premjan

I think prophecy is more of a "warning of doom" than a "prediction of doom". In other words, prophecies are things even the prophets wished would not happen, but considered might not be avoidable.

gregor

Mr. Layman, you submit the following objection:

" Conclusory. Lacks foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence. "

Methinks your petard is twice as high as Mr. Vokosigans'. Your posts seem to be a string of "what if" stories that are much more speculative than the contrary arguments. Mr. V's arguments might lose after a trial, but yours would be excluded in limine before trial as inadmissible.

Bede

Gregor,

I suggest you keep quiet a bit longer before sticking your oar in in that rude way. This discussion has been going on for a very long time and Layman has made extremely detailed arguments which are now included within Kirby's work. Vork continues to make the same old claims and we still await a substantial piece of work from him (although he has a couple good book reviews to his name). Layman has produced several.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Prior thread on the Robbins article.

Peter -

I am glad to see that you have incorporated at least one point that I made, although I am sorry I did not convince you that this whole enterprise is a mistaken attempt to find historical certainty in literary criticism, or that the alleged "preface" to the Voyage of Hanno is just special apologetic pleading to avoid Robbins' conclusion.

As for the dating of Luke-Acts, you seem to work from an assumption that Luke-Acts was written in one sitting, ignoring the possibility that various parts of it were incorporated from earlier writings. This would solve some of the dating problems for dating the work to the early or mid- second century. In particular, I think that some of the advocates of seeing the "we" passages as written by a companion of Paul's assume that they were based on an earlier travelogue.

gregor

Mr. Bede

Layman's posts speak for themselves. One should not state that one's opponent's argument is "objectionable as conclusory and assuming facts not in evidence" while positing a much more speculative theory - a public reading by Josephus that the author of Luke happened to attend and take notes during.

What is the bigger assumption, (i) that the Lucan author had access to one of the written versions of Josephus, the existence of which is absolutely known or (ii) the Lucan author might have been in Rome, might have been there at the same time as Josephus, Josephus might have given some speech (though we've no record of it), Luke might have attended the speech, and Josephus might have discussed the items incorporated into Luke/Acts?

Mr. Layman raised a legal objection - I provided what my legal ruling would be based upon his argument.

The provenance of the poster is not at issue - the validity of the objection is.

Bernard Muller

I notice you do not mention the "we" passages keep going when the "we" travel by land and even after the "we" arrive at destination (Philippi, Jerusalem, Rome).
I also note, in Acts20:1-6, the "we" member(s) are not named (as in the two other "we" passages) but the others are, that is the ones who reached Troas with Paul, ahead of the "we".

On the three "we" trips, I do not see the same "we" being in each of these trips.
For example, the first "we" "appears" with Paul on land somewhere near Troas, is a Pauline Christian missionary close to Paul (16:10 "us"), then go to Macedonia with Paul, but is not from Philippi. However he "disappears" when in Philippi, before Paul & Silas go to jail.
Conclusion: since Paul travelled with Timothy & Silas only (according to Acts, with Timothy, a new addition, the lesser one of the threesome then), the "we" has to be Timothy. Or maybe that's what "Luke" wanted her audience to believe.
And Timothy is here when Paul has his all important vision, that is the one ordering him to go to Macedonia, and above all Philippi, making the creation of a Christian community there part of God's plan (and not a fluke!)
On the second trip, Timothy is named among Paul's companions and is NOT (or one of) the "we" (20:4).

Please note:
a) Timothy was well known by the Philippians (Php2:19-23, Php4:14-16 + Ac18:5)
b) After "disappearing" in Philippi (if he is the "we" of Ac16:16), Timothy reappears in Berea (Ac17:14) with Paul & Silas.
c) The second "we" starts from Philippi (Ac20:5-6). And since there is no Philippian (& Corinthian) named among Paul's companions (Ac20:4), there is a good chance that one of the "we" then was from Philippi.

Best regards, Bernard

Kosh

Ouch. Now we know why Layman doesn't do trial law....

:notworthy

Bernard Muller

Actually, on this page, http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appa.shtml
I showed that Luke knew about 'Wars' but not 'Antiquities', not for the "accuracy", but for the mistakes.
Best regards, Bernard

Layman

No, we are not trying to get Acts as early as possible. And as you should know, I routinely reject all the arguments made for a pre-70 CE date. The purpose here is to explain, if any explanation is needed, is how Luke could have copied Josephus but have disagreed with him so obviously in those same areas.

B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, at 557-558.

No, at best, we have a connection between Luke and Josephus. You simply assume it must have been Josephus' later writing of Antiquities. But that is hardly our only option. Luke could have relied on other sources that contained similar information and accounts. Mason himself admits that such sources were likely prevalent but now lost to us. Luke might have heard Josephus' public speaking and based his accounts on them, though remembering a public speech would be challenging and Josephus' works themselves were not settled accounts prior to their publication.

Actually, Luke's use of Mark and Matthew is not all that creative. Luke's use of Mark and of Q are easily discernable. Moreover he used them in pretty large chunks, though not repeating their order (which is hardly surprising b/c, with the exception of the Passion, there is little reason to read the gospels as chronological narratives).

And, saying Luke "did not care about the details" does not explain why some of the details match Josephus and others so clearly do not. Noting that Josephus and Luke relied on some sources that were similar and some that differed does.

Mason fails to explain why Luke had to rely on Thuedas at all. If he had access to Josephus, he had access to many other Jewish rebels. Indeed, Mason leaves the reader with the impression that Luke and Josephus mention just three notable rebel leaders. This is far from true. Josephus mentions many more.

Eleazar, the son of Dineas
Sadduc, a Pharisee
Simon, the son of Gioras
Manahem, the son of Judas
John of Gischala
Eleazar the arch-robber
James and Simon, sons of Judas

Judas of Galilee is already cited as an example by Luke. If he felt compelled to use other examples, he could have used some of the above examples that fit into Josephus' chronology of pre-revolt revolutionaries. In short, there was no apparent reason for Luke to list an example he knew from Josephus was from a different time period.

Paul and Saul from the Old Testament? Or some Saul in Josephus? I've read Chapter 6 and missed this. Perhaps it was not in the version I have.

You are going to have to make this case instead of just asserting it.

Umm, this makes no logical sense. It would only make sense if this information was only available after 120 CE. That is most certainly not the case.

Mason fails. He relies greatly on the fact that Luke mentions three of the ten notable rebels that Luke mentions (although Mason fails to mention that Josephus mentions so many rebels). This is hardly surprising since Josephus probably listed the most well known of the bunch. As such, knowledge of their activities would hardly be restricted to Josephus. And it's because it's obvious Luke did have other Jewish sources, there is no need to suppose Lucan dependence on Josephus for this information. Indeed, the well known dispute between Luke and Josephus as to the number of followers that Egyptian had demonstrates that Luke is relying on a separate, and more accurate, account. Josephus puts the number of rebels at 30,000, whereas Luke uses the much more likely number of 4,000. Indeed, Josephus' own number of dead renders Luke's account the more likely one. As Bruce notes, “Luke’s moderate figure of 4,000 followers is more likely than Josephus’s 30,000 (BJ 2.261); indeed, it is supported by Josephus’ figures for those killed and taken captive.” F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, at 452.

Mason again refers to Luke's poor memory and notes that numbers in ancient times were "fluid." This is unconvincing. The fact that Luke's account historically accurate makes it unlikely that he "got it right" as a result of a bad memory. Much more likely is that Luke simply had independent information. Additionally, Luke has a track record to check against Mason's appeal to the "fluidity" of ancient numbers--the Gospel of Luke and its reliance on Mark and Q (or Matthew, if you prefer). Mark mentions the feeding of the 4,000 and so does Luke. Q (or Matthew) mentions the feeding of 5,000 and so does Luke. Other examples also tend to show that Mason's appeal to "fluidity" is unfounded. Indeed, Josephus shows much more of a propensity to play with his numbers than Luke.

Luke is not using Josephus as a 'creative' source here. He's relying on a separate and more historically accurate account.

Mason also makes much of one single word--sacarii. Mason goes on to argue that "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. How, then, did Luke, who also writes in Greek, happen upon the word?"

Mason's assumption that Josephus was the first to use the term "sicarii" to refer to these Jewish rebels is supported by no argument or evidence. Nor does it seem reasonable. There seems to be no reason why Josephus would "borrow" the term in the first place. Josephus spoke and wrote in Aramaic and Greek. He never wrote anything in Latin. It is much more likely that Josephus used this term because these Jewish rebels had already come to be known by that term. And the people most likely to use a latin term to describe assassins in Palestine would be Roman soldiers and officials in Palestine. As Mason admits, it was a common Roman term for assassin. It also seems to have found its way into Jewish literature--making it further unlikely that it's an excusively Josephan term.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=681&letter=S

As a result, it is more likely that Josephus used the term coined by the Romans than he invented the term on his own. As such, it would have been widely known--there is no reason to suppose Josephus was the only source for this use of the term. Indeed, this accords very well with Luke's use of the term. Acts does not have a Jew or a Greek use the phrase, but a Roman solider--who would likely have spoken latin. This rather obvious point eludes Mason. Accordingly, Mason's assumption that Josephus was the first writer to use this term is unfounded speculation.

Furthermore, if Jospehus is his source, why would Luke make a connection between the sacarii and the Egyptian that Josephus never makes?

Mason also argues that Luke's description of the sicarii is implausible because they were urban assassins and Luke has them going into the desert. "Luke’s placing of the sicarii in the desert indicates that he knows their name but is not clear about what they do. This confusion is best explained if he is relying on a source that led him to link the sicarii with the Egyptian, and the Egyptian with the desert." I found this contention strange because Josephus states that the sacarii fled to Masada and engaged in siege warfare with the Romans. Most importantly, however, it is strange that a discrepancy should be taken to prove dependence. That Luke and Josephus are argued to disagree on sicarii would suggest independence, not dependence.

Finally, although Mason places great emphasis on the fact that Luke and Josephus both speak of the Jewish sects as philosophical schools, the argument is rather unpersuasive. How else is a writer to explain Jewish sects to a Greek audience? This correlation is unremarkable and best explained by sharing similar audiences.


This is a nonsequiter. Whether Luke used Josephus to find real history or to engage in free wheeling fiction doesn't seem to favor using an oral or a written source.




What does this have to do with your completely unsupported assertion? Other than showing why so many skeptics would be eager to jump to any conclusion disfavoring any historicity in Acts?

The We passages are not historical. 'Luke' assembled them, as he did the rest of his story, from historical sources which currently do not exist. The idea that Luke was a companion of Paul is apologetic fiction designed to enhance the credibility of Acts.

This does not follow. The Gospel of Luke says nothing about Paul. Acts focuses on Paul for only the latter half. And even there Luke was, at best, only an occasional companion of Paul.

Since I believe in the possibility of miracles I don't disregard any of this as fiction.

But even if one does not share my world view, the question is not whether you believe miracles are possible, but whether the ancients believed such things were possible. As Carrier has shown in one of his articles, the ancients believed in the possibility and occurrence of many miracles. That the early Christians did as well is also well attested.

Besides, none of these miracles are nature-breakers. Growing up as a charismatic, I've seen plenty of exorcisms, often with very vocal "demons." Josephus himself records an exorcism in the presence of Roman officials. I've also seen many people make prophecies. And the evidence is very strong that early Christians did engage in public prophecy. That Paul would have done so is hardly surprising. There is nothing fantastical about such a narrative. That all of the crew may have survived breaks no law of nature. Even allowing for the possibility that Luke failed to mention a few lost crewman, such an exaggeration would hardly be grounds for dismissing the entire narrative.

There is nothing fantastical about the vast majority of the we-passages. Even if you excise the miracles as apologetic elaborations, they do not affect the basic narrative. In fact, the we-passages often overlap with information confirmed by Paul's own letters--which, as Kirby explained, Luke did not have access to. Josephus records exorcisms, miracles, and fulfilled prophecy as well. But he remains a valuable historical source. So too with Luke.

Well, you have yet to substantiate your argument. When you do, perhaps we can discuss it further.

I dealt with this erroneous argument above. Of course Luke would rely on sources for information. Most of Luke/Acts are not written from the first-person perspective. And Luke clearly claims to be a companion of Paul by using the first-person narrative.

Bernard Muller

I decided to display part of one of my page here, the one relevant about "Luke" knowing about 'Wars' but not 'Antiquities' (actually the part about "Luke" knowing 'Wars' is explained earlier on the same aforementioned page, appendix A)

>> PS: Did "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities (published 93C.E.)?

Likely NOT: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided, including:

a) Caiaphas is clearly identified as the only high priest during most of Pilate's rule as prefect (up to the Passover of 36C.E; Caiaphas was replaced then).
Ant., XVIII, II, 2 "This man [Gratus the prefect] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."
Ant., XVIII, IV, 3 "But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover ... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."

From where "Luke" might have got the idea of dual high priests? Likely from Josephus' Wars:
"both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests" (II, XII, 6)
In 'Wars', Josephus invoked often the "high priests" as the high priest of the time, plus one, some or all of the (living) ex-ones:
II, XX, 4 "Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest ..."
II, XXI, 9 "The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus ..."
VI, II, 2"Some also there were who, watching a proper opportunity when they might quietly get away, fled to the Romans, of whom were the high priests Joseph and Jesus ..."

But in 'Antiquities', he was very meticulous about the high priesthood and clearly recorded the succession of high priests, one by one, as we saw already.

Note:
In 'Acts' (23:3,24:1), the high priest during Paul's last visit to Jerusalem is "Ananias". At this time, the governor of Judea is Felix, two years before he was replaced (Ac24:27). But according to Josephus' Ant., XX, VIII, 5 & 8, it is very clear that during Felix' years as governor (52-60), there were only two successive high priests, "Jonathan", then "Ismael". "Ananias" is also recorded in 'Antiquities', but his tenure ended during the rule of Cumanus, the predecessor of Felix (Ant., XX, VI, 2). Once again, if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', this mistake would not occur.
But how did "Luke" get "Ananias"?
From Josephus' Wars, as follows:
As previously quoted, we have: "both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests" (Wars, II, XII, 6). This is during the rule of Cumanus. Here it would seem to "Luke" there were two high priests then. But later in the book, we learn that, after Felix became governor (II, XIII, 2), "the first man who was slain by them [sicarii] was Jonathan the high priest"(II, XIII, 3).
Nobody is mentioned in 'Wars' as the replacement for Jonathan. Then who is left as a high priest? Ananias, of course!
By the way, this is, in my opinion, a strong piece of evidence advocating "Luke" knew about 'Wars' (and did not read 'Antiquities').

b) Cyrenius is mentioned (and also again Ananus) in his chronological "niche" and a direct reference is indicated for the dating of his census/taxation:
Ant., XVIII, II, 1 "When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion [6-7C.E.], which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium,
[September 2, 31B.C.E. In the corresponding section of 'Wars' (II, IX, 1), no dating is given]
` he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."
If "Luke" knew about 'Antiquities', he would have known the proper spelling of Cyrenius, and when exactly the census took place, that is right after Archelaus' rule, NOT Herod the Great's.

c) Archelaus' nine years rule over Judea is described in no less than a whole section in 'Antiquities' (XVII, XIII, 1), and not in a few words as in 'Wars'.
I explained before of the same page that "Luke" thought Archelaus' rule over Judea lated only a few months by browsing quickly 'Wars' and "missing" the aforementioned few words.

Here is an extract:
>> b) The 9 to 10 years pregnancy of Mary:
This could be explained as follows: "Luke" relied on Josephus' Wars to learn about the period following Herod the Great's death (March 4B.C.E.).
In 'Wars', there are seven chapters (Book II, Chapters I to VII) describing the period (between 9 and 10 years) from Herod's death to Judea becoming a Roman province (Book II, Chapter VIII). From Chapter I to the middle of Chapter VII, only the events of the first months after the king's death are narrated:
They include troubles & interventions by the Romans in Judea, chaos & destructions & killings, strong opposition to Archelaus (a son of Herod and the main pretender to his throne) in Judea & also in Rome after he went there (a Jewish delegation of fifty ambassadors from Judea opposed his nomination), deliberations & turmoil in Tiberius' court, a spurious pretender and the splitting by Tiberius of Herod's kingdom between his descendants (end of Chapter VI: Archelaus is one of the recipient and his share is mentioned last).
Finally, in the middle of Chapter VII, we learn that:
"And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and out of this resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Ceasar's treasury."
That's all for the nine years reign of Archelaus. Also, the very short description of his rule gives the impression he was banished soon after his return from Rome:

INTHESEDAYSGREEKTEXTSWEREWRITTENINCAPITALLETTER
SWITHNOPUNCTUATIONANDNOSPACEBETWEENWORDS
INTHISDELUGEOFLETTERSANDBYBROWSINGONLYTHEINTHE
NINTHYEAROFHISGOVERNMENTWASEASYTOMISS
(In these days, Greek texts were written in capital letters, with no punctuation and no space between words. In this deluge of letters, and by browsing only, the "in the ninth year of his government" was easy to miss!)

Of course, by missing Archelaus' eight to nine years reign (and assuming it lasted only a few months), there was an opportunity to have Jesus born in Bethlehem during the census of Quirinius/Cyrenius, satisfying prophecies!
<<

d) In 'Antiquities', the Theudas' story takes place well after the one of Judas of Galilee (as quoted earlier, Judas: XVIII, I, 1 & Theudas: XX, V, 1). That would have prevented "Luke" to reverse the order of their appearances in Ac5:36-37.
Theudas does not appear in 'Wars', so again "Luke" must have got the name from another source.

Remark: it is undeniable "Luke" had other (sometimes dubious) historical accounts about rulers. For example:
- Iturea, an area in the northern mountains of Lebanon, was not part of Philip's tetrarchy. As I explained earlier, "Luke" probably did not browse over the whole or parts of Chapters VI & VII of Book II in Josephus' Wars where it is written "... but Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Auranitis, ... were made subject to Philip"
- "Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene", during Pilate's rule over Judea.
These do not appear in Josephus' works.

Notes:

a) Luke's account of the death of Agrippa I (Ac12:19a-23) shows marked differences, even conflicts, with Josephus' only narration of it in Ant., XIX, VIII, 2. "Luke" must have drawn from a different source.

b) Drusilla, the wife of Felix, is not mentioned in 'Wars', only in 'Antiquities' (XX, VII, 2). But she is featured along Felix (governor of Judea, 52-60C.E.) in Ac24:24. So from where "Luke" might have known about her? Likely from one of the "we". The "we" passages are very detailed in 'Acts' and most likely benefitted from testimonies of Paul's travelling companions. And the second "we" trip ends in Jerusalem (Ac21:17, around 58C.E.), while the third one starts from Cesarea (Ac27:1), the residence of Felix. Gossips about Drusilla & Felix could have been heard then, including immoral behavior of the twosome, as suggested in Ac24:25-26.
Remark: Bernice (Ac25:23), Agrippa II's sister, is mentioned prominently in Wars, II, XV, 1.

c) The famine under Claudius, mentioned in Ant. XX, II, 5 and Ac11:28 "... a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world." This famine, caused by a crop failure in Egypt (the bread basket of the Roman empire then), made the price of food too expensive for the poor all over the empire. Consequently, "Luke" did not need 'Antiquities' to know about it. Furthermore, in Josephus' book, the famine is presented as local, that is affecting Jerusalem only.

d) It seems "Luke" was very much confused about the "Egyptian":
Ac21:38 "... the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists [sicarii] out into the desert ..."
Wars, II, XIII, 5 "But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives [across Jerusalem] ..."
(there is no mention of journey about the "Egyptian" in Ant., XX, VIII, 6 )
In view of these discrepancies, some questions may be asked:
- Did "Luke" know about the "Egyptian" from another source (as for Theudas)?
- Did "Luke" misread 'Wars' when writing?
- Did "Luke" read parts of 'Wars' and then later wrote GLuke & 'Acts', without the book?
The later is my preferred option, looking back at my previous findings (including Cyrenius => Quirinius).

Also, because Theudas did bring his people towards the desert (that is the Jordan valley), "Luke" might have assigned by mistake to the "Egyptian" something which was known about Theudas. <<

Best regards, Bernard