Galatians 50-60 CE

Bible, King James Version (KJV)
Galatians
Gal.1[1] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)[2] And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:[3] Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,[4] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:[5] To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.[10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.[11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.[20] Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.[21] Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;[22] And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:[23] But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.[24] And they glorified God in me.
Gal.2[1] Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.[2] And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.[3] But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;[8] (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.[10] Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?[15] We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,[16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.[17] But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.[18] For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.[19] For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.[20] I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.[21] I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal.3[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?[4] Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.[5] He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.[23] But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal.4[1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;[2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.[3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.[8] Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.[9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?[10] Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.[11] I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.[12] Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.[13] Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.[14] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.[15] Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.[16] Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?[17] They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.[18] But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.[19] My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,[20] I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.[21] Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?[22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.[23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.[25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.[26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.[27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.[28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.[29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.[30] Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.[31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Gal.5[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.[3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.[5] For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.[6] For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.[7] Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?[8] This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.[9] A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.[10] I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.[11] And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.[12] I would they were even cut off which trouble you.[13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
Gal.6[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.[3] For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.[4] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.[5] For every man shall bear his own burden.[6] Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.[7] Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.[8] For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.[9] And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.[10] As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.[11] Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.[12] As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.[13] For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.[14] But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.[15] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.[16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.[17] From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.[18] Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Philippians 1 50-60 CE

Philippians 1 (New International Version)

1Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers[a] and deacons:
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanksgiving and Prayer 3I thank my God every time I remember you. 4In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
7It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. 8God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
Paul's Chains Advance the Gospel 12Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard[b] and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[c] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, 19for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.[d] 20I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, 26so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.
27Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel 28without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. 29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

1 Thessalonians 50-60 CE

Bible, King James Version (KJV)

1 Thessalonians
1Thes.1[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.[2] We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;[3] Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;[4] Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.[5] For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.[6] And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:[7] So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.[8] For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.[9] For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;[10] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
1Thes.2[1] For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain:[2] But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.[3] For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:[4] But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.[5] For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness:[6] Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.[7] But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:[8] So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.[9] For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.[10] Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:[11] As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,[12] That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.[13] For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.[14] For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:[15] Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:[16] Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.[17] But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire.[18] Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.[19] For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?[20] For ye are our glory and joy.
1Thes.3[1] Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone;[2] And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:[3] That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto.[4] For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.[5] For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.[6] But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you:[7] Therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith:[8] For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.[9] For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God;[10] Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?[11] Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.[12] And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:[13] To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
1Thes.4[1] Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.[2] For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.[3] For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:[4] That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;[5] Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:[6] That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.[7] For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.[8] He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.[9] But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.[10] And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;[11] And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;[12] That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.[13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Thes.5[1] But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.[2] For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.[3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.[5] Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.[6] Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.[7] For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.[8] But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.[9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,[10] Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.[11] Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.[12] And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;[13] And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.[14] Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.[15] See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.[16] Rejoice evermore.[17] Pray without ceasing.[18] In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.[19] Quench not the Spirit.[20] Despise not prophesyings.[21] Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[22] Abstain from all appearance of evil.[23] And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.[24] Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.[25] Brethren, pray for us.[26] Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.[27] I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.[28] The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The Existance of Q "The Lost Sayings of Q" 40-80 CE

This is a summary of the arguments for the existence of Q. It largely follows the essays given in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal / edited with an introduction by Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr., with the assistance of Joseph B. Tyson and William O. Walker, Jr, published Macon, GA by Mercer University Press 1985.
Please also see my page on The Priority of Mark.
I also recommend Daniel Wallace’s essay on The Synoptic Problem. Wallace’s essay is itself a summary of the arguments given in Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker 1987).
I also recommend Stephen Carlson’s summary of The Two-Source Hypothesis.

The Question of Q

Q is the term given to the second source supposedly used by Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark. The existence of Q has been challenged by such able critics as Austin Farrer, Michael Goulder, and Mark Goodacre. The alternative model proposed to the Two-Source Hypothesis is termed the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. In this hypothesis, both Matthew and Luke have used Mark, but Luke has also used Matthew. Although the Farrer hypothesis does have a number of points to commend it, on balance I concur with the majority of scholarship that it is more likely that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q independently. The purpose of this essay is to set forth the reasons for this judgment, which does not attain certainty but rather a probability.
The Two Source Hypothesis states that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and a second source termed Q. Against the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, it is maintained that it is improbable that the author of Luke consulted the Gospel of Matthew. The relative independence of Matthew and Luke is established by the convergence of several different arguments.

Independence in the Special Material

The Infancy and the Resurrection

Independence in the Triple Tradition

Disuse of Matthean Additions in the Triple Tradition
Absence of Matthew’s Use of Mark
Absence of Matthean Redaction in the Triple Tradition

Independence in the Double Tradition
Absence of Matthean Redaction in the Double Tradition
Primitivity of the Double Tradition in Luke
The Order of the Double Tradition in Luke
Different Markan Contexts for the Double Tradition
The Evidence of Doublets in Matthew and Luke

The Infancy and the Resurrection
The most serious discrepancies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are found in the infancy and resurrection narratives. The most obvious explanation for this phenomenon is that the agreement between the narratives of Luke and of Matthew is due to their common knowledge of Mark while the disagreement is due to their independence from one another.

There are several discrepancies in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew the news of the coming birth of Jesus is conveyed to Joseph in a dream; in Luke, Mary is told directly by the Angel Gabriel.

Matthew implies that when Jesus was born his parents lived in Bethlehem and they left when King Herod began a search to find and kill Jesus. In Luke Jesus’ parents traveled from their home in Nazereth to Bethlehem for a Roman census.

There is no census, inn, or manger in Matthew - indeed he says that Jesus was born in their "house" (2:11).

The geneaologies disagree, for example, on as fundamental a matter as the name of Joseph’s father.

The resurrection accounts also diverge most seriously after the ending of Mark in 16:8, with Matthew narrating the appearance to the disciples in Galilee, while Luke tells only of appearances in the Jerusalem environs. Another example where the author of Luke-Acts disagrees with the author of Matthew is in the details of the death of Judas (Mt 27:3-10, Acts 1:16-20). These divergences are best accounted on the independent use and elaboration of Mark by Matthew and Luke.

Raymond Brown writes (An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 114):

Where Luke and Matt have almost contradictory accounts, why did Luke not make some effort to reconcile the difficulty? For example, Luke’s infancy narrative is not only massively different from Matt’s, but also in details is virtually irreconcilable with it, e.g., about Joseph and Mary’s home (in Bethlehem in Matt 2:11 [house]; in Nazareth in Luke 2:4-7, with no home in Bethlehem) and about their travels after the birth of Jesus (to Egypt in Matt 2:14; to Jerusalem and Nazareth in Luke 2:22, 39). Or again, Luke’s acctount of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18-19 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27:3-10.

Disuse of Matthean Additions in the Triple Tradition
In his essay "In Defense of Q," E.L. Bradby suggests a "rough-and-ready method" of testing the Farrer hypothesis. Bradby looks at four passages found in the triple tradition: the walk through the cornfields and its sequel (Mk 2:23-3:6, Mt 12:1-21, Lk 6:1-11), the parable of the sower (Mk 4:1-20, Mt 13:1-23, Lk 8:4-15), the charge to the apostles (Mk 6:7-11, Mt 10:1-42, Lk 9:1-5), and Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-9:1, Mt 16:13-28, Lk 9:18-27). In each case, Matthew has an expanded and fuller version of the pericope than does Mark, yet in no case does Luke reflect any of these Matthean additions to the triple tradition. Bradby concludes (op. cit., p. 293):
If St. Luke had Matthew as well as Mark before him when he wrote, we can picture him following Mark verbatim whenever he had him, and Matthew verbatim when he had not Mark. But what, then, would happen when he had rival versions of an incident from Mark and from Matthew? What we should normally expect any conscientious historian to do is to take the later and fuller version, in this case Matthew (since ex hypothesi Luke knew as well as we do that Matthew had incorporated Mark’s shorter Gospel in his longer one). We might, however, concede that for certain literary reasons he might follow sometimes one and sometimes the other. But if we find, as we have found in four important passages, that the later and fuller version is consistently spurned in favor of the earlier and shorter, and that there is not one clear instance in these sections of any non-Markan passage which Luke has derived from Matthew, we can hardly be blamed if we fall back, with relief, on the alternative hypothesis, that in many passages Luke has used Mark and in many others Luke and Matthew have each used a common source other than Mark, that is, Q.

Fitzmyer also makes use of this argument as follows (op. cit., pp. 247-249):

. . . the apparent reluctance of Luke to reproduce typically Matthean "additions" within the Triple Tradition. In thus phrasing the matter, I may seem to be prejudging the issue. But I am only trying to refer to the fuller Matthean formulation of parallels in Mark, such as the exceptive clause on divorce (Mt. 19:9; cf. Mk. 10:11); Jesus’ promise to Peter (Mt. 16:16b-19; cf. Mk. 8:29); Peter’s walking on the waters (Mt. 14:28-31; cf. Mk. 6:50); and the peculiar Matthean episodes in the passion narrative [e.g., the death of Judas, the earthquake, the resurrection of the saints -ed.]. . . the real issue is to explain Luke’s failure to adopt the extra Matthean materials in his parallels, or at least some of them, if he has written in dependence on Matthew - or used Mark as his main source and quarried Matthew only for such material as would suit his own edifice. The few examples cited above, having to do with pericopes, do not give a full picture of this phenomenon; it is necessary to compare a whole list of smaller Matthean additions to Mark, which are absent in Luke.

Fitzmyer provides this list to which more could be added:
Lk. 3:22
Mt. 3:17
(the public proclamation)
Cf. Mk. 1:11
Lk. 5:3
Mt. 4:18
("who is called Peter")
Cf. Mk. 1:16
Lk. 5:27
Mt. 9:9
("Matthew")
Cf. Mk. 2:14
Lk. 6:4-5
Mt. 12:5-7
(plucking grain on the Sabbath)
Cf. Mk. 2:26-27
Lk. 8:18b
Mt. 13:12a
(being given in excess)
Cf. Mk. 4:25
Lk. 8:10-11
Mt. 13:14
(quotation of Is. 6:9-10)
Cf. Mk. 4:12
Lk. 9:1-5
Mt. 10:7
(nearness of the kingdom)
Cf. Mk. 6:7-11
Lk. 9:20b
Mt. 16:16b
(Peter’s confession)
Cf. Mk. 8:29b

The most probable conclusion is that Matthew and Luke have used Mark independently.

Absence of Matthew’s Use of Mark
In his essay "Towards the Rehabilitation of Q," F. G. Downing examined "Luke’s supposed use of passages where Matthew has apparently conflated a Markan record of teaching with similar but distinct material of his own from some other source." These passages include the Baptist narrative (Mt 3:1-4:11; Mk 1:1-13; Lk 3:1-22, 4:1-13), the Beelzebul controversy (Mt 12:22-45; Mk 3:20-29; Lk 11:14-26, 12:10, 6:43-45), the sending out of the Twelve (Mt 9:35-10:16; Mk 6:13-19, 6:6-11, 34; Lk 9:1-5, 6:13-16, 10:1-12), and the synoptic apocalypse (Mt 24:4-26, Mk 13:5-37; Lk 21:8-36). Downing divides the text of Matthew into A, in which Matthew follows Mark very closely; B, in which Matthew has material parallel to Mark; and C, in which Matthew presents material without Markan parallel.

Concerning the Beelzebul controversy, Downing argues (op. cit., p. 277):

If Luke has Matthew and Mark before him, fairly obviously he is using only Matthew. He reproduces Matthew’s C material (Matthew, not Mark) almost entire; and where Matthew has parallels with Mark is much closer to Matthew’s than to Mark’s version. Matthew has retained more or less the Markan context (he has only displaced the Call of the Twelve which immediately preceded the Beelzebul controversy in Mark); Luke has not even preserved that. He has no significant independent parallels with Mark.

If Luke has Mark and Matthew before him, fairly obviously he is using only Matthew. But is he using Matthew? We have noticed that Luke uses none of the A material, none of the material in which Matthew is at all obviously or precisely reproducing Mark. He uses most of the C material (Matthew only), and a lot of the B material, which may well, we suggested, have in large part originally been integral with the C material in Matthew’s source. Luke in fact seems to be using Matthew’s extra material without Matthew’s obviously Markan additions. But Matthew’s extra material without the Markan additions is not Matthew’s Gospel; it is Matthew’s other source(s).

Downing concludes that the use of a common source behind Matthew and Luke is the only sensible solution to the problem of "the Lukan omissions of pure Mark from his rendering of material similar to that which Matthew has conflated with Mark." Downing explains the difficulty that this presents for the Farrer hypothesis (op. cit., p. 278):

On Dr. Farrer’s argument, we have to suppose that Luke sat down (or stood) with Matthew’s and Mark’s works before him. He must have then, we have suggested, decided to follow Matthew (he has only three Markan words not in Matthew, and two in another context). But for some incomprehensible reason, he decides not to follow Matthew throughout, but to follow Matthew only where the latter has added new material to Mark or has largely altered him. He notes that one and a half sentences exactly quote Mark, and so omits them. It is not that he is going to use them somewhere else. He just arbitrarily excludes them, in one case actually in favor of writing his own version (verses 21-22): so it is not even that he finds the Markan material repetitive. It is not that he objects either, to Mark as such, for on Dr. Farrer’s thesis, Luke does not know (as we have noted) that the B material is not basically Mark, but slightly emended; and he includes this, quite happily. All that he excludes is the material in Mark that Matthew obviously saw fit to include pretty well as it stood!

It seems very much more sensible to assume that Luke did not know Matthew’s use of Mark, and in fact here reproduced his own version of the B and C (= Q) material, with no reference either to Matthew or Mark.

Downing presents further examples of this phenomenon. Concerning the baptism narrative, Downing writes (op. cit., p. 279):

Again, Luke reproduces almost all the C material (less any equivalent of Mt. 3:14-15), the preaching of John, very faithfully, the Temptation less so. For the B material he has often his own version of Mark (so this time, if he has Matthew and Mark before him, he is surely using both) but reproduces almost all of it. Of the A material, Matthew’s faithful quoting of Mark, he omits completely the larger part, 3:4-5a (he uses 5b independently, Lk. 3:3a) and verse 6. He does include the quotation from Isaiah (and omits Malachi from Mark); but the correction is obvious, and the remaining quotation essential to the Markan context that he retains. So again, Luke seems deliberately to ignore just the Markan material that Matthew has seen fit to reproduce exactly. Again, he seems to be reproducing Matthew’s material independently of Matthew’s use of Mark.

And on the sending out of the Twelve, Downing writes (op. cit., p. 280):

In Matthew’s version of the Sending out of the Twelve (Mt. 9:35-10:16) there is a considerable amount of C (Matthew not Mark ) material (9:35b, 37-38; 10:1b, 5-8, 12-13, most of 14 [?], 15-16). There is B material (Matthew // Mark), 9:35a, 10:1a, 2-4, 9-11 (14a?). There is A class material (Matthew = Mark): Matthew cites Mark precisely in 9:36. And again, Luke reproduces a lot of the C material, almost verbatim. He reproduces most of the B material, but often offers his own version of Mark: if he has Matthew and Mark before him, he is using both. But he omits Mt. 6:36 = Mk. 6:34, the only verse of Mark that Matthew has included as it stood in his own conflation of his two sources. It has every sign of ‘Luke-pleasingness’ (to quote Dr. Farrer: cf. Lk 7:13; 10:33; 15:4-6, 20). He does not use it elsewhere. He just omits it, though he preserves parallels to both sides of its Matthean context. He just does not seem to know Matthew’s clear uses of Mark.

Downing goes on to adduce further examples to build his case. He concludes: "We would suggest it is much more reasonable to suppose that Luke’s apparent ignoring of every clear use by Matthew of Mark is due to Luke’s ignorance of Matthew’s use of Mark. Luke knew Matthew’s source (or sources) ‘before’ it had had its parallels with Mark conflated with the latter; and this source (or ‘these sources’) is what has come to be known in part as Q."

Absence of Matthean Redaction in the Triple Tradition
Concerning the phrase "Son of David," Wallace argues:
This phrase occurs eleven times in Matthew, four in Mark and Luke. Sheer numbers do not do this justice. Matthew begins his gospel with this phrase (1:1). Further, when a comparison is made, pericope by pericope, it can be seen that this is truly a Matthean emphasis. Cf., e.g., Matt 12:22-24/Mark 3:22/Luke 11:14-15. If Matthew were the first gospel, why would Mark and Luke omit this phrase seven times? That they have no aversion to it is seen from the four references. Further, the four references in Mark match the four in Luke, suggesting that Luke used Mark but was unaware of Matthew.

Following Stein, Wallace argues: "Matthew’s ten (or eleven) introductory formulae (’this was to fulfill…’) are not duplicated exactly in either Mark or Luke. Since both Mark and Luke use other introductory formulae (such as ‘it is written’), this shows that they too were interested in linking the life of Jesus to the OT. But would they omit all of Matthew’s formulae?" This suggests that Luke (like Mark) was not aware of Matthew.

Absence of Matthean Redaction in the Double Tradition
Here is another example, found in both the triple tradition and in the double tradition. The phrase "the kingdom of the heavens" is a well-known, tell-tale redactional phrase of the evangelist Matthew. It appears in Matthew thirty-two times, several times in place of the phrase "kingdom of God" that was found by Matthew in Mark. It also appears several times in the double tradition in Matthew, yet not once does Luke take over the Matthean phrase. This makes best sense on the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke have independently used the Q document, which Matthew has rewritten while Luke has retained the original wording.

Mt 5:3. Blessed [are] the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.

Lk 6:20. And he, lifting up his eyes upon his disciples, said, "Blessed [are] ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

Mt 8:11. But I say unto you, that many shall come from [the] rising and setting [sun], and shall lie down at table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Lk 13:28-29. There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves cast out. And they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall lie down at table in the kingdom of God.

Mt 11:11-12. Verily I say to you, that there is not arisen among [the] born of women a greater than John the baptist. But he who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. But from the days of John the baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and [the] violent seize on it.

Lk 16:16. The law and the prophets [were] until John: from that time the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are announced, and every one forces his way into it.

Mt 13:33. He spoke another parable to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until it had been all leavened.

Lk 13:20-21. And again he said, To what shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.

There is one occasion in the double tradition where Matthew has the phrase "kingdom of God," and in this case it appears that Matthew was retained the phrase from his source because to do otherwise would have destroyed the parallelism.

Mt 12:28. But if I by [the] Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Lk 11:20. But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you.

I consider this, perhaps, to be an example of "fatigue" in Matthew’s use of Q (which Goodacre says could not be found in his article). Prior to this verse, Matthew had never once used the phrase "kingdom of God" and consistently substituted the phrase "kingdom of the heavens," but subsequent to this verse Matthew’s use is mixed.

The Primitivity of the Double Tradition in Luke
In the case of Mt 12:28 // Lk 11:20, we also see that Luke has retained the more primitive form of the saying with "the finger of God," while Matthew has rephrased the saying with "the Spirit of God," a phrase found elsewhere in the Gospels only in Matthew 3:16, where Matthew has also rephrased Mark 1:10.

Christopher Tuckett provides an example (Q and the History of Early Christianity, pp. 24-25):

To take a concrete example, many would argue that at Q 11:49, Luke’s version is more original in having the doom oracle spoken by the ‘Wisdom of God’ in the past (’Therefore the Wisdom of God said "I will send to them . . ."’) by contrast with Matthew’s version in which the oracle is spoken by JEsus in the present (’Therefore, behold I am sending to you . . .’). From the side of the Q hypothesis, Luke’s version looks decidedly un-Lukan. Nowhere else in Luke (apart from Luke 7:35 which is also a Q passage, or one borrowed from Matthew) does Wisdom appear as an almost personified being. On the other hand, Matthew’s replacement of ‘Wisdom’ with the ‘I’ of Jesus is part of a consistent pattern whereby Matthew’s Jesus takes the place of Wisdom in such texts (cf. above). Thus Luke’s version seems to represent the more original Q version which Matthew then redacts.

Other examples could be adduced. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew writes about "the poor in spirit" and those who "hunger for righteousness," while Luke simply writes of the poor and the hungry. Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer is also more elaborate. It has been suggested that the influence of oral tradition could explain how Luke had access to a more primitive form of these sayings. But such an explanation is seen to be ad hoc when it could be argued that Luke would prefer to use the more developed Matthean forms in any case. The phenomena of alternating primitivity in the double tradition is what is to be expected of the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke have independently used a common source, and this consideration adds to the viability of the Q hypothesis.

The Order of the Double Tradition in Luke
Fitzmyer argued as follows:
. . . it is difficult to explain adequately why Luke would want to break up Matthew’s sermons, especially the Sermon on the Mount, in order to incorporate a part of it in his Sermon on the Plain and scatter the rest around in an unconnected and disjointed fashion in the loose context of the travel account. Even though one must admit that this central portion of Luke is redactionally very important in the composition of the Third Gospel and that it constitutes a "mosaic" in its own right, yet the tension between its matter and its form (that is, between its loosely connected or almost unconnected episodes or sayings and its unifying preoccupation with Jesus’ movement toward Jeruasalem that appears from time to time [Lk. 9:51, 53; 13:22; 17:11; 19:28]) has always been a problem. Whatever explanation is to be given for it and for Luke’s redactional purpose in constructing this central section, the explanation that he has quarried the material from Matthew’s sermons is the least convincing.

However, the argument from order can be finessed. The argument that Luke’s order is the more original order of the double tradition does not rest upon any assumptions about inferior artistic ability. It arises from a close examination of the texts such as was made by Vincent Taylor in his article "The Original Order of Q."

Kloppenborg has usefully offered a summary of Taylor’s work (The Formation of Q, pp. 68-69):

Rather than comparing Matthew and Luke in two parallel columns, Taylor offered the brilliant solution of dividing Matthew into six components: the five large sermons and the remainder of the Gospel (see table 2). When this was done, Taylor was able to show that there is a large measure of agreement in order when one compares each of the six Matthean columns with Luke. In effect, Taylor suggested that Matthew scanned Q several times, removing material appropriate to each of the five sermons, and reproducing these smaller sets of sayings in Lucan order. He conceded, however, that the agreement in order is "not continuous throughout [each sermon] but visible in groups and series of passages in the same order in both Gospels." Finally, he tried to provide explanations for each transposition or dislocation of Q material, almost invariably attributing the change to Matthew. Conflation with Mark and influence of M tradition were his usual ways of accounting for Matthean alterations.
Although Kloppenborg has some methodological reservations, he offers the following observations (The Formation of Q, p. 78):

. . . the observation that Matthew collected related materials is of only limited value in defending Lucan priority in order. In many instances it does not yield particularly convincing conclusions. In one case, however, its force is considerable. The mission speeches in Matthew and Luke begin with a cluster of Q sayings (see above). At 10:16 Luke finished his speech and turns to other subjects. But Matthew continues, employing diverse materials, some drawn from Mark (13:9-13) and some from Q passages which are scattered throughout Luke. What is striking is that Matt 10:24-39, comprising ten Q sayings, reproduces these sayings in Lucan order (##14, 65-69, 76-77, 87-88) even though they do not appear together in Luke. Here it appears that Taylor’s type of explanation has special merit (even though Taylor did not treat these particular sayings). After reproducing and rearranging the Q mission speech, and after interpolating part of Mark 13, Matthew scanned Q and removed, in the original Q (= Lucan) order, 11 sayings appropriate to the theme of mission and used these as the balance of his mission speech. Only in the case of Q 17:33 (Matt 10:39), which occurs with a cluster of discipleship sayings (Q 14:26, 27 // Matt 10:37, 38), is it likely that the Matthean order is primary. Otherwise, it is the most economical and intelligible solution to suppose that Matthew scanned Q and collected these sayings than to argue that Luke distributed them in a capricious fashion.

Taylor himself stated one conclusion of these observations (op. cit., p. 317):

The investigation has confirmed the view that Luke has preserved the order of Q and has followed it with great fidelity. It has shown further that Matthew knew the same order and was aware of it when he made editorial adjustments and conflated Q with Mark and M. If we reject, as we must, the hypothesis of Luke’s dependence on Matthew, the result of comparison of the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke is to demonstrate the existence of Q, so far as this is possible in the case of a source known to us only from its use in the two Gospels. Q is not ‘an unnecessary and vicious hypothesis,’ but a collection of sayings and parables which actually existed when Matthew and Luke wrote.

Different Markan Contexts for the Double Tradition
In a famous passage, Streeter observed the following (op. cit., p. 223):

Sir John Hawkins once showed me a Greek Testament in which he had indicated in the left-hand margin of Mark the exact point in the Markan outline at which Matthew has inserted each of the sayings in question, with, of course, the reference to chapter and verse, to identify it; on the right-hand margin he had similarly indicated the point where Luke inserts matter also found in Matthew. It then appeared that, subsequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying at the same point in the Markan outline. If Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone through both Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous precision between Markan and non-Markan material: he must then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Markan material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew - in spite of the fact that contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate - in order to reinsert it into a different context of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.

This argument is also taken up by Fitzmyer (op. cit., p. 250):

. . . aside from 3:7-9, 17 and 4:2-13 Luke has never inserted the material of the Double Tradition into the same Markan context as Matthew. If he derives such material from Matthew - and otherwise manifests such respect for a source that he is following, as his dependence on Mark would suggest - it is surprising that at least some of the remaining Double Tradition does not occur in contexts that parallel Matthew, which are often quite appropriate to this material. The frequent disagreement with the Matthean order in this regard is crucial to any judgment about Luke’s dependence on Matthew; in fact it suggests that he does not depend.

The Evidence of Doublets in Matthew and Luke
This argument is advanced by Werner Georg Kummel (op. cit., pp. 232-233):
The decisive evidence for a common, written source for Matthew and Luke is offered by the doublets, or double traditions (double traditions are texts presented by both evangelists, but in different forms; doublets are texts which one evangelist presents twice). It is noteworthy that Luke reports the sending of disciples twice: Lk. 9 and Lk. 10, the first time in parallel with Mk. 6:7-13 and the second in parallel with Mt. 10. Of course, in Lk. 10:1 there are seventy disciples, but as Lk. 22:35 shows, the saying in Lk. 10:4 was originally addressed to the twelve. Mt. 10:1-16 makes contact alternately with Mk. 6:7-13 and Lk. 10:1-12. Similarly there are doublets in Matthew, some of which parallel Mark while others parallel Luke’s sayings material, for example, Mt. 18:8-9, and 5:29-30; 19:9 and 5:32.
Furthermore, there is a string of sayings of Jesus appearing twice in Matthew and Luke, once in a setting which Mark also has, a second time in a sayings setting which is found only in Matthew and Luke. The most important examples of this are:

a) "He who has, to him will be given" (Mt. 13:12; Mk. 4:25; Lk. 8:18; cf. Mt. 25:29; Lk. 19:26).
b) "If any man will follow me, he must deny himself" (Mt. 16:24-25; Mk. 8:34-35; Lk. 9:23-24; cf. Mt. 10:38-39; Lk. 14:27; 17:33).

c) The eschatological retribution for the rejection of Jesus (Mt. 16:27; Mk 8:38; Lk. 9:23-24; cf. Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8-9).

d) Persecution of the disciples on account of Jesus (Mt. 24:9, 13; Mk. 13:9, 13, Lk. 21:12, 17; cf. Mt 10:19-20, 22; Lk. 12:11-12).

e) Mk. 3:23-30 is lacking in Luke; but Lk. 11:17-23 offers a different version of the defense of Jesus against the charge of complicity with the demons. Mt. 12:25-31, however, recalls alternately Mk. 3 and Lk. 11.
When this evidence of doublets and double traditions in Matthew and Luke is placed beside the fact that Mark presents a single doublet (Mk. 9:35; 10:43), it is incontrovertibly proved that Matthew and Luke must have used a second source in addition to Mark.

Conclusion
I do not pretend to have achieved a certainty but only a probability in favor of the Q hypothesis. Perhaps each of these arguments are surmountable, but each points in a certain direction, and the cumulative force of these arguments lead me to favor the Q hypothesis as the best explanation of the synoptic data. The presence of the minor agreements is the only one very serious argument against the Q hypothesis, and it has been successfully addressed in detail by writers from Streeter to Neirynck. An assessment of the totality of the evidence indicates a balance in favor of the Q hypothesis, and thus it is my working hypothesis.

Information on The Passion Narrative

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel. In The Passion in Mark, Donahue, Robbins, Kelber, Perrin, Dewey, Weeden, and Crossan interpret the passion narrative with the use of "hermeneutical clues" provided in the first thirteen chapters. (p. 153) Kelber states the conclusion to be drawn: "The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically, it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source." (op. cit., p. 157)
Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.
Theissen begins his discussion by observing that there lies behind Mark a narrative that presupposes a chronology that corresponds to the one found in John, in which Jesus dies on the preparation day before the Passover. Theissen states (pp. 166-167):
In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.
The inspiration for the subsequent discussion comes from the suggestion of R. Pesch that the passion narrative must have been written before 37 CE because "the high priest" is mentioned without any name. Although this argument is not secure, given the counter-example that the pharaoh in the exodus story is not named either, it leads Theissen to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the way in which people in the story are mentioned.
Theissen finds another reason for the anonymity of the high priest; it was not necessarily for the reason that the writing took place before 37 CE. Rather, during the period between 30 and 70 CE, "there was no time when Caiaphas and his family were not powerful" (p. 173). For this reason, reasons Theissen, "Traditions circulating in their sphere of influence were well advised not to mention their names in a negative context" (p. 173). By contrast, as shown by Philo and Josephus, Pilate "was the subject of more negative tradition than many other prefects and procurators," and so the creators of the original passion narrative had no reason not to mention Pilate by name and to place blame upon him. This situation is changed in the period after the First Jewish Revolt in the writings of Matthew and Luke, in which Pilate is exonerated and the high priest is named without hesitation.
On the naming of "James the younger," Theissen writes, "It would have been particularly necessary in Jerusalem to distinguish a 'James the younger' (or 'the less') from the 'older' (or 'greater') bearers of that name in the period circa 30-65 C.E." (p. 178) Theissen speculates that the "Mary of James the younger and the mother of Joses" is to be indentified with the mother of Jesus in Mk 6:3, and thus that "James the younger" is James the brother of Jesus. If this is the case, the expression belongs to the time before 44 C.E., when James the son of Zebedee was more prominent.
On the naming of people by place of origin (14:67, 14:10, 14:70, 15:21, 15:40, 15:43), Theissen states: "The mention of places of origin presumes that the places named have a differentiating character for the traditionists and the audience - that is, they must be recognizable as alternatives to other place names that are approximately as well known. Towns such as Nazareth, Magdala, and Arimathea are on about the same level as far as their degree of recognition is concerned: outside Palestine there would not be a soul who would have the faintest idea whether they were. . . . The combination of local and extraregional horizons would be readily imaginable in a major Palestinian city, and especially in Jerusalem, where Jews from Cyrene are expressly mentioned (Acts 6:9)." (p. 179)
Theissen indicates another consideration: although identification was most commonly made by way of fathers, there is no case in the passion account in which a person is identified by patronymic, even though more people are identified here than anywhere else in the synoptic tradition. Theissen states, "If we include the fact that the first Christians often joined the followers of Jesus after making a radical break with their parents and leaving the family home (cf. Mt 8:20-21), it is plausible that fathers became less important as points of identification" (p. 180).
Concerning the story of Barabbas, Theissen comments, "the text speaks quite simply of 'the rebels,' who were taken prisoner during 'the insurrection.' . . . We can only suppose that the text was composed before the next great uprising; after that, the author would have 'historicized' the account by distinguishing the previous 'stasis' from the more recent one. The next unrest with bloody clashes that struck Jerusalem was the apperance of Theudas under Cuspius Fadus (44-45 C.E.; cf. Acts 5:36, Ant. 20.97-98)."
Finally, there are two anonymous people in the story: the bystander who cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave with a sword (Mk 14:47) and a young man who escapes arrest by running away (Mk 14:51-52). Theissen writes (pp. 186-187):
It seems to me that the narrative motive for this anonymity is not hard to guess: both of them run afoul of the "police." The one who draws his sword commits no minor offense when he cuts off someone's ear. Had the blow fallen only slightly awry, he could have wounded the man in the head or throat. This blow with a sword is violence with possibly mortal consequences. The anonymous young man has also offered resistance. In the struggle, his clothes are torn off, so that he has to run away naked. Both these people were in danger in the aftermath. As long as the high priest's slave was alive (and as long as the scar from the sword cut was visible) it would have been inopportune to mention their names; it would not even have been wise to identify them as members of the early Christian community. Their anonymity is for their protection, and the obscuring of their positive relationship to Jesus is a strategy of caution. Both the teller and the hearers know more about these two people. Only they could tell us who they were, whether Peter was the one with the sword, whether both are the same person, and whether reference was made to them in order to make the story of Jesus' end more credible. All that will have to remain closed to us.
Nevertheless, on this basis, it is made plausible that the anonymity of these characters is for the sake of prudence. Similar examples are cited from antiquity. Theissen tells us about Justin Martyr, who relates a tale about a respectable Christian woman who divorced her husband, who in turn denounced her as a Christian. She received a delay in her trial from the emperor, but her Christian teacher and two others who protested the sentence were put to death. Justin tells us the names of the two martyrs but conceals the name of the woman as a point of tact. Theissen also indicates that Josephus, in his story about three crucified men whom Josephus was able to get taken off their crosses, chose not to relate the names of these three men. Thus, the passion narrative could be a similar case.
Theissen writes: "If we are correct in our hypothesis of protective anonymity, the location of the Passion tradition would be unmistakable. Only in Jerusalem was there reason to draw a cloak of anonymity over followers of Jesus who had endangered themselves by their actions. The date could also be pinpointed: parts of the Passion account would have to have been composed within the generation of the eyewitnesses and their contemporaries, that is, somewhere between 30 and 60 C.E."
Although any one of these lines of evidence could be dismissed as coincidence, Theissen manages to create a series of plausible connections that make a case as a whole for the existence of an early pre-Markan passion narrative.
Where did this pre-Markan passion narrative end? There are two plausible answers other than the narrative of the empty tomb. The first one is that the story climaxed and ended with the confession of the centurion. The second one is that the story ended with a narrative of an appearance to the disciples in Galilee, as proposed by J. D. Crossan and by Reginald Fuller.

The Pre-Markam Passion Narrative 30-60 CE

The following depends on the Young's Literal Translation of the passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark, verses 14:32-15:47. The color coding scheme is inspired by the Jesus Seminar. The data concerning the number of scholars favoring authenticity for each verse is taken from appendix IX of The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), v. 2, compiled by Marion L. Soards. Please refer to Soards for more detailed information.
Soards provides data on thirty-four scholars: Anderson, Buckley, Bultmann, Czerski, Dibelius, Donahue, Dormeyer, Ernst, Grant, Johnson, Kelber, Klostermann, Kolenkow, Kuhn, Lane, Léon-Dufour, Lightfoot, Lohse, Lührmann, Mohn, Myllykoski, Nineham, Peddinghaus, Pesch, Pryke, Schenk, Schnenke, Schille, Schmithals, Schneider, Schreiber, Schweizer, Scroggs, and Taylor. Soards provides a table that shows the opinion of each scholar on each verse in the passion narrative. For each verse, the present author has counted up the number of scholars who believe that the verse or part of a verse belongs to the pre-Markan passion narrative. The number of scholars is presented next to the verse in the Young's Literal Translation.
The color coding scheme is as follows: black if seven to thirteen scholars believe the verse to be authentic or partially authentic, gray if fourteen to fifteen scholars believe the verse to be authentic or partially authentic, pink if sixteen to nineteen scholars believe the verse to be authentic or partially authentic, and red if twenty to twenty-six scholars believe the verse to be authentic or partially authentic. The color coding scheme cannot give a general impression of the amount of material in Mark that is held to be a part of the pre-Markan passion narrative. That figure is 40.6 verses per scholar out of a total 87 verses. The scheme was designed explicitly to assign approximately an equal number of verses to each color bracket. This means that the scheme is best used to compare the individual verses against each other for an idea of their relative chance of authenticity to the pre-Markan passion narrative.

14:32 [17] And they come to a spot, the name of which [is] Gethsemane, and he saith to his disciples, `Sit ye here till I may pray;'

14:33 [11] and he taketh Peter, and James, and John with him, and began to be amazed, and to be very heavy,

14:34 [15] and he saith to them, `Exceeding sorrowful is my soul -- to death; remain here, and watch.'

14:35 [16] And having gone forward a little, he fell upon the earth, and was praying, that, if it be possible the hour may pass from him,

14:36 [15] and he said, `Abba, Father; all things are possible to Thee; make this cup pass from me; but, not what I will, but what Thou.'

14:37 [15] And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith to Peter, `Simon, thou dost sleep! thou wast not able to watch one hour!

14:38 [12] Watch ye and pray, that ye may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is forward, but the flesh weak.'

14:39 [9] And again having gone away, he prayed, the same word saying;

14:40 [13] and having returned, he found them again sleeping, for their eyes were heavy, and they had not known what they might answer him.

14:41 [14] And he cometh the third time, and saith to them, `Sleep on henceforth, and rest -- it is over; the hour did come; lo, the Son of Man is delivered up to the hands of the sinful;

14:42 [9] rise, we may go, lo, he who is delivering me up hath come nigh.'

14:43 [24] And immediately -- while he is yet speaking -- cometh near Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude, with swords and sticks, from the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders;

14:44 [21] and he who is delivering him up had given a token to them, saying, `Whomsoever I shall kiss, he it is, lay hold on him, and lead him away safely,'

14:45 [24] and having come, immediately, having gone near him, he saith, `Rabbi, Rabbi,' and kissed him.

14:46 [25] And they laid on him their hands, and kept hold on him;

14:47 [20] and a certain one of those standing by, having drawn the sword, struck the servant of the chief priest, and took off his ear.

14:48 [18] And Jesus answering said to them, `As against a robber ye came out, with swords and sticks, to take me!

14:49 [19] daily I was with you in the temple teaching, and ye did not lay hold on me -- but that the Writings may be fulfilled.'

14:50 [22] And having left him they all fled;

14:51 [17] and a certain young man was following him, having put a linen cloth about [his] naked body, and the young men lay hold on him,

14:52 [17] and he, having left the linen cloth, did flee from them naked.

14:53 [24] And they led away Jesus unto the chief priest, and come together to him do all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes;

14:54 [16] and Peter afar off did follow him, to the inside of the hall of the chief priest, and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself near the fire.

14:55 [12] And the chief priests and all the sanhedrim were seeking against Jesus testimony -- to put him to death, and they were not finding,

14:56 [12] for many were bearing false testimony against him, and their testimonies were not alike.

14:57 [9] And certain having risen up, were bearing false testimony against him, saying --

14:58 [9] `We heard him saying -- I will throw down this sanctuary made with hands, and by three days, another made without hands I will build;'

14:59 [7] and neither so was their testimony alike.

14:60 [12] And the chief priest, having risen up in the midst, questioned Jesus, saying, `Thou dost not answer anything! what do these testify against thee?'

14:61 [14] and he was keeping silent, and did not answer anything. Again the chief priest was questioning him, and saith to him, `Art thou the Christ -- the Son of the Blessed?'

14:62 [11] and Jesus said, `I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming with the clouds, of the heaven.'

14:63 [13] And the chief priest, having rent his garments, saith, `What need have we yet of witnesses?

14:64 [13] Ye heard the evil speaking, what appeareth to you?' and they all condemned him to be worthy of death,

14:65 [14] and certain began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say to him, `Prophesy;' and the officers were striking him with their palms.

14:66 [14] And Peter being in the hall beneath, there doth come one of the maids of the chief priest,

14:67 [13] and having seen Peter warming himself, having looked on him, she said, `And thou wast with Jesus of Nazareth!'

14:68 [13] and he denied, saying, `I have not known [him], neither do I understand what thou sayest;' and he went forth without to the porch, and a cock crew.

14:69 [13] And the maid having seen him again, began to say to those standing near -- `This is of them;'

14:70 [14] and he was again denying. And after a little again, those standing near said to Peter, `Truly thou art of them, for thou also art a Galilean, and thy speech is alike;'

14:71 [14] and he began to anathematize, and to swear -- `I have not known this man of whom ye speak;'

14:72 [14] and a second time a cock crew, and Peter remembered the saying that Jesus said to him -- `Before a cock crow twice, thou mayest deny me thrice;' and having thought thereon -- he was weeping.

15:1 [19] And immediately, in the morning, the chief priests having made a consultation, with the elders, and scribes, and the whole sanhedrim, having bound Jesus, did lead away, and delivered [him] to Pilate;

15:2 [18] and Pilate questioned him, `Art thou the king of the Jews?' and he answering said to him, `Thou dost say [it].'

15:3 [21] And the chief priests were accusing him of many things, [but he answered nothing.]

15:4 [19] And Pilate again questioned him, saying, `Thou dost not answer anything! lo, how many things they do testify against thee!'

15:5 [20] and Jesus did no more answer anything, so that Pilate wondered.

15:6 [17] And at every feast he was releasing to them one prisoner, whomsoever they were asking;

15:7 [17] and there was [one] named Barabbas, bound with those making insurrection with him, who had in the insurrection committed murder.

15:8 [16] And the multitude having cried out, began to ask for themselves as he was always doing to them,

15:9 [17] and Pilate answered them, saying, `Will ye [that] I shall release to you the king of the Jews?'

15:10 [15] for he knew that because of envy the chief priests had delivered him up;

15:11 [16] and the chief priests did move the multitude, that he might rather release Barabbas to them.

15:12 [13] And Pilate answering, again said to them, `What, then, will ye [that] I shall do to him whom ye call king of the Jews?'

15:13 [14] and they again cried out, `Crucify him.'

15:14 [14] And Pilate said to them, `Why -- what evil did he?' and they cried out the more vehemently, `Crucify him;'

15:15 [21] and Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released to them Barabbas, and delivered up Jesus -- having scourged [him] -- that he might be crucified.

15:16 [16] And the soldiers led him away into the hall, which is Praetorium, and call together the whole band,

15:17 [16] and clothe him with purple, and having plaited a crown of thorns, they put [it] on him,

15:18 [15] and began to salute him, `Hail, King of the Jews.'

15:19 [17] And they were smiting him on the head with a reed, and were spitting on him, and having bent the knee, were bowing to him,

15:20 [22] and when they [had] mocked him, they took the purple from off him, and clothed him in his own garments, and they led him forth, that they may crucify him.

15:21 [24] And they impress a certain one passing by -- Simon, a Cyrenian, coming from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus -- that he may bear his cross,

15:22 [24] and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, `Place of a skull;'

15:23 [23] and they were giving him to drink wine mingled with myrrh, and he did not receive.

15:24 [26] And having crucified him, they were dividing his garments, casting a lot upon them, what each may take;

15:25 [14] and it was the third hour, and they crucified him;

15:26 [18] and the inscription of his accusation was written above -- `The King of the Jews.'

15:27 [23] And with him they crucify two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on his left,

15:28 [Not included.] and the Writing was fulfilled that is saying, `And with lawless ones he was numbered.'

15:29 [20] And those passing by were speaking evil of him, shaking their heads, and saying, `Ah, the thrower down of the sanctuary, and in three days the builder!

15:30 [16] save thyself, and come down from the cross!'

15:31 [14] And in like manner also the chief priests, mocking with one another, with the scribes, said, `Others he saved; himself he is not able to save.

15:32 [20] The Christ! the king of Israel -- let him come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe;' and those crucified with him were reproaching him.

15:33 [13] And the sixth hour having come, darkness came over the whole land till the ninth hour,

15:34 [19] and at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a great voice, saying, `Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?' which is, being interpreted, `My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?'

15:35 [17] And certain of those standing by, having heard, said, `Lo, Elijah he doth call;'

15:36 [21] and one having run, and having filled a spunge with vinegar, having put [it] also on a reed, was giving him to drink, saying, `Let alone, let us see if Elijah doth come to take him down.'

15:37 [22] And Jesus having uttered a loud cry, yielded the spirit,

15:38 [12] and the veil of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom,

15:39 [14] and the centurion who was standing over-against him, having seen that, having so cried out, he yielded the spirit, said, `Truly this man was Son of God.'

15:40 [13] And there were also women afar off beholding, among whom was also Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James the less, and of Joses, and Salome,

15:41 [11] (who also, when he was in Galilee, were following him, and were ministering to him,) and many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

15:42 [13] And now evening having come, seeing it was the preparation, that is, the fore-sabbath,

15:43 [14] Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, who also himself was waiting for the reign of God, came, boldly entered in unto Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus.

15:44 [10] And Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and having called near the centurion, did question him if he were long dead,

15:45 [11] and having known [it] from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.

15:46 [14] And he, having brought fine linen, and having taken him down, wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre,

15:47 [13] and Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he is laid.

The Early Christian Writings

30-60
Passion Narrative
40-80
Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60
1 Thessalonians
50-60
Philippians
50-60
Galatians
50-60
1 Corinthians
50-60
2 Corinthians
50-60
Romans
50-60
Philemon
50-80
Colossians
50-90
Signs Gospel
50-95
Book of Hebrews
50-120
Didache
50-140
Gospel of Thomas
50-140
Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200
Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80
Gospel of Mark
70-100
Epistle of James
70-120
Egerton Gospel
70-160
Gospel of Peter
70-160
Secret Mark
70-200
Fayyum Fragment
70-200
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200
Mara Bar Serapion
80-100
2 Thessalonians
80-100
Ephesians
80-100
Gospel of Matthew
80-110
1 Peter
80-120
Epistle of Barnabas
80-130
Gospel of Luke
80-130
Acts of the Apostles
80-140
1 Clement
80-150
Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150
Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250
Christian Sibyllines
90-95
Apocalypse of John
90-120
Gospel of John
90-120
1 John
90-120
2 John
90-120
3 John
90-120
Epistle of Jude
93
Flavius Josephus
100-150
1 Timothy
100-150
2 Timothy
100-150
Titus
100-150
Apocalypse of Peter
100-150
Secret Book of James
100-150
Preaching of Peter
100-160
Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160
Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160
Shepherd of Hermas
100-160
2 Peter
100-200
Odes of Solomon
101-220
Book of Elchasai
105-115
Ignatius of Antioch
110-140
Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140
Papias
110-160
Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
110-160
Traditions of Matthias
111-112
Pliny the Younger
115
Suetonius
115
Tacitus
120-130
Quadratus of Athens
120-130
Apology of Aristides
120-140
Basilides
120-140
Naassene Fragment
120-160
Valentinus
120-180
Apocryphon of John
120-180
Gospel of Mary
120-180
Dialogue of the Savior
120-180
Gospel of the Savior
120-180
2nd Apocalypse of James
120-180
Trimorphic Protennoia
130-140
Marcion
130-150
Aristo of Pella
130-160
Epiphanes On Righteousness
130-160
Ophite Diagrams
130-160
2 Clement
130-170
Gospel of Judas
130-200
Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150
Epistula Apostolorum
140-160
Ptolemy
140-160
Isidore
140-170
Fronto
140-170
Infancy Gospel of James
140-170
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180
Gospel of Truth
150-160
Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160
Justin Martyr
150-180
Excerpts of Theodotus
150-180
Heracleon
150-200
Ascension of Isaiah
150-200
Acts of Peter
150-200
Acts of John
150-200
Acts of Paul
150-200
Acts of Andrew
150-225
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
150-225
Book of Thomas the Contender
150-250
Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
150-300
Authoritative Teaching
150-300
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
150-300
Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
150-300
Melchizedek
150-400
Acts of Pilate
150-400
Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170
Tatian’s Address to the Greeks
160-180
Claudius Apollinaris
160-180
Apelles
160-180
Julius Cassianus
160-250
Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180
Acts of Carpus
165-175
Melito of Sardis
165-175
Hegesippus
165-175
Dionysius of Corinth
165-175
Lucian of Samosata
167
Marcus Aurelius
170-175
Diatessaron
170-200
Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200
Muratorian Canon
170-200
Treatise on the Resurrection
170-220
Letter of Peter to Philip
175-180
Athenagoras of Athens
175-185
Irenaeus of Lyons
175-185
Rhodon
175-185
Theophilus of Caesarea
175-190
Galen
178
Celsus
178
Letter from Vienna and Lyons
180
Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
180-185
Theophilus of Antioch
180-185
Acts of Apollonius
180-220
Bardesanes
180-220
Kerygmata Petrou
180-230
Hippolytus of Rome
180-250
1st Apocalypse of James
180-250
Gospel of Philip
182-202
Clement of Alexandria
185-195
Maximus of Jerusalem
185-195
Polycrates of Ephesus
188-217
Talmud
189-199
Victor I
190-210
Pantaenus
193
Anonymous Anti-Montanist
193-216
Inscription of Abercius
197-220
Tertullian
200-210
Serapion of Antioch
200-210
Apollonius
200-220
Caius
200-220
Philostratus
200-225
Acts of Thomas
200-250
Didascalia
200-250
Books of Jeu
200-300
Pistis Sophia
200-300
Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
203
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
203-250
Origen

The Early Christian Writings is the most complete collection of documents from the first two centuries with translations and commentary. Includes the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers.