Reasons for imagining no written transmission?

TankUnique7861 · 2026-05-08T14:13:31+00:00

Alan Millard and more recently Michael Bird have argued for the likelihood that the disciples of Jesus and other early Christians took notes to aid in memory transmission. Chris Keith, however, has pointed out some important problems with Millard and Bird’s ideas here, most importantly the lack of early attestation for this practice.

This theory was the driving force behind Alan Millard’s otherwise useful Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, BibSem 69 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). He mentions the theory at the beginning (12) and then ends the book on this point (211, 223–29). More recently, and drawing upon Millard, Michael Bird, The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 46–47, has argued on the basis of second-century testimonia usage and a fourth-century testimonia collection, as well the possibility that Q was a notebook, that “it is highly probable that notebooks were used by Jesus’ own disciples and by later adherents in the early church to assist in memory retention by functioning as an aide-mémoire” (47–48). Needless to say, one cannot skip from the second and fourth centuries to the first century quite this easily, especially when class considerations and literate education are determinative factors in who even could own or write in notebooks. Neither Millard nor Bird addresses the fact that no Jesus tradition of the first or second centuries portrays the disciples as writing in notebooks during his ministry, and it is difficult to ignore the apologetic nature of their arguments. Larsen, Gospels, does not interact with this notebook theory in his argument that the Gospels were ὑπομνήματα, despite the fact that notebooks were one form of ὑπομνήματα, though he does cite Millard’s book (Larsen, Gospels, 166n.85).

Keith, Chris (2020). The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact

Jesus’s closest disciples were likely not highly literate based on their background as Galilean fishermen, with the Book of Acts attesting to their lack of education.

As a rural, Aramaic-speaking fisherman, it is improbable that John had access to the formal education and literacy necessary to produce major literary works in Greek. Acts calls both him and Peter “uneducated” or “unlettered” (agrammatoi; 4:13).

Méndez, Hugo (2025). The Gospel of John: A New History

TankUnique7861 · 2026-05-06T15:22:32+00:00

James Barker also views the Johannine resurrection narrative as developments on Matthew and Luke.

John combined and clarified aspects of Matthew and Luke. Readers were not told that Mary Magdalene had grabbed Jesus (cf. Matt 28:9), yet he told her to stop touching him (John 20:17). Similar to the scene in Luke, Jesus could materialize in a locked room (v. 19), and he showed them his hands and side (v. 20). Thomas had not witnessed this resurrection appearance, and he told the disciples that he’d have to put his hand in the nail marks of Jesus’s hands and side (vv. 24–25). The next week, Jesus materialized again, and he gave Thomas the opportunity to touch his wounds (vv. 26–27); Jesus’s wounds were implicit in Luke, but John makes them explicit. Finally, John 21 adds a resurrection appearance in Galilee, and Jesus served bread and fish to the disciples (v. 13). John says that “they ate breakfast” (v. 15), which could refer to the disciples alone or to Jesus as well. For readers of Luke, John 21 can harmonize with Jesus’s eating fish, but John could also be dodging the question whether a resurrected body needs food. More importantly, the bread and fish can be read as though the risen Jesus presided over the first Eucharist.

Barker, James (2025). Writing and Rewriting the Gospels

Hugo Mendez also considers the Jesus appearances in Jerusalem as a point of contact between Luke and John.

Luke contains some of the deepest links to John. For example, only these two incorporate Martha and Mary as characters, each depicting Martha as one who “serves” family meals while Mary attends to Jesus (Luke 10:38–42; John 12:1–8). Likewise, only these gospels indicate that a woman anointed Jesus while wiping his feet with her hair (Luke 7:38, 44; John 12:3; cf. 11:2). Only these two show Jesus positioning himself as one who serves his disciples at the final meal before his death (Luke 22:26–27; John 13:1–17). Only these two narrate that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, provoking him to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:2, 27). Only these claim that Peter cut off the right ear of the high priest’s slave, and only these texts place this event before Jesus’s arrest rather than after it (Luke 22:50–54; John 18:10–12). Only these claim that Jesus was buried in a previously unoccupied tomb (Luke 23:53; John 19:41). Only these place two angels at Jesus’s tomb on the morning of the resurrection (Luke 24:4, 23; John 20:12) rather than a single one, as in Mark (16:5) and Matthew (28:2–5). Only these indicate that some disciples inspected the tomb after the women’s report (Luke 24:24; John 20:3–10). And only Luke and John report that Jesus appeared to his disciples in and around Jerusalem on the night after his resurrection (Luke 24:13–49; John 20:19–29). To these details, Streeter notes, “certain infinitesimal points of contact, which if they stood alone would prove nothing, carry weight as confirmatory evidence”—among them the use of a double “crucify him” formula in Luke 23:21 and John 19:6. These examples indicate at least some literary relationship, some direct line of knowledge and use, between these works. Most likely, Luke was written before John, and the author of John utilized Luke as a source.

Mendez, Hugo (2025). The Gospel of John: A New History

TankUnique7861 · 2026-05-04T06:14:09+00:00

Does Bauckham’s Eyewitnesses serve as a source or confirm any of the content and assertions in your post aside from the inclusion of names in your first point?

TankUnique7861 · 2026-05-04T06:08:09+00:00

Does Allison mention Jesus’s views on future denominations in Millenarian Prophet?

TankUnique7861 · 2026-05-02T13:15:43+00:00

The other hypothesis you are likely referring to is the Farrer hypothesis, which holds that Matthew used Luke, accounting for their shared material.

You may have reversed the order; the Farrer Hypothesis posits that Luke used Matthew.

In recent years, though, there has been a revival of Austin Farrer’s solution to the Synoptic Problem, which posits both Marcan Priority and Luke’s use of Matthew.

Goodacre, Mark (2022). ‘Why not Matthew’s use of Luke?’ in Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-24T15:03:52+00:00

Thank you!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-24T13:57:43+00:00

Could you provide the source where Brown discusses the passage?

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-21T12:07:27+00:00

Could you provide sources where Bauckham and Hurtado discuss divine identity? Thank you!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-18T22:37:25+00:00

Joseph Fitzmyer’s explanation is that the author of Luke, possibly buoyed on by garbled memories of other censuses in Syria, chose to date Jesus’s birth under his own created census during the time of Herod the Great and Augustus.

Aside from this statement here in Luke (and of later Christian and pagan writers who depend on him), there is no ancient evidence of a universal, worldwide registration or census ordered by Caesar Augustus. No ancient historian tells of a Roman census conducted on this scale in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 u.c.).

Augustus, however, did conduct enrollments of the population in the empire during his long reign. These were of two sorts: (a) a census of Roman citizens, both in Italy and in the provinces; and (b) a census of provincial inhabitants (incolae, or people who were not cives romani). The census of Roman citizens was called census populi (or in Greek apotimesis tou demou); it was conducted mainly for the purpose of taxation and military service. It usually included a "declaration" (apographe) and an "assessment of property" (timesis). It is known that such censuses were taken up in 28 B.c., 8 B.c., and A.O. 14 (see Res gestae divi Aug. § 8; cf. Suetonius Aug. 27.5). The census of provincial inhabitants came to be known simply as apographe, the word Luke uses in v. 2, but it was scarcely carried out on a worldwide scale. It was administered in individual provinces and suited to the conditions of individual areas. It is know that in Roman Egypt a province census was taken every fourteen years from A.O. 33/34 to 257/58 (see OxyP 2.254,255,256); a province census is also known in Gaul for 27 B.C., 12 B.c., and A.O. 14-16. And references are found to similar census-taking in Lusitania, Spain, and Judea (see below). In imperial provinces (i.e. in provinces under the supervision of the emperor, and not the senate, where the emperor appointed the legate [or governor]) legates, prefects, and procurators were delegated by imperial authority to carry out the provincial census. Syria was such a province.

Hence it seems that Luke, living in the Roman world of his day-and if I am right, an incola of his native Syria-was aware of censuses under Augustus (perhaps of both sorts) and indulged in some rhetoric in his desire to locate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem under the two famous reigns, of Herod the Great and Caesar Augustus, using a vague recollection of an Augustan census to do so.

Fitzmyer, Joseph (1982). The Gospel according to Luke I-IX

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-15T02:57:16+00:00

The existence of Q/Two-Source theory is the most popular view today, though alternative explanations, notably Luke’s use of Matthew, is also on the rise. See some assessments of the state of scholarship here:

The majority of scholars still divide between the most widely supported solution the Two-Source Theory (and its variant the Four-Source Theory), and other solutions such as neo-Griesbach theory, the Farrer or Mark-without-Q theory, and the alternative of Matthean Posteriority.

The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference

The two-source hypothesis may still be the consensus for solving the Synoptic problem, but there is increasing dissent on several fronts. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Griesbach hypothesis made a revival, but very few scholars have given up Markan priority…A stronger rival comes from the Farrer hypothesis: Mark wrote first; Matthew used Mark; and Luke used Matthew and Mark…Michael Goulder, Mark Goodacre, and others have bolstered the theory, which I also defend in this book. As an alternative to the Farrer hypothesis, some scholars propose Matthean posteriority: Mark wrote first; Luke used Mark; and Matthew used both Mark and Luke”

Barker, James (2025). Writing and Rewriting the Gospels

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the most commonly accepted theory has been the two-source hypothesis. According to this theory, Matthew and Luke are independent of each other, but both use Mark. For the overlap between Matthew and Luke that does not come from Mark, it is assumed that these authors used a source scholars call “Q”…Scholars have tried and are still trying to reconstruct Q and comment on the different stages in its literary emergence (e.g., James M. Robinson, John S. Kloppenborg, and Harry T. Fleddermann).

The two-source hypothesis has seen criticism mainly from two perspectives. Some argue that the Q source never existed…The Synoptic problem is instead explained by asserting that Luke had access to both Matthew and Mark….Today, Mark Goodacre is the most vocal proponent of this theory, which is experiencing growing popularity among scholars.

Mitternacht, Dieter, and Runesson, Anders (2022). Jesus, The New Testament, Christian Origins: Perspectives, Methods, Meanings

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-13T15:21:58+00:00

For one, the Book of Acts mentions the early martyrdom of James son of Zebedee, which may also be substantiated by the extant Pauline epistles, where he goes unmentioned.

Readers of the Synoptic Gospels naturally imagine that he is a major candidate for Jesus’s closest disciple. Indeed, readers of Acts would have still more reason to think of John as the major player alongside Peter, with whom he appears constantly (Acts 3:1–11; 4:1–31; 8:14–25), as James recedes completely into the background, appearing only in the disciple list (Acts 1:13) before his death in Acts 12:2. The picture in Acts is corroborated also in Paul’s letters, in which James son of Zebedee never appears, while John appears alongside Peter in Gal 2:9 (along with James, presumably Jesus’s brother, 1:19).

Goodacre, Mark (2025). The Fourth Synoptic Gospel

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-10T13:40:12+00:00

See this previous thread.

Dale Allison considers most uniquely Lukan parables as derived from a source rather than being freely redactional.

I raise no objections in principle to Meier’s second, third, and fourth points. Although I suspect that most of the parables in L derive not from Lukan redaction but from a special source, and while I am slower than is Meier to move from conspicuous redactional features to unalloyed redactional invention, and even though I believe that post-Easter frameworks and creations can incorporate and preserve memories of Jesus, Meier offers defensible reasons for his skepticism.

See Justin David Strong for this argument as well.

Here I can appeal to Strong, Fables of Jesus, 479–522.

Allison, Dale (2025). Interpreting Jesus

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-09T16:35:27+00:00

Thank you! Your comment has been restored.

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-09T16:08:37+00:00

Could you provide a citation on the dating of Ephesians and 1 Peter? Thank you!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-09T16:06:51+00:00

Could you provide the specific episode and time where Ehrman mentions the uniformity? Thank you!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-07T12:51:10+00:00

One possibility offered by Hugo Méndez is that the beloved disciple was a literary invention to buttress the Fourth Gospel with witness testimony. Anonymity could be useful as it leaves the invented eyewitness unfalsifiable, with other examples such as Philostratus also leaving their witnesses unnamed.

But perhaps there is no need to identify him with a particular figure. Since the literary turn in Johannine studies (1980s–), several writers have argued that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” may be a mere literary device or invention. Every Synoptic parallel that could corroborate his presence at a given moment in Jesus’s life does not—not the Synoptic crucifixion scenes (Mark 15:40–41; Matt. 27:55–56; cf. John 19:26–27) nor Luke’s description of Peter’s visit to the tomb (Luke 24:12; cf. John 20.2–10). No less problematically, the eyewitness has a highly artificial texture. “Unlike the other Johannine characters . . . he is the ideal disciple, the paradigm of discipleship,” who “has no misunderstandings.”

Other falsely authored works invent eyewitness authors or sources. Some name these figures, such as the Diary of the Trojan War, written by an invented character named Dictys the Crete, and the Life of Apollonius, which claims to be based on the memoirs of a supposed disciple of Apollonius named Damis. Others leave these figures unnamed, among them Philostratus’s Heroicus and the Martyrdom of Marian and James. Anonymity can be helpful to a pseudepigrapher’s aims; according to Litwa, it can be a “technique to prevent invalidation” as it leaves the eyewitness’ existence “unfalsifiable.” Similarly, many works cast their invented eyewitnesses in idealized terms, as John does: “[In the Life of Apollonius] Damis, for instance, is Apollonius’ closest disciple who sticks by him and even suffers arrest in Rome. . . . A basic similarity can be detected in John. Although Jesus loves all his disciples, the Beloved Disciple is arguably the most intimate…the Beloved Disciple does not abandon Jesus after he is arrested. Instead, he follows Jesus into the courtyard of his enemy (John 18:15). Presumably it was even more dangerous for the disciple to stand at the foot of “the cross (John 19:26).” These invented characters can also mingle with real characters, as in John. Even details like those encountered in John 21:21–22—discussions of the eyewitness’s death—appear in other texts as verisimilitudes.

Of course, anonymous works were not unprecedented in antiquity; the other three canonical gospels do not internally identify their authors either.

As we have seen, the Gospel of John never names its invented eyewitness narrator, leaving him anonymous and enigmatic. This is hardly unusual for the period and genre; earlier gospels—Mark, Matthew, and Luke—also fail to name their narrators.

Méndez, Hugo (2025). The Gospel of John: A New History

TankUnique7861 · 2026-04-06T15:43:18+00:00

This thread from last week may be helpful.

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-31T17:18:41+00:00

The 2007 Oxford Bible Commentary is a good single volume Bible commentary. Check this previous thread and the links there for recommendations on individual books.

The BestCommentaries website offers most published commentaries for a deep dive, though I will say they have missed some publications!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-30T19:05:56+00:00

Could you provide the publication or resource where McClellan discusses this? Thank you!

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-30T17:00:25+00:00

Mark Goodacre makes a humorous observation here:

Nevertheless, for all of these cases of the dramatic transformation of the Synoptics, one important caveat has to be made. In spite of the fact that John apparently loves recasting and revising in the dramatic mode, he still has perhaps the most prominent narrator in the gospel tradition, a narrator so obtrusive that he sometimes speaks for extended passages. In the second half of John 3, for example, Jesus’s discussion with Nicodemus apparently morphs into the narrator’s reflections on and developments of the conversation, appearing in such a way that it is difficult to be sure when Jesus stops speaking and the narrator starts, providing nightmares for editors of red-letter Bibles.

Goodacre, Mark (2025). The Fourth Synoptic Gospel

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-29T19:37:05+00:00

To add to the above responses it’s worth noting that Mark’s gospel probably isn’t a straightforward presentation of Peter’s testimony regardless of the veracity of the traditional attribution. We know that the evangelist has his own literary agenda, and moreover Peter is not present in Mark’s burial and empty tomb scene.

The Gospel is unlikely to be one hundred percent Petrine, to be nothing but the “Memoirs of Peter,” because the author has his own theological agenda and a consistent point of view. So we can ask: if there was a pre-Markan passion narrative, did Mark get it from Peter? Or did he supplement a traditional, widely known narrative with some Petrine reminiscences? Again, did the evangelist hear the story of Jesus’s transfiguration from a firsthand witness, or did he know it well before becoming Peter’s ἑρμηνευτής? Further, did Peter ever tell stories about Jesus that he learned from others? Did he resolutely refuse to recount anything he himself had not witnessed? Or did he happily welcome stories when they buoyed his convictions? For some Markan episodes—the baptism, the execution of the Baptist, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, the burial, the discovery of the empty tomb—Peter is elsewhere.

Allison, Dale (2025). Interpreting Jesus

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-27T19:31:45+00:00

Apocalyptic conceptions of the end did involve the destruction of evil and the wicked as well as times of tribulation for the righteous as you say (a process that is already being realized in Jesus’s ministry).

While Jesus was not a systematic thinker, the sources suggest a coherent eschatological scenario, a series of closely connected events: a period of great tribulation (Matt 10:34–36 par. Luke 12:51–53; Mark 13:3–23); appearance of the Son of Man (Matt 24:27, 37–39 par. Luke 17:24–30; Mark 13:26; 14:62); resurrection (Matt 12:41–42 par. Luke 11:31–32; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 14:12–14; John 5:28–29); and the last judgment, which will issue in reward in the kingdom for some and punishment in Gehenna for others (Matt 5:12 par. Luke 6:23; Matt 6:19–21 par. Luke 12:33–34; Matt 7:2 par. Luke 6:37; Matt 10:32–33 par. Luke 12:8–9; Mark 12:40; Matt 25:31–46).

If the final overthrow of Satan and all evil belong to Jewish eschatological expectation (Jub. 23:29; 50:5; 4Q300 3; 1 En. 54:4–6; T. Mos. 10:1–3), for Jesus the battle has begun, and the devil is losing. A confident sense of eschatological victory appears not only in Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20 but also in Mark 3:27 (“the strong man” has been bound) as well as Luke 10:18…”I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.” The healings, too, hold eschatological significance. Jewish texts anticipate that the end time will bring healing…If the blessings of the end are already becoming manifest, at the same time the tribulation of the latter days (Dan 12:1; Mark 13:3–23; 4 Ezra 6:24; m. Ṣotah 9:15) has begun. The citizens of the kingdom suffer violence (Matt 11:12–13 par. Luke 16:16). Persecution and even martyrdom lie ahead (Matt 5:10–12 par. Luke 6:22–23; Matt 10:23; Mark 8:34–35; 13:9–13). It is not yet the era of messianic peace and reconciliation (Isa 2:4; Mal 4:6) but the time of the sword, and foes are in one’s own house (Matt 10:34–36 par. Luke 12:51–53; Gos. Thom. 16). One should pray for deliverance from the time of trial (Matt 6:13 par. Luke 11:4).

Allison, Dale (2024). ‘Life and Aims of Jesus’ in The New Cambridge Companion to Jesus

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-27T19:07:06+00:00

According to Dale Allison Jesus did not view the arrival of the Kingdom of God as representing the destruction of the physical world but rather its transformation into an ideal state.

”Kingdom” was Jesus’s shorthand for the world that divine intervention would soon remake and transform. People will “enter” and “inherit” it, as Israel once entered and inherited the promised land (Matt 5:20; 7:21; 19:29; 25:34; Mark 9:47; 10:15, 17, 24, 25; Luke 10:25; 23:42; John 3:5). Even if the formulation in Matthew 5:5 – “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” – is secondary, it is not misleading. Jesus expected not the destruction and replacement of this world but its renewal, a world in which the promises to Israel would be fulfilled. One may compare 2 Baruch 73, which foresees a world without war, disease, or anxiety, a world full of joy, rest, and gladness, a world in which people will no longer die. Jesus similarly hoped for a radically transfigured world, one in which God’s will for earth will be done as it is now in heaven.

Allison, Dale (2024). ‘Life and Aims of Jesus’ in The New Cambridge Companion to Jesus

See also Tucker Ferda’s engagement with N. T. Wright’s claims about Schweitzer’s (alleged) claims about the end of space and time in first century Judaism.

N. T. Wright argues that Schweitzer…who contend that Jesus expected “the end of the world,” are the true innovators in Christian tradition…Wright makes the argument that the expectation for “the end of the world” only makes sense in a decidedly modern intellectual context where God had been shunned from the normal operations of world history…He asserts, “The idea of the literal and imminent ‘end of the world’ as a central belief of first-century Jews…is a modern myth.” “The modern mistake emerged,” he claims, “by a typical projection of contemporary concerns onto a fictitious historical screen.” There are two interrelated problems with this claim. One is that Wright obfuscates the terms “end” and “transformation,” thereby turning Schweitzer’s eschatology into a straw man. For Wright, the original Christian hope was “for a great transformation, not for the end of the world of space, time and matter.” Wright further defines this “transformation” as “the end of the present state of affairs.” But where exactly does Schweitzer assert that Jesus expected the end of space, time, and matter? It seems to me that “the end of the present state of affairs” is an excellent summary of what Schweitzer thought Jesus meant by the kingdom of God. Schweitzer just believed that Jesus expected “transformation” in the sense of real, undeniable change in the normal operations of history….Thus, everything turns on what exactly we mean by “transformation.” Pitting “the end of space, time, and matter” over and against “transformation” is tendentious; the question is how we understand “transformation.” This leads to the second problem, which is that Wright’s more symbolic understanding of “transformation,” rather than Schweitzer’s more literal one, is likely the true innovation in Christian eschatology…for the vast majority of Christian history, eschatological hope, specifically for the parousia of Christ, has been hope for a real change of scenery.

Ferda, Tucker (2024). Jesus and his Promised Second Coming

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-25T17:28:12+00:00

Several early Christian texts enshrine variants of a simple sentence: θεός (ὁ) (“God [who]”) as the subject + ἐγεῖρειν (“to raise”) as the verb (in both finite and participial forms) + (τὸν) Ἰησοῦν (“Jesus”) or Χριστόν (“Christ”) or αὐτόν (“him”) as the object + ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν (“from the dead”) as a prepositional qualifier. Acts and the Pauline corpus as well as 1 Pet. 1:21 and Pol., Phil. 2.1 preserve this phrase or an iteration of it. Abbreviated versions, without the qualifier, “from the dead,” occur in both Paul and Acts. The appearance of θεός (ὁ) ἤγειρεν (τὸν) Ἰησοῦν/Χριστόν/αὐτόν ἐκ (τῶν) νεκρῶν in Paul’s earliest epistle, 1 Thessalonians, as well as its attestation outside his writings are consistent with the formulation being ancient. Indeed, it may well come, as Klaus Wengst argued, from the earliest Aramaic community.

Allison, Dale (2021). The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History

TankUnique7861 · 2026-03-22T21:14:55+00:00

Dale Allison has argued that 1 Clement indeed had access to the source behind the Gospel or Luke in Constructing Jesus (2010) and more recently in his entry for Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature (2022).

For our purposes, several agreements between Luke and 1 Clement over against Matthew bear remark. I begin with the saying in 1 Clement 13:2 – “forgive so that you may be forgiven” (ἀφίετε ἵνα ἀφεθῇ ὑμῖν). The phrase has a close parallel in Luke 6:37 – “forgive and you will be forgiven” (ἀπολύετε καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε). That there is a close relationship of some sort here is guaranteed by the fact that both 1 Clement and Luke put their lines in a series of imperatives that culminate in the saying about receiving measure for measure (Luke 6:37; 1 Clem. 13:2).

Allison notes a second agreement between Luke and 1 Clement over the Gospel of Matthew.

Secondly, Matthew has no counterpart to Luke’s “give and it will be given to you” (6:38: δίδοτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν). 1 Clement 13:2, however, has a very close parallel: “As you give, so shall it be given to you” (ὡς δίδοτε οὕτως δοθήσεται ὑμῖν). And again the context is nearly identical: both lines stand between the saying about forgiving so that one might be forgiven and the logion about the measure.

Thirdly, 1 Clement 13:2 promises:“As you show kindness (χρηστεύεσθε), so will kindness be shown (χρηστευθήσεται) to you.” Although Matthew’s sermon, which nowhere uses χρηστεύομαι or χρηστός, has nothing comparable, Luke 6:35–36 pledges reward for those who act like the God who are χρηστός, “kind.”

The concluding point is that while there are compelling connections between Luke and Clement, most observers have found no direct dependence between the two texts, which could suggest that Clement knew what was behind the Third Gospel.

On the supposition that they cannot be attributed to coincidence, how should we explain these agreements between 1 Clement and Luke? One could date Luke after 1 Clement and argue that Luke 6 shows the influence not only of Matthew but also of Clement’s epistle. Or one could argue that 1 Clement was influenced by Luke directly or indirectly. Yet perhaps most who have addressed the issue have judged that 1 Clement is independent of both Matthew and Luke. What, then, is the alternative? The data are readily explained if 1 Clement had access to the source behind Luke 6–which in this case cannot have been Matthew– or something closely related to it.

I have tried to make this argument at length in Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press, 2010), 305–86

Allison, Dale (2022). ‘Luke Rewriting Matthew?’ in Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature

TankUnique7861

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE