Teaching in Kefar Nahum

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Teaching in Kefar Nahum,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/27447/].

Matt. 4:13-16; 7:28-29; Mark 1:21-28;
Luke 4:31-37^[1] 

וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל כְּפַר נַחוּם עִיר הַגָּלִיל וְהָיָה מְלַמֵּד אֹתָם בַּשַּׁבָּתוֹת וּבְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת הָיָה אָדָם אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה בּוֹ וַיִּזְעַק קוֹל גָּדוֹל הָא מַה לָּנוּ וָלָךְ יֵשׁוּעַ אִישׁ נָצְרָה בָּאתָ לְאַבֵּד אֹתָנוּ יְדַעְתִּיךָ מָה אַתָּה ***קְדוֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים*** [קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים] וַיִּגְעַר בָּהּ יֵשׁוּעַ לֵאמֹר שִׁתְקִי צְאִי מִמֶּנּוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכֵהוּ הַשֵּׁד אֶל תּוֹכָם וַיֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא הִזִּיקוֹ וַיְהִי פַּחַד עַל כֻּלָּם וַיְדַבְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ לֵאמֹר מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה שֶׁבְּרָשׁוּת וּבְעֹז הוּא מְצַוֶּה לְרוּחוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה וְהֵן יוֹצְאוֹת וַיֵּצֵא הַדָּבָר בְּכָל מָקוֹם

Yeshua went to Kefar Nahum, a city of the Galilee, and taught them every Sabbath.

Now in the synagogue was a man who had an impure spirit in him. And he cried out in a loud voice, “So then, Yeshua, man of Natzerah, what have you to do with us, the people of Kefar Nahum? I think you’ve come here to ruin our community! I know what you really are! You are an embarrassment to God!”

Then Yeshua rebuked the impure spirit, saying, “Be silent! Come out of him!” And the demon flung the man it had possessed into their midst as it came out of him. Nevertheless, it did him no harm.

Awe came over the people assembled in the synagogue. And they spoke to each other, saying, “What have we just witnessed? This man Yeshua issues authoritative and powerful commands to impure spirits and they come out of people we didn’t even know were possessed!” And word of this event spread everywhere.^[2] 

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Teaching in Kefar Nahum click on the link below:

Story Placement

Teaching in Kefar Nahum appears in the Gospels of Luke and Mark, and although Matthew’s Gospel does not record the story of Jesus’ experience in Capernaum’s synagogue, Teaching in Kefar Nahum has also left its impression on Matthew’s Gospel.

In Luke’s Gospel Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Luke 4:31-37) follows the account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown in Nazareth (Nazarene Synagogue; Luke 4:14-30). This story order is distinctly odd, since in Nazarene Synagogue Jesus mentions having performed miracles in Capernaum (Luke 4:23), even though Luke had not yet recorded either a miracle or a visit to Capernaum. Because of Jesus’ remark in Luke 4:23, the author of Luke would have done better if he had made Nazarene Synagogue the sequel to Teaching in Kefar Nahum rather than its prequel. But there is evidence to suggest that the author of Luke did not invent his story order and that, in fact, it was not especially to his liking.

The evidence that the author of Luke based his story order on a source comes from Matthew’s Gospel, for Matthew, unlike Mark, knows of a sequence in which Jesus, having returned to the Galilee after his temptation, goes first to Nazareth and then to Capernaum (Matt. 4:12-13). Not only do Luke and Matthew agree on the order of Jesus’ movements, they also refer to Nazareth using the distinctive form Ναζαρά (Nazara [Matt. 4:13; Luke 4:16]), a form that does not appear elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels. Since it boggles the mind to suppose that the authors of Luke and Matthew independently created the sequence Galilee→Nazareth→Capernaum and that their sole uses of the distinct form Ναζαρά in this independently invented sequence is a mere coincidence, we believe that the authors of Luke and Matthew inherited the sequence Galilee→Nazareth→Capernaum and the unique form Ναζαρά from their shared non-Markan source (see below, Comment to L1).

The evidence that the author of Luke was not enamored with the story order he inherited from his source (Return to the Galil→Nazarene Synagogue→Teaching in Kefar Nahum) comes from the redactional changes the author of Luke made to the pericopae on either side of Nazarene Synagogue. These redactional changes emphasize the positive response Jesus’ teaching elicited from his hearers (Luke 4:15, 32), a response that contrasts with the negative reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Nazareth.^[3] The author of Luke’s redactional emphasis on the favorable impression Jesus’ teaching made on his listeners appears, therefore, to be an attempt at neutralizing the effect Nazarene Synagogue might have on Luke’s readers. Since Nazarene Synagogue is the first story in Luke’s Gospel in which Jesus appears in a synagogue, and since in that story the congregation responded negatively to Jesus’ teaching, the author of Luke feared that his readers would infer that Jesus’ contemporaries generally rejected Jesus’ teaching. In order to prevent his readers from drawing this inference, the author of Luke surrounded Nazarene Synagogue with reports of favorable responses to Jesus’ teaching. The fact that the author of Luke felt the need to thus surround Nazarene Synagogue with laudatory remarks concerning Jesus’ teaching ability suggests that the author of Luke felt constrained to preserve the pericope order he found in his source even though it did not serve his apologetic purpose. In any event, we believe Luke’s awkward placement of Teaching in Kefar Nahum after Nazarene Synagogue reflects the order of Luke’s non-Markan source, not the author of Luke’s lack of literary skill.

Viewed from the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis, Mark’s omission of Nazarene Synagogue from Luke’s Return to the Galil→Nazarene Synagogue→Teaching in Kefar Nahum sequence is a literary and logical improvement. Noting that in Luke 4:23 Jesus mentions miracles he had performed in Capernaum, the author of Mark put off his version of Nazarene Synagogue until he had reported several of Jesus’ miraculous deeds and made Capernaum the location of some of them.^[4] Into the slot Nazarene Synagogue vacated, the author of Mark inserted his version of Yeshua Calls His First Disciples (Mark 1:16-20). Thus the call of the first disciples, which in Luke takes place after the Sabbath on which Jesus taught in the synagogue and exorcised the demon from the community, takes place in Mark prior to these events.^[5] 

In Matthew’s Gospel Teaching in Kefar Nahum seems to be missing, but in fact the author of Matthew has simply repurposed it. Teaching in Kefar Nahum lies just below the surface of Matthew’s narrative structure, and at the few places where it breaks through the surface it remains recognizable. We have already mentioned the first place where Teaching in Kefar Nahum breaks through the surface of Matthew’s narrative. It occurs in Matthew’s version of Return to the Galil, where Matthew, unlike Mark, but in agreement with Luke, refers to Jesus’ transition from Nazareth to Capernaum (Matt. 4:13).^[6] By locating Capernaum in the tribal allotment of Zebulun and Naphtali (see below, Comment to L3), the author of Matthew took the opportunity afforded by this reference to Capernaum to claim that Jesus’ movements in the Galilee fulfilled prophecy (Matt. 4:14-16). The second place where Teaching in Kefar Nahum surfaces in Matthew’s Gospel is at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, where the crowds respond to Jesus’ authoritative teaching (Matt. 7:28b-29). Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount appears in exactly the same slot where Teaching in Kefar Nahum appears in Mark.^[7] In Teaching in Kefar Nahum the congregants praise Jesus for his teaching ability even though Mark’s readers learn nothing of the content or even subject matter of Jesus’ teaching.^[8] The author of Matthew corrected this deficiency by having Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount,^[9] but because he did not consider the Capernaum synagogue to be a suitable location for this most monumental of sermons, the author of Matthew moved the location of Jesus’ preaching from the synagogue to a mountaintop. Nevertheless, the audience’s assessment of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 7:28b-29 echoes that of the congregants in Capernaum in Mark 1:22.^[10] 

There is a third place where Teaching in Kefar Nahum crops up in Matthew’s narrative structure, but this time without quite breaking through the surface. There was nothing to prevent the author of Matthew from returning to Mark’s pericope order after having replaced Teaching in Kefar Nahum with the Sermon on the Mount, but he did not do so. But neither did the author of Matthew adopt the order of his non-Markan source for the Sermon on the Mount (i.e., the Anthology [Anth.]), in which Jesus’ sermon was followed by Centurion’s Slave.^[11] Instead, the author of Matthew did something far more subtle. Bypassing Shimon’s Mother-in-Law, Healings and Exorcisms and A Deserted Place, the author of Matthew picked up Mark’s narrative at Man with Scale Disease, which in Mark follows a notice that Jesus went preaching in the synagogues in all the Galilee and expelling demons (Mark 1:39). Teaching in Kefar Nahum is a concrete example of the activity Mark 1:39 describes, so it can be no accident that, having skipped the story of the exorcism Jesus performed in Capernaum’s synagogue, the author of Matthew resumed Mark’s narrative with Man with Scale Disease, right after this Markan summary.

The author of Matthew did not follow Mark’s story order for long, however. After returning to Mark’s sequence for Man with Scale Disease, Matthew once again parts ways with his Markan source. Where Mark has Jesus enter Capernaum for Bedridden Man (Mark 2:1), Matthew has Jesus enter Capernaum for Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5), which, as we noted, followed Jesus’ sermon in Anth. Having brought Jesus into Capernaum, the author of Matthew was now able to take up Shimon’s Mother-in-Law and Healings and Exorcisms, two stories that in Mark are set in Capernaum and which the author of Matthew had previously bypassed.

From all we have observed above, it appears that none of the Synoptic Gospels, nor even Anth., preserves Teaching in Kefar Nahum at the point it appeared in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. Nevertheless, internal evidence suggests that Luke and Anth. were correct in placing Teaching in Kefar Nahum prior to the calling of Jesus’ earliest disciples, since the disciples play no role in either the Lukan or Markan versions of the pericope. We have therefore placed Teaching in Kefar Nahum in the section of the reconstructed Hebrew Life of Yeshua entitled “Yeshua, the Galilean Miracle-Worker.” In this section Jesus taught and performed miraculous healings, but as yet had no full-time disciples.

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum consists of two parts that parallel one another but do not actually intersect. In Part One (Luke 4:31-32) Jesus habitually teaches in Capernaum on the Sabbath and the people wonder at his teaching because Jesus’ word had authority. In Part Two (Luke 4:33-37) Jesus attends the local synagogue and is accosted by a demon-possessed individual. Jesus exorcises the demon and the congregants wonder at Jesus’ authority over the impure spirits. While the two stories mirror one another, the differences must not be overlooked. Part One describes a general state of affairs, whereas Part Two describes a specific incident. Part One takes place in Capernaum, while Part Two takes place in the synagogue. Part One is entirely narrated, but Part Two portrays “live” action. For this reason some scholars regard Part One as merely the narrative introduction of the pericope, but this ignores the independence of the two parts of Luke’s narrative. If Luke’s Part Two had been omitted, no one would have supposed that anything was missing. The positive response to Jesus’ teaching in Part One is not required for Luke’s Part Two to make sense.

Part One (Luke 4:31-32)	Part Two (Luke 4:33-37)
And he went down to Capernaum, a city of the Galilee.
And he was teaching them on the Sabbaths.	And in the synagogue was a man having the spirit of an impure demon.
	And he cried out in a loud voice, “Yikes! What is there for us and for you, Jesus of Nazara? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
	And Jesus rebuked it, saying, “Be silenced and come out of him!” And throwing him into the middle, the demon went out of him, but did not harm him.
And they were astonished at his teaching	And dread came upon everyone and they spoke to one another saying,
because his word was with authority.	“What is this thing, that in authority and power he commands the impure spirits and they go out?”
	And the report about him went out into every place of the surrounding region.

Despite being parallel, Parts One and Two of Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum are clearly unbalanced. Part One is a mere shadow of Part Two, a bland description compared to Part Two’s dramatic action and vivid details.

Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum also falls into two parts,^[12] but the two parts are more closely united than in Luke’s version. Both parts of Mark’s version take place in Capernaum’s synagogue (L19, L36),^[13] both parts highlight Jesus’ teaching (L30, L65), and both parts emphasize Jesus’ personal authority (L31, L66), whereas in Luke Jesus’ personal authority is mentioned only in Part Two (L66); Luke’s Part One refers to the authority of Jesus’ word (L31), not the authority of Jesus’ person. Moreover, the two parts of Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum take place on a single Sabbath, whereas in Luke Part One takes place over a series of Sabbaths, while Part Two occurs on a single Sabbath.^[14] Viewed from the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis, it appears that the author of Mark took considerable trouble to more fully integrate Parts One and Two of the narrative he found in Luke’s Gospel. Since it is difficult to believe that the author of Luke would have attempted to divorce the teaching section of the narrative from the exorcism section, transmission from Luke to Mark is more credible than a Mark to Luke progression.

In our discussion of how Teaching in Kefar Nahum surfaces at various points early in Matthew’s Gospel we demonstrated the author of Matthew’s secondary use of this pericope. It is also clear that it was the Markan form of Teaching in Kefar Nahum that the author of Matthew knew, since he quoted the statement that Jesus “taught as one having authority and not as the scribes,” which occurs in Mark’s version of the pericope but not in Luke’s.

Thus, with respect to Teaching in Kefar Nahum, it is possible to establish a clear progression from Luke to Mark to Matthew. But what was Luke’s source for this pericope? Flusser believed that Teaching in Kefar Nahum passed through the hands of a pre-synoptic redactor before reaching the hands of the author of Luke.^[15] In terms of Lindsey’s hypothesis this would mean that Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum is based on the First Reconstruction (FR), and, indeed, Lindsey attributed Luke’s version to that source.^[16] On the other hand, parts of Luke’s Teaching in Kefar Nahum are highly Hebraic, a quality that indicates the Anthology (Anth.) as Luke’s source for this pericope. Also, we have found that Anth. was the source of Luke’s version of Yeshua’s Testing and Return to the Galil. In addition, the Lukan-Matthean agreement to refer to Jesus’ movement from Nazareth to Capernaum and the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use the rare form Ναζαρά in reference to Nazareth also suggest that Anth. may have been Luke’s source for Nazarene Synagogue. Since the author of Luke tended to stick with a source for large blocks of material instead of switching between sources from pericope to pericope, Luke’s reliance upon Anth. for these pericopae may be a clue that the author of Luke depended on Anth. for Teaching in Kefar Nahum too. Moreover, there is no reason why the redactional activity, which is clearly present in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, must be attributed to the First Reconstructor and not to the author of Luke himself. On the contrary, Teaching in Kefar Nahum contains features of specifically Lukan redaction that appear in both Anth. and FR pericopae.^[17] Since the most conspicuous redactional activity in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum reflects the specifically Lukan concern to neutralize the bad impression of Jesus’ teaching ability Nazarene Synagogue might give to readers of Luke’s Gospel, very little of the redactional activity that can be detected in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum remains that could be attributed to FR. It therefore seems best to trace Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum to Anth., and to attribute whatever redactional activity we encounter in Luke’s version of the pericope to the author of Luke himself.

Crucial Issues

1. Where were the boundaries of Zebulun and Naphtali?
2. In what way did Jesus contrast with the scribes?
3. What was the cause of the people’s amazement?
4. For whom did the demon speak: itself plus its host, its fellow demons, or the people of Capernaum?
5. What is the meaning of “Nazarene”?

Comment

L1 καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν (Matt. 4:13). The statement that Jesus “forsook” Nazareth and took up residence in Capernaum is couched in Matthean vocabulary,^[18] and the notion that Jesus made Capernaum his permanent base is not found in Mark or Luke.^[19] Neither is Matthew’s wording in L1 especially Hebraic (the piling up of participles is more typical of Greek composition), so it is unlikely that in L1 Matthew reflects the text of Anth. Nevertheless, Jesus’ movement from Nazareth to Capernaum is paralleled in Luke, though not in Mark. Moreover, that Lukan parallel contains the only other instance of the form Ναζαρά (Nazara) in the Synoptic Gospels.^[20] So even in this redactional verse the author of Matthew gleaned some of his information from a source.^[21] We believe that source was none other than Luke’s source for Nazarene Synagogue (i.e., Anth.). The author of Matthew evidently preferred the Markan version of this pericope, perhaps because of its placement, which, as we noted, is less problematic than in the Anth. and Lukan versions. Despite his decision to record his version of Nazarene Synagogue in its Markan position, here in L1 the author of Matthew betrayed his knowledge of Anth.’s different arrangement.^[22] 

καὶ εἰσπορεύονται (Mark 1:21). There are several indications that Mark’s wording in L1 is redactional. First, the verb εἰσπορεύεσθαι (eisporevesthai, “to enter”) occurs with higher frequency in Mark (8xx) than in Matthew (1x) or Luke (5xx), and with almost no Lukan agreement.^[23] Second, Mark’s verb is in the present tense, and the use of the historical present is typical of Markan redaction.^[24] Third, the form of Mark’s verb is plural because it includes the disciples from the previous pericope (Mark 1:16-20). But since the disciples play no further role in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, and no role at all in Luke’s version, the inclusion of the disciples in L1 by the use of a third-person plural verb is probably the author of Mark’s attempt to smooth the transition into a pericope in which the disciples originally played no part.^[12] 

καὶ κατῆλθεν (Luke 4:31). Luke’s statement that Jesus went down from Nazareth to Capernaum is topographically accurate^[25] and belies the assertions of some scholars that the author of Luke was ignorant of the geography of the Holy Land.^[26] Indeed, it may be that by his use of κατέρχεσθαι (katerchesthai, “to go down,” “to descend”) the author of Luke displayed his personal acquaintance with the Galilee, since this verb is typical of the writings of Luke.^[27] The only reason to hesitate to attribute κατέρχεσθαι in L1 to Lukan redaction is the Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to used a verb prefixed with κατ- (Matthew: κατοικεῖν; Luke: κατέρχεσθαι). However, since both verbs are likely to be redactional, the use of the κατ- prefix in Matt. 4:13 and Luke 4:31 is probably just coincidental.

Jesus’ Probable Route from Nazareth to Capernaum. Map from R. Steven Notley’s In the Master’s Steps: The Gospels in the Land (Jerusalem: Carta, 2014), 14.

καὶ ἐπορεύθη (GR). Since none of the synoptic evangelists appear to have reproduced Anth.’s wording in L1, it is up to us to imagine how Anth. might have been worded. It may be assumed that the pericope would have opened with a verb such as “he came,” “he arrived at,” or the like. The phrase καὶ ἐπορεύθη (kai eporevthē, “and he went”) is as good a guess as any, resembling the opening of Widow’s Son in Nain: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ἐπορεύθη εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Ναῒν (“And it happened on the following day he went to a city called Nain”; Luke 7:11).

וַיֵּלֶךְ (HR). On reconstructing πορεύεσθαι (porevesthai, “to go”) with הָלַךְ (hālach, “walk,” “go”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L2.

L2 εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ (GR). All three synoptic evangelists have the phrase εἰς Καφαρναούμ (eis Kafarnaoum, “into Capernaum”) in L2, and there is no reason to doubt that Anth.’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum was similarly set in Capernaum. We have therefore accepted this phrase for GR.

אֶל כְּפַר נַחוּם (HR). On reconstructing Καφαρναούμ with כְּפַר נַחוּם (k^efar naḥūm, “Capernaum”), see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L17.

L3 πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας (GR). Some scholars opine that the author of Luke added the description of Capernaum as “a city of the Galilee” for the benefit of his Gentile readers.^[28] At any rate, the description is often thought to be redactional.^[29] But even Jewish readers in Judea may not have been familiar with the village of Capernaum,^[30] so there is no reason why πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας (polin tēs Galilaias, “a city of the Galilee”) could not have come from Anth. It is typical of sources translated into Greek from Hebrew to refer even to small towns as “cities” due to the (misleading) equation of עִיר (‘ir, “rural settlement”) and πόλις (polis, “Hellenized urban center”). The omission of πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum is readily explained by the reference to Jesus’ walking beside the Sea of Galilee in Mark 1:16, so there was no need to reiterate Capernaum’s location in the Galilee in Mark 1:21.

עִיר הַגָּלִיל (HR). On reconstructing πόλις with עִיר, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing Γαλιλαία (Galilaia, “Galilee”) with גָּלִיל (gālil, “Galilee”), see A Voice Crying, Comment to L18.

τὴν παραθαλασσίαν ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ (Matt. 4:13). The author of Matthew replaced Anth.’s description of Capernaum as “a city of the Galilee” with the more detailed (not to say precise) reference to “Capernaum-by-the-Sea in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali.” The phrase τὴν παραθαλασσίαν (tēn parathalassian, “the one by the sea”) may have been partly inspired by Mark’s reference to Jesus’ walking beside the Sea of Galilee (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας [para tēn thalassan tēs Galilaias]) in Mark 1:16,^[31] but, like “in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali,” it is mainly in the service of the Isaiah quotation to follow.^[32] Describing Capernaum as “by the sea” justifies the author of Matthew’s application of “way of the Sea” in Isa. 8:23 to Jesus’ move to Capernaum.

The author of Matthew certainly did not copy the phrase ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ (en horiois Zaboulōn kai Nefthaleim, “in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali”) from Anth. It is purely a segue into the quotation of Isa. 8:23-9:1,^[33] for without this phrase the scriptural quotation is irrelevant. But despite its being redactional, could the statement that Capernaum lay in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali nevertheless be factually correct? The first problem with Matthew’s statement is that it situates Capernaum within the territories of two tribes, which cannot be accurate.^[34] The second problem is that according to Josh. 19:10-16 Zebulun’s territory did not extend to the lake commonly referred to as the Sea of Galilee. According to Josh. 19:32-39, only the tribe of Naphtali inherited territory along the shore of the lake (cf. Deut. 33:23). Hence, according to one rabbinic tradition, the tribe of Naphtali had exclusive fishing rights on the Sea of Galilee (t. Bab. Kam. 8:18).

In order to save the author of Matthew from committing a geographical error, some scholars interpret ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ as modifying Matthew’s entire sentence, such that Jesus’ leaving Nazareth and taking up residence in Capernaum all took place within the boundaries of Zebulun (Nazareth) and Naphtali (Capernaum).^[35] However, as even Nolland, a proponent of this interpretation, admitted, this approach is difficult to reconcile with Matthew’s syntax.^[36] Thus the effort to save Matthew’s geographical accuracy comes at the expense of the author of Matthew’s ability to write Greek.

Another approach might be to suppose that the author of Matthew’s placement of Zebulun’s territory on the lakeshore reflects a first-century understanding of the tribal allotments. Like the author of Matthew, Josephus claimed that Zebulun’s territory extended to the Sea of Galilee:

Ζαβουλωνῖται δὲ τὴν μέχρι Γενησαρίδος καθήκουσαν δὲ περὶ Κάρμηλον καὶ θάλασσαν ἔλαχον

They of Zabulon obtained the land which reaches to the (lake of) Genesar and descends well-nigh to Carmel and the sea. (Ant. 5:84; Loeb)^[37] 

Similarly, a rabbinic tradition may imply that Zebulun’s territory reached the lakeshore:

[זבולן לחוף ימים ישכן] ד″א זבולן לחוף ימים מה ראה יעקב שבירך זבולן ואחר כך יששכר, והלא יששכר גדול ממנו ויששכר היה ראוי לברך תחילה, אלא צפה וראה בית המקדש שעתיד ליחרב, ועתיד סנהדרי שתעקר משבטו שליהודה ולהיקבע בחלקו שלזבולון, שכתחילה גלתה לה סנהדרי וישבה לה ביבנה, ומיבנה לאושה, ומאושה לשפרעם, ומשפרעם לבית שערים, ומבית שערים לציפורי, וציפורי היה בחלקו שלזבולן, ואחרכך גלתה לטיבריה

Another interpretation: Zebulun will dwell by the shore of the seas [Gen. 49:13]. Why did Jacob see fit to bless Zebulun and only afterward Issachar? Was not Issachar older than he and therefore worthy to be blessed first? Rather, Jacob had a vision and saw that the Temple would be destroyed and the Sanhedrin would be uprooted from the tribe of Judah and relocated to the tribe of Zebulun. For at first the Sanhedrin was exiled to Yavneh [in Judah—DNB and JNT], and from Yavneh to Usha, and from Usha to Shepharam, and from Shepharam to Bet Shearim, and from Bet Shearim to Tzippori. And Tzippori was in Zebulun’s portion. And after that it was exiled to Tiberias. (Gen. Rab. 97:13 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 3:1220-1221])

At first glance this rabbinic tradition seems only to support the interpretation of Matt. 4:13 that places Nazareth in the territory of Zebulun, since Tzippori (Sepphoris) is only about three and a quarter miles from Nazareth.^[38] But while this tradition singles out Sepphoris as belonging to Zebulun, it may be that all of the Galilean seats of the Sanhedrin—Usha, Shepharam, Bet Shearim, Tzippori and Tiberias—were understood to be within Zebulun’s territory, since the rabbinic tradition mentions only two tribes (Judah and Zebulun) in which the Sanhedrin was located. In any case, the tradition cannot have understood Usha, Shepharam or Bet Shearim to have been located in Issachar’s territory, since this would undermine the explanation for why Zebulun was blessed first despite Issachar’s seniority. Moreover, the reference to Zebulun’s connection to the sea only makes sense if Tiberias was located in Zebulun’s territory, for all the other Galilean seats of the Sanhedrin were landlocked. Thus, like Josephus, this rabbinic tradition likely extends Zebulun’s territory to the Sea of Galilee.

“The Wanderings of the Sanhedrin after 70 C.E.,” a map from Understanding the Jewish World from Roman to Byzantine times: Mishnah, Talmud, the Sages: An Introductory Atlas by Shmuel Safrai and Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 11.

It is possible, therefore, that the author of Matthew knew of contemporary traditions that extended Zebulun’s borders to the lake, or he may have reached this conclusion based on his own reading of Gen. 49:13,^[39] which places Zebulun’s dwelling at the παράλιος (paralios, “seacoast”), which is roughly synonymous with παραθαλάσσιος (parathalassios, “by the sea”). But even if the author of Matthew did believe that Zebulun’s territory extended to the lake, his placement of Capernaum within the borders of two tribes, Zebulun and Naphtali, shows that he was not concerned about geographical precision^[40] but about forcing Isa. 8:23 into a prediction of Jesus’ movements so that the stirring words of Isa. 9:1 (“the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light,” etc.) could be applied to Jesus’ ministry.^[41] It is unlikely that “the land of Zebulun” or “the land of Naphtali” had any more definite meaning for the author of Matthew than the other locations he pulled from the Isaiah passage (“way of the sea,” “beyond the Jordan,” “Galilee of the Gentiles”). These toponyms evoked for the author of Matthew the region(s) in which Jesus had performed miracles and proclaimed his message. For the author of Matthew that evocation was sufficient to justify his claim that Jesus’ residence in Capernaum fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy.

L4-7 ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος (Matt. 4:14). In Matt. 4:14 we encounter the uniquely Matthean fulfillment formula ἵνα/ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διά + personal name + τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, also found in Matt. 8:17 and Matt. 12:17 (cf. Matt. 2:23; 13:35). This is only one variation of several stereotyped formulae, such as ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν (ὑπὸ κυρίου) διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος (Matt. 1:22; 2:15; 21:4) and τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διά + personal name + τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος (Matt. 2:17; 27:9), that distinguish Matthew’s Gospel from the other Synoptic Gospels.^[42] These fulfillment formulae and the quotations they introduce are clearly the author of Matthew’s redactional contribution to the synoptic tradition.

L8-17 (Matt. 4:15-16). Some scholars have maintained that Matthew’s quotation of Isa. 8:23-9:1 is independent of LXX,^[43] some going so far as to claim that it represents a fresh—and in places more accurate—translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah.^[44] But while the quotation in Matt. 4:15-16 does indeed deviate from LXX, it is clearly derived from it.^[45] Three features of Matthew’s quotation are best explained as due to Matthew’s dependence on LXX:

1. The unusual spelling of Naphtali as Νεφθαλίμ (Nefthalim) agrees with the LXX translation of Isa. 8:23 (see below, Comment to L8-9).
2. The incorrect rendering of גְּלִיל הַגּוֹיִם (g^elil hagōyim, “region of the Gentiles”) as Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν (Galilaia tōn ethnōn, “Galilee of the Gentiles”) agrees with LXX (see below, Comment to L12).
3. The surprising rendering of בְּאֶרֶץ צַלְמָוֶת (b^e’eretz tzalmāvet, “in the land of the shadow of death”) as ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου (en chōra kai skia thanatou, “in the country and in the shadow of death”) agrees with LXX (see below, Comment to L16).

Since these three translations are not the most natural renderings of the Hebrew text and are not likely to have been formulated independently, the most probable and credible explanation for these agreements between Matthew’s quotation and LXX is Matthew’s direct dependence on LXX.

In LXX the Isaiah passage reads as follows:

τοῦτο πρῶτον ποίει, ταχὺ ποίει, χώρα Ζαβουλων, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλιμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν κατοικοῦντες καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάμψει ἐφ̓ ὑμᾶς

Do this first, do it soon, O country of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, and the rest of those dwelling on the seashore, and across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the parts of Judea! O people walking in darkness, view a great light! And those dwelling in the country and in the shadow of death, a light will shine on you. (Isa. 8:23-9:1)

The most important differences between Matthew’s quotation and LXX are the omission of τοῦτο πρῶτον ποίει, ταχὺ ποίει (“do this first, do it soon”), οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν κατοικοῦντες (“the rest of those dwelling on the seashore”) and τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας (“the parts of Judea”). The first and third of these omissions can be explained by the fact that they do not serve the author of Matthew’s redactional purpose. The author of Matthew did not wish to issue a summons but to present a predictive prophecy, so he dropped the opening imperative. Similarly, since the author of Matthew desired to present a prophecy of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, he dropped the reference to Judea.^[46] His reason for dropping the reference to those dwelling on the seashore is less obvious. It may be that the author of Matthew felt that “the way of the sea” was sufficient to evoke the Sea of Galilee setting of Jesus’ ministry, or it may be that he wished to avoid the verb κατοικεῖν (katoikein, “to dwell”), which he changed to καθῆσθαι (kathēsthai, “to sit,” “to dwell”) elsewhere in this passage (see below, Comment to L15).

The author of Matthew also made a number of smaller adaptations to LXX. Many of these changes can also be explained in light of the author of Matthew’s redactional interests. For instance, in place of “region of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali” in L8-9 the author of Matthew wrote “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” thereby fusing the two distinct geographical units into a single entity, which agrees with the author of Matthew’s localizing of Capernaum “in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali” (Matt. 4:13 [L3]). The change from “walking in darkness” to “sitting in darkness” in L13 may be due to the author of Matthew’s preference for the static image of people “sitting” to the dynamic image of people “walking” because the static image better conveys a sense of anticipation and longing for deliverance, whereas the dynamic image suggests that the people walking about in the darkness are getting along with their lives. Having adopted the image of “sitting” in L13, the author of Matthew changed LXX’s οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ (“the ones dwelling in the country”) to τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ (“to the ones sitting in the country”; L15-16) for the sake of consistency. Also for consistency’s sake, the author of Matthew changed LXX’s imperative “View a great light!” to “they saw a great light,” which like his omission of LXX’s imperatives “Do this first! Do it soon!” allowed him to transform Isaiah’s exhortation into a predictive prophecy. Finally, the change from “a light will shine on you” to “a light has dawned on them” in L17 may be intended to allude to similar prophecies such as τότε ἀνατελεῖ ἐν τῷ σκότει τὸ φῶς σου (“then your light will dawn in the darkness”; Isa. 58:10)^[47] or καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά μου ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης (“and the sun of righteousness will dawn for you who fear my name”; Mal. 3:20 [Eng.: Mal. 4:2]),^[48] or even ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ (“a star will arise out of Jacob”; Num. 24:17).^[49] 

A few of the author of Matthew’s adaptations do bring the quotation in Matt. 4:15-16 closer to the Hebrew text of Isaiah than LXX’s translation. Thus 1) Matthew’s γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίμ (“land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali”) in L8-9 is closer to אַרְצָה זְבֻלוּן וְאַרְצָה נַפְתָּלִי (“toward the land of Zebulun and toward the land of Naphtali”) than χώρα Ζαβουλων, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλιμ (“country of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali”);^[50] 2) in L11 Matthew omits the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) that precedes πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου (“beyond the Jordan”), which is like עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן (“beyond the Jordan”) in the Hebrew text;^[51] 3) Matthew’s verb εἶδεν (eiden, “it saw”) in L14 is closer to the רָאוּ (rā’ū, “they saw”) of MT than LXX’s imperative ἴδετε (“See [plur.]!”);^[52] 4) Matthew’s verb καθῆσθαι (kathēsthai, “to sit”) in L15 is closer to the verb in the Hebrew text (יָשַׁב [“to sit,” “to dwell”]) than LXX’s κατοικεῖν (“to dwell,” “to reside”);^[53] and 5) Matthew’s third-person plural pronoun αὐτοῖς (“to them”) in L17 is closer to the third-person plural suffix attached to the preposition עַל (‘al, “upon”) at the end of Isa. 9:1 (עֲלֵיהֶם [“upon them”]) than LXX’s second-person plural pronoun ὑμᾶς (hūmas, “you”).^[54] However, since these changes can be explained on the basis of the author of Matthew’s redactional interests, the similarities to the Hebrew text are probably coincidental. This conclusion is supported by the fact that other Matthean adaptations of the LXX text further distance his quotation from the Hebrew original,^[55] a strong indication that the author of Matthew was not attempting to bring the LXX quotation in line with the Hebrew text.^[56] Thus 1) Matthew’s ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος (“the people sitting”) in L13 is further from the Hebrew text (הָעָם הַהֹלְכִים [“the people walking”]) than LXX’s ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος (“the people walking”); 2) Matthew’s word order in L14 (φῶς εἶδεν μέγα [“a light | it saw | big”]) is further from the Hebrew text (רָאוּ אוֹר גָּדוֹל [“they saw | a light | big”]) than LXX’s ἴδετε φῶς μέγα (“see! | a light | big”);^[57] 3) Matthew’s verb ἀνατέλλειν (anatellein, “to dawn,” “to rise”) in L17 is further from the Hebrew text (נָגַהּ [nāgah, “shine”]) than is LXX’s λάμπειν (lampein, “to shine”);^[53] and 4) the dative case of Matthew’s third-person plural pronoun (αὐτοῖς [avtois, “to them”]) in L17 is further from the preposition in the Hebrew text (עַל [‘al, “upon”]) than is LXX’s preposition ἐφ̓ (ef, “upon”).^[58] 

L8-9 γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ (Matt. 4:15). In L8 the author of Matthew used the Septuagintal form of the name “Zebulun.” His choice is significant because there were other options available. For example, he could have written γῆ Ζαβουλωνῖτις (gē Zaboulōnitis, “Zebulunite land”; cf. Jos., Ant. 7:58) or Ζαβουλωνῖται (Zaboulōnitai, “Zebulunites [land]”; Ant. 5:84). Matthew’s agreement with the LXX form of the name points to LXX dependence.

LXX dependence is even clearer in L9, where the author of Matthew adopted LXX’s spelling of Naphtali as Νεφθαλίμ (Nefthalim). This spelling only occurs 9xx in LXX,^[59] compared to over forty instances of the spelling Νεφθαλι (Nefthali),^[60] which is closer to the Hebrew form נַפְתָּלִי (naftāli). The fact that both Matthew and LXX use the rare spelling Νεφθαλίμ in their versions of Isa. 8:23 can be no coincidence.^[61] The author of Matthew relied on LXX for his Isaiah quotation.

L10 ὁδὸν θαλάσσης (Matt. 4:15). The author of Matthew’s phrase ὁδὸν θαλάσσης (hodon thalassēs, “way of [the] sea”) agrees with LXX,^[62] which is significant because there were other options for rendering דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם (derech hayām, “way of the sea”) of which an independent translator of the Hebrew text might have availed himself. In Ezek. 41:12 the LXX translators rendered דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם as πρὸς θάλασσαν (pros thalassan, “by the sea”), a translation that would have been more to the author of Matthew’s purpose. The phrase דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם might also have been rendered ὁδὸν τῆς θαλάσσης (hodon tēs thalassēs, “way of the sea”), which, by including the definite article, is a more exact translation. The conformity of Matthew’s quotation to LXX points to the author of Matthew’s reliance on this translation.

L11 πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Matt. 4:15). Matthew’s phrase πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (peran tou Iordanou, “beyond the Jordan”) agrees with LXX,^[63] despite other options being available. In Josh. 7:7, for instance, the LXX translators rendered עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן (‘ēver hayardēn, “beyond the Jordan”) as παρὰ τὸν Ιορδάνην (para ton Iordanēn, “by the Jordan”), which might seem to be more congenial to the author of Matthew’s purpose. Other options might have been ὑπὲρ τὸν Ιορδάνην (hūper ton Iordanēn, “beyond the Jordan”; cf. Jos., J.W. 2:43; 4:450; 6:201; Ant. 5:93), τὸν περαῖον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (ton peraion tou Iordanou, “the country opposite the Jordan”; cf. Jos., Ant. 5:74), τὴν πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου χώραν (tēn peran tou Iordanou chōran, “the country beyond the Jordan”; cf. Jos., Ant. 8:37), or even just τὰ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (ta peran tou Iordanou, “the parts beyond the Jordan”; cf. Jos., Ant. 7:198; 13:14). In view of the numerous options available to the author of Matthew, the conformity of Matthew’s quotation to LXX’s wording is telling.

Nevertheless, the author of Matthew did slightly deviate from LXX by omitting the καί (kai, “and”) before πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. This omission resembles the lack of a connecting vav in the Hebrew text.^[51] Nevertheless, the author of Matthew may have had reasons of his own, unrelated to the Hebrew text of Isa. 8:23, for omitting LXX’s καί. Scholars have noted that “beyond the Jordan” does not really suit Matthew’s purpose of describing Jesus’ move from Nazareth to Capernaum,^[64] unless, that is, the author of Matthew wrote from an eastern perspective. If the author of Matthew and the community for whom he wrote were located in Syria, as many scholars suppose, then the author of Matthew and his readers might have understood “beyond the Jordan” as qualifying “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” since from their geographical point of view these areas were beyond the Jordan to the west.^[65] However, in order for “beyond the Jordan” to qualify “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” LXX’s καί had to be omitted. Alternatively, the author of Matthew’s desire to make Zebulun and Naphtali into a single entity might have led him to join these two items with καί and to omit the rest of LXX’s conjunctions in Isa. 8:23. This explanation rests on the supposition that the author of Matthew had as imprecise an understanding of what was meant by “Galilee of the Gentiles” as he did of “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” such that he believed that the Galilee encompassed land on both sides of the River Jordan.^[66] In either case, the omission of LXX’s καί can be explained by the author of Matthew’s redactional interests.

L12 Γαλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν (Matt. 4:15). Like LXX, Matthew’s quotation of Isa. 8:23 refers to Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν (Galilaia tōn ethnōn, “Galilee of the Gentiles”).^[67] The LXX translators had misunderstood the prophet’s informal designation גְּלִיל הַגּוֹיִם (g^elil hagōyim, “district of the foreigners”) as a proper name, and the author of Matthew clearly shared their misconception.^[68] While it is conceivable that the LXX translators and the author of Matthew independently arrived at this misunderstanding of Isaiah’s words, the numerous points of agreement between Matthew’s quotation and LXX make Matthean dependence on LXX the simpler and more obvious explanation.

L13 ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει (Matt. 4:16 [best reading]). The words ὁ λαός (ho laos, “the people”) and ἐν σκότει (en skotei, “in darkness”) are identical to the LXX translation.^[69] These agreements of Matthew’s quotation with LXX must be emphasized because neither translation is inevitable. An independent translator could have rendered Isaiah’s הָעָם (hā‘ām, “the people”) as τὸ γένος (to genos, “the race”; cf. Gen. 26:10) or τὸ ἔθνος (to ethnos, “the people group”). Likewise, an independent translator could have rendered Isaiah’s בַּחֹשֶׁךְ (baḥoshech, “in the darkness”) as ἐν τῷ σκότει (en tō skotei, “in the darkness”; cf. Josh. 2:5; Isa. 49:9; 58:10) or εἰς τὸ σκότος (eis to skotos, “in the darkness”; cf. Isa. 47:5) or ἐν τῷ γνόφῳ (en tō gnofō, “in the darkness”; cf. Job 17:13). The agreement of Matthew’s quotation with LXX in these respects points to Matthew’s Septuagintal dependence.

Where Matthew’s quotation disagrees with LXX in L13, it sharply diverges from the Hebrew text. Whereas the LXX translators rendered הַהֹלְכִים (haholchim, “the ones walking”) as ὁ πορευόμενος (ho porevomenos, “the one walking”), Matthew’s quotation has ὁ καθήμενος (ho kathēmenos, “the one sitting”).^[70] As we stated above in Comment to L8-17, it seems likely that the author of Matthew changed LXX’s wording because he preferred the static image of the people sitting and waiting passively for deliverance to the dynamic image of people actively walking about in the darkness, as though they had begun to cope on their own. It also appears that the author of Matthew had a redactional preference for the verb καθῆσθαι (kathēsthai, “to sit”), since this verb appears several times in Matthew, either in unique passages or without agreement from the synoptic parallels.^[71] That the author of Matthew’s adaptation of LXX’s translation of Isa. 9:1 takes the quotation further away from the Hebrew text in such a conspicuous manner while at the same time serving his redactional interest argues against the view that the Isaiah quotation in Matt. 4:15-16 represents a direct translation of the Hebrew text independent of LXX.

L14 φῶς εἶδεν μέγα (Matt. 4:16). Matthew’s noun φῶς (fōs, “light”) and his adjective μέγας (megas, “big”) are identical to those in LXX, but other options would have been available to an independent translator. Instead of φῶς, an independent translator might have rendered אוֹר (’ōr, “light”) as φωτισμός (fōtismos, “light”; cf. Ps. 26[27]:1; 43[44]:4; 77[78]:14; 138[139]:11; Job 3:9) or φέγγος (fengos, “light”; cf. Job 22:28; 41:10).^[72] And instead of μέγας, an independent translator might have chosen a less literal option such as ἱκανός (hikanos, “sufficient,” “large”; cf. Acts 22:6) or λαμπρός (lampros, “bright”).

The mood and person of the verb “to see” are different in Matthew and LXX. Whereas Matthew’s verb is indicative and in the third-person singular, the LXX verb is imperative and in the second-person plural. While these differences might be explained as independent renderings of an unpointed ראו in Isa. 9:1,^[73] we must not ignore that the author of Matthew is presenting a prophecy he believes was fulfilled not by his readers but by the people of Galilee who witnessed Jesus’ teaching and healing. Therefore, a descriptive prophecy in the third person suited the author of Matthew better than a second-person exhortation. So it is unlikely that the deviation of Matthew’s quotation from LXX reflects anything other than the author of Matthew’s redactional concerns.

L15 καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις (Matt. 4:16). Here, Matthew’s quotation differs significantly from LXX. Whereas LXX has the nominative case and a participial form of κατοικεῖν (katoikein, “to dwell,” “to reside”), Matthew’s quotation uses the dative case and a participial form of καθῆσθαι (kathēsthai, “to sit”). It is true that καθῆσθαι is a more literal equivalent of יָשַׁב (yāshav, “sit,” “dwell”), the verb that occurs in the Hebrew text of Isa. 9:1, than κατοικεῖν,^[57] but there are two reasons unrelated to the Hebrew text of Isaiah that might explain why the author of Matthew preferred “sit” to “reside.” First, as we noted above in Comment to L13, the author of Matthew probably preferred vocabulary that evoked passive yearning for deliverance, whereas “reside” might sound as if the people in death’s shadow were doing their best to make themselves comfortable by making homes for themselves. The other reason is that the author of Matthew had already used the verb κατοικεῖν to describe Jesus’ making a home for himself in Capernaum. Since the author of Matthew did not want to include Jesus among those upon whom the light dawned—for the author of Matthew, Jesus was the dawning light—he opted for a different verb.^[74] Thus it is not necessary to suppose that the author of Matthew worked from or even knew the Hebrew text of Isaiah to explain how Matthew’s quotation arrived at a more literal equivalent of יָשַׁב than LXX.

L16 ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου (Matt. 4:16). The wording of Matthew’s quotation in L16 conforms exactly with LXX and clearly points to the author of Matthew’s dependence on this translation.^[75] The conjunction καί (“and”) has no equivalent in the Hebrew text of Isa. 9:1, and other options such as ἐν (τῇ) γῇ σκιᾶς θανάτου (en [tē] gē skias thanatou, “in the land of the shadow of death”) and ἐπὶ (τῆς) γῆς σκιᾶς θανάτου (epi [tēs] gēs skias thanatou, “on the land of the shadow of death”) would have been available to an independent translator.

L17 φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς (Matt. 4:16). The wording of Matthew’s quotation in L17 is unlike LXX and the Hebrew text of Isa. 9:1.^[76] As we stated above in Comment to L8-17, by changing LXX’s wording the author of Matthew may have intended to allude to some other messianic prophecy such as Balaam’s prophecy of a star coming from Jacob (Num. 24:17), a prophecy that evidently influenced the author of Matthew’s telling of the story of the Magi, or Malachi’s reference to the sun of righteousness arising with healing in its wings (Mal. 3:20), which would not be unlikely since elsewhere in his Gospel the author of Matthew interpreted Malachi’s prophecies messianically (Matt. 11:10). In any case, Matthew’s wording in L17 does not reflect a translation of the Hebrew text of Isa. 9:1 independent of LXX.

L18-21 In L18-21 we encounter a curious inverse relationship between the wording of the Lukan and Markan versions of Teaching in Kefar Nahum. Luke begins with Jesus’ teaching (L20), moves on to the audience (L20), and concludes with the Sabbath (L21). Mark begins with the Sabbath (L18), moves on to the audience (L19), and ends with Jesus’ teaching (L20).

The inverse relationship is obscured somewhat by the fact that in Mark’s version the reference to Jesus’ audience is oblique, being inferred from Jesus’ entry into the synagogue (L19), whereas Luke’s reference to Jesus’ audience in L20 is explicit (“them”), even if it is non-specific.

Inversion of Luke’s word order was one of the author of Mark’s redactional techniques.^[77] 

L18 καὶ εὐθέως τοῖς σάββασιν (Mark 1:21). Although in L18 the text of Codex Vaticanus reads εὐθέως (evtheōs, “immediately”), critical texts indicate that εὐθύς (evthūs, “immediately”) was the original reading. In Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum εὐθύς occurs three times (L18, L35, L73), each at a change of scene. The first instance of εὐθύς marks the beginning of the teaching scene in the synagogue, the second instance of εὐθύς marks the exorcism scene in the synagogue, and the third instance of εὐθύς marks the closing scene in which Jesus’ fame spreads far and wide. Since the repeated use of εὐθύς is characteristic of Markan redaction,^[78] we agree with those scholars who regard its presence in L18 as a Markan addition to the original story.^[79] 

Mark’s use of a plural form of σάββατον (sabbaton, “Sabbath”) to refer to one particular Sabbath is not ungrammatical,^[80] but neither is it necessary. The author of Mark could just as easily have written τῷ σαββάτῳ (tō sabbatō, “on the Sabbath”) and no one would have skipped a beat. On the other hand, in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum the plural form of σάββατον does serve a necessary function, since Luke’s version describes Jesus’ habit of teaching regularly on the Sabbath.^[81] From the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis of Markan dependence on Luke, Mark’s use of τοῖς σάββασιν (tois sabbasin, “in the Sabbaths”) appears to be a verbal relic, a linguistic feature carried over from an earlier source that no longer has a vital function in its present context.

Having picked up the plural form of σάββατον from Luke in Teaching in Kefar Nahum, the author of Mark went on to use it in Lord of Shabbat (Mark 2:23) and Man’s Withered Hand (Mark 3:2, 4), where Luke’s version has singular forms of σάββατον (Luke 6:1, 7, 9).^[82] Apart from its being relatively infrequent, Mark’s use of σάββατον in the plural with a singular sense fits the profile of a Markan stereotype.

L19 εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν (Mark 1:21). The author of Mark is careful to make Jesus enter Capernaum’s synagogue at the beginning of the pericope, thereby creating greater unity between Parts One and Two of Teaching in Kefar Nahum than in the version in Luke. Luke’s version of the pericope does not specify a location for Jesus’ habitual Sabbath day lessons,^[10] and it may be that Jesus, like many rabbinic sages, taught the people out of doors in an open-air venue such as an orchard, vineyard or hillside.^[83] The Sabbath was an ideal time for an itinerant sage to teach audiences larger than the closed group of his full-time disciples. On the Sabbath, farmers, day laborers, servants and other workers were released from their daily routines and had leisure to attend a sage’s public lessons. The reputation Jesus gained from these informal lessons may explain how Jesus came to be invited to formally address the members of the Capernaum synagogue. Compared to the Lukan version of the story, Mark’s version elevates Jesus’ status by having Jesus “immediately” enter the synagogue and begin teaching, whereas in Luke’s version Jesus’ invitation to teach in the synagogue had to be earned. It is hard to believe that the author of Luke would have demoted Jesus and presented a less unified version of the story by omitting the reference to the synagogue at the opening of the pericope had it occurred in his source. On the other hand, the author of Mark’s addition of the synagogue to the version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum he read in Luke makes perfect sense. We therefore regard Mark’s reference in L19 to Capernaum’s synagogue as redactional.

L20 ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς (GR). Hebrew does not have an exact equivalent to the imperfect tense, which Mark employs in L20 (ἐδίδασκεν [edidasken, “he was teaching”]). To describe habitual action Mishnaic Hebrew used הָיָה + participle, which is equivalent to Luke’s ἦν + participle (ἦν διδάσκων [ēn didaskōn, “he was teaching”]) in L20. Luke’s Hebraic Greek might be due to his use of a source translated from Hebrew. For that reason we have accepted Luke’s wording in L20 for GR.

וְהָיָה מְלַמֵּד אֹתָם (HR). On reconstructing διδάσκειν (didaskein, “to teach”) with לִמֵּד (limēd, “teach”), see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L5. Neither the Lukan nor the Markan versions of Teaching in Kefar Nahum indicate the content of Jesus’ teaching. In terms of content, the author of Matthew was probably on the right track when he made the Sermon on the Mount the replacement for Teaching in Kefar Nahum. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount contains two epitomes of Jesus’ message: the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer. Both the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer describe the Kingdom of Heaven not merely as a concept but as a way of life to be pursued. Since the Kingdom of Heaven was the focus of so much of Jesus’ teaching, the odds that Jesus’ teaching in Capernaum concerned this subject are good.

L21 ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (Luke 4:31). Since Luke’s sentence describes Jesus’ habitual practice of teaching on the Sabbath, we think it is best to interpret the plural form of σάββατον (sabbaton, “Sabbath”) in L21 literally: Jesus taught on several consecutive Sabbaths.^[84] 

בַּשַּׁבָּתוֹת (HR). In LXX most instances of σάββατον occur as the translation of שַׁבָּת.^[85] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of שַׁבָּת as σάββατον.^[86] In any case, there can hardly be any more suitable option for HR than שַׁבָּת, since the noun σάββατον is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew term שַׁבָּת.^[87] 

L22-25 καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους (Matt. 7:28). Matthew’s wording in L22-25 is Hebraic and contains two apparent agreements with Luke against Mark, namely ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it was”) in L22 (≈ Luke, L58) and the noun λόγος (logos, “word”) in L25 (≈ Luke, L31). Nevertheless, these minor agreements are distant and, probing deeper, we discover that the source for Matthew’s wording in L22-25 is not Anth.’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum but Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End (cf. Luke 7:1).^[88] What the author of Matthew has done in Matt. 7:28-29 is to combine Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End (Matt. 7:28a) with Mark’s version of the congregation’s reaction to Jesus in Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Matt. 7:28b-29).^[89] This explains why Matthew’s wording in Matt. 7:28a is so Hebraic (the author of Matthew followed a Hebraic-Greek source [Anth.]) and reveals that the apparent minor agreements with Luke in L22 (≈ L58) and L25 (≈ L31) are in fact mere coincidences. Thus Matthew’s wording in L22-25 cannot help us with the reconstruction of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, but it is vital for reconstructing Anth.’s conclusion to Jesus’ most famous sermon.

L22-34 (Mark 1:22 ∥ Luke 4:32). The verse that makes Teaching in Kefar Nahum a two-part pericope is Luke 4:32 (∥ Mark 1:22). Without this verse Teaching in Kefar Nahum would form a single cohesive narrative.^[90] It is also clear that the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 4:32 (∥ Mark 1:22) parallels the people’s reaction to Jesus’ exorcism in Luke 4:36 (∥ Mark 1:27). These observations have led some scholars to suppose that the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching in L22-34 is an interpolation modeled on the people’s response to the exorcism in L58-70.^[91] We agree with this conclusion, but the question remains: Who made the interpolation? Was it the author of Mark, who was then followed by the author of Luke? Or was it the author of Luke, who was followed by the author of Mark? Whereas most scholars today would presume the former, we believe the latter option offers a more adequate explanation for why and how the interpolation was made.

Flusser argued that Luke 4:32 was composed on the basis of a faulty understanding of Luke 4:36.^[92] According to Luke 4:36, the congregants were astounded at the exorcism Jesus performed and wondered aloud, τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (tis ho logos houtos, “What is this logos?”). This question was intended to be understood as asking, “What is this thing?” but the redactor who penned Luke 4:32 (mis)understood τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος as asking, “What is this word?” Evidently the redactor supposed Jesus had uttered a mysterious word of power that defeated the demon.^[93] In any case, this misunderstanding was possible because the more usual meaning of λόγος (logos) is “word.” The redactor did not realize that the noun λόγος in the people’s question τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (“What is this logos?”) was a translation of the Hebrew noun דָּבָר (dāvār, “word,” “thing”), which in context would have naturally been understood as “What is this happening?” or “What’s going on here?”^[94] But in Greek translation the noun λόγος in the people’s question is conspicuous (cf. Mark’s [para]phrasing of the question as τί ἐστιν τοῦτο [ti estin touto, “What is this?”]), and it was precisely because λόγος stands out that the redactor attributed to it a significance the translator did not intend. Believing that the people had reacted to Jesus’ word of command, whose authority the demons respected, the redactor composed a response to Jesus’ teaching in which the people react to the authority of Jesus’ word.

Flusser’s explanation works with regard to Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, but does not apply to Mark’s version. Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum does not contain the word λόγος. Neither can Mark 1:22 be construed as a misunderstanding of Mark 1:27. On the contrary, the people’s reaction to the exorcism in Mark 1:27 presupposes the notion that Jesus’ teaching was authoritative, which is first expressed in Mark 1:22. According to Mark 1:27, people respond by saying, “Not only does Jesus teach a new authoritative doctrine, he also commands demons and they listen to him.” In both Mark 1:22 and Mark 1:27 Jesus’ authority is manifested in his teaching; not so in Luke 4:36, where Jesus’ authority is (exclusively) manifested in his ability to issue demons orders. Mark 1:27 harks back to Mark 1:22, tying Parts One and Two of the pericope together, but Luke 4:36 does not require Luke 4:32 to make sense.

The fact that the people’s questions in Mark 1:22 and Mark 1:27 are interconnected, whereas the people’s question in Luke 4:36 is independent of the question in Luke 4:32, is significant. It either suggests that the author of Mark took steps to integrate the two parts of the narrative he found in Luke or that the author of Luke took steps to disentangle the two parts of the narrative he found in Mark. We find the former explanation to be more plausible. The likelihood that Luke 4:32 shows that the original meaning of the people’s question in Luke 4:36 was lost in translation is also significant. It suggests that the wording of the people’s question in Luke 4:36 is more primitive than the parallel wording in Mark 1:27.

In Flusser’s view, the redactor who penned Luke 4:32 was pre-Lukan, and the reason he penned the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching was that Jesus’ appearance in Capernaum’s synagogue was the first occasion on which Jesus was reported to have taught in public in the pre-Lukan Gospel.^[93] As this was the first account of Jesus’ teaching, the pre-Lukan editor was not content merely to mention this momentous occasion in passing. He therefore composed Luke 4:32 on the model of Luke 4:36 in order to give greater prominence to Jesus’ teaching while retaining the style of his source. The reason Flusser believed that the redactor who penned Luke 4:32 was pre-Lukan is that in Luke’s Gospel Teaching in Kefar Nahum does not describe the first occasion on which Jesus taught publicly. In Luke, Jesus’ first public address is delivered in Nazareth (Luke 4:14-30). Flusser assumed that the author of Luke was responsible for the position of Nazarene Synagogue, having inserted it between Return to the Galil (Luke 4:14-15) and Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Luke 4:31-37). But as we have discussed in the Story Placement section above, there is strong evidence (two points of Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark) to suggest that the author of Luke did not insert Nazarene Synagogue between Return to the Galil and Teaching in Kefar Nahum, but that the Return to the Galil→Nazarene Synagogue→Teaching in Kefar Nahum sequence was already present in his source. We also discussed that, despite retaining this sequence, the author of Luke was eager to prevent his readers from forming the impression that Jesus’ teaching generally received a negative response from his audience (as happened in Nazareth). The author of Luke therefore added a reference to the people’s receptivity to Jesus’ teaching in Return to the Galil to counterbalance the unreceptiveness Jesus’ message encountered in Nazareth.^[3] We believe the same motivation accounts for the insertion of Luke 4:32 into Teaching in Kefar Nahum, and therefore there is no need to posit a pre-Lukan redactor as the author of this verse. The author of Luke himself had sufficient motive for adding the notice about the positive response Jesus’ teaching received in Capernaum. He probably did not notice that his insertion divided the pericope into two parallel parts, with Part One being a mere shadow of Part Two.

L26 ἐξεπλήσσοντο (Luke 4:32). The astonishment the synagogue worshippers felt at Jesus’ teaching (Luke 4:32) parallels the shock (θάμβος [thambos]; L59) that came upon everyone when Jesus exorcised the demon (Luke 4:36).

ἐξεπλήσσοντο (Mark 1:22). In Luke the antecedent of the verb ἐξεπλήσσοντο (exeplēssonto, “they were astonished”) is clearly expressed: “they” are the “them” (αὐτούς; L20) Jesus had been teaching (i.e., the people of Capernaum).^[95] In Mark the antecedent of ἐξεπλήσσοντο should be the same as the antecedent of the previous third-person plural verb, εἰσπορεύονται (eisporevontai, “they go in”; L1), namely the disciples. But since the disciples play no role in the story, the author of Mark probably meant that it was the people in the synagogue who were astonished. It was the author of Mark’s redactional activity in L19, where “entering the synagogue” replaces Luke’s “them” (see above, Comment to L18-21), that caused the proper antecedent of Mark’s verb in L26 to be erased.

L27 οἱ ὄχλοι (Matt. 7:28). The author of Matthew corrected Mark’s grammar by providing οἱ ὄχλοι (hoi ochloi, “the crowds”) as the missing antecedent.^[96] “The crowds” are not appropriate for the synagogue setting of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, but the phrase ties in neatly with the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, where the author of Matthew described the crowds that surrounded Jesus (Matt. 5:1).^[97] It is just possible, however, that οἱ ὄχλοι is (also?) the product of cross-pollination with Matt. 22:33 (∥ Mark 11:18), which is really a doublet of Matt. 7:28 ∥ Mark 1:22. According to Matt. 22:33, the crowds in the Temple were astonished at Jesus’ teaching. Since the author of Matthew sometimes allowed the wording of parallel sayings to influence one another, a phenomenon we refer to as Matthean cross-pollination, and since we know from Mark 11:18 that οἱ ὄχλοι appeared in Matthew’s source for Matt. 22:33, it may be that οἱ ὄχλοι crossed over into Matt. 7:28 from Matt. 22:33.

L30 ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ (Luke 4:32). Flusser noted that, apart from Luke 4:32 and the parallels in Mark 1:22 and Matt. 7:28, there is never agreement between all three evangelists to use the noun διδαχή (didachē, “teaching”).^[98] Matthew agrees with Mark to write διδαχή on one further occasion (Matt. 22:33 ∥ Mark 11:18), which we just discussed in the previous comment. The noun διδαχή occurs three more times in Mark, a second time in Teaching in Kefar Nahum (Mark 1:27 [L65]) and twice in what Flusser referred to as “frame sentences” (Mark 4:2; 12:38). The Lukan-Matthean agreements against these Markan instances of διδαχή indicate that they are the product of Markan redaction.^[99] The author of Matthew used the noun διδαχή once on his own in a clearly redactional explanation identifying the “leavened bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees” as the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12). Since Flusser considered Luke 4:32 to be redactional, he concluded that none of the instances of διδαχή in the Synoptic Gospels can be traced to a pre-synoptic source. We agree.

Flusser also cited the difficulty of reverting the noun διδαχή to Hebrew as an additional reason for regarding Luke 4:32 as redactional.^[100] We are not convinced of the strength of this argument. In his Hebrew translation of the New Testament, Delitzsch translated ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ (epi tē didachē avtou, “at his teaching”) in Luke 4:32 as עַל תּוֹרָתוֹ (‘al tōrātō, “at his Torah” or “at his teaching”), which is a perfectly legitimate translation. In his Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, Lindsey adopted the same translation of ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ in Mark 1:22.^[101] Nevertheless, we might have expected the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua to have translated תּוֹרָה (tōrāh, “Torah”) as νόμος (nomos, “law”), as he probably did in other pericopae.^[102] We think an even better reconstruction of ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ would be עַל תַּלְמוּדוֹ (‘al talmūdō, “at his teaching”).^[103] While it would be fascinating to consider the implications of a pre-synoptic source making reference to Jesus’ Talmud, we agree with Flusser that Luke 4:32 cannot be traced back to the original story of Jesus. For this reason we have omitted ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ from GR and a Hebrew equivalent from HR.

L31 ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (Luke 4:32). In L31 the author of Luke stresses not what Jesus taught but how it was taught: his word (singular) was spoken “in authority.” It is a little strange that the author of Luke did not write οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ (hoi logoi avtou, “his words”), using the plural as he did elsewhere in his Gospel (Luke 1:20; 4:22; 6:47; 9:44; 24:17, 44) and Acts (Acts 2:22; 5:5, 24; 15:15; 16:36; 20:35). Flusser accounted for this peculiarity by suggesting that the reference to Jesus’ authoritative “word” in Luke 4:32 was modeled after Luke 4:36, in which the people asked, “What is this thing [λόγος ⟨sing.⟩], that in authority and power he commands the impure spirits and they go out?”^[104] 

Apart from Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, where ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ (en exousia, “in authority”) occurs twice (L31, L66), the phrase ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ is rare in the Synoptic Gospels, occurring only in the question ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς (en poia exousia tavta poieis, “By what authority do you do these things?”; Matt. 21:23; Mark 11:28; Luke 20:2), posed to Jesus in the narrative introduction to the Wicked Tenants parable, and in Jesus’ response to this question (Matt. 21:24, 27; Mark 11:29, 33; Luke 20:8). It is true that ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ also occurs twice in Acts (Acts 1:7; 5:4), but only in the early sections of this book, where the author of Luke was most likely to have been following a source. The lack of evidence for the author of Luke’s habitually adding ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ to his sources strengthens our supposition that, like ὁ λόγος, the phrase ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ in Luke 4:32 also derives from Luke 4:36.

L31-32 ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (Mark 1:22). Whereas Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum celebrates the manner of Jesus’ teaching (his word was authoritative), the Markan and Matthean parallels celebrate the force of Jesus’ personality: he was teaching them ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (hōs exousian echōn, “as one possessing authority”).^[105] It is difficult to believe that if he had been reworking Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum the author of Luke would have toned down the laudatory remarks about Jesus’ person, choosing instead to focus on the authority of Jesus’ word. But the reverse scenario is entirely credible. It is easy to imagine the author of Mark preferring to stress Jesus’ authoritative personality over the quality of Jesus’ teaching. And note this: Mark’s phrase ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτούς (ēn gar didaskōn avtous, “for he was teaching them”) echoes Luke’s wording in L20 (ἦν διδάσκων αὐτούς). The author of Mark copied Luke’s wording, but he inserted it into an explanatory γάρ clause, a type of narrative clause that is especially typical of Markan redaction.^[106] 

By shifting the emphasis away from Jesus’ teaching and onto Jesus’ personality, the author of Mark eliminated the term λόγος, which, on account of its repetition and awkwardness (the singular form in L31, its ambiguousness in L64), is so conspicuous in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum. From the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis we can understand why the term λόγος in Teaching in Kefar Nahum had lost its significance for the author of Mark. It was precisely the ambiguousness of λόγος in the question τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (“What is this logos?”) that allowed the author of Luke to model the people’s response to Jesus’ teaching on their response to the exorcism. By wrongly understanding τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος as asking, “What is this word?” the author of Luke concluded that Jesus had uttered some magical word of power to exorcise the demon. Therefore, when he composed the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching he explained that Jesus’ “word” had authority. But with the addition of Luke 4:32 to the narrative, the meaning of τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος in Luke 4:36 was no longer ambiguous. Luke 4:32 had prepared the author of Mark to understand λόγος in both verses as meaning “word.” Yet the clarity of λόγος in Luke’s pericope also robbed this term of its interest. It no longer needed to be interpreted and explained, and so became easy to dispense with. For the author of Mark it was more attractive and interesting in L31-32 to attribute authority to Jesus’ person than his word, and in L65 the author of Mark supplied an answer to the question “What is this word?”: the “word” was none other than the “new teaching” born of Jesus’ personal authority (L66). Thus the same process that led to the elimination of λόγος in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum also led to the elimination of the phrase ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ. No longer was Jesus’ word spoken “in authority” (L31), rather Jesus taught “as one having authority” (L31-32), and no longer did Jesus issue commands “in authority” (L66), rather Jesus’ “new teaching” stemmed from his personal authority (L66).

Lindsey noted that Mark’s phrase ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (“for he was teaching them as one possessing authority”) “can be put into Hebrew only by resorting to awkward circumlocution.”^[107] Indeed, in his Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark Lindsey rendered ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων as כִּי הָיָה מְלַמְּדָם כְּאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ (ki hāyāh m^elamdām k^e’ish ’^asher hār^eshūt b^eyādō, “because he was teaching them like a man who the authority was in his hand”),^[108] which may be compared to Delitzsch’s translation of this phrase as כִּי הָיָה מְלַמְּדָם כְּאִישׁ שִׁלְטוֹן (ki hāyāh m^elamdām k^e’ish shilṭōn, “because he was teaching them like a ruler man,” or alternatively, “because he was teaching them like a man of authority”).

Some scholars have proposed a more elegant reconstruction of “he was teaching them as one possessing authority”: הָיָה מְלַמְּדָם כְּמוֹשֵׁל (hāyāh m^elamdām k^emōshēl, “he was teaching them like a teller of parables”).^[109] This reconstruction rests on the supposition that ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων is a mistranslation of כְּמוֹשֵׁל, which can either mean “like a ruler” or “like a teller of m^eshalim [i.e., proverbs, parables, etc.]”). Making this suggestion attractive are the facts that 1) Jesus did tell parables to illustrate his teaching and 2) the scribes did enjoy considerable authority in Jewish society (cf., e.g., m. Sanh. 11:3),^[110] such that Mark’s assertion that Jesus taught as one having authority and not as the scribes is false. Nevertheless, there are serious problems with this reconstruction. First, even if an underlying Hebrew source had referred to Jesus as a מוֹשֵׁל (mōshēl, “teller of parables”), ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (exousian echōn, “one having authority”) is a bizarre translation. Usually when the LXX translators encountered מוֹשֵׁל they rendered it as ἄρχων (archōn, “ruler”)^[111] or some other term for “ruler.” Second, that מוֹשֵׁל means “teller of parables” has not been established. We do, indeed, find examples of מוֹשֵׁל in the sense of “teller of proverbs” or “reciter of verses” (Num. 21:27; Ezek. 16:44), but these are confined to Biblical Hebrew. We never find מוֹשֵׁל in the sense of “teller of story parables” in post-biblical Hebrew sources.^[112] Third, when the LXX translators encountered מוֹשֵׁל in the sense of “teller of proverbs” they understood its meaning and translated it correctly. So even if we granted for the sake of argument that מוֹשֵׁל could be used in the sense of “teller of parables,” there is no reason why a Greek translator should have misunderstood it. And finally, contrasting “tellers of parables” with the scribes is not really an improvement over the contrast between “one having authority” and the scribes, since, like Jesus, the ancient scribes told parables. Thus this ingenious suggestion does not pose a serious challenge to our view that “he taught them as one having authority” reflects the author of Mark’s rewriting of Luke, which shifts the locus of Jesus’ authority from his teaching to his person and transforms a laudatory statement about Jesus into a polemic against the Jewish authorities.

L32 ἔχων (Mark 1:22). Lindsey hinted that the author of Mark borrowed the phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (exousian echōn, “having authority”) from Luke’s version of the Entrusted Funds parable, where the returning master rewards his most faithful servant saying, ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ἐπάνω δέκα πόλεων (“Be one having authority over ten cities”; Luke 19:17).^[113] We think the origin of Mark’s phrase lies closer to hand. Mark’s phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (“[one] having authority”) is similar to Luke’s description in L38-39 of the demoniac as ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου (anthrōpos echōn pnevma daimoniou akathartou, “a person having a spirit of an impure demon”; Luke 4:33). Oddly, Mark’s description of the demoniac as ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (anthrōpos en pnevmati akathartō, “a person in an impure spirit”; Mark 1:23) resembles the reason Luke gives in L31 for why the people were astonished at Jesus’ teaching: ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (en exousia ēn ho logos avtou, “his word was in authority”; Luke 4:32). In other words, there is an inverse or chiastic relationship between the statements on authority and the descriptions of the demoniac.^[114] 

L33 καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς (Mark 1:22). Numerous scholars have asked in what way Jesus’ authoritative teaching contrasted with that of the scribes, and many have answered by referring to the way in which the rabbinic sages cited halachot, testimony and other traditions in the names of their predecessors. Citing the teachings of earlier and more important sages, these scholars claim, is how the scribes taught, whereas Jesus did not need to cite authority for his teaching.^[115] We take a dim view not only of this answer but of the question itself. As we have already noted, the contrast between Jesus as “one having authority” and the scribes is a false dichotomy.^[116] Mark’s assertion is polemical and cannot be taken at face value.^[117] Among first-century Jews the scribes commanded respect and their teachings carried authority.^[118] When it is recognized that the claim in Mark 1:22 that Jesus taught “as one having authority and not as the scribes” is not a statement of historical fact but a snippet of polemically charged propaganda, then there is no point in asking in what way the scribes’ teaching lacked authority. There is no point in asking because there is no substance behind the author of Mark’s claim.

Even the answer so many scholars have given to the question “In what way did the scribes lack authority in comparison to Jesus?” is problematic. First, it is anachronistic to attribute the method of citing halachot prevalent among the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud to the scribes of the Second Temple period. Second, it is a mistake to equate the rabbinic sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud with the scribes of the Second Temple period. The fact is, the author of Mark did not explain how the scribes lacked authority, and if asked, he probably could not have done so.^[119] He made an unsubstantiated assertion because he wanted to draw a contrast between Jesus and the scribes, who were to feature as Jesus’ main opponents in the stories to follow (Mark 2:6, 16; 3:22). The misleading answer that Jesus differed from the scribes by not citing the names of earlier and more learned rabbis has its roots in later Christian anti-Judaism and should be weeded out from modern discussions about the historical Jesus.

L34 αὐτῶν (Matt. 7:29). To Mark’s reference to οἱ γραμματεῖς (hoi grammateis, “the scribes”) the author of Matthew added the pronoun αὐτῶν (avtōn, “their”).^[120] While Mark’s contrast between Jesus and the scribes could still be viewed as an inner-Jewish critique, Matthew’s transformation of “the scribes” into “their scribes” places the author of Matthew and his readers outside the Jewish community.^[121] In doing so, the author of Matthew opposes Christianity to Judaism.

L35 καὶ εὐθὺς (Mark 1:23). The author of Mark punctuated the change of scene by adding his stereotypical adverb εὐθύς (evthūs, “immediately”).^[122] On εὐθύς as an indicator of Markan redaction, see above, Comment to L18.

L36 ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν (GR). Luke and Mark agree in L36 except with regard to the placement of ἦν (ēn, “he/she/it was being”). Mark places the verb at the beginning of the phrase, whereas Luke places it at the end. Either word order can be reproduced in Hebrew, but since Luke tends to preserve Anth.’s wording more faithfully than Mark, we have accepted Luke’s word order for GR.

וּבְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת הָיָה (HR). In LXX the noun συναγωγή (sūnagōgē, “gathering,” “assembly,” “synagogue”) usually occurs as the translation of עֵדָה (‘ēdāh, “congregation”) or קָהָל (qāhāl, “gathering,” “assembly”).^[123] In LXX συναγωγή never occurs as the translation of כְּנֶסֶת (k^eneset, “assembly”) or בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת (bēt k^eneset, “house of assembly,” i.e., “synagogue”), but this is hardly surprising, since neither term occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. We do find, however, that the LXX translators usually rendered verbs built on the [no_word_wrap]כ-נ-ס[/no_word_wrap] root with συνάγειν (sunagein, “to gather”), to which συναγωγή is related.^[124] 

The reasons why the terms כְּנֶסֶת and especially בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת never occur in the Hebrew Scriptures are fairly straightforward. First, the Hebrew root [no_word_wrap]כ-נ-ס[/no_word_wrap] is first attested in Late Biblical Hebrew. The earliest attestation of the noun כְּנֶסֶת is in DSS (4QpNah [4Q169] 3-4 III, 7; 4QcommGen A [4Q252] V, 6). Thus, the term בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת reflects terminology that is later than the vocabulary employed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were either written in or pertain to periods earlier than the emergence of the institution we know as the synagogue.

When the synagogue first emerged as a Jewish institution is unknown. The earliest epigraphical,^[125] literary^[126] and archaeological evidence^[127] for the existence of the synagogue in the land of Israel all comes from the first century C.E., but the inscriptional and literary evidence suggests that the synagogue was already well established as an institution by then.^[128] The synagogue appeared in Israel no later than the Herodian period, and perhaps existed as early as the Hasmonean period,^[129] when territorial conquests meant that ever larger proportions of the Jewish population living in the land of Israel were distant from the Temple.

From the sources it is evident that the synagogue served numerous communal functions. On the Sabbath the synagogue was a gathering place for the reading of Torah, the delivering of homilies, and religious instruction. At other times the synagogue was a meeting place to discuss public affairs or to settle legal disputes. Alms were collected in the synagogue, synagogues provided accommodations for travelers, and many synagogues were equipped with mikvaot for ritual purification. In short, the synagogue served as a community center. After the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of synagogues increased. Rituals that had been confined to the Temple were now permitted in the synagogue. Synagogues came to be decorated with overtly religious symbols. In Jesus’ time, however, the synagogue was more of a meeting place than a sanctuary, a place where all the activities of communal life could and did take place.

The Hebrew term בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת (“house of assembly,” “synagogue”) is first attested in the Mishnah,^[130] but is probably much older. The similarity between συναγωγή (“assembly”)—one of the two main terms used for the synagogue in first-century sources (the other being προσευχή [prosevchē, “⟨place of⟩ prayer”])—and בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת argues in favor of adopting this reconstruction for HR.

L37 αὐτῶν (Mark 1:23). Just as the author of Matthew’s addition in L34 of the pronoun αὐτῶν (“their”) to οἱ γραμματεῖς (“the scribes”) distanced the author of Matthew from the Jewish people and “their scribes,” so the author of Mark’s addition of αὐτῶν in L37 to ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ (en tē sūnagōgē, “in the synagogue”) implies distance between the author of Mark and his readers and the people of Capernaum and “their synagogue.”^[131] Nevertheless, the distance implied by the author of Mark’s addition is less than that which is implied in Matthew. The author of Mark may simply have wished to suggest that the presence of demoniacs in synagogues was unusual; it happened in “their” synagogue, but would not be expected to happen in synagogues generally.

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that Mark’s ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν (en tē sūnagōgē avtōn, “in their synagogue [sing.]”) echoes language from the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s version of Return to the Galil (L9-10) the author of Luke described Jesus as teaching ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν (en tais sūnagōgais avtōn, “in their synagogues [plur.]”; Luke 4:15). It is interesting to observe the increasing sense of alienation from the synagogue from Luke to Mark to Matthew. Luke’s Gospel has a single instance of “their synagogue(s)” (Luke 4:15), Mark’s Gospel has two such examples (Mark 1:23, 39), but in Matthew’s Gospel “their synagogue(s)” appears five times (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54).

L38 ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα (GR). In Comment to L32 we noted that Mark’s odd description of a person “in an impure spirit” appears to be the result of a strange inversion of Luke’s descriptions of the person “having a spirit of an impure demon” and Jesus’ teaching “in authority,” for the author of Mark described Jesus as “one having authority” and the possessed man as being “in an impure spirit.” Here we note that descriptions of people “in an impure spirit” are unique to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 1:23; 5:2), while “having” a spirit or demon(s) occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:18; Mark 3:30; 7:25; 9:17; Luke 4:33; 7:33; 8:27). Moreover, “have a demon” occurs once in a Double Tradition (DT) pericope with Lukan-Matthean agreement (Matt. 11:18 ∥ Luke 7:33),^[132] so we can be certain that “have a demon” sometimes occurred in the pre-synoptic sources, and we have no reason to doubt that “have a spirit” in Luke 4:33 can also be traced to a pre-synoptic source.

Some scholars have attempted to account for Mark’s strange description of a person “in an impure spirit” by claiming that it is a Semitism. The Greek preposition ἐν (en, “in”), they claim, represents the Hebrew preposition -בְּ (b^e–, “in,” “with”).^[133] Thus Mark’s ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (“person in an impure spirit”) should be interpreted as “person with an impure spirit” or “person having an impure spirit.” The weakness of this suggestion is that scholars have not provided a single example of אָדָם בְּרוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה (’ādām b^erūaḥ haṭum’āh, “a person in the spirit of impurity”) or אָדָם בְּרוּחַ רָעָה (’ādām b^erūaḥ rā‘āh, “person in an evil spirit”) or אָדָם בְּשֵׁד (’ādām b^eshēd, “a person in a demon”) or any analogous description of a demon-possessed individual. With nothing to substantiate their claim, the supposed “Semitic” origin of Mark’s ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ poses no serious challenge to our conclusion that Mark’s wording is redactional.

אָדָם אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ (HR). On reconstructing ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos, “person,” “human”) with אָדָם (’ādām, “person,” “human”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L12.

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

On reconstructing ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα (anthrōpos echōn pnevma, “person having a spirit”) with אָדָם אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ בּוֹ (’ādām ’^asher rūaḥ bō, “person who a spirit [is] in him”), compare our reconstructions of ἔχειν δαιμόνιον (echein daimonion, “to have a demon”) with הַשֵּׁד בּוֹ (hashēd bō, “the demon [is/was] in him”) in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory (L13) and Like Children Complaining (L16).

Because the possessed individual speaks in the plural (L43: “What is to us [plur.] and to you?”; L45: “Have you come to destroy us [plur.]?”) and because the congregants comment on Jesus’ ability to command impure spirits (plur.) (L67-69), some scholars believe the possessed man in Teaching in Kefar Nahum was actually possessed by multiple demons.^[9] Nevertheless, this interpretation of the pericope is difficult to maintain, since Luke and Mark describe the person as possessed by a single impure spirt in L38-39, Jesus addresses the demon in the singular in L50-51, the verbs describing the demon’s exit from the possessed man in L52-56 are singular, and L53 refers to a single demon (Luke) or impure spirit (Mark). It is better to conclude that when the demon speaks in the plural through the mouth of the possessed man it speaks on behalf of others (on whose behalf will be discussed below in Comment to L39) and that when the worshippers in the synagogue refer to Jesus’ commanding multiple demons/impure spirits, they were simply generalizing.

L39 ἀκάθαρτον (GR). The author of Luke’s reference to a person having a πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου (“spirit of an impure demon”) is unique within the Synoptic Gospels.^[134] Elsewhere in Matthew, Mark and Luke we find references either to “impure spirits” or “demons,” but not to “spirits of impure demons.” Some scholars have suggested that the author of Luke added “demon” to “impure spirit” in order to clarify the latter for his Gentile readers.^[135] These scholars explain that among Gentiles πνεῦμα (pnevma, “spirit”) did not have the negative connotation of “demon” that it did among Jews, and so for his audience’s sake the author of Luke added “demon.” But even if πνεῦμα on its own would not have conveyed a negative connotation for Gentile readers, the qualification of the spirit as ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos, “impure”) should have sufficed.^[136] Adding δαιμόνιον (daimonion, “lesser divinity”) would not have made it any clearer to Gentile audiences that the “impure spirit” was bad. On the contrary, it was δαιμόνιον that lacked a negative connotation among average Gentiles.^[137] For non-Jewish readers δαιμόνιον could refer to lesser gods who were benevolent, malignant or indifferent to human beings. It was in Jewish (and later Christian) contexts that δαιμόνιον acquired the exclusively negative sense we associate with “demon.” So while we agree that the author of Luke was probably responsible for the unusual “spirit of an impure demon,”^[138] we believe he did so not in order to explain that impure spirits were demonic but in order to explain that demons, being impure, are evil.^[139] He thereby prepared his readers to understand δαιμόνιον in L53 and elsewhere in his Gospel in a thoroughly negative sense.^[140] 

הַטֻּמְאָה בּוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos, “impure”) with טֻמְאָה (ṭum’āh, “impurity”), see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L84.

Plummer noted his surprise that a possessed man would be found in a synagogue.^[141] To explain the possessed man’s presence he suggested that the possessed man had sneaked into the synagogue unobserved in order to disrupt Jesus’ teaching or that the possessed man’s “malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to be cured.” But first-century synagogues had not yet attained a sanctity like that of the Temple, so the presence of a demon-possessed individual in Capernaum’s synagogue would not have profaned a holy place. Indeed, Luke’s Gospel reports another occasion on which Jesus heals a woman bent over by a malevolent spirit in a synagogue (Luke 13:10-17). What is truly surprising about the possessed man in the Capernaum synagogue is his inconspicuousness. The other possessed individuals we encounter in the Gospels were obviously tormented by the demons: the possessed man nicknamed Legion was so self-destructive and dangerous that he was driven from his community (Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory), the demon-possessed boy was liable to go into convulsions at any time (Boy Delivered from Demon), and the woman “bound by Satan” was visibly doubled over in pain (Daughter of Avraham). But the demon in Teaching in Kefar Nahum went undetected by everyone until Jesus drove it out.

While some scholars seem to regard the omission of the possessed man’s symptoms as an oversight,^[142] we believe the absence of symptoms is crucial to the story.^[143] This demon was incognito. It did not want its identity to be known because it did not wreak its havoc in the open, it operated by stealth and trickery. It possessed an individual, but it infected the entire community.

In what way could a demon sabotage a community? It could stir up greed and incite jealousy,^[144] it could sow the seeds of bitterness, it could provoke anger between brothers and open up division between neighbors by engendering mutual hatred in their hearts,^[145] it could confuse and destabilize^[146] the community by spreading false rumors and misinformation,^[147] and it could entice the community into sin.^[148] One possessed man could whisper poison in the ears of those receptive to gossip, he could breed discontent by constant grumbling, faultfinding and complaining, he could drag his community down into despondence through his spirit of negativity and naysaying. In Teaching in Kefar Nahum the possessed man makes accusations about Jesus, arouses suspicions against him, engages in fearmongering, appeals to chauvinistic prejudices, and slanders Jesus’ good name.

We believe the insidiousness of an unrecognized demon operating in the community makes the most sense of the pericope. It explains three peculiar aspects of the story: 1) the possessed man’s apparent lack of symptoms, 2) the demon’s use of the first-person plural (L43, L45), and 3) its identification of Jesus as “from Nazareth” (L44). The first item we have discussed already. As for speaking in the plural, most scholars suggest either that the demon spoke on behalf of the other demons knowing that Jesus was intent on destroying the demonic powers,^[149] or that the possessed man spoke in the plural because he had fully identified himself with the demon.^[150] However, these interpretations adopt the reader’s point of view. We know from our vantage point outside of the story that the man is possessed. The worshippers in the synagogue, on the other hand, did not have the advantage of the narrator’s omniscience. When they heard the man speaking in the first-person plural they would have assumed that he was speaking for them as one of their own.^[151] They did not know that, disguised as a member of the synagogue, the demon attempted to unite them in hostility toward Jesus. They did not understand that a demon was trying to retain its grip on the community it had manipulated for so long. The demon understood that the in-breaking of the Kingdom of Heaven, which Jesus proclaimed, would liberate the people of Capernaum from its destructive influence. But the neighbors of the “asymptomatic” possessed man were unaware of this. They were only aware that someone they knew, either as a family member, friend or acquaintance, was telling them that Jesus was dangerous (“You have come to destroy us?”) and that Jesus had no business meddling in Capernaum’s affairs (“What have we to do with you?”).

The demon’s strategy to turn the people against Jesus was to play on their fears and prejudices. The reason Jesus should have nothing to do with us, the undercover demon implied, was that Jesus “comes from away.”^[152] Rural folks’ suspicion of strangers best explains why the demon chose to remind the other synagogue members that Jesus was from Nazareth (L44).^[153] What could a man from Nazareth have to teach the people of Capernaum? Chauvinism, tribalism, the “us against them” mentality is a favorite demonic ploy to keep people trapped in their ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

L40 καὶ ἀνέκραξεν (GR). Luke and Mark agree to write “and he cried out” in L40. Since this phrase reverts easily to Hebrew (see below), we see no reason not to adopt their wording for GR.

וַיִּזְעַק (HR). In LXX the verb ἀνακράζειν (anakrazein, “to cry out”) is relatively rare. It occurs more often as the translation of קָרָא (qārā’, “call”) than of any other Hebrew verb (4xx) and occurs as the translation of זָעַק (zā‘aq, “cry out”) only once.^[154] The LXX translators typically rendered זָעַק with βοᾶν (boan, “to shout”) or ἀναβοᾶν (anaboan, “to shout out”), but κράζειν (krazein, “to cry out”), the simple verb of which ἀνακράζειν is a compound, is also a common translation.^[155] Although קָרָא is a strong candidate for HR, we have already reconstructed κράζειν with קָרָא elsewhere in LOY, so we felt that the more intensive ἀνακράζειν should be reconstructed with זָעַק.

L41 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (GR). Both Luke and Mark refer to the possessed man’s shouting with a “big voice,” but whereas in Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum the “big voice” occurs at the beginning of the encounter (L41), in Mark the “big voice” appears at the end (L55). While either placement is credible, the author of Mark’s practice of inversion and chiastic rearrangement of Luke’s wording suggests that it was probably the author of Mark who transferred the “big voice” to the end of Jesus’ encounter with the demon.

קוֹל גָּדוֹל (HR). On reconstructing φωνή (fōnē, “voice,” “sound”) with קוֹל (qōl, “voice,” “sound”), see A Voice Crying, Comment to L41.

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

In MT קוֹל גָּדוֹל (“big voice”) is more often paired with קָרָא (“call”; 8xx) than with זָעַק (“cry out”), but examples of the latter pairing do occur in the following instances:

וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה אֶת שְׁמוּאֵל וַתִּזְעַק בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־שָׁאוּל לֵאמֹר לָמָּה רִמִּיתָנִי

And the woman saw Samuel, and she cried out in a loud voice [וַתִּזְעַק בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל; LXX: καὶ ἀνεβόησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ]. And the woman said to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me?” (1 Sam. 28:12)

וַיִּזְעַק הַמֶּלֶךְ קוֹל גָּדוֹל בְּנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי

And the king cried out [וַיִּזְעַק; LXX: καὶ ἔκραξεν] a loud voice [קוֹל גָּדוֹל; LXX: φωνῇ μεγάλῃ], “My son Absalom! Absalom my son! My son!” (2 Sam. 19:5)

וָאֶפֹּל עַל פָּנַי וָאֶזְעַק קוֹל גָּדוֹל וָאֹמַר אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יי כָּלָה אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה אֵת שְׁאֵרִית יִשְׂרָאֵל

And I fell on my face, and I cried out [וָאֶזְעַק; LXX: καὶ ἀνεβόησα] a loud voice [קוֹל גָּדוֹל; LXX: φωνῇ μεγάλῃ]. And I said, “Ah, Lord GOD, are you making a complete end of the remnant of Israel?” (Ezek. 11:13)

וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל אֶל יי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם

And they cried out with a loud voice [וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל; LXX: καὶ ἐβόησαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ] to the LORD their God. (Neh. 9:4)

In the examples above we note that there is variation between קוֹל גָּדוֹל with and without the prefixed preposition [no_word_wrap]-בְּ[/no_word_wrap] (b^e–, “in”). Whether or not קוֹל גָּדוֹל has the preposition, LXX consistently has φωνῇ μεγάλῃ without the preposition ἐν (en, “in”). Since the preposition [no_word_wrap]-בְּ[/no_word_wrap] is optional, we have omitted it from HR.

L42 λέγων (Mark 1:24). It is difficult to decide whether or not to accept Mark’s participle λέγων (legōn, “saying”) for GR. In its favor is the fact that λέγων is easily reconstructed as לֵאמֹר (lē’mor, “saying”). We could also imagine that the author of Luke dropped λέγων in L42 for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, in the examples we reviewed in the previous comment we saw that the direct speech recorded after the crying out in a big voice was not necessarily introduced with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”):

וַיִּזְעַק הַמֶּלֶךְ קוֹל גָּדוֹל בְּנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי

And the king cried out a loud voice, “My son Absalom! Absalom my son! My son!” (2 Sam. 19:5)

The LXX translators, on the other hand, evidently disliked the absence of a “saying” verb to introduce King David’s direct speech, because they supplied one:

καὶ ἔκραξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων Υἱέ μου Αβεσσαλωμ, Αβεσσαλωμ υἱέ μου

And the king cried out in a loud voice saying [λέγων], “My son Absalom! Absalom my son!” (2 Kgdms. 19:5)

So it is possible that the author of Mark likewise supplied λέγων in L42, perhaps in compensation for the transferral of Luke’s φωνῇ μεγάλῃ in L41 to the shriek uttered at the demon’s departure in L55. With the pros and cons for Mark’s λέγων evenly balanced, we have decided to follow Luke’s lead for GR.

L43 ἔα τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (GR). In L43 Luke and Mark agree in everything apart from Luke’s inclusion of the exclamation ἔα (ea, “Ha!”).^[156] Since the author of Luke used ἔα nowhere else in his Gospel or in Acts, there is no particular reason for regarding it as redactional, unless one is committed to the assumption of Markan Priority.

The question “What [is] to us and to you?” is often referred to in commentaries as “biblical,”^[157] while examples in purely Greek sources are frequently ignored.^[158] Some scholars go so far as to identify a scriptural verse to which the possessed man’s question supposedly alludes,^[159] or characterize the question as a magical use of “holy words” to protect the demon from Jesus.^[160] In fact, the precise phrasing τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (ti hēmin kai soi, “What to us and to you?”) spoken by the possessed man never occurs in LXX, where we always find τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί/ὑμῖν (ti emoi kai soi/hūmin, “What to me and to you [sing./plur.]?”).^[161] And while the question usually expresses hostility, in LXX it is never spoken by demons or the demon-possessed, never occurs in an exorcism account, and never occurs as a magical formula. Neither does τί ἐμοὶ/ἡμῖν καὶ σοί/ὑμῖν occur in magical spells or exorcism formulae in non-scriptural texts. What the people in the synagogue would have heard when the man shouted “What to us and to you?” at Jesus was an assertion from one of their own that Jesus had no business interfering with them.

הָא מַה לָּנוּ וָלָךְ (HR). In LXX the interjection ἔα (ea, “Ha!”) is rare, occurring only in the book of Job either as the translation of אַף (’af, “also”; Job 15:16; 25:6) or אִם אָמְנָם (’im ’omnām, “if indeed”; Job 19:5), neither of which are suitable for HR. Delitzsch, in his translation of Luke 4:34, rendered ἔα as אֲהָהּ (’^ahāh, “Oh!”), an interjection that appears often enough in the Hebrew Scriptures but was not in use in Mishnaic Hebrew. Since we prefer to reconstruct direct speech in a style resembling Mishnaic Hebrew, we have reconstructed ἔα with the interjection הָא (hā’), which is phonetically similar to ἔα and has a meaning ranging from “So!” to “Look!” to “Woe!” as we see in the following examples:

והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה עבודה שדוחה את השבת ספק נפשות דוחה אותה שבת שעבודה דוחה אותה אינו דין שספק נפשות דוחה אותה הא למדת שספק נפשות דוחה את השבת

And behold! It is a matter of kal vahomer: If the divine service, which overrides [the restrictions of] the Sabbath, is overridden when a life is in doubt, then it is only right that the Sabbath, which is overridden by the divine service, should also be overridden for the sake of a life that is in doubt. So [הָא]! You have learned that a life in doubt overrides [the restrictions of] the Sabbath. (t. Shab. 15:16; Vienna MS)

בו ביום עמד יהודה גר עמוני לפניהם בבית המדרש אמר להן מה אני לבוא בקהל אמר לו רבן גמליאל אסור אתה אמר לו ר′ יהשע מותר אתה אמר לו רבן גמליאל הא כת′ לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל י″י

On a certain day Judah the Ammonite proselyte stood before them in the Bet Midrash. He said to them, “May I join the congregation?” Rabban Gamliel said to him, “You are forbidden.” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, “You are permitted.” Rabban Gamliel said to him, “Look [הָא]! It is written, An Ammonite and a Moabite may not join the LORD’s assembly [Deut. 23:4].” (t. Yad. 2:17)

וכשמת אמרו עליו הא עניו הא חסיד תלמידו של עזרא

And when he [i.e., Hillel the Elder—DNB and JNT] died, they said concerning him, “Woe [הָא] to the humble one! Woe [הָא] to the pious one, Ezra’s disciple!” (t. Sot. 13:3; cf. t. Sot. 13:4)

We have already noted that the question τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (“What have we do to with you?”) is perfectly good Greek, but it readily reverts to Hebrew as מַה לָּנוּ וָלָךְ (mah lānū vālāch, “What have we to do with you?”), even though this precise formulation with the first-person plural is not to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. In addition to מַה לִּי וָלָךְ (mah li vālāch, “What have I to do with you [sing.]?”; Judg. 11:12; 1 Kgs. 17:18; 2 Kgs. 3:13; 2 Chr. 35:21) and מַה לִּי וְלָכֶם (mah li v^elāchem, “What have I to do with you [plur.]?”; 2 Sam. 16:10; 19:23), we also find formulations such as מַה לָּכֶם וְלַיי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (mah lāchem v^ela’donāi ’^elohē yisrā’ēl, “What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel?”; Josh. 22:24) and מַה לְּךָ וּלְשָׁלוֹם (mah l^echā ūl^eshālōm, “What have you to do with peace?”; 2 Kgs. 9:18, 19). These questions may express hostility and contempt, but they are not magical incantations.

Regarding the pointing of וָלָךְ (vālāch, “and to you”), we have adopted MT’s vocalization rather than change it to וּלְךָ (ūl^echā). We find similar vocalization in the famous passage in Pirke Avot that classifies four types of attitudes toward one’s possessions:

אַרְבַּע מִידּוֹת בְּאָדָם הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלָּךְ ^זוֹ מִידָּה בֵינוֹנִית וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְ′ ^זוֹ מִידַּת סְדוֹם שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ ^{וְשֶׁלָּךְ שְׁלַּךְ} חָסִיד וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי ^{וְשֶׁלִּי שְׁלִּי} רָשָׁע

There are four types of person: The one who says, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours [וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלָּךְ].”—This is the average type, but there are those who say this is the type of Sodom. “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine [שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי].”—This is an ignorant person. “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours [שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלָּךְ שְׁלַּךְ].”—This is a Hasid. And, “What is yours is mine [שֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי], and what is mine is mine.”—This is a wicked person. (m. Avot 5:10; Kaufmann MS)

The pointing in printed editions is similar:

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּאָדָם הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ זוֹ מִדָּה בֵינוֹנִית וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים זוּ מִדַּת סְדוֹם שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שְׁלָּךְ חָסִיד שֶׁלִּי שְׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי רָשָׁע

There are four types of person: The one who says, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours [וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ].”—This is the average type, but there are those who say this is the type of Sodom. “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine [שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי].”—This is an ignorant person. “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours [שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שְׁלָּךְ].”—This is a Hasid. And, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine.”—This is a wicked person. (m. Avot 5:10 [ed. Blackman, 4:531])

Despite the minor variations, what remains consistent is that when “what is yours” is in the final position it is always pointed as שְׁלָּךְ (sh^elāch) or שְׁלַּךְ (sh^elach). In the question “What have we to do with you?” ולך occupies an analogous position.

L44 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ (GR). In L44 Mark and Luke are in complete agreement. Their agreement is somewhat surprising, however, on account of the use of the adjective Ναζαρηνός (Nazarēnos, “of Nazara”). Although Ναζαρηνός occurs more frequently in Mark (4xx) than in Luke (2xx),^[162] the use of Ναζαρηνός actually fits better in the Lukan narrative than in Mark’s because Luke had, in the previous pericope, referred to Jesus’ town of origin by the unusual form Ναζαρά (Nazara), from which the adjective Ναζαρηνός apparently derives.^[163] The rare form Ναζαρά does not occur in Mark’s Gospel. On the sole occasion when Mark names the city of Jesus’ origin, the name is given as Ναζαρέτ (Nazaret; Mark 1:9). Thus, whereas the adjective Ναζαρηνός is perfectly at home in its Lukan context, it stands out in Mark. From the perspective of Lindsey’s hypothesis we would characterize Ναζαρηνός in Mark 1:24 as a verbal relic, which the author of Mark turned into a stereotype.

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

There are two main options for reconstructing Ἰησοῦς (ὁ) Ναζαρηνός (“Jesus of Nazara,” “Jesus the Nazarene”) in Hebrew. These are 1) personal name + definite article + adjectival form of toponym (analogous to יוֹסֵה הַגְּלִילִי [yōsēh hag^elili, “Yose the Galilean”]) or 2) personal name + אִישׁ + toponym (analogous to אַנְטִיגְנַס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ [’anṭig^enas ’ish sōchō, “Antigonos, man of Socho”]). Delitzsch and Lindsey^[108] preferred the former option when they translated Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ (Iēsou Nazarēne) in Mark 1:24 as יֵשׁוּעַ הַנָּצְרִי (yēshūa‘ hanotzri). The epithet נָצְרִי (notzri) or נוֹצְרִי (nōtz^eri) is applied to Jesus (יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי) in rabbinic sources (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). The difficulty with this reconstruction is that it is not certain that נוֹצְרִי derives from the name Nazareth. In addition, reconstructing Ναζαρηνός with נוֹצְרִי does little to explain why Ναζαρηνός apparently derives from Ναζαρά (Nazara) rather than Ναζαρέθ (Nazareth) or Ναζαρέτ (Nazaret). We have therefore preferred to reconstruct Ἰησοῦς Ναζαρηνός as יֵשׁוּעַ אִישׁ נָצְרָה (yēshūa‘ ’ish nātz^erāh, “Jesus, man of Natzerah”). This reconstruction is based on the supposition that Ναζαρά is not merely a variant Greek spelling of Ναζαρέθ/Ναζαρέτ (= נָצְרַת [nātz^erat]) but represents an alternate form of the name Nazareth: נָצְרָה (nātz^erāh). Perhaps the two forms of the name represent Judean versus Galilean pronunciations. Or perhaps the variants simply existed side by side. In any case, a first-century town going by two variants of a name would not be unprecedented. Two variants of Bethsaida’s name are found in the Gospels: Βηθσαϊδά (Bēthsaida), probably representing בֵּית צַיְדָה (bēt tzaydāh), and Βηθσαϊδάν (Bēthsaidan), probably representing בֵּית צַיְדָן (bēt tzaydān).^[164] Not only does our reconstruction take the derivation of Ναζαρηνός from Ναζαρά into account, it also fits the dynamics of the confrontation between Jesus and the incognito demon. By referring to Jesus as a “man of Nazara,” the demon speaking through the possessed man emphasized that Jesus was not a “man of Capernaum” and therefore had no right to interfere in their community.

L45 ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς (GR). Since there is no disagreement between Luke and Mark as to the wording of L45, and since their wording reverts easily to Hebrew, we have accepted their wording for GR.

Scholars differ over whether ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς (ēlthes apolesai hēmas) should be read as a question (“Have you come to destroy us?”) or as a statement (“You have come to destroy us!”). How the sentence is read need not necessarily be the same in each Gospel.^[165] The author of Mark liked questions posed in rapid succession without the interlocutor having an opportunity to answer between them.^[166] So the author of Mark probably intended ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς as a question. The sentence in Luke could be read either way, but the demon’s hostility toward Jesus may favor a forceful assertion over an inquiry.

בָּאתָ לְאַבֵּד אֹתָנוּ (HR). On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing ἀπολλύειν (apollūein, “to destroy”) with אִבֵּד (’ibēd, “destroy”), see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L21.

L46 οἶδά σε τίς εἶ (GR). Once more, the total verbal agreement between Luke and Mark in L46 and the relative ease with which their wording reverts to Hebrew recommend adopting their wording for GR.

יְדַעְתִּיךָ מָה אַתָּה (HR). On reconstructing εἰδεῖν (eidein, “to know”) with יָדַע (yāda‘, “know”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L20. There, too, we discuss instances of יָדַע in the perfect tense where we might have expected a participle indicating the present. Here the perfect is especially desirable because it allows us to affix the second-person singular pronominal suffix equivalent to the otherwise superfluous σε (se, “you”).^[167] An alternative to יָדַע is הִכִּיר (hikir, “know,” “recognize”), but we have preferred יָדַע because we do not find examples of הִכִּיר מִי or הִכִּיר מָה in early rabbinic sources, whereas examples of יָדַע מִי and יָדַע מָה are plentiful.

The interrogative pronoun τίς (tis, “who?” “what?”) could be reconstructed either with מִי (mi, “who?”) or מָה (māh, “what?”). We prefer מָה because it is unlikely that the members of the Capernaum synagogue shared the fascination so many Christians have with understanding the nature of Jesus’ person. Who Jesus was had already been answered when the possessed man identified him as “Jesus, the man of Nazareth.” But what Jesus was (Was he a good man? A charlatan? A cheat? A wizard? A Hasid?) would be of immediate concern to the people in attendance at the synagogue. Moreover, a declaration about what Jesus was would have greater credibility than a declaration about who Jesus was. The man in the synagogue might have learned something about Jesus’ character, but unless the man was able to look into the recesses of Jesus’ heart, how was he to know who Jesus was? To this question one might respond that the demon had supernatural knowledge about Jesus’ identity.^[168] That might very well be true, but the demon had carefully kept its presence concealed until now, and it would not have been to the demon’s advantage to reveal itself. Once the demon was recognized, no one in the community would wish to tolerate its presence. The demon’s strategy was to remain incognito. In the guise of a fellow community member the demon could continue to manipulate the people of Capernaum once they had rid themselves of Jesus. Revealing hidden knowledge “from behind the veil,” and thereby revealing its own identity, would not have served the demon’s purpose.

The demon’s scheme to retain its grip on the people of Capernaum accounts for the shift from the first-person plural (“What have you to do with us?” [L43]; “You have come to destroy us!” [L45]) to the first-person singular (“I know what you are!” [L46]). In L43 and L45 the demon, through the possessed man, presumed to speak on behalf of the community, insinuating that Jesus was not one of “us” and was a threat to “our” well-being. Beginning in L46 the demon begins to substantiate these claims by sharing information about Jesus that the people of Capernaum did not already know. Through the possessed man the demon was no longer speaking on their behalf but giving them information about Jesus that it hoped would turn them against him.^[169] 

L47 ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (GR). Both Mark and Luke agree on the wording of L47, and it seems likely that the author of Luke followed the wording of Anth.,^[170] so we have adopted their wording for GR. But it makes no sense for the demon to have revealed something so positive about Jesus. How could it have been in the demon’s interest to reveal Jesus’ special relationship to God? Everything the demon had said and done leading up to this revelation prepared the members of the synagogue to expect some accusation designed to discredit Jesus and to turn the people of Capernaum against him. Referring to Jesus as “the holy one of God” could only have the opposite effect. What is more, proclaiming Jesus to be “the holy one of God” is utterly jarring on the heels of the warning “You have come to destroy us!” How can we explain this? One solution would be to scrap the interpretation that the demon was attempting to retain its hold over the people of Capernaum by speaking on their behalf. But scrapping this interpretation leaves unresolved the problem of why the possessed man had no symptoms and why the people of Capernaum were unaware of having a possessed man in their midst. Another solution is that somewhere along the way someone sanitized the story by replacing the demon’s accusation with adulation. It is not at all difficult to imagine a pious scribe wishing to make the story more edifying for readers by deleting a slanderous accusation against Jesus and replacing it with some kind of confessional statement. But if this happened, two questions arise: 1) At what stage did it happen? and 2) Why choose “the holy one of God” as the replacement as opposed to some other option (e.g., “the Son of God”)?^[171] 

An answer to the second question may help us arrive at an answer to the first. If “the holy one of God” was not chosen entirely at random, it may be that “the holy one of God” was considered to be the opposite of what the demon had actually spoken. In other words, “the holy one of God” could be a euphemism for something nasty like “the abomination to God,” “the one condemned by God” or “the one cursed by God.” Euphemism is a phenomenon we encounter in the Hebrew Scriptures. It occurs rather famously in the book of Job where, after having suffered so many hardships, Job’s wife advises him to “bless God and die” (Job 2:9). Although the written text reads, בָּרֵךְ אֱלֹהִים (bārēch ’^elohim, “bless God”), the meaning is really “curse God,” in Hebrew קִלֵּל אֱלֹהִים (qilēl ’^elohim). Jewish scribes disliked writing “curse God” in the sacred text and therefore wrote “bless God” in its place.^[172] We could therefore imagine that the demon had originally denounced Jesus as “the cursed one of God” and that a scribe replaced this libel with something more palatable. In Greek “the cursed one of God” might be expressed as ὁ κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ (ho kekatēramenos hūpo theou, “the one cursed by God”) or as ὁ ἐπικατάρατος τοῦ θεοῦ (ho epikataratos tou theou, “the cursed one of God”) or the like. But the opposite of formulations such as these would most likely be ὁ εὐλογητὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho evlogētos tou theou, “the blessed one of God”) rather than ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (ho hagios tou theou, “the holy one of God”). Perhaps, therefore, the euphemism was already present in the Hebrew text from which the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua was made. A pious scribe could have replaced the demon’s words with a euphemism, or the euphemism may have been employed by the author of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua himself.

קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים / קְדוֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים (HR). We have proposed two Hebrew reconstructions in L47: the euphemism and the phrase we believe may have stood behind the euphemism. Even if the phrase behind the euphemism never occurred in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, it may be what the demon actually called Jesus. We begin with the euphemism that stands behind “the holy one of God.”

It is not at all difficult to revert ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ to Hebrew as קְדוֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים (q^edōsh ’^elohim, “the holy one of God”). The analogous phrase ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ισραηλ (ho hagios tou Israēl, “the holy one of Israel”) frequently occurs in LXX as the translation of קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל (q^edōsh yisrā’ēl, “the holy one of Israel”).^[173] In any case, in LXX ἅγιος (hagios, “holy”) often occurs as the translation of the adjective קָדוֹשׁ (qādōsh, “holy”),^[174] and more importantly, the LXX translators rendered the vast majority of instances of קָדוֹשׁ as ἅγιος.^[175] And there can be no doubt that θεός (theos, “god”) should be reconstructed with אֱלֹהִים (’^elohim, “God”).^[176] Nevertheless, it makes little sense for the demon, in its attempt to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the synagogue worshippers, to acclaim him as the holy one of God. We therefore turn next to what might have stood behind the euphemism.

As we noted, there was an established tradition of replacing [no_word_wrap]ק-ל-ל[/no_word_wrap] (“curse”) with a euphemism when the curse was directed at God.^[177] Could [no_word_wrap]ק-ל-ל[/no_word_wrap] have been behind the euphemism in Teaching in Kefar Nahum? We think the answer is “Yes.” Instead of acclaiming Jesus as “the holy one of God,” the demon may have denounced Jesus as “one cursed by God.” In Hebrew this could be expressed as קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים (qillat ’^elohim, lit. “curse of God”). The phrase קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים is significant because it only occurs once in Scripture (Deut. 21:23), where it refers to a person whose corpse is suspended from a tree after having been executed for committing a serious transgression.

Scripture strictly curtails the practice of publicly displaying the corpse of the condemned. Even if the sin was so heinous as to merit such postmortem humiliation, the body was to be buried on the same day as the execution because, Scripture reasons, “the one who is hanged is cursed of God,”^[178] or “the one who is hanged is a reproach to God.”^[179] The phrase קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים is somewhat ambiguous. Also unclear is which condemned persons should have their corpses suspended from a tree. Scripture does not make this explicit, but since the case of the stubborn and rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21) appears just prior to the verses concerning the hanging of a corpse (Deut. 21:22-23), some readers of Scripture probably surmised that it applied to him. The sins of the rebellious son are therefore pertinent: not only is he described as stubborn and rebellious, he is also disobedient, a glutton and a drunkard (Deut. 21:20). On another occasion Jesus would note that some accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard (Matt. 11:19 ∥ Luke 7:34).^[180] The actions to be taken against the stubborn and rebellious son are also pertinent. The entire community (כָּל אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ [kol ’anshē ‘irō, “all the people of his city”]) was to unite against him and stone him to death (Deut. 21:21). So, by calling Jesus קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים (“cursed of God” or “reproach to God”), the demon could have insinuated that Jesus ought to receive the same treatment from the people of Capernaum as the people of Nazareth mete out to him in Luke 4:29, where taking Jesus out of the city to the top of the hill appears to be the preliminary to stoning.

Because קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים only occurs once in Scripture it would have called to mind the broader context in which it appears. Calling Jesus קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים would have suggested to the people in the synagogue that Jesus was a subversive individual who endangered the welfare of the entire community. It implied that the community should unite against Jesus, and even if they did not go so far as to stone him, they should at least run him out of town. Thus, calling Jesus קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים would have been an effective way for the demon to slander Jesus and to rally the people of Capernaum against him.

It is even possible that in using the term קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים the demon intended a double entendre. Demons were believed to have access to arcane knowledge from “behind the veil” (i.e., from the heavenly realm),^[181] including knowledge of impending disasters. So perhaps by calling him קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים the demon hinted at its knowledge that Jesus was destined to be crucified: כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי (ki qillat ’^elohim tālūy, “for the hanged person is cursed by God” or “a reproach to God”). By the first century תָּלוּי (tālūy, “hanged”) also meant “crucified” (cf. 4QpNah [4Q169] 3 I, 6-8). The members of the Capernaum synagogue would not have understood this aspect of קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים, but perhaps Jesus, who predicted his own martyrdom, could appreciate the demon’s subtle message. In that case, perhaps the demon did attempt to menace Jesus, not with a magical incantation but with a daunting premonition of his death.

In the other instances of euphemism we have noted, [no_word_wrap]ק-ל-ל[/no_word_wrap] is replaced with [no_word_wrap]ב-ר-כ[/no_word_wrap]. Why, then, would the author of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua or a later copyist have replaced קִלְלַת (“curse of”) with קְדוֹשׁ (“holy one of”) and not בְּרוּךְ (b^erūch, “blessed of”)? To this question we can give no certain answer. Perhaps in an unpointed text בְּרוּךְ אֱלֹהִים (b^erūch ’^elohim, “blessed one of God”) was too easily confused with בָּרוּךְ אֱלֹהִים (bārūch ’^elohim, “Blessed be God!”), a blessing found in the Psalms (Psa. 66:20; 68:36), in all likelihood in the book of Tobit (Tob. 13:1 = 4QTob^e [4Q200] 6 I, 5) and also in rabbinic sources (y. Meg. 3:2 [24a]; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A §3 [ed. Schechter, 17]).

L48-49 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς λέγων (GR). Once more Mark and Luke are in complete verbal agreement in L48-49. We have accepted all of their wording in these lines for GR with the exception of the definite article ὁ (ho, “the”) attached to Jesus’ name, which the author of Luke may have introduced as a slight stylistic improvement. Otherwise, Luke’s wording, which the author of Mark copied verbatim, reverts easily to Hebrew.

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

The Greek pronoun αὐτῷ (avtō) could be either masculine or neuter, so it is not clear whether Jesus rebuked the possessed man (masculine) or the impure spirit (neuter), although the command “Go out from him!” (L51) favors the latter. This ambiguity would not have been present in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, since Hebrew has no neuter. So a certain amount of clarity was lost in translation. Since it is more likely that Jesus rebuked the impure spirit (feminine), we have reconstructed the pronoun as בָּהּ (bāh).

On reconstructing Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) as יֵשׁוּעַ (yēshūa‘, “Jesus”), see above, Comment to L44.

L50-51 φιμώθητι ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ (GR). Mark and Luke agree on the wording of Jesus’ commands except with regard to the preposition following ἔξελθε (exelthe, “Go out!”). Whereas Luke has ἀπό (apo, “from”), the author of Mark used the preposition ἐκ (ek, “out of”), which appears to be a pedantic correction of Luke’s command. We have adopted all of Luke’s wording for GR except for the conjunction καί (kai, “and”), which we suspect the author of Luke inserted between the two imperatives as a stylistic improvement, and which the author of Mark simply took over from Luke.

Some scholars suggest that by using the verb φιμοῦν (fimoun, “to muzzle,” “to silence”) the Gospel writers adopted the vocabulary of Hellenistic spells in which this verb features in commands to silence or immobilize demons.^[182] Perhaps. But φιμοῦν is also used in non-magical contexts for the silencing of human beings. It occurs in Susanna for the silencing of Susanna’s false accusers (Sus. 61), it occurs in the Gospel of Matthew for Jesus’ silencing of the Sadducees (Matt. 22:34), Josephus used this verb for Herod’s being silenced on account of his affection for Mariamme (J.W. 1:438), and in Lucian’s Passing of Peregrinus φιμοῦν is used for the silencing of Proteus’ enemies (Passing of Peregrinus §15). Given the use of φιμοῦν for the silencing of persons, one wonders whether it is really necessary to resort to late magical texts to explain the appearance of this verb in Teaching in Kefar Nahum. One also wonders whether the Gospel writers were so practiced in the magical arts that they were able to employ its jargon or whether the readers of the Gospels were so adept at casting spells that they would recognize this specialized vocabulary.

שִׁתְקִי צְאִי מִמֶּנּוּ (HR). In LXX the only instance where φιμοῦν (“to muzzle,” “to silence”) occurs as the translation of a Hebrew verb is in Deut. 25:4.^[183] There φιμοῦν occurs as the translation of חָסַם (ḥāsam, “muzzle”). Since חָסַם did not mean “to silence,” it is not a suitable option for HR.^[184] Neither are imperatives from the verbal roots [no_word_wrap]שׁ-ק-ט[/no_word_wrap] (“quiet,” “at rest”) or [no_word_wrap]א-ל-מ[/no_word_wrap] (“mute”)^[185] suitable for HR, since examples of these are lacking in rabbinic sources. We do, however, find examples of שָׁתַק (shātaq, “be quiet,” “be silent”) in the imperative, for instance:

היה מקריב שתי הלחם ונטמאו בידו אומרין לו הוי פקח ושתוק

If he was offering the Two Loaves and they became impure in his hand, they say to him, “Be prudent and be silent [וּשְׁתוֹק]!” (t. Men. 3:4; cf. t. Men. 3:5, 6, 7)

בן חורין קטן שיש לו עבד זקן אינו אומר לו שתוק

Does not a freeborn minor who has an elderly slave say to him, “Be silent [שְׁתוֹק]!”? (Yalkut Shim‘oni 2 §22)

באזני ה′ מלמד שהיו ישראל מתכוונים להשמיע את המקום היה ר′ שמעון אומר משל למה הדבר דומה לאחד שהיה מקלל את המלך היה המלך עובר אמרו לו שתוק שלא ישמע המלך אמר להם מי יאמר לכם שלא היהת כוונתי כי אם להשמיעו אף ישראל מתכוונים להשמיע למקום

[And the people complained bitterly] in the ears of the LORD [Num. 11:1]. This teaches that Israel intended to make the Omnipresent One hear. Rabbi Shimon would tell a parable. “To what may the matter be compared? To one who was cursing the king. The king was passing by, so they said to him, ‘Be silent [שְׁתוֹק] so that the king will not hear!’ He said to them, ‘Who told you that it was not my intention to make him hear?’ Also Israel intended to make the Omnipresent One hear.” (Sifre Num. §85 [ed. Horowitz, 85])

The example above is especially salient since it involves the silencing of someone in the act of cursing, which is similar to our reconstruction, in which Jesus silences the demon when it calls him a “curse of God.”

On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L98. The Babylonian Talmud reports an occasion on which Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai commanded a male demon to depart with the word צֵא (tzē’, “Go out!”; b. Meil. 17b).^[186] 

L52 καὶ ῥῖψαν αὐτὸν (GR). Finally, after a relatively lengthy stretch of almost complete verbal agreement that began in L43, the Lukan and Markan versions begin to part ways. Whereas Luke 4:35 describes the demon throwing down the possessed man, Mark 1:26 describes the demon as tearing the possessed man or convulsing him. Mark’s use of the verb σπαράσσειν (sparassein) is atypical. Usually σπαράσσειν means “to tear” or “to attack” or even “to make sick” rather than “to convulse.”^[187] Did the author of Mark think that the possessed man physically vomited out the demon?^[188] 

The only other instances of σπαράσσειν in the Synoptic Gospels occur in the Lukan and Markan versions of Boy Delivered from Demon (Mark 9:26; Luke 9:39). It is possible that the author of Mark borrowed σπαράσσειν from that story to use in Teaching in Kefar Nahum. In any case, we have favored Luke’s verb, ῥιπτεῖν (hriptein, “to throw”), for GR.

וַיַּשְׁלִכֵהוּ (HR). In LXX the verb ῥιπτεῖν usually occurs as the translation of הִשְׁלִיךְ (hishlich, “throw,” “cast”).^[189] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of הִשְׁלִיךְ as ῥιπτεῖν or compounds thereof.^[190] Nevertheless, it is tempting to reconstruct ῥιπτεῖν with the verb כָּפָה (kāfāh; var. כָּפָא [kāfā’]), which can mean both “coerce” and “flip over.”^[191] Significantly, in rabbinic sources כָּפָה is used of the action of demons,^[192] and, according to Jastrow, it is used especially of epileptic seizures.^[193] The attractiveness of כָּפָה notwithstanding, we have adopted הִשְׁלִיךְ for HR because we generally prefer to reconstruct narrative in a biblicizing style of Hebrew.

L53 τὸ δαιμόνιον (GR). In L53 where Luke speaks of a demon Mark continues to speak of an impure spirit. Since the author of Luke was willing to refer to impure spirits in both his Gospel and Acts, there is no reason to assume that he would have wished to avoid the term here. It is rather the author of Mark who was attracted to the term “impure spirit” and occasionally used it as a replacement for “demon.” We observe a similar variation between “demon” and “impure spirit” in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory.

הַשֵּׁד (HR). On reconstructing δαιμόνιον (daimonion, “demon”) with שֵׁד (shēd, “demon”), see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L20.

L54 εἰς τὸ μέσον (GR). Having changed Luke’s “throwing” to “convulsed,” the author of Mark was able to omit εἰς τὸ μέσον (eis to meson, “into the middle”), which indicated the direction in which the possessed man was thrown. Since we believe the author of Luke adhered more closely to Anth.’s description of the demon’s exit than did Mark, we have adopted εἰς τὸ μέσον for GR.

אֶל תּוֹכָם (HR). On reconstructing μεσός (mesos, “middle,” “among”) with תָּוֶךְ (tāvech, “middle,” “midst”), see “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock among Wolves,” Comment to L50. In MT, when תָּוֶךְ is used in conjunction with הִשְׁלִיךְ (“throw,” “cast”), the verb we used for HR in L52, the preposition is always אֶל (’el, “to,” “unto”).^[194] Since we prefer to reconstruct narrative in a biblicizing style of Hebrew, we see no reason to break with MT’s precedent.

To תָּוֶךְ we have added the third-person plural pronominal suffix because Hebrew syntax demands it. It was not standard practice for the LXX translators to omit an equivalent to the pronominal suffix attached to תָּוֶךְ, but neither was it totally unheard of.^[195] 

L55 καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Mark 1:26). As we discussed above in Comment to L41, we believe it was the author of Mark who transposed the “big voice” from the beginning of Jesus’ encounter with the demon to the end. Here we note that Mark’s use of φωνείν + φωνὴ μεγάλη (fōnein + fōnē megalē, “to voice + big voice”) is not particularly Hebraic, inasmuch as Hebrew does not have a verb based on the same root as the noun for “voice,” which is קוֹל (qōl).

Note, too, that agreement from all three synoptic evangelists to use the verb φωνείν is limited to references to the rooster’s crowing in the passion narratives (Matt. 26:34 ∥ Mark 14:30 ∥ Luke 22:34; Matt. 26:74 ∥ Mark 14:72 ∥ Luke 22:60; Matt. 26:75 ∥ Mark 14:72 ∥ Luke 22:61). Otherwise, we find that the author of Matthew was sometimes willing to accept φωνείν from Mark,^[196] but there are no instances in Triple Tradition (TT) pericopae of Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to use φωνείν, neither are there instances of Lukan-Matthean agreement to use φωνείν in Double Tradition (DT) pericopae that would secure φωνείν’s place in Anth.

Our conclusion is that the phrase καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (kai fōnēsan fōnē megalē, “and voicing a big voice”) in L55 is the product of Markan redaction.

Some scholars speculate that the author of Mark understood the “big voice” as the demon’s death cry.^[197] We think this explanation of the cry is unlikely to be correct, since according to Jesus exorcised demons did not die but wandered the earth seeking a new host (Matt. 12:43-45 ∥ Luke 11:24-26). Indeed, given the ancient Jewish belief that the demons were the spirits of the giants that were drowned in the great flood, killing a demon seems impossible.^[198] Only if we assume that the author of Mark did not share these ancient beliefs and was unaware of Jesus’ saying about wandering demons can we suppose that the author of Mark believed that by expelling the demon Jesus succeeded in killing it.

L56 ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ (GR). In L56 Mark and Luke are in agreement except regarding the preposition. Whereas Luke has ἀπό (apo, “from”), Mark has ἐκ (ek, “out of”). This is the same pedantic correction of Luke’s wording we observed in L51.

וַיֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ (HR). On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see above, Comment to L50-51.

L57 μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν (GR). Many scholars regard Luke’s notice that no harm befell the formerly possessed man when the demon departed as an editorial insertion.^[199] While this may be the case, we note both that Luke’s wording in L57 reverts relatively easily to Hebrew and that the vocabulary the author of Luke employed in L57 is not especially Lukan.^[200] Moreover, the notice that no harm came to the formerly possessed man on account of the demon’s violent exit^[201] is reminiscent of Jesus’ promise to the apostles in Return of the Twelve that they would trample on demonic forces and nothing would be able to harm them (Luke 10:19). Since we believe the author of Luke copied that saying from Anth., we see no reason why the notice in L57 could not have been present in the same source. We have therefore cautiously accepted Luke’s wording in L57 for GR.

וְלֹא הִזִּיקוֹ (HR). In LXX the verb βλάπτειν (blaptein, “to harm”) is quite rare, and the instances that do occur supply no suitable options for HR. Oftentimes when we encounter Greek vocabulary in the Gospels with no Biblical Hebrew equivalent, a Mishnaic Hebrew equivalent is handy. This is the case with the verb הִזִּיק (hiziq, “harm,” “damage”), which does not occur in MT but is abundant in the Mishnah and later rabbinic sources. Below are a few examples of the phrase לֹא הִזִּיק (“did not harm”):

עֲשָׂרָה נִיסִים נֶעֱשׂוּ בְּבֵית הַמּקְדָּשׁ…לֹא הִיזִּיק נָחָשׁ וְעַקְרָב בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ

Ten miracles occurred in the Temple: …neither snake nor scorpion did harm [לֹא הִיזִּיק] in Jerusalem…. (m. Avot 5:5)

כל זמן שהיה יהושע והזקנים קיימין…לא הזיקו אומות את ישראל

All the time that Joshua and the elders existed…the Gentiles did not harm [לֹא הִזִּיקוּ] Israel…. (t. Sot. 11:10; Vienna MS)

לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם רוֹכֵב עָלָיו רָאָה אֶת הַתִּינוֹק בַּשׁוּק קָפַץ עָלָיו וְלֹא הִזִּיקוֹ

To what may the matter be compared? To a donkey that a person was riding. It saw a child in the market and jumped over it and did not harm him [וְלֹא הִזִּיקוֹ]. (Exod. Rab. 20:1 [ed. Merkin, 5:231])

The use of the verb הִזִּיק with reference to a demon is especially appropriate, since in rabbinic sources demons are sometimes referred to as מַזִּיקִין (maziqin, “harmers,” i.e., “harmful spirits”; cf., e.g., m. Avot 5:6). In other words, Jesus rendered the demon incapable of doing that which is most characteristic of demons, the harming of their victims.

L58-60 καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας (GR). Whereas in L58-60 Mark describes everyone’s marveling at what Jesus had done, the description of the people’s response in Luke is less clearly positive: “amazement” or “dread” comes over everyone. One wonders why the author of Luke would have changed the positive reaction in Mark to an ambiguous reaction. It is more plausible to suppose that the change went in the opposite direction: it was the author of Mark who improved Luke’s story by making the ambiguous reaction more clearly positive. In addition, Luke’s wording in L58-60, with its καὶ ἐγένετο structure, is highly Hebraic, and the use of the noun θάμβος (thambos, “shock,” “amazement,” “dread”) is not especially Lukan,^[202] two facts that support our conclusion that in L58-60 the author of Luke copied Anth. On the other hand, if we were to assume that the author of Luke had been copying Mark, it is hard to explain why he changed Mark’s ἅπας (hapas, “all,” “every”), an adjective he usually preferred,^[203] to πᾶς (pas, “all,” “every”). Thus for all these reasons we have accepted Luke’s wording in L58-60 for GR.

וַיְהִי פַּחַד עַל כֻּלָּם (HR). On reconstructing γίνεσθαι (ginesthai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L1.

In MT we find two examples similar to our reconstruction of dread coming upon everyone belonging to a certain group:

וַיְהִי פַּחַד יי עַל כָּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאֲרָצוֹת

And dread of the LORD came upon all the kingdoms of the lands…. (2 Chr. 17:10)

καὶ ἐγένετο ἔκστασις κυρίου ἐπὶ πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις τῆς γῆς

And dread of the Lord came upon all the kingdoms of the land…. (2 Chr. 17:10)

וַיְהִי פַּחַד אֱלֹהִים עַל כָּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאֲרָצוֹת

And dread of God came upon all the kingdoms of the lands…. (2 Chr. 20:29)

καὶ ἐγένετο ἔκστασις κυρίου ἐπὶ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς γῆς

And dread of the Lord came upon all the kingdoms of the land…. (2 Chr. 20:29)

In both of the examples above the LXX translators rendered פַּחַד (paḥad, “dread,” “horror”) as ἔκστασις (ekstasis, “perturbation,” “agitation”), but on one occasion the LXX translators did render פַּחַד as θάμβος:

אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ מִפַּחַד בַּלֵּילּוֹת

…each with his sword on his thigh on account of dread [מִפַּחַד] in the nights. (Song 3:8)

ἀνὴρ ῥομφαία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ μηρὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ θάμβους ἐν νυξίν

…a man with his sword on his thigh from dread [θάμβους] in the night. (Song 3:8)

On reconstructing πᾶς (pas, “all,” “every”) with כָּל (kol, “all,” “every”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L32.

L61-62 καὶ συνελάλησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους (GR). According to Mark, the people’s amazement gave way to intense discussion or argument^[204] —Vaticanus: ὥστε συνζητεῖν αὐτούς (hōste sūnzētein avtous, “so that they argued”); N-A: ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς (hōste sūzētein pros heavtous, “so that they argued with themselves”)—whereas in Luke the people simply speak to one another. Since the use of ὥστε + infinitive and the use of the verb συζητεῖν (sūzētein, “to argue”) are both hallmarks of Markan redaction,^[205] we believe Luke’s wording in L61-62 is closer to Anth.’s.

Nevertheless, Luke’s wording in L61-62 is probably not free from redaction either. We suspect that the imperfect tense of Luke’s verb συλλαλεῖν (sūllalein, “to speak together”) is a Lukan improvement of Anth.’s wording. It is also possible that Anth. had the simple verb λαλεῖν (lalein, “to speak”) instead of its compound συλλαλεῖν, but συλλαλεῖν only occurs three times in Luke (Luke 4:36; 9:30; 22:4) and once in Acts (Acts 25:12), so this verb cannot be characterized as especially Lukan. Moreover, the instance of συλλαλεῖν in Luke 9:30 occurs in a Hebraic καὶ ἰδού (kai idou, “And behold!”) clause, which the author of Luke is unlikely to have composed on his own. So while we have changed Luke’s imperfect συνελάλουν (sūnelaloun, “they were speaking together”) to the aorist συνελάλησαν (sūnelalēsan, “they spoke together”), we have refrained from replacing συλλαλεῖν with λαλεῖν in GR.

The pronoun ἀλλήλων (allēlōn, “one another”) might also be suspect, since other instances of ἀλλήλων in Luke’s Gospel have been deemed to be redactional.^[206] However, we have cautiously retained this pronoun in GR for want of a more Hebraic alternative.

וַיְדַבְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (HR). In LXX the verb συλλαλεῖν is quite rare,^[207] but of the three instances where it occurs as the equivalent of a Hebrew verb (Exod. 34:35; 3 Kgdms. 12:14 [Alexandrinus]; Prov. 6:22), the first two are translations of דִּבֵּר (dibēr, “speak”). The simple verb λαλεῖν, of which συλλαλεῖν is a compound, is the standard LXX translation of דִּבֵּר.^[208] 

The phrase πρὸς ἀλλήλους (pros allēlous, “to one another”) never occurs in LXX as the translation of אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (’ish ’el rē‘ēhū, “each to his neighbor”), the reconstruction we have adopted, but on one occasion πρὸς ἀλλήλους does occur as the translation of the syntactically similar אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו (’ish ’el ’āḥiv, “each to his brother”):

וַיֶּחֶרְדוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו לֵאמֹר מַה־זֹּאת עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לָנוּ

And they trembled, each toward his brother [אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו], saying, “What is this God has done to us?” (Gen. 42:28)

καὶ ἐταράχθησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες τί τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν

And they were troubled toward one another [πρὸς ἀλλήλους], saying, “What is this God has done to us?” (Gen. 42:28)

Although the LXX translators usually rendered אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ as ἀνὴρ πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ (anēr pros ton plēsion avtou, “a man to his neighbor”)^[209] or ἕκαστος πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ (hekastos pros ton plēsion avtou, “each to his neighbor”),^[210] πρὸς ἀλλήλους could nevertheless be considered a non-Septuagintal equivalent of אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ. Note that Delitzsch^[211] and Lindsey^[212] translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ on several occasions.

In MT the more common phrase is אָמַר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (’āmar ’ish ’el rē‘ēhū, “said each to his neighbor”), but דִּבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (dibēr ’ish ’el rē‘ēhū, “spoke each to his neighbor”) occurs in Exod. 33:11.

L63 λέγοντες (GR). Mark agrees with Luke in using a third-person plural participial form of λέγειν. The only difference between them is case (Mark: accusative; Luke: nominative), due to their differently formulated sentences. Since the inclusion of the participle is Hebraic, we have adopted Luke’s participle in L63 for GR.

לֵאמֹר (HR). The combination of דִּבֵּר (“speak”) followed by לֵאמֹר (lē’mor, “saying”) is prevalent in MT. The following examples will suffice to establish our reconstruction:

וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֶל אַנְשֵׁי עִירָם לֵאמֹר

And they spoke [וַיְדַבְּרוּ] to the people of their city, saying [לֵאמֹר]…. (Gen. 34:20)

καὶ ἐλάλησαν πρὸς τοὺς ἄνδρας τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν λέγοντες

And they spoke to the men of their city, saying [λέγοντες]…. (Gen. 34:20)

וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר

And the sons of Joseph spoke [וַיְדַבְּרוּ] with Joshua, saying [לֵאמֹר]…. (Josh. 17:14)

ἀντεῖπαν δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ Ιωσηφ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες

But the sons of Joseph responded to Joshua, saying [λέγοντες]…. (Josh. 17:14)

וַיְדַבְּרוּ אִתָּם לֵאמֹר

And they spoke [וַיְדַבְּרוּ] with them, saying [לֵאמֹר]…. (Josh. 22:15)

καὶ ἐλάλησαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγοντες

And they spoke to them, saying [λέγοντες]…. (Josh. 22:15)

וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלֶיהָ לֵאמֹר

And they spoke [וַיְדַבְּרוּ] to her, saying [לֵאמֹר]…. (1 Sam. 25:40)

καὶ ἐλάλησαν αὐτῇ λέγοντες

And they spoke to her, saying [λέγοντες]…. (1 Kgdms. 25:40)

L64 τί ἐστιν τοῦτο (Mark 1:27). As Flusser noted, Mark’s question, τί ἐστιν τοῦτο (ti estin touto, “What is this?”), captures the original intention of τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (tis ho logos houtos, “What is this thing?”) in Luke 4:36 fairly accurately.^[213] It is probable, however, that Mark’s greater accuracy is merely a happy accident. As we discussed elsewhere, it appears that the author of Mark reformulated the people’s question in Teaching in Kefar Nahum on the basis of the disciples’ question in Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm.^[214] In Luke’s version of Quieting a Storm the disciples ask:

τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ;

Who, then, is this [τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν], that even the winds he commands and the water, and they listen to him? (Luke 8:25)

Accordingly, in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum the synagogue worshippers ask:

τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ̓ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασιν τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

What is this [τί ἐστιν τοῦτο]? A new teaching with authority! Even the impure spirits he commands, and they listen to him! (Mark 1:27)

By creating an echo between the people’s question in Teaching in Kefar Nahum and the disciples’ question in Quieting a Storm, the author of Mark skillfully sharpened his readers’ focus on the issue of Jesus’ identity. Beginning with “What is this?” Mark’s readers are prepared to answer the question “Who is this?” which is the central concern of Mark’s Gospel.

τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (GR). Although the question τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (tis ho logos houtos, “What is this logos?”) was intended to be understood as “What is this thing?” the author of Luke misunderstood the question as referring to a powerful word Jesus had spoken to drive out the demon.^[215] It was this misunderstanding that led him to create the false analogy between Jesus’ authoritative word of command in Luke 4:36 and the praise of Jesus’ teaching in Luke 4:32 on account of his “word” being spoken “in authority.” Luke’s misunderstanding could have been avoided if the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua had not rendered the people’s question, מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה (māh hadāvār hazeh, “What is this thing?”), quite so literally. A better translation might have been τί τοῦτο (ti touto, “What is this?”), which is how the LXX translators rendered מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה in Exod. 18:14.

מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה (HR). On reconstructing λόγος (logos, “word,” “thing”) with דָּבָר (dāvār, “word,” “thing”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L24.

The LXX translators never rendered the question מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה as τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος, but they did render it as τί τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο (ti to hrēma touto, “What is this word?”), which is synonymous.^[216] The LXX translators did, however, render the nearly identical question מָה הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה (māh hadāvār hārā‘ hazeh, “What is this evil thing?”) as τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὁ πονηρός (tis ho logos houtos ho ponēros, “What is this evil word?”) in the following verse:

וָאָרִיבָה אֵת חֹרֵי יְהוּדָה וָאֹמְרָה לָהֶם מָה־הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים וּמְחַלְּלִים אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת

And I contended with the nobles of Judah, and I said to them, “What is this evil thing that you are doing? And you are profaning the Sabbath day!” (Neh. 13:17)

καὶ ἐμαχεσάμην τοῖς υἱοῖς Ιουδα τοῖς ἐλευθέροις καὶ εἶπα αὐτοῖς τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὁ πονηρός, ὃν ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε καὶ βεβηλοῦτε τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου;

And I contended with the freeborn sons of Judah, and I said to them, “What is this evil word that you do? And you profane the day of the Sabbath!” (2 Esd. 23:17)

The question מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה also appears in rabbinic sources. For instance, it was posed to the first-century sage Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai:

הוא היה אומר פלוני אומן ואין כלי אומנותו בידו. פלוני כלי אומנותו בידו ואינו אומן. פלוני אומן וכלי אומנותו בידו. אמרו לו רבי מה הדבר הזה. אמר להם פלוני חכם ואין בידו מעשים הרי זה אומן ואין כלי אומנותו בידו. פלוני יש בידו מעשים טובים ואינו חכם הרי זה כלי אומנותו בידו ואינו אומן. פלוני חכם ויש בידו מעשים טובים הרי זה אומן וכלי אומנותו בידו:‏

He [i.e., Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai—DNB and JNT] would say, “A certain artisan, but he has no vessel of his making in his hand. A certain person has a vessel of his making in his hand, but he is not an artisan. A certain artisan has a vessel of his making in his hand.” They said to him, “Rabbi, what is this thing [מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה]?” He said to them, “A certain sage has no deeds to his name—Behold! This is the artisan who has no vessel of his making in his hand. A certain person has good deeds to his name, but he is not a sage—Behold! This is one who has a vessel of his making in his hand but is not an artisan. A certain sage has good deeds to his name—Behold! This is the artisan who has a vessel of his making in his hand.” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, §31 [ed. Schechter, 67])

L65 διδαχὴ καινὴ (Mark 1:27). As scholars have noted, Mark’s reference at this point in the narrative to Jesus’ “new teaching” is a non sequitur.^[217] Even in Mark’s version of the story, Jesus had already concluded his teaching when the possessed man interrupted the synagogue proceedings. How the author of Mark came to import the concept of Jesus’ teaching into the second half of the narrative was best described by Robert Lindsey: “Mark seems to have worked as follows: in Luke 4:32 he noted that didachē and logos were treated as synonymous. When he read in Luke 4:36, ‘What is this word…?’ Mark decided to replace logos with didachē.”^[218] 

As Fredriksen noted, the author of Mark’s characterization of Jesus’ teaching as “new” has “a polemical edge.”^[219] Jesus’ new teaching is contrasted with the old Judaism of the scribes, with the implication that the latter has been rendered obsolete with the coming of Jesus.

L66 κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν (Mark 1:27). According to Mark, Jesus’ teaching was not merely new, it was “according to authority.”^[220] This characterization of Jesus’ teaching agrees with what the author of Mark had the people in the synagogue say previously, that Jesus taught “as one having authority.” The implication is that Jesus’ “new teaching” was based on his personal authority. Since the “flashback” to Jesus’ teaching is a Markan attempt to unify Parts One and Two of the pericope, we have preferred Luke’s wording in L66 for GR.

ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει (GR). According to Luke, Jesus had both the authority and the power to command demons to depart. The power Luke 4:36 mentions is undoubtedly the power of the Holy Spirit, with which Jesus returned to the Galilee following his baptism and victory over Satan (Luke 4:14).

שֶׁבְּרָשׁוּת וּבְעֹז (HR). Note that we have reconstructed direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew (grammar: [no_word_wrap]-שֶׁ[/no_word_wrap] instead of אֲשֶׁר; vocabulary: רָשׁוּת), whereas we generally adopt a biblicizing style for narrative.

In LXX ἐξουσία (exousia, “authority”) never occurs as the translation of רָשׁוּת (rāshūt, “authority”), but this poses no serious challenge to our reconstruction^[221] since the noun רָשׁוּת belongs to the Mishnaic lexicon and therefore does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures. That רָשׁוּת was already current in the first century is proved by its appearance in various DSS manuscripts of the War Scroll (1QM XIV, 7; 4QM^a [4Q491] 1-3, I, 3; 8-10, I, 5). Since neither מֶמְשָׁלָה (memshālāh, “dominion”) nor שִׁלְטוֹן (shilṭōn, “ruler”) are suitable reconstructions, רָשׁוּת is the best option for HR.^[222] On reconstructing ἐξουσία with רָשׁוּת, see further Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L19.

On reconstructing δύναμις (dūnamis, “power”) with עֹז (‘oz, “power,” “might”), see Return to the Galil, Comment to L4.

L67-69 ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν (GR). In L67-69 we encounter another instance of inverted word order:

Since we attribute such inversions to the author of Mark’s redactional activity, we have accepted Luke’s wording for GR. While it is true that Mark’s noun→adjective (τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις [tois pnevmasi tois akathartois, “to the spirits the impure ones”]) word order is more Hebraic than Luke’s adjective→noun (τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν [tois akathartois pnevmasin, “to the impure spirits”]) order, we think Mark’s pseudo-Hebraic word order is a byproduct of his inversion. The agreement of the authors of Luke and Matthew to use the phrase ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα (akatharton pnevma, “impure spirit”) in the DT pericope Impure Spirit’s Return (Matt. 12:43 ∥ Luke 11:24) proves that the adjective-first order did occur in Anth. at least this once, and so could also have occurred in Anth.’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum.

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

On reconstructing πνεῦμα (pnevma, “wind,” “spirit”) with רוּחַ (rūaḥ, “wind,” “spirit”), see above, Comment to L38.

On reconstructing ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos, “impure”) with טֻמְאָה (ṭum’āh, “impurity”), see above, Comment to L39.

L70 καὶ ἐξέρχονται (GR). Whereas Luke describes the impure spirits’ going out at Jesus’ command, according to Mark Jesus commands the impure spirits and they listen to him. Mark’s wording in L70 is not difficult to revert to Hebrew, but we nevertheless regard it as redactional. As we noted above in Comment to L64, the author of Mark reformulated the people’s question in Teaching in Kefar Nahum in order to make it sound more like the disciples’ question in Quieting a Storm. His purpose in doing so was to sharpen his readers’ focus on the question of Jesus’ identity. But while it makes sense for the impure spirits to respond to Jesus’ command either by going out or by listening to (i.e., obeying) him, it does not make sense for the wind and the sea to go out at Jesus’ command. Therefore, since the author of Mark wanted to make the two questions more similar to one another, it was the people’s question in Teaching in Kefar Nahum that had to be adapted to the disciples’ question in Quieting a Storm, and not vice versa.

Since Markan redactional activity is apparent in L70, we have adopted Luke’s wording for GR.

וְהֵן יוֹצְאוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see above, Comment to L50-51.

L71 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος (GR). The signs of Lukan redaction in Luke 4:37—περὶ αὐτοῦ in L72; περίχωρος in L74—make us suspicious of Luke’s wording in L71. We think it is probable that following so many instances of ἐξέρχεσθαι (“to go out”), which appears in L51, L56 and L70, the author of Luke wrote ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporevesthai, “to go out”) in L71 in place of Anth.’s ἐξέρχεσθαι for the sake of variety. The imperfect tense in which Luke’s ἐκπορεύεσθαι occurs is another indication of Lukan redaction. Mark’s phrase καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (kai exēlthen, “and went out”), on the other hand, is exactly what we would have expected to find in Anth., so we have accepted Mark’s phrase for GR.

The noun ἦχος (ēchos, “noise,” “report”) may also be attributed to the author of Luke. Although ἦχος is not especially Lukan,^[223] this noun does not occur in the Gospels of Mark or Matthew, and may be a substitute for a different term in Anth.^[224] This time, however, we do not think that Mark’s ἡ ἀκοή (hē akoē, “the sound,” “the hearing,” “the rumor”) reflects Anth.’s vocabulary. Rather, ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ (hē akoē avtou, “the report of him”) appears to be Mark’s paraphrase of Luke’s ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ (ēchos peri avtou, “a report about him”). We suspect that just as the author of Luke replaced Anth.’s ἐξέρχεσθαι with ἐκπορεύεσθαι to avoid repetition, so ἦχος is the author of Luke’s replacement of Anth.’s ὁ λόγος (ho logos, “the word”), the very phrase that had so bedeviled the author of Luke in L64.

וַיֵּצֵא הַדָּבָר (HR). On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see above, Comment to L50-51.

On reconstructing λόγος (logos, “word,” “thing”) with דָּבָר (dāvār, “word,” “thing”), see above, Comment to L64.

L72 περὶ αὐτοῦ (Luke 4:37). Since we have found περὶ αὐτοῦ in the sense of “concerning him” to be a sign of Lukan redaction, we have excluded this phrase from GR.^[225] 

L73 εὐθὺς (Mark 1:28). For the third and final time in this pericope the author of Mark employed εὐθύς (evthūs, “immediately”) to mark the change of scene. We have excluded this redactional Markan stereotype from GR.

L74 εἰς πάντα τόπον (GR). While εἰς πάντα τόπον (eis panta topon, “into every place”) could stem from Anth., the reference to the “surrounding region” is typical of Lukan redaction^[226] and has accordingly been excluded from GR.

בְּכָל מָקוֹם (HR). On reconstructing πᾶς (pas, “all,” “every”) with כָּל (kol, “all,” “every”), see above, Comment to L58-60.

On reconstructing τόπος (topos, “place”) with מָקוֹם (māqōm, “place”), see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L2.

That word of the events in Capernaum’s synagogue spread “to every place” is mildly hyperbolic, but news of such an extraordinary kind must have circulated widely among the neighboring villages. What in the report was most prominent was probably not Jesus, as the author of Luke suggested with his addition of περὶ αὐτοῦ (“concerning him”) in L72. It is hard to say whether it was the dramatic exorcism or the fact that a possessed man had lurked undetected among the people of Capernaum for so long that most impressed those who told the story.

L74-75 πανταχοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλειλαίας (Mark 1:28). With splendid redundancy that reads like the Amplified Bible the author of Mark claimed that the rumor of what happened in Capernaum spread everywhere into the whole region surrounding the Galilee. Mark’s adverb πανταχοῦ (pantachou, “everywhere”) is a paraphrase of Luke’s εἰς πάντα τόπον (eis panta topon, “into every place”), while Mark’s εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας (eis holēn tēn perichōron tēs Galilaias, “into all the region surrounding the Galilee”)^[227] is an expansion upon Luke’s εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου (eis panta topon tēs perichōrou, “into every place in the surrounding region”). We find it more credible to suppose that the author of Mark engaged in a bit of puffery when he exaggerated the description he found in Luke 4:37 than to suppose that the author of Luke, having read Mark 1:28, decided to downplay the popularity and success Jesus achieved on account of the exorcism in Capernaum’s synagogue.^[228] 

Redaction Analysis

Each of the three synoptic evangelists subjected their source for Teaching in Kefar Nahum to a degree of redactional activity. As the pericope passed from Luke to Mark to Matthew, the redactional changes compounded to the point that, in Matthew’s Gospel, only traces of Teaching in Kefar Nahum can still be detected.

Luke’s Version^[229] 

Teaching in Kefar Nahum
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	119	Total Words:	100
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	94	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	94
% Identical to Anth.:	78.99	% of Anth. in Luke:	94.00
Click here for details.

On the whole, the author of Luke remained relatively faithful to his source for Teaching in Kefar Nahum, which we have identified as Anth. He added a few touches of his own, such as the information that the route from Nazareth to Capernaum is a downhill journey (L1), the defining of “demon” as an impure spirit (L39), the addition of καί (“and”) between imperatives (L51), the change of tense from aorist to imperfect (L61, L71), the replacement of ἐξέρχεσθαι (“to go out”) with ἐκπορεύεσθαι (“to go out”) for the sake of variety (L71), the substitution of “a report concerning him” for “the word” (L71-72), and the addition of “of the surrounding region” to the news of what happened going out to every place (L74) for the sake of specificity. None of these changes affected the meaning of the story.

The more important change the author of Luke made to Teaching in Kefar Nahum was the insertion of a sentence (Luke 4:32) into the narrative that described the people’s favorable impression of Jesus’ teaching. The author of Luke modeled this description on the people’s reaction to the exorcism (Luke 4:37), but the interpolation shows that he did not fully understand his source. In his source the people asked, “What is this λόγος, that with authority and power he commands the impure spirits and they come out?” The intended meaning of λόγος was “thing” (i.e., the people asked, “What’s going on here?”), but the author of Luke misunderstood λόγος as referring to a spoken word (i.e., he thought the people were asking, “What is the powerful and authoritative word by which he casts out demons?”). Laboring under this misapprehension, the author of Luke composed Luke 4:32, in which he described the people’s amazement at Jesus’ teaching because his λόγος was spoken in authority.

The author of Luke’s reason for composing this interpolation was apologetic. He worried that, from the story of Jesus’ preaching in Nazareth, his readers would form the impression that Jesus was generally not well regarded in his capacity as a preacher and teacher. To forestall this bad impression the author of Luke wrote about the positive assessment Jesus’ contemporaries had of his teaching both before (Luke 4:15) and after (Luke 4:32) the Nazareth episode.

The author of Luke’s interpolation had various unintended consequences. First, it split the pericope into two unequal parts, Part One being a mere shadow of Part Two. The single unified story became two separate stories that paralleled one another but did not intersect. Second, the interpolation paved the way for others to drive a wedge between Jesus and Judaism.

Mark’s Version^[230] 

Teaching in Kefar Nahum
Mark		Anthology
Total Words:	124	Total Words:	100
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	59	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	59
% Identical to Anth.:	47.58	% of Anth. in Mark:	59.00
Click here for details.

The author of Mark’s redactional activity in Teaching in Kefar Nahum was characteristically pervasive.^[231] By the use of a third-person plural verb the author of Mark introduced the disciples into the narrative (L1), only to forget them entirely thereafter. He used the historical present for immediacy (L1). He punctuated scenes with the repeated use of εὐθύς (L18, L35, L73). He paraphrased Luke’s wording (L1, L51, L52, L53, L56, L59-60, L61-62, L64, L71-72) and amplified it (L74-75). At certain places the author of Mark inverted Luke’s word order (L18-20, L67-68), and, perhaps for his mere amusement, the author of Mark made a chiastic swap by changing Jesus’ “teaching in authority” and “a man having an impure spirit” to Jesus’ “teaching as one having authority” (L31-32) and “a man in an impure spirit” (L38).

Other changes the author of Mark made to Luke’s story had a more practical purpose. For instance, the author of Mark sought to unify Parts One and Two of Luke’s narrative so that they would intersect. To that end, the author of Mark modified Part One by locating Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue (L19) so that both parts of the narrative now took place in the same location. Likewise, the author of Mark modified Part Two by referring back to Jesus’ teaching (L65-66) so that the theme of Part One would be repeated in Part Two.

The author of Mark also sought to enhance Jesus’ image by focusing on Jesus’ person (L31-32: “as one having authority”; L65-66: “a new teaching according to Jesus’ personal authority”) rather than on the authority of Jesus’ word, whether it be Jesus’ word of instruction (L31) or Jesus’ word of command (L68). The same impulse to direct attention toward Jesus’ person is evident in his adaptation of the people’s question in the synagogue (L64, L70) to conform to the disciples’ question in the storm-swamped boat. This conformity allowed for a progression from the more general question “What is this that is going on?” in Teaching in Kefar Nahum to the more pointed question “Who is this that is doing it?” in Quieting a Storm. In a similar vein, the author of Mark greatly exaggerated Jesus’ fame. The news did not merely spread in the surrounding area, as in Luke, the news spread everywhere, even into the regions beyond the Galilee (L74-75). The exaggeration of Jesus’ fame was also intended to enhance his image.

Another, more troubling, strategy to enhance Jesus’ image was to draw a contrast between Jesus, who taught with authority, and the scribes, who did not (L33). The contrast implies a certain distance between the author of Mark and the Jewish leadership of his day. Such distance is also implied in his reference to “their” synagogue (L37).

In the encounter between Jesus and the demon speaking through the possessed man (L43-51) the author of Mark remained remarkably faithful to Luke’s wording. Evidently, the author of Mark found this part of Luke’s narrative to be exciting enough without the need for embellishment. At one point only, the first half of L71, does it seem possible that the author of Mark corrected Luke’s wording on the basis of Anth.

Matthew’s Version^[232] 

Teaching in Kefar Nahum
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	57 [86]	Total Words:	100
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	3	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	3
% Identical to Anth.:	5.26 [3.49]	% of Anth. in Matt.:	3.00
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew made more use of Teaching in Kefar Nahum than it seems at first glance. In Anth. he saw that the story of Jesus’ preaching in Nazareth preceded Teaching in Kefar Nahum, and this detail surfaces in Matt. 4:13, where the author of Matthew reports that Jesus departed Nazareth and came to Capernaum (L1-2) and where the author of Matthew uses Anth.’s unusual form Ναζαρά for the name of Jesus’ hometown (L1). The rest of Matt. 4:13, however, is entirely redactional.^[31] The author of Matthew took the opportunity afforded by Jesus’ entry into Capernaum to claim that in doing so Jesus had fulfilled Scripture. To make this claim stick the author of Matthew had to fudge the data about Capernaum’s location and misquote Isaiah, but the author of Matthew was not one to allow little things like facts to get in the way of what he considered to be the truth.

Although the author of Matthew did not report Jesus’ teaching in Capernaum’s synagogue, he did situate the Sermon on the Mount at the spot in his Gospel parallel to the location where Teaching in Kefar Nahum appears in Mark. This enabled him to transfer the people’s praise of Jesus’ teaching in Teaching in Kefar Nahum to the end of the Sermon on the Mount. The rhetorical effect of this transfer is successful (the people praise Jesus for his teaching, which they contrast with the teaching of “their” scribes), but when the Sermon on the Mount is studied in the light of ancient Jewish sources, the effect of Matthew’s transfer is surreal. In actual fact, Jesus taught very much as the scribes and sages of Israel.

And although the author of Matthew did not report the exorcism in Capernaum’s synagogue, the author of Matthew did not pick up Mark’s narrative again until Mark made a further mention of Jesus’ preaching in synagogues and driving out demons (Mark 1:39).

Thus, although only a few words of Teaching in Kefar Nahum make an appearance in Matthew, this pericope exerted a surprising influence on the structure of Matthew’s Gospel.

Results of This Research

1. Where were the boundaries of Zebulun and Naphtali? According to the description in the book of Joshua, Zebulun’s territory was landlocked. Naphtali was the only tribe with territory on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and even Naphtali’s territory was confined to the western shore, it did not extend to the other side of the Jordan. But when Josephus described the tribal boundaries, he placed Zebulun on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee, while Naphtali he shifted north and to the east of the Jordan. So it is possible that, when the author of Matthew referred to Capernaum as lying within the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, he reflected a post-biblical tradition that allocated shoreline to Zebulun as well as to Naphtali. Nevertheless, the territories of Zebulun and Naphtali were never regarded as having merged into a single unit. This is a Matthean obfuscation that allowed him to claim that by taking up permanent residence in Capernaum Jesus had fulfilled prophecy.

2. In what way did Jesus contrast with the scribes? Jesus’ teaching contrasted with that of the scribes only in the imaginations of the authors of Mark and Matthew. The author of Mark made the polemical claim to enhance the image of Jesus. The author of Matthew was just as interested in maligning contemporary Jewish leadership as he was in touting the ability of Jesus.

3. What was the cause of the people’s amazement? The answer to this question depends on which Gospel is under consideration. In Luke the people are first amazed at Jesus’ teaching because his word was spoken in authority. Later they are filled with dread because Jesus had proved he could command the evil spirits with authority. In Mark the people are amazed by Jesus himself: his teaching proves that he has authority. Their amazement at Jesus’ personal authority overshadows their appreciation of the exorcism he performed. In Matthew the crowds are amazed at Jesus’ authoritative teaching, which is so unlike that of their own scribes. In the pre-synoptic version of the story the people of Capernaum were probably not amazed so much as shocked: they were shocked to discover that there had been a demon lurking among them, and they were shocked when Jesus so powerfully drove it out of their midst.

4. For whom did the demon speak: itself plus its host, its fellow demons, or the people of Capernaum? We think that the best interpretation of the demon’s use of the first-person plural (“What have you to do with us?”; “You have come to destroy us!”) is that the demon was posing as a member of the Capernaum community and attempting to convince them to turn against Jesus, whose influence threatened to wrest the community from the demon’s control. The demon’s attempt might have been successful if Jesus had not been able to drive the demon out. Fortunately for the people of Capernaum, Jesus recognized that the man shouting at him was possessed, and he ordered the demon to depart. The slander that had been shouted at Jesus was thus exposed for what it truly was: the malicious ravings of a possessed man. Thus, the formerly possessed man was not the only beneficiary of the exorcism, the entire community was released from the manipulative power of a malignant spirit that sought to hinder the Kingdom of Heaven.

5. What is the meaning of “Nazarene”? Ναζαρηνός (Nazarēnos), typically translated “Nazarene,” is an adjective formed from the name Ναζαρά (Nazara), an alternate form of the name Nazareth, that simply means “of Nazara.” Just as Mary Magdalene’s surname ἡ Μαγδαληνή (hē Magdalēnē) indicated that she was from the town of Magdala, so Jesus’ surname ὁ Ναζαρηνός (ho Nazarēnos) indicated that he was from the town of Nazara (i.e., Nazareth).

Conclusion

In Teaching in Kefar Nahum Jesus gained a reputation in Capernaum as an accomplished teacher, which earned him an invitation to address the synagogue one Sabbath. Unbeknownst to those in attendance was a possessed man, who had undermined the community of Capernaum for some time. The confrontational outburst from the possessed man in the synagogue was the demon’s attempt to maintain its sway over the community. Jesus’ exorcism of the demon was thus an act of deliverance not only for the possessed man but for all the people of Capernaum.

We wonder, however, whether this act of deliverance was permanent. Jesus was later to lament that Capernaum, despite having witnessed many miracles, remained unmoved by Jesus’ message (Matt. 11:23-24 ∥ Luke 10:15).^[233] Could the impure spirit that had haunted Capernaum for so long have returned once more to harden the people’s hearts against Jesus’ message?

---

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

---

Notes

1. For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
2. This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩
3. See Return to the Galil, Comment to L11. ↩ ↩
4. It is characteristic of the author of Mark that when he gave his version of Nazarene Synagogue he concealed his reason for moving it by omitting Jesus’ reference to the miracles he had performed in Capernaum. ↩
5. We observe a similar Markan transposition of Luke’s pericope order in the placement of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, where Luke places this pericope immediately following his parables discourse, whereas Mark places this pericope just prior to the parables discourse. See Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
6. See Return to the Galil, Comment to L12. ↩
7. See Luz, 1:389. ↩
8. See Dibelius, 237. ↩
9. See Beare, Earliest, 48 §12. ↩ ↩
10. Cf. Bundy, 77 §12. ↩ ↩
11. On Anth.’s placement of Centurion’s Slave following Jesus’ sermon, see Sermon’s End, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
12. Cf. Bundy, 75 §12. ↩ ↩
13. Cf. Collins, 102. ↩
14. Given all the ways in which the two parts of Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum are integrated, we cannot agree with Nolland’s assessment that Luke’s version “achieves a more unified structure” than Mark’s. See Nolland, Luke, 1:204. ↩
15. See David Flusser, “Teaching with Authority: The Development of Jesus’ Portrayal as a Teacher within the Synoptic Tradition,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story.” ↩
16. See Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “Mark’s Editorial Method: An Examination of Mark Chapter 1” in the comment to Mark 1:21-28. ↩
17. These Lukan redactional features include περὶ αὐτοῦ (peri avtou) in the sense of “concerning him” (not “around him”) in L72 and the use of the term περίχωρος (perichōros, “surrounding region”) in L74. ↩
18. On Matthew’s redactional use of καταλείπειν (kataleipein, “to leave,” “to forsake”), see Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L47-49. The phrase καὶ…ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ (“and…coming he took up residence in Capernaum”) in Matt. 4:13 appears to be modeled after καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς…Ναζαρέτ (“and coming he took up residence in…Nazareth”) in Matt. 2:23 (cf. Gundry, Matt., 59), a verse that shows all the hallmarks of Matthean composition. ↩
19. Cf. Bundy, 66 §9; Beare, Matt., 114; Gundry, Matt., 59. ↩
20. Evidence for the form נָצְרַת (nātz^erat, “Nazareth”), represented in the Gospels as Ναζαρέθ (Nazareth) and Ναζαρέτ (Nazaret), is found in a third- or fourth-century inscription discovered in Caesarea that mentions Nazareth as the seat of one of the twenty-four priestly courses. See Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L6. But does Ναζαρά (Nazara) also represent נָצְרַת, or could it represent an alternate Hebrew form, viz. נָצְרָה (nātz^erāh)? Goulder has pointed to the analogous variation between גִּבְעָה (giv‘āh, “Gibeah”; Josh. 15:57) and גִּבְעַת (giv‘at, “Gibeath”; Josh. 18:28) and between עַיַּת (‘ayat, “Ayat”; Isa. 10:28) and עַיָּה (‘ayāh, “Ayah”; Neh. 11:31) in support of the latter possibility. See Michael D. Goulder, “Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew,” in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991 (ed. Georg Strecker; Göttingen: Vandenheck & Ruprecht, 1993), 143-162, esp. 148. ↩
21. Cf. McNeile, 43; Kilpatrick, 50; Schweizer, 67; Gundry, Matt., 60; Davies-Allison, 1:377; Luz, 1:156; Wolter, 1:198. See also David R. Catchpole, “The Anointed One in Nazareth,” in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. Martinus C. De Boer; Bloomsbury Publishing, 1993), 231-251, esp. 235. ↩
22. Thus we cannot agree with Twelftree’s assessment that at Matt. 4:13 Ναζαρά was added to Matthew’s sources. See Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 65 n. 51. ↩
23. The table below shows all of the instances of εἰσπορεύεσθαι in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

    Matt. 15:17 Mk-Mt = Mark 7:18 Mark 1:21 TT (cf. Matt. 4:13; Luke 4:31) Mark 4:19 TT (cf. Matt. 13:22; Luke 8:14) Mark 5:40 TT (cf. Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:54) Mark 6:56 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:35) Mark 7:15 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:11) Mark 7:18 Mk-Mt = Matt. 15:17 Mark 7:19 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:17) Mark 11:2 TT = Luke 19:30 (cf. Matt. 21:2) Luke 8:16 TT (cf. Matt. 5:15; Mark 4:21) Luke 11:33 TT (cf. Matt. 5:15; Mark 4:21) Luke 18:24 TT (cf. Matt. 19:23; Mark 10:23) Luke 19:30 TT = Mark 11:2 (cf. Matt. 21:2) Luke 22:10 TT (cf. Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:14) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope

     ↩
24. On the historical present as an indicator of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
25. See Plummer, Luke, 131; Marshall, 191; Fitzmyer, 1:543-544; Bovon, 1:161 n. 13. ↩
26. Conzelmann (38-39) argued that although it is true that Capernaum lies at a lower elevation than Nazareth, the only reason Luke wrote that Jesus “went down to Capernaum” was his “incorrect idea that Nazareth stands on a hill.” Conzelmann’s reasoning is difficult for us to understand because Nazareth was located on a hillside. See D. C. Pellett, “Nazareth,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 3:524-526, esp. 525; Yardenna Alexandre, “The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period,” ‘Atiqot 98 (2020): 25-92, esp. 27. ↩
27. The verb κατέρχεσθαι does not occur in Matthew or Mark but occurs twice in Luke (Luke 4:31; 9:37) and 13xx in Acts (Acts 8:5; 9:32; 11:27; 12:19; 13:4; 15:1, 30; 18:5, 22; 19:1; 21:3, 10; 27:5). ↩
28. See Creed, 70; Fitzmyer, 1:543. ↩
29. See Bundy, 76-77 §12; Marshall, 191. ↩
30. Josephus (Life §403) made reference to a village named Κεφαρνωκόν (Kefarnōkon), which may be identical with Capernaum (see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L17). If Josephus really did misremember the name of the village, it only underscores our point that many Judeans were not familiar with Capernaum. ↩
31. Cf. Luz, 1:156. ↩ ↩
32. Cf. Beare, Matt., 115; Gundry, Matt., 60; Davies-Allison, 1:379. ↩
33. Cf. McNeile, 43. ↩
34. Cf. Beare, Matt., 115. ↩
35. See Luz, 1:157; Nolland, Matt., 171. ↩
36. See Nolland, Matt., 171 n. 2. ↩
37. On Josephus’ description of the tribal allotments, see Zecharia Kallai, “The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 4.1 (1965): 203-207; Zeev Safrai, “The Description of the Land of Israel in Josephus’ Works,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 295-324, esp. 310-315; Ben-Zion Rosenfeld, “Flavius Josephus and his Portrayal of the Coast (Paralia) of Contemporary Roman Palestine: Geography and Ideology,” Jewish Quarterly Review 91.1-2 (2000): 143-183, esp. 151-155.
    
    Kallai (“The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus,” 205-206) remained uncertain whether in Ant. 5:84 Josephus meant that Zebulun’s territory extended all the way to the lakeshore or only as far as Genesar.
    
    Most New Testament scholars assume that Capernaum was located in the territory of Naphtali (cf., e.g., Gundry, Matt., 60; Beare, Matt., 115; Luz, 1:157; Nolland, Matt., 171 n. 2, 174), which, judging from Josh. 19:32-39, is correct. But Josephus’ description of Naphtali’s territory (“The territory to the eastward up to the city of Damascus, with upper Galilee, was occupied by the men of Nephthali, as far as mount Libanus and the sources of the Jordan, which spring from that mountain,” Ant. 5:86; Loeb) seems to imply that the only lakefront property in Naphtali’s territory was on the eastern shore of the lake. ↩
38. Luz (1:157) and Nolland (Matt., 171, 174) agree that Nazareth lay in Zebulun’s territory. Beare (Matt., 115) placed Nazareth in the territory of Naphtali. ↩
39. On the association of Zebulun with the Mediterranean coast in Gen. 49:13 and Deut. 33:18-19, see Shmuel Aḥituv, “Zebulun and the Sea,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai (ed. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 3-7. ↩
40. For this reason we think Davies and Allison overestimated the author of Matthew’s “knowledge of Palestinian geography” (Davies-Allison, 1:379). They point out that his information could not have been “gleaned either from the OT or from Mark or Q,” which is true. But it is equally true that Capernaum was not located in the territory of two tribes, so whatever the source of Matthew’s information, it was not particularly accurate. ↩
41. Cf. Allen, 34. ↩
42. On the author of Matthew’s fulfillment formulae, see A Voice Crying, Comment to L40. ↩
43. See McNeile, 44; Beare, Earliest, 44 §9. ↩
44. See Nolland, Matt., 172. Gundry (Use, 108) and Beare (Matt., 116) concluded that the author of Matthew made his own translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, but “with some recollection of the LXX.” ↩
45. The table below shows the extent of agreement between Matthew’s form of the Isaiah quotation and LXX:

    Isaiah 8:23b-9:1
    Matthew’s Version		LXX Version
    γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα, καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς		τοῦτο πρῶτον ποίει, ταχὺ ποίει, χώρα Ζαβουλων, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλιμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν κατοικοῦντες καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς λάμψει ἐφ̓ ὑμᾶς
    Total Words:	33	Total Words:	50
    Total Words Identical to LXX:	24	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	24
    Percentage Identical to LXX:	72.73%	Percentage of LXX Represented in Matt.:	48.00%

    The major difference between LXX and the Matthean form of the quotation is the omission of numerous words and phrases in Matthew. That over seventy percent of Matthew’s wording of the Isaiah quotation is identical to LXX is in itself striking (we would refer to this as “extensive agreement” rather than “some contact,” pace Gundry, Use, 108), but the Matthean quotation’s agreement with LXX’s unusual renderings of the Hebrew text (Νεφθαλιμ; Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν; ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου) is even stronger evidence of reliance on LXX for the Matthean form of the quotation, since these renderings are too unusual to be coincidental. ↩

46. Gundry (Use, 106) regarded τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας as a Christian interpolation. If Gundry is correct, then the author of Matthew did not drop this phrase from his LXX quotation. ↩
47. Cf. Schweizer, 67; Luz, 1:156 n. 7. ↩
48. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4, 174. ↩
49. Cf. Luz, 1:157. ↩
50. See Gundry, Use, 105; Davies-Allison, 1:381; Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
51. See Gundry, Use, 106. ↩ ↩
52. See Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. But the LXX translators probably read the unpointed text as רְאוּ (r^e’ū, “See [plur.]!”). ↩
53. See Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩ ↩
54. See Gundry, Use, 108; Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
55. Pace Luz, 1:156. ↩
56. The problem of the phrase ὁδὸν θαλάσσης (hodon thalassēs, “way of the sea”) remains outstanding. This phrase is present in some LXX MSS but absent from others. This has led some scholars to suppose that ὁδὸν θαλάσσης was interpolated into the LXX textual tradition from Matt. 4:15. For discussions of the textual issue, see Allen, 34; McNeile, 44; Gundry, Use, 105-106. ↩
57. See Gundry, Use, 107. ↩ ↩
58. See Gundry, Use, 107-108. ↩
59. Νεφθαλίμ occurs as the LXX rendition of נַפְתָּלִי in Judg. 5:18; 7:23; Isa. 8:23; Ezek. 48:3, 34. The form Νεφθαλίμ also occurs in Tob. 1:1, 2, 4, 5. ↩
60. See Hatch-Redpath, 3:120. ↩
61. See Gundry, Use, 105; Davies-Allison, 1:381. ↩
62. If, indeed, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης was not interpolated into Isa. 8:23 from Matt. 4:15. ↩
63. See Davies-Allison, 1:382. ↩
64. See Schweizer, 67. ↩
65. See Davies-Allison, 1:383; Luz, 1:158. ↩
66. Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:383. If the persons Josephus referred to as “Judah the Galilean” and “Judah the Golanite” were indeed the same individual, then the author of Matthew’s imprecise use of the term “Galilee” would not be unprecedented. Moreover, Jews from the Galilee and from the Golan were culturally homogenous despite the artificial political boundaries that divided them. See Shmuel Safrai, “Could Bethsaida Be West of the Jordan?” ↩
67. See Schweizer, 67; Gundry, Use, 106. ↩
68. On the original meaning of the topographical references in the Isaiah passage and on Matthew’s reinterpretation of its LXX translation, see Rainey-Notley, 230-231, 353-354. ↩
69. Codex Vaticanus reads ἐν σκοτίᾳ rather than ἐν σκότει, which is the reading of Nestle-Aland’s critical text. ↩
70. Note that Matthew’s quotation follows LXX in using a singular participle, whereas the participle in the Hebrew text is plural. Both the Matthew quotation and LXX make the number of the participle agree with the singular subject (“people”), but independent translators need not have made the same decision. In the comments we highlight the numerous agreements between Matthew’s quotation and LXX because when these agreements are given their due weight, it becomes untenable to maintain that such extensive verbal agreement was achieved by mere coincidence. ↩
71. The table below shows the following instances of καθῆσθαι that lack corroboration from the Gospels of Mark and Luke:

    Matt. 4:16 (1st instance) U (cf. Isa. 9:1 LXX) Matt. 4:16 (2nd instance) U (cf. Isa. 9:1 LXX) Matt. 13:1 TT (cf. Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4) Matt. 15:29 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:31) Matt. 23:22 U Matt. 27:19 TT (cf. Mark 15:[–]; Luke 23:[–]) Matt. 27:36 TT (cf. Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34) Matt. 27:61 TT (cf. Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55) Matt. 28:2 TT (cf. Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding verse

     ↩
72. The author of Matthew used the noun φέγγος in Matt. 24:29, so we know it would have been familiar to him. ↩
73. An unpointed ראו could be read as either רָאוּ (rā’ū, “they saw”) or רְאוּ (r^e’ū, “See!”). ↩
74. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
75. Cf. McNeile, 44. Gundry (Use, 107) attempted to maintain Matthean independence from LXX even with regard to ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου. ↩
76. See Luz, 1:157; Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. Gundry (Use, 107) maintained that ἀνατέλλειν (anatellein, “to rise,” “to dawn”) can mean “to shine brightly,” but this is not a definition given in LSJ (123), and the sole example he cited (Ep. Barn. 3:4) was not translated in this manner in the Loeb edition of the Apostolic Fathers (1:347). ↩
77. On the phenomenon of Markan inversion, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
78. On the redactional use of εὐθύς in the Gospel of Mark, see the discussion in Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes.” See also the entry for Mark 1:10 in LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups and Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L24. ↩
79. Cf., e.g., Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 156. ↩
80. Cf. Taylor, 172; Marcus, 1:186. ↩
81. Cf. Cadbury, Style, 117; Fitzmyer, 1:544. ↩
82. Cf. Cadbury, Style, 190. ↩
83. See Shmuel Safrai, “Master and Disciple,” under the subheading “Movable Schools.” ↩
84. Pace Plummer, Luke, 132; Marshall, 191; Nolland, 1:205. ↩
85. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1256-1257. ↩
86. See Dos Santos, 204. ↩
87. See LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “Hellenized Semitic Words in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
88. Cf. Bultmann, 334 n. 1; Streeter, 262; Gundry, Matt., 136; Catchpole, 281. ↩
89. Cf. Creed, 70; Beare, Matt., 200; Luz, 1:389. ↩
90. This is especially true for Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum. If a reader unfamiliar with the story read Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum with Luke 4:32 omitted, she would not feel that anything was missing. On the other hand, if a reader unfamiliar with the story read Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum with Mark 1:22 missing, she might wonder why the people reacting to the exorcism referred to “a new authoritative teaching” (L65-66), since it is Mark 1:22 that informs readers that Jesus’ teaching was different from that of the sages, inasmuch as Jesus taught as one having authority. ↩
91. Cf. Bultmann, 209; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 58. ↩
92. See David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 210-211; idem, “Teaching with Authority: The Development of Jesus’ Portrayal as a Teacher within the Synoptic Tradition,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story”; idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40), esp. 22. In Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (210, 212) Flusser referred to Luke 4:32 as a “flashback” from Luke 4:36, but it would be more accurate to say that Luke 4:32 is a foreshadowing of the narrative’s climax in Luke 4:36. ↩
93. See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 229 n. 44; idem, “Teaching with Authority,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story.” ↩ ↩
94. Cf. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew,” under the subheading “Mark’s Editorial Method: An Examination of Mark Chapter 1” in the comment to Mark 1:21-28. ↩
95. See Marshall, 191. ↩
96. Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:726. ↩
97. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 137; Davies-Allison, 1:725; Luz, 1:389. Some scholars take Matt. 5:1 to mean that Jesus withdrew from the crowds in order that the disciples would be the sole audience of the Sermon on the Mount. They then criticize the author of Matthew for thoughtlessly having the crowds respond to Jesus’ teaching at the close of the Sermon on the Mount (cf., e.g., McNeile, 99). But although the author of Matthew’s redactional activity could sometimes be sloppy, we do not think this was the case here. Matthew 7:28 shows that the author of Matthew included the crowds in the audience addressed in the Sermon on the Mount. ↩
98. See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 229 n. 45; idem, “Teaching with Authority,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story.” ↩
99. Against Mark’s use of διδαχή in Mark 4:2, cf. Matt. 13:2 ∥ Luke 8:4, and against Mark’s use of διδαχή in Mark 12:38, cf. Matt. 23:1 ∥ Luke 20:45. On διδαχή as a Markan stereotype, see LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:22, and Four Soils parable, Comment to L21. ↩
100. See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 210; idem, “Teaching with Authority,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story.” ↩
101. See HTGM, 89. ↩
102. Cf., e.g., The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, L11; Heaven and Earth Pass Away, L3, L14. ↩
103. Cf. Karl Rengstorf, “διδαχή,” TDNT, 2:163-164. ↩
104. We have already noted in Comment to L22-25 that the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use the word λόγος (Matt.: L25; Luke: L31) in their respective descriptions of the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching is more apparent than real. Matthew refers to the crowd’s positive response to Jesus’ teaching after he had finished speaking “these words [plur.],” whereas Luke refers to Jesus’ word (sing.) being “in authority.” Matthew’s wording is based on Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End, while Luke’s wording in Luke 4:32 is based on Anth.’s wording of Teaching in Kefar Nahum, L64-70. ↩
105. If he had wanted, the author of Mark could have written ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ (“for he was teaching them in authority”) and so retained the emphasis on Jesus’ teaching instead of shifting the focus onto Jesus’ personality. ↩
106. On the use of narrative γάρ clauses (i.e., as distinct from γάρ clauses in dialogue) as a feature of the author of Mark’s compositional style, see Withered Fig Tree, Comment to L10. ↩
107. See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the Minor Agreements,” under the subheading “Mark’s Special Use of Λόγος.” ↩
108. HTGM, 89. ↩ ↩
109. See Klausner (264-265), who credited the suggestion to Hirsch Perez Chajes, Markus-Studien (Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1899), 10-12. Cf. Pinchas Lapide, “Hidden Hebrew in the Gospels,” Immanuel 2 (1973): 28-34, esp. 30. ↩
110. The authority accorded to the scribes is one of the many places where Daube’s interpretation of Mark 1:22 breaks down (see Daube, 205-223). According to Daube, Mark 1:22 means that Jesus taught as one formally authorized to make binding decisions, and not like the local scribes who taught on an informal basis. To quote Daube (206), “Jesus…taught as if possessing Rabbinic authority and not like the ordinary teachers.” Aside from the authoritative status of the scribes, Daube’s interpretation founders on anachronism—formal conferral of rabbinic authority through ordination was a post-70 C.E. development, as was the use of “scribe” to denote local teachers of Scripture—and on taking at face value Mark’s clearly polemical statement. For a critique of Daube’s interpretation, see A. W. Argyle, “The Meaning of ἐξουσία in Mark 1:22, 27,” Expository Times 80.11 (1969): 343. On the post-70 C.E. date of rabbinic ordination, see David N. Bivin, “Was Jesus a Rabbi?” ↩
111. The LXX translators rendered מוֹשֵׁל as ἄρχων in Gen. 24:2; 45:8; Josh. 12:5; Isa. 14:5; 28:14; 49:7; Jer. 22:30; 37[30]:21; Mic. 5:1; Ps. 104[105]:21; 1 Chr. 29:12; 2 Chr. 23:20. ↩
112. Cf. Jastrow, 855, where no examples of מוֹשֵׁל in the sense of “parable teller” are listed, but examples of מוֹשֵׁל in the sense of “governor,” “consul” do appear. ↩
113. See LHNS, 19 §12. ↩
114. Lindsey (LHNS, 19 §12) also noted this chiastic relationship. ↩
115. See Lightfoot, 2:159; Gould, 22; Swete, 18; Plummer, Mark, 65; Manson, Sayings, 178; Taylor, 173; Beare, Matt., 200; Gundry, Matt., 137; Lachs, 60-61; Fredriksen, From Jesus, 44; Luz, 1:390. ↩
116. See above, Comment to L31-32. ↩
117. Pace Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 58. ↩
118. See Lapide, “Hidden Hebrew in the Gospels,” 30; Collins, 164; Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew,” under the subheading “Mark’s Editorial Method: An Examination of Mark Chapter 1” in the Comment to Mark 1:21-28. ↩
119. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:74. ↩
120. See Beare, Matt., 200. ↩
121. See Kilpatrick, 111; Schweizer, 192-193; Strecker, 172; Luz, 1:390. Gundry (Matt., 137), citing Matt. 8:19; 13:52; 23:34, suggested that the author of Matthew added αὐτῶν in order to distinguish between the “bad” Jewish scribes and the “good” Christian scribes. Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:727. ↩
122. Cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 156. ↩
123. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1309-1310. ↩
124. The LXX translators rendered [no_word_wrap]כ-נ-ס[/no_word_wrap] verbs with συνάγειν in 1 Chr. 22:2; 2 Esd. 22:44; Ps. 32[33]:7; Eccl. 2:8, 26; 3:5; Isa. 28:20. ↩
125. The Theodotos inscription, discovered in the Ophel, uses the term συναγωγή (sūnagōgē) to refer to a first-century synagogue in Jerusalem. For a photograph, transcription and translation of the Theodotos inscription, see David N. Bivin, “Sidebar: Synagogue Guest House for First-century Pilgrims.” On the first-century date of the Theodotos inscription, see John S. Kloppenborg, “Dating Theodotos (CIJ II 1404),” Journal of Jewish Studies 51.2 (2000): 243-280. ↩
126. The earliest literary references to synagogues in the land of Israel are found in the Gospels. Josephus also mentions synagogues that existed in Caesarea (J.W. 2:285) and Dor (Ant. 19:300) using the term συναγωγή, and in Tiberias (Life §280) using the term προσευχή (prosevchē, “[place of] prayer”). ↩
127. Archaeological remains of first-century synagogues have been discovered in Gamla, Magdala, Masada and the Herodium. It is possible that the synagogue remains in Capernaum, which date from the fourth century C.E., were built on top of an earlier synagogue dating from the first century. On Second Temple period synagogues, see Lee I. Levine, “The Second Temple Synagogue: The Formative Years,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), 7-31; idem, “The Synagogues of Galilee,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods (2 vols.; ed. David A. Flensy and James Riley Strange; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014-2015), 1:129-150. ↩
128. Philo (Mos. 2:215-216), James in the book of Acts (Acts 15:21), and Josephus (Apion 2:175) considered weekly gatherings for the reading of the Torah and its exposition on the Sabbath to be an extremely ancient custom instituted by Moses. Even if they exaggerated the antiquity of this custom, it could hardly have gained this reputation if it had only emerged in the first century. It is true that the existence of Sabbath-day gatherings for the reading of the Torah does not in itself prove the existence of the synagogue. But the more firmly established the custom became and the more participation grew, the need for the synagogue would have increased. Like all books in the ancient world, Torah scrolls were expensive. Few private individuals would have been able to afford personal copies, and as weekly public reading of the Torah began to be regarded as obligatory, the obvious solution was for the community to obtain a Torah scroll that was owned collectively. Some place for the communally-owned Torah scroll to be stored would then have become necessary. Also, a space for the public reading of the Torah scroll would be required. Since the Torah scroll was to be read every Sabbath—rain or shine—an open-air venue would not have been suitable. Exposure to the elements during the reading would quickly destroy a Torah scroll, which was not only expensive but also sacred. Neither were most private dwellings suitable for public gatherings. Some wealthy landowners may, indeed, have been able to host such gatherings, but not every community had wealthy members. In rural villages the erection of a communal building would have made more practical sense. It is clear, then, that wherever the public reading of the Torah was regarded as obligatory the need for the synagogue was present. ↩
129. Neither 1 nor 2 Maccabees includes the destruction of synagogues among the outrages Antiochus IV Epiphanes committed against the Jews (cf., e.g., 1 Macc. 1:54-64; 2 Macc. 6:1-11). Is this an indication that synagogues did not yet exist in the land of Israel during the Hellenistic period? ↩
130. The term בֵּית כְּנֶסֶת occurs in m. Ber. 7:3; m. Bik. 1:4; m. Suk. 3:13; m. Rosh Hash. 3:7; m. Meg. 3:1, 2, 3; m. Ned. 5:5; 9:2; m. Shevu. 4:10; m. Neg. 13:12. ↩
131. On the antecedent of αὐτῶν in Mark 1:23 as “the people of Capernaum,” see A. B. Bruce, 345; Gundry, Mark, 1:75; Marcus, 1:187. ↩
132. See Like Children Complaining, Comment to L16. ↩
133. See Taylor, 173; Guelich, 54; Marcus, 1:187; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 157. Witmer cites Aus with reference to Mark 5:2. See Roger David Aus, My Name Is “Legion”: Palestinian Judaic Samson Traditions in Mark 5:1-20 (Dallas: University Press of America, 1999), 86. ↩
134. See Plummer, Luke, 132. ↩
135. See Marshall, 192; Bovon, 1:159 n. 3. ↩
136. See LSJ (46) for the negative connotations of ἀκάθαρτος. ↩
137. See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L20. ↩
138. Later in the pericope Luke (L69) and Mark (L67) will agree to refer to “impure spirits,” which suggests that Luke’s “spirit of an impure demon” in L39 is redactional, since we would have expected Luke’s source to have used the same terminology in both places (L39 and L69). Note, however, that in the book of Jubilees Noah prays for his family members when “polluted demons” (Jub. 10:1) began “leading astray and blinding and killing his grandchildren” (Jub. 10:2). “Polluted demons” is somewhat similar to “spirit of an impure demon.” ↩
139. Josephus, too, found it necessary to explain to his Gentile audience that τὰ…καλούμενα δαιμόνια, ταῦτα δὲ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα (“the beings…called demons, are really the spirits of evil people”; J.W. 7:185). See Wolter, 1:213. ↩
140. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:206; J. Green, 222. ↩
141. See Plummer, Luke, 133. ↩
142. Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:545; Nolland, Luke, 1:204. ↩
143. A. B. Bruce (345) thought the convulsing of the possessed man upon the demon’s departure was indicative of the symptoms the man had suffered for the duration of his possession, but this is mere speculation. ↩
144. The Qumran covenanters linked jealousy ברוח רשעה (b^erūaḥ r^eshā‘āh, “in a wicked spirit”) with greed (1QS X, 18-19), while according to b. Sot. 3a some ancient Jewish sages believed that the spirit of jealousy (רוּחַ קִנְאָה [rūaḥ qin’āh; Num. 5:14, 30]) that aroused a man to suspect his wife of adultery was an impure spirit. ↩
145. The members of the Qumran sect were required to hate outsiders ברוח הסתר (b^erūaḥ haseter, “in the clandestine spirit”; 1QS IX, 21-22). ↩
146. According to Isa. 19:14, a spirit of confusion (רוּחַ עִוְעִים [rūaḥ ‘iv‘im]) would cause Egypt to stagger like a drunkard. ↩
147. In 1 Kgs. 22:22-23 ∥ 2 Chr. 18:21-22 a lying spirit (רוּחַ שֶׁקֶר [rūaḥ sheqer]) misleads the king of Israel by spreading misinformation by means of false prophets. ↩
148. The prophet Hosea warned of a spirit of prostitution (רוּחַ זְנוּנִים [rūaḥ z^enūnim]; Hos. 4:12; 5:4) that enticed Israel from faithfulness to the LORD and prevented repentance. ↩
149. See Gould, 23; Plummer, Luke, 1:35; idem, Mark, 66; A. B. Bruce, 345; Swete, 19; Bacon, 17-18; Fitzmyer, 1:545; Nolland, Luke, 1:207; Bovon, 1:162 n. 27; J. Green, 223. ↩
150. See Manson, Luke, 45; Beare, Earliest, 48 §12; Gundry, Mark, 1:75. ↩
151. Cf. H. Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 380. Twelftree (Jesus the Exorcist, 61 n. 25) considered the possibility that “the plural used by the demon refers to those around Jesus at the time,” but concluded that there is nothing “to support his notion.” Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:75. ↩
152. Referring to a non-local as someone who “comes from away” is an idiom commonly found in the northern New England region of the U.S. and the Maritime provinces of Canada. To describe someone as having “come from away” is a minor putdown, it means that their ways and ideas are strange and impractical (unlike the shrewd ways and down-to-earth ideas of the locals), more suitable for the other places (“away”) from whence they came and where by rights they ought to remain. ↩
153. Other explanations for the demon’s emphasizing Jesus’ belonging to Nazareth are either unsatisfactory (viz., that the demon was attempting to use Jesus’ name and and place of origin as magical defense) or contrived (viz., that the demon made a wordplay on “Nazareth” and “holy one of God,” which is supposedly equivalent to “Nazirite”). For the former see Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 67; Marcus, 1:187-188; France, Mark, 104; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 160-161. For the latter see Guelich, 57; Nolland, Luke, 1:207. Jesus’ reputation as a “winebibber” (Matt. 11:19 ∥ Luke 7:34) and his partaking of the “fruit of the vine” at his last supper (Matt. 26:29 ∥ Mark 14:25 ∥ Luke 22:18) should be sufficient to refute the notion that anyone considered him to be a Nazirite. Cf. Taylor, 178; Gundry, Mark, 1:82. ↩
154. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:78. ↩
155. See Dos Santos, 55. ↩
156. Nolland (Luke, 1:206) and J. Green (223) preferred to regard ἔα as an imperatival form of the verb ἐᾶν (ean, “to permit,” “to leave alone”), but in that case we might have expected the imperative to be followed by “me” or “us,” as in the following examples:

     Ἔασόν με εἰσελθεῖν πρὸς σέ

     Permit me to go in to you. (Gen. 38:16)

     καὶ νῦν ἔασόν με καὶ…ἐκτρίψω αὐτοὺς

     And now leave me alone and…I will destroy them! (Exod. 32:10)

     ἔασόν με ἐξολεθρεῦσαι αὐτούς

     Allow me to destroy them! (Deut. 9:14)

     ἔασόν με δύο μῆνας, καὶ πορεύσομαι καὶ καταβήσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ κλαύσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ παρθένιά μου

     Allow me two months, and I will go and descend on the mountains and weep over my virginity. (Judg. 11:37)

     καὶ νῦν παῖς σού εἰμι, βασιλεῦ, ἔασόν με ζῆσαι

     And now, I am your slave, O king. Permit me to live! (2 Kgdms. 15:34)

     ἔασόν με ἀναπαύσασθαι μικρὸν

     Allow me to rest a little. (Job 10:20)

     And also compare Job 7:19; 9:18, 28. Moreover, as Wolter (1:213) noted, an ἔα + interrogative sentence is not unusual in Greek, citing the following examples:

     ἔα, ἄνθρωπε, ἐπὶ τί ἐλήλυθας;

     Ho, there, man, what have you come for? (Epictetus, Discourses 2:24 §22; Loeb)

     ἔα, ἄνθρωπε, οὐκ ἐτήρησεν τὸν φιλόπατριν, τὸν μεγαλόφρονα, τὸν πιστόν, τὸν γενναῖον;

     Ho, there, man, did he not maintain the patriot that he was, the high-minded man, the man of fidelity, the man of honour? (Epictetus, Discourses 3:20 §5; Loeb)

      ↩
157. See Marshall, 193; Guelich, 56; Nolland, Luke, 1:206; Marcus, 1:187; France, Mark, 103; Aus, My Name Is “Legion,” 87 (with reference to Mark 5:7). Maynard, who made out the phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί in John 2:4 to be the key not only to interpreting Jesus’ miracle in Cana of Galilee but the Fourth Gospel as a whole, only cited examples of this idiom in LXX, NT and Acta Thom. §45, which was clearly influenced by NT. See Arthur H. Maynard, “ΤΙ ΕΜΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΟΙ,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 582-586. ↩
158. Scholars who do note examples of τί ἐμοὶ/ἡμῖν καὶ σοί in purely Greek sources include Swete, 19; Plummer, Luke, 133; idem, Mark, 66; Gundry, Mark, 1:75; Wolter, 1:213. For non-scriptural examples, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L42. ↩
159. See Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 64. ↩
160. See Marcus, 1:187. Cf. Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 379. ↩
161. The question τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί/ὑμῖν occurs in Judg. 11:12; 2 Kgdms. 16:10; 19:23; 3 Kgdms. 17:18; 4 Kgdms. 3:13; 2 Chr. 35:21; 1 Esd. 1:24. ↩
162. Ναζαρηνός never occurs in Matthew. The four instances in Mark are found in Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6. The two Lukan instances are in Luke 4:34; 24:19. ↩
163. Cf. Moulton-Howard, 150. Compare the derivation of Ναζαρηνός from Ναζαρά to the derivations of Γερασηνός (Gerasēnos, “of Gerasa,” “Gerasene”) from Γέρασα (Gerasa, “Gerasa” [modern Jerash in Jordan]) and Γαδαρηνός (Gadarēnos, “of Gadara,” “Gadarene”) from Γάδαρα (Gadara, “Gadara” [also in modern Jordan]). ↩
164. On the variants of the name of Bethsaida, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L6. ↩
165. Scholars who read ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς as a question include Swete, 19; Plummer, Mark, 67; Jeremias, Theology, 94. Reading ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς “as a defiant assertion” are Taylor, 174; Bovon, 1:162; Nolland, Luke, 1:207; Wolter, 1:213-214. Undecided are A. B. Bruce, 345; Gundry, Mark, 1:76. ↩
166. On rapid-fire questions as a Markan characteristic, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
167. See Delitzsch’s translation and Swete, 20. ↩
168. Cf. Loos, Miracles, 363; Fitzmyer, 1:545; Marcus, 1:188; Collins, 170. ↩
169. We think Gould (23) and Witmer (Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 159) were on the right track when they supposed that in L43 and L45 the demon spoke on behalf of others, while in L46-47 the possessed man spoke for himself. It is with regard to the identity of those for whom the demon spoke that we disagree with Gould and Witmer. They believed the demon spoke on behalf of the other demons. We believe that in presuming to speak on behalf of the congregation the demon was attempting to protect its own interests. ↩
170. In the writings of Luke Jesus is described as “holy” in Luke 1:35; 4:34; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30. While Jesus’ holiness might be regarded as a Lukan theme, we think it is more likely a reflection of Luke’s sources. ↩
171. The possessed man nicknamed “Legion” addressed Jesus as “Son of God Most High” (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; cf. Matt. 8:29, which simply has “Son of God”). See Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, L43-44. ↩
172. See Marvin H. Pope, Job (AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 8; Josef Scharbert, “ברך brk; בְּרָכָה b^erākhāh,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (15 vols.; ed. G. Johannes Botterweck et al.; trans. John T. Willis et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006), 2:279-308, esp. 295. The same euphemism occurs in 1 Kgs. 21:10, 13; Ps. 10:3; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5. ↩
173. In LXX ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ισραηλ occurs as the translation of קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל in 4 Kgdms. 19:22; Ps. 70[71]:22; 77[78]:41; Isa. 1:4; 10:20; 12:6; 17:7; 30:11, 12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 41:20; 60:9; Jer. 27[50]:29. ↩
174. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:12-15. ↩
175. See Dos Santos, 180. ↩
176. On reconstructing θεός (theos, “god”) with אֱלֹהִים (’^elohim, “God”), see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L21. ↩
177. The tradition is not restricted to Scripture. In the Mishnah’s discussion of the practice of suspending an executed criminal’s corpse, the Kaufmann MS reads:

     מִפְּנֵי ^מַה זֶה תָלוּיִ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּילֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל

     Why was he hanged? Because he cursed the Name and the name of Heaven was found to be defiled. (m. Sanh. 6:4; cf. MS Parma)

     But in place of מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּילֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם (mipnē sheqilēl ’et hashēm, “because he cursed the name”) printed editions read מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּירֵךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם (mipnē shebērēch ’et hashēm, “because he blessed the name”). See Blackman, 6:264. ↩

178. This is how LXX interprets קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים: ὅτι κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ (hoti kekatēramenos hūpo theou, “because he is cursed by God”). ↩
179. This is how Rabbi Meir interpreted the phrase in t. Sanh. 9:7, and apparently also in m. Sanh. 6:5, where in response to the suffering of the condemned criminal God says, קַלְנִי מֵרֹאשִׁי קַלְנִי מִזְּרוֹעִי (“My head pains me! My arm pains me!”): קַלְנִי plays on קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים. ↩
180. See Like Children Complaining, Comment to L20. ↩
181. The phrase “behind the veil” comes from a story about demons in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A §3 (ed. Schechter, 16-17). ↩
182. See Moulton-Milligan, 672 (citing examples from the third and fourth centuries C.E.); Fitzmyer, 1:546; Nolland, Luke, 1:207. ↩
183. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1432. ↩
184. However, according to Jastrow (488), the Aramaic cognate חֲסַם could mean “to silence.” ↩
185. Delitzsch translated φιμώθητι (fimōthēti, “Be silenced!”) in Mark 1:25 and Luke 4:35 as הֵאָלֵם (hē’ālēm, “Be mute!”). ↩
186. Cf. Vermes, Authentic, 3. ↩
187. See LSJ, 1624. ↩
188. Cf. Gould, 24. ↩
189. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1252. ↩
190. See Dos Santos, 210. ↩
191. The verb כָּפָה only occurs once in MT (Prov. 21:14). ↩
192. Sifre Deuteronomy describes the behavior of demons as follows:

     מה דרכו של שד נכנס באדם וכופה אותו

     What is the way of a demon? It enters a person and coerces him [or flips him over—DNB and JNT]. (Sifre Deut. §318 [ed. Finkelstein, 364])

     We also find references to persons who act כְּמִי שֶׁכְּפָאוֹ שֵׁד (k^emi shek^efā’ō shēd, “like someone whom a demon has coerced/overturned”; b. Ned. 20b; cf. b. Rosh Hash. 28a). ↩

193. See Jastrow, 658. ↩
194. The phrase הִשְׁלִיךְ אֶל תּוֹךְ occurs in Num. 19:6; Jer. 51:63; Ezek. 5:4; Zech. 5:8. ↩
195. Examples of the omission of a Greek equivalent to the pronominal suffix attached to תָּוֶךְ are found in Exod. 28:32; 36:30 [39:23]; Lev. 11:33 (2xx); Ezek. 1:5; 24:11. ↩
196. Aside from references to the rooster’s crowing, the author of Matthew accepted φωνείν from Mark in the following instances: Matt. 20:32 (TT = Mark 10:49; cf. Luke 18:40); 27:47 (Mk-Mt = Mark 15:35). ↩
197. See Guelich, 58; Marcus, 1:189. ↩
198. On ancient Jewish beliefs concerning the origins of demons, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L68-69. ↩
199. Cf., e.g., Swete, 21; Bultmann, 210. ↩
200. The verb βλάπτειν (blaptein, “to harm”) does not occur elsewhere in Luke or Acts. ↩
201. Nolland (Luke, 1:207-208) believed that ῥιπτεῖν (“to throw”) in Luke 4:35 (L52) should not be understood in a violent sense, as though the demon had flung the possessed man down to the ground. Rather, because the giving up of the possessed man was a “gesture of defeat,” Nolland imagined ῥιπτεῖν as describing a gentle handing off of the possessed man to Jesus. But if Nolland’s interpretation is correct, then Luke’s notice in L57 that no harm befell the formerly possessed man is superfluous. ↩
202. While it is true that θάμβος does not occur in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew but does occur in both Luke’s Gospel and Acts, in all of Luke’s writings θάμβος occurs only 3xx (Luke 4:36; 5:9; Acts 3:10), so θάμβος can hardly be described as being especially favored by the author of Luke. ↩
203. Cf. Taylor, 176. On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for ἅπας, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L48. ↩
204. Cf. Marshall, 193. ↩
205. Cf. Guelich, 58.

     On ὥστε + infinitive as typical of Markan redaction, see Four Soils parable, Comment to L11; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:27.

     On the author of Mark’s redactional use of συζητεῖν, see Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L13. ↩

206. On the possibility of ἀλλήλων being a Lukan redactional term, see Like Children Complaining, Comment to L6. ↩
207. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1301. ↩
208. On reconstructing λαλεῖν with דִּבֵּר, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L17. ↩
209. The LXX translators rendered אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ as ἀνὴρ πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ in Judg. 6:29; 10:18; 4 Kgdms. 7:3, 9. ↩
210. The LXX translators rendered אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ as ἕκαστος πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ in 1 Kgdms. 10:11; Jonah 1:7; Jer. 22:8; 26[46]:16; 43[36]:16. ↩
211. Delitzsch translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in Mark 4:41; 8:16; 15:31; Luke 2:15; 4:36; 8:25; 24:14, 32; John 4:33; Acts 26:31; 28:4. ↩
212. Lindsey translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in Mark 4:41; 8:16; 15:31. ↩
213. See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 210; idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels,” 22 n. 19. ↩
214. See Quieting a Storm, Comment to L43. ↩
215. Therefore, those scholars who interpret Luke 4:36 as referring to Jesus’ word of command (cf., e.g., Plummer, Luke, 135; Marshall, 193; Conzelmann, 222; Fitzmyer, 1:547) are not incorrect. They are reading the verse as the author of Luke intended. ↩
216. The LXX translators rendered מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה as τί τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο in Judg. 8:1; 2 Kgdms. 12:21; 2 Esd. 12:19. ↩
217. See Bultmann, 209; Bundy, 77 §12; Collins, 173. ↩
218. See Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew,” under the subheading “Mark’s Editorial Method: An Examination of Mark Chapter 1” in the Comment to Mark 1:21-28. ↩
219. See Fredriksen, From Jesus, 47. ↩
220. Some scholars (cf., e.g., Marcus, 1:189) express uncertainty over whether the phrase κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν (kat exousian, “according to authority”) belongs with “new teaching” or with “he commands….” But the uncertainty only arises when an attempt is made to reconcile Mark 1:27 with Luke 4:36. The Markan context makes it clear that it is Jesus’ teaching that is delivered with authority. See Gould, 24; Taylor, 176; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 229 n. 48; Gundry, Mark, 1:77. ↩
221. Pace Argyle, “The Meaning of ἐξουσία in Mark 1:22, 27,” 343; Guelich, 56. Argyle’s argument that “though ἐξουσία occurs over fifty times in the Septuagint, in not a single instance does it translate רשות” is disingenuous on two scores. First, there are sixty-six instances of ἐξουσία in LXX, but only thirty-one of them occur in books corresponding to MT (cf. Hatch-Redpath, 1:500-501). It is hardly reasonable to complain that ἐξουσία is not a translation of רָשׁוּת in books that were not translated from Hebrew! Moreover, Argyle ignores the fact that רָשׁוּת never occurs in MT—it is a Mishnaic Hebrew word—so of course ἐξουσία never occurs in LXX as the translation of רָשׁוּת. Argyle’s argument (repeated by Guelich) is, therefore, utterly insubstantial. ↩
222. Cf. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew,” under the subheading “Mark’s Editorial Method: An Examination of Mark Chapter 1” in the Comment to Mark 1:21-28. ↩
223. The masculine noun ὁ ἦχος occurs twice in the writings of Luke (Luke 4:37; Acts 2:2), while the neuter noun τὸ ἦχος occurs once in Luke’s writings (Luke 21:25). ↩
224. On ἦχος as a possible product of Lukan redaction, see Son of Man’s Coming, Comment to L13-14. ↩
225. On περὶ αὐτοῦ in the sense of “concerning him” as typical of Lukan redaction, see Return to the Galil, Comment to L8. ↩
226. On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for περίχωρος, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L123-124. ↩
227. The phrase εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας could be understood as either “into all the region of the Galilee” or “into all the region surrounding the Galilee,” but since Mark’s Gospel, unlike Luke’s, has Jesus travel north into the region of Tyre and east into the Decapolis, it is likely that “into all the region surrounding the Galilee” is the meaning the author of Mark intended. Already in Mark 3:7-8 the author of Mark claims that Jesus drew crowds not only from the Galilee but also from Judea and Idumea in the south, Perea in the southeast, and Tyre and Sidon in the north. The spread of the report about Jesus beyond the borders of the Galilee best accounts for the presence of crowds from these distant places. Cf. Theissen, Gospels, 98 n. 93. ↩
228. Cf. Bundy (80 §12), who noted that the conclusion of Teaching in Kefar Nahum is more subdued in Luke than it is in Mark. ↩

229. Teaching in Kefar Nahum
     Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλειλαίας καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου καὶ ἀνέκραξε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἔα τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπετείμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων φειμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥεῖψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ συνελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου		καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἔα τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς λέγων φιμώθητι ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥῖψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ συνελάλησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος εἰς πάντα τόπον
     Total Words:	119	Total Words:	100
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	94	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	94
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	78.99%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	94.00%

      ↩

230. Teaching in Kefar Nahum
     Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     καὶ εἰσπορεύονται εἰς Καφαρναούμ καὶ εὐθέως τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ εὐθὺς ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ καὶ ἀνέκραξεν λέγων τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπετείμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων φειμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ σπαράξαν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συνζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς λέγοντας τί ἐστιν τοῦτο διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εὐθὺς πανταχοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλειλαίας		καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἔα τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς λέγων φιμώθητι ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥῖψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ συνελάλησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος εἰς πάντα τόπον
     Total Words:	124	Total Words:	100
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	59	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	59
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	47.58%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	59.00%

      ↩

231. Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 41 no. 6) regarded Luke’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum as more like “translation” Greek than Mark’s. ↩

232. Teaching in Kefar Nahum
     Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ τὴν παραθαλασσίαν ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου Γαλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν		καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἔα τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς λέγων φιμώθητι ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥῖψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ συνελάλησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος εἰς πάντα τόπον
     Total Words:	57 [86]	Total Words:	100
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	3	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	3
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	5.26 [3.49]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	3.00%

      ↩

233. On Jesus’ lament over Capernaum, see Woes on Three Villages. ↩