I recieved a reply.
Dear Sir,
> I very much enjoyed the article linking Luke to Josephus. However
> there
> is a question about quoting Massey in regards the term "Sicarii". He
> seems
> to suggest that the term was first applied to these asassins by
> Josephus,
> yet the very passage in Josephus claims that this was the term being
> commonly applied to them by saying, "as they were called". Is there
> an explanation?
>
> sincerely, peacefulpete
No. You are thinking correctly.
I don't think Massey was claiming Josephus invented the appellation.
Rather, he is--as far as we know--the first Greek author to introduce
the Latin term into the Greek language. The crucial point is that
Sicarii is not Greek, but Latin. It is thus novel to mention the Latin
word used by the Romans when a Greek translation would do. Indeed, how
would anyone like Luke know what the Latin term was so long after they
ceased to exist? He could have learned it somewhere else, but Josephus
is the most obvious source.
Since I wrote that article I have come across a passage in Hippolytus
that is commonly believed to derive from a source shared by Josephus on
the Essenes (it might derive from Josephus, but I suspect not). In that
section, H. says the Zealots were a faction of the Essenes, and
mentions that they were also called the Sicarii. J. does not claim the
Zealots were a faction of the Essenes, but calls them a "fourth
philosophy," though he describes their soteriology in exactly the same
terms, and J. had motive to downplay their connections (he wanted to
paint them as "the bad Jews" which would be undermined if they came
from the order of Jews J. most respected). So it is possible that the
Zealots were called the Sicarii in a text about the Essenes *used* by
J., and it is probable (for various reasons I need not bore you with)
that the text, whoever wrote it, was in Greek. That would then be the
most likely first introduction of the Latin term into the Greek
language.
If you've followed me this far through the maze,<G> I would conclude
that there is, say, an 80% chance that Sicarii was introduced into the
Greek language before Josephus. However, Luke shows no awareness of
that other text. Indeed, though Luke more than any other author
stresses the "philosophical school" aspect of Christianity and mentions
the Sadducees and Pharisees, he never mentions the Essenes or any
doctrines or facts about them--which is what the hypothesized source
text was entirely about--Luke doesn't even try to transfer any of these
details to Christians, yet we would expect that according to the most
popular hypothesis for the omission (i.e. Luke doesn't mention Essenes
because, so the theory goes, he intended Christians to be taken as the
Essenes; however, there is one detail Luke does add, their communism,
but I think that is also in J.--in contrast, if he cited something
mentioned by H. and not J., that would show source dependency). So it
is safe to say that Luke did not know of J.'s source. Therefore, it is
probable Luke got Sicarii from J., even if J. got it from another Greek
author--which is already not certain.
No one said history was easy.<G>
Be well.
--
Richard C. Carrier, M.Phil.
Columbia University, NY
www.columbia.edu/~rcc20