Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 10-01-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
It is unlikely that any of the gospel authors ever read of a word of Josephus. For one, it would take at least a generation before the writings of Josephus are available to anyone outside the Roman upper class, and Josephus would be only one of many existing texts by a historian written at the time, so we would need a good argument before connecting the gospels with Josephus. ....

Steve Mason has a good argument. Richard Carrier's summary: "Luke and Josephus"

Steve Mason ... concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.

(see the link for citations.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

If Luke read from Josephus, then we may expect the information in Luke or Acts to match that in Josephus. [But, the accounts of John the Baptist are very different between Luke and Josephus. For example, Luke claims that John baptized for forgiveness of sins, and Josephus directly contradicts that claim (apparently in an attempt to discount existing Christian belief). Luke claims Herod imprisoned John (no mention of death), and Josephus claims that Herod killed John (no mention of imprisonment). It is of course still possible that Luke sourced from Josephus, but of course possibility is not the key point.]

Not necessarily. Luke need not have used Josephus as a source of truth, only as a model and a source of ideas.

If a writer uses another writing as a source of any sort, then it is strongly expected one way or the other that the claims match. So it is strange that Carrier's article omits any mention of John the Baptist, the key character that the writings of Luke and Josephus have in common. Why did he do that? Well, I suppose the article was written before Carrier had a relevant education, so I won't hold it against him.

Toto · 10-01-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
If a writer uses another writing as a source of any sort, then it is strongly expected one way or the other that the claims match.

No it's not. Literature is not your field.

Quote:

So it is strange that Carrier's article omits any mention of John the Baptist, the key character that the writings of Luke and Josephus have in common. Why did he do that? Well, I suppose the article was written before Carrier had a relevant education, so I won't hold it against him.

Carrier had at least a masters at the time, and Steve Mason had even more credentials.

Mason appears to think that John the Baptist was a historical figure, and that Josephus and the gospel writers had independent knowledge of him. This doesn't rule out Luke using Josephus for other purposes.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.