Layman

In the first part of my response, I focused on why I believe Professor Robbins has failed to make the case for the existence of a literary convention re: describing sea-voyages by use of the first-person plural. Here I focus on the second part of my argument against Robbins' theory--that even if such a convention exists there is insufficient reason to believe it applies to Acts.

While preparing this post a subpoint developed--what are the criteria for determining when something is a sea-voyage worthy of narration in the third--person and when is a sea-voyage just "travel." Related to this is the question of when events on land are supposedly mere extensions of travel by sea.

>>>>>Price: "Fourth, the so-called "sea-voyages" in Acts includes a substantial amount of events occurring on land. Some "we-sections" include more actions on land than it does at sea."

VKR: Price again has exaggerated when he has said "more actions on land that it does at sea."<<<<<

I thought I was clear that I was not claiming that the majority of all of the "we-passages" takes place on land. A "substantial amount" of it does. And for "we-passage" of Acts 20:5-15 does "include more actions on land" than at sea.

>>>>But actions at certain points "on land" are, in fact, a very important aspect of certain sea voyages. It is important to notice that the "we-sections" of Acts that occur "on land" are episodes in sea voyages.<<<<<

Is there some criteria that indicates when an event on land counts as an "important aspect of" a sea voyage? So far it appears ad hoc, as so much of the "we-passages" occurs on land and so many of the sea-voyages -- including significant ones -- do not make use of the third-person plural.

>>>>>I had thought, on the basis of previous scholarship that the we-sections in Acts presented Paul and others journeying along roads from city to city. I discovered something I should have known, but that Chris Price and others seem not to have thought about. If a person is on an extended sea voyage, one may stop at a certain place (like an island or a harbor city) for a certain period of time, then continue on the voyage by getting back on a boat and continuing on. I was surprised to discover that all the "we-passages on land" in Acts are prior to getting on a boat, in the midst of a sea voyage, or a matter of having recently gotten off a boat, RATHER THAN FIRST PERSON PLURAL NARRATION ABOUT TRAVELING FROM CITY TO CITY ON LAND. The real issue, then, is "point of view" of the first person plural narration in Acts. When first person plural appears, either a sea voyage is about to begin, a sea voyage will continue, or it is the ending of a sea voyage. There is no switch to first person plural narration in Acts except for narration "from a sea voyage point of view." The one other place where first person plural appears is in the prologue to Luke (and not Acts). In the first we-section (Acts 16:10-17) first person plural continues as they get off the boat and remain for some days in Philippi. The sea voyage account extends into their invitation into the house of Lydia and their going to a place of prayer (16:13-17). At the point where the story commits to additional activities on land (16:18), it switches into third person narration and stays in this style as Paul travels "on land" to Amphipolis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica (17:1); from their on to Beroea (17:10); from there to Athens (17:15); from there to Corinth (18:1). <<<<<<<<<<<<

First, I should note that the travel from Berea does not take place on land, but is, in fact, a sea-voyage. And, as I discuss below, a rather significant sea-voyage to a very important city--Athens.

Second, as I said above, the problem I have is that much of this analysis seems ad-hoc. Given the practicalities of traveling in the Med. area, it possible to argue that -- for someone as widely traveled as Paul (as judged from his own letters, not just Acts) -- almost every event that took place in his ministry occurred prior to getting on a boat, while on a boat, or after he got off a boat. Additionally, it is hardly surprising that the "we-sections" are used for some of the sea-travels in Acts. The fact is that travel-by-sea is an unavoidable part of any account of Paul's travels. Indeed, they would be an unavoidable part of any missionary who reached as many places as Paul did. That an occasional companion of Paul (whether the author himself or someone who left behind a journal) would have participated in some of these voyages is not remarkable in the least. Or, it would be unsurprising that someone wishing to emphasize certain parts of Paul's travels would have to use the "we" device for some events that occurred at sea (though I have problems with this explanation as well).

>>>>>Then come two of the "ten sea voyages" Price is counting, saying that "the length of the voyage account is not important." 18:18: "Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila." and 18:18:21-22: "Then he set sail from Ephesus. When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch." In contrast to Price, I would propose that there is no transition into first person plural in these brief statements, "because there is no commitment to the point of view of a sea voyage account." Here the narration is focused on "occurrences on land" rather than "occurrences on land that are the beginning, continuation, or ending of an adventurous sea voyage." In other words, sometimes travel on the sea simply is "travel," at other times travel on the sea is an adventure "to a place for a special reason in God's plan." Acts 16:11 begins "a sea voyage to a new place," inaugurated by a vision to Paul where a Macedonian man said, "Come over to Macedonia and help us" (16:9). In contrast, his voyages to Ephesus and Syria are a matter of returning to places he had been. There is no "adventure" here, thus there is no first person plural "sea voyage." It is simply "returning by sea to a place he already has been." The we-sections in Acts 20:5-21:18 are parts of an extended sea voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. The we-sections in Acts 27:1-28:16 present an extended sea voyage from Adrammttium to Rome.<<<<<<<<<<

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that Paul's (18:18) trip to Ephesus was the first time Acts had Paul travel there. Is that not correct?

I still do not see how your criteria distinguishes between 1) a focus on "occurrences" on land that include sea-trips and 2) a focus on sea-voyage that includes accounts on land. It really does seem ad-hoc.

For example, let us look at the "we-passage" in 16:11-17. This is possibly the shortest of Paul's sea-travels: from Troas to Macedonia. Nevertheless, it is the first use of "we" in Acts. Additionally, it is difficult to see how the rest of the "we-passage", vs. 13-17, are part of that sea-voyage rather than the other way around. Here it seems quite clear that the focus is on Paul's actions on land--preaching and staying with Lydia. Nothing of any interest happens at sea. The sea travel is, as you say, simply "travel."

Another example is Paul's trip to Athens (v. 17:14-15). Here Paul sails to the crown-jewel of paganism--Athens. Yet his travel from Berea to Athens is narrated entirely in the third-person. (v. 17:14-15). Why avoid the "we" here when Paul arrives in Athens to give his prominent Mars Hill oratory? Additionally, if one of the criteria is that Paul is not returning to a place he has been, then why does Acts shift from the third-person to the first-person plural in 20:4-6, where Paul is not only heading back to Palestine, but doing so by way of a city he previously had visited: Troas.

It seems that travel to Athens to give the speech at Mars Hill would certainly be travel "to a place for a special reason in God's plan." But that travel back from Philippi to Troas--which Paul had already traveled before--is sufficiently noteworthy to describe in the first-person plural.

>>>>>>>>Price: "Fifth, there are at least ten sea-voyages in Acts that use the third-person. Any attempt to argue that this is because of the length or "eventfulness" of those voyages fails."

VKR: Please read again through Acts 16:6-18; 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16. If this is not adventurous sea voyaging enabled by miracle, which takes people to places where miracles occur, then nothing in scripture can be adventurous and/or miraculous.

Price: "As Fitzymer points out, the use of the "we-passage" in some sea-voyages but the failure to use them in other passages which would be "candidates" for such a literary device defeats any claim that a literary convention is at work here. The first person appears and disappears in an almost arbitrary manner, inexplicable except by whim or access to an eye-witness sources (Fitzymer concludes it's the author's own). Fitzymer, Luke the Theologian, at 1-26."

VKR: Fitzmyer and others who say things like this appear to be rhetorically and socially "tone deaf" when they read the we passages. The issue is whether or not "the we-sections are narrated from the point of view of sea voyages," not whether all references to sea voyages in Acts are presented in "first person plural style."<<<<<<

Actually, I believe the issue is whether the author of Acts's use of "we-passages" is the result of a conventional literary device commonly used to describe sea-voyages. If, as you argue, he is employing a convention here, there must be some explanation as to why it is used for some sea-voyages and not others. Otherwise, if strong candidates for the application of the "convention" are being ignored, the most likely explanation is that the author was not employing any such convention in the first place. So far I have found the "criteria" to be vague and ad hoc.

It seems that the "criteria" is some sort of prominence or importance of the place that Paul is going to or how it fits into God's plan. That is rather unspecific, but I do not see how does not apply to something that certainly involved "a special reason in God's plan" and that is Paul's first missionary journey by sea-travel.

If the author of Acts is familiar with and employing a convention that sea-voyages are to be written in the first-person plural, why does he not do so in Acts 13:1-13? Any attempt to argue that this passage was not significant fails. Indeed, it's hard to image a more likely candidate for using "we" to describe a sea-adventure according to the criteria you've mention.

This is Paul's first missionary expedition. It is the first time he sets foot on a boat. But most important, Paul is specifically commanded by the Holy Spirit to undertake this journey!

"Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucious of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Hrod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, 'Now separate to Me Baranabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus."(v. 1-3).

It is travel by sea to the island Cyprus (later continuing on to Perga) where Paul encounters and overcomes a powerful magician by miraculous power (v. 6-11). During this episode Paul impresses the Roman proconsul so much by his display of power that even he "believes." (v. 12). From there, Paul sails to Perga, and preaches so successfully that many were saved and the "nearly the whole city" turned out to hear him. (v. 43-44). Even more "adventurous" is that Paul and Barnabas are then persecuted by their enemies and driven from the city. (v. 50). The story continues until they sail back to Seleucia, filled with adventure, success, miracles, persecution, drama, and sea-travel. Yet no use of the first-person plural. The entire episode is recounted in the third-person. The failure to use the first-person plural in a sea-voyage that seems to fit, to the extent they are specified, your criteria is very problematic for your conclusions.

Toto

Hi Layman - let me congratulate you on the improved tone and lowered hostility in your reply to Robbins. I hope it is posted, because I think his reply will get to the heart of the matter.

As I have said before, I do not want to "support" Robbins. Unlike Bede, I do not think he is anti-Christian or that the implications of his work are anti-Christian. (If he were, I might try to defend him, except that he does a much better job himself.) He himself seems genuinely puzzled as to why his literary theory has aroused such a vehement response.

He seems sure that there is a "convention" of using third person plural for sea adventures, based on the years that he has spent working with sources. As I said originally, I don't feel qualified to judge this since I have not spent a similar amount of time immersing myself in Hellenistic writing. Certainly, if this proposition does not turn out to be correct, it would not even begin to prove that Acts (or the "we" passages separately) were written by an eyewitness. (I may post more on this later.)

As for what he means by exclusionary, I suspect it has to do with the fact that he is doing literary criticism, not trying to prove or disprove any historical fact. He seems to feel that his insights into Acts enhance the understanding of it as a piece of literature, and I suspect that is his only goal.

Layman

Well, I hope I could expect the same from you. Like slacking off comments about Robbins' opponents being so silly he is justified in ignoring them while sitting back and laughing at them.

I noticed while reviewing my piece that Robbins made no attempt to justify his reliance on Hanno. He completely ignored any discussion of it, even though I specifically mentioned addressed it.

And I have no lack of faith in your ability to keep searching for theories that attempt to discredit the historicity of the Acts.

Toto

I was wrong when I speculated that he was sitting back laughing at them because they were so silly. He seems to have held off because he is really not a confrontational person, and thought that he could persuade his opponents by talking to them. But it does appear that he can and will make a substantive defense of his theories.

I do not understand your obsession with showing the historicity of Acts, a book that has an angel letting Peter out of prison, Paul curing a demon possessed girl, Paul surviving a snake bite on an island that has never had any snakes, and a variety of other dubious incidents that seem clearly copied from Hellenistic themes. Is Acts really a lynchpin of your faith?

Layman

Which part were you wrong about?

Where did he say he was talking to those (many) scholars who disagree with him? So far as I can tell, he's simply ignoring them because they disagree with them.

And he certainly had not problem being confrontational with me! But as you pointed out, it is obvious I'm an amateur.

I'm still waiting. For any discussion of the Voyage of Hanno for example.

Don't you tyhink its strange he ignored that?

Why characterize it as an obsession? Every post I put forward on Acts is met by many responses from you. Are you saying I am obsessed with Acts because I post about it whereas you are not obsessed with Acts, despite your repeated posts about it?

At least I have a reason, I'm a Christian and the history of my faith (or lack of it) is very interesting to me.

Sounds like another double standard to me.

No.

Layman

BTW-How do you know that Malta never had "any snakes"?

Layman

FYI-For whatever reason I have not been able to get onto Cross-Talk this afternoon. Accordingly, my Part 2 post will probably not make it up there until after the weekend.

Toto

He wasn't laughing. He appears not to consider his critics silly, although he does not think they are being rational.

In the other thread, I located part of an online exchange of views. He also indicated that he had talked to his critics in the email he sent me.

I think it was you yourself who pointed out that it was obvious that you were an amateur, based on adding Esq. to your name. I was the one who pointed out that professionals generally read an article that they disagree with before attacking it in public.

I do not consider his replies confrontational. He seems to be trying to be conciliatory and avoid insulting his opponents while holding onto his convictions.

I think he will get around to it.

It appears to be an obsession because the intensity of your feelings exceeds reason. You overreact to anything that implies that Acts might not be historical, in spite of denying that it is critical to your faith.

Layman

Ah, so this is some sort of mushy assesment on your part? You are the one defending theories you claim aren't important to you.

This is a Forum devoted to Biblical Criticism is it not? Why attack someone who posts here on that subject for being "obsessive"? Why not just stick to the facts and the issues Toto? Maybe someone would take you seriously for a change.

Toto

Well, no poisonous snakes, anyway.

I was relying on a source that may not have been accurate. So put that on hold.

There appears to currently be a legend on Malta that Paul has taken the venom out of any snakes, even if they have been introduced onto the island later:

Pauline Traditions

I also found this note on classics-l in the context of a discussion of St. Patrick driving the non-existant snakes out of Ireland: