Sermon’s End

Matt. 7:28; 8:5a; Luke 7:1^[1] 

וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אֶת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיִּכָּנֵס לִכְפַר נַחוּם

When Yeshua was finished telling them all these things he entered Kefar Nahum.^[2] 

Updated: 18 January 2026

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Sermon’s End click on the link below:

Story Placement

Both Matthew and Luke have concluding statements at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28) / Sermon on the Plain (Luke 7:1a). Despite their use of different vocabulary, both statements include a verb of completion, a noun for “words,” and a reference to the audience.^[3] The functional and thematic, though not verbal,^[4] similarity of these statements is a strong indication that a concluding statement also occurred at the end of the pre-synoptic source(s) for the Sermon on the Plain/Mount.^[5] 

In Luke’s Gospel the statement that concludes the Sermon on the Plain also describes Jesus’ entering Capernaum at the opening of Centurion’s Slave (Luke 7:1b). Neither the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49) nor Centurion’s Slave (Luke 7:1-10) have parallels in Mark; both are Double Tradition (DT) pericopae. Matthew’s Gospel has a different story order in which Man with Scale Disease (Matt. 8:1-4), a Triple Tradition (TT) pericope, follows the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1-7:29). Nevertheless, the author of Matthew placed Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5-13) following his version of Man with Scale Disease. Moreover, like Luke, Matthew’s version of Centurion’s Slave opens with Jesus entering Capernaum. It appears, therefore, that the transition from the Sermon to Centurion’s Slave already existed in the pre-synoptic tradition^[6] and that the author of Matthew interrupted this sequence with the insertion of Man with Scale Disease from Mark. To make room for this insertion the author of Matthew broke the Sermon’s concluding statement in two, thereby creating a gap between the statement about Jesus’ ending these words, which the author of Matthew attached to the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28a), and the statement about Jesus’ entry into Capernaum, which the author of Matthew attached to Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5a). Into this space between the two parts of Sermon’s End the author of Matthew inserted Man with Scale Disease, which he copied from Mark.^[7] 

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Despite the thematic and functional similarities between Matt. 7:28a; 8:5a and Luke 7:1a, which suggest that the authors of Luke and Matthew based their versions of Sermon’s End on their source(s),^[8] there is almost no verbal agreement between the two versions.^[9] This lack of verbal agreement between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Sermon’s End demands an explanation.

Lindsey believed that verbal disparity in DT pericopae mainly occurred when the authors of Luke and Matthew relied on distinct but related sources. According to Lindsey, the author of Luke based his Gospel on two written sources, the Anthology (Anth.), a highly Hebraic source also known to the author of Matthew, and the First Reconstruction (FR), a paraphrased epitome of Anth. characterized by improved Greek style. When the author of Luke depended on FR for a pericope but the author of Matthew depended on Anth. for his version, the result was verbal disagreement in a DT pericope. While other factors, such as Lukan and Matthean redaction, could also generate verbal disagreement in DT pericopae, Lindsey regarded the use of distinct but related sources as the primary cause of DT verbal disparity.

Sermon’s End offers a good illustration of Lindsey’s explanation. Matthew’s version of Sermon’s End has a highly Hebraic καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb construction that is not typical of Matthean redaction.^[10] It is probable, therefore, that this Hebraic construction came from Matthew’s source (Anth.). Luke’s parallel to Matthew’s Hebraic wording, ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν (epeidē eplērōsen, “when he finished”), is stylistically better Greek. But the temporal use of ἐπειδή (epeidē, “since”) is not found elsewhere in the Lukan corpus.^[11] This non-Lukan usage of ἐπειδή probably came from Luke’s source (FR).^[12] 

Another indication that Luke’s version of Sermon’s End stems from FR is the context in which it appears. The author of Luke tended to copy large blocks of material from a single source rather than switching back and forth between his two sources from one pericope to the next. Since the whole of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain appears to have been taken from FR, it is likely that Luke’s version of Sermon’s End came from FR too.^[13] 

Comment

L1 καὶ ἐγένετο (GR). As we noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above, Matthew’s καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb construction is highly Hebraic^[14] and atypical of Matthean redaction.^[15] Both of these facts suggest that the author of Matthew copied καὶ ἐγένετο (kai egeneto, “and it happened”) from Anth.^[16] On the other hand, use of καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb is fairly common in Luke’s Gospel, so the author of Luke’s avoidance of this construction in Sermon’s End is probably not due to Lukan redaction. The avoidance of καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb in Luke 7:1 is more likely due to the author of Luke’s dependence on FR.

Although we have stated that καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb is not characteristic of Matthean redaction, this Hebraic construction does occur at the close of each of Matthew’s five major discourses (Matt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).^[17] Since most of these discourses were artificially constructed by the author of Matthew, who built them from sayings he found in various sources and locations, it is reasonable to suppose that the concluding statements of the Matthean discourses are artificial too.^[18] To a certain degree we believe this supposition is correct. Only the first of Matthew’s major discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, was built on a pre-synoptic homily that closed with a statement about what happened when Jesus ended “these words.” Not only is the Sermon on the Mount paralleled in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, Matthew’s concluding statement in Matt. 7:28a is paralleled in Luke 7:1a. However, when the author of Matthew wished to close out his other discourses he replicated the wording of Anth.’s conclusion to Jesus’ homily on the commandments:^[19] 

Matthew 7:28	Matthew 11:1	Matthew 13:53	Matthew 19:1	Matthew 26:1
καὶ ἐγένετο	καὶ ἐγένετο	καὶ ἐγένετο	καὶ ἐγένετο	καὶ ἐγένετο
And / it happened	And / it happened	And / it happened	And / it happened	And / it happened
ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν	ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν	ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν	ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν	ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν
when / ended	when / ended	when / ended	when / ended	when / ended
ὁ Ἰησοῦς	ὁ Ἰησοῦς	ὁ Ἰησοῦς	ὁ Ἰησοῦς	ὁ Ἰησοῦς
the / Jesus	the / Jesus	the / Jesus	the / Jesus	the / Jesus
				πάντας
				all
τοὺς λόγους		τὰς παραβολὰς	τοὺς λόγους	τοὺς λόγους
the / words		the / parables	the / words	the / words
τούτους		ταύτας	τούτους	τούτους
these		these	these	these
	διατάσσων
	instructing
	τοῖς δώδεκα μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ
	the / twelve / disciples / of him
ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι	μετέβη ἐκεῖθεν	μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν	μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν	εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ
were astonished / the / crowds….	he went down / from there….	he departed / from there….	he departed / from there….	he said / to the / disciples / of him….

It is because the author of Matthew replicated Anth.’s wording at the end of each of his discourses that highly Hebraic, non-Matthean vocabulary recurs in these redactional verses.

Despite repeatedly using this stereotyped language at the end of each of his discourses, it is also apparent that the author of Matthew adapted the concluding formula he borrowed from Anth. to fit his individual discourses. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount the author of Matthew referred to the reaction of the audience. Instead of referring to “these words” at the end of the Sending Discourse, the author of Matthew referred to “instructing the twelve disciples.” At the end of the Parables Discourse the author of Matthew referred to “these parables” instead of “these words.” In the conclusion to his final discourse the author of Matthew referred to “all these words.” The only completely generic concluding statement is the one that appears at the close of the Pastoral Discourse (Matt. 19:1). As such, Matt. 19:1 is the most typical of Matthew’s stereotyped concluding statements. It is interesting to note, therefore, that μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν (metēren ekeithen, “he departed from there”), which occurs in this most generic of Matthew’s concluding statements (as well as in Matt. 13:53, and cf. μετέβη ἐκεῖθεν in Matt. 11:1), loosely corresponds to εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ (eisēlthen eis Kafarnaoum, “he entered Capernaum”) in Luke 7:1a (≈ Matt. 8:5a). The inclusion of a change of location in Matt. 11:1; 13:53; and 19:1 supplies further support to our hypothesis that the author of Matthew snapped Anth.’s conclusion to Jesus’ homily in two in order to insert Man with Scale Disease between the pieces. The author of Matthew could hardly have had Jesus enter Capernaum at the end of each discourse, but where Anth. had referred to Jesus’ entering Capernaum the author of Matthew generically described Jesus’ moving on “from there.”

L2 ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν (GR). As we noted above in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section, Matthew’s καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker (in this case, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν [hote etelesen, “when he ended”]) is more Hebraic than Luke’s ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν (epeidē eplērōsen, “having completed”). Accordingly, we find several instances of καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε + aorist in LXX (Judg. 1:28; 16:16, 25; 1 Kgdms. 1:12; 5:4; 2 Kgdms. 7:1; 19:26; 3 Kgdms. 21:12; 4 Kgdms. 14:5; Jer. 42:11; 44:11; 48:13). Since καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε + aorist is both Hebraic and uncharacteristic of Matthean redaction,^[20] we have adopted this grammatical structure for GR.^[21] 

More difficult to decide is whether to accept Matthew’s verb (τελεῖν [telein, “to end,” “to complete”]) or Luke’s verb (πληροῦν [plēroun, “to fill,” “to fulfill,” “to finish”]) for “completion.” On the one hand, some scholars have suggested that the author of Matthew may have wished to avoid πληροῦν because of his specialized use of this verb for the fulfillment of prophecy.^[22] On the other hand, τελεῖν is not particularly characteristic of Matthean redaction. Apart from the conclusions to the discourses (Matt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), τελεῖν only occurs twice in Matthew: once in the version of Completion the author of Matthew copied from Anth. (Matt. 10:23), and once in Half Shekel (Matt. 17:24). Half Shekel is, admittedly, a pericope unique to Matthew that bears the marks of Greek composition, but in Half Shekel τελεῖν occurs in the sense of “to pay.” This distinctive Matthean usage of τελεῖν in the sense of “to pay” in Half Shekel does not prove that τελεῖν in the ordinary sense of “to end” in Sermon’s End is the product of Matthean redaction.

Since 1) we have concluded that τελεῖν also occurred elsewhere in Anth. (Completion, L18), 2) the author of Matthew did not have a strong redactional preference for τελεῖν, and 3) Luke’s version of Sermon’s End appears to be FR’s paraphrase of Anth., it appears likely that τελεῖν is the verb that appeared in Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End. Further support for this conclusion is Bovon’s suggestion that Luke 7:1 avoided τελεῖν because its proximity to τελευτᾶν (televtan, “to die”) in Luke 7:2 would have been jarring to Greek ears.^[23] Given all these considerations, we have adopted τελεῖν for GR.^[21] 

כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר (HR). In LXX most instances of καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε (kai egeneto hote, “and it happened when”) occur as the translation of וַיְהִי כִּי (vayhi ki, “and it was when”),^[24] but there are instances where καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε occurs as the translation of -וַיְהִי כְּ + infinitive construct (e.g., וַיְהִי כִּרְאוֹת [vayhi kir’ōt, “and it was when he/she saw”]; Jer. 48[41]:13).^[25] Although καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν (“and it happened when he/she ended”) never occurs in LXX as the translation of וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת (vayhi k^echalōt, “and it was when he/she finished”), the phrase וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת is common in MT, whereas וַיְהִי כִּי כִלָּה (vayhi ki chilāh, “and it was when he finished”) does not occur. We consider the verb כִּלָּה (kilāh, “complete,” “finish”) to be the best option for reconstructing τελεῖν, both because τελεῖν and especially its compound συντελεῖν (sūntelein, “to finish”) are the most common LXX translations of כִּלָּה,^[26] and because וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת combined with לְדַבֵּר אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה (l^edabēr ’et had^evārim hā’ēleh “to speak these words”) is familiar from the Hebrew Scriptures:^[27] 

וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה

And it was when he finished speaking all these words…. (Num. 16:31)

ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους

But as he stopped speaking all these words…. (Num. 16:31)

וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת דָּוִד לְדַבֵּר אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל שָׁאוּל

And when David finished speaking these words to Saul…. (1 Sam. 24:17)

καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσεν Δαυιδ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα λαλῶν πρὸς Σαουλ

And it happened as David finished speaking these words to Saul…. (1 Kgdms. 24:17)

Similarly worded sentences are found in Deut. 32:45; Judg. 15:17; 1 Sam. 18:1; 2 Sam. 13:36; Jer. 26[33]:8; Jer. 43[50]:1.

To כְּכַלּוֹת (k^echalōt, “when finished”) we have added the third-person masculine pronominal suffix (כְּכַלֹּתוֹ [k^echalotō]) because we suspect that Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End did not mention Jesus by name (see below, Comment to L3).

In HR we have supplied the infinitive construct לְדַבֵּר (l^edabēr, “to say”), despite the lack of a corresponding participle (viz., λαλῶν [lalōn, “speaking”]) in Matt. 7:28 or Luke 7:1, in accordance with Hebrew usage. Although we might have added λαλῶν to GR, the absence of the participle in both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Sermon’s End cautions against our doing so. Probably the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua felt that translating לְדַבֵּר was superfluous, since the meaning was perfectly clear without it.

L3 ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matt. 7:28). We have omitted Jesus’ name from GR in L3 because it is unlikely that the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke would have dropped Jesus’ name had it occurred in their respective sources.^[28] A hint that the author of Matthew added Jesus’ name in L3 is the un-Hebraic attachment of the definite article to a personal name. We believe Jesus’ name was usually unaccompanied by the definite article in Anth.

Having added Jesus’ name to Sermon’s End, the author of Matthew continued to repeat Jesus’ name in the concluding statements of the other major discourses.

L4 πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους (GR). Although there is general agreement between Luke and Matthew in L4 in terms of sense, there is no agreement in terms of vocabulary. Luke refers to “all” the words, whereas Matthew omits “all.” Matthew refers to “these words,” while Luke refers to “his words,” and Luke and Matthew use different synonyms for “word” (Luke: ῥῆμα [hrēma, “word,” “saying,” “utterance”]; Matthew: λόγος [logos, “word,” “thing”]). Each may preserve something of the wording of Anth.

Luke’s πᾶς (pas, “all”) makes sense at the end of a discourse and could have survived the First Reconstructor’s redactional activity, whose overall approach to Sermon’s End was to achieve greater brevity and better Greek style. It is also possible that the author of Matthew omitted πᾶς from Sermon’s End because he wished to reserve this adjective for the closing statement of Jesus’ final discourse (Matt. 26:1). In other words, the author of Matthew may not have added πᾶς in Matt. 26:1 but suppressed Anth.’s πᾶς in Matt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; and 19:1. Thus Matthew’s πᾶς in Matt. 26:1 could provide support for Luke’s πᾶς in Luke 7:1. Based on this possibility we have included πᾶς in GR.^[29] 

While Luke’s πᾶς may preserve a glimmer of Anth., on the whole Matthew’s wording in L4 looks more original. Matthew’s reference to “these words” is closer to the Hebrew formula “when he finished speaking these words” encountered in Comment to L2 than Luke’s “his words.” Likewise, Matthew’s λόγος (logos, “word”) agrees with the standard equivalent of דָּבָר (dāvār, “word”) in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua.^[30] That Luke’s use of ῥῆμα in L4 is the product of redactional activity is also supported by the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use λόγος for “word” in the Houses on Rock and Sand parable (Matt. 7:24 = Luke 6:47). Given their proximity, it is likely that the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua would have rendered דָּבָר the same way in Houses on Rock and Sand and Sermon’s End. Since the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use λόγος in Houses on Rock and Sand indicates that the Greek translator used λόγος there, he probably did the same in Sermon’s End. This leads to the conclusion that ῥῆμα in Luke 7:1 is due to the redactional activity of the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke.^[31] We have therefore adopted Matthew’s τοὺς λόγους τούτους (tous logous toutous, “these words”) in L4 for GR.^[21] 

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

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

Since we prefer to reconstruct narrative in an archaizing style of Hebrew, we have reconstructed the demonstrative pronoun οὗτοι (houtoi, “these”) with Biblical אֵלֶּה (’ēleh, “these”) rather than with Mishnaic אֵלּוּ (’ēlū, “these”).

L5-7 ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ (Matt. 7:28). Having split Anth.’s version of Sermon’s End in two (Matt. 7:28a; 8:5a) in order to insert Man with Scale Disease between the two pieces, the author of Matthew took the opportunity to add a description of the audience’s reaction to Jesus’ sermon (Matt. 7:28b-29). While it is possible that Anth. did include a brief reference to the audience (see below, Comment to L6), it is clear that the author of Matthew based the crowd’s reaction on the congregation’s response to Jesus’ teaching in Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum.^[32] In a thoroughly redactional verse (see Teaching in Kefar Nahum, Comment to L33) the author of Mark had claimed:

καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς

And they were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes. (Mark 1:22)

The author of Matthew took over these words from Mark’s version of Teaching in Kefar Nahum verbatim,^[33] simply adding οἱ ὄχλοι (hoi ochloi, “the crowds”) as the subject of ἐκπλήσσειν (ekplēssein, “to be astonished”)^[34] and appending αὐτῶν (avtōn, “their”) to οἱ γραμματεῖς (hoi grammateis, “the scribes”).^[35] 

The author of Matthew’s interpolation of the people’s reaction from Teaching in Kefar Nahum into his version of Sermon’s End is but one instance of this redactional practice. The author of Matthew had already interpolated a version of Closed Door (Matt. 7:22-23) into Houses on Rock and Sand (Matt. 7:21-27),^[36] and in subsequent chapters he would interpolate Coming From All Directions (Matt. 8:11-12) into his version of Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5-13) and incorporate A Blind Guide (Matt. 15:14) into True Source of Impurity (Matt. 15:1-20).

Flusser noted the grim irony of the author of Matthew’s transfer of the congregation’s response in Teaching in Kefar Nahum to the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount: “Anyone who has learned even a modicum about Judaism knows how deeply the Sermon on the Mount is rooted in the tradition of the rabbinic sages, both in terms of content and exegetical method. Matthew’s claim that the words of the Sermon on the Mount are essentially different from the teachings of the scribes is greatly exaggerated, to say the very least.”^[37] “The ‘Sermon on the Mount,’” Flusser wrote, “in reality resembles very much the ‘teaching of the scribes.’”^[38] 

L6 εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς αὐτῶν (GR). Although the identifications of the audience in Matt. 7:28 and Luke 7:1 are suspect, the fact that both versions of Sermon’s End make reference to the audience means that we cannot ignore the possibility that Anth. referred to the audience in some way. Matthew’s reference to οἱ ὄχλοι (hoi ochloi, “the crowds”) is suspect because it refers back to the opening of the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5:1, where Jesus’ view of the crowds prompts him to ascend the mountain in order to deliver the sermon. Since Matt. 5:1 has every appearance of being redactional, Matthew’s link back to this verse by mentioning the crowds may be redactional too. On the other hand, Luke’s reference to “the people” also raises doubt, since in various other places we have found λαός (laos, “people”) to be the product of Lukan (not FR) redaction.^[39] 

While Luke’s reference to “the people” may be suspect, the reference to Jesus’ speaking εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς (eis tas akoas, “into the ears”) reverts easily to idiomatic Hebrew. Indeed, our Hebrew reconstruction of Sermon’s End in L1-6 greatly resembles the following verse:

וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם

And he spoke all these words in their ears. (Gen. 20:8)

καὶ ἐλάλησεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν

And he spoke all these words into their ears. (Gen. 20:8)^[40] 

The LXX translators never rendered בְּאָזְנֵי (b^e’oznē, “in the ears of”) as εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς, usually preferring ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν (en tois ōsin, “in the ears”) or εἰς τὰ ὦτά (eis ta ōta, “into the ears”) instead. Nevertheless, εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς is a perfectly valid translation of בְּאָזְנֵי, and there is no reason why the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua could not have adopted it. Thus in Luke 7:1 εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς appears to be a non-Septuagintal Hebraism.^[41] 

Not only is Luke’s εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς Hebraic, a reference to the audience’s ears makes good sense at the end of a homily in which Jesus stressed both the hearing and the doing of the word (Matt. 7:24, 26; Luke 6:47, 49), so there is no need to regard εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς as an alien element in Sermon’s End.^[42] We suspect that in place of the generic phrase εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς αὐτῶν (eis tas akoas avtōn, “into their ears”), which the First Reconstructor copied from Anth., the author of Luke wrote εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ (eis tas akoas tou laou, “into the ears of the people”).^[43] 

L8 εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ (Matt. 8:5). As we noted above, having split Sermon’s End in two, the author of Matthew inserted additional material between the halves. First, the author of Matthew elaborated upon the reaction of the crowds to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28b-29). Second, he described Jesus’ descent from the mountain (Matt. 8:1). Third, the author of Matthew recorded his version of Man with Scale Disease (Matt. 8:2-4), which he adapted from Mark 1:40-45. Instead of continuing with Mark’s pericope order, the author of Matthew returned to the order of Anth., resuming with the conclusion of Sermon’s End and continuing with Centurion’s Slave, a DT pericope that does not occur in Mark. Thus in Matthew Jesus’ entry into Capernaum forms the opening statement of Centurion’s Slave rather than the final statement concerning Jesus’ homily on the Torah, as in Luke and Anth.

The cleverness with which the author of Matthew manipulated his sources is revealed when we notice that just at the point where Mark’s Gospel has Jesus enter Capernaum for the healing of the paralyzed man (Mark 2:1) the author of Matthew had Jesus enter Capernaum for the healing of the centurion’s slave (Matt. 8:5).^[44] In other words, the author swapped out one Capernaum story (Mark’s Bedridden Man) for another (Anth.’s Centurion’s Slave).

The author of Matthew’s redactional activity is evident in his use of the genitive absolute, which is un-Hebraic but typical of Greek stylistic polishing.^[45] 

καὶ εἰσῆλθεν (GR). Luke’s use of the aorist is far more Hebraic than Matthew’s genitive absolute construction. Even more Hebraic would be καί + aorist, which we have adopted for GR. The author of Luke, or the First Reconstructor before him, may have dropped Anth.’s καί (kai, “and”) as superfluous.^[46] 

וַיִּכָּנֵס (HR). On reconstructing εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) with נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”), see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L5. The use of the MH verb נִכְנַס in a narrative context yields a mixed Biblical/Mishnaic style similar to that found in the Second Temple-period source embedded in b. Kid. 66a.^[47] 

L9 εἰς Καφαρναούμ (GR). The Lukan-Matthean agreement to refer to Capernaum as the setting of the Centurion’s Slave pericope virtually guarantees that Capernaum was mentioned at this point in Anth.^[21] 

לִכְפַר נַחוּם (HR). On reconstructing Καφαρναούμ with כְּפַר נַחוּם, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L17.

Redaction Analysis

Luke’s Version^[48] 

Luke’s version of Sermon’s End passed through the hands of two redactors: the First Reconstructor and the author of Luke. As a result of these two stages of redactional activity Luke’s version of Sermon’s End is worded rather differently than Anth.’s. Most notably, Luke’s version is a bit more succinct and its Greek style is improved in comparison to Anth.’s. To a certain extent it is possible to distinguish between the two layers of redactional activity. To FR we may attribute the substitution of Anth.’s Hebraic καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε (“and it happened when”; L1-2) with ἐπειδή (epeidē, “since”), because the temporal use of ἐπειδή is not found elsewhere in Luke’s writings. On the other hand, we may attribute the reference to “the people” to the author of Luke, since redactional references to “the people” occur in Luke in both Anth. and FR pericopae. Other redactional changes, such as the replacement of Anth.’s ἐτέλεσεν (“he ended”) with FR’s ἐπλήρωσεν (“he finished”) in L2, the substitution of τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ (“his words”) for Anth.’s τοὺς λόγους τούτους (“these words”) in L4, and the omission of καί (“and”) in L8 could be the work of either editor.

Matthew’s Version^[49] 

Although the author of Matthew preserved more of Anth.’s actual wording than Luke’s version did, the extensive redactional activity involved in the author of Matthew’s splitting Sermon’s End in two and inserting additional material between the pieces means that Luke’s version of Sermon’s End more closely resembles Anth.’s pericope than does Matthew’s.

Sermon’s End became the template for the concluding statements of each of the five major discourses that punctuate Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 7:28a; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).^[50] This explains how Matt. 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; and 26:1 can be so Hebraic and contain un-Matthean vocabulary despite being redactional.

Conclusion

Careful observation of Sermon’s End affords a glimpse at the way in which the author of Matthew juggled his sources and constructed his discourses. It also reveals the author of Matthew’s polemical agenda. Despite clear affinities between Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the rabbinic sages, the author of Matthew erected a rhetorical wall between Jesus and Judaism. The anti-Jewish trajectory of Matthew’s Gospel has contributed to fundamental misunderstandings of Jesus’ message and served to justify Christian anti-Semitism. It is our hope that our endeavor to reconstruct the sources behind the Synoptic Gospels will help to rectify some of the damage caused by the Church’s anti-Jewish legacy.

---

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 Young, JHJP, 252.[↩]
4. See John C. Hawkins, “Probabilities As to the So-Called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 95-138, esp. 121. Cf. Hawkins, 165; Nolland, Luke, 1:315; idem, Matt., 345.[↩]
5. Cf. Harnack, 74; McNeile, 99; Streeter, 262; Schweizer, 192; Gundry, Matt., 136; Davies-Allison, 1:724 (with some hesitation); Nolland, Luke, 1:315; Luz, 1:389.[↩]
6. Cf. Harnack, 74; Bultmann, 334 n. 1; Bundy, 196-197 §107; Beare, Earliest, 98; Marshall, 279; Davies-Allison, 1:724, 2:17; Catchpole, 284. See also Burnett Hillman Streeter, “On the Original Order of Q,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 140-164, esp. 148.[↩]
7. See J. Vernon Bartlett, “The Sources of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 315-363, esp. 328.[↩]
8. Cf. Catchpole, 281.[↩]
9. For a precise measurement of the verbal agreement between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Sermon’s End, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae.[↩]
10. Apart from the conclusions to his five major discourses, καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb does not appear elsewhere in Matthew. However, Matt. 9:10 does contain one additional example of καὶ ἐγένετο, but this example is followed by genitive absolute + participle, a Greek construction.[↩]
11. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 194; Fitzmyer, 1:650.[↩]
12. Pace Harnack (74) and Gundry (Matt., 136), who regarded ἐπειδή in Luke 7:1 as “a Lukanism,” and Luz (1:389), who characterized Luke 7:1a as “completely Lukan.”[↩]
13. Allen (73) rejected the notion that a connection between the Sermon on the Mount/Plain and Centurion’s Slave already existed at the pre-synoptic stage of the transmission because he could not explain the verbal and other disagreements between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Jesus’ homily on the Torah. Lindsey’s hypothesis accounts for the disagreements by positing the use by the authors of Matthew and Luke of two distinct but related sources, Anth. (Matthew) and FR (Luke). But even apart from Lindsey’s hypothesis, the differences between the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain can be explained on the basis of Lukan and/or Matthean redaction.[↩]
14. Buth has shown that καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb is indicative of a Hebrew—not an Aramaic—vorlage representing the literary Hebrew narrative structure impersonal וַיְהִי + setting + finite verb. See Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 263-276); Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317, esp. 268-273 [Critical Note 5]).[↩]
15. Luz, 1:389 n. 6.[↩]
16. Cf. Catchpole, 285. Gundry (Matt., 136) supposed the author of Matthew drew καὶ ἐγένετο from a pre-synoptic version of the Houses on Rock and Sand parable, since καὶ ἐγένετο occurs in Luke’s parallel to Matt. 7:27 (∥ Luke 6:49). However, the occurrence of καὶ ἐγένετο in Luke 6:49 does not explain the Hebraic καὶ ἐγένετο + temporal marker + finite verb construction in Matt. 7:28, since the statement καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα (“and the ruin of that house was big”) in Luke 6:49 lacks both a temporal marker and a finite verb.[↩]
17. See McNeile, 99; Manson, Sayings, 178; Beare, Matt., 200.[↩]
18. Cf. Randall Buth, “Evaluating Luke’s Unnatural Greek: A Look at His Connectives,” in Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn (ed. Steven E. Runge; Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 335-369, esp. 363.[↩]
19. Cf. Streeter, 262; Luz, 1:389.[↩]
20. Cf. Luz, 1:389 n. 6.[↩]
21. Cf. Catchpole, 285.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
22. See Gundry, Matt., 136; Luz, 1:389 n. 6.[↩]
23. See Bovon, 1:260 n. 13.[↩]
24. In LXX καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε occurs as the translation of וַיְהִי כִּי in Judg. 1:28; 16:16, 25; 2 Kgdms. 7:1; 19:26.[↩]
25. In LXX καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε occurs as the translation of -וַיְהִי כְּ + infinitive construct in 3 Kgdms. 21:12 and Jer. 48[41]:13. Similarly, in Jer. 44[37]:11 καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε occurs as the translation of -וַיְהִי בְּ + infinitive construct, and in Jer. 42[35]:11 καὶ ἐγενήθη ὅτε translates -וַיְהִי בְּ + infinitive construct.[↩]
26. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1319-1320; Dos Santos, 91.[↩]
27. In Completion (L18) we reconstructed τελεῖν with גָּמַר (gāmar, “finish”), but there the context was direct speech, which we prefer to reconstruct in Mishnaic-style Hebrew.[↩]
28. Catchpole (285), on the other hand, included ὁ Ἰησοῦς in his reconstruction of the pre-synoptic source for Sermon’s End.[↩]
29. Catchpole (285) omitted πᾶς from his reconstruction of the pre-synoptic source for Sermon’s End.[↩]
30. See LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions, under the entry for דָּבָר.[↩]
31. Cf. Harnack, 74.[↩]
32. See A. B. Bruce, 136; Hawkins, 172-173; Creed, 70; Manson, Sayings, 178; Bundy, 77 §12; Beare, Earliest, 48 §12; idem, Matt., 200; Schweizer, 192-193; Gundry, Matt., 136; Strecker, 172; Davies-Allison, 1:725; Luz, 1:389; Nolland, Matt., 345. See also David Flusser, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40, esp. 23 n. 20). For doubts, see Fitzmyer, 1:542.[↩]
33. See Schweizer, 192-193; Luz, 1:389.[↩]
34. See Davies-Allison, 1:726.[↩]
35. The addition of αὐτῶν to οἱ γραμματεῖς shows intentional dissociation from the Jewish scribes on the part of the author of Matthew. Cf. 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.[↩]
36. See Houses on Rock and Sand, under the “Story Placement” subheading.[↩]
37. David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 213 (translation ours).[↩]
38. Flusser, Jesus, 249. Cf. idem, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels,” 23, 36.[↩]
39. We found λαός to be the product of Lukan redaction in Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse, L1 (Luke 3:15), and Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, L2 (Luke 3:18).[↩]
40. The Hebrew idiom דִּבֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי (dibēr b^e’oznē, “speak in the ears of”) occurs in Gen. 20:8; 23:13, 16; 44:18; 50:4; Exod. 11:2; Num. 14:28; 31:28, 30; 32:44; Josh. 20:4; Judg. 9:2, 3; 1 Sam. 8:21; 11:4; 18:23; 25:24; 2 Sam. 3:19 (2xx); 2 Kgs. 18:26; Isa. 36:11; Jer. 26:15; Prov. 23:9. Cf. Deut. 5:1; Jer. 28:7. We also find variations of the idiom such as “answer in the ears of” (Gen. 23:10), “read in the ears of” (Exod. 24:7; Deut. 31:11; 2 Kgs. 23:2; Jer. 29:29; 36:6 [2xx], 10, 13, 14, 15 [2xx], 21; Neh. 13:1; 2 Chr. 34:30), “complain in the ears of” (Num. 11:1) and “weep in the ears of” (Num. 11:18).[↩]
41. Pace Bovon, 1:260 n. 13.[↩]
42. Nevertheless, it is true that the only other instance of εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς in NT occurs in the story of Paul’s address to the Areopagus (Acts 17:20). There, however, εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς is not part of the Hebrew idiom of speaking words into someone’s ears.[↩]
43. Catchpole (285) omitted εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ from his reconstruction of the pre-synoptic source for Sermon’s End.[↩]
44. See Marshall, 279; Davies-Allison, 2:17; Luz, 2:8.[↩]
45. Cf. Harnack, 74; Gundry, Matt., 141; Davies-Allison, 2:18. On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of the genitive absolute, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Matthew.”[↩]
46. Catchpole (285) adopted εἰσῆλθεν but not καί in his reconstruction of the pre-synoptic source for Sermon’s End.[↩]
47. On the Second Temple-period source embedded in b. Kid. 66a, see Introduction to “The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction” Addendum: Linguistic Features of the Baraita in b. Kid. 66a.[↩]

48. Sermon’s End
    Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ		καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς αὐτῶν καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ
    Total Words:	14	Total Words:	16
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	6	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	6
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	42.86%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	37.50%

    [↩]

49. Sermon’s End
    Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
    καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ…. εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ….		καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς αὐτῶν καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ
    Total Words:	21	Total Words:	16
    Total Words Identical to Anth.:	9	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	9
    Percentage Identical to Anth.:	42.86%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	56.25%

    [↩]

50. Cf. Luz, 1:389.[↩]