Q, M, L and other sources for the Historical Jesus
This article was originally published in the Princeton Theological Review, October 1997.
I. Critique of Crossan
In The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan established a methodology for arriving at some degree of certainty regarding our knowledge of the historical Jesus. He did this by identifying what he considered to be the earliest sources for Jesus’ life, classifying them by “strata” or date range, and comparing accounts which were multiply and independently attested. The greater the attestation and the earlier the strata, the greater the probability that we have uncovered facts about the historical Jesus. While in theory, Crossan’s methodology has much to commend it, in practice his study was seriously flawed in several ways.
A. Use of Questionable sources
First, it has been argued that Crossan relies much too heavily on sources not widely accepted by the scholarly community as qualifying for his “first strata”. Sources such as the Cross Gospel, the miracles collections, and the apocalyptic scenario have been questioned because they are merely literary reconstructions of otherwise unknown documents which have been excised from other sources. These literary reconstructions are not as widely recognized in the scholarly world as “Q”, for example.
The dates of some of Crossan’s first strata sources have also been challenged. For example, the earliest Greek fragment of the Gospel of Thomas is dated to about 200 AD. Many would argue that the date of the original is still too much in doubt to be considered as a first strata source for uncovering the historical Jesus. The Egerton Gospel, another of Crossan’s first strata sources, contains only 87 lines from a second or third century codex. Although some have argued that the Egerton Gospel reflects very early independent oral tradition, others maintain that it is dependent on the four canonical gospels, which would make it too late to qualify as a first strata source. The Cross Gospel is an account of Jesus’ crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection embedded in the Gospel of Peter, which can be dated not later than 200 AD. How much before 200 AD the Gospel of Peter was written is not certain. Crossan argued that the “Cross Gospel” was written in the middle of the first century and was the basis for the passion accounts in the canonical gospels. In his refutation of Crossan, Koester argued for the independence of the Cross Gospel and canonical Gospel traditions. The date is still uncertain even among post-Bultmanians.
While a few of these sources may provide independent attestation for some of Jesus’ sayings and actions, the only first strata sources listed by Crossan which are sufficiently agreed upon in the scholarly world to provide a solid first strata basis for the historical Jesus are “Q” and the four letters of Paul which Crossan considers genuine. Building a foundation on the other questionable sources tends to undermine the entire structure of Crossan’s reconstruction of Jesus.
B. Selective use of sources
Crossan also seems to be selective in his use of sources. First, even though he classifies four of Paul’s letters as first strata sources, they played very little part in his reconstruction of Jesus. For example, Crossan portrays Jesus as a non-eschatological Cynic, in spite of clear Pauline statements which depict Jesus as the eschatological Jewish Messiah. Crossan takes a considerable amount of space trying to explain away the data rather than allowing Paul the consideration his statements deserve.
Second, while Crossan takes for granted Streeter’s theory of the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q”, he does not even discuss the role of “M” and “L” which were also postulated by Streeter. While it is widely accepted that Matthew and Luke have added “seams”, or connecting links, between pericopae, it seems highly unlikely that they have simply created large sections of material ex nihilo. Such creations are especially out of character for Luke and are not likely to have been widely accepted by Christians whose lives were often at stake. Therefore, if we are to take “Q” seriously, it would seem that we should also take “M” and “L” seriously as well.
C. Arbitrary Exclusion of Sources
Crossan’s choice of 60 AD as the terminus for the first strata appears to be arbitrary at best, and possibly ideologically motivated. As Boyd points out, Crossan has conveniently excluded any of the Gospel of Mark from first strata consideration:
Most significantly, Crossan, without explanation, draws the parameters of his ‘first’ and primary strata—the contents of which alone are allowed as material for his reconstruction—as being AD 30-60. What is strange about this is that we have no extant literary output from AD 30 to 50 by anyone’s count. Hence, the decade of the fifties is made by Crossan to function as a sort of magical ten-year period which alone speaks for the historical Jesus.”
A better terminus might have been the turn of the century which is only 70 years removed from the time of Jesus’ death. Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, for example, all wrote about events more than seventy years after the fact, and they are not therefore excluded from historical consideration on that basis.
The next logical first strata terminus would seem to be 70 AD, since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a watershed in ancient Jewish history and is the primary criteria on which the gospels and Acts are dated. Those who were in their twenties during the time of Jesus’ ministry, would only be in their sixties during the Jewish War so many of those who had seen and heard Jesus would still have been alive when the fall of Jerusalem occurred. Although many in the first century undoubtedly died young, a life span beyond sixty years of age was not uncommon. It also seems certain that some, if not many, of the apostles lived on past 60 AD (e.g. Paul, Peter, James, John) so to cut off the first strata even before their deaths seems unwarranted, to say the least.
II. Revised methodology
While reading Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, I began to wonder what would happen if the deficiencies discussed above were removed. What would the result be if 70 AD were the first strata cutoff date rather than 60 AD, if the questionable sources were removed from consideration, and if Mark, “M”, “L”, and Paul were given their proper weight? Robert Stein once wrote:
“We must still ask how our knowledge of the relationship between the synoptic
Gospels assists us in historical criticism. One way is by means of the
“Criterion of Multiple Attestation.” Essentially this criterion works as
follows: Assuming that the Markan, the Q, and the unique Matthean (M),
Lukan (L), and Johannine material come from different sources, if a teaching or
activity of Jesus is witnessed to in a number of these sources rather than just
one (e.g., John or M), the probability of its historicity or authenticity is
Stein has argued in various places for the authenticity of certain actions or sayings of Jesus based on multiple attestation using “M” and “L”, but I am unaware of anyone who has used “M” and “L” in an attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus. So taking my cue from Stein and Streeter (below), I set out, as an experiment, to refine Crossan’s methodology.
A. First Strata Sources: A More Solid Foundation
Streeter’s Four-Source theory has been assumed for this experiment because, although it has been under serious attack lately, it still appears to be the scholarly consensus on the solution to the synoptic problem. Since “Q” is generally dated prior to 70 AD, I have followed Crossan in assigning it to the first strata. Some scholars follow Kloppenborg’s proposal to the effect that “Q” went through two revisions and would date the third revision (3Q) after 70 AD. I have argued elsewhere, however, against this theory and since I don’t believe it is widely accepted, I am still assuming that all of “Q” was written prior to 70 AD. In following Streeter I have also, contra. Crossan, included “M” and “L” in my reconstruction. While scholars generally agree that “Q” was a written source, this is not necessarily the case for “M” or “L”. Both may have consisted of multiple sources, written and oral, but their original form is irrelevant for the purposes of this study. Streeter dates “M” and “L” to 60 AD so they also qualify for my first strata.
Ultimately, my source for “M” and “L” was Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. My results were compared with Streeter’s lists of unique material in Matthew and Luke, and nothing which was omitted by Streeter was allowed to stand in my highly abbreviated version of “M” and “L”. I have also omitted all places listed by Streeter where “M” and “L” supposedly overlap with Mark or “Q”. I have further omitted many passages listed by Streeter that could likely be explained away as being “seams”, or editorial insertions on the part of the evangelists. Therefore my version of “M” and “L” is much smaller than the unique material identified by Streeter. If Streeter’s entire list were included, my reconstruction of the historical Jesus would be considerably enlarged and strengthened.
My source for “Q” is Kloppenborg whom I have simply adopted uncritically since he seems to be in the forefront of “Q” studies. I have followed Kloppenborg and Mack in identifying three layers to “Q” in the footnotes for reference purposes, though, as mentioned above, I find the arguments for the stratification of “Q” to be unconvincing.
Since “most scholars date Mark to the years 64-70”,  I have placed it in my first strata, contra. Crossan. In addition to “Q”, “M”, “L”, and Mark, I have also included the letters of Paul which Crossan included in his first strata: First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, and Romans. Although Crossan omits Second Corinthians and Philippians from consideration, I have included them in my first strata on the authority of Koester, Kummel, Bornkamm, Mack, and other critical scholars who accept these epistles as genuine.
B. First Strata Terminus
Although, as mentioned above, I see no reason that the terminus for the first strata
couldn’t be 100 AD, I have chosen to make 70 AD terminus for this experiment just to give skeptics the benefit of the doubt. This places “Q”, “M”, “L”, Mark, First Thessalonians, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians in the first strata. Although I consider the Pastoral epistles, the epistles of Peter, the synoptic gospels and the Book of Acts to have been written prior to 70 AD, they have not been included as first strata sources due to lack of scholarly consensus.
C. Multiple attestation
For the purpose of this experiment, multiple independent attestation has been used as the primary criteria. The comparisons, however, have not been limited to specific events, sayings, or pericopae, but rather to general characteristics. For example, if one source reported that Jesus taught in the synagogue, and another reported that he taught in the Temple, while still another reported that he taught by the Sea of Galilee, this would not be multiple attestation for his teaching by the Sea of Galilee, but it would be multiple attestation to the fact that he was a teacher. A more modern example might be that of a man standing trial for assaulting his neighbor. The first witness testifies that he saw the accused beat his wife. The second testifies that he saw the accused hit his bartender. The third testifies that he saw the accused beat his next door neighbor. While this may not be enough evidence to convict on the specific assault charge before the court, it would most likely be sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the man was at least occasionally given to violence. Similarly, there may or may not be multiple attestation to a particular miracle of Jesus, but there is significant multiple attestation to his reputation as a miracle worker.
III. A minimum reconstruction of the Historical Jesus
In the following reconstruction, the verses in the footnotes identified as “Q” always correspond to Luke rather than Matthew, (e.g. Q 6:21 = Luke 6:21). The verses identified by “M” always correspond to Matthew (e.g. M 1:21 = Matthew 1:21). Likewise, those identified by L correspond to Luke (e.g. L 1:21 = Luke 1:21). The footnotes have been cited this way to make it clear that the citation would be part of that body of material which is part of the “Q”, “M”, or “L” sources, and not just part of the material common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All verses from the Gospel of Thomas are cited from Robinson’s Nag Hammadi Library. Early church fathers are cited by book and chapter from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. References in the first strata are cited in bold. Other possibly independent collaborating evidence is listed in regular print for reference purposes. It is important to note that the references are simply representative and not exhaustive.
B. The Historical Jesus
Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. His father was named Joseph, his mother was named Mary, and both were descendants of David. Mary was believed by Jesus’ followers to have been a virgin at the time of the conception and birth. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but eventually returned to Nazareth with his parents and was raised there.
Jesus’ ministry took place when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was ruler of Galilee. Just prior to his ministry, Jesus spent forty days fasting in the Judean wilderness, after which he eventually gathered twelve primary disciples and traveled from town to town preaching and teaching in the synagogues and in the temple. He became known as a prophet and his reputation as a miracle worker, healer, and exorcist is widely attested.
Jesus’ teaching was often, though not always, in parables. Much of his teaching was standard material from the Law and Prophets: to beware of riches and greed, to give to the poor, to be humble, and to pray. He taught the importance of repentance, forgiveness, and bearing spiritual fruit. He also taught the reality of a final judgment and hell, and saw his mission, at least in part, as calling people to repentance. Jesus even thought of his death as being for the benefit of others. In fact, his teachings imply that he thought of himself as the long awaited Messiah who was sent to save the lost.
This, however, was not the kind of teaching which would get a man crucified in first century Palestine. What probably got Jesus into trouble were his teachings which would have been considered seditious or blasphemous. For example, he taught that the Jerusalem temple would one day be destroyed. Further, he not only claimed that he personally could grant forgiveness of sins but that he would one day “return” to separate his people from the rest and execute judgment on the nations, something presumably only Yahweh could do. He taught that those who would be his followers must be devoted to him above all else, which, to the Jewish mind, would probably have been a clear violation of the first commandment. He also seemed to have taught that people’s eternal destiny would depend on their relation to him. It is therefore not at all surprising that Jesus encountered severe opposition from the religious leadership, who were not only furious at his “blasphemy”, but also specifically incensed about his healing on the Sabbath. Jesus’ verbal responses were occasionally quite severe.
In spite of mounting opposition, Jesus attended the Passover in Jerusalem and had a special meal with his disciples. While in Jerusalem he was betrayed by a follower named Judas, was tried before Pontius Pilate, and executed by crucifixion. His tomb was subsequently found empty by some women and Jesus was widely reported to have appeared alive to numerous people after this death. Belief in Jesus’ resurrection is very widely attested at all levels. There is even a multiply attested tradition that he ascended into heaven, though only one of these references is in the first strata.
IV. Conclusion/ Significance
It is important to note several closing observations: First, some might quickly dismiss the results of this experiment by pointing out that, while showing the traditions to be early, it does not address the claim that the traditions might still be a result of the reflection of various early Jesus communities on the Law and Prophets as applied to Jesus and adapted to their own sitz im leban. Unfortunately, all we have to go on are the writings of Jesus’ followers but Streeter’s observations are very relevant on this issue:
“Whenever, however, we find a saying or parable occurring in two different
versions—whether it be in Q and Mark, Q and M, Q and L, M and L, or M and
Mark—we have evidence that the saying in question has come down by two different
lines of tradition, which probably bifurcated at a date earlier even than that
at which Q was written down” 
Since Streeter dates “Q” to the 50’s, this would mean that in his estimation, multiply attested traditions would date about twenty years or less from the time of Jesus’ death. It is very hard to imagine how an ordinary “run of the mill” Cynic sage would have been transformed into the Christ of faith who did miracles, forgave sins, commanded absolute devotion, died as an atoning sacrifice, raised from the dead, and promised to come again as the world’s judge, in only twenty or thirty years; unless there was some reason in Jesus ministry or teachings that gave rise to these beliefs!
It must be remembered that there were numerous would-be messiah’s and hundreds of people who got themselves crucified in the first century, but none of them were ever elevated to the status Jesus held after their deaths. So, in other words, even if the historian does not believe that Jesus actually was the Jewish Messiah, did miracles, or rose from the dead, there is every reason to believe that the reconstruction of the historical Jesus presented above at least goes back to the immediate followers of Jesus if not to Jesus himself, and are not simply the creations of various independent Jesus communities.
Second, the overview of Jesus’ life presented in this paper is very minimal and assumes an unrealistic degree of skepticism. If all of “M” and “L” were included, if all multiply attested first century sources were included, or if particular multiply attested events or sayings were included, the sketch of Jesus’ life would be considerably expanded.
Third, it must be recognized that truth is not confined to that which is multiply attested. People who have shown themselves to be generally honest and reliable deserve to be taken seriously even when there is no collaborating evidence. Studies by Ramsey, Sherwin-White, Colin Hemer, and others have confirmed the high reliability of the writer of Luke/Acts. Since historians often accept as historical, information obtained from sources written hundreds of years after the fact (often not doubly attested, e.g. Livy, Plutarch, Arrianus), Luke, who writes only thirty to ninety years after Jesus’ time, deserves to be given more of the benefit of the doubt than he has been given by critical scholarship.
Finally, this study has shown that even when a high degree of skepticism is applied to the selection of first strata sources, the criterion of multiple attestation can demonstrate that the essential outline of the gospel story must come from the very earliest followers of Jesus if not from Jesus himself. The picture of Jesus which emerges from such a minimal study is substantially closer to the gospel accounts than the reconstructions offered by Crossan and numerous others in the third quest for the historical Jesus.
 This chapter was originally published as, “Q, M, L and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus”. The Princeton Theological Review. 4:5 (October, 1997) 17-22.
 John Dominic Crossan. The Historical Jesus. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991).
 Gregory Boyd. Cynic Sage or Son of God. (Wheaton: Bridgepoint, 1995) 79-80.
 Marvin, Meyer. Ed., The Gospel of Thomas (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 10.
 Crossan. "Historical" 428.
 Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International), 213-215.
 Ibid. 217-220.
 Gregory Boyd. Cynic. 80.
 E.G. 1 Cor.4:5, 15:23-28, 1 Thess. 4:16-17.
 Crossan. Historical. 238-249.
 Burnett Hillman Streeter. The Four Gospels. (London: Macmillan, 1924) 234ff. C.F. K. Giles. "The
L Tradition" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed. by Joel B. Green et al. (Downer's Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1992) 432.
 Boyd. Cynic. 80-81.
 For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Epictetus, and Josephus all appear to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Some lived considerably longer than sixty, for example Juvenal and Epictetus both lived to be about 80.
 Robert Stien. The Synoptic Problem. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 142.
 C.F. Allan McNicol. Beyond the Impasse--Luke's Use of Matthew. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996). William Farmer. The Synoptic Problem. (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976). Eta Linnemann. Is There a Synoptic Problem. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). John Wenham. Redating Matthew Mark & Luke. (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992).
 Burton Mack. Who Wrote the New Testament? (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995), 311.
 Dennis Ingolfsland. "A Review of 'Who Wrote the New Testament". Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1997) 5- 9.
 Streeter. Four Gospels, 198.
 All of the following passages are identified by Streeter as being peculiar to Matthew. Only those in bold were used in this study: "M"= Matthew 1:1-2:21, 22-23; 4:13-16; 23-25; 5:1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13a, 14, 16-17, 19-24, 27-28, 31-32, 33-37, 38-39a, 41, 43; 6:1-6, 7-8, 10b, 13b, 16-18, 34; 7:6, 12b, 15, 19-20, 28a; 8:1, 5a, 17; 9:13a, 26-36; 10:2a, 5b-8, 23, 25b, 36, 41; 11:1; 14, 20, 23b, 28-30; 12:5- 7, 11-12a, 17-23, 36-37, 40; 13:14-15, 18, 24-30; 35, 36-52, 53; 14:28-31, 33; 15:12-13, 23-25, 30- 31; 16:2b-3, 11b-12, 17-19, 22b; 17:6-7, 13, 24-27; 18: 3-4, 10, 14, 16-20, 23-35; 19:1a, 9-12, 28a; 20:1-16; 21:4-5, 10-11, 14, 15b-16, 28-32, 43; 22:1-14, 33-34, 40; 23:1-3, 5, 7b-10, 15-22, 24, 28, 32-33; 24:10-12, 20, 30a; 25:1-13, 31-46; 26:1, 44, 50, 52-54; 27:3-10, 19, 24-25, 36, 43, 51b- 53, 62-66; 28:2-4, 9-10, 11-15, 16-20.
 All of these passages are identified by Streeter as being peculiar to Luke (Streeter, 198). Only those in
bold were used in this study: 1:1-3:2, 5-6, 10-13, 14, 23-28; 4:13, 15; 5:39; 6:24-26, 34; 7:3-5a, 11-17,
21, 29-30, 40-50; 10:29-42; 8:1-3; 9:31-32, 43, 51-56, 61-62; 10:1, 16, 17-20, 29-42; 11:1, 5-8; 12,
16, 27-28, 36-38, 40-41, 45, 53-54, 12:13-21, 32-33a, 35-38; 13:1-17, 22-23, 25-27, 31-33; 14:1-14,
15-24; 28-33; 15:1-2, 7-32; 16:1-15, 19-31; 17-7-19, 20-22, 25-29, 32; 18:1-8, 9-13a, 34; 19:-10, 11-
27, 39-40, 41-44; 20:34-35a, 36b, 38b; 21:19-20, 22, 24, 26a, 28, 34-36, 37-38; 22:15-18, 28-30a, 31-
32, 35-38, 43-44, 48-49, 51, 53b, 61a, 68, 70; 23:2; 4-5, 6-12, 13-19, 27-32, 34a, 36, 39-43, 46b, 48,
51a, 53b-54, 56b; 24:10-53.
 John S. Kloppenborg. The Formation of Q. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 74-76. Q=Luke 3:7- 9, 6-17; 4:1-13; 6:20b-23, 27-49; 7:1-10; 18-23, 24-35; 9:57-60; 10:2-16, 21-24; 11:2-4, 9-15, 17-26, 29-36, 39-52; 12:2-12, 22-32, 33-34, 39-40, 42-46, 49, 51-53, 57-59; 13:18-19, 20-21, 24- 30, 34-35; 14:16-27, 34-35; 15:3-7; 16:13, 16, 17, 18; 17:1-6, 23-24, 26-30, 33-36; 19:12-27; 22:28-30.
 Ibid., 102-262.
 Burton Mack. The Lost Gospel; The Book of Q and Christian Origins. (San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1993) 81-102.
 Cf. Werner Kummel. Introduction to the New Testament. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 71.
 Koester. "Ancient" 126-130, 132.
 Introduction, 211, 235.
 Gunther Bornkamm. The New Testament; A Guide to its Writings. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
 Who Wrote. 127, 144.
 James M. Robinson, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. (San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1990).
 Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995).
 L 1:5ff; M 2:1, 12.
 L 1:27; M 1:18, 24, 2:13; Jn 1:15, 6:42.
 Mk 6:3; L 1:27; M 1:18; Acts 1:14; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Ephesians, 7, 18.
 L 1:27-35; 3:23-24; M 1:1; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8-9, Ignatius to Ephesians, 20; Ignatius to Trallians,
9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1; cf Jn. 1:1-13, 15; 8:41.
 L 1:27- 35; M 1:18- 24; Phil 2:5-11; cf. Gal 4:4; cf. 1 Tim 3:16, Ignatius to Ephesians 7, 18, 19; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1; cf. Jn 1:1-3, 15; 8:41.
 L 2:4; M2:1, 5, 8; Heb 7: 14.
 L 2:39- 51; M 1:2-23; cf. Mk 1:9.
 L 3:1; Mk 15:1-4; Peter (Acts 3:15); 1 Tim 6:13; Jn 19:1-4; Tacitus; Jospehus; Ignatius to
Magnesians 11; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 1.
 L 3:1; L 13:31-33; Mk 6:14-21; Acts 4:27; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1.
 Q4:1-13; Mk 1:13.
 M 11:1, 28:16; Mk 3:13-19; Mk 6:7; Jn 6:67-71.
 Mk 1:39; L17:11-12, 19:1, 41; Jn 4;3, 4:43, 46, 5;1, 6;1, 7:1, 10:40, et al.
 L 13:10; Mk 1:21; Jn 6:59, 10:25-30.
 L 21:37-38; Mk 12:35; Jn 7:14.
 L 24:19; Mk 6:4, 15; Jn 4:44, 6:14, 67:40, 52; Gos Thos 31.
 L 13:10-13; L 17:12-19; M 17:24-27; Q 7:1-10, 18-20, 11:14-23; Mk 1:29-34; 5:1-43; 7:31-37 et
al. Peter (Acts 2:22); Josephus; Hebrews 2:3-4?; Jn 2:1-12, 4:46-54, 5:1-15 et al; Papyrus Egerton.
 L 12:16; 13:6-9; L 13:17; L 18:1; M 13:24; 1Q 13:20-21 (cf. Mt 13:13); Mk 4:1-33; Mk 12:1- 11.
 Mk 10:23-24; L12:13-15; L 16:14-15, 19-31; Q 12:13-31.
 M 6:2, 3; 2Q 6:30; 2Q 12:33-34.
 L 14:7-11; Q 18:14; Mk 9:33-35, 10:43-45; Clement to the Corinthians 30.
 L18:1-7; M6:5-6; 1Q11:1-4, 9-13; Didache 8.
 L 13:1-5l; L 15:8-10; L 19:1-10; Mk 6:7-12; Q 15:4-10.
 M 18:23-35; Mk 11:25-26; 2Q 17:3-4; Clement to Corinthians 13; Polycarp, 2.
 L 13:6-9; Q 6:43-45; Gos Thos. 45.
 M 13:24-30, 40-43, 49-50; M 25:46; 2Q 10:12-15; 2/3Q 12:4-7; Mk 9:42-48.
 Mk 1:14-15; Mk 2:17; L 13:1-5; L 15:8-32; L 16:19-31; L 24:44-47; Q 10:12-15; Q 11:32.
 Mk 10:45; Mk 14:22-25; L 24:44-47; 1 Cor 11:23-25; cf. 1 Cor 15:17; Jn 6:51-58; cf. Polycarp 7; cf. Clement to Corinthians, 21; 49; cf. Ignatius to Trallians, 2.
 Mk 8:27-30; Mk 14:61-63; L 4:15-20; 24:24-26; cf Q 7:18-23; Q 10:21-24; Jn 4:25-26. These are
passages implying that Jesus thought of himself as Israel’s messiah. Many more first strata passages
could be produced showing that his followers thought of him as the messiah.
 L 19:1-10; L 15:8-10; L 15:11-32; L 16:19-31; L 24:44-47; Mk 8:34-38; M 13:36-52; 2Q 15:4-7; Papyrus Egerton (cf. Koester, 208).
 Mk 13:1-3; L 19:41-44; Q 13:34-35; Gos Thos 71?
 Mk 2:5 , 7, 10; L 7:47-50; L 24:47; Jn 8:24.
 L 18:1-18; M 25:31; Q 12:39-40; Q 17:23-27; Mk 13:26-27; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 4:13-17; 2
Thess 2:2; Jn 14:1-3; Acts 1:11; Didache 16.
 Mk 13:27; 2Q 3:16-17; 2Q 17:23-37 M 13:24-30; M 13:36-42; M 25:31-46; 1 Thess 4:13-17; 1 Cor 15:50-54.
 M 13:24-30, 36-43; M 25:31-46; Q 3:16-17; Q 17:23-37; cf Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:11.
 1Q 9:57-62; 2Q 14:26-27; Mk 8:34-38; Mk 10:29-30; cf. Jn 12:23-26; Gos Thos. 55.
 Mk 8:34-36; 10:29-30; M 25:31-46; Jn 3:15; Jn 6:54; Jn 10:9, 28; cf Gos Thos 82.
 Mk 2:23-27, Mk 3:6, 7:3-5; Mk 14:1; L 13:14- 17; L 14:1-6; ; Jn 5:8-12, 16-18; Jn 7:1, 25; Jn 11:45-53.
 Q 11:39-52; Mk 7:3-20.
 Mk 14:53-65; 1 Cor 11:23-25; Jn 13:1-30.
 M 27:3-4; Mk 14:10; Jn 13:1-30.
 L 23:6-12; Mk 15:1-15; Jn 18:28-40; Polycarp to Philippians 8; cf. M27- 62-66.
 Mk 15:21-25; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, 8; Gal 3:1; Peter (Acts 2:23, 26); Acts 4:10; 5:30-31; Jn 19:17-18;
Josephus; Barnabas 7; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Ephesians 9, 16; Ignatius to Philadelphia’s
8; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 1; Hebrews 12:2; Polycarp 8; Gos Peter 12:50-13:57.
 L 24:22-23; cf. M 27:63-28:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Gos Pet 12:50:13:57.
 L 24:13-15; L 24:31-47; Mk 16; 1 Cor 15:4-8; Acts 1:3; Jn 20:10-21, 24-29; Jn 21:1-14.
 L 24:13-53; M27:63-64; M28:11-15; Mk 16:6; cf. Q211:29-32 as interpreted by Matthew; Gal 1:1; Rom 4:24; Rom 8:11; Rom 14:9; 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Cor 15:3-20; Acts 1:22; Peter (Acts 2:24; 3:13-15; 3:26-4:2, 10; 5:30-31); Apostles (Acts 4:33); Paul (Acts17:2-3; 26:23); Jn 20:1-9; Josephus ; Polycarp to Philippians 1; Ignatius to Ephesians 20; Ignatius to Magnesians 9, 11; Ignatius to Trallians
9; Ignatius to Philadelphia’s, 8, 9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12; Clement to Corinthians 24 and 42; Heb 12:20; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:20; Gos Peter 12:50-13:57.
 L 24:51; Mk 16:19; Peter (Acts 5:30-31), Barnabas 15; Acts 1:2, 9-11.
 Streeter. "Four Gospels" 270.
 Contra Mack, Who Wrote.
 E.G. William Ramsey. St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951). Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). The Cities of St. Paul. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949).
 A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker,
 Colin Hemer. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
 See for example the many essays in the six volume series, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting.
Ed. by Bruce Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994-).