Completion

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Completion,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/26749/].

Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mark 9:1; 13:30;
Luke 9:27; 21:32

(Huck 59, 123, 221; Aland 100, 160, 293;
Crook 111, 178, 333)^[113]

וּבִזְמָן שֶׁהֵם רוֹדְפִים אֶתְכֶם בְּעִיר זוֹ נוּסוּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם לֹא תִּגְמְרוּ אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בַּר אֱנָשׁ

When you are harassed in one town, make your way to the next. You have my word that you will not have run out of places in Israel by the time the Son of Man comes.^[114]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Completion click on the link below:

---

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

---

• ^[1] Numerous scholars have recognized that some kind of relationship exists between the sayings we have grouped together under the title Completion. Cf. McNeile, 248; Bacon, Beginnings, 120; Fitzmyer, 2:1352; Davies-Allison, 2:189; Meier, Marginal, 2:339; Marcus, 2:911; Bovon, 3:121. ↩
• ^[2] Cf. Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 37-38. ↩
• ^[3] Cf. Norman Perrin, “The Composition of Mark ix I,” Novum Testamentum 11.1-2 (1969): 67-70, esp. 68; Davies-Allison, 2:189; Marcus, 2:911. ↩
• ^[4] Matthew’s version of the saying from the second subdivision (Matt. 16:28) also refers explicitly to the Son of Man, but this is probably due to the author of Matthew’s redactional technique of “cross-pollination.” Nevertheless, the author of Matthew’s redactional instinct in Matt. 16:28 was probably correct. ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 2:468; Evans, 334. ↩
• ^[6] Pace Marshall, 780. ↩
• ^[7] Cf. Bultmann, 121; Bundy, 304 §182; Conzelmann, 104 n. 1; Meier, Marginal, 2:343; Vermes, Authentic, 280-281. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Schweizer, 242; Luz, 2:85. Pace Gundry, Matt., 194. ↩
• ^[9] It is fascinating to observe that whereas Bundy (160 §73) attributed the first half of Matt. 10:23 (“But when they persecute you in this city, flee to the other”) to Matthean redaction but the second half (“Amen! I say to you, you will not complete the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes”) to Matthew’s unique source, Knox (2:51) did just the opposite, attributing the first half of Matt. 10:23 to “a genuine record of the actual directions of Jesus” but dismissing the second half of the verse as Matthean redaction. ↩
• ^[10] On the derivation of the “strings of pearls” from FR, see LOY Excursus: Sources of the “Strings of Pearls” in Luke’s Gospel. ↩
• ^[11] See LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “First Reconstruction.” ↩
• ^[12] On the derivation of Luke’s version of Jesus’ eschatological discourse from FR, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[13] Cf. Bovon, 3:121. ↩
• ^[14] For details, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[15] In Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L47, we noted that “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” echoes “for the sin of the Amorite is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16), which indicated a timespan of approximately four hundred years. ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Meier, Marginal, 2:346. ↩
• ^[17] The table below shows the complex relationship between three FR “string of pearls” sayings and FR’s statement of affirmation toward the end of the eschatological discourse:

  Luke 9:26	Luke 9:27	Luke 16:17	Luke 21:32-33
  ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται	λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς εἰσίν τινες τῶν αὐτοῦ ἑστηκότων οἳ οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ	εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν	ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται

  It is as though the First Reconstructor put the sayings represented in Luke 9:26, 27 and 16:17 into a blender to produce the affirmation of the prophecy’s veracity now contained in Luke 21:32-33.

  The question arises, however, if Luke 21:32 is based on Luke 9:27, why does Luke 21:32 have the more Hebraic ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) compared to the Hellenized ἀληθῶς (alēthōs, “truly”) of Luke 9:27? And why does Luke 21:32 (in context) refer to the Son of Man instead of the Kingdom of God, as in Luke 9:27? We think the answer is that the author of Luke redacted the FR “string of pearls” version of Completion (Luke 9:27). We suspect that FR’s wording of the “string of pearls” version of Completion read as follows:

  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν αὐτοῦ ἑστηκότων οἳ οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

  Amen! I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will by no means taste death until the Son of Man comes.

  This reconstruction not only accounts for the ἀμήν in Luke 9:27 and its reference to the Son of Man, it also explains why FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion was included in a collection having to do with the Son of Man. For further discussion of our reconstruction of FR’s wording of the “string of pearls” version of Completion, see below, Comment to L12 and Comment to L23-25. ↩

• ^[18] We have selected Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion for comparison with John 8:51-52 because, of the three synoptic versions (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27), we think Mark’s is the most likely to have been known to the author of the Fourth Gospel.
  
  The question of Johannine dependence on the Synoptic Gospels is fraught and cannot detain us long here. Suffice it to say, while there are indications that Luke and John drew from common traditions (e.g., Mary and Martha are mentioned only in Luke and John, but these two Gospels do not tell the same stories about these characters), examples of John’s verbal dependence on the Synoptic Gospels appear to be limited to Mark. Thus, both Mark and John mention a sum of two hundred denarii required to purchase enough bread to feed the multitude (Mark 6:37; John 6:7) in their respective versions of the miraculous feeding and three hundred denarii that could have been given to Jesus in lieu of the nard with which Jesus was anointed (Mark 14:5; John 12:5). Likewise, Mark and John are unique among the Gospels in referring to the “expensive ointment of nard” with which Jesus was anointed (Mark 14:3; John 12:3). Similarly, the Gospels of Mark and John are alone in reporting a command to a healed man to take up his κράβαττος (krabattos, “pallet”), whereas the Gospels of Matthew and Luke agree against Mark to use terms other than κράβαττος (κλίνη [klinē, “bed”] in Matt. 9:6; κλινίδιον [klinidion, “cot”] in Luke 5:24). Likewise, the commands given to the healed individuals in Mark and John are nearly identical: ἔγειρε καὶ [John omits the conjunction] ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει (“Arise (and) take up your pallet and walk around”; Mark 2:9 [cf. Mark 2:11]; John 5:8). Similar commands appear in Matthew and Luke, but neither use the verb περιπατεῖν (peripatein, “to walk around”) found in Mark 2:9 and John 5:8 (Matt. 9:6 has ὑπάγειν [hūpagein, “to go”; cf. Mark 2:11]; Luke 5:24 has πορεύεσθαι [porevesthai, “to go”], but cf. Luke 5:23, where περιπατεῖν does occur).
  
  On the broader question of Johannine dependence on the Synoptic Gospels, see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Translated with an Introduction and Notes (AB; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966-1970), xliv-xlvii; David Flusser, “The Gospel of John’s Jewish-Christian Source,” under the subheading “The Sources of John’s Gospel.” For the specific examples of Johannine dependence on Mark, see Peter J. Tomson, “An Alienated Jewish Tradition in John 7:22-23: Proposal for an ‘Epichronic’ Reading,” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 297-314, esp. 307-308. Tomson (“An Alienated Jewish Tradition in John 7:22-23,” 308) also raises the fascinating possibility that John 12:1 intentionally corrects the chronology indicated in Mark 14:1.
  
  We would also suggest that Jesus’ rebuke—“The cup that the Father [ὁ πατήρ] has given me, must I not drink?”—in response to the cutting off of the ear of the slave of the high priest (John 18:11) makes no sense except in light of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, absent in John, that the Father take the cup from him (Matt. 26:39 ∥ Mark 14:36 ∥ Luke 22:42). Since all three Synoptic Gospels contain versions of this petition, proving Johannine dependence on Mark is challenging, but we do note that whereas in Matt. 26:39 Jesus addresses God as πάτερ μου (pater mou, “my father”) and in Luke 22:42 Jesus addresses God simply as πάτερ (pater, “father”), Mark 14:36 has αββα ὁ πατήρ (abba ho patēr, “Abba! Father!”), which may be echoed by the reference to “the Father” in John 18:11. ↩
• ^[19] Presumably an “Amen!” declaration was omitted in John 8:52 because it would have been redundant, but it is possible that the author of the Fourth Gospel wished to restrict “Amen! Amen! I say to you...” exclusively to Jesus and so would not permit “the Jews” to repeat it when they paraphrased him. ↩
• ^[20] Are “not seeing death” in John 8:51 and “not tasting death” in John 8:52 to be understood as synonymous (so Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971], 324 n. 3)? Or are we to understand that “the Jews” have misconstrued Jesus’ words? Chilton characterized John 8:52 as an outrageous parody of Jesus’ words in John 8:51 in which “the Jews” attributed to Jesus the “absurd claim” that anyone who kept Jesus’ word would be immortal like Enoch or Elijah, two individuals who were said not to have “tasted death” (4 Ezra 6:26; Gen. Rab. 21:5). See Bruce D. Chilton, “‘Not to Taste Death’: A Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Usage,” in Studia Biblica 1978 II. Papers on the Gospels (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 29-36, esp. 31. Presumably Chilton believed “not see death” referred to spiritual death, while “not taste death” referred to physical death (cf. Brown, 1:359), but is this distinction really inherent in the idioms “see death” and “taste death”? ↩
• ^[21] In which case, there was a parallel development in John and FR in which Acknowledgement of the Son of Man (Mark 8:38 ∥ Luke 9:26 ≈ Matt. 16:27) influenced their own adaptations of Completion (Luke 21:32; John 8:51, 52). ↩
• ^[22] Davies and Allison acknowledged that John 8:51-52 represents variants of the saying in Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27, but they denied direct dependence on the Synoptic Gospels. See Davies-Allison, 2:676 n. 35. ↩
• ^[23] Brown (1:359) acknowledged that Gos. Thom. §1 is a version of John 8:51, 52. ↩
• ^[24] The author of Matthew did not describe when or how this mission ended, but by Matt. 12:1 the disciples have rejoined Jesus, so the apostolic mission may be presumed to have ended by then. In any case, it is clear that in the author of Matthew’s view the apostolic mission described in Matt. 10:1-11:1 was of limited duration (pace Gundry, Matt., 194; Davies-Allison, 2:190), because new instructions for a different mission are given in Matt. 28:18-20. The instruction to “make disciples of all the Gentiles” (Matt. 28:19) nullifies the limitation to “the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:6) which applied to the first apostolic mission. ↩
• ^[25] Pace Allen, 107. On this saying, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple. ↩
• ^[26] This interpretation of Matt. 10:23 is ancient, being found already in the sermons of John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 34:1). ↩
• ^[27] See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L31, Comment to L32 and Comment to L33. ↩
• ^[28] Cf. McNeile, 142; Manson, Sayings, 182; Meier, Marginal, 2:340; Luz, 2:91. Pace Bundy, 161 §73; Davies-Allison, 2:188. ↩
• ^[29] See the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, and the introduction to the “Mission of the Twelve” complex. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Manson, Teaching, 121; Sayings, 182. ↩
• ^[31] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L135. The reason for the author of Matthew’s anachronistic insertion of the materials on persecution into his version of the sending discourse was probably to portray the Jewish people as hostile to the Christian message from the very start, a hostility that focused as much on Jesus’ followers as on Jesus himself (Matt. 10:25). On the pervasive anti-Jewish sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew, see R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[32] As we have already noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion and as will discuss more fully in the Comment section, it was not only the author of Luke’s placement of Transfiguration after his “string of pearls” version of Completion that projected the fulfillment of its promise into the past, the author of Luke probably adapted FR’s wording of the “string of pearls” version of Completion too. His changes made his version of his “string of pearls” version of Completion (Luke 9:27) more applicable to the Transfiguration by referring to “the Kingdom of God” instead of “the Son of Man.” ↩
• ^[33] The author of Luke’s reference to eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) may also indicate that eyewitnesses were becoming scarce at the time of his writing. While claiming to be the recipient of testimony handed down from eyewitnesses, the author of Luke does not state that he was in close contact with eyewitnesses himself. ↩
• ^[34] To what extent the author of Luke edited his version of Transfiguration in order to make it fit as a fulfillment of Luke 9:27 is beyond the scope of the present investigation; however, we would hazard that at least the opening verse (Luke 9:28) was redacted for this purpose. The verse reads as follows:

  ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ [καὶ] παραλαβὼν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι

  But it was after these words, about eight days, and taking Peter and John and James he went up into the mountain to pray. (Luke 9:28)

  The chronological marker “after these words, about eight days” is awkward. We suspect that Luke’s source read, ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ (egeneto de meta hēmeras oktō, “But it happened after eight days...”) and that the author of Luke inserted μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους (meta tous logous toutous, “after these words”) in order to tie the transfiguration account more tightly to the preceding saying. ↩

• ^[35] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:677; Meier, Marginal, 2:342; Luz, 2:386. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. Meier (Marginal, 2:342), who on the assumption of Markan Priority ascribed the placement of Transfiguration after the “string of pearls” version of Completion to the author of Mark. ↩
• ^[37] On our dating of the composition of Luke’s Gospel, see LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[38] Ibid. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Meier, Marginal, 2:345, who discusses the jarring effect of the juxtaposition of Mark 13:30 and Mark 13:32. Unfortunately, Meier drew the wrong conclusion. Instead of regarding Day and Hour Unknown as a redactional Markan disclaimer, Meier supposed Mark 13:32 to be authentic and so concluded that Mark 13:30 must be redactional. ↩
• ^[40] Cf. Luz, 3:209. ↩
• ^[41] For a more detailed discussion of Day and Hour Unknown (Matt. 24:36 ∥ Mark 13:32), see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L1-6. ↩
• ^[42] See Lindsey, JRL, 188-191; Randall Buth, “Book Review: Robert L. Lindsey’s Jesus, Rabbi and Lord,” under the subheading “Innovative Approach to the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[43] See Davies-Allison, 2:191. ↩
• ^[44] See David N. Bivin, “Cataloging the Gospels’ Hebraisms: Part Three (Impersonal 'They').” ↩
• ^[45] Our intention here is not to deny that διώκειν can mean “to persecute,” but only to point out that scholars have done a poor job proving that this is so. ↩
• ^[46] BDAG (254) also cites διώξεται ὑμᾶς πνεῦμα πλανήσεως (diōxetai hūmas pnevma planēseōs, “a spirit of deception will pursue you”; 1 Enoch 99:14) and καὶ ἐδίωξεν αὐτοὺς ἕως τῆς πύλης Πτολεμαίδος (kai ediōxen avtous heōs tēs pūlēs Ptolemaidos, “and he pursued them to the gate of Ptolemais”; 1 Macc. 5:22) as examples of “persecute.” ↩
• ^[47] Albrecht Oepke, “διώκω,” TDNT, 2:229-230. ↩
• ^[48] Text and translation according to A. T. Murray, trans., The Iliad (Loeb Classical Library; 2 vols.; London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1924-1925), 2:468-469. ↩
• ^[49] Text and translation according to Moulton-Milligan, 166 (διώκω). Oepke (“διώκω,” 229) also cited ὅπως διώξῃς ἀπ᾽ἐμοῦ τοῦ δούλου σου τὸν δαίμονα προβασκανίας (“that Thou mayst drive from me Thy servant the demon of witchcraft”; BGU III. 954, 7) as an example of “persecute.” ↩
• ^[50] See BDB, 922. ↩
• ^[51] The LXX translators rendered רָדַף אַחַר as διώκειν ὀπίσω in Gen. 31:23; Judg. 8:12; 4 Kgdms. 9:27. They rendered רָדַף אַחַר as καταδιώκειν ὀπίσω in Exod. 14:4; Josh. 2:7; 8:16; Judg. 1:6; 2 Kgdms. 20:6. ↩
• ^[52] Thus Beare (Earliest, 84 §59) proposed that “this city” refers to Jerusalem. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (trans. S. H. Hooke; London: SCM Press, 1958), 20 n. 4; Nolland, Matt., 426. Both scholars assumed the generic use of the demonstrative pronoun was an Aramaism. ↩
• ^[54] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 428. Pace Bundy, 160 §73. ↩
• ^[55] See Segal, 201 §411; Chanan Ariel, “The Shift from the Biblical Hebrew Far Demonstrative ההוא to the Mishnaic Hebrew אותו,” in New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew (ed. Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan; University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers, 2021), 167-195, esp. 184. ↩
• ^[56] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:191. Davies and Allison fall prey to the stereotype that pacifism amounts to cowardice. On the contrary, it requires extraordinary bravery to face violence unarmed. ↩
• ^[57] So McNeile, 142. ↩
• ^[58] See Beare, 140 §123. On the use of the third person imperfect forms ἔλεγεν/ἔλεγον in Mark as the product of Markan redaction, see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L3. ↩
• ^[59] See Swete, 185; Allen, 183; McNeile, 248; Bultmann, 121; Bundy, 303 §182; Jeremias, Theology, 136-137; Davies-Allison, 2:677; France, Mark, 343. See also Enrique Nardoni, “A Redactional Interpretation of Mark 9:1,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43.3 (1981): 365-384, esp. 373. ↩
• ^[60] Note that “strings of pearls” are more characteristic of Luke’s Gospel than Mark’s. Luke’s Gospel contains four “strings of pearls” (Luke 8:16-18; 9:23-27; 16:16-18; 17:1-6), but Mark’s Gospel contains only two (Mark 4:21-25; 8:34-9:1), both of which are paralleled in Luke’s Gospel (Mark 4:21-25 ∥ Luke 8:16-18; Mark 8:34-9:1 ∥ Luke 9:23-27). ↩
• ^[61] Cf. Beare, 140 §123; Gundry, Mark, 1:440. ↩
• ^[62] On transliterated terms from Hebrew and/or Aramaic in the Synoptic Gospels, see LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Marshall (378) and Fitzmyer (1:789), who attribute ἀληθῶς to the author of Luke. ↩
• ^[64] See Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[65] Neither the Gospel of Mark nor the Gospel of Luke ever has γάρ inserted into an “Amen!” formula, whereas in Matthew’s Gospel ἀμὴν γάρ occurs 4xx (Matt. 5:18; 10:23; 13:17; 17:20). ↩
• ^[66] Nevertheless, some doubt remains, since we traced the instance of ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν in Matt. 13:17 back to Anth. Luke’s parallel to Matt. 13:17, while lacking ἀμήν, has γάρ (Luke 10:24). See Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[67] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L116. ↩
• ^[68] But should not the same logic apply to Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion? If we follow Lindsey’s hypothesis, we must assume that Luke 9:27 was the source for Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion, but Mark 9:1 has ἀμήν instead of Luke’s ἀληθῶς. Would the author of Mark have replaced the stylistically more polished ἀληθῶς with the foreign term ἀμήν? We think he would. From the numerous “Amen!” sayings of Jesus with which the author of Mark was familiar, it would not have been difficult for him to have guessed that “I say to you truly” was equivalent to “Amen! I say to you.” Moreover, unlike the author of Luke, the author of Mark demonstrated a particular liking for foreign words and phrases, such as ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum; Mark 5:41), κορβᾶν (korban; Mark 7:11), ἐφφαθά (effatha; Mark 7:34), ἀββά (abba; Mark 14:36) and ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι (elōi elōi lema sabachthani; Mark 15:34). So it is not at all improbable that the author of Mark would have “restored” ἀμήν to his “string of pearls” version of Completion. ↩
• ^[69] On the author of Luke’s tendency to omit or replace ἀμήν when it occurred in his source, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115. The use of λέγω + ἀληθῶς is unique to Luke’s Gospel, occurring in Luke 9:27; 12:44; 21:3. ↩
• ^[70] Cf. Bruce D. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” New Testament Studies 27.1 (1980): 115-124, esp. 118. ↩
• ^[71] According to Taylor (385), οὐ μή + subjunctive is frequent in LXX and in NT is concentrated in the sayings of Jesus and LXX quotations. Otherwise, οὐ μή + subjunctive is relatively rare in Koine Greek. ↩
• ^[72] A survey of the Pentateuch shows that in LXX οὐ μή + subjunctive occurs as the translation of לֹא + imperfect in Gen. 3:1; 6:3; 18:28, 29, 30, 31, 32; 24:33; 32:33; Exod. 4:21; 30:20; Lev. 10:9; 20:22; 26:26, 31; Num. 4:19, 20; 9:19, 22; 13:31; 17:25; 20:24; 23:13, 20; 32:18; 35:12, 33; Deut. 1:17, 37, 42; 10:17; 13:9; 15:7, 19; 23:25[26]; 25:19; 28:65; 29:19. This accounts for the vast majority of instances of οὐ μή + subjunctive in the five books of Moses. ↩
• ^[73] The first table below shows instances of παρέρχεσθαι in Heaven and Earth Pass Away and Completion. The second table shows the remaining instances of παρέρχεσθαι in the Synoptic Gospels:

  Matt. 5:18 (1st instance) TT = Luke 16:17; Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 5:18 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 24:34 TT = Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Matt. 24:35 (1st instance) TT = Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 24:35 (2nd instance) TT = Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Mark 13:30 TT = Matt. 24:34 ∥ Luke 21:32 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Mark 13:31 (1st instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Mark 13:31 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 16:17 TT = Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 21:32 TT = Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Luke 21:33 (1st instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 21:33 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away

  Matt. 8:28 TT (cf. Mark 5:3-4; Luke 8:27) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Matt. 14:15 TT (cf. Mark 6:35; Luke 9:[--]) Miraculous Feeding Matt. 26:39 TT (cf. Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Gat Shemanim Matt. 26:42 TT (cf. Mark 14:39; Luke 22:[--]) Gat Shemanim Mark 6:48 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:[--]) Walking on Water Mark 14:35 TT (cf. Matt. 26:[--]; Luke 22:[--]) Gat Shemanim Luke 11:42 DT (cf. Matt. 23:23) Woes Against Scribes and Pharisees Luke 12:37 TT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]; Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Be Ready for the Son of Man Luke 15:29 U Prodigal Son parable Luke 17:7 U Just Doing My Job Luke 18:37 TT (cf. Matt. 9:27; Matt. 20:30 ∥ Mark 10:47) Man Healed of Blindness 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

  ↩

• ^[74] On the likelihood that most synoptic instances of παρέρχεσθαι are redactional, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L34-35. ↩
• ^[75] The unconvincing efforts to make γενεά (genea) mean something other than “generation” (e.g., “the Jewish people” or “the human race”) in Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32 are simply attempts to evade the fact that this prophecy was not fulfilled. See A. B. Bruce, 622; Plummer, Luke, 485, Mark, 305; Nolland, Luke, 3:1009; France, Mark, 538-539. ↩
• ^[76] See Wolter, 2:432. ↩
• ^[77] A generation's passing away is expressed in Ecclesiastes in the following manner:

  דּוֹר הֹלֵךְ וְדוֹר בָּא וְהָאָרֶץ לְעוֹלָם עֹמָדֶת

  A generation goes and a generation comes, but the land stands forever. (Eccl. 1:4)

  γενεὰ πορεύεται καὶ γενεὰ ἔρχεται, καὶ ἡ γῆ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἕστηκεν

  A generation goes and a generation comes, but the land stands forever. (Eccl. 1:4)

  ↩

• ^[78] So, for example, A. B. Bruce, 228; Allen, 183; Davies-Allison, 2:680 n. 48; Gundry, Mark, 1:440, 2:466; Marcus, 2:621. See also Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” 124. The idiom “taste death” does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, as many scholars acknowledge (see Plummer, Luke, 249; Fitzmyer, 1:789; Johannes Behm, “γεύομαι,” TDNT, 1:675-677). Nevertheless, it is true that “taste death” does appear in rabbinic sources:

  ר' חמא בר' חנינא אמר ראוי היה אדם הראשון שלא יטעום טעם מות ולמה נקנסה בו מיתה

  Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said, “The first man was worthy that he should not taste the taste of death [יטעום טעם מות], so why did death take him?” (Gen. Rab. 9:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:70])

  מפני מה נגזרה מיתה על הרשעים...מפני מה נגזרה מיתה על הצדיקים...ר′ שמעון בן לקיש אמר ליתן שכר לאלו בכפליים ולהפרע מאלו בכפליים, ליתן שכר לצדיקים שלא היו ראוים לטעום טעם מיתה וקיבלו עליהם טעם מיתה לפיכך לכן בארצם משנה יירשו, ולהפרע מהרשעים שלא היו ראוים למות הצדיקים ובשבילם קיבלו עליהם מיתה לפיכך ומשנה שברון שברם

  Why was death decreed against the wicked? ...Why was death decreed against the righteous? ...Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, “To give a reward to these [i.e., the righteous] in double measure and to punish these [i.e., the wicked] in double measure. To give a reward to the righteous, who were not deserving to taste the taste of death but they accepted upon themselves the taste of death, therefore [it says], therefore in their land they will inherit double [Isa. 61:7]. And to punish the wicked, for the righteous were not deserving to taste the taste of death, but because of them [i.e., the wicked] they accepted death upon themselves, therefore [it says], and with double destruction destroy them! [Jer. 17:18].” (Gen. Rab. 9:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:71])

  ר′ ברכיה בשם ר′ חנינא (אמר) כאליהו, מה זה לא טעם טעם מיתה אף זה לא היה ראוי לטעום טעם מיתה

  Rabbi Berechiah in the name of Rabbi Hanina said, “[Adam] was like Elijah. Just as this one [i.e., Elijah—DNB and JNT] did not taste the taste of death, so this one [i.e., Adam—DNB and JNT] was not intended to taste the taste of death.” (Gen. Rab. 21:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:201])

  אפעלפי שהכל טועמים טעם מיתה אלא כל צדיק וצדיק יש לו עולם בפני עצמו

  Although everyone tastes the taste of death, nevertheless every righteous person has a world to himself. (Gen. Rab. §96 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 3:1237])

  ‏[והמלך דוד] זקן בא בימים אלו ימי עולם הבא שנאמר שבתי בבית ה′ כל ימי חיי לעולם הבא שאין בהם טעם מות שנאמר בלע המות לנצח וגו′‏

  And King David was old, advancing in days [1 Kgs. 1:1]—these are the days of the world to come, for it is said, I will dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life [Ps. 27:4], [it refers] to the world to come because there is not in them [i.e., the days of the world to come—DNB and JNT] the taste of death [טעם מות], for it is said, Death is swallowed forever, etc. [Isa. 25:8].... (Aggadat Bereshit §38 [ed. Buber, 76])

  The rabbinic sources in which the idiom “taste death” occur are late enough that it is legitimate to ask whether “taste death” was a Greek idiom that eventually crept into Hebrew. ↩

• ^[79] See Behm, “γεύομαι,” TDNT, 1:675-677; Wolter, 1:390. ↩
• ^[80] Text and translation according to W. R. Paton, The Greek Anthology (5 vols.; Loeb; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927-1928), 2:352-353. ↩
• ^[81] Text according to Johannes Geffcken, ed., Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902), 9. Translation according to Charlesworth, 1:336. ↩
• ^[82] McNeile, 143; Davies-Allison, 2:191; Hagner, 1:279; Luz, 2:85; Nolland, Matt., 427. ↩
• ^[83] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 427. ↩
• ^[84] On “Israel” versus “Jew” as markers of “insider” versus “outsider” perspectives, see Peter J. Tomson, “The Names Israel and Jew in Ancient Judaism and in the New Testament,” Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 47 (1986): 120-140, 266-289. ↩
• ^[85] Cf. our reconstruction of ἐκτελεῖν with הִשְׁלִים in Tower Builder and King Going to War, L11. ↩
• ^[86] So the critical texts. Vaticanus reads, μέχρις ὅτου (mechris hotou, “until that”). ↩
• ^[87] In Codex Vaticanus ἄν is omitted after ἕως in Matt. 10:23. It is difficult to decide whether the omission was an accident on the part of the scribe who copied Vaticanus or whether the ἄν appeared in other witnesses to Matt. 10:23 via assimilation to the parallel versions of Completion. ↩
• ^[88] See Lindsey, GCSG, 2:139. ↩
• ^[89] See Harnack, 16; Bovon, 2:465 n. 57. ↩
• ^[90] Pace Perrin, “The Composition of Mark ix I,” 69. Likewise, we judged μέχρι to be redactional in Matt. 11:23 (see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L23) and Luke 16:16 (see The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, Comment to L12). ↩
• ^[91] In LXX ἕως ἄν + subjunctive occurs as the translation of עַד אֲשֶׁר + imperfect in Exod. 23:30; Lev. 22:4; Num. 11:20; 20:17; 32:17; Deut. 3:20; Josh. 1:15; Isa. 6:11. ↩
• ^[92] See Taylor, 521; Meier, Marginal, 2:345; Evans, 335. ↩
• ^[93] Cf., e.g., Hagner, 2:715. ↩
• ^[94] See Gundry, Mark, 2:790-791. ↩
• ^[95] On the author of Luke’s placement of The Kingdom Is Among You at the head of an Anth. block of Son of Man material, see Days of the Son of Man, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[96] Cf. Evans (28), who resolves the contradiction differently. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 694. ↩
• ^[98] See C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 37-38. While we concur with Dodd’s analysis of Mark’s grammar, we do not accept his inference that Mark 9:1 is an accurate reflection of Jesus’ realized eschatology. ↩
• ^[99] Cf. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” 120. ↩
• ^[100] Cf. Nardoni, “A Redactional Interpretation of Mark 9:1,” 375-377. ↩
• ^[101] See Beare, Matt., 360; Gundry, Matt., 341. ↩
• ^[102] See Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L35-67. ↩
• ^[103] This is probably another example of Matthean sloppiness. Other examples of the author of Matthew’s careless redaction include 1) the Baptist’s recognition of Jesus as the Coming One in Matt. 3:14-15 (see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L12-22); 2) the dissonance created by the author of Matthew’s transformation of the disciples’ expression of concern into a prayer for salvation (Matt. 8:25) followed by Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples for their lack of faith (Matt. 8:26) despite their prayer being a clear expression of faith (see Quieting a Storm, Comment to L35); 3) the insertion of “I say to you [plural]” in an address to an individual in Matt. 11:24 (see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24); 4) the reference to Herodias’ daughter dancing "in the midst" but the failure to refer to the banquet and the guests in Matt. 14:6 (see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L41); 5) the addition of “or on the Sabbath” (Matt. 24:20) to the command to pray that the flight from Jerusalem not take place in winter, in apparent ignorance of the fact that flight was permitted on the Sabbath (see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L36). ↩
• ^[104]

  Completion
  FR’s “String of Pearls” Version (Reconstructed)		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν αὐτοῦ ἑστηκότων οἳ οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	21	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	13
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	61.90%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	44.83%

  ↩

• ^[105]

  Completion
  Luke’s “String of Pearls” Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς εἰσίν τινες τῶν αὐτοῦ ἑστηκότων οἳ οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	21	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	7	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	7
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	33.33%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	24.14%

  .

  Completion
  Luke’s Eschatological Discourse Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	14	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	8
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	57.14%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	27.59%

  ↩

• ^[106] In other words, the author of Luke seemed to think that Jesus’ original disciples had a shorter life expectancy than the general population. Undoubtedly his view was colored by personal experience as a companion of Paul of hostility from Jewish leaders and persecution by Gentile authorities. ↩
• ^[107]

  Completion
  Mark’s “String of Pearls” Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	27	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	9	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	9
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	33.33%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	31.03%

  .

  Completion
  Mark’s Eschatological Discourse Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις ὅτου ταῦτα πάντα γένηται		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	15	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	6
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	40.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	20.69%

  ↩

• ^[108]

  Completion
  Matthew’s Anth. Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	29	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	28	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	28
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	96.55%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	96.55%

  .

  Completion
  Matthew’s “String of Pearls” Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	26	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	10	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	10
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	38.46%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	34.48%

  .

  Completion
  Matthew’s Eschatological Discourse Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται		ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  Total Words:	15	Total Words:	29
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	8
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	53.33%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	27.59%

  ↩

• ^[109] Cf. Luz, 2:93. ↩
• ^[110] See Luz, 2:381. ↩
• ^[111] On the author of Matthew’s occasional use of γενεά in the sense of “race,” see Innocent Blood, Comment to L26. ↩
• ^[112] Cf. Schweizer, 458. On the author of Matthew’s anti-Jewish messaging throughout his version of the eschatological discourse, see Yerushalayim Besieged and Son of Man’s Coming. ↩
• ^[113] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[114] 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. ↩