Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-01-2001, 04:57 PM

Title says it all. Does anyone know of a good one?

Michael

06-01-2001, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
Title says it all. Does anyone know of a good one?

Michael

Try this one:

www.LukedidnotknowJosephus.com

06-01-2001, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Try this one:

www.LukedidnotknowJosephus.com

Is this a joke? Link is busted.

Even a scholarly reference would be find, if it is in a book that I could get through the Interlibrary Loan.

Michael

06-01-2001, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
Is this a joke? Link is busted.

Even a scholarly reference would be find, if it is in a book that I could get through the Interlibrary Loan.

Michael

Yes, it was a joke. Sorry, should have made it clear. I'll check my sources tonight, I think Ben Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Acts rejects the idea.

06-01-2001, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Try this one:

www.LukedidnotknowJosephus.com

That like is broken. Try Laymanisadodohead.com

Toto · 06-01-2001, 06:31 PM

A Google search (Luke Acts Josephus) turned this up:

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl79/Comm12m.htm

Quote:

In the great debate concerning possible influence exerted by either Josephus or the author of Luke-Acts upon the other, Sterling sides with the majority of scholars who conclude that no such influence exists, especially since the Antiquities and Luke-Acts were roughly contemporaneous works (80-100 CE) 2. However, this does not exclude observations which posit that both historians shared the same literary and ideological agenda in their approach to apologetic historiography, nor does it exclude the possibility that both historians might have shared common sources. Sterling indeed postulates that they shared in an east-Mediterranean or "oriental" historiographical tradition over against the "occidental" tradition of Latin and Greek historians, and he seeks to delineate these commonalities. Ultimately, both defended their own "people" to a hostile Graeco-Roman audience 3.

In an excellent article Heinz Schreckenberg carefully considers parallel narratives in Josephus and Luke-Acts and comes to the conclusion that, despite what some scholars have said about the many parallels between the two authors, there are actually few substantial parallels. For him most of the coincidences may be explained by the simple fact that both authors had as their object of consideration much of the same first-century CE. historical scene. Schreckenberg wisely observes that in many details the differences between Josephus and Luke-Acts are so great as to refute any possible influence of one upon the other 4. However, Schreckenberg does not consider seriously the possibility that both authors may have drawn upon common literary genres and narrative formats in shaping particular stories. . . .

06-02-2001, 04:37 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto:
A Google search (Luke Acts Josephus) turned this up:

Thanks, Toto.

Michael

06-02-2001, 09:08 AM

[quote]Originally posted by turtonm:

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
A Google search (Luke Acts Josephus) turned this up:

Thanks, Toto.

Michael

Quote:

Go to the thread on the census argument and click on the link to the New Advent article. Part of that article that I didn't read and said "the theory that Luke is influenced by Josephus is totally disproven..." But I was concentrating on the census stuff and didn't look at it.

There is also a website I found, no url sorry, but called "The Jospehus homepage" you can probably find it by that in the browser. It has an ingenius argument that Luke used L source and that L was the historical source which Jospehus used to document Jesus existence. Naturally he also argues for the validity of Jo's mention of Jesus, but is saying that both Luke and Jo used the common source L for their background.

He has a pretty good argument too.

Toto · 06-02-2001, 01:19 PM

Mike - you're welcome.

Metacrock:

Simple courtesy and professionalism would indicate that you learn to list your sources, instead of forcing others to search your material. You claim to be a graduate student?

Your new advent site is:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

It claims that the idea that Luke copied Josephus has been refuted, and cites as authority several 19th century German authors. (Is there nothing more current?) It does nothing to refute the arguments from Steve Mason that Carrier listed.

I put �Josephus homepage� into Google and got 45 hits. This is the most comprehensive:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm

It has an extensive list of Josephus � New Testament parallels:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm

I have no idea how to locate the argument that you describe � perhaps you can find it. It seems to be acknowledged that Luke and Josephus both used the Septuagint as a source, but if Josephus used an early version of Luke, why is there only a brief, disputed reference to Jesus, and a long section on John the Baptist which differs from the Christian version in some ways?

Steve Mason (the author of the argument reviewed by Carrier) also has a Josephus homepage with resources:

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mclean...Jos-links.html

Toto · 06-02-2001, 01:32 PM

Okay, MC, here's your article:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/LUKECH.htm

It does a computer-based content analysis, and makes conclusions from a handful of passages. It is very unconvincing. It reminds me of the Laupot article that tried to make a statistical "proof" of something based on no data.

No mention of why Luke might have changed the census listed in Matthew to the one listed in Josephus, or the other points that Steve Mason lists.

06-01-2001, 04:57 PM	#1
Guest Posts: n/a	Looking for On-line Refutation of Luke-Knew-Josephus claim Title says it all. Does anyone know of a good one? Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2001, 04:37 AM	#7
Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto: A Google search (Luke Acts Josephus) turned this up: Thanks, Toto. Michael

06-02-2001, 01:19 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mike - you're welcome. Metacrock: Simple courtesy and professionalism would indicate that you learn to list your sources, instead of forcing others to search your material. You claim to be a graduate student? Your new advent site is: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm It claims that the idea that Luke copied Josephus has been refuted, and cites as authority several 19th century German authors. (Is there nothing more current?) It does nothing to refute the arguments from Steve Mason that Carrier listed. I put �Josephus homepage� into Google and got 45 hits. This is the most comprehensive: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm It has an extensive list of Josephus � New Testament parallels: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm I have no idea how to locate the argument that you describe � perhaps you can find it. It seems to be acknowledged that Luke and Josephus both used the Septuagint as a source, but if Josephus used an early version of Luke, why is there only a brief, disputed reference to Jesus, and a long section on John the Baptist which differs from the Christian version in some ways? Steve Mason (the author of the argument reviewed by Carrier) also has a Josephus homepage with resources: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mclean...Jos-links.html

06-02-2001, 01:32 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Okay, MC, here's your article: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/LUKECH.htm It does a computer-based content analysis, and makes conclusions from a handful of passages. It is very unconvincing. It reminds me of the Laupot article that tried to make a statistical "proof" of something based on no data. No mention of why Luke might have changed the census listed in Matthew to the one listed in Josephus, or the other points that Steve Mason lists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.