Faithful or Faithless Slave

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Faithful or Faithless Slave,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29584/].

Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:35-38, 41-46

(Huck 158, 226; Aland 203, 297; Crook 238, 240, 339)^[204]

יִהְיוּ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים וְנֵרוֹתֵיכֶם דְּלוּקִים כִּבְנֵי אָדָם מְצַפִּים לְרַבָּם אֵימָתַי שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה כְּדֵי שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא וְדוֹפֵק יִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ אַשְׁרֵי אוֹתָם הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא רַבָּם יִמְצָאֵם עֵרִים אֲפִילּוּ בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּיה וַאֲפִילּוּ בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית יָבוֹא וְיִמְצָאֵם כָּךְ אַשְׁרֵיהֶם

וּמִי הוּא הָעֶבֶד הַנֶּאֱמָן וְהַפִּקֵּחַ שֶׁהִפְקִיד רַבּוֹ עַל בֵּיתוֹ לִיתֵּן לָהֶם מָזוֹן בִּזְמַנּוֹ אַשְׁרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא רַבּוֹ יִמְצָאֵהוּ עוֹשֶׂה כָּךְ אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם עַל כָּל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ יַפְקִדֵהוּ וְאִם יֹאמַר אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד בְּלִבּוֹ מְאַחֵר רַבִּי לָבוֹא וְיַתְחִיל לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הָעֲבָדִים וְאֶת הָאֲמָהֹת לֶאֱכוֹל וְלִשְׁתוֹת וּלְהִשְׁתַּכֵּר יָבוֹא רַבּוֹ שֶׁלְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד בְּיוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצַפֶּה וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְיִגְזְרֵהוּ לִשְׁנַיִם וְיִתֵּן חֶלְקוֹ עִם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה

“Make sure your belt is buckled and your lamps are lit, like people waiting for their master at whatever time he might return from the wedding feast. That way, when he comes home and knocks on the door, they’ll be able to open it for him. Blessed are those slaves whom, when their master arrives, he will find awake. Even if he comes in the second watch of the night, or even in the third, and finds them thus, blessed are they!

“So who is the faithful slave, the sensible one, whom his master set in charge over his household to give them food in its time? Blessed is that slave whom, when his master comes, he will find doing thus. Indeed, I can assure you that he will place him in charge of all he has. But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is slow in coming!’ and he begins to beat the male and female slaves, to eat and drink and to get drunk, then the master of that slave will come on a day he doesn’t expect and in a moment he cannot guess. The master will slice him in two and set his portion with those who lacked faith.”^[205]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Faithful or Faithless Slave click on the link below:

Conclusion

Faithful or Faithless Slave is best understood as a post-resurrection saying of Jesus addressed to his disciples to prepare them for the new circumstances they were about to experience following his ascension. In order for them to understand what his ascension to heaven would mean, Jesus framed it in terms of Moses’ ascension to the summit of Mount Sinai in order to receive the Torah. Just as the Israelites’ faithfulness was tested during the time of Moses’ absence, Jesus knew that during his absence his disciples’ faithfulness would be tested. The Israelites of the generation of the desert failed the test. They grew impatient for Moses to return and exploited what they perceived as delay as an opportunity for self-indulgence. Rather than emulate the rebellious Israelites, Jesus encouraged his disciples to emulate Moses, the faithful slave in all God’s house.

---

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

---

• ^[1] See the Waiting Maidens parable, under the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” subheading. ↩
• ^[2] On the author of Matthew’s method of incorporating additional sayings into his version of the eschatological discourse, see our introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. Needless to say, we do not believe Faithful or Faithless Slave originally belonged to the eschatological discourse. Cf. Beare, Earliest, 217. ↩
• ^[3] See Be Ready for Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[4] Other sources, too, hint at the sandwiching of Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave. In Revelation we read:

  ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτοῦ

  Behold! I come like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garment, so that he might not walk about naked and they might see his indecency. (Rev. 16:15)

  While “I come like a thief” sounds like Unexpected Thief, the blessing pronounced on the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes reminds us of the command to keep one’s loins girded (Luke 12:35) and the blessings pronounced on the faithful slaves who stay awake (Luke 12:37) in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One).

  The combination of motifs from Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) is also apparent in the Gospel of Thomas:

  Therefore I say: If the lord of the house knows that the thief is coming, he will stay awake before he comes and will not let him dig through into his house of his kingdom to carry away his goods. You then must watch for the world, gird up your loins with great strength lest the brigands find a way to come to you, because they will find the advantage which you expect. (Gos. Thom. §21 [ed. Guillaumont, 15-17]; cf. Gos. Thom. §103)

  ↩

• ^[5] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 330. ↩
• ^[6] Cf. Bovon, 2:229. ↩
• ^[7] By contrast, Unexpected Thief does refer to the Son of Man, which is why Faithful or Faithless Slave is often interpreted as referring to the Son of Man’s coming. ↩
• ^[8] For precise measurements of verbal identity in Faithful or Faithless Slave, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 169. ↩
• ^[10] Note that Martin (Syntax 2, 50) classified Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) as “translation” Greek. ↩
• ^[11] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 107 no. 34) classified Luke’s Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) as trending toward “translation”-style Greek, a style of Greek that would be expected in Anth. ↩
• ^[12] So Fitzmyer, 2:984. ↩
• ^[13] See Creed, 176; Nolland, Luke, 2:699. Cf. Bultmann, 118. ↩
• ^[14] Cf. Bovon, 2:229; Peter J. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 253-260, esp. 257. ↩
• ^[15] See Moulton-Geden, 715. ↩
• ^[16] See Moulton-Geden, 795. ↩
• ^[17] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1023-1024. ↩
• ^[18] See Dos Santos, 125. ↩
• ^[19] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1123. ↩
• ^[20] The LXX translators rendered חָגַר with ζωννύναι or compounds thereof in Exod. 12:11; 29:9; Lev. 8:7 (2xx), 13; 16:4; Judg. 3:16; 18:11, 16, 17; 1 Kgdms. 2:18; 17:39; 25:13; 2 Kgdms. 3:31; 20:8; 21:16; 3 Kgdms. 21[20]:32; 4 Kgdms. 3:21; 4:29; 9:1; Isa. 15:3; 32:11; Jer. 4:8; 6:26; 30:19 [49:3]; Ezek. 7:18; 44:18; Joel 1:8, 13; Ps. 44[45]:4; 64[65]:13; 108[109]:19; Prov. 31:17; Lam. 2:10; Dan. 10:5. The LXX translators rendered חָגַר with some other verb in Deut. 1:41; 2 Kgdms. 6:14; 22:46; Ps. 75[76]:11. ↩
• ^[21] See Fitzmyer, 2:987; Bovon, 2:230, 231; Peter J. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” New Testament Studies 61 (2015): 429-447, esp. 442. ↩
• ^[22] See Wolter, 2:158. ↩
• ^[23] Cf. Albright-Mann, 301. ↩
• ^[24] See Moulton-Geden, 607. ↩
• ^[25] See Moulton-Geden, 516. ↩
• ^[26] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:705. ↩
• ^[27] See Jastrow, 311. ↩
• ^[28] In LXX καίειν occurs once as the translation of the ד‑ל‑ק root (Ps. 7:14). ↩
• ^[29] See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L42. ↩
• ^[30] For another example where we deemed καὶ ὑμεῖς to be the product of Lukan redaction, see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, L44. ↩
• ^[31] See Be Ready for Son of Man, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[32] On reconstructing ἄνθρωπος with אִישׁ, see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L12. ↩
• ^[33] And note that Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) (L50) refers to both slave boys and slave girls (Luke 12:45). ↩
• ^[34] The LXX translators rendered בְּנֵי אָדָם as [οἱ] υἱοὶ [τῶν] ἀνθρώπων in 2 Kgdms. 7:14; Jer. 39[32]:19; Joel 1:12; Mic. 5:6; Ps. 10[11]:4; 11[12]:2, 9; 13[14]:2; 20[21]:11; 30[31]:20; 35[36]:8; 44[45]:3; 52[53]:3; 56[57]:5; 57[58]:2; 61[62]:10; 65[66]:5; 88[89]:48; 89[90]:3; 106[107]:8, 15, 21, 31; 113:24 [115:16]; Prov. 8:4, 31. ↩
• ^[35] Cf. Moulton-Geden, 861. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. the significant parallels to these phrases Flusser noted in David Flusser, “The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem,” under the subheading “Additional Note.” ↩
• ^[37] In LXX προσδέχεσθαι occurs in the sense of “to expect” or “to await” in Ruth 1:13; 2 Macc. 8:11; Prov. 15:15; Job 2:9; Wis. 14:29; 18:7; Isa. 28:10; Dan. 7:25. ↩
• ^[38] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1212-1213. ↩
• ^[39] See Waiting Maidens, Comment to L3. ↩
• ^[40] On reconstructing κύριος with אָדוֹן, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[41] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:800-839. ↩
• ^[42] See LSJ, 112. ↩
• ^[43] See Moulton-Geden, 61. ↩
• ^[44] See Moulton-Geden, 156. ↩
• ^[45] Cf. Segal, 136 §296. ↩
• ^[46] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:79. ↩
• ^[47] See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[48] See Marshall, 536. ↩
• ^[49] Cf. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” 442. ↩
• ^[50] See Segal, 242 §515. ↩
• ^[51] On reconstructing κρούειν with הִרְתִּיק, see Friend in Need, Comment to L25. ↩
• ^[52] Cf. Delitzsch’s translation as יִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ כְּרָגַע (yift^eḥū lō k^erāga‘, “they will open to him in a moment”). Note that of the three instances of כְּרָגַע in the Hebrew Scriptures (Num. 16:21; 17:10; Ps. 73:19), none were rendered as εὐθέως in LXX. ↩
• ^[53] Cf. LHNC, 399. ↩
• ^[54] The table below shows all the instances of εὐθέως in Luke and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Luke 5:13 TT = Matt. 8:3 (cf. Mark 1:42) Luke 12:36 U Luke 12:54 DT (cf. Matt. 16:2) Luke 14:5 U (cf. ⧚ Matt. 12:11) Luke 17:7 U Luke 21:9 TT (cf. Matt. 24:6; Mark 13:7) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[55] See Moulton-Geden, 399. ↩
• ^[56] In LXX the adverb εὐθέως (evtheōs, “immediately”) is quite rare and occurs almost exclusively in books not included in MT. On one occasion (Job 5:3) εὐθέως does occur as the translation of פִּתְאֹם (pit’om, “suddenly”), but פִּתְאֹם fell into disuse in Mishnaic Hebrew. See Segal, 134 §294. ↩
• ^[57] See Jastrow, 23. ↩
• ^[58] The verb γρηγορεῖν (grēgorein, “to be awake”) occurs less often in Luke’s Gospel (1x: Luke 12:37) than in the Gospels of Matthew (6xx: Matt. 24:42, 43; 25:13; 26:38, 40, 41) or Mark (6xx; Mark 13:34, 35, 37; 14:34, 37, 38). In Acts γρηγορεῖν occurs only once (Acts 20:31). ↩
• ^[59] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:278. ↩
• ^[60] See Jastrow, 1621. ↩
• ^[61] Examples of the nif‘al participle נֵעוֹר (nē‘ōr, “awake”) include the following:

  נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁינָה נֵעוֹרָה קוֹרָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִיטָּהּ אֵינוּ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ הוּא גִּיטּ^יךְ

  If he put it [i.e., her writ of divorce—DNB and JNT] in her hand, but she was asleep, if she awakes [נֵעוֹרָה] and reads it—And behold! It is her writ of divorce—it is not a valid writ until he says to her, “That is your writ of divorce.” (m. Git. 8:2)

  ^ר′ חֲנַנְיָה בֶן חֲכִינַיִ אוֹמֵ′ הַנֵּיעוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמַפְנֶה לִבּוֹ לְבַטָּלָה הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ

  ^Rabbi Hananyah ben Hachinay says, “The one who stays awake [הַנֵּיעוֹר] at night and walks about in the road and turns his heart to vanity—Behold! This one is liable for his soul.” (m. Avot 3:4)

  תנו רבנן...קיבה ישנה אף נעור נעור הישן ישן הנעור נמוק והולך לו תנא אם שניהם ישנים או שניהם נעורים מיד מת

  Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: ...the throat puts to sleep, the nose awakens. If the sleeper [i.e., the throat—DNB and JNT] is awake or the waker [i.e., the nose—DNB and JNT] is asleep, he molders away. It was taught [in a baraita]: If the two of them are asleep, or if the two of them are awake [נעורים], immediately he dies. (b. Ber. 61a-b)

  ↩

• ^[62] The antiquity of this ethical instruction is indicated by the parallel in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, where we read: “Rejoice with the rejoicing, weep with the weeping, being mindful of one another” (Rom. 12:15-16). Even Paul’s summary to be “mindful [φρονοῦντες] of one another” coheres with the general principle to not act differently from “the opinion of [מדעת]" the people, although a different version reads: אל ישנה אדם ממנהג הבריות (“let not a person act differently from the behavior of the people”; Tractate Derech Eretz Zeira §1 [ed. Higger, 88]). Flusser traced this ethical instruction back to a pre-Pauline origin with Hillel (cf. t. Ber. 2:21, which gives an abbreviated version of the saying in the name of Hillel). See David Flusser, “‘I Am in the Midst of Them’ (Mt. 18:20)” (JOC, 515-525), esp. 522 n. 36. ↩
• ^[63] On staves as among the usual accoutrements of travelers, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L66. ↩
• ^[64] See Jastrow, 412. ↩
• ^[65] See Bovon, 2:230. ↩
• ^[66] See Bundy, 361 §252; Jeremias, Parables, 53-54; Beare, Earliest, 170. ↩
• ^[67] See Marshall, 536. ↩
• ^[68] See Jastrow, 103. ↩
• ^[69] In LXX φυλακή occurs in the sense of “nightly watch” in Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Kgdms. 11:11; Jdt. 12:5; Ps. 89[90]:4; Ps. 129[130]:6; Job 35:10; Lam. 2:19. ↩
• ^[70] The noun φυλακή occurs as the translation of אַשְׁמוּרָה in Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Kgdms. 11:11; Ps. 89[90]:4; Lam. 2:19, which accounts for all of the LXX instances of φυλακή in the sense of “nightly watch” except for those in Jdt. 12:5; Ps. 129[130]:6; Job 35:10. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1440-1441. ↩
• ^[71] See Dos Santos, 19. ↩
• ^[72] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:293-294. ↩
• ^[73] See Dos Santos, 214. ↩
• ^[74] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1373-1374. ↩
• ^[75] See Dos Santos, 210. ↩
• ^[76] Cf., e.g., Plummer, Luke, 331; Creed, 176; Marshall, 537; Fitzmyer, 2:988; Nolland, Luke, 2:701-102; Bovon, 2:234 n. 41. ↩
• ^[77] A baraita in b. Ber. 3b attributes to Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi the statement that the night has four watches. This appears to have been the normative view, although the rabbinic sages were aware that in ancient times the night was divided into three watches. ↩
• ^[78] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 560. ↩
• ^[79] Cf. Wolter, 2:160. ↩
• ^[80] The four watches of the night were from approximately 6-9 p.m. (first watch), 9 p.m.-12 a.m. (second watch), 12-3 a.m. (third watch) and 3-6 a.m. (fourth watch). ↩
• ^[81] Cf. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 257. ↩
• ^[82] See Harnack, 33-34; Jeremias, Parables, 56, 99; Knox, 2:71; Beare, Earliest, 170; Nolland, Luke, 2:700, 702; Hagner, 2:722; Bovon, 2:230; Fleddermann, 626, 627. Cf. Bundy, 363 §254. ↩
• ^[83] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 117-118; Moule, Birth, 147-148; Gundry, Matt., 495. ↩
• ^[84] Cf. Bovon, 2:237. ↩
• ^[85] Cf. Creed, 177; Knox, 2:70; Marshall, 540; Bovon, 2:230. ↩
• ^[86] Cf. Wolter, 2:162. ↩
• ^[87] This happened, for instance, in the LXX translation of the following verse from Job:

  מִי יִתֵּן יָדַעְתִּי וְאֶמְצָאֵהוּ

  Who will allow that I might know and find him...? (Job 23:3)

  τίς δ̓ ἄρα γνοίη ὅτι εὕροιμι αὐτὸν

  But who, then, would know that I might find him...? (Job 23:3)

  ↩

• ^[88] Cf. Quieting a Storm, Comment to L55. ↩
• ^[89] In LXX τίς ἐστιν occurs as the translation of מִי הוּא in Job 9:24; 13:19; 41:2. ↩
• ^[90] Cf. Harnack, 33; Creed, 177; Jeremias, Parables, 56 n. 25; Bundy, 363 §254; Knox, 2:70; Marshall, 540; Fitzmyer, 2:989; Gundry, Matt., 495; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Davies-Allison, 3:387; Bovon, 2:230; Fleddermann, 627. See also LHNS, 127 §158. ↩
• ^[91] See Jeremias, Parables, 56 n. 25; Gundry, Matt., 495; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[92] The noun οἰκονόμος occurs in Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688. ↩
• ^[93] The noun οἰκονομία occurs in Luke 16:2, 3, 4, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688. ↩
• ^[94] The verb οἰκονομεῖν (oikonomein, “to manage a house”) occurs in Luke 16:2, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688. ↩
• ^[95] See Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[96] Pace Gundry, Matt., 495. Neither οἰκονόμος nor οἰκονομία nor οἰκονομεῖν occur in Acts. See Moulton-Geden, 688. ↩
• ^[97] As some scholars point out, a person could simultaneously be an οἰκονόμος (“steward”) and a δοῦλος (“slave”). Neither did the author of Luke think of the two roles as mutually exclusive. See Creed, 177; Wolter, 2:162. ↩
• ^[98] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1138-1139. ↩
• ^[99] The participle נֶאֱמָן occurs in Num. 12:7; Deut. 7:9; 28:59 (2xx); 1 Sam. 2:35 (2xx); 3:20; 22:14; 25:28; 1 Kgs. 11:38; Isa. 1:21, 26; 8:2; 22:23, 25; 33:16; 42:5; 49:7; 55:3; Jer. 42:5; Hos. 5:9; 12:1; Ps. 19:8; 89:29, 38; 101:6; 111:7; Job 12:20; Prov. 11:13; 25:13; 27:6; Neh. 9:8; 13:13. The LXX translators rendered all these instances as πιστός except in Deut. 28:59 (1st instance); Hos. 12:1; Prov. 27:6. ↩
• ^[100] Cf. Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[101] Cf. Harnack, 43. ↩
• ^[102] See Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[103] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:702-704. ↩
• ^[104] See Dos Santos, 170. ↩
• ^[105] See Jastrow, 1207. ↩
• ^[106] See Moulton-Geden, 457. ↩
• ^[107] See Moulton-Geden, 686. ↩
• ^[108] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 496; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Bovon, 2:237 n. 64; Fleddermann, 627. On the other hand, the LXX translation of Num. 12:7 renders עַבְדִּי משֶׁה (‘avdi mosheh, “my slave Moses”) as ὁ θεράπων μου Μωυσῆς (ho therapōn mou Mōūsēs, “my attendant Moses”). The noun θεράπων (“attendant”) is a cognate of Luke’s θεραπεία (“body of attendants,” “retinue”). Nevertheless, it seems likely that both the LXX translators, in using the term θεράπων, and the author of Luke, in using the term θεραπεία, were motivated by a desire to elevate the status of their protagonists, “attendants” being more reputable than “slaves.” Cf. Harnack, 33; Cadbury, Style, 187; Knox, 2:70. ↩
• ^[109] On reconstructing οἶκος with בַּיִת, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L33. ↩
• ^[110] Undoubtedly, the use of the verb προσδοκᾶν (prosdokan, “to expect,” “to wait for”) in Ps. 103:27 also played a role in bringing this verse to the author of Matthew’s mind, since this verb also occurs in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) in L55. And perhaps the author of Matthew’s awareness of the verb προσδέχεσθαι (prosdechesthai, “to receive,” “to expect”) in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (L5) also played a part. Psalm 145[144]:15 has wording similar to that of Ps. 103:27 (καὶ σὺ δίδως τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ [kai sū didōs tēn trofēn avtōn en evkairia, “and you give them food in good time”]), but it lacks the key verb προσδοκᾶν, which makes an allusion to Ps. 103:27 more probable. ↩
• ^[111] Pace Gundry (Use, 89), who regarded Matthew’s allusion to the Psalm as independent of LXX. However, the LXX translation of Ps. 103:27 is not so literal that we would expect an independent translator to have come up with something so close to LXX as we find in Matt. 24:45. A more literal translation of כֻּלָּם אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּן לָתֵת אָכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ (“All of them look to you to give their food in its time”; Ps. 104:27) might read: πάντα πρὸς σὲ προσδοκῶσιν δοῦναι [or: διδόναι] τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ αὐτῆς (“All look to you to give their food in its time”) or perhaps ...δοῦναι [or: διδόναι] τὰ βρώματα αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ αὐτῶν (“...to give their foods in their time”). ↩
• ^[112] Cf. Harnack, 33; Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[113] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 496. Gundry (Use, 89) opined that Matthew’s αὐτοῖς “stands closer to the OT text” than its omission in Luke, but it is LXX, not MT, that Matthew’s αὐτοῖς resembles. In MT we find לָתֵת אָכְלָם (“to give their food”), whereas LXX has δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς (“to give the food to them”). ↩
• ^[114] In his Hebrew translation of the New Testament Delitzsch rendered σιτομέτριον in Luke 12:42 as אֲרֻחָה (’^aruḥāh, “allowance”), which is a perfectly defensible translation, but hardly an exact equivalent of σιτομέτριον. ↩
• ^[115] Cf. Harnack, 33; Gundry, Use, 89; Nolland, Luke, 2:703. ↩
• ^[116] On the redactional nature of τροφή in Matt. 10:10, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L97. ↩
• ^[117] See Davies-Allison, 3:387; Fleddermann, 627. ↩
• ^[118] See Moulton-Geden, 961. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. Marshall, 541. ↩
• ^[120] In LXX τροφή occurs 5xx as the translation of לֶחֶם (Ps. 135[136]:25; 145[146]:7; 146[147]:9; Prov. 6:8; 30:25). ↩
• ^[121] In LXX τροφή occurs 3xx as the translation of אֹכֶל (Ps. 103[104]:27; 144[145]:15; Job 36:31). ↩
• ^[122] LXX declined to translate the only other instance of מָזוֹן in MT (Gen. 45:23). ↩
• ^[123] See Luz, 3:223-224 n. 23. Cf. Snodgrass, 499. ↩
• ^[124] See Nolland, Matt., 998. ↩
• ^[125] See Hurvitz, 112-114. ↩
• ^[126] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:388. ↩
• ^[127] Snodgrass (497) and Wolter (2:163) noted the symmetry between the macarisms in Luke 12:37 and Luke 12:43. ↩
• ^[128] Many scholars, however, prefer Matthew’s placement of οὕτως, although sometimes for conflicting reasons. Harnack (32) thought the author of Luke moved οὕτως to make it less emphatic, whereas Nolland (Luke, 2:703) and Fleddermann (627) thought the author of Luke moved οὕτως to make it more emphatic. Bovon (2:238 n. 70) suggested Matthew’s οὕτως ποιοῦντα “could be a Semitism,” but in LXX Luke’s order, ποιεῖν οὕτως, also occurs (Exod. 7:10, 20; 14:4; Lev. 26:16; Num. 5:4; 8:3; 15:13; 32:23; Deut. 4:5; 6:1; 12:4, 31; Josh. 4:8; 22:26; Judg. 2:17; 6:20; 15:7; 16:26; 21:23; 1 Kgdms. 2:24; 30:23; 2 Kgdms. 13:12; 16:10; 3 Kgdms. 18:34; 21:25; 22:22; 4 Kgdms. 4:5; 1 Chr. 13:4; 2 Chr. 18:21; 31:20; 2 Esd. 10:16; 15:15; 16:13; Esth. 2:4; Jdt. 10:10; 1 Macc. 10:11, 62; Ps. 147:9 [147:20]; Job 28:26; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 12:7), so Luke’s placement of οὕτως is hardly un-Hebraic. ↩
• ^[129] See Harnack, 32; Marshall, 541; Fitzmyer, 2:990; Gundry, Matt., 496; Davies-Allison, 3:388; Nolland, Matt., 998; Bovon, 2:231; Fleddermann, 627-628. Hagner (2:722) is an outlier in preferring Luke’s ἀληθῶς. ↩
• ^[130] On the author of Luke’s tendency to omit or replace ἀμήν when it occurred in his source, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115. ↩
• ^[131] See Marshall, 541; Davies-Allison, 3:388; Wolter, 2:163. ↩
• ^[132] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:990; Gundry, Matt., 496; Davies-Allison, 3:388; Bovon, 2:231, 238 n. 79; Fleddermann, 628. ↩
• ^[133] See Moulton-Geden, 516. ↩
• ^[134] Cf. Luz, 3:222 n. 6. Pace Harnack, 33. ↩
• ^[135] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:388; Fleddermann, 628. ↩
• ^[136] The instances of πονηρός with Lukan-Matthean agreement in DT pericopae are: Matt. 12:35 ∥ Luke 6:45; Matt. 12:45 ∥ Luke 11:26; Matt. 25:26 ∥ Luke 19:22. See Lindsey, GCSG, 3:137-138. ↩
• ^[137] Cf. Marshall, 541. ↩
• ^[138] See Manson, Sayings, 118. Cf. Marshall, 542; Nolland, Luke, 2:703. ↩
• ^[139] Pace Harnack (32), who preferred Matthew’s word order. ↩
• ^[140] See Harnack, 33; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Fleddermann, 628. Cf. Hagner, 2:722; Bovon, 2:239. ↩
• ^[141] In other words, was the author of Luke being really really really really really emphatic? Or really really really really really really emphatic? At a certain point it’s hard to tell the difference. ↩
• ^[142] Cf. McNeile, 359. ↩
• ^[143] On Hebrew as the original language of the Psalms of Solomon, see David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 551-577, esp. 573; Charlesworth, 2:640. ↩
• ^[144] Cf. LHNS, 178 §226. ↩
• ^[145] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1476. ↩
• ^[146] The verb אֵחַר occurs 15xx in MT (Gen. 24:56; 34:19; Exod. 22:28; Deut. 7:10; 23:22; Judg. 5:28; Isa. 5:11; 46:13; Hab. 2:3; Ps. 40:18; 70:6; 127:2; Prov. 23:30; Eccl. 5:3; Dan. 9:19). The LXX translators rendered אֵחַר as χρονίζειν or a compound thereof 9xx (Gen. 34:19; Deut. 23:22; Judg. 5:28; Ps. 39[40]:18; 69[70]:6; Prov. 23:30; Ecc. 5:3; Hab. 2:3; Dan. 9:19). ↩
• ^[147] According to midrashic traditions, the Israelites not only demanded their idolatrous image, they killed (Hur) and intimidated (Aaron) those who opposed them. ↩
• ^[148] The rabbinic convention of referring to Moses as “our master” or “our rabbi” is attested in tannaic literature (cf., e.g., t. Avod. Zar. 3:19; Sifre Num. Piska 84, 157; Sifre Num. Zuta §11, 14; Sifre Deut. §11, 14, 25, 54, 305, 307, 343, 345, 355, 356). ↩
• ^[149] So Manson, Sayings, 118; Marshall, 542. ↩
• ^[150] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1378. ↩
• ^[151] See Dos Santos, 132. ↩
• ^[152] Cf. Harnack, 33; Creed, 177; Knox, 2:70; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Bovon, 2:231. ↩
• ^[153] In his Hebrew translation of the New Testament Delitzsch resorted to rendering σύνδουλος as חָבֵר (ḥāvēr, “companion,” “friend”). ↩
• ^[154] See Moulton-Geden, 919; Fleddermann, 628. ↩
• ^[155] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 189. ↩
• ^[156] See Davies-Allison, 3:389. ↩
• ^[157] Cf. Marshall, 542; Gundry, Matt., 496; Hagner, 2:722; Fleddermann, 628. ↩
• ^[158] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1049-1051. ↩
• ^[159] See Dos Santos, 147. ↩
• ^[160] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1048. ↩
• ^[161] See Dos Santos, 215. ↩
• ^[162] See Dos Santos, 12. ↩
• ^[163] The LXX translators used the pairing of παῖς and παιδίσκη to translate the pairing of עֶבֶד and שִׁפְחָה in Gen. 12:16; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:6; Deut. 28:68; 4 Kgdms. 5:26; Esth. 7:4; Jer. 41[34]:9, 10, 11, 16 (2xx). ↩
• ^[164] The LXX translators used the pairing of παῖς and παιδίσκη to translate the pairing of עֶבֶד and אָמָה in Exod. 20:10, 17; 21:20, 32; Lev. 25:6, 44; Deut. 5:14, 21; 12:12, 18; 16:11, 14. ↩
• ^[165] In the Mishnah עֶבֶד is paired with שִׁפְחָה in m. Ter. 3:4; m. Maas. Shen. 4:4 (2xx); m. Eruv. 5:5; 7:6 (2xx); m. Yev. 16:7; m. Ket. 2:9; 8:5; m. Git. 7:4; m. Sot. 1:6; 6:2; m. Bab. Metz. 1:5 (2xx); 7:6 (2xx); m. Arach. 8:4, 5; m. Tem. 6:2; m. Neg. 14:12. ↩
• ^[166] In the Mishnah עֶבֶד is paired with אָמָה in m. Bab. Kam. 4:5; 5:6; m. Yad. 4:7 (2xx). ↩
• ^[167] Cf. Beare, Matt., 477. ↩
• ^[168] As Torrey observed, “The steward’s outrageous conduct was of a sort to which servants given free hand, in the absence of the master, have always and everywhere been especially prone.” See Charles Cutler Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937), 157. Examples of such behavior are described by Epictetus:

  οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν οἰκίᾳ καλῶς οἰκουμένῃ παρελθών τις αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ λέγει “ἐμὲ δεῖ οἰκονόμον εἶναι”· εἰ δὲ μή, ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ κύριος καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν σοβαρῶς διατασσόμενον, ἑλκύσας ἔτεμεν.

  For in a well-ordered house no one comes along and says to himself, “I ought to be manager [οἰκονόμον]”; or if he does, the lord, when he returns and sees him giving orders in a high and mighty fashion, drags him out and cuts [ἔτεμεν] him [down?]. (Epictetus, Discourses 4:22 §3)

  Translation adapted from Loeb, which translates the punishment as “drags him out and gives him a dressing down.” Luz, who cited this example, rendered the punishment as “he will remove him and cut him in two” (Luz, 3:224 n. 25). ↩

• ^[169] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:389; Nolland, Matt., 999. ↩
• ^[170] By contrast, Harnack (32) and Fleddermann (628) preferred Matthew’s subjunctives. ↩
• ^[171] On the conjunction τε (te, “both,” “also”) as the product of Lukan redaction, see Tumultuous Times, Comment to L5. ↩
• ^[172] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:389. ↩
• ^[173] Cf. Bovon, 2:239. ↩
• ^[174] Cf. Hagner, 2:722. ↩
• ^[175] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:907-908. ↩
• ^[176] See Dos Santos, 209. ↩
• ^[177] Cf. Kutscher, 130 §216. ↩
• ^[178] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1213. ↩
• ^[179] Cf. Snodgrass, 499; Wolter, 2:164. ↩
• ^[180] Some scholars have cited the Lukan-Matthean agreement to use the verb διχοτομεῖν (dichotomein, “to bisect,” “to divide in two”) in Faithful or Faithless Slave as decisive evidence that the source the authors of Luke and Matthew relied on for this pericope was a written, rather than an oral, source and that the language of this written source was Greek. If the source had not been written in Greek, the two authors would hardly have used the same unusual verb to describe the punishment (which was potentially embarrassing on account of its severity and brutality) meted out to the faithless slave. See F. Crawford Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), 2:296; Kloppenborg, 47 n. 17. ↩
• ^[181] Cf., e.g., Fitzmyer, 2:990. This is the approach taken in some modern translations: “sharply will he punish him” (Moffatt); “and will punish him” (RSV); “and will punish him severely” (Phillips). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that διχοτομεῖν was ever used metaphorically for severe, but non-lethal, punishment. Cf. Beare, Matt., 479; France, Matt., 945. ↩
• ^[182] Cf., e.g., Hagner, 2:724-725. Proposed mistranslated originals vary. Manson (Sayings, 118) proposed that behind διχοτομεῖν (dichotomein, “to bisect,” “to divide in two”) was the Hebrew/Aramiac root נ‑ת‑ח. In Hebrew נִתֵּחַ (nitēaḥ) means “cut in pieces,” but according to Manson, “the corresponding Aramaic verb nattach means to ‘take away,’ ‘separate.’ The original sense here may therefore have been ‘he will separate him [from the rest]’....”
  
  Several scholars have postulated the Aramaic verb פַּלֵּג (palēg, “divide”) stood behind διχοτομεῖν. Torrey (Our Translated Gospels, 155; cf. Black, 191) suggested that the original read, וְפַלְּגִנֵה חֲלָקַהּ עִם שַׁקָּרַיָּא (“he will divide him his portion with the false ones”), but that already in the Aramaic stage became confused: “The pronom. suffix attached to the verb...was taken by the scribe to be direct object (as ordinarily it would be)...” (ibid., 157-158). In other words, “divide him his portion” became “divide him, and set his portion with the false ones.” This scribal error was then translated into Greek. Jeremias (Parables, 57 n. 31; cf. H. B. Green, 203), on the other hand, suggested that behind διχοτομήσει αὐτόν (“he will divide him in two”) stood the Aramaic phrase יְפַלֵּג לֵהּ (y^efalēg lēh), explaining: “That is ambiguous, since leh can be either accusative or dative. The translator understood it as accusative: ‘he will divide him’, while the original meaning was dative: ‘he will give him (blows)’..., or: ‘he will assign to him (his portion).’” However, as Betz observed, Jeremias failed to substantiate his claim that “...יְפַלֵּג לֵהּ, without any direct object [can] mean 'to beat him....'” See Otto Betz, “The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot (Light on the dark passages: Matthew 24, 51 and parallel; Acts 1, 18),” Revue de Qumran 5.1 (1964): 43-58, esp. 44. Cf. Marshall, 534; Davies-Allison, 3:390.
  
  Betz interpreted διχοτομήσει αὐτόν (“he will divide him in two”) in light of a curse in the Rule of the Community from Qumran that reads, ונכרת מתוך כול בני אור...יתן גורלו בתוך ארורי עולמים (“and let him be cut off from the midst of all the Sons of Light...he will set his lot in the midst of the eternally accursed”; 1QS II, 16-17). Thus for Betz Faithful or Faithless Slave originally referred to the punishment of karet (being cut off), but somehow this became garbled in the course of translation into “he will be cut in two.” A corollary to Betz’s interpretation is that since this curse in the Rule of the Community is directed against a hypocrite, “Matthew’s ‘hypocrites’, and not the ‘faithless’ of Luke, are original” (“The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot,” 45). This corollary may be seriously questioned, however, since the curse is explicitly pronounced not against “hypocrites” per se but against כול אנשי גורל בליעל (“all the people of the lot of Belial”; 1QS II, 4-5). It is Betz, not the Rule of the Community, who characterizes these persons as hypocrites (“The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot,” 44, 45). They might just as easily be designated “scoffers,” “sinners” or “faithless.” In any case, Betz maintained that “The fact, that the Lord [in Faithful or Faithless Slave—DNB and JNT] will ‘cut the servant in two’, ‘in the middle’ (διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν) is due to a more literal and more dramatized rendering of כרת מתוך = ‘to cut off from the midst of’” (“The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot,” 45-46). Despite relying on a Hebrew text from Qumran for his interpretation of Faithful or Faithless Slave, and despite claiming that διχοτομήσει αὐτόν is a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase כרת מתוך, Betz incoherently asserted that “We may assume that the Greek text is the translation of an Aramaic original” (“The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot,” 57), and therefore offered the following Aramaic reconstruction of Jesus’ words: ויקוץ לה ועדבה יפלג עם חנפים (“and he will cut him off and divide his portion with the hypocrites”) (“The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot,” 58). Notwithstanding the difficulties of Betz’s approach, some modern translations have adopted “cut him off” either as the main translation (New Jerusalem Bible) or as an alternate translation (NRSV). Cf. Culpepper, 484. For further criticism of Betz’s approach, see Snodgrass, 503.
  
  Finally, we may mention Pinchas Lapide, who offered the following Hebrew reconstruction: ויגזור ויתן חלקו עם הצבועים (“and he will decree to appoint his portion with the hypocrites”). According to Lapide, the mistranslation occurred for two reasons. First, the verb גָּזַר (gāzar) means both “cut off” and “decree.” Second, a scribe committed dittography by doubling the initial vav of ויתן, which resulted in the reading ויגזורו ויתן חלקו עם הצבועים (“And he will cut him and appoint his portion with the hypocrites”). See Pinchas Lapide, “Hidden Hebrew in the Gospels,” Immanuel 2 (1973): 28-34, esp. 30.
  
  Common to all these suggestions is the assumption that the punishment of the faithless slave according to a plain reading of the Greek text is too severe. For critiques of the mistranslation explanation, see Nolland, Luke, 2:704; Luz, 3:225; Wolter, 2:164. ↩
• ^[183] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:388. Lachs (294) was quite wrong in claiming that διχοτομεῖν was used in LXX for the Hebrew verb שָׁסַף (shāsaf). Lachs was also incorrect in claiming that in 2 Kgdms. 12:31; 1 Chr. 20:3; Sus. 59; Amos 1:3 διχοτομεῖν occurs with the meaning “to cut in pieces.” It appears that Lachs misunderstood Plummer’s note, which reads: “For the word comp. Ex. xxix. 17; and for the punishment 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chr. xx.3; Susannah 59; Amos i. 3 (LXX); Heb. xi. 37” (Plummer, Luke, 332). Lachs must have copied these references without checking them. Plummer’s citation of 2 Kgdms. 12:31 ∥ 1 Chr. 20:3 is not really relevant, since although these verses mention saws, the people are using them as tools, they are not being sawn in two. ↩
• ^[184] In Mishnaic Hebrew נִתֵּחַ also came to mean “to seize” an object in repayment for a loan (see Jastrow, 943). Since the use of נִתֵּחַ was limited in this way, there does not seem to be the possibility of a Greek translator misunderstanding יְנַתְּחֵהוּ (y^enat^eḥēhū) as “he will cut him in pieces” when the intended meaning was “he will seize him.” ↩
• ^[185] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:911; Dos Santos, 64. The neuter form μέρος occurs as the translation of חֵלֶק only in Eccl. 5:18. ↩
• ^[186] In LXX τιθέναι frequently occurs as the translation of שָׂם (see Hatch-Redpath, 2:1348-1351), and the LXX translators more often rendered שָׂם as τιθέναι and compounds thereof than as any other verb (see Dos Santos, 198). ↩
• ^[187] See Manson, Sayings, 118; Jeremias, Parables, 57 n. 31; Knox, 2:70; Fitzmyer, 2:985, 990; Beare, Matt., 479; Gundry, Matt., 497; Hagner, 2:723; Davies-Allison, 3:391; Kloppenborg, 150 n. 210; Nolland, Luke, 2:704; idem, Matt., 999; Bovon, 2:231; Fleddermann, 629. For the opposite view, see Harnack, 33; Creed, 177; J. Schneider, “μέρος,” TDNT, 4:594-598, esp. 597 n. 19. ↩
• ^[188] Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 57 n. 31; Kloppenborg, 150 n. 210; Bovon, 2:240 n. 87; Fleddermann, 629. ↩
• ^[189] Cf. France, Matt., 945-946. ↩
• ^[190] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 497; France, Matt., 945-946. ↩
• ^[191] Some scholars detect an anti-Jewish undercurrent in the author of Matthew’s reference to the “hypocrites” in Faithful or Faithless Slave. See Knox, 2:70; David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 113 n. 77 (= idem, The Rabbinic Parables and Jesus the Parable Teller [trans. Timothy Keiderling; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Academic, 2024], 80 n. 77). This assessment is probably correct, since elsewhere in Matthew the hypocrites are identical with Pharisaic/rabbinic Jews. In addition, the first occasion on which the author of Matthew included the stereotyped pronouncement “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” is made into a wholesale condemnation of the Jewish people by the redactional insertion of a reference to the “sons of the kingdom” (Matt. 8:12). See Coming From All Directions, Comment to L16. Further instances of this stereotyped pronouncement occur in the allegorical interpretations the author of Matthew composed for the Darnel Among the Wheat (Matt. 13:42) and Bad Fish Among the Good (Matt. 13:50) parables. In these instances the targets of the author of Matthew’s condemnation are competing Christian communities rather than the Jewish people, but his sectarian threats are premised on the notion that Israel is already condemned. According to the author of Matthew’s view, the non-Matthean Christian communities are destined to share Israel’s fate, since both parties are guilty of the same sin: failure to do the will of the heavenly Father. Likewise, in Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Matthew presupposes Israel’s condemnation. The “hypocrites” of Israel are joined by the “hypocrites” in the church, where both groups together weep and gnash their teeth. ↩
• ^[192] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 118; Fitzmyer, 2:990; Fleddermann, 629. ↩
• ^[193] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 118; Bundy, 473 §386; Marshall, 544; Fitzmyer, 2:985; Hagner, 2:723; Davies-Allison, 3:391; Nolland, Luke, 2:704; idem, Matt., 999; Bovon, 2:231; Fleddermann, 629. ↩
• ^[194]

  Faithful or Faithless Slave
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ μακάριοι οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι οὓς ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος εὑρήσει γρηγοροῦντας ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι περιζώσεται καὶ ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ παρελθὼν διακονήσει αὐτοῖς κἂν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ κἂν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ οὕτως μακάριοί εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος κύριε πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγεις ἢ καὶ πρὸς πάντας καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος ὁ φρόνιμος ὃν καταστήσει ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι ἐν καιρῷ σειτομέτριον μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας ἐσθίειν τε καὶ πείνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γεινώσκει καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει		ἔστωσαν αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν καιόμενοι ὡς ἄνθρωποι προσδεχόμενοι τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ μακάριοι οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι οὓς ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος εὑρήσει γρηγοροῦντας κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ δευτέρᾳ κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ τρίτῃ ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ οὕτως μακάριοί εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ ὁ φρόνιμος ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας ἐσθίειν δὲ καὶ πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει
  Total Words:	187	Total Words:	159
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	144	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	144
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	77.01%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	90.57%

  ↩

• ^[195]

  Faithful or Faithless Slave
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει οὕτως ποιοῦντα ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ κακὸς δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ χρονίζει μου ὁ κύριος καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς συνδούλους αὐτοῦ ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ πίνῃ μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γεινώσκει καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων		ἔστωσαν αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν καιόμενοι ὡς ἄνθρωποι προσδεχόμενοι τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ μακάριοι οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι οὓς ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος εὑρήσει γρηγοροῦντας κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ δευτέρᾳ κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ τρίτῃ ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ οὕτως μακάριοί εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ ὁ φρόνιμος ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας ἐσθίειν δὲ καὶ πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει
  Total Words:	111	Total Words:	159
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	91	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	91
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	81.98%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	57.23%

  ↩

• ^[196] See Unexpected Thief, Comment to L1, Comment to L3 and Comment to L4. ↩
• ^[197] See above, Comment to L6, and Waiting Maidens, Comment to L3 and Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[198] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 93 no. 27) found Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) to be more like “translation” Greek than Matthew’s. ↩
• ^[199] Cf. France, Matt., 943. ↩
• ^[200] Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 55; Schweizer, 463; Marshall, 542; Luz, 3:222; Snodgrass, 499. ↩
• ^[201] Cf. Snodgrass, 503. ↩
• ^[202] See Stephen King’s musings on the morality of horror fiction in his Danse Macabre (New York: Gallery Books, 1981; repr. 2010), 413-436. Our thanks to Erich Asperschlager for this reference. ↩
• ^[203] On the fundamental understanding of Israel’s identity as the Lord’s slaves, see Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.4 (1972): 447-459. ↩
• ^[204] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[205] 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. ↩