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

(Huck 9, 12, 44; Aland 32, 35-36, 76;
Crook 25-26, 59-60)^[241]

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.^[242]

Reconstruction

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

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).^[243] 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. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Return to the Galil, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[2] 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. ↩
• ^[3] 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.” ↩
• ^[4] See Return to the Galil, Comment to L12. ↩
• ^[5] See Luz, 1:389. ↩
• ^[6] See Dibelius, 237. ↩
• ^[7] See Beare, Earliest, 48 §12. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Bundy, 77 §12. ↩
• ^[9] On Anth.’s placement of Centurion’s Slave following Jesus’ sermon, see Sermon’s End, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[10] Cf. Bundy, 75 §12. ↩
• ^[11] Cf. Collins, 102. ↩
• ^[12] 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. ↩
• ^[13] 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.” ↩
• ^[14] 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. ↩
• ^[15] 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. ↩
• ^[16] 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. ↩
• ^[17] Cf. Bundy, 66 §9; Beare, Matt., 114; Gundry, Matt., 59. ↩
• ^[18] 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. ↩
• ^[19] 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. ↩
• ^[20] 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. ↩
• ^[21] 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

  ↩

• ^[22] 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.” ↩
• ^[23] Cf. Bundy, 75 §12. ↩
• ^[24] See Plummer, Luke, 131; Marshall, 191; Fitzmyer, 1:543-544; Bovon, 1:161 n. 13. ↩
• ^[25] 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. ↩
• ^[26] 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). ↩
• ^[27] See Creed, 70; Fitzmyer, 1:543. ↩
• ^[28] See Bundy, 76-77 §12; Marshall, 191. ↩
• ^[29] 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. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Luz, 1:156. ↩
• ^[31] Cf. Beare, Matt., 115; Gundry, Matt., 60; Davies-Allison, 1:379. ↩
• ^[32] Cf. McNeile, 43. ↩
• ^[33] Cf. Beare, Matt., 115. ↩
• ^[34] See Luz, 1:157; Nolland, Matt., 171. ↩
• ^[35] See Nolland, Matt., 171 n. 2. ↩
• ^[36] 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. ↩
• ^[37] 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. ↩
• ^[38] 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. ↩
• ^[39] 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. ↩
• ^[40] Cf. Allen, 34. ↩
• ^[41] On the author of Matthew’s fulfillment formulae, see A Voice Crying, Comment to L40. ↩
• ^[42] See McNeile, 44; Beare, Earliest, 44 §9. ↩
• ^[43] 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.” ↩
• ^[44] 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. ↩

• ^[45] 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. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Schweizer, 67; Luz, 1:156 n. 7. ↩
• ^[47] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4, 174. ↩
• ^[48] Cf. Luz, 1:157. ↩
• ^[49] See Gundry, Use, 105; Davies-Allison, 1:381; Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
• ^[50] See Gundry, Use, 106. ↩
• ^[51] See Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. But the LXX translators probably read the unpointed text as רְאוּ (r^e’ū, “See [plur.]!”). ↩
• ^[52] See Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
• ^[53] See Gundry, Use, 108; Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
• ^[54] Pace Luz, 1:156. ↩
• ^[55] 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. ↩
• ^[56] See Gundry, Use, 107. ↩
• ^[57] See Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
• ^[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 Gundry, Use, 106. ↩
• ^[65] See Schweizer, 67. ↩
• ^[66] See Davies-Allison, 1:383; Luz, 1:158. ↩
• ^[67] 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?” ↩
• ^[68] See Schweizer, 67; Gundry, Use, 106. ↩
• ^[69] 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. ↩
• ^[70] Codex Vaticanus reads ἐν σκοτίᾳ rather than ἐν σκότει, which is the reading of Nestle-Aland’s critical text. ↩
• ^[71] 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. ↩
• ^[72] 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

  ↩

• ^[73] The author of Matthew used the noun φέγγος in Matt. 24:29, so we know it would have been familiar to him. ↩
• ^[74] An unpointed ראו could be read as either רָאוּ (rā’ū, “they saw”) or רְאוּ (r^e’ū, “See!”). ↩
• ^[75] See Gundry, Use, 107. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 172 n. 4. ↩
• ^[77] Cf. McNeile, 44. Gundry (Use, 107) attempted to maintain Matthean independence from LXX even with regard to ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου. ↩
• ^[78] 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). ↩
• ^[79] On the phenomenon of Markan inversion, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[80] 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. ↩
• ^[81] Cf., e.g., Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 156. ↩
• ^[82] Cf. Taylor, 172; Marcus, 1:186. ↩
• ^[83] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 117; Fitzmyer, 1:544. ↩
• ^[84] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 190. ↩
• ^[85] Cf. Bundy, 77 §12. ↩
• ^[86] See Shmuel Safrai, “Master and Disciple,” under the subheading “Movable Schools.” ↩
• ^[87] Pace Plummer, Luke, 132; Marshall, 191; Nolland, 1:205. ↩
• ^[88] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1256-1257. ↩
• ^[89] See Dos Santos, 204. ↩
• ^[90] 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.” ↩
• ^[91] Cf. Bultmann, 334 n. 1; Streeter, 262; Gundry, Matt., 136; Catchpole, 281. ↩
• ^[92] Cf. Creed, 70; Beare, Matt., 200; Luz, 1:389. ↩
• ^[93] 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. ↩
• ^[94] Cf. Bultmann, 209; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 58. ↩
• ^[95] 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. ↩
• ^[96] 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.” ↩
• ^[97] 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. ↩
• ^[98] 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.” ↩
• ^[99] See Return to the Galil, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[100] See Marshall, 191. ↩
• ^[101] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:726. ↩
• ^[102] 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. ↩
• ^[103] 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.” ↩
• ^[104] 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. ↩
• ^[105] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 210; idem, “Teaching with Authority,” under the subheading “Redactional Activity in Luke’s Story.” ↩
• ^[106] See HTGM, 89. ↩
• ^[107] Cf., e.g., The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, L11; Heaven and Earth Pass Away, L3, L14. ↩
• ^[108] Cf. Karl Rengstorf, “διδαχή,” TDNT, 2:163-164. ↩
• ^[109] 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. ↩
• ^[110] 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. ↩
• ^[111] 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. ↩
• ^[112] See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Major Importance of the Minor Agreements,” under the subheading “Mark’s Special Use of Λόγος.” ↩
• ^[113] HTGM, 89. ↩
• ^[114] 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. ↩
• ^[115] 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?” ↩
• ^[116] 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. ↩
• ^[117] 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. ↩
• ^[118] See LHNS, 19 §12. ↩
• ^[119] Lindsey (LHNS, 19 §12) also noted this chiastic relationship. ↩
• ^[120] 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. ↩
• ^[121] See above, Comment to L31-32. ↩
• ^[122] Pace Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 58. ↩
• ^[123] 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. ↩
• ^[124] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:74. ↩
• ^[125] See Beare, Matt., 200. ↩
• ^[126] 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. ↩
• ^[127] Cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 156. ↩
• ^[128] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1309-1310. ↩
• ^[129] The LXX translators rendered כ-נ-ס 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. ↩
• ^[130] 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. ↩
• ^[131] 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”). ↩
• ^[132] 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. ↩
• ^[133] 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. ↩
• ^[134] 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? ↩
• ^[135] 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. ↩
• ^[136] 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. ↩
• ^[137] See Like Children Complaining, Comment to L16. ↩
• ^[138] 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. ↩
• ^[139] See Beare, Earliest, 48 §12. ↩
• ^[140] See Plummer, Luke, 132. ↩
• ^[141] See Marshall, 192; Bovon, 1:159 n. 3. ↩
• ^[142] See LSJ (46) for the negative connotations of ἀκάθαρτος. ↩
• ^[143] See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[144] 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.” ↩
• ^[145] 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. ↩
• ^[146] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:206; J. Green, 222. ↩
• ^[147] See Plummer, Luke, 133. ↩
• ^[148] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:545; Nolland, Luke, 1:204. ↩
• ^[149] 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. ↩
• ^[150] 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. ↩
• ^[151] The members of the Qumran sect were required to hate outsiders ברוח הסתר (b^erūaḥ haseter, “in the clandestine spirit”; 1QS IX, 21-22). ↩
• ^[152] According to Isa. 19:14, a spirit of confusion (רוּחַ עִוְעִים [rūaḥ ‘iv‘im]) would cause Egypt to stagger like a drunkard. ↩
• ^[153] 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. ↩
• ^[154] 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. ↩
• ^[155] 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. ↩
• ^[156] See Manson, Luke, 45; Beare, Earliest, 48 §12; Gundry, Mark, 1:75. ↩
• ^[157] 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. ↩
• ^[158] 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. ↩
• ^[159] 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. ↩
• ^[160] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:78. ↩
• ^[161] See Dos Santos, 55. ↩
• ^[162] 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)

  ↩

• ^[163] 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. ↩
• ^[164] 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. ↩
• ^[165] See Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 64. ↩
• ^[166] See Marcus, 1:187. Cf. Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 379. ↩
• ^[167] 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. ↩
• ^[168] 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. ↩
• ^[169] 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]). ↩
• ^[170] HTGM, 89. ↩
• ^[171] On the variants of the name of Bethsaida, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[172] 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. ↩
• ^[173] On rapid-fire questions as a Markan characteristic, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[174] See Delitzsch’s translation and Swete, 20. ↩
• ^[175] Cf. Loos, Miracles, 363; Fitzmyer, 1:545; Marcus, 1:188; Collins, 170. ↩
• ^[176] 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. ↩
• ^[177] 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. ↩
• ^[178] 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. ↩
• ^[179] 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. ↩
• ^[180] 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. ↩
• ^[181] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:12-15. ↩
• ^[182] See Dos Santos, 180. ↩
• ^[183] On reconstructing θεός (theos, “god”) with אֱלֹהִים (’^elohim, “God”), see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L21. ↩
• ^[184] 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. ↩

• ^[185] This is how LXX interprets קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים: ὅτι κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ (hoti kekatēramenos hūpo theou, “because he is cursed by God”). ↩
• ^[186] 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. ↩
• ^[187] See Like Children Complaining, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[188] The phrase “behind the veil” comes from a story about demons in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A §3 (ed. Schechter, 16-17). ↩
• ^[189] See Moulton-Milligan, 672 (citing examples from the third and fourth centuries C.E.); Fitzmyer, 1:546; Nolland, Luke, 1:207. ↩
• ^[190] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1432. ↩
• ^[191] However, according to Jastrow (488), the Aramaic cognate חֲסַם could mean “to silence.” ↩
• ^[192] Delitzsch translated φιμώθητι (fimōthēti, “Be silenced!”) in Mark 1:25 and Luke 4:35 as הֵאָלֵם (hē’ālēm, “Be mute!”). ↩
• ^[193] Cf. Vermes, Authentic, 3. ↩
• ^[194] See LSJ, 1624. ↩
• ^[195] Cf. Gould, 24. ↩
• ^[196] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1252. ↩
• ^[197] See Dos Santos, 210. ↩
• ^[198] The verb כָּפָה only occurs once in MT (Prov. 21:14). ↩
• ^[199] 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). ↩

• ^[200] See Jastrow, 658. ↩
• ^[201] The phrase הִשְׁלִיךְ אֶל תּוֹךְ occurs in Num. 19:6; Jer. 51:63; Ezek. 5:4; Zech. 5:8. ↩
• ^[202] 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. ↩
• ^[203] 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). ↩
• ^[204] See Guelich, 58; Marcus, 1:189. ↩
• ^[205] On ancient Jewish beliefs concerning the origins of demons, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L68-69. ↩
• ^[206] Cf., e.g., Swete, 21; Bultmann, 210. ↩
• ^[207] The verb βλάπτειν (blaptein, “to harm”) does not occur elsewhere in Luke or Acts. ↩
• ^[208] 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. ↩
• ^[209] 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. ↩
• ^[210] Cf. Taylor, 176. On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for ἅπας, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L48. ↩
• ^[211] Cf. Marshall, 193. ↩
• ^[212] 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. ↩

• ^[213] On the possibility of ἀλλήλων being a Lukan redactional term, see Like Children Complaining, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[214] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1301. ↩
• ^[215] On reconstructing λαλεῖν with דִּבֵּר, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L17. ↩
• ^[216] The LXX translators rendered אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ as ἀνὴρ πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ in Judg. 6:29; 10:18; 4 Kgdms. 7:3, 9. ↩
• ^[217] 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. ↩
• ^[218] 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. ↩
• ^[219] Lindsey translated πρὸς ἀλλήλους as אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ in Mark 4:41; 8:16; 15:31. ↩
• ^[220] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 210; idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels,” 22 n. 19. ↩
• ^[221] See Quieting a Storm, Comment to L43. ↩
• ^[222] 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. ↩
• ^[223] The LXX translators rendered מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה as τί τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο in Judg. 8:1; 2 Kgdms. 12:21; 2 Esd. 12:19. ↩
• ^[224] See Bultmann, 209; Bundy, 77 §12; Collins, 173. ↩
• ^[225] 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. ↩
• ^[226] See Fredriksen, From Jesus, 47. ↩
• ^[227] 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. ↩
• ^[228] 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. ↩
• ^[229] 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. ↩
• ^[230] 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). ↩
• ^[231] On ἦχος as a possible product of Lukan redaction, see Son of Man’s Coming, Comment to L13-14. ↩
• ^[232] On περὶ αὐτοῦ in the sense of “concerning him” as typical of Lukan redaction, see Return to the Galil, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[233] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for περίχωρος, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L123-124. ↩
• ^[234] 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. ↩
• ^[235] Cf. Bundy (80 §12), who noted that the conclusion of Teaching in Kefar Nahum is more subdued in Luke than it is in Mark. ↩
• ^[236]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[237]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[238] 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. ↩
• ^[239]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[240] Cf. Luz, 1:156. ↩
• ^[241] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[242] 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. ↩
• ^[243] On Jesus’ lament over Capernaum, see Woes on Three Villages. ↩