Layman

But Goodacre does believe that:

this is a genuinely valuable resource and one that makes a critical contribution to the study of Paul’s life and thought.

Tharmas

I’m glad to see this discussion back on track. I’ve just reread Acts and I’d like to point out a couple of points that struck me about the “we” passages now that I was really paying attention to them.

First of all, I can perhaps understand how Robbins came up with his theory; what’s really noticeable about all three of these passages is that they all begin with a voyage. Thus:

16:10 And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. 11. Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a direct voyage...
20:5 These went on and were waiting for us at Troas, but we sailed away from Phillipi...
27:1 And when it was decided that we should sail for Italy...

I recognize all the points that Layman makes in his opening essay: there are several other sea voyages in Acts that are described in the third person, the first person passages in Acts extend to narrative events beyond the voyages, and there doesn’t seem to be any ancient literary tradition for narrating sea voyages in the first person plural.

Nevertheless, the fact the remains that whenever the first person narrative voice enters Acts, it enters in the context of describing a sea voyage.

Second, the abruptness with which the first person voice then disappears is really rather eerie. It’s a very interesting question.

I don’t buy the idea that the first person occurs only when the author was actually present; if that were true then we would have a narrator who bobs in and out of the action in an almost nutty fashion. The kind of guy who one minute is walking down the street with you, in deep conversation, and then suddenly turns a corner and disappears, not to show up again for six months or so. I mean, I have myself known people like that, but...

So we would have Luke, the first post-modern unreliable narrator? I don’t think so.

So the idea occurred to me, as it did Toto, that some anonymous author might have cobbled together different sources, at least one written in the first person, to create Acts.

Arguing against this theory are those with better knowledge of Greek than I possess who claim that Acts possesses a convincing stylistic coherence.

That leaves us with a writer who is simply not conforming to modern sensibilities, for whatever reason.

One possible reason was developed by Robin Lane Fox in the context of the narrative of Acts, although not in the context of the “we” passages. Fox points out that the speeches of Paul and many of his actions as described are quite formalized, even ritualized; they are in fact “set pieces.”

For example, when Luke closes Acts by presenting Paul addressing the Jews of Rome he is not describing any actual conversation or confrontation; rather he is presenting an ideology, and an interpretation of the early church in dramatic form. When I turn from Acts to the Epistle to the Romans the difference in tone is immediately noticeable. The latter is the genuine voice.

So the theory I’m working with currently is that the “we” voice disappears whenever the narrator introduces a “set piece,” either an exorcism, a confrontation with ‘the Jews” or “the soldiers,” or some such.

But all this is so much speculation.

[edited for HTML & punctuation]

leonarde

Partial post by Tharmas: Why "in almost
nutty fashion"???? This seems the most natural thing in the world. News TV reporters switch from 3rd person (reporting what they have been told by "sources") to 1st person plural when talking about their own experiences (they and their film crew)ALL the time on TV. It goes largely unnoticed by the viewer because the viewer KNOWS that the basis of knowledge of the latter is different from the basis of knowledge of the former. Again, this is not "postmoderist writing"; it's the most usual of speech/writing.

Cheers!

Layman

Okay. So even if that fact remains, so what? The fact also remains that 1) there apparently was no literary convention of the sort Robbins suggests, 2) the first person is used in Acts to describe action on land as well as at sea, and 3) most of the sea voyages in Luke/Acts are portrayed in the third person. Until you can rebut these arguments, or explain why they are irrelevant, the fact that the "we-sections" begin with sea voyages does nothing to establish that it is merely an ancient literary convention.

There are ancient examples of ancient Greek/Roman/Jewish historians using speeches as "set pieces." In fact, there seems to have been a few camps on how to approach speeches. Some stressed being faithful to the core of what was said. Some felt free to put words in people's mouths. But what does that have to do with the "we-passages"? There is no corresponding literary tradition for using the first-person plural for sea-voyages.

As for Professor Fox's opinion on the issue in question-- the "we-passages" -- he thought they proved that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.

"As for Luke's gospel, it's companion volume, Acts, breaks intermittently into the first person plural during Paul's journeys, and, despite attempts by scholars to deny the obvious, it stands out as the work of a companion of Paul." Robin L. Fox, The Unauthorized Version, at 129

Toto

I have finally read a copy of Robbins’ essay in Talbert’s Perspectives on Luke-Acts and can start to reply to the opening post.

First of all, it is not clear if Layman and his sources have actually read Robbins’ essay or are just responding to the use that a few skeptics and liberal commentators have made of it. Robbins has written a piece of literary criticism exploring aspects of Luke and Hellenistic writings. His thesis is:

Who would want to object to this? Explorations intending to suggest a literary style, suggestions that should be seen as flattering to the author of Luke. Robbins does not explicitly say that this literary analysis proves that Luke-Acts was not written by Luke (something that few academics seem to believe in any case).

But the thesis that Layman attacks seems to be the tabloid version: HERETICAL PROFESSOR UNDERMINES CLAIM THAT ACTS WAS WRITTEN BY LUKE.

So what is Robbins’ actually saying? He does not say that every trip on water suddenly changes the narration from 3rd person to first person plural. He distinguishes between voyages on inland lakes like Lake Gennesaret (which Mark has mischaracterized as the Sea of Galilee for his own purposes) and uneventful trips as described in Acts 13:4-5 on the one hand, and the four extended sea voyages that correspond with the “we” sections on the other.

Robbins: So Layman’s point:
seems to miss the point. In fact, it is impossible to read the first few pages of Robbins’ essay without realizing that Layman could not possibly have read it, and suspecting that his sources have not either.

Robbins’ argument that “we” is a convention of Hellenistic sea voyages is something that I do not feel qualified to judge. But I will summarize his argument: There is, first of all, a strong bias in Greek and Latin prose toward narration in the third person. (He gives as an example Thucydides, who writes in the 3rd person even when discussing his own actions.) But an exception arose for battles and sea voyages, where the narration shifts from 3rd person to 1st person, often with no apparent reason. Robbins states:

(I don’t know how to judge this. It does seem a bit overreaching for a 20th century scholar to know what would have been in vogue in the 1st century, although someone who has steeped themselves in Hellenistic literature, as Robbins has, might be able to make this statement.)

Robbins traces the idea that the "we" passages indicate that the person writing Acts was Paul’s companion back to Irenaeus, but notes later 20th century critics who found the passages "problematic," with the abrupt shift from third person narration to "we" being "peculiar and unexplained."

He then discusses other literary conventions for sea voyages, and finds that "Virtually all of the features of ancient sea voyage literature are present in the we-passages in Acts." These include visions, divine destiny, performance of the proper religious rites, as well as encounters with friendly natives who provide a welcome, housing, and a send-off.

I have not finished going through all of his arguments, which get complex, and involve comparisons between Luke and Acts, and other Hellenistic writing.

But my summary of the whole matter: the use of "we" in certain passages in Acts is a very unpersuasive piece of evidence that the writer was a participant. To the extent that it has any probative value at all, it is rebutted by Robbins’ exploration of literary devices which were the standard when aLuke presumably wrote Luke-Acts, and which he (or she) might have used. Perhaps the liberal critics presume too much in saying "Robbins has shown that this is a mere literary device," and should say that "Robbins has argued persuasively that this is a mere literary device."

The objections to Robbins' thesis remind me of a nature lover saying "look at that lovely forest!" – but then the developer’s attorney says "that’s not a forest. Look at that thing – it doesn’t qualify as a real tree. It’s not a native species. It’s too short, it’s really a bush. And that one is on someone else’s property. And look at this big patch of bare ground. There’s no forest here!"

Robbins is doing literary criticism, not history. He is taking text and analyzing it, finding interesting patterns that illuminate the meaning, and he’s getting paid for it.

Layman

I have not read Robbin's essay.

But then you have not read all of his works that my sources were responding to. The scholars quoted, such as Joseph Fitzmyer, Colin Hemer, Ben Witherington, and Susan M. Praeder have read his works at length and found them unconving in their totality. Surely you saw these citations?

Of course maybe you did not. Because you cannot bring yourself to correctly characterize my argument, which was nothing like this:

But the thesis that Layman attacks seems to be the tabloid version: HERETICAL PROFESSOR UNDERMINES CLAIM THAT ACTS WAS WRITTEN BY LUKE.

Please show me where I employed any such tactics?

Instead, I was responding to what you admit in this very thread was Robbin's thesis: that the "we-sections" in Acts are literaty devices used to describe sea-voyages. My treatment of Robbins' theory was sober and well-supported by scholarly citations and sources. I explained my arguments at length.


Actually, here is what I objected to. Perhaps you, as the one who offered it, remember?

In fact it has been conclusively shown by Vernon Robbins [3] that the author of Acts is merely following an established convention of his (or her [a]) time. Showing examples from Mediterranean literature (Roman and Greek) around the time of the writing of Luke, Robbins showed that the "we-passages" is a mere stylistic device and in no way indicates that the author of Luke was present in any of the journeys.

And you admit that this is how you understand Robbins: he is arguing that the "we-passages" of Acts are the result of a literary convention for describing sea-voyages.

I can give you the names of plenty of "academics" who believe that Acts was written by Luke. Of course, nothing in my original post was addressed to the that point at all. I was only discussing the issue of whether the "we-sections" are literary devices for sea-voyages.

Here is the problem. None of hte sea-voyages but Acts 27 are "eventful" in any way. Nor are the ones in Chapters 16, 20, and 21 any more "extended" than the ones in, say, Acts 13 and 14.

If you read Acts 16:10-12 you will see that it is an unevenful sea voyage: "Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day ame to Neapolis, and from there to Philipp, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedeonia, a colony."

Then the sea voyage ends.

How is this any more "eventful" than Acts 13:4-5: "So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they arrive in Salamis they preached the word of God in the synagouges of the Jews."

Or, say, Acts 13:13-14: "Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem. But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down."

Indeed, in both the second sets using the third-person plural, there is more going on than in the first set using the first-person plural. In the second they are "sent out by the Holy Spirit" and in the third they lost a member of their party.

You and Robbins might have a point if the sea-voyage in Acts 27 was the only one narrated in the first-person plural. Afterall, it is the only sea-voyage narrated in all of Acts that has anything eventful actually happen during the voyage itself. Otherwise, it's just Paul going from one place to the next. But that is not the case.

And as I discuss further down. A large amount of the "we-passages" takes place on land. Sometimes more than half of them. So apparently the "convention" would have to be one that 1) is not used for every, or even most, of the sea-voyages (and has no relevance to "eventfulness), and 2) although used to describe "sea-voyages" is also used to describe substantial amounts of activities on land that are completely unrelated to sea-travel.

Yet you find it to be a rebuttal to arguments that the we-passages are what they appear to be--claims to participation by the author. And you also conclude that his theory is very "persuasive."

Spare us the false, nonexistent modesty.

You read Robbins an no one else and no one else and pass judgment in his favor.

So despite all your naysaying above, Robbins' theory is exactly what I and my sources claimed it was: a theory that the "we-passages" in Acts are products of a common literary style in ancient times to describe sea-voyages, regardless of whether the author had participated in them. (since there are no "battles" in Acts, that leaves the sea-voyages).

His argument depends on his analysis of contemporay Hellenestic literature. One that scholar after scholar has attacked--with no apparent substantive response from Robbins or anyone else. If you are going to make his case you are going to have to explain why his examples -- many of which I have critiqued in this thread -- are sufficient to establish the presence of such a "literary device." Otherwise, you are making a blanket, unsupported appeal to an authority that has been substantively responded to and whose conclusions have been rejected by more recent scholarship.

And, of course, you fail to explain why so many of the "we-passages" occur on land. For example, the "we-passage" of Acts 20:5-15. More than half of the text of the "we-passages" (7-12) take place on land and do not cover any kind of travel whatsoever. Paul is ministring in Troas:

The same is true for Acts 21:1-18. Verses 4-6, 8-14 focus on events on land. Also note that the author distinguishes Paul from the "we" in this section. "One the next day we who were Paul's companions departed and came to Caseara..." Acts 21:8. Far from being a literary device, the author is identifying himself explicitly as a "companion" of Paul.

Professor Fitzmyer:

Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, at 18-19.

Fitzmyer raises some additional points against Robbins theory.

Notice the switch from the first-person plural to the third-person plural in the middle of Acts' story about the demon-possessed girl in V. 16. From v. 13-16 the author of Acts is discussing events on land using the first-person plural. The story follows how the demon-possessed girl was following "Paul and us" around. It notes that she did so "for many days." Then Acts switches back to the third-person for nor reason related to Robbin's literary style theory.

Notice the switch from first-person plural to third-person singular during a sea-voyage discussion: "[b]We sailed from there, and the next day came opposite Chios; the following day [b]we arrived at Samos and stated at Trogyllium; the next day we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentacost." Acts 20:15-16.

The switch from first to third during a sea-voyage account suggests that the change is not merely the result of a literary convention.

And here is the main problem. His "exploration of literaty devices" is flawed. Remember:

"It can now be said with a high degree of certainty that there was no convention in antiquity for sea voyages to be recorded in the first person." Ben Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, at 483-84.

I will explain, again, why recent scholarship has determined that Robbins has failed to establsh that there was any such literary convention.

FIRST, some of the works pointed to as "examples" of this convention -- such as A. Tacitus' Clitophon and Leucippe -- fail because they are written from the first person perspective throughout. Acts is not. Acts is generally a third-person work with some first-person sections.

SECOND, there are more examples of third-person sea voyage accounts -- such as Seneca's Agamemnon -- from that period than there are first-person accounts. And this includes those writings, discussed above, that are completely written in the first person or are of actual sea voyages. This indicates that no convention for the use of the first-person for sea voyages existed.

THIRD, Robbins simply misreads, misunderstands, or mischaracterizes those texts were there appears to be a shift form the third-person on land to the first-person at sea. See Praeder, "The Problem," at 211-12; Hemer, Acts of the Apostles, at 317-318.

The Third Syrian War. Robbins relies on a fragmentary report about the Third Syrian War as an example of such a shift. However, as Praeder and others demonstrate, the shift here is an actual one. The author shifts from discussing events in which he participated to events which he did not. Praeder, at 211-12. "In the Syrian War text the shift from third to first person is a sign of authorial participation after the recording of events in which the author didn't participate." Witherington, at 483. The first person is used to describe what the Author's side (the Ptolemies) are doing as opposed to what the enemy (Seleucids) are doing. Significantly, the Ptolemies were attacking by sea while the Seleucids were land bound in this section, thus explaining the distinction between first and third persons.

Voyage of Hanno. Similarly, Robbins use of the Voyage of Hanno as an example is flawed. As Colin Hemer noted, "the two opening sentences are in the third person, and the remainder of the document in the first plural. But the opening is a formal heading which gives the explorer's commissioning, and it should be printed as a prefatory paragraph, as it is by its editor, and not as part of a continuous undifferentiated narrative, as it is in Robbins' rendering." Hemer, The Book of Acts, as 318. As Witherington notes, "the shift occurs not because of the beginning of the sea voyage report but because the introduction is over." Witherington, at 483.

Antiochene Acts of Ignatius. While there is shift in the currently surviving text, it is probably due to the fact that the surviving text is a composite one and written very late. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2, Vol. 2, at 477-95. Moreover, the "we" begins in the middle of a sea-voyage that has already been undertaken and extends far beyond the sea voyage. Hemer, The Book of Acts, at 318.

Story of Sinuhe. "Robbins does not tell us that in the Story of Sinuhe almost the entire tale is recounted in the first singular; it is not restricted to sea voyages or lake crossings." Fitzymer, at 17.

Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh. "Robbins further cites the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, yet the narrative in the first singular is not confined to the journey to Mount Nisir, but includes the building of the ship, the pouring of a libation on a mountaintop, and the granting to Atrahasis to see a dream." Moreover, the third plural is also used with reference to a boat voyage: 'Gilgamesh and Urshanabi boarded the boat; they launched the boat on the waves [and] they sailed away.'" Id. at 20.

Homer's Odyssey. "Similarly, examples drawn from Homer's Odyssey prove little,
since they are not examples of the first person plural introduced into a narrative when a sea voyage is involved. Rather, Odysseus is engaged in telling a story to King Alcinous and the Phaeacians at a banquet about his personal experiences, which happen to include a sea voyage. In modern usage it would all be set in a quotation marks, and this is quite different from use of "we" in Acts. Robbins makes much of the Homeric shift from the first singularto the first plural, 'a formulaic means for launching the ship, sailing for a number of days, and beaching the ship at the end of a voyage.' But he does not tell us that the first plural is also used in the account of the capture of wives and the looting of the city of Cicones (Od. 9.41), or about how the evil doom of Zeus 'attended us ill-fated men" (Od. 9.52-53). There is, moreover, a constant shift back and forth between the first singular and the first plural even in the story about recounted in direct discourse about Odysseus' sea voyage. Robbins has simply concentrated on the first plural and has not sufficiently attended to the use of the fist singular." Id. at 20.

Virgil's Aeneid. "The same has to be said about the passage cited by him from Virgil's Aeneid 3.1-9. It is part of the story being recounted by Aeneas at Dido's banquet, and his story moves back and forth from the first singular to the first plural; and the latter is not restricted to sea voyage accounts." Id.

Varro's Menippean Satires. As Fitzymer asks, "how much can one really draw from Varro's Menippean Satires (nos. 276, 473), when they are only one- or two-line epigrams? Those quoted deal, indeed, with boating, but there are other epigrams using the first plural that deal with dining (nos. 102, 103)." Id. at 21.

Dio Chrysostom. Robbins' comment that the seventh discourse recounts a sea voyage that ends in a ship wreck uses the first person is unhelpful because the whole discourse is a personal account. The very beginning of the discourse begins, "I Shall now relate a personal experience of mine, not merely something I have heard from others (7.1)." Indeed, it appears that the passage referred to by Robbins as being in the first-person plural is in fact referring to a land journey. As Fitzmyer notes, "the narration has nothing to do with a sea voyage; it is an overland journey, recounted in the first plural." Id. at 21.

FOURTH, although Robbins claims to be reviewing "Hellenestic literature" contemporary to Acts, his first examples come not from Hellenist or contemporaneous literature, but from ancient Egyptian tales dating from almost 2000-1200 years before Acts was written. J. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian. at 19. Moreover, "aside from the fact that these tales are scarcely part of 'Hellenistic literature,' they are narratives using the first person singular, not the plural." Id.

Fifth, most times the ancient authors used the first person for sea voyages to assert that the author (or the author's source) was actually present during the voyage.

"In fact, the occurrence of the first person plural in such narrative means, in almost very case, that the writer was claiming to be present--and that not only on the sea. Just as the 'we' of Acts is not confined to the water so neither is it in, for example, the voyage of Hanno. Of course, any of the authors concerned may be lying.... And he may perhaps quote someone else's first person narrative, though I do not find that this happened. There is therefore...a fair measure of probability in what may seem an old-fashioned, and was to me an unexpected, conclusion, namely that the narrative of Acts 27 was written by one who actually made the voyage." C. K. Barrett, "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning and Method, at 55.

Hemer explains it this way: "Nothing said here disposes of the fact that voyage-narratives are often couched in the 'we-form', but this is a natural tendency dictated by the situation. Such accounts are indeed often in the first person, because they recall personal experience, and plural because they recall communal experience. That tendency is as true of colloquial English as of literary Greek (or Latin), but it is no proof of the existence of a literary style appropriate to what was not personal experience." Hemer, at 319.

I'm sure he was getting paid to do what he did back in 1977. I'm sure he's a fine professor. But so are Fitzmyer, Praeder, Witherington, and the others. They get paid for what they do to. They are respected scholars on the subjects they have expressed their opinions on.

Your entire argument is really nothing more than an appeal to an outdated, rebutted authority. That does not mean he's evil, a bogey-man, the anti-Christ, or any other hyperbole you have tried to foist on me. It just means that on this issue his theory has not carried the day and has been rebutted by more recent scholarship. It happens to the best of scholars. It happens to the worst of them. Trial and error is the way scholarship works. Perhaps Robbins or other scholars will rescue his theory from the low state it possesses in modern scholarship. I would be interested in seeing such a defense if it were mounted.

However, until then, if you are really interested in reviewing the latest Academic literature on the topic:

Toto

You don't really need to cut and paste your previous posts, Layman (with the same misspellings). I noted your previous sources, but I have not read them; I trust that you repeated their arguments accurately. I would be more likely to track them down if they were not committed by virtue of their faith to the position that Luke wrote Acts. (I assume that is the case with Fitzmyer, Hemer, and Witherington; I don't know the others.)

As to mischaracterizing your argument, lighten up, man. I think I noted that you were arguing against the more polemical version of Robbins argument posted on a skeptical web site. I was suggesting that if you had actually read Robbins essay, you might not have been so hostile, but maybe that was too subtle for you. Robbins thinks very highly of the author of Luke. His position does not seem to be that he is invalidating Luke, but that the transition from 3rd to 1st person is a problem, a difficulty that needs to be explained, and he has a nifty explanation.

Going through your latest post,

1. You make the point that the first 3 of the 4 sea voyages are not very eventful. This may be true, but does not invalidate the thesis, which depends on a lot more - the other elements of the sea voyage. And even if that is true - so what? Luke may have been building up slowly to the really exciting sea voyage by anticipating it in the prior voyages.

2. You make the point that a lot of the "we" passages occur on land. But that is after travelling to that land by sea, and this fits the pattern of the Hellenistic sea voyage. Robbins does address this point. He also uses the transition from 'we' to 'Paul and us' and then back to third person narrative as part of his example - 'we' relates to the sea voyage, 'Paul and us' is transitional, and the third person indicates that we are back to straight narrative.

3. You seem concerned that I said I wasn't qualified to judge whether there was a convention of first person narrative in Hellenistic sea stories, but then said the theory was "persuasive". I think that what I actually said was that critics would better characterize Robbins theory as "persuasive" than definitive.

I would also point out that Robbins offers the theory as an "exploration" and a "suggestion" rather than a proof. You seem to have skipped over that part.

4. You repeated all of your examples which claimed that there was no such convention. I have not gone through Robbins examples in great detail, but I take issue with some of your characterizations. In the Voyage of Hanno, you (or Witherington or Hemer) claim that the shift from third person to first person does not count because the first two sentences are a preface and not part of the narrative. This is not obvious, and I would want more than an apologist's word for it. The text reads:

The first two sentences are more than a mere preface. Is there some other explanation for saying he set forth. . . and we went on? There does not seem to be a natural break between the second and third sentence.

5. I see that irony is lost on you, from your reaction to my comment on being paid to do literary criticism.

Have a nice weekend, Layman

Toto

Having had time to go through Layman's counter examples and compare them to Robbins text, I will discuss the specific examples that Layman raised in his last post, and show how they are a misreading of Robbins essay, indicating why Robbins may not have bothered to respond to these clearly ideologically motivated and ill-informed attacks on his essay.

Taking things in the order Robbins discusses them, (which changes Layman’s order)

Layman This is a prime example of the irrelevancy of these criticisms of Robbins work. Here is what Robbins says about this ancient Egyptian tale, which is not part of his case for Hellenistic usage;

So Robbins 1) does tell us that the tale is recounted in first person singular 2) does not pretend that there are not other parts of the tale in the first person 3) does not use this as an example of Hellenistic literary convention.

I certainly hope that you have misquoted Fitzmyer.

Robbins later contrasts this natural first person usage with Greek and Roman usage, which preferred third person narration even when the narrator was part of the action – except for the dramatic action of sea voyages and battles.

Layman:This is a serious misreading of Robbins. He does a survey of ancient literature, but his examples from ancient Egypt and from Gligamesh are not part of his case for Hellenistic literary conventions. As I said, he is doing literary criticism.

Layman:Robbins’ point regarding Homer and Virgil is that narratives in the first person plural add to the drama of the account. He is not claiming that these works show a similar pattern to Acts of third person narrative inexplicably shifting to first. He discusses them as part of the “prestigious epic literature of Greek and Roman culture [whose] influence was pervasive in the literature of the Mediterranean world.”

Robbins them discusses poems by the lyric poets Alcaeus and Theognis, and Aeschylus, which seem to support his case.

Layman This one instance is not very significant by itself, but may take on meaning as part of a larger pattern. It would misconstrue Robbins’ thesis to say that he thinks only sea voyages were described in the 1st person plural in all forms of literature.

Layman Another blatant misreading of Robbins. His thesis is that the first person plural is associated with sea voyages and the further adventures on shore that are part of the sea voyage genre.

I dealt with the the Voyage of Hanno in my previous post. It is the strongest evidence for Robbins’ thesis, as it inexplicably changes from third person to first. The charge that the first two sentences are part of a preface (which I doubt) even if true does not explain this change.

Layman This may be true, but it may be still part of a pattern. By itself, it would mean little, and a different interpretation would not necessarily invalidate Robbins thesis. That's why I told the little story about the nature lover vs the developer on defining a forest.

Layman True, but again we have an inexplicable shift from third person to first person plural in a sea voyage, and again we seem to have a willful refusal to understand Robbins’ thesis – it isn’t that once you set foot on ship, the narration turns to first person plural, but that when you enter into a sea voyage genre, including related events on land, the narration shifts to first person plural to make the narration more personal and dramatic.

Having said all this, I don’t know that this is a strong case. Robbins, as I noted above, presents it only as “suggestions” and “explorations.” But since I give little credit to the idea that the first person plural narration in Acts is any indication that the writer was a companion to Paul, I regard this as a probable alternative explanation. As a hypothesis, it does a better job of explaining the sudden shift from third person to first person narration than the alternative thesis. And I suppose if you were committed to the idea that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul, you could use Robbins theories to explain why the other parts of Acts were not written in the first person.

But, as I noted, the case against Acts being written by a companion of Paul does not rest on this literary interpretation. It is based more on the disparities between Acts and the Pauline epistles, and the most probably dating of Acts to somewhere between 80 CE and 150 CE.

Layman

I do when you ignore the points that were made.

Why would you assume that? You usually have such low regard for my knowledge and abilities.

Nothing about my faith, or theirs, requires that Luke wrote Acts. Does my faith require me to believe that Matthew wrote Matthew? Under your assumptions it would seem to have to. But it does not. And I acknowledge that Matthew the disciple of Jesus did not write Matthew. I have similar doubts about the traditional association of other New Testament books with authorship by early Christian figures.

You should not whine when someone knocks down the strawman you were attempting to erect.

What you claim you intended to "suggest" was not obvious. Your characterization of my response was clearly erroneous.

How is this relevant?

Fine. I'm not demonizing the man. I'm pointing out that his theory has been rejected by modern scholarship.

It is true. Are you disputing this point? Conceding it? Ignoring it? There is nothing in those voyages that stands out any more -- though perhaps less -- in other voyages using the third person.

Then show me which elements were missing from all those other sea voyages. So far you've mentioned two criteria--length of voyage and whether it was eventful. The first argument is clearly erroneous. Some of the voyages using the third person ("he" or "they") are much longer than some of the voyages using the first person. The second argument is not apparent from the accounts--they seem no more eventful -- and perhaps less so -- than other sea voyages recounted in the third person.

Then there is no evidence that Luke is using any sort of convention that you are proposing.

If there is a convention then its use should be detectable. It should have rhyme and reason. It does not do so in Luke. The usage of the "we" passages appears arbitrary and is unrelated to the length of the sea-voyages or their merit.

If you think you can show otherwise then please do so. Otherwise, your just speculating without foundation.

Does Robbins give specific examples of uneventful, short voyaged using the first-person as "build ups" to a long voyage.

Besides, the "build-up" theory is clearly false because there is no such "build-up."

The author uses the third-person to explain Paul's first missionary trip, even though it includes sailing from Seleucia to Perga by way of Cyprus--all in the third person.

Then, in the second missionary journey, the author uses the first-person plural to describe a much shorter voyage (than above) from Troas to Neapolis (16:10-12). Thereafter, after some land travel, the author uses the third-person when Paul travels from Berea to Athens (which is a longer trip than the one from Troas to Neapolis)(17:14-15). Then again the author uses the third person from Cenchrea sailing trip to Ephesus (18:18-19), and from Ephusus to Caesarea (18:20-22), which were all longer voyages than the one from Troas to Neapolis--indeed, the Cenchrea to Caearea (and more) could be counted as one trip.

When we get to the third missionary journey, we again have some voyages described in the first person and some in the third person. The author does not use "we" to describe travelling from Antioch to Ephesus, nor for the sea voyage from Ephusus to Philippi (20:1-2). But he does use the first person to describe the short trip from Phillipi to Troas (20:65-6), and then from there to Tyre.

There is no "build-up." After the "we" is introduced there are still voyages described in the third person "he" and "they." It has nothing to do with the length of the voyage--some of the trips with "we" are shorter than those with "they" or "he", and vice versa. And it really does not seem to have anything to do with the "eventfulness" or significance of the voyage itself.

Neither you, nor Robbins, have established that there was any such convention. And since Paul travelled a lot, everything he did could be characterized as happening after a sea-voyage. Or before it, for that matter.

Moreover, why then, does the "we" sometimes stop when they get to land? In Acts 20:13-28, 21:1, the "we" passages stop when we get to land and pick pick up again later.

Neither you nor Robbins has established that such was the convention. So far you've argued for a "convention" that explains first person plural when it does not appear in a sea voyage. When it does appear in a sea voyage. And when it appears on land and unrelated to any sea-voyage.

And which of the examples were you referring to?


Actually, I think I claimed you were being disenguous by claiming you were not qualified to pass judgment and then you go ahead and pass judgment.

Well, the problem is, scholarly "critics" do not find Robbins' theory "definitive" or "persuasive" at all.

You said it rebuts any attempt to explain that the "we-passages" are claims to participation in the events decribed. You are being disengenous again.

Then you should be content. Because I am not asking you to take my word for it. I provided citations to respected New Testament scholars--not apologists.

Actually, you are wrong. The first two sentences of the Voyage of Hanno are a preface, as others have recognized. Here is what Hemer and Witherington stated:

Similarly, Robbins use of the Voyage of Hanno as an example is flawed. As Colin Hemer noted, "the two opening sentences are in the third person, and the remainder of the document in the first plural. But the opening is a formal heading which gives the explorer's commissioning, and it should be printed as a prefatory paragraph, as it is by its editor, and not as part of a continuous undifferentiated narrative, as it is in Robbins' rendering." Hemer, The Book of Acts, as 318. As Witherington notes, "the shift occurs not because of the beginning of the sea voyage report but because the introduction is over." Witherington, at 483.

Another commentator puts it this way--noting the "statement of purpose" from the voyage itself:

The same commentator notes when the actual narrative begings:

http://www.metrum.org/mapping/hanno.htm

Hanno is commissioned to undertake this voyage by the Carthaginians with a certain amount of provisions and ships. As Hemer and Witherington explain, this is a formal heading for the voyage, not the beginning of the narrative. Once the account begins, the author uses the first-person plural throughout.

But perhaps more important, the "we" is not used for emphasis or because of the length of the voyage, but because of participation in the voyage itself. And it is not only "apolgists" that see it this way.

The entire voyage is written from the perspective from the leader of the voyage. Many believe that it was written by Hanno himself. (" On his return, Hanno wrote an eighteen line account of his journey and two abridged translations of this document known as “Periplus of Hanno” survive today." http://www.port.nmm.ac.uk/ROADS/cgi-...002585507-1263 ), while others suggest that it was written based on an interview with two of Hanno's sailors (we may consider the possibility of a mistake by the Greek translator. A better theory is that the scribe who composed the text at the stele in the shrine of Kronos interviewed two sailors. http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hanno/hanno02.html#Two sources ).

Either way, there is no shift from "he" to "we" because of emphasis or because a sea-voyage begins. It's written from the "we" perspective because it is written from the perpsective of a participant or participants of the voyage.

Indeed, this example only strengthens the idea that the "we-passages" are claims to actual participation, not a literary device used to emphasize points or due to sea voyages. The only difference is in Hanno the participation was for the entire voyage--including events on land and sea--whereas in Acts the "we" is more arbitrary--suggesting only partial participation.

No, what you see that -- if you were being harmlessly ironic -- I missed it. It sounded like you were "beefing" up your source. Nevertheless, to assume that missed "irony" is the fault of the reader is unfounded. To assume that when it is missed the reader has no sense of irony at all, is simply a conveneint jab.

Layman

Please spare me the histrionics. And your ideologically motivated and ill-informed attacks on any scholar who disagrees with Robbins.

Responses:

1 & 2. Actually, no, he does not tell us -- in the quote you provided -- that all of the voyage in Sinuhe were in the first person. By saying that "there is a natural propensity for portraying sea voyages" in the first person in Sinuhe, and then noting it "recount[s] sea voyages through first person singular narration" Robbins omits the fact that most of the account, including events on land, also take places in the first person plural. That is omission is significant and Fitzmyer pointed it out.

As for 3, Fitzmyer was not accusing Robbins of duplicity, but pointing out that some of his examples are from a different literary tradition and therefore are less relevant in an analysis of a work, such as Acts, from another tradition.

Of course not.

If you and Robbins agree that ancient Egyptian usage is not particularly relevant to examining the usage of "we" in Acts, then I do not see the problem.

So they are not examples that demonstrate that the "we-passages" in Acts are literary devices used to describe sea-voyages? If you agree that, so far, none of the cited literature supports this thesis then I think we are on the same track.

So we agree that this example is not very significant.

But, please clarify, does Robbin's theory have something to do with sea-voyages or not?


If the writing is purported to be a "personal experience," why is the use of "we" surprising?

Actually, yes, it was explained rather well. Either it 1) is part of the formal preface, or 2) it is the preface to a voyage based on the accounts of two sailors who participated in it.

What? If it is true that this example is a report from a war where the author's side was attacking by sea and the enemy was conducting most of their actions on land, then how does this support Robbin's theory?

If this is true then the "shift" is not "inexplicable" but explained by the combining of one account that was written in the first person with an account that was written in the third person. And nothing in Toto's response explains how a "sea voyage genre" can begin "in the middle of [the] sea-voyage" itself.

It is not.

So basically, the only reason you find this theory likely is the weakness of the theory that Acts was written by a companion of Paul? It would seem to from the following statement:

You do know there are other theories than the "sea-voyage literary device" theory?