Return to the Galil

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Return to the Galil,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/27181/].

(Matt. 4:12, 17; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:14-15)

(Huck 9; Aland 30, 32; Crook 24, 27)^[1]

וַיָּשָׁב יֵשׁוּעַ בְּעֹז הָרוּחַ אֶל הַגָּלִיל

Yeshua, empowered by the Spirit, returned to the Galil.^[2]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Return to the Galil click on the link below:

Story Placement

All three of the Synoptic Gospels describe Jesus’ arrival in the Galilee following the temptation narrative. Since Jesus’ experiences during the temptation took him from unknown deserted places all the way to Jerusalem, some kind of transition back to the Galilee probably appeared in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua as well. Without such a transition, there is a gaping hole in the narrative. Since literature, like nature, abhors a vacuum, it is unlikely that the author of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua would have left such a gap in his biography of Jesus.

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Luke’s version of Return to the Galil (Luke 4:14-15) appears to have been based on a Hebraic source that was subsequently supplemented with additional information composed in Greek, which transformed the simple notice of Jesus’ return to the Galilee into a summary statement describing Jesus’ early teaching activities and the positive response it generated. While much of Luke’s version of Return to the Galil is redactional,^[3] the opening sentence (Luke 4:14a), which describes Jesus’ return, reverts easily to Hebrew and contains themes and vocabulary that connect it to the preceding narratives (Yeshua’s Immersion and Yeshua’s Testing). Since there are no signs of redaction distinctive to the First Reconstruction (FR), but there are markers of specifically Lukan redaction (see below, Comment to L7 and Comment to L8), it is likely that it was the author of Luke himself who expanded the Anthology’s (Anth.’s) notice of Jesus’ return to the Galilee into a summary statement.^[4]

The author of Mark adapted Luke’s version of Return to the Galil in several respects. First, he linked Jesus’ return to the Galilee chronologically to John the Baptist’s arrest. Second, instead of recording the fact of Jesus’ teaching activity, he reported the content of Jesus’ message. Third, the author of Mark dropped the people’s response to Jesus’ activity. Despite his reworking of Luke’s version of the pericope, Mark’s version of Return to the Galil betrays several points of contact with Luke’s broader narrative. For instance, Mark’s reference to John’s imprisonment after Jesus’ temptation (Mark 1:14) is a chronological “correction” of Luke’s mention of John’s imprisonment prior to Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3:19-20). Mark’s report of Jesus’ message with the imperative “Repent!” (Mark 1:15) echoes the Baptist’s call in Luke to “bear fruit worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8 ∥ Matt. 3:8; omitted in Mark), while the proclamation “the Kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15) echoes the apostles’ message in Luke 10:9 (≈ Matt. 10:7; cf. Mark 6:12, where the apostles’ message is changed to a call to repentance). Likewise, “the time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15) echoes Jesus’ announcement to the congregation in Nazareth that the Scripture from Isaiah announcing the year of the Lord’s favor was today fulfilled in their hearing (Luke 4:21). Even the summons to “believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15), though unique in the Synoptic Gospels, may have been inspired by the writings of Luke if, as Lindsey supposed, the author of Mark occasionally alluded in his Gospel to the book of Acts.^[5] The imperative πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (“Believe in the gospel!”) in Mark 1:15 is reminiscent of Peter’s statement in Acts that ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ πιστεῦσαι (“God chose that through my mouth the Gentiles might hear the word of the gospel and believe”; Acts 15:7). These verses are not merely similar in content; Mark 1:15 and Acts 15:7 are the only two verses in the New Testament where ἐυαγγέλιον (evangelion, “good news”), used as a technical term for the Christian message, is the object of belief. Thus, Mark’s version of Return to the Galil, though diverging sharply from Luke’s wording, is deeply indebted to the writings of Luke.^[6]

Matthew’s version of Return to the Galil was built on Mark’s,^[7] but the author of Matthew subjected it to extensive redaction. The author of Matthew improved Mark’s narrative by transforming sequence (John’s imprisonment→Jesus’ return) into causation (Jesus returned because of John’s imprisonment), inserting into the pericope remnants of his version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Matt. 4:13-16), which he embellished with a quotation from Isaiah, and changing the wording of Jesus’ message in order to make John’s preaching (Matt. 3:2) and Jesus’ proclamation (Matt. 4:17) identical.

Comment

L1-2 καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάνην (Mark 1:14). As we noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above, Mark’s reference to the “giving over” of John the Baptist is a chronological improvement vis-à-vis Luke’s mention of John’s imprisonment prior to Jesus’ baptism.^[8] Mark’s chronology also allows Jesus to fulfill temporally (μετά [meta, “after”]) John’s spatial prediction that a Stronger One was coming up behind (ὀπίσω [opisō, “after,” “behind”]) him.^[9] Nevertheless, Mark’s statement here is not without its difficulties. When Mark finally relates how John the Baptist came to be imprisoned and executed (Mark 6:17-29), John is not “given over” to anyone but the executioner.^[10] Thus, “after John was given over” is not an apt description of John’s imprisonment, since at this point in Mark’s narrative John the Baptist is still very much alive. Reading παραδοθῆναι (paradothēnai, “to be given over”) as a divine passive does not resolve this difficulty,^[11] since elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel the action of “giving over” someone is always negative, and therefore regularly translated as “betray.”^[12] Plummer’s attempt to implicate the Pharisees in the “giving over” of John the Baptist to Herod Antipas is totally unwarranted,^[13] being nowhere suggested in the text and refuted by Luke’s account of the Pharisees’ attempt to deliver Jesus from the tetrarch’s clutches (Luke 13:31-33). Mark’s word choice probably has nothing to do with historical accuracy, rather his use of παραδοθῆναι was intended to draw a verbal parallel between the fates of John the Baptist and Jesus.^[14]

ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἰωάνης παρεδόθη (Matt. 4:12). Matthew’s wording in L1 is similar to Mark’s, but unlike Mark 1:14, Matt. 4:12 makes Jesus’ return a consequence of the Baptist’s being handed over. It is the news about John that prompts Jesus to return to the Galilee.^[15] The reception of bad news that leads to a change of location is a recurring motif in the opening chapters of the Gospel of Matthew (see below, Comment to L3), and thus may be attributed to Matthean redaction.

L3 ἀνεχώρησεν (Matt. 4:12). According to Matthew, when Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been given over, Jesus “withdrew” or “retreated” to the Galilee. Since Jesus’ last known location in Matthew was in Jerusalem (Matt. 4:5),^[16] a retreat from the Holy City into the territory of Herod Antipas, the man who held the Baptist in prison, is confounding.^[17] It is evident, however, that Matthew’s description of Jesus’ movements was motivated by literary rather than historical concerns.^[18] Just as the magi were warned in a dream about King Herod and then retreated into their own country (Matt. 2:12), and just as Joseph, being warned in a dream about the same ruler, retreated with his family into Egypt (Matt. 2:14), and just as upon hearing that Archelaus was ruling Judea Joseph again retreated, this time into the Galilee (Matt. 2:22), so Jesus, hearing what Antipas had done to John the Baptist, retreated into the Galilee (Matt. 4:12). Each of these retreats are expressed with ἀναχωρεῖν + εἰς + destination. It is hardly coincidental that each retreat also involves a threat from a member of the Herodian royal family.^[19] Since the verb ἀναχωρεῖν (anachōrein, “to retreat”) has been shown to be a Matthean redactional term,^[20] there is no reason to suppose that Matthew’s wording in L3 reflects that of a non-Markan pre-synoptic source.^[21]

καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς (GR). Luke’s wording in L3 not only agrees with Hebrew syntax (καί + aorist + subject = vav-consecutive + subject), it utilizes vocabulary, ὑποστρέφειν (hūpostrefein, “to return”), that had previously occurred in Yeshua’s Testing (L6), which gives Luke’s narrative continuity.^[22] The only possible sign of Greek editing in L3 of Luke 4:14 is the definite article ὁ (ho, “the”) preceding Jesus’ name, which we have omitted from GR. Mark’s parallel says that Jesus “came” into the Galilee (Mark 1:14), but the author of Mark could hardly have written that Jesus returned to the Galilee, since unlike Luke and Matthew, Mark’s Gospel had not previously mentioned Jesus’ presence there.

וַיָּשָׁב יֵשׁוּעַ (HR). On reconstructing ὑποστρέφειν (hūpostrefein, “to return”) with שָׁב (shāv, “return”), see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1. Note that we also reconstructed ὑποστρέφειν with שָׁב in Yeshua’s Testing, L6.

On reconstructing Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) with יֵשׁוּעַ (yēshūa‘, “Jesus”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L12.

L4 ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος (GR). Luke’s reference to Jesus’ return “in the power of the Spirit” links Return to the Galil to the preceding pericopae, where the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Yeshua’s Immersion (L30), and where Jesus’ fullness of the Holy Spirit (L5) and his leading by the Spirit (L9) are described in Yeshua’s Testing. Here, as in Yeshua’s Testing, L9, the Spirit is referred to in the absolute without modifiers like “of God” or “of Holiness.”

The association of the Holy Spirit with power is typical of ancient Jewish sources. For instance, in Micah we read the following statement:

וְאוּלָם אָנֹכִי מָלֵאתִי כֹחַ אֶת רוּחַ יי וּמִשְׁפָּט וּגְבוּרָה לְהַגִּיד לְיַעֲקֹב פִּשְׁעוֹ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַטָּאתוֹ

But I am filled with power [כֹחַ], with the Spirit of the LORD רוּחַ יי and justice and might to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. (Mic. 3:8)

Likewise, in the Thanksgiving Scroll we find:

אודכה אדוני כי סמכתני בעוזכה ורוח קודשכה הניפותה בי בל אמוט

I thank you, my Lord, because you supported me by your strength and you spread out your Holy Spirit in me so that I do not falter. (1QH^a XV, 6-7; DSS Study Edition)

Similarly, in the epistle to the Romans Paul claimed to have accomplished his mission to the Gentiles ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος (en dūnamei pnevmatos, “by the power of the Spirit”; Rom. 15:19). And Josephus, in his retelling of Scripture, had someone claim that a true prophet possesses “the power of the divine spirit” (τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν; Ant. 8:408).^[23]

Therefore, although “power” is occasionally associated with the Holy Spirit in Acts (Acts 1:8; 10:38), this association is not a uniquely Lukan theme and need not be regarded as evidence of Lukan redaction. Since Jesus’ empowerment by the Holy Spirit to carry out his prophetic mission is entirely Jewish, and since Luke’s wording in L4 reverts so easily to Hebrew, we see no obstacle to accepting ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος (en tē dūnamei tou pnevmatos, “in the power of the spirit”) for GR.

בְּעֹז הָרוּחַ (HR). In the preceding paragraphs we encountered two Hebrew equivalents for “power” in relation to the Holy Spirit, כֹּחַ (koaḥ; Mic. 3:8) and עֹז (‘oz; 1QH^a XV, 6). In LXX the noun δύναμις (dūnamis, “power”) occasionally occurs as the translation of כֹּחַ, but occurs about three times as often as the translation of עֹז.^[24] We also find that the phrase ἐν τῇ δυνάμει + genitive occurs as the translation of בְּעֹז + pronominal suffix in Ps. 20[21]:2, 14 and Ps. 73[74]:13. So, although the LXX translators more often rendered עֹז as ἰσχύς (ischūs, “strength”) than as δύναμις,^[25] עֹז appears to be the stronger candidate for HR.

On reconstructing πνεῦμα (pnevma, “wind,” “spirit”) with רוּחַ (rūaḥ, “wind,” “spirit”), see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L25.

L5 εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (GR). The phrase εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (eis tēn Galilaian, “into the Galilee”) is the only point of Lukan-Markan-Matthean agreement in this pericope. Such agreement does not guarantee that this phrase also occurred in Anth., but since the whole point of the pericope is to transition Jesus back to the Galilee following the temptation narrative, this phrase is indispensable. We have accordingly adopted it for GR.

אֶל הַגָּלִיל (HR). On reconstructing Γαλιλαία (Galilaia, “Galilee”) with הַגָּלִיל (hagālil, “the Galilee”), see A Voice Crying, Comment to L18.

L6-8 (Luke 4:14). We believe it was in L6 that the author of Luke began to supplement his version of Return to the Galil with additional information about Jesus’ growing fame and the positive response his teaching in the local synagogues received. However, it appears that his padding of Return to the Galil was accomplished by inserting content picked up from other pericopae. Thus Luke’s statement, “and a report about him went out through the whole of the surrounding region,” in L6-8 is closely paralleled in Matthew’s version of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (Matt. 9:26). Both Luke 4:14 and Matt. 9:26 share distinctive vocabulary: ἐξῆλθεν (“went out”), φήμη (“report”) and ὅλος (“whole”). The use of φήμη (fēmē, “report”) in both Luke 4:14 and Matt. 9:26 is especially significant, since this term occurs nowhere else in the writings of either author or, indeed, in the rest of the New Testament. Luke’s version of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith not only lacks a parallel to Matt. 9:26, Luke 8:56 records a prohibition against telling anyone about the resuscitation of Jairus’ daughter. So it may be that the author of Luke himself transferred the spreading abroad of the news about Jesus’ miracles from Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith to Return to the Galil, or perhaps he noticed the discrepancy between the Anth. and FR versions of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith and decided to use Anth.’s ending to the story in Return to the Galil rather than discard it altogether. In any case, it is clear that Luke’s notice about Jesus’ fame spreading throughout the region did not originally belong to Return to the Galil, since as of yet there was nothing about Jesus to report.^[26]

L7 καθ’ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου (Luke 4:14). Even if Luke’s statement in L6-8 was borrowed from Anth.’s version of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith, it is clear that the author of Luke did not leave Anth.’s wording unchanged. The use of κατά + ὅλος to express “throughout” is a marker of Lukan redaction,^[27] as is the term περίχωρος (perichōros, “surrounding region”).^[28] We may surmise that Matthew’s εἰς ὅλην τὴν γῆν (eis holēn tēn gēn, “into all the land”), equivalent to בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ (b^echol hā’āretz, “in all the land”) or לְכָל הָאָרֶץ (l^echol hā’āretz, “to all the land”), is closer to Anth.’s wording in Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith.

L8 περὶ αὐτοῦ (Luke 4:14). The use of περί + personal pronoun in the sense of “concerning so-and-so” (and not in the sense of “around so-and-so”) occurs with a higher frequency in Luke (8xx) than in the Gospels of Matthew (2xx) and Mark (4xx), and only one of Luke’s instances of περί + personal pronoun in this sense is supported by another synoptic evangelist.^[29] We also find that περί + personal pronoun in the sense of “concerning so-and-so” occurs several times in Acts (Acts 5:24; 8:15; 11:22; 12:5; 13:29; 23:15, 20). Thus the author of Luke’s redactional fingerprints are evident in L8 as well.

L9-10 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν (Luke 4:15). Luke’s statement that Jesus was teaching in their synagogues anticipates, and was perhaps borrowed from, a similar statement in Teaching in Kefar Nahum (L21-26), where we read, καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (“and he was teaching them on the Sabbaths”; Luke 4:31). Teaching in Kefar Nahum goes on to mention an incident in a synagogue (Luke 4:33). Luke’s use of the imperfect tense (ἐδίδασκεν [edidasken, “he was teaching”]) and his addition of the pronoun αὐτῶν (avtōn, “of them”) to “synagogue” are indications of Lukan redactional activity, the former because the imperfect tense is un-Hebraic, the latter because “their synagogues” implies a non-Jewish point of view.^[30] Note that αὐτῶν in L10 has no proper antecedent. While it may be inferred that Luke meant “the synagogues of the Galileans,”^[31] it is more likely that the dissociative language is a slip of the pen reflecting the author of Luke’s non-Jewish perspective.

L11 δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων (Luke 4:15). In his statement that Jesus was “glorified by all” we discover the reason for the author of Luke’s insertions into his version of Return to the Galil. Nazarene Synagogue, the pericope following Return to the Galil, had the potential to leave readers with the distinct impression that Jesus was poorly received and had a generally unfavorable reputation among his compatriots. To preempt his readers from forming this impression, the author of Luke claimed that Jesus was already famous and highly regarded prior to his visit to Nazareth, even though he had nothing to support this claim.^[32] Another strategy might have been to place Nazarene Synagogue later in his Gospel, which in fact is exactly what the authors of Mark and Matthew did. But it appears that in relating Jesus’ experience in Nazareth immediately after Return to the Galil the author of Luke was following the order of his source (Anth.). The conclusion that here Luke reproduces Anth.’s pericope order emerges from the fact that 1) both Matthew (Matt. 4:13) and Luke (Luke 4:31) report a transition from Nazareth to Capernaum, even though this transition is not mentioned in Mark’s parallel (Mark 1:21), and 2) both Matthew (Matt. 4:13) and Luke (Luke 4:16) use the otherwise unattested form Ναζαρά (Nazara) to refer to the name of Jesus’ hometown.^[33] These Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark indicate that the authors of Luke and Matthew were both aware of the pericope sequence Return to the Galil→Nazarene Synagogue→Teaching in Kefar Nahum in Anth.^[34] Feeling constrained to preserve Anth.’s pericope order, the author of Luke’s solution to prevent his readers from forming a negative impression of Jesus’ reputation among his contemporaries was to add the material that claimed the opposite in L6-11 to his version of Return to the Galil. In this way Jesus’ experience in Nazareth would strike Luke’s readers as an aberration rather than as the norm.

The un-Hebraic phrasing of his claim that Jesus was glorified by everyone shows that δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων (doxazomenos hūpo pantōn, “glorified by all”) in L11 is the product of Lukan redaction. It may even be the case that all the instances of ὑπὸ πάντων (hūpo pantōn, “by all”) in the Synoptic Gospels originated with Luke. We find ὑπὸ πάντων 5xx in the Gospels (Matt. 10:22; 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 4:15; 21:17); it also occurs once in Acts (Acts 22:12). The two instances in Matthew occur in pericopae that are doublets (Betrayal of Friends). Although the Matt. 10 version of Betrayal of Friends is mainly dependent on Anth., the phenomenon of “Matthean cross-pollination” means that ὑπὸ πάντων could have crept into Matt. 10:22 from the doublet in Matt. 24:9 ∥ Mark 13:13 ∥ Luke 21:17.

L12 (Matt. 4:13-16). Into his version of Return to the Galil the author of Matthew inserted a tiny remnant of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, a pericope that is otherwise excluded from Matthew’s Gospel. To this remnant, which merely states that Jesus moved to Capernaum, the author of Matthew attached a (doctored) quotation of Isaiah, which the author of Matthew claimed Jesus had fulfilled by retreating to the Galilee and visiting Nazareth and Capernaum. Since Matt. 4:13-16 will be dealt with in detail in Teaching in Kefar Nahum, we refer our readers to our discussion there.

L13 ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matt. 4:17). The phrase ἀπὸ τότε (apo tote, “from then”) is rare in the Gospels, occurring only 3xx in Matthew (Matt. 4:17; 16:21; 26:16) and once in Luke (Luke 16:16), where we found it to be redactional.^[35] In Matt. 4:17 and Matt. 16:21 ἀπὸ τότε is part of a longer formula, ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς + infinitive (“from then Jesus began to do such-and-such”). Each time this formula occurs in Matthew it marks a turning point in Jesus’ career. In Matt. 4:17 the turning point is the giving over of John the Baptist and Jesus’ prophecy-fulfilling sojourn in the Galilee, which marks the beginning of Jesus’ public teaching career.^[36] In Matt. 16:21 the turning point is Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah, which marks the beginning of Jesus’ private instruction to his disciples about his impending death and subsequent resurrection. Since neither Mark nor Luke use this turning point-marking formula, it is clear that it is the product of Matthean redaction,^[37] which the author of Matthew used as a literary device to highlight these events as turning points in Jesus’ career.^[38]

L14 κηρύσσων (Mark 1:14). According to Mark, Jesus entered the Galilee “proclaiming” the Gospel of God. By writing κηρύσσων (kērūssōn, “proclaiming”) in L14, the author of Mark styled Jesus’ public appearance after John the Baptist’s, which he described as “John the Baptizer came in the desert proclaiming [κηρύσσων] a baptism of repentance for the release of sins” (Mark 1:4).^[39] This modeling of Jesus’ proclamation after the Baptist’s is the product of Markan redaction, as the content of that proclamation in anachronistic terms foreign to the historical Jesus shows (see below).

κηρύσσειν (Matt. 4:17). Although the author of Matthew was forced to change Mark’s participle κηρύσσων into the infinitive κηρύσσειν (kērūssein, “to proclaim”) in order to adapt Mark’s vocabulary to his turning point-marking formula (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς + infinitive), the author of Matthew followed Mark’s lead in modeling Jesus’ public appearance after that of John the Baptist. Indeed, the author of Matthew took Mark’s project one step further by changing the content of John’s and Jesus’ proclamation in order to make their words identical.

L15 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 1:14). Just as John the Baptist came proclaiming a baptism (Mark 1:4), so the author of Mark portrayed Jesus as proclaiming a “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον [evangelion]). The use of εὐαγγέλιον to refer to the content of Jesus’ message and also to refer to the early believers’ message about Jesus reflects a post-Easter perspective. All of the Gospels were, of course, written from a post-Easter perspective, as were their sources, but it is notable that in the synoptic tradition the use of εὐαγγέλιον begins with the author of Mark (presuming a Luke→Mark→Matthew progression). Several Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark’s use of εὐαγγέλιον suggest that this term did not occur in Anth.^[40] Neither does εὐαγγέλιον occur in Luke, despite the author of Luke’s willingness to use the term in Acts (Acts 15:7; 20:24). Mark’s Gospel, by contrast, uses the term εὐαγγέλιον 8xx (Mark 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15). Since it did not occur in either of Mark’s written sources (Luke and Anth.), it is clear that εὐαγγέλιον should be regarded as redactional.^[41]

According to Lindsey, Mark’s early uses of a stereotyped term will often reveal the stereotype’s source.^[42] It is extremely telling, therefore, that one of the two instances of the term εὐαγγέλιον in Acts occurs in the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ (“the gospel of the grace of God”; Acts 20:24). This verse in Acts is likely the source of Mark’s phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the gospel of God”).

L16 καὶ λέγων ὅτι (Mark 1:15). Mark’s placement of the conjunction ὅτι (hoti, “that”) after the participle λέγων (legōn, “saying”) is un-Hebraic, since in BH לֵאמֹר (lē’mor, “saying”) is not followed by כִּי (ki, “that,” “because”) except in instances where כִּי is part of the direct speech introduced by לֵאמֹר.^[43] For this reason the LXX translators rarely rendered לֵאמֹר as λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι.^[44] In the Synoptic Gospels λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι is more frequent than in LXX, but the lack of Lukan-Matthean agreement to write λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι in Double Tradition (DT) pericopae and the Lukan-Matthean minor agreements against Mark’s use of λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι in Triple Tradition (TT) pericopae suggest that λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι did not occur in the pre-synoptic sources but was introduced by the synoptic evangelists.^[45]

L17 πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (Mark 1:15). The author of Mark characterizes the exclamation “The time is fulfilled!” as a key component of the “gospel” Jesus proclaimed. What is the origin of this unique characterization of Jesus’ message?^[46] Lindsey’s hypothesis, according to which the author of Mark utilized the Gospel of Luke while composing his own Gospel, offers a credible answer. The characterization of “The time is fulfilled” as the content of Jesus’ gospel is best explained as a distillation of Luke’s account of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth, where Jesus announces to the congregation that the Scripture “The Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to evangelize [εὐαγγελίσασθαι] the poor…to proclaim [κηρύξαι] liberty…[and]…the year of the Lord’s favor…” has been fulfilled [πεπλήρωται] today in their hearing (Luke 4:16-21). This Lukan passage contains vocabulary and concepts parallel to much of the material we find in Mark 1:14-15 that is missing in Luke’s version of Return to the Galil:

Mark 1:14-15	Luke 4:16-21
ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός	καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρά…καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ…εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ…εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς…κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν…κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν…καὶ…ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν
Jesus came into the Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God and saying that the time is fulfilled….	And he came into Nazareth…and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him and…he found the place where it is written, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me…to evangelize the poor…to proclaim release to captives…to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…and…he began to say to them that today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears.

An important difference between Luke and Mark is that in Luke 4:21 it is a passage of Scripture that has been fulfilled, whereas in Mark it is ὁ καιρός (ho kairos, “the time”) that has been fulfilled. But note that Luke 4:16-21 has conspicuous time-related vocabulary (“the year of the Lord’s favor,” “today this Scripture is fulfilled”). Note, too, that in Mark 1:14-15 there is no Scripture quotation for Jesus to declare fulfilled, so the author of Mark required a more generic fulfillment pronouncement. Viewing these points of similarity between Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:16-21 through the lens of Lindsey’s hypothesis convinces us that much of the author of Mark’s redactional activity in Return to the Galil can be explained as an attempt to compensate for skipping over Nazarene Synagogue at this point in his narrative.^[47]

The omission of “the time is fulfilled” in Matt. 4:17 is partially explained by the author of Matthew’s desire to make Jesus and John the Baptist proclaim a single unified message.^[48] But since this purpose could have been achieved by making both John and Jesus proclaim “The time is fulfilled” just as easily as by omitting this statement from both proclamations, the question why Matthew preferred to omit, rather than include, πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός from both proclamations remains unresolved. The answer appears to be that the author of Matthew, with his keen interest in the eschatological timetable,^[49] did not agree that the time had been fulfilled. Rather, the author of Matthew looked forward to the “consummation of the age”^[50] at the Parousia.^[51] Only then, “at the regeneration” (Matt. 19:28),^[52] would the time truly be fulfilled.^[53]

L18 μετανοεῖτε (Matt. 4:17). While the imperative μετανοεῖτε (metanoeite, “Repent!”) is taken from Mark’s Gospel, the author of Matthew has moved it up from Mark’s position in L21. We believe the phenomenon of Matthean cross-pollination accounts for his reason for doing so. Matthean cross-pollination is a redactional method whereby the author of Matthew allowed similar sayings to influence each other’s wording with the result that the two similar sayings ended up resembling each other even more closely than they did in his sources. In some cases the cross-pollinated sayings truly were alternate versions of a single original saying, but in other cases, as here, the cross-pollination was driven by the author of Matthew’s theological concerns. The author of Matthew wanted John the Baptist and Jesus to be united in their preaching, and the author of Matthew valued what he believed to be Jesus’ message more highly than he did John’s, so he placed Jesus’ message in the mouth of John the Baptist.^[54] But the author of Matthew was not unaware that the call to repent was more characteristic of John’s preaching,^[55] while the proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven was more characteristic of Jesus. Since chronological constraints required the author of Matthew to report the content of John’s preaching (Matt. 3:2) before that of Jesus (Matt. 4:17), the author of Matthew had both preachers mention repentance before referring to the Kingdom of Heaven.

L19-20 καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 1:15). The author of Mark equated “the time is fulfilled” with “the Kingdom of God has come near.” In making this equation the author of Mark was not incorrect, in as much as he intended “The time is fulfilled!” to be an encapsulation of the statement Jesus made on Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth (see above, Comment to L17). Proclamations of amnesty, like the one described in Isaiah 61, were typically made when a king acceded to the throne.^[56] There was thus an organic connection between Jesus’ declaration of a divine amnesty toward Israel and his proclamation of God’s reign (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven). The same connection between divine amnesty and God’s reign is likely behind the Lord’s Prayer, which petitions for the coming of the Kingdom and the forgiveness of debts (Matt. 6:10, 12; Luke 11:2, 4). Nevertheless, Mark’s wording in L19-20 probably depends on Luke 10:9, where Jesus instructs the seventy-two to say, ἤγγικεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Kingdom of God has come upon you”; cf. Matt. 10:7).

ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt. 4:17). The author of Matthew changed “the Kingdom of God” in Mark 1:15 to “the Kingdom of Heaven” in his version of Return to the Galil (Matt. 4:17). This change is consistent with the author of Matthew’s usual preference for “the Kingdom of Heaven”^[57] and proves that, at least in some cases, “the Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew is the product of Matthean redaction and not the reflection of a more Hebraic source (Anth.) parallel to Mark.

It is possible, however, that something more than just Matthean preference was involved in his change from “the Kingdom of God” to “the Kingdom of Heaven” in L20. We have already discussed the author of Matthew’s redactional technique of cross-pollination whereby the author of Matthew blended the wording of parallel sayings (see above, Comment to L18). It could hardly have escaped the author of Matthew’s notice that the words Mark attributed to Jesus (“the Kingdom of God has come near”) in Return to the Galil echo the words Jesus instructed the apostles to proclaim in Sending the Twelve. So it is possible that cross-pollination between Jesus’ proclamation in Return to the Galil and the apostles’ proclamation in Sending the Twelve has taken place in Matthew. Since the apostles’ proclamation is present in the Matthean and Luke 10 versions of Sending the Twelve but absent in Mark, the author of Matthew’s knowledge of the apostles’ proclamation must have come from Anth. In Matthew’s version of Sending the Twelve the apostles are instructed to proclaim, ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (“the Kingdom of Heaven has come near”; Matt. 10:7). If the reference to “the Kingdom of Heaven” in Matt. 10:7 is an accurate reflection of Anth.,^[58] then it is possible that Anth.’s wording of the apostles’ proclamation influenced Matthew’s version of Jesus’ preaching in Return to the Galil via the process of Matthean cross-pollination.

L21 μετανοεῖτε (Mark 1:15). On the lips of Jesus the imperative “Repent!” does not occur outside the Markan and Matthean versions of Return to the Galil, a fact that calls into question the accuracy of this part of Mark’s summation of Jesus’ message. Although the imperative “Repent!” never occurs in Luke’s Gospel, it does occur 3xx in Acts, always from the mouth of Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22). Since the “Markan pick-ups” from Acts seem to have been motivated by a desire to project the experiences of the early believers back into the story of Jesus, it is possible that Jesus’ call to repentance in Mark 1:15 is a pick-up from Acts.

L22-23 καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (Mark 1:15). The imperative “Believe!” occurs in Mark’s Gospel with a higher frequency (4xx) than in the Gospels of Matthew (0xx) or Luke (1x).^[59] Just as we suspect that the imperative “Repent!” was picked up from Acts, so we suppose the author of Mark picked up the call to believe from the second book of the Lukan corpus, where Paul exhorts the jailer in Philippi to πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν (“Place your trust on the Lord Jesus…!”; Acts 16:31). Since the author of Mark could not have Jesus say, “Trust in the Lord Jesus!” he paraphrased Paul’s exhortation as “Believe in the gospel!”^[60] Although his paraphrase is somewhat infelicitous—insofar as the author of Mark has made “Believe in the gospel!” part of the content of Jesus’ gospel—the author of Mark accomplished something remarkably clever in his summation of Jesus’ proclamation. He combined two representative selections of Jesus’ message from Luke (Nazarene Synagogue and Sending the Twelve) with representative selections of the preaching of Peter and Paul from Acts.

Redaction Analysis

Return to the Galil underwent heavy redaction at the hands of each of the synoptic evangelists.

Luke’s Version^[61]

Return to the Galil
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	31	Total Words:	11
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	11	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	11
% Identical to Anth.:	35.48	% of Anth. in Luke:	100.00
Click here for details.

Luke’s version of Return to the Galil is easily divided into two sections. The first section (L3-5) reverts easily to Hebrew and is required for narrative continuity. The second (L6-11) shows signs of Greek editing and has a clear apologetic purpose (viz., to put Jesus in a good light) that is not strictly necessary for the flow of the narrative. Since in L6-11 we find words and phrases characteristic of redaction peculiar to Luke, not FR, it appears that the author of Luke was responsible for adding the material in L6-11 to a pericope (L3-5) he copied from Anth.

Mark’s Version^[62]

Return to the Galil
Mark		Anthology
Total Words:	35	Total Words:	11
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	5	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	5
% Identical to Anth.:	14.29	% of Anth. in Mark:	45.45
Click here for details.

Although Mark’s version of Return to the Galil is similar to Luke’s in terms of word count, the author of Mark reworked it so thoroughly^[63] that his version of Return to the Galil bears minimal resemblance to Luke’s. Nevertheless, Mark’s version of Return to the Galil retains the gist of Anth.’s pericope. Rather than give a summary of Jesus’ activity and its warm reception as in Luke (L6-11), the author of Mark decided to summarize the gospel message (L14-16), which he did by combining characteristic samples of Jesus’ teaching from Luke (L17-20) with characteristic samples of the preaching of Peter (L21) and Paul (L22-23) from Acts. The effect is anachronistic, but it suggests that for the author of Mark and for the communities in which his Gospel was read, it was important to emphasize continuity between Jesus’ teaching and the message about Jesus they themselves proclaimed.

Matthew’s Version^[64]

Return to the Galil
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	24	Total Words:	11
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	4	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	4
% Identical to Anth.:	16.67	% of Anth. in Matt.:	36.36
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew thoroughly reworked the version of Return to the Galil he found in Mark. He exhibited greater literary skill—albeit at the expense of historical accuracy and common sense—than the author of Mark by making Jesus’ return to the Galilee not merely correlated with, but a consequence of, the imprisonment of John the Baptist (L1). Into his version of Return to the Galil the author of Matthew inserted a vestige of Teaching in Kefar Nahum (L12), which he elaborated with a quotation from Isaiah in order to show that Jesus’ change of location was in fulfillment of Scripture. And the author of Matthew adapted Mark’s summation of Jesus’ preaching (L18-20) in order to allow both Jesus and John the Baptist to proclaim the same message. Despite all this redactional activity, Matthew’s version of Return to the Galil retains the essence of Anth.’s version of the pericope, which was simply to report that, after his baptism and temptation, Jesus returned to the Galilee.

Conclusion

Return to the Galil reveals how a bare statement about Jesus’ return to the Galilee was pressed into the service of the author of Luke’s apologetic goals, the author of Mark’s kerygmatic program, and the author of Matthew’s theological agenda.

---

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] Cf. Creed, 64; Fitzmyer, 1:521-522; Nolland, Luke, 1:184. ↩
• ^[4] A few scholars have entertained the notion that in Luke 4:14-15 the author of Luke followed a non-Markan source. Cf., e.g., Streeter, 207; Bundy, 67 §9. Fitzmyer (1:521-522) and Wolter (1:197), approaching the question from the assumption of Luke’s dependence on Mark, rejected this view. ↩
• ^[5] On the author of Mark’s use of Acts in his redaction of Luke’s Gospel, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups. ↩
• ^[6] Bundy (65 §9) recognized that the proclamation the author of Mark attributed to Jesus was composite, but he did not recognize its indebtedness to Luke. ↩
• ^[7] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:375, 386; Luz, 1:156. ↩
• ^[8] On the reasons for Luke’s odd placement of the notice about John’s imprisonment prior to Jesus’ baptism, see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[9] See Gundry, Mark, 1:63. ↩
• ^[10] Although, indeed the Baptist’s head is given to the daughter of Herodias and his corpse is given to his disciples. ↩
• ^[11] Scholars who regard παραδοθῆναι in Mark 1:14 as a divine passive include Taylor, 165; Guelich, 42; Marcus, 1:171. ↩
• ^[12] See also Gundry, Mark, 1:63-64. ↩
• ^[13] See Plummer, Mark, 60. ↩
• ^[14] See Gundry, Mark, 1:64. ↩
• ^[15] See McNeile, 42-43; Bundy, 66 §9; Gundry, Matt., 59; Davies-Allison, 1:375. ↩
• ^[16] The identification of the “holy city” in Matt. 4:5 as Jerusalem is not in doubt (cf. Luke 4:9). The location of the lofty mountain in Matt. 4:8 is unknown. Nolland (Matt., 169), ignoring these references, suggested that Jesus withdrew from Perea, where John the Baptist had supposedly been active and apprehended. In fact, the Synoptic Gospels do not state where the Baptist was imprisoned, but a straightforward reading suggests that he was held in the Galilee, probably in Tiberias. See Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L38. In Yeshua’s Words about Yohanan the Immerser, Comment to L8, we discussed evidence from the Gospels that suggests the Baptist’s activities were concentrated in the area to the north of the Sea of Galilee rather than on the eastern bank of the Jordan opposite Samaria and Judea in Perea. ↩
• ^[17] Cf. Luz, 1:157 n. 15. ↩
• ^[18] Was the author of Matthew aware of his mistake, or is this another example of Matthean sloppiness? On the tendency of Matthean redaction to create logical and historical errors, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[19] The pattern is repeated again in Matt. 14:13, where Jesus, hearing about John the Baptist’s beheading by Herod Antipas, retreats into the desert (ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνεχώρησεν…εἰς ἔρημον). ↩
• ^[20] On ἀναχωρεῖν as a marker of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 59; Davies-Allison, 1:376. ↩
• ^[22] On our supposition that the lack of ὑποστρέφειν in Mark and Matthew has more to do with Markan and Matthean redaction than its absence in the pre-synoptic sources, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L130. ↩
• ^[23] See Wolter, 1:197. ↩
• ^[24] In LXX δύναμις occurs as the translation of כֹּחַ in Exod. 9:16 (Alexandrinus); 1 Chr. 29:2; 2 Chr. 22:9; 26:13; 2 Esd. 2:69; 10:13; 11:10; Eccl. 9:10, while δύναμις occurs as the translation of עֹז in 1 Chr. 13:8; Job 41:14; Ps. 20[21]:2, 14; 29[30]:8; 45[46]:2; 58[59]:17; 62[63]:3; 65[66]:3; 67[68]:29, 34, 35, 36; 73[74]:13; 76[77]:15; 88[89]:11, 18; 92[93]:1; 109[110]:2; 137[138]:3; 139[140]:8; 150:1. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:350-353. ↩
• ^[25] See Dos Santos, 151 (עוֹז) and 152 (עֹז). ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Bundy, 67 §9. ↩
• ^[27] On the author of Luke’s redactional use of κατά + ὅλος to express “throughout,” see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L144. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 116-117; Marshall, 177. ↩
• ^[28] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for περίχωρος, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L123-124. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 117. ↩
• ^[29] The table below shows all the instances of περὶ αὐτοῦ/αὐτῆς/αὐτῶν in the sense of “concerning so-and-so” in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 21:45 TT (cf. Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19) Matt. 26:24 TT = Mark 14:21 (cf. Luke 22:22) Mark 1:30 TT = Luke 4:38 (cf. Matt. 8:14) Mark 7:25 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:22) Mark 8:30 TT (cf. Matt. 16:20; Luke 9:21) Mark 14:21 TT = Matt. 26:24 (cf. Luke 22:22) Luke 2:33 U Luke 2:38 U Luke 4:14 TT (cf. Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14) Luke 4:37 Lk-Mk (cf. Mark 1:28) Luke 4:38 TT = Mark 1:30 (cf. Matt. 8:14) Luke 5:15 TT (cf. Mark 1:45; Matt. 8:4) Luke 7:17 U Luke 23:8 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩
• ^[30] See Bovon, 1:152. ↩
• ^[31] This is the view of Marshall (177), Nolland (Luke, 1:187) and Wolter (1:196-197). ↩
• ^[32] Cf. Wolter, 1:197. ↩
• ^[33] Cf. McNeile, 43; Kilpatrick, 50; Schweizer, 67; Gundry, Matt., 60; Davies-Allison, 1:377; Luz, 1:156. Creed (65) explained away the significance of this evidence. ↩
• ^[34] See Teaching in Kefar Nahum, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[35] See The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 61; Luz, 1:160. ↩
• ^[37] See Davies-Allison, 1:387. The use of narrative τότε, even outside his turning point formula, is typical of Matthean redaction. See Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[38] Cf. McNeile, 44-45; Bundy, 66 §9; Gundry, Matt., 61; Davies-Allison, 1:387; Hagner, 1:74. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Collins, 153. ↩
• ^[40] Luke and Matthew agree against Mark’s uses of εὐαγγέλιον in Mark 1:14 (cf. Matt. 4:17 ∥ Luke 4:14); 8:35 (cf. Matt. 16:25 ∥ Luke 9:24); 10:29 (cf. Matt. 19:29 ∥ Luke 18:29); 13:10 (Matt. 10:18 ∥ Luke 21:13). ↩
• ^[41] Cf. Pryke, 136. On εὐαγγέλιον as a Markan redactional term, see A Voice Crying, Comment to L1. In Matthew’s Gospel εὐαγγέλιον occurs only 4xx (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13), and never unqualified as is often the case in Mark, but usually as part of the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (to evangelion tēs basileias, “the gospel of the kingdom”; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14), and once as “this gospel” (Matt. 26:13). The author of Matthew’s reluctance to place the term εὐαγγέλιον on Jesus’ lips or to use it to refer to the content of Jesus’ teaching probably reflects his awareness that Jesus’ message was not identical with the gospel preached in his churches. ↩
• ^[42] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Stereotypes: Jesus’ Baptism.” ↩
• ^[43] Direct speech beginning with כִּי introduced with לֵאמֹר occurs in Gen. 32:18; 1 Kgs. 1:13, 30; 20:5; 2 Kgs. 7:12; Ezek. 33:10; Zech. 7:5; 1 Chr. 4:9. ↩
• ^[44] Instances in LXX of λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι as the translation of לֵאמֹר occur in Gen. 42:14; 45:26; 2 Kgdms. 1:16; 2:4; 5:6; 11:10; 19:3; Jer. 44[37]:19. ↩
• ^[45] The table below shows all the instances of λέγων/λέγοντες ὅτι in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 9:18 TT = Mark 5:23 (cf. Luke 8:42) Matt. 10:7 TT (cf. Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3) Matt. 14:26 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:49) Matt. 16:7 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 8:16) Mark 1:15 TT (cf. Matt. 4:17; Luke 4:[–]) Mark 2:12 TT = Luke 5:26 (cf. Matt. 9:8) Mark 3:11 U Mark 5:23 TT = Matt. 9:18 (cf. Luke 8:42) Mark 5:35 TT = Luke 8:49 (cf. Matt. 9:[–]) Mark 8:28 TT (cf. Matt. 16:14; Luke 9:19) Mark 12:6 TT (cf. Matt. 21:37; Luke 20:13) Mark 13:6 TT (cf. Matt. 24:5; Luke 21:8) Luke 5:26 TT = Mark 2:12 (cf. Matt. 9:8) Luke 7:4 DT (cf. Matt. 8:6) Luke 7:16 U Luke 8:49 TT = Mark 5:35 (cf. Matt. 9:[–]) Luke 14:30 U Luke 15:2 TT (cf. Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30) Luke 19:7 U Luke 19:42 U Luke 20:5 TT (cf. Matt. 21:25; Mark 11:31) Luke 23:5 TT (cf. Matt. 27:[–]; Mark 15:[–]) Luke 24:34 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding verse

  ↩
• ^[46] The uniqueness of Mark’s characterization of Jesus’ message as “The time is fulfilled!” is brought out by the contrast in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Matthew’s Gospel not only omits πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός in Matt. 4:17, but Matthew’s Gospel looks forward to the “consummation of the age” (συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος), which will be achieved only at the Parousia. In Luke’s Gospel the only instance of πληροῦν + καιρός occurs with reference to the “times of the Gentiles,” which will not be “fulfilled” until sometime in the indefinite—possibly distant—future (Luke 21:24). The author of the fourth Gospel has Jesus emphatically state, ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται (“my time has not yet been fulfilled”; John 7:8). ↩
• ^[47] Guelich (43, 45-46) detected the influence of Isa. 61 in Mark’s version of Return to the Galil, but he did not recognize Luke 4:16-21 as the conduit. ↩
• ^[48] See Gundry, Matt., 61; Davies-Allison, 1:387-388. ↩
• ^[49] On the author of Matthew’s interest in the eschatological timetable, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L45. ↩
• ^[50] On συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος (“consummation of [the] age”) as a Matthean redactional term, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L51. ↩
• ^[51] The term παρουσία (parousia, “coming,” “presence”) is unique to Matthew among the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 764. On παρουσία as a Matthean redactional term, see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[52] We attributed the phrase ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ (en tē palingenesia, “in the regeneration”) in Matt. 19:28 to Matthean redaction. See Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L104. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:388. Meier suggested that the author of Matthew dropped πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός from the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus because it was inconsistent with his specialized use of the verb πληροῦν (plēroun, “to fill,” “to fulfill”), which mainly occurs in Matthew with reference to Scripture. See John P. Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99.3 (1980): 383-405, esp. 388. But Meier’s argument is weakened by the (admittedly few) instances where πληροῦν occurs in Matthew with its non-specialized sense (Matt. 3:15; 13:48; 23:32). ↩
• ^[54] Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” 388. ↩
• ^[55] While Jesus certainly discussed the value of repentance (see Call of Levi and Lost Sheep and Lost Coin similes), it appears that—at least early on in his career—Jesus expected his proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven to elicit repentance from those who were receptive to his message, whereas the Baptist demanded repentance in preparation for a fiery purification on the eschatological Day of Atonement. The difference was not merely one of nuance (pace Davies-Allison, 1:388) but of initiative. For Jesus, repentance was the proper response to divine grace that had already been extended to Israel, whereas for the Baptist repentance was intended to forestall divine wrath that was about to be poured out upon the children of Abraham. At a later point in Jesus’ career, however, having become disillusioned by his contemporaries’ unresponsiveness to his message, Jesus did begin to summon his generation to repentance in order to avoid national catastrophe (see the introduction to the “Choose Repentance or Destruction” complex). This catastrophe, however, would not be the eschatological judgment but a crisis within history resulting from the inevitable defeat Israel would suffer if it revolted against the Roman Empire. ↩
• ^[56] See A Voice Crying, Comment to L36. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 175-176. ↩
• ^[58] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L105. ↩
• ^[59] The table below shows all the instances of “Believe!” in the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Mark 1:15 TT (cf. Matt. 4:17; Luke 4:[–]) Mark 5:36 TT = Luke 8:50 (cf. Matt. 9:[–]) Mark 11:24 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:22) Mark 13:21 TT (cf. Matt. 24:23; Luke 17:23) Luke 8:50 TT = Mark 5:36 (cf. Matt. 9:[–]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; [–] = no corresponding verse

  ↩
• ^[60] Other scholars agree that the author of Mark placed words characteristic of later Christian preaching on Jesus’ lips in Mark 1:15. Cf., e.g., Bultmann, 118. Nevertheless, these scholars do not identify Acts as the source of Mark’s Christian terminology. The suggestion of some scholars (cf., e.g., McNeile, 45) that “believe in the gospel” is a scribal interpolation into the text of Mark 1:15 is unsubstantiated by manuscript evidence. ↩
• ^[61]

  Return to the Galil
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλειλαίαν καὶ φήμη ἐξῆλθεν καθ’ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων		καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν
  Total Words:	31	Total Words:	11
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	11	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	11
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	35.48%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	100.00%

  ↩

• ^[62]

  Return to the Galil
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάνην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλειλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ		καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν
  Total Words:	35	Total Words:	11
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	5	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	5
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	14.29%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	45.45%

  ↩

• ^[63] Cf. Pryke (139, 151-152), who regarded Mark 1:14-15 as redactional. ↩
• ^[64]

  Return to the Galil
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἰωάνης παρεδόθη ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλειλαίαν ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν μετανοεῖτε ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν		καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν
  Total Words:	24	Total Words:	11
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	4	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	4
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	16.67%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	36.36%

  ↩