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)

(Huck 40, 165; Aland 72, 211; Crook 55, 248)^[123]

Updated: 24 October 2024

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.”^[124]

Reconstruction

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

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. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] 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. ↩
• ^[2] Cf. Luz, 1:370 n. 7. ↩
• ^[3] 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. ↩
• ^[4] 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. ↩
• ^[5] See the introduction to the “Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex. ↩
• ^[6] On the author of Matthew’s use of interpolation as a redactional method, see Sermon’s End, Comment to L5-7. ↩
• ^[7] See Bundy, 474 §387. ↩
• ^[8] 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.” ↩
• ^[9] 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. ↩
• ^[10] 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].” ↩
• ^[11] Cf. Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 288. ↩
• ^[12] See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae for precise details. ↩
• ^[13] Cf. Knox, 2:31, 79. ↩
• ^[14] Cf. Fleddermann, 677. ↩
• ^[15] 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. ↩
• ^[16] See Knox, 2:79. ↩
• ^[17] See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae, under the subheading “Causes of Verbal Disparity in DT Pericopae.” ↩
• ^[18] Cf. Bundy, 122 §47; Luz, 1:371. ↩
• ^[19] See Gundry, Matt., 127; Betz, 524; Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 189; Fleddermann, 678. ↩
• ^[20] Cf. Betz, 524; Luz, 1:370 n. 11. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Bundy, 122 §47; LHNS, 34 §40. ↩
• ^[22] See Kloppenborg, 224 n. 216; LHNS, 34 §40. ↩
• ^[23] 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. ↩
• ^[24] 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. ↩
• ^[25] 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. ↩
• ^[26] 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. ↩
• ^[27] Cf. Creed, 185; Marshall, 563; Fleddermann, 677. ↩
• ^[28] 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. ↩
• ^[29] 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. ↩
• ^[30] See Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q,” 285; Fleddermann, 677; Wolter, 2:192. ↩
• ^[31] 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. ↩
• ^[32] See Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Nolland, Luke, 2:733. ↩
• ^[33] 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. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. Hawkins, 29, 51. ↩
• ^[35] See Fitzmyer, 2:1024; Wolter, 2:194. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. Delitzsch’s translation of καὶ πορείαν ποιούμενος in Luke 13:22 as וַיֵּלֶךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ (vayēlech l^edarkō, “and he went on his way”). ↩
• ^[37] 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. ↩
• ^[38] 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.” ↩
• ^[39] 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. ↩
• ^[40] 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. ↩
• ^[41] Cf. Bundy, 369 §266. ↩
• ^[42] Cf. Creed, 185; Marshall, 563. ↩
• ^[43] 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. ↩
• ^[44] Cf. LHNS, 130 §165. Nolland (Luke, 2:733) failed to notice this connection. ↩
• ^[45] Cf. Cadbury, 100; Marshall, 564; Kloppenborg, 224 n. 216; Nolland, Luke, 2:732, 733. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 346. ↩
• ^[47] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:18. ↩
• ^[48] See Moulton-Geden, 17. ↩
• ^[49] Cf. Bundy, 369 §266; Parrott, “Entering the Narrow Door,” 118; Bovon, 2:311. ↩
• ^[50] Cf. Bundy, 122 §47. ↩
• ^[51] 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.” ↩
• ^[52] Cf. Schweizer, 185. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. Fleddermann, 678. ↩
• ^[54] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 126. ↩
• ^[55] See Preserving and Destroying, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[56] Cf. Luz, 1:371. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 175. ↩
• ^[58] 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. ↩
• ^[59] See Marshall, 565; Nolland, Luke, 734. On ἀγωνίζεσθαι + infinitive, see Wolter, 2:196-197. ↩
• ^[60] 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. ↩
• ^[61] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 568. ↩
• ^[62] See Nolland, Matt., 332. ↩
• ^[63] 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. ↩
• ^[64] On the redactional level, Nolland (Matt., 332) may be correct that the author of Matthew thought of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. ↩
• ^[65] See Nolland, Matt., 332. ↩
• ^[66] Cf. Harnack, 68; Strecker, 216 n. 2. ↩
• ^[67] 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. ↩
• ^[68] 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. ↩
• ^[69] Cf. Bundy, 369 §267. ↩
• ^[70] On this omission, see Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L9-20. ↩
• ^[71] 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. ↩

• ^[72] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1240-1242. ↩
• ^[73] See Dos Santos, 214. ↩
• ^[74] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1288. ↩
• ^[75] See Dos Santos, 179. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:733. ↩
• ^[77] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1141. ↩
• ^[78] See Dos Santos, 191. ↩
• ^[79] 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.” ↩
• ^[80] 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. ↩
• ^[81] 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.” ↩
• ^[82] 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. ↩
• ^[83] See McNeile, 94; Nolland, Matt., 333. ↩
• ^[84] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:151-152. ↩
• ^[85] 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)

  ↩

• ^[86] See Benedikt Otzen, “אָבַד ’ābhadh; אֲבֵדָה ’^abhēdhāh; אַבְדָן ’abh^edhān; אֲבַדּוֹן ’^abhaddôn,” TDOT, 1:19-23, esp. 23. ↩
• ^[87] 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. ↩
• ^[88] We selected אֲבַדּוֹן as the reconstruction of ἀπώλεια prior to discovering that Delitzsch, in his translation of Matt. 7:13, rendered ἀπώλεια as אֲבַדּוֹן. ↩
• ^[89] 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. ↩
• ^[90] Cf. Bovon, 2:312; Fleddermann, 679. ↩
• ^[91] 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). ↩
• ^[92] Cf. Fleddermann, 679. ↩
• ^[93] Cf. Bundy, 369 §266; Fitzmyer, 2:1025. ↩
• ^[94] Cf. Bultmann, 130; Knox, 2:80; Marshall, 563; Fitzmyer, 2:1021; Nolland, Luke, 2:734; Bovon, 2:312. ↩
• ^[95] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 568; Creed, 185; Bundy, 369 §267; Beare, Earliest, 174 §165. ↩
• ^[96] Strecker (216 n. 2) and Fleddermann (679), on the other hand, attributed ἰσχύειν in L14 to the author of Luke. ↩
• ^[97] 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. ↩
• ^[98] Cf. LHNS, 34 §40; Luz, 1:370. ↩
• ^[99] See Gundry, Matt., 128. ↩
• ^[100] See Metzger, 19; Betz, 526. ↩
• ^[101] See Luz, Matt., 1:370 n. 2. Cf. Betz, 526 n. 61. ↩
• ^[102] See Nolland, Matt., 333 n. 473. ↩
• ^[103] See Muraoka, Syntax, 94 §18e. ↩
• ^[104] Michal’s statement to David is sarcastic. ↩
• ^[105] 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. ↩
• ^[106] Cf. Black, 89; Metzger, 19; Davies-Allison, 1:699; Hagner, 1:178. See also Muraoka, Syntax, 94 n. 3. ↩
• ^[107] From GR we have omitted Vaticanus’ conjunction δέ (de, “but”), which is likewise rejected in Nestle-Aland. ↩
• ^[108] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:599-601. ↩
• ^[109] See Dos Santos, 62. ↩
• ^[110] 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. ↩
• ^[111] 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.) ↩
• ^[112] 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.” ↩
• ^[113] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:733. ↩
• ^[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] Cf. Bundy, 122 §47. ↩
• ^[117] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 126. ↩
• ^[118]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[119] See Manson, Sayings, 175. ↩
• ^[120]

  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%

  ↩

• ^[121] 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. ↩
• ^[122] See Manson, Sayings, 175; Bundy, 122 §47. Cf. Bovon, 2:307. ↩
• ^[123] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[124] 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. ↩