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)^[63]

וַיָּשָׁב יֵשׁוּעַ בְּעֹז הָרוּחַ אֶל הַגָּלִיל

Yeshua, empowered by the Spirit, returned to the Galil.^[64]

Reconstruction

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

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] Cf. Creed, 64; Fitzmyer, 1:521-522; Nolland, Luke, 1:184. ↩
• ^[2] 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. ↩
• ^[3] 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. ↩
• ^[4] 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. ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:375, 386; Luz, 1:156. ↩
• ^[6] 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.” ↩
• ^[7] See Gundry, Mark, 1:63. ↩
• ^[8] Although, indeed the Baptist’s head is given to the daughter of Herodias and his corpse is given to his disciples. ↩
• ^[9] Scholars who regard παραδοθῆναι in Mark 1:14 as a divine passive include Taylor, 165; Guelich, 42; Marcus, 1:171. ↩
• ^[10] See also Gundry, Mark, 1:63-64. ↩
• ^[11] See Plummer, Mark, 60. ↩
• ^[12] See Gundry, Mark, 1:64. ↩
• ^[13] See McNeile, 42-43; Bundy, 66 §9; Gundry, Matt., 59; Davies-Allison, 1:375. ↩
• ^[14] 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. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Luz, 1:157 n. 15. ↩
• ^[16] 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. ↩
• ^[17] 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). ↩
• ^[18] On ἀναχωρεῖν as a marker of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[19] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 59; Davies-Allison, 1:376. ↩
• ^[20] 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. ↩
• ^[21] See Wolter, 1:197. ↩
• ^[22] 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. ↩
• ^[23] See Dos Santos, 151 (עוֹז) and 152 (עֹז). ↩
• ^[24] Cf. Bundy, 67 §9. ↩
• ^[25] 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. ↩
• ^[26] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for περίχωρος, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L123-124. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 117. ↩
• ^[27] 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

  ↩

• ^[28] See Bovon, 1:152. ↩
• ^[29] This is the view of Marshall (177), Nolland (Luke, 1:187) and Wolter (1:196-197). ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Wolter, 1:197. ↩
• ^[31] 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. ↩
• ^[32] See Teaching in Kefar Nahum, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[33] See The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 61; Luz, 1:160. ↩
• ^[35] 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. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. McNeile, 44-45; Bundy, 66 §9; Gundry, Matt., 61; Davies-Allison, 1:387; Hagner, 1:74. ↩
• ^[37] Cf. Collins, 153. ↩
• ^[38] 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). ↩
• ^[39] 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. ↩
• ^[40] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Stereotypes: Jesus’ Baptism.” ↩
• ^[41] 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. ↩
• ^[42] 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. ↩
• ^[43] 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

  ↩

• ^[44] 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). ↩
• ^[45] 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. ↩
• ^[46] See Gundry, Matt., 61; Davies-Allison, 1:387-388. ↩
• ^[47] On the author of Matthew’s interest in the eschatological timetable, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L45. ↩
• ^[48] On συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος (“consummation of [the] age”) as a Matthean redactional term, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L51. ↩
• ^[49] 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. ↩
• ^[50] 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. ↩
• ^[51] 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). ↩
• ^[52] Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” 388. ↩
• ^[53] 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. ↩
• ^[54] See A Voice Crying, Comment to L36. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 175-176. ↩
• ^[56] See Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L105. ↩
• ^[57] 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

  ↩

• ^[58] 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. ↩
• ^[59]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[60]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[61] Cf. Pryke (139, 151-152), who regarded Mark 1:14-15 as redactional. ↩
• ^[62]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[63] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[64] 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. ↩