Summary extracted from below. the heart of Mason’s argument
- The Three Rebel Leaders: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and “The Egyptian” named by Josephus and Luke when there were many others per Josephus.
- Mason points to Luke’s reversal of the chronological order of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36–37) as a signature of literary borrowing. That Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is treated by Mason as a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is found in similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi (“incited”) and laos (“the people”).
- “The Egyptian,” – Luke has him leading the sicarii (assassins) into the desert, which does not make sense historically since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds. Mason argues that sicarii is a Latin term for assassins that Josephus appears to have been the first to borrow and make into a technical term in his Greek narrative — so that Luke’s use of the same word and the same conflation further signifies dependence on Josephus.
- Josephus, alone among Jewish writers, describes the Jewish religious movements as “schools” as if they were pagan philosophers. The same terminology appears in Acts, where the Pharisees and Sadducees are described as hairesis or philosophical schools. In Acts 26:5, Paul calls the Pharisees the “most exact school,” the same phrase used by Josephus.
From Claude.ai in Response to the Prompt: Why does Dr. Steve Mason believe that The Gospel of Luke & Acts of The Apostles Used Josephus? Cite all sources.
Here is a comprehensive breakdown of Dr. Steve Mason’s argument that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles used Josephus as a source. Mason’s case is developed most fully in Chapter 6 of his book Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 1992; 2nd ed. 2003, pp. 185–229/251–295), and he returned to the question again in a 2022 essay, “Was Josephus a Source for Luke-Acts?” in On Using Sources in Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Peeters, 2022).
Mason’s Core Thesis
Mason summarizes his evidence by concluding that the “coincidence of aim, themes, and vocabulary seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus’ defense of Judaism,” and that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history — a notable deviation from all the other Gospels, which have none of the features of a historical work.
Mason’s argument is organized into three ascending tiers of evidence: generic (structural) parallels, shared story/narrative parallels, and specific agreements in aim, themes, and vocabulary.
Tier 1: Generic (Structural) Parallels
Mason begins by noting that both Josephus and Luke-Acts are self-consciously presented as histories, and he examines similarities in literary type before moving to specific incidents and vocabulary. While Mason acknowledges these generic parallels cannot by themselves prove dependence, he regards them as forming the necessary background for his stronger evidence. Specifically:
- Both Luke-Acts and Josephus are self-described and organized as histories, both written in Hellenistic Greek (literary Koinê), and both write from an apologetic stance — using their histories to support a thesis, blaming “bad Jews” for every calamity and arguing that the “good” side (Christians in Luke’s case, pro-Roman Jews in Josephus’s case) deserves respect.
- Both Luke-Acts and Josephus open with a conventional historian’s preface. Both appear in two parts. Both are dedicated to a patron depicted as particularly interested in the truth about their history: Theophilus in Luke’s case, Epaphroditus in Josephus’s. Both also engage the same historical conventions of speech-creation, and both emphasize the antiquity and respectability of their religion and tie it to Jerusalem.
- Luke is the only Gospel writer who self-consciously presents his work as a volume of history. The vocabulary of Luke/Acts bears a greater resemblance to Josephus than does any other work in the New Testament.
Tier 2: Shared Story and Narrative Parallels
Mason observes that more than any other Gospel writer, Luke includes references to the non-Christian world of affairs, and almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus’ narratives (Mason, p. 205).
The Census of Quirinius
The census under Quirinius is notable for several reasons. Josephus uses it as a key linchpin in his story — the beginning of the wicked faction of Jews that would bring down Judaea — whereas Luke “transvalues” this message by making the same census the linchpin for God’s salvation, namely the birth of Christ. No other ancient author singled out this census as particularly noteworthy; Josephus alone used it to introduce his villains and associated it with Judas the Galilean. It is therefore peculiar that Luke should also associate the census with Judas. Furthermore, Matthew’s nativity account mentions nothing about it, which raises the question of where Luke learned of it.
The Three Rebel Leaders: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and “The Egyptian”
This is the heart of Mason’s argument. It seems a remarkable coincidence that Luke should mention these men at all — no other Christian author does — and that he names only three rebel leaders, all of whom are the very same men named by Josephus, even though Josephus says there were numerous such men and only singled out these three for particular reasons of his own.
Most tellingly, Mason points to Luke’s reversal of the chronological order of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36–37) as a signature of literary borrowing. When Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself, associating him with the census — just as Acts does. That Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is treated by Mason as a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is found in similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi (“incited”) and laos (“the people”).
Regarding “The Egyptian,” Luke has him leading the sicarii (assassins) into the desert, which does not make sense historically since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds. Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same passage. Mason argues that sicarii is a Latin term for assassins that Josephus appears to have been the first to borrow and make into a technical term in his Greek narrative — so that Luke’s use of the same word and the same conflation further signifies dependence on Josephus.
The Death of Agrippa I
Luke and Josephus both tell the story of Agrippa I being struck down by God for accepting divine praise, and both mention the donning of a brilliant robe in connection with the praise. Josephus makes the robe the explicit cause of the divine connection, while Luke mentions the robe without explaining why, leading Mason to observe that it is difficult to explain why Luke mentions the robe at all if he was not thinking of Josephus’s account.
Agrippa II and Berenice
Josephus hints at an incestuous relationship between Agrippa II and his sister Berenice, and details Agrippa’s profligate tendencies. Luke mentions Berenice without explanation, and from his account alone one would think Agrippa II is an honorable observer of Jewish law. Mason argues that if a reader knows Josephus, the scene of Paul before Agrippa II in Acts becomes comic sarcasm — suggesting Luke expected his audience to already know Josephus.
Tier 3: Shared Aims, Themes, and Vocabulary
Christianity as a “Philosophical School”
Josephus, alone among Jewish writers, describes the Jewish religious movements as “schools” as if they were pagan philosophers. The same terminology appears in Acts, where the Pharisees and Sadducees are described as hairesis or philosophical schools. In Acts 26:5, Paul calls the Pharisees the “most exact school,” the same phrase used by Josephus. Because this way of talking was unique to Josephus, Mason argues that Acts borrows from him. Mason goes further and argues that the author of Luke presents Christianity as a philosophical school in imitation of Josephus’ treatment of the Essenes.
The Essenes and Early Christian Communal Property
Mason has pointed out that the author of Luke does not mention the Essenes but substitutes the Christians as the “third way” after the Pharisees and Sadducees. It appears that the author of Luke has modelled the idea that Christians hold all property in common on Josephus’ description of the Essenes, where novices must surrender their property to the order. This illuminates the otherwise puzzling episode of Ananias and Sapphira, who are struck dead for withholding proceeds from a sale.
Apologetic Historiography
Both Luke-Acts and Josephus write from an apologetic stance, and in particular both go out of their way to make the Romans appear as the good guys while shifting blame onto the Jews who reject the “true” path.
Mason concludes that the “coincidence of aim, themes, and vocabulary” is the strongest evidence pointing toward Luke-Acts building its case on the foundation of Josephus’ apologetic framework.
Primary Sources
- Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, Chapter 6: “Josephus and Luke-Acts” (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992; 2nd ed. 2003), pp. 185–229 (1st ed.) / 251–295 (2nd ed.).
- Steve Mason, “Was Josephus a Source for Luke-Acts?” in Joseph Verheyden, John S. Kloppenborg, et al. (eds.), On Using Sources in Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Peeters, 2022), pp. 199–246.
Related Secondary Literature Cited or Discussed
- Richard Carrier, “Luke and Josephus” (2000), Internet Infidels — a detailed summary and extension of Mason’s argument. Available at: https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard-carrier-lukeandjosephus/
- Max Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas (1894) — the earliest systematic argument for Luke’s use of Josephus.
- Heinz Schreckenberg, “Flavius Josephus und die lukanischen Schriften,” in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien (1980), pp. 179–209.
- Gregory Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (1992).
- Nicholas P.L. Allen, “Josephus and Luke-Acts: A Critical Review of a Thesis by Steve Mason” (2019), North-West University, Potchefstroom — available via Semantic Scholar and the NWU DSpace repository.
- Peter M. Head, review of Mason’s Josephus and the New Testament, Themelios (The Gospel Coalition).
A Note on Scholarly Reception: It is worth noting that Mason’s thesis, while influential and carefully argued, remains a minority position. Most scholars conclude that it is impossible to establish a direct literary dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus, preferring to affirm instead that both authors had access to similar historical traditions and shared the same historiographical techniques. Mason’s contribution is nonetheless regarded as the most developed and rigorous case for the dependence hypothesis.
