Corpus-Paul

["Steve Carson-Rowland" <kirra AT powerup.com.au>]

Dave Hindley
I would imagine the main reason is that it its dedication to Theophilus resembles those made by Josephus to his patron Epaphroditus in the Antiquities, his Autobiography, etc., all dated to around 95 CE. This is strengthened by the fact that the account purports to be an historical account, but appears to have the intent of augmenting Josephus' Antiquities by placing early Christian figures within Josephus' historical framework (which otherwise makes no mention of them).

 

Steve Davies replies:
This is the first I've heard of either of these arguments. The first is surely flawed unless we have reason to believe that Josephus, and only Josephus, wrote a dedication of this sort. The second just sounds crazy... but I could be convinced to the contrary if you'd be kind enough to provide additional argumentation.

 

Dave Hindley again:
I have certainly run across several stray references to the hypothesis that Acts was influenced by Josephus' Antiquities. Unfortunately, I have been scanning my library to locate some of these without much success. The best I can do for the moment is Robert Eisler (_Messiah Jesus_) who refers to F. C. Burkitt _Gospel History and its Transmission_, Holtzmann (1873), Adolph Hausrath, Keim and Karl Clemen as advocates, and refers to discussions of the issue in two well known works of his age (circa 1931). I can assure you that I did not conjure this out of thin air.

As for the second, "crazy" is a relative term. <g> If some can seriously suggest that Acts is based on a legal brief, for instance, then I am
confident I can just as seriously offer the suggestion that Acts was meant to give Christians of the early 1st century some sense of historical
closure. That is, it offered a firm link to the world everyone else knew. Where Pagan and Jewish histories did not make any reference to early
Christian developments, the Gospels and Acts helped fill that void.

That does not mean that the author of Acts was not well informed about the cities, provinces and states of the empire, or that he did not have access to sources concerning, or know traditions about, Paul or the early Christian movement. These he did have and did know. I only said that a proposed relationship between Acts and Josephus' Antiquities and/or Life have been used to suggest a date of composition after 95 CE, and that this appeared to be correct in my view.

STEVE CR

'Josephus and the New Testament' by Steve Mason (1992) has a section on the second point (the chapter entitled 'Josephus and Luke-Acts', pp.204ff).

 

[quote]

The main reason for scholars' speculation about the relation between Josephus and Luke-Acts is the remarkable number of incidents reported by Luke, in both the Gospel and Acts, that have parallels in Josephus... Almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus' narratives. Yet Luke and Josephus differ significantly in their reporting of these common events. So, although the correspondences are tantalizing the differences seem to preclude any direct use of one author's work by the other. Some scholars have proposed nevertheless. that Luke knew Josephus' work but remembered it imperfectly or, in some cases, deliberately altered it to suit his story...

[end quote]

 

Mason goes on to detail a number of coincidental stories in the two writers. Because of the differences between events in Acts and Josephus, I was previously convinced that there was no influence of Josephus on Luke or vice-versa, but since reading Mason's book I am not so sure.

 

Steve Carson-Rowland
Queensland, Australia

 

Relevant academic qualifications: Nil

Interest in the subject: Very high