Jayrok

I've recently read Richard Carrier's article on Luke and Josephus.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...djosephus.html

I know this issue has been around for a good while, but is fairly new to me. Is there any new information floating around that strengthens or critiques the idea that Luke borrowed from Josephus? (Vork, Peter Kirby, et al?)


1. Is it possible that Josephus was the one who borrowed from Luke's writings? How do we know which was first?

2. The book of Acts (Luke) ends fairly abruptly with no mention of Paul's exploits beyond prison in Rome. It also doesn't mention the fall of the temple in AD 70. There are of course logical explanations for this even if Luke was a later writing. But is there concrete evidence against the idea that maybe Luke wrote in circa 60s, before the death of Paul and the destruction of the Temple?

I believe Josephus published his writings in around AD 93.. Could he have used the same source as Luke, or even Luke himself, for some of his info?

S.C.Carlson

1. In my opinion, there's something funny going on between Josephus and Luke (cf. Vork's review of Atwill), but it is still very much unclear to me what exactly that funny business is. If there is a borrowing, most who have looked at the issue think that Luke borrowed from Josephus.

2. Acts knows that the length of time Paul was under arrest in Rome was two years (28:30). Acts also knows that Paul never saw the Ephesians elders again (20:25). These items indicate to me that the writer of Acts knew the outcome of Paul's detention and that it did not result in Paul's acquittal.

andrewcriddle

IMVHO the evidence for Luke using the 'Jewish War' (or material found in both the 'Jewish War' and the Antiquities) is stronger than the evidence for Luke using material found only in the Antiquities.

I wish we had evidence independent of either as to the true date of Theudas.

Andrew Criddle

Jayrok

Thanks for the responses. I agree that something is there. I wish we had solid evidence that it was indeed Luke who borrowed from Josephus (both war and A).

If both of them used earlier sources, I wonder what those sources were?

I've often wondered what the amount of evidence would be if they hadn't destroyed literature so readily in the early centuries.. Or the burning of the library in Alexandria..

Such a tragedy.

Jayrok

It could also be the reason the author of Acts doesn't delve into Paul's death. He may have thought better to leave it at travel's/preaching rather than record a death that might not have suited St. Paul.. or maybe he did record these things and it was later removed.. who knows..

Chris Weimer

The Martyrdom of Paul could have been a fourth volume incomplete. We have the Gospel, the History of the Early Church, the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, and perhaps a martyrdom of Paul?

Jayrok

possibly.

Speaking of Martyrdom.. Do we have any secular documentation or evidence that the apostles were all horribly killed for their beliefs? I've been looking for that for months.

Chris Weimer

We don't even have secular documentation that the apostles existed, much less died.

neilgodfrey

Has there ever been any suggestion that the ending of Acts was written as a transvaluation the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) with the ending of Acts in particular being a transvaluation of that history's ending with the king of Israel left languishing with limited freedom in captivity?

S.C.Carlson

Not that I'm aware of, but, then, I'm not generally a fan of transvaluation readings. At any rate, your suggestion is more interesting than most, so it may be worth pursuing.

Stephen