hallq

I recently finished re-reading the book of Acts. Previously, I had noted the use of the word "we" and the fact that it had been used to support the idea that the book was written by a companion of Paul. I did not, however, pay close attention to the passages in which it was used, glossing over them as kinda booring.

Re-reading the book, however, I was struck by the change that happens when the "we"s start dropping. There is a move away from the fantastic and towards highly detailed accounts of Paul's travels. This to me indicates the author was present for much of what is described. Problems with this view?

Toto

Are you claiming that the presence of details in a narrative proves personal observation? Can you support that?

Vorkosigan

In Leukippe and Kleitophon, a well-known piece of Greek fiction, by Achilles Tatius, the story is told from an "I" at the beginning and throughout much of the work. Would you regard that as evidence that L & K is history?

hallq

I suppose the issue is less detail than the sort of detail. John is more detailed than Mark, but almost certainly farther from the truth. The sort of details provided from Acts 16 on are things like where Paul went when, on a level that would be hard to know without actually having been there. Someone getting the story afterwards would more likely focus on extraordinary events over getting an itinerary.

This alone would not establish personal observation, but combined with the use of the first person and the testimony of the early church, the case seems compelling. Note that I do not trust the early church with regards to the other gospels, and they make have gotten the author's name and occupation (physician) wrong, but it counts for something.

Also, is there an alternative explanation for the "we"s? I've heard alternative explanations for claims of authority in John and the pseudo-Pauline epistles, but not for Acts. Is there an alternative I should be aware of?

Amaleq13

How about some questions for this view?

Why doesn't this "change" you perceive suggest a different hand entirely? Exerpts from someone else's sea voyage diary entries? Perhaps even an actual companion of Paul's but necessarily?

Toto

Or having been somewhere like that? Or having the imagination to make up credible details?

Extraordinary events are all part of Acts.

What testimony of the early church? Do you regard Acts itself as testimony? Are you saying that there is any corroboration to Acts? Acts is at variance with Paul's letters on many points. Does this not cast doubt on the credibility of Acts?

Vernon Robbins: By Land and By Sea: The We Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages is the classic. But even scholars who have doubts about Robbins' explanation of the "we" passages do not necessarily assume that the only alternative is that the passages were written by an eyewitness.

Doug Shaver

Yes. It's a non sequitur.

If I were writing a story about someone's travels and wanted to create the impression that I had occasionally travelled with him, I should hope I would have sense enough add some details to the "we" parts for credibility's sake.

hallq

That crossed my mind. Why would the "we"s be preserved, though? Sloppiness? (I suppose an author willing to contradict himself as to how Paul's vision happened might make that mistake.) Another thought: could it have been initially understood that these were quotations? Quote marks, I believe, didn't exist back then.

I'm refering to the tradition that Luke and Acts was written by Luke, Paul's physician. It's a tradition only recorded some time after Acts was written, but it may count for something.

Where is Acts at variance with Paul after the "we"s appear? One point I'm aware of is that stories from Paul's visits tend to be pushed into the first visit to a given place, though this could be the confusion of someone trying to remember what happened 20 years previous.

P.S.: Anyone know of a good scholarly reader specific to the authorship question?

countjulian

Besides Robins' explanation, two different narratives could have been merged at this point, one obviously in the first person, or it could just be bad style on the part of GLuke that made it through the editing cracks.

Steven Avery

Nope. And this is supported by the following verses from Paul..

Colossian 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

2Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me.
Take Mark, and bring him with thee:
for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Philemon 1:24
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.

As well as the quote by Paul from Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic