maryhelena

What really is the difficulty in not wanting to face the possibility that Josephus did write Luke and Acts? The idea that Josephus was a Christian being a preposterous idea? But surely, labels are not the defining criterion of who or what a person is. Being a loyal Jew was not, in and of, itself, a disqualification from being a Christ believer. Josephus, whoever he was or whoever was writing under that name, could well have sought reform, sought acceptance of some new spiritual understanding, and desired to retain his own Jewish heritage in the process. While an eventual break between Christianity and Judaism was in the future, surely, in those early days many believing Jews would have sought reformation within rather than cut their ties with their religion.

Consider a modern day situation. A man who has sought for reformation within the Catholic Church: Hans Kung. Even being barred from teaching Catholic theology, Kung has remained in ‘loyal opposition’ to the RCC. Even now, with his Open Letter to Catholic bishops, Kung is still seeking to bring the RCC into the 21st century. His Open Letter has been called; “The most forthright attack on a Pope since Luther’s times.". (Jim West).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...3.html?via=rel

Perhaps Kung, like Josephus, seeks to retain his religious tradition - but history does have a habit of upsetting the apple-cart - and reformation or renewal can take unexpected turns. Nevertheless, theology is above history - and for those with a spiritual disposition the old will always have some role within the new ideas....Which really means that all I’m trying to say is that Josephus, if he did write Luke and Acts, most probably remained loyal to his Jewish heritage until his dying days....

Lets not forget that Josephus himself lays claim to prophetic ideas, visions. He lived at a time when there would still be alive those who were earlier ‘story tellers’ of spiritual ideas re OT prophecy and interpretations re a messiah figure. He himself wrote regarding Vespasian in that role - thus attempting to short-circuit any Jewish literal expectations. But a spiritual messiah figure - taking prophetic fulfilment to a spiritual realm, an intellectual or philosophical realm - that’s another ball game - and there is no reason to think that Josephus was not able to play at that game - and simultaneously uphold his Jewish heritage.

DCHindley

There must be scanning errors in this little paragraph (happens a lot with some older fonts). The "very thorough" book by Krenkel is actually:

Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas: der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jüdischen Geschichtschreibers auf den christlichen, H. Haessel, 1894 (not 1804!)

If you read German (I don't) then here is a link to a graphic, not digital, pdf of the book: http://books.google.com/books?id=GCM...page&q&f=false

DCH (on break)

spamandham

The difficulty for me, is that I date Acts to the late second century due to it's striking similarity to other period works, which also happen to overlap Acts (and eachother) in precise quotes. We would have to posit that in the late second century, and not earlier, people decided to start copying the style of Acts creating all kinds of other Acts texts, intermingling quotes from Acts in such a way as to make Acts appear to be interdependent.

This is certainly possible, but it is not the simplest explanation.

DCHindley

Hello Peter,

You mean A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911)? No I have not.

A search of Google Books did find a downloadable graphic pdf scan:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SmZ...page&q&f=false

I have downloaded a copy from the site below and will take a look.

Thanks.

DCH

DCHindley

On the subject of Harry Gamble's Books & Readers in the Early Church (1995), here is what he says about the publication and circulation of Greco-Roman literature:

Apart from works intended for public performance (such as dramas, poetic works to be recited at competitions, or addresses written for civic occasions), publication in the ancient world was a great deal more private than the modern phrase private publication, suggests. Authors who wished to make their work public has several ways to do so. They might make or have made at their own expense, several copies of an initial draft, which they would then distribute to friends. This alone did not amount to publication but constituted what we might think of as a referee procedure: the author expected a private reading and response from the recipients, with a view to revising and improving the work. Alternately, they might invite a small group of friends to a reading (recitatio), at which the work, or parts of it, would be read by the author and discussed by the gathered company. In these ways the author made his work known, but only to a small and sympathetic circle of acquaintances. The work remained essentially private, under the author's direct control, and was still subject to revision.

Only after the author had tentatively proffered a composition and then revised it would he or she make it available to a larger audience. Literature (as distinct from technical, scholarly work), and above all poetry, was traditionally made public not by multiplying and distributing copies of the text, but in oral performance, a practice that continued into the first century. ...

Even an author who planned to make his text generally available had reason to read it in public first: during the first century and into the second the most efficient means of giving a literary work immediate and wide publicity was to hold a recitatio or public reading. ... (pp 83-84. His sources for these practices is listed in endnote 6 to chapter III on page 279)

Compare this to Streeter, who is dependent on Schmiedel:

It has been maintained by distinguished scholars that Luke's statements can be accounted for on the theory that they are the result of a hasty perusal, and a consequently imperfect recollection and misunderstanding, of Josephus.

Personally I am quite unconvinced that there is dependence of any kind. [P. W.] Schmiedel, whose statement of the case for dependence is the most elaborate in English [Encycl, Bib., art. "Lysanias and Theudas."], finds it necessary to suppose that Luke was using, not Josephus directly, but some notes that he had made after reading him.

But if a gross mistake is to be attributed to imperfect notes, it would surely be more natural to suggest that the notes in question were taken down hurriedly at some lecture, rather than in the course of a perusal of a book, especially as it was not so possible with ancient methods of writing as with modern print to make mistakes through running one's eye rapidly over the page.

Now there is not the slightest improbability in the supposition that Luke had heard Josephus lecture in Rome.

...

In that case, unless his practice was quite different from that of contemporary writers, it would have been a matter of course for him [i.e., Josephus] to recite large portions of his works to public audiences before they were published in written form. (see my earlier post for the web link)

These accounts are not consistent. Gamble's sources imply that limited readings might be held before small circles of friends in order to fine tune the style. Public reading to a larger audience was in fact the formal act of publication of a fully completed work available for copying by interested parties, or to buy from a bookseller. On the other hand, Streeter thinks the formal publication of written copies came after the recitation.

However, Streeter is indeed stating that the author Luke/Acts was "tight" with Josephus. Yet if Gamble's sources are correct, the author of Luke/Acts would have been either
1) given a copy, or
2) be privy to one or more private readings (War was 7 books, Antiquities was 20, Against Apion was 2, and his Autobiography one), or
3) heard one or more of the books recited publicly at the point when the author released them into the public domain.

In the first two cases he would indeed be "tight" with Josephus, but would have had a) no reason to sloppily confuse details because he had copies in hand (situation #1), or b) have had no need to take hastily written notes as the few close friends present would have stopped the reader at places where they wanted to offer comments (situation #2).

However, in situation #3 he would just be one of many auditors in a crowd. In such a situation I doubt he would be in a position to take physical notes, but he very well may have taken mental notes of bits and pieces of the book where it touched on events he considered important to his understanding of Christian history. I would assume the author of Luke/Acts could not afford to buy any of the 30 individual volumes Josephus published over the years between 75 and 100 CE, or his references would be more exact as to order of events, etc.

DCH

maryhelena

Perhaps its trying to read Acts as a straightforward, linear, historical record that presents historical discrepancies with Josephus. (not of course to excuse Josephus of any inaccuracies of his own....).

If, instead, one views Acts as a theological driven, salvation history, of early Christian beginnings, then other avenues open up through which to approach this material.

Acts 21:38 could simply be Luke condensing, conflating three separate storylines from Josephus. In other words, Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) is not writing a linear history but a condensed version. Which, obviously, would have implications for a historical reconstruction of early Christian history.

Luke 3:1-3 has, likewise, conflated, condensed, a 70 year historical time period into the 15th year of Tiberius.( Lysanias of Abilene in 40 bc.)

Acts 5:36,37 could be an instance of backdating actual historical events to an earlier time slot. Judas the Galilean dated to 6 ce and Theudas appearing years after that event during the time of Fadus, 44-46 ce. Again, such a method having implications for a historical reconstruction of early Christian history.

GLuke has a similar backdating method. Herodias, according to Kokkinos, was previously married to Philip the Tetrarch, and only after his death in 33/34 ce did she marry Antipas. Hence, no marriage between Herodias and Antipas in the 15th year of Tiberius. (Kokkinos dismissing the claim by Josephus that it was the daughter of Herodias that was married to Philip.)

(Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol 125, No.2, July 2006. “Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?” (by Ross S Kraemer]

Perhaps there is one big instance of where the writer of GLuke has gone along with Josephus - in contradiction to GMark and GMatthew - and possibly the know history of the time. Both these two earlier gospels maintain that the previous husband of Herodias, prior to her marriage to Antipas, was named Philip. If these two gospels were available for some time prior to GLuke - and GLuke has used these two sources for his own gospel - and left out the name of the previous husband of Herodias, ie Philip - then questions as to why GLuke did this would arise. Particularly, since the time of Philip’s death would be known, 33/34 ce. GLuke, placing the marriage of Herodias to Antipas prior to the death of Philip, would give rise to questions.

GMark and GMatthew, in their gospel storyline, had no reason to place Herodias married to Antipas prior to the death of Philip. Their storyline can accommodate a later marriage, after Philip’s death, between Herodias and Antipas. A timeline that makes more sense re the subsequent war between Antipas and the father of his divorced wife, Aretas, in 36/37 ce.

Consequently, GLuke needed a secondary source to support his backdating of the marriage of Herodias to Antipas in the 15th year of Tiberius. Josephus not only provided confirmation of Luke’s historical backdating - he goes one step further and writes off any marriage between Herodias and Philip.

Thus, the question becomes: Did Luke use the writing of Josephus - or did Josephus have a hand in the writing of Acts and GLuke?

The gospel storyline of GMark and GMatthew can happily accommodate a later than the 15th year of Tiberius for the marriage of Herodias to Antipas i.e. after the death of Philip in 33/34 ce. The crucifixion storyline can be accommodated towards the end of Pilate’s rule in 36 ce. (as seemingly is the position of Kokkinos). It is the gospel of Luke - with its need for Josephan support - that has muddied the waters re the gospel storyline... - and, consequently, muddied the waters re a reconstruction of early Christian history. And that mudding of the waters by Luke could not have been possible without Josephan support.

aa5874

That Josephus had a hand in writing Acts and gLuke is out of the question. Josephus was at one time a prisoner of War and had already told Vespasian that he Vespasian was the prophecied ruler of the habitable earth.

If Josephus dared to declare that Jesus, a Jew, was really the Messianic ruler while still in Rome under the protection of the Roman authorities then the life of Josephus may have been in serious jeopardy.

Josephus wrote not one thing in the NT Canon.

But, it would appear that the Church or people acting on their behalf, wrote somethings in the works of Josephus after he was dead.

maryhelena

I never wrote anything about Josephus declaring Jesus to be a *real* Messianic ruler. As you yourself have written, there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, ie no flesh and blood gospel Jesus - so why come up with such a remark? It has no relevance to anything I have written - or that you have written...
What evidence do you have for this statement?

aa5874

I have presented the reasons why I think Josephus had no hand in writing gLuke.

You did ask a BLANKET QUESTION. Look at it again.


DUH! Because I can't FIND any EVIDENCE that he DID.

maryhelena

Now that's much better - you don't have any evidence either way - so making such a positive statement as you did earlier is just your opinion is it not?

The answer to my earlier question is very simple - there is perhaps a possibility that Josephus had something to do with Acts and Luke - but as of now - its an open question......