andrewcriddle

I was interested in the reference in the article to Streeter's idea that the relation between Luke-Acts and Josephus can be most plausibly explained if Luke had listened to Josephus giving public readings of early drafts of the 'Antiquities' in the 80's but wrote Luke-Acts before Josephus published 'Antiquities' in the mid 90's.

At first sight it seems IMO quite likely.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Paul himself in Philippians 3:6 claims to have persecuted Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Some quotes from the page:-

'The author of Acts faced a problem common among ancient writers: a lack of records and information. Unlike today, there were no – or very few – reference books, encyclopedias, or textbooks available. As for geography, “exact and detailed geographical knowledge on the basis of maps and accurate descriptions of places was limited to a very tiny elite of soldiers, politicians and scholars, and even with them, personal knowledge of a place was irreplaceable.'

' Despite the challenges faced by ancient historians, Acts demonstrates familiarity with varied Jewish customs and beliefs, including many related to the Temple. Notably, the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the related practices and rituals extinguished. As a result, without good sources, precise knowledge of pre-Temple destruction customs was hard to come by after 70 AD.'

' Furthermore, as admitted by one of the few proponents of Lukan dependence on Antiquities, although few other accounts of ancient Jewish history have survived to this day, there were many others that survived to the late ninth century.'

Guess sources come and go , depending upon what Layman wants to argue at the time. One minute sources on pre 70 Jewish practices are hard to come by, the next they are so common that Josephus would have found the market for his book already flooded....


“And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.� Acts 10:9.

Layman tells us how astonishingly accurate saying the hour of prayer was the 6th hour.

“Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer.� Acts 3:1.


Layman tells us how astonishingly accurate saying the hour of prayer was the 9th hour.

And don't forget Luke's astonishing accuracy in saying that the Temple had stairs.

From the page :- ' “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.� Acts 2:29. The tomb of David is mentioned in Neh. 3:16.'


If Wallack can produce 1001 errors in the Bible, then Layman can soon beat him with his 1001 factoids in the Bible (Paul was a Jew, The Temple had stairs, A huge town like Corinth had a synagogue....)

Steven Carr

And destroys the idea that Luke got his speeches mentioning Egyptians, Theudas etc from anywhere except his imgaination and listening to Josephus.

Steven Carr

Layman writes in his article

“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.� Acts 1:12.

The reference to a “Sabbath day’s journey� from Jerusalem to the mount of Olivet, shows accurate knowledge of Jewish customs. “The distance of their walk a ‘Sabbath day’s walk,’ which was the longest distance one could walk without breaking the Sabbath. The rabbinic tradition set this at 2,000 cubits, i.e., about three-fourths of a mile.� As Hengel notes, “[t]he term ‘a sabbath day’s journey’, which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge—for a Greek—of Jewish customs.�

----------------------------

Amazingly intimate knowledge.

Luke was probably the only Christian still alive to know such a thing as what a Sabbath day's journey meant - he and all his readers , who Luke presupposes would find that a very useful length for comparison. Perhaps Luke realised that his readers also had an amazingly intimate knowldge of Jewish customs.

Layman explains what a Sabbath day's journey is, because he thinks his readers are not bound by Sabbath day regulations, and have had no need to study up on what they are.

Prersumably Luke did not think his readers would need the detailed explanation that Layman gives. Perhaps they had studied up on what a Sabbath day's journey was , although it was quite irrelevant for Christians told that such legal minutaie no longer applied.

Amaleq13

I understand the argument that, if there is a connection, it is more likely the result of recollections of verbal presentations than from a written source but I don't see why this requires or even suggests that the Gospel was written before a written version of Antiquities was published. If the author believed his recollection was sufficient to write his story, why should we assume he would feel it necessary to consult a written version?

andrewcriddle

You may be right that Luke would not have got hold of a copy of 'Antiquities' the moment it was published in order to refresh his memory of a verbal presentation a few years before. However if Luke was writing some years after the publication of 'Antiquities' with the book widely available and his recollection fading with time then IMO it would probably be a different matter.

(Also rightly or wrongly, apart from the issue of the Luke-Josephus relation, I would tend to date Luke-Acts at the end of Domitian's reign probably too early for access to the published 'Antiquities'. If the links between Josephus and Luke do not require a date for Luke-Acts after 'Antiquities' then on the whole I would tend to date Luke-Acts before the publication of 'Antiquities'.)

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Layman writes in his article on Acts :-

'The reliance is firmly established. As Prof. Barnett, notes: The term sundoulou occurs only in the Pauline letters only in Col. 1:7 and 4:7. In the one instance it is applied to Epaphrus and in the other to Tychicus. In each case pistos diakonos is a further element in the characterization. In the letters of Eph. 2:1, Philad. 4:1, and Smyrn. 12:2, each time in connection with sundoulou. The usage in these instances strongly suggests acquaintance with Colossians.'

'Sundolou' occurs 10 times in the New Testament.

But that aside, we now know what sort of standard is needed to firmly establish dependence - 3 words will do, and the sort of words that come up fairly often in Christianity - 'faithful' 'minister' and 'servant'.

As Carrier writes in his article on Luke and Josephus :-

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

L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).


L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis, a term that would later take on a negative meaning among Christians as "heresy" (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5; on Christianity as a hairesis: 24:5, 24:14-5, 28:22). We know of no other author but Josephus to have done this--it is a creative feature of his own apologetic program and therefore likely his own idea.


L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189).

Yet Layman writes about Acts clear literary dependence upon Jospehus ' First, “[t]here is no evidence for direct literary relationship between them.� Discussing the usual passages used to support dependence, Polhill notes that “[n]one of these passages . . . shows the least literary dependence on Josephus.�'

And of course, Layman, being a lawyer, does not let his readers know what those passages might be. He greatly prefers sweepung de haut en bas argument by authority, rather than discuss what he knows people like Carrier have written, and which he would prefer his readers never to find out. (They won't hear it from him!)

Why hide evidence, like that, unless you have somtehing to hide?

Steven Carr

Luke is the only Christian writer to mention 3 rebel figures that Josephus mentions, as being active in the period up to 62 AD.

Layman pours scorn upon this, saying the following :-

'First, it is somewhat misleading to say that Luke mentioned the “same three figures� as “featured� in Josephus. Josephus names and discusses more than these three figures. Indeed, in addition to Judas, Thuedas, and the Egyptian, Josephus mentions eight other such leaders in Antiquities alone:



â—? Eleazar, the son of Dineas;

â—? Sadduc, a Pharisee;

â—? Simon, the son of Gioras;

â—? Manahem, the son of Judas;

â—? John of Gischala;

â—? Eleazar the arch-robber; and,

â—? James and Simon, sons of Judas.



Josephus discusses even more rebels in Wars, such as “that arch-robber Hezekias,� “the two thousand of Herod’s veterans,� and “Athrongeus'

--------------------
Did Luke use the only 3 rebels , 'featured' by Josephus as being active in the time Luke was writing about? If Luke was using Josephus , he would harldy name rebels Josephus says were active before 6 BC or after 62 AD.

Hezekias was the father of Judas, and so was not a rebel leader in the time Luke was writing about. (Not that Layman lets that disturb his readers into thinking that Luke and Josephus agree on who were the featured rebel leaders in the relevant time period).

Hezekias was subdued by Herod, before Luke begins his Gospel.


Eleazar was mentioned in connection with a period after Luke was writing about.

Menahem was mentioned in connection with a period after Luke was writing about.

Sadduc is hardly mentioned as a rebel leader. The chapter says it is about Judas, who Josephus says was the author of the 4th sect (using the word Luke uses) of Judaism. Give Layman a half-hit for Sadduc though.

Was Simon, the son of Gioras, featured by Josephus as being active in the time period relevant to Luke when using Josephus for names of rebels?

No, as Layman carefully does not explain, Simon, and these 2 thousand of Herod's veterans would not have been used by Luke as examples of rebels. They were out of the time frame that was relevant.



What about John of Gischala? Josephus features him as a rebel.

Surely if Luke was using Josephus as a source of rebels, then he would have used John of Gischala as a rebel as well as the 3 featured rebels.

No, because John of Gischala was a commander during the war ie *after* the time period Luke was writing about.

I find it utterly astonishing that Layman can throw these red herrings about, in a work that he wants to be taken seriously.

The fact remains that Josephus features 3 rebels prominently during the period Luke ws writing about and these are the same 3 that Luke named.

Layman's red herrings (and his careful refusal to let his readers know *when* these people were rebels), are simply part of a smokescreen. This is really diabolical.

Layman

I do not consider it to be "pouring scorn" to refer to a statement as "somewhat misleading." I actually take Mason seriously because he is a serious scholar. And I admit that I gained some good insights into Josephus from reading his book.

I do not recall Mason putting the unsupportable qualifier of "from the time about which Luke writes" to his claim that Luke and Acts "feature the same three rebel leaders." (though I do not have his book with me). Nevertheless, the crux of Mason's point rests on Luke's misreading or not remembering Josephus. This is supposed to explain why Luke mentions Theudas not in the time period he was writing about (according to Josephus), but as Carrier notes, "Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned." So how is Theudas supposed to be from the same time frame about which Luke is writing? My article points out that if Luke is merely throwing rebel names at his narrative that he dimly recalls from reading Josephus too quickly and is already jumbling them up, he had many more candidates than three to choose from

Furthermore, because Luke already refers to Theudas too early (according to Mason and Carrier), why not later rebels too early? And there is no basis for ruling out the father of Judas or other "earlier" rebels. In Acts 5, Gamaliel is reported to be speaking about the past and giving examples of failed rebel leaders. He is talking about "some time ago," so why, especially if Luke only remembers the names of the rebels and not when they appeared, should we rule out the rebels that preceeded the time period of his narrative? That Luke begins his Gospel around 4-5 BC does not make the earlier rebel leaders irrelevant.

So, Josephus mentions more than three rebel leaders and if Luke is supposed to have jumbled them up and placed Theudas too early because he only dimly remembered what he read then it is conceded that the pot is bigger than just those who were active within the artificial time constraints of the beginning of Luke's gospel and the end of Acts. This is especially true because Gamaliel is referring to rebel leaders from "some time ago" which would obviously include rebels prior to 4-6 BC. Luke is not narrating the actions of these rebels, but using them as examples of failed leaders.

In any event, there is nothing remarkable about Acts' mention of these three rebel leaders that are also found in Josephus. They were not state secrets and could very well have been known by someone like Luke who was a companion of Paul had visited Jerusalem and the Christians there. It cannot be assumed that Josephus was the only possible source of this information.