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^[1] 

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.”^[2] 

Reconstruction

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

Story Placement

Although located in different sections of their respective Gospels, the authors of Luke and Matthew agreed to place Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) following Unexpected Thief. Their agreement indicates that the arrangement of Unexpected Thief followed by Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) already existed at a pre-synoptic stage of transmission. What is more, in Luke, just prior to Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two), we find a saying—Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One)—involving a lord returning late at night from a wedding feast, who knocks on the door and finds his slaves waiting up for him with their lamps lit (Luke 12:35-38), whereas in Matthew, just after Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two), we find the Waiting Maidens parable, in which a bridegroom, whom the maidens address as “lord,” arrives at a wedding feast in the middle of the night. The sensible maidens have their torches lit and are admitted to the feast, but the foolish maidens, lacking oil, are unable to light their torches and so stand outside knocking on the door, begging for admittance. Although the stories are quite different, the common motifs (lighting, knocking, a lord, a wedding feast, the late hour) suggest that at a pre-synoptic stage of the transmission something involving these motifs was already associated with Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two).

Some scholars have suggested that the author of Matthew whipped up the ingredients still preserved in Luke’s Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) into an allegory about the delayed parousia and the fate of believers who die in the interim, namely the Waiting Maidens parable. Others have supposed the author of Luke only managed to preserve hints and reminiscences of the Waiting Maidens parable, which Matthew preserves in full.^[3] But we believe that whereas in Luke 12:35-46 the author of Luke reproduced the pericope order of the pre-synoptic source (Faithful or Faithless Slave [Part One]→Unexpected Thief→Faithful or Faithless Slave [Part Two]), the author of Matthew was more selective about the materials he incorporated into his version of the eschatological discourse.^[4] 

Just as the author of Matthew was willing to drastically truncate Mark’s version of Be Ready for Son of Man in order to incorporate Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two),^[5] so we believe he was willing to dispense with Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) in order to make space for the Waiting Maidens parable, which contained many of the same motifs and images. In other words, it appears to us that both Luke’s Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) and Matthew’s Waiting Maidens parable were taken from their shared pre-synoptic source. The author of Luke preserved the pre-synoptic arrangement of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two). The author of Matthew, on the other hand, in keeping with his method of expanding discourses by drawing in sayings from disparate sources and locations, separated Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) from Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two), but betrayed his knowledge of the pre-synoptic arrangement by drawing in Waiting Maidens, which was similar to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) in terms of motifs and imagery (and, to a certain extent, vocabulary as well).^[6] 

While we regard the placement of the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave on either side of Unexpected Thief as pre-synoptic, we do not regard this arrangement as original. For some reason (on which, see below) Unexpected Thief came to be tucked between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave,^[7] even though there are clear and important correspondences between the two parts. Part One of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Luke 12:35-40) sets the stage, as it were, for the drama that plays out in Part Two (Luke 12:42b-46 ∥ Matt. 24:45-51a). It urges Jesus’ audience to emulate watchful slaves who are prepared to serve their master whenever he might return home from a wedding feast. Jesus reminds his audience that just as things go well for slaves who are prepared to receive their master upon his return, so it will go well for them if they are not caught unprepared. Jesus then entertains the possibility that the master might return quite late from the wedding feast, long into the night or even the early hours of the morning. Even so, it is best for the slaves if their master finds them prepared to receive him when he returns. And likewise, it will be best for Jesus’ audience to be prepared, even if the time of waiting lasts longer than expected. The two affirmations of the benefits of preparedness in Part One of Faithful or Faithless Slave correspond to the two scenarios that play out in Part Two. In Part Two the illustration zooms in on one particular slave, the one the master leaves in charge while he is away. If the slave carries out his duties responsibly, things will turn out well for him when his master returns. He will be promoted from a temporary position of authority over the other slaves to a permanent position of stewardship over everything the master owns, paralleling the blessing Jesus pronounced over the slaves who kept awake. On the other hand, if the slave takes advantage of his master’s long absence, using it as an opportunity for self-promotion at the expense of the other slaves and his master’s property, he is liable to be caught out by his master and punished accordingly. This slave’s downfall stands in antithetical parallelism to the blessing pronounced over the slaves who stay awake even to the wee hours.

	Exhortation	Blessing 1	Blessing 2
	Let your loins be girded and your lamps lit, like people expecting their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they may instantly open [the door] for him.	Blessed are those slaves whom the lord, coming, finds awake!	And if he comes in the second or third watch of the night and finds them thus, blessed are they!
Illustration	Who is the faithful and sensible slave whom the lord put in charge of his household, to give them food in its time?
Positive Example		Blessed is that slave whom his lord, coming, will find doing thus! Amen! I say to you, he will put him in charge over all that he has.
Negative Example			But if that slave says in his heart, “My lord is late in coming!” and he begins to hit the slave boys and slave girls, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the lord of that servant will come in a day he does not expect and in an hour he does not know. And he will cut him in two and set his portion with the faithless.

The correspondences between Parts One and Two of Faithful or Faithless Slave are not merely thematic, they also pertain to vocabulary and grammar. Thus, the adjective μακάριοι (makarioi, “blessed”) in the first macarism in Part One (L10) corresponds to μακάριος (makarios, “blessed”) in the macarism pronounced in the first scenario of Part Two (L36). Likewise, the phrase ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος εὑρήσει (elthōn ho kūrios hevrēsei, “coming, the lord will find”) in the first macarism of Part One (L11-12) is repeated in the macarism pronounced in the first scenario of Part Two (L38-39).^[8] And so also οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι (hoi douloi ekeinoi, “those slaves”) in the first macarism of Part One (L10) parallels ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος (ho doulos ekeinos, “that slave”) in the macarism pronounced in the first scenario of Part Two (L37).

The correspondences between the second macarism of Part One and the second scenario of Part Two are more complex, but this is largely explained by the antithetical nature of the parallelism. The second scenario in Part Two is a negative example of the second macarism pronounced in Part One, so the correspondences are not exact. Nevertheless, they are readily apparent for those prepared to see them. Both the second macarism in Part One and the second scenario in Part Two open with conditional sentences (κἄν [kan, “and if”] in L17, L18; ἐὰν δέ [ean de, “but if”] in L44). The subjunctive ἔλθῃ (elthē, “he might come”) in the second macarism of Part One (L19) corresponds to the future ἥξει (hēxei, “he will come”) in the second scenario of Part Two (L53). The two time markers in the second macarism in Part One (ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ [en tē devtera, “in the second”] in L17; ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ [en tē tritē fūlakē, “in the third watch”] in L18) correspond to the two time markers in the second scenario of Part Two (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ [en hēmera, “in a day”] in L55; ἐν ὥρᾳ [en hōra, “in an hour”] in L56). And opposite μακάριοί εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι (makarioi eisin ekeinoi, “blessed are those”) in the second macarism of Part One (L20) stands the terrible judgment executed against the faithless slave of the second scenario of Part Two: διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει (dichotomēsei avton kai to meros avtou meta tōn apistōn thēsei, “he will cut him in two and set his portion with the faithless”; L57-59).

Such strong correspondence between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave suggests that these two parts originally belonged together as a single composition. We suspect it was the Anthologizer who separated Parts One and Two, perhaps being led astray by the plural form in Part One (“those slaves”) in contrast to the singular form in Part Two (“that slave”). Or, perhaps, tucking Unexpected Thief, which explicitly mentions the Son of Man, between Parts One and Two of Faithful or Faithless Slave was the Anthologizer’s way of making it clear to his readers that he understood the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave as having to do with the eschatological coming of the Son of Man.

Where might Faithful or Faithless Slave have belonged in the Hebrew biography of Jesus we call the Life of Yeshua? We suspect that it belonged to the post-resurrection instruction of Jesus’ disciples, when he made it plain to them that the task of spreading the gospel was being entrusted into their hands. Faithful or Faithless Slave does not make explicit reference to the Son of Man, so we suspect that this pericope was not originally associated with Son of Man sayings.^[9] Perhaps it was related to sayings concerning the care and oversight of the nascent believing community.

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) is a Type 1 Double Tradition (DT) pericope characterized by relatively high levels of verbal identity.^[10] Most scholars agree that when the authors of Matthew and Luke achieved high levels of verbal identity in a given DT pericope this was because both authors were relying on a common source, typically identified as “Q.”^[11] According to Lindsey’s hypothesis, the source common to Matthew and Luke was the Anthology (Anth.). Lindsey described Anth. as a non-linear source (i.e., not in chronological or narrative order) marked by highly Hebraic translation Greek.^[12] What we have already observed about Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) partly agrees with this description. The insertion of Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave in Luke is certainly non-linear. In the Comment section below we will demonstrate how easily Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) reverts to Hebrew. Ease of Hebrew retroversion is strong evidence that a pericope is characterized by translation Greek. Thus, Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) matches Lindsey’s description of an Anth. pericope, and we see no reason to prevent us from assigning Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) to this pre-synoptic source.

A more contentious issue is whether to assign Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) to the same pre-synoptic source as Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two). Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) is preserved only in Luke, which raises doubt as to whether it was also known to the author of Matthew.^[13] Nevertheless, we have already cited evidence that the author of Matthew was aware of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) in his source, since in the “Story Placement” discussion above we suggested that it influenced his placement of the Waiting Maidens parable immediately following Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two). Scholars who define Q as representing only those non-Markan pericopae shared by Luke and Matthew automatically exclude Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) from Q,^[14] but many scholars who admit that we cannot precisely define the contours of the non-Markan source behind Luke and Matthew concede that Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) may have been present in Q (or its equivalent).^[15] 

Indirect evidence that the author of Matthew knew Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) is supplied by the Didache. The numerous sayings of Jesus that the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache share in common suggest that the author of Matthew and the author of the Didache had access to (some of) the same source(s) for their knowledge of the Jesus tradition. In the Didache we encounter what appears to be a version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One),^[16] which reads:

Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν· οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν, καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν, ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι· οὐ γὰρ οἶδατε τὴν ὥραν, ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται.

Be awake for your life: let your lamps not be extinguished, and your loins not be ungirded, but be ready! For you do not know the hour in which your lord comes. (Did. 16:1)

If the author of the Didache knew Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), it is likely that the author of Matthew knew it too.

Crucial Issues

1. How many slaves are envisioned in Faithful or Faithless Slave?
2. Is “cut him in two” at the end of the illustration to be understood literally?
3. How could Jesus have used an institution as abhorrent as slavery to illustrate aspects of his message?

Comment

Part One: Exhortation (L1-20)

L1-2 ἔστωσαν αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι (GR). We have accepted Luke’s wording in L1-2 with only the slightest change, moving the possessive pronoun ὑμῶν (hūmōn, “your [plur.]”) from an emphatic position following the verb to a more Hebraic position following the noun. The vocabulary in L1-2 is not distinctively Lukan. The noun ὀσφύς (osfūs, “waist,” “loins”) does not occur elsewhere in Luke and occurs only once in Acts (Acts 2:30).^[17] Likewise, the verb περιζωννύναι (perizōnnūnai, “to wrap around [oneself],” “to gird [oneself]”) only occurs 3xx in Luke (Luke 12:35, 37; 17:8) and never in Acts.^[18] The parallel in Did. 16:1, which urges the readers to not let their loins be ungirded (καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν), also suggests that Luke’s wording in L1-2 is traditional.

יִהְיוּ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים (HR). On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L30.

In LXX the noun ὀσφύς (osfūs, “waist,” “loins”) usually occurs as the translation of מָתְנַיִם (motnayim, “loins,” “waist”).^[19] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered מָתְנַיִם as ὀσφύς.^[20] 

In LXX περιζωννύναι (perizōnnūnai, “to wrap around [oneself],” “to gird [oneself]”) usually occurs as the translation of חָגַר (ḥāgar, “gird”).^[21] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered חָגַר with ζωννύναι (zōnnūnai, “to wrap [oneself],” “to gird [oneself]”) and compounds thereof, especially περιζωννύναι.^[22] 

The opening exhortation of Luke 12:35 is reminiscent of the following command in Exodus:

οὕτως δὲ φάγεσθε αὐτό· αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι, καὶ τὰ ὑποδήματα ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, καὶ αἱ βακτηρίαι ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν· καὶ ἔδεσθε αὐτὸ μετὰ σπουδῆς

But in this way you must eat it: your loins girded, and shoes on your feet, and staves in your hands. And you must eat it with haste. (Exod. 12:11)

וְכָכָה תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן

And thus you must eat it: your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you must eat it in haste. (Exod. 12:11)

The command in Exodus concerns the eating of the Passover lamb. Many scholars detect in the command to “let your loins be girded” in Luke 12:35 an allusion to the Passover narrative,^[23] although some deny it.^[24] We think it would be unlikely for anyone in Jesus’ audience to hear the exhortation to “let your loins be girded” and not be reminded of the Passover narrative. The allusion to the Passover narrative was probably intended to alert listeners to Jesus’ intention to draw a lesson for their current situation from the scriptural narratives about Moses and the children of Israel.^[25] 

L3 καὶ οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν καιόμενοι (GR). We have accepted all of Luke’s wording in L3, but added the possessive pronoun ὑμῶν (hūmōn, “your [plur.]”) following the noun λύχνοι (lūchnoi, “lamps”). The author of Luke may have dropped the pronoun as superfluous, given the ὑμῶν in L1, which he had placed in an emphatic position. It is possible, however, that ὑμῶν was not present in L3 in Luke’s source, since sometimes Greek translators omitted to translate pronominal suffixes attached to Hebrew nouns.

It is true that the noun λύχνος (lūchnos, “lamp”) occurs with higher frequency in Luke (6xx: Luke 8:16; 11:33, 34, 36; 12:35; 15:8) than in the Gospels of Matthew (2xx: Matt. 5:15; 6:22) or Mark (1x: Mark 4:21). Nevertheless, most, if not all, instances of λύχνος in Luke probably reflect Luke’s sources. In Acts the noun λύχνος never occurs,^[26] so it is unlikely that λύχνος is a Lukan redactional term. The verb καίειν (kaiein, “to burn”) only occurs twice in Luke (Luke 12:35; 24:32) and never in Acts,^[27] so it cannot in any way be characterized as especially Lukan.

וְנֵרוֹתֵיכֶם דְּלוּקִים (HR). On reconstructing λύχνος (lūchnos, “lamp”) with נֵר (nēr, “lamp”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L42.

In LXX the verb καίειν (kaiein, “to burn”) occurs as the translation of several verbs, most frequently בָּעַר (bā‘ar, “burn”) and שָׂרַף (sāraf, “burn”).^[28] However, the Mishnaic Hebrew verb for lighting a lamp was הִדְלִיק (hidliq),^[29] and since we prefer to reconstruct direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew, we prefer the ד‑ל‑ק root for HR.^[30] In Lost Sheep and Lost Coin we supplied examples of the transitive “kindle a lamp,”^[31] but here we require the intransitive “lamps burning.” Mishnaic Hebrew typically expressed this with the passive participle דָּלוּק (dālūq, lit., “burning”), as we see in the following examples:

תניא ר′ יוסי בר יהודה אומר שני מלאכי השרת מלוין לו לאדם בע″ש מבית הכנסת לביתו אחד טוב ואחד רע וכשבא לביתו ומצא נר דלוק ושלחן ערוך ומטתו מוצעת מלאך טוב אומר יהי רצון שתהא לשבת אחרת כך ומלאך רע עונה אמן בעל כרחו

It was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says, “Two ministering angels accompany a person on the eve of Shabbat from the synagogue to his home, one good and the other evil. And when he comes to his home and finds the lamp burning [נֵר דָּלוּק] and the table set and the bed spread, the good angel says, ‘Let it be your will [O Lord] that it will be thus on another Sabbath.’ And the evil angel answers, ‘Amen!’ against his will….” (b. Shab. 119b)

ת″ר בשעת פטירתו של רבי אמר לבני אני צריך נכנסו בניו אצלו אמר להם הזהרו בכבוד אמכם נר יהא דלוק במקומו שולחן יהא ערוך במקומו מטה תהא מוצעת במקומה

Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: In the hour of Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi]’s departure [from this life—DNB and JNT] he said to his sons, “I need [you].” His sons entered where he was. He said to them, “Be careful of your mother’s honor. Let the lamp [נֵר] be burning [דָּלוּק] in its place. Let the table be set in its place. Let the bed be spread in its place.” (b. Ket. 103a)

ושמא תאמר הזקנים שהיתה נבואתם משל משה חסר משה כלום, משל לנר שהיה דלוק והדליקו ממנו כמה נרות והוא לא חסר כלום, כך היה משה

And lest you say regarding the elders that their prophetic powers which came from Moses deprived Moses somewhat, [consider this] parable: [It may be compared] to a lamp that was burning [לְנֵר שֶׁהָיָה דָלוּק] and they kindled from it so many lamps, but it was not reduced at all. So it was with Moses. (Midrash Yelamdenu, BeHa‘alotcha 47a [ed. Mann, 2:144])

ולמה הצדיקים דומין, למי שמהלך בדרך, ובידו נר דלוק

And to what are the righteous similar? To one who walks in the path and in his hand is a burning lamp [נֵר דָּלוּק]. (Midrash Tehillim 27:2 [ed. Buber, 222])

Note that in all of these examples the passive participle is in the masculine form. For this reason we have adopted for HR the masculine דְּלוּקִים (d^elūqim, “burning”) to modify נֵרוֹתֵיכֶם (nērōtēchem, “your lamps”).

L4 ὡς ἄνθρωποι (GR). It appears that in L4 the author of Luke interfered somewhat with the wording of his source. This is so because the phrase καὶ ὑμεῖς (kai hūmeis, “also you”) is an indicator of Lukan redaction,^[32] and because Luke’s wording in L4 is difficult to revert to Hebrew. Perhaps in place of καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις (kai hūmeis homoioi anthrōpois, “also you be like people”) Luke’s source read, ὡς ἄνθρωποι (hōs anthrōpoi, “like people”). Such a change would have made a two-part imperative (“Let your loins be girded and your lamps be burning like people…”) into a three-part imperative (“Let your loins be girded, and your lamps be burning. Also you, [be] like people…”). The intended effect may have been to stress to Luke’s audience their need for expectation in a state of preparedness, but the author of Luke’s changes also had the (unintentional?) effect of cutting off the imagery of the girded loins and the burning lamps from the example of people waiting up for their master to return. It now reads as though the author of Luke wanted his readers to literally keep their loins girded and their lamps lit, while also being like the people in the illustration to follow. Our proposal for GR makes it clearer that the exhortation to have girded loins and burning lamps is part of the illustration and not necessarily to be taken literally.

In support of our proposal for GR we note that Mark’s version of Be Ready for Son of Man was likely influenced by Faithful or Faithless Slave.^[33] Supposing that Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave read ὡς ἄνθρωποι (“like people”) in L4 would explain why the author of Mark chose to write ὡς ἄνθρωπος (hōs anthrōpos, “like a person”) in his version of Be Ready for Son of Man (L21): he borrowed it not from the Lukan version of the pericope but from Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave.

כִּבְנֵי אָדָם (HR). On reconstructing ὡς (hōs, “like,” “as”) with -כְּ (k^e–, “like,” “as”), see Sending the Twelve: “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves,” Comment to L50.

We might have chosen to reconstruct ὡς ἄνθρωποι (hōs anthrōpoi, “like people”) as כַּאֲנָשִׁים (ka’^anāshim, “like men”),^[34] but there is no indication in Faithful or Faithless Slave that the illustration is particularly gendered (female slaves could also wait up for their master to return).^[35] A normal way in Hebrew (Mishnaic as well as Biblical) of referring to people generally was to use the phrase בְּנֵי אָדָם (b^enē ’ādām, lit., “children of Adam,” i.e., “people,” “human beings”). So a Greek translator who understood this Hebrew idiom might easily have rendered בְּנֵי אָדָם as ἄνθρωποι. Thus, although the LXX translators usually rendered בְּנֵי אָדָם as [οἱ] υἱοὶ [τῶν] ἀνθρώπων ([hoi] huioi [tōn] anthrōpōn, “[the] sons [of the] persons”),^[36] they did occasionally render בְּנֵי אָדָם simply as ἄνθρωποι (anthrōpoi, “persons”; Isa. 52:14; Prov. 15:11; Dan. 10:16).

Examples of כִּבְנֵי אָדָם (kivnē ’ādām, “like people”) in Mishnaic Hebrew are not difficult to supply. The following instances will suffice:

עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נֶעְנוּ מְמַעֲטִים בְּמַשָׂא וּבְמַתָּן בְּבִינְיָן ^וּבִנְטִיעָה בָּאֵרוּסִים ^וּבַנִּישּׂוּאִים וּבִשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ [כִּ]בְנֵי אָדָם נֶזוּפִים לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם

If these [days of fasting and prayer] passed and they were not answered, they engage little in trade, in building and planting, in betrothals and marriages, and in greeting one another, like people [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] disgraced before the Omnipresent One. (t. Taan. 1:7)

כבני אדם שקורין שמע בבית הכנסת

…like people [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] who are reading the Shema in the synagogue…. (t. Sot. 6:3; Vienna MS)

ששה דברים נאמרו בשדים ג′ כבני אדם וג′ כמלאכי השרת: ג′ כבני אדם אוכלין ושותין כבני אדם פרין ורבין כבני אדם ומתים כבני אדם

Six things were said about demons. In three respects they are like human beings [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] and in three respects they are like the ministering angels. In three respects they are like human beings [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם]: They eat and drink like human beings [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם], they multiply like human beings [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם], and they die like human beings [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם]…. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, §37 [ed. Schechter, 109])

רבי נחמיה אומר שרת רוח הקדש על ישראל והיו אומרים שירה כבני אדם שהן קוראין את שמע רבי עקיבא אומר רוח הקדש שרת עליהם והיו אומרים שירה כבני אדם שהן קוראין את ההלל

Rabbi Nehemiah says, “The Holy Spirit rested upon Israel, and they were saying the song like people [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] who are reciting the Shema.” Rabbi Akiva says, “The Holy Spirit rested upon them, and they were saying the song like people [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] who are reciting the Hallel Psalms.” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata §1 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:173])

מלמד שהיו יראין מהן כבני אדם שיריאין מן קוניהן

…it teaches that they [i.e., the Egyptians] were afraid of them [i.e., their former Hebrew slaves] like people [כִּבְנֵי אָדָם] who are afraid of their creator. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, on Exod. 12:36 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, 31])

L5 προσδεχόμενοι (GR). For GR we have accepted Luke’s vocabulary but changed the participle’s case from dative to nominative, in keeping with our reconstruction in L4. The verb προσδέχεσθαι (prosdechesthai) in the sense of “expect,” “anticipate,” “await” does occur more frequently in the Gospel of Luke (4xx: Luke 2:25, 38; 12:36; 23:51) than in the Gospels of Mark (1x: Mark 15:43) or Matthew (0xx),^[37] but these instances often occur in phrases like “awaiting the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25), “awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38) or “awaiting the Kingdom of God” (Luke 23:51), which sounds more like inner Jewish discourse taken from the author of Luke’s sources^[38] than the universalist discourse characteristic of the author of Luke. So it does not appear that προσδέχεσθαι can fairly be characterized as particularly Lukan.

מְצַפִּים (HR). In LXX the verb προσδέχεσθαι (prosdechesthai, “to receive,” “to expect”) does not occur often in the sense of “to expect” or “to await.” In the relatively few instances where it does occur in this sense,^[39] it never does so as the translation of צִפָּה (tzipāh, “look,” “anticipate,” “expect”).^[40] But this is hardly surprising since צִפָּה does not occur in the sense of “look forward to” or “expect” anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures; it acquired this sense only in Mishnaic Hebrew.

The following is an example of the verb צִפָּה in the sense of “await” or “expect”:

דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן הוֹרְקָנוֹס שֶׁלֹּא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַמָּקוֹם אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה שנ′ הֵן יִקְטְלֵינִי לוֹ אֲיָיחֵל אֲדַיִין הַדָּבַר שָׁקוּל לוֹ אֲנִי מְצַפֶּה אוֹ אֵינִי מְצַפֶּה לוֹ

Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus expounded that Job did not serve the Omnipresent One except from love, as it is said, Though he slay me I will wait for him [Job 13:15]. But still the matter is undecided [because of a question of qere ketiv] whether it means, “I am waiting [מְצַפֶּה]” [reading לוֹ אֲיַחֵל ⟨lō ’^ayaḥēl, “for him I will wait”⟩ according to the qere—DNB and JNT] or “I am not waiting [מְצַפֶּה] for him” [reading לֹא אֲיַחֵל ⟨lo’ ’^ayaḥēl, “I will not wait”⟩ according to the ketiv—DNB and JNT]. (m. Sot. 5:5)

L6 τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν (GR). Although the use of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (heavtou, “his own”) as a synonym for the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ (avtou, “his”) is sometimes the product of Greek redaction, we have retained the reflexive pronoun in GR because we think its presence in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) may (at least in part) account for the author of Matthew’s repeated use of ἑαυτοῦ in the Waiting Maidens parable.^[41] 

לְרַבָּם (HR). Typically we reconstruct κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with אָדוֹן (’ādōn, “lord”),^[42] but the usual Mishnaic Hebrew term for a slave’s master is רַב (rav), which makes רַב a better candidate for HR in the present context. Although in LXX κύριος never occurs as the translation of רַב,^[43] this is not terribly surprising since the use of the noun רַב to designate a slave’s master is not attested in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Examples of the pairing of רַב with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”) include the following:

מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא לִמְזוֹג כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ וְשָׁפַךְ לוֹ קִּיתּוֹן עַל פָּנָיו

They told a parable. To what is the matter similar? To a slave [לְעֶבֶד] who came to mix a cup for his master [לְרַבּוֹ], but he [i.e., the master] poured the pitcher over his [i.e., the slave’s] face. (m. Suk. 2:9 [ed. Blackman, 2:327])

אשה מברכת לבעלה בן מברך לאביו עבד מברך לרבו

A wife recites a blessing for her husband, a son recites a blessing for his father, a slave [עֶבֶד] recites a blessing for his master [לְרַבּוֹ]. (t. Ber. 5:17; Vienna MS)

עבד שאמ′ לרבו הפלתה שיני וסמיתה את עיני תן לי דמי עיני

A slave [עֶבֶד] who said to his master [לְרַבּוֹ], “You knocked out my tooth,” or “You put out my eye, give me the price of my eye….” (t. Bab. Kam. 9:23; Vienna MS)

הבן שנושא ונותן משל אביו וכן העבד שנושא ונותן משל רבו

The son who engages in trade with that which is his father’s, and also the slave [הָעֶבֶד] who engages in trade with that which is his master’s [רַבּוֹ]…. (t. Bab. Kam. 11:2; Vienna MS)

הבן שהיה אוכל משל אביו וכן העבד שהיה אוכל משל רבו

The son who would eat from what is his father’s, and also the slave [הָעֶבֶד] who would eat from what is his master’s [רַבּוֹ]…. (t. Bab. Kam. 11:4; Vienna MS)

[מצא] שחרור בזמן שהרב מודה יחזיר לעבד ואם לאו לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

[If someone found] an emancipation [writ]: when the master [שֶׁהָרַב] confesses [to its validity] he returns it to the slave [לָעֶבֶד]. But if not, he does not return it to either party. (t. Bab. Metz. 1:7)

כותבין שטר שיחרור שלא מדעת העבד אבל אין כותבין אלא מדעת הרב

They write a writ of emancipation without the knowledge of the slave [הָעֶבֶד], but they do not write it except with the knowledge of the master [הָרַב]. (t. Bab. Bat. 11:5 [ed. Zuckermandel, 413])

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל מלאכות שהעבד עושה לרבו תלמיד עושה לרבו

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “All the duties that a slave [שֶׁהָעֶבֶד] performs for his master [לְרַבּוֹ], a disciple performs for his master….” (b. Ket. 96a)

Instances of רַב with the third-person plural pronominal suffix (i.e., רַבָּם [rabām, “their master”]) are quite rare in rabbinic sources. One example we found provides a rare instance of the pairing of עֶבֶד (“slave”) with אָדוֹן (“lord”):

באין לפניו כבנים לפני האב וכעבדים לפני אדוניהן וכתלמידים לפני רבם

They come before him like sons before the father, and like slaves before their lord, and like disciples before their master [רַבָּם]. (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah §29 [ed. Friedmann, 165])

Although the above-quoted instance of רַבָּם could be cited as a counter-example to our preference for reconstructing κύριος with רַב, the evidence for the pairing of עֶבֶד with אָדוֹן is meager. The pairing of עֶבֶד with אָדוֹן in Seder Eliyahu Rabbah is best accounted for as a desire to avoid repeating רַב and a feeling that the pairing of אָדוֹן (“lord”) with תַּלְמִיד (talmid, “disciple”) would sound odd, if not overtly Christian.

L7 πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων (GR). We have accepted Luke’s wording in L7 for GR without modification. Although the use of the verb ἀναλύειν (analūein), which normally means “to depart,”^[44] in the sense of “to return” is a bit unusual, it can in no way be construed as characteristically Lukan, since ἀναλύειν occurs nowhere else in Luke’s Gospel or Acts.^[45] Similarly, the noun γάμος (gamos, “wedding,” “wedding feast”) occurs only here and in Luke 14:8 in all of Luke-Acts,^[46] so the wedding motif was not of particular interest to the author of Luke.

אֵימָתַי שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה (HR). On reconstructing πότε (pote, “when?”) with אֵימָתַי (’ēmātai, “when?”), see Temple’s Destruction Foretold, Comment to L42. Sometimes, as in our reconstruction, the interrogative particle אֵימָתַי could be used in a non-interrogative sense, for instance:

אֵמָּתַיִי שֶׁיִּרְצוּ יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה ר′ יוֹסֵה אוֹ′ מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיָה הַתְּנַאִיי הַזֶּה וּתְנַאִיי אֵמָּתַיִי שֶׁיּבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה

…when [-אֵמָּתַיִי שֶׁ] they want the matter will return to how it was. Rabbi Yose says, “From when the Temple was destroyed this was the condition, but on condition that when [-אֵמָּתַיִי שֶׁ] the Temple is rebuilt it will return to how it was.” (m. Maas. Shen. 5:2)

אֵין מוֹכְרִין בֵּית ^הַכְּנֶסֶת אִלַּא עַל תְּנַיי אֵמָּתַי שֶׁיִּרְצוּ יַחְזִירוּהוּ

They may not sell a synagogue except on condition that when [-אֵמָּתַי שֶׁ] they want they may restore it. (m. Meg. 3:2)

רוּחַ הַקּוּדֶשׁ מְבַשְׂרָתָּן אֵמָתַיִי שֶׁתַּעֲשׂוּן כָּכָה הַדָּם נִיתְכַּפֵּר לָכֶם

The Holy Spirit proclaims to them, “When [-אֵמָתַיִי שֶׁ] you do thus [i.e., carry out the rite of breaking the calf’s neck ⟨cf. Deut. 21:1-9⟩—DNB and JNT], the blood is atoned for you.” (m. Sot. 9:6)

מָכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמִים אָמַ′ לוֹ אֵמָּתַי שֶׁתִּירְצֶה הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ אָסוּר

If someone sold him the field, but he [i.e., the buyer—DNB and JNT] gave him some of the price, and he [i.e., the seller—DNB and JNT] said to him, “When [-אֵמָּתַי שֶׁ] you want, bring the money and take what is yours”: this is forbidden. (m. Bab. Metz. 5:3)

In each of these non-interrogative instances of אֵימָתַי the particle is accompanied by -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “that”).^[47] We have, therefore, attached -שֶׁ to the verb that follows אֵימָתַי in HR.

In LXX the verb ἀναλύειν (analūein, “to depart,” rarely “to return”) is relatively rare and confined to books not included in MT.^[48] As a result, LXX does not supply us with a Hebrew equivalent for ἀναλύειν. We do find, however, that ἀναλύειν occurs once in Tobit (Tob. 2:9) with the meaning “to return.” Since Tobit was translated from Hebrew into Greek, it is likely that ἀναλύειν in Tob. 2:9 occurred as the translation of some verb for “return.”

One option for HR is to reconstruct ἀναλύειν with בָּא (bā’, “come,” “arrive”). This option is attractive because of the similarity it would produce to a famous anecdote:

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִשְׁתֶּה אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע

It happened that his [i.e., Rabban Gamliel’s—DNB and JNT] sons came from a wedding feast. They said to him, “We have not recited the Shema!”…. (m. Ber. 1:1)

Nevertheless, reconstructing ἀναλύειν with בָּא in the present context is problematic because elsewhere in Faithful or Faithless Slave בָּא is the best option for reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”; L8, L11, L19, L38, L48, L53). Since it is difficult to explain why the Greek translator of this pericope would have chosen to render בָּא as ἀναλύειν in L7 but as ἔρχεσθαι everywhere else it occurred, we prefer a different option for HR. The Mishnaic verb חָזַר (ḥāzar, “return”) is a solid choice. Several instances of חָזַר occurred in the examples of non-interrogative uses of אֵימָתַי cited above.

On reconstructing γάμος (gamos, “wedding,” “wedding feast”) with בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה (bēt mishteh, “house of a banquet,” “banqueting hall,” “wedding feast”), see Waiting Maidens, Comment to L29. An example of בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה in the sense of “wedding feast” occurs in the anecdote about Rabban Gamliel’s sons cited above.

L8 ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος (GR). Although the phrase ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος (elthontos kai krousantos, “coming and knocking”) is an example of the genitive absolute, which is often a marker of Greek redaction,^[49] we have cautiously accepted Luke’s wording for GR. Scholars have noted that this particular genitive absolute is awkwardly constructed,^[50] which is what we might expect from the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. In any case, the knocking motif was almost certainly present in Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), since this was one of the features that it shared in common with the Waiting Maidens parable, which the author of Matthew inserted into the eschatological discourse following Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) to make up for his omission of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One).

Another indication that the knocking motif is original to Faithful or Faithless Slave is that, like the girding up of the loins, the knocking motif may allude to the Passover narrative,^[51] albeit indirectly. In rabbinic circles it was common to read Song of Songs as an allegory of God’s love for Israel expressed through the redemption from Egypt. Accordingly, we find that the words the sound of my lover knocking in Song 5:2 were interpreted as referring to Moses:

קול דודי דופק זה משה, ויאמר משה כה אמר י″י כחצות הלילה אני וג′‏

The sound of my lover knocking! [Song 5:2]. This is Moses [as it is said], And Moses said, “Thus says the Lord, about the middle of the night I am...” etc. [Exod. 11:4]. (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])

Evidently, Moses was identified as the one knocking at the door to arouse his beloved because of his role in announcing the coming redemption of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Moses proclaimed God’s passing through Egypt at midnight (Exod. 11:4) and instructed Israel how to be prepared for their redeemer’s coming, including the girding up of their loins in order to eat the Passover lamb in haste (Exod. 12:11), thereby “awakening” the Hebrew slaves to the prospect of redemption.

Just as the girding up of the loins in L1-2 echoes the eating of the Passover lamb, and just as the master’s knocking on the door in L8 hints at Moses’ rousing the Hebrew slaves to prepare for their redemption, so the master’s late arrival, in the second or third watch of the night (L17-18), is reminiscent of the redeemer’s passing through Egypt at about midnight. Thus, there are numerous potential clues in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) that Jesus’ audience are to take a lesson from Israel’s scriptural history and apply it to their present situation.

כְּדֵי שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא וְדוֹפֵק (HR). Just as ἵνα + subjunctive clauses express purpose in Greek, so ‑כְּדֵי שֶׁ + imperfect clauses express purpose in Mishnaic Hebrew^[52] (in the present case the subjunctive [GR] and imperfect [HR] occurs in L9). Since ‑כְּדֵי שֶׁ (k^edē she-, “so that,” “in order that”) does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, LXX does not supply examples of -כְּדֵי שֶׁ being translated as ἵνα (hina, “so that,” “in order to”). Nevertheless, the semantic equivalence makes -כְּדֵי שֶׁ a good option for HR.

We have already encountered an example of כְּשֶׁבָּא (k^eshebā’) used to express “when he comes”:

וכשבא לביתו ומצא נר דלוק ושלחן ערוך ומטתו מוצעת מלאך טוב אומר יהי רצון שתהא לשבת אחרת כך

And when he comes [וּכְשֶׁבָּא] to his home and finds the lamp burning and the table set and the bed spread, the good angel says, “Let it be your will [O Lord] that it will be thus on another Sabbath.” (b. Shab. 119b)

Although the combination of -כְּדֵי שֶׁ‑ + כְּשֶׁ is extremely rare, we do find an example in a late midrashic collection:

מפני מה ברא הקב″ה את העולם בבי″ת בבראשית וסיים התורה בלמ″ד? כדי שכשתדבקם ביחד אינן אלא בל, וכי תהפוך אותם אינן אלא לב, אמר להם הקב″ה לישראל בני אם אתם מקיימים שני דברים הללו בל ולב אני מעלה עליכם כאילו קיימתם את התורה כולה מב′ ועד ל′‏

Why did the Holy One, blessed be he, create the world with the bet in bereshit [i.e., the first letter of the first word in Genesis—DNB and JNT] and conclude the Torah with [the letter] lamed? So that when you stick them [כדי שכשתדבקם] together they equal bal [“no,” “not”] and when you reverse them they equal lev [“heart”]. The Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, “My sons, if you fulfill these two words, bal [probably a reference to observing the Torah’s negative commandments, i.e., prohibitions—DNB] and lev [probably a reference to the most important of the positive commandments, i.e., to love the Lord with all your heart ⟨Deut. 6:5⟩—DNB and JNT], I will credit it to you as though you had fulfilled the entire Torah from [the first] bet to [the final] lamed.” (Otzar Midrashim, Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, Version B [ed. Eisenstein, 2:411])

On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing κρούειν (krouein, “to knock”) with דָּפַק (dāfaq, “knock”), see Closed Door, Comment to L8. Elsewhere we have reconstructed κρούειν with הִרְתִּיק (hirtiq, “knock”),^[53] but since we suspect that the master’s knocking in Faithful or Faithless Slave alludes to the phrase קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק (qōl dōdi dōfēq, “the sound of my lover knocking”) in Song 5:2, reconstructing with דָּפַק is preferable.

L9 ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ (GR). From GR we have excluded Luke’s adverb εὐθέως (evtheōs, “immediately”), in part because its position in the sentence is un-Hebraic—the most natural reconstruction would be יִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ מִיָּד (yift^eḥū lō miyād, “they will open to him immediately”)^[54] with מִיָּד (miyād, “immediately”) at the end of the phrase, whereas εὐθέως occurs at the beginning—and in part because of the likelihood that most instances of εὐθέως in Luke are redactional.^[55] Of the six instances of εὐθέως in Luke’s Gospel only one is supported by the synoptic parallel.^[56] Moreover, εὐθέως occurs 9xx in Acts (Acts 9:18, 20, 34; 12:10; 16:10; 17:10, 14; 21:30; 22:29),^[57] five of which are in the second half of Acts, where the author of Luke’s personal writing style is most apparent. Given these facts, it is probable that the author of Luke introduced εὐθέως at L9 as a means of intensifying the urgency of the scenario described in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One).

יִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ἀνοίγειν (anoigein, “to open”) with פָּתַח (pātaḥ, “open”), see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L27.

As we stated above, had we accepted Luke’s adverb εὐθέως, we probably would have reconstructed it with the Mishnaic adverb מִיָּד (miyād, “immediately”).^[58] Another option for reconstructing εὐθέως is אֶוְותִּיאוֹס (’evti’ōs, “immediately”), none other than εὐθέως in Hebrew guise. The loanword אֶוְותִּיאוֹס is attested once in the Mishnah (m. Nid. 2:2) in a halachah dealing with the offering of sacrifice, which may be an indication of its antiquity. Nevertheless, אֶוְותִּיאוֹס is extremely rare in rabbinic sources,^[59] so the probability of its having appeared in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua seems quite low.

L10 μακάριοι οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι (GR). Luke’s wording in L10 reverts easily to Hebrew and shows no obvious signs of Greek redaction. Therefore, we have adopted Luke’s wording in L10 for GR without alteration.

אַשְׁרֵי אוֹתָם הָעֲבָדִים (HR). On reconstructing μακάριος (makarios, “blessed”) with אַשְׁרֵי (’ashrē, lit., “blessednesses of,” i.e., “blessed”), see Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L3.

On reconstructing δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”), see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L14.

On reconstructing ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, “that”) with אֵת + third-person suffix, see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L14. Had we been reconstructing Faithful or Faithless Slave in a biblicizing style, our reconstruction would have been אַשְׁרֵי הָעֲבָדִים הָהֵם (’ashrē hā‘^avādim hāhēm, “blessed are those slaves”), but since we prefer to reconstruct direct speech in a Mishnaic style of Hebrew, we have adopted אַשְׁרֵי אוֹתָם הָעֲבָדִים (’ashrē ’ōtām hā‘^avādim, “blessed are those slaves”).

Instances of אֵת + אַשְׁרֵי + third-person suffix + definite noun are not abundant in rabbinic sources, but the example below shows that the construction was by no means impossible:

אשרי אותו האיש שכך שמע שבשר המלאך ואמר לו איש חמודות שאתה נחמד לפני הקב″ה

Blessed is that man [אַשְׁרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ] [i.e., Daniel—DNB and JNT] who heard such a thing [i.e., what was said to him in Dan. 9:23—DNB and JNT], to whom the angel proclaimed and said, “O esteemed man, for you are pleasing before the Holy One, blessed be he.” (Midrash Tanḥuma, Vayera §5 [Warsaw ed.])

L11 οὓς ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος (GR). Since Luke’s wording in L11 reverts easily to Hebrew and there are no indications of Lukan redaction, we have accepted Luke’s wording in L11 for GR without change.

שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא רַבָּם (HR). On reconstructing the relative pronoun ὅς (hos, “who,” that”) with ‑שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “that”), see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L5.

Examples of -שֶׁכְּשֶׁ (shek^eshe-, “that/because/who when that”) occur in the Mishnah, for instance:

ר′ יְהוּדָה א′ אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶם קִיצְבָה שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָ′ֵ מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שֹׁקְלִים דְּרָכוֹנוֹת חָזְרוּ לְשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים

Rabbi Yehudah says, “The shekel contributions also have no limit, since when Israel came up [שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָ′ֵ‏] from exile they were contributing drachmas, then they contributed selas….” (m. Shek. 2:4)

מָצִינוּ שֶׁכְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָ′ בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעים שָׁנָה קָרְבוּ כְבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם

We have found that when Israel was [′שֶׁכְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָ] forty years in the desert they offered lambs without bread…. (m. Men. 4:3)

More pertinent for our reconstruction, however, is an instance of -שֶׁכְּשֶׁ in Sifre Deuteronomy, where the initial -שֶׁ (she-) functions as the relative pronoun meaning “who”:

ומה מרים שכשדברה דבר לא שמעה כל בריה אלא המקום בלבד…כך נענשה המדבר בגנותו של חבירו ברבים על אחת כמה וכמה

And if Miriam, who, when she spoke [שֶׁכְּשֶׁדִּבְּרָה] a word [against Moses—DNB and JNT] no one heard her except the Omnipresent One alone…was thus punished [i.e., with scale disease—DNB and JNT], then how much more the one who speaks to the disgrace of his companion in public? (Sifre Deut. §1 [ed. Finkelstein, 5])

On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with רַב (rav, “master”), see above, Comment to L6.

L12 εὑρήσει γρηγοροῦντας (GR). Because Luke’s wording in L12 reverts easily to Hebrew and is not characteristic of Lukan redaction,^[60] we have accepted Luke’s wording in L12 for GR unchanged.

יִמְצָאֵם עֵרִים (HR). On reconstructing εὑρίσκειν (hevriskein, “to find”) with מָצָא (mātzā’, “find”), see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L5. To מָצָא we have attached the third-person pronominal suffix—יִמְצָאֵם (yimtzā’ēm, “he will find them”)—corresponding to the accusative case of the relative pronoun—οὕς (hous, “whom”)—in L11.

In LXX the verb γρηγορεῖν (grēgorein, “to be awake”) is relatively rare, but when it does occur as the translation of a Hebrew verb it usually does so as the equivalent of the שׁ‑ק‑ד root, meaning “watch.”^[61] In Mishnaic Hebrew שָׁקַד took on the additional meaning of “be industrious” or “be anxious.”^[62] So שָׁקַד is a possible, but not the most obvious, option for HR.

The usual way for expressing “be awake” in Hebrew is with the root ע‑ו‑ר, usually with a qal or nif‘al participle.^[63] Examples of the qal participle עֵר (‘ēr, “awake”) include the following:

אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד בֵּין עֵר בֵּין יָשַׁן

A person is always an attested threat, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether awake [עֵר] or asleep. (m. Bab. Kam. 2:6)

כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטן קָטָן פָּטוּר אֶחָד עֵר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן הַיָּשֵׁן פָּטוּר אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד הַשּׁוֹגֵג בַּחַטָּאת וְהַמֵּזִיד בַּהִיכָּרֵת

In all cases of unlawful sexual relations: If one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt. If one is awake [עֵר] and one is asleep, the one sleeping is exempt. If one acted unintentionally and one acted in knowing defiance, the one who acted unintentionally is liable to a sin offering and the one who acted in defiance is liable to being cut off. (m. Ker. 2:6)

לא יהא אדם ער בין הישנים, ולא ישן בין הערים, ולא בוכה בין השוחקים, ולא שוחק בין הבוכים, ולא יושב בין העומדים, ולא עומד בין היושבים, ולא קורא בין השונים, ולא שונה בין הקורים. כללו של דבר, לא ישנה אדם מדעת הבריות

Let not a person be awake [עֵר] among the sleeping, or asleep among the wakeful [הָעֵרִים], or weeping among the jesting, or jesting among the weeping, or sitting among the standing, or standing among the sitting, or reading [Scripture] among the reciting [Oral Torah], or reciting among the reading. The general principle: let not a person act differently from the opinion of the people. (Tractate Derech Eretz 4:5 [ed. Higger, 115])^[64] 

We regard עֵר as an especially good option for HR because of the possible allusion to Song 5:2, which reads:

אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה וְלִבִּי עֵר קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק פִּתְחִי לִי אֲחֹתִי רַעְיָתִי יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי

I am asleep, but my heart is awake [עֵר]. The sound of my lover knocking! “Open to me, my sister, my beloved, my dove, my blameless one!” (Song 5:2)

As we noted above, the rabbinic sages interpreted Song 5:2 as describing the first Passover. They identified the lover knocking at the door as Moses, rousing the Israelites to prepare for their redemption. They identified the beloved, here in a state of consciousness between waking and sleeping, as Israel. If in Faithful or Faithless Slave Jesus alluded to Song 5:2, his intention was probably to urge his audience to imitate Israel when, by girding its loins and eating the Passover lamb in haste, it awoke to the prospect of redemption. The alternative was to imitate Israel’s behavior later on in the story when, through grumbling and discontent, Israel fell asleep to the redemption and their redeemer.

Although we regard עֵר as the best option for HR, we cannot resist mentioning one other intriguing possibility which arises from a rabbinic commentary on Exod. 12:11, the verse that instructs the Israelites to eat the Passover lamb with girded loins:

ככה תאכלו אותו, כיוצאי דרכים. ר′ יוסי הגלילי אומר בא הכתוב ללמדנו דרך ארץ מן התורה על יוצאי דרכים שיהיו מזורזין

Thus you shall eat it [Exod. 12:11]—like those setting out on a journey [i.e., with loins girded and staff in hand—DNB and JNT]. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “This verse comes to teach us proper conduct from the Torah concerning those setting out on a journey, that they should be מְזוֹרָזִין [m^ezōrāzin].” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisḥa §7 [ed. Lauterbach, 36])

It is not clear in what sense Rabbi Yose intended the pu‘al participle מְזוֹרָז (m^ezōrāz) in the above saying. The ז‑ר‑ז root has a semantic field ranging from “strong,” “quick” or “active” to “conscientious” or “alert.” Lauterbach, in his translation of Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, opted for “alert.” Another meaning of the ז‑ר‑ז root is “armed,” which would be understandable since staves, which were carried by most travelers, were used not only for support but also as defensive weapons.^[65] On the other hand, Rabbi Yose’s attention may not have been focused on the staff (⟹ “armed”) but on the girding up of the loins, since the noun זֶרֶז (zerez) means “belt,”^[66] the item with which a person might gird up his loins. In that case, Rabbi Yose may have thought having one’s loins girded with a זֶרֶז was an outward sign that a person was מְזוֹרָז, “alert,” “ready for action.” If “alert” was the intended meaning, and if Jesus drew on the same tradition of interpreting Exod. 12:11 as Rabbi Yose the Galilean, then there might be grounds for reconstructing γρηγορεῖν (grēgorein, “to be awake”) in L12 as מְזוֹרָז (m^ezōrāz, “alert”). Such a reconstruction would link the wording in L12 back to the opening exhortation in L1-2 to “let your loins be girded.”

Nevertheless, given the uncertainty of the meaning of מְזוֹרָז on the one hand, and the strong possibility of an allusion in Faithful or Faithless Slave to Song 5:2 on the other, we regard עֵר as the superior option for HR.

L13-16 Like many scholars, we regard Luke’s description in L13-16 as intrusive to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One).^[67] While some object that the description of the master’s serving his slaves is not true to life and that it contradicts Jesus’ saying in Luke 17:7-10 (Expecting Reward),^[68] our main objection is that the master’s serving his slaves in Part One does not correspond to the master’s response to the faithful slave in Part Two. In Part Two the master does not serve the faithful slave, he grants him greater responsibility and, accordingly, more duties to carry out. Increasing the servant’s workload in Part Two is exactly the opposite of serving the wakeful slaves in Part One. Therefore, if, as we believe, Parts One and Two originally constituted a single saying, Luke’s wording in L13-16 stands out.

Nevertheless, Luke’s description in L13-16, which opens with “Amen! I say to you…,” does have a grammatical parallel in the first scenario of Part Two, at precisely the point at which we are told that the returning master will set his faithful slave over all his possessions (L40-43). We suspect that what happened is the author of Luke noticed that the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave correspond to one another, but he did not correctly analyze how the correspondence worked. As we explained in the Story Placement discussion above, we believe the first macarism of Part One (L10-12) corresponds to the first scenario of Part Two (L36-43), while the second macarism of Part One (L17-20) corresponds (antithetically) to the second scenario of Part Two (L44-56). But because Part One is entirely positive, the author of Luke thought all of Part One corresponded only to the first scenario of Part Two. And since the first scenario of Part Two contained a macarism (L36-39) followed by an “Amen! I say to you…” statement (L40-43), he felt Part One, which contained a macarism (L10-12), should also contain an “Amen! I say to you…” statement, which he supplied in L13-16.

To create his “Amen! I say to you…” statement in L40-43, it appears the author of Luke borrowed vocabulary from Expecting Reward (Luke 17:7-10). The table below shows the vocabulary these two passages share in common:

Luke 12:37	Luke 17:7-8
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι περιζώσεται καὶ ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ παρελθὼν διακονήσει αὐτοῖς	Τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν δοῦλον ἔχων ἀροτριῶντα ἢ ποιμαίνοντα, ὃς εἰσελθόντι ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ· εὐθέως παρελθὼν ἀνάπεσε, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ· ἑτοίμασον τί δειπνήσω καὶ περιζωσάμενος διακόνει μοι ἕως φάγω καὶ πίω, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα φάγεσαι καὶ πίεσαι σύ;
Amen! I say to you that he will gird himself and recline them and, coming by, he will serve them.	Which of you having a slave plowing or shepherding, who, coming in from the field, will say to him, “Immediately come by, lie down”? But will you not say to him, “Prepare something that I may dine, and girding yourself serve me while I eat and drink, and after that you will eat and drink”?

It may seem odd that in his “Amen! I say to you…” statement the author of Luke described a scenario which, in Expecting Reward, Jesus denies would happen. But the contradiction is more apparent than real. In Expecting Reward Jesus asks his audience how they would behave. They, should any of them be so prosperous as to own slaves, would probably treat their slaves like slaves, not wait on them. But in Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Luke knows that Jesus was not describing how most masters treat their slaves, but how the disciples, if they act like faithful slaves, will be rewarded.

L13 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (Luke 12:37). Marshall argued that the “Amen! I say to you…” statement in L13 was not penned by the author of Luke because the author of Luke tended to omit ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) when it occurred in his sources, so he was hardly likely to use it on his own.^[50] Marshall was probably right that the author of Luke would not have written ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (amēn legō hūmin, “Amen! I say to you…”) if he had not been prompted by a source, but our view is that the author of Luke was prompted by a source, the “Amen! I say to you…” statement in Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) (L40-43). The author of Luke transferred Anth.’s ἀμήν from L40 to L13, but when he came to Part Two he replaced ἀμήν with ἀληθῶς (alēthōs, “truly”) in L40.

L14 περιζώσεται (Luke 12:37). The verb περιζωννύναι (perizōnnūnai, “to wrap around [oneself],” “to gird [oneself]”) occurs both in Expecting Reward (Luke 17:8) and in the opening exhortation of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (L2). In both those places the image is of slaves girding themselves for service, whereas here in L14 it is the master who girds himself to serve his slaves.

L15 καὶ ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτοὺς (Luke 12:37). In Expecting Reward we find the verb ἀναπίπτειν (anapiptein, “to fall back,” “to lay oneself back,” “to recline”), whereas here in Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Luke used the synonymous ἀνακλίνειν (anaklinein, “to lean back,” “to recline”).

L16 καὶ παρελθὼν διακονήσει αὐτοῖς (Luke 12:37). The verbs παρέρχεσθαι (parerchesthai, “to come by,” “to pass by”) and διακονεῖν (diakonein, “to serve,” “to wait at table”) occur both in Expecting Reward and in the Lukan addition to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One). Probably the author of Luke borrowed this vocabulary from Expecting Reward.

L17 κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ δευτέρᾳ (GR). We suspect that the author of Luke slightly abbreviated his source by omitting from L17 the word φυλακή (fūlakē, “guard,” “prison,” “nightly watch”), which he retained in L18. If we are correct, the author of Luke probably omitted the first instance of φυλακή as a stylistic improvement intended to avoid needless repetition. In GR we have placed φυλακή in a Hebraic position before the adjective δεύτερος (devteros, “second”), such as we find in these LXX examples:

ἐγενήθη δὲ ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ ἑωθινῇ

But it happened in the early morning watch…. (Exod. 14:24)

וַיְהִי בְּאַשְׁמֹרֶת הַבֹּקֶר

And it happened in the watch of the morning…. (Exod. 14:24)

καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Γεδεων καὶ ἑκατὸν ἄνδρες μετ̓ αὐτοῦ ἐν μέρει τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἀρχομένης τῆς φυλακῆς τῆς μεσούσης

And Gideon entered, and the hundred men with him, in part of the encampment at the beginning of the middle watch…. (Judg. 7:19)

וַיָּבֹא גִדְעוֹן וּמֵאָה אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה רֹאשׁ הָאַשְׁמֹרֶת הַתִּיכוֹנָה

And Gideon entered, and the hundred men who were with him, in the edge of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch…. (Judg. 7:19)

καὶ ἐγενήθη μετὰ τὴν αὔριον καὶ ἔθετο Σαουλ τὸν λαὸν εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχάς, καὶ εἰσπορεύονται μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἐν φυλακῇ τῇ πρωινῇ καὶ ἔτυπτον τοὺς υἱοὺς Αμμων ἕως διεθερμάνθη ἡ ἡμέρα

And it happened on the morrow, and Saul appointed the people three rulers, and they entered the midst of the camp in the morning watch, and they struck the sons of Ammon until the day was warmed…. (1 Kgdms. 11:11)

וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁאוּל אֶת־הָעָם שְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים וַיָּבֹאוּ בְתוֹךְ־הַמַּחֲנֶה בְּאַשְׁמֹרֶת הַבֹּקֶר וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־עַמּוֹן עַד־חֹם הַיּוֹם

And it was on the morrow, and Saul appointed the people three chiefs, and they came into the midst of the camp in the watch of the morning, and they struck Ammon until the heat of the day…. (1 Sam. 11:11)

In each of the examples above φυλακή occurs as the translation of אַשְׁמוּרָה (’ashmūrāh, “nightly watch”).

אֲפִילּוּ בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּיה (HR). The Greek conjunction κἄν (kan, “and if”) is a contraction of καί (kai, “and”) + ἐάν (ean, “if”). A similar conjunction exists in Mishnaic Hebrew, אֲפִילּוּ (’^afilū, “even if”), which is a contraction of אַף (’af, “also,” “even”) + אִילּוּ (’ilū, “if”).^[69] 

We have already noted the correspondence between φυλακή (fūlakē, “guard,” “prison,” “nightly watch”) and אַשְׁמוּרָה (’ashmūrāh, “nightly watch”). To further strengthen our justification for reconstructing φυλακή with אַשְׁמוּרָה, we add that of the eight instances in LXX where φυλακή occurs in the sense of “nightly watch”^[70] five occur as the translation of אַשְׁמוּרָה.^[71] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered אַשְׁמוּרָה as φυλακή.^[72] Since אַשְׁמוּרָה continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew in the sense of “nightly watch,” there is no obstacle for adopting this noun for HR.

As for reconstructing δεύτερος (devteros, “second”) with שֵׁנִי (shēni, “second”), we find that in LXX δεύτερος usually occurs as the translation of שֵׁנִי,^[73] and that the LXX translators usually rendered שֵׁנִי as δεύτερος.^[74] 

L18 κἂν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τῇ τρίτῃ (GR). We have accepted Luke’s vocabulary in L18 for GR, but adopted a more Hebraic word order by placing the adjective τρίτος (tritos, “third”) after φυλακή.

וַאֲפִילּוּ בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית (HR). On reconstructing κἄν (kan, “and if”) with אֲפִילּוּ (’^afilū, “even if”), see above, Comment to L17. We find examples of אֲפִילּוּ…וַאֲפִילּוּ (“even if…and even if”) in rabbinic sources, for instance:

אֲפִילּוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שׁוֹאֵל בִּשְׁלוֹמוֹ לֹא יְשִׁיבֶנּוּ וַאֲפִילּוּ נָחָשׁ כָּרוּךְ עַל עֲקֵיבוֹ לֹא יַפְסִיק

Even if [אֲפִילּוּ] the king greets him [while he is praying—DNB and JNT], he may not answer him, and even if [וַאֲפִילּוּ] a snake is coiled on his ankle, he does not pause [his prayer—DNB and JNT]. (m. Ber. 5:1 [ed. Blackman, 1:52]; cf. y. Ber. 5:1 [37b])

אֶחָד הַמְאָרֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה וְאֶחָד הַמְאָרֵס אֶת אַלְמָנָה אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו בַּמִּלְחָמָה חוֹזֵר וּבָא לוֹ

It is the same for the person who engaged a virgin and for the person who engaged a widow. Even if [אֲפִילּוּ] she [i.e., the widow] is awaiting a levirate marriage, and even if [וַאֲפִילּוּ] he heard that his brother died in battle [and therefore knew he was obligated to perform a levirate marriage—DNB and JNT], he returns [from the battle lines—DNB and JNT] and comes home [because the instructions in Deut. 20:7 apply to him—DNB and JNT]. (m. Sot. 8:2)

‏[כי פתח תפתח את ידך לו והעבט תעביטנו די מחסרו]‏ אשר יחסר לו אפילו סוס ואפילו עבד

[For you shall surely open your hand to him ⟨i.e., a person in need—DNB and JNT⟩ and you shall surely lend to him sufficient to his need,] whatever is lacking to him [Deut. 15:8]—even if [אֲפִילּוּ] it is a horse and even if [וַאֲפִילּוּ] it is a slave [that he lacks—DNB and JNT]. (Sifre Deut. §116 [ed. Finkelstein, 175])

On reconstructing φυλακή (fūlakē, “nightly watch”) with אַשְׁמוּרָה (’ashmūrāh, “nightly watch”), see above, Comment to L17.

In LXX the adjective τρίτος (tritos, “third”) usually occurs as the translation of שְׁלִישִׁי (sh^elishi, “third”).^[75] Likewise, the LXX translators usually rendered שְׁלִישִׁי as τρίτος.^[76] 

We often encounter in the scholarly literature the claim that whereas in Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man reference is made to four watches according to the Roman system of dividing the night, Faithful or Faithless Slave makes reference to the three nightly watches according to the Jewish division.^[77] However, this claim is somewhat misleading. First, the dichotomy between Jewish and Roman divisions is questionable, since according to Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem Titus, the Roman general, established three nightly watches, the first being his own, the second being entrusted to Tiberius Alexander (the nephew of Philo of Alexandria and former governor of that city), and the third to be determined by lot (J.W. 5:510). By contrast, Josephus refers to a Jewish military leader from Babylon who attacked the Parthians in the fourth watch of the night. Second, the evidence scholars cite to prove that Jews divided the night into three watches is the reference to the “middle watch” in the story of Gideon’s attack on the Midianites in Judg. 7:19. But a great deal had changed for the people of Israel since the days of the judging of the judges, and it is hazardous to assume that in the early Roman period the Jewish custom was still to divide the night into three watches.^[78] Third, it is by no means obvious that Luke 12:38 refers to a night divided into only three watches. It could be that, for one reason or another, Faithful or Faithless Slave envisioned the master returning neither early in the evening (the first watch) nor early in the morning (the fourth watch), but in the late hours of the night (the second and third watches).^[79] 

Despite our objections, a valid argument can be made that Luke 12:38 does envision only three nightly watches, since, rhetorically, later→latest (i.e., second and third watches of a three-watch night) is stronger than late→later (i.e., the second and third watches of a four-watch night).^[80] Nevertheless, we think it is more likely that Faithful or Faithless Slave envisioned the master returning home in the second or third watches of a four-watch night, since this would place the master’s return somewhere in the middle of the night,^[81] which accords well with the Passover motif in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), since “around midnight” was the pivotal moment for the freedom of the Hebrew slaves.^[82] As Moses announced to the children of Israel, “Thus says the Lord, ‘About midnight I am going out in the midst of Egypt…’” (Exod. 11:4; cf. Exod. 12:29).

L19 ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ οὕτως (GR). Luke’s wording in L19 reverts easily to Hebrew (see below) and is not obviously redactional, which supports the adoption of Luke’s wording in L19 for GR. Inclusion of the third-person pronoun αὐτούς (avtous, “them”) following εὕρῃ (hevrē, “he might find”) would be even more Hebraic, but we can see no reason why the author of Luke would have omitted the pronoun had it occurred in his source (cf. αὐτούς in L15 and αὐτοῖς in L16). Sometimes Greek translators of Hebrew texts omitted pronouns equivalent to pronominal suffixes, and this may be what happened here in L19.

יָבוֹא וְיִמְצָאֵם כָּךְ (HR). On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing εὑρίσκειν (hevriskein, “to find”) with מָצָא (mātzā’, “find”), see above, Comment to L12. To מָצָא we have attached the third-person plural pronominal suffix—וְיִמְצָאֵם (v^eyimtzā’ēm, “and he will find them”)—since it is the wakeful condition of the slaves that is the focus of the returning master’s attention.

On reconstructing οὕτως (houtōs, “like this,” “thus”) with כָּךְ (kāch, “thus”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L35.

L20 μακάριοί εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι (GR). Luke’s wording in L20 reverts easily to Hebrew and is not indicative of redaction. We have therefore adopted Luke’s wording in L20 for GR without change.

אַשְׁרֵיהֶם (HR). On reconstructing μακάριος (makarios, “blessed”) with אַשְׁרֵי (’ashrē, “blessed”), see above, Comment to L10. In most cases אַשְׁרֵי occurs at the opening of a sentence, but there are instances of אַשְׁרֵי occurring toward the end, for example:

כִּי אֱלֹהֵי מִשְׁפָּט יי אַשְׁרֵי כָּל־חוֹכֵי לוֹ

…for the Lord is a God of justice: blessed are all those who wait for him. (Isa. 30:18)

כִּי יִבְעַר כִּמְעַט אַפּוֹ אַשְׁרֵי כָּל־חוֹסֵי בוֹ

…for his anger flares up quickly: blessed are all those who shelter in him. (Ps. 2:12)

וּבוֹטֵחַ בַּיי אַשְׁרָיו

…and the one who trusts in the Lord: blessed is he! (Prov. 16:20)

The example from Prov. 16:20 is especially close to our reconstruction because it concludes a sentence with אַשְׁרֵי + pronominal suffix.

L21 Between Parts One and Two of Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Luke inserted his version of Unexpected Thief. We can be certain that this insertion was not the product of Lukan redaction because in Matthew’s Gospel, too, Unexpected Thief precedes Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two). We suspect, therefore, that it was the Anthologizer who inserted Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave. Why the Anthologizer made this insertion may be deduced from the effect that it has had on nearly all interpreters, ancient and modern, who have supposed that Faithful or Faithless Slave concerns the Son of Man’s Coming. Many interpreters maintain that Faithful or Faithless Slave is intended to help readers come to terms with the delayed parousia. In fact, the Son of Man is never mentioned in Faithful or Faithless Slave. It is this pericope’s association with Unexpected Thief, which does make explicit reference to the Son of Man, that gives the impression that Faithful or Faithless Slave also deals with the Son of Man’s coming. We believe that giving this impression was the Anthologizer’s reason for inserting Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave.

It is our belief that the original purpose of Faithful or Faithless Slave was not to prepare readers for the Son of Man’s coming but to prepare the disciples for Jesus’ ascension. Faithful or Faithless Slave anticipates the ascension by describing how faithful slaves ought to behave while their master is away, and, by analogy, how the disciples ought to conduct themselves during Jesus’ physical absence. We will discuss evidence to support this interpretation of Faithful or Faithless Slave in the comments below.

L22-26 Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) opens with Peter asking Jesus whether “this parable” is addressed “to us” (i.e., Peter and the other disciples) or “to everyone,” and with Jesus answering in reply. Most scholars attribute the question-and-answer opening to a Lukan addition,^[83] since it is absent in Matthew’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave and because the loss of Peter’s question does not make the illustration any more difficult to understand. A few scholars, however, attribute the omission to the author of Matthew on the grounds that Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) does not answer Peter’s question, and the author of Luke would hardly have been so inept as to compose a question that fails to receive an answer.^[84] But it is not quite true that Peter’s question receives no answer. The question is not answered directly, but comparison of Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) with Matthew’s version reveals that the author of Luke edited the saying in such a way as to imply an answer.^[85] The elevation in Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) of the protagonist in the first scenario from an ordinary slave, as in Matthew’s version, to a position of leadership as an οἰκονόμος (oikonomos, “house manager,” “steward”),^[86] as well as the author of Luke’s inclusion of Proportionality (Luke 12:47-48) following Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) (Luke 12:41-46), both imply that Jesus’ exhortation to wakeful preparedness is especially directed to the leaders of the believing community, i.e., Peter and the other disciples. All will be accountable to the Son of Man when he comes, but those who hold positions of authority will receive closer scrutiny and be held to a higher standard. That Jesus does not give a direct answer to Peter’s question is characteristic of the author of Luke’s treatment of his sources. The author of Luke did not have a saying of Jesus that directly addressed the issue that concerned him, but by framing the sources at his disposal the author of Luke was able to achieve the result he desired.

Since we regard Luke’s wording in L22-26 as redactional, nothing corresponding to Luke’s wording in these lines appears in GR or HR.

Part Two: Illustration (L27-34)

Although reference is made in L28-29 to the slave’s being faithful and sensible, L27-34 sets the stage for both scenarios that play out in Part Two.^[87] In L28-29 the slave who is put in charge during the master’s absence is given the benefit of the doubt—no master would put a slave whom he knew to be unworthy of his trust in charge of the others—but it is during the master’s absence that the slave will prove his mettle.

L27 τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν (GR). Beginning in L27 we have not only the Lukan version of Faithful or Faithless Slave as a witness to the pre-synoptic form of the saying but the Matthean version as well. The complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L27 leaves no room for doubt regarding the adoption of their wording for GR.

וּמִי הוּא (HR). Since ἄρα (ara, “then”) is the type of particle a Greek translator might add in the course of translation without anything corresponding to it in his Hebrew source,^[88] we might be justified in entirely omitting an equivalent to ἄρα in HR.^[89] On the other hand, ἄρα could represent something as nondescript as the conjunction -וְ (v^e–, “and”), and since such a conjunction would be natural in L27, we have included it in HR.

On reconstructing τίς (tis, “who?”) with מִי (mi, “who?”), see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L1.

In LXX τίς ἐστιν (tis estin, “who is…?”) occasionally occurs as the translation of מִי הוּא (mi hū’, “who is…?”).^[90] Since the question מִי הוּא also occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew and, indeed, the question מִי הוּא is more widely attested in rabbinic sources (cf., e.g., m. Shevu. 6:7; m. Avot 2:14) than in the Hebrew Scriptures, there is no obstacle to prevent us from adopting מִי הוּא for HR.

L28 ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος (GR). As we noted above in Comment to L22-26, we believe it was the author of Luke who elevated the protagonist in the first scenario of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) to the status of an οἰκονόμος (oikonomos, “house manager,” “steward”).^[91] This is so not only because Matthew’s parallel refers to him as a δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”), but the author of Luke himself refers to him as a δοῦλος in L37 with Matthew’s agreement.^[92] We also note that the noun οἰκονόμος (“house manager”),^[93] the noun οἰκονομία (oikonomia, “management of a house”),^[94] and the verb οἰκονομεῖν (oikonomein, “to manage a house”) are found in Luke’s Gospel,^[95] but do not appear anywhere in the other Synoptic Gospels.^[96] Apart from Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two), all these terms occur exclusively in the Shrewd Manager parable, which is unique to Luke’s Gospel (Luke 16:1-12). Since we do not rule out the possibility that the οἰκονόμος word group was original to that parable, we refrain from describing οἰκονόμος as a characteristically Lukan term.^[97] It may be that since Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) described the slave in the first scenario as φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”; L29) the author of Luke was reminded of the οἰκονόμος in the Shrewd Manager parable, who is said to have acted φρονίμως (fronimōs, “sensibly,” “shrewdly”), and therefore used οἰκονόμος as a substitute for δοῦλος in L28.^[98] In any case, we have adopted Matthew’s wording in L28 for GR.

Although the placement of the adjective πιστός (pistos, “faithful”) ahead of the noun is contrary to Hebrew word order, the Lukan-Matthean word order agreement guarantees that this was the word order in Anth. Such minor concessions to Greek style did occasionally occur in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. Here the reason for the concession is fairly clear: the Greek translator wished to place particular emphasis on the quality of faithfulness.

הָעֶבֶד הַנֶּאֱמָן (HR). On reconstructing δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”), see above, Comment to L10.

In LXX the adjective πιστός (pistos, “faithful”) usually occurs as the translation of the nif‘al participle נֶאֱמָן (ne’^emān, “faithful”).^[99] We also find that the LXX translators rendered most instances of נֶאֱמָן as πιστός.^[100] 

No one in Jesus’ audience familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures could have heard him make reference to הָעֶבֶד הַנֶּאֱמָן (hā‘eved hane’^emān, “the faithful slave”) without being reminded of Moses, whom God described as עַבְדִּי משֶׁה בְּכָל־בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא (‘avdi Mosheh b^echol bēti ne’^emān hū’, “My slave Moses, who is faithful in all my house”; Num. 12:7). An allusion to Moses in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) is not surprising in light of the numerous allusions to the Passover narrative we detected in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), which included the girded loins (cf. Exod. 12:11), the knocking on the door (cf. Song 5:2), the late-night arrival of the master (Exod. 11:4; 12:29), and the need for wakefulness (cf. Song 5:2). God described Moses as his faithful slave in the story of the slander of Moses on account of his Cushite wife (Num. 12:1-16). In that story Moses’ sister Miriam criticizes Moses, but Moses is vindicated when God proclaims his faith in Moses and strikes Miriam with scale disease. The story highlights two of Moses’ most important attributes, faithfulness (Num. 12:7) and humility (or meekness) (Num. 12:3). Faithful or Faithless Slave likewise highlights two attributes of the protagonist of the first scenario, faithfulness (L28) and sensibleness (L29). But since the faithful slave’s good sense is demonstrated in putting the needs of others ahead of his own self-interest, the allusion to Moses is enhanced rather than obscured.

Some scholars have suggested that the descriptions of the slave in the first scenario of Part Two as faithful and sensible are secondary accretions, since they prejudge the outcome of the scenario. After all, it is only in the master’s absence that the slave is proved to be faithful or faithless. But the allusion to Moses explains why the slave is described as faithful, and if we allow ourselves to adopt the perspective of the departing master, we realize that he would hardly appoint a slave he knew to be untrustworthy to take charge of the welfare of the other slaves. If the illustration seems to prejudge the outcome, so did the master. He picked someone he believed in. Of course, it is only when the master returns that he will discover whether his faith was well placed or his trust was broken.

L29 καὶ ὁ φρόνιμος (GR). Luke and Matthew agree that the slave is φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”), but whereas Luke attaches the definite article to φρόνιμος, Matthew introduces φρόνιμος with the conjunction καί (kai, “and”). Matthew’s wording is more Hebraic, while Luke’s makes for more elegant Greek,^[101] but we think each evangelist may have slightly abbreviated Anth.’s wording—the author of Luke by dropping καί (“and”), and the author of Matthew by dropping ὁ (ho, “the”)—since in Hebrew we would expect both adjectives to have the definite article attached, as we see in examples such as the following:

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִפְקֹד יי בְּחַרְבוֹ הַקָּשָׁה וְהַגְּדוֹלָה וְהַחֲזָקָה עַל לִוְיָתָן

On that day the Lord will visit his sword, the sharp, and the great, and the powerful one, upon Leviathan…. (Isa. 27:1)

יי אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא

…O Lord, the God of heaven, the great God, and the awesome…. (Neh. 1:5)

And from the Amidah:

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יי אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ…הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא, אֵל עֶלְיוֹן׃

Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, and God of our fathers…the great God and the mighty and the awesome, Almighty God.

וְהַפִּקֵּחַ (HR). On reconstructing φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”) with פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), see Waiting Maidens, Comment to L6.

L30 ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος (GR). In L30 Luke and Matthew are in complete verbal agreement except for the tense of the verb καθιστάναι (kathistanai, “to put in charge”): whereas Matthew has the aorist tense, Luke’s verb is future tense. In this case, Matthew’s aorist probably reflects Anth.’s wording,^[102] for, as Fleddermann noted, the author of Luke put a kink into the logic of the story when he elevated the ordinary slave by making him a steward. As steward, the protagonist of the first scenario of Part Two would already have been in charge of caring for the other slaves, so the master would not have needed to take the special step of putting him in charge. Changing the tense to the future looks like an attempt on the part of the author of Luke to resolve this problem by implying that the steward is not put in charge until after the master’s return (cf. L43).^[96] But the author of Luke’s attempt is not really successful. The slave must not only be put in charge in the future, when the master returns, the logic of the story demands that he be put in charge while the master is away, so that he can fulfill his function of distributing food to the other slaves. Since Luke’s future tense is fraught with difficulty, we have accepted Matthew’s ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος (hon katestēsen ho kūrios, “whom the lord put in charge”) for HR. Luke’s καταστήσει (katastēsei, “he will put in charge”) was picked up from L43, where it has Lukan-Matthean agreement.

שֶׁהִפְקִיד רַבּוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “who,” “that”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” that”), see above, Comment to L11.

In LXX the verb καθιστάναι (kathistanai, “to set down,” “to put in charge”) occurs as the translation of several Hebrew verbs, but none so often as שָׂם (sām, “set,” “place”) and הִפְקִיד (hifqid, “entrust,” “make responsible,” “put in charge”).^[103] Of the two, הִפְקִיד is the better option for HR. The LXX translators usually rendered הִפְקִיד as καθιστάναι,^[104] and since הִפְקִיד continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew in the sense of “put in charge,”^[105] there is no obstacle to prevent us adopting הִפְקִיד for HR.

The following is an example of הִפְקִיד in the sense of “put in charge” in a rabbinic source:

וּבְשֵׁמֹת תִּפְקְדוּ אֶת כְּלֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם—הִזְהִירָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרךְ הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַפְקִידִים כָּל הַלְוִיִּם אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מַחֲלֹקֶת

And by name you will put in charge the items they are required to carry [Num. 4:32]. The Holy One, blessed be he, warned them that they should put each individual Levite in charge [מַפְקִידִים] over [עַל] his [particular area of] service and over his burden [to carry], so that they would not come into conflict [with one another]. (Num. Rab. 6:4 [ed. Merkin, 9:118])

On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with רַב (rav, “master”), see above, Comment to L6.

L31 ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ (GR). Luke and Matthew are in basic verbal agreement in L31 except that whereas Luke uses the noun θεραπεία (therapeia, “body of attendants,” “retinue”) to describe the object of the slave’s responsibility, Matthew uses the noun οἰκετεία (oiketeia, “household of slaves,” “slave population”). Deciding between the two is difficult since neither noun is particularly Lukan or Matthean. The noun θεραπεία does occurs on one other occasion in Luke (Luke 9:11),^[106] but there it occurs with the meaning “healing” or “treatment.” On the other hand, Matthew’s οἰκετεία occurs nowhere else in the synoptic tradition.^[107] It is the probable allusion to God’s declaration of Moses as “faithful in all my house” (MT: בְּכָל־בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא; LXX: ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός ἐστιν; Num. 12:7) that leads us to favor Matthew’s οἰκετεία for GR, since οἰκετεία is a cognate of οἶκος (oikos, “house”), a Greek equivalent of בַּיִת (bayit, “house”).^[108] For those well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures, the question “Who is the faithful slave whom his master put in charge of his house?” was easily answered: “That faithful slave was Moses.”

עַל בֵּיתוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ἐπί (epi, “upon”) with עַל (‘al, “upon”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L11.

The noun οἰκετεία (oiketeia, “household of slaves”) does not occur in LXX, but its cognate οἶκος (oikos, “house”) is a standard Greek equivalent of בַּיִת (bayit, “house”),^[109] and the probable allusion to Num. 12:7 assures us that בַּיִת is the best choice for HR.

L32-35 τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ (GR). The wording of the Lukan and Matthean versions of Faithful or Faithless Slave is fairly similar in L32-35. The points at which they vary produce no great changes of meaning. Indeed, the differences are so minor that it would be exceedingly difficult to identify who was responsible for which changes were it not for the fact that in L32-34 Matthew’s version apparently alludes to the LXX version of Ps. 103:27, which reads: πάντα πρὸς σὲ προσδοκῶσιν δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εὔκαιρον (“all wait for you to give the timely food to them”).^[110] No such allusion is present in Luke’s parallel. It is specifically to the LXX text that Matthew’s version alludes,^[111] so it is highly unlikely that the allusion was present in the original Hebrew version of the saying or in Anth., the Greek source shared by the authors of Luke and Matthew. Rather, it was the author of Matthew who brought the wording in L32-34 into greater conformity with LXX. Probably Anth.’s wording was somewhat similar to Ps. 103:27, for otherwise the author of Matthew would not have been reminded of this verse. Having been reminded of Ps. 103:27, the author of Matthew blended the wording of Anth. and the Psalm to achieve the wording we now find in L32-34.

Thus, to arrive at Anth.’s wording in L32-35 we have first to accept that which is agreed upon in both Matthew and Luke (L32: τοῦ + infinitive; L34: ἐν καιρῷ), second to accept that which in Luke serves no clear redactional purpose (L32: διδόναι), and third to choose between the remaining differences Luke and Matthew display (L32: αὐτοῖς [Matt.]; L33: τὴν τροφὴν [Matt.]; L35: σειτομέτριον [Luke]) using the criteria of ease of retroversion to Hebrew and signs of Greek stylistic improvement.

With regard to Matthew’s αὐτοῖς (avtois, “to them”) in L32, the criterion of ease of Hebrew retroversion favors its inclusion in GR, while its omission by the author of Luke could be regarded as a stylistic improvement.^[112] However, these considerations must be weighed against the presence of αὐτοῖς in Ps. 103:27, for the author of Matthew may have added the pronoun in order to achieve greater conformity with LXX.^[113] But if so, we wonder why the author of Matthew did not follow the LXX word order by placing αὐτοῖς after τὴν τροφήν (tēn trofēn, “the food”). Perhaps it is best, therefore, to conclude that αὐτοῖς was one of the verbal overlaps between Anth. and LXX that inspired the author of Matthew to create an allusion to Ps. 103:27. The reason the author of Matthew did not place αὐτοῖς in its LXX position is that he retained the position of αὐτοῖς in Anth.

The remaining differences of wording between Luke and Matthew in L32-35 are Matthew’s τὴν τροφήν (“the food”) before ἐν καιρῷ (en kairō, “in time”) versus Luke’s σιτομέτριον (sitometrion, “measure of grain”) after ἐν καιρῷ. The criterion of ease of Hebrew retroversion certainly favors τροφή over σιτομέτριον since the latter lacks an exact Hebrew equivalent.^[114] The criterion of Greek stylistic improvement also favors the generic term τροφή over the specific term σιτομέτριον.^[115] However, some scholars are suspicious of τροφή in Matt. 24:45 because on two occasions in Matthew (Matt. 3:4 [cf. Mark 1:6]; 10:10 [cf. Luke 10:7]^[116] ) τροφή is demonstrably redactional.^[117] Yet on these two occasions τροφή was either a stylistic improvement over the wording of the author of Matthew’s source (Matt. 3:4), which is not the case here, or motivated by ideological concerns (Matt. 10:10), which, likewise, does not apply in Matt. 24:45. There are only four instances of τροφή in Matthew’s Gospel,^[118] and since agreement with Luke confirms one of these instances occurred in Anth. (Matt. 6:25 ∥ Luke 12:23), it is not inconceivable that Matthew’s τροφή in Matt. 24:45 likewise reflects Anth.’s wording. Nevertheless, further suspicion of Matthew’s τροφή arises from the presence of τροφή in Ps. 103:27.^[119] But one wonders whether the author of Matthew would ever have been reminded of Ps. 103:27 if τροφή had not occurred in Anth., but read σιτομέτριον instead. We think it is more likely that τροφή is another of the Anth./LXX overlaps that inspired the author of Matthew to create his allusion to Ps. 103:27 in L32-34. The definite article the author of Matthew attached to τροφή in L33, however, may be due to his attempt at conformity with Ps. 103:27 (cf. Luke’s anarthrous σιτομέτριον in L35).

Thus, having weighed all the differences between Luke and Matthew in L32-35 according to the criteria of ease of retroversion to Hebrew and signs of Greek stylistic improvement, we arrive at the following reconstruction of Anth.’s wording in L32-35: τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ (tou didonai avtois trofēn en kairō, “to give them food in proper time”). The table below visually represents the author of Matthew’s LXX-conforming method by showing wording taken from Anth. in blue, wording taken from LXX in pink, and Anth./LXX overlaps in purple:

Anth. (Reconstructed)	Matthew	LXX
τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ	τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ	δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εὔκαιρον
to give to them food in proper time	to give to them the food in proper time	to give the timely food to them

By thus blending Anth.’s wording with LXX, the author of Matthew successfully created an allusion to Ps. 103:27 where none had existed in his pre-synoptic source.

L32 לִיתֵּן לָהֶם (HR). On reconstructing διδόναι (didonai, “to give”) with נָתַן (nātan, “give”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L18. Here we have reconstructed using the Mishnaic form of the infinitive, לִיתֵּן (litēn), rather than the Biblical form, לָתֵת (lātēt), on account of our preference for reconstructing direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew.

L33 מָזוֹן (HR). In LXX the noun τροφή (trofē, “sustenance”) is not especially common. When it does occur as the translation of a Hebrew term, it does so most often as the translation of either לֶחֶם (leḥem, “bread”)^[120] or אֹכֶל (’ochel, “food”).^[121] Only once does τροφή occur as the translation of מָזוֹן (māzōn, “food”; 2 Chr. 11:23), but there are only two instances of מָזוֹן in MT, so the opportunity to render מָזוֹן with any Greek term was extremely limited.^[122] In Mishnaic Hebrew the noun מָזוֹן is fairly common, and we have examples of נָתַן מָזוֹן (“give food”), such as the following:

שַׁבַת נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שָׁלוֹשׁ סְעוֹדוֹת

On the Sabbath they give [נוֹתְנִין] to him [i.e., a wandering beggar—DNB and JNT] food [מְזוֹן] for three meals. (m. Peah 8:7)

נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ

…they give [נוֹתְנִין] to him food [מְזוֹן] for thirty days and clothing for twelve months…. (m. Arach. 6:3)

עני מבקש צדקה מן האדם והוא נותן לו יום או שנים או חודש או שנה, אבל הקב″ה נותן מזון לאדם כל הימים שהוא חי

A poor person asks for alms from a person, and he gives him [enough for] a day or two or a month or a year. But the Holy One, blessed be he, gives food [נוֹתֵן מָזוֹן] to a person all the days he is alive. (Midrash Tanhuma, Noaḥ §7 [ed. Buber, 1:32])

Luz pointed out how entirely dependent were the other slaves on the one the master put in charge of dispensing their food.^[123] Slaves, unlike hired workers, received no other recompense for their labors than the ration of food that sustained them, so the other slaves were completely at the mercy of the one left in charge. It is true that the master did not authorize the slave left in charge to punish or even give orders to the other slaves, but only placed on him the duty to dispense rations.^[124] Nevertheless, the responsibility of giving food to the other slaves would have significantly shifted the power dynamic in favor of the slave left in charge. The master’s absence would test whether the slave would carry out his charge faithfully or whether he would abuse the power with which he had been entrusted.

L34 בִּזְמַנּוֹ (HR). In MT the noun זְמָן (z^emān, “time,” “season”) is rare, belonging to the Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew lexicons rather than to Classical Biblical Hebrew.^[125] The paucity of זְמָן in MT partly explains why the LXX translators never rendered זְמָן as καιρός (kairos, “appropriate time,” “season”). On one occasion (Eccl. 3:1) the LXX translators rendered זְמָן as χρόνος (chronos, “time”), which is roughly synonymous with καιρός. In any case, זְמָן is a semantic equivalent of καιρός, which makes it suitable for HR.

To זְמָן we have attached the third-person singular pronominal suffix, which seems more idiomatic than its omission, in view of examples such as the following:

וְאִם בָּא חָודָשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה וְאִם לָאו מִן הַיְשָׁנָה

And if the new [half-shekel money] came in its time [בִּזְמַנּוֹ], they buy it [i.e., incense—DNB and JNT] with the new contribution, but if not, with the old. (m. Shek. 4:5)

רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין אוֹמֵ′ מְקוּדָּשׁ וְכָל הָעָם עוֹנִים אַחֲרָיו מְקוּדָּשׁ מְקוּדָּשׁ בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ וּבֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ מְקַדְּשִׁים אוֹתוֹ ר′ ֶלְעָזָר בִּרֵבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹ′ אִם לֹא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ אֵין מְקַדְּשֵׁים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר קִידְּשׁוּהוּ שָׁמָיִם

The head of the court says, “It [i.e., the month—DNB and JNT] is sanctified!” And all the people answer after him, “It is sanctified! It is sanctified!” Whether it [i.e., the new moon—DNB and JNT] appears in its time [בִזְמַנּוֹ] and whether it does not appear in its time [בִזְמַנּוֹ], they sanctify it. Rabbi Lazar says in the name of Rabbi Zadok, “If it does not appear in its time [בִזְמַנּוֹ], they do not sanctify it, for Heaven has already sanctified it.” (m. Rosh Hash. 2:7)

אֵין קוֹריִן אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַנָּהּ

They do not read it [i.e., the Scroll of Esther—DNB and JNT] except in its time [בִזְמַנָּהּ]. (m. Meg. 1:3 [ed. Blackman, 2:441])

וַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶת מוֹעֲדֵי יָיי אָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּזְמַנּוֹ

And Moses told the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel [Lev. 23:44]—their commandment is that they read [the appropriate Scripture portions—DNB and JNT], each in its time [בִּזְמַנּוֹ]. (m. Meg. 3:6)

Note that our Hebrew reconstruction in L32-34, לִיתֵּן לָהֶם מָזוֹן בִּזְמַנּוֹ (litēn lāhem māzōn bizmanō, “to give them food in its time”), does not allude to Ps. 104:27, which reads, לָתֵת אָכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ (lātēt ’ochlām b^e‘itō, “to give their food in its time”). Neither does an allusion to this Psalm, which describes God’s provision of food for his creatures, have a function in Faithful or Faithless Slave, which describes a slave providing food for his fellows.

Part Two: Positive Example (L36-43)

How the slave behaves in the first scenario, the positive example, is put quite simply: he is found “doing thus,” that is, doing as his master commanded. Because he acted in keeping with his charge, it would have been redundant to repeat that the faithful slave had given his fellows their food in the proper time. Rather than repeating what he did, the emphasis is placed on the slave’s blessedness: it is well for that slave, and he will be rewarded accordingly.

L36-39 μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως (GR). Luke and Matthew are in complete verbal agreement for the twelve words in L36-39 except for the position of οὕτως (houtōs, “thus”).^[126] Anth. could have placed οὕτως in either position, but the macarism in Part One (μακάριοι οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι οὓς ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος εὑρήσει γρηγοροῦντας [“blessed are those slaves whom the lord, coming, will find them awake”]; L10-12),^[127] with its εὑρήσει + participle (parallel to Luke’s εὑρήσει + participle + οὕτως in L39), and the conditional sentence in Part One (κἂν…ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ οὕτως [“and if…he might come and find it thus”]; L17-19) seem to favor Luke’s placement of οὕτως at the end of the sentence in L39.^[128] We have therefore adopted Luke’s word order in L36-39.

L36 אַשְׁרֵי (HR). On reconstructing μακάριος (makarios, “blessed”) with אַשְׁרֵי (’ashrē, “blessed”), see above, Comment to L10.

L37 אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד (HR). On reconstructing ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, “that”) with אֵת + third-person suffix, see above, Comment to L10.

On reconstructing δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”), see above, Comment to L10.

L38 שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא רַבּוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “who,” “that”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “that”), see above, Comment to L11.

On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with רַב (rav, “master”), see above, Comment to L6.

L39 יִמְצָאֵהוּ עוֹשֶׂה כָּךְ (HR). On reconstructing εὑρίσκειν (hevriskein, “to find”) with מָצָא (mātzā’, “find”), see above, Comment to L12.

On reconstructing ποιεῖν (poiein, “to do”) with עָשָׂה (‘āsāh, “do”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing οὕτως (houtōs, “like this,” “thus”) with כָּךְ (kāch, “thus”), see above, Comment to L19.

Examples of עָשָׂה כָּךְ (‘āsāh kāch, “do thus”) include the following:

ואם עשה כך צריך לנגב את ידיו

And if he did thus [עָשָׂה כָּךְ], he needs to dry his hands. (t. Yad. 2:1 [ed. Zuckermandel, 682])

אמרו לו רבי למה אתה עושה כך

They said to him, “Rabbi, why do you do thus [עוֹשֶׂה כָּךְ]?” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, §21 [ed. Schechter, 45])

כך אומנתו של יצר הרע היום אומר לו עשה כך ולמחר אומר לו עשה כך עד שאומר לו עבוד ע″ז

This is how the evil inclination behaves: Today it says to him, “Do thus [עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ]!” and tomorrow it says to him, “Do thus [עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ]!” until it says to him, “Worship idols!” (b. Shab. 105b; cf. b. Nid. 13b)

L40 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (GR). Luke and Matthew are in substantial verbal agreement in L40, except that whereas Luke has the Greek adverb ἀληθῶς (alēthōs, “truly”), Matthew has the transliterated Hebrew interjection ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”). Most scholars agree that Matthew’s ἀμήν reflects the wording of the pre-synoptic source,^[129] and for good reason: the author of Luke typically avoided ἀμήν when it occurred in his sources.^[130] Moreover, the author of Luke’s use of ἀμήν in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (L13) provides indirect evidence supporting Matthew’s ἀμήν in L40. When the author of Luke saw an “Amen! I say to you…” statement in Anth.’s version of Part Two, he felt such a statement was lacking in Part One, and therefore composed one in L13-16 using the ἀμήν he observed in L40. But when he came to Anth.’s “Amen! I say to you…” statement in Part Two, the author of Luke replaced Anth.’s ἀμήν with ἀληθῶς. The irony is that when the author of Luke was freely composing in L13-16 he was more conservative with the vocabulary he employed, but when depending on a source in L40 the author of Luke allowed himself greater latitude to use his own preferred vocabulary.

אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם (HR). On reconstructing ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) with אָמֵן (’āmēn, “Amen!”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115.

Note that here “Amen!” is a response to the blessing pronounced in L36-39. In L41-43 the “Amen!” exclamation is followed by a more forceful reiteration of the preceding blessing. On this Hebraic usage of “Amen!” see Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?”

On reconstructing λέγειν (legein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L15.

L41-43 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν (GR). There is complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L41-43, so it is with great confidence that we accept their wording for GR. In these lines both evangelists faithfully copied the wording of Anth.

L41 עַל כָּל (HR). On reconstructing ἐπί (epi, “upon”) with עַל (‘al, “upon”), see above, Comment to L31.

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

L42 מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ (HR). On reconstructing a substantive participle of ὑπάρχειν (hūparchein, “to possess”) with מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ (mah sheyēsh, “that which is”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L32.

L43 יַפְקִדֵהוּ (HR). On reconstructing καθιστάναι (kathistanai, “to put in charge”) with הִפְקִיד (hifqid, “entrust,” “make responsible,” “put in charge”), see above, Comment to L30.

The slave’s reward is neither his liberty nor even a temporary reprieve from service, but greater responsibility. Having proved faithful in a small thing (provisioning of the other slaves during his master’s temporary absence), he is put in charge of something greater (permanent oversight of all his master’s property) (cf. Luke 16:10).^[131] We are reminded of Ben Azzai’s (early second century C.E.) exhortation to be quick to perform a light commandment, for one commandment brings another commandment in its wake, and the reward for performing a commandment is the opportunity to perform another commandment (m. Avot 4:2).

Part Two: Negative Example (L44-59)

Unlike the first scenario, the positive example, which used only two words (“doing thus”) to describe the slave’s behavior (L39), in the second scenario, the negative example, we are not only given a detailed description of the slave’s bad behavior (L49-52), we are also given a glimpse into the psychology that led to his behavior (L44-48). The slave reasons that he has time to get away with his bad behavior without being caught. To his surprise, the master returns much sooner than the slave had anticipated. Upon discovering that the slave he trusted has proved faithless, the master executes swift and merciless judgment.

L44 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ (GR). Since Luke and Matthew are in agreement in L44, there can be little doubt regarding GR.

וְאִם יֹאמַר (HR). On reconstructing ἐάν (ean, “if”) with אִם (’im, “if”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L88.

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

L45 ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος (GR). Luke and Matthew agree on the words ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος (ho doulos ekeinos, “that slave”) in L45, but Matthew’s version qualifies δοῦλος with the adjective κακός (kakos, “bad”). There are several indications that κακός is a Matthean insertion.^[132] First, elsewhere in Faithful or Faithless Slave we encounter either οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι (“those slaves”) in Part One (L10) or ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος (“that slave”) in Part Two (L37, L54). Only in L45, and only in Matthew’s version, is ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος qualified by an adjective. Second, Matthew’s placement of the adjective ahead of the noun it modifies is un-Hebraic and therefore unlikely to reflect the wording of Anth. Third, although κακός only occurs three times in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 21:41; 24:48; 27:23), which is only once more than in Mark (Mark 7:21; 15:14) or Luke (Luke 16:25; 23:22),^[27] and therefore difficult to characterize as especially Matthean, it is likely that the instance of κακός in Matt. 21:41 is redactional (cf. Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16), so there is reason to be suspicious of this instance of κακός too. Fourth, it is easier to imagine the author of Matthew adding κακός (“bad”) in L45 to counterbalance πιστός (“faithful”) in L28 than it is to imagine the author of Luke eliminating κακός had it been present in his source.^[133] Fifth, if Anth. had included a negative adjective qualifying δοῦλος in L45, we might have expected it to have been πονηρός (ponēros, “evil”) rather than κακός (“bad”),^[134] since πονηρός occurs three times in DT pericopae with Lukan-Matthean agreement.^[135] Thus for all these reasons we have excluded κακός from GR.

אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד (HR). On reconstructing ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, “that”) with אֵת + third-person suffix, see above, Comment to L10.

On reconstructing δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”), see above, Comment to L10.

By referring in the second scenario to “that slave,” the illustration has essentially turned back the clock to the time when the master was absent. In the first scenario the slave emulated Moses’ faithfulness and humility. This time around the slave gives in to his baser instincts, which leads to a different outcome.^[119] Whom the slave emulates in this second scenario will be revealed in his inner dialogue (L47-48).

L46 ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ (GR). The complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L46, which contains the Hebraic idiom of “say in the heart” for “think,”^[136] makes the wording of Anth. transparent.

בְּלִבּוֹ (HR). On reconstructing καρδία (kardia, “heart”) with לֵב (lēv, “heart”), see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L32.

The slave in the first scenario of Part Two is called “sensible” (L29), but in the second scenario the same slave reminds us of the fool from the Psalms:

אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ אֵין אֱלֹהִים

Said the fool in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps. 14:1)

εἶπεν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ Οὐκ ἔστιν θεός

Said the fool in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps. 13:1)

For אָמַר בְּלִבּוֹ (’āmar b^elibō, “said in his heart”) in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Persistent Widow, L12.

L47-48 χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι (GR). There are two points of Lukan-Matthean disagreement in L47-48. First, in L47 all the words are the same, but their order is slightly different: whereas Matthew places the possessive pronoun μου (mou, “my”) before ὁ κύριος (ho kūrios, “the lord”), contrary to Hebrew syntax, Luke places μου in its Hebraic position following ὁ κύριος. We have adopted Luke’s word order for GR.^[137] Second, in L48 Luke’s version includes, whereas Matthew’s version omits, the infinitive ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”). Many scholars attribute the infinitive in L48 to the author of Luke’s redactional activity, claiming he wanted to place emphasis on the lord’s coming.^[138] But verbs for “come” already occur five times in Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave—thrice in Part One (L8, L11, L19) and twice in Part Two (L38, L53)—so one wonders how much inserting one more instance of “to come” really accomplishes toward emphasizing the Lord’s coming. How much more emphatic is six repetitions than five?^[139] Another weakness of the argument that the author of Luke was responsible for inserting ἔρχεσθαι in L48 is the failure to explain how, by this insertion, the author of Luke accidentally reproduced a Hebraic construction^[140] with no indication that he was attempting to allude to or imitate LXX.

---

In LXX we encounter the construction χρονίζειν + infinitive to express “be slow to do something” on several occasions:

καὶ οὐκ ἐχρόνισεν ὁ νεανίσκος τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο ἐνέκειτο γὰρ τῇ θυγατρὶ Ιακωβ

And the youth did not delay [ἐχρόνισεν; MT: אֵחַר] to do [τοῦ ποιῆσαι] this thing, for he was inclined toward the daughter of Jacob. (Gen. 34:19)

καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ λαὸς ὅτι κεχρόνικεν Μωυσῆς καταβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους

And the people, seeing that Moses had delayed [κεχρόνικεν; MT: בֹשֵׁשׁ] to come down [καταβῆναι] from the mountain…. (Exod. 32:1)

εὰν δὲ εὔξῃ εὐχὴν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σου, οὐ χρονιεῖς ἀποδοῦναι αὐτήν

But if you might vow a vow to the Lord your God, do not delay [χρονιεῖς; MT: תְאַחֵר] to repay [ἀποδοῦναι] it. (Deut. 23:22)

καθὼς ἂν εὔξῃ εὐχὴν τῷ θεῷ μὴ χρονίσῃς τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι αὐτήν

Whenever you might vow a vow to God, do not delay [χρονίσῃς; MT: תְּאַחֵר] to repay [τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι] it. (Eccl. 5:3)

καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ ἀπορρῖψαι αὐτήν

…and he will not delay [χρονιεῖ; 2Q18: יאחר] to throw [ἀπορρῖψαι] her out. (Sir. 6:21)

μὴ χρονίσῃς, ὁ θεός, τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς εἰς κεφαλάς

Do not delay [χρονίσῃς], O God, to repay [τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι] them upon their heads…. (Pss. Sol. 2:25)

By contrast, we do not encounter the construction χρονίζειν + infinitive to express “be slow to do something” anywhere in NT apart from Luke 12:45. Neither does this construction occur in the writings of Philo, except in a single quotation of Scripture (Sacr. §53), nor in Josephus, nor in the Apostolic Fathers, nor in the Greek Pseudepigrapha, aside from the above-quoted example in the Psalms of Solomon, which was likely translated from Hebrew.^[141] Given the paucity of χρονίζειν + infinitive in pure Greek compositions compared to its relative frequency in Greek sources translated from Hebrew, it strains our credulity to suppose that the author of Luke unintentionally reproduced this Hebraic construction in the course of his redactional activity. It is far more credible to suppose that the χρονίζειν + infinitive construction in Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave is original and that it was the author of Matthew, who either did not understand or did not appreciate the Hebraic idiom, who deleted it.^[142] We have therefore retained Luke’s ἔρχεσθαι in GR.

מְאַחֵר רַבִּי לָבוֹא (HR). In LXX the verb χρονίζειν does not occur very often, but when it occurs it usually does so as the translation of אֵחַר (’ēḥar, “be late,” “delay”).^[143] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered אֵחַר as χρονίζειν or compounds thereof.^[144] We already demonstrated the equivalence of χρονίζειν and אֵחַר when we collected examples of the Hebraic χρονίζειν + infinitive construction. Among those examples χρονίζειν usually occurred as the translation of אֵחַר. The one exception was in Exod. 32:1, where χρονίζειν occurred as the translation of בּשֵׁשׁ (boshēsh, “delay”). This exception is important because in Exod. 32:1 the Israelites’ observation that Moses was slow in returning leads to behavior similar to that of the faithless slave who thinks to himself, “My master is slow to come.” Both the impatient Israelites and the faithless slave take advantage of their masters’ absence: the Israelites by making the golden calf, the faithless slave by beating the other slaves.^[145] The rebellious Israelites famously “sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play” (Exod. 32:6), while the faithless slave “ate and drank and got drunk” (L51-52). And both the idolatrous Israelites and the faithless slave received similar punishments: the Israelites were cut down by the sword (Exod. 32:27-29), while the faithless slave was cut in two (L57). Given the similarities between the idolatrous Israelites and the faithless slave, we think it is highly probable that the slave’s words, “My master is slow to come,” were intended to allude to “Moses was slow to descend from the mountain” in Exod. 32:1.

Although we believe Faithful or Faithless Slave does allude to Exod. 32:1 (“And the people saw that Moses was slow to come down from the mountain, and the people gathered upon Aaron and said to him, ‘Arise! Make us gods who will go before us, for this man Moses who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don’t know what’s become of him!’”), we do not think בּשֵׁשׁ is the best option for reconstructing χρονίζειν in L47. First, the idiom בּשֵׁשׁ + infinitive is not attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, whereas אֵחַר + infinitive was fairly common (see below). Second, even if an allusion to Exod. 32:1 was intended, it would have been necessary to paraphrase. For the faithless slave in the parable to have said, “Moses is slow to descend from the mountain,” would have been nonsensical. Therefore, “but if that slave said in his heart” (L44-46) had to replace “And the people saw,” “my master” (L47) had to replace “Moses,” and “come [home]” or “return [home]” (L48) had to replace “come down from the mountain,” so there is no reason why אֵחַר + infinitive could not have replaced the בּשֵׁשׁ + infinitive in Exod. 32:1. The allusion to Exod. 32:1 was conceptual, not verbal, in nature. Despite the necessity of paraphrasing, the substitutions were probably transparent. Replacing “Moses” with רַבִּי (rabi, “my master”) may have sounded familiar, given the rabbinic convention of referring to Moses as משֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ (mosheh rabēnū, “Moses, our master”).^[146] Likewise, replacing לָרֶדֶת (lāredet, “to descend”; Exod. 32:1) with לָבוֹא (L48) would have been quite natural, and is even attested in a rabbinic retelling of the story of the golden calf:

כיון שהגיע יום ארבעים ולא בא מיד וירא העם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר וכיון שהגיע שש שעות ולא בא מיד ויקהל העם על אהרן ויאמרו אליו קום עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו וגו′‏

When the fortieth day arrived and he [i.e., Moses—DNB and JNT] had not come [בָּא], immediately And the people saw that Moses delayed to descend [לָרֶדֶת] from the mountain [Exod. 32:1], and when six hours [had passed] and he had not come [בָּא], immediately And the people converged upon Aaron and they said to him, “Arise! Make for us gods that we may walk before them etc. [ibid.].” (y. Ta‘an. 4:5 [22b])

So, too, replacing the antiquated construction בּשֵׁשׁ + infinitive with אֵחַר + infinitive, which was used in everyday speech, would probably have seemed quite ordinary.

Examples of אֵחַר + infinitive in the sense of “be slow to” or “delay to” in Mishnaic Hebrew include:

תני בשבת ממהרים לבוא וממהרין לצאת ביום טוב מאחרין לבוא וממהרין לצאת ביום הכפורים ממהרין לבוא ומאחרין לצאת

It was taught [in a baraita]: On the Sabbath they hasten to come and they hasten to go out. On a feast day they delay to come [מְאַחֵרִין לָבוֹא] and hasten to go out. On the Day of Atonement they hasten to come and they delay to go out [מְאַחֵרִין לָצֵאת]. (y. Meg. 4:3 [30a])

ומן הדין הוא לתרגם לעם לנשים ולתינוקות כל סדר וסדר ונביא של שבת לאחר קריאת התורה, וזו היא שאמרו, בשבת מקדימין לבא, כדי לקרות קריאת שמע כוותיקין עם חנץ החמה, ומאחרין לצאת, כדי שישמעו פירוש של הסדר, אבל ביום טוב מאחרין לבא, שהן צריכין לתקן מאכלים של יום טוב, וממהרין לצאת, שאינו מן הדין לפרוש להם

It is the custom to translate for the people, for the women and children, each Torah portion and the prophet for the Sabbath after the reading of the Torah. And this is why they said, “On the Sabbath they come early”—in order to recite the recitation of the Shema like the strictly observant with the rising of the sun—“and they delay to go out [מְאַחֵרִין לָצֵאת]”—in order that they may hear the interpretation of the Torah portion—but “on feast days they delay to come [מְאַחֵרִין לָבֹא]”—for they need to prepare food for the feast day—“and they hasten to go out”—because it is not the custom to interpret for them. (Sofrim 18:6 [ed. Higger, 317-318])

On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with רַב (rav, “master”), see above, Comment to L6.

On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L8.

Having identified the faithless slave’s inner dialogue (“My master delays to come”) as an allusion to Exod. 32:1 in the golden calf narrative, we are in a position to understand the message of Faithful or Faithless Slave. In this illustration Jesus gave his audience a choice. In his absence his followers could either emulate Moses, God’s faithful slave in all his house, or they could emulate rebellious Israel, who took advantage of their master’s absence by making the golden calf. The choice the illustration sets before Jesus’ audience fits the situation the disciples would face following Jesus’ ascension. Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive the Torah, so Jesus was ascending into heaven to reign as the Lord’s messiah. Indeed, Moses’ ascension to Sinai was sometimes understood as an ascent to heaven, where Moses not only received the Torah, but acquired apocalyptic knowledge. And just as the Israelites did not know when Moses would return, so the disciples did not know when Jesus would come. To prepare his disciples for his absence Jesus wanted his disciples to draw a lesson from Israel’s history: Be like Moses, ever faithful to God and ever at the service of others. Do not be like rebellious Israel, straying into faithlessness and idolatry while their master is away.

L49 καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν (GR). Since Luke and Matthew are in complete verbal agreement in L49, there is no doubt regarding GR. Both authors accepted from Anth. the Hebraic ἄρχειν + infinitive construction. In the present case, however, we cannot agree with those scholars who regard ἄρχειν as superfluous.^[147] The point is that the faithless slave did not begin mistreating the other slaves until he concluded that his master’s long absence meant that he could get away with it.

וְיַתְחִיל לְהַכּוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἄρχειν (archein, “to begin”) with הִתְחִיל (hitḥil, “begin”), see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L8.

In LXX the verb τύπτειν usually occurs as the translation of הִכָּה (hikāh, “hit,” “strike”).^[148] Conversely, we find that although the LXX translators usually rendered הִכָּה as πατάσσειν (patassein, “to beat,” “to strike,” “to knock”), rendering הִכָּה as τύπτειν was by no means unusual.^[149] 

L50 τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας (GR). In L50 we encounter disagreement between Luke and Matthew. Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave refers to the faithless slave abusing slave boys and slave girls, whereas Matthew’s version refers to the abuse of “his fellow slaves.” Many scholars regard Matthew’s τοὺς συνδούλους αὐτοῦ (tous sūndoulous avtou, “his fellow servants”) as reflecting the pre-synoptic version of the saying, sometimes arguing that Matthew’s version has a more egalitarian perspective whereas the author of Luke, who was eager to elevate the status of the slave left in charge, preferred to emphasize the subordinate status of the other slaves by referring to them as slave boys and slave girls.^[150] But while it is true that the author of Luke was eager to elevate the status of the faithful slave by referring to him as an οἰκονόμος (oikonomos, “house manager,” “steward”), the same cannot be said of the faithless slave, who is referred to as a δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) throughout. Moreover, Matthew’s σύνδουλος (sūndoulos, “fellow slave”) has no Hebrew equivalent,^[151] and within the synoptic tradition the term σύνδουλος is unique to Matthew’s Gospel.^[152] Luke’s τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας (tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, “the slave boys and the slave girls”) reverts easily to Hebrew (see below)^[153] and cannot be regarded as especially Lukan, since the paring of παῖς (pais, “boy,” “slave”) with παιδίσκη (paidiskē, “girl,” “slave girl”) occurs nowhere else in Luke or Acts.^[154] For these reasons we have accepted Luke’s wording in L50 for GR.^[155] 

אֶת הָעֲבָדִים וְאֶת הָאֲמָהֹת (HR). In LXX παῖς (pais, “boy,” “slave boy”) usually occurs as the translation of עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”).^[156] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered עֶבֶד as either δοῦλος or παῖς.^[157] 

In LXX παιδίσκη (paidiskē, “girl,” “slave girl”) usually occurs as the translation of either שִׁפְחָה (shifḥāh, “female slave”) or אָמָה (’āmāh, “female slave”).^[158] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered שִׁפְחָה^[159] and אָמָה^[160] as either δούλη or παιδίσκη.

When παῖς and παιδίσκη are paired in LXX, they usually occur as the translation of עֶבֶד and שִׁפְחָה,^[161] or of עֶבֶד and אָמָה.^[162] Both אָמָה and שִׁפְחָה continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew, and in the Mishnah we find the pairing of שִׁפְחָה + עֶבֶד^[163] as well as the pairing of אָמָה + עֶבֶד.^[164] So either שִׁפְחָה or אָמָה would be a good option for HR. We have preferred אָמָה because it is possible that Jesus intended to allude to a verse in Exodus that describes a scenario similar to the way the faithless slave in Jesus’ illustration treats those in his charge:

וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם

And if a man strikes his slave or his female slave [אֲמָתוֹ] with a staff and he [or she—DNB and JNT] dies by his hand, he [or she—DNB and JNT] will certainly be avenged. (Exod. 21:20)

ἐὰν δέ τις πατάξῃ τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἢ τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ ἐν ῥάβδῳ, καὶ ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, δίκῃ ἐκδικηθήτω

But if someone might hit his slave boy or his slave girl with a staff, and he [or she—DNB and JNT] dies by his hand, with vengeance he [or she—DNB and JNT] will be avenged. (Exod. 21:20)

In Exod. 21:20 the term for female slave is אָמָה, so if an allusion to this verse was intended, אָמָה is the term Jesus would have used.

Note that if an allusion to this verse was intended, it was not to the text of LXX, which uses the verb πατάσσειν (patassein, “to beat,” “to strike,” “to knock”) rather than the verb τύπτειν (tūptein, “to hit,” “to beat”), which occurs in Faithful or Faithless Slave.

Whereas the master had given this slave charge over his household to look after the other slaves, the faithless slave broke his master’s trust by mistreating them.^[165] The slave’s behavior, though abhorrent, is all too human.^[166] Having attained a little power, the victim of abuse—for all slavery is inherently abusive—became an abuser.^[167] Rather than allowing violence to turn us into violent offenders, Jesus’ illustration offers a different response to trauma: the suffering and injustices we have experienced can engender empathy for the suffering of others. With the means at our disposal we can work to improve the lot of our fellow human beings. To exploit our advantages for personal gain at the expense of others is to commit the folly of the faithless slave.

L51 ἐσθίειν δὲ καὶ πίνειν (GR). In L51 there is a limited degree of verbal disagreement between the Lukan and Matthean versions. Most of the vocabulary is the same, but whereas the author of Matthew puts “eat and drink” in the subjunctive mood, Luke uses infinitives. Since Luke’s infinitives revert more easily to Hebrew, we have preferred them to Matthew’s subjunctives for GR.^[168] Luke and Matthew also disagree regarding conjunctions. Whereas Matthew has δέ (de, “but”), Luke has τε (te, “both,” “also”). Since the use of τε is characteristic of the author of Luke’s writing style,^[169] we have adopted Matthew’s δέ for GR.^[170] 

לֶאֱכוֹל וְלִשְׁתוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἐσθίειν (esthiein, “to eat”) with אָכַל (’āchal, “eat”), see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L5.

On reconstructing πινεῖν (pinein, “to drink”) with שָׁתָה (shātāh, “drink”), see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L6.

Whereas the slave had been put in charge to give food to the others, the faithless slave took advantage of his master’s trust by filling his own stomach.^[171] We think it is likely that just as the faithless slave’s inner dialogue (“My master is slow to come”) alludes to Exod. 32:1 (“And the people of Israel saw that Moses was slow to come down the mountain”), so the eating and drinking of the faithless slave alludes to the way rebellious Israel behaved having made the golden calf (“and the people sat down to eat and to drink and they rose up to play”; Exod. 32:6).

L52 καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι (GR). Although the theme of drunkenness is common to Luke and Matthew in L52, Luke’s version simply adds a third infinitive, καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι (kai methūskesthai, “and to become drunk”), whereas Matthew’s version, with the words μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων (meta tōn methūontōn, “with the drunkards”), introduces the notion that the faithless slave had drinking companions. Some scholars have suggested that the author of Luke changed “with the drunkards” to “and to become drunk” in order to resolve the tension between Jesus’ disapproval of the faithless slave’s behavior despite his own reputation for being “a glutton and a dipsomaniac” and his openness toward eating and drinking with toll collectors and “sinners.”^[172] However, the probability that in its description of the slave’s behavior Faithful or Faithless Slave alludes to Exod. 32:6 favors the originality of Luke’s wording since, like Exod. 32:6, with its succession of three infinitives (“to eat,” “to drink” and “to play”), Luke’s version contains a succession of three infinitives (“to eat,” “to drink”’ and “to get drunk”). “To get drunk” might even be regarded as a midrashic interpretation of לְצַחֵק (l^etzaḥēq, “to play”), since other midrashic interpretations of לְצַחֵק include “to commit idolatry,” “to engage in forbidden sexual relations,” “to shed blood” and “to entertain an idea” (t. Sot. 6:6). While Matthew’s “with the drunkards” is difficult to square with Jesus’ openness toward eating with “sinners,” condemnation of eating and drinking with drunkards may be compared with early Christian means of censure, such as Matthew’s instruction to treat a persistent sinner “as you would a Gentile or a toll collector,” the Didache’s instruction “neither to speak nor to let [a persistent sinner] hear a word from you until he repents” (Did. 15:3), and Paul’s instruction not to associate with a brother who is a drunkard: “With such a one do not even eat!” (1 Cor. 5:11). Since Matthew’s wording in L52 can be explained on the basis of his tendency to adapt the words of Jesus to the circumstances of the Matthean community, whereas Luke’s wording strengthens the allusion to Exod. 32:6, we have adopted Luke’s wording for GR.

וּלְהִשְׁתַּכֵּר (HR). In LXX the verb μεθύειν (methūein, “to be drunk”) usually occurs as the translation of verbs formed from the שׁ‑כ‑ר root.^[173] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered verbs formed from the שׁ‑כ‑ר root with μεθύειν.^[174] In Mishnaic Hebrew the שׁ‑כ‑ר root was usually used in the nitpa‘el stem for “become intoxicated,” “get drunk,” as we see in the following examples:

מעשה בטבח אחד בציפורין שהיה מאכיל את ישראל נבילות וטריפות פעם אחת ערב יום הכיפורים עם חשיכה שתה יין הרבה ונשתכר ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת התחילו הכלבים מלקקין בדמו

An anecdote concerting a certain butcher in Tzippori [Sepphoris] who would feed Israel the meat of carcasses of animals that died on their own and improperly slaughtered animals. Once, on the eve of the Day of Atonement when it grew dark, he drank a lot of wine and got drunk [וְנִשְׁתַּכֵּר], and he went up to the top of the roof and fell and died. And the dogs began licking his blood. (y. Avod. Zar. 2:3 [12a]; cf. Lev. Rab. 5:6)

וישת מן היין וישכר שתה שלא במידה ונשתכר ונתבזה

And he drank from the wine and became drunk [Gen. 9:21]. He did not drink in moderation, but he got drunk [וְנִשְׁתַּכֵּר] and degraded himself. (Gen. Rab. 36:4 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:338])

מה לך אצל מלכים ששותים יין ומשתכרים

What have you to do with kings who drink wine and get drunk [וּמִשְׁתַּכְּרִים]? (b. Sanh. 70b)

שמונה עשר אלף וחמש מאות הלכו לבית המשתה ואכלו ושתו ונשתכרו ונתקלקלו

Eighteen thousand five hundred went to the banqueting hall, and they ate and drank and got drunk [וְנִשְׁתַּכְּרוּ] and spoiled themselves. (Esth. Rab. 7:18 [ed. Tabory-Atzmon, 146])

The final example quoted above provides a fine specimen of the sequence eat→drink→get drunk, which occurs in Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave. This sequence also occurs in 2 Sam. 11:13 and Song 5:1.

L53-54 ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου (GR). Since there is complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L53-54, we are in no doubt as to the correct wording for GR.

יָבוֹא רַבּוֹ שֶׁלְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד (HR). On reconstructing ἥκειν (hēkein, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Coming From All Directions, Comment to L11.

On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord”) with רַב (rav, “master”), see above, Comment to L6.

Our reconstruction includes the construction noun + possessive pronominal suffix + שֶׁל + possessor, i.e., רַבּוֹ שֶׁלְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד (rabō shel^e’ōtō hā‘eved, lit., “his master that is to that slave”), a construction that is typical of Mishnaic Hebrew but already attested once in the Hebrew Scriptures: מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה (miṭātō shelishlomoh, lit., “his bed that is to Solomon”; Song 3:7).^[175] 

On reconstructing ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, “that”) with אֵת + third-person suffix, see above, Comment to L10.

On reconstructing δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”) with עֶבֶד (‘eved, “slave”), see above, Comment to L10.

L55 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ (GR). Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement continues in L55, leaving no doubt as to the wording of GR.

בְּיוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצַפֶּה (HR). On reconstructing ἡμέρα (hēmera, “day”) with יוֹם (yōm, “day”), see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L1.

On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “who,” “that,” “which”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “that,” “which”), see above, Comment to L11.

In LXX the verb προσδοκᾶν (prosdokan, “to expect,” “to anticipate”) is rare, occurring only as the translation of שִׂבֵּר (sibēr, “hope”; Ps. 103[104]:27; 118[119]:166) and קִוָּה (qivāh, “hope”; Lam. 2:16).^[176] Since προσδοκᾶν is a synonym of προσδέχεσθαι (prosdechesthai, “to receive,” “to expect”), which occurs in L5, reconstructing both verbs with צִפָּה (tzipāh, “watch,” “expect,” “wait”) is a good option for HR.

Since wedding feasts could last several days, “on a day he does not expect” does not necessarily conflict with the opening image of a master away at a wedding feast. If the wedding was, for instance, that of a family member in a town some distance from his home, he might be away for several nights to attend the wedding.

L56 καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει (GR). In L56, too, there is complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement, which makes our task of reconstruction altogether easy.

וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ (HR). On reconstructing ὥρα (hōra, “interval of time,” “hour”) with שָׁעָה (shā‘āh, “moment,” “hour”), see Unexpected Thief, Comment to L3.

On reconstructing ὅς (hos, “who,” “that,” “which”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “that,” “which”), see above, Comment to L11.

On reconstructing γινώσκειν (ginōskein, “to know”) with יָדַע (yāda‘, “know”), see Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L6.

The slave was ignorant not only of which day his master might return, but of what time of the day (or night) he might arrive. In any case, the master arrives sooner than the faithless slave expects,^[177] with the result that he is caught in the act of betraying his master’s trust, just as Moses caught the Israelites in the act of idolatry in the incident of the golden calf. Thus it is unnecessary to hypothesize that Faithful or Faithless Slave was composed by the early church to deal with the problem of the delayed parousia. The issue at stake in Faithful or Faithless Slave is not how to cope with a long delay, but to be faithful at all times because one never knows when the Master might return. Such a message fits the period prior to Jesus’ ascension, during his post-resurrection instruction of the disciples.

L57 καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν (GR). In L57 the Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement continues, thus no further discussion of GR is required.^[178] 

וְיִגְזְרֵהוּ לִשְׁנַיִם (HR). The graphic and gruesome image of the faithless slave being cut in two has produced varied reactions from interpreters. Some, accepting the image at face value, reprove Jesus for employing such a violent image in his teaching. Others, who accept the image at face value, deny that it could have come from the peace-loving Jesus and insist that this detail is a secondary accretion to the story. Then there are those who prefer not to take the image at face value. Among these, some interpret “cut him in two” as a metaphor for “punish severely.”^[179] And still others who prefer not to accept the image at face value have postulated various Aramaic originals that were mistranslated into Greek.^[180] We do not find any of these approaches to be helpful or convincing.

First, we must keep in mind that Faithful or Faithless Slave is not a historical account of an actual incident. Neither does Jesus endorse the butchering of slaves, faithless or otherwise. Faithful or Faithless Slave is simply a parable-like illustration that describes a pseudo-reality in which behaviors and characteristics are exaggerated. Parables and similar illustrations are populated by characters that are wholly good or wholly evil. Choices are black and white, and consequences are extreme. Such exaggerations are meant to bring clarity to the ambiguous situations real people face by pressing the logic of an ethical or moral argument ad absurdum. Second, Flusser and others have shown that there is a kinship between rabbinic parables and European fairy tales. In both types of fiction the wicked characters are often punished with extreme violence. A king may slaughter an entire city, a witch may be thrown into an oven, an ogre may be hacked to pieces, a slave may be cut in two. Just as no one is troubled by the fate of the witch or the ogre in a fairy tale, the point is not to worry about the fate of the antagonists in the parables. The extreme punishments, just like the extreme rewards (excessive wealth, the rule of a kingdom, marrying the princess), are meant to bring clarity to complicated ethical issues, they are not themselves meant for ethical reflection. Third, in the present instance the “dichotomizing” of the faithless slave is probably meant to parallel the cutting down with the sword of the idolatrous Israelites who worshipped the golden calf (Exod. 32:25-29). Therefore, we feel no compulsion to minimize or explain away the violence meted out to the faithless slave in our Hebrew reconstruction.

In LXX the verb διχοτομεῖν (dichotomein, “to bisect,” “to divide in two”) occurs only once, in Exod. 29:17, where it serves as the translation of נִתֵּחַ (nitēaḥ, “cut in pieces”).^[181] The verb נִתֵּחַ usually referred to the cutting up of sacrificial animals (Exod. 29:17; Lev. 1:6, 12; 8:20; 1 Kgs. 18:23, 33), but was also used for the dismemberment of the Levite’s concubine in Judg. 19:29; 20:6, and was used as a threat of what would happen to the oxen of those Israelites who failed to answer Saul’s summons (1 Sam. 11:7). Since נִתֵּחַ continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew, it is a viable option for HR,^[182] but נִתֵּחַ does not have the specific meaning “cut in two,” which leaves us open to other possibilities.

Among those possibilities are verbs meaning “to cut,” such as כָּרַת (kārat), חָתַךְ (ḥātach) or גָּזַר (gāzar), plus the phrase לִשְׁנַיִם (lishnayim, “in two”). Such combinations would provide an exact equivalent to the Greek verb διχοτομεῖν (dichotomein, “to bisect,” “to divide in two”). An example of כָּרַת לִשְׁנַיִם occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures:

הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר כָּרְתוּ לִשְׁנַיִם וַיַּעַבְרוּ בֵּין בְּתָרָיו

…the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts. (Jer. 34:18)

Examples חָתַךְ לִשְׁנַיִם are attested in the Mishnah:

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין פֵחָמִים וְאֵין חוֹתְכִים אֶת הַפְּתִילָה לִשְׁנַיִם

…and [on a holiday—DNB and JNT] they do not make charcoal and they do not cut [חוֹתְכִים] the wick in two [לִשְׁנַיִם]. (m. Betz. 4:4)

שלשה דברים נאמרו בפתילה שלשה להחמיר ושלשה להקל אין עושין אותה כתחלה ואין מהבהבין אותה באור ואין חותכין אותה לשנים

Three things were said concerning a wick [with respect to holidays—DNB and JNT], three stringent and three lenient. They do not make it to begin with, and they do not singe it in fire, and they do not cut [חוֹתְכִין] it in two [לִשְׁנַיִם]…. (t. Betz. 3:21)

A verb more commonly combined with לִשְׁנַיִם in Mishnaic Hebrew is חָלַק (ḥālaq, “divide,” “apportion,” “split apart”). Examples of חָלַק לִשְׁנַיִם (ḥālaq lishnayim, “split in two”) include:

חֲלָקוֹ לָשְׁנַיִם אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטֹן הַגָּדוֹל טָמֵא וְהַקָּטֹן טָהוֹר

If he split it [חֲלָקוֹ] [i.e., an oven—DNB and JNT] into two [לָשְׁנַיִם] [pieces], one big and one small, the big [piece] is impure, but the small [piece] is pure. (m. Kel. 5:7)

תנור שחלקו לשנים

An oven that he split in two [שֶׁחֲלְקוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם]…. (t. Kel. Bab. Kam. 4:8 [ed. Zuckermandel, 573])

יוד שנטל הקב″ה משמה שלשרה חלקו לשנים, חציו לאברהם וחציו לשרה

The yod that the Holy One, blessed be he, took from Sarah’s name: he split it in two [חֲלָקוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם]. Half of it went to Abraham, and half of it went to Sarah. (Lev. Rab. 19:2 [ed. Margulies, 1:421])

However, the examples of חָלַק לִשְׁנַיִם we have found refer to the splitting up of objects rather than the slicing up of persons. This brings us back to the verb גָּזַר (gāzar, “cut”), which occurs in combination with לִשְׁנַיִם in the following description:

וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ גִּזְרוּ אֶת־הַיֶּלֶד הַחַי לִשְׁנָיִם וּתְנוּ אֶת־הַחֲצִי לְאַחַת וְאֶת־הַחֲצִי לְאֶחָת׃ וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר־בְּנָהּ הַחַי אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי־נִכְמְרוּ רַחֲמֶיהָ עַל־בְּנָהּ וַתֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי תְּנוּ־לָהּ אֶת־הַיָּלוּד הַחַי וְהָמֵת אַל־תְּמִיתֻהוּ וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת גַּם־לִי גַם־לָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה גְּזֹרוּ׃

And the king [i.e., Solomon—JNT and DNB] said, “Slice [גִּזְרוּ] the living child in two [לִשְׁנָיִם], and give half to one and half to the other!” And the woman whose son was alive said to the king, her motherly instincts being aroused for her son, “Please, my Lord, give her the living child, and do not put him to death!” But the other woman said, “If he shall be neither mine nor yours, slice him [גְּזֹרוּ]!” (1 Kgs. 3:25-26)

In this story demonstrating King Solomon’s wisdom, we have a clear example of גָּזַר לִשְׁנַיִם used in the sense of “slice in two” in a scenario similar to that envisioned in Faithful or Faithless Slave. In our view, this makes גָּזַר לִשְׁנַיִם the best option for HR.

L58 καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ (GR). The complete Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L58 leaves little room for doubt and no need for discussion regarding GR.

וְיִתֵּן חֶלְקוֹ (HR). In LXX it is the feminine noun μερίς (meris, “part,” “portion”) rather than the neuter noun μέρος (meros, “part,” “portion”), found here in L58, that occurs as the standard translation of חֵלֶק (ḥēleq, “part,” “portion,” “share”),^[183] but the two terms are synonymous, and this small difference should not deter us from adopting חֵלֶק for HR.

On reconstructing τιθέναι (tithenai, “to put,” “to place”) with נָתַן (nātan, “give”), see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L85. The use of נָתַן with חֵלֶק is well-attested, as we see in the following prayers:

יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ…שֶׁתִּבְנֶה עִירָךְ בְּיָמֵינוּ וְתִתֵּן חֶלְקֵינוּ בְּתוֹרתֶךָ

May it be your will…that you will build your city in our days and you will give our portion [וְתִתֵּן חֶלְקֵינוּ] in the Torah. (m. Avot 5:20)

מודה אני לפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שנתת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ובתי כנסיות ולא נתת חלקי בבתי תרטיות ובבתי קרקסיות

I am giving thanks before you, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that you have given my portion [שֶׁנָּתַתָּ חֶלְקִי] among those who sit in the house of study and synagogues, and that you have not given my portion [וְלֹא נָתַתָּ חֶלְקִי] in the theater houses or in the circus arenas…. (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

ותן חלקנו בתורתך עם עושי רצונך

And give our portion [וְתֵן חֶלְקֵינוּ] in your Torah with [עִם] the ones doing your will…. (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי שתשכיבני לשלום ותן חלקי בתורתך

May it be your will, O Lord my God, that you will cause me to lie down in peace and set my portion [וְתֵן חֶלְקִי] in your Torah…. (b. Ber. 60b)

In the examples cited above, setting one’s portion in the Torah was primarily meant in a non-eschatological sense. The request was that a person’s life might be spent in the pursuit of Torah, including both study and the performance of the mitzvot. The non-eschatological sense of “setting one’s portion” is especially clear in the prayer of thanksgiving that one’s portion has been set among those who attend synagogues and not among those who attend circuses (y. Ber. 4:2). On the other hand, “setting one’s portion” could also be used in an eschatological sense, as we see in the following petition:

יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו ש…ותשים חלקנו בגן עדן

May it be your will, O Lord our God, that…and you will place our portion in the Garden of Eden…. (b. Ber. 16b)

In this example, to have one’s portion set in the Garden of Eden means to enjoy postmortem bliss (cf. Luke 23:43). The above example also demonstrates that instead of reconstructing τιθέναι with נָתַן, another option for HR would have been שָׂם (sām, “set,” “place”).^[184] The use of חֵלֶק (“portion,” “share”) in reference to the eschaton is familiar from the discussion in the Mishnah’s tractate Sanhedrin regarding who has a “share” in the world to come, which begins:

וְאֵילּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

And these are they who have no portion [חֵלֶק] in the world to come…. (m. Sanh. 10:1)

Among those who are deemed not to have a share in the world to come are those belonging to the generation Moses led through the desert (m. Sanh. 10:3). At least in the eyes of Rabbi Akiva, that generation’s rebelliousness, which included the sin of the golden calf, disqualified them from participating in the life of the world to come. Perhaps Jesus would have agreed, since, as we have discussed above, the faithless slave appears to be modeled on the generation of the desert. Just as the cutting in two of the slave parallels how the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf were mowed down with the sword, so setting the faithless slave’s lot among the wicked parallels the denial of the desert generation’s share in the world to come.

L59 μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει (GR). In L59 Luke and Matthew are mainly in agreement, except for the identity of those with whom the faithless slave’s portion is set. Whereas Luke’s version refers to the “faithless,” Matthew’s version refers to the “hypocrites.” Most scholars regard Luke’s ἄπιστος (apistos, “faithless”) as reflecting the wording of the pre-synoptic source,^[185] and for good reason. The adjective ἄπιστος does not occur very frequently in the Gospel of Luke (2xx; Luke 9:41; 12:46) or Acts (1x; Acts 26:8), so it cannot be regarded as especially Lukan, whereas ὑποκριτής (hūpokritēs, “hypocrite”) belongs to the author of Matthew’s redactional vocabulary.^[186] Moreover, placing the faithless slave among the hypocrites is not particularly apt, since it is difficult to construe his behavior as hypocrisy.^[187] He did not make a show of scrupulousness while violating the intention of the law. His behavior did, on the other hand, show him to be faithless: he disappointed his master’s trust. Moreover, the author of Matthew had literary motives for referring to “hypocrites” at the conclusion of Faithful or Faithless Slave. It ties in the concluding section of the eschatological discourse to the preliminary section that denounces the hypocrites (Matt. 23:13-32).^[188] It also connects the last of the five major discourses that punctuate Matthew’s Gospel to the first discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, which also denounces the hypocrites (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). Thus, changing “faithless” to “hypocrite” helped bring literary unity to the entire Gospel of Matthew.^[189] Luke’s reference to the “faithless,” on the other hand, seems like a more organic component of the illustration, which opens by referring to a “faithful slave” (L28) and closes by mentioning “the faithless” (L59).^[190] We have an additional reason for regarding “faithless” as original. As we have discussed above, it appears that the faithless slave was modeled upon the rebellious generation of the desert. Since rabbinic literature frequently characterized this generation as lacking in faith, the reference to “the faithless” is particularly fitting.

עִם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה (HR). On reconstructing μετά (meta, “with”) with עִם (‘im, “with”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L50.

In LXX the adjective ἄπιστος (apistos, “faithless”) occurs only rarely (Prov. 17:6; Isa. 17:10 [2xx]), and never as the literal translation of a Hebrew word, so its usefulness as a guide for reconstructing ἄπιστος in L59 is limited. While Biblical Hebrew lacks an equivalent to ἄπιστος, in Mishnaic Hebrew “faithless” could be expressed as מְחוּסַּר אֲמָנָה (m^eḥūsar ’^amānāh, “deficient of faith,” “[someone] lacking faith”). This appellation is particularly to be found in connection with the generation of the desert and those who emulate them, as we see in the following examples:

וכן היה ר′ אליעזר אומר מי שיש לו מה שיאכל היום ויאמר מה אני אוכל למחר הרי זה ממחוסרי אמנה שנ′ דבר יום ביומו. מי שברא יום ברא פרנסתו.‏

And thus Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus] would say: “Whoever has something that he can eat today but says, ‘What will I eat tomorrow?’: behold, this one is among those who lack faith [מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה], as it is said, a day’s portion in its day [Exod. 16:4]. The one who created day created its sustenance.” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, BeShallaḥ 16:4 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, 106])

תקע משה קרן עד שחזרו לפני פי החירות כיון שתקעה התחילו מחוסרי אמנה שבישראל מתלשין שערן ומקרעין כסותן

Moses blew the horn until they returned before Pi Hahirot. As soon as he blew it, those in Israel who lacked faith [מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה] began plucking their hair and tearing their clothing…. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BeShallaḥ §2 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:128])

ויאמר אליהם משה איש אל יותר ממנו עד בקר ולא שמעו אל משה אלו מחוסרי אמנה שבישראל

And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it [i.e., the manna—DNB and JNT] over until morning,” but they did not listen to Moses [Exod. 16:19-20]. These are the ones in Israel who lacked faith [מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה]. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ §5 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:242])

ויהי ביום השביעי יצאו מן העם ללקוט וגו′ אלו מחוסרי אמנה שבישראל

And it happened on the seventh day that they went out from the people to gather [Exod. 16:27] etc. These are the ones in Israel who lacked faith [מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה]. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ §5 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:245])

וַיּוֹתִרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִמֶּנּוּ אֵלּוּ מְחֻסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה שֶׁהָיוּ בָהֶם

And certain people left some of it [i.e., the manna—DNB and JNT] over [Exod. 16:20]: these were the ones lacking faith [מְחֻסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה] who were among them. (Exod. Rab. 25:10 [ed. Merkin, 5:285])

מקוצר רוח. שאותו הדור מחוסרי אמנה היו, והיו אומרים כי קצרה יד ה′ מהושיע, ונתחברו אל עובדי ע″ז

[But they did not listen to Moses] from shortness of spirit [and from hard service] [Exod. 6:9]. [They did not listen to Moses] because that generation were ones lacking faith [מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה]. They were saying, “It is because the Lord’s hand is too short to save,” and they had become friendly with those serving idols. (Midrash Aggadah, Va’era’, on Exod. 6:9 [ed. Buber, 2:135])

Supposing that the designation of the generation of the desert as “those lacking faith” was not a rabbinic innovation but part of Israel’s aggadic heritage to which Jesus and his audience would also have had access, the relegation of the slave among the faithless becomes entirely comprehensible. The faithless slave was modeled after the rebellious Israelites who worshipped the golden calf. Therefore, his faithless actions resulted in his taking his place with the generation of the desert, which had no share in the world to come. Jesus’ intention was to warn his disciples not to emulate the desert generation during his absence. Whereas the generation of the desert had taken Moses’ delay as an excuse to worship idols and revel in self-indulgence, Jesus wanted his disciples to be mindful of his return and remain faithful to his teachings by caring for others.

L60-61 ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (Matt. 24:51). Matthew’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave concludes with a stereotyped depiction of the misery of the damned picked up from Coming From All Directions, L19-20 (Matt. 8:12 ∥ Luke 13:28). The author of Matthew redactionally inserted it here^[191] in order to make the point that faithless Christians will share the unhappy fate of faithless Israel.

Redaction Analysis

The relatively high level of verbal agreement between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) show that neither evangelist altered the core of this pericope beyond recognition. Nevertheless, each author made important changes, some of which reveal the evangelists’ varying aims and intentions.

Luke’s Version^[192] 

Faithful or Faithless Slave
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	187	Total Words:	159
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	144	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	144
% Identical to Anth.:	77.01	% of Anth. in Luke:	90.57
Click here for details.

The author of Luke’s changes to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) were mainly stylistic in nature. Such changes included slight alterations of word order in L1 and L18, the omission of unnecessary words such as a possessive pronoun in L3 and “the watch” in L17, and the addition of the adverb εὐθέως (“immediately”) in L9. In L4 he changed Anth.’s two-part imperative (“Let your loins be girded and your lamps be burning like people…”) into a three-part imperative (“Let your loins be girded and your lamps be lit. And also you, be like people…”). In making this change the author of Luke’s intention may have been to emphasize the personal need of his audience to be prepared, but his changes also had the effect of separating the imagery of the girded loins and the burning lamps from the scenario describing the slaves’ waiting for their master’s return. As a result, some scholars have questioned the unity of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One).

The most significant change the author of Luke made to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) was the addition, in L14-16, of the description of the master waiting on his slaves, which is introduced by an “Amen!” statement (L13). This change, too, seems mainly to be stylistic, being motivated by the author of Luke’s observation that the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave parallel one another. Noting that Part Two contains an “Amen!” statement describing the faithful slave’s reward upon the master’s return, the author of Luke felt that Part One ought to contain an “Amen!” statement too. To supply what he regarded as the missing “Amen!” statement the author of Luke drew from another saying, Expecting Reward (Luke 17:7-10), which, counterintuitively, denies that a master would wait upon his slaves. Although in his “Amen!” statement the author of Luke seems to contradict Jesus’ Expecting Reward saying, this is not really the case. The denial in Expecting Reward concerns how masters generally treat their slaves, whereas Luke’s “Amen!” statement describes the reward the disciples can expect to receive from their master when their service has been faithfully completed.

In Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) the author of Luke also made stylistic changes, such as the omission of the conjunction καί (“and”) in L29, the omission of the pronoun αὐτοῖς (“to them”) in L32, the use of more specific vocabulary in L35, and the avoidance of foreign vocabulary (ἀμήν) in L40. Other changes the author of Luke made to Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) were probably intended to bring out what he understood to be the intention of the parable. Such changes include the elevation of the faithful slave’s status to that of a house master in L28 and changing οἰκετεία (oiketeia, “household of slaves,” “slave population”) to θεραπεία (therapeia, “service,” “body of attendants,” “retinue”) in L31. These relatively minor changes reflected the author of Luke’s understanding that the illustration was mainly concerned with the fair governance of the believing community, which he viewed as an organization that exists for the purpose of service to others (θεραπεία). This understanding of Faithful or Faithless Slave explains why the author of Luke added an introduction to the illustration (L22-25) in which Peter asks whether Jesus was addressing the disciples (i.e., the leaders) or everyone (i.e., the laity). The author of Luke did not compose a direct reply to Peter’s question, but with the subtle changes we noted in L28 and L31 and his placement of Proportionality (Luke 12:47-48) immediately after Faithful or Faithless Slave, the author of Luke left unmistakable clues that Jesus’ teaching on preparedness during the time of waiting for the Son of Man was mainly, but by no means exclusively, directed toward the leadership of the believing community.

Matthew’s Version^[193] 

Faithful or Faithless Slave
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	111	Total Words:	159
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	91	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	91
% Identical to Anth.:	81.98	% of Anth. in Matt.:	57.23
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew omitted Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), but his placement of the Waiting Maidens parable, which shares certain themes and images in common with Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), immediately after his version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two), as well as certain verbal changes the author of Matthew made to his versions of Unexpected Thief^[194] and Waiting Maidens^[195] indicate that the author of Matthew was familiar with Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) from his non-Markan source (Anth.).

The section of Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Matthew included (Part Two) is fairly close to how he found it in Anth., but the differences are not insignificant.^[196] In L32-34 the author of Matthew thought he detected an allusion to Psalm 103:27, and therefore attempted to conform the language to that of the Septuagint by changing διδόναι in L32 to δοῦναι and by adding the definite article to τροφή (trofē, “food”) in L33. In L45 the author of Matthew added the adjective κακός (kakos, “bad”) to ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος (ho doulos ekeinos, “that slave”), probably to offset the positive descriptors (“faithful” [L28] and “sensible” [L29]) ascribed to the slave in the previous scenario, but in doing so he gave the impression that two different slaves were being discussed rather than describing two alternative ways the one slave might behave under the same set of circumstances.^[197] In L50 the author of Matthew simplified Anth.’s wording by referring to “fellow slaves” rather than “slave boys and slave girls.” And in L51 the author of Matthew changed Anth.’s infinitives to subjunctives, probably for stylistic reasons.

Other changes the author of Matthew made to Faithful or Faithless Slave were more ideological in nature. By changing “and to get drunk” in L52 to “he might drink with the drunkards” (L51-52) the author of Matthew portrayed the faithless slave as disregarding the ethical boundaries the early Christians imposed upon the members of their communities. And by grouping the wicked slave with “the hypocrites” (L59) instead of “the faithless,” and by adding the stereotyped depiction of the damned weeping and gnashing their teeth (L60-61), the author of Matthew gave vent to his anti-Jewish mindset. The author of Matthew could think of no worse condemnation for faithless Christians than that they should share the fate of faithless Israel.

Results of This Research

1. How many slaves are envisioned in Faithful or Faithless Slave? Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) describes a scenario in which several slaves keep watch for their master’s return. Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) zooms in on one particular slave who is placed in charge of providing the others with food, and envisions two different ways that slave might behave under those circumstances. The master might return to find him faithfully discharging his duty, or he could discover that the slave was unworthy of his trust. The author of Matthew’s redactional addition of κακός (kakos, “bad”) in L45 slightly confuses the picture by giving the impression that two different slaves, rather than two different ways of behaving, are in view. But even in Matthew’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave the reference to “that bad slave” (L45) must simply mean that the slave whom his master initially deemed to be faithful and sensible, and for that reason placed him in charge of distributing food to the others, turned out to be a “bad” slave when left to his own devices.^[198] 

2. Is “cut him in two” at the end of the illustration to be understood literally? The various attempts to explain away the cutting of the servant in two either as a mistranslation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew source or as a vivid metaphor for severe punishment are both problematic and unconvincing. While these attempts are symptomatic of a commendable aversion to extreme violence in the real world, they overlook the function graphic depictions play in parables and related genres like fables and fairy tales.^[199] In these make-believe stories exaggerated rewards and punishments have a moral function of reinforcing the ethical standards of the real world, similar to the way the modern genre of fictional horror novels and films reinforce modern moral values because the monster or villain who grossly transgresses our moral code is defeated in the end, setting the world of the movie or novel to rights.^[200] The extreme violence that must never be condoned in the real world has a legitimate function in these genres of fiction. In Faithful or Faithless Slave the cutting in two of the faithless slave becomes all the more comprehensible when it is understood that the faithless slave is modeled on the rebellious generation of the desert that grumbled against Moses and worshipped the golden calf. When these rebellious Israelites were discovered in the act of idolatry, they were cut down by the sword. Thus the faithless slave’s gory fate parallels the fate of the Israelites who sinned by worshipping the golden calf. Moses’ delay in coming down from the mountain provided their opportunity to give in to self-indulgence. Jesus did not want his disciples to follow in their footsteps during his indeterminate absence.

3. How could Jesus have used an institution as abhorrent as slavery to illustrate aspects of his message? Jesus lived in a world in which slavery was both socially acceptable and widely practiced among the wealthier classes of society. While it would be quite wrong to deny that slavery exists today, it is now rightly regarded as a morally indefensible institution. And while neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers directly attacked this reprehensible practice, it is important to recognize that the subversive values embedded in the Gospel message have played a crucial role in the moral awakening that has led to the condemnation of slavery.

One of the subversive aspects of the Gospel message is that when Jesus used the institution of slavery to illustrate his teaching, he almost invariably expected his audience to adopt the attitude of the slave rather than the master, as is the case in Faithful or Faithless Slave. Jesus’ sympathy with the plight of slaves undermined the social structure of the Roman world. Whereas the Roman worldview valued the ability to exercise dominion over others (cf. Matt. 8:9 ∥ Luke 7:8) and scorned servitude, Jesus defined greatness as service to others (cf. Luke 22:25-27). Even when in sayings like Expecting Reward Jesus asked his audience to imagine how they treat their slaves (or how they would treat their slaves if they had them), the mental exercise was intended to reinforce the scriptural teaching that all Israelites are slaves of the Lord, who redeemed them from Egypt (cf. Lev. 25:55).^[201] 

The solidarity with slaves Jesus’ teaching forces his followers to adopt has been a major force in historical efforts to abolish slavery. The condemnation of slavery and the liberation of slaves is a working out of the core values of the Gospel, which insists that all human beings are created in the image of God, that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and that the slave is our brother because we ourselves are slaves of the Messiah Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 7:22-23). Jesus’ teachings are revolutionary, but they are also a product of their time. His words were addressed to people living in the first century, and the illustrations he used were drawn from that world. While Jesus’ teaching remains urgently relevant today, it is of the utmost importance to realize that in the Gospels Jesus never addresses us directly. He speaks to us through his first-century audience as it was mediated to us through the four canonical evangelists. Because Jesus speaks to us only through his first-century audience is why learning about Second Temple Judaism and Jesus’ historical and cultural contexts is such a vital task.

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. _______________________________________________________

---

Notes

1. For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’”[↩]
2. This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source.[↩]
3. See the Waiting Maidens parable, under the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” subheading.[↩]
4. 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.[↩]
5. See Be Ready for Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading.[↩]
6. 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)

   [↩]
7. Cf. Plummer, Luke, 330.[↩]
8. Cf. Bovon, 2:229.[↩]
9. 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.[↩]
10. 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.[↩]
11. Cf. Beare, Earliest, 169.[↩]
12. Note that Martin (Syntax 2, 50) classified Luke’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two) as “translation” Greek.[↩]
13. 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.[↩]
14. So Fitzmyer, 2:984.[↩]
15. See Creed, 176; Nolland, Luke, 2:699. Cf. Bultmann, 118.[↩]
16. 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.[↩]
17. See Moulton-Geden, 715.[↩]
18. See Moulton-Geden, 795.[↩]
19. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1023-1024.[↩]
20. See Dos Santos, 125.[↩]
21. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1123.[↩]
22. 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.[↩]
23. 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.[↩]
24. See Wolter, 2:158.[↩]
25. Cf. Albright-Mann, 301.[↩]
26. See Moulton-Geden, 607.[↩]
27. See Moulton-Geden, 516.[↩][↩]
28. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:705.[↩]
29. See Jastrow, 311.[↩]
30. In LXX καίειν occurs once as the translation of the ד‑ל‑ק root (Ps. 7:14).[↩]
31. See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L42.[↩]
32. For another example where we deemed καὶ ὑμεῖς to be the product of Lukan redaction, see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, L44.[↩]
33. See Be Ready for Son of Man, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.”[↩]
34. On reconstructing ἄνθρωπος with אִישׁ, see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L12.[↩]
35. 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).[↩]
36. 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.[↩]
37. Cf. Moulton-Geden, 861.[↩]
38. 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.”[↩]
39. 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.[↩]
40. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1212-1213.[↩]
41. See Waiting Maidens, Comment to L3.[↩]
42. On reconstructing κύριος with אָדוֹן, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10.[↩]
43. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:800-839.[↩]
44. See LSJ, 112.[↩]
45. See Moulton-Geden, 61.[↩]
46. See Moulton-Geden, 156.[↩]
47. Cf. Segal, 136 §296.[↩]
48. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:79.[↩]
49. See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels.[↩]
50. See Marshall, 536.[↩][↩]
51. Cf. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” 442.[↩]
52. See Segal, 242 §515.[↩]
53. On reconstructing κρούειν with הִרְתִּיק, see Friend in Need, Comment to L25.[↩]
54. 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.[↩]
55. Cf. LHNC, 399.[↩]
56. 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

    [↩]
57. See Moulton-Geden, 399.[↩]
58. 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.[↩]
59. See Jastrow, 23.[↩]
60. 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).[↩]
61. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:278.[↩]
62. See Jastrow, 1621.[↩]
63. 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)

    [↩]
64. 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.[↩]
65. On staves as among the usual accoutrements of travelers, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L66.[↩]
66. See Jastrow, 412.[↩]
67. See Bovon, 2:230.[↩]
68. See Bundy, 361 §252; Jeremias, Parables, 53-54; Beare, Earliest, 170.[↩]
69. See Jastrow, 103.[↩]
70. 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.[↩]
71. 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.[↩]
72. See Dos Santos, 19.[↩]
73. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:293-294.[↩]
74. See Dos Santos, 214.[↩]
75. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1373-1374.[↩]
76. See Dos Santos, 210.[↩]
77. Cf., e.g., Plummer, Luke, 331; Creed, 176; Marshall, 537; Fitzmyer, 2:988; Nolland, Luke, 2:701-102; Bovon, 2:234 n. 41.[↩]
78. 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.[↩]
79. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 560.[↩]
80. Cf. Wolter, 2:160.[↩]
81. 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).[↩]
82. Cf. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 257.[↩]
83. 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.[↩]
84. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 117-118; Moule, Birth, 147-148; Gundry, Matt., 495.[↩]
85. Cf. Bovon, 2:237.[↩]
86. Cf. Creed, 177; Knox, 2:70; Marshall, 540; Bovon, 2:230.[↩]
87. Cf. Wolter, 2:162.[↩]
88. 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)

    [↩]
89. Cf. Quieting a Storm, Comment to L55.[↩]
90. In LXX τίς ἐστιν occurs as the translation of מִי הוּא in Job 9:24; 13:19; 41:2.[↩]
91. 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.[↩]
92. See Jeremias, Parables, 56 n. 25; Gundry, Matt., 495; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Fleddermann, 627.[↩]
93. The noun οἰκονόμος occurs in Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688.[↩]
94. The noun οἰκονομία occurs in Luke 16:2, 3, 4, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688.[↩]
95. The verb οἰκονομεῖν (oikonomein, “to manage a house”) occurs in Luke 16:2, but nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. See Moulton-Geden, 688.[↩]
96. See Fleddermann, 627.[↩][↩]
97. Pace Gundry, Matt., 495. Neither οἰκονόμος nor οἰκονομία nor οἰκονομεῖν occur in Acts. See Moulton-Geden, 688.[↩]
98. 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.[↩]
99. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1138-1139.[↩]
100. 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.[↩]
101. Cf. Fleddermann, 627.[↩]
102. Cf. Harnack, 43.[↩]
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. Cf. Luz, 3:222 n. 6. Pace Harnack, 33.[↩]
134. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:388; Fleddermann, 628.[↩]
135. 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.[↩]
136. See Manson, Sayings, 118. Cf. Marshall, 542; Nolland, Luke, 2:703.[↩]
137. Pace Harnack (32), who preferred Matthew’s word order.[↩]
138. See Harnack, 33; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Fleddermann, 628. Cf. Hagner, 2:722; Bovon, 2:239.[↩]
139. 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.[↩]
140. Cf. McNeile, 359.[↩]
141. 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.[↩]
142. Cf. LHNS, 178 §226.[↩]
143. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1476.[↩]
144. 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).[↩]
145. According to midrashic traditions, the Israelites not only demanded their idolatrous image, they killed (Hur) and intimidated (Aaron) those who opposed them.[↩]
146. 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).[↩]
147. So Manson, Sayings, 118; Marshall, 542.[↩]
148. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1378.[↩]
149. See Dos Santos, 132.[↩]
150. Cf. Harnack, 33; Creed, 177; Knox, 2:70; Nolland, Luke, 2:703; Bovon, 2:231.[↩]
151. In his Hebrew translation of the New Testament Delitzsch resorted to rendering σύνδουλος as חָבֵר (ḥāvēr, “companion,” “friend”).[↩]
152. See Moulton-Geden, 919; Fleddermann, 628.[↩]
153. Cf. Cadbury, Style, 189.[↩]
154. See Davies-Allison, 3:389.[↩]
155. Cf. Marshall, 542; Gundry, Matt., 496; Hagner, 2:722; Fleddermann, 628.[↩]
156. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1049-1051.[↩]
157. See Dos Santos, 147.[↩]
158. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1048.[↩]
159. See Dos Santos, 215.[↩]
160. See Dos Santos, 12.[↩]
161. 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).[↩]
162. 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.[↩]
163. 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.[↩]
164. In the Mishnah עֶבֶד is paired with אָמָה in m. Bab. Kam. 4:5; 5:6; m. Yad. 4:7 (2xx).[↩]
165. Cf. Beare, Matt., 477.[↩]
166. 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).[↩]

167. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:389; Nolland, Matt., 999.[↩]
168. By contrast, Harnack (32) and Fleddermann (628) preferred Matthew’s subjunctives.[↩]
169. On the conjunction τε (te, “both,” “also”) as the product of Lukan redaction, see Tumultuous Times, Comment to L5.[↩]
170. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:389.[↩]
171. Cf. Bovon, 2:239.[↩]
172. Cf. Hagner, 2:722.[↩]
173. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:907-908.[↩]
174. See Dos Santos, 209.[↩]
175. Cf. Kutscher, 130 §216.[↩]
176. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1213.[↩]
177. Cf. Snodgrass, 499; Wolter, 2:164.[↩]
178. 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.[↩]
179. 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.[↩]
180. 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.[↩]
181. 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.[↩]
182. 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.”[↩]
183. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:911; Dos Santos, 64. The neuter form μέρος occurs as the translation of חֵלֶק only in Eccl. 5:18.[↩]
184. 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).[↩]
185. 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.[↩]
186. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 57 n. 31; Kloppenborg, 150 n. 210; Bovon, 2:240 n. 87; Fleddermann, 629.[↩]
187. Cf. France, Matt., 945-946.[↩]
188. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 497; France, Matt., 945-946.[↩]
189. 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.[↩]
190. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 118; Fitzmyer, 2:990; Fleddermann, 629.[↩]
191. 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.[↩]

192. 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%

     [↩]

193. 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%

     [↩]

194. See Unexpected Thief, Comment to L1, Comment to L3 and Comment to L4.[↩]
195. See above, Comment to L6, and Waiting Maidens, Comment to L3 and Comment to L11.[↩]
196. 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.[↩]
197. Cf. France, Matt., 943.[↩]
198. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 55; Schweizer, 463; Marshall, 542; Luz, 3:222; Snodgrass, 499.[↩]
199. Cf. Snodgrass, 503.[↩]
200. 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.[↩]
201. 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.[↩]