Did Luke borrow from Josephus

The assertion is commonly made that there is evidence that Luke borrowed from the work of Josephus, at least in some of the details in the book of Acts.

This is an assumption rather than real 'evidence of borrowing.' What exists are two documents. What exists are similarities between those two documents. What further exists beyond these are a whole range of possibilities which are discussed by scholars to explain the similarities.

There are at least four possible explanations:

1. Luke borrowed from Josephus (as above).

2. Josephus borrowed from Luke.

3. Luke and Josephus each borrowed from another independent and unknown source.

4. Luke and Josephus each had independent access directly to the facts they reported and happened to write similar accounts about the same events.

Not all of these can be true, and probably only one is true. However, it is not possible to state categorically that there is evidence of Luke having borrowed from Josephus. This is based on certain unproven assumptions about the dating of Luke in particular. Those assumptions are themselves doubtful and have been shown to be less and less likely since scholars have recognized the likelihood of Luke having been written earlier than was previously thought. This is part of a trend by scholars on both sides of the fence to date the New Testament documents earlier rather than later.

The dates of Luke's works are tied together since they are both addressed to the same person, appear to be written by a common author, with Acts following Luke in terms of chronology. The relatively abrupt ending of Acts, with no record of the end of Paul's life give a final date for Acts at no later than 68 AD (which is the latest date assigned by scholars to Paul's death). Many would place it earlier, in 64 AD, with Acts having been written prior to this, as early as 61 AD.

Luke recorded a number of significant event in the life of the early church, including the first Christian martyrs. It is inconceivable that he would have failed to record the martyrdom of his companion Paul, nor that of James the brother of Jesus, nor indeed the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Josephus wrote the Antiqities of the Jews in 93 AD and so it is clear from these dates that Luke's having borrowed from Josephus is eliminated as a possibility. In this regard, it is thus more likely that Josephus borrowed from Luke than the other way around. Josephus himself refers to an earlier version of his work, written in aramaic (like the Gospel of Matthew), but this work is not extant. In any case, it could not have been written many years before the version we now have, due to the circumstances of Josephus' own life.

With regard to the book of Acts it is the general consensus of the evidence both internal and external, that Luke wrote all of Acts. Both Acts and the Gospel of Luke are addressed to the same person Theophilus. The 'we' sections indicate where Luke personally participated as a fellow-traveller with Paul (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:-28:16).

Conclusion of most modern Scholars are, that the evidences that Luke borrowed from Josephus is very strong.

"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd." See related link.

Modern scholars see a number of areas in which Luke and Josephus touch on the same historical details. In line with recent biblical scholarship, (including that of liberals who are inclined to date things later) which concludes that Luke was written earlier than previously thought, modern Bible scholars conclude that it is more likely that Josephus borrowed from Luke since he wrote later.

It is interesting that Richard Carrier automatically rules out the possibility that Luke wrote first, since he is evidently following a particular bias against the historicity and accuracy of Luke as written. The other alternative is that he is unaware of modern biblical scholarship. Either way, such assertions are unreliable and do not square with the total body of evidence. It is also incorrect to assert 'most modern scholars' come to a certain conclusion contrary to the available evidence.