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^[1]

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.^[2]

Reconstruction

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

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

The first problem when dealing with the pericope we have entitled “Completion” is to determine whether it is really a single pericope or whether under this title we have arbitrarily clumped together three distinct pericopae.^[3] In other words, are we dealing with several iterations of a single saying, or are we dealing with two or three independent sayings that simply happen to share similar traits? Clearly, the sayings we have included in this LOY segment can be divided into three subcategories. The first subcategory contains a single version, Matt. 10:23, which is a saying about fleeing persecution accompanied by a promise about the Son of Man. The second subcategory consists of three versions of a promise that some “standing here will not taste death” until some sort of revelatory experience takes place (in Luke 9:27 and Mark 9:1 it is seeing the Kingdom of God; in Matt. 16:28 it is seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom). All three versions of the second subdivision occur as the concluding statement of a larger cluster of sayings having to do with the risks and benefits of being associated with Jesus, the Son of Man (Matt. 16:24-28 ∥ Mark 8:34-9:1 ∥ Luke 9:23-27). The third subcategory includes the Lukan, Markan and Matthean versions of a statement in Jesus’ eschatological discourse which asserts the validity of the predictions Jesus has made by claiming that “this generation will not pass away until everything has taken place” (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32).

While in theory it is possible that Jesus uttered three similar-sounding sayings on three separate occasions, there are strong reasons for supposing that this was not the case regarding the sayings we have grouped under the title Completion.^[4] First, all the versions of Completion share a basic underlying structure: something will not cease until something else takes place. This underlying structure is grammatically and (nearly) verbally identical in all versions of the saying: emphatic affirmation (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν / λέγω ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς) + οὐ μή + subjunctive clause + “until” (ἕως ἄν / μέχρις οὗ) + subjunctive clause:^[5]

	ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν / λέγω ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς	οὐ μή	subjunctive clause	“until”	subjunctive clause
Mt 10:23	Amen! I say to you	you might not	complete the cities of Israel	ἕως ἄν	the Son of Man might come.
Mt 16:28 ∥ Mk 9:1 ∥ Lk 9:27	Amen! I say to you (Mt, Mk) / I say to you truly (Lk)	some of those standing here might not	taste death	ἕως ἄν	they might see the Kingdom of God (Mk, Lk) (has come in power [Mk]) / the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom (Mt).
Mt 24:34 ∥ Mk 13:30 ∥ Lk 21:32	Amen! I say to you	this generation might not	pass by	ἕως ἄν (Mt, Lk) / μέχρις οὗ (Mk)	all (Lk) (these things [Mk-Mt]) might come to be.

The second reason for supposing that all the sayings grouped under the title Completion stem from a single version is that they all share the Son of Man as their common denominator. While only the saying in the first subdivision (Matt. 10:23) mentions the Son of Man explicitly,^[6] the versions in the other two subdivisions appear in contexts where the Son of Man features prominently. Thus we have three clusters of sayings all with the same underlying structure and all having to do in some respect with the Son of Man.

The third reason for supposing that all the sayings grouped under the title Completion stem from a single version is that there appears to be a progressive watering down of both the definiteness of the audience and the specificity of the prediction.^[7] In the first subgroup (Matt. 10:23) Jesus addresses a particular group (his disciples) with a specific promise (“you will not have completed the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”). In the second subgroup (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) the addressees are less well-defined: the promise only applies to “some of those standing here,” a group that consists of disciples and other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ earthly ministry. The promise is also less specific: a privileged few of this amorphous group of eyewitnesses will “see the Kingdom of God” (or in Matthew, “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”) manifesting itself in some manner. In the third subgroup (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) the audience has been watered down even further. The limitation no longer applies to eyewitnesses, rather it has been extended to the entire generation in which Jesus lived. The promise, too, is less concrete than in the other versions: “all will come to pass” before that generation passes away. The widening of the audience and the dilution of the promise suggest that an originally concrete and targeted saying has been stretched in various ways in order that it might be applied to different situations.

On the other hand, there is also a progressive raising of the stakes that parallels the widening audience and the generalizing of the promise. The version of Completion in Matt. 10:23 envisions the possibility of persecution, but promises that safe haven will not have run out before the Son of Man comes. In the versions belonging to the second subgroup (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) the peril has increased. Eluding persecution may not always be an option. Instead, unavoidable deaths are in view. Many will die, some probably by martyrdom, but a few will not have to “taste death” before they see the Kingdom. In the third subgroup (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) it is not merely personal safety that is a concern, it is the end of the world and the total collapse of society that is approaching within the timeframe of “this generation.”

Finally, it appears that the three subgroupings of Completion have undergone a process of increasing de-Judaization. Matthew 10:23 has an insider perspective vis-à-vis Israel. True, the disciples will face opposition from some fellow Jews, but there is no discernible break with Judaism or the Jewish people. The possibility of forsaking Israel by fleeing to the Gentiles is inconceivable. The expectation is that there will always be a place for the disciples within the Jewish community. In the second subdivision (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) the explicit insider language (viz., “cities of Israel”) has disappeared, but since the audience is limited to eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry, we may assume that the imagined audience was—at least primarily—Jewish. In the final cluster (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) the de-Judaizing process is complete. “This generation” does not refer to a specific people group but serves as a rough measure of time. The predictions made in the eschatological discourse will all have taken place before “this generation” has passed by.

All this evidence (shared structure, common theme, progressive widening of the audience, decreasing specificity of the promise, heightening sense of disaster, de-Judaization) points to the development of a single original saying via a process of reinterpretation and reapplication rather than to three original sayings uttered by Jesus on separate occasions.^[8] Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine how this evolution took place. An original saying about the disciples’ mission to Israel included a promise that they would always find safe harbor within the Jewish community (Matt. 10:23). Under new conditions of increased hostility—the result, perhaps, of the clash between the rising militant nationalist sentiment among Jews in the decades leading up to the revolt of 66-73 C.E. and Jesus’ (and his followers’) peace-making message and the openness of the emerging church to non-Jewish members—Jesus’ original promise was taken as a guarantee that some, at least, of those who had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry would live to see the fulfillment of their eschatological hopes (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27).^[9] This new understanding of Jesus’ promise was then applied to (a reworked version of) Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple and the eventual redemption of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32), where it served as an affirmation that everything contained within the (expanded) prophecy would take place within the present generation. In each stage of its development the timeline was pushed out farther and the audience was widened (disciples→eyewitnesses→this generation), but the payoff increased (refuge in Israel→see the Kingdom→everything comes to pass).

The evolution of the saying we have described correlates with the sources from which we believe each subdivision was originally taken. The version in Matt. 10:23 appears in a context where the author of Matthew drew heavily from the non-Markan source he shared with Luke, namely the Anthology (Anth.):

Given that so much of the material from this section of Matthew 10 derives from a block of Anth. paralleled in Luke 12, it is reasonable to suppose that Matt. 10:23 derived from this Anth. block too.^[10] The Hebraic quality of Matt. 10:23 and its use of insider language (“cities of Israel” rather than “cities of the Jews” or “their cities” [cf. Matt. 11:1]) also argue in favor of derivation from Anth.^[11] Thus we have every reason to believe that Matt. 10:23 represents the most primitive of the extant iterations of the saying we have named Completion.

The second subset of Completion (Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) can easily be traced back to the First Reconstruction (FR) because it belongs to a “string of pearls” so characteristic of this source.^[12] The author of Luke adopted the FR version of Completion, the author of Mark copied it from Luke, and the author of Matthew copied it from Mark. The heightened sense of peril expressed in the “string of pearls” version of Completion is consistent with other indications that the community for which FR was composed had experienced persecution.^[13]

The version of Completion that appears in the eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) can also be traced back to FR, since the author of Luke copied the entire discourse from this source.^[14] This version of Completion places, as it were, a seal of approval on the prophecy that preceded it.^[15] The First Reconstructor had carefully worked additional material dealing with the hardships Jesus’ followers were expected to endure into the framework of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption that he had inherited from Anth.^[16] This he had done in order to show that his community’s experience of persecution (Luke 21:12-19) and the challenges they encountered from rival messianic pretenders (Luke 21:8) were all part of the eschatological plan. The First Reconstructor’s message was that Jesus’ eschatological predictions were already beginning to be fulfilled and would, therefore, soon be over. This message is difficult to reconcile with Jesus’ statement in the original core of the prophecy that “Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). To be sure, “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” is an indefinite timespan, but the impression is that the “times” (plural!) would probably last longer than a single generation.^[17] Thus the version of Completion in the eschatological discourse (Luke 21:32 and parallels) probably owes its presence there to the First Reconstructor’s redactional activity, and therefore its particular formulation (see below) should be attributed to the First Reconstructor too.^[18]

Luke 21:32 (and the parallels in Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30) was formulated to be intertwined with the following verse, which states, “Heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Luke 21:33). Thus the catchword “pass away” (παρέρχεσθαι [parerchesthai]) and unwavering confidence in the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions unite the two verses. Like Luke 21:32, Luke 21:33 is also adapted from a saying, Heaven and Earth Pass Away, that appears in an FR “string of pearls” (Luke 16:17). That saying and its Matthean parallel (Matt. 5:18) refer to the Torah, whereas Luke 21:33 pertains to Jesus’ words. However, the “string of pearls” version of Completion (Luke 9:27) follows a saying concerning “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words” (Luke 9:26; emphasis added). Thus it appears that the wording of Luke 21:32-33 was influenced by three FR “string of pearls” sayings.^[19]

That the First Reconstructor would formulate Luke 21:32-33 on the basis of his own “strings of pearls” may suggest that the First Reconstructor did not himself create the “strings of pearls.” Perhaps the “strings of pearls” had already been strung together in the community for which FR was written. The existence of the “strings of pearls” prior to the composition of FR is not a possibility we had previously considered, but it might also explain why the “strings of pearls” have features that distinguish them from other FR pericopae.

Having traced the conjectured stages of Completion’s transmission from 1) a saying about fleeing persecution and finding refuge in the cities of Israel in Anth. to 2) a saying about how some eyewitnesses will still be alive to see the Kingdom in an FR “string of pearls” to 3) a saying about how the eschaton will arrive before “this generation” passes away in FR’s eschatological discourse, we now briefly note the evolution of this saying in later sources.

The Gospel of John contains two versions of a saying that bears a striking resemblance to the “string of pearls” version of Completion in Mark 9:1 (∥ Matt. 16:28 ∥ Luke 9:27).^[20] The first (John 8:51) is presented as Jesus’ direct speech, whereas the second (John 8:52) is presented as a paraphrase of Jesus’ speech repeated by “the Jews”:

Mark 9:1	John 8:51	John 8:52
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι	ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
Amen! / I say / to you / that	Amen! / Amen! / I say / to you:
εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων	ἐάν τις τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον τηρήσῃ	ἐάν τις τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσῃ
are / some / here / of the / ones standing	If / someone / the / my / word / might keep	If / someone / the / word / of me / might keep
οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου	θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ	οὐ μὴ γεύσηται θανάτου
who / no / not / might taste / death	death / no / not / he-she might see	no / not / he-she might taste / death
ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει	εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα	εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
until / ever / they might see / the / kingdom / of the / God / has come / in / power.	into / the / eternity.	into / the / eternity.

The similarities between Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion and the Johannine versions are striking. Both Mark 9:1 and John 8:51 open with declarations of “Amen!”^[21] Both Mark 9:1 and John 8:51 refer to “seeing,” and Mark 9:1 and John 8:52 both refer to “not tasting death.”^[22] John’s conditioning of the promise on the keeping of Jesus’ word (τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον [ton emon logon], τὸν λόγον μου [ton logon mou]) cannot be traced back to Mark 9:1, but it may be due to the preceding verse, which refers to being ashamed of Jesus’ words (τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους [tous emous logous]; Mark 8:38).^[23]

Despite these similarities, which we believe indicate Johannine dependence on the synoptic tradition and on the Gospel of Mark in particular,^[24] we also observe significant differences between Mark 9:1 and the Johannine versions of Completion. The saying in John is no longer limited to the audience who heard Jesus pronounce the promise on a particular occasion, rather anyone who keeps Jesus’ word will be a recipient of the promise. Likewise, the content of the promise has also shifted away from a salvific event (viz., the coming of the Son of Man) to a promise of immortality. Thus, all time constraints have been removed from John’s version of Completion. These changes amount to a thorough spiritualizing of Jesus’ saying. The only anchor John’s version of Completion has in physical reality is obedience to Jesus’ teachings. In order to gain immortality Jesus’ word must be kept.

The version of Completion found in the Gospel of Thomas,^[25] by contrast, is completely unmoored from the physical world. There we read:

Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste death. (Gos. Thom. §1 [ed. Guillaumont, 3])

No longer must Jesus’ word be obeyed; understanding is sufficient for salvation. This change is in keeping with the gnosticizing tendency of the Gospel of Thomas.

Story Placement

In the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above, we observed in the pre-synoptic sources a progressive pushing into the future of the timeframe for the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. In the Anth. version of Completion the timeframe for the Son of Man’s coming was, presumably, during the missionary activity of the disciples. In the “string of pearls” version of Completion the timeframe is stretched for as long as any eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry remained alive. In the version of Completion included in FR’s eschatological discourse the timeframe is stretched even further to include the last surviving members of “this generation,” whether those survivors were eyewitnesses or not. The placement of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels, on the other hand, indicates an opposite trend. Instead of pushing the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise further into the future, the synoptic evangelists projected the fulfillment into the past.

The author of Matthew achieved this backward projection of the fulfillment of the saying’s promise by situating Anth.’s version of Completion (Matt. 10:23) within the Sending discourse addressed to the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:1-11:1). Matthew’s placement of Completion implies that the promise had already been fulfilled by the time the apostles completed the first apostolic mission.^[26] In what sense could the author of Matthew have thought the promise to the apostles that “you will not finish with the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” was fulfilled during Jesus’ earthly ministry? The author of Matthew must have wanted his readers to understand “Son of Man” in a non-eschatological sense, as in the saying “the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head” (Matt. 8:20 ∥ Luke 9:58).^[27] In other words, the author of Matthew probably meant that the apostles would not have reached every city in Israel by the time Jesus caught back up with them.^[28] This notion could have been inspired by the explanation that Jesus had sent the apostles ahead of him two-by-two to the cities he intended to visit (cf. Luke 10:1) if, as we suppose, this explanation was present in Anth.^[29] Nevertheless, the author of Matthew’s placement of Anth.’s version of Completion within the Sending discourse is clearly secondary.^[30] Much of the material dealing with persecution in Matt. 10 is paralleled, not in Luke 10 (Luke’s version of the Sending discourse) but in Luke 12,^[31] so it is clear that the author of Matthew imported extraneous Anth. materials into Anth.’s version of the mission charge in order to supplement his version of the Sending discourse. The materials on persecution are especially inappropriate in the Sending context, given the apostles’ exultant report of their success in Return of the Twelve (Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10a; 10:17-20),^[32] and it is probably their jubilation, which so contrasted with Jesus’ gloomy forecast in Matthew’s version of the Sending discourse, that explains the omission of Return of the Twelve in Matthew’s Gospel.^[33] In any case, if Completion had originally possessed the mundane sense the author of Matthew gave it, the pains the pre-synoptic authors took to keep extending the timeframe for the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise would have been unnecessary. From the start, Completion had an eschatological reference. It was the author of Matthew who, by placing it in his version of the Sending discourse, neutralized its original meaning.

A similar projection of the fulfillment of Completion’s promise back into the past can be observed in the author of Luke’s placement (accepted by Mark and adopted in Matthew) of his account of the Transfiguration immediately after his “string of pearls” version of Completion.^[34] Evidently, the author of Luke doubted that eyewitnesses to Jesus’ earthly ministry would still be alive when Jesus came as the Son of Man. This may be because he knew of the deaths of eyewitnesses such as James the brother of John (Acts 12:2; between 41 and 44 C.E.) and James the brother of Jesus (Jos., Ant. 20:197-203; 62 C.E.).^[35] In any case, by making Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36) the sequel to his “string of pearls” version of Completion,^[36] the author of Luke was able to imply that the “some of those standing here” (Luke 9:27) were to be identified as Peter, John and James (Luke 9:28),^[37] and that “see the Kingdom of God” referred to their seeing a glorified Jesus in the company of Moses and Elijah (Luke 9:32). Thus the author of Luke alleviated the problem of when the promise given in Completion would be fulfilled by implying that it had been fulfilled already in the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry.^[38]

That the author of Luke felt no such compulsion to explain away the promise that “this generation will not pass away before the Son of Man comes” in the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse (Luke 21:32) is consistent with our supposition that the Gospel of Luke was composed prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.^[39] The author of Luke did not need to explain away this prediction because, when he wrote, the prediction was still credible. The same cannot be said of the author of Mark, which is likewise consistent with our post-70 C.E. dating of Mark’s Gospel.^[40] The author of Mark’s strategy for dealing with the unfulfilled prophecy in Mark 13:30 was to insert the following “disclaimer”:

περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ

But concerning that day or the hour no one knows: neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

Mark’s insertion of Day and Hour Unknown (Mark 13:32) is a more clumsy method of dealing with a problematic prophecy than the Lukan and Matthean projections of the fulfillment of Completion’s promise into the past, but is nonetheless effective.^[41] The inaccurate prediction of Mark 13:30 only goes to show that what Jesus is made to say in Mark 13:32 is true.^[42] And if even Jesus could be wrong, then that should be sufficient to discourage any further attempts to pin down the eschatological timetable.

The author of Matthew, with a few editorial adjustments,^[43] accepted Mark’s solution to the unfulfilled prophecy in the eschatological discourse by including Day and Hour Unknown at the same location in his version of the eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:36).

The question still remains, where did the original version of Completion, represented in Matt. 10:23, belong in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua? Since Anth.’s version of Completion deals with the theme of persecution, and since persecution of the disciples was not a reality during Jesus’ public career, we have taken our lead from Lindsey’s suggestion that the Hebrew Life of Yeshua contained post-resurrection discourses^[44] by placing Completion in a section of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua entitled Post-resurrection Training of Yeshua’s Disciples together with other sayings dealing with the theme of persecution.

.

.

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

.

.

Crucial Issues

1. Are all the sayings grouped under the title “Completion” really different versions of an original saying?
2. What is the meaning of “Son of Man” in the various versions of Completion?
3. Is “taste death” a Semitic idiom?
4. What is the meaning of γενεά in the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse?
5. What was the original intention of the earliest version of Completion?

Comment

L1 ὅταν δὲ (GR). As we discussed in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, all the indications are that the version of Completion in Matt. 10:23 stemmed from Anth. Since reverting Matthew’s wording in L1 to Hebrew poses no great difficulty, we see no reason not to accept Matthew’s ὅταν δέ (hotan de, “but when”) for GR.

וּבִזְמָן (HR). On reconstructing ὅταν (hotan, “when”) with the phrase -בִּזְמָן שֶׁ (bizmān she-, “in a/the time that”), see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L1.

L2 διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς (GR). As scholars have noted, the verb διώκειν (diōkein, “to pursue”) in Matt. 10:23 lacks a subject.^[45] The identity of the pursuers is thus awkwardly left unstated. It may be, however, that the third person plural verb is used impersonally and reflects an underlying Hebrew text which used a third person plural verb in lieu of a passive (i.e., “when they persecute you” instead of “when you are persecuted”).^[46]

Even so, the identity of the pursuers remains unresolved. In isolation, the pursuers of Matt. 10:23 could be almost anyone: community members, local authorities or Roman officials. However, if we are correct in associating Matt. 10:23 with other pericopae on persecution such as Testifying Before Authorities (Matt. 10:17-20; Luke 12:11-12), Division (Matt. 10:34-36; Luke 12:51-53) and Betrayal of Friends (Matt. 10:21-22), then it is more likely that the pursuers ought to be identified as fellow Jews rather than as Gentiles. The mood of these pericopae is of internal strife, not of inter-ethnic animus or state-sponsored persecution.

Another question that must be asked is what type of antagonistic activity is described by the verb διώκειν. The most basic meaning of διώκειν is “to pursue,” either for the purpose of hunting down or driving away. Lexicographers have done a poor job of adducing pre-Christian examples of διώκειν in the sense of “persecute.”^[47] For instance, BDAG (254) cites Josephus’ account of what happened to Mattathias and his followers in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as an example of “harass someone., esp. because of beliefs, persecute,”^[48] but upon examination διώκειν is used there of the pursuit of fugitives:

τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ποιήσαντες μετὰ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν ἔφυγον εἰς τὴν ἔρημον καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις διῆγον. ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα οἱ τοῦ βασιλέως στρατηγοὶ, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ὅσην εἶναι συνέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἀναλαβόντες, ἐδίωξαν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον τοὺς Ἰουδαίους.

And many others also did the same [i.e., abandoned their homes—DNB and JNT], and fled [ἔφυγον] with their children and wives to the wilderness, where they lived in caves. But when the king’s officers heard of this, they took as many soldiers as were then in the citadel of Jerusalem, and pursued [ἐδίωξαν] the Jews into the wilderness…. (Ant. 12:272; Loeb)

Likewise, Oepke^[49] cited the following instances that intend but fail to prove that διώκειν means “to persecute”:

ὡς δ᾽ ἐν ὀνείρῳ οὐ δύναται φεύγοντα διώκειν οὔτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὁ τὸν δύναται ὑποφεύγειν οὔθ᾽ ὁ διώκειν ὣς ὁ τὸν οὐ δύνατο μάρψαι ποσίν, οὐδ᾽ὃς ἀλύξαι

And as in a dream a man availeth not to pursue [διώκειν] the one that fleeth [φεύγοντα] before him—the one availeth not to flee [ὑποφεύγειν], nor the other to pursue [διώκειν]—even so Achilles availed not to overtake Hector in his fleetness, neither Hector to escape. (Homer, Iliad 20:199-201; Loeb)^[50]

καὶ ἐπιστήσω τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐφ̓ ὑμᾶς, καὶ πεσεῖσθε ἐναντίον τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ διώξονται ὑμᾶς οἱ μισοῦντες ὑμᾶς, καὶ φεύξεσθε οὐθενὸς διώκοντος ὑμᾶς.

And I will set my face against you, and you will fall before your enemies, and the ones who hate you will pursue [διώξονται] you, and you will flee [φεύξεσθε] with no one pursuing [διώκοντος] you. (Lev. 26:17)

Φεῦγε πν(εῦμ)α μεμισιμένον, Χ(ριστό)ς σε διώκει

Fly [Φεῦγε], hateful spirit! Christ pursues [διώκει] thee. (P. Oxy. VIII. 1151, 3 [a fifth-cent. C.E. Christian amulet])^[51]

In each of these instances the verb φεύγειν (fevgein, “to flee”) and its compound cognates in conjunction with διώκειν proves that “to pursue” is the meaning of the latter. Since in Matt. 10:23, too, διώκειν is paired with φεύγειν, “to pursue with the intention of hunting down or driving away” best describes the antagonistic activity of the aggressors.

שֶׁהֵם רוֹדְפִים אֶתְכֶם (HR). On reconstructing διώκειν (diōkein, “to pursue”) with רָדַף (rādaf, “pursue”), see Innocent Blood, Comment to L11.

As with διώκειν, the evidence that רָדַף can mean “persecute” is rather shaky.^[52] While רָדַף could be used in the extended sense of “harass” or “harry,” there is no clear example where רָדַף has the narrow sense of “to trouble on account of religious commitments.” For organized state-sponsored persecution, rabbinic sources use the verb שִׁמֵּד (shimēd, “persecute,” “force to apostasize”), such as in the following example:

שני תלמידים משלר′ יהושע שינו עטיפתם בשעת השמד, פגע בהם איסטרטיוט אחד משומד אמר להם אם בניה אתם תנו נפשכם עליה ואם אין אתם בניה למה אתם נהרגין עליה, אמרו לו בניה אנו ועליה אנו נהרגין, אמר להם ג′ שאלות אני שואלכם, אם תשיבום הרי מוטב ואם לאו הריני משמד אתכם

Two disciples of Rabbi Yehoshua changed their dress [perhaps referring to donning clothing that did not have tzitziyot—DNB and JNT] in a time of persecution [בְּשַׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד]. A certain apostate [מְשׁוּמָּד] soldier said to them, “If you are her [i.e., the Torah’s—DNB and JNT] sons, give your lives for her. And if you are not her sons, why should you be executed because of her?” They said to him, “We are her sons and for her sake we will be executed.” He said to them, “Three questions I will ask you. If you answer them—Behold! It will be well. But if not—Behold! I will persecute [מְשַׁמֵּד] you.” (Gen. Rab. 82:7 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:984-985])

However, since state-sponsored persecution does not appear to be in view in Matt. 10:23, and since it was certainly not the intention of Jewish antagonists to force Jesus’ followers to apostasize from Judaism, and also since the use of שִׁמֵּד for state-sponsored persecution does not appear to be documented prior to the Bar Kochva revolt, רָדַף, in its usual sense of “pursue” or, perhaps, in its more extended sense of “harass,” is preferable for HR.

In Hebrew, “pursue you” can be expressed as either רָדַף אֶתְכֶם (rādaf ’etchem, “pursue you”) or רָדַף אַחֲרֵיכֶם (rādaf ’aḥ^arēchem, “chase after you”). Since in LXX רָדַף אַחַר is usually represented as διώκειν ὀπίσω (diōkein opisō, “pursue behind”) or καταδιώκειν ὀπίσω (katadiōkein opisō, “pursue behind”),^[53] we would have expected something of the kind in Matt. 10:23 if the underlying Hebrew text had included אַחֲרֵיכֶם. We have therefore preferred רָדַף + direct object marker + suffix for HR.

L3-4 ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ (GR). Whereas some scholars have supposed that by “in this city” Jesus referred to a specific location,^[54] we think it is more likely that “in this city” preserves a Hebraism whereby the demonstrative pronoun “this” was used in a non-specific sense (“a city,” “any city”).^[55] Below are two examples of the generic use of “this city” in Mishnaic Hebrew:

כתבו בעיר זו לא יחתמנו בעיר אחרת

If he wrote it [i.e., a writ of divorce—DNB and JNT] in this city, he must not sign it in another city. (t. Git. 2:2 [Vienna MS])

מהו ליקח אבנים מעיר זו ולבנות בעיר אחרת

What is [the halachah regarding] the purchase of stones from this city in order to build in another city? (y. Meg. 3:1 [23a])

The preservation of this Hebraism in Matt. 10:23 is a strong indication that the author of Matthew’s source for this saying was Anth.^[56]

בְּעִיר זוֹ (HR). Our Hebrew reconstruction of L3-4 is modeled on the two rabbinic examples cited just above. Since in Mishnaic Hebrew the demonstrative adjective and the noun it modifies rarely take the definite article,^[57] and since we prefer to reconstruct direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew, both עִיר and זוֹ are anarthrous.

On reconstructing πόλις (polis, “city”) with עִיר (‘ir, “city”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L2.

זוֹ (zō, “this”) is the Mishnaic equivalent of Biblical זֹאת (zo’t, “this”).

L5 φεύγετε (GR). Since the command to flee reverts readily to Hebrew, we have no hesitation in adopting Matthew’s wording in L5 for GR.

נוּסוּ (HR). On reconstructing φεύγειν (fevgein, “to flee”) with נָס (nās, “flee”), see Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance, Comment to L9.

Luz (2:93) perceptively raised the possibility that the instruction to flee may be related to Jesus’ commitment to non-violence (cf. Matt. 5:39). Indeed, standing one’s ground and fighting back is not an option for those who seek to put Jesus’ teaching into practice. Rather than viewing Matt. 10:23 as permission to run away as soon as the going gets tough,^[58] or as an attempt to curb a morbid desire for martyrdom,^[59] Jesus’ command is better viewed as insistence that his followers not resort to violence to defend themselves. As such, the command to flee from hostile pursuit may also be compared to the prohibition against the apostles’ use of staves as defensive weapons (see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L66). In both instances, Jesus expected his followers to entrust their fate into the hands of God.

L6-7 εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν (GR). As we discussed above in Comment to L3-4, the author of Matthew’s generic use of “this city” appears to be a Hebraism resulting from the translation of Jesus’ Hebrew saying into Greek. In the rabbinic examples cited in Comment to L3-4, the counterpart to the generic “this” was a generic “another.” Thus Matthew’s unusual generic use of “the other” is probably a Hebraism too. The preservation of Hebraisms in Matt. 10:23 argues strongly in favor of Anth. as the source for this Matthean saying.

לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת (HR). In the rabbinic examples cited in Comment to L3-4, עִיר זוֹ (‘ir zō, “this city”) was contrasted with עִיר אַחֶרֶת (‘ir ’aḥeret, “another city”). Matthew’s Greek lacks the repetition of πόλις (polis, “city”) in L6-7, probably because the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua felt that repeating πόλις would be superfluous or because the author of Matthew omitted it. In any case, עִיר (‘ir, “city”) is necessary in HR for L6.

On reconstructing ἕτερος (heteros, “another”) with אַחֵר (’aḥēr, “another”), see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L15.

L8-9 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς (Mark 9:1). Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion is the only version of this saying to be introduced with “and he was saying to them,” a phrase that is particularly characteristic of Markan redaction.^[60] Most important is the absence of anything equivalent to καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς (kai elegen avtois, “and he was saying to them”) in Matt. 10:23, the only version of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels based directly on Anth.

Many scholars have taken Mark’s introductory phrase to be an indication that it was the author of Mark who tacked the “string of pearls” version of Completion (Mark 9:1) to the preceding collection of sayings (Mark 8:34-38) from another source.^[61] But if Mark’s source for this “string of pearls” was Luke, as Lindsey’s hypothesis suggests, then the author of Mark found Completion already connected to the other “pearls” on the “string.”^[62] Why, then, did the author of Mark set Completion off from the other “pearls”? We think the author of Mark added καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς (“and he was saying to them”) in Mark 9:1 in order to link this saying to the transfiguration account that follows it (Mark 9:2-8)^[63] more neatly than Luke does. Mark’s καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς in Mark 9:1 compensates for his omission of Luke’s awkward “after these words about eight days” at the opening of his version of the transfiguration narrative:

Luke 9:28	Mark 9:1-2
ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους	καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς….
it was / But / after / the / words / these	And / he was saying / to them….
ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ	καὶ μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ
about / days / eight	And / after / days / six
καὶ παραλαβὼν	παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς
and / taking	takes / the / Jesus
Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον….	τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην….
Peter / and / John / and / James….	the / Peter / and / the / James / and / the / John….

Since we attribute καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς in L8-9 to Markan redaction, we have omitted this phrase from GR and a corresponding phrase from HR.

L10 ἀμὴν (GR). All the versions of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels contain “Amen!” in L10 except for Luke’s “string of pearls” version (Luke 9:27), which has ἀληθῶς (alēthōs, “truly”) in L12 instead. Since Luke’s adverb ἀληθῶς is a stylistic improvement over the transliterated Hebrew word ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”),^[64] and since the version of Completion in Matt. 10:23, which depends directly on Anth., contains ἀμήν, it is practically certain that ἀμήν should be adopted for GR.^[65] Nevertheless, ἀμήν in the present context is, perhaps, a little surprising. Usually ἀμήν occurs as an emphatic affirmation of a prior statement.^[66] Here ἀμήν introduces an incentive. However, since the incentive (the promise of safe harbor) reinforces the instruction (do not stand and fight or stick around to be attacked, but flee to the next city), the use of ἀμήν does not seem inappropriate.

אָמֵן (HR). On reconstructing ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) with אָמֵן (’āmēn, “Amen!”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115.

L11 λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (GR). For GR in L11 we have adopted what amounts to the average reading, although that is not our reason for doing so. Only Matt. 10:23 includes γάρ (gar, “for”) after ἀμήν (“Amen!”), and although Matt. 10:23 is the only version of Completion based directly on Anth., we cannot rule out a certain degree of Matthean redaction. Since ἀμὴν γάρ is un-Hebraic and unique to Matthew’s Gospel,^[67] we are fairly confident that the γάρ in L11 should be regarded as a Matthean addition.^[68] Likewise, only two of the seven versions of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels lack ὅτι (hoti, “that”) following ὑμῖν (hūmin, “to you”), those in Matt. 10:23 and Luke 9:27, but the omission of ὅτι in these two versions is best explained as the result of editorial activity. The author of Matthew’s insertion of γάρ in Matt. 10:23 likely prompted him to omit ὅτι in L11. Similarly, the author of Luke’s substitution of FR’s ἀμήν with ἀληθῶς in Luke 9:27 (see below, Comment to L12) probably made the omission of ὅτι desirable. Moreover, we have observed that in Anth. λέγω ὑμῖν was typically accompanied by ὅτι.^[69] Finally, only Luke 9:27 includes the conjunction δέ (de, “but”). Since ἀμὴν δὲ λέγω (amēn de legō, “But Amen! I say…”) does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels apart from Mark 14:9, it is unlikely that FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion included δέ. This conjunction in Luke 9:27 should therefore be attributed to the author of Luke.

L12 ἀληθῶς (Luke 9:27). As we discussed above in Comment to L10, it is almost certain that ἀληθῶς in L12 is redactional. But who was responsible for the redaction? The fact that ἀμήν occurs in Luke 21:32, which is based on FR, suggests to us that it was the author of Luke, not the First Reconstructor, who is responsible for ἀληθῶς in Luke 9:27. As we discussed in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, it appears the First Reconstructor formulated the version of Completion in the eschatological discourse on the basis of the “string of pearls” version of Completion. It is hardly credible that either the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke would have replaced the stylistically more polished ἀληθῶς with the foreign term ἀμήν.^[70] Thus FR’s source for the version of Completion in the eschatological discourse (≈ Luke 21:32), namely the “string of pearls” version of Completion known to the First Reconstructor (≈ Luke 9:27), probably contained ἀμήν. Hence, the author of Luke likely redacted the “string of pearls” version of Completion he took from FR by changing ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν to λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς. Such a redactional move would be consistent with the author of Luke’s editorial style.^[71]

L13-16 As we discussed in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, “there are some of those standing here” probably reflects the First Reconstructor’s attempt to de-specify the addressees of Jesus’ promise, which had been taken as a guarantee that none of the apostles would die. According to the First Reconstructor, it was not all of the apostles but “some” of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry who would be exempted from death by the Son of Man’s coming. Since L13-16 appears to be a reworking of the Anth. saying preserved in Matt. 10:23, we have omitted these lines from GR and HR.

L14 τῶν αὐτοῦ (Luke 9:27). The adverbial use of αὐτοῦ (avtou) in the sense of “here” is exceedingly rare in the Synoptic Gospels, occurring only in Matt. 26:36 and Luke 9:27. This usage also occurs twice in Acts (Acts 18:19; 21:4), but not so often as to make adverbial αὐτοῦ a clear marker of Lukan redaction. So it is difficult to decide whether αὐτοῦ in L14 stems from FR or the author of Luke. The fact that the two instances of adverbial αὐτοῦ in Acts mean “there,” rather than “here” as in Luke 9:27, inclines us to attribute αὐτοῦ in L14 to FR.

ὧδε (Mark 9:1). Since according to Lindsey’s hypothesis the author of Mark would have had no other source for the “string of pearls” version of Completion than Luke’s Gospel, the presence of ὧδε (hōde, “here”) instead of αὐτοῦ (avtou, “here”) must be ascribed to Markan redaction. Was there a reason for this change? It could be that the author of Mark wrote ὧδε in place of αὐτοῦ in order to create a verbal resonance with the transfiguration story, where Peter incongruously blurts out, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι (kalon estin hēmas hōde einai, “It is good for us to be here!”; Matt. 17:4 ∥ Mark 9:5 ∥ Luke 9:33).^[72]

τῶν ὧδε (Matt. 16:28). According to Lindsey’s hypothesis, Mark was Matthew’s only source for the “string of pearls” version of Completion. So it is not at all surprising that Matthew agrees with Mark in the use of ὧδε (“here”). Matthew’s inclusion of the definite article τῶν (tōn, “of the”) in L14 represents a minor “minor agreement” of word order with Luke, but Mark has the same definite article in L15. In this case, Matthew’s achievement of word-order agreement with Luke against Mark is best explained as the result of the author of Matthew’s improvement of Mark’s syntax.

L15 ἑστώτων (Matt. 16:28). Whereas Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 have the perfect participle ἑστηκότων (hestēkotōn, “standing”), Matt. 16:28 has the variant form ἑστώτων (hestōtōn, “standing”). The change in forms does not affect the meaning and is probably a simple reflection of the author of Matthew’s preference.

L16 οἵτινες (Mark 9:1). In place of Luke’s οἵ (hoi, “which,” “who”), the author of Mark wrote οἵτινες (hoitines, “who”). The author of Matthew, having no other source for this version of Completion, and having no reason to change it, adopted οἵτινες from Mark 9:1.

L17 οὐ μὴ (GR). The double negative οὐ μή (ou mē, “by no means,” “will certainly not”) is one of the grammatical features common to all versions of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels. There is no reason not to adopt this wording for GR.

לֹא (HR). In LXX, where οὐ μή + subjunctive is common,^[73] the double negative regularly occurs as the translation of לֹא + imperfect.^[74]

L18-20 παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη (Luke 21:32). The language of the First Reconstructor’s denial that “this generation” would “pass away” before everything in his expanded version of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption—including the Son of Man’s coming—had come to pass was influenced by the presence of the verb παρέρχεσθαι (parerchesthai, “to pass by,” “to pass away”) in Heaven and Earth Pass Away (Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17), a version of which the First Reconstructor intertwined with this version of Completion (see above, Conjectured Stages of Transmission). Indeed, the many versions of Heaven and Earth Pass Away (Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17; Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33) and Completion (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) account for a significant proportion of the total instances of παρέρχεσθαι in the Synoptic Gospels.^[75] It is likely that the only instances of παρέρχεσθαι in the Synoptic Gospels that are original are those that belong to the DT versions of Heaven and Earth Pass Away (Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17).^[76]

The reference to “this generation” in the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse represents a further generalization of the audience to which the promise was addressed. From the well-defined audience (the apostles) in Anth.’s version of Completion, to the “some of those standing here” in the “string of pearls” version, in this version the audience had expanded to include the entire generation to which Jesus belonged.^[77] The promise was also diluted. The guarantee of safe haven within the Jewish community in the original version of Completion, which was mistaken as a promise that the apostles would all still be living at the Son of Man’s eschatological coming, had already been diluted in the “string of pearls” version to a promise that some eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry would be alive to witness the Son of Man’s coming. In this version of Completion the promise is simply that the Son of Man’s coming would take place before Jesus’ generation had completely vanished.

According to Wolter, the “passing away” of a “generation” is extremely rare, being unattested outside the Synoptic Gospels,^[78] but at least one other example exists in a late first- or early second-century source, 1 Clement:

αἱ γενεαὶ πᾶσαι ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἕως τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας παρῆλθον

All the generations [γενεαὶ] from Adam until this day have passed away [παρῆλθον]…. (1 Clem. 50:3; Loeb)

Since there is no clear evidence that this statement in 1 Clement was influenced by the Gospels, it appears that the expression was perfectly acceptable in Greek. In any case, the “passing away” of a “generation” is not a Semitism.^[79]

γεύσωνται θανάτου (Luke 9:27). It comes as a surprise that so many scholars characterize the expression “to taste death” as a Semitic idiom,^[80] given the fact that the same expression occurs in Classical Greek sources and other purely Greek compositions.^[81] Thus, for example, we find “taste death” in the following epitaph composed by Leonidas of Tarentum (third century B.C.E.):

Ἡ παῖς ᾤχετ᾽ ἄωρος ἐν ἑβδόμῳ ἥδ᾽ ἐνιαωτῷ
εἰς ἀΐδην, πολλῆς ἡλικίης προτέρη,
δειλαίη, ποθέουσα τὸν εἰκοσάμηνον ἀδελφόν,
νήπιον ἀστόργου γευσάμενον θανάτου.
αἰαῖ, λυγρὰ παθοῦσα Περιστέρη, ὡς ἐν ἑτοίμῳ
ἀνθρώποις δαίμων θῆκε τὰ δεινότατα.

The girl is gone to Hades before her time in her seventh year, before all her many playmates, hapless child, longing for her little brother, who twenty months old tasted of loveless death [γευσάμενον θανάτου]. Alas Peristera for thy sad fate! How hath Heaven decreed that the very path of men should be sown with calamities! (Greek Anthology 7:662)^[82]

Likewise, we find the idiom “taste death” in an explanation of the term “Hades” in the First Sibylline Oracle:

Ἅιδην δ’ αὖτ’ ἐκάλεσσαν, ἐπεὶ πρῶτος μόλεν Ἀδάμ γευσάμενος θανάτου, γαίη δέ μιν ἀμφεκάλυψεν.

They called it Hades, since Adam first went (there) having tasted death [γευσάμενος θανάτου], and earth covered him. (Sib. Or. 1:81-82)^[83]

The idiom “taste death” is also found once in the epistle to the Hebrews, which boasts some of the best Greek in the New Testament:

τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου

But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death [γεύσηται θανάτου] for every one. (Heb. 2:9; RSV)

Given these instances of “taste death” in pure Greek sources, there is no need to appeal to a Semitic substratum to explain its appearance in the “string of pearls” version of Completion.

τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ (GR). “You will not complete the cities of Israel” relates directly back to the command to flee from one city to the next in order to elude hostile pursuers.^[84] The promise of always finding a place to hide in the habitations of Israel was probably not intended as a guarantee that every apostle would survive—How could it be, if Matt. 10:23 originally belonged with sayings such as, “Do not fear those who can kill the body” (Matt. 10:28 ∥ Luke 12:4)?—but that Jesus’ followers would never be completely cut off from the rest of the Jewish community.^[85] Conversely, the saying preserved in Matt. 10:23 does not anticipate a scenario in which the apostles would ever forsake Israel in preference for the Gentiles. Since the Gentile mission was such a bone of contention in the early Church, the historical probability is that Jesus never hinted at a mission to the Gentiles to his followers. Otherwise, a special revelation to Peter to convince him to go to Cornelius would not have been required.

The insider language of Matt. 10:23 (“cities of Israel” as opposed to “cities of the Jews” or “their cities”)^[86] combined with the lack of awareness of a Gentile mission make this version of Completion a likely candidate as a genuine saying of Jesus. It is also possible that “cities of Israel” preserves a Hebraism, which would also argue in favor of the saying’s authenticity. In the Greek text of Codex Vaticanus there is no definite article separating πόλεις (poleis, “cities”) and Ἰσραήλ (Israēl), which resembles a Hebrew construct phrase. Critical texts, on the other hand, read πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (poleis tou Israēl, “cities of the Israel”), which removes the possible Hebraism. It is difficult to know which reading is original. It certainly requires no stretch of the imagination to suppose that an early scribe inserted the definite article to improve the Greek style, but it is also possible that the scribe who copied Codex Vaticanus simply omitted the definite article by accident and that the resulting Hebraism is a mirage. In any case, we have no compunction about tracing the version of Completion preserved in Matt. 10:23 back to Anth. and ultimately to the Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

תִּגְמְרוּ אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (HR). There are three verbs we considered adopting as the reconstruction of τελεῖν (telein, “to complete,” “to accomplish”): הִשְׁלִים (hishlim, “complete,” “finish”),^[87] כִּלָּה (kilāh, “complete,” “finish”) and גָּמַר (gāmar, “complete,” “finish”), any one of which would be suitable for HR. In MT גָּמַר is relatively rare, occurring only 5xx (Ps. 7:10; 12:2; 57:3; 77:9; 138:8), but in MH גָּמַר became ubiquitous, and it is for this reason we have adopted גָּמַר for HR. The LXX translators rendered גָּמַר in Ps. 7:10 as συντελεῖν (sūntelein, “to finish,” “to complete”), a compound of τελεῖν, the verb that occurs in Matt. 10:23.

On reconstructing πόλις (polis, “city”) with עִיר (‘ir, “city”), see above, Comment to L3-4.

On reconstructing Ἰσραήλ (Israēl, “Israel”) with יִשְׂרָאֵל (yisrā’ēl, “Israel”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L55.

L21 ἕως ἂν (GR). The version of Completion in Mark’s eschatological discourse (Mark 13:30) stands alone in using the phrase μέχρις οὗ (mechris hou, “until that”)^[88] instead of ἕως ἄν (heōs an, “until [when]ever”).^[89] Since there is no agreement on the use of μέχρι (mechri, “until”) in the Synoptic Gospels,^[90] and since μέχρι represents more elegant Greek than ἕως,^[91] it is likely that Mark’s unique wording in L21 is redactional.^[92] Matthew’s agreement with Luke against Mark to write ἕως ἄν in Matt. 24:34 should not be interpreted as evidence that the author of Matthew knew of an Anth. version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse. The Lukan-Matthean agreement is due rather to the phenomenon of Matthean cross-pollination, whereby the author of Matthew imported the wording of one version of a doublet (or in this case, a triplet) into another. The cross-pollination from Matt. 10:23, or more probably from Matt. 16:28, indicates that the author of Matthew was aware that some kind of relationship existed between the different versions of Completion.

עַד (HR). On reconstructing ἕως (heōs, “as far as,” “until”) with עַד (‘ad, “until”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L22.

In LXX ἕως ἄν + subjunctive occurs several times as the translation of עַד אֲשֶׁר + imperfect.^[93] Our reconstruction with -עַד שֶׁ + imperfect is the MH equivalent of this BH construction.

L22-23 πάντα γένηται (Luke 21:32). “Until everything comes to pass” in the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse clearly refers to everything included in the prophecy including the Son of Man’s coming.^[94] The unconvincing attempts of some scholars^[95] to aruge otherwise are motivated by the need to deny that the prophecy proved false.^[96]

It is possible that the First Reconstructor intended a wordplay between γενεά (genea, “generation”) in L19 and γένηται (genētai, “might be”). If so, this is further evidence of Greek composition of the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse, since this wordplay does not work in Hebrew.

ταῦτα πάντα γένηται (Mark 13:30). To the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse the author of Mark added ταῦτα (tavta, “these [things]”) before πάντα (panta, “everything”). Undoubtedly he did this in order to tie this verse more explicitly to the disciples’ question at the opening of the Olivet discourse. Thus, οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται (“This generation will not pass away until all these things happen”) in Mark 13:30 answers the question πότε ταῦτα ἔσται (“When will these things be?”) in Mark 13:4. The author of Matthew accepted Mark’s ταῦτα in L22, but with a change in word order.

L23-25 ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 9:27). As we have had occasion to mention already (see Conjectured Stages of Transmission and Comment to L12 above), we believe that “until they might see the Kingdom of God” is the author of Luke’s adaptation of the “string of pearls” version of Completion. FR’s version of this saying probably did not refer to “seeing the Kingdom of God” but to the “coming of the Son of Man.” We have three reasons for this suspicion.

First, both the Anth. version of Completion in Matt. 10:23 and the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) refer to the Son of Man (the Anth. version explicitly, the eschatological discourse version by its context). It therefore seems likely that the intermediary “string of pearls” version refers to the Son of Man too, for if it did not, how did the First Reconstructor know to adapt a saying about the Kingdom of God in the “string of pearls” to a saying about the Son of Man’s coming before “this generation” passes away?

Second, the “string of pearls” version of Completion would be more at home with the other “pearls” on its “string” if it referred to the Son of Man’s coming. This is because the “pearl” that precedes Completion warns that when the Son of Man comes he will be ashamed of anyone who was ashamed of “me and my words” (Mark 8:38 ∥ Luke 9:26 ≈ Matt. 16:27).

Our third reason for supposing the author of Luke changed a reference to the Son of Man’s coming in FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion into a reference to seeing the Kingdom of God is that such a change fits a pattern of redactional activity observable elsewhere in Luke’s Gospel. At the head of a block of Anth.’s material on the Son of Man now contained in Luke 17:22-37 the author of Luke added a saying, The Kingdom Is Among You,^[97] in which Jesus declares that the Kingdom of God does not come with observation, for the Kingdom of God is among you (Luke 17:20-21). At first glance, the promise that “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27) and the declaration that “the Kingdom of God does not come with observation” (Luke 17:20) appear irreconcilable.^[98] But when it is remembered that for the author of Luke the promise of seeing the Kingdom of God was addressed to the disciples, three of whom saw a manifestation of the Kingdom of God a few days later at the transfiguration, while The Kingdom Is Among You was addressed to the Pharisees, the contradiction evaporates. The Pharisees would not be privy to such revelations as the transfiguration. Nevertheless, the Kingdom of God was actively present among them. What is common to both sayings, on the Lukan level of redaction, are strong affirmations of the Kingdom’s immanence. Another feature common to these two sayings is the juxtaposition of the Son of Man with the Kingdom of Heaven. By reworking FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion into a saying about the Kingdom of God, the author of Luke juxtaposed the coming of the Son of Man at the eschaton (Luke 9:26) with seeing the Kingdom of God in a mere eight day’s time (Luke 9:27). Likewise, by placing The Kingdom Is Among You at the head of a block of Son of Man material, the author of Luke was able to contrast the Kingdom’s presence with anticipation of the Son of Man’s coming in the future. His purpose in creating this juxtaposition is likely to prioritize the Kingdom of God over the Son of Man’s coming. The timing of the Son of Man’s coming, whether in the near or distant future, is relatively unimportant. What will matter at his coming is one’s relationship to the Kingdom of God. Since it is quite clear that the author of Luke was responsible for the juxtaposition of the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man in Luke 17, it is probable that he was responsible for the juxtaposition of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God in the “string of pearls” in Luke 9 by changing “the Son of Man might come” to “might see the Kingdom of God.”

ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Matt. 16:28). The author of Matthew’s reference to seeing the Son of Man in his adaptation of the “string of pearls” version of Completion should not be interpreted as evidence that he had a non-Markan source for this version of the saying.^[99] His reference to the Son of Man is due rather to the phenomenon of Matthean cross-pollination, which we have already had cause to discuss in Comment to L21. The Matthean cross-pollination in the “string of pearls” version of Completion shows that the author of Matthew recognized that, despite its reference to the Kingdom of God, this saying was related to Matt. 10:23, which concerns the Son of Man. For the author of Matthew this recognition was facilitated not only by the preceding verse in the “string of pearls” but also by the author of Matthew’s distinctive notion that the Son of Man has a kingdom (see below, Comment to L26-27).

ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (GR). As we noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above, the common denominator uniting the three subdivisions of the sayings grouped under the title Completion is the Son of Man (whether directly [1^st subdivision], via context [2^nd subdivision], or allusively [3^rd subdivision]). This fact would lead us to expect that the Son of Man was mentioned in the most primitive version of Completion accessible to the synoptic evangelists. Our analysis points to Matt. 10:23 as the most primitive version of the saying, where, indeed, the Son of Man is mentioned explicitly. Therefore, we do not hesitate to adopt the wording of Matt. 10:23 in L23-25 for GR.

שֶׁיָּבוֹא בַּר אֱנָשׁ (HR). On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L8.

On the pros and cons of reconstructing ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου with the Aramaic title בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar ’^enāsh, “son of man”), see Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L42-43.

As we have discussed above, the promise that the apostles would not have finished the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes was not intended to be a guarantee of personal safety to each individual apostle. It also seems unlikely that the saying was intended to indicate that the Son of Man’s coming would take place within the lifetime of the apostles—although such a timeframe may have been an underlying assumption. The saying was aimed at reassuring the apostles that as long as their mission lasted, so too would their ties to the Jewish people. While their message might be met with incredulity, hostility, or even violence from some Jews, other Jews would recognize that the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven and the vindication of Jesus’ teaching through his resurrection spoke to the very core of their identity.

L26-27 ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει (Mark 9:1). To the bare statement in Luke 9:27 that some of those standing here would not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God, the author of Mark added the phrase “has come in power.” By the addition of this phrase the author of Mark more emphatically than Luke roots the fulfillment of this promise in the past.

The author of Luke projected the fulfillment of the promise into the past by linking the “string of pearls” version of Completion to the transfiguration and by changing “until the Son of Man comes” to “until they see the Kingdom of God.” The author of Mark, whose only source for this version of Completion was Luke’s Gospel, accepted these changes, but the addition of “has come in power” suggests that the transfiguration was not the moment when Peter, James and John first saw the Kingdom of God, but that the transfiguration was the moment when it dawned upon these disciples that the Kingdom of God had, in fact, already come.^[100] That this was the author of Mark’s intention finds support in the pericope Elijah Must Come First (Matt. 17:10-13 ∥ Mark 9:11-13), where the author of Mark has Jesus declare, Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθεν (Ēlias elēlūthen, “Elijah has come”; Mark 9:13). The use of the same verb (ἔρχεσθαι) in the same tense (perfect) in Mark 9:1 (“the Kingdom of God has come”) and in Mark 9:13 (“Elijah has come”) is not coincidental.^[101] Both uses are meant to convey that a prophecy has already been fulfilled. According to Mark, both the prediction that the disciples will see that the Kingdom of God has come and the prediction that Elijah will come first were proven to have been fulfilled at the transfiguration. There it was, on the Mount of Transfiguration, that the disciples realized that the Kingdom of God had come and that, by definition, Elijah’s coming had already taken place.^[102]

Thus the author of Mark used the transfiguration narrative to resolve the apparent non-fulfillment of two prophecies. The author of Mark inherited from Luke the notion that the promise of seeing the Kingdom of God before some of the disciples died was fulfilled at the transfiguration. The corollary that Elijah must already have come is a further Markan development of the Lukan notion.

ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ (Matt. 16:28). In L26-27 the author of Matthew compensated for his replacement of “see the Kingdom of God” with “see the Son of Man” by replacing Mark’s “has come in power” with “coming in his kingdom.” That this was the author of Matthew’s redactional change, and not due to his use of a parallel non-Markan source, is clear from the fact that the notion that the Son of Man has a kingdom of his own is a uniquely Matthean concept. The only other place it occurs is in the interpretation of Darnel Among the Wheat (Matt. 13:41),^[103] which is a Matthean composition.^[104] Nevertheless, this compensatory move is problematic. Did the author of Matthew not notice that by this change he reintroduced the problem of non-fulfillment that the authors of Luke and Mark before him had been at such pains to resolve?^[105]

Redaction Analysis

Due to the process of reinterpreting a difficult saying in light of historical events, Completion exists in several versions, each of which was redacted to a greater or lesser extent by the synoptic evangelists.

FR’s “String of Pearls” Version^[106]

Completion
FR’s “String of Pearls” Version		Anthology
Total Words:	21	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	13
% Identical to Anth.:	61.90	% of Anth. in Luke:	44.83
Click here for details.

Evidence of Lukan redaction in his “string of pearls” version of Completion allows us to reconstruct the “string of pearls” version as it existed in FR. FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion characteristically omitted the teaching material that formed the original context of the saying. Hence the instruction to flee from pursuers is missing. In other respects, however, FR’s “string of pearls” version was quite close to Anth.’s wording. It retained the grammatical structure of the promise as it was formulated in Anth. (emphatic affirmation [ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν] + οὐ μή + subjunctive clause + ἕως ἄν + subjunctive clause) and, like Anth., FR’s “string of pearls” version referred to the Son of Man’s coming. But whoever formulated FR’s “string of pearls” version—we entertained the possibility that the First Reconstructor inherited the “strings of pearls” from his community—reinterpreted “you will not have completed the cities of Israel” as a promise that at least some eyewitnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry who testified about what they had seen to their fellow Israelites would still be alive when the Son of Man came to vindicate them.

Luke’s Versions^[107]

Completion
Luke 9:27		Anthology
Total Words:	21	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	7	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	7
% Identical to Anth.:	33.33	% of Anth. in Luke:	24.14
Click here for details.

The author of Luke made significant changes to FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion in order to give it an entirely new interpretation. First, the author of Luke changed “until the Son of Man comes” to “they might see the Kingdom of God.” Then the author of Luke made the transfiguration narrative follow this reformulated saying so as to give the impression that the prediction was fulfilled in just a few days’ time. In this way, the author of Luke changed FR’s problematic saying about the future into a relatively unremarkable statement about something that had already taken place in the past. The author of Luke’s motivation for this change may have been related to his reasons for composing his Gospel. Reliable eyewitnesses to Jesus’ earthly ministry were becoming ever more scarce, and it was time to make provision for posterity. This development motivated the author of Luke to set down an organized record of the facts as he understood them, but it also undermined his confidence that any of Jesus’ original disciples would still be alive at the Son of Man’s coming.

Completion
Luke 21:32		Anthology
Total Words:	14	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	8
% Identical to Anth.:	57.14	% of Anth. in Luke:	27.59
Click here for details.

Unlike his treatment of FR’s “string of pearls” version of Completion, it appears the author of Luke made no changes to the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse. The author of Luke’s willingness to accept this version of Completion from FR “as is” has important ramifications. Whereas the author of Luke doubted whether Jesus’ original disciples would still be alive at the Son of Man’s coming, it did not seem incredible to him that the entire prophecy described in the eschatological discourse would be fulfilled before the generation to which Jesus belonged disappeared.^[108]

FR’s version of Completion is a clever adaptation of the version he found in the “string of pearls.” Those who will not tase death became “this generation” that would not pass away, and while the Son of Man is not explicitly mentioned, his coming is alluded to by the mention of “these things.” The subjunctive ἔλθῃ (elthē, “might come”) in reference to the Son of Man has morphed into παρέλθῃ (parelthē, “might pass by”) in reference to “this generation.” With these changes the saying has been universalized and set on a cosmic stage. It no longer concerns the fate of a few eyewitnesses, it envisions the end of the world.

Mark’s Versions^[109]

Completion
Mark 9:1		Anthology
Total Words:	27	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	9	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	9
% Identical to Anth.:	33.33	% of Anth. in Mark:	31.03
Click here for details.

Mark’s “string of pearls” version of Completion (Mark 9:1) is like Luke’s, only more so. The author of Luke had taken significant measures to show that the ones who would see the Kingdom of God before tasting death were none other than the disciples who witnessed the transfiguration. The author of Mark further emphasized the connection between Completion and the transfiguration by setting off Mark 9:1 from the other “pearls” on the “string” with the introduction “and he was saying to them” (L8-9). He also projected the fulfillment of Completion’s promise further into the past. The transfiguration would not be the moment when the privileged disciples saw the Kingdom of God, it would be the moment when they realized that the Kingdom had already come in power (L26-27).

Completion
Mark 13:30		Anthology
Total Words:	15	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	6
% Identical to Anth.:	40.00	% of Anth. in Mark:	20.69
Click here for details.

Mark’s version of Completion in his eschatological discourse (Mark 13:30) is very close to Luke’s (Luke 21:32), except that in L21 the author of Mark wrote μέχρις οὗ (mechris hou, “until that”), a stylistic improvement, in place of Luke’s ἕως ἄν (heōs an, “until [when]ever”), and in L22 he inserted ταῦτα (tavta, “these [things]”) before πάντα (panta, “all”) in order to make the answer in Mark 13:30 conform more closely to the disciples’ question in Mark 13:4. Nevertheless, it is clear that the author of Mark had a problem with this version of Completion that Luke did not. The author of Mark, believing that this version of Completion was an authentic prophecy of Jesus, needed to explain why this prophecy had not come true. His solution was to add a “disclaimer” in the eschatological discourse (Mark 13:32) in which he has Jesus claim ignorance of the timing of the Son of Man’s coming: only the Father knows when this will take place.

Matthew’s Versions^[110]

Completion
Matthew 10:23		Anthology
Total Words:	29	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	28	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	28
% Identical to Anth.:	96.55	% of Anth. in Matt.:	96.55
Click here for details.

The version of Completion in Matt. 10:23 stems from Anth., and he made only the slightest changes to its wording.^[111] In L11 the author of Matthew added γάρ (gar, “for”) and subtracted ὅτι (hoti, “that”). Otherwise, it appears Matt. 10:23 is an exact replica of the version of Completion in Anth. Matthew’s fidelity to Anth. notwithstanding, the author of Matthew radically changed the meaning of the saying by placing it in the context of the first apostolic mission, which took place during Jesus’ earthly ministry. In that new context the reference to the Son of Man’s coming was stripped of its eschatological meaning. The best interpretation of Matt. 10:23 in its present context is that the twelve apostles would not complete their healing and teaching mission before Jesus caught back up with them. We are convinced, however, that the Sending discourse was not the original context of this saying. Completion probably belonged to a collection of post-resurrection sayings dealing with the hostility the followers of Jesus could expect to face from their countrymen when they proclaimed that Jesus’ gospel of peace had been vindicated when God raised Jesus from the dead. In that context Completion was meant to reassure that Jesus’ followers would always have a place in Israel, right up to the coming of the Son of Man. The saying was never intended to predict when that coming would happen, but just as it is likely that Jesus never envisioned a mission to the Gentiles, so it is likely that he did not foresee that the Son of Man would be so long in coming.

Completion
Matthew 16:28		Anthology
Total Words:	26	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	10	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	10
% Identical to Anth.:	38.46	% of Anth. in Matt.:	34.48
Click here for details.

Matthew’s “string of pearls” version of Completion (Matt. 16:28) closely follows Mark’s wording in the first half, but departs from Mark’s wording in the second half by reintroducing the Son of Man. Whereas in Mark’s “string of pearls” version what some of those standing here will see before they taste death is that the Kingdom of God (L24-25) has come in power (L26-27), in Matthew’s parallel what they will see is the Son of Man (L24-25) coming in his kingdom (L26-27). This reintroduction of the Son of Man is the product of Matthean cross-pollination, and, as such, provides clear evidence that the author of Matthew recognized the “string of pearls” saying as a version of the saying preserved in Matt. 10:23.

The author of Matthew’s reworking of the “string of pearls” version of Completion is also in keeping with his extensive revision of the previous “pearl” (Matt. 16:27 ≈ Mark 8:38 ∥ Luke 9:26) on the same “string,” also dealing with the Son of Man, and reflects his special interest in the parousia. Perhaps it was his intense interest in the Son of Man’s eschatological coming that caused him to break the link between the “string of pearls” version of Completion and the transfiguration narrative the author of Luke had forged and that the author of Mark had taken steps to reinforce. Thus in Matthew’s “string of pearls” version the introduction “and he was saying to them” (L8-9), which sets this “pearl” apart from the others, is omitted,^[112] and the transfiguration narrative can no longer be interpreted as the fulfillment of the “string of pearls” version of Completion. It is strange that the author of Matthew either did not notice or was not concerned about the unfulfilled prophecy his redactional changes thereby created.

Completion
Matthew 24:34		Anthology
Total Words:	15	Total Words:	29
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	8
% Identical to Anth.:	53.33	% of Anth. in Matt.:	27.59
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew left the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse he received from Mark virtually unaltered except for a reversal of word order in L22. Here, too, the author of Matthew does not appear to have been particularly bothered by this version’s unfulfilled prophecy. Perhaps he was satisfied with the “disclaimer” the author of Mark had added to the eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:36 ∥ Mark 13:32), or perhaps the author of Matthew’s use of γενεά (genea) in the sense of “race”^[113] allowed him to skirt the issue.

Results of This Research

1. Are all the sayings grouped under the title “Completion” really different versions of an original saying? There are several reasons for answering this question in the affirmative. First, the three subgroupings of Completion (Group 1: Matt. 10:23; Group 2: Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27; Group 3: Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) share the same basic structure (something will not have ceased before something else happens), and this structure is expressed with identical (or nearly identical) vocabulary in all of these versions. Second, whether explicitly, contextually or allusively, all these versions of Completion are related to the Son of Man. Third, the differences between the three subgroupings can be explained as successive attempts to deal with the problem of the prophecy’s apparent non-fulfillment. As we have discussed above, Lindsey’s hypothesis, which regards Luke as the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark as the middle Gospel, and Matthew as the last, is uniquely capable of explaining the developments we observe between the Lukan, Markan and Matthean versions of this saying.

2. What is the meaning of “Son of Man” in the various versions of Completion? The Son of Man is only explicitly mentioned in two extant versions of Completion, those in Matt. 10:23 and Matt. 16:28. In the latter version the reference is clearly to the parousia, and we think it is likely that the pre-synoptic form of the “string of pearls” version of Completion referred to the Son of Man’s eschatological coming too. The author of Matthew’s placement of the Anth. version of Completion inside the Sending discourse suggests he wanted his readers to understand the reference to the Son of Man in Matt. 10:23 in a non-eschatological sense. In other words, he wished his readers to interpret “until the Son of Man comes” as “until I catch up with you in a few days’ or weeks’ time.” Nevertheless, it is quite certain that the Sending discourse was not the original context of the version of Completion preserved in Matt. 10:23. We believe the Anth. version of Completion originally belonged in a collection of post-resurrection sayings dealing with the hostility Jesus’ followers could expect to encounter as they embarked on their renewed mission, not only to proclaim Jesus’ Gospel but also to announce Jesus’ vindication as the Messiah of Israel. In that context the reference to the Son of Man did refer to his eschatological coming.

3. Is “taste death” a Semitic idiom? Scholars are not wrong to refer to “taste death” as a Semitic idiom, since it occurs in late Hebrew and Aramaic sources. Nevertheless, their claim that “taste death” is a Semitic idiom is entirely misleading when they fail to add that “taste death” is also perfectly at home in Classical and Koine Greek. Thus the use of the idiom “taste death” in the “string of pearls” version of Completion is no proof at all that this version originated in a Semitic language rather than in the Greek-speaking church.

4. What is the meaning of γενεά in the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse? The version of Completion in the eschatological discourse declares that “this γενεά will not pass away until everything [in the discourse] comes to pass.” It is quite clear that the author of Mark understood γενεά in this context to mean “generation,” and that he, like the author of Luke before him, understood the prophecy to mean that the Son of Man’s coming at the end of history would take place during the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries. But unlike the author of Luke, who was untroubled by this statement, the author of Mark perceived a difficulty. He knew that the Son of Man had not come within the timeframe this prophecy indicated. In order to explain away this discrepancy the author of Mark added Day and Hour Unknown (Mark 13:32) to the eschatological discourse as a “disclaimer” absolving Jesus of responsibility for the error he apparently made. (We believe that Jesus made no such error, and that the version of Completion embedded in the eschatological discourse was composed by the First Reconstructor. The author of Mark, on the other hand, regarded this version of Completion as an authentic saying of Jesus.) Either the author of Matthew accepted Mark’s somewhat problematic solution or he interpreted γενεά not as “generation” but as “race,” and assumed that the saying meant that the Jewish race would not pass away until the Son of Man came in judgment to punish them.^[114]

5. What was the original intention of the earliest version of Completion? We do not believe it was Jesus’ intention to give a timeframe for the Son of Man’s coming when he promised his disciples that they would not have exhausted the cities of Israel in their flight from pursuers before the Son of Man comes. Jesus simply meant that, despite fierce opposition to the disciples’ message from some quarters of the population, they would never be completely cut off from the people of Israel. Nevertheless, it is likely that the saying assumes that the Son of Man’s coming will take place sooner rather than later. It is understandable that this promise came to be construed as a guarantee that the apostles would still be alive when the Son of Man came, and that when this interpretation proved disappointing, the belief persisted that at least some of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry would remain alive until the Son of Man’s coming. When the prospect of even this more limited interpretation became implausible, it was still possible to cling to the hope that the Son of Man would return before the generation to which Jesus belonged had died out. When eventually even this expectation failed, the synoptic evangelists began reinterpreting Jesus’ saying, not by pushing it off further into the future but by projecting its fulfillment back into the past.

Conclusion

The numerous versions of Completion in the Synoptic Gospels are due to a misunderstanding, or perhaps misapplication, of Jesus’ promise that his followers would always have a place within the people of Israel until the day when the Son of Man comes, putting an end to the course of human history. This promise was taken by early followers of Jesus to mean that the Son of Man’s coming would take place within the lifetime of the original apostles. The development of Completion into its different forms reflects the attempts to cope with the disappointments caused by the misinterpretation of Jesus’ saying. Our investigation of the many versions of Completion shows that Lindsey’s hypothesis is uniquely capable of accounting for its evolution within the synoptic tradition.

---

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] 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. ↩
• ^[4] 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. ↩
• ^[5] 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. ↩
• ^[6] 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. ↩
• ^[7] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 2:468; Evans, 334. ↩
• ^[8] Pace Marshall, 780. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Bultmann, 121; Bundy, 304 §182; Conzelmann, 104 n. 1; Meier, Marginal, 2:343; Vermes, Authentic, 280-281. ↩
• ^[10] Cf. Schweizer, 242; Luz, 2:85. Pace Gundry, Matt., 194. ↩
• ^[11] 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. ↩
• ^[12] On the derivation of the “strings of pearls” from FR, see LOY Excursus: Sources of the “Strings of Pearls” in Luke’s Gospel. ↩
• ^[13] See LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “First Reconstruction.” ↩
• ^[14] On the derivation of Luke’s version of Jesus’ eschatological discourse from FR, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Bovon, 3:121. ↩
• ^[16] For details, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[17] 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. ↩
• ^[18] Cf. Meier, Marginal, 2:346. ↩
• ^[19] 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. ↩

• ^[20] 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. ↩
• ^[21] 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. ↩
• ^[22] 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”? ↩
• ^[23] 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). ↩
• ^[24] 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. ↩
• ^[25] Brown (1:359) acknowledged that Gos. Thom. §1 is a version of John 8:51, 52. ↩
• ^[26] 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. ↩
• ^[27] Pace Allen, 107. On this saying, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple. ↩
• ^[28] 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). ↩
• ^[29] See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L31, Comment to L32 and Comment to L33. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. McNeile, 142; Manson, Sayings, 182; Meier, Marginal, 2:340; Luz, 2:91. Pace Bundy, 161 §73; Davies-Allison, 2:188. ↩
• ^[31] See the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, and the introduction to the “Mission of the Twelve” complex. ↩
• ^[32] Cf. Manson, Teaching, 121; Sayings, 182. ↩
• ^[33] 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.” ↩
• ^[34] 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.” ↩
• ^[35] 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. ↩
• ^[36] 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. ↩

• ^[37] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:677; Meier, Marginal, 2:342; Luz, 2:386. ↩
• ^[38] 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. ↩
• ^[39] On our dating of the composition of Luke’s Gospel, see LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[40] Ibid. ↩
• ^[41] 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. ↩
• ^[42] Cf. Luz, 3:209. ↩
• ^[43] 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. ↩
• ^[44] 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.” ↩
• ^[45] See Davies-Allison, 2:191. ↩
• ^[46] See David N. Bivin, “Cataloging the Gospels’ Hebraisms: Part Three (Impersonal ‘They’).” ↩
• ^[47] 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. ↩
• ^[48] 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.” ↩
• ^[49] Albrecht Oepke, “διώκω,” TDNT, 2:229-230. ↩
• ^[50] 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. ↩
• ^[51] 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.” ↩
• ^[52] See BDB, 922. ↩
• ^[53] 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. ↩
• ^[54] Thus Beare (Earliest, 84 §59) proposed that “this city” refers to Jerusalem. ↩
• ^[55] 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. ↩
• ^[56] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 428. Pace Bundy, 160 §73. ↩
• ^[57] 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. ↩
• ^[58] 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. ↩
• ^[59] So McNeile, 142. ↩
• ^[60] 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. ↩
• ^[61] 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. ↩
• ^[62] 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). ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Beare, 140 §123; Gundry, Mark, 1:440. ↩
• ^[64] 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. ↩
• ^[65] Cf. Marshall (378) and Fitzmyer (1:789), who attribute ἀληθῶς to the author of Luke. ↩
• ^[66] See Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[67] 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). ↩
• ^[68] 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. ↩
• ^[69] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L116. ↩
• ^[70] 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. ↩
• ^[71] 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. ↩
• ^[72] Cf. Bruce D. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” New Testament Studies 27.1 (1980): 115-124, esp. 118. ↩
• ^[73] 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. ↩
• ^[74] 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. ↩
• ^[75] 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

  ↩
• ^[76] On the likelihood that most synoptic instances of παρέρχεσθαι are redactional, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L34-35. ↩
• ^[77] 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. ↩
• ^[78] See Wolter, 2:432. ↩
• ^[79] 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)

  ↩
• ^[80] 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. ↩

• ^[81] See Behm, “γεύομαι,” TDNT, 1:675-677; Wolter, 1:390. ↩
• ^[82] 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. ↩
• ^[83] Text according to Johannes Geffcken, ed., Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902), 9. Translation according to Charlesworth, 1:336. ↩
• ^[84] McNeile, 143; Davies-Allison, 2:191; Hagner, 1:279; Luz, 2:85; Nolland, Matt., 427. ↩
• ^[85] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 427. ↩
• ^[86] 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. ↩
• ^[87] Cf. our reconstruction of ἐκτελεῖν with הִשְׁלִים in Tower Builder and King Going to War, L11. ↩
• ^[88] So the critical texts. Vaticanus reads, μέχρις ὅτου (mechris hotou, “until that”). ↩
• ^[89] 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. ↩
• ^[90] See Lindsey, GCSG, 2:139. ↩
• ^[91] See Harnack, 16; Bovon, 2:465 n. 57. ↩
• ^[92] 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). ↩
• ^[93] 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. ↩
• ^[94] See Taylor, 521; Meier, Marginal, 2:345; Evans, 335. ↩
• ^[95] Cf., e.g., Hagner, 2:715. ↩
• ^[96] See Gundry, Mark, 2:790-791. ↩
• ^[97] 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.” ↩
• ^[98] Cf. Evans (28), who resolves the contradiction differently. ↩
• ^[99] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 694. ↩
• ^[100] 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. ↩
• ^[101] Cf. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” 120. ↩
• ^[102] Cf. Nardoni, “A Redactional Interpretation of Mark 9:1,” 375-377. ↩
• ^[103] See Beare, Matt., 360; Gundry, Matt., 341. ↩
• ^[104] See Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L35-67. ↩
• ^[105] 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). ↩
• ^[106]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[107]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[108] 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. ↩
• ^[109]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[110]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[111] Cf. Luz, 2:93. ↩
• ^[112] See Luz, 2:381. ↩
• ^[113] On the author of Matthew’s occasional use of γενεά in the sense of “race,” see Innocent Blood, Comment to L26. ↩
• ^[114] 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. ↩