Calamities in Yerushalayim

Luke 13:1-5

(Huck 162; Aland 207; Crook 244)^[139]

Updated: 4 July 2022

וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיַּגִּידוּ לוֹ עַל הַגְּלִלִאִים שֶׁדָּמָם פִּילָטוֹס עֵרֵב בְּדַם זִבְחֵיהֶם וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אַתֶּם סְבוּרִים שֶׁהַגְּלִלִאִים הָאֵלּוּ רְשָׁעִים הָיוּ מִכָּל הַגְּלִלִאִים לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם אִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה כֻּלְּכֶם כֵּן תֹאבֵדוּן וְאוֹתָם שְׁמוֹנָה הֶעָשָׂר שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶם נָפַל הַמִּגְדָּל בְּשִׁילוֹחַ וַהֲרָגָם אַתֶּם סְבוּרִים שֶׁהֵם חַיָּיבִים הָיוּ מִכָּל ישְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם אִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה כֻּלְּכֶם כֵּן תֹאבֵדוּן

When Yeshua was told about the Galilean pilgrims whose blood Pilatos had mixed with that of their sacrificial animals he replied, “Do you consider these Galileans to be worse sinners than all the rest? Of course not! But I tell you this: Unless all of you repent, this is how you will be destroyed [Deut. 8:20].

“Or those eighteen persons who were crushed to death by the tower that collapsed in Shiloah—do you consider them to be worse debtors than all the rest of Yerushalayim’s residents? Of course not! But I tell you this: Unless all of you repent, this is how you will be destroyed [Deut. 8:20].”^[140]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Calamities in Yerushalayim click on the link below:

Conclusion

When confronted with the story of an outrage perpetrated by the Roman government against the Jewish people, Jesus did not need to convince his audience that the victims were not especially sinful. Their sympathy for their slain Galilean brethren would have been aroused, and their ire against the oppressive Roman regime would have been kindled. Neither did Jesus respond to the heightened emotions occasioned by this report with the platitude that in view of life’s uncertainties now is always the best time to repent. More surprisingly, Jesus did not point the finger of blame at the Romans, which would only have served to enflame the anger of Jesus’ audience even more. Instead, Jesus called upon his fellow countrymen and women to abandon dreams of revenge against their oppressors. If the Romans would do such things to innocent worshippers, Jesus argued, what do you think they will do to you if you take up arms against them?

Jesus’ next move was to shift the terms of the debate by reminding his audience of the eighteen people who were crushed by the tower that collapsed in Siloam. Those innocent people had been killed in an accident. But if Israel rejected the way of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to embrace the ideology of militant nationalism, they would be guilty of a most serious sin. If accidents can befall even the innocent, then what will become of Israel if it willfully disobeys God?

While Jesus’ response to the report of Pilate’s atrocity was hardly flattering to Roman imperialism, he wisely directed his audience away from ultimately self-destructive action against people and circumstances they could not change and toward constructive change his listeners could effect within themselves and their communities. He also reoriented their vision from that of a world dominated by the Roman Empire and the evil spiritual powers that gave the empires their power to a universe ruled by Israel’s just and merciful God.

Jesus’ response to Pilate’s massacre of the Galilean pilgrims was determined by his belief that no violent uprising, but only repentance and acceptance of the Kingdom of Heaven, would lead to the redemption of Israel, humankind and the whole of God’s creation from Satan’s tyrannical regime of death.

---

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

---

• ^[1] See Beare, 172 §162; Bovon, 2:265. Marshall (553) and Snodgrass (262) note the differing messages of Calamities in Yerushalayim and the Unfruitful Fig Tree parable, but this does not lead them to the conclusion that the two pericopae did not originally belong together. ↩
• ^[2] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 107) classified Luke's Calamities in Yerushalayim as more like “translation” Greek than original Greek composition. ↩
• ^[3] Note also that παρεῖναι occurs 5xx in Acts (Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19), a much higher frequency than in Luke’s Gospel. ↩
• ^[4] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1065-1066. ↩
• ^[5] See Dos Santos, 22-23. ↩
• ^[6] We are indebted to Wolter (2:176) for the parallels to Luke 13:1 in Hellenistic works. ↩
• ^[7] Text and translation according to C. H. Oldfather et al., trans., Diodorus Siculus (12 vols.; Loeb; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933-1967), 8:138-139. ↩
• ^[8] Text and translation according to Oldfather, Diodorus Siculus, 10:34-35. ↩
• ^[9] Text and translation according to Oldfather, Diodorus Siculus, 10:442-443. ↩
• ^[10] Text and translation according to Bernadotte Perrin, trans., Plutarch’s Lives (11 vols.; Loeb; New York: Macmillan; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914-1926), 2:506-507. ↩
• ^[11] Text and translation according to Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives, 5:80-81. ↩
• ^[12] Text and translation according to Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives, 7:50-53. ↩
• ^[13] On καὶ ἐγένετο/ἐγένετο δέ + ἐν τῷ infinitive time phrase + finite main verb structures as indicative of an underlying Hebrew text, see Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317, esp. 268-273); Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 263-270). ↩
• ^[14] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:706-708. ↩
• ^[15] See Dos Santos, 163. ↩
• ^[16] The LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ in Gen. 21:22; 38:1; Deut. 1:9, 16, 18; 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23; 4:14; 5:5; 9:20; Josh. 11:10, 21; Judg. 3:29; 4:4; 11:26; 12:6; 14:4; 21:14, 24; 3 Kgdms. 11:29; 4 Kgdms. 8:22; 16:6; 18:16; 20:12; 24:10; 1 Chr. 21:28, 29; 2 Chr. 7:8; 16:7, 10; 21:10; 28:16; 30:3; 35:17; 2 Esd. 8:34; 14:16; Joel 4:1; Amos 5:13; Mic. 3:4; Zeph. 3:19, 20; Isa. 18:7; 39:1; Jer. 4:11; 8:1; 27[50]:4, 20. Cf. Deut. 10:1, 8, where the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִוא as ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (en ekeinō tō kairō, “in that time”). In Num. 22:4 the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִוא as κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον (kata ton kairon ekeinon, “at that time”). Cf. Dan. 12:1, where κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην (kata tēn hōran ekeinēn, “at that hour”) renders בָּעֵת הַהִיא. In Josh. 5:2 the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as ὑπὸ τοῦτον τὸν καιρόν (hūpo touton ton kairon, “at this time”). In Josh. 6:26, 3 Kgdms. 8:65 and 2 Chr. 13:18 they rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ (en tē hēmera ekeinē, “in that day”). Cf. Zeph. 1:12 and Dan. 12:1, where ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (en ekeinē tē hēmera, “in that day”) renders בָּעֵת הַהִיא. Similarly, in Jer. 3:17 the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (en tais hēmerais ekeinais, “in those days”). In Isa. 20:2 the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as τότε (tote, “then”). In Jer. 31:1 the LXX translators rendered בָּעֵת הַהִיא as ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ ἐκείνῳ (en tō chronō ekeinō, “in that time”). ↩
• ^[17] The phrase ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ occurs in Tob. 3:17, but unfortunately no Hebrew or Aramaic fragments of this verse have been preserved in DSS. In 2 Esd. 5:3 ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ occurs as the translation of the Aramaic phrase בֵּהּ זִמְנָא. ↩
• ^[18] Pace Fitzmyer, 1:118. ↩
• ^[19] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 273. ↩
• ^[20] On reconstructing καιρός (kairos, “time”) with שָׁעָה (shā‘āh, “hour”), see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L46. ↩
• ^[21] Instances of the phrase אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל occur, for example, in m. Ket. 4:12; m. Ned. 2:4 (2xx); 5:5; m. Sot. 9:15; t. Peah 4:10. ↩
• ^[22] Ginsberg compared the spelling הגללאים (“the Galileans”) to הַהַגְרִאִים (“the Hagrites”; 1 Chr. 5:10, 19, 20)—elsewhere הַגְרִים (Ps. 83:7)—and הָעַרְבִיאִים (“the Arabs”; 2 Chr. 17:11)—elsewhere הָעַרְבִים (Neh. 4:1; 2 Chr. 21:16). See H. L. Ginsberg, “Notes on the Two Published Letters to Jeshua ben Galgolah,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 131 (1953): 25-27, esp. 25 n. 4. ↩
• ^[23] In the Mishnah we find a reference to הַפַּכִּין הַגְּלִילִים (hapakin hag^elilim, “the Galilean flasks”; m. Kel. 2:2). ↩
• ^[24] See Solomon Zeitlin, “Who Were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus’ Activities in Galilee,” Jewish Quarterly Review 64.3 (1974): 189-203, esp. 196-197. Cf. Bovon, 2:267. ↩
• ^[25] See Vermes, Jew, 47. ↩
• ^[26] Pace Vermes, Jew, 47. ↩
• ^[27] Scholars occasionally cite Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius) and Justin Martyr for evidence of a sect of Galileans (cf., e.g., Bovon, 2:267 n. 31), but it is not clear that either Christian writer was an authority on pre-70 C.E. Jewish sects, and nothing in their statements about the Galileans suggests that they were militant nationalists.

  Thus Eusebius quoted Hegesippus as stating:

  ἦσαν δὲ γνῶμαι διάφοροι ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ ἐν υἱοῖς Ἰσραηλιτῶν κατὰ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὗται· Ἐσσαῖοι Γαλιλαῖοι Ἡμεροβαπτισταί Μασβωθεοι Σαμαρεῖται Σαδδουκαῖοι Φαρισαῖοι

  Now there were various opinions among the circumcision, among the children of Israel, against the tribe of Judah and the Messiah, as follows: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothei, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4:22 §7; Loeb)

  Similarly, in his Dialogue with Trypho Justin argued:

  ὥσπερ οὐδὲ Ἰουδαίους, ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἐξετάσῃ, ὁμολογήσειεν εἶναι τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους, ἢ τὰς ὁμοίας αἱρέσεις Γενιστῶν καὶ Μεριστῶν καὶ Γαλιλαίων καὶ Ἑλληνιανῶν καὶ Φαρισαίων καὶ Βαπτιστῶν...ἀλλὰ λεγομένους μὲν Ἰουδαίους καὶ τέκνα Ἀβραὰμ....

  ...even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæns, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews....but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham.... (Dial. §80 [ed. Trollope, 2:21])

  English translation of Justin according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986), 1:239. ↩

• ^[28] See Zeitlin, “Who Were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus’ Activities in Galilee,” 189-203. ↩
• ^[29] See Joseph R. Armenti, “On the Use of the Term ‘Galileans’ in the Writings of Josephus Flavius: A Brief Note,” Jewish Quarterly Review 72.1 (1981): 45-49; Louis H. Feldman, “The Term ‘Galileans’ in Josephus,” in his Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996; repr. from Jewish Quarterly Review 72.1 [1981]: 50-52), 111-113; Sean Freyne, “The Galileans in the Light of Josephus’ Life,” in his Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 27-44. ↩
• ^[30] Pace Plummer (Luke, 338), who attributed the massacre to “some fanatical act of rebellion” on the part of the Galileans; Knox (2:75), who assumed that the massacre took place “during a riot”; Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 73), who wrote that “Pilate’s measures...were scarcely taken without good reason”; Marshall (553), who explained that “the Galileans had a reputation for rebelliousness”; and Nolland (Luke, 2:717), who opined that “[t]here is every likelihood that these Galileans were involved in activities hostile to the state.” ↩
• ^[31] Johnson (95) raised this scenario as a possibility. See Sherman Elbridge Johnson, “A Note on Luke 13:1-5,” Anglican Theological Review 17:2 (1935): 91-95. See also Armenti, “On the Use of the Term ‘Galileans’ in the Writings of Josephus Flavius: A Brief Note,” 46-47. ↩
• ^[32] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:31-33. ↩
• ^[33] See Dos Santos, 43. ↩
• ^[34] Examples of דָּמָם (“their blood [sing.]”) occur in Lev. 16:27; Num. 18:17; Judg. 9:24; Isa. 34:3; 49:26; Jer. 46:10; Joel 4:21; Zeph. 1:17; Ps. 72:14; 79:3; Prov. 1:18; 2 Chr. 29:24. ↩
• ^[35] Examples of דְּמֵיהֶם (“their blood [plur.]”) are found in Lev. 20:11, 12, 13, 16, 27; 1 Kgs. 2:33. ↩
• ^[36] See Kedar-Kopfstein, “דָּם dām,” TDOT, 3:234-250, esp. 236. ↩
• ^[37] The remaining instances of μιγνύναι occur in Gen. 30:40, Exod. 30:35 and Prov. 14:16. ↩
• ^[38] See BDB, 786. ↩
• ^[39] See Jastrow, 1109-1110. ↩
• ^[40] For other instances in which the LXX translators were misled by Hebrew as it was spoken at the time of their translation work, see Jan Joosten, “On the Septuagint Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” in his Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 25-36. ↩
• ^[41] For the italicized words, which are recorded in Aramaic, we have relied on Neusner’s translation of the Jerusalem Talmud. ↩
• ^[42] Bultmann (54-55) and Bundy (365 §260) supposed that Luke’s story was really a garbled version of Josephus’ report in Ant. 18:86-87 about Pilate’s massacre of Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. Johnson (“A Note on Luke 13:1-5,” 91-95) argued that Luke 13:1 actually refers to a massacre that took place during Archelaus’ rule over Judea (Jos., J.W. 2:11-13). Fitzmyer (2:1006-1007) reviewed and rejected additional proposals. ↩
• ^[43] See Schürer, 1:385; Menahem Stern, “The Province of Judea” (Safrai-Stern, 1:308-376, esp. 352); Shemuel [sic] Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1965), 49-50 (in Hebrew). Daniel R. Schwartz (“Pontius Pilate,” ABD, 5:395-401, esp. 399) raised the possibility that the massacre in Luke 13:1 was connected to the disturbances relating to Pilate’s seizure of Temple funds for the construction of an aqueduct, but remained inconclusive. Cf. Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. - 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 291 n. 25. ↩
• ^[44] On the tumultuous character of Pilate’s tenure as governor, see Daniel R. Schwartz, Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 134-136. ↩
• ^[45] See Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (2d ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 74-76. On the Gospel tendency to exonerate Pilate for the crucifixion of Jesus, see Schwartz, “Pontius Pilate,” 400; Flusser, Jesus, 156. ↩
• ^[46] See B. H. Streeter, “On the Trial of Our Lord Before Herod: A Suggestion,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 228-231; Cadbury, Making, 240 n. 1. ↩
• ^[47] See Plummer, Luke, 337; Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972; repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 172-183. Flusser (Jesus, 164 n. 59), discussing the rift between Pilate and Antipas, mentioned only the incident involving the shields. ↩
• ^[48] See Nolland, Luke, 2:717; Bovon, 2:267 n. 28. ↩
• ^[49] See the entry for μετά in the Index of Greek→Hebrew Equivalents in our LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions. ↩
• ^[50] Cf., e.g., Prov. 24:21: עִם שׁוֹנִים אַל תִּתְעָרָב (“Do not be associated with those who change”); and in DSS see 1QS IX, 8: אל יתערב הונם עם הון אנשי הרמיה (“Their property must not be mixed with the property of the men of the lie”). ↩
• ^[51] Cf., e.g., Ps. 106:35; Prov. 14:10; Ezra 9:2; 1QS VI, 17; VII, 23; 1QH^a VIII, 22; 4Q274 1 I, 5; 4Q368 9 I, 1; 4QMMT^d [4Q397] 14-21 I, 8; 11QT^a [11Q19] XXXV, 12-13; XXXVII, 11-12; XLV, 4. ↩
• ^[52] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:664-666. ↩
• ^[53] See Dos Santos, 52. ↩
• ^[54] See Dos Santos, 114. ↩
• ^[55] See Anson F. Rainey, “Sacrifice and Offerings,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. Merrill Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 5:194-211, esp. 206, where, however, מִנְחָה is misspelled as “מנטה.” This otherwise excellent overview is marred by other similar Hebrew misspellings. ↩
• ^[56] See Levine, Jerusalem, 291. ↩
• ^[57] See Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple” (Safrai-Stern, 2:865-907, esp. 901); idem, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, 49-50 (in Hebrew). ↩
• ^[58] On the obligation of pilgrims to bring sacrifices, see Shmuel Safrai, “Early Testimonies in the New Testament of Laws and Practices Relating to Pilgrimage and Passover” (JS1, 41-51, esp. 42-44). ↩
• ^[59] See Plummer, Luke, 338. ↩
• ^[60] See Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. Norman Perrin; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), 207 n. 4. ↩
• ^[61] See Josef Blinzler, “Die Niedermetzelung von Galilären durch Pilatus,” Novum Testamentum 2.1 (1957): 24-49, esp. 32 n. 3. Cited by Bovon, 2:267 n. 30. ↩
• ^[62] The statement that the Galileans’ blood was mixed with that of their sacrifices does not imply that the Galileans were killed in the act of slaughtering their sacrificial beasts. The Roman soldiers could have killed the pilgrims along with their sacrificial animals outside the Temple and the description in Luke 13:1 would still apply. Or, as Wolter (2:176-177) argued, Luke 13:1 could mean that the Galilean pilgrims were killed in the same place as their sacrifices (i.e., in the Temple), though at different times. In either scenario a Passover date is unnecessary. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 75 n. 9; Levine, Jerusalem, 291. ↩
• ^[64] On interrogative -ה in MH, see Segal, 220 §461. ↩
• ^[65] See Segal, 219-220 §460. ↩
• ^[66] On the replacement of אֵלֶּה with אֵלּוּ in MH, see Segal, 41 §72. ↩
• ^[67] See Nolland, Luke, 2:718; Bovon, 2:269. ↩
• ^[68] See Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[69] See Wolter, 2:177. For claims that Luke’s comparative παρά is a Semitism, see Jeremias, Parables, 141 n. 49; Black, 252; Fitzmyer, 2:1007; Nolland, Luke, 2:718. ↩
• ^[70] Text and translation according to F. C. Conybeare, trans., Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (2 vols.; London: William Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1912), 1:268-271. ↩
• ^[71] Text and translation according to Conybeare, Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 1:394-395. ↩
• ^[72] See Moulton-Milligan, 479. ↩
• ^[73] The comparative phrase παρὰ πάντας occurs as the translation of מִכָּל in Gen. 37:3; Exod. 18:11; 33:16; Num. 12:3; Deut. 7:6, 7 (2xx), 14; 10:15; 2 Chr. 2:4; 11:23; Esth. 2:17; 3:8; 4:13; Ps. 30[31]:12; 134[135]:5; Eccl. 2:9; Jer. 17:9; Lam. 3:51; Ezek. 31:5; Dan. 11:2. Likewise, the Hebrew MS B of Ben Sira has והוא גדול מכל מעשיו (“and he is greater than all his works”) opposite the Septuagint’s αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ μέγας παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ (“for he is the great one, beyond all his works”; Sir. 43:28). ↩
• ^[74] There are two factors that make reverting the phrase ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν especially difficult: 1) ὅτι ταῦτα (“because these things”) could be reconstructed in any number of ways, but none of them with good parallels in MH sources, while 2) the verb πάσχειν (paschein, “to suffer”) has no clear Hebrew equivalent.

  1. Luke’s ὅτι (hoti, “because”) could be reconstructed with a simple -שֶׁ (she-, “because”; see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L31) or with -שֶׁ combined with a variety of conjunctions such as -מִפְּנֵי שֶׁ (mipnē she-), -לְפִי שֶׁ (l^efi she-), -עַל שֶׁ ( ‘al she-), etc., all meaning “because.” (For various ways of expressing “because” in MH, see Segal, 226-227 §481-482.) Alternatively, ὅτι could be reconstructed with כִּי (ki, “because”; see Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, Comment to L6). Luke’s ταῦτα (tavta, “these [things]”) could be reconstructed with אֵלּוּ (’ēlū, “these [things]”) or הַלָּלוּ (halālū, “these [things]), or with דְּבָרִים (d^evārim, “things”) accompanied by either of the two aforementioned demonstratives. (For our discussion on reconstructing ταῦτα with הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, see A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing, Comment to L1.) Other possibilities for reconstructing ταῦτα are כֵּן (kēn) or כָּכָה (kāchāh) or כָּךְ (kāch), all meaning “thus” or “so.” Despite the many options for reconstructing “because these things,” examples of these options in Hebrew sources are quite rare. The following is one of the few grammatical parallels we were able to locate:

     אין טומנין לא בגפת ולא בזבל ולא במלח ולא ב[ס]יד ולא בחול בין לחין בין יבישין לא בתבן ולא במוכין ולא בזוגין ולא בעשבין בזמן שהן לחין...לפי שהדברים הללו רותחין ומרתיחין

     They may not cover [food in order to keep it warm on the Sabbath—DNB and JNT] with peat or with manure or with salt or with lime or with sand whether they are wet or dry, neither with straw or rags or grapeskins or with herbs while they are moist...because these things [לְפִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ] boil and cause boiling. (y. Shab. 4:1 [28a])

  2. As for reconstructing Luke’s verb πάσχειν (paschein, “to suffer”), it has first to be noted that this verb rarely occurs in LXX books included in the Hebrew canon. Even when πάσχειν does occur in books translated from Hebrew, πάσχειν usually lacks a clear equivalent in the underlying Hebrew text. (See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1103.) One of the few places where πάσχειν does occur as the translation of a Hebrew verb is in Esth. 9:26, where it appears as πεπόνθασιν (peponthasin, “they had suffered”), the same perfect form found in Luke 13:2:

     וַיִּכְתֹּב מָרְדֳּכַי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶל כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַקְּרוֹבִים וְהָרְחוֹקִים׃ לְקַיֵּם עֲלֵיהֶם לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ בְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה...עַל כֵּן עַל כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הָאִגֶּרֶת הַזֹּאת וּמָה רָאוּ עַל כָּכָה וּמָה הִגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם׃ קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלֻ הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם

     And Mordecai wrote these things and sent scrolls to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahashverosh, both near and far, to take it upon themselves to observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day also each and every year. ...Therefore, because of all the words of this letter and [because of] what they experienced [וּמָה רָאוּ; LXX: καὶ ὅσα πεπόνθασιν (kai hosa peponthasin, “and what they had suffered”)] in this matter and [because of] how it affected them, the Jews took it upon themselves and accepted it.... (Esth. 9:20-21, 26-27)

     In Esth. 9:26 πεπόνθασιν occurs as the translation of רָאוּ (rā’ū, “they saw”), where רָאָה (rā’āh, “see”) seems to be used in an extended sense of “experience” or “endure,” a usage that also occurs in Jer. 5:12; 14:13; 20:18; 42:14; Ps. 89:49 and elsewhere. Thus one possible reconstruction of πάσχειν in Luke 13:2 is רָאָה. But such a reconstruction is highly tenuous, not only because it is supported by a single LXX example, but also because it is not clear that רָאָה continued to be used in the sense of “experience” in Mishnaic Hebrew. Jastrow (1435) cites examples such as רָאָה קְרִי (“he experienced a nocturnal emission”), רָאַת דָּם (“she experienced an issue of blood”) or רָאַת נִידָּה (“she experienced menstruation”), but it is not clear that רָאָה was used in the sense of “experience” for things other than genital discharges.

     Alternatively, πάσχειν might be reconstructed with the verb סָבַל (sāval), which has the primary sense of “carry” (the only sense attested in BH), and which came to be used in the sense of “endure.” However, examples of סָבַל used in this metaphorical sense are scarce or non-existent in tannaic sources. It is only in later rabbinic sources that strong examples of this usage begin to surface. Therefore, we must remain uncertain whether סָבַל could have been used in the sense of “endure” in the first century C.E.

  In light of the foregoing discussion, our best reconstruction options for ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν (“because they suffered these things”) appear to be לְפִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ רָאוּ (“because they saw [i.e., experienced] these things”) or לְפִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ סָבְלוּ (“because they endured these things”). But for reasons we have already discussed, neither option is entirely satisfying. Delitzsch’s rendering of ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν as כִּי מְצָאָם כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה (ki m^etzā’ām kadāvār hazeh, “because such a thing as this found them”) evidently reflects his bewilderment as to how to put this phrase into Hebrew. Resch (99) omitted the phrase ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν and a Hebrew equivalent from his Greek and Hebrew reconstructions of Calamities in Yerushalayim. ↩

• ^[75] The strongest parallels we have identified to Luke’s “because they suffered these things” are found in descriptions of Jewish martyrdom recorded in the Greek-composed books of 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees:

  σκληρὰς ὑποφέρω κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἀλγηδόνας μαστιγούμενος, κατὰ ψυχὴν δὲ ἡδέως διὰ τὸν αὐτοῦ φόβον ταῦτα πάσχω

  I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things, because I fear him [i.e., God—DNB and JNT]. (2 Macc. 6:30; NETS)

  ἡμεῖς γὰρ δι᾿ ἑαυτοὺς ταῦτα πάσχομεν ἁμαρτόντες εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν θεόν

  For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. (2 Macc. 7:18; NETS)

  ὥστε καὶ γυναῖκας, ὅτι περιέτεμον τὰ παιδία, μετὰ τῶν βρεφῶν κατακρημνισθῆναι προειδυίας ὅτι τοῦτο πείσονται

  ...so that even women, because they circumcised their sons, were thrown down headlong together with their infants, though they had known beforehand that they would suffer this.... (4 Macc. 4:25; NETS)

  ἡμεῖς μέν, ὦ μιαρώτατε τύραννε, διὰ παιδείαν καὶ ἀρετὴν θεοῦ ταῦτα πάσχομεν

  We, most abominable tyrant, are suffering these things because of training and divine virtue. (4 Macc. 10:10; NETS)

  Further parallels to Luke’s phrasing of “because they suffered these things” are found in the writings of Philo (e.g., Flacc. §76) and Josephus (e.g., Ant. 7:150, 209; 9:252). ↩

• ^[76] Scholars who affirm that Second Temple Jews typically regarded the victims of tragic events as guilty of sin include Strack and Billerbeck (Strack-Billerbeck, 2:193-197), Dalman (Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels [trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1935], 312), Marshall (553) (who restricted this view to the Pharisees), Fitzmyer (2:1007), Nolland (Luke, 2:718), J. Green (514), Flusser (Jesus, 102), Frankovic (“Measure for Measure”) and Wolter (2:177).
  
  Scholars who assume that the people who reported Pilate’s massacre of the Galileans regarded the victims as guilty include Edersheim (2:221), Plummer (Luke, 338), Manson (Luke, 163), Flusser (Jesus, 102), Frankovic (“Measure for Measure”), Bovon (2:268) and Lambrecht (Jan Lambrecht, “The Three Steps in Luke 13,1-9: A Response to M. Gourgues,” in his In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament [2014-2017] [Balti, Republic of Moldova: Scholars’ Press, 2017], 286-288). ↩
• ^[77] See Strack-Billerbeck, 2:193-197. ↩
• ^[78] It is surprising to find Fitzmyer (2:1007) and Nolland (Luke, 2:718) citing verses from Job as proof that first-century Jews did view calamities as proof of a person’s guilt. The other examples Fitzmyer and Nolland rely upon are equally inappropriate: promises that the wicked will finally be brought to judgment and stories about how villains in Scripture received their just deserts do not prove that every individual who suffered a personal tragedy was presumed to be guilty of some offense against God. The presumption of guilt expressed in the story of a man who was born blind (John 9:2-3) is hardly a solid basis from which to gauge Second-Temple Jewish opinion. ↩
• ^[79] Translation according to Claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (New York: Ktav, 1970), 352 n. 1. ↩
• ^[80] Cited by Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, 350-351. ↩
• ^[81] For a more balanced presentation of rabbinic views on the relationship between guilt and suffering, see Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 1:436-448. ↩
• ^[82] See Edwards (392), who nevertheless failed to draw the logical conclusions from this observation. Edersheim (2:222), too, observed that “it seems strange that...they [i.e., the persons who brought the report to Jesus—DNB and JNT] should have regarded it as the Divine punishment of a special sin to have been martyred by Pilate in the Temple, while engaged in offering sacrifices,” but he did not draw the logical conclusion from his own observation, viz., that the historical probability is that they would have been viewed as righteous martyrs. ↩
• ^[83] Bailey (2:74-80) comes close to understanding the historical dynamics at play in Calamities in Yerushalayim. ↩
• ^[84] Cited by Wolter (2:177). ↩
• ^[85] Text and translation according to W. A. Oldfather, Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1925-1928), 2:252-255. ↩
• ^[86] On Jesus’ words to the “daughters of Jerusalem,” see David N. Bivin, “Jesus and the Enigmatic ‘Green Tree.’” ↩
• ^[87] On the political aspect of Jesus’ call to repentance, see N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 246-258. On the political aspect of Jesus’ message generally, see LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua, under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Political Aspect.” ↩
• ^[88] On the Temple as a focal point of Jewish aspirations for political independence, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Introduction: On the Jewish Background of Christianity,” in his Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 1-26, esp. 9-10, where he explained, “The central problem of the Second Temple period was the contradiction between the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem, which seemed to be the palace of a sovereign in the capital of his state, and the fact of foreign sovereignty" (italics original). Ibid., “Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea,” 29-43. On the rising tide of a militant form of Jewish nationalism in the first century as witnessed in the works of Josephus and the New Testament, see Peter J. Tomson, “Romans 9-11 and Political Events in Rome and Judaea with Some Thoughts on Historical Criticism and Theological Exegesis,” Zeitschrift für Dialektische Theologie 33.1 (2017): 48-73; idem, “Sources on the Politics of Judaea in the 50s CE: A Response to Martin Goodman,” Journal of Jewish Studies 68.2 (2017): 234-259. ↩
• ^[89] On the “ways of peace” as a Jewish response to living under imperial domination, see Joshua N. Tilton, “A Mile on the Road of Peace,” on WholeStones.org. ↩
• ^[90] In LXX οὐχί ἀλλά occurs as the translation of לֹא כִּי in Gen. 18:15; 19:2; 42:12; Josh. 24:21; Judg. 15:13; 1 Kgdms. 8:19; 12:12; 2 Kgdms. 16:18; 3 Kgdms. 3:22, 23; 20:10. The few cases where οὐχί ἀλλά occurs as the translation of something other than לֹא כִּי are in Num. 13:30; 1 Kgdms. 10:19; 17:43. The phrase οὐχί ἀλλά also occurs in Tob. 10:9. Unfortunately, the Hebrew fragment of Tobit discovered among DSS (4QTob^e [4Q200]) that corresponds to Tob. 10:9 breaks off just before this phrase occurs. ↩
• ^[91] See Resch, 100. ↩
• ^[92] Luke 12:51 reads δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ διαμερισμόν (“Do you think that I came to give peace on the earth? No, I say to you, but rather division”). Matthew’s parallel (Matt. 10:34) reads differently, but Lindsey (LHNS, 128 §160) felt that Luke’s wording was, for the most part, closer to Anth.’s. ↩
• ^[93] On the ability of even a small, radicalized segment of the population to throw the whole of first-century Jewish society into turmoil, see Levine, Jerusalem, 295. ↩
• ^[94] Additional examples of לֹא כִי אֶלָּא occur in m. Yev. 8:4; m. Ket. 2:1; m. Bab. Kam. 3:11 (5xx); m. Shevu. 6:7 (4xx); m. Men. 4:3; m. Ohol. 3:5. ↩
• ^[95] In the LXX Pentateuch alone, ἐὰν μή + subjunctive occurs as the translation of אִם לֹא + imperfect in Gen. 24:8; 34:17; 42:37; 44:23, 32; Exod. 4:8, 9; 13:13; 22:7; 34:20; Lev. 5:1, 7, 11; 12:8; 17:16; 25:30, 54; 26:14; 27:20, 27; Num. 19:12; 32:23, 30; 33:55; Deut. 11:28; 20:12; 24:1; 25:7; 28:15, 58. ↩
• ^[96] This appears to have been Lindsey’s opinion. See LHNC, 695; LHNS, 129 §162. ↩
• ^[97] As we discussed in Yohanan the Immerser’s Exhortations, Comment to L6, ὁμοίως can be reconstructed as כָּכָה (kāchāh, “thus,” “in this manner”) or כֵּן (kēn, “thus,” “so”). ↩
• ^[98] The table below presents all of the instances of ὁμοίως in the Synoptic Gospels with parallels (if any):

  Matt. 22:26 TT (cf. Mark 12:21; Luke 20:30) Matt. 26:35 TT (cf. Mark 14:31; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 27:41 TT = Mark 15:31 (cf. Luke 23:35) Mark 4:16 (Vaticanus) TT (cf. Matt. 13:20; Luke 8:13) Mark 15:31 TT = Matt. 27:41 (cf. Luke 23:35) Luke 3:11 U Luke 5:10 TT (cf. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19) Luke 5:33 TT (cf. Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18) Luke 6:31 DT (cf. Matt. 7:12) Luke 10:32 U Luke 10:37 U Luke 13:3 U Luke 16:25 U Luke 17:28 DT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]) Luke 17:31 TT (cf. Matt. 24:18; Mark 13:16) Luke 22:36 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = pericope unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[99] Thus far, we have found the instances of ὁμοίως in Luke 17:28 and Luke 17:31 to be redactional. On ὁμοίως in Luke 17:28, see Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L22. On ὁμοίως in Luke 17:31, see Lesson of Lot’s Wife, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[100] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1495-1496. ↩
• ^[101] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:136-138. ↩
• ^[102] See Dos Santos, 1. ↩
• ^[103] The second person plural future middle form ἀπολεῖσθε occurs in Lev. 26:38 (= וַאֲבַדְתֶּם); Deut. 4:26 (תֹּאבֵדוּן); 8:19 (תֹּאבֵדוּן), 20 (תֹאבֵדוּן); 11:17 (וַאֲבַדְתֶּם); 30:18 (תֹּאבֵדוּן); Esth. 4:14 (תֹּאבֵדוּ); Ps. 2:12 (וְתֹאבְדוּ); 9:37 (אָבְדוּ [Ps. 10:16]); Jer. 34:15 (וַאֲבַדְתֶּם [Jer. 27:15]). ↩
• ^[104] See the entry for ἤ in the Greek→Hebrew portion of the LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions. ↩
• ^[105] On reconstructing ἤ with אוֹ, see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L47. ↩
• ^[106] On the MH use of the direct object marker אֶת (’et) as a demonstrative pronoun, see Segal, 202 §416. ↩
• ^[107] There are only two instances in LXX where ἐκεῖνος occurs as the translation of אֶת + third-person pronominal suffix. These are found in Gen. 41:13 and Num. 22:33. ↩
• ^[108] On the demonstrative use of אֶת + third-person pronominal suffix, see Segal, 202 §417; Kutscher, 124 §203; Chanan Ariel, “The shift from the Biblical Hebrew Far Demonstrative ההוא to the Mishnaic Hebrew אותו,” in New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew (ed. Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan; University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers, 2021), 167-195. ↩
• ^[109] In LXX ἐπί + ὅς occurs as the translation of אֲשֶׁר + עַל in Gen. 28:13; 38:30; Exod. 8:17, 18; Lev. 11:32; 15:4 (2xx), 6, 9, 17, 20 (2xx), 24, 26 (2xx); 16:9, 10; Num. 22:30; Josh. 5:15; 8:31; Judg. 16:26, 29; 1 Kgdms. 9:6; 3 Kgdms. 7:34; 4 Kgdms. 7:2, 17; 2 Chr. 1:11; 7:14; Esth. 6:8; Amos 4:7; 9:12; Isa. 30:32; Ezek. 9:6; 23:9; 37:20; Dan. 9:18. On reconstructing ἐπί (epi, “upon”) with עַל (‘al, “upon”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[110] In the Tosefta we read:

  אם היה שרץ בידו של אחד אפי′ טובל בשילוח ובכל מימי בראשית אינו טהור לעולם השליך שרץ מידו עלתה לו טבילה בארבעים סאה

  If there was in someone’s hand a creeping thing [that imparts impurity—DNB and JNT], then even if he immerses in Siloam and in all the waters of creation, he will never be pure. But if he throws away the creeping thing, immersion in forty seahs [of collected water in a mikveh] suffices for him. (t. Taan. 1:8; Vienna MS)

  Another rabbinic tradition attributes miraculous powers to the waters of Siloam:

  כשהיו מרבים לאכול בשר הקדשים היו שותים את מי השילוח ומתעכל במיעיהן כדרך שהמזון מתעכל

  Whenever they [i.e., the priests in the Temple—DNB and JNT] ate too much meat of the holy offerings they would drink water of Siloam and it would be digested in their internal organs the way food is generally digested. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, chpt. 35 [ed. Schechter, 105])

  Miraculous happenings are also associated with the waters of Siloam in the Lives of the Prophets (Isaiah §2, 4), which is of disputed date and origin. Satran has argued that the Lives of the Prophets should be regarded as a Christian composition of the Byzantine period. See David Satran, “Biblical Prophets and Christian Legend: The Lives of the Prophets Reconsidered,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday (ed. Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 143-149; idem, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 1995).

  According to another rabbinic tradition, the waters of Siloam dried up during a period of war:

  כל מימי בראשית כזבו בשעת פולמוס שילוח היתה נמלה מהלכת בו

  All the waters of creation disappointed in time of war. Siloam: an ant was walking in it. (t. Par. 9:2 [ed. Zuckermandel, 637])

  The “time of war” referred to in the above tradition is probably the war against Rome, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., since Josephus mentions the failure of Siloam’s waters during the Roman siege of Jerusalem (J.W. 5:409-410). On this agreement between Josephus and rabbinic tradition, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division B Volume 1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 7-14, esp. 13-14. Since the tradition reported in t. Par. 9:2 appears in the context of a discussion about springs, this tradition, too, likely reflects knowledge that the pool of Siloam was spring-fed. ↩

• ^[111] Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, “The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem of the Late Second Temple Period and Its Surroundings,” in Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (ed. Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 241-255, esp. 248. ↩
• ^[112] On the discovery of the Siloam pool, see Ronny Reich, “The Recently Discovered Pool of Siloam”; Reich and Shukron, “The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem of the Late Second Temple Period and Its Surroundings,” 241-255. ↩
• ^[113] See Marshall, 554; Fitzmyer, 2:1008; Bovon, 2:269. ↩
• ^[114] See Raymond Weill, La cité de David : compte rendu des fouilles exécutées, à Jérusalem, sur le site de la ville primitive, campagne de 1913-1914 (Paris: Geuthner, 1920), 116-118.
  
  Dalman (Sacred Sites and Ways, 312) disputed Weill’s identification on the grounds that a structure known as “The Tower of Siloam” must have been a defensive tower adjacent to the pool of Siloam. However, we have already discussed the problems with supposing that the tower Jesus referred to in Luke 13:4 was part of Jerusalem’s fortifications. In addition, Dalman was incorrect that the structure was known as “The Tower of Siloam.” The impression given by Luke 13:4 is that the tower was an otherwise unremarkable structure, which is why it had to be specified as the tower in Siloam that fell and killed eighteen people.
  
  Finegan cited the round tower Weill discovered as a plausible candidate for the tower in Siloam mentioned in Luke 13:4. See Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church (rev. ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 191. ↩
• ^[115] See Donald T. Ariel and Yeshayahu Lender, “Area B: Stratigraphic Report,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume V Extramural Areas, in Qedem 40 (2000): 1-32, esp. 20. Boaz Zissu, “This Place Is for the Birds,” Biblical Archaeology Review 35.3 (2009): 30-37, 66-67. ↩
• ^[116] On columbaria in the land of Israel during the Second Temple period, see Boaz Zissu, “Two Herodian dovecotes: Horvat Abu Haf and Horvat ‘Aleq,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (ed. J. H. Humphrey; Ann Arbor, Mich.: Cushing Malloy, 1995), 56-69. ↩
• ^[117] See Edersheim, 2:222; Plummer, Luke, 339; Creed, 180; Manson, Sayings, 274; Marshall, 554; Lachs, 297; Bovon, 2:269 n. 44. See also Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Faser McLuskey with James M. Robinson; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), 87. ↩
• ^[118] On the water-drawing ceremony at the Siloam pool, see m. Suk. 4:9-10; Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple” (Safrai-Stern, 2:865-907, esp. 895). Schwartz notes that the water-drawing ceremony is not mentioned in sources from the Second Temple period. See Joshua Schwartz, “Sacrifice without the Rabbis: Ritual and Sacrifice in the Second Temple Period according to Contemporary Sources,” in The Actuality of Sacrifice: Past and Present (ed. A. Houtman, M. Poorthius, J. Schwartz, and Y. Turner; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 123-149, esp. 143. But the silence regarding the water-drawing ceremony outside rabbinic literature may simply be an example of the incomplete picture of Temple rites that can be reconstructed from Second Temple sources. ↩
• ^[119] Reconstructing ἀποκτείνειν with הֵמִית is perfectly reasonable, as ἀποκτείνειν occurs in LXX as the translation of הֵמִית in Gen. 37:18; 38:7; 42:37; Exod. 1:16; 4:24; 16:3; 17:3; Lev. 20:4; Num. 16:13; 17:6; 35:19 (2xx), 21; Deut. 9:28; 13:10; 32:39; Josh. 11:17; 1 Kgdms. 15:3; 1 Chr. 2:3; 10:14; 19:18; 2 Chr. 22:9, 11; 25:4; Ps. 104[105]:29; Prov. 21:25; Hos. 2:5; 9:16; Jer. 33[26]:21; 45[38]:16; Ezek. 13:19. ↩
• ^[120] On reconstructing ἀποκτείνειν with הָרַג, see Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, Comment to L25. ↩
• ^[121] See H. F. Fuhs, “הָרַג hāragh; הֶרֶג heregh; הֲרֵגָה h^arēghāh,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (15 vols.; ed. G. Johannes Botterweck et al.; trans. John T. Willis et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006), 3:447-457, esp. 450. ↩
• ^[122] See Hammer, 205 §183. ↩
• ^[123] See Bovon, 2:269. ↩
• ^[124] See also David N. Bivin, “Hebraisms in the New Testament.” ↩
• ^[125] Cf. Marshall, 554. ↩
• ^[126] The phrase οἱ κατοικοῦντες Ιερουσαλημ occurs as the translation of ישְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם in 2 Chr. 20:15, 18; 32:26; 34:30, 32; Zeph. 1:4; Zech. 12:5; Jer. 4:4; 8:1; 11:2, 9, 12; 13:13; 17:25; 18:11; 19:3; 25:2; 39[32]:32; 42[35]:13, 17; 43[36]:31; 49[42]:18; Ezek. 11:15; 12:19; 15:6. The plural τῶν κατοικούντων Ιερουσαλημ (tōn katoikountōn Ierousalēm, “of the inhabitants of Jerusalem”) occurs as the translation of the singular ישֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם (yoshēv y^erūshālaim, “inhabitant of Jerusalem”) in Zech. 12:7, 8. In Zech. 12:10 the plural καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ (kai epi tous katoikountas Ierousalēm, “and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem”) occurs as the translation of the singular וְעַל יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם (v^e‘al yōshēv y^erūshālaim, “and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem”). ↩
• ^[127] On the supposed Septuagintizing efforts of the author of Luke, see H. F. D. Sparks, “The Semitisms in St. Luke’s Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1943): 129-138; Fitzmyer, 1:114-125. ↩
• ^[128] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:751-755. ↩
• ^[129] See Dos Santos, 87. ↩
• ^[130] Moreover, the final instance of ὡσαύτως in Luke occurs in a verse (Luke 22:20) that may be a scribal addition to the original text. On doubts regarding the authenticity of Luke 22:19b-20, see David Flusser, “The Last Supper and the Essenes” (Flusser, JOC, 202-206); R. Steven Notley, “The Eschatological Thinking of the Dead Sea Sect and the Order of Blessings in the Christian Eucharist” (JS1, 121-138, esp. 123-126). ↩
• ^[131] Cf. Lindsey’s comments in LHNS, 129 §162; LHNC, 1031. ↩
• ^[132]

  Calamities in Yerushalayim
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  παρῆσαν δέ τινες ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ ἀπαγγέλλοντες αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν Γαλειλαίων ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πειλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλειλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλειλαίους ἐγένοντο ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν οὐχί λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὁμοίως ἀπολεῖσθε ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήμ οὐχί λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε		ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν Γαλειλαίων ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πειλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλειλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλειλαίους οὐχί λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήμ οὐχί λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε
  Total Words:	86	Total Words:	80
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	77	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	77
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	89.53%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	96.25%

  ↩

• ^[133] Eisler, relying on the Slavonic version of Josephus’ Jewish War, maintained that Josephus did report the massacre of the Galileans. According to Eisler, the story recorded in Luke 13:1-5 was displaced from its proper chronological sequence (504-505). Originally, in Eisler’s view, the report about the massacred Galileans came to Jesus following the Temple-cleansing episode. Eisler believed that certain militant Jewish nationalists took the opportunity of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem to stage an insurrection: “...the Galileans...broke into the city from the Mount of Olives, [and] occupied the temple while the Barjonîm of Jerusalem, who had made common cause with them, surprised the guards and seized the tower of Siloam, so that Pilate in his counter-attack had to reconquer both places” (507-508). Jesus, who “must have watched with dismay the excesses to which the unchained passions of his own followers carried them” (506), “asks the messengers whether they believe that their killed comrades were worse sinners than all the other Galilaeans who had taken part in the revolt, and at once answers his own question in the negative” (505), “‘except ye repent (or desist) ye shall all in like manner perish’” (506). See Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. Alexander Haggerty Krappe; London: Methuen, 1931). The problems with Eisler’s reconstruction are manifold, beginning with his assumption that the Slavonic version of Josephus’ Jewish War is a reliable source for the history of the first century C.E. On Slavonic Josephus, see Steven Bowman, “Josephus in Byzantium,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 362-385, esp. 372-374; Kate Leeming, “The Slavonic Version of Josephus’s Jewish War,” in A Companion to Josephus (ed. Honoria Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers; Chichester: John Wiley, 2016), 390-401. ↩
• ^[134] Cf., e.g., Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 75 n. 9; Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 175. ↩
• ^[135] Johnson (“A Note on Luke 13:1-5,” 91) believed the real perpetrator was Archelaus. Bultmann (54-55) thought the real victims were the Samaritans whom Pilate massacred on Mount Gerizim. Cf. Bundy, 365 §260. ↩
• ^[136] See Manson, Sayings, 273; Bailey, 2:75. ↩
• ^[137] Stern, for example, accepted the report of Pilate’s massacre of the Galileans in Luke 13:1 as historical despite its lack of corroboration in the works of Josephus. See Menahem Stern, “The Political and Social History of Judea Under Roman Rule,” in A History of the Jewish People (ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson; trans. George Weidenfeld; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 239-276, esp. 252. ↩
• ^[138] Such caution especially applies to the Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch by Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck and to the volumes of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) edited by Gerhard Kittel, which, despite their anti-Semitic biases, remain standard reference works among New Testament scholars. ↩
• ^[139] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[140] 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. ↩