ledge of independent tradition is admitted even by those who main- tain the dependence in question ; see, 6.5., Krenkel, u. s., p. 207, Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe, p. 68 (see further in commentary, v. 36, xii. 19, xxi. 38, and Zahn’s instances of this independent knowledge of events and persons, Einleitung, ii., p. 416).
But more extraordinary than the variations of certainty and uncertainty in these critics is the position taken up by Wendt in his latest edition (1899) of Meyer's Commentary. In his former edition (1888) he maintained that the points of contact between Josephus and Luke were too general in their character to justify the notion of literary dependence, and that the author of Acts would naturally possess independent knowledge of contemporary events and person- alities, and he still admits this general similarity and the want of proof in many of the dependencies alleged by Krenkel in his lengthy examination of the question: e.g., the fact that both writers speak of Porcius Festus as the διάδοχος of Felix is no proof of literary dependence (Acts xxiv. 27, Jos., Ant., xx., 8, 9). But Wendt fastens on the one passage, v. 36, cf. Jos., Ant., xx., 5, 1, as proving a real dependence (see notes in commentary), and argues that if this is so, the same dependence may be naturally expected in other places. Thus, in what appears to be quite an arbitrary manner, he asserts that some notices in Acts are dependent upon Josephus, whilst some may be taken by the author of the book out of his own chief source, ¢.g., the account of the Egyptian, xxi. 38, and of the high priest Ananias, xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1, etc. But having said all this, Wendt proceeds to point out that we must not measure too highly the influence of Josephus on Acts; even the passage v. 36, in which that influence is most marked, proves to us at the same time the nature of the influence in question: it did not consist in an exact familiarity with the words of Josephus, and in a careful employment of his material, but in a superficial reminiscence of an earlier reading of the Jewish historian ; thus the deviations side by side with the likenesses are explained. But the most conservative critic might allow as much as this.
Wendt further admits that this dependence cannot extend to the later works of Josephus, c. Apion. and his Vita. This last work, which must have been written after the year 100 a.p. (see “‘ Josephus ”’ (Edersheim), Dict. of Chr. Biog., iii., p. 448), contains the expression, c. 29, θανεῖν μὲν, εἰ δίκαιόν ἐστιν, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι, and Krenkel maintains that there is a clear trace of dependence upon this in the words used in Acts xxiv. 11 (pp. 255, 256, so Holtzmann and Steck). But in the first place the supposed dependency is not admitted by Wendt,
32 INTRODUCTiON
and not only may parallels be found to a similar use of the verb: παραιτοῦμαι in other Greek writers (Wetstein), but it is also notice- able that in the same speech of St. Paul Krenkel discovers, xxv. ver. 9, what he calls ‘“‘the most striking reference” to the language of Josephus in the phrase χάριτα, χάριν κατατίθεσθαί τινι (cf. also xxiv. 97, Jos., B.$., vi, 3, and commentary, im loco). But the phrase is distinctly classical, cf. Thuc., i, 33, 138, and if Josephus was acquainted with Thucydides (see Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 56) why not St. Luke? (Cf. Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift, p. 653, 1895.)
But what can we think of these supposed dependencies upon a book of Josephus written in the early years of the second century, when we read further that St. Paul’s account of his dream, xxiii. 11, is modelled upon the dream in Josephus, Vita, 42? In the former passage we read σε δεῖ καὶ eis ᾿Ῥώμην µαρτυρῆσαι, and in the latter ὅτι καὶ Ῥωμαίοις δεῖ σε πολεμῆσαι, in each case the dream takes place in the night, and in each case some one stood over the dreamer (ἐπιστάς) (see Bousset’s review of Krenkel, Theol. Literaturzeitung, p. 392, 1895, No. 15). The alleged similarity between the introduction to the third Gospel and the Acts, and the introduction to the Ant. of Josephus and to his book, c. Apionem, is of the slightest when compared with the likeness between the language of St. Luke in his preface to his Gospel and the introduction of Dioscorides of Anazarbus to his. Materia Medica, cf. Bousset, u. s., Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, p. 17, and J. Weiss, Meyer’s Commentary, Evangelium des Lukas, p. 286; indeed much more might be said for an imitation by St. Luke in his preface of the introduction to the history of Thucy- dides (cf. Belser, wu. s., pp. 642, 658, 659, etc.). It would have been very advantageous if Krenkel in his long list of words common to Josephus and Luke, p. 304 ff., had not only given us references in classical writers to the use of the words which he adduces (e.g., the phrase πυρετῷ συνέχεσθαι, Luke iv. 38, Ant., xiii, 15, 5, finds frequent parallels in Plato and Thucydides), but also to the authors whose books form the Apocrypha, and especially to 1 Macc. and 2 Mace. It is also noteworthy that no mention whatever is made of Polybius (Zahn, 4. s., p. 414). The whole list requires revision, and’ it is preposterous to class amongst literary dependencies technical terms like ἀνθύπατος, Κολωνία, νεωκόρος, ναύκληρος, σικάριος, στρατοπεδ- άρχης, τετραρχέω, or ordinary words which since Homer had been common to all Greek literature, ¢.g., ἐκεῖσε, µόγις, πλοῦς, παροίχοµαι, παραπλέω. So far as language is concerned, what is more improbable,