Nomad

And yet Luke does not use Jerusalem in instances when he clearly could have done so.

None of the other Gospels spend much time talking about Jesus' family at all. And in the case of Mark, we have no infancy or child stories about Jesus at all, so having the family make trips to Jerusalem would not have fit into his Gospel.

Well, since Mark only alludes to such appearances in Galilee, he didn't exactly give Luke much to work with here. And since it is reasonable to assume that some of his information came from the disciples, his recording of the same facts as does John (namely that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem after the execution of Jesus) should not be a surprise. Even in Matthew we know that the disciples had remained in Jerusalem, and therefore had to travel to Galilee (Matt 28:7-9).

Just out of curiosity, but given that Luke was writing at a time when Jerusalem was still the centre of Christianity, with James at the head of the Church, why would this be surprising?

Now do you see how speculation can take us all over the place? Your assumption that Luke is late leads you to focus on a point that would be obvious if it were, in fact, written early.

Fair enough. I withdraw the charge and apologize.

At the same time we appear to agree that it can easily be viewed as mere coincidence, and I am looking for much better arguments than this.

Hmm? It is a difference, and therefore an argument. Are you now saying that a weak argument is only permitted if the idea is one you support?

BTW, this, and my comment prior to it was a joke.

So we are dumb if we choose to accept that this is most probably a coincidence? Interesting. I thought Luke's choice for Jesus' first self revelation (i.e. the Temple) was especially appropriate. Perhaps you think he should have chosen another locale.

And all five elements are factually true, and would be found in any source discussing the census. In every other detail they differ making borrowing extremely unlikely. Comparing this to Luke's account of the birth narrative to Matt's we see certain commonalities (Mary and Joseph as parents, Bethlehem as the town of Jesus' birth, Herod was king, virginal conception, the recounting of genealogies, albeit different ones), yet Luke and Matt are ruled out as sources for one another because of the numerous differences.

One cannot be selective in one's use of the evidence. We must take it as a totality, then determine what is most probable. Luke and Josephus share basic facts that would have been reported in any account of the census of 6AD. On this basis we should accept that they used a common source (at most).

Bring as many buckets as you like Peter.

As we have seen, Luke has far more in common with Matthew, even just in the Birth Narrative, yet is rightly rejected as a source (or vice versa) for Matthew. Agreement in basic facts is not an indication of borrowing in either direction, and tends to lead us to accept a common source as more plausible.

Unless Luke wrote first, of course. This is why I asked you not to assume Josephus wrote first. Finally, we have yet to rule out the possibility that both men used earlier source(s) that would have mentioned the sicarii.

No it doesn't Peter, and please stay calm. The famine is an historical fact known to both men, and happens to fall in the appropriate period of time that both men should want to mention it. If you saw two histories of Iraq (c. 1990) would you suspect copying if both were to mention a war?

Now, you did not answer my question. Famines play an important role in several OT stories, and both Luke and Josephus were intent on linking their particular histories to OT Scripture. On this basis we would expect them to want to mention a famous famine that DID actually occur at the time of their stories. So why did you not note this motivation, independently held by both authors?

And once we get past the weak arguments, we can get to the stronger ones. My point remains that in a test of probabilities, it is important to examine all of the possible theories to test them for validity. In each case we either have examined thus far, the most that can be claimed is that both men used similar sources. This is a very long way from copying by Luke of Josephus, or Josephus of Luke.

Are you also looking for a standard of "impossibility"? I do not think such a standard can be met in historical inquiries. It is the reverse boogieman of your rejection of "proofs" in history.

As I have said many times before, I am looking for what is most probable. And the standard for making actual copying (as opposed to use of mutual sources) is a very high one indeed.

And as for my being easily troubled, I would prefer to discuss the stronger arguments for possible copying, but do want to make sure that these opening questions are sufficiently covered off first. Perhaps I am just being impatient.

Thanks.

I agree that Luke and Josephus are the only historians writing to Roman patrons to do this. I would be genuinely surprised if there were no other historians from any other culture and time that wrote apologetic history.

My arguments for an earlier dating of Luke/Acts has been presented in a number of threads.

Redating the Books of the New Testament (bottom third of the thread especially, but also my rejection of the circular reasoning found in dating ancient papyri and MSS).

For more on the question of dating MSS in general, see Dating P46. I think too much confidence is placed in current relatively late dates for much of the MSS evidence.

The case for dating the Book of Acts to the mid-second century Layman's defense of 1st Century Authorship.

I would also reference books used to date Acts to the 1st Century like R. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, R. Griffith-Jones The Four Witnesses, D.H. Akenson Saint Saul, and also the excellent web site from Daniel Wallace [url=http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm]Prof's Soapbox[/ur] and his discussion on Luke and Acts.

All of that said, I would prefer to leave arguments on dating to the end of this discussion, or to a separate thread. The ones I have offered above are all active, and can be revived.

Uh oh... I detect a pair of goal posts being moved...

I actually told Toto that I cannot prove just about anything to be "impossible". I also reject impossible as a useful standard. I prefer to stick with what is most probable, and clearly it is most probable that Luke did not use Josephus for his account of the census.

The problem with your comment here is that Luke does not mention the death of Paul either, increasing the likelihood that he was writing before Paul died, as well as James' death. After all, if alluding to James' death would be seen as a distraction in Acts, one to the death of Paul would not. Yet the silence is quite deafening.

One final point, but why would you think Luke should only allude to James' upcoming martyrdom at the end of Acts? Allusions to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem are set back in the time of Jesus, decades before the event. Vague references to the death of Peter are made in John's Gospel, helping scholars to date this work as being late. Why have Luke skip over such easy material as the death of James, or Peter or Paul?

All of that said, your point was that you would accept Luke did not use Josephus if he showed no indication of knowing something important in Josephus. The only clear reference Josephus makes to an historical Christian is in Antiquities (to James, less certainly to Jesus Himself), yet Luke shows no awareness of either reference. Your casual dismissal of this fact tells me that you are prepared to dismiss any argument on some such grounds. This allows you to claim you would reject Lucan dependence on Josephus in theory, but never in practice.

I call this a willingness to move the goalposts, and this is why I do not engage in guessing games in which I try to pin someone down as to what evidence they would take seriously, or find convincing. I do not know what you would call a significant display of Lucan ignorance of Josephus, so your test is not useful. So far as I am aware, you are prepared to accept Lucan dependence regardless of the evidence.

I will get to these in turn. I think we are about talked out on the points raised thus far, and will simply have to agree to disagree.

That said, I do not even try to prove negatives. Nor to I try to decipher what others may consider to be clear evidence that would refute their beliefs. I ask, and an answer was not forthcoming. Based on your responses above, I have no idea what would convince you that it is less likely that Luke depended on Josephus than his sources. Right now it looks like nothing will.

In any event, I will now drop it. My focus remains to establish levels of probability and plausibility. That is where I will move the discussion in my next post, as I look at other presumed similarities between Luke and Josephus.

Peace,

Nomad

Peter Kirby

Nomad wrote: "Actually, if you are willing to argue that Luke knew Matt, then the need for him to know Mark is effectively removed."

Actually, this is false. The hypothesis that Matthew used Mark alone and that Luke used Matthew alone has intractable difficulties.

Brian Wilson explains the problem (e-mail 6/14/01):

"The proof that this one documentary hypothesis is clearly false is that Luke contains material paralleled in Mark, and in very similar wording, that is not found in Matthew. For instance, on the pericope level, Mark and Luke both contain the Healing of the Capernaum Demoniac in very similar wording (Mk 1.23-28 // Lk 4.33-37), and this is absent (at least very largely) from Matthew. Similarly with the Widow's Gift (Mk 12.41-44 // Lk 21.1-4), not present in Matthew. There are also various instances of material in Luke found in Mark but not Matthew at the sentence level, and also at the phrase level (for instance within the Markan and Lukan accounts of the Gerasene Demoniac, Mk 5.1-20 // Lk 8.26-39.).

"If we test the hypothesis set out above against the data, it is clear that Luke could not have obtained this material paralleled in Mark but not Matthew, from his only source, that is Matthew, since Matthew did not contain it. It is extremely unlikely, however, that Luke coincidentally created out of his own head material that was so similar in wording to material in Mark. The conclusion is that the hypothesis set out above is clearly false beyond reasonable doubt."

Thus, those who have theorized that Luke may have known Matthew (Farrer, Goulder, Sanders, Goodacre) have also stipulated that Luke knew Mark.

Nomad: "Which scholar has taken Mason's arguments and examined them in detail?"

I referred to the latter statement quoted, that "General commentary on the similarities between Luke and Josephus have been done, but none have theorized that Josephus served as a source for either Luke or Acts." This is the statement that I don't believe. It can be refuted by a single example of a scholar other than Mason that has theorized that Josephus was a source for Luke-Acts, and one example is Robert Eisenman.

Nomad: "I assume you are talking about Richard's request for information from those that have read Doherty's book, and not just his website. As I have only read Doherty's website, I have abided by Richard's conditions, and not posted to his thread."

Fair enough. Why not post your arguments here; or if you like, in a new thread? I for one would be interested in hearing what you consider to be the significant evidentiary support for the historicity of Jesus. I am sure that others share my interest.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Peter Kirby

Nomad: "And yet Luke does not use Jerusalem in instances when he clearly could have done so."

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Nomad: "Well, since Mark only alludes to such appearances in Galilee, he didn't exactly give Luke much to work with here."

And that little that was given was entirely ignored in favor of Luke's exclusive emphasis on Jerusalem.

Nomad: "Just out of curiosity, but given that Luke was writing at a time when Jerusalem was still the centre of Christianity, with James at the head of the Church, why would this be surprising?"

Given the perfunctory references to James in Acts, the leadership of James as the head of the church is not reflected well in Acts. There is nothing in Acts like Thomas 12.

Nomad: "Now do you see how speculation can take us all over the place? Your assumption that Luke is late leads you to focus on a point that would be obvious if it were, in fact, written early."

I don't think that we should rule out of court, prior to the examination of evidence, the speculation that Luke wrote before the first Jewish revolt. I have no problem with acknowledging your speculation as an alternative scenario.

Nomad: "So we are dumb if we choose to accept that this is most probably a coincidence?"

Well, no. First, I referred to the action as being dumb (lame, premature, irresponsible), not any persons. Second, I don't think that we should rule out the possibility of coincidence, but I still think that the parallel deserves to be noted.

Nomad: "I thought Luke's choice for Jesus' first self revelation (i.e. the Temple) was especially appropriate."

So do I. It is especially appropriate if the Life was Luke's inspiration. It is just one possible choice among many if Luke had not read Josephus.

Nomad: "And all five elements are factually true, and would be found in any source discussing the census. In every other detail they differ making borrowing extremely unlikely."

My point is that there were not very many other details relating to Judas the Galilean, and those details that are different were explicable.

Nomad: "Luke and Josephus share basic facts that would have been reported in any account of the census of 6AD. On this basis we should accept that they used a common source (at most)."

This is a methodological error. The idea of a common source is not some kind of default position. On the basis of evidence for a literary link, we should accept this statement: "Luke knew Josephus, Josephus knew Luke, or Luke and Josephus knew a common source."

Nomad: "Agreement in basic facts is not an indication of borrowing in either direction, and tends to lead us to accept a common source as more plausible."

Again I disagree with this method.

Nomad: "Unless Luke wrote first, of course. This is why I asked you not to assume Josephus wrote first. Finally, we have yet to rule out the possibility that both men used earlier source(s) that would have mentioned the sicarii."

I think that Carrier's point is that the connection of the term 'assassins' to the person 'the Egyptian' appears to be redactional to Josephus. The identification of redactional material is one of the most common methods of attempting to identify the nature of a literary link. If Carrier is correct in making the identification of redaction on the part of Josephus, that would mitigate against the common-source theory and the theory that Josephus knew Luke. I intend to get into this later.

Nomad: "Now, you did not answer my question. Famines play an important role in several OT stories, and both Luke and Josephus were intent on linking their particular histories to OT Scripture. On this basis we would expect them to want to mention a famous famine that DID actually occur at the time of their stories. So why did you not note this motivation, independently held by both authors?"

I didn't even think of it. I am not much of an OT man myself. But now that you have brought it up, I don't think it is relevant: the same motivation could have moved Josephus to borrow this item from Luke or Luke to borrow this item from Josephus.

Nomad: "The famine is an historical fact known to both men, and happens to fall in the appropriate period of time that both men should want to mention it."

This is a better point. But perhaps there are so many of these coincidence that we ought not chalk them up to the similar context of both authors in time and space.

Nomad: "My point remains that in a test of probabilities, it is important to examine all of the possible theories to test them for validity. In each case we either have examined thus far, the most that can be claimed is that both men used similar sources. This is a very long way from copying by Luke of Josephus, or Josephus of Luke."

If you want to examin all of the possible theories, then you shouldn't privilege that common-source explanation over the direct copying explanation. A Farrerite could definitely make a case that the simpler hypothesis of direct copying should be preferred as it doesn't multiply documents beyond necessity, but I'm not endorsing that approach either. I think that we should not prejudice our examination of the nature of a literary link in either way.

Nomad: "Are you also looking for a standard of 'impossibility'? I do not think such a standard can be met in historical inquiries. It is the reverse boogieman of your rejection of 'proofs' in history."

True, but it was you who introduced the words "possible" and "impossible" into the exchange. You said "that it is virtually impossible to imagine that Luke knew of Josephus’ account, or vice versa." If you would like to show the copying to be improbable rather than impossible, that is OK with me too.

Nomad: "My arguments for an earlier dating of Luke/Acts has been presented in a number of threads."

I think the matter is relevant to the subject at hand. Where did you get the figure of 100 CE from as the terminus? To declare a terminus ad quem, you ought to have an explanation ready for why that particular year was chosen as the latest possible date. I would rather that you present that evidence here rather than for me to guess what was significant to you after wading through tons of old posts.

I wrote: "What is obvious should be obvious."

Nomad: "Uh oh... I detect a pair of goal posts being moved..."

Despite the smiley face, your accusation is a serious yet unfounded one. I hardly see how a tautological statement - that what is obvious is obvious - can be interpreted as the moving of goal posts. Perhaps you ought to explain why you have made this accusation against me.

Nomad: "I also reject impossible as a useful standard."

That is OK with me, but that was not evident from your statements that I ought not to appeal the census as an example of "possible" copying and that "it is virtually impossible to imagine that Luke knew of Josephus’ account, or vice versa." If you don't want people to think that you use the standard of impossibility, perhaps you should not use the word.

Nomad: "I prefer to stick with what is most probable, and clearly it is most probable that Luke did not use Josephus for his account of the census."

I don't agree with this. I propose the alternative hypothesis that Luke derived his information from notes on Josephus, particularly relating to the account concerning the sons of Judas the Galilean.

Nomad: "The problem with your comment here is that Luke does not mention the death of Paul either, increasing the likelihood that he was writing before Paul died, as well as James' death. After all, if alluding to James' death would be seen as a distraction in Acts, one to the death of Paul would not. Yet the silence is quite deafening."

This is certainly not a problem with my previous comment. My previous comment was an explanation for why we might not have an account of the death of James in Acts, not why we might not have an account of the death of Paul in Acts. Anything related to the death of Paul is simply orthogonal to my comment.

As it so happens, I have a different explanation for why the death of Paul is not narrated in Acts. First, note as you have done that it is possible to allude to the death of an individual without actually narrating it. It is to be noted that Acts 20:25, 36-38 hints that the author knew of Paul's death. However, suppose that those hints aren't there.

The notes in the Catholic NAB state: "Although the ending of Acts may seem to be abrupt, Luke has now completed his story with the establishment of Paul and the proclamation of Christianity in Rome. Paul's confident and unhindered proclamation of the gospel in Rome forms the climax to the story whose outline was provided in Acts 1, 8: 'You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. . . and to the ends of the earth.' "

I think that the story of Paul's martyrdom (even if true) could have been a bit of a spoiler and a gruesome end note, especially if the author has been intending to portray Roman authorities as favorable as possible to the early Christians. I see the closure of Acts to be appropriate and artistic.

What if Paul had died of syphilis or of old age? Who would want to narrate that?

After all, we don't know for sure how Paul died. There is a patristic tradition that Paul was beheaded in Rome, but it can be traced back no further than Tertullian in the early third century. The tradition of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, not necessarily by beheading, is clearly found in the extant primary sources approximately 100 years after the (supposed) event (Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Soter, Bishop of Rome, c. 170).

The earliest evidence comes from First Clement 5:

"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his
appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."
(First Clement 5 [usually dated A.D. 95])

Note that this does not clearly refer to martyrdom in Rome. Does "the farthest bounds of the West" refer to Rome? Or did Paul actually go on to Spain, as it is declared in Rom 15? I don't think that the historian can say. Furthermore, note that the author of First Clement doesn't say that Paul was beheaded, or that Peter was crucified, just that they departed from the world and went to 'the holy place' after enduring hardships. Although the concept of death by martyrdom is not necessarily excluded, neither is it present here.

So we don't really know what happened to Paul, how he died, or when he died.

Nomad: "One final point, but why would you think Luke should only allude to James' upcoming martyrdom at the end of Acts? Allusions to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem are set back in the time of Jesus, decades before the event. Vague references to the death of Peter are made in John's Gospel, helping scholars to date this work as being late. Why have Luke skip over such easy material as the death of James, or Peter or Paul?"

As I pointed out, if vague references are allowed, we have vague referenecs to the death of Paul in Acts. However, what is possible need not be considered probable. Maybe Luke could have made up a scene in which Jesus predicts the martyrdom of James, but he didn't - and neither did Matthew, Mark, John, or any noncanonical work. Because of the way that the author of Acts structures his focus on Paul in the latter part of his work, we simply cannot expect him to have narrated the death of James. Sure the author could have found a way to do so if he really wanted to do so, but that is not the same as a reason for us to have expected him to do so.

Nomad: "All of that said, your point was that you would accept Luke did not use Josephus if he showed no indication of knowing something important in Josephus."

Not exactly. My point was that we would know that Luke did not read Josephus if we could establish that Luke demonstrates ignorance of something in Josephus that Luke would have remembered if he had read Josephus. It is a different point in a few ways.

For example, if the author of Acts told us about the death of James in a way that contradicted the account in Josephus (e.g. saying that Paul murdered James), then this would pass my criterion for showing that Luke did not read Josephus, since it is not readily explicable how the author of Acts could have overlooked or misunderstood this part of Josephus.

Nomad: "The only clear reference Josephus makes to an historical Christian is in Antiquities (to James, less certainly to Jesus Himself), yet Luke shows no awareness of either reference."

Actually, I am no longer that sure that Josephus even referred to James. The arguments made by Jay Raskin in JesusMysteries post #3619 on Jul 16, 2001 are not entirely unpersuasive.

Nomad: "Your casual dismissal of this fact tells me that you are prepared to dismiss any argument on some such grounds. This allows you to claim you would reject Lucan dependence on Josephus in theory, but never in practice."

This is a very serious allegation. It would be nice if you had more to back it up than a pretty lame argument that the author of Acts should have told us about the death of James.

Nomad: "I call this a willingness to move the goalposts, and this is why I do not engage in guessing games in which I try to pin someone down as to what evidence they would take seriously, or find convincing. I do not know what you would call a significant display of Lucan ignorance of Josephus, so your test is not useful. So far as I am aware, you are prepared to accept Lucan dependence regardless of the evidence."

This is highly charged rhetoric that is rude to boot. If you cannot back up your allegation that I am wedded to the hypothesis of Luke's dependence regardless of the evidence, I think you ought to apologize for expressing such presumptiveness.

Nomad: "That said, I do not even try to prove negatives. Nor to I try to decipher what others may consider to be clear evidence that would refute their beliefs."

I think it ought to be kept in mind that it was you who brought up the question of what kind of evidence would be necessary in order to falsify the hypothesis that Luke used Josephus. If you do not even try to prove negatives, then why did you ask the question of how to prove the so-called 'negative' that Luke did not use Josephus? If you are going to ask the question in good faith, I think that you are obligated to attempt to "decipher" the response that was given and ask further questions if it is unclear. If you are not willing to make that effort, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought up the issue.

For my own part, I have never asked you to prove that Luke didn't use Josephus. I am content to examine the positive evidence concerning the literary link between Luke and Josephus.

Nomad: "I ask, and an answer was not forthcoming."

I gave you an answer to two questions: (1) what it would take for me to believe that Luke had not read Josephus and (2) what it would take for me to believe that Luke had not used Josephus. Maybe you just don't like the answer, but an answer was given. If you don't like the answer or don't understand the answer, maybe you should present your own answer to the question? That is, assuming that you believe that Luke didn't use Josephus and don't merely doubt it.

Nomad: "Based on your responses above, I have no idea what would convince you that it is less likely that Luke depended on Josephus than his sources. Right now it looks like nothing will."

Again this is inflammatory rhetoric. In order to refute these incendiary allegations, I need only present one possible scenario in which I would be convinced that Luke did not use Josephus. One possible scenario would be the discovery of a manuscript of Luke-Acts that was dated paleographically and through carbon dating to have been written prior to the first Jewish revolt. This is just a very simple and obvious piece of evidence that would convince me otherwise.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Peter Kirby

I have been looking a bit into the reception history of the hypothesis that Luke knew Josephus. Today I ran across the following.

Sanders, referring to Bultmann: "Luke 13.1-5 he dismissed even more quickly: it shows dependence on Josephus, _AJ_ XVIII.87." (_Jesus and Judaism_, p. 110)

A footnote refers to Bultmann's _History_, p. 54.

So it looks like Bultmann accepted the theory that Luke knew Josephus. The fact that an old giant like Bultmann accepted the idea demonstrates that the idea is not new to Mason and that it has been accepted by a strand of scholarship for quite some time.

And, just for fun, here is the parallel that is mentioned. It's just one more coincidence in story-telling between Luke and Josephus.

Luke 13 (RSV)
1
There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2
And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?
3
I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
4
Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?
5
I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87

BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Toto

I have to say, Peter, that the relationship between Luke 13.1-5 and Josephus, _AJ_ XVIII.87 is not obvious.

I ran across this note:

A casual web search also picks up a lot of courses on the relationship between Luke and Josephus. Perhaps this is a hot topic, and some light will come out of it.

Nomad

And this looks like another area of disagreement. If Luke knew of Matt, then I do not believe we would have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Luke would have also HAD to have known of Mark. The debate amongst scholars would be far more powerful than it is today, and certainly nothing approaching the near total concensus of Marcan priority would prevail.

The problem with this presentation, of course, is that it presupposes that we would continue to argue for Macan priority over Luke, even in the face of proven Matthian priority over Luke. I see no reason to sustain such an argument, and see no reason to suggest that if Matthew served as a source for Luke, and Luke felt free to delete or alter matterial from Matt, then Mark could easily have done the same. Bottom line, if Luke could use Matthew as a source, then there is no reason to assume that Mark could not also use Matthew and Luke as a source.

The reason I reject all of the above speculation is that I see no compelling case for Matthian priority, nor the single source argument. Acceptance of Marcan priority still has the best explanitory value, and the evidence against Lucan dependence on Matt is too strong to be dismissed.

Are you saying that you do not see the question begging taking place above?

IF (note the very large IF) Luke used Matt, and clearly altered and/or deleted material found in Matt, THEN we cannot dismiss the very real possibility that Luke wrote before Mark, and Mark elected to summarize both of the longer documents. Pointing to Matt/Luke agreements against Mark does not remove the question begging, since we can also point to Matt/Mark agreements against Luke, and the list of Matt/Luke agreements against Mark is even more impressive. On this basis, why hold to Marcan priority at all, except for the sake of tradition and scholarly conservatism? (As a final aside on this point, do not forget that the redator that added Mark 16:9-20 could then be argued to be extending this summarizing tradition with his own additions to Mark's gospel. Do not underestimate the ability of scholars to make large arguments from small bits of evidence Peter. From my experience it happens all the time, and on this issue, your optimism that Marcan priority could be defended seems to be unwarranted).

I do not wish to distract the discussion however. Suffice to say that I think the idea that Marcan priority can be defended at the same time as we would argue for Lucan dependence on Matt is questionable at best.

I'm sure you do not find appeals to authority to be all that convincing either Peter. The theory of Marcan priority is (in my view rightly) held BECAUSE we accept that Matthew and Luke used him independent of one another. Once (and if) the idea of Matthew's priority comes to the fore, it is only a matter of time before Marcan priority would fall into increasing disfavour.

Thus we show that you and I were arguing past one another. I specifically asked if any scholar has taken Mason's arguments and treated them to critical review, and I do not believe anyone has. Eisenman can hardly be called a defender of Mason's thesis on this question, and no other scholar has even bothered to refute him in detail, let alone by name.

If you wish to have a discussion on the historicity of Jesus, then perhaps we can do so once this thread is done and I have more time. Right now my time is extremely limited, unfortunately, and I do not see much relief on the near horizon.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad

Sure. Have Jesus pray at the Temple, or declare Himself to be the Messiah at the Temple, or be arrested there. Have Him perform a miracle at the Temple, or send out the the Twelve, not in 9:2-6, but wait until the end of his Gospel after the Resurrection. The opportunities are limitless (given the assumption that Luke is making up his Jerusalem motifs for theological reasons as you propose).

So? Luke had already followed Mark by having Jesus send out the Twelve long before He and they ever got to Jerusalem. This has them preaching the Gospel first not in the Temple, or even from Jerusalem, but rather, all over Galilee, showing that the Gospel could be taught anywhere at any time, and certainly didn't need the Temple or Jerusalem as the focal point.

There is nothing in any of the Gospels that tells us that James was first amongst the Apostles, and the one to deliver the final agreement to the laity in Acts 15. Since Luke clearly did not get this information from Mark (or Q, or Matt), then he could have gotten it from Paul or Josephus. And if his source was Josephus, then why ignore the death of James completely?

Personally, I think the best explanation is that Luke wrote before James was actually dead. If on the other hand, Luke is using Josephus as a source, then ignoring this glaring bit of evidence requires you to postulate the completely unsupported idea that the reference to James is a later interpolation. Rationalizations like this to support one's hypothesis shows the need to make the evidence fit the argument.

And I think the choice most closely reflects Luke's clear dependence on the LXX where he is clearly copying from the account of Samuel, Hannah and Eli. Postulating Josephus as the source is unnecessarily complicated, and the parallels too inconclusive. The parallels with 1 Samuel 1-2 and Luke 1:1-2 is much more apparent.

Consider the following:

Hannah means "blessed". Mary is called "blessed" by her cousin Elizabeth.

Eli, the aged priest, meets and blesses Elkanah and Hannah at the sacred sanctuary of Shiloh (Jerusalem was not yet conquered by the Israelites) after Samuel's presentation, then they go home (1 Samuel 1:20). Simeon, the aged priest, meets Joseph and Mary in the Temple at Jesus' presentation, and blesses them, then they return home to Nazareth (Luke 2:34, 39).

In 1 Samuel 1:19 we are told of the annual pilgrimage of the family to Shiloh. In Luke 1:42 we are told of the family's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Later, as Samuel and Jesus grow we are told:

1 Samuel 1:26 And the boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with men.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

For Luke, a man who wanted to connect Christianity to the ancient Jewish faith that gave it birth, the Hebrew Scriptures served as a natural source of inspiration for his Gospel. The LXX is well known to have predated Luke, and the number of parallels and examples of copying is hardly limited to this one story. If we want to look for a source of parallels, and even for the emphasis on Jerusalem and the Temple, we need look no further than the Old Testament.

In the specific case of Jesus' demonstration of exceptional wisdom in the Temple (Luke 2:46-49), we can easily point to Samuel's own experience again (where Samuel's wisdom and righteousness, even as a child, is contrasted with that of Eli's own adult sons 1 Samuel 2:17-18). It is also reasonable to see Luke drawing a favourable comparison between Jesus and the wisest of Israel's kings, Solomon.

1 Kings 3:7, 9-10, 12; 4:34"Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties.
So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?" The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this.
I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be.
Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

Luke 2:46-47 After three days they found him (Jesus) in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.

Thus we can see that Luke is drawing comparisons between Jesus and two of Israel's most famous wise leaders.

Did Josephus do this as well, only in this case, for himself? Yes he did. At the same time, remember that he has already told his own readers that he will be looking to the Hebrew Scriptures for his inspiration and themes. Needless to say, given that both men are mining the same source, we should expect to see some similarities in their presentation, but taking those similarities and theorizing copying by one of the other is over reaching. The more likely is that both men sound similar because they are using the same source: in this case the Septuagint.

Yet the point remains that the similarities are in bare known facts of a famous event, and in other key details on the census itself Luke and Josephus differ significantly. Again insisting on borrowing is over stating the evidence.

I have already offered the same set of options, and shown why we should treat a common source as the most probable and plausible explanation. As we explore the other examples, we will learn that use of similar sources will help to understand the reasons for similarities.

In order to show actual borrowing or parallels, the examples should be clear, and also the likelihood that one author could have known of the other. In the case that Matt and Luke knew Mark, this is clear. Similarily with Matt, Luke, Josephus and Paul with the Septuagint. The only question left is to uncover if the most probable source for some of Luke's information was Josephus, rather than something else (like the LXX). Thus far we have not seen anything very convincing to make postulating Josephus as a source the best probability.

Yet you are also ignoring the evidence for alternative and earlier sources available to us. We know the following:

1) Luke had sources for historical information that is not found in Josephus (i.e. titles, names, places, ect.)
2) Luke has significant differences in the presentation of subjects he shares with Josephus (i.e. the census).
3) Josephus could not possibly have been the earliest source for the census of 6AD, nor the revolt of Judas of Galilee triggered by that census
4) Luke can be shown to be using Hebrew Scripture in the form of the LXX, just as Josephus has already told us that he too is using this source.
5) When we have an older known source, like the LXX, postulating that the newer source is more probable is begging the question, especially when the certainty of knowledge of Josephus by Luke is yet to be demonstrated. Mutual knowledge of the LXX, on the other hand, is a given.

Actually, if the first known literary occurence of the word sicarii connected to the Egyptian is found in Acts 21:38, then why theorize that Josephus redacted it first? When we have only two known sources for the use of a single word, it is speculative at best to claim that one was earlier than the other. In order for your (and Carrier's) argument to work, we must assume that Luke AND his audience knew of Josephus' works to the point where he could leave a great deal unsaid. On the other hand, if it is more likely that the term sicarii was known to people who lived in the East, near Egypt, in the 1st Century, then we would expect Luke to use it, and to do so in this context.

Agreed. But my point remains that since we find the motif commonly used in Hebrew Scriptures, and both men are known to be using these Scriptures as a source, we would expect a degree of over lap. You might as well postulate that Luke used Matt rather than Mark in those places where all three agree. For myself, I prefer the simpler explanation that Luke and Josephus were using a common source, the Septuagint. I find the preference for the later Josephus as the source to be question begging. For what it is worth, I would say the same to those that would say that Josephus used Luke as his source, rather than the LXX.

See my comments on theorizing that Luke used Matt instead of Mark when all three sources agree. The Septuagint came before Luke and Josephus, and as it is a known source in other matters, there is no reason to expect it not to be a source here.

Let's look at what Luke wrote:

Acts 11:27-28 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)

This account closely echoes the acount found in Genesis 41 when the spirit of God helped Joseph to prophesy the world wide famine to Pharaoh. This is among the most famous stories in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor is it alone. Elijah, one of the most famous prophets of Hebrew Scriptures, and one mentioned by name by Luke, prophecies a famine that will last 3 years, further demonstrating his connection to God, through the Spirit. Remember, for Luke, the gift of prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit, so by linking the prophecy of Agabus to the traditions found in the OT, Luke helps to establish the legitimacy and continuity of the new Christian faith with the ancient one of the Jews.

And I am not prejudicing the examination. I am demonstrating that earlier sources existed. Further, I am showing that those earlier sources offer a better (or at least as good) an explanation for what we find in Luke than does the direct copying of Josephus. Finally, Luke has a clear and obvious motive for wanting to use the Hebrew Scriptures, yet it is hard to see why he would have wanted to draw upon Josephus. Given that he already had a rich and respected source in the Septuagint, I fail to see why postulating Josephus as his source is the simpler explanation. Clearly it is not.

At least you noted that I said "virtually impossible", as opposed to simply calling Luke's knowledge or copying of Josephus flat out impossible. Given that there is a significant qualitative difference between virtually impossible, and actually impossible, I would prefer a simple acknowledgement that I am not out to "prove" anything, but, rather, to show what is most probable.

Is it impossible that Luke knew Josephus? No. Is it impossible that Josephus knew and used Luke? No again. But given the obvious fact that both men had and used other sources, including the LXX as a known common source, I think calling any similarity evidence of copying to be unjustified. Given that the parallels are stronger and more plausible taken from the Septuagint, rather than from Luke or Josephus, I do not see that a very strong case being made for copying by one man or the other.

I consider the arguments for a 1st Century dating of Luke/Acts to be based on a number of pieces of evidence:

1) The actual silences on the well known events of 62-70AD and beyond (i.e. the death of Paul, Peter, James, persecutions by Rome)
2) The Olivet Discource could easily find its source in the Old Testament, as well as Jesus' own apocalyptic teachings.
3) Acts demonstrates knowledge of places, people and titles that would have been almost certainly unknown to any 2nd Century author. In fact, until archaeology proved him right, his supposed "errors" in these matters was thought to be a good argument for dating Luke/Acts to the 2nd Century. Interestingly, now that this argument has been demolished, it is simply ignored, and some scholars press on with their belief that Luke/Acts is late.
4) The "we" passages are plausible, especially for an occassional companion to Paul, making the author a contemporary of the apostle.
5) Luke's prologue tells us that his information comes from eye witnesses, and given his accuracy in a great number of basic facts, makes scepticism rather forced in my view. We should accept his statement as prima facie evidence, and demand clear evidence that he could not have used eye witness testimony.
6) Luke demonstrates none of the awareness of later Church structures, as found in the writings of Ignatius (c. 110AD), and the Pastorals (c. first quarter of 2nd Century). His style, themes, theology and issues are better set in the 1st than the 2nd Century.

These are, of course, a very short summary of my reasoning for dating Luke/Acts early. I do not wish to get too deeply into this point just yet, largely in keeping with my commitment to Michael that I would examine the evidence independent of the question of dates. If you wish, we can pursue this question on a separate thread.

Your evasiveness in answering my question told me that even if I should produce an "obvious" example of Luke's ignorance of something in Josephus, you would rationalize it away. Further, your demonstration that you would do exactly this when I mentioned the absense of awareness of the death of James did not bode well. In the past I have met individuals that would never give me a clear example of what would satisfy them sufficiently, and your response told me that you were unwilling to offer me such a standard.

And here I would only ask that you read what I write, and acknowledge that "virtually impossible" is qualitatively different from "impossible". This avoids strawman arguments.

I have shown why it is more reasonable to believe that Josephus MUST have used a source for what he wrote, and given the bare bones agreement of fact with Luke, we should accept as most probable and plausible that Luke used a similar source. Given the fact that Luke needed some device to get Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem, his motive for using it is equally clear, and does not require an appeal to Josephus. After all, the detail that the census of 6AD required people to go to their own town cannot even be found in Josephus. Finally, given the obvious fame of the resulting revolt by Judas of Galilee in the region, it should not be a stretch to expect two men writing about the early part of 1st Century Palestine would mention it. It would have been odd if either had NOT mentioned it.

On this basis, I see no reason to postulate Josephus as Luke's source for the census. Your reasons for arguing otherwise merely beg the question in my view.

Given that I see no way to distinguish between "notes" on a work, and necessary "sources" for that same work, I do not see why you need to suggest Josephus to be a source at all, except that it allows you to support your theory. But theory driven evaluation of evidence is not good methodology.

I disagree. James is mentioned in similar context in Josephus and Acts (as leader of the young Church, and based in Jerusalem). If you are already theorizing that Luke used Josephus as a source, then you should be willing to grant that Luke got this information from Jospehus (he certainly didn't get it from his only other known sources, Mark and Q). Yet your willingness to entertain a completely unsubstantiated argument that Josephus never wrote about James at all tells me that you merely want to have your cake and to eat it too.

Explain to me how you do not see your theory necessitating your argument that Josephus' account of the death of James was a later Christian interpolation.

Actually, as a companion of Paul, Luke would have known of Paul's plan to go on to Rome, and then further west to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28), insuring that he would not see the Ephesians again. It certainly does not need to be read as any kind of hint that Paul is known to be dead.

Yet you do not show why Luke would have expected the Romans to be friendly, or even why he would want to portray them as such. If he were writing in the 2nd Century, then Christians have already had to deal with Nero, Domitian, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the Diaspora and persecutions as we find in Pliny. An early date before these horrors become known to Christians and Romans alike (like, say, during a time when Paul and James are still alive) does seem much more probable, given the absense of evidence to the contrary to be found anywhere in Luke/Acts.

Given that Roman soldiers are shown to be among the early converts, and Theolophilus himself is obviously Roman, widespread scepticism and hatred of Christians as found in Tacitus, Celsus and Pliny appears not to have appeared on the scene, or even on the horizon when Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts.

Given that we do not have an account of how virtually any ancient died that dates to within a hundred years of his life, this is not a surprise. At the same time, few question the reports given. To prejudice Christian accounts is to beg the question, and given the fact that Paul's letters appear to end by the early 60's, and we find narry a hint of the persecutions to come (including Nero's), the evidence fits the accounts known to us.

Perhaps you believe that Paul wrote the Pastorals or other disputed letters?

Is there a reason you confine this statement to "extant primary sources"? Besides, much older extant copies of Plutarch give us the account of the death of Crassus, yet it is not questioned. Even the original, in this case, would be over 100 years after the fact in any event.

In order to cast doubt on the traditional accounts of Paul's death, one must ignore the evidence of Paul's own letters (which end c. 62AD), 1 Clement (c. 95AD), and the accounts of Nero's persecutions found in Tacitus (c. 125AD). I see no reason to be so sceptical, given the relative abundance of sources. Even the evidence from Tertullian (c. 200AD) is well within the expected time frame for the reported death of a famous person.

I know that you accept the historicity of Paul, but if we pursue your current expressed scepticism of the death of Paul, it is easy to extend that to doubts about his existence at all. As an historian I believe you would find such a position to be absurd. For this reason, I ask only that evidence that is accepted in non-Christian scenarios be givent he same credence when applied to a Christian claim.


I have heard the unconvincing arguments that Paul did make it all the way to Spain. In any case, his death c. mid-60's is well enough attested to be accepted, and would not even be disputed if it were not a Christian claim.

Here I can only say that the understanding that Clement is telling us that Paul and Peter are dead is pretty well accepted. As to the means by which they died, perhaps Tertullian got it wrong, but I see no reason to question his account.

Actually, just so that you know, I reject a late date for John as well. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that Jesus (or at least John writing on His behalf) could have "forseen" Peter's martyrdom. I have also found the other reasons for dating John late to be very weak, but that is yet another discussion.

Yes, well, I think they were all written before the event, or as pseudonymous (in the case of the Pastorals and epistles from Peter) works they had no place in the work.

Actually, I see this question as falling more into the area of dating Luke/Acts with greater certainty, and coupled with other evidence helps to argue for an early (i.e. pre-70) dating. At the same time, if Luke is getting his information on James from Josephus, then it does make the deletion of even an allusion to James' death hard to explain.

Here all I can say is that it is not. Reading your statements above, I could not possibly know what would fit your criteria. One can always rationalize away a bit of problematic evidence, but doing so does not remove that evidence, nor does it refute the argument.

Well, in addition to the discrepencies we have seen in the census, the special reading required to think that Luke somehow mistakenly read Josephus in his account and dating of Theudas is yet another example of how one must rationalize in order to make the evidence fit the theory, rather than taking the simpler route and admitting that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.

Perhaps you could summarize the argument, rather than make me pursue a long explanation on another thread. In any case, once one is required to speculate that evidence is a later interpolation, especially when this is necessary to hold to one's theory, we should be seeing some red flags.

I have shown several occassions in which you have rationalized the evidence in order to maintain the integrity of the theory that Luke used Josephus. In my view, this is evidence of "moving the goal posts", and you are correct, it is a serious charge. Unfortunately, it is a practice I have seen used by a great many scholars, and in my view a more conservative and less speculative approach to historical inquiry would reduce the need to do this.

I will tone down the rhetoric now, only because in your response below you did finally offer an answer to my question. I did not mean to offend, but your willingness to dismiss evidence in other arguments looked, to me, like a willingness to rationalize in order to hold to a theory. This was not a personal attack on you specifically, but, rather, my own demonstration of an unwillingness to accept weak arguments in defence of a theory.

You and I have different philosophical approaches to historical inquiry. You seem to have a far higher tolerance for, and willingness to explore, speculations that I do not believe are born out by the evidence. I argue against Lucan dependence on Josephus for the same reason I argue against Lucan dependence on Matthew, or vice versa. As a rule, I believe that a speculation that must require extensive rationalizes, or special treatment of the available evidence is not helpful, and probably clouds our inquiry. I confine such arguments to matters of philosophy (metaphysics) and theology where evidence is less useful as a rule, and rational and logical arguments are all that we have to fall back on. I do not argue that such beliefs have such value. Quite the opposite actually. But in a field like historical studies, I prefer a much more conservative approach to the questions I examine.

Thank you for your answer Peter. This was what I was looking for in the first place, and had you offered it, I would not have questioned your answers above. I do not wish to start a flame war, nor did I mean to offend, but at the same time, I am serious in my statement that I cannot and will not try to decifer what a person means when they give me cryptic answers to my direct questions.

I apologize for offending you. I assure you that that was not my intent. Unfortunately there are times that I do lose my patience, and this was one of them. I am sorry.

I have appreciated your points and questions Peter, and as I am able, I have been investigating this question even more deeply than I had originally expected. That said, I have found little to change my original belief. Luke does not appear to have used Josephus' Antiquities as a source, and the arguments for early dating of Luke/Acts are more convincing than those for a later date. That said, I intend to continue to explore the alleged parallels, and see where it takes us.

Be well,

Nomad

Nomad

Alright, time to get back to the arguments on possible Lucan dependence on Josephus.

Carrier’s next argument focuses on the use of three rebel leaders names:

From Luke and Josephus

It is certainly true that both men record all three people in their histories. Since I am confining my own discussion to whether or not Luke would have gotten this information from Antiquities, we can even assume that he may well have gotten them from Josephus’ earlier work, Jewish Wars, yet even this possibility is quite unlikely.

First, if Luke is using Josephus as his source for Judas of Galilee, we have already seen that he ignores most of the key information that Josephus provides for us, and gives us additional information that is not found in Josephus. To go from this to argue that Luke was using Josephus as his source is difficult to maintain. After all, these are not the only three men that Luke uses, and the others offered are not found in Josephus at all.

Our best example of this fact is Simon Magus (Acts 8) being presented as an opponent of the early Christians, a great man, and is found only in Luke. So, perhaps Simon is an example of one of the “numerous such men” that Josephus found unworthy of mentioning, but to claim that Luke did not single him out is obviously false. In fact, Luke spends far more time talking about Simon than he does the other three rebels (even put together). Further, to define Simon as not being one of the rebel leaders is unjustified, given that Luke tells us that Simon considered himself to be some great (Acts 8:9). This is how Luke described Theudas (Acts 5:36). In fact, Luke devotes a grand total of one sentence to Theudas, and one more to Judas of Galilee, yet devotes Acts 8:9-24 to Simon. In Luke’s eyes, Simon is clearly the most important character of the three (four if we count the Egyptian, who also receives mention in one sentence of Acts), yet Carrier ignores this fact. In so doing, he makes his argument look stronger, but really it merely begs the question.

An even bigger problem for those who wish to argue for a parallel between Luke and Josephus on Theudas is the fact that Luke thinks Theudas’ revolt came about in the 30’s, while Josephus clearly tells us that it happened at the time of Fadus (c. 44-46AD). Both Carrier and Peter Kirby attempted to explain this discrepancy by saying that Luke may have misread Josephus, but this is yet one more example of begging the question. If we are going to speculate so freely, then why not speculate that they are referring to two different men who used the same name? To quote from another scholar on the subject:

From New Testament Parallels to the Works of Josephus:

There is a famous discrepancy here between Josephus and the quotation from Acts. The speech made by Gamaliel occurs in the 30's CE, not long after Jesus' death. But Theudas arose under Fadus, who was procurator from 44 to 46. So Gamaliel's speech is anachronistic. Furthermore, Gamaliel here states that Judas the Galilean arose after Theudas, in the time of the census; but this was in 6 CE.
The usual scholarly positions have been taken to alternately preserve or attach the accuracy of the New Testament. Perhaps there was another, earlier Theudas that Josephus forgot to mention; perhaps the text of Acts has been corrupted in transmission. One interesting theory is that Luke (the author of Acts) read Josephus erroneously. Supporting this notion is the mention of Judas the Galilean's sons at section 102, just a few lines after the end of the description of Theudas at 99. A misreading or poor notetaking could cause someone to think Theudas appeared before Judas. It is rather hard to see, though, how someone could so badly misread the Antiquities in this way, including ignoring the references to the procurators. A reasonable secular explanation is that Luke used some other, less reliable history that bore similarities to Josephus; perhaps this also served as one of Josephus' sources.

To me, arguing that Luke was using bad notes, rather than an earlier (and possibly less accurate) source is straining credulity to the breaking point.

Second, we are expected to make something of the fact that Luke refers to a man as “The Egyptian” instead of with an actual name. Interestingly, regardless of whether Luke or Josephus is the first man to write about him, this is the only name he is known by. On this basis, according to Carrier, we are expected to say that Luke probably copied it from Josephus. On the other hand, perhaps this was the only name ever offered for the man. After all, he was a pirate, and a leader of a gang of assassins. To the Romans, the notoriety of man may have been best connected to this nom de guerre, making it a mere convention to refer to him as The Egyptian. Rome put down rebels all the time, and very commonly linked people’s names with places (i.e. Africanus, Germanicus, Britanicus), making the practice a convention, even for Romans themselves. In the case of a minor rebel, this may have been all the distinction the man merited. In any event, we find the Egyptian in Jewish Wars (c. 79AD) and given that Luke may well date to 80-100AD, it is possible that he borrowed the name from this source. My scepticism on this point is driven primarily by the fact that Luke tells us next to nothing about the Egyptian himself, and certainly does not see him as a central character in his story. For Luke, the “Egyptian” serves as a plot device in which his name is mistakenly attached to Paul by a Roman commander (Acts 7:38). There is simply not enough information here to link Luke to Josephus as his necessary source on this point.

What we have here is a failure on Carrier’s part to note that one of the key figures mentioned negatively by Luke, Simon Magus is not found in Josephus at all. Further, Simon receives far more play than does Theudas, Judas the Galilean or The Egyptian. Finally, if Luke was using Josephus as a source, he was not only ignoring virtually all of the information Josephus tells us about these men, but he even gets the dates of their rebellions wrong! The fact that so many other facts reported in Luke cannot be found in Josephus has already told us that he had independent sources to Josephus. Thus, trying to connect the two men’s works on the basis of such weak examples is not helpful.

I suppose that Luke could have been using Josephus “carelessly” as Carrier maintains, but this does seem to be rather odd. In my view, it is far more probable that Luke was using earlier sources, possibly even ones that Josephus was using himself. After all, both men are not writing as eye witnesses to these events, so such sources must have existed. As with the case of the census of 6AD, it seems most probable that Luke and Josephus used these sources, rather than each other, for their information.

I will continue to look at the parallels offered by Carrier. That said, I hope that by now it is clear that one must use a very careful and selective use of the evidence to reach the sweeping conclusions offered by Richard. To me, as I have said previously, we should be more careful in our conclusions, and weight them to the evidence. To go further than this is to invite a good deal of question begging, and speculation that is not born out by a careful reading of the evidence. Thus far, the parallels between Luke and Josephus have looked especially weak, and it is becoming increasingly clear why modern scholars have rejected them as pointing to probable copying.

Peace,

Nomad

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Toto

Nomad - Just a quick note.

The argument is that the three named rebel leaders are the same in Luke and Josephus, not that all persons mentioned in Luke can be found in Josephus. Simon Magus is listed in Acts as a magician, not as a rebel leader. Other scholars have expressed doubt as to the historicity of Simon Magus, since he is mentioned nowhere except in Acts.

Josephus mentions these rebels against Roman rule to emphasize that they were bad, and to distance himself and his idea of good Judaism from them. The author of Luke also uses these rebel leaders as negatives, in contrast to the Christians who played by the Roman rules. Since there were (according to Josephus) many rebels at the time, it would be an amazing coincidence for two separate writers to just happen to mention the same three names. But Mason himself does not think that this coincidence by itself is definitive proof that Luke relies on Josephus, as opposed to both using a common source.

The Mason-Carrier argument is not that the author of Luke plagiarized from Josephus, but that he had read Josephus and incorporated some of the details from Josephus into his narrative to add local color, or verisimilitude. Mason argues persuasively (at p.212) that the differences between Luke and Josephus show that the author of Luke was aware of Josephus. (I will not re-type his full argument here at this time.)

Nomad

But you see Toto, Luke does not do this. In the case of "The Egyptian", all we have in Acts is a case of mistaken identity. Paul simply tells the Roman commander that he is mistaken. In the case of Judas of Galilee, and Theudas, they get a grand total of one sentence mention each. From this, there is no way to determine where Luke got his information, and in the case of Judas, Luke's information differs so completely from Josephus as to make the notion of using Josephus as a source extremely unlikely.

Not really. Luke is already going to know about Judas because he appears in the same census mentioned in Luke. Any common source is going to mention him. As for The Egyptian and Theudas, they are contemporaneous to Paul, so there is hardly much of a surprise that they should appear in the story, along with Simon of Magus. Now, if you are simply going to question every single source reference in the Bible, and tell us that the historicity may be in doubt, so what? Luke give Simon the biggest play in Acts, and barely bothers to mention the other three at all.

Back to my original question, but on the basis of one line references to specific individuals, how can you know with any certainty at all that Luke was using Josephus? As I have shown, we can't. And when specific details differ as significantly as we see here, the likelihood of copying is even more remote.

I know this Toto. The problem is that Carrier is going further than Mason, and claiming that it shows with near certainty that Luke used Josephus. Yet again we see an example where Carrier simply overstates the evidence, and I am in the process of showing why it is clear overstating.

And as we have seen, these details had to have been available in earlier sources (after all, neither Josephus nor Luke were witness to these individuals). Given the lack of any links between Luke and Josephus, the much more reasonable view is to accept that these men were using such sources.

Yes, well, since Carrier does not mention them either (or if he does, then I will get to them as well), then I am not going to go chasing after undocumented arguments. You find them persuasive, and choose not to share why you have done so. Such is your right, but that is not how a debate takes place. Imagine if I were to refute Carrier by simply saying that I read a book, and it was persuasive, so I reject his views. I'm sure you would not see that as much of a rebuttal. And you would be right.

Nomad

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]