I printed this thread (from its original source) and have studied it, along with Luke and a volume of Josephus. I hope to shortly type a relatively complete response showing that there is not generally strong evidence of borrowing, and that any (very limited) evidence of borrowing could have gone the other way ie. Luke to Josephus.
Josephus-Luke connection
by peacefulpete 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
LittleToe
I read a number of articles about this a couple of years ago.
One of the possible conclusions was that Josephus and Luke used at least one common document, that is no longer extant.Given that Josephus has a pretty good historical validity, it does lend a little weight to the authenticity of Luke, rather than the reverse.
-
hooberus
I hope to do this response in segments (given the length of the original post). I hope to type the response over the next few days. I will answer questions following my complete response (and probably not before).
Section 1. Introduction
The original source for this thesis come from the anti-Bible infidels.org site. The arcticle is by a Richard Carrier.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
Here Carrier argues that Luke copied from Josephus. Interestingly in another arcticle Carrier refered to the possibilty that Josephus used Luke as a source, though he qualified this statement that "the same evidence just as easily suggests that Luke used Josephus." So carrier himeself suggested the possibility of Luke being used by Josephus.
Here is the quote:
This is where proper historical method turns the tables on Christian apologists. The usual argument is that Thallus is the earliest witness to the gospel tradition, proving that the story was circulating, and taken seriously enough by pagans to debunk it, before the 2nd century. But the opposite reasoning applies: since we do not know that Thallus wrote in the 1st century, but know that he could have written in the 2nd, and since no other sources attest to any gospel tradition earlier than the 2nd century, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century--or at the earliest, the 90's AD, since there is some evidence that Josephus referred to Luke in that decade, although that same evidence just as easily suggests that Luke used Josephus, dating that gospel after 96 AD. Otherwise, since all other sources which mention any gospel tradition appear only in the 2nd century, and Thallus may easily have written in that period, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century. This conclusion would change if any further data were rescued from the sands of time which made an earlier date more plausible, but odds are, Thallus is not the earliest witness to the gospel tradition. Even at best, there is at present no reason to assume he is. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So far I don't think that it is necessary to state that either one used the other. However, if so it could be that Josephus used Luke (in a very limited way).
-
hooberus
Section 2. Genaric Parallels (using the original site of the arcticle).
Generic Parallels
(which do not prove anything in themselves but add to or support the firmer evidence)Genaric Paralles are often to vague to establish borrowing, however evidence from them can be used to suggest borrowing either way ie. Josephus to Luke or Luke to Josephus
Both L and J are self-described and organized as histories
Probably because they are both histories.
Both L and J are written in Hellenistic Greek (a literary Koinê).
So is the rest of the New Testament (including some New Testament) books agreed by all to have been written before Josephus.
Both L and J write "from an apologetic stance, using their histories to support a thesis" (e.g. by blaming "the bad Jews" for every calamity, and conveying the notion that the "good Jews," and in L's case that means the Christians, deserve respect)
This is not strong evidence that either borrowed from the other.
Both L and J were "heavily influenced by Jewish scripture and tradition."
So was Matthew, Mark, Paul, etc. (books generally agreed as being written before Josephus).
Both L and J open with a conventional historian's preface
Probably because they were both written by historians.
Both L and J appear in two parts: J begins with the "most important" event in history (the Jewish War) and follows by looking into previous Jewish history to explain the war's significance (with the JA); L begins with his own 'most important' event (the appearance of God on Earth and his act of salvation for all mankind), and follows by looking into subsequent Christian history to explain Christ's significance (with Acts) [2].
Here Luke and Josephus do the opposite. Luke begins with the birth of John, and then in Acts goes forward in the same linear motion where he left off in Luke. Whereas Josephus starts with Wars then goes backward in time to explain the wars significance. In footnote 2 Carrier uses a complex argument to attempt to show that Luke was using this as a "counter-Josephus" tactic.
Here is footnote 2.
[2] A direct inversion of detail can be evidence of borrowing, in a manner called "emulation" or "transvaluation," where the borrower deliberately inverts the order or message of the story or idea that he has borrowed. This is especially the case when the inversion or change so befits the author's message that his reason for inversion is overwhelming. In this case, Christianity by definition aimed at becoming a forward-looking break with the past, the end of the Old Covenant and beginning of the New. Thus, Luke's inversion of the Josephan order makes perfect sense and is therefore plausibly inspired by Josephus--it becomes a counter-Josephus, overtly defying his message and replacing it with a new one.
If the opposite were true (Ie. If Luke had used the same order as Josephus) Carrier might then have listed the agreement in order as "evidence" of Luke "following the Josephan order" etc. So this complex arguement prooves nothing.
Both L and JA are dedicated to a patron, one who is depicted as particularly interested in the real truth about their history (Christianity on the one hand, Judaism on the other), and regarded as the motivation for writing in the first place: Theophilus in the former case (a name that is not uncommon, but could also be a literary invention--it means "Friend of God" [3]); Epaphroditus in the latter case. [4].
This is not necessarily evidence of borrowing at all. It could have been a common literary device then. However it could also be evidence of Josephus being inspired by the style of Luke.
Both Acts and J engage the same historical conventions of speech-creation [5].
Here is footnote 5:
[5] It was impossible in almost all cases to know what someone said on a distant occasion, and therefore it was accepted practice among readers and authors of the time to invent speeches, and it is certain that the speeches preserved in Acts, for example, are entirely of Luke's creation. No one would have expected otherwise. Clearly there were no written editions of the speeches (as they surely would have been preserved with Paul's letters), and oral memory is notoriously bad at recalling anything but the gist and occasion of such things, and even then is easily corrupted by intervening events that alter or distort memory. In the time of L and J, it was well understood and accepted that speeches would be used as vehicles for the author to convey his own ideas, but also that it was proper to create speeches according to what the author thinks would have been appropriate to the speaker and the occasion (thus giving them at least some justification for inclusion in a supposedly objective history).
Hre Carrier accuses Luke of fabricating all of the speeches that he records then (assuming that Josephus did the same thing) uses his own accusation of Luke as a "Genaric parallel" !!
Both L and J emphasize the antiquity and respectability of their religion and tie it to the revered and renowned religious center of Jerusalem [6].
Since both Judaism and Christianity center around Jerusalem (ie. Christs crucifixion) this should be no surprise. Josephus records the death of James in his antiquities indicating Jesrusalem as his location (agreeing with Luke). Luke also shows Antioc as well as other cities being important to early Christianity.
-
hooberus
Section 3. Story Parallels
Story Parallels
(some of which afford firm evidence of borrowing, some not)Most of these Story paralles do not afford evidence of borrowing, and the ones (or just one that may have been borrowed might have gone from Luke to Josephus).
"More than any other Gospel writer, Luke includes references to the non-Christian world of affairs. Almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus' narratives." ?? Mason, p. 205
Since Josephus covers the same time period and is substantially longer than Luke this is to be expected. (Or it could be evidence that Josephus was familiar with Luke as well as other historcal documents).
Among these stories or facts (and Mason only mentions some of many) are:
The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).
I believe that here he is referring to Luke Chapter 2:1-2 not 3:1
The census under Quirinius is notable for three reasons. First, Josephus uses the census as a key linchpin in his story, the beginning of the wicked faction of Jews that would bring down Judaea (and the temple), whereas Luke transvalues this message by making this census the linchpin for God's salvation for the world, namely the birth of Christ (which also would result in destruction of the temple) [7].
Here Carrier again uses the "transvalues" argument to explain Luke doing the seeming opposite of Joesphus. This tactic turns vague opposites into "parallels." Carrier also reads things into Luke 2 that are simply not there such as the bith of Christ linked to the "destruction of the temple" etc.Second, no other author did or was even likely to have seen this census as particularly noteworthy--Josephus alone uses it as an excuse for him to introduce his villains, a group that scholars doubt existed as a unified faction--and therefore it is perhaps more than coincidence that it should appear as a key event elsewhere, even more so since only Josephus, precisely because of his apologetic aim, associates the census with Judas the Galilean, and thus it is peculiar that Luke should do so as well.
Luke in his gospel does not associate the census with Judas the Galilean. Though in Acts he records the Pharisee Gamaliel doing this (more on that later).Third, Matthew does not mention anything about it in his account of the nativity, thus one is left to wonder where Luke learned of it. Given the first two points, the answer could be that Luke borrowed the idea from Josephus, and therefore it probably does not come from any genuine tradition about Jesus. Finally, it is most unlikely that Josephus got the information from Luke, for Josephus provides much more detailed, and more correct information (e.g. he knows exactly when and why the census happened, that the census was only of Judaea, not the whole world, etc.), such that it is far more likely that Luke was drawing upon and simplifying Josephus than that Josephus was expanding on Luke [8].
Luke probably learned from the census from the same place as Josephus, that is the fact of the census itself. There was no need for either historian Luke or Josephus to borrow from each other for the census information. They were both historians writing relatively shortly after this census. The fact that Josephus provides more detailed information (ths issue of correctness is another subject of debate) is probably due to his history being much longer than Luke. Both historians give different information so borrowing is unlikely.
-
hooberus
Story Parallels continued.
The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).
The issue of Judas the Galilean and Theudas, being mentioned in Acts 5:36-37 as well as a Josephus passage is an old one. This the best (and possibly only) potential for "borrowing" between the two historians (however the borrowing could have easily gone from Luke to Josephus). Though there may not have been any borrowing even here. I plan on posting a lot on this speciffic subject. (hopefully shortly)
The issue of the "Egyptian" is different and probably involves no borrowing either way. (more on that to come).
-
peacefulpete
Note that the earlier comment Carrier made about a possible depndence of Josephus upon Luke was refuted in his subsequent article.
The point of the article (which btw I found off the Infidels site who received permission to post it) is not of expose' but an honest review of the results of literary analysis and a best evidence interpretation. Anyone is free to debate and disagree. Literary dependence is not however a simple matter of copying or borrowing, but more a subtle influence and emmulation. Like the Daniel narrative was dependent upon the Joseph story.(another time) -
hooberus
The Egyptian (I hope to deal with th other two later).
In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name "The Egyptian," instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.
If Josephus with all of his ties to the Romans as well as all of his historical records did not know the name of the Egyptian, then probably his name was not known at all by anyone. Hense there is no expectation that the soldier talking to Paul years before would have known it. Indeed had the soldier captain have used a specific name with the term "the Egyptian" The cry of critics would tthen be "Why did not Josephus record the specific name along with the phrase "the Egyptian" if it were known by even a soldier captain way back in Pauls day?"Luke's use of the Egyptian is also telling: Luke has him leading the sicarii, assassins, into the desert.
Luke does not directly say this himself. Luke records a soldier captain asking Paul if he was the Egyptian who led into the wilderness murders sicarii.
Acts Chapter 21
33: Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.
34: And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.
35: And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people.
36: For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him.
37: And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
38: Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
39: But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.But this does not make sense, since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds, not in the wilds.
Perhaps the captain was confused here. This does not mean that Luke was in error.
Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same place (cf. JW 2.258-61, JA 20.167-9), and in fact also mentions there other figures who led people into the desert, even though the Egyptian led them to the Mount of Olives. As Mason puts it (p. 212):
Carrier quotes Mason as saying:
This is clearly part of [Josephus'] literary artistry. How did Luke, then, come to associate the Egyptian, incorrectly, with the sicarii? If he did so independently of Josephus, the coincidence is remarkable.
Luke does not directly associate the Egyptian with the sicarri, he merely records a soldier doing this. The soldier proably confused the two due to them having apparently occurred around the same time. Since Josephus is organized into chapters by time, it makes sence that the Egyptian and the succari would be found relatively close together in Josephus.
Carrier quotes Mason as saying:
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.
From this quote is would seem that Josephus originated the practice of calling the murders the latin term sicarii. However reading Josephus reveals the opposite:
10. Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm
The phrase "sicarri, as they were called" clearly shows that these murder/robbers were called sicarri before Josephus, and were probably called by this term in the times of their crimes. Thus Josephus was not the first to apply this latin term to them (He applied it to them because they already were called by this word.)
-
peacefulpete
Considering that Steve Mason is a formost translater and authority on Josephus, it seems that his statement about Josephus' use of the Latin term Sicarii must be credible. Perhaps (and it appears to be the case) a similar term was in common usage, what was new was the use of the Latin form of the name. I've emailed a few people who might know, I'll share if something comes of it.
-
hooberus
Here is another Sicarii reference:
Wars of the Jews Book 2 Chapter 13
3. When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-2.htm
Ther word Sicarri is from Latin. It seems clear from both of these Joesphus references that these murders were called Sicarii before Josephus, so the term being used by Luke does not show that he must have acquired it from Joesphus. The simple solution is that these murders were called Sicarii in the times of their crimes, hense a soldier captain using the term in the time that Luke presents is no problem whatsoever.
That Luke should use the same word, and similarly conflate the Egyptian with the other imposters mentioned by Josephus in the very same passage as leading people into the desert , further signifies borrowing--that exactly these mistakes should be made is incredible if not the result of drawing (albeit carelessly) on Josephus.
Luke using "the same word" is no problem since the murders were called by this word before Josephus. As to the issue of Luke conflating the Egyptian with the other imposters it is important to note that Luke did not directly do this, he records a soldier captain doing this. Rather than charge Luke with conflation, I think that it is far better to suppose confusion on the part of the soldier captain. Reading Josephus shows that the Sicarii, imposters leading people into the wilderness, and the Egyptain coming from the wilderness an into the mount of Olives all seemed to have occurred aroung the same time, hense confusion back then would have been expected (keep in mind that it is not Luke who is confused, but that Luke records the words of a confused soldier captain).
These events happening around the same time are more than sufficient to account for the confusion of the soldier captain. Josephus writing later places these events fairly close together in his Wars and Antiquites since they were similar events occurring around the same time (Josephus grouped events according to time).
Hense the fact of all three 1. the egyptian, 2. leading into the wilderness, 3. and the sicarii, being grouped together in Luke (by the soldier captain) and being in the same passage (though separated by several words) in Josephus has to do with time and not borrowing. The fact that the order is different in Luke and Josephus also casts doubt on borrowing. Also the soldier captain in Luke records details not found in Joesphus.
There is no need to suppose borrowing either way in the situation with the Egyptian.