The idea that Luke the evangelist made use of the
Wars or the
Antiquities of Josephus is over a hundred years old. I have in my hands right now Max Krenkel's 1894 book
Josephus und Lucas. Bernard Muller argues
on his web page that Luke made use of the
Wars but likely not the
Antiquities. More well-known of recent work is that of Steve Mason, author of
Josephus and the New Testament (
amazon.com -
logos.com). Richard Carrier has brought Mason's work to the attention of the Internet in his essay
Luke and Josephus. Recently, J. P. Holding has reviewed the arguments of both Mason and Carrier (
Did Josephus Influence Luke?).
Personally, I lament the fact that there are precious few resources on the history of first century Palestine. Without other writers of the time and place (such as Justin of Tiberias) now extant, it is difficult to determine whether a coincidence of names in Luke and in Josephus reflect literary dependence or rather separate knowledge of the underlying history. In any case, I am in my first year of learning German in college, and I hope to be able (eventually) to read the German scholarship here.
1 Comments:
I've read Mason, Carrier, and Tektonics on this. And I think you've put your finger on an important issue. It would be nice to have more information about the Jewish writings and traditions of the time. That such writings and traditions existed is not really in doubt. Even Mason says there would have been many more floating around.
One fundamental flaw I see in Mason and Carrier's approach to the issue is there seems to be an assumption that many of the events about which Josephus writes could only have been known or reported by him. One example is Mason's argument that Luke and Josephus refer to the "same three" rebel leaders.
Although this is one of Mason's big three arguments for Lukan dependence, I found it very lacking. It is misleading to say that Luke mentioned the "same three figures" as featured in Josephus. Although Mason is correct that Josephus says that there were many other rebel figures, he neglects to mention that Josephus names many more than only three of them. Indeed, Josephus mentions at least eight such leaders by name in Antiquities alone:
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; and,
James and Simon, sons of Judas.
Josephus discusses even more rebels in Wars, such as "that arch-robber Hezekias," "the two thousand of Herod's veterans," and "Athrongeus."
Additionally, Mason's argument apparently assumes that Josephus' list was arbitrary, rather than being related to the actual prominence of these figures. In other words, even if there were other rebel leaders unnamed by Josephus, he probably listed the best known. Because of their notoriety, knowledge of them would hardly be restricted to Josephus. Accordingly, the potential sources for Luke cannot be limited to Josephus. Indeed, such knowledge would be well known in the Jewish communities. Because Luke had access to other Jewish sources, there is no need to suppose Lucan dependence on Josephus for this information.
In any event, when/if you find further relevant information on the subject I would be interested in hearing about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home