Narrow Gate

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Narrow Gate,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28352/].

Matt. 7:13-14; Luke 13:22-24^[1] 

Updated: 18 January 2026

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם בַּקְּשׁוּ לִיכָּנֵס לַשַּׁעַר הַצַּר שֶׁרָחָב שַׁעַר הָאֲבַדּוֹן וּמְרוּבִּים הַנִּכְנָסִים לוֹ מַה צַּר שַׁעַר הַחַיִּים וּמְמוּעָטִים הַנִּכְנָסִים לוֹ

Yeshua urged them, “Try to enter the narrow gate! For wide is the Gate of Avadon, and those who enter it are many. How narrow is the Gate of Life, and those who enter it are few.”^[2] 

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Narrow Gate click on the link below:

Story Placement

Although the author of Matthew included his version of Narrow Gate in the Sermon on the Mount, whereas Luke’s version of the pericope occurs in a block of material far outside the Sermon on the Plain, there is more Lukan-Matthean agreement regarding the placement of Narrow Gate than first meets the eye. The agreement has to do with the sequence of Narrow Gate→Closed Door→Coming From All Directions, which occurs in both Matthew and Luke. In Luke these three pericopae occur in a single block (Luke 13:22-30), whereas in Matthew they occur—interwoven with other pericopae—in the concluding section of the Sermon on the Mount and the narratives that follow shortly thereafter.^[3] Thus Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate occurs in Matt. 7:13-14, at the beginning of the final section of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew’s version of Closed Door occurs in Matt. 7:22-23, where it is embedded in Houses on Rock and Sand, and Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions occurs in Matt. 8:11-12, where it is embedded in his version of Centurion’s Slave.^[4] 

The sequential agreement of Narrow Gate→Closed Door→Coming From All Directions in Matthew and Luke demands explanation. Theoretically, the author of Luke could have seen this sequence in Matthew or the author of Matthew could have seen this sequence in Luke, but it is most unlikely that either evangelist was aware of the work of the other. The most probable explanation is that the authors of Matthew and Luke derived their common sequence of these three pericopae (Narrow Gate, Closed Door, Coming From All Directions) from a pre-synoptic source.^[5] In that source these three pericopae probably occurred as a unit, as in Luke.^[6] It was the author of Matthew who broke up this unit in order to work the first two pieces into the Sermon on the Mount and the remaining piece shortly thereafter. Such activity on the part of the author of Matthew is consistent with the way he wove external pericopae from elsewhere in his sources into the Sermon on the Mount^[7] and with his technique of interpolating smaller pericopae into larger ones.^[8] 

This explanation to account for the sequential agreement of Narrow Gate→Closed Door→Coming From All Directions in Matthew and Luke is slightly complicated by the fact that Matthew’s Gospel appears to include a second version of Closed Door. This second version, in Matt. 25:10b-12, occurs at the end of the Waiting Maidens parable (Matt. 25:1-13).^[9] However, we believe that the conclusion of the Waiting Maidens parable is not a true doublet of the Closed Door saying. Rather, Waiting Maidens was originally intended as an illustration to drive home the point Jesus made in Closed Door and associated sayings. It was for that reason that the conclusion of the Waiting Maidens parable echoes the wording of Closed Door.^[10] Probably it was the Anthologizer who separated Waiting Maidens from its original literary context and the author of Matthew who, by including this parable in his version of the eschatological discourse, transformed Waiting Maidens into an allegory about the coming of the Son of Man. In any case, the similarity of the conclusion of the Waiting Maidens parable to Closed Door has caused some scholars to claim that the Matthean parallels to Luke 13:22-30 are “scattered” throughout Matthew’s Gospel.^[11] But as we have seen, this is not the case. The Matthean parallels to Luke 13:22-30 are not scattered; they appear in the same order as in Luke and in close proximity to one another.^[12] 

Although there is strong evidence to suggest that Narrow Gate was connected to Closed Door and Coming From All Directions at a pre-synoptic stage of the transmission, it is unlikely that these sayings were originally connected. One reason the author of Matthew found it so easy to separate these pericopae was their lack of coherence.^[13] Probably it was the Anthologizer who lumped these sayings together because they all have to do with the possibility of exclusion, whether from life (Narrow Gate), or the blessed community (Closed Door) or the eschatological banquet (Coming From All Directions).

Originally Narrow Gate may have been a saying intended for new disciples, whom Jesus called to a more rigorous lifestyle than was common for other first-century Jews. For that reason we have included Narrow Gate in a cluster of sayings we call the “Yeshua Calls and Teaches His First Disciples” complex. For an overview of the “Yeshua Calls and Teaches His First Disciples” complex, click here.

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Narrow Gate is a Type 2 Double Tradition (DT) pericope characterized by minimal verbal agreement. The only distinctive vocabulary that is identical in both versions of Narrow Gate are the adjectives ὀλίγοι (oligoi, “few”) and πολλοί (polloi, “many”) and the phrase διὰ τῆς στενῆς (dia tēs stenēs, “through the narrow”).^[14] Both versions also agree to use forms of the verb εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) in the exhortation to enter.^[15] Both versions refer to an architectural structure through which entry is advised, but whereas Luke’s version refers to a door, Matthew’s version refers to a gate.^[16] Finally, both versions allude to the need to search for the proper entrance. In Luke the searching motif is expressed in the futility of many who will seek to enter (L14), whereas in Matthew the searching motif is expressed in emphasizing that those who successfully find the entrance are few (L19).

The forms and structures of the two versions are quite different.^[17] Luke’s version has a narrative introduction that connects the pericope to the overall narrative framework of the Gospel (Luke 13:22) and describes and depicts a specific episode (Luke 13:23).^[18] Luke’s version of the saying (Luke 13:24) takes the form of an answer to a question. The structure is a simple exhortation to strive to enter by the narrow door on the grounds that many will seek to enter but not be able. Matthew’s version, by contrast, has no narrative introduction. The saying is structured as an exhortation to enter by the narrow gate with two parallel grounds for doing so: the wide entrance many take leads to destruction, whereas the narrow entrance few take leads to life.

According to Lindsey, the reason Type 2 DT pericopae have low levels of verbal identity is that in these cases the authors of Luke and Matthew relied on two different sources.^[19] The author of Matthew relied on the Anthology (Anth.), Matthew’s sole source for DT pericopae. The author of Luke, on the other hand, relied on the First Reconstruction (FR), a stylistically polished epitome of Anth. According to Lindsey, the First Reconstructor attempted to place the pericopae he selected from Anth. into a continuous narrative. As an epitomizer, the First Reconstructor would have shortened Narrow Gate and simplified its structure. And because he sought to create a continuous narrative out of Anth.’s fragments, the First Reconstructor would have provided Luke’s version of Narrow Gate with its narrative introduction. Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate would be more or less identical to Anth.’s.

We believe Lindsey’s account for the differences between the two versions of Narrow Gate is basically correct, although a bit too simplistic to explain everything. On the one hand, the First Reconstructor probably did provide Narrow Gate with a narrative introduction (Luke 13:23), but the author of Luke also took steps to integrate the pericope into his narrative framework by referring to Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 13:22). On the other hand, the author of Matthew may have eliminated a terse introduction such as “and he said” because he embedded his version of Narrow Gate into a larger discourse (the Sermon on the Mount). Likewise, it appears that the author of Matthew complicated the parallel structure of the saying on two gates by introducing the additional motif of two ways.

That the two ways motif in Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate is alien to the original saying is shown by the ways it interferes with the flow and logic of the saying.^[20] First, Matthew has no exhortation to walk along the strait way corresponding to the exhortation (L8-9) in Luke and Matthew to enter by the narrow gate/door. The verb εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) is more appropriate to a door or a gate than a road or a way,^[21] so the absence of the command to walk along the strait way is keenly felt. Second, the placement of “way” (L11, L16) after “gate” (L10, L15) is confusing,^[22] since the “way” leads away from a gate to some distant location (cf. Matthew’s use of ἀπάγειν [apagein, “to lead away”] in L12, L17), whereas Jesus exhorts his audience to “enter” by a gate that clearly leads into a city (or some other fortified edifice). For “way” to agree with “gate” Jesus ought to have exhorted his audience to exit by the narrow gate, not to enter it. Third, the pronoun in L14 (and cf. L19) is singular, whereas the pronoun ought to be plural in order to refer to both the gate and the way.^[23] One of the elements (gate or way) is therefore alien, and although it was the “way” that was the last to be mentioned (L11), “ones entering through it” (L14) is more appropriate to “gate” than “way,”^[24] which points to “way” as the intrusive element. In any case, Luke’s “door” is roughly equivalent to Matthew’s “gate,” which confirms that “door/gate” is original and that “way,” which has no equivalent in Luke’s version, is alien.

Thus, the differences between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Narrow Gate cannot simply be put down to the use of different sources by the authors of Luke and Matthew.^[25] Lukan and Matthean redaction are also significant factors that contributed to the verbal disparity between the two versions of Narrow Gate.

Some scholars have argued that Luke’s shorter version of Narrow Gate is closer to the original form of the saying,^[26] but clues within the Lukan and Matthean versions suggest otherwise.^[27] With respect to Matthew, we have already observed that the two ways motif interferes with the parallel structure of Matthew’s form of the saying. The interference suggests that the parallel structure referring to two gates—one wide, the other narrow—existed prior to the introduction of the two ways motif that disrupts it. Therefore, since it was probably the author of Matthew who superimposed the two ways motif upon the pre-existing parallel structure,^[28] Anth.’s version of Narrow Gate probably referred to two gates, which FR’s version simplified by referring to only one gate.

Meanwhile in Luke, the redactional question that prompts Jesus to respond with the Narrow Gate saying seems to presuppose elements that are only preserved in Matthew’s version of the saying.^[29] Thus the unidentified questioner asks whether only few will be saved. But only Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate informs readers that the stakes for entering the correct gate are (eternal) life or death. And likewise, only Matthew’s version of the saying states that those who enter the narrow gate are few. So it appears the First Reconstructor formulated the introductory question on the basis of the longer version of Narrow Gate he knew from Anth. Formulating the question in this way enabled the First Reconstructor to present a more concise version of the saying that could still be understood, despite omitting references to the wide gate (or door) and without explaining what the entrances open up to.

Another indication that Luke’s version of the saying is abbreviated appears in the imperative to “strive to enter by the narrow door” (Luke 13:24). Why narrow? According to Luke’s version of the saying, the narrowness of the door is not what keeps the many out but the fact that eventually the door will be shut (Luke 13:25). The reference to a narrow door ought to imply the existence of other doors not characterized by narrowness, yet Luke’s version of the saying presumes that there is only a single entrance through which all wish to enter. That being the case, Luke’s version would have done better to urge entry “by the open door” or “through the door of salvation.” Since the door’s narrowness does not serve a purpose in Luke’s version of the saying,^[30] it looks as if the designation “narrow” is a verbal relic from an earlier version like Matthew’s in which the “narrow” entrance distinguishes it from another entrance that is “wide.”^[31] 

Crucial Issues

1. Is the outlook of Narrow Gate pessimistic?
2. Does Narrow Gate belong to the ancient Jewish Two Ways tradition?

Comment

L1 καὶ διεπορεύετο (Luke 13:22). Luke 13:22, which ties in Narrow Gate with the broader Lukan narrative,^[32] was probably composed in its entirety by the author of Luke.^[33] Not only does Luke 13:22 betray awareness of the trajectory of the Lukan narrative, it employs vocabulary that is distinctively Lukan. The verb διαπορεύεσθαι (diaporevesthai, “to go through”) is one such example. This compound verb never occurs in Matthew or Mark, but it occurs 3xx in Luke (Luke 6:1; 13:22; 18:36) and 1x in Acts (Acts 16:4).^[34] 

L2 κατὰ πόλεις καὶ κώμας (Luke 13:22). Luke’s wording in L2 is also distinctively Lukan. In NT distributive use of the preposition κατά (kata) is almost unique to the writings of Luke.^[35] The combination κατά + πόλις never occurs in Matthew or Mark, but it occurs 6xx in the writings of Luke (Luke 8:1, 4; 13:22; Acts 15:21, 36; 20:23).^[36] Moreover, the phrase κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην, the singular equivalent of Luke’s wording in L2, also occurs in Luke 8:1, yet another verse that betrays signs of Lukan redaction.

L3 διδάσκων καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος (Luke 13:22). The phrase “teaching and making a journey” is not especially Lukan, but the phrase πορείαν ποιούμενος (poreian poioumenos, “making a journey”), which does not occur elsewhere in the synoptic tradition, is a Greek idiom.^[37] Since this Greek idiom is not easily reverted to Hebrew,^[38] it probably did not come from Luke’s source but was contributed by the author of Luke himself.

L4 εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Luke 13:22). In L4 we find the Hellenistic spelling of Jerusalem, Ἱεροσόλυμα (Hierosolūma),^[39] with its connotation of temple (ἱερόν [hieron]) and holiness (ἱερός [hieros]), rather than the more Hebraic form Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm). The use of the Hellenistic form is more likely to have come from the author of Luke than from either FR or Anth.^[40] 

L5 εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ (Luke 13:23). Whereas many scholars would attribute Luke 13:23 to the author of Luke,^[41] we think this verse was mainly composed by the First Reconstructor as an introduction to Jesus’ saying.^[42] Our reasons for ascribing most of Luke 13:23 to FR will be discussed in the comment that follows.

The evasive reference to the questioner as τις (tis, “someone”) hints that the First Reconstructor not only did not know who asked the question but that he crafted the question itself.

L6 κύριε εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σῳζόμενοι (Luke 13:23). We ascribe the question posed to Jesus in L6 to the First Reconstructor for two reasons.^[43] First, the question presupposes vocabulary (ὀλίγοι; cf. L18) and concepts (salvation; cf. L12, L17) that are found in the Matthean version of Narrow Gate but that are not present in the Lukan form of Jesus’ saying.^[44] The First Reconstructor, working from Anth., would have this “guilty knowledge,” whereas the author of Luke, working from FR, would not. Second, framing the believing community’s experience in terms of salvation occurs in other FR pericopae. Since salvation appears to have been of particular concern to the First Reconstructor, it is likely that he was responsible for the presence of σώζειν (sōzein, “to save”) in L6.^[45] 

The First Reconstructor’s main purpose behind composing the question in L6 was to provide an interpretive key for the cluster of Anth. sayings consisting of Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions. He did so by suggesting that each of these sayings concerned the issue of salvation and that the theme of exclusion present in each saying illustrated the point that the quantity of those saved would be small. The First Reconstructor also wanted to stitch these sayings more tightly together. He therefore had the questioner address Jesus as κύριε (kūrie, “Lord!”) in anticipation of the Closed Door saying, where the people shut outside address the householder with the same title (Luke 13:25).^[46] The smallness of the number of those who will be saved was suggested to the First Reconstructor by the statement in Anth.’s version of the saying that those who enter the Gate of Life will be “few” (L18).^[47] The theme of salvation was suggested to him by the choice between the Gate of Destruction and the Gate of Life in Anth.’s version of the saying.

L7 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς (GR). We suspect that Luke’s phrase ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς (ho de eipen pros avtous, “and he said to them”) is the First Reconstructor’s brushed-up paraphrase of something similar, such as καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς (kai eipen avtois, “and he said to them”), which he found in Anth. It would not be unusual in Anth. for a saying of Jesus to be introduced with a phrase of this sort, and a hint that such an introduction did occur in Anth. is the incongruity of one person asking Jesus a question, but instead of Jesus replying to “him,” he replies to “them.”^[48] The plural pronoun αὐτούς in L7 may be a verbal relic from an earlier version of the saying in which Jesus simply addressed his disciples.

If we are correct that καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς occurred in Anth., then the First Reconstructor’s use of the definite article, his use of the conjunction δέ (de, “but”) in place of καί (kai, “and), and his use of the prepositional phrase πρὸς αὐτούς (pros avtous, “to them”) in place of the dative pronoun αὐτοῖς (avtois, “to them”) should be regarded as Greek stylistic improvements.

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם (HR). On reconstructing εἰπεῖν (eipein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L12.

L8 ζητεῖτε εἰσελθεῖν (GR). Reconstructing Anth.’s wording in L8 is not as obvious as it initially appears. Luke’s ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν (agōnizesthe eiselthein, “Strive to enter!”) looks like a stylistic improvement over Matthew’s simple imperative εἰσέλθατε (eiselthate, “Enter!”). Moreover, Luke’s verb ἀγωνίζεσθαι (agōnizesthai, “to strive”) is rare in LXX, occurring mainly in books not included in MT,^[49] so it is difficult to establish a Hebrew equivalent, while the absence of ἀγωνίζεσθαι in the rest of the synoptic tradition^[50] makes its authenticity suspect in Luke’s version of Narrow Gate.

On the other hand, Matthew’s simple command to “enter” (L8) implies that entering the narrow gate is a matter of decision,^[51] which leaves readers unprepared for the concluding statement that the narrow gate is an entrance only a few will “find” (L19).^[52] It would be easy to dismiss Matthew’s reference to “finding” in L19 as entirely redactional,^[53] except that, as we noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above, the Lukan and the Matthean versions of Narrow Gate both agree to include the motif of searching. Whereas in Luke we are told that many will seek but fail, in Matthew we are told few will successfully find. Despite their different means of expression, the Lukan-Matthean agreement to include a searching motif in their respective versions of Narrow Gate suggests that a searching motif was also present in Anth.^[54] Therefore, “the ones finding it” in L19 may preserve an echo of Anth., even if it does not preserve Anth.’s precise wording.^[55] 

If a searching motif did occur in Anth.’s version of Narrow Gate, where might it have belonged? We think the most natural place is in the opening imperative: “Seek to enter the narrow gate!” Such a position could explain how the Lukan and Matthean versions of Narrow Gate came to insert the searching motif at the end of their respective sayings. With regard to Luke’s version, if the opening imperative in Anth. had read, ζητεῖτε εἰσελθεῖν (zēteite eiselthein, “seek to enter”), it is reasonable that the First Reconstructor, in his epitomizing paraphrase of the saying, would write, “for many will seek to enter and not be able.” In other words, seek to enter now, for in the future entry will not be possible. Such a reinterpretation of the Narrow Gate saying would serve the First Reconstructor’s redactional interests (see below, Comment to L14).

With regard to Matthew’s version, it appears that the author of Matthew understood ζητεῖν literally (i.e., “to seek,” “to search”) instead of in its extended sense of “to attempt” or “to try.”^[56] His literal understanding of ζητεῖν lead the author of Matthew to sometimes transpose “seeking” into “finding.” For instance, when the author of Matthew read Anth.’s version of Preserving and Destroying, the words “whoever seeks to preserve his life…” inspired him to write, “…whoever loses his life will find it” (Matt. 10:39; 16:25).^[57] Likewise, we suspect that when he read Jesus’ command to “seek to enter the narrow gate” in Anth.’s version of the saying, the author of Matthew was inspired to write, “and few are the ones who find it.”^[58] The transposition of “seek” at the beginning of an Anth. saying into “find” at the end of the Matthean version is the same in both cases.

We therefore have reason to suspect that in Anth.’s version of Narrow Gate Jesus’ command read, ζητεῖτε εἰσελθεῖν (zēteite eiselthein, “Seek to enter!”). Why, then, does Luke’s version read, ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν (agōnizesthe eiselthein, “Strive to enter!”)? We think that the First Reconstructor took over Anth.’s wording of the command and repeated the notion of seeking in his paraphrase of the remainder of the saying: “Seek to enter the narrow gate [now], for many will seek to enter [in the future] and not be able.”^[59] Perhaps the author of Luke simply did not like the repetition of ζητεῖν in L8 and in L14, or perhaps he did not recognize that timing was the key to understanding FR’s version of the saying (i.e., enter while you still can), but we suspect that the main reason the author of Luke changed the first ζητεῖν (“seek”) to ἀγωνίζεσθαι (“strive”)^[60] was that it allowed him to add the dimension of moral responsibility into the saying.^[61] 

Introducing the element of moral responsibility is a redactional tendency we have traced back to the author of Luke in other sayings,^[62] and here it also serves an apologetic function, since “striving” seems to justify the success of the few versus the unsuccessful “seeking” of the many. However, if the author of Luke’s purpose in changing ζητεῖν to ἀγωνίζεσθαι in L8 was apologetic, the result is ultimately unsatisfying. “Striving” versus “seeking” is a distinction without a difference.^[63] The author of Luke does not tell his readers what it is about the striving of the few—Its persistence? Its rigorousness? Its sincerity?—that makes it superior to the seeking of the many. The resulting impression is that who is admitted and who is denied is entirely arbitrary. The effect of such arbitrariness is at cross-purposes with the exhortation, for what is the point of striving to enter if you do not happen to be among the lucky few destined to be admitted? In this instance the author of Luke’s moralizing tendency backfired.

בַּקְּשׁוּ לִיכָּנֵס (HR). On reconstructing ζητεῖν (zētein, “to seek”) with בִּקֵּשׁ (biqēsh, “seek”), see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L12.

On reconstructing εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) with נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”), see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L5.

Nolland was correct to note that the opening command in both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Narrow Gate fails to specify what place is to be entered via the narrow gate.^[64] Whereas Nolland filled this lacuna with the Kingdom of Heaven,^[65] we think the original answer was obscured through the redactional activity of the First Reconstructor and the author of Matthew.^[66] Because we believe Anth.’s version of the saying referred to the “Gate of Life,” the place to be entered via the gate would have been clear to Jesus’ audience. See further below, in Comment to L17.

L9 διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης (GR). There is strong Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L9, both in terms of vocabulary and word order, except that whereas Matthew refers to a “gate,” Luke refers to a “door.” Since we believe Matthew’s version of the saying is closer to the original in referring to the entrances to Destruction and Life, we also think it is more likely that Anth.’s version of the saying used the term πύλη (pūlē, “gate”) rather than θύρα (thūra, “door”), for a gate is a more suitable entrance to the realms of Destruction and Life (conceived of as mythical city-states)^[64] than a door.^[67] Moreover, by changing “gate” to “door” the First Reconstructor was able to tie Narrow Gate more closely to Closed Door,^[68] which he already found associated with one another in Anth.^[69] (see the Story Placement discussion above).^[70] The author of Matthew, on the other hand, would not have needed to change “gate” to “door” because he separated these two pericopae and even omitted the doorway imagery from his first version of Closed Door (Matt. 7:22-23).^[71] Neither would he have needed to change “door” to “gate” if θύρα had occurred in Anth. We have therefore accepted Matthew’s wording in L9 for GR.

Note that the placement of the adjective στενός (stenos, “narrow”) ahead of the noun πύλη (pūlē, “gate”) is contrary to Hebrew word order. The Lukan-Matthean agreement to place στενός before the noun constrains us to adopt this word order for GR. Such minor concessions to Greek style, while not typical of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, are met with on occasion.

לַשַּׁעַר הַצַּר (HR). Following the verb נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”) we have used the preposition -לְ (l^e–, “to”), which is frequent in early tannaic sources, rather than -בְּ (b^e–, “in”), which is more common in later rabbinic sources.^[72] An example of נִכְנַס לְשַׁעַר (nichnas l^esha‘ar, “enter a gate”) is found in an early rabbinic parable:

משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שגזר על בנו שלא יכנס לפתח פלטרין שלו נכנס לשער והוא אחריו לחצר והוא אחריו לטריקלין

A parable. To what may the matter be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who decreed against his son that he should not enter the door of his palace. He [i.e., the king’s son—DNB and JNT] entered the gate [נִכְנַס לַשַּׁעַר], and then, after it, the courtyard, and then, after it, the palace…. (Sifre Num. §134 [ed. Horovitz, 179-180])

In LXX the noun πύλη (pūlē, “gate”) usually occurs as the translation of שַׁעַר (sha‘ar, “gate”).^[73] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered שַׁעַר as πύλη.^[74] The noun שַׁעַר also appears to be a good option for HR because it is used not only for physical gates but also for mythical concepts like “the narrow gate” referred to in Jesus’ saying, such as “the gate of heaven,” שַׁעַר הַשָּׁמָיִם (sha‘ar hashāmāyim; Gen. 28:17), “the gates of Sheol,” שַׁעֲרֵי שְׁאוֹל (sha‘^arē sh^e’ōl; Isa. 38:10), and “the gates of death,” שַׁעֲרֵי מָוֶת (sha‘^arē māvet; Ps. 9:14; 107:18; Job 38:17), known from the Hebrew Scriptures, “the gates of salvation,” שַׁעֲרֵי יְשׁוּעוֹת (sha‘^arē y^eshū‘ōt; 1QM XVIII, 7), known from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and “the gates of prayer,” שַׁעֲרֵי תְּפִלָּה (sha‘^arē t^efilāh; b. Bab. Metz. 59a), and “the gates of tears,” שַׁעֲרֵי דְּמָעוֹת (sha‘^arē d^emā‘ōt; b. Bab. Metz. 59a), known from rabbinic sources.

In LXX the adjective στενός (stenos, “narrow”) usually occurs as the translation of צַר (tzar, “narrow”).^[75] The LXX translators rendered צַר in a variety of ways, στενός not least among them.^[76] 

L10 ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη (GR). As we discussed in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, we believe Matthew’s longer version of the saying with the antithetical parallelism that contrasts two gates is more original than Luke’s shorter version, which focuses exclusively on a single narrow door. In the previous Comment we identified another reason, aside from the First Reconstructor’s desire for brevity, why Luke’s version omits the antithetical parallelism: the First Reconstructor attempted to bond Narrow Gate and Closed Door more closely together. He did so by changing “gate” to “door,” and now we see that he also achieved this purpose by omitting references to the wide gate that is easily entered. This allowed him to describe in both pericopae a single door through which many would not gain admittance.^[77] 

שֶׁרָחָב שַׁעַר (HR). On reconstructing ὅτι (hoti, “that,” “because”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “that,” “because”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L31.

In LXX most non-substantival instances of πλατύς (platūs, “wide”) occur as the translation of רָחָב (rāḥāv, “broad,” “wide”).^[78] The LXX translators rendered רָחָב with πλατύς more than any other adjective.^[79] 

On reconstructing πύλη (pūlē, “gate”) with שַׁעַר (sha‘ar, “gate”), see above, Comment to L9.

L11 καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς (Matt. 7:13). In L11 we encounter the first of the intrusive references to broad and strait ways. As numerous scholars have noted, the author of Matthew inserted these references to broad and strait ways into Jesus’ Narrow Gate saying under the influence of the Two Ways doctrine,^[80] which has deep roots in ancient Judaism and which was also important to the Matthean community, as we learn from the Didache, which was probably the product of the same community.^[81] 

The Didache is an early Christian manual for catechesis and church order. In its early chapters the Didache incorporates an earlier Jewish tract on the Two Ways. The Two Ways imagery serves as a metaphor for ethical and unethical conduct that produces either life or death depending on which path a person chooses to walk. In the Didache the Way of Life is equated with practicing the teachings of Jesus, while the Way of Death is equated with living in a manner that is governed neither by Jesus’ teaching nor informed by the ethics Jewish tradition regarded as universal.

If the Matthean community used the first chapters of the Didache as a catechism for initiates and candidates for baptism (cf. Did. 7:1), then it is understandable that the author of Matthew would have sought to incorporate the Two Ways doctrine into Jesus’ Narrow Gate saying. Indeed, we think Jesus’ Narrow Gate saying was influenced by the Two Ways doctrine from the beginning, although for reasons of his own Jesus preferred the imagery of two gates to two ways.^[82] By crudely inserting references to broad and strait ways the author of Matthew made obvious what had been inherent in the original saying.

L12 τῆς ἀπωλείας (GR). Matthew’s phrase ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (hē apagousa eis tēn apōleian, “that leads away to destruction”) is singular and as such can only modify ἡ ὁδός (hē hodos, “the way”) from the preceding line.^[83] This is awkward because it leaves the wide gate unidentified. We attribute this awkwardness to the author of Matthew’s insertion of the reference to the broad way at this point in the saying.

While it would be simplest to omit καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδός (“and broad is the way”; L11) and attach ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (“that leads away to destruction”; L12) to ἡ πύλη (hē pūlē, “the gate”) in L10, the verb ἀπάγειν (apagein, “to lead away”) is more appropriate to a way, a path or a road that leads elsewhere than to a gate that serves as an entrance. Moreover, the author of Matthew’s use of the verb ἀπάγειν to describe the broad way that “leads away” to destruction is reminiscent of the Didache’s use of the verb ὁδηγεῖν (hodēgein, “to lead on one’s way”) to warn that minor ethical lapses lead to major moral transgressions, for example:

ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον

…for anger leads the way to murder…. (Did. 3:2; cf. Did. 3:3, 4, 5, 6)

We therefore suspect that the author of Matthew added the phrase ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς (“that leads away to”) to Narrow Gate to allude to the form of the Two Ways tradition with which he was familiar.

On the other hand, the noun ἀπώλεια (apōleia, “destruction”) is rather surprising, since the Two Ways tradition embedded in the Didache would lead us to expect θάνατος (thanatos, “death”) rather than “destruction” (cf. Did. 1:1; 5:1). Moreover, the author of Matthew does not use ἀπώλεια elsewhere in the sense of final condemnation.^[84] It may be, therefore, that ἀπώλεια was present in Anth. In any case, the wide gate requires some kind of identifier in order to make the saying complete. Our reconstruction with ἡ πύλη τῆς ἀπωλείας (hē pūlē tēs apōleias, “the gate of destruction”) resembles a Hebrew construct phrase.

הָאֲבַדּוֹן (HR). In LXX the noun ἀπώλεια (apōleia, “destruction”) frequently occurs as the translation of a noun or verb formed from the א-ב-ד root,^[85] and ἀπώλεια occurs as the translation of אֲבַדּוֹן (’^avadōn, “destruction”) in Job 26:6; 28:22; Ps. 87[88]:12; Prov. 15:11,^[86] which accounts for all but one of the instances of אֲבַדּוֹן in MT. The remaining instance occurs in Job 31:12.

In Hebrew אֲבַדּוֹן is more than an abstract concept; in MT אֲבַדּוֹן is a name for the netherworld,^[87] being more or less synonymous with שְׁאוֹל (sh^e’ōl, “Sheol”).^[88] We thus find אֲבַדּוֹן paired with קֶבֶר (qever, “grave”; Ps. 88:12), שְׁאוֹל (sh^e’ōl, “Sheol”; Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11) and מָוֶת (māvet, “death”; Job 28:22), which makes אֲבַדּוֹן a more suitable counterpart to “life” in L17 than ἀπώλεια.^[89] In other words, the pairing of אֲבַדּוֹן with חַיִּים (ḥayim, “life”) is natural in Hebrew, but we doubt the author of Matthew would have invented the pairing of ἀπώλεια with ζωή (zōē, “life”) if he had not been guided by a Hebraic source.^[90] 

L13 πολλοί λέγω ὑμῖν (Luke 13:24). The Lukan-Matthean agreement to use the adjective πολλοί (polloi, “many”) in the Narrow Gate saying means that πολλοί probably did occur in Anth. But whereas the First Reconstructor’s condensed version of the saying refers to “many” who try unsuccessfully to enter the narrow door, in Anth.’s version πολλοί described the many who easily enter the wide gate, as we read in Matthew.

The phrase λέγω ὑμῖν (legō hūmin, “I say to you”), which is authentic in many dominical sayings, is used in an un-Hebraic fashion in Luke 13:24. We think it was supplied by the First Reconstructor, who used it to demarcate the parenetic portion of the saying from the minatory section that follows it.^[91] 

καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν (GR). We believe Matthew’s wording in L13 accurately preserves the wording of Anth.

וּמְרוּבִּים (HR). The adjective מְרוּבֶּה (m^erūbeh, “many,” “numerous”) does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures but belongs rather to the Mishnaic Hebrew lexicon. Therefore, we cannot appeal to LXX to confirm our reconstruction. Nevertheless, מְרוּבֶּה is a semantic equivalent of πολύς (polūs, “many”) and is on that grounds a good candidate for HR.^[92] 

L14 ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν (Luke 13:24). As we have already stated, we believe Luke’s version of Narrow Gate represents the First Reconstructor’s condensation of Anth.’s longer saying.^[93] The First Reconstructor omitted Anth.’s references to the wide entrance and changed “gate” to “door” because in this way he was able to weld Narrow Gate and Closed Door, which were already grouped together in Anth., more firmly together. For the same reason the First Reconstructor subtly changed the scenario Narrow Gate envisions. Whereas Anth.’s version described many entering the Gate of Destruction and few entering the Gate of Life, FR described many crowded around a single narrow entrance attempting to push their way in.^[94] This alteration anticipated the scene described in Closed Door where a crowd of people are turned away from the door of a householder’s home. Despite his efforts to weld Narrow Gate and Closed Door, the seam is still clearly visible.^[95] Whereas in Narrow Gate it is the smallness of the door that makes it difficult to enter, in Closed Door entry is impossible because the door is shut.^[96] 

An additional clue that Luke’s version of Narrow Gate was copied from FR is the use in L14 of the verb ἰσχύειν (ischūein, “to be strong”) in the sense of “to be able.”^[97] We have encountered this same usage of ἰσχύειν in other FR pericopae.^[98] 

οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς (GR). The most natural antecedent of αὐτῆς (avtēs, “it”) in Matt. 7:13 is ἡ ὁδός (hē hodos, “the way”) in L11, except that it makes little sense to “enter through” a road or a way. This phrase properly belongs to ἡ πύλη (hē pūlē, “the gate”) in L10,^[99] strong evidence that the reference to “the broad way” is a redactional intrusion.

הַנִּכְנָסִים לוֹ (HR). On reconstructing εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) with נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”), see above, Comment to L8.

L15 τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη (GR). There is a textual issue in L15 that makes reconstruction a challenge. Whereas some MSS read ὅτι (hoti, “that,” “because”), others read τί (ti, “how!”). In favor of ὅτι is that it preserves the parallelism with L10,^[100] while in favor of τί is its difficulty.^[101] There is also scholarly debate regarding whether the use of τί as an exclamation (“How!”) is normal in Greek or whether it constitutes a Semitism. If an exclamatory τί is abnormal in Greek but could be explained as a Semitism representing מָה (māh, “how!”), then τί has a stronger claim to originality. Scholars who claim that exclamatory τί represents normal Koine usage have failed to cite examples from the ancient sources. Luz, for instance, relied on modern Greek usage,^[102] which does not inspire confidence. On the other hand, Nolland was incorrect when he claimed that “use of τί in this way is not documented for the NT period.”^[103] Several examples of exclamatory τί occur in LXX, which suggests that exclamatory τί is indeed a Semitism or, to be more precise, a Hebraism. According to Muraoka, in LXX the use of τί as an exclamatory particle “appears to be an innovation in S[eptuagint] G[reek], probably triggered by H[ebrew] ma [i.e., מָה—DNB and JNT].”^[104] 

The examples of exclamatory τί Muraoka cited are as follows:

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν Μελχολ ἡ θυγάτηρ Σαουλ εἰς ἀπάντησιν Δαυιδ καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν τί δεδόξασται σήμερον ὁ βασιλεὺς Ισραηλ

And Michal, the daughter of Saul, went out to meet David and blessed him and said, “How [τί; MT: מַה] the king of Israel has glorified himself today!” (2 Kgdms. 6:20)^[105] 

τί ὡραιώθησαν σιαγόνες σου

How [τί; MT: — ]^[106] beautiful are your cheeks…! (Song 1:10)

τί ἐκαλλιώθησαν μαστοί σου ἀδελφή μου νύμφη τί ἐκαλλιώθησαν μαστοί σου ἀπὸ οἴνου

How [τί; MT: מַה] beautiful are your breasts, my sister, my bride! How [τί; MT: מַה] much more beautiful are your breasts than wine! (Song 4:10)

τί ὡραιώθης καὶ τί ἡδύνθης, ἀγάπη

How [τί; MT: מַה] beautiful and how [τί; MT: מַה] pleasant you are, beloved…! (Song 7:7)

All but one of these examples of exclamatory τί occur as the equivalent of מָה in MT, and it is possible that when the LXX translators used an exclamatory τί in Song 1:10 they worked from a pre-Masoretic text that included מָה. Since scholars have failed to produce examples of exclamatory τί in Koine sources that are not translations from Hebrew, it appears that this use of τί in Matt. 7:14 is a Hebraism.^[107] It is understandable, therefore, that later copyists would want to “correct” an unfamiliar idiom by changing τί to ὅτι, which had the added benefit of strengthening the parallelism between L10 and L15. We therefore regard τί in L15 as being the original reading in Matthew, and we have accordingly adopted τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη (ti stenē hē pūlē, “How narrow the gate!”) for GR.^[108] 

מַה צַּר שַׁעַר (HR). On reconstructing στενός (stenos, “narrow”) with צַר (tzar, “narrow”) and on reconstructing πύλη (pūlē, “gate”) with שַׁעַר (sha‘ar, “gate”), see above, Comment to L9.

L16 καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς (Matt. 7:14). Just as we regarded Matthew’s reference to the broad way to be a redactional insertion in L11, so we regard Matthew’s reference to the strait way to be a redactional insertion here in L16. We have therefore excluded καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδός (kai tethlimmenē hē hodos, “and constricted [is] the way”) from GR.

L17 τῆς ζωῆς (GR). Just as we regarded the phrase ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς in L12 to be the product of Matthean redaction, so we attribute the same phrase to Matthean redaction here in L17. Instead of referring to a way that leads to life, we think Anth. referred to the Gate of Life. We have therefore adopted τῆς ζωῆς (tēs zōēs, “of the life”) for GR.

הַחַיִּים (HR). In LXX most instances of ζωή (zōē, “life”) occur as the translation of חַיִּים (ḥayim, “life”),^[109] and the LXX translators usually rendered חַיִּים as ζωή.^[110] 

Our reconstruction שַׁעַר הַחַיִּים (sha‘ar haḥayim, “the Gate of Life”) strongly resembles the term עֵץ הַחַיִּים (‘ētz haḥayim, “the Tree of Life”; Gen. 2:9). This is no mere coincidence. The Way of Life in the ancient Jewish Two Ways tradition probably referred to the way that leads to the Tree of Life. As Rabbi Akiva explained:

נתן המקום לפניו שני דרכים דרך החיים ודרך המות ובחר לו דרך המות

The Omnipresent One set before him [i.e., Adam—DNB and JNT] two ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death, and he chose for himself the Way of Death. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BeShallaḥ §7 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:164-165])

Rabbi Akiva’s comment represents his interpretation of God’s statement in Genesis: הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ (traditionally translated as “Behold! The man has become like one of us…”; Gen. 3:22). Due to conflicting versions of the tradition,^[111] it is difficult to determine precisely how Rabbi Akiva interpreted this phrase. According to a version preserved in a genizah manuscript, Rabbi Akiva interpreted God’s statement as referring not to Adam’s present condition, subsequent to his disobedience, but to Adam’s prior condition, which was lost as a consequence of eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

כאחד ממלאכי שרת אלא שנתן המקום לפניו שני דרכים דרך חיים ודרך מוות [וב]חר לו דרך מות

[Like one of us means Adam was] like one of the ministering angels, except that the Omnipresent One set before him two ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death, and he chose for himself the Way of Death.^[112] 

This version suggests that, prior to eating the forbidden fruit, Adam was immortal like the ministering angels, except that, unlike the ministering angels, he possessed free will. But when God set before him the choice between the Way of Life and the Way of Death, Adam chose the Way of Death and lost his immortality.

According to another version of this tradition, Rabbi Akiva rejected the view that “one of us” referred to the ministering angels. Instead Rabbi Akiva preferred to punctuate the verse differently: “Behold! The man was like the One [כְּאַחַד] [i.e., God—DNB and JNT], from himself [מִמֶּנּוּ]^[113] [able] to distinguish between good and evil.”

מלמד שנתן הקבה לפניו שני דרכים דרך חיים ודרך מות ובחר הוא לו דרך המות

It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be he, set before him two ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death, but he chose for himself the Way of Death. (Mechilta de-Shimon ben Yohai, on Exod. 14:29 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, 68])

In other words, God wanted Adam to discern the difference between good and evil for himself, relying on his innate sense of morality. Instead Adam chose to listen to the advice of the serpent, conveyed to him by Eve, and rely on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ironically, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam lost his innate sense of right and wrong and thus ceased to be like the One. Henceforth good and evil must be revealed to humankind, primarily through the Torah, which would lead the way back to the Tree of Life.

In any case, Rabbi Akiva understood Gen. 3:22 as teaching that Adam exercised his free will when he chose the Way of Death. The consequence of his decision was the expulsion of humankind from the Garden of Eden and the loss of access to the Tree of Life, for God appointed cherubs and a flaming, turning sword לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים (“to guard the way of the Tree of Life”; Gen. 3:24).

The Gate of Life in Jesus’ saying, therefore, probably refers to the gateway to the Tree of Life. According to Genesis, the way to the Tree of Life is guarded. Evidently Jesus envisioned Eden as a walled garden with a single narrow gate. Entering through this gate was the only way to reach the Tree of Life.

Although we have not found instances of שַׁעַר הַחַיִּים (“the Gate of Life”) in ancient Jewish sources, we do find references to the gates of the Garden of Eden, שַׁעֲרֵי גַן עֵדֶן (sha‘^arē gan ‘ēden). For instance, according to one tradition, the dove Noah sent from the ark brought the olive branch from Eden:

שערי גן עדן נפתחו לה ומשם הביאה אתו

The gates of the Garden of Eden were opened to it [i.e., to the dove—DNB and JNT], and it brought it from there. (Lev. Rab. 31:10 [ed. Margulies, 2:732]; cf. Gen. Rab. 33:6 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:311])

This tradition raises the possibility that, at least in the minds of some interpreters of Scripture, the branch the dove brought back to Noah came from the Tree of Life, which it had reached by passing through the gates of the Garden of Eden. In any case, the phrase שַׁעֲרֵי גַן עֵדֶן (“the gates of the Garden of Eden”) implies that Eden is surrounded by a wall. Since Genesis envisions only a single path to the Tree of Life, which is guarded by the cherubs with the flaming sword, perhaps we are to envision double gates that form a single entrance. The imagery in Narrow Gate is a little different, as the Gate of Life is a single, narrow entrance.

Why did Jesus prefer to speak of the Gate of Life rather than the more familiar image of the Way of Life? Probably because the gateway imagery was better suited for his purpose, which was to emphasize that access to the Tree of Life is difficult. Whereas the imagery of a road lends itself to the notion of easy, unimpeded access, a gate is an obstruction meant to keep out enemies and admit only friends. Therefore, instead of referring to the Way of Life that leads up to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, Jesus referred to the Gate of Life, which bars the way to the Tree of Life inside the walled Garden of Eden.

L18 καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν (GR). Matthew’s wording in L18 perfectly balances his wording in L13, which we adopted for GR. Like Matthew’s version, Luke’s version of Narrow Gate also uses the adjective ὀλίγοι (oligoi, “few”), albeit in a different location. In Luke 13:23 someone asks Jesus whether those who are saved will be “few.” Although we believe this question is redactional, having been formulated by the First Reconstructor to give Jesus’ saying context and help his readers interpret its meaning, his use of ὀλίγοι may be an echo of Anth.’s wording in L18.^[77] Thus the parallelism with L13 and the evidence from Luke 13:23 allow us to confidently adopt Matthew’s wording in L18 for GR.

וּמְמוּעָטִים (HR). On reconstructing ὀλίγος (oligos, “small,” “few”) with מְמוּעָט (m^emū‘āṭ, “few”), see “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves,” Comment to L43.

L19 οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν (Matt. 7:14). Once again we encounter a grammatical difficulty in Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate. The concluding pronoun αὐτήν (avtēn, “it”) is singular and therefore ought to refer to the strait way that leads to life. Being singular, αὐτήν cannot refer both to the way and to the gate.^[114] But this creates a disconnect in Matthew’s form of the saying, which opens with an imperative to enter by the narrow gate, but closes with few finding the strait way. This disconnect is resolved when it is recognized that the references to the broad and strait ways are redactional insertions that interfere with the logical and grammatical flow of the saying.

οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς (GR). Nevertheless, recognition that references to the broad and strait ways are redactional is not sufficient to resolve all the difficulties with Matthew’s wording in L19. The theme of hiddenness, which Matthew’s final clause adds to the saying (“and few are they who find it”), does not fit well with the Two Ways motif, which we believe influenced Narrow Gate on two levels. The overt references to the Two Ways were added by the author of Matthew, but as we discussed in Comment to L17 above, the original form of Jesus’ saying was also likely informed by the Two Ways tradition.

Fundamental to the Two Ways tradition is the concept of free will (see above, Comment to L17).^[115] Human beings must choose for themselves which path to follow. According to Rabbi Akiva, God set two ways before Adam, the first human being and the representative of all humankind, and Adam chose the Way of Death. But God sets the same choice before everyone. And so we find the sages asking, אֵי זוֹ הִיא דֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה שֶׁיָּבוֹר לוֹ הָאָדָם (“What is the right way that a person should choose?”; m. Avot 2:1 [emphasis ours]; cf. m. Avot 2:9). Hiddenness, on the other hand, implies a lack of choice. A person cannot choose to enter the narrow gate if she cannot find it in the first place.

Thus the motif of hiddenness, which suddenly appears at the close of the saying as if it were an afterthought, interferes with the Narrow Gate saying^[52] and is likely to be the product of Matthean redaction. As we discussed above in Comment to L8, we believe Matthew’s reference to “finding” the Narrow Gate was inspired by Anth.’s imperative to “seek to enter the narrow gate.” The author of Matthew understood the verb ζητεῖν (zētein, “to seek”) literally in terms of a search, whereas the Greek translator had intended ζητεῖν in the sense of “attempt” or “make an effort.”^[56] The result of the author of Matthew’s confusion is an imbalanced and somewhat incoherent saying. Our reconstruction, on the other hand, which simply repeats the wording in L14, is well balanced and fully coherent.

הַנִּכְנָסִים לוֹ (HR). On reconstructing εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) with נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”), see above, Comment to L8.

Redaction Analysis

The Lukan and Matthean versions of Narrow Gate are both highly redacted, albeit for different reasons and with differing results. Given the amount of redaction in both versions of the saying, reconstruction would have been exceedingly difficult except that the author of Matthew’s redactional method is completely transparent. The author of Matthew superimposed overt references to the Two Ways tradition over the Narrow Gate saying, a saying in which the Two Ways tradition was already present just below the surface.

Luke’s Version^[116] 

Narrow Gate
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	41	Total Words:	35
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	9	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	9
% Identical to Anth.:	21.95	% of Anth. in Luke:	25.71
Click here for details.

Luke’s version of Narrow Gate was subjected to two stages of intensive redaction. The first stage was that of the First Reconstructor, who paraphrased Narrow Gate in order to tighten the connections with the following pericope, Closed Door. The First Reconstructor had found these two pericopae already joined in Anth., together with Coming From All Directions. In order to make the loosely related bundle of sayings into a coherent whole, the First Reconstructor invented a scene in which someone asks Jesus whether only a few will be saved. This question he formulated out of Anth.’s version of Narrow Gate. The First Reconstructor then made Narrow Gate the beginning of Jesus’ reply, replacing the image of a narrow gate with a narrow door in order to identify the narrow door with the shut door of the following saying (Closed Door). The First Reconstructor also eliminated the references to a wide entrance, since Closed Door referred only to a single door. And instead of describing a few who enter the narrow gate, the First Reconstructor referred to many crowding around the narrow door trying to push their way in. This scenario fit better with the scene described in Closed Door where a group of people knock at a shut door and are sent away.

Despite all these changes to unite Narrow Gate and Closed Door, the result was only a partial success. The seam between the two pericopae is still visible, since Jesus begins speaking of a narrow door that is difficult to squeeze through, but ends up speaking of a shut door that no one can enter.

The second stage of redaction is that of the author of Luke, who composed an introductory notice for Narrow Gate to fit the pericope into his overall geographical scheme (Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem). The author of Luke also attempted to give the saying a moral lesson, whereas in FR’s version the issue was simply a matter of timing.^[117] He therefore changed “Seek to enter [now]…for many will try to enter [when it is too late]…” to “Strive to enter, for many will try…and not be able.” With this change the author of Luke wanted to stress the importance of personal responsibility and effort. Like the First Reconstructor’s ultimately unsuccessful attempt to weld Narrow Gate and Closed Door into a single unit, Luke’s moral lesson is ultimately unsatisfying. The distinction between the successful striving of the few and the unsuccessful seeking of the many is never articulated, with the result that the decision to admit some and turn away others appears arbitrary. Such arbitrariness is more likely to discourage moral effort than encourage it.

Matthew’s Version^[118] 

Narrow Gate
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	44	Total Words:	35
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	23	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	23
% Identical to Anth.:	52.27	% of Anth. in Matt.:	65.71
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew’s redactional activity in Narrow Gate was mainly focused on making explicit what was already submerged in the original saying: the Two Ways tradition. Because the Two Ways tradition was already present in Narrow Gate, the author of Matthew’s redactional activity would have been difficult to detect except that it was poorly executed. Grammatical inconsistencies throughout Matthew’s version of the saying alert us to the presence of alien material. Were it not for the Lukan parallel, however, it would have been easy to mistakenly suppose that it was the imagery of the gates rather than the imagery of the ways that was the foreign element. Thankfully, the rough equivalence of Luke’s door with Matthew’s gate proves that the gate imagery is original and the way imagery is secondary.^[119] 

Results of This Research

1. Is the outlook of Narrow Gate pessimistic? Some scholars have characterized the Narrow Gate saying as extremely gloomy, since it condemns the vast majority of humankind to eternal damnation.^[120] Our understanding of the saying is not quite so pessimistic. The Two Ways tradition, to which Narrow Gate belongs, describes two ways of living: one is generative, life-affirming and abundant; the other is destructive, life-negating and wretched. Without effort one will inevitably slip into the life-negating path. Much of humanity has been and will continue to be ensnared in death. Nevertheless, ancient Judaism held that human beings could be redeemed from death, souls could be brought back from Sheol, the dead could be delivered from Abaddon. Therefore Jesus, who shared this view, probably held out hope for humanity, despite the severity of the Narrow Gate saying. Few may enter the Narrow Gate, but the Gates of Sheol cannot resist the advance of the Kingdom of Heaven.

2. Does Narrow Gate belong to the ancient Jewish Two Ways tradition? We believe the Two Ways tradition influenced the Narrow Gate saying on two levels. The original saying was inspired by the notion of two ways between which a person must choose: the Way of Life, which leads back to the Garden of Eden, or the Way of Death, which leads to Sheol or Gehenna. Instead of adopting the imagery of two ways, however, Jesus employed the imagery of two gates. Whereas “ways” connote paths along which a person may travel unimpeded, “gates” connote an obstacle that prevents entry, or at least regulates it. Therefore, since Jesus wished to emphasize the difficulty of attaining life, the image of “gates” better suited his purpose.

The Two Ways tradition also influenced the Narrow Gate saying at the level of Matthean redaction. The Two Ways tradition was important to the Matthean community, and the author of Matthew recognized that the Two Ways tradition was in the background of the saying. In order to make the Two Ways explicit, the author of Matthew inserted the broad way and the strait way into the saying, where they parallel the images of the narrow gate and the wide gate. Although this insertion made the influence of the Two Ways overt, it undermined the coherence and the subtlety of the original saying.

Conclusion

In Narrow Gate Jesus encouraged his listeners to enter the Gate of Life, which guards the Garden of Eden and protects the Tree of Life. Entry is an option for everyone, but not to be won by the faint of heart.

---

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. The author of Matthew used Narrow Gate, which expresses an ethical dualism, to introduce a sectarian outlook into the concluding section of the Sermon on the Mount that contrasts true (i.e., Matthean) and false (i.e., non-Matthean) Christians. According to the author of Matthew, these non-Matthean Christians have been misled by false prophets who cause them to bear evil fruit, to disobey or refrain from doing the will of the heavenly father, and who will ultimately be rejected when Jesus refuses to recognize them “on that day.” The author of Matthew’s binary worldview is found in the contrasts between sheep vs. wolf (Matt. 7:15), virtuous fruit vs. evil fruit (Matt. 7:16-20), lip service vs. obedience (Matt. 7:21-23), and hearing Jesus’ word and doing vs. hearing Jesus’ word and not doing (Matt. 7:24-27). Cf. Sandt-Flusser, 202. ↩
4. Cf. Luz, 1:370 n. 7. ↩
5. Pace Bultmann (130), Knox (2:31), Fitzmyer (2:1021) and Bovon (2:310), who thought that the author of Luke assembled the pericopae in Luke 13:24-30. ↩
6. Cf. Bundy, 369 §267; Marshall, 564; Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 189-194; Fleddermann, 676, 694-695. ↩
7. See the introduction to the “Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex. ↩
8. On the author of Matthew’s use of interpolation as a redactional method, see Sermon’s End, Comment to L5-7. ↩
9. See Bundy, 474 §387. ↩
10. Pace Nolland (Luke, 2:734), who suggested that the verbal similarity between Luke 13:25 and Matt. 25:10-12 could be explained by the independent reliance “on established Jewish imagery to express exclusion.” ↩
11. Pace Manson, Sayings, 124; Beare, Earliest, 173 §165; François Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q: A Study in Lukan Redaction,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 285-294, esp. 287. Cf. Bultmann, 130. ↩
12. Bovon (“Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 287), despite referring to these pericopae as “scattered in several places in Matthew,” recognized that “the Matthean parallels—despite their dispersion—follow the same order as the Lukan [pericopae].” ↩
13. Cf. Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 288. ↩
14. See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae for precise details. ↩
15. Cf. Knox, 2:31, 79. ↩
16. Cf. Fleddermann, 677. ↩
17. Cf. Rod Parrott, “Entering the Narrow Door: Matt 7:13//Luke 13:22-24,” Forum: A Journal of the Foundations and Facets of Western Culture 5.1 (1989): 111-120, esp. 112. ↩
18. See Knox, 2:79. ↩
19. See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae, under the subheading “Causes of Verbal Disparity in DT Pericopae.” ↩
20. Cf. Bundy, 122 §47; Luz, 1:371. ↩
21. See Gundry, Matt., 127; Betz, 524; Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 189; Fleddermann, 678. ↩
22. Cf. Betz, 524; Luz, 1:370 n. 11. ↩
23. Cf. Bundy, 122 §47; LHNS, 34 §40. ↩
24. See Kloppenborg, 224 n. 216; LHNS, 34 §40. ↩
25. Similar to Lindsey, Manson (Sayings, 124, 175) and Bundy (121 §47) attributed the differences between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Narrow Gate to reliance on different sources: Luke using Q, and Matthew having recourse to a special Matthean source. Cf. Betz, 524. ↩
26. See A. B. Bruce, 132; Jeremias, Theology, 18; Beare, Earliest, 67 §40; Davies-Allison, 1:696; Parrott, “Entering the Narrow Door,” 118; Funk-Hoover, 347; Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 190. ↩
27. Harnack (67), Knox (2:79), Strecker (156), Nolland (Luke, 2:732-733; Matt., 331-332) and Bovon (“Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 288) regarded Luke’s version of Narrow Gate to be abbreviated from a longer form like Matthew’s. ↩
28. Pace Gundry (Matt., 127) and Davies and Allison (Davies-Allison, 1:698), who suggested that the two ways motif was brought into the saying at the same time as the addition of the second (broad) gate. ↩
29. Cf. Creed, 185; Marshall, 563; Fleddermann, 677. ↩
30. Cf. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 192. Tuckett, however, draws the wrong conclusion by suggesting that “narrow” in Luke 13:24 reflects a secondary development in Q. ↩
31. Pace Llewellyn Howes, “‘I Do Not Know You!’: Reconsidering the Redaction of Q 13:25-27,” Journal of Theological Studies NS 67.2 (2016): 479-506, esp. 490. ↩
32. See Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 285; Fleddermann, 677; Wolter, 2:192. ↩
33. Cf. Bultmann, 334; Manson, Sayings, 124; Knox, 2:79; Beare, Earliest, 173 §165; Marshall, 564; Fitzmyer, 2:1021; David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (JOC, 552-560), esp. 555 n. 2; Nolland, Luke, 2:732, 733; Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 287; Fleddermann, 676. ↩
34. See Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Nolland, Luke, 2:733. ↩
35. See Fitzmyer, 2:1024. Cf. Cadbury, Style, 117; Fleddermann, 677. See also the author of Luke’s redactional use of κατά + ὅλος to express “throughout,” which we discuss in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L144. ↩
36. Cf. Hawkins, 29, 51. ↩
37. See Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Wolter, 2:194. ↩
38. Cf. Delitzsch’s translation of καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος in Luke 13:22 as וַיֵּלֶךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ (vayēlech l^edarkō, “and he went on his way”). ↩
39. For discussion of textual variants regarding the form of the name “Jerusalem” in Luke 13:22, see Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Bovon, 2:310 n. 15. ↩
40. On FR’s use of the transliterated form Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm), see Yeshua Attends to the Crowds, under the subheading “Luke’s Yeshua Attends to the Crowds,” Comment to L54-55. On the author of Luke’s preference for the Hellenized form Ἱεροσόλυμα (Hierosolūma), see JP Staff Writer, “The Names of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” Jerusalem Perspective (2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/26856/], under the subheading “Jerusalem’s Names in Luke-Acts.” ↩
41. Cf. Creed, 185; Bultmann, 334; Fitzmyer, 2:1021; Kloppenborg, 223; Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 287; Bovon, 2:311; Nolland, Luke, 2:733.  ↩
42. Jeremias (Parables, 195 n. 9), on the other hand, thought the scene described in Luke 13:23 was the original setting of Jesus’ saying. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 124; Gundry, Matt., 126. ↩
43. Cf. Bundy, 369 §266. ↩
44. Cf. Creed, 185; Marshall, 563. ↩
45. On the First Reconstructor’s redactional use of σώζειν, see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L34.
    
    Bovon (2:311) regarded σώζειν as Lukan.
    
    Flusser (“Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 555 n. 2) suggested that the question in Luke 13:23 was a doublet of the question “Who, then, can be saved?” in Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L86 (Matt. 19:25 ∥ Mark 10:26 ∥ Luke 18:26). While we do not regard these questions as doublets, we do attribute them both to the First Reconstructor. ↩
46. Cf. LHNS, 130 §165. Nolland (Luke, 2:733) failed to notice this connection. ↩
47. Cf. Cadbury, 100; Marshall, 564; Kloppenborg, 224 n. 216; Nolland, Luke, 2:732, 733. ↩
48. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 346. ↩
49. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:18. ↩
50. See Moulton-Geden, 17. ↩
51. Cf. Bundy, 369 §266; Parrott, “Entering the Narrow Door,” 118; Bovon, 2:311. ↩
52. Cf. Bundy, 122 §47. ↩ ↩
53. There are indications that Matthew’s wording in L19 is redactional. First, οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν (hoi hevriskontes avtēn, “the ones finding it”) in L19 destroys the symmetry of the saying, since the parallel in L14 prepares us to expect οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς (hoi eiserchomenoi di avtēs, “the ones entering through it”). Second, we have seen that “the ones entering through it” in L14 is likely to have been present in Anth., since the singular pronoun “it” conflicts with Matthew’s redactional addition of “the road,” which ought to have produced the plural pronoun “them.” ↩
54. Cf. Schweizer, 185. ↩
55. Cf. Fleddermann, 678. ↩
56. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 126. ↩ ↩
57. See Preserving and Destroying, Comment to L1. ↩
58. Cf. Luz, 1:371. ↩
59. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 175. ↩
60. Harnack (67), Strecker (216 n. 2) and Bovon (2:312) likewise attributed ἀγωνίζεσθαι in L8 to the author of Luke. Fleddermann (679), on the other hand, thought Luke copied ἀγωνίζεσθαι from his source. ↩
61. See Marshall, 565; Nolland, Luke, 734. On ἀγωνίζεσθαι + infinitive, see Wolter, 2:196-197. ↩
62. We found that the author of Luke introduced the theme of moral effort into his version of the Houses on Rock and Sand parable. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L33-35. ↩
63. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 568. ↩
64. See Nolland, Matt., 332. ↩ ↩
65. Cf. Schweizer, 176; Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Betz, 526. Jeremias, on the other hand, thought the gate was the entrance to the eschatological Jerusalem. See Joachim Jeremias, “πύλη, πυλών,” TDNT, 6:921-928, esp. 923. For a critique of this view, see Betz, 523. ↩
66. On the redactional level, Nolland (Matt., 332) may be correct that the author of Matthew thought of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. ↩
67. Cf. Harnack, 68; Strecker, 216 n. 2. ↩
68. Cf. LHNS, 130 §165; Marshall, 563; Nolland, Luke, 2:733; Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 288; Bovon, 2:312. The desire to make Narrow Gate conform to Closed Door makes the suggestion that πύλη and θύρα are merely translation variants of שַׁעַר unnecessary and improbable. Cf. W. C. Allen, “The Aramaic Background of the Gospels,” in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 287-312, esp. 302. ↩
69. Pace Fleddermann (678) and Howes (“‘I Do Not Know You!’: Reconsidering the Redaction of Q 13:25-27,” 482 n. 14, 484), who regarded θύρα as the reading in the pre-synoptic version of Narrow Gate. Kloppenborg (224, 235) and Tuckett (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 189-190) remained undecided as to whether “gate” or “door” was original. ↩
70. Cf. Bundy, 369 §267. ↩
71. On this omission, see Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L9-20. ↩
72. An example of -נִכְנַס לְ occurs in the Tosefta’s version of the tradition that certain rabbinic sages entered Paradise:

    ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס בן עזיי ובן זומא אחר ור′ עקיבא

    Four [persons] entered Paradise: Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, Aḥer, and Rabbi Akiva…. (t. Hag. 2:3; Vienna MS)

    The parallel in the Babylonian Talmud reads, ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס (b. Hag. 14b).
    For additional examples of -נִכְנַס לְ, see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L7, and Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L16. ↩

73. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1240-1242. ↩
74. See Dos Santos, 214. ↩
75. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1288. ↩
76. See Dos Santos, 179. ↩
77. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:733. ↩ ↩
78. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1141. ↩
79. See Dos Santos, 191. ↩
80. See Manson, Sayings, 175; Conzelmann, 109; Bundy, 122 §47; Jeremias, Theology, 18 n. 1; Schweizer, 184; Gundry, Matt., 127; Davies-Allison, 1:698; Nolland, Luke, 2:732; Luz, 1:371; Sandt-Flusser, 201; Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew,” under the subheading “The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3-7:27) in Light of the Two Ways.” ↩
81. On the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew having been produced by the same stream of early Christianity, see van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew,” under the subheading “The Nature of the Agreements between Didache and Matthew.” Cf. Luz, 1:371. ↩
82. Nolland (Matt., 332) correctly noted that “the unstated assumptions [of Narrow Gate—DNB and JNT] are that everyone must go through a gate and end up somewhere and that only two gates exist.” ↩
83. Cf. McNeile, 94. In order to encompass both the gate and the way, the author of Matthew ought to have written αἱ ἀπάγουσαι εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (hai apagousai eis tēn apōleian, “that lead to destruction”). Cf. T. Abraham [B] 8:11 (ed. Stone, 75), which is probably dependent on Matthew. See E. P. Sanders in Charlesworth, 1:879; Luz, 1:370 n. 11. Likewise, T. Abraham [A] 11:2-3 likely reflects Matthew’s version of Narrow Gate. See Davies-Allison, 1:695; Luz, 1:317 n. 13. ↩
84. See McNeile, 94; Nolland, Matt., 333. ↩
85. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:151-152. ↩
86. Cf. the equation of Ἀπολλύων (Apollūōn, “Destroyer”) with Ἀβαδδών (Abaddōn), a transliteration of אֲבַדּוֹן in Revelation:

    ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἀβαδδών, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα ἔχει Ἀπολλύων

    His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek the name he has is Apolluon. (Rev. 9:11)

     ↩
87. See Benedikt Otzen, “אָבַד ’ābhadh; אֲבֵדָה ’^abhēdhāh; אַבְדָן ’abh^edhān; אֲבַדּוֹן ’^abhaddôn,” TDOT, 1:19-23, esp. 23. ↩
88. In the Thanksgiving Scroll we find the construct phrase שאול אבדון (“Sheol of Abbadon”; 1QH^a XI, 19). Likewise, according to b. Eruv. 19a, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarded Sheol and Abbadon as synonyms of Gehenna. ↩
89. We selected אֲבַדּוֹן as the reconstruction of ἀπώλεια prior to discovering that Delitzsch, in his translation of Matt. 7:13, rendered ἀπώλεια as אֲבַדּוֹן. ↩
90. The pairing of ἀπώλεια with ζωή in LXX is rare. We find one instance in Prov. 10:11. In the Psalms of Solomon we find the pairing of ἀπώλεια with ζωή twice (Ps. Sol. 9:5; 13:11). The pairing of ἀπώλεια with ζωή in T. Abraham [B] 8:11 probably reflects the influence of Matt. 7:13. ↩
91. Cf. Bovon, 2:312; Fleddermann, 679. ↩
92. We have also reconstructed πολύς with מְרֻבֶּה in Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry (L9) and in “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves” (L42). ↩
93. Cf. Fleddermann, 679. ↩
94. Cf. Bundy, 369 §266; Fitzmyer, 2:1025. ↩
95. Cf. Bultmann, 130; Knox, 2:80; Marshall, 563; Fitzmyer, 2:1021; Nolland, Luke, 2:734; Bovon, 2:312. ↩
96. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 568; Creed, 185; Bundy, 369 §267; Beare, Earliest, 174 §165. ↩
97. Strecker (216 n. 2) and Fleddermann (679), on the other hand, attributed ἰσχύειν in L14 to the author of Luke. ↩
98. We find ἰσχύειν in such FR pericopae as Houses on Rock and Sand (L44 = Luke 6:48) and Tower Builder and King Going to War (L6 = Luke 14:29, L11 = Luke 14:30). On ἰσχύειν as an indicator of FR redaction, see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L6. ↩
99. Cf. LHNS, 34 §40; Luz, 1:370. ↩
100. See Gundry, Matt., 128. ↩
101. See Metzger, 19; Betz, 526. ↩
102. See Luz, Matt., 1:370 n. 2. Cf. Betz, 526 n. 61. ↩
103. See Nolland, Matt., 333 n. 473. ↩
104. See Muraoka, Syntax, 94 §18e. ↩
105. Michal’s statement to David is sarcastic. ↩
106. BHS conjectures that the text upon which LXX was based read מַה. No fragments of Song 1:10 have been discovered among DSS to confirm this conjecture. ↩
107. Cf. Black, 89; Metzger, 19; Davies-Allison, 1:699; Hagner, 1:178. See also Muraoka, Syntax, 94 n. 3. ↩
108. From GR we have omitted Vaticanus’ conjunction δέ (de, “but”), which is likewise rejected in Nestle-Aland. ↩
109. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:599-601. ↩
110. See Dos Santos, 62. ↩
111. On the various versions of the tradition preserved in this Mechilta passage, see Menahem Kister, “The Tree of Life and the Turning Sword: Jewish Biblical Interpretation, Symbols, and Theological Patterns and Their Christian Counterparts,” in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 138-155, esp. 143-144, 153-155. ↩
112. Text according to Menahem I. Kahana, The Genizah Fragments of the Halakhic Midrashim Part I: Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishma‘el, Mekhilta d’Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yohay, Sifre Numbers, Sifre Zuta Numbers, Sifre Deuteronomy, Mekhilta Deuteronomy (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 61. (Our thanks to Pieter Lechner, who generously equipped JP with this valuable resource.) ↩
113. The preposition מִמֶּנּוּ (mimenū) can mean either “from us” or “from him.” Context and, in this case, punctuation determine the meaning in a given sentence. Flusser’s suggestion that Rabbi Akiva interpreted כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ as meaning אחד משני הדרכים (“one of the two ways”), i.e., Adam had become like the Way of Death, is untenable. While כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ could mean either “like one of us” or “like one of him,” Flusser’s interpretation would require כְּאַחַד מֵהֶם (k^e’aḥad mēhem, “like one of them [masc.]”) or כְּאַחַת מֵהֶן (k^e’aḥat mēhen, “like one of them [fem.]”). See David Flusser, “‘Which Is the Straight Way That a Man Should Choose for Himself?’ (m. Avot 2.1),” (JSTP2, 232-247), esp. 236 n. 10. On the flaws in the English translation of this article, including in footnote 10, see JP’s blog post “Corrections and Emendations to Flusser’s Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” ↩
114. Cf. Bundy, 122 §47. Betz (526) attempted to salvage the author of Matthew’s reputation by making αὐτήν refer neither to the way nor to the gate but to the Kingdom of Heaven, which, however, is not actually mentioned in the Narrow Gate saying. In any case, the original destination was probably not the Kingdom of Heaven, which Jesus never spoke of as a location, but the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. ↩
115. Cf. Flusser, “‘Which Is the Straight Way That a Man Should Choose for Himself?’ (m. Avot 2.1),” 232-247. ↩

116. Narrow Gate
     Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     καὶ διεπορεύετο κατὰ πόλεις καὶ κώμας διδάσκων καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ κύριε εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας ὅτι πολλοί λέγω ὑμῖν ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν		καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ζητεῖτε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη τῆς ἀπωλείας καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς
     Total Words:	41	Total Words:	35
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	9	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	9
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	21.95%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	25.71%

      ↩

117. See Manson, Sayings, 175. ↩

118. Narrow Gate
     Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωὴν καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν		καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ζητεῖτε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη τῆς ἀπωλείας καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς
     Total Words:	44	Total Words:	35
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	23	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	23
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	52.27%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	65.71%

      ↩

119. It may be on account of the extent of the author of Matthew’s redactional activity in Narrow Gate that Martin (Syntax 1, 114 no. 17) classified Matthew’s version as “original” Greek composition. ↩
120. See Manson, Sayings, 175; Bundy, 122 §47. Cf. Bovon, 2:307. ↩