Toto

Nomad: You continue to stare at a tree, saying "what forest?"

For your information, here is a credible, scholarly site that argues that Luke copied directly from Matthew:

Mark Without Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site

I could be convinced that Luke did not use Josephus, or that the question cannot be answered with the information that we have. That's why Mason's theory is "falsifiable". It depends on the evidence regarding a number of coincidences and parallels between the two authors, not just on this one point.

Peter Kirby

Nomad: "Actually, this is an especially peculiar argument to make Peter. In other examples of obvious copying (Mark 16:9-20 copying from the Gospel of Luke, and the Protoevangelium of James copying from Luke) we see instances where the genres are very different, yet the copying is quite obvious."

Please take note of my original statement: "I think that the generic parallels are included merely as a form of hypothesis-testing. If it is true that Luke has modeled his work after Josephus, they would be of the same genre."

Note that I did not say that, "If it is true that Luke copied from Josephus, they would be of the same genre." I think that the hypothesis-testing applies to a stronger statement: the idea that Luke modeled his work in some way after Josephus.

Now, I think that might be irrelevant because, even if Luke didn't model his work after Josephus, Luke could still have borrowed from Josephus. So it doesn't test the important hypothesis but only a particular subset of it.

Nomad: "The Epistle of James uses considerable material from "Q", yet is not a Gospel in the sense that the Synoptics are."

I would be interested in the argument that the Epistle of James knew of Q (unless you just meant that they have the same material somehow).

Nomad: "Further, as Luke and the other Gospels are of different genres themselves (note that Luke never refers to his work as a Gospel), his copying from Mark demonstrates that similar genres cannot be used as any kind of hypothesis testing."

I don't think that Mark 1:1 is a title for the work either (cf. Helmut Koester, _Ancient Christian Gospels_). Personally, I think the idea that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark are of the same genre wins out unless you've got some pretty important differences between their intent or content to point out. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of the facts that Luke appended a second volume (but this doesn't change the nature of the first work) and that Luke has a preface (but again I don't see this as essential). Maybe you've got something better?

Nomad: "Here Mason is trying to make the argument that Luke and Josephus are offering apologetic material to their Roman patrons. In the case of Josephus himself, he is making an argument in his own defense, as he WAS one of those rebels, and a general no less. For Luke, if he was writing at a time of persecution of Christians by the Romans (i.e. mid 80’s AD under Domitian), then his motivation is equally obvious. Trying to make a link by saying that Luke could have gotten his idea from Josephus is merely begging the question here. After all, if Josephus wants to defend himself and his faith, then why shouldn’t the same idea occur to Luke as well?"

Certainly, I would not deny that Luke and Josephus could not have both come up with the idea to write a historical apology justifying their particular religious tradition to Roman patrons. But it is a way in which Luke and Josephus stand in a genre all of their own, and thus it is relevant by your own lights: "simply showing that two works are of similar genres is irrelevant, unless the two works are unique in this sense." (Nomad) By itself, it could be chalked up to coincidence. As part of an overall case for a genetic link between Josephus and Luke, it deserves to be noted.

Nomad: "And yet again this proves nothing, as Luke also calls Felix 'most excellent' (Acts 24:3) as well as Festus (26:25). If anything, this title appears to be an honourary convention in addressing people of high station, similar to 'Your Grace' or 'Noble Sir' has been a convention in the past." This is a particularly insignificant point, which is why I did not stress it.

Nomad: "Again I am left to wonder why we would suspect Luke to be getting this idea from Josephus, rather than the other way around."

I think we should first focus on the question of whether there is any kind of literary link between Luke and Josephus. Later on we can attempt to determine whether Luke used Josephus, Josephus used Luke, or Josephus and Luke used a common source.

Nomad: "Once again this creates a problem, however, for the theory that Luke is using Josephus, as the latter specifically tells us explicitly in his prologue that he is connecting the events he is recording to Hebrew Scriptures. Luke never does this, and if he is using Josephus as a source, this refusal to follow Josephus’ lead is inexplicable."

I am unclear on the manner of your argument. Are you saying that Luke did connect the events he is recording to Hebrew Scriptures but failed to mention this in his prologue, as he would have done if he were following Josephus? Or are you saying that Luke did not connect the events he is recording to Hebrew Scriptures, as he would have done if he were following Josephus?

Nomad: "Second, of course Luke wants to remind his readers of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. This is where the climax of the story will take place (arrest, trial, execution, Resurrection). What we do not see from either GLuke or Acts is Jerusalem or the Temple as the focus of the story. Jesus remains the theological focus throughout, and this is certainly unlike anything written by Josephus (or any other Jew prior to 70AD)."

This serves as an example of the Christian adaptation of Josephus. Of course the work of Luke-Acts is not a book about Jerusalem; that is something that the author of Luke-Acts would not have written even if he were captivated by Josephus. The author of Luke-Acts set out to write the story of Jesus and the church in a Christian way that adapts the model of Josephus. So, of course his main theological focus is on Jesus! But a clear subtheme is Jerusalem and the Temple.

I will quote again the evidence that Luke had a motif concenring the Temple that influenced the way that Luke told the story of Jesus and the church.

"unlike the other Gospel writers, he begins his story in Jerusalem, which was famous around the world as the national home of the Jews. The renowned Jewish temple is where the Christian story takes shape (Luke 1:8). Now Luke's sources tell him that Jesus spent most of his career away from Jerusalem, in the villages of Galilee, and came down to the great city only in the final days of his life (cf. Mark 11:1; Matt 21:1). But Luke gets around this problem by regularly introducing Jerusalem into the narrative before its time. He has Jesus' family visit the temple regularly (Luke 2:41-51), and he has Jesus 'set his face toward Jerusalem' early in the narrative (9:51), long before Jeuss actually goes there. Indeed Jesus remains in Galilee for most of the story, as in the other Gospels (cf. 19:28), but this author keeps reminding the reader that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem all the while (9:51; 13:33; 17:11; 19:11)." (_Josephus and the New Testament_, p. 199)

Note particularly the point that the author of Luke constantly reminds the reader that Jesus is headed for Jerusalem. This emphasis is unique among all the gospels. The point that Luke says that Jesus' family frequently visited Jerusalem is a fairly superfluous point, but it is not beneath notice. A person's purposes in writing do not mean that the person has made up facts; often it merely influences the facts that are selected for notice. This would be an example of such a fact, as this is not recounted in any other gospel.

"After Jesus' resurrection, similarly, Luke departs from Mark and Matthew by insisting that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem for Jesus' appearances (Luke 24:13, 18, 33). They are explicitly told to remain in Jerusalem until the Spirit is given, for the gospel will go out from Jerusalem to the ends of the world (Luke 24:47, 52; Acts 1:8, 12). In Acts, Jerusalem is indeed the church's headquarters. The apostles who reside there, having been chosen by Jesus himself, oversee the church's affairs (Acts 8:1, 14; 9:26; 11:22; 15:2; 16:4; 21:17-18). Although Christianity might seem to observers in Rome or Asia Minor as a shadowy and secretive movement, Luke forthrightly claims that it has both a geographical center and an authorized leadership." (_Josephus and the New Testament_, p. 199)

Nomad: "Once again we have a critical difference in focus that is missing in Mason’s analysis. Jerusalem is, at best, a backdrop, as is the Temple itself. Jesus is the focus of the story, as is Christianity."

I agree. Jerusalem is a theme that Luke seems to have incorporated, perhaps under the influence of Josephus. That is not to say that is the main point in writing for Luke, as it is not.

Nomad: "Since Luke’s treatment of the disciples post Resurrection is closer to what we find in the Gospel of John, we could just as easily postulate John as Luke’s source (or vice versa)."

I agree on this point. I propose that Luke depended on John, John depended on Luke, or both depended on a common source on the matter of appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem. But that is neither here nor there.

Nomad: "Quite honestly, outside of Mason, I have never heard any serious scholar treat this question seriously, and therefore never gave it much thought prior to this."

I hope to look into the matter of the reception history of the hypothesis that Luke knew Josephus. At this point, I know by memory that at least one New Testament introduction has treated this question seriously if negatively, although I can't give you the name right now. The New Testament introduction dated to the 50s or 60s. I also know that Mason refers to a 1980 German article by Heinz Schreckenberg that examines the parallels between Luke and Josephus. I'm pretty sure that this will turn out to be an idea with a long history.

Nomad: "But as I have examined the evidence, I have found his theories increasingly wanting."

I think you may be speaking too soon. So far you have examined the weakest evidence (generic parallels) and one example of supposed copying. I think you may be prejudicing the examination of the evidence that has yet to come!

Nomad: "Personally, I think that new theories must be subjected to very rigorous examination, especially when those theories have never been given serious treatment by their peers in the past."

I hope to determine the reception history of the hypothesis and whether it has been given serious treatment by scholarly peers in the past. You haven't looked into this, have you?

Nomad: "This does not make the novel wrong automatically, of course, but it does require them to offer proofs beyond mere speculation and hypothesis building."

Not necessarily. If one offers a hypothesis as a speculation, all that is required is speculation. The hypothesis does not become wrong for the fact that is a speculation.

I can't believe that people still toss around the word "proof" in contexts like this. We have to start teaching it in high school, "There is no such thing as proof outside of math and liquor."

Nomad: "If I may explain my reasoning by way of an example, if Mason’s evidence is better than what we have supporting Lucan dependence on Matt (or vice versa), then we should treat it seriously, and possibly accept it."

Nomad: "I hope you find such a standard to be acceptable. If not, I would be interested in hearing your reasons why you reject Luke’s dependence on Matthew, then why you do not use similar reasoning in rejecting Lucan dependence on Josephus."

It should be noted that I regard it as almost certain that there is a literary link between Matthew and Luke. Either Matthew used Luke, Luke used Matthew, or both depended on a common source. The analogy of the relationship between Matthew and Luke is an important one as a methodological control, but I would suggest that it should not concern us at this stage. At this stage we are attempting to determine if there is a literary link between Luke and Josephus, not what the nature of that link is. The analogy of Matthew will become more important when we are trying to determine whether Luke used Josephus, Josephus used Luke, or both used a common source.

I will summarize the evidence that has been presented by me so far:

1. Luke and Josephus are unique among ancient literature in their shared intent to write a history with the apologetic purpose of legitimating their particular religious heritage to Roman patrons.

2. Luke and Josephus both share a theme concerning Jerusalem, and Luke is unique among the gospels on this.

3. Luke and Josephus both share a historical-style prologue, in which the patron is referred to as "most excellent," and Luke is unique among the gospels on this.

4. Luke and Josephus both tell a story about exceptional wisdom around the age of bar mitzvah and about the learned men of Jerusalem learning from the wonder-child.

I will now add a fifth point.

My source for these parallels is G. J. Goldberg.

Luke 9:51
"When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village."

Ant. 20.6.1 118 (also War 2.12.3-4 232-235)

"It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the Holy City at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans. On their route lay a village called Ginea, which was situated on the border between Samaria and the Great Plain, and at this time certain persons fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them. When the leaders of the Galileans were informed of what had been done they came to Cumanus and desired him to avenge the murders; but he was bribed by the Samaritans to do nothing. The Galileans, indignant at this, urged the Jewish populace to resort to arms and to regain their liberty, saying that while slavery was a bitter thing but that, when it was joined with direct injuries it was completely intolerable....they entreated the assistance of Eleazar son of Dineus, a robber who had for many years made his home in the mountains, and with his assistance they set afire and plundered many villages of the Samaritans."

In both of these works, there is an episode in which Galileans are setting fire to the Samaritan villages for revenge (or wanting to at least). In both cases, the Galileans do this as they are trekking through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem for a Jewish festival. So...

5. Both Luke and Josephus record an episode in Galileans either want to or actually do set fire to Samaritan villages as they are journeying to Jerusalem for a festival.

Acts 5:33-39
When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill him. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, "Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he wa killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them -- in that case you may even be found fighting against God."

Antiquities 20.5.1 97-99
"During the time when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain enchanter named Theudas persuaded a great number of the people to take their belongings with them and follow him to the Jordan River. He told them he was a prophet and that he would, by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage through it. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to gain the result of this wildness, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them captive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government."

Antiquities 20.5.2
"And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain. This was the Judas who caused the people to revolt against the Romans when Quirinius came to take an account of Judea, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, who were crucified by order of Alexander."

It is noted that Luke may have made an error in placing Theudas before the speech of Gamiliel when Theudas actually arose under Fadus in 44-46 CE. Josephus narrates the story of the sons of Judas the Galilean in section 102, and this occurs not long after the episode with Theudas in section 99. It is possible that the author of Luke accidentally misread this (or possibly notes) and thought that Judas the Galilean came after Theudas, explaining the discrepancy in the dating of Theudas.

Judas the Galilean is specifically connected with the census in both Luke and Josephus.

So we have points six and seven.

6. Both Luke and Josephus record the uprising of Theudas, and they are unique in ancient literature in doing so. Luke may have accidentally misread Josephus in placing Theudas at the wrong time.

7. Both Luke and Josephus record the uprising of Judas the Galilean, connected with the census, and they are unique in ancient literature in doing so.

Acts 21:38
"Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?"

Antiquities 20.167-172
"These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt 4 about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them."

Richard Carrier writes: "In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name 'The Egyptian,' instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom."

Richard Carrier writes:

----
Luke's use of the Egyptian is also telling: Luke has him leading the sicarii, assassins, into the desert. But this does not make sense, since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds, not in the wilds. Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same place (cf. JW 2.258-61, JA 20.167-9), and in fact also mentions there other figures who led people into the desert, even though the Egyptian led them to the Mount of Olives. As Mason puts it (p. 212):

This is clearly part of [Josephus'] literary artistry. How did Luke, then, come to associate the Egyptian, incorrectly, with the sicarii? If he did so independently of Josephus, the coincidence is remarkable. It is even more remarkable because sicarii is a Latin term for assassins. Josephus seems to have been the first to borrow this word and make it a technical term for the Jewish rebels in his Greek narrative.

That Luke should use the same word, and similarly conflate the Egyptian with the other imposters mentioned by Josephus in the very same passage as leading people into the desert, further signifies borrowing--that exactly these mistakes should be made is incredible if not the result of drawing (albeit carelessly) on Josephus.
----

So we have point 8.

8. Both Luke and Josephus tell the story of the Egyptian, and they are unique in ancient literature in doing so. Both Luke and Josephus use the word sicarii in connection to the Egyptian, and this word seems to have been first used in this context by Josephus.

Acts 11:27-28
"At that time prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a server famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul."

Antiquities 20.2.5 49-53
"Her arrival was very advantageous to the people of Jerusalem; for a famine oppressed them at that time, and many people died for want of money to procure food. Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of grain, and others of them to Cyprus to bring back a cargo of dried figs. They quickly returned with the provisions, which she immediately distributed to those that need. She has thus left a most excellent memorial by the beneficence which she bestowed upon our nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem."

Antiquities 20.5.2 101
"The successor of Fadus was Tiberius Alexander...it was in that (or their) administration that the great famine occurred in Judea, during which Queen Helen bought grain from Egypt for large sums and distributed it to the needy, as I have stated above."

So we have point 9.

9. Both Josephus and Luke report the famine under Claudius, and they are unique in ancient literature in doing so.

Acts 12
21
On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them.
22
And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"
23
Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

Antiquities 19.343-352

"Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl 1 sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Caesar, three of them were over Philip's tetrarchy only, and on the fourth he had that of Herod added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years under the reign of Claudius Caesar; in which time he reigned over the forementioned countries, and also had Judea added to them, as well as Samaria and Cesarea. The revenues that he received out of them were very great, no less than twelve millions of drachme. 2 Yet did he borrow great sums from others; for he was so very liberal that his expenses exceeded his incomes, and his generosity was boundless. "

Richard Carrier writes: "Although Luke puts this event in a different location and changes other details of the story, there is a strange similarity that suggests borrowing: Josephus connects the divine praise with the putting on of a brilliant robe, whereas Luke mentions putting on a robe before the praise, but without making the connection explicit--one wonders why the donning of the robe is mentioned by Luke at all, if he was not thinking of this story in Josephus."

So we now have 10.

10. Both Luke and Josephus describe the "death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god" and mention the donning of a robe in this connection.

I think I will stop at 10 for now.

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

Toto

Nomad:

If Peter Kirby hasn't completely blown you out of the water and you are still going to continue, you would do well to get a copy of Mason's book and read the chapter in question. Mason discusses and at times concedes many points that you have made and/or will make. He considers the possibility that Josephus copied from Luke, or that both used a common source. You don't need to reinvent the wheel by rediscovering problems in his work that he discusses himself.

However, the lynchpin of his argument is that Josephus recast the Jewish sects as Hellenic philosophy schools, to make them appear more respectable, less like "superstitions." Luke copies this idea and the specialized language associated with it, but substitutes the Christians for the Essenes. Once Mason has decided that this shows that Luke based his gospel on Josephus, he uses the other parallels as supporting evidence. If it were not for this central point, Mason would probably give the common source theory the most credence.

Nomad

As I said originally, this is simply false. We have numerous examples of known copying between writings that are not of similar genre, and we have examples of similar genres in which no copying takes place at all. This is not a valid hypothesis test.

I have since checked a commentary, The Gospel of Luke by William Barclay, and in it he notes in his section on Luke 1:1-4 that the introduction was a convention amongst ancient Greek writers. He makes no reference to Josephus, but does note two other ancient writings (one on Dionysis) in which nearly identical succinct language to Luke's prologue is used. The fact that Mason would not note this, even as he sites this as evidence of possible copying of Josephus is disingenuous, yet quite common from those who wish to advance an agenda. As I uncover other examples of one sided presentation of the evidence I will be noting it.

I don't think that it even does this. My statement remains that genre types cannot be used as a means to test whether or not copying has taken place.

The Sermon on the Mount (especially as found in Matthew) is referenced repeatedly:

James 1:2 Matt 5:11-12
James 1:4 Matt 5:48
James 1:5 Matt 7:7
James 1:22 Matt 7:24*
James 2:5 Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20*
James 2:10 Matt 5:19*
James 2:13 Matt 5:7
James 3:12 Matt 7:16*
James 3:18 Matt 5:9
James 4:4 Matt 6:24
James 4:10 Matt 5:5
James 5:9 Matt 6:19-20*
James 5:10 Matt 7:1*
James 5:12 Matt 5:34-37*

Notice that despite the closeness of theme, neither the wording of the parallels nor the order in which they appear is the same. Accordingly most scholars think the writer of James knew not Matt but a Jesus tradition of the type that Matthew Knew, similar to Q."
(Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, [Doubleday: New York, 1998], pg. 734-6)

For further reading, Brown refers the reader to P.H. Davids Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, D.B. Deppe The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James and P.J. Hartin James and the Q Sayings of Jesus.

The point remains, genre is no indication of copying, one way or the other, and should not be a factor in this discussion.

Are you claiming that no other ancient offered an apology for their faith or beliefs?

The problem here is that we do not have an example of a literary link, but rather, one of convention. Given that both men are writing to Roman patrons, both are writing at about the same time, and about events taking place in the same place we should expect some natural commonalities, and would be left to wonder at actual disimilarities. In this case, the fact that the disimilarities are so telling (coupled with Mason's overstatements and failure to disclose specific conventions) tells me that he has been basing his speculations on one sided examinations of the evidence. Such cases will easily convince the uneducated and gullible, but we should not treat them as serious argumentation. Quite frankly, I would have preferred that Mason had stuck to stronger arguments, and left the peripheral issues aside completely. It would have made his arguments easier to evaluate, and would not have us wasting so much time on trivialities.

Yes.

Your statement here is presumptive Peter. By it you sound as if you are already convinced that the Christians used Josephus. Do you have other examples of this taking place in the Canons? Further, are you telling us that your mind is made up on this question?

So you are saying here that by using Jesus as the focus of his story, Luke is copying from the Josephus model??? By this you must be saying that Paul is copying from the Josephus model as well, since he is using Jesus as the focus of his epistles. And the other Gospels are also copying from Josephus, as they make Jesus the focus of their stories?

I'm sorry Peter, but this is simply incredible. Is there any way in your mind to disprove Lucan dependence on Josephus? You appear ready to use every argument as an example of copying, unwilling to admit that any other sources could have been used.

I'm going to cut off this part of the post, and address your summation of the arguments in my next one. Otherwise, this will become very unweildly.

What I will say at this point is that your unwillingness to concede even a single point is rather interesting. Further, your statements tell me that you have already made up your mind, and expanded your belief to encompass an entire body of Christian works that have borrowed from the Josephus model. I suppose my question for you would be the same I have posed to Toto:

What would it take to demonstrate to your satisfaction that Luke did not borrow from Josephus?

Nomad

Nomad

This point would be more interesting if you were also theorizing that John copied from Josephus, as he alone places Jesus in Jerusalem and the Temple prior to the events of His passion. The point is superfluous, and should have been avoided. As I stated in my opening post, leaky buckets do not stop the water from spilling on the ground, and weak arguments do not supplement one another to produce strong evidence or arguments.

Since it is an historical fact that the early Church was headquartered in Jerusalem, and serves as a backdrop not only in Luke’s Gospel, but also in John’s, and also the epistles of Paul, I wonder how Luke could have avoided using it in his Gospel and Acts. Again I am left to wonder why you think that this is any kind of argument in this discussion. Imagine if Luke had not mentioned Jerusalem (even as he was claiming to write an accurate and orderly account of the events themselves). People would have been scratching their heads. You might as well try to write an account of the life of Caesar Agustus and leave out Rome.

This is interesting, and probably the subject of another debate. Personally, I do not believe any of the Synoptics knew of or used John, nor that the reverse was the case.

I don’t doubt that this will be a lively topic for a very long time. Luke and Josephus are the only historians that lived close to the events of 1st Century Palestine and wrote about it (at least so far as we know).

I have examined the essay and evidence presented, and as I said, have increasingly come to view the evidence as extremely weak. At the same time, I would note that your mind appears to be equally made up already, so perhaps it evens out.

I have been trying to find any scholars that have examined Mason’s theories seriously, and thus far I haven’t found any. 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.

As I believe we can speculate ad nauseum about virtually anything, yet never really learn much from it, I prefer to stick with what has significant evidentiary support.

If it helps, I will refrain from using the word proof, and stick with what has evidence to support it.

Here I assume that you are speaking about commonalities found outside of Mark and Q. For me, I do not think the case that Matt used Luke (or vice versa) is strong enough to be proven. I am aware of the arguments of Mark Goodacre and Austin Farrer, and as much as I would like them to be right, I just do not see it. In any event, this is yet another discussion, and perhaps we can save a discussion on Matthean vs. Marcan priority and the Two Source theory for another day.

Agreed. At the same time, I am still hoping that we can get to the actual supposed similarities rather than the unhelpful examination of the generic links.

Agreed.

I disagree. Jerusalem is a setting for Luke, not a theme. The importance of Jerusalem is incidental and unavoidable given the topic. The most important events in Jesus’ life took place in Jerusalem, and the headquarters for the Christian Church was in Jerusalem during the time frame of Acts. Giving it prominence cannot be avoided. The recounting of basic facts (like regular trips to Jerusalem by Jesus’ family) that would have been known to be true reinforces this point.

True, but as I have shown above, irrelevant. This was a convention in ancient Rome, and Luke could not have known that his work was going to end up in a Canonical Bible. Further, the use of the prologue itself is a convention amongst ancient Greeks, and Mason’s failure to note this demonstrates agenda driven argumentation.

Of course, Josephus is talking about himself in this case, and Luke is talking about Jesus. Further, this argument is especially weak, as we have numerous examples of exceptional wisdom in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that both men would have been using. Other non-Canonical writings from Jewish, Greek and Roman sources were also known to do this.

It is common instinct in many cultures and literatures to make the boy the father of the man by creating boyhood stories for great figures, stories that anticipate the greatness of the subject. Often these stories feature surprising knowledge shown at an age between ten and fourteen, e.g. stories of the Buddha in India, of Osiris in Egypt, of Cyrus the Great in Persian, of Alexander the Great in Greece, and of Augustus in Rome… The Jewish legends of Moses contemporary with the NT attribute to him understanding and stature and beauty of appearance… I am not suggesting that the story of Jesus was borrowed directly from any of these examples, but the clear pattern that emerges explains how a boyhood story about Jesus could have been fashioned. And the Moses and Samuel examples explain why a story of Jesus’ boyhood would be attached to an infancy narrative, as a preparation for his ministry.”
(Raymond Brown, Birth of the Messiah, [Doubleday: New York, 1993], pg. 481-2)

Thus, we have yet another leaky bucket. With so many sources to choose from, to offer Josephus as the most probable, or even a likely one is merely begging the question. Couple this with a failure to acknowledge that the practice was far more common than merely Luke and Josephus is to engage in more agenda building. Once again, it is my hope to look at strong arguments, not a plethora of weak ones meant to swamp the discussion and create an impression of impressive credentials. In job hunting it is called “padding one’s resume” and in scholarly circles it is seen as theory driven argumentation.

An interesting parallel. I will have to add it to the analysis of those mentioned in Carrier’s essay as well.

This parallel will also be examined in future posts.

I have already covered this alleged parallel off at considerable length. Yet to claim that either author borrowed from the other is to beg the question. The event is famous, and suits the story line for both men. The details recorded by both differ so greatly (in fact, the census itself, Judas and Quinirius are the only points of contact) that it is virtually impossible to imagine that Luke knew of Josephus’ account, or vice versa. The additional fact that Luke has a great deal of accurate historical data in his Gospel and Acts tells us that he had source(s) independent of Josephus removes any reason to postulate that he acquired the bar bones of his account from Josephus. Finally, it is a fact that Josephus could not have served as the source for his own account (any more than Luke could have for his), as he was born long after the events in question, and wrote about them even later (about 90 years later!). Other sources existed, and the fact that we do not have them any longer does not mitigate against this obvious point. I see this bucket as being especially leaky, and it should be dropped.

If I may, you are once again assuming that Josephus is the first person to record these events. Please do not do this in the future.

I will get to this point in turn. For now I am trying to take care of the weakest arguments, and it is taking a while. Suffice to say at this point that I find this particular point to be almost as weak as the one about the census.

If I may Peter, but is there a reason you have not noted the similarity between these accounts, and others like them found in the Old Testament?

I will be looking at this probable source for our parallels in my future posts, but I find this failure to note the obvious links with Hebrew Scriptures (something Josephus even told us he would be doing) used by both Luke and Josephus to be particularly troubling. I am not blaming you for not doing this Peter, as you appear to be merely recounting the parallels listed in the book, but the failure of a scholar like Mason to do this is troubling.

I will definitely be getting into this one as well.

I do not mean to be short here Peter, but as you can see, these posts are already immensely long, and if I were to attempt to cover all of them off in a single go, it would make discussion very nearly impossible (not to mention how long it would take me to type the thing up). My hope is to cover off each set of points in turn, demonstrating how they may or may not point to similarities that are significant. The fact that you have chosen to defend some of the weakest points, and continue to offer the genre and census as an examples of possible copying is especially troubling. After all, if we cannot even agree on the weakest arguments, this will be a very long discussion indeed.

If I may, why do you think that Josephus is the most probable source for the census found in Luke? Or will you concede, at least on this point, that the likelihood that Luke used Josephus as his source for this information is very low?

Nomad

Peter Kirby

I wrote: "Now, I think that might be irrelevant because, even if Luke didn't model his work after Josephus, Luke could still have borrowed from Josephus. So it doesn't test the important hypothesis but only a particular subset of it."

Nomad wrote: "I don't think that it even does this. My statement remains that genre types cannot be used as a means to test whether or not copying has taken place."

Please take more care in interpreting what I write. My statement agrees with your statement that genre type is not a test of whether or not copying has taken place. It puts to the test the idea that one author has modeled his work after another. If one author models his work after another, they will both be of the same genre. So the test of the similarity of genre, when applied to the matter of whether one person has modeled his work after another, obviously does a form of hypothesis-testing (if it turned out that the works were of different genres, then it would not be the case that one person has modeled his work after the other). However, as I said, this does not serve as a test of whether copying or borrowing has taken place, and that is why it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Later Nomad wrote: "What I will say at this point is that your unwillingness to concede even a single point is rather interesting."

This is false. I have conceded the point that genre is irrelevant in determining whether borrowing had taken place. If you had read what I wrote more carefully, you would have realized this.

On the other hand, I think that as you work your way through the lists of similarities offered by Carrier and myself, it might be interesting to note in the future your unwillingness to grant even a single point in favor of establishing a literary link -- if that indeed turns out to be the case.

There is another case in which you have misrepresented what I have said.

Nomad wrote: "So you are saying here that by using Jesus as the focus of his story, Luke is copying from the Josephus model??? By this you must be saying that Paul is copying from the Josephus model as well, since he is using Jesus as the focus of his epistles. And the other Gospels are also copying from Josephus, as they make Jesus the focus of their stories?"

I am a little baffled that you would draw such an implication out of what I wrote. That the focus of Luke is on Jesus was your point, not mine. My point was that Jerusalem was a subtheme in Luke-Acts. It is this that may have been influenced by Josephus, despite the fact that Jesus and the church was the main focus. Given that the implication that you draw out of what I wrote is indeed "simply incredible" as you put it, maybe you should have double-checked to see if that was indeed what I was saying.

Nomad: "Your statement here is presumptive Peter." You're right. I should perhaps have written, "This may serve as an example of the Christian adaptation of Josephus."

Nomad: "By it you sound as if you are already convinced that the Christians used Josephus."

I am convinced that Christians read and used Josephus. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Eusebius spring to mind.

Nomad: "Do you have other examples of this taking place in the Canons?"

What is it exactly that you want an example of?

Nomad: "Further, are you telling us that your mind is made up on this question?"

As I said, I could have couched my statement in more tentative language. I am not saying that my mind is made up on the question.

Nomad wrote: "Further, your statements tell me that you have already made up your mind, and expanded your belief to encompass an entire body of Christian works that have borrowed from the Josephus model."

I can see how you might have gotten the first half of that statement (but is making up a mind really that much of a bad thing? you can always change it later!) -- but, as I said, the latter part of that statement is mere misrepresentation.

Nomad: "Are you claiming that no other ancient offered an apology for their faith or beliefs?"

No, that is not what I am claiming, but I am glad that you asked the question before proceeding on a false assumption. My idea is that no other authors in antiquity write a "history" with the intent of legitimating the proper antiquity and origins of their particular religious tradition to their secular superiors. Neither Luke-Acts nor the Antiquities are apologies in genre but rather are in the genre of "history" with an apologetic intent.

Nomad: "Quite frankly, I would have preferred that Mason had stuck to stronger arguments, and left the peripheral issues aside completely. It would have made his arguments easier to evaluate, and would not have us wasting so much time on trivialities."

Mason could have done that, but it would not be in traditional scholarly form to do so. Scholars like to note every single incidental detail that might conceivably be in favor of their theories. And there is nothing wrong with that. For example, John P. Meier, in examining the historicity of the baptism, is not content with noting the criterion of embarassment but insists on coaxing an independent attestation out of the First Epistle of John. There is nothing wrong with noting weaker and stronger arguments, especially when the arguments are classified as such.

I wrote: "Are you saying that Luke did connect the events he is recording to Hebrew Scriptures but failed to mention this in his prologue, as he would have done if he were following Josephus?"

You responded in the affirmative. My response is that the author of Luke-Acts makes only a minimal go at the prologue and that this is the reason for his lack of verbiage about the scriptural connection. But I would be willing to concede that the prologue just might have been a coincidence even though the author of Luke-Acts might have borrowed from Josephus in other cases.

Nomad wrote: "What would it take to demonstrate to your satisfaction that Luke did not borrow from Josephus?"

First, I will answer a slightly different question. What would it take to demonstrate to my satisfaction that Luke had not read Josephus? In response to that question, I would note that the author of Luke may well have been a quite well-read in Hellenistic literature and that Josephus was a well-published Hellenistic author. To convince me that the author of Luke had not read Josephus, I would require either (1) that it is established that Luke wrote before Josephus wrote, say in 62 CE, or (2) that there is something obvious and unforgettable in Josephus of which the author of Luke betrays ignorance.

Now, I will answer your question. What would it take to show to me that the author of Luke-Acts had not borrowed from Josephus? Obviously, if the author of Luke-Acts had not read Josephus, then the author of Luke-Acts could not have borrowed from Josephus in his works. So we still have (1) that Luke wrote before Josephus, or (2) that Luke betrays ignorance of something very obvious and unforgettable in Josephus. But what if Luke may or may not have read Josephus; could we determine that Luke had not borrowed from Josephus in any case? Yes, this could be demonstrated if it could be shown (3) that there are no stories dealing with the same subject matter in both works. If you can think of any other proposals for showing that Luke did not borrow from Josephus, I would be interested in hearing them.

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

Nomad

As we both agree that this is a side issue, and each of us appears to be talking about two different things, then I am content to drop it.

Perhaps our difference here is one of emphasis. Again, I will drop it.

As I have already done this (conceded what is probably a literary link), then you need not worry on this point. Where we may differ, however, is as to where that link probably originated (i.e. in Josephus himself, or in his sources).

I will quote again from your post:

As you can see, you have agreed that Jesus will be the central theological focus of Luke’s Gospel (as opposed to Jerusalem). At the same time, you insist that he has adapted Josephus’ model in doing this. MY question arose naturally from your statement, as it appears you are saying that by making Jesus the focus of his story, Luke is working from a Josephian model. I find such a notion to be incredible, and perhaps that is not what you meant to say, but that is how it sounded to me. If I am mistaken, I apologize.

As to the idea of a subtheme about Jerusalem, my point remains that Luke could hardly avoid Jerusalem as his setting for much of his story (especially in Acts), as this is where Christianity started, and that is what he is writing about. Given this fact, one would expect him to be using Jerusalem as his setting.

Agreed.

Fair enough. I have been confining my research largely to Josephus and Luke, and have not examined the question closely enough to dispute you here. At the same time, I would be surprised if this were, in fact, the case.

What I will say here is that we do not have to accept every argument put forward by Mason to accept his thesis as at least having value. Only if all of his parallels fail should he be rejected outright. At the same time, drawing a conclusion as to whether Luke borrowed from Josephus, the reverse, or both used common sources will be one of probability as well as plausibility, and that is what I am hoping to achieve in this thread.

As to your first condition, I am actually willing to grant possible use of Jewish Wars (c. 79AD) as a source. My main challenge is against Antiquities (c.95AD). In any event, I do not want to get into the question of dating Luke/Acts until after we have examined the case for literary dependence.

Addressing point (3) first, I have already shown that Luke was making use of historical data that is not found in Josephus at all, establishing that he had sources of information independent of Josephus’ works. Secondly, I have shown clear differences in the accounts both give of the census of 6AD, making the likelihood of borrowing in either direction to be extremely unlikely. Coupled with this is the clear fact that neither man could have served as the original source for the census. We know that the census occurred before either man was probably born, and certainly long before either wrote about it. Thus, no matter who wrote first, they had to use a source, and it is always possible (I would say probable) that both men used this source as suited their purposes.

As to the question of dating Luke/Acts, I have been through this issue a number of times before, and have not found a compelling case made for a 2nd Century date for Luke and Acts. My terminus date for these works would be no later than 90-100AD, making borrowing of Antiquities virtually impossible. Personally I think Luke predates 70AD, though I am willing to grant 75-85 as possible as well.

As for Luke not knowing something obvious in Josephus, I am not sure what would qualify here. What would be that “obvious” in your view? Personally, I find Luke’s account of the census of 6AD to be so contrary to Josephus’ as to demonstrate such clear ignorance. Luke’s failure to make apologetic use of Josephus’ story of the death of James, the brother of Jesus is equally astonishing. It certainly fits within the time frame of Acts, yet he makes no mention of it at all. He does not even hint or allude to it. What other ignorance’s would help to satisfy you here? I am serious in my question.

Thanks for your quick response. I do not mean to sound harsh in my replies, and apologize if I have sounded that way at times. At the same time, I am taking this issue very seriously, and trying to uncover how much merit Mason’s case really has. I do appreciate your willingness to defend his ideas (even if it does not look like it at times).

Be well,

Nomad

Peter Kirby

Nomad: "This point would be more interesting if you were also theorizing that John copied from Josephus, as he alone places Jesus in Jerusalem and the Temple prior to the events of His passion."

This is an error of fact. Luke also places Jesus in Jerusalem and the Temple prior to the events of the passion (Luke 2:46). I presume you meant to restrict your statement to the adult ministry of Jesus.

I think there may be a difference between Luke-Acts and John. For the author of Luke-Acts, we know that the author depended heavily upon the author of Mark, and we can determine his redactional emphases from the material that is different. In the Gospel of Luke, there is clearly a redactional emphasis in that Luke states early on explicitly that Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). This is obviously redactional, while it is not as obvious with John that the author may be simply relating what is said in his sources (that Jesus may have operated in Judea). Furthermore, the book of John does not have a list of other similarities that make them all meaningful.

Nomad: "The point is superfluous, and should have been avoided. As I stated in my opening post, leaky buckets do not stop the water from spilling on the ground, and weak arguments do not supplement one another to produce strong evidence or arguments."

Anyone who has a mind for engineering can easily imagine a way to use leaky buckets to stop water from spilling on the ground. If you have two buckets that are nearly the same dimensions, each of which has a hole on one side, all that is necessary to make the buckets hold water is to place one bucket inside the other such that their holes are on opposite sides to each other. In this way, two leaky buckets can hold water.

Whether the arguments are strong or weak, the force of a number of arguments is increased proportional to the number of such arguments. This is easily seen if you consider each argument to be a factor of probability.

Suppose that I made ten arguments, and that the possibility that the conclusion is false for each argument is a 40% chance. That is, if I only had one argument, there would only be a 60% probability that the conclusion is true. Taking these ten arguments together and without any counter-arguments, there is a 99.98951424% probability that the conclusion is true. Not bad for arguments that are individually weak! This is commonly termed 'converging lines of evidence'.

Nomad: "Since it is an historical fact that the early Church was headquartered in Jerusalem, and serves as a backdrop not only in Luke’s Gospel, but also in John’s, and also the epistles of Paul, I wonder how Luke could have avoided using it in his Gospel and Acts. Again I am left to wonder why you think that this is any kind of argument in this discussion. Imagine if Luke had not mentioned Jerusalem (even as he was claiming to write an accurate and orderly account of the events themselves). People would have been scratching their heads. You might as well try to write an account of the life of Caesar Agustus and leave out Rome."

You have simplified the argument for your polemical purposes. The argument is not that Luke should have avoided any mention of Jerusalem in his work if he had not known Josephus. The argument is that, even as Luke mentions Jerusalem, the author of Luke reveals a redactional emphasis on the city and its temple that goes beyond what would have been necessary to mention.

The verse of 9:51 is an excellent example of this. Hans von Campenhausen, writing of Luke, speaks of "his love for the temple" in _Tradition and Life in the Church; Essays and Lectures in Church History_ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), p. 48.

Nomad: "I don’t doubt that this will be a lively topic for a very long time. Luke and Josephus are the only historians that lived close to the events of 1st Century Palestine and wrote about it (at least so far as we know)."

Even though his history is not extant, we know from Josephus and Photius that Justus of Tiberius also wrote a history that concerned events in 1st century Palestine, particularly the Jewish revolt.

Nomad: "I have been trying to find any scholars that have examined Mason’s theories seriously, and thus far I haven’t found any. 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."

I think that this statement may be based more on ignorance than anything else. As I said, there is an old New Testament introduction that I have read that touches upon the subject of Luke's dependence on Josephus. I believe that what you refer to as Mason's theory may turn out to have a greater pedigree than you imagine. It certainly isn't owned by Mason; another recent scholar who has postulated dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus is Robert Eisenman of _James the Brother of Jesus_ fame.

Nomad: "As I believe we can speculate ad nauseum about virtually anything, yet never really learn much from it, I prefer to stick with what has significant evidentiary support."

I think you may be underestimating the importance of free speculation in the process of generating historical hypotheses. By the by, I was wondering whether we could show that the historicity of Jesus has significant evidentiary support? If you know of good arguments for the historicity of Jesus, you ought to post them to Richard Carrier's thread for all to see and for him to incorporate into his review of Doherty's work.

Nomad: "Here I assume that you are speaking about commonalities found outside of Mark and Q."

No, I was speaking of the double tradition generally. For the double tradition: either Luke knew Matthew, Matthew knew Luke, or both knew a common source or sources. Although I happen to think the third option (that Luke and Matthew had a common source) is probable, that is not to deny that there is a literary link between the two. Also, I would not rule out the idea that Luke knew both Matthew and Q. As I said, the use of the analogy of Matthew as a methodological control becomes more important when we are theorizing about the nature of the literary link between Luke and Josephus.

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

Peter Kirby

Nomad: "I disagree. Jerusalem is a setting for Luke, not a theme. The importance of Jerusalem is incidental and unavoidable given the topic. The most important events in Jesus’ life took place in Jerusalem, and the headquarters for the Christian Church was in Jerusalem during the time frame of Acts. Giving it prominence cannot be avoided. The recounting of basic facts (like regular trips to Jerusalem by Jesus’ family) that would have been known to be true reinforces this point."

I think that Jerusalem was a theme for the author of Luke-Acts, and the case of Luke 9:51 demonstrates this point. It is obvious that an author's redactional emphases can influence the selection of "basic facts" for the recounting. None of the other gospels take the trouble to record that the family of Jesus made regular trips to Jerusalem. Neither does the author of Luke follow the lead of Mark in placing the resurrection appearances in Galilee. While it is within the realm of possibility that there were appearances in Jerusalem, the author of Luke-Acts totally neglects the tradition of appearances in Galilee. As the author of Luke-Acts tells the story, there is an inexorable journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem (cf. Lk 9:51), followed by an inexorable journey of Christianity from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). For this reason, scholars have recognized that Jerusalem was ideologically the center of the narrative of Luke-Acts. Although it is undoubtedly true that earlier traditions placed some events in Jerusalem, the author of Luke-Acts reveals a selective tendency to focus on those facts and to make remarks concerning the center of Jerusalem.

Nomad: "True, but as I have shown above, irrelevant. This was a convention in ancient Rome, and Luke could not have known that his work was going to end up in a Canonical Bible. Further, the use of the prologue itself is a convention amongst ancient Greeks, and Mason’s failure to note this demonstrates agenda driven argumentation."

Actually, Mason does note that the prologue was a convention amongst ancient Greeks. I wonder whether you have yet procured the book _Josephus and the New Testament_?

"By the first century AD, therefore, anyone who took up the task could draw on a vast reservoir of familiar devices.

"As we saw in chapter 3, an indispensable feature of any Hellenistic history book was the preface." (_Josephus and the New Testament_, p. 187)

So your claims of agenda driven argumentation fall flat.

I agree that this is something that we can fob off as coincidence. But I did not think it unfitting of notice. The lack of a Hellenistic historical prologue is not restricted to the canonical gospels but also applies to all apocryphal works.

Nomad: "Of course, Josephus is talking about himself in this case, and Luke is talking about Jesus."

So what?

Nomad: "Further, this argument is especially weak, as we have numerous examples of exceptional wisdom in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that both men would have been using. Other non-Canonical writings from Jewish, Greek and Roman sources were also known to do this."

Can it be a coincidence that both Luke and Josephus recount that the elders of Jerusalem, the same place in both cases, were amazed at the wisdom of the wonder-child? Well, yes it could have been, but it would be dumb to ignore the parallel for the mere possibility of coincidence. It deserves to be noted.

Nomad: "I have already covered this alleged parallel off at considerable length. Yet to claim that either author borrowed from the other is to beg the question. The event is famous, and suits the story line for both men. The details recorded by both differ so greatly (in fact, the census itself, Judas and Quinirius are the only points of contact) that it is virtually impossible to imagine that Luke knew of Josephus’ account, or vice versa."

Well, let me quote the passages from Acts and the Antiquities (in the account after Theudas, where it is proposed that the author of Luke-Acts may have derived a chronological mixup).

Acts 5:33-39
When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill him. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, "Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them -- in that case you may even be found fighting against God."

Antiquities 20.5.2
"And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain. This was the Judas who caused the people to revolt against the Romans when Quirinius came to take an account of Judea, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, who were crucified by order of Alexander."

In each account there are five elements: Judas the Galilean, people (followers), revolt, Quirinius, and census. All five elements match up in each account. Luke adds the detail that Judas was killed and his followers scattered, while the account in Josephus has the detail that the sons of Judas were crucified. The detail in Josephus about the sons was not pertinent to Luke's purpose, and the details about the execution and scattering may have been redactional (the same elements are found in the retelling of Theudas). So we see that Luke and Josephus overlap as much as we should expect them to.

"The additional fact that Luke has a great deal of accurate historical data in his Gospel and Acts tells us that he had source(s) independent of Josephus removes any reason to postulate that he acquired the bar bones of his account from Josephus. Finally, it is a fact that Josephus could not have served as the source for his own account (any more than Luke could have for his), as he was born long after the events in question, and wrote about them even later (about 90 years later!). Other sources existed, and the fact that we do not have them any longer does not mitigate against this obvious point. I see this bucket as being especially leaky, and it should be dropped."

Because a source was known to Josephus does not imply that the same source would have been available to the author of Luke-Acts. In any case, I intend to speculate on the nature of the literary link later.

Nomad: "If I may, you are once again assuming that Josephus is the first person to record these events. Please do not do this in the future."

As pointed out by Mason and Carrier, Josephus does seem to be the first person to adapt the word assassins/sicarii in this context.

Nomad: "If I may Peter, but is there a reason you have not noted the similarity between these accounts, and others like them found in the Old Testament?"

There sure is! This isn't just any famine; it is the same famine in each case, the famine that is under Claudius. This is just another "coincidence" that points to a literary link between Luke and Josephus.

Nomad: "I am not blaming you for not doing this Peter, as you appear to be merely recounting the parallels listed in the book, but the failure of a scholar like Mason to do this is troubling."

Actually, I wouldn't blame Mason for failing to discuss these parallels in detail. Mason states: "In my view, these parallels are too vage to establish a relationship between the texts." (_Josephus and the New Testament_, p. 214) Neither you nor I have even touched upon what Mason considers to be the strongest evidence for dependence, titled "agreements of theme and vocabulary."

Nomad: "The fact that you have chosen to defend some of the weakest points, and continue to offer the genre and census as an examples of possible copying is especially troubling."

You seem to be a man easily troubled! Since when has it been shown to be _impossible_ that the census is an example of copying?

And I point out that I have dropped the crude form of the genre argument.

Nomad: "Fair enough. I have been confining my research largely to Josephus and Luke, and have not examined the question closely enough to dispute you here. At the same time, I would be surprised if this were, in fact, the case."

Earlier you said that you were agreed that Luke and Josephus were unique in this. Now it surprises you. Can you explain why?

Nomad: "As to the question of dating Luke/Acts, I have been through this issue a number of times before, and have not found a compelling case made for a 2nd Century date for Luke and Acts. My terminus date for these works would be no later than 90-100AD, making borrowing of Antiquities virtually impossible."

Can you present an argument for this terminus date, other than that you have not found a compelling case for a 2nd century date? If that is the terminus of Luke-Acts, that means that there is evidence that points to 100 CE being the latest possible date for Luke-Acts. What is that evidence?

Nomad: "As for Luke not knowing something obvious in Josephus, I am not sure what would qualify here. What would be that “obvious” in your view?"

What is obvious should be obvious. :-)

Nomad: "Personally, I find Luke’s account of the census of 6AD to be so contrary to Josephus’ as to demonstrate such clear ignorance."

Noting Carrier's essay, Toto points out that it is at least possible for dependence to be the case here, contrary to your claim of impossibility.

Nomad: "Luke’s failure to make apologetic use of Josephus’ story of the death of James, the brother of Jesus is equally astonishing. It certainly fits within the time frame of Acts, yet he makes no mention of it at all. He does not even hint or allude to it."

Given that James was a prominent figure in the Christian community, I would surmise that most Christians knew something about his death at least by the time of the First Jewish Revolt. Thus, this is an argument not only that Luke did not know Josephus but also that Luke wrote before 62 CE. I reject this hypothesis on other grounds, but I think you are familiar with them so I will not go over them. As to your argument that Luke couldn't have passed over this in silence, I would note that the author of Acts has totally switched his narrative over to Paul by this point and that it would be unfitting to flash back to Jerusalem and the execution of James.

Nomad: "What other ignorance’s would help to satisfy you here? I am serious in my question."

I'm afraid it is up to you to come up with further instances or other criteria in support of your contention that Luke did not know Josephus.

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

Nomad

Actually, if you are willing to argue that Luke knew Matt, then the need for him to know Mark is effectively removed. That said, I accept that the argument for Lucan dependence on an earlier Gospel (almost certainly to have been Mark) is solid.

It does take an argumentative mind to argue with a definition of a fallacy. Just as aside, but I have never heard that a leaky bucket need have only one hole in it, but we are going far astray I fear...

Actually, using a long series of weak arguments typically leads one to defend the absurd. I especially encounter this in debates with people who dispute historical facts like the Holocaust, or wish to spread hate beliefs. Again, I think a solid argument (even alone) is useful. A host of weak ones is not, unless strong ones come along to help make the case. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here Peter.

Just curious, but have you ever argued how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The arbitrary assignment of probabilities in questions of historicity (or philosophy) are not helpful. They tend to lead to long arguments that go no where.

The argument is not that Luke loved the Temple or Jerusalem. It is whether or not he is drawing his inspiration from Josephus, and therefore gives special attention to Jerusalem based on that inspiration. As Luke wishes to present a Jesus in full control of His own destiny, and that destiny will take Him to Jerusalem, the city and Temple serve as the perfect back drop for Luke's story. In Acts Jerusalem is the headquarters of the Church, and therefore will play a central role, as a setting.

Enough said on this topic however, again I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

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

I was speaking specifically of Mason's own works and theories. I know his ideas are not unique, but have not found any scholar that spends much if any time rebutting the idea that Luke depended on Josephus. It is more common to simply dismiss the idea, more or less out of hand, as we find in Conzelmann's commentary on Acts.

This also looks like another area where we will have to agree to disagree.

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.

Nomad