Toto

Who claims that Luke "dimly remembered" Josephus?

From Carrier's essay

Layman

I certainly do discuss the passages that are used to argue for dependence, including the reference to the census, the rebel leaders, and the supposed linguistic similarities. I focus on the one's Mason find most probative, such as the sicari, the Egyptian, and the discussion about the philosophical schools. I also refer to Holding's more specific comments on some of these terms, which as he shows are not all that unique. There are some others that Mason refers to as “minor parallels� that he concedes, “[b]y themselves, […] are too vague to establish a relationship between the texts.�. (See my footnote 230).

So like I said, I focused on what Mason focused on. And I referred readers via hyperlink to a more thorough discussion of the philosophical school terms that Mason mentions. Too bad you cannot simply responed and criticize my article without turning it into a personal character issue.

Updated to Add: If I remember correctly, most of the terms about philosophical schools were actually quite common when one was discussing philosophical schools. Thus the real thrust of Mason's argument here is the supposed novelty of anyone thinking to present Jewish sects in such a way. But as I argue in the article, its not really all that surprising that Luke, probably for the same reasons as Josephus, probably would present Jewish sects to a Greek audience in such terms. Once that is seen as nothing special, the use of the terms at issue is not very probative.

Layman

The typical argument for dependence, which I seem to remember Mason also accepted, suggests that Luke used Josephus but used him poorly because he only hastily perused Josephus or did not remember what he read. This is supposed to explain the differences as well as the agreements.

Because Carrier is parroting Mason, I used Mason's book in my article. When I first wrote the chapter I only had Mason's first edition. But by the time the entire article was written, I had to get the second edition because Mason had revised his argument (for example, notably conceding the possibility that Luke may have heard an oral presentation of Josephus rather than being literary dependent on his texts).

Layman

Where does Luke mention "Egyptians"? Are you thinking of Acts 7:22 ("Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds.")? Why would he not get this from the Old Testament?

Layman

Toto is skeptical that there were any Christians during the first century. Thus there was no one to persecute and no Paul in any event.

Toto

Please refrain from speaking for me.

I am skeptical that there were any self-identified Christians for most of the first century. But I have never challenged Paul's existence.

John Kesler

What source(s) can you cite to back the assertion that "modern historians are highly skeptical of trusting ancient documents" and "religious tracts"? How current and secular do documents have to be before they are given the benefit of the doubt?

Steven Carr

In very little detail, certainly you stop mentioning any Greek
. Nor do you mention all the expressions Carrier gives.


I love your explanations of the obvious dependencies.

'Given the common Hellenized audience and social setting of the authors of Acts and Antiquities, it likely was “self-evidently appropriate� for them to describe Jewish sects in this manner. How else is a writer to explain Jewish sects to a Greek audience? Especially given that the author of Luke-Acts was a Greek himself. '

SO Luke and Josephus were honour-bound to use Greek terms for their Hellenised audiences, and so they both do.

And the you immediately write 'There are terms related to philosophy that Mason relies on to argue dependence. He notes that Josephus and Luke refer to tradition being “handed down.� But this is typical Jewish, especially Pharisiac language, and it should therefore come as no surprise that it is used by Luke to refer, well, to the handing down of tradition.'

So Luke and Josephus were honour-bound to use Jewish terms , as both were writing typically Jewish works.

Layman has an explanation for all dependencies. When Luke and Josephus have common Greek terms, they were both Greeks, and when they have common Jewish terms , they were writing Jewishly.

Layman writes ' Therefore, this correlation is unremarkable and best explained by sharing similar audiences.'

Huh? Both Josephus and Luke were writing for Christians????

And does Layman ever dream of trotting out 'similar audiences' when he has two letters to Christians , both using the rather common Christian concepts - 'servant' and 'minister'.

Of course not. Such unusual language indicates dependence on Layman's view.

While the extremely unusual use by Luke of a word which came to mean 'heresy' is best explained by Luke and Josephus writing for the same audience.......


Layman writes ' I also refer to Holding's more specific comments on some of these terms, which as he shows are not all that unique.'


This is no more than bluster.


http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html

Holding writes 'Mason and Carrier both note that Luke and Josephus use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth. That's very fascinating. What other word ought they to have been able to use?

The reason for this is known by Mason, though he does not see it: Plutarch distinguishes philosophy from superstition on the grounds that only philosophy offers a "secure" way to look at the world. Paul uses the word in 1 Thess. 5:23 ("peace and safety). That both Luke and Josephus (and Paul) might use the same "buzzword" means no more than that two commercials for different political candidates might use the word "honest" or "integrity". Derivation is in no sense indicated by the use of this single word (and concept), which appears much, as even Mason admits, in the words of philosophers.'

How does Holding demonstrate that this word was common *without producing a single other example* from the relevant period? Is Holding really claiming that Paul was using the word to describe philosophy in the way that Luke and Josephus did?

Holding proves that a certain idiom was a common one , thusly :-

'More specifically, it is alleged that Luke can only be using Josephus to say that the Pharisees are the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), as none other than Josephus "uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189)." It does not occur to certain persons, apparently, that this was the idiom used (proudly!) of the Pharisees themselves, of themselves (Luke has this in the mouth of Paul).'

This is the logic Layman relies upon? Luke uses a common idiom among Pharisees. and we know it is a common idiom because Luke uses it when he has a Pharisee speak?

Can you say 'circular logic'?


And finally, just to show how much bluster Layman spoke when he said that he relied on Holding's refutation, Holding writes about another obvious dependency of Luke upon Josephus 'Much is made of Luke and Josephus using the word haireseis to describe their movements, but again, Luke was hardly unique in his use of this word (1 Cor. 11:19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1)...'

Galatians 5 - 'idolatry , witchcraft hatred variance emulations wrath , strife seditions , heresies'

So that is what Luke mean by saying that Paul was the leader of a heresy - he wanted to link him with seditious, idolatrous, wrathful witches :-)

Holding glosses over the fact that these use the word negatively, and in a different way to the way that both Luke and Josephus use it.

Indeed, the fact that other Christian writers did not share Luke's usage, while Josephus is stong evidence of dependence - what Layman would call 'a classic instance of undesigned coincidence', if such similar words occurred in works where he wanted to say there was a dependence.



But if Layman is going to point to Holding's articles as support, then he is going to be embarrassed when people read them....

Steven Carr

I like the way Layman, a lawyer by trade, marshalls his 'evidence'.


He writes ' After meeting and preaching in Jerusalem, both Acts and Galatians report that Paul left that city and proceeded to Syria.'


Acts 9:30 (“And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren found out they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.�) and Gal. 1:21 (“But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. . . . Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia�).

And if Galatians 1:18 says there was a 3 year gap between the conversion and the trip to Jerusalem, while Acts 9 puts the visit to Jerusalem seamlessly after the escape from Damascus in the very next verse...., well, Layman can still write 'In any event, the timing, geography, and occasion are the same.'

Steven Carr

Layman writes in the article :-
'The same may be true for Luke and Josephus’ use of the phrase “most precise school� to describe the Pharisees. Though parallels are not found beyond Luke and Josephus’ writing, it is a flattering presentation that could have been used by the Pharisees themselves. '

Surprising that Holding has shown that these terms were quite common and not at all unique, when Layman himself admits that there are no examples other than Luke and Josephus for one of the most striking examples.