The Didache is Unreliable

What is the Didache

Didache means “Teaching” and is also known as The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. The date of its original work, its authorship, and provenance are unknown, although most modern scholars date it to the first century (90-120 AD) 

Why is it unreliable?

The chief textual witness to the text of the Didache is an eleventh-century Greek parchment manuscript known as Codex Hierosolymitanus or Codex H, (1056 AD). It is highly probable that the Didache was modified during the approximately 950 years from when it originated as compared to Codex H. 

Even in the early part of the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that "the so-called Teachings of the Apostles… was spurious" (Eusebius History 3:25)

In Didache 9, which deals with communion, the writer says, “But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus”

The Didache 7 states, “But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice (three times) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The internal evidence points to Didache 7 as an interpolation, or later addition. Shortly after saying baptism should be performed in the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Didache states the absolute necessity of being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (the same Greek word as in Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). This represents an obvious contradiction and gives validity to the argument that Didache 7 is an interpolation.

The Didache is also silent on repentance and the symbolic death into Christ, which is a key to understanding baptism.

Although there are some interesting contents within the Didache that were likely written in the early second century, it is evident that later interpolations and editions to the Didache cause uncertainty about the veracity of any of its contents.

Quotes from Scholarship:

“the document was tampered with by later insertions… the document does not go back to the apostolic times … Furthermore, such a collection of ecclesiastical ordinances presupposes a period of stabilization of some duration. Scattered details indicate that the apostolic age is no longer contemporary, but has passed into history.” (Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol. 1, Page 36)

“The Didache, an early second-century Christian composition, is also clearly composite, consisting of a “Two Ways” section (chaps. 1-6), a liturgical manual (7-10), instructions on the reception of traveling prophets (11-15), and a brief apocalypse (16). Marked divergences in style and content as well as the presence of doubtless and obvious interpolations, make plain the fact that the Didache was not cut from whole cloth. The dominant view today is that the document was composed on the basis of several independent, preredactional units which were assembled by either one or two redactors (Neiderwimmer 1989:64-70, ET 1998:42-52). Comparison of the “Two Ways” section with several other “Two Ways” documents suggests that Didache 1-6 is itself the result of multistage editing. The document began with rather haphazard organization (cf. Barnabas 18-20), but was reorganized in a source common to the Didache, the Doctrina apostolorum, and the Apostolic Church Order …” (John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, pp. 134-135)

For more on baptism being originally in the name of Jesus, see https://baptisminjesusname.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

 

The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel, Book Excerpt on John, Ernest Findlay Scott

The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel (John)

Archive Book Link: https://archive.org/details/historicalreligi00scotrich/page/n5/mode/2up
Ernest Findlay Scott, Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1909

General Characteristics:

“The message of the Kingdom, which forms the one subject of his teaching in the Synoptic Gospels, falls practically out of sight, and our attention is fixed instead on his own personality, in its relation to God and its significance for the world. We discover, on closer examination, that this Gospel differs from the others, not only in its general view of the nature of Christ’s mission, but in its reading of the history itself. The chief scene of our Lord’s ministry, which was Galilee according to the Synoptic records, is placed in Jerusalem. Even where the fourth evangelist is in closest agreement with the Synoptists, he never fails to introduce some modification in detail, often of such a nature as to change the whole meaning of the event.” (Page 2)

“It is evident that all the material has undergone a process. From whatever source he derived it, — whether from our Synoptic Gospels or from other traditions, equally trustworthy, the writer has moulded it anew and brought it into harmony with his own conceptions. What we have before us now is not the literal history of our Lord’s life but the Johannine interpretation of that life.” (Page 13)

“The writer views all the facts not as they are in themselves, but through an atmosphere of symbolism. It was already observed by Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, that “since the bodily things had been exhibited in the other Gospels, John, inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual Gospel.” This “spiritualising” of the history is manifestly his aim throughout.”” (Page 14)

“The history resolves itself at every point into a kind of allegory which cannot be rightly apprehended without a key. In this way we must explain the liberties, strange to our modern mind, which the writer continually takes with historical facts. The event as it happened was to him the adumbration, necessarily dim and imperfect, of a spiritual idea. His interest is in the idea, which he regards as the one essential thing, — the “truth” or inward reality of the fact. He thinks it not only permissible but necessary to modify the fact, so as to bring out more fully or emphatically the idea at the heart of it.” (Page 16)

Authorship

“In modern times the authorship of the fourth Gospel has been the subject of rigorous investigation. The discussion has now been in process for nearly a hundred years and is by no means closed; but the weight of scholarly opinion is settling down to a conviction that the traditional theory must be abandoned.” (Page 4)

“The fourth Gospel, therefore, cannot be attributed to the Apostle John, and the real secret of its authorship seems to be irrecoverably lost. Many attempts have been made in recent times to connect it with some particular name; but with our scanty knowledge of the early history of the church, they are hazardous at the best. The evangelist himself remains unknown. All that we can do is to distinguish, within certain limits, the place and time in which he composed his work. From various indications, both internal and external, we can infer that he belonged to Asia Minor, and probably to the region of Ephesus.” (Page 11)

Date

“The evidence would seem to point, more and more decisively, to sometime within the first two decades of the second century.” (Page 12)

Subordinate Aims

“When we look below the surface of the fourth Gospel we seem to discover clear traces of this interest in the contemporary life of the church. Several of the more striking peculiarities of the Gospel are not capable of explanation until we read it not only as a history of Jesus, but as a tract for the times called forth by the practical requirements of the second century.” (Page 18)

“It is impossible to avoid the inference that the evangelist, writing at a time when the synagogue was in strong opposition to the church, took occasion to read back into the past the conflict of the present. His Gospel became, in one of its aspects, a reply to the Jewish antagonists, whose arguments were more dangerous than any others to the progress of the Christian mission.” (Page 20)

“We know that the First Epistle of John (a kindred writing, which comes to us from the same school, if not from the same hand) is directed against certain heretical teachers. These appear to have been precursors of the later Gnostics, who denied the reality of Christ’s appearance and death, and sought to resolve his message into a vague philosophical system. It is highly probable that the same type of heretical teaching is combated in the Gospel. The writer goes back to the earthly life of Jesus, and follows it step by step through its earthly progress. He lays stress on details which serve to illustrate the Lord’s humanity. He offers solemn testimony to the material fact of the death upon the Cross.’ The whole Gospel centers on the thesis that the Word was made flesh, — that the divine nature has imparted itself to men through a human life. But while the evangelist is thus strongly opposed to Gnosticism, there is reason to believe that he has himself been touched by Gnostic influences. He makes frequent use of well-known Gnostic watch-words; he draws a Gnostic distinction between the two classes of men, — the earthly and the spiritual, the children of darkness and the children of light ; with all his insistence on the reality of the Saviour’s life he never loses sight of its ideal significance. This twofold attitude to the Gnostic speculations is one of the chief problems of the Gospel. In order to solve it fully we should require to know something of the personality of the writer and of the particular circumstances in which he wrote.” (Page 21-23)

“Living at a time when the unity of the church was in danger, and when various abuses were creeping into its life and sacraments, he sought to remind it of its true character. He reads back into the gospel history the conditions of his own day, in order to submit them to the Master’s judgment. Jesus himself becomes the counsellor and legislator of his church… Under the form of a biography of Jesus it deals with problems and difficulties which did not arise until after his death. It bears a constant reference not only to the events which it narrates, but to the situation of the church in the early part of the second century.” (Page 25-26)

Christian Development

“Judaism and Christianity had come to open quarrel; and the younger religion had to seek its future in the great Gentile world, to which its beliefs and ideals and traditions were all strange. It was evident that if the church was to survive and to maintain itself as a living power, its whole message had to be re-interpreted. Some expression must be found for the revelation in Christ, which would set it free from its mere local and accidental elements and give it a meaning for Gentiles in the second century as it had had for Jews in the first. Our Gospel was written in those years of critical transition. The task which the evangelist laid on himself was that of interpreting to a new time and translating into the terms of a different culture, the truth as it was in Christ.” (Page 28-29)

“The Christian theology is presented in the fourth Gospel under Greek forms of thought. Paul was a Jew of Tarsus, one of the centers of Greek philosophical culture; and a Hellenic influence has been traced in not a few of his speculations. But the prevailing colour of his thought is Jewish. He was trained in the Rabbinical schools and borrowed from them the theological ideas under which he explained the new message. The fourth evangelist — though almost certainly a Jew — had entered deeply into the spirit of Greek philosophy. In his endeavor to set forth the inner meaning of the Christian revelation, he discards the Jewish forms, which were unintelligible to the wider audience he has in view. In a far more radical sense than Paul, he re-interprets the message.” (Page 31-32)

Logos Philosophy

“Greek philosophy was chiefly represented in the first and second centuries by Stoicism; and the central doctrine of Stoicism was that of the Logos, or immanent Reason of the world. An attempt had already been made by Philo, a Jewish thinker of Alexandria, to reconcile Greek philosophy with the Old Testament on the ground of this Stoic doctrine. The Greek term ” Logos” signifies ” word” as well as “reason”; and Philo had availed himself of this double meaning. Into the Old Testament allusions to the creative and revealing word of God he had read the philosophical conception of the Logos; and had thus evolved that theory that within the being of God there was a secondary divine principle, the Word or Logos, which was His agent in the creation and government of the world.” (Page 32-33)

“We must needs admit that in his endeavor to represent Jesus as at once man and incarnate Logos, the evangelist falls into many inconsistencies. Not only so, but he divests the historical life of much of its meaning and its true grandeur, in order to bring it into conformity with the Logos idea. We miss from his narrative some of the most striking episodes of the Synoptic story, — for example, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Agony, the Cry from the Cross. These could not be reconciled with the theory of the Logos and had therefore to be omitted… The prayers of Jesus cease to be true appeals for God’s help and guidance. He is himself one with the Father and knows beforehand that his prayer is sure of fulfilment.” As many things are omitted, so there are certain features added which impair the human reality of the portrait.” (Page 36-37)

Gospel Message

“The message of Jesus is concerned with the coming age, or kingdom of God; but the kingdom itself is identified with its chief blessing. Jesus can speak, almost in the same sentence, of “entering into the kingdom “and of “inheriting eternal life.” The fourth evangelist takes advantage of this equivalence of the two terms and discards the idea of the kingdom altogether. It was related to hopes and beliefs that were specifically Jewish, and he replaces it by the more general conception of life.” (Page 50)

Historical Value

“From our knowledge, rather, of what Jesus was when he appeared on earth, we can discern him still, and receive the new truth which he imparts to us through his living Spirit. The fourth Gospel itself is the grandest illustration of this profound and far-reaching doctrine. Writing in a new century, for a people of alien race and culture, the evangelist goes back to the teaching of Jesus; but he does not simply reproduce it as it had been handed down. He translates it into new language; he interprets it with the aid of later theological forms; he brings it into relation to contemporary problems and interests, which had not yet emerged in the Master’s own lifetime. Literally considered the message is different from that which had come down in the tradition. The words attributed to Jesus had not actually fallen from his lips, and the whole picture of his earthly life and surroundings is in many respects altered. Yet the writer claims authority for his Gospel. He is convinced that he, as truly as the Synoptists, is recording the deeds of Jesus and the words he spoke. For through the historical life, he has a vision of the eternal life. The literal teaching has been illuminated to him and filled with new meanings and applications. Nearly a century had passed by since Jesus had departed; and through all those years his revelation had been unfolding itself, under the growing light of the world’s thought and knowledge.” (Page 72-74)

“He (the author) availed himself of categories of thought, unknown to the primitive age, which were derived mainly from the philosophies of Greece. These new categories were in many ways well fitted to express Christian ideas; but it cannot be denied that something was lost by the adoption of them. The teaching of Jesus became abstract and mystical, instead of simple and direct. An appeal was made to the intellect more than to the underlying instincts of the moral and religious life.” (Page 76)

“It asserted itself heir to five centuries of Greek thinking. It was acclimatized in the general culture of the time and penetrated it more and more with its own spirit. To the fourth evangelist, more than to any other teacher, the church was indebted for the mighty progress of the next three centuries. He transplanted the new religion from its Jewish soil into another, where it could take deep root and send out its branches freely.” (Page 77-78)

“It is true that in this endeavor to portray Jesus, in his earthly ministry, as the ever-living Christ, the evangelist has modified and idealized the facts. As a work of history his Gospel is secondary to the Synoptic records; and its evidence must always be sifted and controlled by means of them.” (Page 82)

Ernest Findlay Scott was born on March 18th, 1868 in Towlaw, Durham, England. Scott was educated at some of the finest theological centers in the United Kingdom, earning degrees from the University of Glasgow (1888), Balliol College, Oxford (1892) and United Presbyterian College, Edinburgh, 1895. Upon completing his education, he was ordained as a United Presbyterian minister on September 11, 1895. Following ordination, Scott served as a minister in Prestwick, Scotland, serving a congregation there for over a decade. In 1908, Scott took up his first academic post, as Professor of Church History at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario Canada, later being promoted to Professor of New Testament Literature and Criticism as that same university. In 1919, Scott was hired by Union Theological Seminary as Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, which he served from 1919-1954 (emeritus post-1938). Throughout an extensive career in both the ministry and the academy, Scott wrote prolifically on New Testament theology.

For more on issues with John, see the website https://issueswithjohn.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/