JOSEPHUS
JOSHUA
653
Were this really the case, it would certainly be a fact of great importance, not only for our estimate of the Evangelist's credibility, but also for fixing the date of his works, which, on this theory, could not have been written till after the publication of the Antiquities (A.D. 93-94), i.e. the beginning of the 2nd century. The most thorough-going adher- ent of the theory is Krenkel [Josephiis iind Lucas), who finds, for instance, in St. Luke's narrative of the Infancy, a free reproduction from the Vita ; but the majority restrict the theory to certain Lucan passages which they hold to be dependent on Josephus [e.g. Lk 3^, Lysanias of Abilene, and Ac 25'^ Agrippa and Berenice Avith Festus, etc.). The crucial passage, however, is Ac 5^''*-, with its inaccurate historical sequence, Theudas — Judas of Galilee ; and the error is supposed to be explained by Ant. xx. v. 1, 2 [97 f., 102], where the slaying of the sons of Judas by Tiberius Alexander is re- corded after the crushing of Theudas's insurrection by Cuspius Fadus. The theory would impute to St. Luke an almost incredible misunderstanding, which would indeed presuppose his having used Josephus in a manner so superficial as to lead one to say that, if he had ever read the work of Josephus at all, he must have forgotten it entirely. The two authors, in point of fact, are obviously quite independent of each other. Thus St. Luke (13''-) mentions a Galiljean revolt of which Josephus takes no cognizance, while the three revolts re- corded by Josephus as having occurred under Pilate find no mention in Luke.
It is particularly instructive to compare their respective accounts of the death of Agrippa I. {Ant. XIX. viii. 2 [343-352]; Ac 122»-23). Here Josephus writes as follows :
' Now when [Agrippa] had reigned three years over all Judaea he came to the city of Csesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower, and there he provided games in honour of Caesar, thus instituting a festival for the emperor's health. To this festival a great number of the officials and eminent people of the province had come together. On the second day of the games he put on a robe made wholly of silver and of a wonder- ful texture, and came into the theatre at the dawn of day. The silver, illuminated by the first beams of the sun, shone forth in a strangely awe-inspiring manner and gleamed fearfully in the eyes of those who looked on. Presently his flatterers, one here, another there, called out words which were not to turn out to his good, addressing him as a god, and adding: "Be thou propitious ; if till now we feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art exalted above mortal nature." This the king did not rebuke, nor did he reject the impious flattery. But when after a while he looked upwards, he saw the owl [in xviii. vi. 7 [195-200] it is related that the owl had appeared to Agrippa at Rome] sitting on a rope over his head, and he per- ceived at once that it was a messenger of misfortune, as it had formerly been a messenger of good fortune, and he experienced an anguish that struck through his heart. He was seized with severe intestinal pain, which set in with great force. Springing up, he said to his friends : " A god in your eyes, I must never- theless even now resign my life : fate thus immediately punishes the lies you falselj"^ spoke, and I, whom you named immortal, am carried away by death ; but a man must accept his destiny, as it pleases God ; yet we have lived bj- no means ill, but in a splendour worthy of praise." Having spoken these words, he was seized with increasing agony. He was accordingly carried hurriedly into the palace, and the news of his imminent death soon spread to all. Then the multitude, with wives and children, all lying in sackcloth, according to their native custom, besought God for the king, and everything was full of sighing and lamenta- tion. And when the king, lying upon the high roof, looked down and saw them thus prostrated in prayer, he could not himself refrain from tears. After he had been sorely tormented with intestinal pains for five days, he resigned his life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh of his reign.'
When we compare this diffuse narrative, with its sentimentality and superstition, with the short, vigorous, and sincerely pious record of St. Luke, we see at once the vast difference between the two writers : on the one side, Josephus, the hellenizing Jew ; and, on the other, St. Luke, a Christian of heathen origin, reading history in the light of the Bible. For f itrther comparison we might take, e.g. , the account of St. Paul's shipwreck (Ac 27. 28) and that of a similar experience of Josephus (Vit. 3 [14 tf.]). Josephus is of importance for us, there-
fore, not as a source of St. Luke's writings, but as a means of supplementing and checking'them ; and, indeed, it would be impossible without his help to write a history of New Testament times.
Literature.— I. Editions and Translations.— (a) The besL critical ed. is that of B. Niese, 7 vols., Berlin, 1887-95 ; a smaller ed. by S. A. Naber, Leipzig, 1S8S-9G (besides the usual division into chapters and paragraphs, both of these arrange the material in continuously numbered sections). (6)Germ. tr.: H. Clementz, Halle, 1900-01. (c) Eng. tr. : R. Traill, ed. I. Taylor, London, 1S47-51; W. Whiston, rev. A. R. Shilleto, do. 1889-90. 00 Lat. tr. : ed. C. Boysen, in CSEL xxxvii. 6, Vienna and Prague, 1898. (e) Hegesippus : ed. C. F. Weber and J. Csesar, Marburg, 1858-64. (/) Svriac tr. of BJ vi. (as 5 Mac): ed. Ceriani, Milan, 1883; H. Kottek, BerHn,lS86. (j;) Armenian tr. : cf. F. C. Conybeare, JThSt ix. [1908], pp. 577-583 (who proves that Moses of Khoren made use of it), (h) On the Slav. Josephus: