Restoration of the Core New Testament Canon
Restoration of The Core New Testament Canon (Abridged)
Restoration of The Core New Testament Canon (Abridged)
The traditional canon is flawed. The most reliable foundational authorities of a restored Core New Testament Canon can be determined through critical analysis.

Restoration of The Core New Testament Canon (Abridged)

*This page is a shorter abridged version of the more expansive article at NTcanon.com

Introduction

The Protestant Reformation initiated an important corrective movement, but it ultimately fell short in rectifying many inherited errors within the Christian tradition.  Key aspects of the faith still require genuine reformation and restoration to their apostolic foundations. Many Protestant communities continued to uphold dogmatic theological positions rooted in the creeds and councils of the early church. However, an even greater oversight remains largely unaddressed: the canon of Scripture.

A fundamental issue is the uncritical acceptance of the traditional biblical canon, where all included books are assumed to be equally reliable, authoritative, and essential for understanding divine revelation. This unquestioning stance lies at the heart of biblical fundamentalism. For many Christians, the very notion of scrutinizing the scriptural foundation of their beliefs is inconceivable, as doing so could destabilize their faith and doctrine. Yet, by adhering to a non-apostolic tradition shaped by a corrupted church, they fail to recognize the significant issues surrounding certain books erroneously regarded as trustworthy.

The evidence presented in this article, along with its many references, underscores the need to critically reassess the traditional New Testament canon. A major issue is that much of the gospel tradition—including Mark, Matthew, and especially John—consists of revised and embellished accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. Additionally, several other New Testament writings are later questionable compositions with questionable authorship. Furthermore, the books of the traditional canon did not hold equal authority in the early church, as different Christian communities recognized and prioritized different texts. This article challenges long-standing assumptions and makes a compelling case for restoring a Core New Testament—a more historically grounded foundation for Apostolic Christianity.

The Development of the New Testament Canon

The leading textual scholar Bruce Metzger starts the introduction of The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance with the major disclaimer that canonization was a long and gradual process:

“The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature. Although this was one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early Church, history is virtually silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the annals of the Christian Church than the absence of detailed accounts of so significant a process.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, p. 1)

Metzger further noted:

“The evidence provided… from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers does scarcely more than point to the existence and, to some extent, the dissemination of certain early Christian writings in the form of gospels and epistles. Certainly, there is little enough recognition of their being regarded as ‘holy Scripture’. By the close of the second century, however, we can see the outline of what may be described as the nucleus of the New Testament. Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained … By the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century, the great majority of the twenty-seven books that still later came to be widely regarded as the canonical New Testament were almost universally acknowledged to be authoritative.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament , p. 75)

Indeed, the nucleus of the four-fold gospel tradition begins at the end of the second century, approximately 150 years after the life and ministry of Christ. It is not until this late period near the end of the second century that we get the assertion by Irenaeus in 180-200 AD that there are four and only four gospels (Against Heresies 3.11). By this time, according to Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.2.2-3, there were no less than twelve administrations of Church leadership removed from the apostles (Peter/Paul>Linus>Anacletus>Clement>Evaristus>Alexander>Sixtus>Telephorus>Hyginus>Pius>Anicetus>Sorer>Eleutherius). So much time had passed by the time of Irenaeus in the late second century, that he referred to the tradition of the apostles as an “ancient tradition,” as he says, against his enemies:

“Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.4.2).

Irenaeus further acknowledges in Against Heresies 3.11.7, the existence of various groups of believers that favor one Gospel over another, including Ebionites who use Hebrew Matthew only, Marcionites who used an abridged version of Luke, Docetics who prioritized Mark, and Valentinus, a prominent gnostic, that made copious use of John. Here, we have the clear indication that numerous groups rejected John or other Gospels as scriptural authorities. Although favored earliest among Gnostics, John was rejected by a number of groups including Ebionites, Maronites, and Alogians. The Alogians, near the time of Irenaeus, accepted the three synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke but rejected John. Although proto-orthodox writers promoted a four-fold gospel canon as we know it now, many Christian identifying groups in the second century didn’t.

The mystical reasons that serve as the base that Irenaeus gives for his claim of four gospels, neither more nor less, are very suspect. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.11.8 claims that, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.” Here are his mystical rationalizations:

  • “There are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds”
  • “The “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars”
  • “He has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced”
  • “For [Revelation] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second was like a calf, signifying sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man”… “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. Therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform.”
  • “There were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel.”

If a four-fold gospel canon could be soundly defended based on claims of historicity and apostolic authority alone, there would be no need for such mystical speculations. This, along with other controversial and speculative claims of Irenaeus, forces us to question our reliance on him as a reliable witness. For example, Irenaeus claims that Jesus was more than fifty years old when he died with the following rationalization:

“He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity… but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.2).

The foundation of the Gospel canon should not rest on a single late second-century witness such as Irenaeus, whose justification for the fourfold Gospel relies heavily on mystical reasoning rather than verifiable historical evidence. His allegorical arguments—such as linking the four Gospels to the four winds or the four living creatures in Revelation—do not constitute a credible basis for determining apostolic authenticity.

Furthermore, patristic writings cannot serve as a reliable means of validating the canon or accurately reconstructing the origins of the Gospels and the early history of the Church. Many of these writings reflect theological agendas, post hoc rationalizations, and falsified traditions rather than firsthand apostolic testimony.

It is also notable that no extant second-century manuscripts contain all four Gospels together in a single codex. The earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts are fragmentary papyri, and there is no evidence of a compiled collection of multiple Gospels until the third century. This absence suggests that the fourfold Gospel collection was not yet widely recognized or standardized in the second century.

The earliest physical evidence of a bound volume containing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together appears only in the fourth century, in complete biblical manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. This raises important questions about the development of the Gospel canon—indicating that the fourfold Gospel collection was a later development rather than an established tradition from the apostolic era.

 

The Gospels Are Not Independent Eyewitness Accounts

Modern critical scholarship overwhelmingly rejects the credibility of the patristic tradition, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the gospels are not independent eyewitness accounts. Instead, sound scholarship recognizes that the Gospels are interdependent literary compositions, not isolated testimonies. That is, rather than being four independent accounts that are each original composition, as would be the case with eyewitness depositions, there is a strong literary dependence between all four gospels. This further undermines the reliance on tradition to deliver to us the truth concerning the life and ministry of Jesus.  These critical points point to the traditional account of independent eyewitness depositions being a myth.

Modern critical scholarship overwhelmingly rejects the credibility of the patristic tradition’s claim that the Gospels are independent eyewitness accounts and demonstrates that this is not the case. Instead of being distinct, firsthand testimonies, the Gospels exhibit strong literary interdependence, indicating that they are not isolated compositions but textually connected narratives built upon one another.

Rather than four independent and original accounts, as one would expect from genuine eyewitness depositions, the Gospels share extensive textual overlap, narrative structures, and theological developments. This literary dependence, especially evident in the Synoptic Gospels, reveals that later Gospel writers were reworking, expanding, or modifying earlier sources rather than producing independent attestations.

  • Matthew, Mark, and Luke share extensive verbatim agreement, structural parallels, and narrative sequences, demonstrating literary dependence rather than independent eyewitness testimony.
  • If the Gospels were independent eyewitness accounts, they should contain greater divergence in wording and fewer direct literary parallels. Instead, they share large sections of verbatim agreement, something that does not happen in independent oral reports but rather in texts copied from each other.
  • Even where the Gospels differ, the differences often reflect editorial reworking of a common source rather than separate, independent memories.
  • Modern critical scholarship decisively refutes the Patristic tradition by demonstrating that the gospels are literarily interwoven theological writings, shaped by editorial processes and evolving traditions within early Christianity.

The fact that the Gospels are not independent historical records but rather theologically shaped compositions, undermines the traditional claim that early church tradition reliably transmitted an unaltered account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Instead, the claim of the gospels being four independent eyewitness depositions is a mythical construct of later tradition. Recognizing this calls into question the reliability of the church tradition.

The Solution to the Synoptic Problem

If we cannot rely on patristic tradition to determine the scriptural basis for first century apostolic Christianity, the question arises of how we can determine what the most appropriate foundational authorities are. Rather than relying on tradition, there is an analytical and systematic approach to determining the most reliable gospel. The solution lies in solving the Synoptic problem of answering questions pertaining to the chronology and literary relationship of the gospels. Over the last 250 years, scholars have proposed various theories addressing the sequence and dependency of the gospels on each other and other sources.

After spending several years researching and reviewing the evidence, I have come to the conviction that Luke is not only the most accurate and reliable of the Gospels, but it is also the first and most primitive of the four gospels within the traditional canon.

It should also be noted that those scholars who advocate the two-source hypothesis of both Matthew and Luke being dependent on Mark and a lost hypothetical saying source, Q, affirm that Luke more often than Matthew preserves the more primitive reading of the lost source. What they fail to realize is that Luke (Proto-Luke) is actually the primary source for narrative sayings common to Luke, Mark, and Matthew. What has misled scholars is that Luke, as we read it in modern translations, appears to be less primitive than it actually is. I have extensively documented over 1600 textual variants in Luke through my publication of The Gospel of Luke: AI Critical Edition. By identifying likely interpolations corresponding to textual variants not attested by all the early manuscripts of Luke, one can easily reconstruct a version of Luke that is clearly more primitive.

By employing a process of elimination, Luke stands alone as the most primitive and reliable foundational scriptural authority. The others are revisions, expansions, and embellishments of the primitive gospel narrative exhibited in Luke. Luke is superior to all the others in conveying the historical Jesus. Furthermore, Luke-Acts and the letters of Paul are the best foundational authorities that exist as a core apostolic witness to the ministry of Christ and the apostles within a few decades of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. 

 

The Hebraic Syntax of Luke

Not only does Luke have more similarities with Hebrew Matthew than Greek Matthew does, but the Greek of Luke is more Hebraic in syntax than Greek Matthew. This has been documented by much  of scholarship, as referenced and outlined in Validation of Luke’s Special Material – Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke. Although the main point of the article is to validate the special material of Luke, it demonstrates that Luke overall is more Hebraic in syntax than Matthew. Scholars have long noted that Luke contains an abnormally high number of Semitisms in comparison with Matthew and Mark. Gustav Dalman, a German theologian, linguist, and scholar specializing in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish studies wrote:

“Hebraisms proper are special characteristics of Luke. There is reason, therefore, for a closer scrutiny of the style of this evangelist with its wealth of Hebraisms.” (G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 38.)

This fact can be attributed to the theory that Semitisms derive from an original Hebrew Gospel authored by an apostolic witness. James Edward tested this very hypothesis in his extensive book, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition. His approach was to chart the individual Semitisms of Luke verse by verse, to see if they occurred in statistically greater numbers in passages unique to Luke. Edwards found that in the half of Luke that is “Special Luke,” Luke exhibits approximately a 400% increase in Semitic character. This bears witness that Luke did not attempt to diminish the Semitism in his Hebraic source material by altering them to conventional Koine Greek standards. Luke is faithful to the extrinsic literary standards of his source material. Edwards likens the ability to identify the semitic character of the Gospel of Luke as to seeing faint Hebrew characters underlying the Greek text:

Reading the Greek NT with a knowledge of biblical Hebrew is like reading a palimpsest. The Hebrew thought world, like a subtext, often lies faintly beneath the Greek surface. But in the Gospel of Luke – or at least in parts of it – the subtext became much more visible. The Hebrew words seem to have been erased less completely than elsewhere in the Gospels. They are more evident, intrusive, and inescapable. Like rocks and coral reefs, they lay barely submerged beneath Luke’s Greek. Nor did Luke seem to make an effort to tame or camouflage the Hebraisms. Their primitive and alien dignity seem to be consciously retained without Hellenizing or harmonizing to Lukan style. They give every appearance of coming from a source that the author valued and attempted to preserve. (James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, p. xx)

The case for Semitic influence is further strengthened when clusters of Semitisms occur in portions of a document that otherwise and in other portions is drafted in conventional Koine Greek. Davila noted

 “If we found blocks of text containing a high density of Semitisms alongside blocks of good Greek… we could conclude that the writer was either incorporating translated Greek passages into the work or translating passages from a Semitic source in some places while writing in his or her normal style in others.” (Davila, How Can We Tell If a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon Has Been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?, 38-39) 

Edwards’ analysis shows that Semitisms in Luke are not uniformly distributed, contradicting the idea that Luke was deliberately imitating the Septuagint style throughout his Gospel. Instead, the uneven concentration of Semitic features suggests that certain portions of Luke were based on a Semitic prototype, rather than being an artificial stylistic choice. The presence of unusual or awkward Semitic words, idioms, and expressions in an otherwise highly cultivated Greek text indicates that these linguistic anomalies result from Hebraic linguistic conventions embedded in Luke’s principal source. This supports the premise that Luke incorporated Semitic material rather than merely emulating the Septuagint.

Luke has often been considered the most learned in the Greek tongue of all the evangelists. It makes no sense that an author would craft the prologue in the highest form of Greek and then adhere to a style that is highly Semitic in much of the Gospel and not so Semitic in other places unless he was doing his best to convey his sources in the truest way he was able to. Edwards affirmed that the foundational Hebraic source for Luke’s special material is the Hebrew Gospel:  

“This Semitic source apparently functioned as a primary source for Luke, into which other sources were integrated or to which they were supplemented according to Luke’s overall purpose. That Luke did not try to expunge and blend his sources, and particularly, his Semitic source, is indicated by stylistic differences… which are particularly evident in the high-caliber Greek of the prologue, the basic Koine in passages shared with Matthew and/or Mark, and the distinctly Semitically- flavored Greek of Special Luke. As suggested in the prologue, Luke endeavored to produce a full and final narrative while leaving vestiges of the sources that comprise it.” (James R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, p153). 

The suggestion that Luke translated Hebrew texts might be surprising to some. A common characterization is that Luke was a Greek due to his proficiency in Greek. However, patristic sources do not provide a definitive answer to Luke’s ethnic background. Some modern scholars argue that Luke was a Hellenistic Jew, citing his intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and the Temple, as well as the detailed accounts of Jewish rituals in his writings. I agree with this assessment, especially due to the Hebraic syntax of the Gospel. But there are additional clues.

Epiphanius (c. 310–403 CE) In his work Panarion, gives an indication that Luke was a Jew:

“Here is a third Gospel, Luke’s, they said—(for Luke was given this commission. He too was one of the seventy-two who had been scattered because of the Savior’s saying.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 51.11.6.)

Eusebius writes that Luke translated Hebrews from Hebrew to Greek:

“The Epistle to the Hebrews, he [Clement of Alexandria] attributes to Paul but says that it was written in Hebrew for Hebrews and then carefully translated by Luke for the Greeks. Therefore the translation has the same style and color as Acts.” (Paul Maier, Eusebius, The Church History, 6.14)

Jerome in On Illustrious Men  (5)  also acknowledged that some claim Luke translated Hebrews, although he claimed Luke was Greek (7).

Regardless of whether he was Greek or a Hellenized Jew, there is no clearer possible indication of Luke being proficient in the Hebrew language if, in fact, he is the translator of Hebrews into Greek.

The Hebraic nature of Luke is what first led the Hebrew scholar Robert Lindsey to embrace the theory of Lukan priority in the 1960s, and in his publication of A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (1969). When Robert Lindsey began by translating the Gospel of Mark, he found that it contains hundreds of non-Semitisms, such as the often-repeated phrase “and immediately,” which are not present in Lukan parallels. This suggested to Lindsey that there could have been the possibility that Mark was copying Luke and not the other way around.  Since Robert Lindsey published his famous findings, David Flusser, David Bivin, Halvor Ronning, Richard Stegner, Brad Young, and other scholars associated with the Jerusalem school have argued strongly for Lukan priority.  Robert Lindsey describes how he came to discover the primacy of Luke over Mark and Matthew:

“I therefore turned to a story-by-story, word-by-word, study of the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke… To my surprise it turned out that Luke’s Gospel contained almost none of the non-Hebraic expressions so common in Mark! On the other hand Matthew, when copying Mark (or if copying Mark), appeared to reject about half the non-Hebraisms of Mark completely, to accept others without question and repeat them in exact Markan contexts, and to reject still others in the earlier chapters of his Gospel only to accept them in later portions…

“Having long supposed that Luke, as the non-Jewish companion of Paul, tended to modify his text to make it more understandable to Greeks of pagan background, I was even more surprised to note that the Lukan text was almost always easier to translate to idiomatic Hebrew than was Mark. After several more years of study in which this observation has been confirmed again and again, I today find my early supposition amusing, but the point is that I was quite unprepared to suppose that of all the Synoptists, Luke should prove to be the best in preservation of earlier texts…

“Without quite realizing it and quite without intending it, I thus found myself questioning whether our Mark could, in fact, be the principal narrative source standing equally behind Matthew and Luke in their so-called Markan portions. It looked as if Luke had universally copied more faithfully whatever Greek sources he had and that these had been translated earlier from a Hebrew source or sources, or at least from some Semitic document or documents so much like Hebrew that in retranslation it was impossible to tell the difference. It also looked as if Matthew had indeed used Mark’s Gospel with all its didactic expressions but had rejected many of these for some reason I could not yet explain.”  (Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, Dugith Publishers, 1973, p.12-13) 

David Flusser, another scholar associated with the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, agreed that Luke’s Gospel, being less shaped by Markan editorial tendencies, preserves a more original version of the gospel narrative:

“The first [lesson] is that any normal philological reasoning would indicate the priority or greater authenticity of Luke’s accounts. Water does not flow uphill. It is simply impossible to believe that the Matthaean-Markan account could be changed secondarily into the Lukan form… The second lesson is that understanding of the language usages of Jesus’ time can quite often throw immediate light on questions of originality in our Gospels. The third is that Matthew is indeed secondary to Mark and Mark to Luke, for only in such an order of dependence can we see how Matthew can accept the secondary oddity of the Markan text.”  (Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Mark, second edition [1973], p.5, forward by David Flusser)

Statistical Validation of Lukan Priority

                Subsequent to the earlier research of William Lockton, Robert Lindsey, and David Flusser, Halvor Ronning, founding member and past director of Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research,  published a multi-part series in which he conducts statistical and comparative analysis of all the potential options regarding the sequence of the Synoptic Gospels.

In A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 1, Ronning conducted statistical analysis on the material with parallels in Luke, Mark, and Matthew (triple tradition material), considering all six theoretical possible relationships:

  • Matthew→Luke→Mark
  • Mark→Luke→Matthew
  • Luke→Matthew→Mark
  • Mark→Matthew→Luke
  • Luke→Mark→Matthew
  • Matthew→Mark→Luke

The methodology for the analysis was developed to see if any of the options could survive the empirically observable statistical facts. Calculations were made on similarities and differences between gospels by examining the thousands of words in the texts to provide a quantifiable means of evaluating the six options. A seven-step method was devised as a basis for the comparison of the six options of linear dependence.

This first phase of analysis determined that the only two orders that were statistically viable were those with Mark in the middle:

  • Matthean Priority Scenario: Matthew→Mark→LukeLuke
  • Lukan Priority Scenario: Luke→Mark→Matthew

In both these cases, actual results were within about 0.1% of theoretical results for words identical in both form and sequence (IFS). The indication that Mark must be the middle term between Luke and Matthew has often been termed the Markan cross-factor.

In A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 2, Ronning conducts additional analysis to also include Double Tradition text (text that is attested by two of the three Gospels but not found in one of the three). Most of the double tradition material is instances where Luke and Matthew agree on words, phrases, and sentences contrary to Mark. These instances are called ‘minor agreements’ and were the key to determining which of the two remaining scenarios is statistically valid.

The highly consistent statistical results of Matthew’s correlation with various classes of parallel material according to the Lukan Priority Scenario demonstrate that Lukan priority is the most statistically valid scenario.

In A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 3, Ronning addresses single tradition material (passages exhibited in only one gospel ) as well as double and triple tradition material with respect to Semitic influence. Here, Ronning highlights the prior analysis of Raymond Martin. The value of Martin’s data is primarily to draw a quantitative comparison of how Matthew compares to Luke with respect to Semitic indicators (Hebraic syntax).

The numerical data indicated that the single traditional material of Luke is much more Semitic than the single traditional material of Matthew and that both double and triple traditional material of Luke are slightly more Semitic than the double and triple traditional material of Matthew. In both material classifications, Luke is more Semitic and thus is more likely than Matthew to be an earlier, more primitive text. The data also showed that the triple tradition material in Mark the least Semitic as compared to Luke and Matthew. This evidence is a strong analytical indication of Lukan Priority.

In A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 4, Ronning addresses common hypothetical scenarios where more than one primary source is used for a particular gospel, examining them with respect to the ease of back-translating the Greek text into Hebrew.  

Ronning draws a sharp contrast between the consistency and elegance of the Lukan Priority scenario as compared to the other ‘non-linear’ scenarios. These factors further indicate Lukan priority:

  • With respect to triple tradition material, which has parallels in all three gospels, Luke is the shortest and easiest to translate into Hebrew.
  • Minor agreements between Luke and Matthew are easier to explain according to the Lukan priority scenario. Other theories have a difficult time accounting for them.
  • Many non-linear scenarios assume Mark to be a source of both Luke and Matthew. However, the evidence indicates that Mark is the middle text between Luke and Matthew.

Ronning concludes with what is the most plausible scenario:

“For Lukan Priority the Matthean-Lukan agreements against Mark… are no longer a problem, but part of the elegant solution made possible by these “key agreements.” When Mark is placed in the middle the Matthean-Lukan agreements against Mark can now be easily understood as the “corrections” of the final Gospel writer. The final writer—the author of the canonical Greek Matthew—is to be imagined as working with Mark, his immediate source, in front of him. But out of his awareness of Luke’s Hebraic source, Matthew reinserted many of the exact words that Luke had copied from that first Gospel, words that Mark had omitted. Matthew reinserted them right back into the exact same positions as in Luke. Not only did Matthew make many reinsertions, but he also frequently omitted words and phrases that Mark had inserted, words and phrases that were not present in that earlier Gospel that stands behind the Gospel of Luke. This all falls into place as we see the statistical support for the mediating position of Mark between Luke and Matthew…

“We can judge that Luke was more steady and less innovative in relation to his sources. Even though we do not have copies of Luke’s sources, we can observe how Luke preserved whole blocks of material that are more consistently easy to translate into Hebrew than the parallel material in Mark or Matthew. Luke does not share the same degree of erratic character with respect to Hebrew retroversion as does Mark. Like Luke, Matthew is also generally easier to revert to Hebrew than Mark, except where Matthew has a Markan parallel. Where Matthew has a Markan parallel, Matthew is just as difficult to revert to Hebrew as Mark. These observations are the origin of Lindsey’s insights regarding the dependence of Matthew on Mark, and the independence of Luke from either.”

Issues with Mark

Mark is a novelized remix of select material from the more primitive gospel of Luke. The Integrity Syndicate site, IssuesWithMark.com, extensively documents features of Mark which point to its unreliability not being a true apostolic witness, but rather a revised and embellished account of the more primitive and apostolically rooted gospel of Luke. Key articles pertaining to Mark include:

  • Countering Arguments For Markan Priority provides a detailed response to seven common arguments for Markan priority, including the argument that Mark is the shortest gospel. 
  • Mark the “Re-write Man” documents editorial changes in Mark as outlined by David Bivin of Jerusalem Perspective on Mark’s editorial style. Summarized are the various grammar, vocabulary, and literary techniques that can be identified by analyzing Lukan-Matthean minor agreements against Mark and by comparing Markan usage to the style of Luke (Mark’s main source).
  • List of Markan Stereotypes and Pick-ups describes the most common Markan stereotypes (pickups), pertaining to these unique alternative words and phrases which are characteristic of Mark. The article links to a more extensive catalog maintained by Jerusalem Perspective, of redactional words and phrases characteristic of the editorial style of Mark. Mark’s revised version of the Gospel story is dramatic, exaggerated, creative, and exciting, employing creative interpretations similar to aggadic midrash and the targumim. Mark resembles a modern graphic novel with a punchy and vivid literary style that attracts a reader’s attention.
  • Progressive Embellishment, Luke→Mark→Matthew examines 36 cases of two-stage embellishment from Luke→Mark→Matthew. These are all cases where Mark is more embellished than Luke, and Matthew exhibits significant embellishment over Mark indicating a repeated pattern of refinement, expansion, and embellishment as the Gospel story was rewritten by Mark, and then again by Matthew. In addition to the 36 examples of two-stage progressive data, 28 examples of single-stage progressive embellishment from Luke to Mark are presented (cases where there is no further embellishment in Matthew). In total, the data accounts for 65% of Markan passages being an embellishment upon Luke, wherein Markan passages are 44% longer on average than the parallels in Luke.
  • Mark’s Rewriting of Jesus’ Last Week reveals numerous instances where Mark restructured his story of Jesus’ last week based on various motives. The contrast with the more primitive Luke is staggering.
  • Embellishments of Mark gives additional examples where Mark expands, embellishes or adds sensational accounts to the text. These examples can be highly contrasted with Luke or are of a sensational nature with no parallel in Luke.
  • Luke Over Mark Passages documents instances where Mark has inconsistencies (or even contradictions) with Luke that give the more accurate account
  • Deficiencies of Mark documents how Mark was not very popular in the early centuries as compared to the other Gospels. It was copied less frequently than Matthew and Luke, and few Greek manuscripts attest to the original text. Scholars use early Latin texts of Mark to get a better indication of the original reading of Mark. This includes the radically different endings of Mark.
  • Authorship and Dating of Mark summarizes key findings regarding the origins of Mark, with a likely dating in the 70s of the 1st
  • The Spurious Emergence of Markan Priority provides an overview of the modern era of textual criticism from the early stages toward the later work of B.H. Streeter that resulted in a dogmatic consensus of the two-source hypothesis. Various factors exercised a deep influence in the development of a fundamentally misleading and false consensus of Markan Priority. The article further examines and refutes the primary arguments classically used for Markan Priority.
  • Refutation of the Farrer Hypothesis. The Farrer hypothesis (also known as the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis) is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then the author of the Gospel of Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source material. This theory, including claims of Lukan editorial fatigue, is refuted.

Issues with Matthew

Matthew is a polished and embellished Revision of Luke and Mark. The Integrity Syndicate site IssueswithMatthew.com extensively documents the evidence that Matthew is the last of the synoptic Gospels (Matthean Posteriority) and that it is a heavily revised, expanded, and embellished gospel narrative with literary dependency on both Luke and Mark. Key articles pertaining to Matthew include:

  • Matthean Revision to Mark documents how Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark for much of its content (95% of the Gospel of Mark is found within Matthew and 53% of the text is verbatim (word-for-word) from Mark). Matthew carries over some defective changes made in Mark. Rather than being an independent eye-witness account, Matthew is the combination of source material in a highly expanded, structured and refined gospel adaptable for liturgical use.
  • Progressive Embellishment, Luke→Mark→Matthew examines 36 cases of two-stage embellishment from Luke→Mark→Matthew. These are all cases where Mark is more embellished than Luke, and Matthew exhibits significant improvement or embellishment over Mark. These examples indicate expansion and embellishment as the Gospel story was rewritten by Mark and then rewritten by the author of Matthew. The cases examined correspond to 25% of the entire Gospel of Matthew, where the Matthean text is on average 90% longer than the Luke.
  • Evidence for Matthean Posteriority presents evidence that Matthew is the last of the three Synoptic gospels and has a dependency on Luke.  
  • Survey of Matthean Posteriority Scholarship summarizes the extensive scholarship of the last 200 years which attest to Matthean Posteriority. In addition to the Jerusalem School, this view has been advocated by more than a dozen notable Bible scholars.
  • The Many Embellishments of Matthew surveys its historical and sensational claims not attested anywhere else in the New Testament.
  • Matthean Inconsistencies with Luke documents inconsistencies and contradictions between Matthew and Luke where Luke provides a more reliable reading.
  • Prophecy Conflations and Misquotes provides an overview of how the Gospel of Matthew conflates and misquotes prophecy.
  • Devised Literary Structure of Matthew reveals that Matthew is not a chronological narrative but exhibits an engineered structure of alternating blocks of sayings and narratives organized according to literary and thematic aims.
  • Matthew is a Liturgical Document that summarizes how Matthew is the most suitable for liturgical use, being the most crafted and polished of the synoptic gospels, as further evidence it is the least primitive.
  • The Origin, Authorship, and Community of Matthew addresses characteristics of Matthew that indicate details about the author and the community through which Matthew originated, the evidence pointing to the sophisticated composition of Matthew being late in the development of the Gospel tradition.
  • Matthew is a Judaizing Document reveals the many Judaizing features and legalistic qualities of Matthew that are absent or less acute in other gospels, especially Luke. This includes following extreme standards of righteousness, of Torah observance, obeying the Pharisees, moral perfection, and anti-charismatic passages.
  • The Sermon on the Mount: The Matthean Jesus Is Not the Historical Jesus summarizes the exegetical commentary of Georg Strecker, who closely analyzed the Sermon on the Mount in reference to what was likely the original words of Jesus, revisions, and later additions. The indication is that only about a third of the three-chapter sermon is the original words of Jesus, with most of it being revisions or additions.
  • Matthean Revisionism: Women, Non-Jews, and Wealth covers how the Gospel of Matthew exhibits a low view of women and of non-Jews while catering to the rich. 

Issues with John

John is the least reliable of all the canonical Gospels. Numerous Christian scholars have noted over the last century that the Fourth Gospel cannot be regarded as having the same level of reliability as the synoptic gospels.

James Dunn (1939-2020) was a prominent British New Testament scholar and theologian, widely recognized for his contributions to historical Jesus studies, Pauline theology, and early Christianity. He was known for his balanced, critical approach to biblical texts and his significant role in shaping discussions on Christian origins. In his seminal work, Jesus Remembered, Dunn discusses the evolving scholarly perspective on the historical reliability of the Gospel of John. Dunn observes that, over the past century, critical scholarship has increasingly viewed this Gospel as more theological than historical. He notes that this shift began with F.C. Baur’s 1847 critique, which argued that the Fourth Gospel was not intended as a strictly historical account:

“In 1847 F. C. Baur produced a powerful case for his conclusion that the Fourth Gospel was never intended to be ‘a strictly historical Gospel’. Given the strength of Baur’s critique, the inevitable conclusion could hardly be avoided: John’s Gospel is determined much more by John’s own theological than by historical concerns. Consequently, it cannot be regarded as a good source for the life of Jesus. The conclusion by no means became established straight away. But for those at the forefront of the ‘quest of the historical Jesus’ the die had been cast. The differences between John and the others, which had previously been glossed over, could no longer be ignored. It was no longer possible to treat all four Gospels on the same level. If the first three Gospels were historical, albeit in qualified measure, then such were these differences that John’s Gospel could no longer be regarded as historical. Over the next hundred years the character of John’s Gospel as a theological, rather than a historical document, became more and more axiomatic for NT scholarship.” (James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, pp. 40-41)

Dunn later acknowledges in volume 1 of his three-part history of early Christianity that “Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics,” and after reviewing the scholarly basis for this himself concludes:

“On the whole then, the position is unchanged: John’s gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and the teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics… We shall certainly want to call upon John’s gospel as a source, but mostly as a secondary source to supplement or corroborate the testimony of the Synoptic tradition.”  (James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, pp. 165, 167) 

H. Dodd, a renowned British New Testament scholar and theologian, known for his work on the historical reliability of the Gospels, concurred that John could not be relied upon for the facts:

“We may now say with confidence that for strictly historical material, with the minimum of subjective interpretation we must not go to the Fourth Gospel… it is to the Synoptic Gospels that we must go if we wish to recover the oldest and purest tradition of the facts.” (C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, 1962 p. 215)

Craig Keener, a highly respected biblical scholar, historian, and theologian specializing in the New Testament, also acknowledged the inconsistencies of John with the Synoptics point to questioning the nature of its historicity in stark contrast to Luke-Acts being a more reliable historical narrative:

A close examination of the Fourth Gospel reveals that John has rearranged many details, apparently in the service of his symbolic message. This is especially clear in the Passion Narrative, where direct conflicts with the presumably widely known passion tradition fulfill symbolic narrative functions. John’s long discourses are of a different genre…. Such features naturally invite us to question the nature of this Gospel’s historicity; certainly he is not writing a work of the exact historiographic nature of Luke-Acts. (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John : 2 Volumes pp. 42-43)

Key Christian scholars of the early 20th century who had seriously questioned the historical value of the fourth Gospel include H. Latimer Jackson, Ernest F. Scott, G. H. C. Macgregor, Benjamin W. Bacon,  Paul W. Schmiedel, and Wilbert F Howard. These were all non-atheist and fully-credentialed New Testament scholars, as noted on the page Critical Scholarship of John.

The Integrity Syndicate site IssuesWithJohn.com  covers many of the issues with the fourth gospel:

  • John vs. the Synoptics contrasts the fourth gospel with the synoptic gospels as noted by critical scholarship
  • Contradictions of John detail 30+ inconsistencies of John that are not only differences with the synoptic gospels but direct contrary statements.
  • Embellishments of Johncovers 12 aspects of John that are clearly embellishments as compared to the synoptic gospels. In these areas, the synoptics don’t go nearly as far in describing the ministry and words of Christ and the witness of others.
  • Progressive Embellishment of John closely examines eight parallels with the synoptic gospels which demonstrate progressive embellishment through the Gospel tradition in the order of Luke→Mark→Matthew→John, the least reliable.
  • Luke→John, Johannine Dependence on Luke identifies 18 passages in John exhibiting a literary relationship on Luke, exposing the author as a revisionist writer and further refuting that the fourth gospel has literary independence from the other three.
  • Devised Literary Structure of John reveals how the structure, literary devices, cryptic nature, and deep symbolism point to the fourth gospel being a highly crafted piece of literature exhibiting a complex design indicating that it is a contrived literary composition rather than a historical narrative.
  • Misunderstanding of John examines how its literary design and theme of misunderstanding is the cause of endless confusion and speculation throughout the centuries.
  • John and Philosophy surveys the various contemporary philosophical influences on the fourth gospel, including Alexandrian philosophy and Gnosticism.
  • Origen’s Commentary on John provides experts from the third-century theologian’s commentary pointing out many discrepancies between John and the other gospels and demonstrating many passages of John are not historic but must be interpreted allegorically.
  • Dislocations of John reveals how some sections in John have likely encountered textual dislocation at a very early stage in the history of the text. Various proposed rearrangements are shown as to the original order of the text.
  • Justin Martyr Favored Luke over John provides evidence that Justin Martyr favored Luke and either did not know John or avoided quoting it directly
  • Contested Status of John reveals that rather than being affirmed as Scripture by all Christian groups of the second century, it was not used by the Ebionites, the Marcionites, or by Gaius and other Alogians (who accepted the three Synoptic gospels but rejected John).
  • Authorship of John provides excerpts from key critical scholars pertaining to the identity of the originator of the fourth gospel, including the likely location, and background of the author.
  • Dating of John gives an overview of earliest and latest date John could have been written and the body of evidence that suggests that 100–120 CE is the most likely timeframe for its authorship.
  • Dating of John P52 Error reveals that the P52 papyrus fragment often claimed to prove an earlier dating for John, is erroneous. Recent paleographic reassessments challenge the traditional dating of P52, indicating that the fragment could be from the late second or even early third century, which undermines the argument that John must have been written by the end of the first century.
  • Issues with Dating John Before 100 AD provides additional evidence against dating the fourth gospel in the first century.

The evidence is truly extensive of why John shouldn’t be included in the canon.

Mapping Out the Literary Relationship Between the Gospels

Below is a schematic mapping out the literary dependency of the gospels, as well as groups who favored particular gospels. Contrary to popular opinion of Markan priority, the evidence points to Luke being the first of the canonical gospels, followed by Mark, then Matthew, and then finally John. Luke, at least in its primitive form, was a predecessor of the three other later gospels. Luke does, in the prologue, acknowledge that “many had undertaken to compile a narrative concerning the matters that have been fulfilled among us.” He is most likely referring to early narratives which are now lost that included errors and deficiencies. Otherwise, he would not be compelled to write a more orderly and accurate account to set the record straight. 

Much of Luke is based on a direct translation of a Hebrew source, including the Hebrew gospel known as Hebrew Matthew. Luke matches more closely with quotes from the early Hebrew Gospel than all the other canonical gospels. The Greek gospel we now know as “Matthew” has little correlation to the much more primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Schematics also show Paul’s dependency on Luke and Mark’s dependency on both Luke and Acts.

Literary Dependence of the Gospels, NTcanon.com

Further Support for Luke Primacy

                The Integrity Syndicate website LukePrimacy.com has a few additional articles which, beyond substantiating Luke as the most primitive gospel, provide additional rationale as to why Luke-Acts should be held as a more reliable authority.

  • Paul Attests to Luke-Acts Primacy demonstrates that Luke-Acts is more complementary to Paul than any of the other gospels. Evidence from Paul’s letters indicates that he was familiar with material exclusive to Luke and that he regarded Luke’s writings as Scripture, reinforcing the argument that Luke-Acts held a primitive and authoritative position in early Christian tradition. The internal evidence supports the claim made by Jerome, “Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says according to my gospel he means the book of Luke.” (Of Illustrious Men, 7)
  • The Prologue of Luke addresses the implication of the Lukan Prologue in terms of the intentions of the author and its standard of excellence as a historiography.
  • Historical Reliability of Luke-Acts provides extensive evidence that the two-volume work exhibits the highest level of reliability and historical accuracy compared to other gospels
  • Answering Luke-Acts Objections answers common claims among non-Christian skeptics against Luke’s historical accuracy.
  • Other Considerations for Luke Primacy provides additional rationale for how Luke-Acts Primacy exemplifies the core fundamentals of Apostolic Christianity. The spectrum of critical vs. uncritical New Testament thought is discussed and illustrated. 

The Book of Acts as a Core Foundational Authority

The Book of Acts (Acts of the Apostles) holds a unique and authoritative place in early Christian writings because it serves as the only canonical historical account of the early Christian movement and the expansion of the apostolic mission. It provides critical insight into the development of apostolic Christianity.

Unlike other books of the New Testament, Luke and Acts, two volumes by the same author, give us continuity between the life and ministry of Christ and that of the Apostles. Luke-Acts extends across the critical historical period from the conception and birth of Jesus to the imprisonment of Paul in Rome. The author is the first Christian historian and critical scholar who was committed to examining all the testimony to present an orderly account of what had occurred so the reader may know the truth (Luke 1:1-4).

The Book of Acts is indispensable in numerous respects:

  • Acts is the only New Testament book that offers a continuous history of early Christianity.
  • Acts connects the life of Jesus (Gospel of Luke) with the apostolic mission (Paul’s epistles).
  • Acts confirms Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle (Acts 9, Acts 13).
  • Without Luke-Acts, one could not reconstruct early Christianity from fragmented Gospel accounts and Paul’s letters, which lack narrative continuity.
  • Acts explains the historical and theological context within which Paul wrote his letters.
  • Acts provide the historical context for key events like Pentecost, Paul’s conversion, the Jerusalem Council, and missionary journeys.
  • Without Acts, there would be no canonical narrative of how the message of Jesus transitioned from a Jewish movement to a broader Gentile mission.
  • Acts records the apostles’ acceptance of the Gentile mission, particularly in Acts 10 (Peter and Cornelius) and Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council).
  • The decision in Acts 15:28-29, to admit Gentiles without requiring Torah observance, is a crucial turning point in Christian history.
  • Through Acts, we see the core testimony of the Apostles, both about who Jesus is and the core gospel message.
  • Unlike any other New Testament book, Acts records multiple instances of new believers being initiated into the faith, including details on baptism, repentance, receiving the Holy Spirit, and apostolic instruction.
  • Acts showcases how the Holy Spirit operated in the early Church, guiding the apostles and confirming their mission through supernatural signs while also manifesting through those who accepted the message in faith.

Paul’s Epistles as Foundational Authorities

Scholarship generally accepts that Paul’s epistles (c. 48–64 CE) are the earliest Christian documents in the New Testament and agree that at least seven Pauline letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are undisputedly authentic, meaning they were personally written by Paul. Most other New Testament books, although later attributed to various authors, are anonymous, whereas Paul’s letters contain clear authorial claims. Paul’s writings further provide the earliest theological reflections on Jesus and Christian doctrine.

Paul is central to the establishment and growth of churches throughout the world. Other than Luke-Acts, no other New Testament writer is more prolific in the number of authoritative writings Paul authored and his sphere of influence in the critical period of the mid-first century. What also sets Paul apart is his apostolic mission given to him directly by Jesus post-resurrection. Paul became an Apostle “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Gal 1:1).

Although Peter was given revelation to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, it was necessary for Paul to be commissioned to fully realize the ministry to all nations. Paul stands at the center of Apostolic Christianity as a superior lasting witness than Peter, as evidenced by the fact that we only have a couple of short letters attributed to Peter that are not likely even written by him.  The best of what we can rely on regarding Peter’s testimony comes from Luke-Acts.

Other than Luke-Acts, Paul’s letters distinguish themselves as the most authoritative New Testament writings, superior to later books that rely on oral tradition, anonymous authorship, and theological redaction. It is also the case that the letters of Paul are also more complementary to Luke-Acts than any of the other gospels. It is likely that Luke was a companion of Paul, but it is also the case that Paul directly quotes a primitive version of Luke that predated his letters. He identifies a gospel in line with Luke as his principal gospel authority.

Thus, for the reasons elaborated on in the previous sections, Luke-Acts and the Pauline epistles should be regarded as what constitutes the core of the New Testament and are the principal foundational authorities for understanding Apostolic Christianity.

Making Distinctions within the Traditional Canon

Because not all NT books are equally reliable and of an uncontested status with respect to acceptance in the early church and modern critical scholarship, it is important to make distinctions within the traditional canon for identifying the primary and secondary authorities. The table classifies New Testament books into two tiers and four categories.

Luke-Acts + Paul are sufficient for conveying the minimum information needed for one to be a believer. Integrity Syndicate affirms the condensed list of Tier 1, which exhibits the highest level of historical reliability, should be considered foundational as the basis for defining core beliefs.  While others may consider additional books or all the books in the traditional New Testament Canon to be authoritative, at the very minimum, Christians should agree that the books in Tier 1 are indeed central authorities sufficient for understanding the core essentials of the faith. Thus, it is this list of foundational Tier 1 Authorities that new or prospective believers should be focused on.

Classification of Authorities in the New Testament Canon. NTcanon.com
The Core New Testament Canon, NTcanon.com

About Theophilus Josiah and Integrity Syndicate

Theophilus Josiah (Josiah Verkaik) is a researcher and reformer dedicated to restoring first-century Apostolic Christianity. He is the founder of Integrity Syndicate, an organization that has been publishing, developing websites, and creating content. Integrity Syndicate oversees more than 30 websites focused on the canon of Scripture, Christian theology, and Apostolic belief and practice.

With a background in engineering and Spirit-filled Christianity, Josiah brings a unique combination of analytical reasoning and spiritual discernment to his work. At the core of his apostolic ministry is his research on the New Testament Canon, particularly his work on solving the Synoptic Problem and developing The Core New Testament (to be published in 2025)—a restored canon centered on the most reliable foundational authorities (Luke-Acts + Paul) as the best framework for understanding Apostolic Christianity.

In 2023, Josiah initiated work on the AI Critical New Testament (AICNT)—an unbiased AI-translated edition of the New Testament. Beyond being a neutral translation, the AICNT provides unprecedented transparency into thousands of textual variants through the most extensive critical apparatus in any English resource. Its greatest utility lies in allowing readers to compare early manuscript readings and discern which words, phrases, and verses were later additions to the textual tradition, including orthodox corruptions to the text. The AICNT serves as the base text for The Core New Testament.

Mainstream orthodox Christianity is deeply derivative of a corrupted tradition (OrthodoxCorruption.com). Over centuries, the faith once delivered by Christ’s Apostles has been systematically replaced by a philosophical system that bears little resemblance to its original foundation. This long-standing theological conspiracy has exerted dogmatic control over doctrine, the biblical canon, and historical narrative, shaping Christianity to serve institutional and ideological agendas rather than the truth.

The Core Apostolic Church Movement is a reform movement based on this revelation and the prescription to return to the apostolic witness of Luke-Acts and Paul as the foundational authorities of Apostolic Christianity.  As the founder of this movement, Josiah seeks to further establish Affinity Core Apostolic Church as a united community in Christ — motivated by love, guided by truth (the Core New Testament), and under God’s controlling influence (Love-Truth-Spirit).

Share this page: