonah’s sea voyage.^[38] Like Jonah, Jesus boards a boat. Like Jonah, Jesus sleeps through a storm. Like Jonah, Jesus is awakened by fellow passengers. And as in Jonah, the people aboard the boat are filled with awe when the storm abates.^[39]

Is there some great theological significance to the parallels between Quieting a Storm and the story of Jonah? And does the similarity to the story of Jonah call the veracity of Quieting a Storm into question? One way to arrive at an answer to these questions is to compare Quieting a Storm to other stories in ancient Jewish literature that are modeled on Jonah’s high-sea adventure. The first concerns the miracle associated with the doors that Nicanor donated to the Temple:

מהו נס שנעשה בהן אמרו כשהיה ניקנור מביאם מאלכסנדריא של מצרים עמד עליהן נחשול שבים לטבען ונטלו אחד מהן והטילוהו לים ובקשו להטיל את השני ולא הניחן ניקנור אמ′ להם אם אתם מטילין את השיני הטילוני עמו היה מצטער ובא עד שהגיע לנמילה של יפו כיון שהגיעו לנמילה של יפו היה מבעבע ועולה מתחת הספינה ויש אומ′ אחת מן חיה שבים בלעה אותו וכיון שהגיע ניקנור לנמילה של יפו פלטתו והטילתו ליבשה

What was the miracle that was done for them [i.e., Nicanor’s doors]? They said that when Nicanor was bringing them from Alexandria in Egypt a gale of the sea [נחשול שבים; Yerushalmi: סַעַר גָּדוֹל (“a great storm”)] rose against them to sink them. And they took one of them and threw it into the sea. And they sought to throw in the second, but Nicanor did not permit them. He said to them, “If you throw in the second, throw me in with it. He was remorseful, but they went until they reached the harbor of Jaffa. As soon as they reached the harbor of Jaffa it was bubbling and it came up from under the boat. And there are those who say one of the beasts of the sea swallowed it, and as soon as Nicanor arrived at the harbor of Jaffa it vomited it and threw it on dry land. (t. Yom. 2:4; Vienna MS; cf. y. Yom. 3:6 [19a-b]; b. Yom. 38a)

Features the story of Nicanor and the story of Jonah have in common are life-threatening storms, the tossing overboard of cargo, the request of the protagonist to be thrown into the sea, the miraculous recovery of what was thrown overboard when a sea creature vomits it onto dry land, and the location of Jaffa. Undoubtedly, the story of Nicanor’s doors was modeled on the story of Jonah, but there does not appear to have been a theological motivation for doing so. The point of the Nicanor story is not to suggest that Nicanor was a second, greater Jonah, as some scholars claim is the point of the parallels between Jonah’s story and Quieting a Storm.^[40] Nor can we safely conclude from the fact that Nicanor’s story was crafted in such a way as to bring out the similarities with the Jonah story that the story of Nicanor’s doors is entirely fictitious. Certainly the sea monster is an embellishment, and likewise Nicanor’s melodramatic demand to be thrown into the sea along with the second door is suspicious, but the overall scenario in which one of Nicanor’s doors was lost overboard in a storm only to be washed up on land is credible. Only hyper-skepticism demands that the story be dismissed out of hand.

Let us examine another ancient Jewish tale crafted to echo the story of Jonah:

מעשה בתינוק אחד שהיו באין בספינה ועמד עליהן נחשול בים והיו צועקין לאלוהן כעניין שנ’ ויראו המלחים ויצעקו איש אל אלהיו אמ′ להן אותו תינוק עם מתי אתם נשטין זעקו למי שברא הים

An anecdote concerning a certain child. They were sailing in a boat and a gale [נַחְשׁוֹל; Yerushalmi: סַעַר גָּדוֹל (“a great storm”)] arose against them in the sea, and they were crying out to their Canaanite gods, as it is said, And the sailors were afraid and they called out, each to his god [Jonah 1:5]. That child said to them, “How long [Erfurt MS: עַד מָתַי] are you going to be foolish? Cry out to the One who created the sea!” (t. Nid. 5:17; Vienna MS; cf. y. Ber. 9:1 [63b])

This story is not only crafted in such a way as to bring out the similarities to Jonah, it explicitly compares the Gentile seafarers (Phoenician traders from Tyre or Sidon?)^[41] to the mariners in the Jonah story. Both groups of sailors cried out to their gods without effect, and, like Jonah, who declared in the midst of the storm, “I fear the LORD who made the sea and the dry land” (Jonah 1:9), the youth declared his faith in the One who created the sea. But are we justified in concluding that the story of the youth on the ship is pure fantasy simply because it has these traits in common with Jonah? We think not. There is no reason why a precocious Jewish youth could not seize the opportunity afforded by the storm to extol the virtues of his religion to the panic-stricken passengers. And is there any particular theological agenda driving the comparison between the Jewish youth and the prophet Jonah? Apparently not. The motive appears to be literary rather than theological. The tradents who passed on the stories of the youth at sea and Nicanor’s doors enjoyed framing them with scriptural motifs and images. Noting the similarities and differences between these stories and the scriptural accounts brought enjoyment to the listeners and storytellers alike.^[42]

Likewise, in the case of Quieting a Storm, the points of contact with the story of Jonah neither have a theological agenda nor do they undermine the basic historicity of the account. There is nothing implausible about Jesus and his disciples being caught in a storm while crossing the Sea of Galilee. Neither is it unlikely that whereas the disciples were stricken with panic, Jesus demonstrated extraordinary faith in the face of the storm.^[43] If it be granted that miracles are possible, then there is no reason why Jesus could not have quelled the storm. The points of contact with the story of Jonah (boarding the boat, sleeping through a storm, being wakened by fellow passengers) were not included in the narrative for the sake of some theological agenda (e.g., to prove that “a greater than Jonah is here”). Rather, these similarities were highlighted for aesthetic reasons. The audience’s familiarity with the Jonah story kept them in suspense as they waited to see whether things would turn out for Jesus the same as or differently than they had for Jonah.

L10 ὡς ἦν (Mark 4:36). The author of Mark’s addition of “as he was” in L10 is simply a reminder to his audience that Jesus was already in the boat, where he had been since he began teaching the crowds (Mark 4:1).^[44] This reminder creates continuity between the parables discourse and Quieting a Storm,^[45] but the continuity is literary rather than historical. There is no connection between these events in Luke or Matthew. The link is the author of Mark’s invention. As such, it has been excluded from GR and HR.

L11 εἰς πλοῖον (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement to write εἰς (eis, “into”) instead of Mark’s ἐν (en, “in”) commends the adoption of their preposition for GR. Moreover, the phrase ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ (en tō ploiō) is indicative of Markan redaction.^[46] While in Codex Vaticanus “boat” lacks a definite article in both Luke and Matthew, critical editions read εἰς τὸ πλοῖον (eis to ploion, “into the boat”) in Matt. 8:23, so it is not clear that the omission of the definite article is a true “minor agreement” against Mark. In any case, we have omitted the definite article from GR.

לִסְפִינָה (HR). We considered several options for reconstructing πλοῖον (ploion, “ship,” “boat”). In LXX πλοῖον usually occurs as the translation of אֳנִיָּה (’^oniyāh, “ship,” “boat”), but אֳנִיָּה had become obsolete in Mishnaic Hebrew. It is true that we prefer to reconstruct narrative in a biblicizing style of Hebrew, but it may have sounded strange to first-century readers to hear of Jesus sailing in an אֳנִיָּה. The archaic word might have given the impression that Jesus put out in an antique vessel. In his Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, Lindsey translated πλοῖον in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm as סִירָה (sirāh, “small boat”),^[47] but סִירָה is a Modern Hebrew term that did not have the meaning “boat” in Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew^[48] and is therefore not a viable option for HR. One reconstruction Lindsey rejected is דּוּגִית (dūgit), a term for a type of fishing boat in Mishnaic Hebrew. Lindsey rejected this reconstruction on the grounds that a דּוּגִית, with a capacity for only two or three passengers, is too small to have carried Jesus and his disciples.^[49] The word used for “boat” in the stories of Nicanor’s doors and the precocious Jewish youth is סְפִינָה (s^efināh). The advantages to reconstructing πλοῖον with סְפִינָה are twofold: it is a term that was still in use in the first century, and the only occurrence of סְפִינָה in the Hebrew Scriptures is in the story of Jonah,^[50] so reconstructing πλοῖον with סְפִינָה does not obscure the connection between Quieting a Storm and the Jonah story.

While סְפִינָה is a term for ships that plied the Mediterranean Sea, סְפִינָה was also used for boats that floated up and down the Jordan River (b. Shab. 83b), so סְפִינָה is a term that could easily be applied to craft that traversed the Lake of Gennesar.

In 1986 a boat was discovered on the shore of the lake near Magdala that dates to the first century C.E. When the boat was still in use it had a mast and a sail, it measured about 29 feet long, 8 feet across, and 4 feet deep,^[51] and was able to carry fifteen or more adults.^[52] The boat, which had a deck in the stern, was typical of boats used by fishermen who fished with seine nets.^[53] A boat such as this is probably what is referred to in Quieting a Storm.^[54]

L12-13 καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Mark 4:36). Mark’s statement that other boats accompanied Jesus raises questions for which the author of Mark provides no answers. Were these boats lost in the storm? Did they benefit from the miraculous calming of the wind and water? Why are they not mentioned when Jesus reaches the other side? Some scholars take this irrelevant detail as evidence that the author of Mark reported a historical recollection of an eyewitness,^[55] while other scholars more soberly maintain that the reference to other boats is a verbal relic taken over from Mark’s source that no longer makes sense because of the author of Mark’s editorial activity.^[56] Yet other scholars have suggested that the author of Mark added the notice about the other boats in order to show what measures Jesus was forced to take to get away from the crowds,^[57] or to show that Jesus’ following had increased substantially, so that one boat was not big enough to carry all of them.^[58]

The absence of a reference to other boats in Luke and Matthew suggests that additional boats accompanying Jesus were not mentioned in Anth., and yet this evidence is not as strong as it might be, since the author of Matthew simply could have omitted this detail because of the unanswered questions it raises. In addition to the Lukan-Matthean agreement of omission, two further factors have led us to suppose that the reference to the additional boats is the author of Mark’s own invention. First, the additional boats detract from the Jonah typology present in Quieting a Storm.^[59] Second, we have determined that εἶναι μετά (einai meta, “to be with”) at various places elsewhere in Mark is redactional.^[60] That the author of Mark redactionally inserted εἶναι μετά elsewhere in his Gospel increases the likelihood that εἶναι μετά is also redactional here. Since the reference to the other boats appears to be a Markan contribution to Quieting a Storm, we have omitted this detail from GR and HR.

L12 ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ (Matt. 8:23). In place of Mark’s reference to other boats “being with” Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel describes the disciples “following” Jesus. The presence of ἀκολουθεῖν (akolouthein, “to follow”) in Matt. 8:23 ties Quieting a Storm more closely to the version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple that the author of Matthew inserted between Jesus’ order to depart across the lake and the boarding of the boat (see above, Comment to L7).^[61] In Matthew’s version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple ἀκολουθεῖν is prominent in the accounts of both prospective disciples. The first prospective disciple asks to follow Jesus (Matt. 8:19). Jesus invites the second prospective disciple to follow him (Matt. 8:22). Since the insertion of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple into Quieting a Storm is redactional, the use of ἀκολουθεῖν in Matt. 8:23 to tie these pericopae together is likely to be redactional too. Thus, we have rejected Matthew’s wording in L12 for GR.

L13 αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to make reference to Jesus’ disciples is a fairly strong indication that the disciples were referred to in Anth.^[62] Streeter overstated his case when he dismissed the significance of this “minor agreement” by claiming that “the disciples” were the inevitable choice for naming Jesus’ traveling companions.^[63] The author of Luke refers to Jesus’ companions as “the Twelve” both before (Luke 8:1) and after (Luke 9:1) Quieting a Storm. The author of Matthew refers to Jesus’ companions as “the men” in Quieting a Storm itself (Matt. 8:27; see below, Comment to L51). So, options other than “the disciples” were available to both authors. Thus, the Lukan-Matthean minor agreement is probably more than mere coincidence.

As we noted above in Comment to L9, Luke’s pronoun αὐτός (avtos, “he”) fits better in L13 than in L9 from the point of view of Hebrew syntax. The sentence structure of our reconstruction is comparable to the opening verse of the book of Ruth:

GR	Ruth 1:1 (LXX)
καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ	καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ κρίνειν τοὺς κριτὰς…καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ Βαιθλεεμ τῆς Ιουδα τοῦ παροικῆσαι ἐν ἀγρῷ Μωαβ, αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ
And it happened in those days and he embarked upon a boat, he and his disciples.	And it happened in the judging of the judges…and a man went from Bethlehem of Judea to reside in the field of Moab, he and his wife and his sons.
HR	Ruth 1:1 (MT)
וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיֵּרֶד לִסְפִינָה הוּא וְתַלְמִידָיו	וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים…וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בִּשְׂדֵי מוֹאָב הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו
And it was in those days and he embarked upon a boat, he and his disciples.	And it was in the days of the judging of the judges…and a man went from Bethlehem of Judah to live in the plains of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons.

הוּא וְתַלְמִידָיו (HR). On reconstructing μαθητής (mathētēs, “pupil,” “disciple”) with תַּלְמִיד (talmid, “pupil,” “disciple”), see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L4.

An anecdote reported in rabbinic sources bears striking similarities to Quieting a Storm:

מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה בא בספינה והיו תלמידיו עמו ועמד עליהן סער גדול בים אמ′ לו רבי התפלל עלינו אמר אלהינו רחם עלינו אמ′ לו רבי כדאי אתה שיחול שם שמים עליך אמר אלהי רחם עלינו

An anecdote concerning Rabban Gamliel, who was sailing in a boat and his disciples were with him. And a great storm arose against them in the sea. They said to him, “Rabbi! Pray for us!” He said, “Our God, have mercy on us.” They said to him, “Rabbi! You are worthy that the name of Heaven should be profaned on your behalf.” He said, “My God, have mercy on us.” (Midrash Tannaim 25:3 [ed. Hoffmann, 172])

Like Jesus in Quieting a Storm, Rabban Gamliel^[64] traveled by boat with his disciples and was caught in a storm. And like Jesus’ disciples, Rabban Gamliel’s disciples turned to their master for help.

There are also striking differences between Quieting a Storm and the anecdote about Rabban Gamliel. Unlike Quieting a Storm, the rabbinic anecdote does not make much use (if any) of Jonah typology.^[65] Also unlike Quieting a Storm, no miracle is reported. The anecdote implies that Rabban Gamliel’s second prayer was effective, but we are not told that the storm rapidly abated. It may simply be that the rabbi and his disciples weathered the storm and lived to tell the tale. The anecdote does, however, paint an exalted portrait of Rabban Gamliel, much as Quieting a Storm presents an exalted image of Jesus.^[66] The rabbinic anecdote illustrates the principle that the divine name may be profaned for the sake of a spiritual virtuoso (מחילין שם שמים על היחיד). In the anecdote Rabban Gamliel initially declines to separate himself from his companions, praying, “Our God, have mercy on us.” But when this prayer proves ineffective, Rabban Gamliel highlights his unique status, praying, “My God, have mercy on us.”

L14-17 (GR). Whether to include Jesus’ instruction to cross the lake in GR is a difficult decision. On the one hand, the instruction is not strictly necessary for the story to make sense, and since the First Reconstructor tended to abbreviate as well as improve Anth.’s Greek style, it is hard to explain why the First Reconstructor would have added these lines if they had not occurred in his source. Thus, we might conclude that Jesus’ instruction to cross the lake appeared in Anth. On the other hand, some of the vocabulary in L14-17 is typical of FR pericopae (see below, Comment to L15), which might indicate that the First Reconstructor did compose these lines. While it could be the case that L14-17 are an FR expansion, we think it is more likely that the First Reconstructor paraphrased instructions he found in Anth. Nevertheless, because L14-17 is in doubt, we have placed these lines in brackets for GR and HR.

L14 [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς (GR). Luke’s wording in L14 poses no difficulty whatsoever with regard to Hebrew retroversion. Moreover, we have accepted the phrase εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς (eipen pros avtous, “he said to them”) elsewhere in LOY (cf., e.g., Yohanan the Immerser’s Exhortations, L10; Call of Levi, L58; Friend in Need, L1; Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, L32-33; “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves,” L40-41). We therefore feel comfortable adopting Luke’s wording in L14 for GR.

L15 διαπεράσομεν (GR). The verb διέρχεσθαι (dierchesthai, “to go through”), which occurs in Luke 8:22, may be indicative of FR redaction. It is certainly the case that διέρχεσθαι occurs in a much higher concentration in Luke than in Mark or Matthew,^[67] and several of the Lukan instances of διέρχεσθαι appear in what are likely to be FR pericopae (Luke 5:15; 9:6; 17:11; 19:1). It may be, however, that the First Reconstructor wrote διέρχεσθαι in place of a different verb in Anth. such as διαπερᾶν (diaperan, “to cross over”). Not only his predilection for διέρχεσθαι but also the proximity of the cognate πέραν (peran, “across”) in L16 could explain such a change. It is upon this hypothesis that we have adopted διαπερᾶν in place of Luke’s διέρχεσθαι for GR. Note that instead of the subjunctive mood of διέλθωμεν (dielthōmen, “we might go through”) we have adopted the future tense form διαπεράσομεν (diaperasomen, “we will cross over”) for GR. We suspect that the First Reconstructor was also responsible for the subjunctive mood in L15.

נַעֲבֹר (HR). In LXX the verb διαπερᾶν is rare, but on the two occasions on which διαπερᾶν has a Hebrew equivalent in MT that equivalent is עָבַר (‘āvar, “cross”). Compare our reconstruction to the following question in Deuteronomy:

מִי יַעֲבָר לָנוּ אֶל עֵבֶר הַיָּם

Who will cross over for us to the other side of the sea? (Deut. 30:13)

τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης

Who will cross over for us to the other side of the sea? (Deut. 30:13)

L16 εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης (GR). We suspect that the noun λίμνη (limnē, “lake”) is a correction to Anth.’s wording introduced by the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke. Whereas Hebrew has a single noun for any large body of water, יָם (yām), Greek distinguishes between a freshwater lake, λίμνη, and a saltwater θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”). Nevertheless, the LXX translators were not always careful to distinguish between freshwater lakes and saltwater seas,^[68] and we might expect the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua to have been equally as lax. A Greek author such as the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke, on the other hand, would likely be more sensitive to the distinction.^[69] Later Greek writers antagonistic to Christianity would take the Gospels to task for referring to the freshwater lake in Galilee as a “sea,” as, for instance, in the following quotations from an unknown Greek philosopher:

οἱ γοῦν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν τόπων ἀφηγούμενοί φασι θάλασσαν μὲν ἐκεῖ μὴ εἶναι, λίμνην δὲ μικρὰν ἐκ ποταμοῦ συνεστῶσαν ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλλαίαν χώραν παρὰ πόλιν Τιβεριάδα….

But those who relate the truth about that locality say that there is not a sea [θάλασσαν] there, but a small lake [λίμνην] coming from a river under the hill in the country of Galilee, beside the city of Tiberias…. (Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus 3:6 [ed. Harnack, 42])^[70]

πῶς δὲ καὶ πάντες οἱ χοῖροι ἐκεῖνοι συνεπνίγησαν, λίμνης οὐ θαλάσσης βαθείας ὑπαρχούσης

And how did all those pigs drown, as it is a lake [λίμνης], not a deep sea [θαλάσσης]? (Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus 3:6 [ed. Harnack, 40])

Either the First Reconstructor, who ever sought to improve Anth.’s Greek, or the author of Luke could have changed θάλασσα to λίμνη in Quieting a Storm to save Christians from embarrassment.

לְעֵבֶר הַיָּם (HR). In LXX when the adverb πέραν (peran, “across”) occurs as a substantive (definite article + πέραν [“the far side”]) it usually does so as the translation of עֵבֶר (‘ēver, “far side”).^[71] We also find that the LXX translators more often rendered עֵבֶר with πέραν than with any other alternative.^[72]

The vast majority of instances of θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”) in LXX occur as the translation of יָם (yām, “large body of water,” usually, “sea”).^[73] Likewise, the LXX translators nearly always rendered יָם as θάλασσα.^[74]

L17 ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] (GR). We have, most unusually, placed GR for L17 within a double set of brackets. We have done so because of our great uncertainty whether anything equivalent to Luke’s “and they set out” occurred in Anth. Our uncertainty arises from the fact that the verb ἀνάγεσθαι (anagesthai, “to put out to sea,” “to launch”) does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels, but does appear with a fairly high frequency in Acts (Acts 13:13; 16:11; 18:21; 20:3, 13; 21:1, 2; 27:2, 4, 12, 21; 28:10, 11).^[75] There is a high probability, therefore, that the author of Luke added καὶ ἀνήχθησαν (kai anēchthēsan, “and they put out from shore”) or that he wrote καὶ ἀνήχθησαν in place of something else in his source (FR). That something else in FR may have been καὶ διῆλθον (kai diēlthon, “and they went through”), which may itself have been the First Reconstructor’s replacement for καὶ διεπέρασαν (kai dieperasan, “and they crossed over”) in Anth. (see above, Comment to L15). All of this is highly speculative, but since the possibility remains that Luke’s wording in L17 retains an echo, however faint, of Anth.’s wording, we have preferred to place GR and HR in brackets rather than exclude L17 entirely.

[⟨וַיַּעַבְרוּ⟩ (HR). On reconstructing διαπερᾶν (diaperan, “to cross over”) with עָבַר (‘āvar, “cross”), see above, Comment to L15.

L18 πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν (GR). Typically we regard genitive absolute constructions with great suspicion, since they are un-Hebraic and frequently in the Gospels the product of Greek redaction. There are additional grounds for hesitancy with regard to Luke’s πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν (pleontōn de avtōn, “as they were sailing”), namely the verb πλεῖν (plein, “to sail”) does not occur elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels,^[76] but does occur 4xx in Acts (Acts 21:3; 27:2, 6, 24).^[77] Moreover, we suspect that the reference to Jesus’ sleep in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm (L19) has been moved up from its original position (see below, Comment to L19). Nevertheless, genitives absolute did sometimes occur in sources translated to Greek from Hebrew, and therefore probably also occurred in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

The genitive absolute construction in L18 deserves careful consideration because it is so similar to the wording of storm narratives in rabbinic sources. Versions of the stories of Nicanor’s doors and the precocious Jewish youth at sea, cited above in Comment to L9, and a story about Rabban Gamliel all contain statements equivalent to “as he/they was/were sailing” when describing the onset of a storm:

היו באין בספינה ועמד עליהן סער גדול בים

As they [i.e., Nicanor and his traveling companions—DNB and JNT] were sailing [הָיוּ בָּאִין] in a boat a great storm arose against them in the sea…. (y. Yom. 3:6 [19a-b])

היו באין בספינה ועמד עליהן נחשול בים

As they [i.e., the Jewish youth and his traveling companions—DNB and JNT] were sailing [הָיוּ בָּאִין] in a boat a gale arose against them in the sea…. (t. Nid. 5:17; Vienna MS)

ר″ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו

As Rabban Gamliel was sailing [הָיָה בָּא] in a boat a gale arose against him to sink him…. (b. Bab. Metz. 59b)

From these rabbinic accounts it appears that “as he was sailing” or “as they were sailing” was a stock phrase in descriptions of the onset of a storm. That “as they were sailing” should also appear in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm in close proximity to the onset of the storm suggests that perhaps the earliest version of Quieting a Storm made similar use of stereotypical descriptions of the onset of storms. Thus, we have cautiously accepted Luke’s wording in L18 for GR.

וְהָיוּ בָּאִים (HR). Neither Biblical nor Mishnaic Hebrew had a specialized verb meaning “to sail.” Instead, Hebrew made do with the verb בָּא (bā’, “come,” “go,” “arrive”), as we saw in the examples cited above. The same usage is found in Jonah 1:3, where the LXX translators correctly rendered בָּא with πλεῖν (plein, “to sail”):

וַיֵּרֶד יָפוֹ וַיִּמְצָא אָנִיָּה בָּאָה תַרְשִׁישׁ וַיִּתֵּן שְׂכָרָהּ וַיֵּרֶד בָּהּ לָבוֹא עִמָּהֶם תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יי

And he went down to Jaffa and found a ship sailing [lit., “going”] for Tarshish. And he paid the fare and boarded it [lit., “went down in it”] to sail [לָבוֹא, lit., “to go”] with them to Tarshish away from the LORD. (Jonah 1:3)

καὶ κατέβη εἰς Ιοππην καὶ εὗρεν πλοῖον βαδίζον εἰς Θαρσις καὶ ἔδωκεν τὸ ναῦλον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦ πλεῦσαι μετ̓ αὐτῶν εἰς Θαρσις ἐκ προσώπου κυρίου

And he went down to Joppa and found a boat bound for Tarsis, and he paid the fare and he boarded it to sail [τοῦ πλεῦσαι] with them to Tarsis from the face of the Lord. (Jonah 1:3)

The use of בָּא in the sense of “sail” also occurs in halachic discussions, for instance:

ספינה שהיתה באה בים ועמד עליה נחשול והקילו ממשאה

A boat that was sailing [בָּאָה (bā’āh, lit., “going”)] in the sea and a storm arose against it and they lightened its cargo…. (t. Bab. Metz. 7:14; Vienna MS)

The combination of הָיָה + participle in the sense of “as [he, she, it] was doing something” is characteristic of Mishnaic rather than Biblical Hebrew. If וְהָיוּ בָּאִים (v^ehāyū bā’im, “as they were sailing”) occurred in Quieting a Storm along with vav-consecutives (L1, L9, L14, L17, L30, L31, L32, L40, L41, L44, L46, L47, L50, L53) and vocabulary and forms that were discontinued in Mishnaic Hebrew (e.g., הִנֵּה in L20; לֵאמֹר in L33, L53), then we must assume that Quieting a Storm was composed in a mixed style of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew such as we encounter in the baraita in b. Kid. 66a.

L19 ἀφύπνωσεν (Luke 8:23). The notice about Jesus’ sleep in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm seems out of place whether we view it from the perspective of the story of Jonah, where we read a description of a storm (Jonah 1:4) before we hear about Jonah’s sleeping below deck (Jonah 1:5), or whether we view it from the perspective of stock descriptions in rabbinic sources of the onset of storms, where “while he/they was/were sailing” is followed by “and a storm arose” (see above, Comment to L18). We suspect that the First Reconstructor moved the notice about Jesus’ sleep from its original position in L30 to its present position in L19, which he deemed to be more logical.^[78] Our attribution of this change to the First Reconstructor rather than to the author of Luke is supported by the fact that the verb ἀφυπνοῦν (afūpnoun, “to fall asleep”) occurs only this once in the Synoptic Gospels but nowhere else in NT. That the author of Luke did not use ἀφυπνοῦν in Acts, despite describing sleep in Acts 12:6 and Acts 20:9-10, may point to the First Reconstructor as the originator of ἀφυπνοῦν in Quieting a Storm.

L20 καὶ ἰδοὺ (GR). We believe Matthew’s highly Hebraic “And behold! A great storm on the sea!” reflects the wording of Anth. The First Reconstructor and the author of Luke both tended to avoid ἰδού (idou, “Behold!”), so Luke’s καὶ κατέβη (kai katebē, “and it descended”) may be regarded as a stylistic improvement to Anth.’s wording introduced by the First Reconstructor or, perhaps, the author of Luke. Mark’s καὶ γίνεται (kai ginetai, “and becomes”) may also be a paraphrase of Anth.’s καὶ ἰδού. In any case, Mark’s use of the historical present tense looks like Markan redaction.^[79]

We note that in LXX we sometimes find genitive absolute constructions followed by καὶ ἰδού, such as we have in our Greek Reconstruction (L18-20), as in the following examples:

αὐτῶν δὲ ἀγαθυνθέντων τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως υἱοὶ παρανόμων περιεκύκλωσαν τὴν οἰκίαν

While they were good [αὐτῶν δὲ ἀγαθυνθέντων; MT: הֵמָּה מֵיטִיבִים] in their hearts, and behold [καὶ ἰδοὺ]! The men of the city, sons of lawlessness, surrounded the house…. (Judg. 19:22)

αὐτῶν εἰσπορευομένων εἰς μέσον τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδοὺ Σαμουηλ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν

While they were entering [αὐτῶν εἰσπορευομένων; MT: הֵמָּה בָּאִים] into the middle of the city, and behold [καὶ ἰδοὺ]! Samuel came out to their meeting. (1 Kgdms. 9:14)

καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἅρμα πυρὸς καὶ ἵπποι πυρὸς καὶ διέστειλαν ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων

And it happened while they were walking [αὐτῶν πορευομένων; MT: הֵמָּה הֹלְכִים], they were walking and talking, and behold [καὶ ἰδοὺ]! A chariot of fire and horses of fire! And they separated between both…. (4 Kgdms. 2:11)

καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν θαπτόντων τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἰδοὺ εἶδον τὸν μονόζωνον….

And it happened while they were burying [αὐτῶν θαπτόντων; MT: הֵם קֹבְרִים] the man, and behold [καὶ ἰδοὺ]! They saw the lightly armed man…. (4 Kgdms. 13:21)

Similar to our reconstruction, in each of the examples cited above a participial phrase followed by a וְהִנֵּה (v^ehinēh, “And behold!”) clause was rendered in LXX with a genitive absolute construction followed by a καὶ ἰδού clause. These examples bolster our confidence in our decisions for GR and HR in L18-20 of Quieting a Storm.

L21 σεισμὸς μέγας (GR). Whereas the Lukan and Markan versions of Quieting a Storm refer to the storm as a λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου (lailaps anemou, “windstorm”),^[80] Matthew’s version refers to it as a σεισμός (seismos, “shaking”). The noun σεισμός can be used for earthquakes, but it can also denote tremors and upheavals of various kinds.^[81] Some scholars attribute the presence of σεισμός in Matt. 8:24 to the author of Matthew’s special interest in earthquakes,^[82] but despite the use of the noun σεισμός, it is clearly a storm on the sea, not a quaking of the earth, that the author of Matthew describes in Quieting a Storm. Other scholars have made the convoluted suggestion that the σεισμός in Matt. 8:24 would have reminded readers of the tumultuous times leading up to the eschaton, which would include, inter alia, earthquakes and persecution, and since Matthew’s readers had experienced (or currently were experiencing) persecution, the use of σεισμός in Quieting a Storm would enable Matthew’s readers to more easily identify with the plight of the disciples.^[83] A simpler and, in our view, more probable explanation is that the author of Matthew wrote σεισμός because this was the term he found in Anth. Supposing σεισμός (“disturbance”) was Anth.’s reading, λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου (“windstorm”) could be regarded as a Greek improvement introduced by the First Reconstructor, which was then passed on to Luke. Mark’s λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου (lailaps megalē anemou, “big windstorm”) would then be a compromise between σεισμὸς μέγας (“big disturbance”) in Anth. and λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου (“windstorm”) in Luke.

Note that none of the synoptic evangelists used the description κλύδων μέγας (klūdōn megas, “big raging water”) found in Jonah 1:4. It seems that despite the clear Jonah imagery in Quieting a Storm, neither the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua nor any of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels attempted to imitate the Septuagint’s vocabulary.^[84]

סַעַר גָּדוֹל (HR). Two terms for “storm” appear in rabbinic storm narratives: נַחְשׁוֹל (naḥshōl, “gale”) and סַעַר גָּדוֹל (sa‘ar gādōl, “great storm”). Since נַחְשׁוֹל and סַעַר גָּדוֹל occur in parallel accounts of the same stories,^[85] it is clear that the two terms are interchangeable. Perhaps נַחְשׁוֹל was the colloquial term while סַעַר גָּדוֹל was intended to invoke the story of Jonah (cf. Jonah 1:4). Since we think σεισμὸς μέγας occurred in Anth., it is probable that this was a non-Septuagintal rendering of סַעַר גָּדוֹל.

In LXX σεισμός is usually the translation of רַעַשׁ (ra‘ash, “shaking,” “earthquake”)^[86] and never occurs as the translation of סַעַר (sa‘ar, “storm”).^[87] But in Jer. 23:19 the phrase ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς παρὰ κυρίου (idou seismos para kūriou, “Behold! A shaking from the Lord”) occurs as the translation of הִנֵּה סַעֲרַת יי (hinēh sa‘^arat YY, “Behold! A storm of the LORD”). The rendering of סְעָרָה (s^e‘ārāh, “storm”), a close cognate of סַעַר, as σεισμός in Jer. 23:19 strengthens the credibility of our reconstruction in L21.

On reconstructing the adjective μέγας (megas, “big”) with גָּדוֹל (gādōl, “big”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L22.

Gustaf Dalman (1855-1941) described two occasions in the early twentieth century on which he personally experienced windstorms on the Sea of Galilee:

The months from March to July are generally the windiest, with the west wind predominating. Autumn and winter are quieter, which does not, however, exclude some stormy days. The members of the Archaeological Institute experienced such a bad day on April 9, 1907. We ourselves rode in the morning to the Seven Springs, but saw boats on the lake struggling against wind and waves. One of them, which was to have brought one of our company over the lake, landed in the land of Ginnesar, far from its destination, because the majority of the sailors considered a further journey impossible. (Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 182-183)^[88]

Coming [on April 6, 1908—DNB and JNT] from the eastern edge below Hippos [or Susita, near the modern-day kibbutz of Ein Gev—DNB and JNT], we wished to sail northward along the shore in order to land again in Bethsaida. But a strong wind rising at noon from the east made it impossible to land, and drove us to Capernaum. (Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 176)^[89]

L22 ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (GR). The surest part of our reconstruction in L22 is the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (en tē thalassē, “in the sea”), which is supported by the Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark’s omission to write preposition + definite article + noun for body of water. As we discussed above in Comment to L16, Luke’s use of λίμνη (limnē, “lake”) is probably a substitution introduced by the First Reconstructor for Anth.’s improper use of θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”) in reference to the lake in Galilee. Thus, Matthew’s ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (en tē thalassē, “in the sea”) is more likely to reflect Anth.’s wording than Luke’s εἰς τὴν λίμνην (eis tēn limnēn, “into the lake”).

Whereas Matthew has an aorist form of the verb γίνεσθαι (ginesthai, “to be”), we have adopted an aorist form of ἑστάναι (hestanai, “to stand”) for GR. Matthew’s ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it was”) may be a reflection of Mark’s γείνεται (geinetai, “it becomes”) in L20, while ἔστη (estē, “it stood”) reflects our supposition that the earliest form of Quieting a Storm drew on the stock descriptions of boats caught in storms found in rabbinic sources. In those rabbinic accounts we encounter variations on “a storm arose against him/them” in which the verb for “arose” is עָמַד (‘āmad, “stand”): וְעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶן סַעַר גָּדוֹל בַּיָּם (v^e‘āmad ‘^alēhen sa‘ar gādōl bayām, “and a great storm arose against them [i.e., Rabban Gamliel and his disciples] in the sea”; Midrash Tannaim 25:3); עָמַד עָלָיו נַחְשׁוֹל לְטֹבְעוֹ (‘āmad ‘ālāv naḥshōl l^eṭov‘ō, “a storm arose against him [i.e., Rabban Gamliel] to sink him”; b. Bab. Metz. 59b); עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶן נַחְשׁוֹל שֶׁבַּיָּם לְטֹבְעָן (‘āmad ‘^alēhen naḥshōl shebayām l^eṭov‘ān, “a storm of the sea arose against them [i.e., Nicanor and his companions] to sink them”; t. Yom. 2:4); וְעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶן סַעַר גָּדוֹל בַּיָּם (v^e‘āmad ‘^alēhen sa‘ar gādōl bayām, “and a great storm arose against them [i.e., Nicanor and his companions] in the sea”; y. Yom. 3:6 [19a-b]); עָמַד עָלָיו נַחְשׁוֹל שֶׁבַּיָּם לְטֹבְעוֹ (‘āmad ‘ālāv naḥshōl shebayām l^eṭov‘ō, “a storm of the sea arose against him [i.e., Nicanor] to sink him”; b. Yom. 38a); וְעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶן נַחְשׁוֹל בַּיָּם (v^e‘āmad ‘^alēhen naḥshōl bayām, “and a storm arose against them [i.e., the Jewish youth and his companions] in the sea”; t. Nid. 5:17); עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם סַעַר גָּדוֹל בַּיָּם (‘āmad ‘^alēhem sa‘ar gādōl bayām, “a great storm arose against them [i.e., the Jewish youth and his companions] in the sea”; y. Ber. 9:1 [63b]). In the continuation of a variant version of the story of Titus cited above in Comment to L9 we likewise read, עָמַד עָלָיו נַחְשׁוֹל שֶׁבַּיָּם לְטוֹבְעוֹ (‘āmad ‘ālāv naḥshōl shebayām l^eṭōv‘ō, “a storm of the sea arose against him [i.e., Titus] to sink him”; b. Git. 56b). Even if the author of Matthew saw καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (“And behold! A great shaking stood upon them in the sea”) in Anth., as we suppose, he may not have understood the underlying Hebrew idiom and, like the First Reconstructor, preferred to adopt a substitute.

עָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם בַּיָּם (HR). On reconstructing ἑστάναι (hestanai, “to stand”) with עָמַד (‘āmad, “stand”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L14. The rabbinic sources cited in the preceding paragraph demonstrate why we think עָמַד is a good choice for HR.

On reconstructing ἐπί (epi, “on,” “upon”) with עַל (‘al, “on,” “upon,” sometimes “against”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L11.

On reconstructing θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”) with יָם (yām, “sea”), see above, Comment to L16.

As in L18, so in L22 we have adopted Mishnaic-style Hebrew for HR despite our general preference for biblicizing Hebrew when reconstructing narrative. The result is a mixed style of Hebrew such as we encounter in the baraita preserved in b. Kid. 66a.

L23-26 It is our belief that neither Luke nor Mark nor Matthew preserves Anth.’s wording in describing the effects of the storm upon the boat and its passengers. Luke has “and they were being filled and they were in danger.” Luke’s Greek is difficult to reconstruct in Hebrew,^[90] and the vocabulary is unique to Luke in the Synoptic Gospels.^[91] Probably Luke’s wording reflects the First Reconstructor’s paraphrase of the description he read in Anth.^[92]

In place of Luke’s colorless statement of the bare facts that they were filling up and in danger, Mark has a description of how the filling up was taking place (“the waves were tossing into the boat”; L23-24) followed by a ὥστε (hōste, “so that”) clause (viz., “so that the boat was already full”).^[93] The author of Mark may have picked up “waves” from Luke 8:24, where Jesus rebukes “the waves of water” (L42). The ὥστε clause has no syntactical parallel in Luke, but the information it conveys, “so that the boat was already full,” is essentially the same as Luke’s “they were being filled” (L24). We wonder, however, whether Mark’s ὥστε clause reflects something the author of Mark found in Anth.

Matthew’s “so that the boat was being covered by the waves” is a simplification of Mark’s wording, and the passive + ὑπό construction does not revert readily to Hebrew. Some scholars suppose that “so that the boat was being covered by the waves” means that the waves hid the boat from view,^[94] but the author of Matthew does not tell his readers that there were witnesses in other boats or on the shore from whom the boat might be hidden. Perhaps, therefore, it is best to take Matthew’s meaning to be that the waves were covering the boat by washing over it.

L25 ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς (GR). Recovering the wording of Anth. when what we find in each of the Synoptic Gospels appears to be redactional is extremely challenging, but in the present case we have the rabbinic storm narratives to guide us. In the rabbinic storm narratives we have collected, we frequently find “a storm arose” followed by a purpose clause, either לְטֹבְעוֹ (l^eṭov‘ō, “to sink him”) or לְטֹבְעָן (l^eṭov‘ān, “to sink them”). In Greek this purpose clause might be represented as ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτόν (hōste būthizein avton, “in order to sink him”) or ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς (hōste būthizein avtous, “in order to sink them”; cf. Luke 5:7). Just as we suppose the First Reconstructor changed “And behold! A great storm arose against them in the sea” to “And a windstorm descended onto the lake,” so we suppose he changed “in order to sink them” to “and they were being filled and were in danger.” The author of Mark, who knew both Luke and Anth., paraphrased a combination of their descriptions resulting in his description of the waves followed by a ὥστε clause. The author of Matthew wished to streamline Mark’s wording, and since he found a ὥστε clause in both his sources, he composed a ὥστε clause of his own.

לְטֹבְעָן (HR). The verb טָבַע (ṭāva‘, “sink”) occurs in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. As we have seen, it was common to include טָבַע in the infinitive with a pronominal suffix in rabbinic storm narratives.^[95] The idiom has a mild personifying effect, attributing intentionality to the storm (“the storm arose against him/them to sink him/them”), but we should be cautious of reading too much into the idiom. None of the rabbinic storm narratives we have surveyed portray the storms as having personal agency. The idiom may have its origin in a mythical understanding of storms, but if so, the mythical understanding was no longer activated simply by the use of the idiom.

L27 καὶ αὐτὸς (GR). As we noted above in Comment to L19, we believe the First Reconstructor repositioned the reference to Jesus’ repose to what he deemed to be a more logical location, describing how Jesus fell asleep before the onset of the storm. The Markan and Matthean placement of the notice about Jesus’ sleep is reminiscent of the story of Jonah, where the storm is described before it is stated that Jonah was asleep below deck. Indeed, “and he…was sleeping” in Mark and Matthew even looks like the disjunctive clause in Jonah 1:5:

וְיוֹנָה יָרַד אֶל יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה וַיִּשְׁכַּב וַיֵּרָדַם

But Jonah had gone down to the farthest part of the ship and had lain down and had gone sound to sleep. (Jonah 1:5)

Ιωνας δὲ κατέβη εἰς τὴν κοίλην τοῦ πλοίου καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ ἔρρεγχεν

But Jonah went down into the belly of the ship and was sleeping and snoring. (Jonah 1:5)

Since Mark’s καὶ αὐτός (kai avtos, “and he”) is even more Hebraic than Matthew’s αὐτὸς δέ (avtos de, “but he”), we have accepted Mark’s wording for GR.^[96]

L28 ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ (GR). Mark’s description of Jesus asleep in the stern is so like the description of Jonah’s sleep below deck that it cannot easily be dismissed as redactional. Although the imagery is nearly the same, Mark’s wording is not that of LXX, so it is unlikely that the author of Mark was attempting to conform his version of Quieting a Storm to the story of Jonah. Mark’s wording could, however, reflect a source that alluded in Greek to the story of Jonah while bypassing LXX. Anth. was just such a source. The scriptural allusions in Anth. are usually independent of LXX; they reflect the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua’s direct translation of his Hebrew source. Thus, whereas the LXX translators rendered יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה (yark^etē has^efināh, “the farthest part of the boat”) in Jonah 1:5 as ἡ κοίλη τοῦ πλοίου (hē koilē tou ploiou, “the belly of the boat”), an independent translator might have rendered the same phrase more succinctly as ἡ πρύμνα (hē prūmna, “the stern”).^[97]

Aside from the allusion to the Jonah story, there are two additional reasons why a description of Jesus’ location in the boat is likely to have been present in Anth. First, Jesus’ location in the stern explains how Jesus could have remained asleep despite the storm.^[98] Boats such as the one discovered near Magdala had decks at the stern where fishing nets were stored.^[99] The space under the deck would have provided a space for Jesus to sleep that would have sheltered him from the wind, the splashing of waves, and the falling of rain that would otherwise certainly have awakened him.^[100] Second, Jesus’ location at the stern below the deck would explain an otherwise mysterious detail in the Lukan and Matthean versions of Quieting a Storm. According to Luke and Matthew, the disciples approached Jesus in order to awaken him, which suggests that Jesus was in a space separate from the other passengers. Beneath the deck at the stern is the most probable location for the disciples to have approached Jesus. The omission of Jesus’ location in Luke and Matthew probably reflects the epitomizing tendencies of the First Reconstructor and the author of Matthew.

There is one point in L28 at which the author of Mark may have changed the wording of his source. Mark has the verb ἦν (ēn, “he was being”), of which, despite its blandness, the author of Mark was fond (cf. his insertion of ἦν in L10). What verb might Anth. have used instead? It cannot escape our notice that Jonah 1:5 attributes three actions to the prophet: Jonah “went down” (יָרַד) below deck, he “lay down” (וַיִּשְׁכַּב), and he “slept soundly” (וַיֵּרָדַם). For boats as small as those that plied the Sea of Galilee יָרַד (yārad, “go down”) might not be the right verb for lying down beneath the stern deck, but שָׁכַב (shāchav, “lie down”) would do nicely. We could therefore imagine that the Hebrew Life of Yeshua said וְהוּא שָׁכַב בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה וַיֵּרָדֵם (v^ehū’ shāchav b^eyark^etē has^efināh vayērādēm, “but he lay down in the back of the boat and slept soundly”), imitating the wording of Jonah as closely as possible while remaining true to the physical realities of a small fishing vessel. Such a statement might have been translated as καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν (kai avtos ekoimēthē en tē prūmnē kai ekathevden), by which the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua meant, “and he lay in the stern and slept,” but which the author of Mark might have understood as “and he slept in the stern and slept,” since the verb κοιμᾶν (koiman) can mean both “to lie down” and “to sleep.” Regarding the first sleeping verb as redundant, the author of Mark could easily have replaced ἐκοιμήθη (ekoimēthē, “he fell asleep”) with ἦν (ēn, “he was being”).

שָׁכַב בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה (HR). In LXX most instances of κοιμᾶν (koiman, “to lie down,” “to sleep”) occur as the translation of שָׁכַב (shāchav, “lie down”).^[101] We also find that the LXX translators rendered שָׁכַב more often as κοιμᾶν than as any other verb.^[102]

The noun πρύμνα (prūmna, “stern”) does not occur in LXX. As we noted above, the LXX translators rendered the phrase יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה in Jonah 1:5 as ἡ κοίλη τοῦ πλοίου (hē koilē tou ploiou, “the belly of the boat”), but πρύμνα might be regarded as a less literalistic translation of יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה. The use of the noun יַרְכָתַיִם (yarchātayim, “furthest parts”) in a construct phrase with the sense of “back of the __” is well attested in the Hebrew Scriptures, for instance:

וּלְיַרְכְּתֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן יָמָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה קְרָשִׁים

And for the back of the tabernacle [יַרְכְּתֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן] to the west you must make six frames. (Exod. 26:22)

וְדָוִד וַאֲנָשָׁיו בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַמְּעָרָה יֹשְׁבִים

…but David and his men were sitting in the back of the cave [יַרְכְּתֵי הַמְּעָרָה]. (1 Sam. 24:4)

Whereas in Jonah 1:5 יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה means “deep inside the ship,” i.e., “below deck,” in Quieting a Storm יַרְכְּתֵי הַסְּפִינָה would mean “at the back of the boat.”

L29 ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον (Mark 4:38). The portrayal of Jesus asleep at the stern has a strong parallel in the story of Jonah, where the prophet sleeps below deck despite the raging of the storm. The detail about Jesus’ pillow, on the other hand, has no parallel in the story of Jonah. This peculiar detail is also conspicuously absent in the parallel versions of Quieting a Storm in Matthew and Luke. While some scholars have regarded the mention of Jesus’ pillow as proof that Mark’s story is derived from an eyewitness account,^[103] it is equally plausible that the author of Mark added the pillow reference in order to make the scene more vivid.^[104]

The Lukan-Matthean agreement to omit the pillow reference in Quieting a Storm is not a guarantee that this detail was not derived from Anth. The author of Matthew had a strong incentive for dropping the pillow reference, despite seeing it in Mark. Having inserted into Quieting a Storm his version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, where Jesus declares that the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head,^[105] the author of Matthew would have been acutely aware of the jarring effect a reference to Jesus’ pillow would produce.^[106] Nevertheless, the absence of Jesus’ pillow in Luke as well as Matthew is suggestive. Moreover, the stacking up of prepositional phrases such as we find in Mark 4:38 (in the stern, on the pillow; L28-29) is typical of Markan redaction.^[107] Since the narrative loses none of its sense or cohesion without the pillow reference, and since the lack of a pillow reference in no way diminishes the similarity to the Jonah story, it is probably best to regard the pillow as a Markan editorial flourish.

L30 καὶ ἐκάθευδεν (GR). In Koine Greek the verb καθεύδειν (kathevdein, “to be asleep,” “to sleep”) occurred either in the present or imperfect tense, never in the aorist,^[108] so Matthew’s imperfect ἐκάθευδεν (ekathevden, “he was asleep”) is more Hebraic than Mark’s participle καθεύδων (kathevdōn, “sleeping”). A καί (kai, “and”) before Matthew’s verb would have been even more Hebraic, and we suspect that this conjunction probably was present in Anth. The author of Matthew would have omitted it along with the references to Jesus’ location in the stern (L28) and Jesus’ pillow (L29).

In LXX καθεύδειν (kathevdein, “to be asleep,” “to sleep”) usually occurs as the translation of שָׁכַב (shāchav, “lie down”) or, less often, יָשֵׁן (yāshēn, “sleep”).^[109] The two verbs for Jonah’s repose in Jonah 1:5 are שָׁכַב (shāchav) and נִרְדַּם (nirdam, “sleep soundly”). For reasons we discussed above (see Comment to L28), we think שָׁכַב fits better on L28. That leaves נִרְדַּם for HR in L30. Our reconstruction presupposes Quieting a Storm alludes to the Jonah story independently of LXX. The LXX translators rendered נִרְדַּם in Jonah 1:5 as ῥέγχειν (hrenchein, “to snore”).^[110]

L31 καὶ προσελθόντες (GR). Commentators on Matthew and Luke have frequently overlooked the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use the participle προσελθόντες (proselthontes, “approaching”) in L31. Instead of noting the agreement, these scholars attribute προσελθόντες in Matt. 8:25 and Luke 8:24 to Matthean and Lukan redaction, respectively.^[111] But apart from hypothesizing their use of a non-Markan pre-synoptic source, it is difficult to explain the agreement between the authors of Luke and Matthew to describe the disciples as “approaching” Jesus, since they were right there with him in the boat. It makes more sense to suppose that both authors relied for this detail on a common source. It appears that in describing the disciples’ approach that source echoed the story of Jonah, in which the captain approaches the prophet:

וַיִּקְרַב אֵלָיו רַב הַחֹבֵל וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מַה־לְּךָ נִרְדָּם

And the captain approached him and said to him, “How can you be sound asleep?” (Jonah 1:6)

καὶ προσῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ πρωρεὺς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Τί σὺ ῥέγχεις;

And the captain approached him and said to him, “Why are you snoring?” (Jonah 1:6)

Note that despite alluding to Jonah 1:6, the authors of Luke and Matthew avoided replicating LXX’s wording. Instead of writing καὶ προσῆλθον (kai prosēlthon, “and they approached”)—a plural form would in any case be required, because unlike Jonah 1:6, where the subject is singular (the captain), in Quieting a Storm the subject is plural (the disciples)—both evangelists wrote a combination of conjunction (καί/δέ) + participle (προσελθόντες). Since Matthew’s καὶ προσελθόντες (kai proselthontes, “and approaching”) is more Hebraic than Luke’s προσελθόντες δέ (proselthontes de, “but approaching”), we have adopted Matthew’s wording for GR.^[112]

וַיִּקְרְבוּ (HR). On reconstructing προσέρχεσθαι (proserchesthai, “to approach”) with קָרַב (qārav, “approach”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L13. In the present case our reconstruction is also supported by the presence of קָרַב in Jonah 1:6, to which Quieting a Storm here alludes.

L32 ἤγειραν αὐτὸν (GR). In the Synoptic Gospels the verb διεγείρειν (diegeirein, “to wake up”) is confined to the Lukan and Markan versions of Quieting a Storm.^[113] Since Mark depends on Luke, and Luke depends on FR, it is quite possible that all the instances of διεγείρειν in the Synoptic Gospels ultimately stem from the First Reconstructor’s polishing of Anth.’s Greek. Mark and Matthew agree against Luke in L32 by using the simple verb ἐγείρειν (egeirein, “to rouse”) instead of Luke’s compound cognate διεγείρειν, but whereas Mark has the historical present ἐγείρουσιν (egeirousin, “they rouse”), Matthew has the aorist ἤγειραν (ēgeiran, “they roused”). Since Matthew’s aorist is more Hebraic than Mark’s historical present, we have accepted Matthew’s wording in L32 for GR.

וַיָּעִירוּ אוֹתוֹ (HR). In LXX the verb ἐγείρειν more often occurs as the translation of הֵקִים (hēqim, “cause to stand,” “establish”) than of הֵעִיר (hē‘ir, “rouse,” “awaken”),^[114] and the LXX translators more often rendered הֵעִיר as ἐξεγείρειν (exegeirein, “to awaken”) than as ἐγείρειν.^[115] Nevertheless, there are several fine examples in which ἐγείρειν does serve as the equivalent of הֵעִיר, for instance:

הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם בִּצְבָאוֹת אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה אִם תָּעִירוּ וְאִם תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת־הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or wild does, if you rouse [אִם תָּעִירוּ] and if you awaken love until it so desires. (Song 2:7)

ὥρκισα ὑμᾶς, θυγατέρες Ιερουσαλημ, ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἰσχύσεσιν τοῦ ἀγροῦ, ἐὰν ἐγείρητε καὶ ἐξεγείρητε τὴν ἀγάπην, ἕως οὗ θελήσῃ

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and forces of the field, if you rouse [ἐγείρητε] and awaken love until it might desire. (Song 2:7; cf. Song 3:5; 8:4)^[116]

These examples give us confidence in our choice for HR.

On καί + participle + aorist as the translation equivalent of vav-consecutive + vav-consecutive, such as we have in GR/HR L31-32, see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1.

L33 λέγοντες (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement to write λέγοντες (legontes, “saying”) instead of Mark’s καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (kai legousin avtō, “and they say to him”) is another strong indication that the authors of Luke and Matthew bear witness to a pre-synoptic non-Markan source.

לֵאמֹר (HR). Our reconstruction with Biblical לֵאמֹר (lē’mor, “saying”) rather than Mishnaic לוֹמַר (lōmar, “saying”) reflects our general preference for reconstructing narrative in a biblicizing style of Hebrew.

L34 κύριε κύριε (GR). All three versions of Quieting a Storm have the disciples use some form of titular address in L34. Luke has the doubled ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα (epistata epistata, “Master! Master!”), Mark has διδάσκαλε (didaskale, “Teacher!”), and Matthew has κύριε (kūrie, “Lord!”). Since ἐπιστάτα is unique to Luke’s Gospel among the synoptics, we suspect that this form of address is due to the editorial activity of either the author of Luke or the First Reconstructor (or possibly both).^[117] Mark’s διδάσκαλε (“Teacher!”) was probably chosen to strengthen the connection between Quieting a Storm and the parables discourse in which Jesus taught in parables.^[118] Matthew’s κύριε (“Lord!”), on the other hand, may well come from Anth. It is notable that in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the disciples consistently address Jesus as “Lord”; it is only outsiders who refer to Jesus as “Teacher” or “Rabbi.”^[119] Mark’s Gospel is different, but the careful use of titles in Matthew and Luke may have its origin in Anth.

Strengthening our supposition that Anth. had κύριε in Quieting a Storm is the fact that on two occasions where Luke has ἐπιστάτα Matthew has κύριε (Luke 8:24 [∥ Matt. 8:25]; 9:33 [∥ Matt. 17:4]). In both of these instances there is Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark’s titular address.^[120] Since ἐπιστάτης (epistatēs, “commander,” “chief”) is a synonym of κύριος (kūrios, “lord”), the vocative ἐπιστάτα may be a Lukan or FR replacement for Anth.’s κύριε.^[121]

However, while we regard Matthew’s vocabulary in L34 as the most original, Luke’s doubling of the address may be traceable to Anth. The doubled vocative κύριε κύριε occurs once with Lukan-Matthean agreement in Double Tradition (Matt. 7:21 ∥ Luke 6:46), so we can be certain that this form of address occurred at least once in Anth.^[122] GR reflects our supposition that ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα represents the First Reconstructor’s substitution for κύριε κύριε in Anth.’s version of Quieting a Storm.

אֲדוֹנֵנוּ אֲדוֹנֵנוּ (HR). On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with אָדוֹן (’ādōn, “lord”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10.

While not reflected in the Greek text, we have added a pronominal suffix to אָדוֹן. Equivalents to the pronominal suffixes of addresses were frequently dropped by Greek translators. See Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L10.

On our preference for אֲדוֹנֵנוּ (’^adōnēnū, “our lord”) over אֲדֹנִי (’^adoni, “my lord”) for HR, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L5.

L35 οὐ μέλει σοι (Mark 4:38). The question the disciples pose to Jesus in Mark 4:38 is problematic whether we view it through the lens of Hebrew retroversion or plain common sense. Mark’s question, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα (ou melei soi hoti apollūmetha, “Are you not concerned that we are perishing?”), cannot be easily expressed in Hebrew, as the attempts of Delitzsch and Lindsey to translate Mark’s Greek to Hebrew demonstrate. Delitzsch rendered Mark’s question as הֲלֹא תִדְאַג לָנוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ אֹבְדִים (h^alo’ tid’ag lānū va’^anaḥnū ’ovdim, “Do you not have anxious thoughts for us, and we are dying?”), while Lindsey rendered Mark’s question as הַאֵינְךָ חָרֵד פֶּן נֹאבַד (ha’ēn^echā ḥārēd pen no’vad, “Are you not afraid lest we die?”).^[123] Neither translation is particularly close to the Greek text of Mark 4:38.

The difficulty with which Mark’s question reverts to Hebrew suggests that in L35-36 the author of Mark was not relying on a source with a Hebrew undertext like Anth. This impression finds confirmation in the fact that μέλειν (melein, “to be concerned”) is rare in LXX, a good indication that Hebrew did not have an equivalent to this verb.^[124] In the Synoptic Gospels μέλειν is rare too (Matt. 1x; Mark 2xx; Luke 1x),^[125] and this scarcity may be for the same reason: like LXX, μέλειν was rare (or non-existent) in the Hebraic-Greek sources behind Matthew, Mark and Luke because Hebrew has no verb that would normally be translated as μέλειν.

The question the disciples ask Jesus in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm also creates logical inconsistencies in the narrative. If Jesus had to be wakened from sleep, there was, of course, no way he could either know or care that he and the disciples were in peril.^[126] This irrational element in Mark’s story is absent in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the pericope. We have also found that the author of Mark had an editorial tendency to change statements into questions.^[127] Thus, while Mark’s source(s) (Luke [and probably also Anth.]) had the statement, “We are perishing!” (L36), the author of Mark transformed this declaration into a question, “Don’t you care that we’re perishing?” (L35-36).

Rather than reporting the actual words of the disciples, it seems the author of Mark used the disciples to voice the concerns of his own audience.^[128] For Mark’s readers, the trauma his community had experienced during the siege of Jerusalem and in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction remained a palpable memory (Mark 13:19).^[129] The Markan community continued to face troubles from within and without (Mark 13:21-22), and it expected the imminent return of the Son of Man to deliver its elect members from the present crisis (Mark 13:26-27). The members of this community believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that as the Son of Man, exalted on high, Jesus would at any moment come with the angels to save the elect from peril. But any delay of that rescue must have felt to the frightened members of the Markan community, or at least to the weak-hearted among them, like incomprehensible neglect. If the Son of Man could save them at any time, why did he not rescue them now?^[130] The author of Mark placed these concerns on the lips of the disciples in Quieting a Storm with the question “Don’t you care that we’re dying?” and crafted the narrative in such a way as to provide his readers with reassurance (Jesus does calm the storm eventually) while also adding a corrective to their faithless attitude (“Why are you cowardly?”; L48).

The disciples’ question in L35-36 creates another irrational element in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm that does not emerge until the story progresses. Whereas the disciples’ question implies that Jesus was able to do something but appeared, for some reason, to be reluctant to do it, the disciples’ surprised reaction to Jesus’ quieting of the storm implies they had no such expectation of Jesus.^[131] This irrational element is amplified in Matthew’s version—the disciples approach Jesus not with a question but with a prayer for deliverance—but it is absent in Luke. In Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm the disciples simply inform Jesus that they all are in trouble, and when Jesus miraculously dispels that trouble the disciples are understandably amazed.

We think it is more likely that the irrational elements in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm are the product of secondary redaction by an editor who was not fully conscious of (or concerned about) the problems he created in the narrative than that Quieting a Storm had always been an irrational story from its inception. We believe Luke’s more coherent narrative is closer, in this regard, to the original.

Needless to say, if the disciples’ question in Mark 4:38 is the product of the author of Mark’s editorial craft, it has no place in GR or HR.

σῶσον (Matt. 8:25). The author of Matthew’s conversion of the disciples’ question in Mark into a prayer^[132] transforms the disciples’ negative example in Mark into a positive model for the readers of Matthew to follow.^[133] But as we noted in the preceding paragraphs, this change only amplifies the cognitive dissonance between the disciples’ confidence in Jesus’ ability to quiet the storm when they approach him and their shock at his ability to quiet the storm after Jesus has answered their prayer.^[134] Adding to the impression that σῶσον (sōson, “Save!”) is redactional is the fact that the prayer is repeated with slight variation in Matthew’s version of Walking on Water (κύριε, σῶσόν με [kūrie, sōson me, “Lord! Save me!”; Matt. 14:30]), but this prayer does not appear in Mark’s version of Walking on Water, which was Matthew’s source for this pericope. The petition σῶσον (“Save!”) occurs only on these two occasions in Matthew, but never in Mark or Luke.^[135] It may be, as some scholars have suggested, that in Matthew’s prayer we hear an echo of the liturgy recited in the Matthean churches.^[136]

L36 ἀπολλύμεθα (GR). All three versions of Quieting a Storm have the same form of the verb ἀπολλύειν (apollūein, “to lose,” “to destroy”) in L36. Mark 4:38 has the conjunction ὅτι (hoti, “that”) before the verb because he has transformed the disciples’ statement into a question (see above, Comment to L35). Luke and Matthew are in agreement against Mark in having the disciples make a declaration rather than pose a question. Consequently, ὅτι is absent in Luke and Matthew and has been excluded from GR.

נֹאבֵד (HR). On reconstructing ἀπολλύειν (apollūein, “to lose,” “to destroy”) with אָבַד (’āvad, “lose,” “destroy”), see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L13. Our choice for HR is reinforced by the story of Jonah, where the captain asks the prophet to call upon his God, reasoning that:

אוּלַי יִתְעַשֵּׁת הָאֱלֹהִים לָנוּ וְלֹא נֹאבֵד

Perhaps God will think of us and we will not perish [נֹאבֵד]. (Jonah 1:6)

ὅπως διασώσῃ ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ μὴ ἀπολώμεθα

So that God might rescue us and we might not perish [ἀπολώμεθα]. (Jonah 1:6)

Note that while the Gospels use the same verb for “to perish” as LXX, the Gospels have ἀπολλύειν in the indicative mood whereas LXX has ἀπολλύειν in the subjunctive.

Meier contemplated the possibility that in a pre-Markan version of Quieting a Storm it was simply stated that the disciples wakened Jesus without reporting what they said,^[137] but in our estimation the parallel with the Jonah story makes it more likely that “We are perishing!” is an original component of the pericope.

L37-39 Whereas in Mark and Luke Jesus first quiets the storm and then speaks to his disciples, in Matthew Jesus speaks to his disciples before quieting the storm.^[138] Neither order is necessarily more logical than the other. If, upon waking, Jesus realized that the disciples’ concerns were overblown, he could have taken a moment to chastise the disciples for their lack of faith before rebuking the storm. On the other hand, if upon waking Jesus realized that there was immediate danger of the boat sinking or capsizing, he could have dealt with the storm before chastising his disciples. Therefore, it is not the logical sequence that leads us to prefer the Lukan-Markan order of events over Matthew’s but the numerous signs of Matthean redaction in Matt. 8:26 (see below, Comment to L37, Comment to L39 and Comment to L40) that suggest that the sequence in Matthew is due to the author of Matthew’s editorial activity.

L37 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς (Matt. 8:26). The author of Matthew replaced the aorist tense εἶπεν (eipen, “he said”) in Mark and Luke (L47) with the historical present tense λέγει (legei, “he says”). Since the historical present is both un-Hebraic and typical of Matthean redaction, we may safely conclude that Matthew’s λέγει in L37 is not a reflection of Anth.

L38 τί δειλοί ἐστε (Matt. 8:26). In L38 the author of Matthew reproduces Mark’s question in L48 (“Why are you cowardly?”) word for word.

L39 ὀλιγόπιστοι (Matt. 8:26). In L39, however, the author of Matthew conflated Mark’s second question (“Do you not yet have faith?”; L49) into the first by addressing it to the ὀλιγόπιστοι (oligopistoi, “small believers,” i.e., “those with little faith”).^[139] The conflation involves a slight change in meaning. Mark’s question implies that the disciples have the potential for faith but have not gained it yet. Matthew’s ὀλιγόπιστοι implies that the disciples already have some faith, but the little faith they have does not measure up.

Nevertheless, it is hard to understand in what way the disciples’ faith can be characterized as deficient.^[140] According to Matthew, the disciples were in no doubt that Jesus could save them from the storm, which is why they addressed their prayer to him. This logical inconsistency in Matthew’s version of Quieting a Storm is probably the result of insufficiently thoughtful redaction.^[141]

Matthean redaction is likely indicated by the very use of the term ὀλιγόπιστος (oligopistos, “small believer”) in L39. While the occurrence of ὀλιγόπιστος in both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry (L43) shows that ὀλιγόπιστος certainly did occur in Anth., it appears that the author of Matthew latched onto this term and proliferated its use elsewhere in his Gospel.^[142] Aside from Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry and Quieting a Storm, the term ὀλιγόπιστος also occurs in the Matthean versions of Walking on Water (Matt. 14:31) and Warning About Leaven (Matt. 16:8). Since ὀλιγόπιστος does not occur in the Markan versions of either of these two latter pericopae, and since both are of Markan composition, the presence of ὀλιγόπιστος in the Matthean versions must be redactional.^[143] As such, ὀλιγόπιστος may be considered a “Matthean stereotype,” akin to the “Markan stereotypes” Lindsey identified as so typical of Markan redaction. The redactional use of ὀλιγόπιστος elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel combined with the highly redactional nature of Matt. 8:26 strongly support our exclusion of Matthew’s wording in L39 from GR.

L40 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς (GR). Not only is τότε (tote, “then”) a typically Matthean redactional term,^[144] the insertion of τότε in L40 helps facilitate the Matthean transposition of Jesus addresses storm→Jesus addresses disciples in Mark and Luke to Jesus addresses disciples→Jesus addresses storm, so the likelihood that Matthew’s τότε in L40 is redactional is extremely high.^[145] Probably Anth., like Mark, had the conjunction καί (kai, “and”).

While Matthew’s τότε (tote, “then”) is almost certainly redactional, Matthew’s participle ἐγερθείς (egertheis, “being roused,” “waking up”) may well stem from Anth. As we noted above in Comment to L32, the compound verb διεγείρειν (diegeirein, “to wake up”) may be a product of the First Reconstructor’s redaction, and if that was the case in L32, it is probably also the case here in L40. In L32 we accepted Matthew’s simple verb ἐγείρειν (egeirein, “to rouse,” “to wake up”) for GR. It appears that in L40 we should do the same.

וַיֵּעוֹר (HR). We considered three options for reconstructing ἐγείρειν in L40. In Jonah 1:6 the prophet is urged to get up and call to his god. In Hebrew the imperative is קוּם (qūm, “Arise!”), which the LXX translators rendered as ἀνάστα (anasta, “Arise!”). If an echo of Jonah was intended in L40, we could therefore adopt וַיָּקָם (vayāqom, “And he arose”) for HR.

Another option for HR is וַיַּעֲמֹד (vaya‘^amod, “and he stood”). Reconstructing ἐγείρειν with עָמַד (‘āmad, “stand”) would allow for a pleasing symmetry between the storm’s rising up to sink the passengers in the boat (L22) and Jesus’ rising up to rebuke the storm. A rabbinic story about Rabban Gamliel’s behavior in a storm also provides support for adopting עָמַד for HR:

ואף ר″ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו אמר כמדומה לי שאין זה אלא בשביל ר″א בן הורקנוס עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל נח הים מזעפו

And also [on that day, when Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus received notification of his excommunication by Rabban Gamliel—DNB and JNT] Rabban Gamliel was sailing in a boat. A gale rose against him to sink him. He said, “It seems to me as if this is nothing other than on Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus’ account!” He stood [עָמַד] on his feet and said, “Master of the universe! It is revealed and known before you that it was not for my honor that I acted [i.e., in excommunicating Rabbi Eliezer—DNB and JNT], and it was not for the honor of my father’s house that I acted, but for your honor so that controversies would not increase in Israel.” The sea rested from its storming. (b. Bab. Metz. 59b)

It may be doubted whether this story describes the same storm in which Rabban Gamliel’s disciples asked him to pray for deliverance from a storm. In that story Rabban Gamliel is accompanied by disciples, while in this story no disciples are mentioned. And while Rabban Gamliel’s prayer in the other account is “Our God, have mercy on us,” which he then changes to “My God, have mercy on us,” here Rabban Gamliel confesses that the storm has come upon him on account of his behavior toward Rabbi Eliezer, but he defends his action by claiming that what he did to Rabbi Eliezer was done not for his personal advancement but for Israel’s sake and to preserve the reputation of the Almighty. In any case, Jesus’ standing up to rebuke the storm would parallel Rabban Gamliel’s standing to pray in the face of a storm.

Similarly, in a version of the story of the precocious Jewish youth, the youth stands up to offer his prayer for deliverance:

אמר רבי תנחומא מעשה בספינה אחת של עכו″ם שהיתה פורשת מים הגדול והיה בה תינוק אחד יהודי עמד עליהם סער גדול בים ועמד כל אחד ואחד מהם והתחיל נוטל יראתו בידו וקורא ולא הועיל כלום כיון שראו שלא הועילו כלום אמרו לאותו יהודי בני קום קרא אל אלהיך ששמענו שהוא עונה אתכם כשאתם צועקים אליו והוא גבור מיד עמד התינוק בכל לבו וצעק וקיבל ממנו הקב″ה תפלתו ושתק הים

Rabbi Tanhuma told an anecdote concerning a certain boat of the idolators that was crossing the great sea, and in it was a certain Jewish child. A great storm arose against them in the sea, and every one of them stood and began to take his revered object in his hands and cry out, but it availed nothing. As soon as they saw it availed nothing, they said to that Jew, “My son, arise, cry out to your god [cf. Jonah 1:6] that he might hear us, for he answers you when you cry out to him, and he is mighty.” Immediately the child stood [עָמַד] and cried out with all his heart. And the Holy One accepted his prayer and the sea became quiet. (y. Ber. 9:1 [63b])

Despite the attractiveness of adopting either וַיָּקָם or וַיַּעֲמֹד for HR, neither of these reconstructions can explain the passive voice of the participle ἐγερθείς (egertheis, “being roused”). Moreover, it is preferable, whenever possible, to reconstruct the same Greek verb with the same Hebrew verb in the same pericope. In L32 we reconstructed ἐγείρειν with a verb formed from the ע-ו-ר root. There the Greek verb was active, and we used a form of ע-ו-ר in the hif‘il stem. Here the Greek participle is passive, and it just so happens that ע-ו-ר in the passive nif‘al stem means “wake up.” Thus, we have settled on וַיֵּעוֹר (vayē‘ōr, “and he woke”) as the best option for HR.

L41 ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις (GR). All three evangelists agree on the wording of L41 except that whereas Luke and Mark refer to the “wind” in the singular, Matthew refers to the “winds” in the plural. Matthew’s plural in L41 agrees with the plural in L56 where there is Lukan-Matthean agreement to write “winds” (plural) against Mark’s “wind” (singular). Since the Lukan-Matthean agreement in L56 indicates that “winds” appeared there in Anth., it seems likely that Matthew’s plural in L41 comes from Anth. too.

וַיִּגְעַר בָּרוּחוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἐπιτιμᾶν (epitiman, “to rebuke”) with גָּעַר (gā‘ar, “rebuke”), see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L18.

On reconstructing ἄνεμος (anemos, “wind”) with רוּחַ (rūaḥ, “wind,” “spirit”), see Yeshua’s Words about Yohanan the Immerser, Comment to L9. While there is no particular reason why “wind” should be plural in Greek, when paired with “water” in Hebrew a plural form of רוּחַ creates balance, since מַיִם (mayim, “water”) is always plural. On our reasons for adopting מַיִם for HR in L42, see Comment to L42 below.

Scholars often note that the vocabulary used in Quieting a Storm to describe Jesus’ rebuke of the elements is the same as that which is used in exorcism narratives.^[146] One such lexical item is ἐπιτιμᾶν (“to rebuke”), since Jesus is often said to “rebuke” demons or evil spirits (Matt. 17:18; Mark 1:25; 9:25; Luke 4:35, 41; 9:42). Our Hebrew reconstruction in L41 only enhances this impression, for unlike ἄνεμος, which simply means “wind,” רוּחַ can refer either to wind or to spirits, good and evil. Indeed, had the words וַיִּגְעַר בָּרוּחוֹת (vayig‘ar bārūḥōt) been discovered on a manuscript fragment from Qumran, the fragment might well have been judged to belong to an exorcism text, since out of context וַיִּגְעַר בָּרוּחוֹת could mean “and he rebuked the spirits.”

Joosten has shown that in Aramaic verbs formed from the ג-ע-ר root acquired the technical sense of “exorcise.”^[147] We cannot say with certainty that a parallel development did not take place in post-Biblical Hebrew, but no such usage is attested. On the other hand, the broader usage in Biblical Hebrew of גָּעַר for rebuking persons, natural phenomena and inanimate objects is well represented in Mishnaic Hebrew.^[148] So far as we are aware, גָּעַר never occurs in Hebrew sources in the context of exorcism.^[149] Thus, the use of גָּעַר in Quieting a Storm neither implies nor suggests that Jesus rebuked supposed demonic forces that controlled or manifested as the storm.^[150]

L42 καὶ τῷ ὕδατι (GR). Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm stands alone in having Jesus rebuke the wind and speak to the sea. In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Jesus rebukes both entities. The author of Mark’s insertion of εἶπεν (eipen, “he said”) in L42 paves the way for him to include the words of Jesus’ commands (“Be quiet! Be silent!”) in L43. Since these words of command are likely a Markan addition (see below, Comment to L43), it is likely that “he said” in L42, which prepares for the speech, is redactional too.

Whereas Mark and Matthew have Jesus address the sea, Luke has Jesus rebuke “the waves of the water.” Some scholars suggest that “the waves of the water” is due to the author of Luke’s avoidance of the term θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”) in reference to the Lake of Gennesar,^[151] but if Anth. had read θάλασσα in L42, we would have expected the First Reconstructor to have written λίμνη (limnē, “lake”) (see above, Comment to L16).

Rather than assume that θάλασσα in L42 is original, we must reckon with the possibility that the author of Mark wrote θάλασσα in order to recall scriptural passages in which God displays his supremacy over the sea (cf. Nah. 1:4 [ἀπειλῶν θαλάσσῃ ⟨“threatening the sea”⟩]; Ps. 105:9 [ἐπετίμησεν τῇ ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ ⟨“he rebuked the Red Sea”⟩]). The evocation of scriptures such as these would be a clue to Mark’s readers as to how they should answer the question “Who is this that even the wind and the sea obey him?” with which the pericope ends. It is difficult to believe that the author of Luke or the First Reconstructor would have wanted to suppress such a clue had it been present in their sources.

Our reasons for doubting the originality of “sea” in L42 notwithstanding, it would be facile to accept Luke’s wording uncritically. Two points about Luke’s τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος (tō klūdōni tou hūdatos, “to the waves of the water”) must be observed. First, “waves of water” is formulated in a similar manner to λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου (lailaps anemou, “storm of wind”) in Luke 8:23, which we attributed to the First Reconstructor’s redaction (see above, Comment to L21). Second, in Luke 8:25 the disciples remark that Jesus “commands the winds and the water” (L56-57) and they obey him. “The winds and the water” Jesus commands correspond to “the wind and the waves of the water” Jesus rebukes in Luke 8:24 (L41-42). These observations lead us to suspect that “the waves of the water” in L42 was formulated by the First Reconstructor and that τῷ ὕδατι (tō hūdati, “to the water”) was the reading of Anth. If our reconstruction is correct, then Jesus rebuked neither the storm nor the sea but the raging elements—wind and water—that threatened the boat’s passengers.

וּבַמַּיִם (HR). On reconstructing ὕδωρ (hūdōr, “water”) with מַיִם (mayim, “water”), see Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse, Comment to L9.

L43 σιώπα πεφείμωσο (Mark 4:39). The actual words of Jesus’ rebuke are reported only in Mark and there is good reason for regarding them as redactional. The verb σιωπᾶν (siōpan, “to be silent”) occurs with higher frequency in Mark as compared to Matthew or Luke, and there are three instances of Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark’s use of this verb.^[152] All of this suggests that σιωπᾶν in Mark is the product of Markan editorial activity. The verb φιμοῦν (fimoun, “to muzzle,” “to put to silence”) is relatively rare in the Synoptic Gospels and there is only one instance of agreement on its use (Mark 1:25 ∥ Luke 4:35).^[153] The similarity between Mark 1:25 (∥ Luke 4:35) and Mark 4:39 is strong,^[154] giving the impression that the author of Mark imported language from Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Mark 1:21-28 ∥ Luke 4:31-37) to dramatize his version of Quieting a Storm. The affinity between the two verses is best demonstrated by displaying them in parallel columns:

Mark 1:25	Mark 4:39
καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ.	καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· σιώπα, πεφίμωσο.
And Jesus rebuked him saying, “Be silenced! And come out of him!”	And waking he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Be quiet! Be silenced!”

The author of Mark’s redactional activity in L43 increases the similarity of Quieting a Storm to exorcism narratives. Perhaps the author of Mark did think of the storm as a demonic force, or perhaps his redactional changes only give that impression.^[155] We suspect that the latter scenario is more probable and that the similarity between the disciples’ question in Quieting a Storm and the congregation’s question in Teaching in Kefar Nahum stimulated the author of Mark’s redactional additions in L43. The table below shows the similarity between the questions in Quieting a Storm and Teaching in Kefar Nahum:

Quieting a Storm	Teaching in Kefar Nahum
Luke 8:25 τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ;	Luke 4:36 τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται;
Who, then, is this, that even the winds he commands and the water, and they listen to him?	What word is this, that in authority and power he commands the impure spirits, and they come out?
Mark 4:41 τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ	Mark 1:27 τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ̓ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασιν τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
Who, then, is this, that even the wind and the sea listens to him?	What is this? A new teaching with authority! Even the impure spirits he commands, and they listen to him!

In the table above the points of similarity between Luke’s versions of Quieting a Storm and Teaching in Kefar Nahum are marked in blue. Any of the similarities that are present in both of Luke’s versions of Quieting a Storm and Teaching in Kefar Nahum that are present in either of Mark’s versions of these pericopae are also marked in blue. Pink markings indicate elements that are only present in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm but are found in both versions of Quieting a Storm and Teaching in Kefar Nahum in Mark. From this table we can see that the responses of the disciples in Quieting a Storm and of the congregants in Teaching in Kefar Nahum are more similar to one another in Luke than in Mark. In Luke the entire response of the disciples and of the congregants is a question, whereas in Mark the congregants respond with a question followed by two exclamations. In Luke the question of the disciples and the congregants concerns bewilderment at “this” because Jesus “commands” “and” the recipients of the command comply. In Mark, however, the disciples do not mention Jesus’ command, and in both Quieting a Storm and Teaching in Kefar Nahum the emphasis is on how “even” hostile forces “listen to” Jesus. The pink markings in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm are unremarkable, since they are in agreement with Luke. But the presence of pink markings in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum suggests that a degree of cross-pollination took place as the author of Mark attempted to draw out the similarities between the reactions of the disciples in Quieting a Storm and of the congregants in Teaching in Kefar Nahum. In other words, just as the author of Mark was influenced by Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum when redacting Quieting a Storm, so the author of Mark was influenced by Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm while redacting Teaching in Kefar Nahum.^[156]

In any case, having deemed the words of command the author of Mark attributed to Jesus in L43 to be secondary,^[157] we have excluded them from GR and HR.^[158]

L44 καὶ ἐπαύσατο [ἡ θάλασσα (GR). The numerous allusions to the Jonah story elsewhere in Quieting a Storm would lead us to expect an echo of Jonah 1:15 in L44. Jonah 1:15 describes the abatement of the storm as follows:

וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֶת יוֹנָה וַיְטִלֻהוּ אֶל הַיָּם וַיַּעֲמֹד הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ

And they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased [lit., “stood”] from its raging. (Jonah 1:15)

καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν Ιωναν καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ἔστη ἡ θάλασσα ἐκ τοῦ σάλου αὐτῆς.

And they took Jonah and threw him out into the sea, and the sea ceased [lit., “stood”] from its surging. (Jonah 1:15)

Instead of an echo of this verse in Luke 8:24, we find καὶ ἐπαύσαντο (kai epavsanto, “and they [i.e., the wind and the waves of water] paused”), and in Mark we find καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος (kai ekopasen ho anemos, “and the wind abated”). Matthew 8:26 has no parallel to these words in Mark and Luke.

We think it is likely that an echo of Jonah 1:15 was present in Anth. and that this allusion was unintentionally obscured by the First Reconstructor’s epitomizing approach and further suppressed by Mark’s editorial activity. How did this take place? As we have seen, the First Reconstructor avoided the use of θάλασσα (“sea”) in reference to the Lake of Gennesar. While the First Reconstructor could have substituted λίμνη (“lake”) for θάλασσα in L44 as he did in L16 and L22, he realized that he could just as easily omit θάλασσα in L44 (and what we suspect followed in L45) if he changed the singular verb ἐπαύσατο (epavsato, “it paused”) to the plural ἐπαύσαντο (epavsanto, “they paused”). Having been made plural, the antecedent of ἐπαύσαντο now became the wind and waves of water mentioned in L41-42. These changes allowed the First Reconstructor to achieve two objectives at once: 1) avoid “sea” in reference to the lake, and 2) economize the space taken up by the narrative.

Presumably the author of Mark would have seen “the sea” in Anth., but he chose to describe the abatement of “the wind” instead.^[159] Why did he do this? Because by doing so he was able to achieve a clearer cause-and-effect relationship between Jesus’ speech acts and their results. The symmetry becomes clear when we place the cause and effect sections of Mark 4:39 in parallel columns:

Cause	Effect
…he rebuked the wind	And the wind abated
and he said to the sea, “Be quiet! Be silenced!”	and there was a great calm [i.e., upon the sea].

While we cannot be certain that Anth. echoed Jonah 1:15 in L44-45, it is a reasonable conjecture, and as we have shown, it is not difficult to imagine how and why the echo came to be erased. Nevertheless, because there is no way of proving our hypothesis we have placed “the sea” in L44 in brackets, and in L45 we have placed “from its raging” in double brackets as an indication of our uncertainty. As an alternative, we could simply accept Luke’s καὶ ἐπαύσαντο (“and they paused”) for GR on the assumption that there was no allusion to Jonah 1:15 in Quieting a Storm.

וַיָּנַח [הַיָּם (HR). In Jonah 1:15 the verb for the cessation of the sea’s raging is עָמַד (‘āmad, “stand”), but given our reconstruction with עָמַד in L22 for the rising of the storm, עָמַד would sit awkwardly in L44 for the storm’s abatement. Evidently the same awkwardness was felt by those who composed the rabbinic accounts of storms at sea, and so we sometimes find וַיַּעֲמֹד הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ (vaya‘^amod hayām miza‘pō, “and the sea ceased from its raging”; Jonah 1:15) paraphrased as נָח הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ (nāḥ hayām miza‘pō, “and the sea rested from its raging”):

ואף ר″ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו…נח הים מזעפו

And also [on that day] Rabban Gamliel was going in a boat. A gale rose [עָמַד] against him to sink him. …The sea relented from its storming [נָח הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ]. (b. Bab. Metz. 59b)

כשהלך ניקנור להביא דלתות מאלכסנדריא של מצרים בחזירתו עמד עליו נחשול שבים לטבעו נטלו אחת מהן והטילוה לים ועדיין לא נח הים מזעפו בקשו להטיל את חברתה עמד הוא וכרכה אמר להם הטילוני עמה מיד נח הים מזעפו

As Nicanor was traveling to bring the doors from Alexandria in Egypt and he was on his way back a gale of the sea arose [עָמַד] against him to sink him. They took one of them [i.e., Nicanor’s doors—DNB and JNT] and threw it in the sea, but still the sea did not relent from its storming [לֹא נָח הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ]. They sought to throw its double, but he stood and clung to it. He said to them, “Throw me over with it.” Immediately the sea relented from its storming [נָח הַיָּם מִזַּעְפּוֹ]. (b. Yom. 38a)

In both of the above examples the allusion to Jonah 1:15 is clear despite the use of the verb נָח (nāḥ, “rest”) instead of עָמַד.^[160] We believe נָח is a suitable reconstruction for παύειν (pavein, “to pause”) even though the LXX translators never rendered נָח with παύειν.^[161] While it is true that παύειν occurs 3xx in Luke (5:4; 8:24; 11:1) but never in the Gospels of Mark or Matthew,^[162] the instances of παύειν in Luke 5:4 and Luke 11:1^[163] are so Hebraic there is no reason to doubt that παύειν could occur in Anth.^[164]

On reconstructing θάλασσα (thalassa, “sea”) with יָם (yām, “large body of water”), see above, Comment to L16.

If our alternative for GR, καὶ ἐπαύσαντο (“and they paused”), be deemed preferable, then our best option for HR would be וַיָּנוּחוּ (vayānūḥū, “and they rested”).

L45 ⟨ἀπὸ κλύδωνος αὐτῆς⟩] (GR). In Jonah 1:15 and in the rabbinic storm narratives cited in the previous comment, the sea stops or rests “from its raging.” We think it is likely, but less certain, that in addition to the mention in L44 of “the sea,” something corresponding to “from its raging” appeared at L45 in Anth. Nevertheless, our increased uncertainty is indicated by the double brackets in L45. In LXX “from its raging” in Jonah 1:15 is expressed as ἐκ τοῦ σάλου αὐτῆς (ek tou salou avtēs, “from its surging”), a viable option for GR. But since we do not think the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua made reference to the LXX translation of Jonah while translating Quieting a Storm, we have not adopted ἐκ τοῦ σάλου αὐτῆς for GR.

For the preposition we have chosen ἀπό (apo, “from”) rather than ἐκ (ek, “from”), noting that the verb παύειν (“to pause”) is more often followed by ἀπό in LXX than by ἐκ.^[165] From this it seems that a Greek translator might be more likely to gravitate toward ἀπό than ἐκ when using the verb παύειν.

For an equivalent to “raging” we have adopted κλύδων (klūdōn, “wave,” “rough water,” “splashing”), noting that κλύδων appears in Luke 8:24 (L42). In L42 we attributed κλύδων in the phrase τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος (tō klūdōni tou hūdatos, “to the waves of the water”) to the First Reconstructor’s redactional activity, but it could be that he chose κλύδων in L42 because he saw this noun in Anth. at L45.

The possessive pronoun αὐτῆς (avtēs, “of her”) is, of course, the same as in LXX, since the antecedent, ἡ θάλασσα (hē thalassa, “the sea”), is also the same.

[⟨מִזַּעְפּוֹ⟩ (HR). The phrase מִזַּעְפּוֹ (miza‘pō, “from its raging”) is taken directly from Jonah 1:15. The noun זַעַף (za‘af, “raging,” “anger”) is biblical, but it remained current in Mishnaic Hebrew as well, occurring, for example, in the famous story of Honi the Circle-maker’s prayer for rain:

נִּשְׁבַּע אֲנִי בִשְׁמָךְ הַגָּדּוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִיכָּן עַל שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ הִתְחִילוּ הַגְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִים אָמַ′ לֹא כָךְ שַׁאַלְתִּי אֶלָּא גִשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִים וּמְעָרוֹת יָרְדוּ בְזַעַף אָמַ′ לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶלָּא גִשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה יָרְדוּ כְתִיקְנָן עַד שֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵ′ מִירוּשָׁ′ לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים

“…I swear by your great name that I am not moving from here until you have mercy on your children.” The rains began dripping. He said, “I did not ask for this, but for rains for filling cisterns, ditches and caverns.” They came down in a rage [בְזַעַף]. He said, “I did not ask for this, but for rains of good will, blessing and graciousness.” They came down accordingly until Israel went up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rains. (m. Taan. 3:8)

As in Jonah, זַעַף in the story of Honi occurs in a meteorological sense.

L46 καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη (GR). Although the story of Jonah does not have a statement corresponding to “and there was a great calm,” Jonah is filled with phrases like הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה (hā‘ir hag^edōlāh, “the great city”; Jonah 1:2), רוּחַ גְּדוֹלָה (rūaḥ g^edōlāh, “a great wind”; Jonah 1:4), סַעַר גָּדוֹל (sa‘ar gādōl, “a great storm”; Jonah 1:4, 12), יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה (yir’āh g^edōlāh, “a great fear”; Jonah 1:10, 16) and דָּג גָּדוֹל (dāg gādōl, “a great fish”; Jonah 2:1), so the “great calm” in L46 is certainly Jonah-esque. For that reason we are inclined to accept the Markan and Matthean inclusion of μεγάλη (megalē, “big,” “great”) following γαλήνη (galēnē, “calm”) in Mark 4:39 and Matt. 8:26 as coming from Anth. The adjective easily could have been omitted by the epitomizing First Reconstructor.

וַיְהִי שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל (HR). Since the noun γαλήνη (“calm”) does not occur in LXX, and since there is no equivalent to “a great calm” in the book of Jonah, reconstructing γαλήνη poses a challenge. Many Hebrew translators of Quieting a Storm have opted for דְּמָמָה (d^emāmāh, “silence”) as the equivalent of γαλήνη,^[166] a decision that probably rests on Psalm 107, where we read:

יָקֵם סְעָרָה לִדְמָמָה וַיֶּחֱשׁוּ גַּלֵּיהֶם

He makes a storm into a calm [לִדְמָמָה], and their waves are hushed. (Ps. 107:29; cf. 1QH^a XIII, 18)

But we find no instances of דְּמָמָה גְּדוֹלָה (d^emāmāh g^edōlāh, “great silence”), which the Jonah-esque wording would lead us to expect, in MT, DSS or rabbinic sources.^[167] We have therefore adopted the phrase שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל (shālōm gādōl, “great peace”) for HR, since this phrase is attested in rabbinic literature, for instance:

ר′ לעזר בי ר′ יוסה מניין שהצדקה וגמלות חדסים שלום גדול ופרקליט גדול בין ישראל לאביהם שבשמים

Rabbi Liezer in the name of Rabbi Yose [asked], “Whence [do we know] that almsgiving and acts of benevolence [produce] great peace [שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל] and a mighty intercessor between Israel and their Father in heaven?” (t. Peah 4:21 [Vienna MS]; cf. b. Bab. Bat. 10a)

The saying above is related to another rabbinic saying, which might shed light on the former:

ר′ אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹ′ הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת קָנָה לוֹ פָרַקְלֵיט אֶחָד

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, “The one who performs one commandment has acquired for himself one intercessor.” (m. Avot 4:11)

If performing a commandment produces an advocate between the doer and the heavenly father, then one wonders whether the “great peace” that is produced when a person gives alms and does acts of benevolence refers to peaceable social relations. In other words, Rabbi Liezer could be saying that the benefits of charity are both vertical (between Israel and God) and horizontal (between neighbors). This insight is important because Quieting a Storm concerns both vertical and horizontal relationships. Jesus’ faith in God, the faith he encourages his disciples to exercise, brings peace on earth in the highly empirical sense of calming a storm.

Another example of שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל occurs in a midrash on Psalm 37, which relates the psalm to the story of Noah and the great flood. In it שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל has to do with the peace the faithful will enjoy on earth:

והתענגו על רוב שלום ומה רוב שלום היה להם, שהיו עמהם האריות והדובים והנמרים והזאבים והתנינים ונשרפים והעקרבים וכל חיות ושרצים נתונין עמהם בתיבה ולא הזיקו זה לזה, יש שלום גדול מזה, לכך נאמר והתענגו על רוב שלום

[And the meek will inherit the earth] and they will be delighted because of the abundance of peace [Ps. 37:11]. And what is the abundance of peace that they [i.e., Noah and his family—DNB and JNT] had? That with them were lions and bears and leopards and wolves and crocodiles and fiery serpents and scorpions. And all the wild beasts and swarming things were put with them in the ark, but one did not harm the other. There is greater peace [שָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל] than this, therefore it says, and they will be delighted because of the abundance of peace [Ps. 37:11]. (Aggadat Bereshit 10:3 [ed. Buber, 25])

Several panegyrics extolling the virtues of peace are also found in rabbinic sources.^[168] These proclaim גָּדוֹל שָׁלוֹם (gādōl shālōm, “Great is peace!”; var. גָּדוֹל הַשָּׁלוֹם). With examples such as these we can be certain that “a great peace” would not have sounded strange to first-century Hebrew speakers had it occurred in the conjectured Hebrew original of Quieting a Storm.

L47 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς (GR). All three versions of Quieting a Storm have some statement about Jesus speaking to the disciples. In Luke and Mark this statement occurs in L47, whereas in Matthew the statement is moved up to L37 (see above, Comment to L37-39). Of the three versions Matthew’s, with its historical present, is the least Hebraic. Mark’s version, with the conjunction καί, is slightly more Hebraic than Luke’s, with the conjunction δέ. We have therefore adopted Mark’s wording in L47 for HR. The First Reconstructor or the author of Luke easily could have replaced καί with δέ as a stylistic improvement to the wording of his source.

L48 τί δειλοί ἐστε (Mark 4:40). The question the author of Mark has Jesus ask the disciples in L48 is extremely harsh: “Why are you cowardly?”^[169] Just how harsh the question is becomes clear when it is compared to Revelation’s list of those who will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).^[170] The cowardly and the faithless appear at the top of that list, outstripping murderers, sexual transgressors and idolators, these three being the cardinal sins in Second Temple Judaism.^[171] In Revelation the “cowardly” are most likely those who have denied their faith under pressure or persecution, while the “faithless” are probably apostates, those who believed for a time and who, for one reason or another, lost interest and fell away.^[172] As we discussed above in Comment to L35, it appears the author of Mark revised Quieting a Storm to address the doubts and fears of his readers. Mark’s readers were tempted to ask whether Jesus cared about their suffering. Here, by having Jesus castigate the disciples with the charge of cowardice, the author of Mark warns his readers how dangerously close their doubts are bringing them to denial of their Lord and apostasy.^[173]

Since we do not believe that the question “Why are you cowardly?” represents Jesus’ actual words to his disciples, we have excluded Mark’s wording (which was taken over, somewhat jarringly, by the author of Matthew in L38) from GR and HR. In support of our view that Mark’s wording in L48 is redactional, we note that rapid-succession questions that leave no time for a response are a typical redactional feature of Mark’s Gospel.^[174] Since the second question Jesus puts to the disciples in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm has a parallel in Luke (Mark’s source), it must be the first question that is redactional.

Moreover, “Why are you cowardly?” belongs to a series of scathing questions aimed at the disciples that have no parallel in Luke, and only some of which were accepted by the author of Matthew. The table below shows Mark’s series of scathing questions and the synoptic parallels (if any):

Mark 4:13 “You do not know this parable? And how will you know all the parables?” TT (cf. Matt. 13:18; Luke 8:11) Four Soils Interpretation Mark 4:40 “Why are you cowardly?” TT = Matt. 8:26 (cf. Luke 8:25) Quieting a Storm Mark 7:18 Mk-Mt “Are even you so uncomprehending?” ≈ Matt. 15:16 True Source of Impurity Mark 8:17 Mk-Mt “Do you still not know or understand?” ≈ Matt. 16:9 Warning about Leaven Mark 8:17 Mk-Mt “Are your hearts hardened?” (cf. Matt. 16:9) Warning about Leaven Mark 8:21 Mk-Mt “Do you still not understand?” ≈ Matt. 16:11 Warning about Leaven Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope

Not one of these questions is likely to have come from Anth. They are all best attributed to the author of Mark, who, through Jesus’ chiding of his disciples, challenged his own audience to be attentive and perceptive to Jesus’ message.

L49 ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ (GR). The phrase ἔχειν πίστιν (echein pistin, “to have faith”) occurs in only two synoptic pericopae: Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm and all four versions (Matthew has two versions) of Faith Like a Mustard Seed. This coincidence is remarkable, since on other grounds we arrived at the conclusion that Faith Like a Mustard Seed was once the continuation of Quieting a Storm. According to Lindsey, it was the Anthologizer’s editorial practice to split apart stories from teaching, and teaching from parables. The Anthologizer then rearranged these smaller bits of material according to theme or genre. Thus, we would say that before the Anthologizer’s editorial activity these two pericopae, Quieting a Storm and Faith Like a Mustard Seed, were joined to one another. That being the case, we must take Mark’s “Do you not yet have faith?” very seriously.

In Faith Like a Mustard Seed the author of Mark replaced the conditional clause “If you have faith as a mustard seed” with the exhortation “Have faith in God.” We know the author of Mark made this change because there is a Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to write, “If you have faith as a mustard seed.” Where did Mark’s exhortation come from? He could, of course, have made it up on his own, but nowhere else in the Gospel of Mark is God the object of faith, so it would be surprising for Mark to make God the object of faith in Faith Like a Mustard Seed.^[175] We think the author of Mark transferred “Have faith in God” to Faith Like a Mustard Seed from its original setting in Quieting a Storm. Such transferrals are known to have taken place in other instances. For example, either the author of Luke or the First Reconstructor transferred the rich man’s question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (cf. Luke 18:18), to the scribe who, in Matthew and Mark, asks about the greatest commandment (Luke 10:25; cf. Matt. 22:36 ∥ Mark 12:28).^[176] The author of Mark would have felt free to make this transferral because in Quieting a Storm he replaced Anth.’s “Have faith in God” with a question, “Do you not yet have faith?” As we have seen elsewhere, the author of Mark sometimes changed statements into questions.^[177] Here the author of Mark would have been especially motivated to change Anth.’s exhortation into a question, since he could see that Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm had a question (“Where is your faith?”). Changing “Have faith in God” to “Do you not yet have faith?” would have been easier for the author of Mark to do in Greek than it is for us in English. The Greek exhortation is expressed as ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ (echete pistin theou, “Have faith in [lit., of] God”).^[178] All the author of Mark had to do was add οὔπω (oupō, “not yet”) before ἔχετε πίστιν (“have faith”)^[179] and drop θεοῦ (theou, “of God”). Moreover, οὔπω is likely a sign of Markan redaction, since it occurs with a much higher frequency in Mark compared to the other Synoptic Gospels.^[180]

But if in Anth.’s version of Quieting a Storm Jesus had said, “Have faith in God,” why does Luke’s version have the question “Where is your faith?” It may be that the First Reconstructor feared the exhortation “Have faith in God” implied that the disciples did not have faith.^[181] Of course, as faithful first-century Jews the disciples did have faith, so the First Reconstructor rewrote Jesus’ words to underscore this fact. “Where is your faith?” implies that the disciples do have faith, only they failed to make their faith apparent in the storm.^[182] By replacing “Have faith in God” with “Where is your faith?” the First Reconstructor shielded the disciples’ reputations. If our reconstruction is correct, it is ironic that, despite being closer to Anth.’s wording than FR’s as it was preserved in Luke, the author of Mark did negate the disciples’ faith—precisely what the First Reconstructor had sought to avoid with his revision.

הַאֲמִינוּ בֵּאלֹהִים (HR). In LXX most instances of πίστις (pistis, “trust,” “faith,” “faithfulness”) occur as the translation of אֱמוּנָה (’^emūnāh, “trust,” “faith,” “faithfulness”).^[183] The LXX translators usually rendered אֱמוּנָה either as πίστις or as ἀλήθεια (alētheia, “truth,” “truthfulness”). However, the one time ἔχειν πίστιν (“to have faith”) occurs in LXX with a Hebrew equivalent, that equivalent is a nif‘al form of א-מ-נ:

לָמָּה הָיָה כְאֵבִי נֶצַח וּמַכָּתִי אֲנוּשָׁה מֵאֲנָה הֵרָפֵא הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לִי כְּמוֹ אַכְזָב מַיִם לֹא נֶאֱמָנוּ

Why is my pain eternal, and my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Will you indeed be to me as a deceiver, like waters that are not reliable [לֹא נֶאֱמָנוּ]? (Jer. 15:18)

ἵνα τί οἱ λυποῦντές με κατισχύουσίν μου; ἡ πληγή μου στερεά, πόθεν ἰαθήσομαι; γινομένη ἐγενήθη μοι ὡς ὕδωρ ψευδὲς οὐκ ἔχον πίστιν.

Why do griefs overpower me? My wound is persistent, from where will I be healed? Will you be to me as false water not having faith [οὐκ ἔχον πίστιν]? (Jer. 15:18)

This example suggests that rather than reconstructing ἔχειν πίστιν (“to have faith”) with verb + noun, e.g., תְּהִי לָכֶם אֱמוּנָה (t^ehi lāchem ’^emūnāh, “let there be to you faith”), we should reconstruct ἔχειν πίστιν with a verb meaning “have faith” or “trust.” That verb in Hebrew is הֶאֱמִין (he’^emin). Accordingly, Lindsey translated ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ (“have faith in God”) in Mark 11:22 as תַּאֲמִינוּ בֵּאלֹהִים (ta’^aminū bē’lohim, “you will trust in God”).^[184] For HR we have preferred the imperative form הַאֲמִינוּ (ha’^aminū “you must trust”).^[185]

If our reconstruction is correct, then we have likely uncovered yet another allusion to the Jonah story in the pre-synoptic version(s) of Quieting a Storm. Jesus’ exhortation to “have faith in God” parallels the response of the Ninevites to Jonah’s message:

וַיַּאֲמִינוּ אַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה בֵּאלֹהִים

And the people of Nineveh trusted in God. (Jonah 3:5)

καὶ ἐνεπίστευσαν οἱ ἄνδρες Νινευη τῷ θεῷ

And the men of Nineveh trusted in God. (Jonah 3:5)

Once again we find that if an allusion to the Jonah story was intended, it was not to the LXX version of Jonah but to the Hebrew original.

L50 καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν (GR). Compared to Mark’s “and they feared,” Luke’s “but fearing” looks like a Greek stylistic improvement introduced by the First Reconstructor. This impression only increases when Mark’s text continues in L52 with a cognate accusative, “they feared a great fear.” Mark’s cognate accusative not only mimics Hebrew syntax, Mark’s wording alludes to the “great fear” the passengers on Jonah’s boat experienced once the storm abated (see below, Comment to L52). All the indications lead to the conclusion that Mark’s wording in L50 reflects the text of Anth.

וַיִּירְאוּ (HR). On reconstructing φοβεῖν (fobein, “to fear”) with יָרֵא (yārē’, “fear”), see Persistent Widow, Comment to L6.

L51 οἱ ἄνθρωποι (GR). The reference to “the people” in Matthew’s version of Quieting a Storm is distinctly odd,^[186] since the only people present were the aforementioned disciples (L13). Various identifications of these “people” have been proffered, but the most natural interpretation is that “the people” in L51 are none other than the disciples themselves. It is difficult to imagine that “the people” were individuals on shore who happened to witness the miracle,^[187] for what would people be doing out on the shore in the middle of a storm? And even if they had braved the weather, how could they have seen anything in the dark, since in Matthew’s version of Quieting a Storm the action takes place in the evening? Other scholars have suggested that “the people” in Matt. 8:27 are like the chorus in a Greek tragedy. But if so, why is this chorus absent from the rest of Matthew’s Gospel? And it is surely a stretch to suppose that “the people” refers to those who heard about Jesus’ miracle as the disciples later told them about it,^[188] or that “the people” refers to the readers of Matthew’s Gospel.^[189]

It may be, however, as some scholars have suggested,^[190] that Matthew’s ἄνθρωποι (anthrōpoi, “people”) reflects the wording of a non-Markan source. This suggestion commends itself to us because the inclusion of οἱ ἄνθρωποι in GR strengthens the allusion to the passengers’ reaction to the cessation of the storm in the story of Jonah:^[191]

וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה אֶת יי

And the people feared the LORD with a great fear. (Jonah 1:16)

καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνδρες φόβῳ μεγάλῳ τὸν κύριον

And the men feared the Lord with a great fear. (Jonah 1:16)

The author of Matthew, not recognizing (or not caring about) the allusion to the Jonah story, dropped Anth.’s reference to the people’s fear, but retained οἱ ἄνθρωποι as the subject of the sentence.^[192]

Once more our reconstruction presupposes a pre-synoptic Greek version of Quieting a Storm that alludes to the story of Jonah but is independent of LXX. Whereas LXX has οἱ ἄνδρες (hoi andres, “the men”), the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua wrote οἱ ἄνθρωποι (hoi anthrōpoi, “the people”).

If our reconstruction is correct and “the people” forms part of an allusion to the story of Jonah, we can dismiss yet another explanation of the presence of οἱ ἄνθρωποι in Matt. 8:27, which is that “the people” is intended to highlight a contrast between the disciples, who are human, and Jesus, who is divine.^[193] The intention of referring to “the people” was no more to present Jesus as divine than the reference to “the people” in Jonah 1:16 is intended to indicate Jonah’s divinity.

L52 φόβον μέγαν (GR). Cognate accusatives, i.e., when a noun serving as the object of a verb shares the same root as the verb (e.g., “they feared a great fear”), are not un-Greek, but they are more characteristic of Hebrew.^[194] Moreover, as we just saw, “feared a great fear” occurs in Jonah 1:16 (cf. Jonah 1:10), to which we believe the pre-synoptic versions of Quieting a Storm alluded. We therefore think it is likely that the author of Mark copied “great fear” in L52 from Anth. and that the reason “great fear” is not present in Luke is that the First Reconstructor dropped these words as superfluous.^[195]

Yet again, although the allusion is to the Jonah story, the pre-synoptic version of Quieting a Storm is independent of LXX. Whereas LXX has “great fear” in the dative case (φόβῳ μεγάλῳ [fobō megalō]), the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua wrote φόβον μέγαν (fobon megan).

יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה (HR). In LXX the noun φόβος (fobos, “fear”) occurs as the translation of many Hebrew words, but none so often as יִרְאָה (yir’āh, “fear”).^[196] We also find that the LXX translators usually translated יִרְאָה with φόβος.^[197]

On reconstructing μέγας (megas, “big”) with גָּדוֹל (gādōl, “big”), see above, Comment to L21.

L53 καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to write ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες (ethavmasan legontes, “they wondered, saying…”) is nearly unassailable evidence that this phrase introduced the disciples’ speech in Anth.^[198]

וַיִּתְמְהוּ לֵאמֹר (HR). The verb θαυμάζειν (thavmazein, “to wonder,” “to marvel”) occurs in LXX as the translation of a variety of words and expressions despite occurring only thirty or so times in books corresponding to MT. Most often (13xx) θαυμάζειν occurs in the expression θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον (thavmazein prosōpon, “to marvel at a face”; Gen. 19:21; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 10:17; 28:50; 4 Kgdms. 5:1; 2 Chr. 19:7; Prov. 18:5; Job 13:10; 22:8; 32:22; 34:19; Isa. 9:14; Dan. 6:13), often an attempt to render the Hebrew idiom נָשָׂא פָּנִים (nāsā’ pānim, “show deference,” lit., “lift a face”).^[199] On three occasions θαυμάζειν serves as the translation of תָּמַהּ (tāmah, “wonder,” “marvel”; Ps. 47[48]:6; Eccl. 5:7; Jer. 4:9). We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered תָּמַהּ with θαυμάζειν, θαυμάζειν compounds, or nominal cognates of θαυμάζειν.^[200]

Although תָּמַהּ never occurs in conjunction with לֵאמֹר (lēmor, “saying”) in MT, we think תָּמַהּ is a good option for HR. In rabbinic sources תָּמַהּ is used with לוֹמַר (lōmar, “saying”), the MH equivalent of לֵאמֹר. For instance:

ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך הים והיו מלאכי השרת תמהים לומר בני אדם עובדי עבודה זרה מהלכין ביבשה בתוך הים

And the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea [Exod. 14:29]. And the ministering angels were wondering, saying [תֹּמְהִים לוֹמַר], “Idolatrous human beings are walking on dry land in the midst of the sea?” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BeShallaḥ §7 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:163])

Our adoption of לֵאמֹר for HR reflects our general preference for reconstructing narrative in a biblicizing style of Hebrew.

L54 πρὸς ἀλλήλους (Luke 8:25). Whether or not to include the phrase πρὸς ἀλλήλους (pros allēlous, “to one another”) in GR was a difficult decision. On the one hand, the probable Hebrew equivalent of πρὸς ἀλλήλους, אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (’ish ’el rē‘ēhū, “to one another,” lit., “a man to his neighbor”), could be attached to תָּמַהּ (“wonder”) in the sense of “look at one another in wonder.”^[201] On the other hand, Luke’s placement of the phrase πρὸς ἀλλήλους is un-Hebraic,^[202] and elsewhere we have found that ἀλλήλων (allēlōn, “one another”) is the product of Lukan redaction.^[203] We also note that πρὸς ἀλλήλους never occurs in LXX as the translation of אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ.^[204] Thus, the preponderance of evidence is against the originality of πρὸς ἀλλήλους in Luke 8:25. The probability is that the author of Mark copied πρὸς ἀλλήλους from Luke rather than Anth.

L55 τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν (GR). Matthew’s form of the disciples’ question varies from that which is found in Mark and Luke. Whereas in the Lukan and Markan versions of Quieting a Storm the disciples ask, “Who, then, is this?” in Matthew the disciples ask, “What sort is this?” Thus, in Luke and Mark the disciples ask about Jesus’ identity, while in Matthew they ask about Jesus’ being. We think the Lukan and Markan versions of the disciples’ question reflects the wording of Anth.

There is one point with respect to the wording of the Lukan and Markan form of the question about which we have some hesitation, namely whether ἄρα (ara, “then”) was present in Anth. or whether this conjunction was added by the First Reconstructor and taken over by the author of Mark from Luke. The conjunction ἄρα lacks a precise equivalent in Hebrew (see below), and ἄρα is relatively rare in the Gospels. Nevertheless, there are examples in verses common only to Luke and Matthew where there is agreement to write ἄρα (Matt. 12:28 ∥ Luke 11:20; Matt. 24:45 ∥ Luke 12:42), so we can be certain that ἄρα did sometimes occur in Anth. Moreover, the question in Matt. 24:45 ∥ Luke 12:42, where there is agreement to use ἄρα, is formulated similarly to the disciples’ question in Mark 4:41 ∥ Luke 8:25:

Quieting a Storm	Faithful or Faithless Slave
τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν	τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος / οἰκονόμος
Who, then, is this…?	Who, then, is the faithful servant / house manager…?

The presence of ἄρα in similarly worded questions elsewhere in Anth. supports our inclusion of ἄρα in GR in L55 of Quieting a Storm.

מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה (HR). Above in Comment to L43, we noted the similarity between the disciples’ question in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm and the congregants’ question in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum.^[205] For the sake of convenience we will present these two verses once more side by side:

Teaching in Kefar Nahum	Quieting a Storm
Luke 4:36 τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται;	Luke 8:25 τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ;
What word is this, that in authority and power he commands the impure spirits, and they come out?	Who, then, is this, that even the winds he commands and the water, and they listen to him?

We think the similar formulations of the questions above may shed light on how the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua intended the questions to be interpreted. Although in the translation of Luke 8:25 given above we have rendered τίς (tis) as “who,” the parallel in Luke 4:36 shows that τίς could just as easily have been translated “what.” In other words, the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua may have wanted his audience to read the disciples’ question in Quieting a Storm not as “Who is this person, who even commands the winds and the water and they listen to him?”^[206] but as “What is this thing we have seen, that Jesus can command the winds and the water and they listen to him?” To have avoided misunderstanding, the Greek translator ought to have used the neuter τί ἄρα τοῦτο (ti ara touto, “What is this?”) instead of τίς ἄρα οὗτός in L55.^[207] His mistake could be the result of seeing מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה (māh hadāvār hazeh, “What is this thing?”) in his source, deciding to render הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה (“this thing”) with οὗτος (houtos, “this”),^[208] but, still thinking of the masculine λόγος (logos, “word”) as the equivalent of דָּבָר (“word,” “thing”),^[209] forgetting to make οὗτος neuter.^[210]

In any case, the similarity between the questions in Luke 4:36 and Luke 8:25, and the insight this similarity affords regarding how the Greek translator understood both questions, explains why in HR we have reconstructed τίς not with מִי (mi, “who”) but with מָה (māh, “what”) and why we have supplied הַדָּבָר (hadāvār, “the word,” “the thing,” “the matter”) in HR.

Our Hebrew reconstruction places the emphasis of the disciples’ question on the magnitude of Jesus’ miracle rather than on the question of his identity.

L56 ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to make “winds” plural in L56 is a strong indication that the plural “winds” was also the reading of Anth.

Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm is the only one to include ἐπιτάσσει (epitassei, “he commands”) in L56. While ἐπιτάσσει could be a Lukan or FR addition, we have seen that the First Reconstructor’s overall editorial approach to Quieting a Storm was epitomizing rather than expansionist. We have also noted the similarity between the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ rebuke of the storm and the congregants’ reaction to Jesus’ rebuke of a demon in Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Luke 4:36), where ἐπιτάσσει is present. Finally, the pairing of “command” and “hear” is typical of the Hebrew Scriptures (cf., e.g., Deut. 11:13, 27; 12:28; 28:13; Judg. 3:4; 1 Kgs. 11:38). We have therefore accepted ἐπιτάσσει for GR, but we have relocated it within L56 to a more Hebraic position at the opening of the clause.

שֶׁהוּא מְצַוֶּה אַף לָרוּחוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἐπιτάσσειν (epitassein, “to command”) with צִוָּה (tzivāh, “command”), see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L72.

On reconstructing καί (kai, “and,” “even”) with אַף (’af, “also,” “even”), see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L10.^[211]

On reconstructing ἄνεμος (anemos, “wind”) with רוּחַ (rūaḥ, “wind,” “spirit”), see above, Comment to L41.

L57 καὶ τῷ ὕδατι (GR). As in L42, in L57 there is disagreement between “the sea” in Mark and Matthew and “the water” in Luke. And just as we accepted Luke’s wording in the former instance (see above, Comment to L42), so we have accepted “the water” in L57.

וְאַף לַמַּיִם (HR). On reconstructing καί (kai, “and,” “even”) with אַף (’af, “also,” “even”), see above, Comment to L56.

On reconstructing ὕδωρ (hūdōr, “water”) with מַיִם (mayim, “water”), see above, Comment to L42.

L58 καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ (GR). Although “and they hear him” is missing from Luke 8:25 in Codex Vaticanus, most text critics regard καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ as original and its omission from Codex Vaticanus as a copyist’s error.^[212] Since we have no reason to disagree with their judgment, we regard the Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to write “they [plur.] hear” as solid evidence that theirs was the wording of Anth. Luke’s καὶ (“and”) in L58 is necessitated by the presence of “he commands” in L56, and since we accepted Luke’s wording in L56, we are obliged to accept Luke’s conjunction in L58 too.

וְהֵם שׁוֹמְעִים לוֹ (HR). In LXX most instances of ὑπακούειν (hūpakouein, “to listen”) occur as the translation of שָׁמַע (shāma‘, “hear”), especially when שָׁמַע is used in the sense of “obey.”^[213] The LXX translators more often rendered שָׁמַע as ἀκούειν (akouein, “to hear”) or εἰσακούειν (eisakouein, “to listen to”) than as ὑπακούειν, but ὑπακούειν is by no means a rare or unusual translation of שָׁמַע.^[214]

Redaction Analysis

Quieting a Storm was heavily redacted by the First Reconstructor and by the authors of Mark and Matthew. The extent of redaction has led to a higher degree of uncertainty with regard to our reconstruction than usual. This uncertainty is reflected in our use of brackets in our reconstructions. Fortunately, we had both internal and external aids to guide us in our reconstruction. Internally we had the Lukan-Matthean minor agreements, which are places where Anth.’s wording definitely pokes through the layers of redaction. Externally we had the story of Jonah, to which Quieting a Storm alludes, as well as rabbinic accounts of storms that showed us how such narratives were typically worded. These external guides were useful both for selecting among the various readings in Matthew, Mark and Luke and for conjecturing hypothetical readings where the many layers of redaction have probably erased Anth.’s wording altogether.

Luke’s Version^[215]

Quieting a Storm
Luke		Anthology (Version 1)
Total Words:	94	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	45 [53] ⟨54⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	45 [53] ⟨54⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	47.87 [56.38] ⟨57.45⟩	% of Anth. in Luke:	49.45 [51.46] ⟨50.00⟩
Click here for details.

Quieting a Storm
Luke		Anthology (Version 2)
Total Words:	94	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	46 [54] ⟨55⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	46 [54] ⟨55⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	48.94 [57.45] ⟨58.51⟩	% of Anth. in Luke:	50.55 [53.47] ⟨53.40⟩
Click here for details.

As usual, the author of Luke copied his source for Quieting a Storm (FR) with a high degree of fidelity (“and they put out from shore” in L17 may be an exception). FR’s version of Quieting a Storm, however, was a thoroughly edited version of Anth.’s Quieting a Storm. The First Reconstructor paraphrased (L2, L15, L16, L17, L20-25, L32, L34, L40, L41, L42, L47, L49, L50), changed word order (e.g., moving the location of αὐτός from L13 to L9; moving the position of ἐπιτάσσει within L56), rearranged the order of how events were narrated (e.g., mentioning Jesus’ sleep prior to the onset of the storm in L19), and abbreviated (e.g., eliminating the adjective “big” [L21, L46, L52]; eliminating Jesus’ location in the stern [L28]; eliminating the cessation of the sea’s raging [L44-45]; eliminating the people’s big fear [L51-52]; eliminating καί in L53). Some of these changes had the detrimental effect of obscuring the resonances between Quieting a Storm and the story of Jonah. Many of the changes made the pericope less Hebraic. One change, at least, was made for ideological reasons: the First Reconstructor changed Jesus’ exhortation to have faith in God into the question “Where is your faith?” in order to avoid the implication that the disciples had no faith. Despite these redactional changes, the First Reconstructor’s version of Quieting a Storm (and hence Luke’s) remains true to the spirit of Quieting a Storm in Anth.

Mark’s Version^[216]

Quieting a Storm
Mark		Anthology (Version 1)
Total Words:	118	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	31.36 [33.90] ⟨34.75⟩	% of Anth. in Mark:	40.66 [38.83] ⟨37.96⟩
Click here for details.

Quieting a Storm
Mark		Anthology (Version 2)
Total Words:	118	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	31.36 [33.90] ⟨34.75⟩	% of Anth. in Mark:	40.66 [39.60] ⟨39.81⟩
Click here for details.

The author of Mark introduced numerous characteristic changes into his version of Quieting a Storm, including the addition of vivid details (e.g., the other boats in L12-13; the waves in L23; Jesus’ pillow in L29; the words of Jesus’ rebuke in L43), the reordering of events (L1, L5-6), the substitution of his sources’ wording with synonyms (L24-25, L34, L42, L57), and the transformation of declarative sentences into interrogatives (L35-36, L49). Some of these changes, namely the addition of Jesus’ words of rebuke, had the effect of making Quieting a Storm read more like an exorcism account.^[217] It is unclear whether this effect was intentional. Other changes the author of Mark introduced were made to integrate Quieting a Storm into its Markan context on the same day as the parables discourse (e.g., “on that day” in L2; “at evening” in L3; “leaving the crowd” in L8; Jesus already being in the boat in L10). Finally, it appears that the author of Mark adapted Quieting a Storm to address the needs and concerns of his community by having the disciples ask whether Jesus even cared whether they were perishing (L35-36) and having Jesus counter with the question “Why are you cowards?” (L48).

Despite these redactional changes, Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm preserves many of Anth.’s readings that were lost in Luke’s version due to FR’s editorial activity. These include the reference to Jesus’ sleep after the description of the storm (L27-30), the reference to Jesus’ location in the stern (L28), the adjective “big” attached to “calm” (L46), “have faith” (L49) and “big fear” (L52). Many of these pick-ups from Anth. preserve resonances with the Jonah story that are nevertheless independent of LXX.

Matthew’s Version^[218]

Quieting a Storm
Matthew		Anthology (Version 1)
Total Words:	84	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	52.38 [55.95] ⟨55.95⟩	% of Anth. in Matt.:	48.35 [45.63] ⟨43.52⟩
Click here for details.

Quieting a Storm
Matthew		Anthology (Version 2)
Total Words:	84	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩
% Identical to Anth.:	52.38 [55.95] ⟨55.95⟩	% of Anth. in Matt.:	48.35 [46.53] ⟨45.63⟩
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew’s overall approach to Quieting a Storm was to blend the versions he found in his two sources, Mark and Anth. Whenever the author of Matthew accepted the wording of Anth. at the same points where Anth.’s wording had reached Luke via FR, minor agreements against Mark surface (L9, L11, L13, L22, L31, L33, L53, L58). At other points the author of Matthew preserved Anth.’s wording that had been lost in both Mark and Luke (L20-21, L34, L51).

The author of Matthew also introduced redactional changes of his own devising. Some were intended to integrate Quieting a Storm into its (redactional) Matthean context (e.g., Jesus seeing the crowds [L1, L4]; the disciples following [L12]). Other changes allowed the author of Matthew to abbreviate (e.g., narrating rather than repeating Jesus’ command to depart [L5]; omission of the storm’s abatement [L44]; omission of the “big fear” [L52]), while others allowed the author of Matthew to avoid notions he found distasteful, such as replacing the disciples’ rude question in Mark with a reverent prayer (L35) and replacing Jesus’ denial that the disciples had any faith with an assertion that the disciples’ faith was simply too small (L39).

Like the author of Mark and the First Reconstructor before him, the author of Matthew rearranged the order of events, in his case by placing Jesus’ words to his disciples ahead of the rebuke of the storm.

The author of Matthew’s biggest change to the pericope was to splice his version of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple into the opening of Quieting a Storm. This intercalation has a greater effect on Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple than on Quieting a Storm, since all the action described in Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple is depicted as taking place while Jesus is on his way to the boat. Nevertheless, the intercalation also colors the way Quieting a Storm is read in Matthew’s Gospel. The disciples’ fear in the midst of the storm and Jesus’ reprimand of the disciples’ small faith illustrates just how difficult true discipleship is.^[219] The intercalation also made it necessary for the author of Matthew to eliminate Mark’s reference to Jesus’ pillow, since in Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple Jesus declared that the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.

Results of This Research

1. Is Quieting a Storm a kind of exorcism narrative? There are points of similarity between Jesus’ quieting of the storm and his casting out of demons. In both cases Jesus exercised power over non-human forces beyond most people’s control. In both cases Jesus “rebuked” his non-human adversaries. But it is probably going too far to suppose that Jesus believed the storm was a manifestation of a demon or that it was controlled by demonic forces. While in Aramaic “rebuke” had acquired a technical sense of “exorcise a demon,” “rebuke” did not have this narrow connotation in Hebrew. The author of Mark’s addition of the commands “Be silent! Be muzzled!” (L43) had the effect of increasing the similarity between Quieting a Storm and exorcism accounts, but this effect may not have been intentional. Rather, it seems the author of Mark wanted to strengthen the cause-and-effect relationship between Jesus’ rebuke of the winds and command to the sea and the abatement of the wind and the great calm on the sea that followed. Since the Gospels were not reticent in mentioning demons when they were believed to be present, the absence of an explicit reference to demons in Quieting a Storm suggests that Quieting a Storm was not intended in any of its versions to be understood as an exorcism account.^[220]

2. How would first-century readers understand Quieting a Storm’s significance? It is common for preachers and Bible commentators to claim that the purpose of Quieting a Storm is to give proof of Jesus’ divinity.^[221] Only God can command the sea, it is claimed, therefore Quieting a Storm proves that Jesus is God. We do not agree with this assessment. As we have discussed above, we think it is unlikely that the disciples’ question at the end of Quieting a Storm was originally about Jesus’ identity. Rather than asking, “Who is this?” there is reason to suppose that in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua the disciples asked, “What is this?” In other words, the disciples were asking, “What’s going on? How is it that when Jesus commands the wind and the water the elements obey him?” The difference in nuance may be subtle, but it suggests the disciples were impressed by the magnitude of Jesus’ miracle, not puzzled about his identity.

But even supposing that the disciples’ question originally did concern Jesus’ identity, to what conclusion would Jesus’ command of the wind and the waves have led? Would the disciples have concluded that Jesus was none other than YHWH in the flesh? This is most unlikely.^[222] The concept of the incarnation was entirely foreign and antithetical to Second Temple Judaism. No Jew of the Second Temple period who accepted the basic tenets of Judaism would conclude from the quieting of the storm that Jesus was God. If Jesus exercised divine prerogatives,^[223] they would be far more likely to conclude that Jesus was God’s divinely appointed emissary,^[224] an epithet that was given to Jesus in early Christian writings.^[225] As God’s messenger or shaliaḥ Jesus would have been authorized to exercise God’s authority on God’s behalf. This role as divine messenger or emissary is closely akin to the concept of the Messiah, a figure divinely anointed to the office of prophet, priest or king. Indeed, in a fragmentary text discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but deemed not to be of sectarian origin, the Messiah is described as having authority over the forces of nature:

‏[כי הש]מים והארץ ישמעו למשיחו

‏[וכל א]שר בם לוא יסוג ממצות קדושים

[For heav]en and earth will listen to his anointed one

[and all th]at is in them will not turn back from the commandments of the holy ones…. (4Q521 2 II, 1-2)^[226]

When Quieting a Storm was taken out of its native Jewish context and related to Gentile audiences, it is possible they interpreted Quieting a Storm against their pagan backgrounds, which included stories of gods who temporarily took on human form, of semi-divine persons of mixed human and divine ancestry who were able to perform miracles, and persons who were promoted to divine status either during or after their natural lives. Some of these divine personages were said to calm storms or to deliver sea voyagers from storms.^[227] Such Gentile readers, interpreting Quieting a Storm from a non-Jewish perspective, might have concluded from the story that Jesus was a god or that he was semi-divine.

In addition to interpreting Quieting a Storm religiously as revealing Jesus’ identity, first-century readers of Jewish and Gentile background may have read Quieting a Storm politically as a polemic against the Roman Empire and, more pointedly, against the imperial propaganda concerning the divine role accorded to the Roman emperors. In the first century an account of how Julius Caesar attempted to defy a storm circulated widely.^[228] Some versions of the story emphasized the emperor’s fearlessness and confidence in his fate. Other versions of the story emphasized the limitations of all human beings, including emperors. When compared to the stories of Caesar’s defiance of the storm, Jesus’ mastery of the storm portrays him as far superior to Caesar. Whereas Caesar had to brave the elements, Jesus was able to command them. Since imperial propaganda hailed the Roman emperors as sons of gods, saviors, rulers of the world, and lords, the early believers’ claims that Jesus too was Son of God, Savior, Messiah, and Lord challenged and undermined Roman imperial illusions.

The likelihood that Quieting a Storm had a polemical angle is strengthened by its association with the Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory story, in which Jesus defeats a legion of demons who have invaded the psyche of a tormented man. The use of the Roman military term “legion” and the embarrassing banishment of the demons into a herd of swine suggests that Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, too, is (at least in part) an anti-Roman polemic.^[229] The implication is that if Jesus is superior to the demons who animate the Roman legions, then Jesus’ defeat of the demonic legions means that the downfall of Roman imperial rule is not far behind.

Thus, if the question of Jesus’ identity is present in Quieting a Storm, it is his role as God’s divinely anointed representative that is affirmed. Jesus’ status as Messiah was a political challenge to the Roman Empire and especially to its emperors, since the Roman emperors claimed to occupy the same turf, as it were, as the king anointed to redeem Israel. The issue of the incarnation is a later theological concern that modern readers project back onto Quieting a Storm.^[230]

Conclusion

Quieting a Storm is an account of a miraculous deed Jesus accomplished through his steadfast faith in God.^[231] The narrative was heavily influenced by the Jonah story, but this influence was not motivated by a theological concern to compare or contrast Jesus with Jonah. The prominent Jonah motifs in Quieting a Storm were rather a literary device intended to engage the audience, who, being familiar with the Jonah story, would be filled with curiosity to see whether and how the two stories differed. The original focus of Quieting a Storm was not on Jesus’ identity but on the power of faith. Jesus, confident in his calling as God’s anointed emissary and in God’s providence, was able to exercise authority over the hostile elements. The disciples were exhorted to deepen their trust in God. In response to the miracle they witnessed the disciples asked one another how it was that Jesus could order the elements and be obeyed. The answer, given in Faith Like a Mustard Seed, which we believe was the sequel to Quieting a Storm in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, is that anyone who trusts God even a little can do equally extraordinary things.

---

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

---

• ^[1] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[2] 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. ↩
• ^[3] See A. B. Bruce, 522. ↩
• ^[4] See the “Story Placement” discussion in Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Creed, 119; Bundy, 241 §146. ↩
• ^[6] See Günther Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held; trans. Percy Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1927), 52-57, esp. 54. ↩
• ^[7] In Luke, for example, the Tower Builder and King Going to War similes are redactionally spliced into Demands of Discipleship. See Tower Builder and King Going to War, under the subheading “Story Placement.” Mark’s Gospel is notorious for the phenomenon of intercalated or “sandwiched” narratives. A classic example is the placement of his two-part Withered Fig Tree narrative (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21) on either side of Yeshua’s Protest in the Temple (Mark 11:15-19). For other instances of intercalation in Mark, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” The splicing of Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple into Quieting a Storm in the Gospel of Matthew is a rare example of intercalation unique to Matthew. See Luz, 2:16. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Wolter, 1:347. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Meier, Marginal, 2:926. ↩
• ^[10] Cf. Albright-Mann, 98; Nolland, Luke, 1:397; idem, Matt., 370. ↩
• ^[11] Pace Allen, 84; Taylor, 277; Beare, Earliest, 121 §105; Marshall, 332; Meier, Marginal, 2:1007 n. 179; Bovon, 1:317. Bundy (242 §146) suggested that the authors of Matthew and Luke knew another version of Mark than the one preserved in the New Testament. Cf. Luz, 2:16. ↩
• ^[12] See the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” discussions for the Four Soils Parable, the Four Soils Interpretation and Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. ↩
• ^[13] Cf. Bundy, 134 §57, 241 §146. ↩
• ^[14] See France, Mark, 222; Collins, 257. Actually, identifying the antecedent of αὐτοῖς (avtois, “to them”) as the disciples requires reading forward as well as backward. Mark 4:34 refers both to the crowds (as αὐτοῖς) and to the disciples (as τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς), so αὐτοῖς in Mark 4:35 could refer to either party. It is only when they leave the crowd (τὸν ὄχλον; Mark 4:36), taking Jesus with them, that it becomes clear that Jesus had been speaking to his disciples. ↩
• ^[15] On the use of the historical present as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[16] Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel and A. J. M. Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” in Miscellanea Neotestamentica, Volume II (ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik; NovTSup 48; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 17-48, esp. 18. ↩
• ^[17] On the Hebraic quality of Luke’s ἐγένετο δὲ + time marker + finite verb constructions, see Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Temple Authorities and Tithe Evasion: The Linguistic Background and Impact of the Parable of the Vineyard, the Tenants and the Son” (JS1, 268-273, Critical Note 5); Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 263-276); Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[18] The fact that the author of Luke employed a non-Septuagintal temporal marker (ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν) in an otherwise Hebraic ἐγένετο δὲ + time phrase + finite verb structure challenges the notion that the Hebraisms in Luke’s Gospel are really attempts to imitate LXX. ↩
• ^[19] The phrase וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם (“and it happened in those days”) opens a story in Exod. 2:11; Judg. 19:1; 1 Sam. 28:1. ↩
• ^[20] In LXX the phrase ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις occurs as the translation of בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם in Gen. 6:4; Deut. 17:9; 19:17; 26:3; Judg. 17:6; 18:1 (2xx); 19:1; 20:27, 28; 21:25; 1 Kgdms. 3:1; 28:1; 4 Kgdms. 10:32; 15:37; 20:1; 2 Chr. 32:24; 2 Esd. 16:17; 23:15, 23; Joel 3:2; 4:1; Zech. 8:6, 23; Jer. 3:16, 18; 5:18; 27[50]:4, 20; 38[31]:29; Ezek. 38:17; Dan. 10:2. ↩
• ^[21] On the imprecision of the phrase ὀψίας γενομένης, see Meier, Marginal, 2:1005. The temporal marker can mean “late in the day” or “evening.” ↩
• ^[22] See Bultmann, 215; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 37; Gundry, Mark, 1:237. Cf. Bundy, 242 §146; Meier, Marginal, 2:1005. ↩
• ^[23] Cf. LHNS, 77 §105; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 19; Meier, Marginal, 2:1004. Pace Bultmann, 215. ↩
• ^[24] The following table shows all of the instances of genitives absolute involving ὀψία in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 8:16 TT = Mark 1:32 (cf. Luke 4:40) Matt. 14:15 TT (cf. Mark 6:35; Luke 9:12) Matt. 14:23 Mk-Mt = Mark 6:47 Matt. 16:2 DT (cf. Luke 12:[–]) Matt. 20:8 U Matt. 26:20 TT = Mark 14:17 (cf. Luke 22:14) Matt. 27:57 TT = Mark 15:42 (cf. Luke 23:50) Mark 1:32 TT = Matt. 8:16 (cf. Luke 4:40) Mark 4:35 TT (cf. Matt. 8:[–]; Luke 8:[–]) Mark 6:47 Mk-Mt = Matt. 14:23 Mark 11:11 TT (cf. Matt. 21:17; Luke 19:[–]) Mark 14:17 TT = Matt. 26:20 (cf. Luke 22:14) Mark 15:42 TT = Matt. 27:57 (cf. Luke 23:50) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding verse

  ↩
• ^[25] See Bundy, 239, 241 §146. Nevertheless, easterly winter storms on the Sea of Galilee do tend to take place in the early evening. See Mendel Nun, “Fish, Storms and a Boat,” under the subheading “Storms on the Lake.” ↩
• ^[26] See Guelich, 264. ↩
• ^[27] The ancient testimony to which we refer is that of an unknown critic of Christianity from the early part of the fourth century C.E. (Porphyry?) whose writings are quoted in the Apocriticus by the Christian apologist Macarius Magnes (ca. 400 C.E.) (see Stern, 2:425-426 n. 8; Theissen, Gospels, 105-106):

  οἱ γοῦν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν τόπων ἀφηγούμενοί φασι θάλασσαν μὲν ἐκεῖ μὴ εἶναι, λίμνην δὲ μικρὰν ἐκ ποταμοῦ συνεστῶσαν ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλλαίαν χώραν παρὰ πόλιν Τιβεριάδα, ἣν καὶ μονοξύλοις μικροῖς διαπλεῦσαι ῥάδιον ἐν ὥραις οὐ πλεῖον δύο, μήτε δὲ κῦμα μήτε χειμῶνα χωρῆσαι δυναμήνη.

  But those who relate the truth about that locality say that there is not a sea [θάλασσαν] there, but a small lake [λίμνην] coming from a river under the hill in the country of Galilee, beside the city of Tiberias; this is easy for small boats to sail across in not more than two hours, nor can it admit of either wave or storm. (Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus 3:6)

  Text according to Adolf von Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 42. Translation according to T. W. Crafter, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan, 1919), 73.

  The testimony of this critic of early Christianity must be handled with due caution. He is in error when he says that storms do not trouble the lake, so we must also take his estimate of the time it takes to cross the lake with a grain of salt. ↩

• ^[28] Cf. Guelich, 277; Collins, 265. ↩
• ^[29] The table below shows all the instances of κελεύειν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 8:18 TT (cf. Mark 4:35; Luke 8:22) Matt. 14:9 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:26) Matt. 14:19 TT (cf. Mark 6:39; Luke 9:14) Matt. 14:28 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:[–]) Matt. 18:25 U Matt. 27:58 TT (cf. Mark 15:45; Luke 23:[–]) Matt. 27:64 U Luke 18:40 TT (cf. Matt. 20:32; Mark 10:49) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding verse

  ↩
• ^[30] See Moulton-Geden, 543-544. ↩
• ^[31] In LXX the verb κελεύειν mainly occurs in books originally composed in Greek, and even in books translated from a Semitic language κελεύειν does not occur as the equivalent of a Hebrew term. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:758. ↩
• ^[32] See Bundy, 134 §57; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 25. ↩
• ^[33] See France, Matt., 336. ↩
• ^[34] See van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 19; Collins, 257-258. ↩
• ^[35] See Gundry, Mark, 238. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 238. ↩
• ^[37] Phrases in italics are Aramaic. ↩
• ^[38] It is pointless to deny (cf. McNeile, 110) or downplay (cf. Plummer, Mark, 136; Taylor, 272-273; Loos, Miracles, 646; Marshall, 333; Gundry, Mark, 246) the similarities between Quieting a Storm and the Jonah narrative, as some scholars have done. Van Iersel and Linmans (“The Storm on the Lake,” 21) were correct in their statement that the story of Jonah is “of essential importance” to the Quieting a Storm narrative. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Bundy, 241 §146; Davies-Allison, 2:70; Nolland, Matt., 371; Collins, 259-260. ↩
• ^[40] See Guelich, 267, 271; Davies-Allison, 2:70; Marcus, 1:338; Collins, 260. ↩
• ^[41] The identification of the Gentile seafarers is suggested by the Tosefta’s reference to Canaanite gods. ↩
• ^[42] Dressing contemporary accounts in scriptural costumes was a phenomenon in first-century storytelling. Josephus modeled his story of King Agrippa I on the saga of Joseph in Egypt. See Daniel R. Schwartz, “Agrippa’s Birthday—From Joseph to Josephus,” Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World 55.1 (2010): 123-128 (Hebrew). For an English translation of this article, click here. Compare, too, the use of scriptural story lines and motifs in Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, where we find echoes of Joseph and Pharaoh, Saul’s burial, and Esther’s banquets, and Widow’s Son in Nain, which echoes the story of Elisha and the Shunammite woman. ↩
• ^[43] Cf. Taylor, 273. ↩
• ^[44] See Swete, 88; Bultmann, 215; Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 53; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 19; Marshall, 333. ↩
• ^[45] Scholars have noted, however, that Mark’s continuity is marred somewhat by the private conversation between Jesus and the disciples reported in Mark 4:10-20. See Gould, 84; Creed, 119; Bundy, 241 §146; Jeremias, Parables, 13. When and where did the author of Mark think this conversation had taken place? ↩
• ^[46] See Warning About Leavened Bread, Comment to L7-9. ↩
• ^[47] Lindsey, HTGM, 101. ↩
• ^[48] Jastrow (987) does not list “boat” as a meaning of סִירָה. Cf. Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (Jerusalem: Carta, 1987), 445. ↩
• ^[49] See Lindsey, JRL, 13. ↩
• ^[50] Three times in Jonah πλοῖον occurs as the translation of אֳנִיָּה (Jonah 1:3, 4, 5), but πλοῖον also occurs once as the translation of סְפִינָה (Jonah 1:5). Is the presence of an otherwise exclusively Mishnaic Hebrew word in the book of Jonah an indication of late composition? Cf. Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (AB 24b; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 22-23. ↩
• ^[51] See Nun, “Fish, Storms and a Boat,” under the subheading “Boat from Magdala.” ↩
• ^[52] See Shelley Wachsmann, The Sea of Galilee Boat: An Extraordinary 2000 Year Old Discovery (New York: Plenum Press, 1995), 314-317. ↩
• ^[53] Nun, “Fish, Storms and a Boat,” under the subheading “Boat from Magdala”; Wachsmann, The Sea of Galilee Boat, 326. ↩
• ^[54] See Lindsey, JRL, 14. ↩
• ^[55] See Plummer, Mark, 135; Taylor, 274; France, Mark, 223. ↩
• ^[56] See Bultmann, 215-216; Bundy, 241 §146; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 36; Meier, Marginal, 2:925-926, 929. ↩
• ^[57] See A. B. Bruce, 370. ↩
• ^[58] See Gould, 84; Gundry, Mark, 238. ↩
• ^[59] Marcus (1:333) suggested that the “other boats” in Mark’s version of Quieting a Storm alludes to the midrashic tradition found in Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 10:6-7 that there were other boats at sea along with Jonah’s and that these other boats were unaffected by the storm. However, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer is a late midrash, and in Mark we are not informed that the other boats were unaffected by the storm. ↩
• ^[60] We have determined καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (“and he was with the animals”) in Mark 1:13 to be redactional (see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L113). Likewise, we found ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ (“in order that they might be with him”) in Mark 3:14 to be redactional (see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L12-15). Marcus (1:336) noted the similarity of the boats that were with Jesus in Mark 4:36 and the apostles who were called to be with Jesus in Mark 3:14. In Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Mark states that the man Jesus freed from the demons asked, ἵνα μετ̓ αὐτοῦ ᾖ (“that he might be with him”; Mark 5:18), whereas Luke reads, εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ (“to be with him”; Luke 8:38). Matthew’s version of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory has no parallel to this statement. It seems likely, therefore, that εἶναι μετά in Mark 5:18 is redactional too. ↩
• ^[61] See Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 54-55; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 25; Davies-Allison, 2:68. ↩
• ^[62] Scholars have noted that according to Luke 8:2 Jesus and the Twelve were accompanied by several women who itinerated with them. Thus, the Lukan context of Quieting a Storm implies that there were also women on board the boat with Jesus and the disciples. See Bovon, 1:320; pace J. Green, 332. Did the greater context of Quieting a Storm in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua likewise imply that women were with Jesus and the disciples during the storm on the Sea of Galilee? ↩
• ^[63] See Streeter, 302. ↩
• ^[64] This is presumably Rabban Gamliel the younger, who lived after the destruction of the Temple and was grandson of Rabban Gamliel the elder, Paul’s teacher. ↩
• ^[65] The reference to the storm as a סַעַר גָּדוֹל (sa‘ar gādōl, “great storm”) may be an echo of Jonah 1:4, or it may be that סַעַר גָּדוֹל remained a current expression in Mishnaic Hebrew. ↩
• ^[66] It might also be pointed out that whereas Jesus rebuked the storm on his own authority, Rabban Gamliel appealed to God for deliverance. However, Blackburn has cautioned against placing too much weight on this distinction, since “Jewish…miracle stories (or at least some of them) apparently do not presuppose that ‘prayer’ miracles are of a completely different order than those performed by decree or command of the miracle worker.” In effect, the command the miracle worker addresses to the terrestrial entity doubles as a prayer addressed to God. See Barry L. Blackburn, “‘Miracle Working Θεοι Ανδρες’ in Hellenism (And Hellenistic Judaism),” in Gospel Perspectives (6 vols.; ed. R. T. France and David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980-1986), 6:185-218, esp. 215 n. 93. ↩
• ^[67] The following table shows all the instances of διέρχεσθαι in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 12:43 DT = Luke 11:24 Matt. 19:24 TT = Mark 10:25 (cf. Luke 18:25) Mark 4:35 TT = Luke 8:22 (cf. Matt. 8:18) Mark 10:25 TT = Matt. 19:24 (cf. Luke 18:25) Luke 2:15 U Luke 2:35 U Luke 4:30 TT (cf. Matt. 13:[–]; Mark 6:[–]) Luke 5:15 TT (cf. Matt. 8:[–]; Mark 1:45) Luke 8:22 TT = Mark 4:35 (cf. Matt. 8:18) Luke 9:6 TT (cf. Matt. 10:[–]; Mark 6:12) Luke 11:24 DT = Matt. 12:43 Luke 17:11 U Luke 19:1 U Luke 19:4 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  From the table above we see that διέρχεσθαι did occur at least once in Anth. (Matt. 12:43 ∥ Luke 11:24), but the high frequency of διέρχεσθαι in Lukan pericopae makes its use in Quieting a Storm suspect. ↩

• ^[68] In fact, the LXX translators never rendered יָם as λίμνη, even when the referent was the lake in Galilee (cf., e.g., Num. 34:11; Josh. 12:3; 13:27; 15:5). ↩
• ^[69] Theissen, Gospels, 106; Bovon, 1:318. ↩
• ^[70] Text according to von Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts, 42. Translation according to Crafter, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, 73. ↩
• ^[71] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1119-1120. ↩
• ^[72] See Dos Santos, 148. ↩
• ^[73] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:621-623. ↩
• ^[74] See Dos Santos, 81. ↩
• ^[75] See Plummer, Luke, 225; Hawkins, 28; Marshall, 333; Fitzmyer, 1:729; Nolland, Luke, 1:399. ↩
• ^[76] See Moulton-Geden, 814. ↩
• ^[77] See Plummer, Luke, 225. ↩
• ^[78] Cf. Marshall, 332; Nolland, Luke, 1:399. ↩
• ^[79] On the historical present as typical of Markan redaction, see above, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[80] Whereas Codex Vaticanus, which we use as the base text for our reconstructions, reads, καὶ κατέβη λαῖλαψ εἰς τὴν λίμνην ἀνέμου (“and / came down / a storm / into / the / lake / of wind”) in Luke 8:23, the original text of Luke 8:23 probably read, καὶ κατέβη λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου εἰς τὴν λίμνην (“and / came down / a storm / of wind / into / the / lake”), as critical NT editions indicate. ↩
• ^[81] See LSJ, 1589; Muraoka, Lexicon, 619. ↩
• ^[82] See Hagner, Matt., 1:222; cf. Gundry, Matt., 155; Witherington, 190-191. Matthean interest in earthquakes is perhaps overstated. Aside from a reference to earthquakes in the eschatological discourse common to all three Gospels, the only earthquakes Matthew mentions take place at Jesus’ death (Matt. 27:54) and resurrection (Matt. 28:2). While it is true that the Gospels of Mark and Luke make no reference to these earthquakes, it is not clear from these two unique references that the author of Matthew had a general interest in earthquakes. It seems rather that the author of Matthew believed the death and resurrection of Jesus were of cosmic significance, shaking the earth to its core. The storm on the Sea of Galilee, on the other hand, may have been an important event in the life of Jesus and the disciples, but it was certainly not on a par with Jesus’ death and resurrection. ↩
• ^[83] See Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 56; Schweizer, 221; Davies-Allison, 2:69; Luz, 2:20; Nolland, Matt., 370; Witherington, 189-191. ↩
• ^[84] Cf. Collins, 259. ↩
• ^[85] The term for “storm” in the story of Nicanor is נַחְשׁוֹל in t. Yom. 2:4 and b. Yom. 38a, but סַעַר גָּדוֹל in y. Yom. 3:6 (19a-b). Similarly, the term for “storm” in the story of the precocious youth is נַחְשׁוֹל in t. Nid. 5:17, but סַעַר גָּדוֹל in y. Ber. 9:1 (63b). There are two stories about Rabban Gamliel in a storm. The details vary significantly, so it is not clear whether they are different versions of the same story or are meant to describe separate occasions. In any case, נַחְשׁוֹל occurs in b. Bab. Metz. 59b, while סַעַר גָּדוֹל occurs in Midrash Tannaim 25:3. ↩
• ^[86] See Tumultuous Times, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[87] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1262. ↩
• ^[88] Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1935). ↩
• ^[89] Klausner (269) mentioned having witnessed such a storm on the lake in 1912, but he did not describe his experience in detail. ↩
• ^[90] Delitzsch rendered καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον (“and they were being filled and they were in danger”) in Luke 8:23 as וַיִּשְׁטְפוּ עֲלֵיהֶם הַמַּיִם וַיִּהְיוּ בְסַכָּנָה (“and the water washed over them, and they were in danger”). Note how many words Delitzsch found it necessary to supply in Hebrew in order to convey the sense of the Greek and how different is the mode of expression (two conjunctions and two verbs in Greek vs. two complete sentences in Hebrew). ↩
• ^[91] The verb συνπληροῦν (sūnplēroun, “to fill with”) occurs in Luke 8:23 and Luke 9:51 but never in Mark or Matthew. See Moulton-Geden, 925. Likewise, κινδυνεύειν (kindūnevein, “to be in danger”) occurs in Luke 8:23 but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 548. ↩
• ^[92] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 183. ↩
• ^[93] Are the two references to “the boat” in Mark 4:37 (L24, L25) a reaction to Luke’s unusual “they [i.e., the passengers] were being filled”? On Luke’s unusual phrasing, see Bovon, 1:318 n. 6. ↩
• ^[94] See Beare, Matt., 215; Gundry, Matt., 155. ↩
• ^[95] We have adopted the Mishnaic-style ן- suffix for HR, since the idiom comes from Mishnaic Hebrew. Once more in HR we have the mixed style of Mishnaic and biblicizing Hebrew attested in the baraita from b. Kid. 66a. ↩
• ^[96] Gundry (Matt., 155) regarded Matthew’s δέ as a stylistic improvement over Mark’s καί. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. Lindsey’s translation of ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ in Mark 4:38 as בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַסִּירָה (HTGM, 101). ↩
• ^[98] See Gundry, Mark, 239. ↩
• ^[99] See Wachsmann, The Sea of Galilee Boat, 326-327. ↩
• ^[100] Thus, Jesus’ sleep on the boat is not as great a challenge to the historicity of Quieting a Storm as some scholars (cf. Marcus, 1:337) suggest. ↩
• ^[101] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:773-774. ↩
• ^[102] See Dos Santos, 208. ↩
• ^[103] See Taylor, 275; Albright-Mann, 98. ↩
• ^[104] See Bundy, 241 §146. Cf. France, Mark, 224. ↩
• ^[105] Presumably the author of Matthew understood ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ho huios tou anthrōpou, “the son of the person”) in Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple as a reference to Jesus. On whether “son of man” in this context was originally intended to be self-referential or whether “son of man” originally had a broader meaning (i.e., human beings in general), see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, under the subheading “Results of This Research.” ↩
• ^[106] See van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 25; Gundry, Matt., 155; Davies-Allison, 2:72 n. 9; Nolland, Matt., 370. ↩
• ^[107] On the stacking up of prepositional phrases as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[108] See Muraoka, Lexicon, 349. ↩
• ^[109] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:700. ↩
• ^[110] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1248. ↩
• ^[111] See Allen, 82; Beare, Matt., 215; Davies-Allison, 2:72; Nolland, Luke, 1:400. ↩
• ^[112] It is possible, however, that the author of Matthew was influenced by Mark’s use of καί in L31 and that Luke’s προσελθόντες δέ reflects the wording of Anth. In either case HR would remain unchanged. ↩
• ^[113] The only instances of διεγείρειν in the Synoptic Gospels are found in Mark 4:39 (Quieting a Storm, L40) and Luke 8:24 (Quieting a Storm, L32, L40). See Moulton-Geden, 215. ↩
• ^[114] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:364. On reconstructing ἐγείρειν with הֵקִים, see Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance, Comment to L15. ↩
• ^[115] See Dos Santos, 152. ↩
• ^[116] Additional examples of ἐγείρειν as the translation of הֵעִיר occur in Isa. 41:25; 45:13; Jer. 27[50]:9; 28[51]:11; Dan. 11:25. ↩
• ^[117] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:400. ↩
• ^[118] See Marcus, 1:335. Cf. Collins, 259. ↩
• ^[119] See Withered Fig Tree, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[120] The following table shows all of the instances of ἐπιστάτα in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Luke 5:5 TT (cf. Matt. 4:[–]; Mark 1:[–]) Luke 8:24 [ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα] TT (cf. Matt. 8:25 [κύριε]; Mark 4:38 [διδάσκαλε]) Luke 8:45 TT (cf. Matt. 9:[–]; Mark 5:31 [–]) Luke 9:33 TT (cf. Matt. 17:4 [κύριε]; Mark 9:5 [ῥαββί]) Luke 9:49 Lk-Mk (cf. Mark 9:38 [διδάσκαλε]) Luke 17:13 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩
• ^[121] On ἐπιστάτης in Luke and in non-Jewish Greek sources, see Albert L. A. Hogeterp, “New Testament Greek as Popular Speech: Adolf Deissmann in Retrospect,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 102.2 (2011): 178-200, esp. 192-193. ↩
• ^[122] The instances of κύριε κύριε in Matt. 7:22 and Matt. 25:11 are probably the product of Matthean redaction. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L10, and Waiting Maidens, Comment to L36. ↩
• ^[123] See Lindsey, HTGM, 101. ↩
• ^[124] In LXX the verb μέλειν occurs in Tob. 10:5; 1 Macc. 14:42, 43; Job 22:3; Wis. 12:13. Only in Job 22:3 does μέλειν have a Hebrew equivalent (חֵפֶץ [ḥēfetz, “pleasure”]), although the instances in Tobit and 1 Maccabees may well have stood for something in the underlying Hebrew text. ↩
• ^[125] The table below shows all of the instances of μέλειν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 22:16 TT = Mark 12:14 (cf. Luke 20:21) Mark 4:38 TT (cf. Matt. 8:25; Luke 8:24) Mark 12:14 TT= Matt. 22:16 (cf. Luke 20:21) Luke 10:40 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  It is notable that while the author of Matthew was willing to accept μέλειν from Mark once, μέλειν does not occur at all in DT, and there is no Lukan-Markan agreement on the use of μέλειν. ↩

• ^[126] See Meier, Marginal, 2:926. Gould (85) noticed this difficulty, but attempted to explain it away. ↩
• ^[127] On the author of Mark’s redactional habit of transforming statements into questions, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[128] Cf. van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 23; Nolland, Luke, 398; Marcus, 1:337. ↩
• ^[129] On the clues Mark’s version of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption offers as to the date and circumstances of Mark’s composition, see Yerushalayim Besieged, under the “Story Placement” subheading, and LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[130] As scholars have noted (pace Gundry, Matt., 155), the way the disciples’ question is formulated in Greek implies the expectation of a positive answer (“You do care, don’t you, that we are perishing?”). See Gundry, Mark, 239; Meier, Marginal, 2:926. Thus, the author of Mark portrays disciples who are struggling to reconcile their positive expectations with the disappointments they have encountered along the way. ↩
• ^[131] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:397. Guelich (266) noted this inconsistency, but attempted to explain it away. ↩
• ^[132] On the disciples’ address to Jesus as a prayer, see Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 55; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 24; Davies-Allison, 2:73; France, Mark, 224. ↩
• ^[133] Cf. Beare, Matt., 215. ↩
• ^[134] Cf. McNeile (110), who noted the dissonance, but attempted to explain it away. ↩
• ^[135] Here we distinguish the petition to save addressed to Jesus from the command for Jesus to save himself (Matt. 27:40; Mark 15:30; Luke 23:37, 39). ↩
• ^[136] See Schweizer, 221; Beare, Matt., 215; Davies-Allison, 2:73; Hagner, 1:222. ↩
• ^[137] See Meier, Marginal, 2:1008 n. 181. ↩
• ^[138] See Allen, 83; Bundy, 134 §57; Beare, Matt., 215; Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 56; Loos, Miracles, 638; Nolland, Matt., 371. ↩
• ^[139] See Gundry, Matt., 156. ↩
• ^[140] See Davies-Allison, 2:73. ↩
• ^[141] We find another example of Matthean redactional sloppiness in the author of Matthew’s joining of Boy Delivered from Demon and Faith Like a Mustard Seed. In Boy Delivered from Demon the author of Matthew has Jesus say the disciples were unable to exorcise the demon because of their ὀλιγοπιστία (oligopistia, “small faith”), but has Jesus go on to say in the very next breath that faith as small as a mustard seed is capable of producing miracles (Matt. 17:20). See Faith Like a Mustard Seed, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[142] Cf. Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 56; van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 28. ↩
• ^[143] Likewise, the use of the cognate noun ὀλιγοπιστία (“little faith”) occurs in Matt. 17:20 but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Faith Like a Mustard Seed, Comment to L6, where we concluded that ὀλιγοπιστία is redactional. ↩
• ^[144] On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[145] See Gundry, Matt., 156. ↩
• ^[146] See Bundy, 241 §146; Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 57; Guelich, 1:267; Gundry, Mark, 1:240; Meier, Marginal, 2:926; Bovon, 1:318; J. Green, 333. ↩
• ^[147] See Jan Joosten, “The Verb גער ‘to Exorcise’ in Qumran Aramaic and Beyond,” Dead Sea Discoveries 21 (2014): 347-355. ↩
• ^[148] This, despite Jastrow’s omission of גָּעַר in his dictionary (see Jastrow, 261). For examples of גָּעַר in post-Biblical Hebrew, see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L18. The use of ἐπιτιμᾶν in the Synoptic Gospels for persons and inanimate objects as well as demons parallels the broader use of גָּעַר in Hebrew as opposed to the restricted use of ג-ע-ר verbs for exorcism in Aramaic. Cf. Blackburn, “‘Miracle Working Θεοι Ανδρες’ in Hellenism (And Hellenistic Judaism),” 215 n. 93. ↩
• ^[149] The following statement in the War Scroll comes closest to the use of גָּעַר in the context of exorcism:

  ועם כול דורותינו הפלתה חסדיכה לשאר[ית נחלתכה] בממשלת בליעל ובכול רזי שטמתו לוא הדיחונ[ו] מבריתכה ורוחי [ח]בלו גערתה ממ[נו ובהתרשע אנ]שי ממשלתו שמ^רתה נפש פדותכה

  And with all our generations you have bestowed your benevolence to the remna[nt of your inheritance], during the dominion of Belial and during all the mysteries of his enmity they did not drive u[s] from your covenant, and his spirits of [de]struction you drove away from [us] [גערתה ממנו] [and in the wickedness of the peo]ple of his dominion you guarded the soul of your redemption. (1QM XIV, 8-11)

  But in the War Scroll it is God himself, not an exorcist, who drives away the malignant spirits. ↩

• ^[150] Pace Fitzmyer, 1:730. ↩
• ^[151] See Nolland, Luke, 1:400. ↩
• ^[152] The table below shows all the instances of σιωπᾶν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 20:31 TT = Mark 10:48 (cf. Luke 18:39) Matt. 26:63 TT = Mark 14:61 (cf. Luke 22:[–]) Mark 3:4 TT (cf. Matt. 12:12; Luke 6:9) Mark 4:39 TT (cf. Matt. 8:26; Luke 8:24) Mark 9:34 TT (cf. Matt. 18:1; Luke 9:46) Mark 10:48 TT = Matt. 20:31 (cf. Luke 18:39) Mark 14:61 TT = Matt. 26:63 (cf. Luke 22:[–]) Luke 1:20 U Luke 19:40 TT (cf. Matt. 21:[–]; Mark 11:[–]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩
• ^[153] The table below shows all the instances of φιμοῦν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 22:12 DT (cf. Luke 14:[–]) Matt. 22:34 TT (cf. Mark 12:28; Luke 10:25) Mark 1:25 Lk-Mk = Luke 4:35 Mark 4:39 TT (cf. Matt. 8:26; Luke 8:24) Luke 4:35 Lk-Mk = Mark 1:25 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩
• ^[154] See Plummer, Mark, 136; Guelich, 1:267; Marcus, 1:339; France, Mark, 224; Collins, 261. ↩
• ^[155] See Bundy, 241 §146; Beare, Earliest, 121 §105; Lachs, 161; Meier, Marginal, 2:926. ↩
• ^[156] See our discussion in Teaching in Kefar Nahum, Comment to L64 and Comment to L70. ↩
• ^[157] Pace A. B. Bruce, 370. ↩
• ^[158] In defense of the originality of Mark’s words of command some scholars have claimed that Mark’s syntax (a double imperative with no intervening conjunction called parataxis) is Semitic. Cf., e.g., van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 21. While it is true that parataxis is characteristic of Semitic languages, according to Black (46), “It is doubtful…if Mk….iv. 39, σιώπα πεφίμωσο…can be described as un-Greek, though more literary Greek would prefer the subordinating aorist participle or join with καί.” ↩
• ^[159] We regard Mark’s substitution of παύειν with κοπάζειν (kopazein, “to abate”) as merely a Markan paraphrase. ↩
• ^[160] The phrase מִזַּעְפּוֹ (“from its raging”) occurs only once in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jonah 1:15), and all instances of מִזַּעְפּוֹ in rabbinic sources are either direct quotations of Jonah or in storm narratives that appear to echo the Jonah story. ↩
• ^[161] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1112. ↩
• ^[162] See Moulton-Geden, 785. ↩
• ^[163] On παύειν in Luke 11:1, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L3. ↩
• ^[164] We must not fail to mention, however, that παύειν occurs 6xx in Acts (5:42; 6:13; 13:10; 20:1, 31; 21:32). ↩
• ^[165] We have found only two instances of παύειν→ἐκ in LXX (Deut. 32:26; 1 Chr. 21:22), whereas instances of παύειν→ἀπό occur in Num. 17:25; 25:8; Ps. 33:14; 36:8; Isa. 1:16; Jer. 32:37; 33:3, 13, 19; 38:37. ↩
• ^[166] See Delitzsch (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24); Resch, 45; Lindsey, HTGM, 101; MHNT (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24). ↩
• ^[167] Delitzsch’s דְּמָמָה רַבָּה (d^emāmāh rabāh, “great silence”; Matt. 8:26 ∥ Mark 4:39) and MHNT’s דְּמָמָה עֲמֻקָּה (d^emāmāh ‘^amuqāh, “deep silence”; Matt. 8:26 ∥ Mark 4:39) are also unattested in the ancient sources. ↩
• ^[168] See, e.g., Sifre Num. §42 (ed. Horovitz, 46); Sifre Deut. §199 (ed. Finkelstein, 237); Deut. Rab., Shoftim §15 (ed. Lieberman, 102). ↩
• ^[169] Pace Gundry (Mark, 244), who argued that “the interrogative form of the rebuke softens it considerably.” We would say that “Why are you cowardly?” is a loaded question that does not permit the disciples to deny that they are cowards (as “What? Are you cowards?” would have done), but demands that they explain how and why they have become cowardly. ↩
• ^[170] See Plummer, Mark, 136. ↩
• ^[171] On the three cardinal sins in Second Temple Judaism, see David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, “The Apostolic Decree and the Noahide Commandments.” ↩
• ^[172] Cf. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 2:216; Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 38a; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 800-801. ↩
• ^[173] Cf. Markus, 1:339. Thus, the “greater originality” of Mark in L48 is far from evident to us (pace Taylor, 276). ↩
• ^[174] On rapid-succession questions as a product of Markan redactional activity, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[175] Cf. Lynn Allan Losie, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Tradition Criticism of a Markan Pericope: Mk 11:12-14, 20-25,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 7 (1977): 3-18, esp. 10. ↩
• ^[176] See David Flusser, “The Ten Commandments and the New Testament,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershom Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 219-246, esp. 232; Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L30-31. ↩
• ^[177] On the author of Mark’s redactional conversion of statements into questions, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[178] Scholars often remark that expressing “Have faith in God” with the genitive (ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ) rather than the dative (ἔχετε πίστιν τῷ θεῷ) is unusual. See Taylor, 466; Jeremias, Theology, 161; Gundry, Mark, 2:651. A comparable example can be found in the Shepherd of Hermas:

  ὅταν οὖν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἔχων τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων τῶν ἐχόντων πίστιν θείου πνεύματος καὶ ἔντευξις γένηται πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, τότε ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ προφητικοῦ ὁ κείμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν πληροῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ πληρωθεὶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ λαλεῖ εἰς τὸ πλῆθος, καθὼς ὁ κύριος βούλεται

  Therefore, when a person having the divine spirit enters a synagogue of righteous men having faith in the divine spirit [τῶν ἐχόντων πίστιν θείου πνεύματος], and petition is made to God by the synagogue of those men, then the angel of the prophetic spirit appointed for him fills the person and, being filled with the holy spirit, the person speaks to the many, just as the Lord wishes. (Herm., Mandate 11:9)

  Text according to Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1912-1913), 2:120. ↩

• ^[179] See Marcus, 1:335. Meier concluded on different grounds that the question in Mark 4:40 is redactional. See Meier, Marginal, 2:930. ↩
• ^[180] Cf. van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 19. The following table shows all of the instances of οὔπω in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 16:9 TT = Mark 8:17 (cf. Luke 12:[–]) Matt. 24:6 TT = Mark 13:7 (cf. Luke 21:9) Mark 4:40 TT (cf. Matt. 8:26; Luke 8:25) Mark 8:17 TT = Matt. 16:9 (cf. Luke 12:[–]) Mark 8:21 TT (cf. Matt. 16:11; Luke 12:[–]) Mark 11:2 TT (cf. Matt. 21:2; Luke 19:30) Mark 13:7 TT = Matt. 24:6 (cf. Luke 21:9) Luke 23:53 TT (cf. Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  From the table above we learn that the author of Matthew only used οὔπω where Mark had it, but he did not always accept οὔπω from Mark. Luke and Mark never agree to write οὔπω, although Luke was not absolutely against using οὔπω.

  On οὔπω as a redactional term in Mark, see also F. Neirynck, “The Redactional Text of Mark,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 57.1 (1981): 144-162, esp. 152, 155. ↩

• ^[181] According to Blackburn, the calming of the storm is the only miracle in the Gospels performed for “those who have lost their faith.” See Barry L. Blackburn, “The Miracles of Jesus,” in The Cambridge Companion to Miracles (ed. Graham H. Twelftree; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 113-130, esp. 115. We would say that the disciples had lost their nerve rather than their faith. This comes out even more clearly if our reconstruction (“Have faith in God”) is correct. ↩
• ^[182] Cf. Conzelmann, 49. ↩
• ^[183] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1138. ↩
• ^[184] See Lindsey, HTGM, 133. ↩
• ^[185] Lindsey adopted the imperfect form תַּאֲמִינוּ as the translation of ἔχετε because in his Greek text ἔχετε was not an imperative but a future verb belonging to the conditional clause εἰ ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ (“if you have faith in God”). See Lindsey, HTGM, 132. This reading has been rejected by most text critics as an assimilation of Mark to Luke and/or Matthew. See Taylor, 466; Metzger, 109; Collins, 522. ↩
• ^[186] See Bultmann, 216; Bundy, 134 §57. ↩
• ^[187] See Albright-Mann, 99. ↩
• ^[188] See Allen, 83; Loos, Miracles, 639. ↩
• ^[189] Cf. McNeile, 111; Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” 52; Luz, 2:21. ↩
• ^[190] See Bultmann, 216; Nolland, Luke, 1:397. ↩
• ^[191] Pace Davies and Allison, who reject the explanation that “the men” alludes to Jonah 1:16. See Davies-Allison, 2:75. ↩
• ^[192] Note that in Anth. individuals previously identified as disciples of John the Baptist are referred to as οἱ ἄνδρες (hoi andres, “the men”) in Yohanan the Immerser’s Question, L19. ↩
• ^[193] See A. B. Bruce, 144; Gundry, Matt., 156; Davies-Allison, 2:75; France, Matt., 337. ↩
• ^[194] See Moulton-Howard, 444-445; Muraoka, Syntax, 188 §22xk. ↩
• ^[195] Since the author of Luke was willing to write καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν (“and they feared a great fear”) in Luke 2:9, it seems unlikely that he would have avoided the same phrase in Quieting a Storm if it had appeared in FR, his source for this pericope. ↩
• ^[196] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1435-1436. פַּחַד (paḥad, “fear,” “terror”) is a close second. On reconstructing φόβος with פַּחַד, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[197] See Dos Santos, 85. ↩
• ^[198] Pace Creed, 120; Bovon, 1:317 n. 3. ↩
• ^[199] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:626-627. ↩
• ^[200] See Dos Santos, 221. ↩
• ^[201] Thus we find וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (vayitm^ehū hā’^anāshim ’ish ’el rē‘ēhū, “and the people looked at one another in wonder”; Gen. 43:33) and אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ יִתְמָהוּ (’ish ’el rē‘ēhū yitmāhū, “they will look at one another in wonder”; Isa. 13:8). See BDB, 1069. ↩
• ^[202] In Hebrew אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ must be joined to תָּמַהּ. There is not a single instance of לֵאמֹר followed by אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in MT. To get around this difficulty Delitzsch translated ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους (“they wondered, saying to one another”) in Luke 8:25 as וַיִּתְמְהוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (“And they wondered. And they said to one another”). ↩
• ^[203] On ἀλλήλων as a Lukan redactional term, see Like Children Complaining, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[204] In LXX πρὸς ἀλλήλους occurs as the translation of אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו (’ish ’el ’āḥiv, “each to his brother”; Gen. 42:28) and אֶחָד אֶל אֶחָד (’eḥād ’el ’eḥād, “one to the other”; Ezek. 37:17), but never as the translation of אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (“each to his neighbor”), which the LXX translators usually rendered quite literally as ἀνὴρ πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ (anēr pros ton plēsion avtou, “a man to his neighbor”; Judg. 6:29; 10:18; 4 Kgdms. 7:3, 9) or ἕκαστος πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ (hekastos pros ton plēsion avtou, “each to his neighbor”; 1 Kgdms. 10:11; Jer. 22:8; 26[46]:16; 43[36]:16; Jonah 1:7). Nevertheless, πρὸς ἀλλήλους could be considered a non-Septuagintal equivalent of אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ. Delitzsch translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in Mark 4:41; 8:16; 15:31; Luke 2:15; 4:36; 8:25; 24:14, 32; John 4:33; Acts 26:31; 28:4. Likewise, Lindsey translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in Mark 4:41; 8:16; 15:31. ↩
• ^[205] Cf. Marshall, 334. ↩
• ^[206] Had the original focus of the question been on Jesus’ identity, the Greek translator ought to have written ὅς instead of ὅτι in L56 as follows: τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅς καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ (“Who, then, is this, who even commands the winds and the water and they listen to him?”). ↩
• ^[207] Presumably the misunderstanding of the Greek translator’s rendering of the disciples’ question is ancient, possibly going back as far as his first readers, and almost certainly going back to the First Reconstructor and the synoptic evangelists. This is why, despite identical wording in Mark, Luke and GR in L55, the interlinear translations of Mark and Luke are different from that of GR. ↩
• ^[208] The LXX translators rendered הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה simply as τοῦτο (touto, “this”) in Gen. 20:10 and Exod. 18:14 or as ταῦτα (tavta, “these”) in Isa. 24:3. In each of these cases, the LXX translators gave no equivalent for דָּבָר. The LXX translators sometimes acted similarly when translating הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה (had^evārim hā’ēleh, “these things”). See A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[209] On the equivalence of λόγος and דָּבָר, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[210] In Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L16, we identified another instance where the Greek translator mistakenly used a masculine form instead of a neuter. ↩
• ^[211] As Bovon (1:321 n. 35) noted, καί in L56 “must be translated with ‘even.’” ↩
• ^[212] See Marshall, 335. ↩
• ^[213] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1405-1406. ↩
• ^[214] See Dos Santos, 212. ↩
• ^[215]

  Quieting a Storm
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 1)
  ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς λίμνης καὶ ἀνήχθησαν πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν καὶ κατέβη λαῖλαψ εἰς τὴν λίμνην ἀνέμου καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον προσελθόντες δὲ διήγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα ἀπολλύμεθα ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσατο [ἡ θάλασσα ⟨ἀπὸ κλύδωνος αὐτῆς⟩] καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	94	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	45 [53] ⟨54⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	45 [53] ⟨54⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	47.87 [56.38] ⟨57.45⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	49.45 [51.46] ⟨50.00⟩%

  .

  Quieting a Storm
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 2)
  ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς λίμνης καὶ ἀνήχθησαν πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν καὶ κατέβη λαῖλαψ εἰς τὴν λίμνην ἀνέμου καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον προσελθόντες δὲ διήγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα ἀπολλύμεθα ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	94	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	46 [54] ⟨55⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	46 [54] ⟨55⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	48.94 [57.45] ⟨58.51⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	50.55 [53.47] ⟨53.40⟩%

  ↩

• ^[216]

  Quieting a Storm
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 1)
  καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ γείνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου καὶ τὰ κύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ διδάσκαλε οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπε τῇ θαλάσσῃ σιώπα πεφίμωσο καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς τί δειλοί ἐστε οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσατο [ἡ θάλασσα ⟨ἀπὸ κλύδωνος αὐτῆς⟩] καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	118	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	31.36 [33.90] ⟨34.75⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	40.66 [38.83] ⟨37.96⟩%

  .

  Quieting a Storm
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 2)
  καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ γείνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου καὶ τὰ κύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ διδάσκαλε οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπε τῇ θαλάσσῃ σιώπα πεφίμωσο καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς τί δειλοί ἐστε οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	118	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	37 [40] ⟨41⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	31.36 [33.90] ⟨34.75⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	40.66 [39.60] ⟨39.81⟩

  ↩

• ^[217] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 121 §105. ↩
• ^[218]

  Quieting a Storm
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 1)
  ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν καὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον καλύπτεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κυμάτων αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε σῶσον ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς τί δειλοί ἐστε ὀλιγόπιστοι τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσατο [ἡ θάλασσα ⟨ἀπὸ κλύδωνος αὐτῆς⟩] καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	84	Total Words:	91 [103] ⟨108⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	52.38 [55.95] ⟨55.95⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	48.35 [45.63] ⟨43.52⟩%

  .

  Quieting a Storm
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed 2)
  ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν καὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον καλύπτεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κυμάτων αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε σῶσον ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς τί δειλοί ἐστε ὀλιγόπιστοι τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετείμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς διαπεράσομεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ⟨καὶ διεπέρασαν⟩] πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἔστη ἐπ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὥστε βυθίζειν αὐτούς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκοιμήθη ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ καὶ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε κύριε ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι φόβον μέγαν καὶ ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ
  Total Words:	84	Total Words:	91 [101] ⟨103⟩
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	44 [47] ⟨47⟩
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	52.38 [55.95] ⟨55.95⟩%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	48.35 [46.53] ⟨45.63⟩%

  ↩

• ^[219] Cf. van Iersel and Linmans, “The Storm on the Lake,” 42. ↩
• ^[220] Cf. Loos, Miracles, 647-648. ↩
• ^[221] See Luz, 2:17, 20; Collins, 260. ↩
• ^[222] Pace J. Green, 334; Keener, 279-280; Marcus, 1:338-339. ↩
• ^[223] See Guelich, 267; Bovon, 1:312; Nolland, Luke, 1:401; idem, Matt., 372; France, Matt., 337; Witherington, 191-192. ↩
• ^[224] Cf. Gould, 86. ↩
• ^[225] On Jesus as God’s divinely appointed emissary, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Jesus the Apostle.” ↩
• ^[226] Cf. Marcus, 1:340. ↩
• ^[227] On the goddess Isis as the protector of seafarers, see David Flusser, “Isis, the Lady of the Seas,” Sefunim (National Maritime Museum Haifa) 4 (1972-1977): 9-14. Various Greek authors claimed that certain philosophers were able to influence the elements to their (and others’) advantage. Thus Iamblichus (ca. 245-325 C.E.) claimed that Pythagoras (ca. 570-495 B.C.E.) “got rid of plagues rapidly and stopped strong winds; he caused hail to stop at once; he calmed rivers and seas so that his companions might cross over easily” (Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras §135). Translation according to David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan, eds., Documents for the Study of the Gospels (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994 [orig. pub. 1980]), 154. Similarly, Diogenes Laertius (third-cent. C.E.), citing Timaeus (ca. 356-260 B.C.E.), claimed that the philosopher Empedocles (ca. 492-432 B.C.E.) had devised means of staying the wind (Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 8:2 §60). And according to Philostratus (mid-second to mid-third century C.E.), the philosopher Apollonius (first century C.E.) was regarded as “one who was master of the tempest and of fire and of perils of all sorts,” and therefore people wished to sail with him so that they would benefit from his aura of protection (Life of Apollonius 4:13; Loeb). All of these claims, however, are late, most being made long after the lifetimes of the philosophers themselves. Some of these claims may even be intended as polemics against the claims of early Christians about Jesus. See Robert Garland, “Miracles in the Greek and Roman World,” in The Cambridge Companion to Miracles (ed. Graham H. Twelftree; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 75-94, esp. 83; Loos, Miracles, 641-644; Blackburn, “‘Miracle Working Θεοι Ανδρες’ in Hellenism (And Hellenistic Judaism),” 185-218. ↩
• ^[228] Plummer (Mark, 136), Bacon (Beginnings, 57), Loos (Miracles, 639) and Bovon (1:320 n. 22) are among the scholars who have noted the similarities and differences between Quieting a Storm and Caesar’s defiance of a storm. For a thorough analysis, see Rick Strelan, “A Greater Than Caesar: Storm Stories in Lucan and Mark,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 91.3-4 (2000): 166-179. ↩
• ^[229] Cf. Kazen, 181. ↩
• ^[230] Some scholars (cf., e.g., Plummer, Mark, 136; Taylor, 275; Beare, Earliest, 121 §105; Collins, 259) attempt to draw a parallel between Jesus’ quieting of a storm and a passage in Virgil’s Aeneid in which Aeneas, preparing to set sail, falls asleep on the boat. While sleeping, the god Mercury visits him and warns him to set sail to avoid danger:

  But now that all was duly ordered, and now that he was resolved on going, Aeneas was snatching sleep on his vessel’s high stern. In his sleep there appeared to him a vision of the god…and seemed to warn him this…“Goddess-born, when such hazard threatens, canst thou still slumber and seest not the perils that from henceforth hem thee in, madman! Hearest not the kindly breezes blowing? …Wilt not flee hence in haste, while hasty flight is possible? Soon thou wilt see the waters swarming with ships, see fierce brands ablaze, and soon the shore flashing with flames, if the dawn find thee lingering in these lands.” (Virgil, Aeneid 4:554-565; Loeb)

  Translation according to H. Rushton Fairclough, Virgil (Loeb; 2 vols.; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1916-1918), 1:435.

  In our estimation, points of similarity between this story and Quieting a Storm are exceedingly meager. In the Aeneid there is no storm and hence no need to calm the wind and waves. The winds in the Aeneid are friendly, willing to bear Aeneas to safety. In response to the dream Aeneas sets sail. Aeneas does not sleep through a storm, he is awakened by a dream warning him to get a move on. ↩

• ^[231] Cf. Taylor, 273; Nolland, Luke, 1:401. ↩