Vorkosigan

Let's now take a look at the sequence in Acts 20. Here's the New American Bible again:

• When the disturbance was over, Paul had the disciples summoned and, after encouraging them, he bade them farewell and set out on his journey to Macedonia. As he traveled throughout those regions, he provided many words of encouragement for them. Then he arrived in Greece,3 where he stayed for three months. But when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return by way of Macedonia.

Pretty standard. The protagonist moves around, is plotted against, and goes on his merry way.

• Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, from Beroea, accompanied him, as did Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia who went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. We sailed from Philippi after the feast of Unleavened Bread, 2 and rejoined them five days later in Troas, where we spent a week.

It is clearly absurd to imagine that the narrator could not keep track of who was where, and then provide them with the proper perspective.

• On the first day of the week 3 when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were gathered, and a young man named Eutychus who was sitting on the window sill was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. Once overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and when he was picked up, he was dead. Paul went down, 4 threw himself upon him, and said as he embraced him, "Don't be alarmed; there is life in him." Then he returned upstairs, broke the bread, and ate; after a long conversation that lasted until daybreak, he departed.
  12 And they took the boy away alive and were immeasurably comforted.

As Dennis MacDonald has noted, this tale is taken from elsewhere in Greek fiction, created by paralleling. Eutychus is Elpenor from the Odyssey. In other words, once again our "historical" passage is actually a big fat piece of fiction sitting in the center of it, and this time in another conventional style -- the writer has created it by paralleling the Odyssey, a conventional mode of fiction-creation in antiquity.

• We went ahead to the ship and set sail for Assos where we were to take Paul on board, as he had arranged, since he was going overland. When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. We sailed away from there on the next day and reached a point off Chios, and a day later we reached Samos, and on the following day we arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order not to lose time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if at all possible, for the day of Pentecost. From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, "You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia. I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me because of the plots of the Jews, and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes. I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus. But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem. What will happen to me there I do not know, except that in one city after another the holy Spirit has been warning me that imprisonment and hardships await me. Yet I consider life of no importance to me, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to bear witness to the gospel of God's grace. "But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God. Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears. And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated. I have never wanted anyone's silver or gold or clothing.You know well that these very hands have served my needs and my companions. In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" When he had finished speaking he knelt down and prayed with them all. They were all weeping loudly as they threw their arms around Paul and kissed him, for they were deeply distressed that he had said that they would never see his face again. Then they escorted him to the ship.

Paul makes his farewell speech. Note that the speech is composed of conventions: (1) as the hero approaches death, he is more sensitive to the future (2) the hero is visited by the divine, who let him know his fate (3) the hero goes to his fate willingly. Etc. The fictionality of the scene is evident in Paul's admonition that they have "been appointed overseers" a reference to a later Church structure which is more formalized, and of course, reinforced with the hint of the parallel to Mark 13, where Jesus foretells a future of a Church divided and ravaged by false christs.

Turning to Acts 21:1-18:

• When we had taken leave of them we set sail, made a straight run for Cos, and on the next day for Rhodes, and from there to Patara. Finding a ship crossing to Phoenicia, we went on board and put out to sea. We caught sight of Cyprus but passed by it on our left and sailed on toward Syria and put in at Tyre where the ship was to unload cargo. There we sought out the disciples and stayed for a week. They kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to embark for Jerusalem.

Once again, a prosaic voyage, common in antiquity, followed by (yet another) visitation from the divine with warnings about the future. Luke's storytelling has a relatively simple pattern...

• 4
  At the end of our stay we left and resumed our journey. All of them, women and children included, escorted us out of the city, and after kneeling on the beach to pray, we bade farewell to one another. Then we boarded the ship, and they returned home.

One's followers turning out en masse to see one off is a staple of Greek fiction. Compare Habrocomes' leaving from Ephesus:

• And when the day came for their departure, many of the servants and handmaidens went aboard; when the ship was about to sail, the whole population of Ephesus came to see them off, including many of the priestesses with torches and sacrifices.

and when Habrocomes and Anthia leave Rhodes, the narrator laconically says:

• The whole population of Rhodes saw them off

and from Chaereas and Callirhoe

• On the appointed day of departure the people all hurried to the harbor, not just men, but women and children too, and prayers were joined with tears, groans of despair, words of consolation, fear, confidence, despair, hope.

Once again, our "historical" passage turns out to contain a convention of Greek fiction.

• 7 We continued the voyage and came from Tyre to Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed a day with them. On the next day we resumed the trip and came to Caesarea, where we went to the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the Seven, 2 and stayed with him. He had four virgin daughters gifted with prophecy. We had been there several days when a prophet named Agabus 3 came down from Judea. He came up to us, took Paul's belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, "Thus says the holy Spirit: This is the way the Jews will bind the owner of this belt in Jerusalem, and they will hand him over to the Gentiles." 4 When we heard this, we and the local residents begged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? I am prepared not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." Since he would not be dissuaded we let the matter rest, saying, "The Lord's will be done."

Now we're back to another staple scene: the traveler enters the city and an oracle predicts his future. Note that this is about the umpteenth time this occurs in Luke: duh! Repetitive sequences (need I even say it?) are of course, staples of Greek fiction. Luke has basically one Bauhaus style for his whole story....

• 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea came along to lead us to the house of Mnason, a Cypriot, a disciple of long standing, with whom we were to stay. 6 When we reached Jerusalem the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry. They praised God when they heard it but said to him, "Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law. They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived.
  23So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses 8 that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage." 9

Note the literary doublet here -- Paul goes from four virgins to four men who have made a vow. Hmmm....I'm sure this must be history...I mean...the narrator uses "we".....

• So Paul took the men, and on the next day after purifying himself together with them entered the temple to give notice of the day when the purification would be completed and the offering made for each of them. When the seven days were nearly completed, the Jews from the province of Asia noticed him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and laid hands on him, shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help us. This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place, and what is more, he has even brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this sacred place." 10
  29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him and supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. The whole city was in turmoil with people rushing together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the gates were closed.

Note again the conventional scene in Greek fiction -- the umpteenth time in Acts too -- the traveler is falsely accused, arrested, and brought before the authorities.

• 0
  The whole city was in turmoil with people rushing together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the gates were closed.
  31
  While they were trying to kill him, a report reached the cohort commander 11 that all Jerusalem was rioting.
  32
  He immediately took soldiers and centurions and charged down on them. When they saw the commander and the soldiers they stopped beating Paul.
  33
  The cohort commander came forward, arrested him, and ordered him to be secured with two chains; he tried to find out who he might be and what he had done.
  34
  Some in the mob shouted one thing, others something else; so, since he was unable to ascertain the truth because of the uproar, he ordered Paul to be brought into the compound.
  35
  When he reached the steps, he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob,
  36
  12 for a crowd of people followed and shouted, "Away with him!"
  37
  Just as Paul was about to be taken into the compound, he said to the cohort commander, "May I say something to you?" He replied, "Do you speak Greek?
  38
  So then you are not the Egyptian 13 who started a revolt some time ago and led the four thousand assassins into the desert?"
  39
  Paul answered, "I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; I request you to permit me to speak to the people."
  40
  When he had given his permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned with his hand to the people; and when all was quiet he addressed them in Hebrew. 14

Note the fictional conventions -- the "whole city' came there to see them, and everyone was in a turmoil. Another fictional scene -- Paul is dragged in chains to the centurion....

On to Acts 27....by now I hope the readers will be sensitized enough to detect the usual conventions of Greek fiction -- Paul is warned in a dream, there is a shipwreck, the route is sketched out to allow sufficient realism to pervade the story, etc.

Fiction, folks.

CJD

Where? Do we have everything the man ever wrote? Are we privy to his everyday discussions? What is it that you'd be looking for? An itinerary scratched on a piece of parchment?

Correction: Acts quite clearly has Paul appealing to Caesar, something he did not have to do. It amounts to a free ride to Rome. In any case, the purported date of Romans' writing (mid-to-late 50s) does not conflict with the event of his purported arrest in Palestine (he may of in fact written the letter as he prepared to return to Jerusalem). In other words, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the stated intention of going to Spain via Rome.

It's not beyond a shadow of doubt, but it goes like this: "Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a servant." (From Chap. 4, To the Romans).

Unknown. See W. Wiefal, "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Romans Christianity," in The Romans Debate, rev. ed., ed. K. P. Donfried (Peadbody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 85–101, for further information. This does not, however, undo the purported purpose of Paul's writing to them, which apparently was, among things, to prepare the way for him to make Rome his 'base of operations'.

T.W. Mansen once suggested that Romans 16 was a covering letter to enable Romans to be also sent to Ephesus (see above citation, pp. 3–15). It's a good guess, given the complexity of the manuscript tradition.

While such a long list of personal greetings is odd, it only alerts us at first to seek why, not jump to the conclusion that it may be intended for a locale other than Rome. The easiest explanation is as follows:

In those churches where Paul does personally know the people he is writing to (Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, and yes, Thessalonians), he does not mention names — only general greetings to the church, without specification. Colossians may be an exception (4:15, 17), but notably he didn't start that church or visit it. Why, then, the long list? Because you can't mention every body! This of course doesn't wholly explain the long list, but it does help. Paul's acquaintances at Rome could have easily informed him about the people he mentions too. Consider that the people he does mention are heads of household churches in Rome and that mentioning all the ones he knew of would have been a wise move if he planned on coming there (so as to not appear to be favoring one group over another).

Now, isn't this far less convoluted that van Manem? But as has been already decided, long before this post existed, the epistle to the Romans does not show that Paul was ever in Rome. That person in the 'other thread', if he or she did indeed suggest that it did, is wrong.

CJD

Clivedurdle

Wonderful discussion!

I note Ellegard was mentioned.

If we ignore the orthodox dating and assumptions, what are the earliest and latest dates for the writing of Romans? Could it be written by Marcion?

S.C.Carlson

Technically, Romans is evidence only of Paul's intention to travel to Rome. The idea that that Rom 16 was really a cover letter to Ephesus does not really affect the significance of Rom 15:24, where the intention was set down.

If all we had were Paul's undisputed letters (i.e., if we put Acts, 2 Timothy, and Church tradition to the side), then we would observe that Paul's travel plans were often frustrated and that it was an open question whether Paul's intention was actually fulfilled.

In fact, we can fairly confidently conclude that some aspects of Paul's intention to visit Rome were not fulfilled, if we put the "we" of Acts back on the table. For example, in Romans 15:24, Paul was contemplating a visit to Rome as a free man. Paul's "visit" to Rome did not happen that way according to Acts.

(Putting 2 Tim back on the table may not do the trick, however, because it is possible, through a rather forced interpretation of 1:16-18, to accept the authenticity of 2 Tim yet locate its composition during Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, before he reached Rome. This is one of the notable suggestions of J. A. T. Robinson.)

Stephen

CJD

Indeed, nothing ever seems to go the way we intend. Just to reiterate Kirby's previous point about Clement: In his letter to the Corinthians (3:11–14), he alludes to Paul's venturing out west (note that Clement purportedly wrote from Rome):

This would mean, incidentally, that Paul's story doesn't end with his house arrest as described in Acts. Of which, note the Muratorian Fragment (c. 200 AD):

Whatever this means with respect to the "we" passages — I suppose the writer of the above wasn't familiar with such a delineation. Finally, it is no coincidence in my mind that the precise point in which Paul worked to subvert Rome in his letter to the Romans (the imperial cult), the Iberian Peninsula was flourishing in it.

In the end, it is not until the mid-200s that we find solid evidence for the places where Christianity was practiced in Spain (we must not overlook Irenaeus' [Liber contra hoereses, Book 1.10.2] and Tertullian's [Liber adversas Judaeos, chap. 7] references to Christian churches in Spain, however).


CJD

Toto

I might hope for some indication that traveling to Spain would be several orders of magnitude more complicated than traveling from Corinth to Ephesus.

But this is not dispositive.

But there is no confirmation in Acts that Paul intended to travel to Rome as a free agent.

Thanks for the reference.

How do you get an intention to make Rome his base of operations out of the epistle?

Non-sequitur of the month.

No, this is not "far less convoluted." It appears to be an ad hoc attempt to preserve the idea that the NT conforms to modern standards of historical accuracy. It requires inventing extra people and possibilities, while ignoring improbabilities.

Who were Paul's acquantances at Rome? Why does he refer so casually to people that he does not know personally? How did Prisca and Aquila get from their house church in Ephesus to Rome so quickly? Who was minding the store in Ephesus?

Did Paul really write Colossians in any case? Of course, if you accept Colossians, you probably accept that it was written from Rome, and that solves your problems.

CJD

You have to read between my lines. Sorry. "Why, then, the long list [in Romans 16 and not in the other epistles he wrote where he did personally know the recipients]? Because you can't mention every body [like he attempted to do in Romans 16, naming just a few would leave people out and most likely cause division, one of the major issues Paul tries to speak against in Romans]!"

But now we're just begging the question that could never be answered: "Why, Luke (or whomever) did you not include such a detail in your writing? Did you simply not know of it? If you did, why not include it? Could it be other events transpired that precluded its necessity?" etc.

Speculation based on stated intentions in the letter. Nothing more. Far-fetched? Would it not have been better than Syrian Antioch?

Please, I'd be the last person to "preserve the idea that the NT conforms to modern standards of historical accuracy" (any more than the first few chapters of Genesis conforms to modern standards of scientific precision).[That doesn't make it any less authoritative, though.] I in fact strive to show skeptics that such ancient literature cannot be made to conform to such standards. It would, indeed, do away with many of the supposed problems skeptics have with the texts if they understood this fine point.

Take your pick from the list.

For instance? Isn't this rather subjective? As far as why he mentions them in the first place, I've described a likely scenario above.

How quick was that? Surely you're not suggesting traveling was difficult in the middle of the first century? (Even though traveling fast would be — for the commoner).

Meaning if not Prisca and Aquila, then who? I don't know, maybe the "elders"?

Did Paul write Colossians? Well, someone "pauline" did if not him personally. My use of it only regarded the mentioning of names therein, which incidentally were folks (if Paul had written it) he did not know personally — just like the majority of those mentioned in Romans 16.

Clivedurdle

I thought travel around the Roman Empire was easy! Caesar popped into Spain, bashed a few heads and returned very quickly for example, shipping was well developed and there was a complete set of Roman roads!

Toto

The real problem for Paul would have been language. He preached in Koine Greek (presumably) to Greek speaking subjects of the eastern Roman Empire, or perhaps Aramaic. He would have had problems in Spain, in being understood and gaining support.

If you think that Acts has any relation to history, Paul operated by going to synagogues and preaching to Diaspora Jews. He would not be able to do that in Spain.

Clivedurdle

I commented about Ellegard, who writes that Paul may have been visiting and writing to well established organisations, that may have been in existence for up to one hundred years before Paul. The various hymns found in Paul's writing, I see especially as evidence of an established organisation. What criticism has there been of Ellegard's views on this point and therefore on the question of Paul going to Rome?