Sign-Seeking Generation

Matt. 12:38-40; 16:1-2, 4; Mark 8:11-13; Luke 11:16, 29-30

(Huck 87, 119, 152; Aland 119, 154, 191;
Crook 141, 173, 218)^[151]

Updated: 27 July 2023

‏[וְהִתְחִיל לוֹמַר]‏ דּוֹר זֶה דּוֹר רָשָׁע הוּא סִימָן הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ וְסִימָן לֹא יִנָּתֵן לוֹ [אֶלָּא] כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיָה יוֹנָה לְאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה לְאוֹת כָּךְ יִהְיֶה בַּר אֱנָשׁ לְדוֹר זֶה

And he began to say, “This generation is a wicked one! It desperately searches for any sign of deliverance, but no such sign will be given to it. Rather, as Yonah was a portent of doom to the inhabitants of Nineveh, so henceforth will the Son of Man be a portent of doom to this generation.^[152]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Sign-Seeking Generation, click on the link below:

Conclusion

Sign-Seeking Generation has charted an unusual course in the process of transmission through pre-synoptic stages to Luke and then to Mark and finally to Matthew. Originally an expression of Jesus’ pessimism regarding the militant nationalist ambitions of his contemporaries, Sign-Seeking Generation came to be used as an apology for the failure or refusal of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. To counter the argument that if Jesus had been the Messiah he would have proved it to the entire Jewish people, Sign-Seeking Generation was variously used to suggest that Jesus had intentionally declined to give his contemporaries an authenticating sign (so Mark), or that Jesus’ death and resurrection was the sign that “the Jews” were unwilling to accept (so Matthew).

---

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

---

• ^[1] Flusser’s reconstruction of Luke 11:29 appears in David Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man” (Flusser, JOC, 526-534, esp. 527). The English translation of Flusser’s reconstruction is our own—DNB and JNT. ↩
• ^[2] See our discussion in Generations That Repented Long Ago, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[3] See the “Story Placement” discussion in Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. ↩
• ^[4] Pace Gundry, Matt., 243. ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:930; Luz, 2:214. ↩
• ^[6] Cf. Bovon, 2:136. ↩
• ^[7] On Jesus’ aversion to speculations about his unique status and his disdain for cults of personality, even those centered on himself, see our discussion in A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Beare, Matt., 282. Nevertheless, in our opinion Beare drew the wrong conclusion from Jesus’ reticence. Beare believed that the entire scene described in Sign-Seeking Generation must have been a Christian invention, whereas we regard Luke 11:16 as secondary but the main body of Sign-Seeking Generation (Luke 11:29-30) as an authentic dominical saying. ↩
• ^[9] See Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 526-527. Gibson arrived at a similar conclusion by a different route. See Jeffrey Gibson, “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’ (Mk 8.11-13),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990): 37-66. ↩
• ^[10] On the significance of Theudas’ promise to part the waters of the Jordan, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea,” in his Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 29-43, esp. 30. ↩
• ^[11] See Gibson, “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’ (Mk 8.11-13),” 50. ↩
• ^[12] See Return of the Twelve and the study based on this LOY segment entitled “Like Lightning from Heaven (Luke 10:18): Jesus’ Apocalyptic Vision of the Fall of Satan.” ↩
• ^[13] See Shmuel Safrai, “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 62-78. ↩
• ^[14] Despite these similarities, it is possible that Rabbi Simon bar Menasya’s political outlook contrasted with Jesus’. The emphasis Rabbi Simon bar Menasya placed on seeking the reinstatement of the Davidic monarchy and the rebuilding of the Temple suggests that Rabbi Simon bar Menasya may have entertained revolutionary anti-Roman sympathies. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Kilpatrick, 87; Bundy, 285 §172-174; Davies-Allison, 2:553. ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:577. ↩
• ^[17] On cross-pollination between similar sayings in Matthew, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115-122, and Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24-28. ↩
• ^[18] In Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho we read:

  Καὶ ὅτι τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα ἔμελλεν ἀναστήσεσθαι μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι, γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ὅτι οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν συζητοῦντες αὐτῷ ἔλεγον, ὅτι Δεῖξον ἡμῖν σημεῖον. Καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς· Γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτοῖς, εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. Καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντος αὐτοῦ παρακεκαλυμμένα ἦν νοεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουόντων, ὅτι μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι αὐτὸν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα ἀναστήσεται.

  And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning [συζητοῦντες] Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given to them, save the sign of Jonah.’ And since He spoke this obscurely, it was to be understood by the audience that after his crucifixion He should rise again on the third day. (Dial. §107 [ed. Trollope, 2:75-76])

  The translation of Justin is according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986), 1:252.

  Justin’s use of the participle συζητοῦντες (sūzētountes, “questioning,” “arguing”) appears to reflect Mark 8:11, the only canonical version of Sign-Seeking Generation in which the verb συζητεῖν (sūzētein, “to discuss,” “to argue”) occurs.

  Stendahl asserted that in the above-cited passage Justin quoted from Matt. 12:39 and that Justin’s failure to continue the quotation into Matt. 12:40 is evidence that Matt. 12:40 is actually a late scribal insertion into the original text of Matthew, since “It is unbelievable that Justin would have passed over or forgotten this quotation in Mt. 12₄₀ if it had been in his text” (Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], 132-133). But it is far from certain that Justin was quoting exclusively from Matt. 12:39, since Justin’s quotation conforms precisely to Matt. 16:4. The version of Sign-Seeking Generation in Matt. 16:1-4 lacks the typological interpretation found in Matt. 12:40, and, in fact, there is an indication that the Matt. 16:1-4 version is the one Justin had in mind. Justin quotes Jesus’ interlocutors as saying, “Show us a sign!” using the verb δεικνύναι (deiknūnai), while the version of Sign-Seeking Generation in Matt. 16:1-4 is the only one in which a compound form of the same verb (ἐπιδεικνύναι [epideiknūnai]) occurs in the request for a sign (Matt. 16:1). Although Stendahl claims that Justin would have quoted Matt. 12:40 if he had known it, we are not convinced this is a valid assumption. First, Matt. 12:40 does not explicitly refer to the resurrection, but only to the duration of Jesus’ entombment “in the heart of the earth,” which, as Justin notes, is at best an obscure reference to the resurrection. Second, in his discussion of the sign of Jonah, Justin wove together elements from Matt. 12:40 and Luke 11:30 (“Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you...have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead”; Dial. §108), something that would have been more difficult if he had only quoted one of these verses. ↩

• ^[19] Pace Flusser (“Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 526 n. 2), who regarded the introduction to Sign-Seeking Generation in Matt. 12:38 as “more original...than Luke 11:16 and Mark 8:11.” Flusser based his opinion on a talmudic parallel (b. Sanh. 98a) in which the disciples of Rabbi Yose ben Kisma ask him for a sign in confirmation of his messianic prediction. ↩
• ^[20] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:353. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:351. ↩
• ^[22] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:921. ↩
• ^[23] The mention of seventy-two “others” in Luke 10:1 was a redactional device that allowed the author of Luke to incorporate two versions of the Sending the Twelve discourse into his Gospel. See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L26-28. ↩
• ^[24] In Matthew there is only a single instance of unspecified “others” expressed with ἕτεροι (Matt. 16:14; cf. Mark 8:28; Luke 9:19). No examples of unspecified “others” expressed with ἕτεροι occur in Mark. ↩
• ^[25] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 301; Conzelmann, 193. ↩
• ^[26] The proliferation of temptations in the Gospel of Mark as compared to Luke is an example of what Lindsey termed a “Markan pick-up.” On this phenomenon, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes,” and our LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups. ↩
• ^[27] On the redactional character of “part one” of Mark’s version of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (Mark 3:20-21), see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L1-10. ↩
• ^[28] On genitives absolute in the Gospel of Luke as indicative of redactional activity, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Luke.” ↩
• ^[29] See Creed, 162. ↩
• ^[30] See Gundry, Matt., 242; Luz, 2:214. On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[31] On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν/εἰπεῖν, see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L17-18. ↩
• ^[32] Cf. Gundry (Matt., 242) and Luz (2:214 n. 2), who likewise regard Matthew’s reference to the scribes in Matt. 12:38 as redactional. ↩
• ^[33] Although Codex Vaticanus omits καὶ Φαρισαίων (kai Farisaiōn, “and of Pharisees”) in Matt. 12:38, most text critics regard it as original. ↩
• ^[34] Cf. Taylor, 363-364. ↩
• ^[35] See Tomson, 275. ↩
• ^[36] See Albright-Mann, 192. ↩
• ^[37] On the Matthean tendency to create parallels between John the Baptist and Jesus, see John P. Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99.3 (1980): 383-405. ↩
• ^[38] See Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance, Comment to L1-2. ↩
• ^[39] See Gundry, Matt., 322; Davies-Allison, 2:579; Luz, 2:348. ↩
• ^[40] See Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317), esp. 266-267 (Critical Note 4). Cf. Jeremias, Sprache, 211. ↩
• ^[41] See Lindsey, GCSG, 3:220. The table below shows all the instances of συζητεῖν in the Gospels of Mark and Luke (there are no instances in Matthew) and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Mark 1:27 Lk-Mk (cf. Luke 4:36) Mark 8:11 TT (cf. Matt. 12:38; 16:1; Luke 11:16) Mark 9:10 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 17:9) Mark 9:14 TT (cf. Matt. 17:14; Luke 9:37) Mark 9:16 TT (cf. Matt. 17:14; Luke 9:37) Mark 12:28 TT (cf. Matt. 22:35; Luke 10:25) Luke 22:23 TT (cf. Matt. 26:25; Mark 14:21) Luke 24:15 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[42] Cf. LHNS, 94 §119; LHNC, 922. ↩
• ^[43] See Gundry, Matt., 242. ↩
• ^[44] Luke’s Gospel, by contrast, has seven instances of διδάσκαλε without agreement from Mark and/or Matthew (Luke 3:12; 7:40; 11:45; 12:13; 19:39; 20:39; 21:7). ↩
• ^[45] See Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 526 n. 2. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Bundy, 287 §174. ↩
• ^[47] The same applies to “the Pharisees and Sadducees” in Matt. 16:1, “the Pharisees” in Mark’s version (Mark 8:11) and the “others” in Luke’s (Luke 11:16). ↩
• ^[48] That the word order of the request in Matt. 12:38 is un-Hebraic can be seen from a comparison of the Greek text with Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation:

  Matt. 12:38	Delitzsch’s Translation
  διδάσκαλε	רַבִּי
  Teacher	My rabbi
  θέλομεν	חָפַצְנוּ
  we want	we wanted
  ἀπὸ σοῦ
  from you
  σημεῖον
  a sign
  ἰδεῖν	לִרְאוֹת
  to see.	to see
  	אוֹת
  	a sign
  	עַל־יָדֶךָ
  	by your hand.

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  ↩

• ^[49] In Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple the author of Matthew had “one scribe” address Jesus as διδάσκαλε (Matt. 8:19). In that instance we found the identification of the speaker, but not the address, to be redactional. ↩
• ^[50] On the mirroring of Luke 8:21 in Mark 3:35, see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L48-53. On inversion as a stylistic feature of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[51] Note, however, the typically Markan stacking of prepositional phrases (“seeking from him a sign from heaven”). On the stacking up of prepositional phrases as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[52] Note, moreover, that the verb ἐπιδεικνύναι (epideiknūnai, “to point out,” “to show”) occurs 3xx in Matthew (Matt. 16:1; 22:19; 24:1), but never in Mark and only once in Luke (Luke 17:14). See further, Temple’s Destruction Foretold, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[53] Mark 7:34 also contains a description of Jesus’ groaning. ↩
• ^[54] On Markan allusions to the Pauline epistles, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke,” under the subheading “Further Proof of Mark’s Dependence on Luke”; idem, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists.” ↩
• ^[55] Is it a coincidence that in his version of The Finger of God pericope—which in Mark’s source (viz., Luke) was clearly linked to Sign-Seeking Generation by the insertion of Luke 11:16—the author of Mark accused Jesus’ opponents of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29), while in Sign-Seeking Generation the author of Mark has Jesus groaning in the spirit? ↩
• ^[56] For a different interpretation of Jesus’ groaning, see Jeffrey B. Gibson, “Mark 8.12a: Why Does Jesus ‘Sigh Deeply’?” Bible Translator 38.1 (1987): 122-125; idem, “Another Look at Why Jesus ‘Sighs Deeply’: ἀναστενάζω in Mark 8:12a,” Journal of Theological Studies 47.1 (1996): 131-140. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:354. ↩
• ^[58] On the historical present as an indicator of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[59] Scholars who regard Matt. 16:2b-3 as a scribal interpolation include Allen (173), McNeile (235), Bundy (286 §173) and Luz (2:347). See also Toshio Hirunuma, “Matthew 16:2b-3,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis (ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 35-45. Vocabulary distinctive to Matthew’s version of Interpreting the Time includes εὐδία (evdia, “fair weather”), πυρράζειν (pūrrazein, “to be fiery”) and στυγνάζειν (stūgnazein, “to be gloomy”). The construction γινώσκειν + infinitive is also unique to Matthew’s version of Interpreting the Time. ↩
• ^[60] Scholars who regard Matt. 16:2b-3 as an original part of Matthew’s Gospel include Gundry (Matt., 323), Davies-Allison (2:581) and Nolland (Matt., 646). ↩
• ^[61] Only 25% of Matthew’s wording in Interpreting the Time is identical to Luke’s parallel (9 words out of 36 total), and only 18.75% of Luke’s wording in Interpreting the Time is identical to Matthew’s parallel (9 words out of 48 total). For these statistics, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[62] Interpolation from an otherwise unknown source is the view Hirunuma champions. See Hirunuma, “Matthew 16:2b-3,” 35. Cf. Allen, 173; Streeter, 241-242; Plummer, Luke, 335. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Metzger, 41. ↩
• ^[64] So Nolland, Matt., 646. ↩
• ^[65] An example of this strategy is the Matthean insertion of a dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist to prove that Jesus’ baptism was not strictly necessary but was good for appearances. See Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L12-22. ↩
• ^[66] Changing statements into questions seems to have been a habit of the author of Mark. We observe the same phenomenon in Four Soils interpretation (L14) and Temple’s Destruction Foretold (L14-15). ↩
• ^[67] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 243. ↩
• ^[68] The author of Matthew similarly emphasized the racial meaning of γενεά in Matt. 23:36. See Innocent Blood, Comment to L26. The author of Matthew famously exhibited his willingness to malign the entire Jewish people in his notorious and redactional addition to the passion narrative in which he has the “Jews” say, “His [i.e., Jesus’] blood be upon us and our children!” (Matt. 27:25). ↩
• ^[69] See Segal, 201 §411; 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; Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers, 2021), 167-195, esp. 184. ↩
• ^[70] Fitzmyer (2:934-935) drew attention to the phrase דור עול[ה -- ] (dōr ‘avlāh, “generation of injustice”), which occurs in 1QS^b III, 7 as a parallel to “evil generation” in Sign-Seeking Generation. ↩
• ^[71] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1186-1188. On reconstructing πονηρός (ponēros, “evil”) as רַע (ra‘, “evil”), see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L25. ↩
• ^[72] Jubilees 23:14-25 describes an evil generation that will arise in the future and on account of which wild beasts, domestic animals, birds and fish will be destroyed (Jub. 23:18). Such wholesale destruction is reminiscent of the fate of Noah’s evil generation. Unfortunately, this portion of Jubilees has not been preserved in Hebrew, so we cannot know what “evil generation” in Jub. 23:14 represented in the original Hebrew text. ↩
• ^[73] See Beare, 103 §87; Marshall, 484; Davies-Allison, 2:355. ↩
• ^[74] A metaphorical sense of “adulterous” in Jewish contexts may be overemphasized. When various ancient Jewish factions accused one another of adultery they often meant it literally, according to their distinct halachic perspectives. For instance, Jesus accused the Pharisees of condoning adultery because they permitted a man to marry a divorced woman while her first husband was still alive (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39; Rom. 7:2-3). ↩
• ^[75] See LHNS, 69 §87; 95 §119. Cf. Taylor, 363; Catchpole, 243; Bovon, 2:137; Luz, 2:214 n. 3. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 243; Davies-Allison, 2:355; Bovon, 2:137. ↩
• ^[77] See Dos Santos, 5. ↩
• ^[78] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1263-1264. ↩
• ^[79] On the derivation of סִימָן from σημεῖον, see Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” TDNT, 7:200-261, esp. 228; Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (Jerusalem: Carta, 1987), 443. ↩
• ^[80] Gill (7:137) was an early scholar to note this parallel to Sign-Seeking Generation. ↩
• ^[81] In an alternate version of this tradition the disciples say to Rabbi Yose ben Kisma, מְבַקְּשִׁים אֲנוּ אוֹת מִמְּךָ (“We are seeking a sign from you!”; Tanhuma, VaYishlaḥ §8 [ed. Buber, 1:166]). ↩
• ^[82] Gill (7:137) also noted this parallel to Sign-Seeking Generation. ↩
• ^[83] The following table lists all of the occurrences of ἀμήν in the Gospel of Mark and the parallels in the Gospel of Matthew and/or Luke. All but one instance of ἀμήν in Mark occurs in the phrase ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. That sole instance is in Mark 14:30, where ἀμήν occurs in the phrase ἀμὴν λέγω σοι:

  Mark 3:28 TT (cf. Matt. 12:31; Luke 12:10) Mark 8:12 TT (cf. Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29) Mark 9:1 TT = Matt. 16:28 (cf. Luke 9:27) Mark 9:41 Mk-Mt = Matt. 10:42 Mark 10:15 TT = Matt. 18:3; Luke 18:17 Mark 10:29 TT = Matt. 19:28; Luke 18:29 Mark 11:23 Mk-Mt = Matt. 21:21 (cf. Luke 17:6) Mark 12:43 Lk-Mk (cf. Luke 21:3) Mark 13:30 TT = Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32 Mark 14:9 Mk-Mt = Matt. 26:13 (cf. Luke 7:47) Mark 14:18 TT = Matt. 26:21 (cf. Luke 22:21) Mark 14:25 TT (cf. Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18) Mark 14:30 TT = Matt. 26:34 (cf. Luke 22:34) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope

  The table above shows that there are only three instances where Luke and Mark agree to write ἀμήν (Mark 10:15 ∥ Luke 18:17; Mark 10:29 ∥ Luke 18:29; Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32). Three instances of Mark’s use of ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν were almost certainly redactional (Mark 3:28; 8:12; 14:25), since in these three instances Luke and Matthew agree against Mark’s use of ἀμήν. The remaining instances of ἀμήν are probably redactional too, since they are used in an un-Hebraic adverbial sense (“truly”) rather than as an affirmative response. How did the author of Mark come to believe that ἀμήν was an adverb? He may have been influenced by Luke’s use of ἀληθῶς (alēthōs, “truly”). This adverb occurs 3xx in Luke, always in conjunction with λέγω ὑμῖν (Luke 9:27; 12:44; 21:3). All three of these instances of ἀληθῶς in Luke are probably attributable to the redactional activity of the First Reconstructor or the author of Luke himself. Opposite ἀληθῶς in Luke 12:44 Matthew’s parallel—copied from Anth.—reads ἀμήν (Matt. 24:47). The author of Mark may have concluded from this instance of Luke’s equation of ἀληθῶς with ἀμήν that ἀμήν is an adverb meaning “truly.” This erroneous conclusion would explain why opposite Luke’s use of ἀληθῶς in Luke 9:27 and Luke 21:3 the author of Mark wrote ἀμήν (Mark 9:1; 12:43). It would also explain the author of Mark’s frequent misuse of ἀμήν elsewhere in his Gospel.

  For a discussion of λέγω + σοι/ὑμῖν in the Synoptic Gospels, see Indiscriminate Catastrophe, Comment to L1. ↩

• ^[84] Lindsey, sensing Mark’s un-Hebraic use of ἀμήν, translated ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν in Mark 8:12 as הָאֱמֶת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם (“The truth I declare to you”; HTGM, 117). ↩
• ^[85] See Plummer, Mark, 197; Abbot, Corrections, 125 §408; Moulton-Howard, 468-469; Taylor, 362; Moule, 179. See also N.D. Coleman, “Some Noteworthy Uses Of εἰ Or εἶ in Hellenistic Greek, with a Note on St Mark VIII 12,” Journal of Theological Studies 28.110 (1927): 159-167. ↩
• ^[86] Some scholars suggest that Mark’s “Hebraic” use of εἰ in Mark 8:12 to express strong negation is the result of LXX imitation. See Luz, 2:215; Collins, 385. ↩
• ^[87] See Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 190. ↩
• ^[88] Pace George Wesley Buchanan, “Some Vow and Oath Formulas in the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review 58.3 (1965): 319-324. There are examples where אָמֵן is used to signal acceptance of prior explicitly stated imprecations (e.g., Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26). However, there are no examples where אָמֵן is used to imply an unstated imprecation. ↩
• ^[89] Cf. Neh. 13:10; Ezek. 44:28. ↩
• ^[90] The Greek Reconstruction represents the text of the non-Markan Greek source common to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, i.e., the Anthology. According to Lindsey, the Anthologizer rearranged the contents of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, but generally did not change its wording. It is possible that in L34-35 we encounter one of those extremely rare cases in which the Anthologizer altered the wording of his source by adding an explanatory gloss. On the other hand, it is possible, although in our estimation less probable, that the gloss was already present in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, having been added by the Greek translator himself. ↩
• ^[91] The only possible attestation of a “sign of Jonah” in Jewish tradition is found in the following account given in the pseudepigraphical Lives of the Prophets:

  καὶ ἔδωκε τέρας ἐπί Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ὅλην τὴν γῆν, ὅτε ἴδωσι λίθον βοῶντα οἰκτρῶς, ἐγγίζεν τὸ τέλος· καὶ ὄτε ἴδωσιν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ὅτι ἡ πόλις ἔως ἐδάφους ἀφανισθήσεται.

  And he [i.e., Jonah—DNB and JNT] placed a portent [τέρας] on Jerusalem and on the whole land, that when they might see a stone shouting lamentations, the end is near. And when they see in Jerusalem all the Gentiles, that the city will be razed down to its foundations. (Lives of the Prophets, Jonah §8)

  Text according to Charles Cutler Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets, 27-28.

  However, as Satran has demonstrated, 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]). The above-cited passage, in particular, appears to be indebted to the New Testament Gospels (a stone crying out sounds like Luke 19:40, while the presence of all the Gentiles in Jerusalem sounds like Luke 21:20-24; cf. Buchanan, 1:540) and may even have been composed in order to supply an answer to the question “What is the ‘sign of Jonah’?”

  Wolter (2:112) noted that the Lukan version of Sign-Seeking Generation was certainly not dependent on the tradition in Lives of the Prophets, since according to Luke 11:30 Jonah is a sign for the Ninevites, not for Jerusalem. ↩

• ^[92] That “the sign of Jonah” means “the sign that is Jonah” is supported by the statement in Luke 11:30 that Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites. ↩
• ^[93] The second and third objections were already raised by Cavendish Moxon, “Τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνα,” Expository Times 22.12 (1911): 566-567. Moxon, however, proposed a different solution to the problem exposed by these objections than the one adopted here. ↩
• ^[94] Alternatively, Jesus could have used אוֹת in the first sentence and מוֹפֵת (mōfēt, “portent”) in the second. ↩
• ^[95] See Isa. 8:18; Ezek. 12:6, 11; 24:24; Jub. 4:22-24; Sir. 44:16 (Heb.). ↩
• ^[96] Even if the Greek translator had rendered “sign” differently in the two statements (e.g., with σημεῖον in the first and τέρας [teras, “portent”] in the second), he would not have succeeded in conveying the contrast evident in Hebrew, as τέρας and σημεῖον are synonyms. ↩
• ^[97] Jeremias was a leading proponent of the view that even Luke’s version of Sign-Seeking Generation alludes to Jonah’s miraculous deliverance from the great fish. According to Jeremias, Matthew’s version of Sign-Seeking Generation, which draws an analogy between Jonah’s deliverance and Jesus’ resurrection, is secondary, but Luke’s version means essentially the same thing. The author of Matthew simply made explicit what was already embedded in Jesus’ saying. See Joachim Jeremias, “Ἰωνᾶς,” TDNT, 3:406-410, esp. 409. Cf. Allen, 139; Carsten Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” TDNT, 8:400-477, esp. 449; Marshall, 485; Gundry, Matt., 244. See also John Bowman, “Jonah and Jesus,” Abr-Nahrain 25 (1987): 1-12. Jeremias and Bowman rely on extremely late rabbinic sources (mainly Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer) to establish their interpretation of Sign-Seeking Generation.
  
  Upon closer inspection, however, the analogy between Jonah’s deliverance and Jesus’ resurrection breaks down. The book of Jonah never states that the people of Nineveh were aware of Jonah’s deliverance from the great fish, neither is the Ninevites’ awareness of this deliverance implied in early Jewish sources. Thus, Jonah’s deliverance from the great fish was not an authenticating miracle for the Ninevites. Moreover, Jonah’s deliverance from the great fish took place before Jonah’s arrival in Nineveh with his message of doom, whereas Jesus’ death and resurrection came after his public prophetic career. Thus, even if we were to grant that Jonah’s deliverance from the great fish was an authenticating miracle for the Ninevites, the analogy with Jesus’ death and resurrection, which could only be an authentication after the fact, is a poor one.
  
  Our disagreement with Jeremias’ line of interpretation goes even deeper, however, since we do not accept the premise that Jesus’ words in Sign-Seeking Generation were a response to a demand that he produce an authenticating sign. The notion that the sign sought by Jesus’ generation was proof of his messianic status was the invention of the author of Luke (see above, Comment to L1-4). The original meaning of “this generation seeks a sign” was “this generation seeks for a sign of deliverance,” such as the signs that were later produced by the false prophets documented in the works of Josephus (see the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above). ↩
• ^[98] So Abbott, Corrections, 129 §412. Even less convincing is the suggestion that "the sign of the dove” refers to Israel, the dove being a symbol for Israel in some Jewish sources. What could Jesus possibly have meant by “No sign will be given to this generation except the sign of Israel?” ↩
• ^[99] The suggestion that "the sign of Jonah” was originally "the sign of John [the Baptist]” is based on the apparently conflicting testimony in the Gospels regarding the name of Peter’s father. According to Matt. 16:17, the name of Peter’s father was Jonah, while according to the Gospel of John, the name of Peter’s father was John (John 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17). In an attempt to harmonize this conflicting testimony, some scholars have suggested that “Jonah” was a shortened form of the name “John.” Advocates of "the sign of John” solution include Moxon, “Τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνα,” 566-567; J. Hugh Michael, “‘The Sign of John,’” Journal of Theological Studies 21.82 (1920): 146-159. For a critique of the view that "the sign of Jonah” was originally "the sign of John [the Baptist],” see Clayton R. Bowen, “Was John the Baptist the Sign of Jonah?” American Journal of Theology 20 (1916): 414-421.
  
  Allen (175-176) rejected the view that “Jonah” could be a shortened form of “John.” Tal Ilan, too, appears to have rejected this view, since she cites Matt. 16:17 in the entry for יוֹנָה in her Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE—200 CE (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 143. ↩
• ^[100] Cf. Manson, Sayings, 90. ↩
• ^[101] For another attempt at identifying "the sign of Jonah,” see James Swetnam, “Some Signs of Jonah,” Biblica 68.1 (1987): 74-79. ↩
• ^[102] On reconstructing ἀλλά with אֶלָּא, see Call of Levi, Comment to L61. ↩
• ^[103] Cf. Harnack, 23; Gundry, Matt., 243; Catchpole, 243; Davies-Allison, 2:355; Nolland, Luke, 2:652; Bovon, 2:137. See also Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 449. ↩
• ^[104] It is odd, therefore, that Bundy (214 §126, 350 §228) regarded Matt. 12:40 and Luke 11:30 as independent Matthean and Lukan additions to Sign-Seeking Generation. ↩
• ^[105] See Allen, 138-139; Harnack, 23; McNeile, 182; Schweizer, 290; Catchpole, 243; Davies-Allison, 2:355; Bovon, 2:137; Luz, 2:214; Nolland, Matt., 509; Witherington, 256 n. 30. See also David Flusser, “‘It Is Not a Serpent that Kills’” (Flusser, JOC, 543-551, esp. 550 n. 23). Merrill is an outlier in viewing Matt. 12:40 as original, but it is apparent that his opinion is more indebted to his religious commitments than to critical thinking. See Eugene H. Merrill, “The Sign of Jonah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23.1 (1980): 23-30. His footnote 14 on page 25 is a prime example of Merrill’s theological rather than rational mode of argumentation. Swetnam, too, assumed that Matt. 12:40 represented the original form of Jesus’ saying. See James Swetnam, “No Sign of Jonah,” Biblica 66.1 (1985): 126-130. ↩
• ^[106] See Generations That Repented Long Ago, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[107] See Lindsey, GCSG, 2:26-27. ↩
• ^[108] See Lindsey, GCSG, 3:298. ↩
• ^[109] Examples of καθὼς...οὕτως (“just as...so”) as in Luke 11:30 occur in Gen. 41:13; Num. 8:22; Judg. 1:7; 15:11; 2 Kgdms. 3:9; 14:17; Esth. 6:10; Jer. 49[42]:18. Examples of ὥσπερ...οὕτως (“just as...so”) as in Matt. 12:40 occur in Josh. 1:5; Prov. 10:26; 26:1, 2; 27:8; Jer. 38[31]:28. ↩
• ^[110] Cf. Marshall, 483; Gundry, Matt., 243. Pace Harnack, 23; Lindsey, LHNS, 69 §87. ↩
• ^[111] See Segal, 233 §497. ↩
• ^[112] See above, Comment to L37-46. Cf. Bultmann, 118; Manson, Teaching, 219; Albright-Mann, 159; Fitzmyer, 2:931; Davies-Allison, 2:352. ↩
• ^[113] On the duration of Jesus’ entombment, see David N. Bivin, “How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?”; Joseph Frankovic, “A Different Way to Reckon a Day.” ↩
• ^[114] In which case, the transformation of Jonah’ sojurn in the belly of the fish into an allegory of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be another example of the author of Matthew’s redactional sloppiness. For other instances of sloppiness in Matthean redaction, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[115] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:652. ↩
• ^[116] It is not unusual in rabbinic sources for סִימָן and אוֹת to occur in the same context as synonyms:

  ילמדנו רבינו, מה סימן נתן ר′ יוסי בן קיסמא לתלמידיו, שהיו מטיילין בטבריא, אמרו לו לר′ יוסי רבי אימתי בן דוד בא, אמר להם ר′ יוסי אם אני אומר לכם אתם תבקשו ממנו אות, אמרו לו לאו, אמר להם הרי השער הזה יבנה ויפול יבנה ויפול, ואין מספיקין לבנותו עד שבן דוד בא, אמרו לו רבותינו לר′ יוסי מבקשים אנו אות ממך

  Let our rabbis teach us! What sign [סִימָן] did Rabbi Yose ben Kisma give to his disciples? When they were walking about Tiberias they said to Rabbi Yose, “Rabbi, when will the son of David come?” Rabbi Yose said to them, “If I tell you, you will ask of me a sign [אוֹת].” They said to him, “No.” He said to them, “Behold, this gate will be rebuilt and fall and be rebuilt and fall, and they will not have finished rebuilding it when the son of David comes.” They said to our master Rabbi Yose, “We are asking for a sign [אוֹת] from you.” (Tanhuma, VaYishlaḥ §8 [ed. Buber, 1:166])

  In the above example סִימָן occurs in the editorial framework while אוֹת occurs in the body of the tradition. In the next example סִימָן occurs in the rabbinic discussion while אוֹת occurs in the biblical quotations.

  הִתְחִיל מְבַקֵּשׁ סִמָּן עַד שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנַן וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית בֵּינִי וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ...הִתְחִיל לְבַקֵּשׁ סִמָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיֹּאמֶר חִזְקִיָּהוּ אֶל יְשַׁעְיָהוּ מָה אוֹת כִּי יִרְפָּא ה′ לִי

  He [i.e., Noah—DNB and JNT] began asking for a sign [מְבַקֵּשׁ סִמָּן] until the Holy One, blessed be he, said, My rainbow I have put in the clouds, and it will be a sign [וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת] of the covenant between me and the earth [Gen. 9:13].... He [i.e., Hezekiah­­—DNB and JNT] began to ask for a sign [לְבַקֵּשׁ סִמָּן], as it is said, And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign [אוֹת] that the LORD will heal me...?” [2 Kgs. 20:8]. (Exod. Rab. 9:1 [ed. Merkin, 5:122-123])

  This second example of oscillation between סִימָן and אוֹת is similar to our reconstruction, where we use סִימָן for colloquial speech but אוֹת when Jesus refers to a scriptural concept (viz., prophet as a sign of doom). ↩

• ^[117] On the variant readings μετανοίας (“repentance”) and διανοίας (“knowledge”), see Flusser, “Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man,” 528 n. 7. See also Michael E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 383-441, esp. 395 n. 60. ↩
• ^[118] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1263-1264. ↩
• ^[119] Pace Catchpole (245), who argued that Jonah could not have been a sign, since being a “sign” entailed an “essentially visual reality” that “points forward to the future divine judgment, and it is not the audible speech or the message issued by the prophet” (e.g., going naked in public [Isa. 20:3] or visually enacting the exile [Ezek. 12:6]). But Catchpole’s reasoning is refuted by Enoch’s appointment as a sign (which Catchpole did not discuss). Enoch, who was hidden away in the Garden of Eden, was not visible to anyone, yet he was a sign for all generations (Jub. 4:22-24). ↩
• ^[120] Cf. Wolter, 2:113. ↩
• ^[121] Cf., e.g., Fitzmyer, 2:933. ↩
• ^[122] Cf. McNeile, 181-182; Kloppenborg, 132-133; Nolland, Luke, 2:653; Wolter, 2:113. ↩
• ^[123] On the author of Matthew’s redactional comparison of Jesus’ forty-day fast to Moses’ fast of the same duration, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L17-19. ↩
• ^[124] Cadbury (Style, 146-147) cited several examples in DT pericopae, including Luke 11:30 ∥ Matt. 12:40, where, opposite the absence of a conjunction in Matthew, Luke inserts καί “in the apodosis of relative or conditional clauses.” ↩
• ^[125] See Jeremias, “Ἰωνᾶς,” 409. ↩
• ^[126] See Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 404; Geza Vermes, “The Present State of the ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” Journal of Jewish Studies 29.2 (1978): 123-134, esp. 123. ↩
• ^[127] See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Hebrew Life of Jesus,” under the subheading “Jesus’ Interrogation by the Chief Priests.” For a similar approach, see Randall Buth, “‘Son of Man’: Jesus’ Most Important Title”; idem, “Comments on 'Son of Man' Relating to NOT 75,” Notes On Translation 101 (1984): 42-48; idem, “A More Complete Semitic Background for בר־אנשא, ‘Son of Man,’” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 176-189. ↩
• ^[128] In addition to Lindsey’s conviction that whenever Jesus used the term “Son of Man” he did so in order to allude to the cosmic כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ figure of Daniel 7, Lindsey (“The Hebrew Life of Jesus,” under the subheading “Jesus’ Interrogation by the Chief Priests”) offered two arguments to explain why Jesus would not have used the Hebrew term בֶּן אָדָם (ben ’ādām, “son of a human being/Adam”). First, according to Lindsey, there is no evidence that בֶּן אָדָם was used as a synonym for “person” during Jesus’ period. Second, according to Lindsey, the definite phrase בֶּן הָאָדָם (ben hā’ādām, “the son of the human being/Adam”) never occurs in MT and never would be used because it is too difficult to distinguish in spoken Hebrew between the definite and indefinite forms of the phrase. However, both arguments are spurious.

  There is, in fact, evidence of the continued (if limited) use of בֶּן אָדָם as a synonym for “person” in Mishnaic Hebrew, as the following examples demonstrate:

  לא תאמץ את לבבך, יש בן אדם שמצטער אם יתן אם לא יתן. ולא תקפוץ את ידך, יש בן אדם שפושט את ידו וחוזר וקופצה.

  You must not harden your heart [Deut. 15:7]. [This is said because] there is a person [בֶּן אָדָם] who troubles himself whether to give [to a poor person] or not to give. And you must not shut your hand [Deut. 15:7]. [This is said because] there is a person [בֶּן אָדָם] who stretches out his hand and then withdraws it. (Sifre Deut. §116 [ed. Finkelstein, 175])

  וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר כִּי יִצְפְּנֵנִי וגו′ בְּצוּר יְרוֹמְמֵנִי מַהוּ בְּצוּר יְרוֹמְמֵנִי זָה יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן בֶּן אָדָם שֶׁהוּא דוֹמֶה לְצוּר

  And concerning him [i.e., Joash—DNB and JNT] the Scripture says, For he will hide me...on a rock he will lift me up [Ps. 27:5]. And what is [the meaning of] on a rock he will lift me up? This is Jehoiada the priest, a person [בֶּן אָדָם] who was like a rock. (Seder Olam §18 [ed. Guggenheimer, 160])

  As for the definite phrase בֶּן הָאָדָם, it is, admittedly, exceedingly rare. It is not, however, impossible, as proven by the fact that in 1QS XI, 20 a scribe intentionally changed the indefinite phrase בֶּן אָדָם to בֶּן הָאָדָם by inserting the definite article -ה. The scribal insertion of the definite article proves both that the scribe who inserted it knew that the phrase בֶּן הָאָדָם could occur and that he believed it should occur at this specific point in his text.

  Thus, pace Lindsey, there is no a priori reason why Jesus could not have referred to himself as בֶּן הָאָדָם. Lindsey’s argument that Jesus would not have used the phrase בֶּן הָאָדָם because it “would have given Jesus’ listeners no meaningful hint of Daniel 7:13” simply begs the question.

  There may, in fact, be indirect evidence of Jesus’ self-referential use of בֶּן (הָ)אָדָם. In a polemical statement aimed against Christians the third-century sage Rabbi Abbahu claimed:

  אם יאמר לך אדם אל אני מכזב הוא בן אדם אני סופו לתהות בו שאני עולה לשמים ההוא אמר ולא יקימנה

  If a person says to you, “I am God,” he is a liar. [If he says,] “I am [the] Son of Man [בֶּן אָדָם],” he is destined to regret it. [If he says] that “I am ascending to heaven,” that one may have said it, but he will not fulfill it. (y. Taan. 2:1 [9a])

  Rabbi Abbahu’s statement is an anti-Christian exegesis of Num. 23:19, which reads:

  לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב וּבֶן אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה

  God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind. Has he said [a thing] and will not do [it], or spoken and will not fulfill it? (Num. 23:19)

  Rabbi Abbahu subverted the plain meaning of Num. 23:19 in order to combat the claims that Christians maintained Jesus made about himself. Was it only against Greek-speaking Gentile Christianity that Rabbi Abbahu polemicized, or was he also familiar with Christian Jews from the land of Israel who preserved the memory of Jesus’ words in their original language? If so, Rabbi Abbahu’s implication that Jesus called himself בֶּן אָדָם (not בַּר אֱנָשׁ!) may preserve an echo of Jesus’ speech. On Rabbi Abbahu’s polemical exegesis of Num. 23:19, see Dalman, 246-247. ↩

• ^[129] See Dalman, 241-249; Geza Vermes, “Jesus the son of man” (Vermes, Jew, 160-191, 256-261). ↩
• ^[130] As such, the being “like a son of man” corresponds to the four beasts who appear earlier in the vision. The first beast was כְאַרְיֵה (ch^e’aryēh, “like a lion”; Dan. 7:4), but, having wings and human feet, the first beast was not actually a lion. The second beast was דָּמְיָה לְדֹב (domyāh l^edov, “like a bear”; Dan. 7:5), but, having ribs in its mouth, it was not actually a bear. The third beast was כִּנְמַר (kinmar, “like a leopard”; Dan. 7:6), but, having four wings and four heads, it was not actually a leopard. The fourth beast (Dan. 7:7) was not likened to any particular animal, being more terrifying than anything known in the animal kingdom. ↩
• ^[131] See Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 423-426; Vermes, “Jesus the son of man,” 173-175; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (2d ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 285-286. ↩
• ^[132] See David Flusser, “Melchizedek and the Son of Man” (Flusser, JOC, 186-192). ↩
• ^[133] See David Flusser, “Son of Man,” Encyclopedia Judaica (2d ed.; 22 vols.; ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik; Detroit: Macmillan, 2007), 19:25; R. Steven Notley, “Jesus and the Son of Man”; Marc Turnage, “Jesus and Caiaphas: An Intertextual-Literary Evaluation” (JS1, 139-168), esp. 151 n. 34, 163-165. ↩
• ^[134] See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, 283. ↩
• ^[135] Pace Bultmann, 118; Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 449. For a critique of Bultmann’s view, see Fitzmyer, 2:933. ↩
• ^[136] There may be a connection between Jesus’ use of “son of man” to connote his homeless existence and his use of “son of man” to signify his status as a prophet of doom. Jonah, who left his home and belongings behind to carry his message to far-away Nineveh, may have served as a scriptural model for Jesus’ itinerant lifestyle. See Gerd Theissen, “Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections from Social History on Jesus’ Roles,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 98-122, esp. 108-109. ↩
• ^[137] See Gundry, Matt., 244. ↩
• ^[138] See David Flusser, “‘It Is Not a Serpent that Kills’” (Flusser, JOC, 543-551), esp. 550 n. 23; Bovon, 2:140. ↩
• ^[139] There is no mention of a guard placed on Jesus’ tomb in the Gospels of Luke or Mark. The Gospel of John, too, lacks any reference to a guard placed on Jesus’ tomb, despite this Gospel’s anti-Roman orientation. On the anti-Roman tendency of the Gospel of John, see David Flusser, “The Gospel of John’s Jewish-Christian Source,” under the subheading “Intentions and Tendencies of the Jewish-Christian Source.”
  
  That the story of the Roman guard placed on Jesus’ tomb is unique to the Gospel of Matthew is sufficient grounds for questioning its historicity. Additional causes for doubt are 1) the un-Hebraic style in which this account is written and 2) the anti-Jewish viewpoint it expresses is congenial to the worldview of the author of Matthew. On the un-Hebraic style of Matt. 27:62-66; 28:11-15, see Martin, (Syntax 1, 116 no. 43 and no. 44). On the author of Matthew’s anti-Jewish bias, see David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560); idem, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (Flusser, JOC, 561-574); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels”; Tomson, 406-408. On Matt. 27:63, see Flusser, Jesus, 256 n. 7; David Flusser, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40), 35 n. 58. NB: An error occurs in the crucial sentence on p. 35 of Flusser’s “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels.” The sentence should read: “These are the pertinent passages: The death of Judas (Matt 27:3-5); the legendary report about the miracles after the burial of Jesus (Matt 27:62-66)⁵⁸ (Matt 27:52-53); and the guard at the tomb (Matt 27:62-66)⁵⁸ and the bribing of the soldiers (Matt 28:11-15).” ↩
• ^[140] The passion predictions in Matt. 16:21, 17:23 and 20:19 are addressed solely to the disciples. ↩
• ^[141] See Gundry, Matt., 244-245. ↩
• ^[142] The author of Matthew similarly transformed Darnel Among the Wheat and Bad Fish Among the Good into allegories about the coming of the Son of Man by providing both parables with interpretations. Likewise, he transformed the Wicked Tenants parable into an allegory about the transfer of the Kingdom of God from the Jews to the Gentile followers of Jesus by adding Matt. 21:43. ↩
• ^[143] Elliott argues in favor of the textual variant of Mark 8:13 that refers explicitly to embarking on the boat. See J. K. Elliott, “An Eclectic Textual Commentary on the Greek Text of Mark’s Gospel,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis (ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 47-60, esp. 52. ↩
• ^[144] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes”; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:1. ↩
• ^[145] Cf. LHNC, 790. ↩
• ^[146] See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 4:35. ↩
• ^[147] Three times the author of Matthew described Jesus’ departure using the verb καταλείπειν (kataleipein, “to leave”): Matt. 4:13; 16:4; 21:17. The first has no parallel in Luke or Mark, while the other two have parallels in Mark only (Mark 8:13; 11:11), and in neither instance does Mark have the verb καταλείπειν. Thus, καταλείπειν belongs to the author of Matthew’s redactional vocabulary. ↩
• ^[148]

  Sign-Seeking Generation
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τῶν δὲ ὄχλων ἐπαθροιζομένων ἤρξατο λέγειν ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν σημεῖον ζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο ὁ Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευείταις σημεῖον οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ		[καὶ ἤρξατο λέγειν] ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν σημεῖον ζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευίταις σημεῖον οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ
  Total Words:	42	Total Words:	34 [37]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	34 [36]	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	34 [36]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	80.95 [85.71]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	100.00 [97.30]%

  ↩

• ^[149]

  Sign-Seeking Generation
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ ἤρξαντο συνζητεῖν αὐτῷ ζητοῦντες παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ σημεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πειράζοντες αὐτόν καὶ ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ λέγει τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σημεῖον ἀμὴν λέγω εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον καὶ ἀφεὶς αὐτοὺς πάλιν ἐμβὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ πέραν		[καὶ ἤρξατο λέγειν] ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν σημεῖον ζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευίταις σημεῖον οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ
  Total Words:	46	Total Words:	34 [37]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8 [9]	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	8 [9]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	17.39 [19.57]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	23.53 [24.32]%

  ↩

• ^[150]

  Sign-Seeking Generation
  Matthew’s Version (Anth.)		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τότε ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ τινες τῶν γραμματέων λέγοντες διδάσκαλε θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον ἰδεῖν ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ιωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας		[καὶ ἤρξατο λέγειν] ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν σημεῖον ζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευίταις σημεῖον οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ
  Total Words:	66	Total Words:	34 [37]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	21	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	21
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	31.82%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	61.76 [56.76]%

  .

  Sign-Seeking Generation
  Matthew’s Version (Mark)		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρεισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι πειράζοντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν σημεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτοῖς ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλεὶς σημεῖον αἰτεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καὶ καταλιπὼν αὐτοὺς ἀπῆλθεν		[καὶ ἤρξατο λέγειν] ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν σημεῖον ζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευίταις σημεῖον οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ
  Total Words:	40	Total Words:	34 [37]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	13
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	32.50%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	38.24 [35.14]%

  ↩

• ^[151] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[152] 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. ↩