¹ Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Hilary, John of Damascus, Ambrose, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Cyprian.

² For Mark 10.29, see B Ψ a b d k ff; for Matt 19.29, see K Y Θ א^a C^* L 31 minuscules vg cop Syhier

³ Compare 5.11 and Mark 1.20; 5.28 and Mark 2.14; 14.33; 18.22 and Mark 10.21; cf. 21.4.

⁴ It is interesting that even here, Luke employs χρα (v. 34) and γρός (v. 37) to denote agricultural property.

⁵ In 14.26–33, a Lukan composition, family members are listed again but property is generalized to ὑπαρχόντων

⁶ ‘Brothers and sisters’ and ‘mothers and fathers’ are of course couplets, but we have ‘children’ rather than ‘sons and daughters’; and when ‘wives’ occurs in Luke 18.29 it is paired with οỉκίαν. Гυναîκα is paired with τέκνα in many manuscripts of Matthew and Mark, but the very attractiveness of this pairing constitutes one of the strongest arguments against its originality.

⁷ In Mark, see 4.20; 13.9; in Q, see Matt 4.1–11; 5.25; 5.39–40; 10.37–8; in Matthew, see 7.25; 19.12. For other three-item lists, see Mark 4.19; Matt 7.7; 7.22; 10.37–8. For other lists, see, e.g., Mark 6.8; 7.21–2; 10.19.

⁸ See, e.g., Luke 15.15 (pi.); Mark 13.16; Luke 14.18; Acts 4.37 (sg.). The word can also denote the countryside as opposed to the city: Mark 5.14; 6.36; 6.56; 15.21.

⁹ R. H. Gundry, in a draft of his forthcoming commentary on Mark, suggests that there is progression in the list according to ‘increasing value in a rural society’, from brothers as erstwhile competitors for inheritance to fathers who provide land to the land itself which provides sustenance. This scheme has at least two flaws: it does not account for the penultimate place on the list of children, who are economic liabilities; and it places lands higher on the value scale than fathers, who are the providers of land in an agrarian culture. There may be a sense of progression in the list of family members in terms of loyalty within the family structure, but the proposal of a hierarchy of economic value here seems forced.

¹⁰ Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford, 1967) 208–26, esp. 216–17 on Mark 6.8–9.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Schmidt, T., Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield, 1987) 106Google Scholar; and Zimmerman, F., The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels (New York, 1979) 87.Google Scholar

¹² The word is common for ‘field’ in biblical and rabbinic sources. The Old Syriac in Mark 10.29, Matt 19.29, and Acts 4.34 has (from χρα). F. Delitzsch ( [Berlin, 1901] uses in all three verses.

¹³ For the plural as ‘countries’, see Tg. Neof. Gen 26.3; 41.54; Tg. Onq. Gen 10.5, 20; 26.3–4; 41.54. For , as ‘field(s)’, see (sg.)y. Mas. Š. 56b(50); Gen. Rab. 114:5 [Ms. Vat. Ebr. 60]; Gen. Rab. 213.3; Lev. Rab. 103.3; 124.4; 495.2; (pi.) b. Sukk. 30a; b. Git. 52a; b. B. Qam. 7a, b; b. B. Mes. 39b; b. B. Bat. 12b, 61b. For as ‘countries’, see m. Šeb. 6.1; 9.2–3; m. Hal. 4.8; m. Ketub. 13.10; m. B. Bat. 3.2; m. Menah. 8.1;m. Kelim 1.6. Isa 37.18 has in the Hebrew and in Targum Jonathan for ‘all the nations and their land(s)’. Unfortunately, earlier Aramaic literature does not offer many pertinent examples. Sf. 1 B 1. 27 (Fitzmyer, J. A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967, pp. 18–19Google Scholar) makes reference to the violation of a treaty if someone ‘takes some of my land (, the earlier form of )’. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (G. R. Driver, Oxford: Clarendon, 1957)Google Scholar includes a reference to restitution for appropriating ‘the crop from the land (, note plural)’. Daniel 4.12 refers to ‘the beasts of the field ()’. In the Aramaic literature of Qumran, is used about eighty times (sixty of these in fragments of 1 Enoch) to denote ‘the earth as a whole’ (e.g. 11 QtgJob 24.7 [34.13]; lQapGen 7.1; 4QEn ^a 1.4) and about twenty-five times to denote ‘country’ (e.g., lQapGen 17.9; 19.11; lQEnGiants frg. 9.14–15.3; 4QEn^c 13.[7]; 4QEn^d 27.[1]). More rarely, the Qumran material employs the word to denote ‘earth’ as opposed to sky (e.g., 11 QtgJob 13.5 [28.24]; lQapGen 12.13; 4QEn^c 5.[18]; 4QEn^g 92.[1]). While there are no instances of as ‘field’ in the published Qumran materials, neither is there an instance of or . None of the Qumran material includes subject matter which might make use of any of these words, but it is reasonable to suppose on the basis of earlier and later usage that could be used to denote ‘field’. See Beyer, K., Die aramäischen Texte vom Totem Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984)Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A. and Harrington, D. J., A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978)Google Scholar; and especially Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University, 1990) 76–7Google Scholar, for numerous examples of as ‘earth, land, ground, piece of land’.

¹⁴ The number of the word in the original saying does not affect the argument, because as the examples cited demonstrate, the confusion could arise over either the singular or the plural form. There is no significance to a change in number from to γρούς, since the plural would be a more natural way in Greek to indicate the totality of one's real estate. The use of the singular γρός might leave the inaccurate impression that a field, i.e., part of one's real estate, might be a sufficient sacrifice.

¹⁵ A strong candidate for a biblical text which could have contributed to the misunderstanding is Deut 5.21, ‘neither desire your neighbour's house, or field’ ().

¹⁶ Mark 13.9; Acts 1.8. ‘Territory’ may be the equivalent of one's life (Matt 11.39; Luke 14.26), and the latter passage may preserve the sequence: possessions (14.33), family (14.26a), life (14.26b).