Category: Matthean Studies
Commentary Review: Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC)
Evans, Craig A. Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Craig A. Evans, ‘Matthew’ in the NCBC series.
I received Craig A. Evans Matthew from the New Cambridge Bible Commentary as a gift for my indexing work on the project. I knew from the digital version I viewed that it was going to be a useful volume. Now that I have spent some time with it in print I can say that it is worth adding to your library.
The New Cambridge Bible Commentary uniquely combined in-depth scholarship with readability and a user friendly structure. There are some commentaries that are so meticulous that they are difficult to read. There are others that are easy to read, but the content is too brief. This series seems to do a fine job at providing a middle ground. I have Bill T. Arnold’s Genesis from the same series.
The series is edited by Ben Witherington III and it appears to span the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship including people like Arnold, Evans, Witherington, and others like Walter Brueggemann, Craig S. Keener, Amy-Jill Levine, and Duane F. Watson.
The introduction is simple and straightforward. The commentary flows nicely addressing manageable portions of text. There are occasional supplementary sections called “A Closer Look” that appear in gray boxes throughout the commentary providing an aside on subjected like “The Holy Spirit,” “Josephus on John the Baptist,” ”Demons in the Desert,” and “The Disciples in the Talmud.”
Evans does interact with other commentaries, but he is intentional about limiting the attention given to secondary literature. He prefaces that his primary conversation partners are the commentaries of John Nolland, R.T. France, Robert Gundry, and Craig S. Keener (p. xv). This doesn’t mean that there is a lack of sources cited (I know, I did the indexing), but that the commentary does a solid job of being selective when mentioning and interacting with secondary literature so that the text itself is primary.
This is the work of a confessional scholar. Evans affirms the historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and so forth, but he does serious historical-critical work as well. I don’t think I have to defend his reputation as a serious scholar of Christian origins and literature and Second Temple Judaism.
The commentary is 487 pages of content. If you have any questions about the book feel free to ask in the comments. Here are some pictures to provide a visual (click to enlarge):
Introduction
Text and Commentary
e.g. ‘A Closer Look’
The donkey and the colt in Matthew 21.1-7.
In Mark 11.2 Jesus sends two disciples to get a colt for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem. Since this Gospel was written prior to Matthew (according to most scholars) many assume that Matthew used this story in his own Gospel. One major difference is that Matthew 21.2 adds a second animal, depicting a donkey and colt. Then he quotes Zechariah 9.9 as a text that this event “fulfilled”,
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
These last two lines are a form of Hebrew parallelism. As we see above to “Rejoice greatly” is to “Shout aloud” and the daughter Zion is one Jerusalem. Likewise, there is a line about a donkey paralleled by a line about a colt, which seems to be a more precise description of the donkey in line one. That donkey is a colt.
Mark says nothing of a donkey being with the colt. Matthew does. Did Matthew add to Mark’s story because of his reading of Zechariah 9.9?
In Craig A. Evans’ new commentary on Matthew for the New Cambridge Bible Commentary (NCBC) series he writes the following (p. 359):
“Although some commentators have thought that Matthew has misunderstood the synonymous parallelism of Zech 9:9 in thinking that the text speaks of two animals, others rightly recognize that it is highly unlikely that the evangelist, who can work with Greek and probably Aramaic and Hebrew, would not recognize synonymous parallelism. As with other texts that are cited as “fulfilled,” Matthew may well have seen a correspondence between an event in the life of Jesus and the details of a prophetic text. Matthew would have read Mark’s reference to a colt as “never been ridden” (Mark 11.2) and would have assumed that the mother of the young colt was present and would have accompanied it. Matthew either assumed this from the practice of his time or actually knew that this had been the case. The presence of both the mother and the foal, seen through the eyes of typology, would have drawn a close correspondence with the prophetic texts.”
Evans appeals to the reality that in Matthew we find the Evangelist working very hard to make texts from the Hebrew Scripture fit events in the life of Christ in order to “find” Christ in Scripture. If this is so, then maybe Evans (and others whom he cites like R.H. Gundry, D.A. Hagner, and C.S. Keener) is right that Matthew knew something Mark did not know and he found Zechariah 9.9 to provide him with the necessary “biblical” language. Could it be that Matthew’s account is a more accurate description of the events, hence the stretching of Zechariah 9.9 to make it fit? It’s something worth considering.
In the mail: Matthew (NCBC) by Craig A. Evans.
Craig A. Evans, 'Matthew' in the NCBC series.
I received a copy of Craig A. Evans’ new commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in the mail yesterday. He sent it to me as a gift for doing some indexing for the book before print. It is part of the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series and it goes verse-by-verse through the entire Gospel. I go on vacation starting this Thursday and I intend to bring it along with me.
There are some interesting insights/statements from the very beginning of the commentary. While Evans doesn’t spent a lot of time arguing that the author was the Apostle Matthew he does summarize the discussion and concludes:
“There is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew that rules out the apostle Matthew as its author, and there is nothing in the life of the early church that compelled it to select the apostle Matthew.” (p. 4)
In other words, scholars should pause before quickly dismissing Matthew as the author since it would be odd to chose him randomly if the church was aiming to attribute an anonymous Gospel to one of the Apostles. As Evans writes, “Why not Peter or his brother Andrew, or one of the Zebedee brothers?” (p. 4)
What about the date of authorship? Evans notes that most seem to date it in the 70′s after the fall of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. He has reservations about this since he notes that the destruction language has biblical precedent (e.g. 2 Kings 25.9; 2 Chronicles 36.19; Nehemiah 1.3; 2.3, 13, 17; 4.2; Isaiah 64.11; Jeremiah 21.10; 34.2). This leads him to mention the work of J.G. Crossley who dates the Gospel of Mark to the 40′s. He proposes that it is possible that the Evangelist used Mark since it may have been in circulation for about twenty years already. As a side note he mentions that the Book of Acts ends rather abruptly with the narrative coming “to an end no later that 62 A.D., before the death of James, the brother of the Lord.” (p. 5) Since Acts follows Luke this leads to the proposal that, “…we see reasonable arguments for the writing and circulation of all three Synoptic Gospels sometime prior to the war of 66-70 A.D.” This is quite the claim!
As I come across more points of interest I will share them. In the meantime, I found the idea that the Gospel of Matthew may be authored by the Apostle Matthew in the 60′s very intriguing. I would like to read Crossley’s work on Mark now.
What about the generations in Babylon? (Matthew 1.11-12)
In Matthew 1.11 the genealogy of Jesus ends at the Babylonian exile (ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος). In v. 12 it seems to resume after the exile (Μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος). I know that it has been postulated that Matthew frames his genealogy in three sets of fourteen generations because the numerology of dalet-vav-dalet (for David) equals fourteen when added together and it is proposed that Matthew wanted his audience to recognize the symbolism (of course, this encounters the hurdle of the gospel being written in Greek, not Hebrew).
Did the three sets necessitate the ignoring of the generation in Babylon? Why ignore them or do you think it could still be interpreted as including them?
Advent 2011: Third Sunday
Yesterday I gave the homily for the Third Sunday of Advent. These are the notes for those present who wanted to access them:
“Out of Egypt: Exile, Exodus, and Jesus”
Hosea 11.1-11
Matthew 2.13-15
Introduction:
Exile is something with which many of us are mostly unfamiliar, but with which many people in the world know all too well.
- Displaced people due to war or famine
- The plight of the immigrant
Exile: “It is the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home”. –Edward W. Said
Israel‘s history
- Adam and Eve “exiled” from Egypt
- In Genesis 37-50 we find the story of Joseph wherein Abraham’s descendants are exiled because of a famine, but they find relief in Egypt.
- In Exodus 1.8 we read, “A new king arose who did not know Joseph…”
- Egypt as “home” quickly became Egypt as exile again.
- The Hebrews became slaves in Egypt for over four hundred years before Moses was sent to free them.
- At the Exodus they were freed from slavery and they were eventually brought into the land that had been given to Abraham. God established them as a nation, but they forgot God often worshiping pagan deities.
Hosea’s prophecy (read Hosea 11.1-11)
- By the time of Hosea’s prophecy the nation was split into the ten tribes of Israel and two of Judea.
- Hosea prophecies against Israel primarily.
- Israel had become accustom of worshiping deities like Baal. Baal was a word for “lord” or “master” and it was used of a variety of deities in the Ancient Near East.
- Israel calling another god “Baal” when she was married to YHWH God was the equivalent to infidelity in the marriage relationship. Israel was cheating on God with other gods.
- In 11.1-11 Hosea serves as YHWH’s spokesperson reminding Israel of how he delivered them from slavery in Egypt, but how he would let them go back before someday giving them a ‘new Exodus’ of restoration.
- Israel and Judah’s disobedience resulted in exile into Assyria and Babylon.
- Eventually there was a new Exodus from Babylon, but for many things never seemed quite right, something was missing.
- Pagan nations ruled over the Jews—including the Greeks and Romans.
Matthew’s interpretation (read Matthew 2.13-15)
- Context: Herod seeks to kill the baby Jesus, the angel warns Joseph, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus into Egypt until Herod dies.
- Jesus embodies the “return from Egypt”, the end of exile.
- He is “Jesus” = YHWH saves. Immanuel = God with us.
- Our God saves. God saves from slavery and exile. God provides a home, a family, and a land.
Conclusion:
- In Jesus God has enacted the greatest exodus. We have been removed from the exile cause by Satan and we are marching toward the New Jerusalem—New Heavens, New Earth.
- This plight should make us more aware of exile around us. We experience a sort of exile now as we await the Second Advent.
“Out of Egypt” = not all that far away?!
The Empire under Augustus
In Matthew 2.13-15 Joseph flees Judea with Mary and the baby Jesus because an angel told him that Herod was going to try to kill the child. Joseph leaves at night for Egypt and he doesn’t return until a few years later after Herod’s death. I have always imagined this to be quite the trip, yet “Egypt” wouldn’t have been all that far after all.
The Roman Province of Egypt seems to have ended near the modern Gaza Strip (which borders modern Egypt) and it was the neighboring district to Judea. If I understand my geography correctly it would have been a little more than fifty miles from Bethlehem to the outskirt of the territory ruled by Herod the Great.
So it seems Jesus’ family would not have had to cross the Sinai Peninsula to be “in Egypt”, technically. That frames Jesus exile a little differently. At least it made me rethink what may have possibly happened.
Advent 2011: Second Sunday
Who were the Magi of Matthew 2.1-11?
On the one hand, it is possible that they are literary invention of the Evangelist, but that seems quite extravagant for purely fictional characters. On the other hand, if the Magi were real people from the east they invite a lot of thought.
We have pagans finding Christ through their superstitions. God did not reject them because of their magical worldview. God used it to bring them to Christ.
The Magi are not part of the established people of God, yet they find themselves worshiping God’s Messiah.
The Magi disappear back to their homeland. We have no evidence that they came to know more of Jesus’ story later, yet they are framed positively. They are what some may call “righteous pagans”. They find Christ through another religious worldview, they know him in part only, they worship him and bring gifts, and they are remembered in a saintly way.
I wouldn’t establish a robust soteriology on this story, but it does make me stop before I declare knowledge of who is “in-and-out” of God’s Kingdom. Sometimes I think only the King himself knows. I am comfortable with that.
I am open to the likelihood that God may have more “Magi” in the world who come to the Feast of the Lamb from the east and the west, the north and the south. I’ll happily welcome them to the banquet.
Unlikely sources for the Matthean virgin conception.
There are two sources for the Matthean virgin conception concept that I find unlikely.
First, the idea that the Evangelist reasoned from the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 to the concept of the virgin conception seems odd. In Hebrew that text signifies nothing regarding a future Messiah conceived of a virgin. While the LXX wording fits better (ἡ παρθένος) the context still seems to demand much reworking by Matthew. In other words, I don’t find Isaiah 7.14 an apparent source for a virgin conception narrative. Rather, I think Matthew had the concept and he scanned through his knowledge of Torah for any evidence that Scripture foretold such an event. In other words, Isaiah 7.14 seems like it must be reworked to serve as a proof-text for a virgin conception more than it seems like an obvious prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Second, pagan deities being born of a virgin assumes a higher Christology than I find evident in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew is more concerned with presenting Jesus as the Messiah (though we may say in proto-orthodox language as a Messiah within whom YHWH dwelt in a unique way) than as a “deity” in the pagan sense of the concept. So sure, there are examples of pagan gods being born of virgins. I’m not convinced this motivated the Jewish Evangelist.
Of course, this does not prove a virgin conception, but I don’t think these proposals are as sound as some argue as evidence against it.
“Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” (John 1.25)
Last week I was comparing Matthew 3.1-12, Mark 1.2-8, Luke 3.1-18, and John 1.19-28 wherein John the Baptist is the focus. He speaks of himself in Isaianic terminology as the “voice crying in the wilderness”. In Matthew and Luke he says a bit about God creating children of Abraham from ‘these rocks’ (some consider this a Q source though I’m skeptical). John’s baptism is juxtaposed with the coming Messiah’s–one of water and one of spirit. What caught my eye was the Johannine account.
In John 1.25 the priests and Levites respond to John’s denial that he is Messiah, Elijah, or ‘the Prophet’ with the question: “Then why are you baptizing?”
This question fascinates me. What was it about being either Messiah, the returned Elijah, or the Deuteronomic Prophet that qualified one for baptizing and why did they think John’s baptism was odd considering he did not have these qualifications? Any thoughts?
When Abiathar was high priest (Mark 2.26).
In Mark 2.23-28 we have a narrative wherein Jesus is challenged by some Pharisees for allowing his disciples to pick grain to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accuse them of violating the Sabbath. Jesus responds by reminding them of the story of David in 1 Samuel 21.1-7. David and his men are hungry so he goes into the temple to ask the priest for bread. The priest gives him holy bread. Jesus uses this story as an analogy showing that God does not condemn those in need for seemingly violating what is holy.
Of course, one thing to note is that Jesus says this happened when Abiathar was high priest although 1 Samuel 21.1-7 says that Ahimelech is the priest. There are a few ways to interpret this:
(1) Mark was wrong.
(2) The author of 1 Samuel was wrong.
(3) The phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως means “in the days of the high priest Abiathar” as suggested by the editors of the NET Bible (n. 52):
A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew”) is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty. (1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sys and a few others omit ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4and Luke 6:4; {A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 Ë13 and many others} add τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως, giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading. (2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point. (3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως: “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.
Something to consider when examining this problem is whether or not Matthew and Luke intentionally removed this statement assuming they used Mark and disagreed. In Matthew 12.1-8 and Luke 6.1-5 we find the same story, except that neither author mentioned Abiathar. Did they read Mark, realize he was wrong, and remove this statement as a corrective? Of course, if you are of the conviction that Matthean priority makes more sense then this does not factor.
Studying the Synoptic Problem: Two Slaves; Pounds and Talents.
One of the most interesting/frustrating aspects of Double Tradition material is how some pericopae can be very similar and others very different. One example would be the story of the Two Slaves in Matthew 24.45-51 and Luke 12.41-46 juxtaposed with the story of the Pounds/Talents of Matthew 24.14-50 and Luke 19.11-27. Below I will post the SBL GNT text of both of these narratives in downloadable PDFs. I have marked in red where it seems like the text relates and left black where it does not. Take a look at these two (both classified as Double Tradition) and note the drastic differences:
Two Slaves: LePort. Two Slaves
Pounds and Talents: LePort. Pounds and Talents
You may find an error or something overlooked. If so, let me know!
Who is Elijah? Juxtaposing Matthew 17.10-13 and Mark 9.11-13.
"No, no, not that Elijah, the other Elijah!"
Matthew 17.10-13 is the end of the Transfiguration narrative in the First Gospel. At the Transfiguration Jesus was joined by Moses and Elijah. Afterward the disciples have a question about the second coming of Elijah. Likely, this idea was inspired by Malachi 4.1-5 wherein Israel’s God said Elijah would come before the Day of the Lord. Jesus tells them Elijah has come and it seems to be quite obvious that his appearance with Jesus on the mountain is the fulfillment. Yet the narrator says in v. 13, “The disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist.”
Why John the Baptist? Elijah was just there!
Mark 9.11-13 is the end of the Transfiguration narrative in the Second Gospel. It parallels Matthew’s account quite nicely, except that it does not have the commentary that Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. In Mark’s telling there is no reason to say that the second coming of Elijah is John the Baptist because Elijah’s second coming was fulfilled at the Transfiguration.
So why does Matthew say what he says?
The most obvious answer is consistency. Matthew has already quoted Jesus in 11.14 saying that “John himself was Elijah who was to come.” Still his statement in 17.13 seems odd since the real Elijah was present. Thoughts?
The woman at Bethany in the Gospels.
I’ve been working on the pericope of the woman in Bethany who anoints Jesus for burial in Matthew 26.6-13, Mark 14. 3-9, Luke 7.36-50, and John 12.1-8. I’m becoming convinced after a discussion with my friend and fellow blogger JohnDave Medina that this is the same story across four Gospels even if the details are drastically different at times (especially on John).
I have attached my synopsis (based on the SBL GNT) to this post so you can see what I’ve done so far. I am using the color coding recommended by Mark Goodace in his book on the Synoptic Problem:
When I compared the Synoptics with John I highlight similarities in the color of a given Gospel rather than change the color of the text (e.g. if I see a connection between John and Mark I highlight John in red). What I’ve found very interesting so far is a few phrases that seem to correspond quite well between John and Mark and them even some shared by John with Mark and Matthew (purple). Also, I’ve noticed that the “feet” are important in Luke and they are there in John as well.
Take the time to download this PDF and then leave a comment if you have any insights. It would be fun to collaborate on this! Download here: LePort. At Bethany.
Studying the Synoptic Problem: the Centurion at Capernaum
Most recently I was examining Double Tradition Material (i.e. in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark). One thing upon which I focused was how much of the material seemed borrowed or shared. This factors into our understanding of reliance on written materials and the role of oral tradition. One thing you’ll notice about this example pericope if you scroll below is that there are some places where there is little similarity in wording then there are sections that share the exact same words.
Over the next few weeks I will post an occasional example. If you have anything to add to my observations (whether you’d like to clean up my translation a bit or point out something I missed) I’d welcome it!
The Centurion at Capernaum (Mt 8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10)
Mt 8 5 Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν 6 καὶ λέγων· Κύριε, ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος. 7 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν. 8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη· Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς· ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου· 9 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 10 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρʼ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον. 11 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· 12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 13 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ· Ὕπαγε, ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι· καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. [1]
And he entered into Capernaum a centurion came to him and said, “Lord, my servant-child is thrown down in the house paralyzed terribly tormented. And he said to him, “I will come heal him. And the centurion answered saying, “Lord, I am not worthy that you come under my roof, but only say a word, and my child-servant will be healed. For I am also a man under authority having soldiers under me and I say to this one, “Go” and he goes, and to another, “Come” and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this” and he does it. And Jesus heard, marveled and said to those following, “Amen, I say to you, for I have found no one with such great faith in Israel. And I tell you that many from the east and west will hear and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. And the sons of the Kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will happen for you as you believe.” And the child was healed the same hour.
Lk 7 1 Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. 2 Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος. 3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. 4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν σπουδαίως λέγοντες ὅτι Ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο, 5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. 6 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ· Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς· 7 διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν· ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου· 8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν, καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπεν· Λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. 10 καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα. [2]
After he completed all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered into Capernaum. And a certain centurion had a sick slave who was near death, who was esteemed by him. And he heard about Jesus he sent some Judean elders to him, to ask him that coming he might heal his slave. And they came to Jesus urging him diligently saying, “There is one worthy for whom you will grant this. For he loves our nation and he built a synagogue for us. And Jesus went with them. And now he was not a far distance from the house the centurion sent friends saying to him, “Lord, don’t be troubled, for I am not worthy that you come under my roof, therefore I do not consider myself worthy that you come, but say a word, and my servant-child will be healed, for I am also a man placed under authority, I have soldiers, and I say this, “Go” and he goes, and to another “Come” and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this” and he does it, And hearing this Jesus marveled him, and turned around to the crowd following him and said, “I say to you, no where in Israel have I found such great faith. And when those sent from the house returned they found the slave healthy.
| 5 Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν 6 καὶ λέγων· Κύριε, ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος. 7καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν. 8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη·Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς· ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου· 9 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 10 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρʼ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλεὗρον. 11 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· 12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 13 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ· Ὕπαγε, ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι· καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. |
1 Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. 2 Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος. 3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. 4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν σπουδαίως λέγοντες ὅτι Ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο, 5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. 6 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ· Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς· 7 διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν· ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου·8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν, καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπεν· Λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. 10 καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα. |
Studying the Synoptic Problem: Triple Tradition material.
Over the last few weeks I’ve posted my notes from studies I’ve been doing on a variety of passages classified as Triple Tradition material. I wrote a short summary paper on the subject that you’re welcome to download: LePort. Triple Tradition Material.
If you’d like to read those posts they are filed under ‘Triple Tradition’.
