dog-on

I think anti-Marcion is probably a better term since there really is no middle ground.

This is not to say that the early church was not interested in bringing the Marcionite church into it's fold.

Based on the polemical works around this time, I think it is quite clear that the orthodoxy was condemning Marcion with one hand, while co-opting his "gospel" with the other.

Accepting the Marcionite texts, while simultaneously claiming that Marcion had subverted them, was a brilliant political maneuver.

JoeWallack

JW:
It is telling that there does not appear to be any quality article disputing Mason here on the Internet or elsewhere. As always, where the hell is Jeffrey Gibson when you really need him. Obviously your average Christian Bible scholar has no motivation helping to publicize that "Luke" may have used Josephus as a source. I use the observation that "Luke" used Josephus as a source (and why wouldn't she?) as evidence that "Mark" likewise used Josephus as a source:

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

I'd also like to mention here that in addition to the specific reasons Mason has we also have the general reason that based on the Thread:

Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?

Josephus was probably the most widely read non-Christian author of the early Church.

The Tobinator also has a nice little article on the evidence for "Luke" using Josephus as a source:

The Reliance of Luke-Acts on the Writings of Flavius Josephus

The only other related article I can think of is Goldberg's from 1995:

The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus

This is specific to the TF and concludes it most likely that there was a common source. Presumably because it was written in 1995 Goldberg was either unaware of or just ignored all the other parallels between "Luke" and Josephus.

You would have to use a formal criteria for valid parallels such as Clark has proposed in order to create a professional and scientific presentation of the quality of the parallels. I don't see anyone as having done that yet. This would be the objective part. The second part would be the conclusion which is subjective. We have Skeptics here claiming a likely conclusion but at this point I think all we have is that Josephus is the only identified possible source for "Luke" (not counting "Mark" and Q of course) so it is the most likely source we have but not necessarily a likely source due to the unknown (the distance between what would be good evidence for Josephus as source and the evidence we have).

The primary significance of "Luke" using Josephus as a source is not what it tells us as to the historicity of "Luke". We already know that "Luke" is primarily fiction. The significance is dating. Another piece of evidence which coordinates with all the other evidence that "Luke" is 2nd century:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel



Josephus

ErrancyWiki

Toto

Where's Jeffrey?

DCHindley

aa,

Hey, that was a good post (mainly because I thought the same thing after reading Andrew's post).

Besides, according to Harry Gamble the readings of a work-in-progress would occur among the privacy of one or two friends, who could offer candid criticisms of style and vocabulary, with the public reading occurring at the time of formal publication, before a larger audience.

Or was Streeter implying that the author of Luke-Acts was himself tight with Josephus? If so, that seems to be presumptious.

DCH

Petergdi

There is a review here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1205281 by Gregory E. Sterling of Notre Dame in The Journal of Religion. The tail end of the review, which is the relevant bit, is available without a Jstor account. He finds it a "reasonable case" but isn't buying it. I don't know what his theological commitments are, but he has published quite a bit on Philo, Luke-Acts, and some on Josephus.

Peter.

Toto

He finds it "a reasonable case but I would prefer to believe that they drew from common sources." Personal preference? Aesthetic? It's not clear what this means.

Sterling is a professor of Theology at Notre Dame. His BA and MA were from Protestant-connected universities, and his PhD from the Graduate Theological Union. He is the author of Historiography and self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (or via: amazon.co.uk), which can be previewed on Google books. From what I can read there, it appears that he dates Luke-Acts to 90 CE, which would create some difficulty if the author had read Josephus (as opposed to Pervo, who dates it to 110.) I can't read all of his argument, but it appears that the crucial point for him is that that he wants to date Luke-Acts prior to the Revelation of John.

DCHindley

Interestingly, Mason reviewed Sterling's Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 113, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 154-157. JSTOR has the 1st page online here (about a half page of text). Apparently, Sterling proposed a new genre for Luke-Acts, "Apologetic Historiography." Unfortunately, this review is not on the JBL's Review of Biblical Literature page. (I might want to get hold of that one, 'cuz I like that idea of Luke-Acts as a form of apology.)

I was able to find an online article by Christopher Price, a conservative Christian apologist active at christiancadre.org, here that critiques Mason's hypothesis (chapter 5). He does not buy into it, but cites no scholarly rebuttals. The best he can do is cite B. H. Streeter's "rebuttal of this theory" in The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, (1924, pages 557-58) which Price thinks "carried the academic day." Obviously this predates Mason's Josephus and the New Testament which was first published in 1992 (it was greatly expanded and updated in the 2nd edition of 2003).

Here are the exact words of Streeter:

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 imperfect recollection and misunderstanding, of Josephus.

Personally I am quite unconvinced that there is dependence of any kind.
[P. W.] Schmiedel, whose statement of the case for dependence is the most elaborate in English [Encycl, Bib., art. "Lysanias and Theudas."], 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.

Now there is not the slightest improbability in the supposition that Luke had heard Josephus lecture in Rome.

Josephus was granted by Vespasian rooms in the Imperial Palace, and remained in favour with subsequent emperors.

Luke also, I have suggested, had a connection with the Flavian house.
The writings of Josephus were addressed to the Roman world at large, and it would appear that after AD 70 he for the most part lived and wrote in Rome.
In that case, unless his practice was quite different from that of contemporary writers, it would have been a matter of course for him to recite large portions of his works to public audiences before they were published in written form.

Pliny and Juvenal constantly refer to this custom—
the latter to expatiate on the boredom it induced.

Plutarch tells us that while in Rome, at about this date, he was so busy lecturing, and doing minor political business, that he never had time to master the Latin language—
an observation which incidentally reveals the extent to which Greek was a second language of the educated native Roman as well as of the immense city population of foreign origin.

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.

Josephus was extremely conceited, not at all the man to lose any opportunity for publicity, and he would do much to be in the literary and social fashion.

Moreover, his writings were largely intended for propaganda purposes;
he wished to do his best to reinstate the credit of the Jewish people.
He would certainly have recited parts of the Antiquities at intervals during the ten years before its publication.

Fashionable Rome felt bound in etiquette to attend the recitations of its noble friends;
but a parvenu like Josephus would have been only too glad to fill up the back seats with unimportant people like Luke. (H. B. Streeter, The Four Gospels, Chapter 18, )

Here is a link to that article by P. W. Schmiedel listing the literature on the question of whether Luke used Josephus:

That Josephus had been used by Lk. was first affirmed by Holtzmann (ZWT, 1873, pp. 85-03, and especially 89-90, l877, pp. 535-549). See also Hausrath, NTliche Zt.-gesch.(2) 4, 1877, pp. 230-241; Keim, BL 5, 1875, pp. 510-513, and Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1, 1878, pp. 1-27, especially 18-21 ; Clemen, Chronol. d. paulin. Briefe, 1893, pp. 66-69, and St. Kr. l895. pp. 355-337 ; and Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, 1804, pp. 162-174 (very thorough). Lk.'s use of Josephus was denied by Sonntag, St. Kr. 1837, pp. 622-652 ; Wieseler, Chronolog. Synppse, 1843, pp. 103-10;, and Beitr. zur Wurdigung der Evangelien, 1800, pp. 101-104; Zuschlag, Theudas, 1849; Schurer, ZWT 1070, pp. 574-582; Belser, Tub. theol. Quartalschrift, 1896, pp. 61-71; Blass, St. Kr. 1896, p. 459-460, and Acta apostolorum . . . secundum formam Romanam, Leipsic, 1896, p. 16-17 (cp Acta. apostolorum edit. philologica, Gottingen, 1895, ad loc.); Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, 252-260; Feine, Theol. Lit.-Blatt, 1900, 60-61; Cross, Exp.T, 1899-1900, pp. 538-540. (Encyclopedia Biblica, vol III, 1902)

Hugh Schonfield also treated the possibility of use of Josephus by the gospel writers in The Passover Plot (1965, pp. 164 f. & 253 f.). This is expanded in The Jesus Party aka The Pentecost Revolution (1974, pp. 35-44). Schonfield does not cite any critical authorities, just Josephus' works.

spamandham

From JW's reference:

This means that the earliest date possible for the composition of Luke's gospel is 95 CE.

For 'Luke' to have written immediately following Josephus, seems to me to imply that Josephus wrote Luke. Either that or Luke is more likely decades later than Josephus, allowing enough time for the works of Josephus to become quasi-scriptural.

If we date Acts (and thus Luke) to the same time period as so many other Acts style documents (late 2nd century), then this allows plenty of time for Josephus to have been made legendary.

Petergdi

Have you read Harnack on dating Luke-Acts? (I'm thinking of the later Harnack, around 1911, I think). When I read it, I had to struggle hard not to be completely sold on AD 62-64. He argues impressively, and it is easy to understand how he had as much influence as he did.

Peter.

dog-on

Was Luke a correction of Matthew?