Ben C Smith

I am ordering Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason via interlibrary loan, but would appreciate some thoughts in the meantime on one of his arguments that Luke knew the works of Josephus. Richard Carrier, in a rather famous online summary of Mason, writes:

Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josphus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

For ease of reference, here is the passage (translated by Whiston) about Theudas (Antiquities 20.5.1-2; Theudas does not appear in the Wars):

1. Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.

And here is Acts 7.36-37, Gamaliel speaking (several years before Theudas, according to the Josephan chronology, appeared on the scene):

For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.

The argument appears to be that Luke needed two examples of troublemakers whose movements fizzled out, and lit upon Theudas and Judas the Galilean, in that order, because of their close connection, in that order, in Josephus. In Josephus the order is perfectly rational because he is actually speaking of the sons of this rebel leader and merely flashing back to their infamous father. In Luke the order is an apparent absurdity, since it not only makes Judas the Galilean come after Theudas but also puts words about Theudas on the lips of someone speaking before Theudas ever revolted. Luke simply glossed carelessly over his Josephan text, or took misleading notes on it, or remembered it imperfectly, and made a mistake.

What I want to know is how convincing the posters on this forum think this kind of argument from fatigue is. Chris Price, in his recent detailed survey of the historicity of Acts, cites Ben Witherington III as follows:

Mason points to the same order in Josephus’ discussion of these two figures in Ant. 20.97-99, 100-102. He suggests that Luke remembered the order of Josephus’s discussion but forgot that Josephus had indicated that Judas was a much earlier figure. In short, his memory was selective and what he remembered was not the actual substance of Josephus’ account but the order. It must be admitted that this seems strange, especially when one is talking about an ancient historian like Luke who was far more likely to concentrate on matters of substance than matters of chronological order.

At first blush, it seems odd to argue that Luke probably did not get the chronological order wrong because he was less concerned for chronological order than for substance. Be that as it may, Price continues with his own comments:

...from what we know of the author of Acts, he would not have made such sloppy use of one of his sources. Mason’s theory fails to deal with what we know about the author’s use of sources in Luke. As discussed above, the author of Acts made extensive use of Mark and Q (or Matthew) in writing his Gospel. Although Luke smoothed out the Greek he is a sober editor of his source material rather than a creative author. He did not use sources carelessly or half-remembered.

Comparing the alleged Lucan use of Josephus with the much more widely accepted Lucan use of Mark and either Q or Matthew is a superlative idea. However, it seems to me that Luke does at times lapse into just this sort of fatigue while editing his biblical sources. Mark Goodacre, in the article that made the term fatigue popular (IIUC), highlights several cases of Lucan carelessness. These cases look quite similar to me to the issue with Theudas and Judas. How do they look to you?

Does Goodacre make a good case for Lucan fatigue respecting Mark and Matthew? If not, then why does the argument from fatigue fail (whether overall or only in the cases that Goodacre adduces)? But, if so, then does Steve Mason make a good argument for Lucan fatigue respecting the Antiquities? Are there other indications that Luke knew the Antiquities? (I confess to remaining thoroughly unconvinced so far by the other arguments that Carrier summarizes and Price rejects, such as naming the "same three" rebel leaders; the case of Theudas and Judas seems an argument of a different order than those.)

Any comments would be appreciated.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

In 'The Four Gospels' Streeter suggested that Luke had heard Josephus in Rome in the late 80's give public readings of his work in progress but had no access to the completed published written 'Antiquities'.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

If you want my opinion, Goodacre makes a good case for fatigue.

Fatigue , in general, is a well established phenomenon, is it not?

Ben C Smith

It seems to be, and I have found contemporary examples around me that seem to fit the phenomenon.

But Lucan reliance on Josephus is not a very widespread hypothesis, is it? Why is that? Is it that there exists only this one example of fatigue between them, and one example could just be a fluke? Or are there others that point in the opposite direction? Or are there others that point in the same direction, but of which scholars in general are unaware?

Ben C Smith

Thanks for that reminder. From chapter 18 of The Four Gospels:

If the Lucan writings were first circulated in Rome it becomes unnecessary to decide the vexed question whether or not Luke had read Josephus. The question arises from the fact that Luke's statements violently conflict with those of Josephus in regard to the dates of Lysanias (Lk.iii.1-2) and Theudas (Acts v.34 ff). 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 imªperfect recollection and misunderstanding, of Josephus. Personªally I am quite unconvinced that there is dependence of any kind. Schmiedel, whose statement of the case for dependence is the most elaborate in English, 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.

....

The Antiquities of Josephus was published c. AD 93. It is a long work and would have taken many years to compose—probably most of the interval since the publication of his earlier work, The Jewish Wars, about AD 78.

....

He would certainly have recited parts of the Antiquities at intervals during the ten years before its publication.

I have no problem positing that (A) the Antiquities took a long time to compose and (B) Josephus may well have given recitals of the material in progress. What advantages do you see with such a hypothesis over and against any hypothesis of Luke having the finished work before him? Streeter argues against notes based on reading, but does not appear to argue against faulty memory of the text. Also, do you find Streeter convincing that lecture notes are more likely than reading notes? I can rather easily imagine Luke making a list of rabblerousers as he came to them in turn, even on a very careful reading, and listing Judas after Theudas, only later forgetting that in this case the literary order did not follow historical chronology.

I might add that the argument from fatigue, even if Streeter is correct, would still hold. The only question is whether Luke became fatigued from a lecture or from a text.

Thanks for the response.

Ben.

DE BERGERAC

I've read Mason's book and have little doubt that Luke knew Josephus (his works) and is dependent on him, perhaps in more ways that have come to be acknowledged. I imagine that someone has remarked already on the similitarity beetween the Presentation in Luke's Gospel and some passages from Josephus's Life, in which he says that at foorteen he himself was conversant with the Law, etc. and his opinion was reckoned with by doctors and elders.

Peter Kirby

This, the story of the precocious child who dazzles the elders, is folklore that was in the air at the time. It's interesting that Josephus should attribute it to himself, thus becoming part myth. It's probably not the only apocryphal tale Josephus tells about himself.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Of course, Luke could hardly have borrowed the story from Josephus , as Jesus was only 12 , not 14, when he astounded his elders.

Peter Kirby

If you say so, but that's not my argument.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

I have two separate reasons for preferring Luke using notes from a talk by Josephus. neither one being very strong.

a/ IMHO errors in using ones notes are much more likely when the original is not available for checking points where ones notes are ambiguous.

b/ I would tentatively prefer a date for Luke-Acts in the very late part of Domitian's reign, which would make it a little unlikely for Luke to have already read and digested his own copy of Antiquities which would only have been published at most a year or so before.

Andrew Criddle