Unexpected Thief

Matt. 24:43-44; Luke 12:39-40

(Huck 158, 225; Aland 203, 296; Crook 239, 338)^[1]

וּדְעוּ זוֹ שֶׁאִילּוּ יָדַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה הַגַּנָּב בָּא לֹא הָיָה מַנִיחַ אוֹתוֹ לַחְתֹּר בֵּיתוֹ וְאַתֶּם הֱיוּ מְעוּתָּדִים שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתֶּם לֹא סְבוּרִים בַּר אֱנָשׁ בָּא

“But know this: if the householder had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed him to break into his house. Also you, be prepared, because Bar Enash comes in an hour you do not expect.”^[2]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Unexpected Thief click on the link below:

Story Placement

In Luke’s Gospel Unexpected Thief (Luke 12:39-40) is sandwiched between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Luke 12:35-38, 41-46). Both of these pericopae are associated in Luke with other sayings having to do with the disciples’ future mission and their accountability to the Son of Man. The sandwiching of Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave was not due to the author of Luke’s editorial activity, however, for although Matthew’s Gospel places Unexpected Thief in an entirely different context than Luke as part of the Matthean eschatological discourse, Matthew’s version of Unexpected Thief is followed by Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two).^[3] And although Matthew’s Gospel omits Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), there are indications that the author of Matthew adapted his version of Unexpected Thief to partially compensate for this omission. Thus both Luke and Matthew attest to the sandwiching of Unexpected Thief between the two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave at a pre-synoptic stage of the transmission.^[4]

It is fairly clear that Matthew’s inclusion of Unexpected Thief in the eschatological discourse is secondary.^[5] It was the author of Matthew’s practice to supplement teaching discourses with additional sayings gleaned from other sources and/or locations. Matthew’s version of the eschatological discourse was based on Mark’s, but he frequently inserted additional sayings into the eschatological discourse from the Anthology (Anth.). With regard to Unexpected Thief, we found that it was the author of Matthew’s realization that Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man was based on Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave that prompted him to insert these two pericopae into his version of the eschatological discourse.

As we noted above, Luke’s Gospel associates Unexpected Thief with other sayings having to do with the disciples’ future mission and their accountability to the Son of Man. The future orientation of these sayings suggest that they originally belonged to Jesus’ post-resurrection instruction of his disciples. The manner in which Jesus refers to his role as the Son of Man also supports our conclusion that Unexpected Thief was a post-resurrection saying. Prior to his arrest Jesus characterized his role as the Son of Man as a prophetic sign of doom upon Israel. But upon his arrest Jesus signaled a shift in his role as the Son of Man: “But from now the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). Sitting at God’s right hand alludes to Jesus’ elevation to a messianic status (cf. Ps. 110:1). As the divinely-anointed king, Jesus’ task would be to judge Israel, both in the sense of condemning the guilty and in the sense of vindicating the innocent. Sayings that anticipate the Son of Man’s coming in judgment, therefore, properly belong to the post-resurrection period when Jesus had been elevated to this messianic role. We have, therefore, included Unexpected Thief in the post-resurrection section of the LOY Map.

.

.

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

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

There are several reasons for attributing both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of Unexpected Thief to the Anthology (Anth.). First, Unexpected Thief qualifies as a Type 1 Double Tradition (DT) pericope with extremely high levels of verbal identity. Nearly 80% of Matthew’s wording in Unexpected Thief is identical to Luke’s, while over 90% of Luke’s wording of Unexpected Thief is identical to Matthew’s.^[6] According to Lindsey’s hypothesis, such high verbal identity was usually achieved when both Matthew and Luke relied on the same source, namely Anth.

Second, Unexpected Thief is clustered in Luke with other pericopae we have identified as stemming from Anth. Since the author of Luke tended to copy material from his sources in blocks rather than switch between sources from one pericope to the next, it is likely that Unexpected Thief, like the pericopae that surround it, stems from Anth.

Third, we have identified Be Ready for the Son of Man in Luke’s version of the eschatological discourse as the First Reconstructor’s paraphrased summary of Faithful or Faithless Slave and Unexpected Thief. Since Anth. was the source the First Reconstructor adapted, we are led to the conclusion, once again, that Anth. was the source behind Luke’s version of Unexpected Thief.

Matthew’s version of Unexpected Thief can safely be attributed to Anth., since according to Lindsey’s hypothesis all of Matthew’s DT pericopae were derived from Anth.

Although there is virtual unanimity that Unexpected Thief was accompanied by an application (Matt. 24:44 ∥ Luke 12:40) at a pre-synoptic stage of transmission,^[7] scholars do debate whether the application is original.^[8] In favor of the application’s originality is the necessity of an interpretive key, since without the application Unexpected Thief is meaningless. Against the application’s originality two objections can be raised:

1. The fact that Unexpected Thief requires an interpretive key is no guarantee that the application we have is the original.
2. The application seems to be at odds with the illustration.^[9]

With regard to the tension between the illustration and the application, some scholars point out that whereas a burglary is an unwanted event that people try to prevent, the disciples yearn for the Son of Man’s coming and have no wish to prevent it.^[10] Others argue that whereas in the illustration the unknown time of the break-in made preparation impossible, in the application the unknowableness of the timing of the Son of Man’s coming is the reason for demanding preparedness.^[11]

In our view, these objections press the illustration too far. The point of comparison between the Son of Man’s coming and a burglary is not their unwantedness or preventability but the uncertainty of their timing.^[12] If the householder had known the timing of the burglary, he would not have allowed his home to be burgled. And if the disciples knew the time of the Son of Man’s coming, they would not be caught unawares. However, neither the householder nor the disciples know the timing. But whereas the householder had no advance warning that a thief planned to break into his house and therefore took no precautions, the disciples did have advance warning and so could make themselves ready.

But even if the application does fit the illustration reasonably well, that is not proof that the application is original. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the application is original. First, the comparison of the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2, 4; 2 Pet. 3:10) or Jesus’ coming (Rev. 3:3; 16:15) to a thief is attested in multiple early Christian sources.^[13] This unflattering comparison is unlikely to have been invented by early Christians, who were already embarrassed by Jesus’ criminal associations on account of the crucifixion. More likely, the comparison derives from an authentic saying of Jesus, doubtless to be identified as Unexpected Thief.^[14] Second, the application in Matt. 24:44 ∥ Luke 12:40 reverts easily to Hebrew, which makes the application’s authenticity all that much more credible.

Crucial Issues

1. Why did Jesus use the imagery of a thief breaking into a house?

Comment

L1 τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε (GR). The Lukan and Matthean wording in L1 is very similar, but the differences are important. Whereas Luke opens with an imperative, “But know this!”^[15] implying that Jesus was informing his audience of something new of which they had no prior knowledge, Matthew opens with a concession, “But that [thing] you know,”^[16] implying that Jesus was simply reminding his audience of something they knew already. Matthew’s wording is easily explained by the need to assimilate Unexpected Thief to its new context within the eschatological discourse. In the preceding pericopae the author of Matthew had emphasized what is unknown and unknowable. In Day and Hour Unknown (Matt. 24:36) we are informed that no one but the Father knows the timing of the Son of Man’s coming. In Days of the Son of Man the author of Matthew inserted the statement that in Noah’s day the people were oblivious to their danger until the flood came (Matt. 24:39).^[17] And in his truncated version of Be Ready for the Son of Man the author of Matthew included the warning to stay awake, “because you do not know on what day your lord comes” (Matt. 24:42). Likewise, Unexpected Thief concludes with a statement about the unknown: “the Son of Man comes in an hour you do not think” (Matt. 24:44). By changing “Know this!” to “But that thing you know” the author of Matthew subsumed the disciples’ knowledge of how the householder would have acted beneath their ignorance of the eschatological timeline and thereby maintained unknowableness as the dominant theme of this section of his eschatological discourse.^[18]

There are two additional reasons why the author of Matthew may have wanted to change Anth.’s τοῦτο (touto, “this [thing]”) to ἐκεῖνο (ekeino, “that [thing]”). First, the author of Matthew’s insertion of διὰ τοῦτο (dia touto, “on account of this”) in L7 would have sounded obnoxious following τοῦτο in L1, whereas ἐκεῖνο would both sound better and subsume the audiences’ knowledge of how a householder would act beneath the dominant theme of unknowableness. Second, it is possible that in replacing Anth.’s τοῦτο with ἐκεῖνο in L1 the author of Matthew was influenced by Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), which in Luke comes immediately before Unexpected Thief and which closes with the word ἐκεῖνοι (ekeinoi, “those”).

Thus, for all these reasons, and because Luke’s wording reverts more easily to Hebrew,^[19] we regard Matthew’s ἐκεῖνο as redactional^[20] and Luke’s τοῦτο as stemming from their shared pre-synoptic source,^[21] namely Anth.

וּדְעוּ זוֹ (HR). Good examples of the command “Know this!” in ancient Hebrew sources are not easily found. There are, however, a few analogous cases that may serve as a guide:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל יֵדַע זֹאת יְהוֹנָתָן פֶּן יֵעָצֵב

And he said, “Let not Jonathan know this [אַל יֵדַע זֹאת], lest he be saddened.” (1 Sam. 20:3)

καὶ εἶπεν Μὴ γνώτω τοῦτο Ιωναθαν, μὴ οὐ βούληται

And he said, “Let not Jonathan know this [γνώτω τοῦτο]; he might not be willing.” (1 Kgdms. 20:3)

וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל אֵלִיָּהוּ עַתָּה זֶה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים אָתָּה

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now this I know [זֶה יָדַעְתִּי], that you are a man of God!” (1 Kgs. 17:24)

καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνὴ πρὸς Ηλιου Ἰδοὺ ἔγνωκα ὅτι ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ εἶ σὺ

And the woman said to Elijah, “Behold! I know [ἔγνωκα] that you are a man of God!” (3 Kgdms. 17:24)

זֶה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אֱלֹהִים לִי

This I know [זֶה יָדַעְתִּי], that you are my God! (Ps. 56:10)

ἰδοὺ ἔγνων ὅτι θεός μου εἶ σύ

Behold! I know [ἔγνων] that you are my God. (Ps. 55:10)

הֲזֹאת יָדַעְתָּ מִנִּי עַד מִנִּי שִׂים אָדָם עֲלֵי אָרֶץ

Have you not known this [הֲזֹאת יָדַעְתָּ] from of old, from when Adam was set upon the earth? (Job 20:4)

μὴ ταῦτα ἔγνως ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔτι ἀφ̓ οὗ ἐτέθη ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

Did you not know these things [μὴ ταῦτα ἔγνως] from before, from when a person was set upon the earth? (Job 20:4)

From these examples we learn that the word order for “know this” is somewhat fluid and the demonstrative pronoun (“this”) can occur either in the masculine or the feminine form. For HR we have adopted the feminine form of the pronoun, which in Mishnaic Hebrew was זוֹ (zō, “this”). We have preferred the order וּדְעוּ זוֹ (ūd^e‘ū zō, “And know this!”), which seems more euphonic than וְזוֹ דְּעוּ (v^ezō d^e‘ū, “And this know!”)

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

L2 ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης (GR). Since there is complete verbal agreement between Luke and Matthew in L2, there is little doubt that at this point they both accurately reflect the wording of Anth.

שֶׁאִילּוּ יָדַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת (HR). On reconstructing ὅτι (hoti, “that,” “because”) with -שֶׁ, (she-, “that,” “because”) see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L31.

On reconstructing εἰ (ei, “if”) with אִילּוּ (’ilū, “if”), see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L7.

On reconstructing εἰδεῖν (eidein, “to know”) with יָדַע (yāda‘, “know”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L20.

An example of the phrase אִילּוּ יָדַע (’ilū yāda‘, “if he knew”) occurs in the following passage:

גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב אץ ברגלים חוטא אמ′ רב ביבא בר אבינא לאורח שהיה רגיל לבוא עם הנץ החמה ושכח ושימש מטתו קודם הנץ החמה, בלא ידע בלא טוב ואילו ידע ושימש על אחת כמה וכמה. ולא עוד אלא אץ ברגלים חוטא

Also a soul [or: desire] without knowledge is not good, the one who makes haste with [his] feet sins [Prov. 19:2]. Rav Biba bar Avina [compared it] to a menstruation that came regularly at sunrise, but he [i.e., the husband—DNB and JNT] forgot and had sexual relations with his wife before sunrise. If done without knowledge, it is not good. And how much more if he knew [אִילּוּ יָדַע] and had sexual relations [anyway]? And not only that, but the one who makes haste with regular [things] sins applies to him.^[22] (Lev. Rab. 4:3 [ed. Margulies, 1:84])

On reconstructing οἰκοδεσπότης (oikodespotēs, “house master,” “householder”) with בַּעַל בַּיִת (ba‘al bayit, “master of a house,” “householder,” “landlord,” “host”), see Closed Door, Comment to L2.

L3 ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται (GR). On the whole, there is Lukan-Matthean verbal agreement in L3. The only difference is that whereas Luke refers to the “hour,” Matthew refers to the “watch” of the night.^[23] While some scholars regard Matthew’s φυλακή (fūlakē, “watch”) as original,^[24] we think it is more likely that Luke’s ὥρα (hōra, “interval of time,” “hour”) reflects the wording of Anth.^[25] Luke’s repetitive ὥρα (L3, L9) sets up an appropriate “apples to apples” comparison between the householder’s ignorance of the time of the thief’s coming and the audience’s ignorance of the time of the Son of Man’s coming. Matthew’s φυλακή, on the other hand, is best explained as a literary improvement, by supplying a specific term (“nightly watch”) in place of a generic term (“hour”). Referring to a “nightly watch” also allowed the author of Matthew to insert the reference to the householder’s staying awake (L4),^[26] which helped him tie in Unexpected Thief to its new Matthean context following Be Ready for the Son of Man, which calls for staying awake (Matt. 24:42). In addition, by replacing Anth.’s “hour” with “watch,” the author of Matthew was able to create a narrowing progression from a twenty-four-hour period (“day”) in Matt. 24:42 to a three-hour period (“watch”) in Matt. 24:43 to a short time interval (“hour”) in Matt. 24:44. The author of Luke, on the other hand, had no strong reason for avoiding φυλακή in Unexpected Thief had it occurred in his source. He had already used φυλακή in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (Luke 12:38), so using φυλακή in his version of Unexpected Thief would have provided a verbal link to tie these two pericopae together.^[27] Probably it was the presence of φυλακή in Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) that suggested to the author of Matthew the use of this term in his version of Unexpected Thief.^[28]

בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה הַגַּנָּב בָּא (HR). In LXX ποῖος (poios, “what kind of?”) usually occurs as the translation of אֵי זֶה (’ē zeh, “which?”).^[29] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of אֵי זֶה as ποῖος.^[30]

In LXX ὥρα (hōra, “interval of time,” “hour”) usually occurs as the translation of עֵת (‘ēt, “time”).^[31] But this datum must be weighed against the fact that the term שָׁעָה (shā‘āh, “moment,” “hour”) is not attested in Biblical Hebrew. In Aramaic portions of Daniel ὥρα sometimes occurs as the translation of שָׁעָה (shā‘āh, “immediately”),^[32] which may suggest that the LXX translators were influenced by the Mishnaic Hebrew meaning of שָׁעָה. If so, then LXX does provide some evidence to support our reconstruction.

The phrase בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה (“in which hour”) is attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, as we see in the following examples:

הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת בְּאֵי זֶה שָׁבוּעַ בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁנָה בְּאי זֶה חוֹדֶשׁ כַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ בְּ^אֵי זֶה יוֹם בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה וּבְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם

They would examine them [i.e., witnesses—DNB and JNT] with seven inquiries: In which sabbatical year cycle? In which year? In which month? On what date of the month? On what day [of the week—DNB and JNT]? In which hour [בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה]? And in which place? (m. Sanh. 5:1)

וְכִי בְּאֵיזּוֹ שָׁעָה הַמְּמוּנֶּה בָא לֹא כָל הַעִיתִּים שָׁווֹת פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא בָא מִקְּרֹאוֹת הַגֶּבֶר אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו אוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו

And in which hour [בְּאֵיזּוֹ שָׁעָה] did the superintendent come [to the Temple—DNB and JNT]? Not always at the same time. Sometimes he came at cockcrow or close to it, [sometimes] before it, or [sometimes] after it. (m. Tam. 1:2)

In LXX the noun κλέπτης (kleptēs, “thief”) almost always occurs as the translation of גַּנָּב (ganāv, “thief”).^[33] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of גַּנָּב as κλέπτης.^[34]

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

L4 ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν (Matt. 24:43). Although ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν (egrēgorēsen an, “he stayed awake”) is present in Luke 12:39 in the text of Codex Vaticanus, which serves as the base text for our reconstruction documents, text critics agree that this reading is due to assimilation with the version in Matthew and that these words did not belong to the original text of Luke.^[35] The author of Luke would have had no motive to delete ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν, but every reason to preserve these words had they been present in his source, since they would have continued the theme of staying awake, which occurs in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (Luke 12:37).^[36] It therefore appears that it was the author of Matthew who added to his version of Unexpected Thief the reference to the householder’s staying awake.^[37] Doing so allowed him to tie Unexpected Thief into his version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, which urges readers to stay awake “because you do not know the day in which your lord comes” (Matt. 24:42).^[38] The wakefulness of the slaves in Anth.’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) also encouraged the author of Matthew to insert the reference to the householder’s wakefulness at this point in Unexpected Thief.^[39] As we noted above in Comment to L3, the author of Matthew had paved the way for referring to the householder’s wakefulness by suggesting that the thief would come at night.

Having concluded that Matthew’s wording in L4 is redactional, we have excluded ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν from GR and a Hebrew equivalent from HR.

L5 οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι (GR). The inclusion of καί (kai, “and”) in Luke 12:39 in the text of Codex Vaticanus is due to assimilation with the Matthean version of Unexpected Thief and does not belong to the original text of Luke (see above, Comment to L4).

Apart from the redactional καί, which the author of Matthew added on account of his insertion in L4, the authors of Matthew and Luke agree on sense and word order, but differ with regard to the verb used for “allowed” or “permitted.” Some scholars attribute the verbal disagreement to translation variants,^[40] but neither the author of Matthew nor the author of Luke were translators of a common Hebrew (or Aramaic) source. Rather, the extremely high levels of verbal identity in Unexpected Thief indicate that both authors worked from a shared Greek text.^[41] Verbal disagreements must, therefore, be due to the redactional activity of one or both of the authors.

Many scholars suppose that Matthew’s verb, ἐᾶν (ean, “to allow,” “to permit”), preserves the wording of the pre-synoptic source, whereas Luke’s ἀφιέναι (afienai, “to leave,” “to release,” “to permit”) is redactional, but often with reservations because ἀφιέναι is not an especially Lukan word.^[42] Nevertheless, they conclude that Matthew’s ἐᾶν must be original on the grounds that ἐᾶν occurs nowhere else in Matthew’s Gospel, while ἀφιέναι occurs frequently in Matthew, and so the author of Matthew would have had no reason to avoid it.^[43] We do not find this reasoning convincing. The numerous Lukan-Matthean agreements to use the verb ἀφιέναι prove that this verb frequently occurred in their common non-Markan source (i.e., Anth.),^[44] so it is a priori likely that ἀφιέναι would be used in Unexpected Thief. Moreover, the verb ἀφιέναι occurs only 3xx in Acts (Acts 5:38; 8:22; 14:17), and never in the second half of Acts, where the author of Luke’s personal writing style is most prominent,^[45] so it is impossible to regard ἀφιέναι as a characteristically Lukan redactional term. The verb ἐᾶν, on the other hand, occurs 9xx in the writings of Luke, with the majority (6xx) occurring in the second half of Acts (Luke 4:41; 22:51; Acts 14:16; 16:7; 19:30; 23:32; 27:32, 40; 28:4), indicating that ἐᾶν does belong to the author of Luke’s favored vocabulary and that the author of Luke would have had no reason for avoiding it had it occurred in his source for Unexpected Thief.^[46] Moreover, changing ἐᾶν to ἀφιέναι in Unexpected Thief can hardly be characterized as a literary improvement,^[47] since ἀφιέναι, with its wide semantic range, is frequently ambiguous in meaning,^[48] whereas the semantic range of ἐᾶν is narrower and, accordingly, more precise. Therefore, desire for clarity could have been the motive for the author of Matthew, despite frequently accepting ἀφιέναι from his sources elsewhere in his Gospel, to have replaced this verb with ἐᾶν in Unexpected Thief.^[49] Since in our view it is more likely that the author of Luke followed the wording of his source in L5, we have accepted the phrase οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι (“would not have allowed to be broken into”) for GR.

לֹא הָיָה מַנִיחַ אוֹתוֹ לַחְתֹּר (HR). On reconstructing ἀφιέναι (afienai, “to leave,” “to release,” “to permit”) with הִנִּיחַ (hiniaḥ, “leave,” “permit”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L97.

On expressing “give permission to someone to do something” in Mishnaic Hebrew with הִנִּיחַ + dir. obj. marker + infinitive, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L20.

In LXX the verb διορύσσειν (diorūssein, “to dig through”) does not occur often, but whenever it does occur as the translation of a Hebrew verb, that verb is חָתַר (ḥātar, “dig,” “break in,” “make an opening”).^[50] The LXX translators usually translated חָתַר as διορύσσειν or other compounds of ὀρύσσειν (orūssein, “to dig”).^[51] Since חָתַר continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew, this verb is an excellent candidate for HR.

Note that whereas the Greek text speaks in the passive voice (“not have allowed his house to be broken into”), we have adopted the active voice (“not have allowed him to break into his house”) for HR.

Below are two examples from rabbinic sources of “break into a house” expressed with חָתַר:

תנו רבנן מעשה בר″ע שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין והיה ר’ יהושע הגרסי משרתו בכל יום ויום היו מכניסין לו מים במדה יום אחד מצאו שומר בית האסורין אמר לו היום מימך מרובין שמא לחתור בית האסורין אתה צריך שפך חציין ונתן לו חציין כשבא אצל ר″ע אמר לו יהושע אין אתה יודע שזקן אני וחיי תלויין בחייך

Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: An anecdote concerning Rabbi Akiva, who was imprisoned in a jailhouse, and Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi was serving him every day. They were bringing a quantity of water in to him. One day the jailer found him he said to him, “Today your water is copious. Perhaps it is to break into the jailhouse [לַחְתּוֹר בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין] that you need it!” He poured out half and gave him half. When he [i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi—DNB and JNT] came to Rabbi Akiva he said to him, “Yehoshua, don’t you know that I am old and my life depends on yours?”…. (b. Eruv. 21b)

וּמשֶׁה הָיָה סָבוֹר שֶׁהָיָה אַהֲרוֹן שֻׁתָּף עִמָּהֶן וְהָיָה בְלִבּוֹ עָלָיו, אָמַר לוֹ הִקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: משֶׁה יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי כַּוָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן הֵיאַךְ הָיְתָה לְטוֹבָה, מָשָׁל לְבֶן מְלָכִים שֶׁזָּחָה דַעְתּוֹ עָלָיו וְנָטַל אֶת הַצִּפֹּרֶן לַחְתֹּר בֵּית אָבִיו, אָמַר לוֹ פֶּדָגוֹגוֹ אַל תְּיַגַּע עַצְמֶךָ, תֶּן לִי וְאֲנִי אֶחְתֹּר, הֵצִיץ הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי הֵיאַךְ הָיְתָה כַּוָּנָתֶךָ, חַיֶּיךָ, אֵינִי מַשְׁלִיט בְּרִיָה עַל פָּלָטִין שֶׁלִּי אֶלָּא אָתָּה

But Moses was thinking that Aaron was complicit with them [in the matter of the golden calf—DNB and JNT] and was [angry] at him in his heart. The Holy One, blessed be he, said to him, “Moses, I know Aaron’s intention, how it was for the good. A parable. [To what may the matter be compared?] To the son of kings whose reason was impaired, and he took a mattock to break into his father’s house [לַחְתֹּר בֵּית אָבִיו]. His guardian said to him, ‘Do not trouble yourself. Give it to me, and I will dig.’ The king came upon him and said to him, ‘I know how your intention was. By your life, I will not set anyone to rule over my palace except for you!’” (Exod. Rab. 37:2 [ed. Merkin, 6:112])

Many scholars claim that the use of διορύσσειν (“to dig through”) in Unexpected Thief reflects the use of mud brick as the most common construction material for first-century Jewish homes.^[52] But while it is true that the homes of many Jewish peasants were constructed of mud or clay bricks,^[53] Luz has demonstrated that διορύσσειν was the verb typically used for a break-in irrespective of the material (mud brick, wood, stone, etc.) from which the building was constructed.^[54] The verb חָתַר, too, was used for break-in without implying which materials were used for the construction of the building. Certainly the construction material has no bearing on the meaning of Jesus’ illustration.

L6 τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ (GR). The Lukan and Matthean wording in L6 is similar, but not identical. Whereas Luke has the noun οἶκος (oikos, “house”), Matthew has the synonym οἰκία (oikia, “house”). Either term might have been present in Anth., but since the author of Luke used both terms indiscriminately and with approximately equal frequency, whereas the author of Matthew used οἰκία about twice as often as οἶκος, the likelihood is that Luke’s οἶκος stems from Anth. and that οἰκία is due to Matthean redaction.^[55] This likelihood is strengthened by our detection of Matthean redaction in L1 (ἐκεῖνο), L3 (φυλακῇ), L4 (ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν) and L7 (διὰ τοῦτο) of Unexpected Thief, which contrasts with Luke’s high fidelity to Anth.’s wording in this pericope.

בֵּיתוֹ (HR). On reconstructing οἶκος (oikos, “house”) with בַּיִת (bayit, “house”), see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L33.

In Biblical Hebrew חָתַר was accompanied by the preposition -בְּ (b^e–, “in”) in the case of digging through a wall (cf. Ezek. 8:8; 12:5, 7), but for breaking into a house חָתַר was not accompanied by a preposition (Job 24:16).^[56] Neither was חָתַר accompanied by a preposition in the Mishnaic Hebrew examples of חָתַר expressing “break into a house” cited above in Comment to L5. Therefore, we have not attached the preposition -בְּ to בֵּיתוֹ (bētō, “his house”) in HR. The examples cited in Comment to L5 also lacked the direct object marker אֶת (’et), so we have likewise omitted the direct object marker in HR.

L7 διὰ τοῦτο (Matt. 24:44). It is likely that the author of Matthew added the words διὰ τοῦτο (dia touto, “on account of this”), since the majority of Matthew’s instances of διὰ τοῦτο occur either in Triple Tradition (TT) pericopae unsupported by the Markan and Lukan parallels or in pericopae unique to Matthew,^[57] which indicates that in Matthew διὰ τοῦτο is often redactional.^[58] The phase διὰ τοῦτο does occur in Matthean DT pericopae, and in most cases the Lukan parallel agrees, so we may infer that there was no Lukan aversion to διὰ τοῦτο and that he probably would have accepted this phrase had it occurred in his source.^[59]

Having concluded that Matthew’s διὰ τοῦτο is redactional, we have excluded this phrase from GR and an equivalent from HR.

L8 καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι (GR). Since there is complete Lukan-Matthean agreement in L8, we can be confident that both authors faithfully copied this phrase from Anth., and we have unhesitatingly accepted their wording for GR.

וְאַתֶּם הֱיוּ מְעוּתָּדִים (HR). Whereas the Greek phrase καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι (kai hūmeis ginesthe hetoimoi) can be read as “Also you be ready!” which is illogical, since the householder was not ready for the thief, the Hebrew phrase וְאַתֶּם הֱיוּ מְעוּתָּדִים (v^e’atem h^eyū m^e‘ūtādim) is disjunctive, meaning “But you, be ready!” Thus Unexpected Thief sets up the following comparison: neither the householder nor Jesus’ audience know when the thief/Son of Man will come, but whereas the householder was not expecting a thief, and therefore could not be ready, Jesus’ audience is expecting the Son of Man, and can plan accordingly.

On reconstructing γίνεσθαι (ginesthai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L1.

In LXX the adjective ἕτοιμος (hetoimos, “ready,” “prepared”) usually occurs as the translation of words formed from the כ-ו-נ root,^[60] particularly with the nif‘al participle נָכוֹן (nāchōn, “ready,” “prepared”).^[61] However, in Mishnaic Hebrew the כ-ו-נ root was not much used in the nif‘al stem.^[62] Therefore, although the phrase γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι (ginesthe hetoimoi, “Be ready!” “Be prepared!”) occurs in Exod. 19:15 as the translation of הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים (h^eyū n^echonim, “Be ready!” “Be prepared!”), we have not copied this wording for HR.

In Mishnaic Hebrew the huf‘al participle מוּכָן (mūchān, “prepared,” “ready”) does occur, but seems generally to have been used of prepared items, not for persons being prepared for an occasion. We have therefore preferred to reconstruct with the pu‘al participle מְעוּתָּד (m^e‘ūtād, “ready,” “prepared”) for HR.

Examples of מְעוּתָּד in just the sense required for Unexpected Thief occur in the following statements:

מחר נהיה מעותדים ועומדים על ראש הגבעה…מחר נגזור תענית ונהיה מעותדים

Tomorrow let us be ready [מְעוּתָּדִים] and stand on the summit of the hill…. Tomorrow let us declare a fast and we will be ready [מְעוּתָּדִים]…. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek §1 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:258])

The participle מְעוּתָּד belongs to the Mishnaic Hebrew lexicon. However, in support of our reconstruction we note that in LXX ἕτοιμος sometimes renders words derived from the ע-ת-ד root. Thus in Deut. 32:35 and Esth. 3:14 ἕτοιμος renders עָתִיד (‘ātid, “ready”), and in Esth. 8:13 ἕτοιμος renders עָתוּד (‘ātūd, “ready”).

L9 ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε (GR). There is complete Lukan-Matthean agreement in L9 except with regard to word order. Whereas Luke reads, ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε (hoti hē hōra ou dokeite, “because / in which / hour / not / you think”), Matthew reads, ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ (hoti hē ou dokeite hōra, “because / in which / not / you think / hour”). Some scholars prefer Matthew’s word order on the grounds that it is “more Semitic,”^[63] but they offer no clue as to how they think Matthew’s wording ought to be reverted to Hebrew or Aramaic. Notably, in his Hebrew New Testament, Delitzsch rendered Matthew’s ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ as כִּי בְשָׁעָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תְדַמּוּ (ki v^eshā‘āh ’^asher lo’ t^edamū, “because / in an hour / that / not / you think”), which is closer to Luke’s word order than Matthew’s. The same can be said of MHNT’s translation of Matthew’s ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ as כִּי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּכֶם (ki b^eshā‘āh shelo’ ta‘^aleh ‘al da‘t^echem, “because / in an hour / that not / came / upon / your mind”). Since we cannot think of a way to put Matthew’s wording into Hebrew that does not resemble Luke’s word order, we have adopted Luke’s word order for GR.

שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתֶּם לֹא סְבוּרִים (HR). On reconstructing ὅτι (hoti, “that,” “because”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “that,” “because”), see above, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing ὥρα (hōra, “interval of time,” “hour”) with שָׁעָה (shā‘āh, “moment,” “hour”), see above, Comment to L3.

The phrase -שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁ (sheb^eshā‘āh she-, “because in an hour that”) occurs in rabbinic sources, for instance:

צמר שנתנו בפשתן להיות אורג עליו הרי זה אסור שבשעה שהיה ליגוז היה ניטוה

Wool that they put in flax in order to weave on it: Behold! This is forbidden. Because in the moment that [-שֶׁבַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁ] it was combed, it was intertwined. (t. Kil. 5:21; Vienna MS)

הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב שעל פתח ההיכל אף היא עשתה טבלה של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה שבשעה שחמה זורחת היו ניצוצות יוצאות ממנה ויודעין שחמה זורחת

…Helene his mother made a lamp of gold that is on the entrance of the Temple. Also, she made a tablet of gold on which the pericope on the wife suspected of adultery was written, which in the moment that [‑שֶׁבַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁ] the sun rose, sparkling light reflected from it, and they would know that the sun was rising. (t. Yom. 2:3; Vienna MS)

אמר ר′ יהושע גדול הוא השלום שבשעה שעמדו ישראל ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה′ נעשה ונשמע, שמח בהם הקדוש ברוך הוא ונתן להם תורתו ובירכם בשלום

Rabbi Yehoshua said, “Great is peace, because in the hour that [-שֶׁבַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁ] Israel stood and said, All that the Lord said we will do and we will hear, the Holy One, blessed be he, rejoiced in them, and he gave them his Torah and blessed them with peace….” (Massechtot Zeirot, Shalom [א] §3 [ed. Higger, 99])

ר′ יוסי הגלילי אומר גדול הוא השלום, שבשעה שמלך המשיח נגלה לישראל, אין פותח אלא בשלום שנאמר מה נאוו על ההרים רגלי מבשר משמיע שלום

Rabbi Yose the Galilean said, “Great is peace, because in the hour that [-שֶׁבַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁ] the anointed king is revealed to Israel, he will not open [his proclamation] except with peace, for it is said, How comely on the hills are the feet of the one proclaiming announcing peace.” (Massechtot Zeirot, Shalom [א] §13 [ed. Higger, 101])

In LXX the verb δοκεῖν (dokein, “to think,” “to seem”) does not consistently occur as the translation of any one Hebrew verb. Often δοκεῖν appears where there is no Hebrew equivalent;^[64] other times, δοκεῖν renders a phrase unsuitable for HR.^[65] On the two occasions when δοκεῖν translates a Hebrew verb for “think,” that verb is either חָשַׁב (ḥāshav, “think”; Gen. 38:15) or the nif‘al form of the same root, נֶחְשַׁב (neḥshav, “be thought”; Prov. 27:14). In Mishnaic Hebrew חָשַׁב continued to be used, especially for “consider taking an action.” When “entertain a notion” or “hold an opinion” was intended, this was typically expressed as סָבוּר (sāvūr, “thinking,” “supposing”), as we see in the following examples:

הקדים משה לצאת אמרו מה ראה בן עמרם לצאת שמא אינו שפוי בתוך ביתו איחר לצאת אמרו מה ראה בן עמרם שלא לצאת מה אתם סבורים יושב ויועץ עליכם עצות ומחשב עליכם מחשבות קשות וחמורות

If Moses went out early, they said, “Why does the son of Amram see fit to go out? Perhaps he is not happy in his home.” If he went out late, they said, “Why does the son of Amram not see fit to go out? What do you think [אַתֶּם סְבוּרִים]? He is sitting and hatching plots against you and planning harsh and severe schemes against you!” (Sifre Deut. §12 [ed. Finkelstein, 20])

אמר להן אמר שומר אתא בקר וגם לילה אמרו לו וגם לילה אמר להן לא כשאתם סבורים אלא בוקר לצדיקים ולילה לרשעים בוקר לישראל ולילה לעכו″ם

He [i.e., the prophet Isaiah—DNB and JNT] said to them, “The Watchman [i.e., God—DNB and JNT] said, ‘Morning comes, and also night [i.e., in the world to come—DNB and JNT].’” They said to him, “And also night?” He said to them, “It is not what you think [כְּשֶׁאַתֶּם סְבוּרִים]. Rather, morning is for the righteous, and night is for the wicked. Morning is for Israel, and night is for the star worshippers [i.e., the Gentiles—DNB and JNT].” (y. Taan. 1:1 [3b])

הם סבורים לפני בשר ודם הם עומדים ואינם אלא לפני המקום

They think [הֵם סְבוּרִים] they are standing before flesh and blood [i.e., a mere mortal—DNB and JNT], but they are not. Rather, [they are standing] before the Omnipresent one! (Sifre Deut. §190 [ed. Finkelstein, 230])

מה הם סבורים ששכחתי מה שעשו

What do they think [הֵם סְבוּרִים]? That I forgot what they did? (Midrash Tehillim 149:6 [ed. Buber, 3:541])

Since we prefer to reconstruct direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew, סָבוּר is an excellent option for HR.

L10 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται (GR). Since there is complete Lukan-Matthean agreement in L10, there can be no doubt as to the wording of GR.

בַּר אֱנָשׁ בָּא (HR). On reconstructing ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ho huios tou anthrōpou, “the son of the person”) with בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar ’^enāsh, “son of a human being”), see Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L42-43.

On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L3.

Redaction Analysis

Unexpected Thief is a Type 1 DT pericope characterized by high levels of verbal identity. By definition, redactional activity on the part of the authors of Luke and Matthew in such pericopae was minimal. Nevertheless, where verbal disagreements are present it is clear that redaction did take place. In Unexpected Thief that redactional activity can be attributed to the author of Matthew, who needed to adapt Unexpected Thief to its new context in the Matthean version of the eschatological discourse.

Luke’s Version^[66]

Unexpected Thief
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	34	Total Words:	34
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	34	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	34
% Identical to Anth.:	100	% of Anth. in Luke:	100
Click here for details.

We have not identified any Lukan redaction in Unexpected Thief. This finding is not surprising with regard to such a short pericope that is still embedded in its Anth. context.^[67]

Matthew’s Version^[68]

Unexpected Thief
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	39	Total Words:	34
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	29	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	29
% Identical to Anth.:	74.36	% of Anth. in Matt.:	85.29
Click here for details.

The author of Matthew did not edit Unexpected Thief extensively, and the few changes he did make were mainly done to integrate this saying into its new context in the eschatological discourse. Because the author of Matthew placed Unexpected Thief in a section of the discourse focused on the unknown, he changed “But know this..!” to “But that other thing you do know…” (L1). And because the author of Matthew placed Unexpected Thief following an exhortation to stay awake in Be Ready for the Son of Man, he changed “hour” to “nightly watch” (L3) and added “he would have stayed awake” (L4) in order to continue the theme of wakefulness.

Some of the author of Matthew’s changes may betray his knowledge that in Anth. Unexpected Thief was preceded by Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One). Thus Matthew’s opening word ἐκεῖνο (ekeino, “that [thing]”) in L1 may reflect awareness that the final word in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) was ἐκεῖνοι (ekeinoi, “those”; Luke 12:38). Likewise, the author of Matthew’s choice of φυλακή (fūlakē, “nightly watch”) in L3 may be due to the use of φυλακή in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (Luke 12:38). The verb γρηγορεῖν (grēgorein, “to stay awake”), which the author of Matthew inserted into Unexpected Thief, occurs both in the Markan and Matthean versions of Be Ready for the Son of Man and in Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (Luke 12:37), so both pericopae probably influenced his choice of this verb.

Some of the author of Matthew’s changes he probably regarded as stylistic improvements. These include changing ἀφιέναι (afienai, “to leave,” “to release,” “to permit”) to ἐᾶν (ean, “to allow,” “to permit”) in L5, changing οἶκος (oikos, “house”) to οἰκία (oikia, “house”) in L6, adding διὰ τοῦτο (dia touto, “because of this”) in L7, and slightly rearranging the word order in L9.

Results of This Research

1. Why did Jesus use the imagery of a thief breaking into a house? Jeremias suggested that in Unexpected Thief Jesus made reference to a recent event, a local burglary that had become the topic of conversation.^[69] But while it is possible, Unexpected Thief is no more likely to reflect a real occurrence than that an actual cat has died when someone says, “Curiosity killed the cat.”^[70]

Flusser suggested that in Unexpected Thief Jesus used the image of a thief because he wished to allude to a verse in Jeremiah,^[71] where we read:

אִם בֹּצְרִים בָּאוּ לָךְ לֹא יַשְׁאִרוּ עוֹלֵלוֹת אִם גַּנָּבִים בַּלַּיְלָה הִשְׁחִיתוּ דַיָּם

If gatherers come to you, do they not leave over gleanings? If thieves [come] in the night, they destroy what is enough for them. (Jer. 49:9)

This verse occurs in a passage that describes the punishment that will be meted out to Edom (Jer. 49:7-22).

It is unlikely, however, that an allusion to this Jeremiah passage in Unexpected Thief was really intended, since the details do not agree. For instance, whereas Jer. 49:9 refers to multiple thieves, Unexpected Thief refers to a single thief. And whereas in Jer. 49:9 the thieves come in the night, a nighttime break-in is not implied in Luke’s (probably more original) version of Unexpected Thief. It is only Matthew’s redactional references to the night watch (L3) and the householder’s staying awake (L4) that give the impression of a nocturnal burglary. According to Luke’s (probably more original) version, the thief might have come at any time of the day or night. Thus, upon analysis the basis for an allusion to Jer. 49:9 quickly breaks down. Moreover, it is difficult to understand what purpose alluding to Jer. 49:9 in this context would have served. So it does not appear that Jesus employed the imagery of a thief in order to allude to Scripture.

Plummer claimed that to “come like a thief” was a well-known proverb for unexpected events, which, if true, might explain why Jesus used this imagery in Unexpected Thief.^[72] But the only evidence Plummer cited (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15) are passages that likely depend on this saying of Jesus. In the absence of other evidence that “coming like a thief” was a well-known proverb, it does not appear this was the reason Jesus employed the imagery of a burglary in Unexpected Thief.

We believe that Jesus selected the image of a burglary simply because it permitted him to point out a truism about things that are unknown: if people knew about them, they would not be surprised by them. Jesus’ audience and the fictitious householder had this in common: they did not know when something would happen. But unlike the householder, who was not warned about the thief, Jesus’ audience has been warned that the Son of Man is coming. Therefore, unlike the householder, they can be prepared and need not be taken by surprise.

Conclusion

In Unexpected Thief Jesus compared the disciples’ ignorance of the timing of the Son of Man’s coming to a householder whose house was burgled because he did not know when the thief would come. The householder was unprepared for the thief, but the disciples who know that the Son of Man is coming need not be caught unawares.

---

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

---

• ^[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] Cf. Bundy, 362 §252. ↩
• ^[4] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:385.

  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 sounds like 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 found 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)

  In addition to the girding up of loins motif from Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One), Gos. Thom. §21 may show influence from the Matthean version of Unexpected Thief (L7) by introducing the saying with “therefore” (= διὰ τοῦτο). Cf. Fleddermann, 632. ↩

• ^[5] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 217. ↩
• ^[6] For these figures, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[7] See David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 88. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:699; Bovon, 2:235. ↩
• ^[9] A third objection that is sometimes raised is the denial that Jesus ever spoke of himself as the Son of Man. See Funk-Hoover, 252, 342. Given this a priori assumption, it follows that the application, at least, must be secondary. For our part, we deny the validity of this a priori assumption. A major reason for denying that the Son of Man is a title the early Christians projected back on to Jesus is the unpopularity of this title outside the Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels the title is quite common, in the Gospel of John it can still be found, but much less prominently. But in the rest of the New Testament and in subsequent Christian literature the title virtually disappears. ↩
• ^[10] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 88; Kloppenborg, 149-150; Luz, 3:216. ↩
• ^[11] Cf. Eta Linnemann, The Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (trans. John Sturdy [Gleichnisse Jesu, Einfuhrung und Auslegung, 1961]; London: SPCK, 1977), 135. ↩
• ^[12] Cf. Bundy, 362 §253; Wolter, 2:161; Fleddermann, 634. ↩
• ^[13] It is probably unwise to draw too sharp a distinction between the day of the Lord and the Lord’s coming, since in 1 Thessalonians a discussion of the Lord’s coming (1 Thess. 4:13-18) leads directly into the discussion that compares the day of the Lord to the coming of a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:1-11). ↩
• ^[14] Cf. Bundy, 473 §385. ↩
• ^[15] Pace Plummer, Luke, 331. ↩
• ^[16] See McNeile, 357; Davies-Allison, 3:384; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[17] See Days of the Son of Man, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[18] Cf. McNeile, 357; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[19] The difficulty of reverting Matthew’s wording in L1 to Hebrew is demonstrated in Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, where he rendered ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε (“But that thing you know…”) in Matt. 24:43 as וְאֶת זֹאת דְּעוּ (“And this know!”). Cf. MHNT: וְזֹאת דְּעוּ (“And this know!”). ↩
• ^[20] Pace Harnack, 32; Marshall, 538; Nolland, Luke, 2:702; idem, Matt., 995 n. 145; Bovon, 2:230. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 495; Davies-Allison, 3:384; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[22] This midrash on Prov. 19:2 plays on two senses of נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “soul,” “desire”) and reads רַגְלַיִם (raglayim, “feet”) as though it were to be vocalized as רְגִילִים (r^egilim, “regular occurrences”). This explains why the example of a man having sexual relations with his wife in the time of her menstrual impurity was chosen. ↩
• ^[23] As Bauckham noted, Luke’s version of Unexpected Thief does not necessarily have a nighttime setting. See Richard Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” New Testament Studies 23.2 (1976): 162-176, esp. 166. ↩
• ^[24] See McNeile, 357; Harnack, 33; Fitzmyer, 2:989; Nolland, Luke, 2:699, 702; idem, Matt., 995 n. 145; Bovon, 2:230; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[25] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 116. ↩
• ^[26] Cf. Hagner, 2:720. ↩
• ^[27] Pace McNeile, 357; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[28] See Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” 166. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 133 n. 1; Gundry, Matt., 495; Luz, 3:217 n. 7. ↩
• ^[29] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1170. ↩
• ^[30] In MT אֵי זֶה occurs in 1 Sam. 9:18; 1 Kgs. 13:12; 22:24; 2 Kgs. 3:8; Isa. 50:1; 66:1 (2xx); Jer. 6:16; Job 28:12, 20; 38:19 (2xx), 24; Eccl. 2:3; 11:6; Esth. 7:5; 2 Chr. 18:23. Apart from Job 38:24 and Esth. 7:5, the LXX translators rendered all these instances of אֵי זֶה as ποῖος. ↩
• ^[31] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1493. ↩
• ^[32] Ibid. ↩
• ^[33] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:767. ↩
• ^[34] See Dos Santos, 38. ↩
• ^[35] See Metzger, 161-162. ↩
• ^[36] Pace Harnack, 33. ↩
• ^[37] See Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 133 n. 2; Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” 166; Catchpole, 57; Bovon, 2:230; Luz, 3:216; Fleddermann, 624. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:384. ↩
• ^[38] See Marshall, 538. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 495; Nolland, Luke, 2:702; Luz, 3:216 n. 6. ↩
• ^[40] See Manson, Sayings, 116; Jeremias, Parables, 48 n. 1. ↩
• ^[41] Cf. Marshall, 538. ↩
• ^[42] Cf. Harnack, 33; Cadbury, Style, 179-180. ↩
• ^[43] See Davies-Allison, 3:384. Cf. Bovon, 2:230; Luz, 3:217 n. 7; Nolland, Matt., 995 n. 145; Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[44] Matthew and Luke agree to use ἀφιέναι in the following DT verses: Matt. 6:12 ∥ Luke 11:4 (2xx); Matt. 7:4 ∥ Luke 6:42; Matt. 8:22 ∥ Luke 9:60; Matt. 12:32 (2xx) ∥ Luke 12:10 (2xx); Matt. 18:21 ∥ Luke 17:4; Matt. 23:38 ∥ Luke 13:35; Matt. 24:40 ∥ Luke 17:34; Matt. 24:41 ∥ Luke 17:35. See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:139-141. ↩
• ^[45] Fleddermann (624) overlooked the significance of the distribution of ἀφιέναι in Luke-Acts. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Luz, 3:217 n. 7. ↩
• ^[47] Pace Bovon, 2:230. ↩
• ^[48] See Cadbury, Style, 179. ↩
• ^[49] Pace Fleddermann, 624. ↩
• ^[50] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:336. ↩
• ^[51] See Dos Santos, 72. ↩
• ^[52] See Plummer, Luke, 331; A. B. Bruce, 298; Manson, Sayings, 116; Beare, Matt., 476; Gundry, Matt., 495; Fitzmyer, 2:989; Davies-Allison, 3:384; Nolland, Luke, 2:702; idem, Matt., 995. ↩
• ^[53] See Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 728-792), esp. 732. There Safrai notes that houses were built of stone where this was cheaply available. Such a location might be Chorazin or other villages surrounding the Sea of Galilee. The practice of building homes from mud brick on top of a course of field stones is attested in a rabbinic parable (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, §24 [ed. Schechter, 77]) similar to Jesus’ parable at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L28. ↩
• ^[54] See Luz, 3:219, esp. n. 35 and n. 36. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:384; Fleddermann, 625. Pace Harnack, 33; Marshall, 538. ↩
• ^[56] See BDB, 369. ↩
• ^[57] The table below shows all of the instances of διὰ τοῦτο in the Gospel of Matthew and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 6:25 DT = Luke 12:22 Matt. 12:27 DT = Luke 11:19 Matt. 12:31 TT (cf. Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10) Matt. 13:13 TT (cf. Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10) Matt. 13:52 U Matt. 14:2 TT (cf. Mark 6:16; Luke 9:9) Matt. 18:23 U Matt. 21:43 TT (cf. Mark 12:[–]; Luke 20:[–]) Matt. 23:34 DT = Luke 11:49 Matt. 24:44 DT (cf. Luke 12:40) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[58] Cf. Bundy, 473 §385; Jeremias, Parables, 48 n. 2; Marshall, 538-539; Gundry, Matt., 495; Nolland, Luke, 2:702; idem, Matt., 995; Bovon, 2:230; Luz, 3:216 n. 7; Fleddermann, 625. ↩
• ^[59] Pace Harnack, 33. ↩
• ^[60] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:564-565. ↩
• ^[61] In LXX ἕτοιμος occurs as the translation of נָכוֹן in Exod. 19:11, 15; 34:2; Josh. 8:4; 1 Kgdms. 26:4; 3 Kgdms. 2:45; Ps. 37[38]:18; 56[57]:8 (2xx); 92[93]:2; 107[108]:2; 111[112]:7; Hos. 6:3; Mic. 4:1. ↩
• ^[62] See Jastrow, 621-622. ↩
• ^[63] See Marshall, 539; Davies-Allison, 3:385 n. 82. ↩
• ^[64] There is no Hebrew term behind δοκεῖν in Job 1:21; 15:21; 20:7, 22; Prov. 2:10; 14:12; 16:25; 17:28; 26:12. ↩
• ^[65] For instance, δοκεῖν sometimes renders אִם טוֹב (’im ṭōv, “if it is good”; Esth. 1:19; 3:9; 5:4; 8:5) or אָמַר (’āmar, “say”; Prov. 28:24). ↩
• ^[66]

  Unexpected Thief
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται		τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται
  Total Words:	34	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	34	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	34
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	100.00%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	100.00%

  ↩

• ^[67] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 93 no. 26) found Luke’s version of Unexpected Thief to be a bit more like “translation” Greek than Matthew’s. ↩
• ^[68]

  Unexpected Thief
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται		τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται
  Total Words:	39	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	29	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	29
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	74.36%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	85.29%

  ↩

• ^[69] See Jeremias, Parables, 49. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 495; Davies-Allison, 3:385. The argument is generally based on the pluperfect tense of the verb in L2 (ᾔδει [ēdei, “had known”]) and the aorist tense of the verbs in L4 (ἐγρηγόρησεν [egrēgorēsen, “he stayed awake”]) and L5 (Matt.: εἴασεν [eiasen, “he allowed”]; Luke: ἀφῆκεν [afēken, “he permitted”]). Jeremias had a habit of concretizing Jesus’ illustrations into actual events. In addition to supposing that Unexpected Thief referred to an actual burglary, he claimed that the Waiting Maidens parable described an actual wedding and that the Great Banquet parable described an actual banquet where guests declined the invitation. See Jeremias, Parables, 52, 171, 178-179. ↩
• ^[70] Cf. Beare, Matt., 476; Luz, 3:219; France, Matt., 942 n. 34. ↩
• ^[71] See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 88. ↩
• ^[72] See Plummer, Luke, 331. ↩