New Test. Stud. , pp. –.

Printed in the United Kingdom ©  Cambridge University Press

DOI:10.1017/S0028688502000346

The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of

Luke
JAM E S R . E DWAR DS
Whitworth College, Spokane, WA 99251, USA

Scholarly consensus generally assumes that the Gospel of the Ebionites as pre-
served by Epiphanius is either a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels or excerpted
mainly from Matthew. A synopsis of the texts, however, demonstrates that the
Epiphanius quotations show stronger affinity with Luke than with Matthew or
Mark. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Epiphanius’s references to the Gospel of
the Ebionites are not excerpted from Luke, but rather from a Greek translation of
the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church fathers, and thus one of
the sources of Luke mentioned in the prologue of his Gospel.

The relationship of the Jewish-Christian Gospels1 to one another has been

called ‘the most irritating problem in the NT Apocrypha’.2 The problem is aggra-
vated by the fragmentary nature of the texts and a paucity of information about
them. The purpose of this study is not to attempt a solution to this perplexing and
perhaps insoluble problem, but rather to focus on one of the Gospels, the Gospel
of the Ebionites,3 which exhibits several characteristics distinct from the Gospel of
the Nazaraeans and the Gospel of the Hebrews.4 In general, scholarly opinion has

1 See the assignment of the texts into the Gospels of the Nazaraeans, Ebionites, and Hebrews
and the discussion of the problem by P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, ‘Jewish-Christian
Gospels’, New Testament Apocrypha (rev. and ed. W. Schneemelcher; Cambridge: James
Clarke & Co./Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991) 1.134–78.
2 William L. Petersen, ‘Ebionites, Gospel of the’, ABD 2.261.
3 The designation ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’ is a neologism, deriving neither from Epiphanius
nor from any other church father. Epiphanius refers to the work simply as a ‘Hebrew Gospel’,
which he further describes as a corruption of the Gospel of Matthew (Pan. 30.13.2).
Nevertheless, since Epiphanius associates the Gospel specifically with the Ebionite sect,
‘Gospel of the Ebionites’ remains a useful designation to distinguish it from other Jewish-
Christian Gospels.
4 Unlike the other two Jewish-Christian Gospels, Gos. Eb. is cited by only one church father,
Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, who died in 403. Gos. Eb. also does not exhibit the traces of
gnosticism that are evident in both Gos. Naz. and Gos. Heb. Gos. Eb. preserves a more homo-
 geneous gospel tradition than do the amalgamated traditions of the latter two Gospels; and
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 569

been, and continues to be, that the Gospel of the Ebionites is either an indiscrimi-
nate harmony of the Synoptics or a corruption of the Gospel of Matthew. Thus,
W. L. Petersen says that the Gospel of the Ebionites ‘appears to have been harmo-
nized, woven from traditions found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke)’.5 H. Koester believes that a harmony of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke ‘is
not only in evidence in Justin and 2 Clement, but also in the Gospel of the
Ebionites’.6 J. K. Elliott sees the Gospel of the Ebionites as a generic harmony of the
‘synoptic type’.7 In a study devoted to the provenance of the Gospel of the Ebionites,
D. A. Bertrand sees the latter as a harmony of the three Synoptics (though with
slight preference for Matthew), which was a precursor to Tatian’s Diatessaron.8
The harmony theory has recently been echoed by D. Lührmann: ‘Im Text [des
Evangeliums der Ebionäer] finden sich Einzelzüge aus allen drei synoptischen
Evangelien; . . . Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich um eine Evangelienharmonie.’9
With regard to the influence of the Gospel of Matthew on the Gospel of the
Ebionites, Throckmorton’s Gospel Parallels is the most pronounced, referencing
each passage in the Gospel of the Ebionites to the First Gospel.10
With the exception of Throckmorton, the above judgements are correct in
noting the Synoptic text-type of the Gospel of the Ebionites, which contains
material in common with all three Synoptic Gospels but not with John. The above
judgements fail to note, however, that the quotations of the Gospel of the Ebionites
preserved and cited by Epiphanius are not simply generic Synoptic harmonies or,
as is frequently supposed, primarily from the Gospel of Matthew. In this study I
should like to demonstrate, first of all, that the quotations from the Gospel of the
Ebionites show stronger affinity with Luke than with either Matthew or Mark. I

unlike them, Gos. Eb. makes no reference either to the NT epistles or to the Gospel of John.
Finally, as this study will evince, Gos. Eb. corresponds more closely to the Gospel of Luke
than to either of the other two Synoptic Gospels.
5 Petersen, ‘Ebionites, Gospel of the’, ABD 2.262. Further, ‘The opening story [of Gos. Eb.] is
similar to that in Mark, although harmonized from all three Synoptic Gospels’; again, ‘It is
difficult to determine which if any of the canonical gospels provides the framework for the
Gospel of the Ebionites.’
6 H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International/London: SCM, 1992) 334.
7 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English
Translation (ed. J. K. Elliott [Oxford and New York: Oxford University, 1993] 6) claims only
that Gos. Eb. is familiar ‘with the contents of the canonical Gospels.’ This is an overstate-
ment, since Gos. Eb. contains no quotations in common with the Gosepl of John.
8 D. A. Bertrand, ‘L’Evangile des Ebionites: une harmonie évangelique antérieure au
Diatessaron’, NTS 26 (1986) 548–63.
9 D. Lührmann, Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer
Sprache (in Zusammenarbeit mit E. Schlarb; Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 2000) 32.
10 Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr, Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (2nd edn;
Toronto, New York, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelsons & Sons, 1957) xviii.
570  . 

should then like to raise the question of the possible relationship of the Gospel of
the Ebionites to Luke. As noted above, scholarly consensus is nearly unanimous in
assuming that the Gospel of the Ebionites, like the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the
Nazaraeans and Gospel of the Hebrews, derives from the Synoptic tradition and is
in various degrees a corruption of it. I should like to challenge that assumption
and consider whether the Gospel of the Ebionites as cited by Epiphanius is not a
Greek translation of the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church
fathers of the second to the fourth centuries,11 and as such one of the sources that
Luke mentions in the prologue to his Gospel.

Synopsis of the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Synoptics

First, a comparison of the Gospel of the Ebionites with the Synoptic tra-
dition. In Panarion 30 Epiphanius includes seven passages in quick succession
from what the Ebionites call a ‘Hebrew Gospel’, and an eighth further on in the
treatise. The first reads:
Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark
ejn tw`/ gou`n par∆ auj-
toi`~ eujaggelivw/ kata;
Matqai`on ojnomazo-
mevnw/, oujc o{lw/ de;
plhrestavtw/, ajlla; ne-
noqeumevnw/ kai; hjkrw-
thriasmevnw/ ªÔEbrai>ko;n
de; tou`to kalou`s inº ejm-
fevretai o{ti “ejgevnetov
ti~ ajnh;r ojnovmati
∆Ihsou`~, kai; aujto;~ wJ~ wJsei
ejtw`n triavkonta, o}~ ejtw`n triavkonta (3.23)

11 Six fathers – Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius, and
Jerome – preserve quotations that reputedly come from an early Hebrew-language Gospel.
Two further sources can also be added to their number. The first is the testimony of Papias
that ‘Matthew collected the oracles (ta; lovgia) in the Hebrew language’, as recorded by
Eusebius (H.E. 3.39.16). The second is a tradition of a Hebrew Gospel preserved in the Islamic
Hadith: ‘Khadija then accompanied [Muhammad] to her cousin Waraqa ibn Naufal ibn Asad
ibn ‘abdul ‘Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write
the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah
wished him to write’ (Sahih al-Bukhari 1.3).
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 571

ejxelevxato hJma`~. kai; ejklexavmeno~ ajp∆ auvtw`n

ejlqw;n eij~ Kafarnaou;m
eijsh`lqen eij~ th;n oijkivan
Sivmwno~ tou` ejpiklhqevnto~ Sivmwno~ (4.38); Sivmwno~,
Pevtrou kai; ajnoivxa~ to;
stovma aujtou` ei\pen:
parercovvmeno~ para; th;n
livmnhn Tiberiavdo~
ejxelexavmhn
∆Iwavnnhn kai ∆Iavkwbon,
uiJou;~ Zebedaivou, kai;
Sivmwna kai; ∆Andrevan
kai; Qaddai`on kai; Sivmwna Sivmwna to;n kalouvmenon
to;n zhlwth;n
kai; ∆Iouvdan to;n
∆Iskariwvthn,
kai; se; to;n Matqai`on
kaqezovmenon ejpi; tou`
telwnivou ejkavlesa
kai; hjkolouvqhsav~ moi.
uJma`~ ou\n bouvlomai
ei\nai dekaduvo ajpos-
tovlou~ eij~ martuvion
tou` ∆Israhvl. (Pan. 30.13.2–3)12
(6.13)
kath`lqen eij~ Kafarna- eijsporeuvontai eij~
-ou;m (4.31) Kafarnaouvm (Mark 1.21)
ejlqw;n katwv/khsen eij~
Kafarnaouvm (Matt 4.13)
eijsh`lqen eij~ th;n oijkivan ejlqw;n eij~ th;n oijkivan
Pevtrou (Matt 8.14)
h\lqon eij~ th;n oijkivan
o}n kai; wjnovmasen Pevtron Sivmwno~ (Mark 1.29)
(6.14)
auvto;~ h\n eJstw;~ para; th;n
livmnhn Gennhsarevt (5.1)
ejklexavmeno~ ajp∆ aujtw`n
(6.13)
∆Iwavnnh~ kai; ∆Iavkwbo~
(Acts 1.13)
zhlwthvn (6.15; cf. Acts 1.13)
∆Iouvdan ∆Iouvda~ oJ
∆Iskariwvq (6.16) ∆Iskariwvth~ (Matt 10.4)
Leui`n kaqhvmenon ejpi; to;
telwvnion,
kaqhvmenon ejpi; to; Maqqai`on (Matt 9.9)
telwvnion (5.27)

12 ‘In then what they (i.e. the Ebionites) call the Gospel according to Matthew, which however
is not complete but forged and mutilated – they call it the Hebrew Gospel – it is reported:
572  . 

This passage corresponds predominantly to the Gospel of Luke. It is conclu-

sively linked to Luke in four particulars. First, mention of Jesus being ‘about thirty
years of age’ parallels Luke 3.23, who alone of the evangelists preserves Jesus’ age.
Second, the reference to ‘the Lake of Tiberias’ is exclusive to Luke. The word
Epiphanius quotes for ‘lake’ is not qavlassa, the word commonly used to describe
the Sea of Galilee in Matthew (13
), Mark (16
), and John (9
), but livmnh, which
is unique to Luke (5
) among the Gospels, but absent from Matthew, Mark, and
John. Third, mention of entering the house of Simon (eijsh`lqen eij~ th;n oijkivan
Sivmwno~) is verbatim with Luke 4.38 rather than Matthew’s and Mark’s wording of
the same; and the further clarification of Simon’s name as ‘Peter’ more closely
corresponds to Luke 6.14 than to the wording of either Matt 10.2 or Mark 3.16. A
final distinctive linkage with Luke occurs in the apostolic list: the reference to
‘Simon the Zealot’ is unique to Luke (6.15), and the order of ‘John and James’, as
opposed to ‘James and John’, is found in the apostolic lists in the NT only in Acts
1.13.
In three further instances Panarion 30.13.2–3 is at least suggestive of Luke as
opposed to either Matthew or Mark. ‘Who chose us’ (ejxelevxato) agrees with the
same verb in Luke 6.13. ∆Eklevgomai is characteristic of Luke, who uses it four times
in the Gospel (6.13; 9.35; 10.42; 14.7) and another seven times in Acts, whereas the
verb occurs only once in Mark and is absent in Matthew (although it occurs five
times in John). Again, mention of Jesus’ arrival in Capernaum (ejlqw;n eij~
Kafarnaouvm) closely resembles Luke 4.31 (kath`lqen eij~ Kafarnaouvm), but is dis-
similar to the wording in the dozen passages elsewhere in the four Gospels that
note the same episode. Lastly, in ‘You therefore I desire to be twelve (bouvlomai
ei\nai dekaduvo)’, the first word is clearly Lucan (bouvlomai: Luke 2
; Acts 14
;
Matt 2
; Mark 1
; John 1
). Although dekaduvo does not occur in the NT, devka
alone is characteristically Lucan (Luke 12
; Matt 3
; Mark 1
; John 0
), as is the
present infinitive that links them.13
In only three minor instances does the text appear to favour Matthew over
Luke: in the mention of Judas as ∆Iskariwvth~ (Matt 10.4) as opposed to ∆Iskariwvq

“There appeared a certain man by the name of Jesus, about thirty years of age, who chose us.
And having come to Capernaum, he entered the house of Simon who was called Peter, and
having opened his mouth, said, ‘As I passed beside the Lake of Tiberias, I chose John and
James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot
and Judas the Iscariot, and you, Matthew, I called while you were sitting at the tax table, and
you followed me. You therefore I desire to be twelve apostles for a witness to Israel.’”’ (All
translations are my own.)
13 Bertrand’s cursory reference to only three points of correspondence with Luke (the age of
Jesus, the choosing of the apostles, and Simon the Zealot) in ‘L’Evangile des Ebionites’, 554
understates the significant agreement between Pan. 30.13.2–3 and Luke.
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 573

(Luke 6.16); in the phrase kai; ajnoivxa~ to; stovma aujtou` (so Matt 5.2; 17.27; though
see Luke 1.64); and in Matthew’s sitting at his tax table (Matt 9.9). In the latter
passage, however, Epiphanius’s syntax is Lucan as opposed to Matthean.
The above quotation is immediately followed by two quotations pertaining to
John the Baptist: the first about John himself, and the second about his baptism of
Jesus. Combined, they read:

Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark

kai; “ejgevneto ∆Iwavnnh~ ejgevneto ∆Iwavnnh~ oJ
baptivzwn, kai; ejxh`lqon baptivzwn (Mark 1.4)
pro;~ aujto;n farisai`oi
kai; ejbaptivsqhsan kai; (?Matt 3.7; Mark 1.5)
pa`sa ÔIerosovluma
kai; ei\cen oJ ∆Iwavnnh~ oJ ∆Iwavnnh~ ei`cen to;
e[nduma ajpo; tricw`n e[nduma aujtou` ajpo;
tricw`n
kamhvlou kai; zwvnhn kamhvlou kai; zwvnhn
dermativnhn peri; th;n dermativnhn peri; th;n
ojsfuvn aujtou`. ojsfu;n aujtou` (Matt 3.4//
kai; to; brw`ma aujtou`, Mark 1.6)
fhsiv, mevli a[grion,
ou| hJ geu`s i~ hJ tou`
mavnna, wJ~ ejgkri;~
ejn ejlaivw/.”
i{na dh`qen meta-
strevywsi to;n th`~
ajlhqeiva~ lo;gon eij~
yeu`do~ kai; ajnti; ajk-
rivdwn poihvswsin
ejgkrivda ejn mevliti.
hJ de; ajrch; tou` par∆
aujtoi`~ eujaggelivou e[cei
o{ti “ejgevneto ejn tai`~ ejgevneto ejn tai`~
hJmevrai~ ÔHrwv/dou bas- hJmevrai~ ÔHrwv/dou bas-
ilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~ ilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~
574  . 

<ejpi; ajrcierevw~ ejpi; ajrcierevw~

Kai>avfa>, h\lqen <ti~>
∆Iwavnnh~ <ojnovmati>
baptivzwn bavptisma
metanoiva~
ejn tw`/
∆Iordavnh/ potamw`/ o}~
ejlevgeto ei\nai ejk gev-
nou~ ∆Aarw;n tou`
iJerevw~, pai`~ Zacarivou
kai; ∆Elisavbet, kai;
ejxhvrconto pro;~ aujtovn
pavnte~.” (Pan. 30.13.4–6)14
”Anna kai; Kai>avfa
(3.2; see also 1.5)
khruvsswn bavptisma khruvsswn bavptisma
metanoiva~ (3.3) metanoiva~ (Mark 1.4)
ejn tw`/
(?3.3) ∆Iordavnh/ potamw`/
(Mark 1.5)
ejk tw`n qugatevrwn
∆Aarw;n (1.5)
ti~ ojnovmati Zacariva~
. . . ∆Elisavbet (Luke 1.5)
ejxeporeuveto pro;~ aujtovn
. . . pavnte~ (Mark 1.5)

At first appearance, the agreement of Panarion 30.13.4 with Matt 3.4 links that
passage obviously and exclusively with the First Gospel.15 The roughly dozen
words of agreement may be less conclusive than they appear, however, for Matt
3.4 is shared nearly verbatim also with Mark 1.5–6. Properly speaking, the corre-
spondence of Panarion 30.13.4 is thus not with Matthew alone but rather with the
double tradition of Matthew and Mark. The remainder of the above passage (Pan.
30.13.5–6) corresponds with material found in Luke, and only in Luke. Epiphanius
records that the Gospel of the Ebionites began with the words ejgevneto ejn tai`~
hJmevrai~ ÔHrwvd/ ou basilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~. This eight-word phrase agrees
verbatim with Luke’s infancy narrative in 1.5. Likewise, the reference to John’s
descent from the line of Aaron reflects Luke 1.5, as do the names of his parents,
Zechariah and Elisabeth. We thus have a text quoted by Epiphanius that corre-
sponds in roughly equal measure to two blocks of Synoptic material: to material
shared in common by Matthew and Mark, and to material that is unique to Luke.

14 ‘And John came baptizing, and Pharisees went out to him, and they and all Jerusalem were
baptized. And John had clothing made of camel hair and a leather belt around his waist; and
his food, it is said, was wild honey, the taste of which was that of manna, as a cake dipped in
oil. Thus they were resolved to pervert the word of truth to a lie, and they replaced grasshop-
pers with a honey cake. The beginning of their Gospel has this, “In the days when Herod was
king of Judaea <when Caiaphas was high priest>, <a certain> John <by name> came baptiz-
ing a baptism of repentance in the Jordan river. John, it was said, was of the line of Aaron the
priest, a child of Zechariah and Elisabeth, and all were going out to him.”’
15 So Bertrand, ‘L’Evangile des Ebionites’, 555.
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 575

Epiphanius’s condemnation of the Ebionites for changing John’s diet from

grasshoppers to honey cakes occurs in none of the Gospels, but it may also bear a
relationship to Luke. The wording preserved by Epiphanius, hJ geu`s i~ . . . wJ~
ejgkri;~ ejn ejlaivw,/ reproduces the description of the manna in Exod 16.31 LXX, to;
de; geu`ma aujtou` wJ~ ejgkri;~ ejn mevliti (cf. also Num 11.8). One possible explanation
for the alteration of John’s diet in the Gospel of the Ebionites might relate to the
Aaronic priesthood, which, according to Lev 8.26, was instructed to eat cakes
dipped in oil. Only in Luke 1.5 is John’s descent linked to the line of Aaron.
A fourth citation from Epiphanius, again with reference to John the Baptist,
occurs immediately following the above quotation:

Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark

kai; meta; to; eijpei`n
polla; ejpifevrei o{ti
‘tou` laou` baptisqevn-
to~ h\lqen kai; ∆Ihsou`~
kai; ejbaptivsqh uJpo;
tou` ∆Iwavnnou. kai;
wJ~ ajnh`lqen ajpo; tou`
u{dato~,
hjnoivghsan oiJ oujranoi;
kai; ei\den to; pneu`ma
to; a{gion ejn ei[dei peri-
stera`~, katelqouvsh~ kai;
eijselqouvsh~ eij~ aujtovn.
kai; fwnh; ejk tou` oujra-
nou` levgousa: suv mou ei\
oJ uiJo;~ oJ ajgaphtov~, ejn
soi; hujdovkhsa, kai;
pavlin: ejgw; shvmeron
gegevnnhkav se. kai;
ejn tw`/ baptisqh`nai
a{panta to;n lao;n
kai; ∆Ihsou` baptis-
qevnto~ (3.21)
ajnew/cqh`nai to;n
oujranovn (3.21)
to; pneu`ma to; a{gion
swmatikw`/ ei[dei peri-
stera;n (3.22)
fwnh; ejx oujranou` (3.22)
su; ei\ oJ uiJov~ mou
oJ ajgaphtov~, ejn
soi; eujdovkhsa (3.22)
ejgw; shvmeron
gegevnnhkav se (3.22D)
uJpo
∆Iwavnnou (Mark 1.9)
ajnevbh/ajnabaivnwn
ejk tou` u{dato~ (Matt
3.16; Mark 1.10)
hjnewv/cqhsan oiJ
oujranoiv (Matt 3.16)
katabai`non
eij~ aujtovn (Mark 1.10)
fwnh; ejk tw`n oujranw`n
(Matt 3.17; Mark 1.11)
su; ei\ oJ uiJov~ mou
oJ ajgaphtov~, ejn
soi; eujdovkhsa (Mark 1.11)
576  . 

eujqu;~ perievlamye to;n perilavmyan me

tovpon fw`~ mevga. o} fw`~ (Acts 26.13)
ijdwvn, fhsivn, oJ ∆Iw-
avnnh~ levgei aujtw`/:
su; tiv~ ei\, kuvrie; tiv~ ei\, kuvrie (Acts 9.5)
kai; pavlin fwnh; ejx
oujranou` pro;~ aujtovn:
ou|tov~ ejstin oJ uiJov~ ou|tov~ ejstin oJ uiJov~
mou oJ ajgaphtov~, ejf∆ mou oJ ajgaphtov~, ejn
o{n hujdovkhsa. kai; w`/ eujkovkhsa (Matt 3.17)
tovte, fhsivn, oJ ∆Iw-
avnnh~ prospesw;n
aujtw`/ e[legen: devomai; ejgw; creivan e[cw uJpo;
sou, kuvrie, suv me sou` baptisqh`nai, kai;
su; e[rch/ pro;~ mev;
bavptison. oJ de; ejkwv- oJ de; diekwvluen
lusen aujto;n levgwn: aujto;n levgwn (Matt 3.14)
a[fe~, o{t i ou{tw~ ejsti; a[fe~ a[rti: ou{tw~ ga;r
prevpon plhrwqh`nai prevpon ejstin hJmi`n
plhrw`sai pa`san
pavnta.”’ (Pan. 30.13.7–8)16 dikaiosuvnhn (Matt 3.15)
This is one of two passages in the Gospel of the Ebionites that can fairly be
described as a harmony of the Synoptics, though with less material from Mark
than from Matthew and Luke. The reference to Jesus being baptized with the
people relates solely to Luke 3.21, as does the reference to the ‘Holy Spirit’ (Luke
3.22) in the form of a dove. The first expression of the voice from heaven addresses
Jesus in the second person singular in accordance with the texts of Luke and Mark,

16 ‘After many things had been said, it continues, “When the people had been baptized, Jesus
also came and was baptized by John. And as he arose from the water, the heavens were
opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a dove descending and entering into
him. And a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am pleased’;
and again, ‘Today I have begotten you.’ And immediately a great light shone on the place.
When John saw it, it is recorded that he said to [Jesus], ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And again a voice
from heaven came to him, ‘This is my beloved Son, on whom my pleasure rests.’ And then, it
is reported, John fell before him saying, ‘I beg you, Lord, to baptize me.’ But he prevented it
saying, ‘Let it be, for in this way it is necessary for all things to be fulfilled.’”’
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 577

as opposed to Matthew’s version in the third person singular. Also, the voice evk
tou` oujranou`, which only in Luke is singular (ejx oujronou` as opposed to plural in
Matthew and Mark, ejk tw`n oujranw`n), agrees more closely with Luke.
Epiphanius’s reference to the ‘opening (ajnoivgw)’ of heaven corresponds to the
same verb in Luke 3.21 and Matt 3.16, as opposed to Mark’s use of scivzw in the par-
allel passage, although the entry of the Holy Spirit ‘into’ Jesus (eij~ aujtovn) is found
only in Mark. The appendage of the divine pronouncement, ‘“Today I have begot-
ten you’ (ejgw; shvmeron gegevnnhkav se)’, a quotation of Ps 2.7, likewise occurs only
in the Western text of Luke 3.22. The references to the bright light and the ques-
tion ‘“Who are you, Lord?”’ appear to come from Acts rather than from Luke.
The passage concludes, however, in correspondence with Matthew, specifi-
cally the divine address to Jesus in the third person singular in accordance with
Matthew’s baptismal narrative, plus the reference to Jesus overriding John’s
qualms about baptizing him (ou{tw~ ejsti; prevpon plhrwqh`nai pavnta, Matt 3.15,
ou{tw~ ga;r prevpon ejsti;n hJmi`n plhrw`sai pa`san dikaiosuvnhn). The latter refer-
ence is reversed, however, for in Matthew it is John who attempts to prevent Jesus
from being baptized, whereas according to the text quoted by Epiphanius it is
Jesus who prevents John.
The Panarion includes treatises on 80 sects and heresies, extending to three
volumes in Karl Holl’s edition.17 Against the Ebionites, one of the longest treat-
ments in the Panarion, is a rambling chapter with not a few digressions and rep-
etitions. Epiphanius’s fifth citation from a Hebrew Gospel is an example of such
repetition, amplifying the third citation about John’s baptism. It reads:
Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark
parakovyante~ ga;r ta;~
para; tw`/ Matqaivw/ ge-
nealogiva~ a[rcontai th;n
ajrch;n poiei`sqai wJ~ pro-
eivpomen, levgonte~ o{ti
“ejgevneto,” fhsivn, “ejn ejgevneto ejn
tai`~ hJmevrai~ ÔHrwv/dou tai`~ hJmevrai~ ÔHrwv/dou
basilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~ basilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~
(1.5)
ejpi; ajrcierevw~ Kai>avfa, ejpi; ajrcierevw~ ”Anna
kai; Kai>avfa (3.2)

17 Epiphanius, Panarion (hg. von Karl Holl; 2., bearbeitete Auflage hg. von Jürgen Dummer; 3
Bände; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980).
578  . 

h\lqevn ti~ ∆Iwavnnh~ h\lqen eij~ pa`san th;n

ojnovmati baptivzwn
bavptisma metanoiva~
ejn tw`/ ∆Iordavnh/ po-
tamw`/” kai; ta; eJxh`~.
(Pan. 30.14.3)18
perivcwron tou` ∆Ior-
davnou khruvsswn bavp-
tisma metanoiva~ (3.3)

This quotation repeats Panarion 30.13.6 quoted above, and like it is related more
distinctly to Luke than to the Synoptic parallels in Matt 3.1–2 and Mark 1.4. The
wording ejgevneto ejn tai~ hJmevrai~ ÔHrwvdou basilevw~ th`~ ∆Ioudaiva~ again repeats
verbatim the opening line of Luke’s infancy narrative (1.5). The addition of the
high priesthood of Caiaphas is also found only in Luke (3.2), and the reference to
‘the baptism of repentance in the Jordan river’ is closer to Luke 3.3 than to its par-
allels in either Matt 3.1 or Mark 1.4. The repetition of this passage is significant, for
according to its introduction by Epiphanius, the body of the Hebrew Gospel
began with Luke 1.5, not with the birth of Jesus as recorded in Matt 1.18.
A sixth snippet included by Epiphanius from the Hebrew Gospel refers to Jesus’
rebuff of his mother and brothers. Not only were the Ebionites guilty of compro-
mising the deity of Jesus, according to the testimonies of Epiphanius and Irenaeus,
but they also compromised his humanity, as the following passage indicates.
Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Luke
pavlin de; ajrnou`ntai
ei\nai aujto;n a[nqrwpon,
dh`qen ajpo; tou` lovgou
ou| ei[rhken oJ swth;r ejn
tw`/ ajnaggelh`nai aujtw`/
o{t i ijdou; hJ mhvthr sou ijdou; hJ mhvthr sou ijdou; hJ mhvthr sou
kai; oiJ ajdelfoiv sou e[xw kai; oiJ ajdelfoiv sou kai; oiJ ajdelfoiv sou e[xw
eJsthvkasin, eJsthvkasin e[xw eJsthvkasin (Matt
(8.20) 12.47)
o{ti ‘tiv~ mouv ejsti tiv~ ejstin hJ mhvthr
mhvthr kai; ajdelfoiv; mou kai; oiJ ajdelfoiv;
(Mark 3.33)

18 ‘For having removed the genealogies of Matthew, they begin, as I said earlier, by saying that
“It came to pass in the days of Herod king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was chief priest, a cer-
tain man named John came baptizing a baptism of repentance in the Jordan river”, etc.’
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 579

kai; ejkteivna~ th;n cei`ra kai; ejkteivna~ th;n cei`ra

ejpi; tou;~ maqhta;~ e[fh:
ou|toiv eijs in oiJ ajdelfoiv
mou kai; hJ mhvthr kai;
ajdelfai; oiJ poiou`nte~
ta; qelhvmata tou`
patrov~ mou.’ (Pan.
30.14.5)19
mhvthr mou kai; ajdelfoiv
ou|toiv mou eijs in oiJ to;n
lovgon tou` qeou` ajkou-È
onte~ kai; poiou`nte~
(8.21)
aujtou` ejpi; tou;~ maqhta;~
(Matt 12.49)
hJ mhvthr mou kai; oiJ ajdel-
foiv mou. o{sti~ ga;r a[n
poihvsh/ to; qejlhma tou`
patrov~ mou (Matt 12.50)

This is the second quotation in Panarion 30 that could be judged a harmony of

the Synoptics, again with preference for Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the
story. The question ‘Who is my mother and who are my brothers? (tiv~ mou ejsti;
mhvthr kai; mou ajdelfoi…)’ looks more like Mark 3.33 than either Matthew or Luke.
The reference to Jesus stretching out his hand over the disciples (kai; ejkteivna~
ejpi; tou;~ maqhta;~ th;n cei`ra) appears only in Matt 12.49 (although in different
word order). Two other correlations, however, appear to favour Luke. The word
for ‘announced’ (ajnaggevllw), repeats the same word found only in Luke 8.20. The
plural ‘These are my brothers (ou|toiv eijs in oiJ ajdelfoiv)’ parallels the wording
(but not order) of Luke 8.21, as opposed to the singular (‘This is . . .’) in both
Matthew and Mark.
A seventh passage from Epiphanius is a maverick text with only one possible
allusion to Matthew. It reads:
Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark
ouj favskousi de; ejk
qeou` patro;~ aujto;n
gegennh`sqai, ajlla;
kektivsqai wJ~ e{na tw`n
ajrcaggevlwn [kai; e[ti
perissotevrw~], aujto;n de;
kurieuvein kai; ajggevlwn
kai; pavntwn <tw`n> uJpo;

19 ‘Again, they deny that [Jesus] was a true (dh`qen) man from the word spoken by the Saviour
when it was announced to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing out-
side.” The Saviour’s word was, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” And having
stretched out his hand to the disciples, he said, “These are my brothers and my mother, those
who are doing the desires of my Father.”’
580  . 

tou` pantokravtoro~ pe-

poihmevnwn, kai; ejlqovnta
kai; uJfhghsavmenon, wJ~
to; par∆ aujtoi`~ euj-
aggevlion kalouvmenon
perievcei, o{t i h\lqon h\lqon
katalu`sai ta;~ qusiva~, katalu`sai to; novmon
(Matt 5.17)
kai; eja;n mh; pauvshsqe
tou` quvein, ouj pauvsetai
ajf∆ uJmw`n hJ ojrghv.
(Pan. 30.16.4–5)20

Epiphanius asserts that the Ebionites deny that Christ was begotten of the Father,
being an archangel of some sort who instructed his followers to ‘abolish the sac-
rifices’. The phrase h\lqon katalu`sai ta;~ quiva~ appears to allude to Matt 5.17
(h\lqon katalu`sai to;n novmon), although the brevity of the phrase does not allow
us to say for certain. In a rebuttal of the Ebionites later in Panarion 30.27.2
Epiphanius correctly quotes Matt 5.17, thus indicating that the reference to abol-
ishing sacrifices in 30.16.4 is not due to a slip of memory but rather to a different
written source from the canonical Matthew.
An eighth and final citation in Against the Ebionites also correlates distinctly
with Luke. According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites, who refused to eat meat (see
also Pan. 30.15.3–4), attempted to justify their practice by falsifying a saying of
Jesus from the Last Supper. The saying under consideration is, ∆Epiqumiva/ ejpe-
quvmhsa tou`to to; pavsca fagei`n meq∆ uJmw`n (Luke 22.15). The falsified claim of the
Ebionites that Epiphanius quotes runs as follows:
Gos. Eb. Luke Matthew/Mark
h[llaxan to; rJhtovn, . .
kai; ejpoivhsan tou;~
maqhta;~ me;n levgonta~
“pou` qevlei~ eJtoimav- pou` qevlei~ eJtoimav- pou` qevlei~ eJtoimav-

20 ‘But they claim that [Jesus] was not begotten from God the Father, but rather that he was cre-
ated as one of the archangels, although greater than them. He rules over both angels and all
things made by the Almighty, and he came and instructed, as their so-called Gospel relates,
“I came to abolish the sacrifices, and unless you cease from sacrificing, the wrath [of God]
will not cease from you.”’
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 581

swmevn soi to; Pavsca
fagei`n,” kai; aujton;
dh`qen levgonta “mh
ejpiqumiva/ ejpequvmhsa
kreva~ tou`to to; Pavsca
fagei`n meq∆ uJmw`n.”
(Pan. 30.22.4)21
swmen; (22.9) swmevn soi fagei`n to;
Pavsca; (Matt 26.17)
ejpiqumiva/ ejpequvmhsa
tou`to to; Pavsca
fagei`n meq∆ uJmw`n
(22.15)

The question where the disciples should celebrate the Passover meal is practically
verbatim with Matthew, although it is not substantially different from the paral-
lels in Mark 14.12 and Luke 22.9. The statement about ‘earnestly desiring [to eat]
this Passover with you’ is uniquely Lucan, however, occurring only in the Third
Evangelist’s rendering of the words of institution at the Last Supper in Luke 22.15.
The reference to ‘earnestly desiring (∆Epiqumiva/ ejpequvmhsa)’ is a literal rendering
in Greek of the Hebrew infinitive absolute, yTip]sæk]nI πsok]nI (e.g. Gen 31.30), and as
such a classic semitism.22 This particular construction is nearly incontrovertible
evidence that an original Hebrew expression lay behind Luke’s literal Greek ren-
dering.23
This passage concludes and typifies Epiphanius’s references to the ‘Hebrew
Gospel’ of the Ebionites. As the foregoing analysis reveals, the Gospel of the
Ebionites is not a general harmony of the Synoptic Gospels.24 It most certainly is
not a default reproduction of Matthew, as Throckmorton believes, nor does it
favour Matthew, as commonly supposed. A tally of the foregoing evidence, div-
ided between passages in the Gospel of the Ebionites that are either clearly or pos-
sibly related to the various Synoptic Gospels, reveals the following synopsis:
Clearly Possibly
Luke 13 14
Matthew 6 5
Mark 3 3

It is apparent that the Epiphanius citations show clear and repeated preferences
for material unique to Luke. A number of the Epiphanius citations are, to be sure,
21 ‘[The Ebionites] changed the saying . . . and made the disciples to say, “Where do you wish
for us to prepare the Passover feast for you?” And look what they make the Lord say, “I have
not desired to eat meat in this Passover with you.”’
22 Elsewhere in Lucan writings, Acts 4.17 (y); 5.28; 23.14.
23 The custom of emphasizing the finite verb by the addition of its infinitive is frequent and
characteristic of Hebrew but rare in Aramaic. See G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1909) 34–5; J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930) 2.443; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1960) 178.
24 A judgment that Bertrand, ‘L’Evangile des Ebionites’, assumes more than argues.
582  . 

common to Matthew or Mark, or to both of them. Of that number, a passage is

twice as likely to show a preference for Matthew over Mark. But even when
Matthew and Mark are combined, their number is less than half the total number
of references to the Synoptics in the Epiphanius citations. The remaining majority
of citations are related to Luke, either clearly or possibly; and in most instances
the citations are not merely a preference for Lucan texts over similar texts in
Matthew or Mark, but texts unique to Luke that are not parallelled in Matthew or
Mark. The Epiphanius quotations thus show a disproportionate preference for
material unique to Luke; or stated differently, material unique to Luke is more
prominent in the Epiphanius citations than is material common to Matthew or
Mark. Finally, as noted earlier, there is no evidence of material in the Epiphanius
quotations that is common to John.

The possible relation of the Gospel of the Ebionites to Luke

The pronounced correlation between Epiphanius’s quotations from the

‘Hebrew Gospel’ of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke does not, of course,
demonstrate that one text influenced the other. Even if there is influence, as most
scholars assume, the correlation does not indicate which document influenced
the other. To date scholars have assumed almost without exception that the
Epiphanius quotations derive from the prior Synoptic tradition. The unusual cor-
respondence between Luke and the Gospel of the Ebionites warrants a reconsider-
ation of that assumption, however. Epiphanius certainly does not say that the
source he quotes is derived from the Synoptic tradition. His clear implication,
rather, is that the ‘Hebrew Gospel’ is an independent and presumably prior tra-
dition to the canonical Gospels. Epiphanius, like many church fathers, and indeed
like most ancients in general, believed that an important criterion of orthodoxy
was antiquity. What was older and had stood the test of time had greater claim to
truth than did innovation, which was often suspected of falsification. This
assumption appears to be evidenced in Panarion 30.13.2, where it is not the
Hebrew Gospel itself but an incomplete, falsified, and distorted version of it that
is disparaged by Epiphanius (oujc o{lw/ de; plhrestavtw/, ajlla; nenoqeumevnw/ kai;
hjkrwthriasmevnw/)25
Moreover, in six separate instances in Against the Ebionites Epiphanius refers
to the ‘Hebrew Gospel’ as deriving from Matthew.26 Given the fact that the

25 Further, ‘[The Ebionites] also accept the Gospel of Matthew, and they, like the Cerinthians
and Merinthians, use it alone. They properly call it According to the Hebrew, because
Matthew alone made an exposition of the gospel and proclamation (khvrugma) of the new
covenant in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew letters’ (Pan. 30.3.7). This favourable
description of Hebrew Matthew is especially noteworthy given its use by the Cerinthians and
Merinthians, whom Epiphanius regarded as heretics.
26 Pan. 30.3.7; 30.6.9; 30.13.1; 30.13.2; 30.14.2; 30.14.3.
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 583

material he cites is disproportionately Lucan, it is curious that he repeatedly cites

its origin as Matthean. In no instance does Epiphanius ascribe the ‘Hebrew
Gospel’ to any source other than Matthew; and in no instance does he ascribe the
material to the Gospel of Luke or even mention Luke. Some scholars attribute this
discrepancy to a simple blunder.27 A confusion of Matthew and Luke on
Epiphanius’s part cannot be categorically eliminated, of course, but the likelihood
of his having done so on a half-dozen occasions is highly improbable. In this par-
ticular instance Morton Enslin’s blanket dismissiveness of Epiphanius seems
unjustified, for throughout Panarion 30 Epiphanius repeatedly quotes Scripture
carefully and accurately in refutation of the Ebionites’ various claims. To be sure,
Epiphanius is polemical and sarcastic toward the Ebionites, but he is not egre-
giously erroneous. His factual descriptions of the Ebionites agree throughout with
what we know from other ancient sources, particularly Irenaeus.28 Historical ref-
erences in Against the Ebionites also agree with Irenaeus.29 Such evidence should
predispose us to a better explanation than that Epiphanius was simply in error –
and repeatedly so – in referring to material that is predominantly Lucan as deriv-
ing from Matthew.
If Epiphanius was not mistaken, how might his correlating predominantly
Lucan texts with a Matthean source be explained? A plausible resolution can be
suggested along the following lines. The Gospel of the Ebionites that Epiphanius
debunks in the Panarion is a falsification and distortion (nenoqeumevnw/ kai;
hjkrwthriasmevnw/, 30.13.2) of an original Matthew that was issued in Hebrew
(‘Ebrai>sti; kai; ‘Ebrai>koi`~ gravmmasin, 30.3.7). We cannot say how well
Epiphanius knew Hebrew, but he certainly could recognize it, for in Panarion
30.31.1 he correctly cites the Hebrew word ymlg  Golmhv of Ps 139.16 (see also Pan.
30.6.7). Although Epiphanius refers to this Gospel as the ‘Hebrew Gospel’ (e.g.
30.13.2), and twice says that it was originally written in Hebrew (30.3.7; 30.6.9), it is
clear from his testimony as well as from the foregoing synopsis that the document
from which he quotes is a Greek document.30 An explanation of the relationship
of Hebrew Matthew to Greek canonical Luke is possible in more than one way, but

27 E.g., Morton S. Enslin says that ‘Epiphanius . . . vies with Jerome for the distinction of being
the least to be trusted of the ancient fathers in such matters’ (‘Ebionites, Gospel of the’, IDB
2.5).
28 See A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (NovTSupp, 36;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973) 19–43.
29 E.g, both Epiphanius (Pan. 30.24.6) and Irenaeus (A.H. 3.3.4), followed by Eusebius, H.E.
3.28.6, attest that John the Apostle lived until the time of Trajan; and both relate the story of
John the Apostle’s fleeing from heresy in the bath house in Ephesus (Pan. 30.24.1–5; A.H.
3.3.4), with the exception that in the latter story the heretic is identified by Irenaeus as
Cerinthus, and by Epiphanius as Ebion.
30 In Pan. 30.22.5 Epiphanius accuses the Ebionites of falsifying a dominical saying by adding
to; mu` kai; to; h\tav thus revealing that he is referring to a Greek rather than to a Hebrew text.
584  . 

Original Hebrew Gospel

(authored by Matthew?)

Greek translation
of Hebrew Gospel

Corrupted Gospel Canonical Gospel

of the Ebionites of Luke

the simplest and most plausible explanation in light of the evidence consists in
supposing that Luke utilized a Greek translation of an early Hebrew Gospel as one
of the sources to which he refers in his prologue (Luke 1.1–4). The proposal might
be illustrated thus:
The above diagram is not intended to convey that a Greek translation of an
original Hebrew Gospel was the sole or even main source of canonical Luke, but
rather that such a source was conceivably one of the sources to which Luke refers
in his prologue. The above proposal further satisfies the major problems that arise
from a comparison of the Gospel of the Ebionites as cited by Epiphanius and the
Gospel of Luke. First and foremost, it explains why the text cited by Epiphanius
inclines to correspond to the Greek text of Luke, for the Gospel of the Ebionites
quoted by Epiphanius would be a corruption of the same Greek translation of the
original Hebrew Gospel that Luke used as a source in his Gospel. This Greek trans-
lation cannot have been canonical Greek Matthew, for Epiphanius expressly says
that Matthew alone wrote in Hebrew, not in Greek (Pan. 30.3.7), and that
Matthew’s Gospel was conceived in Hebrew (to; kata; Matqai`on eujaggevlion
‘Ebrai>ko;n fuvsei o[n, 30.6.9). Moreover, Epiphanius makes the intriguing com-
ment in Panarion 30.6.9 that the canonical Greek Gospel of John was in fact trans-
lated into Hebrew, but in the several references to the Hebrew Gospel in the
Panarion it is never said to be a translation from a Greek original.31 The proposal

31 It is beyond the scope of this study to investigate the relationship of the Hebrew Gospel
ascribed to Matthew in Pan. 30 with canonical Greek Matthew, but it is not impossible to
imagine that the latter, like Josephus’s Jewish War, was a translation into Greek of an original
composed in the vernacular (Josephus, War 1.3; Eusebius, H.E. 3.9.3; 3.24.6). One should cor-
respondingly imagine, also in correlation with Josephus’s precedent, that canonical Greek
Matthew would be an expansion of the original. See G. H. R. Horsley, ‘The Fiction of “Jewish
Greek”’, in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5 (Macquarie University: Ancient
History Documentary Research Center, 1989) 33.
 The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke 585

further explains why Epiphanius refers to his original source as Matthew rather
than Luke, for the text he quotes must be a Greek translation of an original
Hebrew source, which he in common with the early church credited to Matthew.
Finally, the proposal explains why the Ebionites believed that Jesus was the
human son of Joseph who was subsequently adopted as Son of God,32 for only in
Luke is Jesus called the supposed son of Joseph (Luke 3.23). Moreover, the
Western text of Luke 3.22 (which, according to Epiphanius, was cited in the
Hebrew Gospel of the Ebionites) is more suggestive of adoptionism than is any
other baptismal narrative.
The above proposal also helps to explain several features that are unique to
the Gospel of Luke. The most important of these is the presence of an unusually
large number of semitisms in Luke.33 The most conceivable explanation for these
semitisms, which have long puzzled NT scholars, is that one of the sources uti-
lized by Luke in the composition of his Gospel (1.2) was an original Hebrew source
(or a Greek translation of it). It should be noted in this regard that Luke’s semi-
tisms are probably not simply imitations of the LXX, for many of his semitic con-
structions do not appear in the LXX. They seem better to be accounted for, at least
in instances such as Luke 22.15, as literal translations of a Hebrew original.34 One
further suggestion that may help to account for Luke’s semitisms comes from
Epiphanius himself, who elsewhere in the Panarion (51.11.6) mentions that Luke
was one of the 70 disciples sent out by Jesus in Luke 10, and hence presumably a
Jew rather than a Gentile, as generally supposed.35 Although we may not be able
to determine with any degree of certainty the provenance of the Third Gospel,

32 Pan. 30.2.2; 30.14.4; 30.16.3–4; 30.17.1; 30.18.6; 30.29.1.

33 On semitic influence in the NT in general, see Moulton and Howard, Grammar of New
Testament Greek, 2.413–85; Moule, Idiom-Book, 171–91; BDF, 3–4; 273. On semitic influence
especially on Luke, see W. H. Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek New Testament
(Cambridge: Deighton, Bella and Co., 1879) 12–24; H. J. Cadbury, ‘Luke – Translator or
Author’, AJT 24 (1920) 436–55; M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Luc (2nd edn, Paris:
Gabalda, 1921) xcvii–cx; J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan,
1930) lxxvi–lxxxiv; R. H. Connolly, ‘Syriacisms in St Luke’, JTS 37 (1936) 374–85; C. C. Torrey,
Our Translated Gospels. Some of the Evidence (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937); H. F. D.
Sparks, ‘The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel’, JTS 44 (1943) 129–38; E. Schweizer, ‘Eine
hebraisierende Sonderquelle des Lukas?’, TZ 6 (1950) 161–85; A. Plummer, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke (5th edn; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1956) xlviii–lxvii; K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (SUNT; Göttingen, 1961);
J. A. Fitzmyer, SJ, The Gospel According to Luke (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1981) 1.116–27;
M. Wilcox, ‘Semitisms in the New Testament’, ANRW 2.25.2 (Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter, 1984) 1019–21.
34 See W. G. Most, ‘Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?’, JSNT 15 (1982) 30–41.
35 On the possibility of Luke being a Jewish writer, see J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 50ff.; M. Parsons, ‘Who Wrote Luke?’, BR 17 (2001)
12ff.; and A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978) 435–8.
586  . 

there was a long-standing tradition in the early church that associated it with
Syrian Antioch.36 If, as Deissmann noted nearly a century ago, semitic inscriptions
have been found in unusual numbers in the province of Syria,37 we should not be
too surprised (if Luke composed the Third Gospel in Syria) to see semitic influ-
ences in it.
The evidence adduced in this study suggests that in the composition of the
Third Gospel Luke utilized a Hebrew source, the remains of which are related to
Epiphanius’s Gospel of the Ebionites. The evidence also invites a renewed investi-
gation into the possible relationship of the Gospel of Luke to the Hebrew Gospel
mentioned by the fathers.38

36 So the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Eusebius, H.E. 3.4.6, and Jerome, De viris illustribus, 7. The
Western text of Acts 11.28 could conceivably also place Luke in Antioch.
37 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 11.
38 The preparation of this article was aided by a Pew-Gordon Summer Study Grant (1998), by
the research assistance of Shane Berg, and by the helpful comments of Ronald V. Huggins.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.