Luke 16:9 as a General Principle with Dual Application

Luke 16:9 (AICNT) reads “[And] I say to you, make friends for yourselves from the unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.” In the context of the preceding parable of the unrighteous manager in Luke 16:1-8, the meaning, although having a worldly application more profoundly, has an eternal one. With Jesus's elaboration later in verses 12-15, the eternal one becomes more clear. It is a worldly or dual application that may not be clear or may trouble some readers.

Regarding the interpretation of verse 9, I believe it is a general principle that can be applied in an earthly frame of reference as well as a heavenly one. The hint about it being a dual application or general principle is the use of the plural pronoun “they.” In addition to the eternal application, the parable suggests there is also an earthly one. Of course, Jesus is emphasizing the eternal. But how it applies to the manager is an earthly one.

This verse can be interpreted to have a dual application:

Earthly Perspective: 

From an earthly viewpoint, Jesus is advising the use of worldly wealth (“mammon of unrighteousness”) in a manner that can cultivate relationships and goodwill. This pragmatic approach suggests that resources should be used wisely to support and help others, thereby building a network of friends who can offer assistance and support in times of need.

Eternal Perspective: 

From an eternal perspective, the verse implies that how one manages worldly wealth has spiritual consequences. By using material resources to aid others, particularly those in need, believers can lay up treasures in heaven. The “everlasting habitations” refer to the eternal reward and welcome in the afterlife. It underscores the principle that generosity and stewardship of earthly possessions can lead to spiritual rewards and eternal fellowship with God.

How can “they” be understood?

Friends Made Through Generosity: 

One interpretation is that “they” refers to the friends made through the wise and generous use of earthly wealth (“mammon of unrighteousness”). The idea is that by helping others with your resources, you build relationships and goodwill.

Heavenly Beings or Saints: 

Another interpretation is that “they” could refer to heavenly beings or saints who are in the presence of God. In this view, the verse suggests that the way you use your resources on earth is observed by heavenly beings, and when you die, they are the ones who will welcome you into eternal life, acknowledging the righteous use of your possessions.

General Concept: 

A broader interpretation is that “they” doesn't refer to specific individuals but to the general concept. It emphasizes the principle that generous actions lead to rewards and security.

What about “Eternal Habitations,” and how can that be understood with the dual application?

Eternal Perspective: 

The primary interpretation is that “everlasting habitations” refers to eternal life and the rewards in heaven. Jesus is emphasizing the importance of using earthly resources wisely and generously, which will lead to spiritual rewards.

Temporal Application: 

While the primary interpretation is eternal, there can be a secondary, more temporal application in the sense that the relationships and goodwill created by generous and righteous use of wealth can have immediate, earthly benefits. These benefits could include support and hospitality from those helped, reflecting the idea of being received into “homes” or “shelters” of friends made through acts of kindness. This can further be elaborated as follows:

1. Temporal Security and Influence: 

In a temporal sense, the homes and resources of the wealthy could be seen as more stable and enduring due to their financial power. Wealth can provide a degree of security and influence that allows for more permanent dwellings and a stable lifestyle. Therefore, “eternal tents” might be understood as metaphorically referring to the lasting impact and security that wealth can provide in this life.

2. Sustained Relationships: 

The idea could extend to the relationships built through the wise and generous use of wealth. By using wealth to build and sustain friendships and alliances, a person might ensure a lasting network of support and hospitality, which could be metaphorically referred to as “eternal tents” in a temporal sense.

3. Reputation and Legacy: 

Wealth can also create a lasting legacy or reputation. Philanthropic actions, charitable contributions, and the establishment of institutions (like hospitals, schools, etc.) funded by wealth can have enduring impacts that outlast the individual's life, contributing to a form of something lasting, although not eternal. 

Jesus did associate with the wealthy

Jesus did dine with Pharisees on several occasions, and He attended feasts where Pharisees were present. Here are a few notable examples:

Dinner at Simon the Pharisee's House (Luke 7:36-50):

Jesus was invited to dine at the house of Simon the Pharisee. During this meal, a sinful woman anointed Jesus' feet with perfume, and Jesus used the occasion to teach about forgiveness and love.

Dinner at a Pharisee's House on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1-24):

Jesus went to eat at the house of a prominent Pharisee on the Sabbath. During this meal, He healed a man suffering from dropsy and taught about humility, hospitality, and the Kingdom of God.

Dinner at Another Pharisee's House (Luke 11:37-54):

A Pharisee invited Jesus to dine with him, and during the meal, Jesus spoke critically about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

These examples indicate that Jesus did dine with Pharisees and attended feasts with them. He had a willingness to eat and converse with them, despite their frequent opposition to his teaching.

Clarifying Luke 14:26, "Hate your own father and mother"

Clarifying Luke 14:26, “hate your own father and mother”

Luke 14:26-27 (ESV)   

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

This saying, like others embedded in the Gospels, contains an important Hebrew idiom.

To understand Luke 14:26, idiomatic expression is central to our very understanding of the verse. If we recognize the Hebrew meaning behind the Greek of Luke, it will become apparent that Luke is not saying what some people think it says.

The hidden Hebrew meaning can be unmasked without good knowledge of Hebrew. Lets look at some instances of the unique Hebraic use of the verbs “love” and “hate” elsewhere in the Bible.

Gen 29:31 reads, “When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.” In this context, “hated” simply means that Jacob preferred his beloved Rachel. 

Rom 9:13 reads, 'As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”' Paul's quotation of Malachi 1;1-2 upholds divine sovereignty in God's election. No one who heard this statement in the days of the biblical prophet or read it at the time of Paul would have suggested that the Lord literally hated Esau. Rather it is an inverse way of indicating that God favored Jacob and, although Esau was the first son who would normally receive the inheritance, the inheritance was passed through the younger brother, Jacob. To express preferential treatment, the writer used “to love and hate.” in a Hebrew sense. That is, it is in reference to bestowing relative favor or regard to one versus the other. The one who is not given preferential treatment is hated, and the one who is loved. 

Luke 16:13, provides further context for interpreting Luke 14:26:

Luke 16:13 (ESV) 

  13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

This corresponds with the idea of preference contained in the Hebraic expression to love and hate. Jesus' use of the verbs to express the need for total preference for God over all other relationships and loyalties. Although Luke 16:26 is somewhat ambiguous when interpreted in English, it is most likely it is speaking of simple allegiance and not literal hate and love. The interpretation needs to harmonize with Jesus teaching throughout Luke and the Hebraic use of the words for love and hate in the Bible. 

We cannot serve two masters, we must choose our allegiance to one over the other. We must choose the things of God over worldly wealth. Wealth is not evil in itself, but we must hate it in contrast to the things of God. We should not serve mammon and become its slave. We disregard it in comparison to our loyalty to God. We regard money as our servant rather than our master. 

The later revision of Matthew serves as an interpretive commentary of Luke. The author of Matthew attempts to clarify the more ambiguous wording in Luke.

Matthew 10:37-39 (ESV) 

  ³⁷ Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matthew, in interpreting Luke, makes the notion of preference much clearer.

If we have our priorities set straight, the Lord is the master of our lives. We hate all else in contrast to our alliance to God, whether it be wealth or relationships.  This is along the lines of what Paul says in Philippians 3:7-11:

Philippians 3:7-11 (ESV) 

  ⁷ But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. ⁸ Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— ¹⁰ that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹ that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

In the direct context of Luke 14:26, Luke 14:27 equates discipleship with death: “Whoever does not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” It is the continuation of Jesus' saying of “hating” one's father and mother. The Lord requires preeminence in our lives and no divided allegiance. We must sever relationships or pursuits that interfere with God's will. We are called to die to ourselves and our worldly ambitions and loyalties, and not even fear death. Our allegiance to the Son of Man, in acknowledging his lordship before men, will gain us his acknowledgment before the angels of God: 

Luke 12:4-8 (ESV) 

  ⁴ “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. ⁵ But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! ⁶ Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. ⁷ Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows. ⁸ “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, ⁹ but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

  

Thus, the difficult verse of Luke 14:26 can be understood in the proper context that harmonizes with the rest of Luke. As we have seen, this interpretation of hate not being literal hate in this context is consistent with the Hebraic concept of love and hate. 

Reference Article: Steven Notley, Jesus' Command to “Hate”, Jerusalem Perspective (2004) https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4442/

Validation of Luke's Special Material, Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke

Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke

Based on analysis from James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009)

Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ihkS7B 

Validation of Luke's Special Material - Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke

A primary reason for holding Luke to be the most reliable of the Synoptics is that double and triple tradition material in Luke, material shared by Luke with Mark or Matthew, is more primitive in Luke than in Mark and Matthew. However, there is further evidence that Luke is based on the earliest gospel traditions. This is seen by evaluating the material that is unique to Luke with no parallel in Mark or Matthew, known as Special Luke (Luke's Special Material unique to Luke in comparison to the other Synoptic Gospels). This special Material, not shared with Matthew or Mark, constitutes approximately 50% of the Gospel of Luke.


The key point to consider is that Luke's Special material is highly Semitic in syntax and vocabulary. Numerous scholars, in addition to Robert Lindsey of the Jerusalem school, have made a study of the strong Semitic influence exhibited in Luke. Below is a list of Scholarly works in English:

• J. R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009), Chapter 4 and Appendix II.
• A Hogeterp, A. Denaux, Semitisms in Luke's Greek: A Descriptive Analysis of Lexical and Syntactical Domains of Semitic Language Influence in Luke's Gospel (2018)
• W. H. Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek New Testament, 12-24;
• H. J. Cadbury, “Luke - Translator or Author,” 436-55;
• J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke, lxxvi-lxxxiv;
• R. H. Connolly, “Syriacisms in St Luke,” 374-85;
• C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937);
• H. F. D. Sparks, “The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel;” 129-38;
• A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke' (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), xlviii-lxvii;
• W. R Stegner, “The Priority of Luke: An Exposition of Robert Lindsey’s Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” Jerusalem Perspective (2020)
• R. L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, 2nd Ed (1973) Introduction, 9-84
• J. A. Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1.116-27;
• M. Wilcox, “Semitisms in the New Testament;” 1019-21;
• L. T. Stuckenbruck, “An Approach to the New Testament through Aramaic Sources: The Recent Methodological Debate;' JSP 8 (1991), 3-29;
• S. Olofsson, “Consistency as a Translation lation Technique,” SJOT 6 (1992), 14-3o;
• K. de Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBLTCS 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003);
• J. Davila, “(How) Can We Tell If a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon Has Been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” 3-61.

James Edwards, in the introduction of the seminal book The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, likens the ability to identify the Semitic character of the Gospel of Luke as to seeing faint Hebrew characters underling the Greek text of an ancient document:

In the ancient world, a scribe or author would often rub the writing off an old parchment in order to reclaim the surface for a new text. The result was called a palimpsest. A complete erasure of the first hand would practically destroy a parchment, so palimpsests were treated more kindly and invariably variably retain the faint but visible ligatures of the original lettering beneath neath the most recent text. Reading the Greek NT with a knowledge of biblical Hebrew is like reading a palimpsest. The Hebrew thought world, like a subtext, often lies faintly beneath the Greek surface. But in the Gospel of Luke - or at least in parts of it - the subtext became much more visible. The Hebrew words seem to have been erased less completely than elsewhere in the Gospels. They are more evident, intrusive, and inescapable. Like rocks and coral reefs, they lay barely submerged beneath Luke's Greek. Nor did Luke seem to make an effort to tame or camouflage the Hebraisms. Their primitive and alien dignity seem to be consciously retained without Hellenizing or harmonizing to Lukan style. They give every appearance of coming from a source that the author valued and attempted to preserve. (James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, p. xx)

Edwards found that in the half of Luke that is “Special Luke,” Luke exhibits approximately a 400% increase in Semitic character. This bears witness that Luke did not attempt to diminish the Semitism in his Hebraic source material by altering them to conventional Koine Greek standards. Luke is faithful to the extrinsic literary standards of his source material.

However, in pericopes (scenes) that Luke shares with Matthew and mark, Semitic influence decreases or disappears altogether. The half of Luke's gospel shared with Matthew and Mark exhibits a Koine Greek style, relatively free of Semitisms and not particularly dissimilar from the Greek of Matthew and Mark (Luke being the least embellished of the three).

The evidence that Luke utilized a Hebrew source in the composition of his Gospel is the focus of this article. Scholars have long noted that Luke contains an abnormally high number of Semitisms in comparison with Matthew and Mark. An example is Gustav Dalman who wrote:

“Hebraisms proper are special characteristics of Luke. There is reason, therefore, for a closer scrutiny of the style of this evangelist with its wealth of Hebraisms.” (G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 38.)

This fact can be attributed to the theory that Semitisms derive from an original Hebrew Gospel authored by an apostolic witness. James Edward tested this very hypothesis in his extensive book, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition. His approach was to chart the individual Semitisms of Luke verse by verse, to see if they occurred in statistically greater numbers in passages unique to Luke. For example, if Luke utilized the Hebrew Gospel as a source, we should expect to see traces of it in those parts of Luke not dependent on Mark.

Edward presented the data necessary to test his thesis in Appendix II of his book. This appendix lists by chronological chapter and verse every Semitism. He identified some 700 for which there is reasonable certainty in Luke while passing over many more that weren't quite as certain. The Appendix clearly demonstrates that when Lukan material parallels Matthew and/or Mark, it shows on the whole no greater Semitic influence than Matthew or Mark. The result, consistent with Edward's hypothesis, is the overwhelming bulk of Luke's Semitisms occurs rather in material unique to Luke. Correspondingly, semitisms occur nearly four times more often in Special Luke than in material shared in common with Matthew or Mark.

The case for Semitic influence is further strengthened when clusters of Semitisms occur in portions of a document that otherwise and in other portions is drafted in conventional Koine Greek. Davila noted, “If we found blocks of text containing a high density of Semitisms alongside blocks of good Greek... we could conclude that the writer was either incorporating translated Greek passages into the work or translating passages from a Semitic source in some places while writing in his or her normal style in others. This appears to be the case with Acts.” (Davila, “How Can We Tell If a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon Has Been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?”38-39.)

It might be surprising that Davila's axiom is actually more true of Luke than of Acts. The Appendix that Edwards provides, exhibits the distinct concentrations of Semitisms that occur in various sections of Luke. This eliminates the idea that Luke was trying to deliberately create a Semitic style, to emulate the Septuagint, since Semitisms in Luke do not occur in consistent proportion throughout.

Rather, the ebbs and flows of Semitisms in Luke can be reasonably explained by the premise of a Semitic prototype for portions of Luke with high Semitic concentrations. We have reason to believe that because the unusual or awkward words, phrases, idioms, and expressions that can be identified as “Semitisms” appear with uncharacteristic frequency in an author who otherwise writes cultivated Greek, and because those linguistic abnormalities, ranging from the slightly unusual to the virtually impossible, that this is explained as the result of normal Hebraic linguistic conventions being incorporated into Luke form a principal source.

Overview of The Analysis

On the basis of the Semitic analysis provided by Edwards there are four conclusions that can clearly be evidenced. (Shown in Appendix II, James R. Edwards. In the Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition)

1. Semitisms are not exclusive to the first two chapters of Luke, as is often supposed. Although there is a steady stream of Semitisms in Luke 1-2, concentrations Semitisms continue throughout other parts of the Third Gospel. Particularly strong concentrations of Semitisms occur in Luke 4:4-30; Luke 5:1-12; ch. 7; the end of ch. 9; the latter half of ch. 10; and throughout chapters 13-19 and 24. In Luke 24, the number and density of Semitisms exceed their number and density in any other chapter in the Gospel.
2. The vast majority of Semitisms are unique to Luke and not shared in common with Matthew or Mark. In Appendix II of The Hebrew Gospel, there is a total of 703 Semitisms listed. Of this number, 653 are unique to Luke. They appear either in Special Luke or as Lukan additions to material shared in common with Matthew or Mark. That is, they do not appear in the other two Synoptics. 93% of the Semitisms in Luke are unique to Luke. Of all Luke's Semitisms, only 2% (15) appear in common with both Matthew and Mark; 4% (26) appear in common with Matthew, and only 1% (9) appear in common with Mark. The comparatively high number of Semitisms in Luke demands an explanation.
3. Appendix II of The Hebrew Gospel reveals that Semitisms occur in much higher frequency in content unique to Luke than in passages that Luke shares in common with Matthew or Mark. The Gospel of Luke contains a total of 1151 verses, exactly half of which (574 verses) are unique to Luke (Special Luke), having no parallel with Matthew or Mark. These 574 verses contain a total of 504 Semitisms that account for 72% Semitisms in Luke. They account for 77% of the 653 Semitisms unique to the Third Gospel. Again, 72% of the total number of Semitisms in Luke occur in material unique to Luke! This evidence indicates a highly Semitic source incorporated by Luke. Semitisms appear in Special Luke, appear nearly four times as often as they appear in those sections of Luke that are shared in common with Matthew or Mark.
4. Appendix II of The Hebrew Gospel shows 10 verses that are completely Semitic and completely unique to Luke (Special Luke) including some verses with as many as 6 Semitisms or more (Luke 5:12a, Luke 5:17, Luke 9:51; Luke 17:11; and Luke 21:34, are entirely Semitic) According to Edwards, “They beg to be translated back into standard biblical Hebrew.” (p. 145) Of the hyper-Semitic verses, there are several observations to make, including that they are not limited to one particular section of Luke, as they are dispersed throughout the Gospel. Another noticeable observation is that all but Luke 21:24 stand at the beginning of Lukan pericopes. On 14 occasions, the hyper-Semitic verses occur to introduce pericopes that are exclusive to Luke (Special Luke). 

This is further evidence that validates the material unique to Luke (Special Luke) as deriving from a primitive Hebraic source. This suggests that a Semitic source played a substantive role in the composition of Luke's Gospel. The source material, a prior Hebrew exemplar, is thus the primary basis for the twenty pericopes in Luke comprising hyper-Semitic introductory verses. This is especially true of the 14 instances of hyper-Semitic verses that introduce pericopes in material unique to Luke (Special Luke).  Luke follows the order and sequence of the Hebrew Gospel, where Mark departs from it. Edwards' conclusion is as follows:

This Semitic source thus appears to have been a primary source, into which the author of Luke integrated supplementary elementary material.

 This hypothesis has been anticipated and explained by several scholars. The earliest and also most precise is J. Vernon Bartlet, "The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel;" who argued that a single source of unusual Semitic character (which he thought was a conflation of several eral earlier sources) played a primary role in the composition of Luke, both supplying the balance of material in the Third Gospel that was not found in Mark, and also influencing the form in which Marks material was represented in Luke. "All these phenomena suggest the presence in various parts of Luke of a source parallel with Mark even in sections which at first sight appear dependent on Mark alone: and this result will be found to prove the best working hypothesis in every part of his Gospel" (p. 323, emphasis in original). Also in the nineteenth century in Germany, R. Handmann, Das Hebrder-Evangelium, 130-42, rightly recognized that the Hebrew Gospel was not a later compilation of the Synoptics, but rather an earlier independent dependent Palestinian Christian Gospel, which, along with the Gospel of Mark, influenced the formation of Luke and Matthew. (James R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) p. 146 and footnote 82)

Edwards makes the analogy of Luke being like a church that was reduced to rubble in the second world war and was rebuilt using the same stones salvaged from the rubble and reset in the new church in the exact places they occupied in the original—the old stones not having been altered to conform to a new configuration.  In a similar sense, Luke had not altered his source material or paraphrased it into his masterful Greek (such as exhibited in the prologue of Luke 1:1-4). Luke took his creditable sources “as found” and he incorporated them with fidelity and integrity to honor the legacy of the primitive tradition. (p. 148)

Conclusion:

What further substantiates Luke as a creditable authority incorporating the eyewitness character of the Hebrew Gospel grounding special Luke, is the high proportion of named individuals in constructions that appear in Special Luke. Again regarding material unique to Luke (Special Luke), named individuals appear in an exceptionally high frequency, whereas anonymous individuals appear with relatively low frequency. Of the named 44 named individuals in the Gospel of Luke, 28 of them (64%) occur in Special Luke.  Of the 45 anonymous individuals in Luke, only 14 (31%) appear in Special Luke. 

Edwards, based on this evidence, states:

Material in Special Luke appears to be more directly linked to named, eyewitness testi, whereas material in the half of Luke shared in common with Matthew and Mark appears to derive more generally from anonymous tradition. The evidence of named individuals in Special Luke thus corroborates the evidence dence of Semitisms in Special Luke. If the earliest gospel traditions rest on greater eyewitness testimony, then probability argues that the many proper names in Special Luke, like the Semitisms, derive from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. (James R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2007) p 144) 

This corresponds to the observation of Richard Bauckman, who makes the case that individual names were remembered and preserved in the Gospels because they contributed, most often as eyewitnesses, to the gospel tradition. (Richard Bauckman, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 58-60.

For more, see the Hebrew Gospel and its relationship with Luke

For more on solving the synoptic problem, see the site https://lukeprimacy.com

The Hebrew Gospel in the Early Church and it's relation to Luke

 

Attestation to the Hebrew Gospel, The principal source for Luke

Excerpts from James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition.

Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ihkS7B 

Summary of early Christian writings attesting to the Hebrew Gospel.

There is an extensive and diverse testimony in the early centuries of Christianity to an early Hebrew Gospel. Seventeen church fathers attest to the Hebrew Gospel. The combined testimony to the Hebrew Gospel in the early centuries of Christianity amounts to more than two dozen witnesses. Of these witnesses, a dozen attribute it specifically to the apostle Matthew and eleven specify that it was written in Hebrew. The geographical locations of these witnesses range from Lyons and Rome in the west to Alexandria and North Africa in the south, India in the east, and Jerusalem and Constantinople in between. These points do not exhaust the extent of a map of the world in late antiquity, but they come close to most of its borders. Perhaps more important than persons and places is the actual reputation of the Hebrew Gospel in the early church. Although the Hebrew Gospel does not appear in the canonical lists of either Origen or Eusebius, it occupied the “disputed” category of a select six or eight books throughout early Christianity and is cited more frequently and positively alongside canonical texts than any non-canonical canonical document of which I am aware. (742-750)

Origen on the Hebrew Gospel

The tradition of a Hebrew Gospel was continued in the third century by Origen, whose reputation as a textual critic and exegete was unsurpassed in the ancient church. Origen's work concentrates overwhelmingly on the four canonical Gospels, but on occasion, he refers (and not disapprovingly) to noncanonical Gospels. Among these are the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. He refers to the last sometimes without further comment and sometimes with a qualifying phrase such as “if one receives it.” (Hom. Jer. 15:4; Comm. Matt. 15:14. Origen cites Enoch and the Prayer of Joseph with similar equivocations; M.-J. Lagrange, 'T vangile selon les Hebreux, RB 31 (1922), 173.

These parenthetical qualifications, which also appear in Eusebius, imply that the Hebrew Gospel cannot be cited with the same authority as canonical texts. Despite these reservations, Origen's references to the Hebrew Gospel indicate its widespread recognition in the early church and its enduring status in the emergent canon. (477-482)

Eusebius on the Hebrew Gospel

Eusebius's summary of the canonical status of various texts in circulation at the beginning of the fourth century is critical for a proper assessment of the Hebrew Gospel. He follows Origen's earlier threefold classification of Recognized Books, Disputed Books, and Rejected Books. The summary occurs in Ecclesiastical History 3.25 and is worth quoting at length since it preserves the most “authorized” report port of the emerging NT canon - and the Hebrew Gospel in relation to it - in the early fourth century... it does seem clear that Eusebius places the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation in the same category. Both enjoy wide recognition (Eusebius twice notes that the documents specified in this summary are “known to most”). The designation of Rejected Books “illegitimate,” “bastard” is an important clue to Eusebius's judgment of them. Their lack of ecclesiastical paternity, i.e., that they neither derive from nor transmit authorized tradition, makes them suspicious in the eyes of Eusebius and of the churches as a whole. That the Gospel of the Hebrews brews is not explicitly included in the rejected category but mentioned in correlation with the Book of Revelation strongly suggests that it, like the Revelation, fell into the Disputed Books of Eusebius's taxonomy. James R. Edwards. (498-526) Kindle Edition. 

Quotations from the Hebrew Gospel in Early Christianity

Specific quotations from the Hebrew Gospel occur only in Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Sedulius Scottus, and perhaps the Talmud.(755-756)

The comparison of Hebrew Gospel quotations with Synoptic optic texts requires careful lexical analysis. In several instances, judgments must be made with generous margins of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the mass of material from the Hebrew Gospel is large enough to reveal a pattern of correspondence with the Gospel of Luke that appreciably exceeds its correspondence with either Matthew or Mark.(762-764)

Four reputable witnesses in the early church - Ignatius, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome - cite a text that bears an unmistakable correlation to Luke 24:39. None of the four, however, ascribes it to Luke. The most complete witness to the citation comes from Jerome, who ascribes it to the Hebrew Gospel, and by implication to the apostle Matthew. Jerome will not be alone in preserving a putative first-person testimony of the apostle Matthew in the Hebrew Gospel. (Vir. ill. 2.11.) (867-869) 

Origen sees a redundancy in Jesus requiring the rich man to dispense with his wealth after having confessed to keeping all the commandments, including the commandment to love your neighbor. Because it is redundant, Origen argues it is a later addition of canonical Matthew. He saw it as unwarranted considering the command to “Go, sell all you possess and distribute it among the poor, and come, follow me,” which contains the substance of the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.”Origen believed the Hebrew Gospel preserved the most primitive version of the story, not exhibiting the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Since Origin uses the Hebrew Gospel for exegesis and is investing it with authority over canonical Matthew, he treats the Hebrew Gospel as an authority despite an opening declaimer to the contrary. In this case, Luke 18:18-23 reflects the Hebrew Gospel, exhibiting a reading that is preferred over Matthew's account of the rich man of Matt 19:16-22. In comparing Luke 18:18-23 with and Mark 10:17-22, the wording of Luke is nearer to the wording of the Hebrew Gospel. The command to the rich man, of the Hebrew Gospel to “Sell all you possess and distribute it among the poor, and come, follow me,” more closely matches the wording of Luke than either Matthew or Mark. 

It can also be noted above that Matthew adds other interpolations, shown in bold, as compared to the more primitive Luke.  These interpolations correspond to Matthew's emphasis on righteousness and perfection through keeping the commandments.

Another example of how Luke is the closest match with the Hebrew Gospel is the absolute use of “the Lord.”  In the narrative that is common in the Hebrew Gospel, this appears more frequently in Special Luke (the material of Luke not seen in Mark or Matthew) than in sections paralleled by Mark or Matthew. Additionally, only in Luke 12:14, Luke 22:58, and Luke 22:60 is “Man” used as a form of address as used in the Hebrew Gospel. The content, imagery, and wording of the Hebrew Gospel, as quoted by Origen, also bears a distinct relationship with the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 19:19-31.

Eusebius in Theophania 4.22 makes reference to “the Gospel that has come to us in Hebrew characters” when he quotes a passage that is related to the parable of the Talent/Minas of Luke 19:11-27 and Matt 25:14-30. Much of the Greek terminology and phraseology in the quotation is special or unique to Luke, This includes nine Greek terms that are all characteristic of or unique to Luke-Acts among the Gospels. Both lexically and thematically, Eusebius's quotation of the Hebrew Gospel bears a clear relationship to the Gospel of Luke. 

Epiphanius of 315-403, who was Bishop of Salamis, is known to have made eight references to the Hebrew Gospel. Epiphanius associates the Hebrew Gospel with the Ebionite sect when he addresses the “Ebionite” heresy. Modern scholars often refer to the Hebrew Gospel that Epiphanius associates with the Ebionites, as “the Gospel of the Ebionites.” This naming does not come from Epiphanius or any other church father. Epiphanius simply references it as “Hebrew Gospel” which he further describes as a corruption of the Gospel of Matthew. 

The eight quotations of Epiphanius confirm (1) the quotations correspond predominately with Luke (not nearly as close to canonical Matthew) and (2) they are quotations from an original Hebrew Gospel authored by the apostle Matthew. 

The first quotation of Epiphanius is as follows:

In what they [the Ebionites] call the Gospel according to Matthew, which, however, is not complete but forged and mutilated—they call it the Hebrew Gospel—it is reported: “There appeared a certain man by the name of Jesus about thirty years of age, who chose us. And having come to Capernaum, he entered the house of Simon who was called Peter, and having opened his mouth, said, “As I passed beside the Lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you, Matthew, I called while you were sitting at the tax table, and you followed me. You therefore I desire to be twelve apostles for a witness to Israel.'” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3)

There are six specific ways that this passage is linked to the Gospel of Luke:

1. The mention of Jesus being “about thirty years of age” parallels Luke 3:23. Luke is the only gospel that mentions Jesus' age.
2. Reference to “the Lake of Tiberias” is only made in Luke. Moreover, the word for “lake” is not used in Mark, Matthew, or John, which uses sea, but is exclusive to Luke among the canonical gospels. 
3. Luke 4:38 is verbatim with the mention of entering the house of Simon. Mark and Matthew's wording of the same event does not match the way Luke does.
4. As compared to the wording of Mark 3:16 and Matt 10:2, the wording of Luke 6:14 more closely corresponds to the further clarification of Simon's name as “Peter” as indicated by the quote.
5. With respect to the list of apostles, the reference to “Simon the Zealot” is unique to Luke (6:15), and the order of “John and James,” rather than “James and John,” is found only in Acts 1:13. These are both Lukan matches with the quote
6. Virtually verbatim with Luke 1:5 is the phrase “there appeared a certain man by the name of Jesus”

Another key Epiphanius citation that connects Luke with the Hebrew Gospel reads:

After many things had been said, it continues, "When the people had been baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he arose from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a dove descending and entering into him. And a voice came from heaven, saying 'You are my beloved Son, in you I am pleased''; and again, "Today I have begotten you.' And immediately a great light shone on the place. When John saw it, it is recorded that he said to [Jesus], 'Who are you, Lord?' And again a voice from heaven came to him, 'This is my beloved Son, on whom my pleasure rests.' And then, it is reported, John fell before him saying, 'I beg you, Lord, to baptize me.' But he prevented it saying, 'Let it be, for in this way it is necessary for all things to be fulfilled.'" (Epiphanius Panarion 30:13.7-8)

Numerous correspondences between the above quote with Luke are as follows: 

• The indication that Jesus was being baptized with the people corresponds solely to Luke 3:21, as also does the reference to the “Holy Spirit” in “the form of a dove” corresponding to Luke 3:22.
• The first expression of the voice from heaven addresses Jesus in the second-person singular, which Luke does, but Matthew uses the third-person singular
• With regard to “out of the heaven” Luke is in the singular corresponding to the citation, whereas Matthew and mark are in the plural (heavens).  
• The reference to the “opening” of heaven corresponds to the verb of Luke 3:21 as opposed to Mark.
• The divine pronouncement, “Today I have begotten you,” a quote from Psalms 2:7, only occurs in the Western text of Luke 3:22 but is absent from any texts of Matthew or Mark. 

Another notable quotation of Epiphanius regarding the Hebrew Gospel is: 

For having removed the genealogies of Matthew, they begin, as I said earlier, by saying that “It came to pass in the days of Herod king of Judea, when Caiaphas was chief priest, a certain man named John came baptizing a baptism of repentance in the Jordan river,” etc.  (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.14.3)

This quotation is related more specifically to Luke 1:4 and Luke 3:2 than to the Synoptic parallels of Mark 1:4 and Matt 3:1-2 as follows:

• Various phrases are a verbatim match to the opening line of Luke's infancy narrative of Luke 1:5.
• The reference to the high priesthood of Caiphas is found only in Luke 3:2. 
• The reference to “the baptism of repentance in the Jordan river” matches Luke 3:3 more closely than the parallels of Matt 3:1 or Mark 1:4
• This introduction by Epiphanius, Luke 1:5 corresponds to the beginning of the body of the Hebrew Gospel. The body did not begin the birth of Jesus as recorded in Matt 1:18.

Other quotes by Epiphanius of the Hebrew Gospel are of a higher affinity with Luke than with Matthew. For example, specific verbs are used that are characteristic of Luke and Acts, but are absent from Matthew. With respect to the Gospel of the Ebionites, we see the closest correlation with Luke than with Matthew. 

James Edwards summarizes his findings regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites understood from the citations of Epiphanius as follows: 

The Hebrew Gospel cited by Epiphanius is not, as is often assumed, a general harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Nor again are Epiphanius's citations of the Hebrew Gospel default reproductions of Matthew, nor do they favor Matthew. A synopsis of the above evidence, divided between passages in the Gospel of the Ebionites, that are either clearly or possibly related to the various Synoptic Gospels, reveals the following:

Luke:   13 Clearly, 14 Possibly
Matthew: 6 Clearly, 5 Possibly
Mark 3 Clearly, 3 Possibly

(James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition,Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009, p. 76)

We see more than twice as many correlations between Luke and the Gospel of the Ebionites than with Matthew and Mark combined. Epiphanius's citations of the Gospel of the Ebionites show clear and repeated similarities to material unique to Luke.

Reviewing the citations from Jerome of 345 to 419,  reveals many more correspondences of the Hebrew Gospel with Luke than with Matthew. In numerous instances, and especially in Jerome's Commentary on Matthew, Jerome appealed to the Hebrew Gospel, as Origen and Didymus also did, to interpret a canonical text, especially canonical Matthew. Thus, at least three church fathers attest to the Hebrew Gospel being a hermeneutical authority in the patristic period, despite its non-canonical status. 

Taking Stock of the Hebrew Gospel in the Early Church

The widespread and enduring testimony in early Christianity to a Hebrew Gospel is the single most important conclusion of the first two chapters. The evidence is more considerable than even specialists in the field often imagine. The tradition of an original Gospel written in Hebrew is attested by twenty church fathers - Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Pantaenus, Hegesippus, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Ephrem of Syria, Didymus of Alexandria, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, Marius Mercator, Philip Sidetes, the Venerable Bede, Nicephorus, and Sedulius Scottus. When references to the Hebrew Gospel by Pope Damasus, the Islamic Hadith, the scholia of Sinaiticus, and tractate Sabbat in the Babylonian Talmud (see Chapter Seven) are added to this number, the list lengthens to over two dozen different witnesses. It is highly probable, moreover, that the scholia in Codex Sinaiticus derive from several sources rather than a single source. The Hebrew Gospel is therefore identified by name in at least two dozen patristic sources. Jerome references the Hebrew Gospel twenty-two times. Combined, there are some seventy-five different attestations to the Hebrew Gospel, extending from the late first century to the early tenth century. Several of these references appear in Latin authors of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, and this is significant, for “the period from roughly 550 to 750 was one of almost unrelieved gloom for the Latin classics on the continent; they virtually ceased being copied. It is true that patristic and ecclesiastical texts fared better during this wintry interlude than did the Latin classics. Nevertheless, repeated references to the Hebrew Gospel from Latin authors of the period attest to the depth of its roots in ancient church tradition. 

Specific witnesses to the Hebrew Gospel come from Lyons, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and as far east as India. Those points are roughly coextensive with the Roman Empire in the same centuries, with the exception of India, which was well beyond its eastern frontier. Twelve fathers attribute the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew, and eleven specify that it was written in Hebrew. No other noncanonical document occupied the “disputed” category in canonical deliberations in the early church as long and consistently as did the Hebrew Gospel. To my knowledge, no other noncanonical text was cited as frequently and positively alongside canonical texts in early Christian exegesis. More important, witnesses to the Hebrew Gospel are as ancient as patristic witnesses to any of the four canonical Gospels. The Hebrew Gospel was the most highly esteemed noncanonical document in the early church. (Locations 1348-1363, Kindle Edition.)

 The one factor that did compromise the Hebrew Gospel in the eyes of the early church was its (often exclusive) use by Jewish Christian communities such as Ebionites, Nazarenes, and others. These groups were early and increasingly rejected by “normative” Gentile Christianity for their adherence to Jewish rites and customs, their rejection of the apostle Paul, their Christological aberrations (primarily in denying the deity of Jesus and affirming adoptionism), and for their resistance to integration into the larger Gentile church. Negative judgments of such groups cast an inevitable shadow on the Gospel used by them. Guilt by association was increased by claims of alterations of the text of that Gospel in accord with aberrant Jewish customs and theology, real or imagined. Among the known detriments of canonization—or reasonable inferences of such—the establishment of the Hebrew Gospel by Jewish Christians as a rival tradition to the emerging Greek canonical tradition of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John certainly jeopardized the standing of the Hebrew Gospel in later Gentile Christianity, and almost certainly played a negative—and perhaps decisive role in debarring it from inclusion in the NT canon. (Kindle Locations 1374-1381)

The preeminence and pervasiveness of the Hebrew Gospel in the early church was due to a residual though unofficial authority with which it was endowed by early church testimony. No noncanonical text appears in patristic prooftexts as often and as favorably as does the Hebrew Gospel. The single most important evidence of this is that in their canonical deliberations both Origen and Eusebius place the Hebrew Gospel in a rare middle category of “disputed” works, along with the book of Revelation, James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2-3 John. As late as the early ninth century Nicephorus continued to retain the Hebrew Gospel, along with the book of Revelation, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas, in the disputed category. The placement of books into the recognized, disputed and rejected categories was not due to the judgment of any single church father or even of a church council, but rather to the reception and use of a given document within confessing ecclesiastical communities. The various works, in other words, were declared either authentic or spurious on the basis of their homiletical, catechetical, and disciplinary usefulness in active churches. The placement of the Hebrew Gospel in the disputed category attests to the very considerable status that it possessed in widespread Christian communities over long periods of time. (Kindle Locations 1381-1389). Kindle Edition. 

Perhaps more important than the formal position of the Hebrew Gospel in the canonical taxonomy of the early church was its practical viability as an auxiliary resource in patristic hermeneutics. Clement's Stromata prefaces a quotation from the Hebrew Gospel with “it is written;” a terminus technicus for the written Word of God. In seeking to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian revelation to Greek philosophy, Clement assigns greater authority to the Hebrew Gospel than to Plato! In his exegesis of Isa 11:1-2, Jerome quotes sixteen canonical texts; in the same exegesis there are only two noncanonical texts—and both come from the Hebrew Gospel. Origen, Didymus, and Jerome all appeal to the Hebrew Gospel to assert a proper interpretation (or correct a false interpretation) of sacred Scripture. They reference the Hebrew Gospel, in other words, as a defacto authority over Scripture. (Kindle Locations 1389-1394)

Holtzmann says it “rank[ed] as equal to the Johannine Gospel in value;” (O. Holtzmann, The Life of Jesus, 46.)

Findlay's assessment is that several fathers, Origen among them, felt compelled to show that their opinions did not conflict with the Hebrew Gospel. (A. F. Findlay, Byways in Early Christian Literature, 50)

Pierson Parker, who in an article on the Hebrew Gospel of some seventy years ago wrote that “. . . it can be shown that ... the Gospel according to the Hebrews is not Matthean, and is to be related to the non-Markan Markan portions of Luke.”” (P. Parker, “A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews,” 472. Many scholars have recognized similarities between the Hebrew Gospel and Luke without pursuing them further)

The foregoing analysis shows the unusually strong correlation of the Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Luke. Of the 41 texts considered, 25 demonstrate an explicit or close thematic likeness to the Third Gospel. Three-fifths of the purported citations of the Hebrew Gospel, in other words, exhibit stronger agreement with Luke than with Matthew and/or Mark. Moreover, over, the texts cited with reference to Luke are, on the whole, longer excerpts of the Hebrew Gospel. Longer texts provide more comparative data, and multiple instances of longer texts constitute stronger evidence for relationships between two texts than do agreements of single words, short phrases, or isolated details, which may be coincidental. Patristic citations of the Hebrew Gospel are thus not of a “general Synoptic text type.” On the contrary, they demonstrate a clear affinity with the Lukan text. (A point emphasized by R. Handmann, Das Hebrder-Evangelium, 128, and recognized but not argued by O. Holtzmann, The Life of Jesus, 51) (Kindle Locations 1442-1461). 

The composite evidence points rather persuasively to the conclusion that the Hebrew Gospel is not, as commonly assumed, a compilation of the Synoptics, but rather one of the sources of the Gospel of Luke to which the author alludes in his prologue (Luke 1:1-4). The Hebrew Gospel authored by the apostle Matthew may have been translated into Greek quite early. Jerome mentions such a translation into Greek prior to his own, and given the pervasiveness of Greek in the Mediterranean world, this is not at all surprising. At a somewhat later date, the Hebrew Gospel evidently underwent textual alterations in accordance with the tenets of the Jewish Christian sects that used and copied it. Evidence of at least two such recensions appears in Epiphanius and Jerome... Not surprisingly, the original Hebrew Gospel suffered changes at the hands of its host communities and interest groups.(Kindle Locations 1467-1474)... 

Nearly a century ago M.-J. Lagrange asked the same question and came to virtually the same conclusion. “If the Gospel (of the Ebionites) is no nearer to Matthew than it is to Luke, why is it named for Matthew? It surprised Epiphanius that he could find no other cause than an original Hebrew Matthew. His thought was that the Gospel in question depended on a Hebrew writing. (1480-1482).

The most economical hypothesis that satisfies the foregoing evidence is that the author of the Third Gospel utilized an early Hebrew Gospel (perhaps in Greek translation) as one of the sources to which he refers in his prologue (Luke 1:1-4). (1489-1491) 

The various patristic citations of the Hebrew Gospel, and especially the latest and most numerous texts cited by Epiphanius and Jerome, continue to evince a pronounced correlation with the Gospel of Luke, as opposed to Matthew or Mark or the Synoptic tradition in general. Whatever “delta”effect the textual tradition of the Hebrew Gospel underwent, it appears to have remained integral enough to be referred to as “the Hebrew Gospel.” It is with this or some similar epithet that Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century continues to refer to it, as do Epiphanius and Jerome nearly a century later. The plenary evidence of the fathers justifies the conclusion that the original Hebrew Matthean Gospel and the “Hebrew Gospel” constituted a continuous and integral textual tradition.

This conclusion is supported most recently by P. F. Beatrice, “The Gospel According to the Hebrews' in the Apostolic Fathers;' 191, who argues that the Hebrew Gospel was composed “In the first century CE, [and was] not a document written by Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish-Christians in the first half of the second century. The existence of other Judaeo-Christian Christian gospels, such as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel of the Ebionites, whatever ever their relationship may have been, appears to be at least improbable, and at any rate should be judged a superfluous hypothesis. Only one Judaeo-Christian gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews, seems in fact to be sufficient to explain coherently and economically all the data supplied by the ancient sources, (4531-4535, and footnote 87)

Select Summary Thesis points

1. (Patristic quotations from the Hebrew Gospel exhibit a stronger correlation with the Gospel of Luke, and especially material in Special Luke, than they do with either Matthew or Mark
2. Patristic quotations from the Hebrew Gospel exhibit a stronger correlation with the Gospel of Luke, and especially material in Special Luke, than they do with either Matthew or Mark (ii) The Hebrew Gospel was most plausibly a source of the Gospel of Luke, and specifically either the primary or sole source of Special Luke. 
3. The Semitisms in Luke cannot be properly explained as "Septuagintisms;" i.e., as imitations of the language and style of the LXX. Nor can they be explained as reliance on an Aramaic spoken Vorlage. Semitisms in Luke are most plausibly explained by reliance on the Hebrew language of the original Hebrew Gospel.
4. The Hebrew Gospel was not a compilation of the Synoptic Gospels, but repeatedly and distinctly similar to Luke.
5. Semitisms appear in Special Luke nearly four times as often as they appear in those sections of Luke that are shared in common with Matthew and/or Mark. 
6. The distinct and unusually high number of Semitisms in Special Luke is most plausibly explained by Luke's reliance on the Hebrew Gospel for those parts of his Gospel not shared in common with Matthew and/or Mark. 
7. The Hebrew Gospel, although not specified, is most probably one of the eyewitness sources that Luke used as a source of the Third Gospel and to which he refers in the prologue. 
8. It appears that the Hebrew Gospel, at least in order and sequence, forms the Grundtext of the Gospel of Luke, into which Luke integrated grated material from Mark.
9. A sum of 177 verses in Luke does not appear to derive either from the Hebrew Gospel or from Mark. These verses, which are present in one form or another also in Matthew, could be accounted for in various ways, none of which is conclusive. The verses, which I refer to as the double tradition, do not appear to have derived from a hypothetical sayings source, however, and thus cannot be explained or associated with the traditional "Q" hypothesis. 
10. A plethora of evidence, including factors related to the design, style, vocabulary, and historical allusions in canonical Matthew, argue for Matthean posteriority, i.e., that the Gospel [of Matthew] was the final and consummate Gospel in the Synoptic tradition

(James R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009). pp. 260-261)

For more on solving the synoptic problem, see the site https://lukeprimacy.com

 

Summary Thesis Regarding Luke, The Hebrew Gospel, James Edwards

Summary Thesis points regarding Luke

James R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009). pp. 260-261

1. (Patristic quotations from the Hebrew Gospel exhibit a stronger correlation with the Gospel of Luke, and especially material in Special Luke, than they do with either Matthew or Mark
2. Patristic quotations from the Hebrew Gospel exhibit a stronger correlation with the Gospel of Luke, and especially material in Special Luke, than they do with either Matthew or Mark (ii) The Hebrew Gospel was most plausibly a source of the Gospel of Luke, and specifically either the primary or sole source of Special Luke. 
3. The Semitisms in Luke cannot be properly explained as "Septuagintisms;" i.e., as imitations of the language and style of the LXX. Nor can they be explained as reliance on an Aramaic spoken Vorlage. Semitisms in Luke are most plausibly explained by reliance on the Hebrew language of the original Hebrew Gospel.
4. The Hebrew Gospel was not a compilation of the Synoptic Gospels, but repeatedly and distinctly similar to Luke.
5. Semitisms appear in Special Luke nearly four times as often as they appear in those sections of Luke that are shared in common with Matthew and/or Mark. 
6. The distinct and unusually high number of Semitisms in Special Luke is most plausibly explained by Luke's reliance on the Hebrew Gospel for those parts of his Gospel not shared in common with Matthew and/or Mark. 
7. The Hebrew Gospel, although not specified, is most probably one of the eyewitness sources that Luke used as a source of the Third Gospel and to which he refers in the prologue. 
8. It appears that the Hebrew Gospel, at least in order and sequence, forms the Grundtext of the Gospel of Luke, into which Luke integrated grated material from Mark.
9. A sum of 177 verses in Luke does not appear to derive either from the Hebrew Gospel or from Mark. These verses, which are present in one form or another also in Matthew, could be accounted for in various ways, none of which is conclusive. The verses, which I refer to as the double tradition, do not appear to have derived from a hypothetical sayings source, however, and thus cannot be explained or associated with the traditional "Q" hypothesis. 
10. A plethora of evidence, including factors related to the design, style, vocabulary, and historical allusions in canonical Matthew, argue for Matthean posteriority, i.e., that the Gospel [of Matthew] was the final and consummate Gospel in the Synoptic tradition

For more on solving the synoptic problem, see the site https://lukeprimacy.com

Justin Martyr Favored Luke and Disfavored John, Papias was not a ‘hearer of John’ – Encyclopaedia Biblica

Edwin Abbott’s entry in Encyclopedia Biblica, Gospels: B. External Evidence (including Papias and Justin Martyr)

Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol II, 1901, Columns 1809-1837

Internet Archive Book Link: https://archive.org/details/CheyneTKEncyclopaediaBiblicaVolIIEToK1901/page/n333/mode/2up

Statement of Luke

i. The Third Gospel. — Lk. 1:1-4 implies (a) that ’many’ Gospels were current, and perhaps (b) that
their diversity was calculated to obscure ‘the certainty concerning the things wherein’ the Christian catechumen was instructed ; (c) that whereas the apostles ’ delivered these i.e. , taught them orally — ’many’ ’drew up a narrative’ — i.e., wrote. This points to a time when the apostles had passed away, leaving the ground open to historians. Luke’s qualification was, not that he had consulted an apostle, but that he had ‘traced the course of all things accurately from the first.’ The particular defects implied in existing ’narratives’ are, that they were not ’accurate,’ and not in 'chronological order.’

 

Papias not a hearer of John

Papias (120-30 A.D. ) is probably recorded by Irenaeus (v. 36:12) to have preserved tradition of a saying of the Lord, ‘In the region of my Father there are many abiding-places’ Cp. John 14:2 ‘In my Father’s house are many abiding-places.’ The context indicates that Papias had one meaning and John another. Papias (taking the word as used by Pausanias x. 31:7 ‘encampment,’ ‘halting-place’) means there are many stages on the journey upwards ’ — viz. the New Jerusalem, Paradise, and Heaven. This explains why Papias has ‘in the region,’ while John has ‘in the house.’ [The Greek word is used that] means ‘stages’ in the Petrine Apocalypse and in Clem. Alex. (pp. 1000, 1003, 579 f.,645, 794), who also (p. 797) speaks of the three hinted at by the three numbers in the Gospel.’ The ‘three numbers ’are explained by Papias as the ‘thirty,’ ‘sixty,’ and ‘hundred ’ of the Parable of the Sower.

The conclusion is that Papias is not quoting and misinterpreting John, but quoting, and interpreting in accordance with tradition, a Logion (illustrating the Synoptic Parable of the Sower) of which John gives a different version. And this leads to the inference that, if Papias had John in his mind, he did not recognize it as an apostolic gospel.

Was Papias ‘a hearer of John’? of John — Was Eusebius right in denying, or Irenaeus in asserting, that Papias was ’ a hearer of John’? Here, and in what follows, we must distinguish the statements of Eusebius from his inferences. The former are almost always accurate; the latter are sometimes erroneous (though by giving us the grounds for them he enables us to avoid error). Even the inferences of Eusebius are probably more trustworthy here than the statements of Irenaeus. (This could be proved by a collection of Irenaeus’s mistakes. And a comparison of the eulogistic remarks made by Eusebius about other ecclesiastical writers with his general silence when quoting Irenaeus would indicate that, although he would by no means call the latter (as he calls Papias) ’ a man of very little understanding,’ he nevertheless thinks less highly of his power of weighing evidence than of his orthodoxy and high standard of carefulness in copying MSS.)

Now Eusebius rejects the definite statement of the latter that Papias was a ‘ hearer of John,’ on the ground that Papias himself makes no such claim in his preface, where he naturally, and almost inevitably, would have made it, if he could. He gives us the preface to speak for itself. He adds facts and extracts from the work of Papias, the whole of which was apparently before him. These convey no indication that Papias ’heard’ John. That Irenaeus — influenced by the natural tendency of early Christian controversialists to exaggerate the continuity of Christian tradition, and by the fact that Papias lived in Polycarp’s time and reported what John said — hastily declared Papias to be ‘a hearer of John,’ is more probable than that Eusebius, subsequently reviewing all the evidence, was mistaken in denying it. The probable conclusion is that Papias was not a hearer of John.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (145-149 A.D.). whilst quoting the Gospels under various titles, makes some incidental but very important statements about their composition.

In a few instances Justin appeals, as it were, beyond the Memoirs, to those who composed them ; or else he introduces a personal quasi-protest of authenticity, ‘ I assert, ‘ I have learned,’ etc. All these passages reveal Justin as quoting with a special emphasis Luke — or a later version of Luke., including interpolated passages — as though protesting that Luke is on a level with the Memoirs:1 Apol. 33, ‘ As those who recorded all things about our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught,’ introduces Luke’s Annunciation to the Virgin (with a clause taken from Mt.);
1 Apol. 66, ‘For the apostles, in the Memoirs made by them, which are called Gospels, delivered that Jesus had thus ordained to them,’ introduces, in a condensed form, Luke’s version of the Institution of the Eucharist, including the words, ‘ Do this in remembrance of me,’ not found in Mk. or Mt.
Tryph. 88, ‘Both fire was kindled in the Jordan . . ., and . . . that the Holy Spirit as a dove hovered on him has been written by his apostles (the apostles I mean), of this our Christ,’ if the text were correct, would exhibit Justin stating a non-canonical event (the ‘fire’) as a fact on his own authority, and the canonical event as on the authority of the ‘ apostles ‘ ;
Tryph. 103, ‘ For in the Memoirs which assert to have been composed by his apostles and by those who followed them,’ introduces ‘it is written that sweat, as it were drops, streamed down from him while praying ‘ — a passage found in some MSS of Lk. 22:44 (and found in no other Gospel) ;
Tryph. 105, ‘ As we have learned through the Memoirs,’ accompanies the words, ‘ becoming a man through the Virgin ‘ (from Lk., combined with Mt.), and is followed by
Tryph. 105, ‘as also from the Memoirs we have learned this, too,’ introducing an utterance of Christ on the Cross peculiar to Luke. 23:46.

Justin’s view is that Christ (1 Apol. 67 and cp Acts 1:3), after his resurrection, ‘appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them’ everything relating to himself (Acts 1:3 to ‘the Kingdom of God’). This ‘ teaching’ would, therefore, apply (1 Apol. 33) to the Nativity and other mysteries, as well as to moral precepts, and Luke, as being ‘a pupil of all the apostles,’ would receive it. As regards the form of transmission, Justin begins with an ambiguous expression (1 Apol. 33), which may mean (1) ‘remembered,’ or (2) ‘repeated from memory. ’ Adopting the latter meaning, he uses it, not (as Papias did) of the successors of the apostles, but of the apostles themselves. Then he gradually inclines, and finally commits himself, to the theory that this ‘ repetition ’ was not oral merely, but also in writing. Hence he allows himself to say ‘ the apostles wrote.’ Having these views about the apostolic consensus of the Memoirs, and having a preference for Luke’s record of the Nativity and the Passion, Justin may naturally have recoiled from John , as being a new work, breaking this consensus both in style and thought, and especially unfavorable to the authority of Luke…

Justin Martyr (150 A.D. ), regarding the Synoptic Gospels as Memoirs written by the apostles from the teaching of Christ, and showing a preference for Luke. (in an interpolated form), affords no trace of a recognition of a Gospel like John outside the stream of the Memoirs.’
Barnabas and John

Anticipations of Jn. in Barnabas . — The special points of interest in this epistle are that (1) it was written(91) ‘before the Fourth Gospel ; (2) the latter resembles it in many points: —(a) (Barn. 11:11 12:5) the juxtaposition of ‘ baptism ‘ and the ’ brazen serpent,’ and the parallel between the serpent and Christ ;
(b) Barn .6:6 the application of Ps. 22:18 to the casting lots over Christ’s vesture;
(c) Barn. 7:9, the ‘piercing’ of Christ;
(d) Barn. 11:1, the connection between the Cross and Water, followed by a connection between the Cross and Blood;
(e) Barn. 11:11, “Whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever.” This means, “Whosoever,” saith he, “shall hear these things when they are spoken and shall believe, shall live for ever” ’

It will be seen below that many of the so-called ‘imitations of John by Justin’ might be called, less inaccurately, ‘imitations of Barnabas.’

Marcion

The conclusion is that, in 125-135 A.D., Luke had come into prominence as a recognized gospel in Marcion’s region, but that John was not yet equally prominent.
Summary of the Evidence Before Justin

Thus, up to the middle of the second century, though there are traces of Johannine thought and tradition, and immature approximations to the Johannine Logos-doctrine, yet in some writers (e.g . , Barnabas and Simon) we find rather what John develops, or what John attacks, than anything that imitates John, and in others (e.g., Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias) mere war-cries of the time, or phrases of a Logos- doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which John gives a more spiritual and perhaps a truer version. There is nothing to prove, or even suggest, that John. was recognized as a gospel.’ Many of these writers, however, are known to us by extracts so short and slight that inference from them is very unsafe ; it is otherwise with the writer next to be considered. Justin Martyr (145-9 A.D.) has been found above ( 1 ) quoting freely from Mt. and Lk. ; (2) sometimes appearing to use a harmony of the two ; (3) adopting Luke by preference as to the Miraculous Conception and the Passion ; (4) quoting (apparent) interpolations in Luke ; and (5) showing a disposition to maintain the claims of Luke as a new but authoritative version of the Memoirs of the apostles. The instances given to prove these conclusions will suffice to show Justin’s attitude toward the Synoptics. It remains to consider his attitude toward John as deducible from alleged quotations, or types, borrowed from it; abstentions from quotation; agreements, or disagreements, with John ’s doctrine or statement.
(1) Minor apparent Johannine quotations

(a) Tryph. 123, ‘We are called and arc the true children of God,’ is alleged to be from John 1:12, and 1 John 3:1 f. ‘that we should be called the children of God, and (so) we are’ Both Justin and John are alluding, partly (1) to Jewish tradition about God’s ‘calling’ Isaac to birth and thereby causing him to ‘be’ (Gen. 21:12 ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called,’ Rom. 4:17 ‘ calleth the things that are not as though they were ’) partly (2) to the tradition that Isaac was called ’ from the dead (Heb. 2:19 ‘that God was able to raise [him] from the dead,’ to be compared with Josephus’s comment on the sacrifice of Isaac [Ant. i.13:2] ‘that God was able to bring men into abundance of the things that are not, and to take away the things that are’): partly (3) to Philonian traditions about God’s creative ‘call’ (Philo 2:367 ‘He calleth the things that are not so that they are ’ : cp Philo 2:176); and partly (4) to a Stoic phrase ‘ I am and I am called’ (Philo 1:337), Epict. Ench. is ‘they both were and were called divine’ (cp id. ii. Pi 44 ‘ Heracles was believed to be the son of Zeus and he was [so]’). So, here, Justin first shows that God was to (Jer. 31:27 and Is. 19:24) ‘raise up a seed’ to Israel ; then asserts that he ‘ called’ this people Israel and declared it his inheritance; lastly, in answer to Trypho’s ‘ Are you Israel?’ he replies, ‘We both are called and are the children of God.’

(b) Apol. 6 ‘ reason and truth’ is an allusion not to John 4:24, ‘spirit and truth,’ but to what Justin has just said about the temper of Socrates ‘in true reason , i.e., reasonableness,’ and is a play on the word Logos.

(c) Tryph. 17, ‘the only spotless and righteous [one], sent [as] light from God to man, implies a recognition of Christ as (Is. 42:6 49:6 Lk. 2:32; Enoch 48:4) a ‘light to lighten,’ not only ‘the Gentiles,’ but the world; and an allusion to Jewish traditions based on Ps. 43:3 ‘ Send out thy light and thy truth.’

(d) 1 Apol. 60 (‘If ye . . . believe , ye shall be saved’), treating of the brazen serpent, differs so much from Num. 21:7-9 (‘that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live’) that it is urged that the writer had in his mind Jn. 3:14 (‘that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life ’). But Barn. (12:7 ‘let him hope and believe . . . and immediately he shall be saved’) differs even more from Num. Justin is closer to Barnabas than to John, and appears to he condensing the former or some kindred tradition.

(e) Justin accuses the Jews of cancelling (Tryph. 73) ‘He shall reign from the tree ’ in Ps. 96:10; and some might infer that he borrowed this thought from John, who regards the Cross as a throne on which Jesus is ‘lifted up’ or ‘exalted.’ But see Barn. 85:1 the reign of Jesus on the tree.’

The close and numerous resemblances between Barnabas and Justin in respect of prophecies and types prove that Justin followed either Barnabas or some tradition used by Barnabas, and go some way towards proving that, if he knew John, he preferred Barnabas.
(2) ’ Except ye be begotten again

1 Apol. 61, ‘For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they then receive the washing with water. For indeed Christ said, Except ye be begotten again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Now that it is absolutely impossible for those once born to reenter the wombs of those that bare them is evident to all.’ Cp Jn. 3:3 f ‘Except a man be begotten from above? he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be begotten when he is old ? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be begotten? Jesus answered, Except a man be begotten of water and (the) Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Justin is here meeting heathen misrepresentations of the two sacraments, by showing that they are based on Christ’s command and on reason, and that the heathen themselves have imitated them. As to the Eucharist, he gives (1) Christ’s Words of Institution ; (2) the Pagan imitation. As to baptism, since he gives the Pagan imitation later (62:64), he is (presumably) giving here what he regards as the words of Institution (for he gives no others). Justin nowhere quotes Mt. for the facts of Christ’s Resurrection, but only Luke. And Luke omits the command to baptize.

That they are derived from John is improbable for many reasons. (1) Justin’s tradition is thrown into the form of an indirect precept (‘thou shall be baptized or thou shalt not enter’); John’s is a statement of a law. (2) Justin omits the two elements mentioned in the full form of the Johannine utterance — viz., ‘water’ and ‘spirit.’ (3) Justin, though familiar with the use of the word meaning ‘from above,’ and though he once actually uses it, in this case he doesn’t (4) That Justin agrees with John in connecting the doctrine of regeneration with words about the impossibility of reentering the womb, is not indeed an accidental coincidence, any more than the somewhat similar connection in an utterance of Simon Magus (Hippol. 6:14), ‘How, then, and in what manner, doth God shape men (in the new birth)?’ to which Simon replies, ‘ Admit that Paradise is the womb, and that this is true the Scripture will teach thee,’ afterwards entering into minute materialistic details about ‘the womb.’ It is a connection so natural in controversy that it is easy to understand that it became a commonplace in Christian doctrine.
(3) Other alleged quotations

(a) Tryph. 105, ‘ That this [man] was [the] only-begotten of the Father of the Universe, having become from him in a special way Word and Power, and afterwards becoming man through the Virgin as we have learned from the Memoirs, I have shown above.’ Lightfoot (BE 88), omitting the italicized words, refers that Justin refers to John as a part of the Memoirs for the proof of the ‘special’ antemundane birth. But the words he omits indicate that Justin refers to Tryph. 100, where he ‘ shows‘ this from the Memoirs, as an inference from Peter’s confession. This resort to the Memoirs to prove what they cannot prove, but John could prove, indicates that Justin did not regard John as authoritative ; (b) Justin, against Marcion, is said to have written (Iren. 4:62), ‘I should not have believed . . . but the only-begotten Son came to us. . . ’ This, Lightfoot (BE 89) asserts to be based on John. 1:18. But besides the objection that many authorities, read in Jn. 1:18 ‘God ’ for ‘Son,’ this assertion assumes that John must have invented this application of ‘only-begotten,’ whereas in fact it followed naturally from the Logos-passage in Wisd. 7:22 describing the Wisdom of God as containing a Spirit ‘only-begotten, ’and might he suggested by Ps. 22:20, ‘ Deliver my soul from the sword, mine only-begotten from the power of the dog. ’ Now in the Apologies and Dialogue Justin never uses the word ‘only-begotten’ except in Tryph. 105, referred to above (a), where he supported it by Ps. 22, and professed to have ‘previously shown’ it, the ‘ showing ’ being really a futile inference from the Memoirs. All this, so far from indicating a borrowing from John, proves that, if Justin knew John, he refused to base any statement on it;

Tryph. 88 has simply the Synoptic tradition of the Baptist, developed as in Acts 13:25 (with a tradition of Justin’s own, twice ‘ repeated in connection with the Baptist elsewhere; and Tryph. 57, as to the Manna, 1 instead of alluding to Jn. 6:31, is a quotation from Ps. 78:25 with an allusion to Ps. 78:19 (cp 1 Cor. 10:3 and also Wisd. 16:20). representing a stage of tradition earlier than John;

Tryph. 69, ‘those who were from birth and according to the flesh defective [in vision ]? ’ is alleged by some to refer to the healing of the man ‘blind from, birth,’ mentioned only by John 9:1-34. But Justin speaks of these people in the plural, John 9:32 states that the healing was ‘unique, unheard of from the beginning of the world.’ Justin was probably quoting from some tradition earlier than John; but in any case this instance tends to show that, if he knew John, he did not regard it as authoritative.

Other alleged quotations, if examined, might be shown, even more conspicuously than those treated above, to fail to prove that Justin recognized John as an authoritative gospel.
Abstentions from Quotation

It is generally recognized that the Synoptics do not teach, whereas John and Justin do teach, Christ’s pre-existence, the feeding on Christ’s ‘ flesh and blood ’ (as expressed in those precise words), the application of the term’ only-begotten’ to Christ, and the Logos-doctrine. When, therefore, we find Justin either not appealing to any authority in behalf of these doctrines, or appealing to pointless passages in the Synoptics instead of pointed passages in John, it is a legitimate inference that Justin did not recognize John as on a level with the Synoptics.

 

Summary of the Evidence About Justin Martyr

It appears, then, that (1) when Justin seems to be alluding to John, he is really alluding to the Old Testament, or Barnabas, or some Christian tradition different from John, and often earlier than John; (2) when Justin teaches what is practically the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, he supports it, not by what can easily be found in the Fourth, but by what can hardly, with any show of reason, be found in the Three; (3) as regards Logos-doctrine, his views are alien from John. These three distinct lines of evidence converge to the conclusion that Justin either did not know John, or, as is more probable, knew it, but regarded it with suspicion, partly because it contradicted Luke his favorite Gospel, partly because it was beginning to be freely used by his enemies the Valentinians. (4) It may also be fairly added that literary evidence may have weighed with him. He seldom or never quotes (as many early Christian writers do) from apocryphal works. The title he gives to the Gospels (‘Memoirs of the Apostles’) shows the value he set on what seemed to him the very words of Christ noted down by the apostles. Accepting the Apocalypse as the work of (Trypho 81) the Apostle John he may naturally have rejected the claim of the Gospel to proceed from the same author. This may account for a good many otherwise strange phenomena in Justin’s writings. He could not help accepting much of the Johannine doctrine, but he expressed it, as far as possible, in non-Johannine language; and, where he could, he went back to earlier tradition for it, such as he found, for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas.

For more, see the websites: https://lukeprimacy.com and https://issueswithjohn.com

Refuting the claim that Luke and Acts are dependent on Josephus

 In the relevant scholarly literature, it has actually been claimed that Luke used the writings of Josephus (specifically ‘Antiquities of the Jews’).[1] Since Josephus wrote in 93 CE, this would date Acts no earlier than this time.[2]

The following passages are typically claimed as examples of Luke’s dependence on Josephus.

Luke 3:1: Josephus and Luke record the census of Quirinius, but Luke’s differs from that of Josephus and cannot be verified independently; both Luke and Josephus refer to Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene

Luke 13:1: Luke’s description of the murder of the Galileans is similar to Josephus’ description of an assault on Samaritans[3]

Acts 5:36-37: Luke mentions Theudas and Judas the Galilean, but reverses the order in which Josephus listed them, dates Theudas 15 years before the date Josephus gives[4]

Acts 11:28-9: Luke and Josephus both record famine during Claudius’ reign[5]

Acts 12:21-3: Luke describes Agrippa I’s death in a manner similar to Josephus, but with certain differences[6]

Acts 21:38: Luke describes ‘the Egyptian’ rebel leading sicarii into the wilderness but Josephus’s reference to sicarii in the wilderness is separate from his reference to ‘the Egyptian’[7]

Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30: Like Josephus, Luke implies that Agrippa II and Berenice are married, or consorts[8]

Acts 24:24-6: Like Josephus, Luke shows he is aware Drusilla (the wife of Felix), is a Jew

The claim is so insubstantial that most scholars consider it highly debatable at best,[9] rejecting it on a range of grounds and arguing Luke and Josephus used common traditions and historical sources.

‘Arguments for the dependence of passages in Acts on Josephus (especially the reference to Theudas in Acts v. 37) are equally unconvincing. The fact is, as Schurer has said: “Either Luke had not read Josephus, or he had forgotten all about what he had read”‘ [10]

‘But it is hardly logical to hold that Luke depends on Josephus and yet be obliged to admit that Luke shows wide divergence from him in relating events that are supposedly the same.’ [11]

‘The argument that Luke used the historian, Josephus (ad 93), was never fully convincing (HJ Cadbury, BC 11, 357). Today it is seldom pressed.’ [12]

‘Sterling concludes that, while it is impossible to establish a literary dependence of Luke-Acts on the writings of Josephus, it is reasonable to affirm that both authors not only had access to similar historical traditions but also shared the same historiographical techniques and perspectives.’ [13]

‘After examining the texts myself, I must conclude with the majority of scholars that it is impossible to establish the dependence of Luke-Acts on the Antiquitates. What is clear is that Luke-Acts and Josephos shared some common traditions about the recent history of Palestine.’ [14]

‘It seems probable that Luke and Josephus wrote independently of one another; for each could certainly have had access to sources and information, which he then employed according to his own perspectives. A characteristic conglomerate of details, which in part agree, in part reflect great similarity, but also in part, appear dissimilar and to stem from different provenances, accords with this analysis.’ [15]

‘A. T. Robinson, Redating, p. 88, regards the Josephus line of approach as almost totally abandoned.’ [16]

‘From Krenkel’s remarks it can be seen that this proof can be offered only with very powerful mental contortions. See Hemer, Acts (n.37), 95: ‘the theory of Lukan dependence on Josephus has had in its day a certain vogue, and has been used as a major argument for the late dating of Luke-Acts’; cf. also Sterling, Historiography (n.37),365f. n.281.’ [17]

‘Nevertheless, direct literary dependence on Josephus by Luke is consistently dismissed for various reasons.’ [18]

‘The relationship between Luke and Josephus has produced an abundant literature, which has attempted to show the literary dependence of one on the other. I do not believe that any such dependence can be proved.’ [19]

‘Most scholars today deny any dependence one way or the other, and we think this judgment is correct.’ [20]

‘When we consider both the differences and the agreement in many details of the information in the two accounts, [of the death of Herod Agrippa I] it is surely better to suppose the existence of a common source on which Luke and Josephus independently drew.’ [21]

‘Some attempt to argue a literary dependence on Josephus, and date Luke-Acts after 93CE. But, without a doubt, Luke’s theology is of an earlier type than Justin.’ [22]

This consensus is even acknowledged by those who argue for Luke’s dependence on Josephus, or the other way around.

“Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events.”[23]

Footnotes

___________________

[1] ‘This theory was maintained by F. C. Burkitt (The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1911, pp. 105–110), following the arguments of Krenkel’s Josephus und Lucas (1894).’, Guthrie, ‘New Testament Introduction’, p. 363 (4th rev. ed. 1996); Two recent examples are Richard Pervo’s ‘Dating Acts’ (2006), and ‘Acts: A Commentary’ in the series ‘Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible’ (2008), and Steve Mason’s ‘Josephus and the New Testament’ (1992); Pervo’s is considered an academic argument worthy of response (though it has failed to convince most scholars), whereas Mason’s is rarely referred to in the relevant scholarly literature.

[2] ‘If Acts is dependent on Josephus for information, it cannot be earlier than 93. But such dependence is not proved and is highly unlikely.’, in Douglas & Tenney, ’New International Bible Dictionary’, p, 13 (1987).

[3] ‘A number of events to which allusion is possibly being made are discussed by J. Blinzler*, 32–37. These include: 1. the affair of the ensigns in Jos. Bel. 2:169–174; Ant. 18:55–59, but this took place in Caesarea in AD 26; 2. the tumults associated with the building of an aqueduct (Jos. Bel. 2:175–177; Ant. 18:60–62), but this incident involved the murder of Judaeans with cudgels outside the temple; 3. an attack on some Samaritans (Jos. Ant. 18:85–87), but this took place in AD 36; 4. the slaughter of about 3,000 Jews offering Passover sacrifices by Archelaus in 4 BC (Jos. Bel. 2:8–13; Ant. 17:213–218). This incident, however, took place some thirty years earlier and was committed by a different ruler; moreover, the murder of 3,000 men would not bear comparison with an accident to 18. It is wisest to conclude that the event is not attested from secular sources. This, however, is no argument against its historicity, since Josephus’ account of Pilate’s career is very incomplete (cf. Philo, Leg. 299-305). Pilate would have been in Jerusalem at Passover time, and the Galileans had a reputation for rebelliousness. The suggestion that Zealots were involved (O. Cullmann, The State in the NT, London, 1957, 14) lacks proof.’, Marshall, ‘The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 553 (1978).

[4] ‘There are two problems: (1) Since Gamaliel was speaking well before AD 44 (the year in which Herod Agrippa I died, 12:20-23), a reference to the Theudas mentioned in Josephus would be anachronistic on his lips. (2). Gamaliel goes on to describe the rising of Judas after this; but the rising of Judas took place in AD 6 before the Theudas incident in Josephus. So, it is argued, Luke makes Gamaliel commit an anachronism and put the two stories in reverse chronological order. It has been argued that Luke was led to this error by misreading Josephus who goes on after the Theudas story to mention the sons of Judas and then to explain parenthetically who this Judas was and how he had led a revolt against Rome. But this supposition is highly unlikely, since Josephus’ works were not published till c. AD 93, and since Luke cannot possibly have got the details of his story (the 400 men) from him. No plausible explanation of Luke’s alleged error has been offered. There is, therefore, much to be said for the suggestions either that Josephus got his dating wrong or (more probably) that Gamaliel is referring to another, otherwise unknown Theudas. Since there were innumerable uprisings when Herod the Great died, and since ‘Josephus describes four men bearing the name of Simon within forty years and three that of Judas within ten years, all of whom were instigators of rebellion’ (cited by Knowling, p. 158), this suggestion should not be rejected out of hand.’, Marshall, ‘Acts: An Introduction And Commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 5, pp. 122-123 (1980).

[5] ‘Famines are mentioned in various parts of the empire during the time of Claudius. Josephus tells of a famine in Palestine during the governorship of Tiberius Alexander (46/48 C.E.):’, Conzelmann, Epp, & Matthews, ‘Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles’, Hermeneia, p. 90 (1987).

[6] ‘The details of Herod’s death are recorded slightly differently by Josephus, but the accounts are complementary. …Luke’s description of Herod as being eaten by worms is probably directly related to the abdominal pains referred to in Josephus’ account.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition’ (4th ed. 1994).

[7] ‘According to Josephus (Bel. 2:261–263) there had been an Egyptian false prophet who had led 30,000 men to the Mount of Olives in order to take Jerusalem; he promised that they would see the walls of the city fall down. The governor, Felix, killed or captured his followers, while the prophet himself managed to escape. Clearly the tribune thought that this person had reappeared; the discrepancy between the number of his followers in Acts and in Josephus reflects the latter’s well-known tendency to exaggeration, and the tribune’s estimate will have been nearer the mark.’, Marshall, ‘Acts: An Introduction And Commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 5, p. 371 (1980).

[8] ‘There was gossip about the relationship between the brother and sister (Josephus Ant. 20.145; Juvenal Sat. 6.156–60). ‘,Conzelmann, Epp, & Matthews, ‘Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles’, Hermeneia, p. 206 (1987).

[9] ‘The use of the LXX is not debatable, but the influence of Josephus and Paul has been and is subjected to considerable debate.’, Tyson, ‘Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle’, p. 14 (2006).

[10] Geldenhuys, ‘Commentary on the Gospel of Luke’, p. 31 (1950).

[11] Harrison, ‘Introduction to the New Testament’, p. 240 (1971).

[12] Ellis, ‘The Gospel of Luke’, p. 55 (1977).

[13] Verheyden, ‘The Unity of Luke-Acts’, p. 678 (1990).

[14] Sterling, ‘Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography’, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, pp. 365-366 (1992).

[15] Schreckenberg & Schubert, ‘Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christian Literature’, Compendia Rerum Iudicarum Ad Novum Testamentum, volume 2, p. 51 (1992).

[16] Guthrie, ‘New Testament Introduction’, p. 364 (4th rev. ed. 1996).

[17] Hengel & Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years’, p. 325 (1997).

[18] Denova, ‘The Things Accomplished Among Us: prophetic tradition in the structural pattern of Luke-Acts’, p. 207 (1997).

[19] Marguerat, ‘The First Christian Historian: writing the “Acts of the Apostles”‘, p. 79 (2002).

[20] Heyler, ‘Exploring Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students’, p. 362 (2002).

[21] Klauck & McNeil, ‘Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles’, p. 43 (2003)

[22] Hear, ‘Simon Magus: the first gnostic?’, p. 71 (2003).

[23] Mason, ‘Josephus and the New Testament’, p. 185 (1992).

For more, see https://lukeprimacy.com/