Peter Kirby

First Person Perspective in Ancient Sea Travel

In an article printed in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (see the brief bibliography at the end), Vernon K. Robbins states: "Sea voyage narratives in Greek and Roman literature, however, become a distinct genre. One of the features of this genre is the presence of first person plural narration. . . . The author has employed first person plural narration for the sea voyages, because it was conventional generic style within Hellenistic literature." (pp. 216-217)

Robbins also writes: "The we-passages fit the genre of sea voyage narratives. Such accounts would be expected to contain first person narration, whether or not the author was an actual participant in the voyage. Without first person narration the account would limp. By the first century A.D., a sea voyage recounted in third person narration would be considered out of vogue, especially if a shipwreck or other amazing events were recounted." (p. 228)

This essay will survey the texts mentioned by Robbins in "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages" and then consider the extent to which they establish precedent for a literary device of narrating sea voyages in the first person plural such as is found in the Acts of the Apostles. In the Acts of the Apostles, the first person is used in the prefaces and in three or four relatively brief sections, where there is no explanation given (such as speaking through a character) for the shift from third person to first person, such that many have supposed that the author of Acts is claiming to be present on the scene (but which Robbins interprets as generic style for the subject of sea travel).

Robbins introduces the first texts in his essay with these words: "There is a natural propensity for portraying sea voyages through the medium of first person narration. This style for narrating voyages extends as far back as the most ancient Mediterranean literature known to us. Two Egyptian tales, The story of Sinuhe (1800 B.C.) and The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia (11 cent. B.C.), recount sea voyages through first person singular narration. Also Utnapishtim, in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, recounts his voyage upon the waters in first person singular. In the Egyptian and Mesopotamian accounts the narrator uses first person singular 'I,' even when others are present with him on the voyage. Homer's Odyssey, in contrast, contains the earliest example among Mediterranean literature of a sea voyage that employs first person plural narration." (p. 217)

I will number the texts that are discussed as I go along.

1. The story of Sinuhe

Source: http://jennycarrington.tripod.com/JJSinuhe/text.html

Note that the first person is used throughout the document.

2. The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia

Source: Goedicke, Hans. The Report of Wenamun, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1975.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Two Egyptian tales, The Story of Sinuhe (1800 B.C.) and The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia (11 cent. B.C.), recount sea voyages through first person singular narration." (p. 217)

The beginning of the text reads:

Note that the first person is used throughout the document.

3. Epic of Gilgamesh

Source: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/

Note that the first person is not used just for the time in the boat.

4. The Shipwrecked Sailor

Source: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/...ked_sailor.htm

Although this is certainly not disturbing to the position of Robbins, it is false that Homer contains the earliest instance of narration of a sea voyage in the first person plural. There is an Egyptian account in which the narrator uses the first personal plural, in The Shipwrecked Sailor (Papyrus Leningrad 1115) that can be found online.

The rest of the document is in the first person singular. The passages in which "we" is used concern the trip undertaken by all on a ship, particularly when the storm at sea is recounted.

5. The Odyssey

Source: http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.html

V. K. Robbins writes of the Odyssey: "However, first person plural narration becomes a formulaic means for launching the ship, sailing for a number of days, and beaching the ship at the end of a voyage." (p. 217)

The narration of the Odyssey takes the form of a tale told by Odysseus and thus naturally uses the first person to relate events at which Odysseus was present.

6. The Aeneid

Source: http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.html

V. K. Robbins writes: "The same technique is used by Vergil (70-19 B.C.) in books 2-3 of the Aeneid. Since the structure of the Aeneid imitates the Odyssey, Vergil's use of first person narration results directly from Homeric influence." (p. 218)

Colin Hemer writes: "The Odyssey and the Aeneid certainly use a technique of flashback first-person narration, but this is part of the larger structure of the poems, and not confined to the limits of a voyage motif." (p. 84)

7. Alcaeus 6

Source: Robbins, ibid. and Edmonds, J. M. Lyra Graeca, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1928.

Alcaeus 6 is quoted (p. 219):

8. Alcaeus 326

Robbins writes: "Alcaeus 326 alternates between first person singular and plural as the poet captures the anxiety that attends the injury inflicted on a ship in a storm:" (p. 219)

The first person is used throughout in these short poems.

9. Theognis

Source: David A. Campbell, Greek Lyric Poetry, not checked.

Robbins: "Theognis (fl. 544-541 B.C.) continues this imagery and style of narration in the section of his lyric poetry that treats the city-state metaphorically as a ship on a turbulent sea:" (p. 219)

10. A footnote refers to Nemea 4.36-8 of Pindar.

Source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...p=Pind.+N.+1.5

Source: Bowra, C. M. The Odes of Pindar, Penguin Books: Baltimore, 1969.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Pindar (518-438 B.C.) used sea voyage imagery metaphorically to describe the process of writing an ode; see Gogo Lieberg, 'Seefahrt und Werk,' GIF, XXI (1969), 209-13. Nemea 4.36-8 is especially interesting for its use of first person plural; for analysis of this passage, see Jacques Peron, Les images maritimes de Pindare, pp. 90-100." (p. 219)

This passage uses second person singular in referring to sea imagery and uses first person plural for describing the struggle to outdo enemies in battle.

11. Seven Against Thebes

Source: http://classics.mit.edu/Aeschylus/seventhebes.html

Quoted by Robbins from Studies on the Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus (p. 63):

Robbins writes: "The attack on the city is like a storm that threatens to destroy a ship at sea. With disciplined effort and gradual abatement of the storm, the ship is successfully kept afloat." (p. 220)

Here is the fuller passage (Plumptre, pp. 76-77).

The first person plural is not limited to the floating city metaphor.

12. The Libation-Bearers

Source: Plumptre, E. H. The Tragedies of Aeschylos, Routledge: New York, 1897.

Robbins quotes "sea voyage imagery in a speech by Electra in The Libation-Bearers" of Aeschylus (p. 220):

Robbins writes: "The difficult situation faced by Electra and her companions calls forth the danger of sailing on the sea. Mortals have little choice but to turn their petitions to heaven and hope for a successful outcome. First person plural narration attends this imagery in epic, lyric, and tragic poetry. During later centuries, this literature is copied, quoted, and read, and its influence is found in widespread sectors of the Hellenistic and Roman civilization." (p. 220)

According to Plumptre, these lines belong to the chorus (pp. 259-260):

This is a shift from first person singular to first person plural, if attributed to Electra. It is no shift of person at all if attributed to the chorus.

13. The Menippean Satires of Varro.

Robbins writes: "In his Menippean Satires, Varro (116-27 B.C.) provides evidence that first person style persists in voyage imagery during the first century B.C. Fragments 276 and 473, preserved by Nonius Marcellus (early 4th cent. A.D.), read respectively:"

14. Fragment 418 from book 2 of a two-book satire Periplous known to Varro according to Nonius.

Robbins quotes Buecheler, Petronii Sarturae, p. 208: ". . . lest we wander, that there were many bypaths, and that the way was quite safe but slow going."

I don't have an English translation, other than what is provided by Robbins.

15. Dio Chrysostom 7.2.

Source: Cohoon, J. W. Dio Chrysostom, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1932.

V. K. Robbins writes: "By the first century A.D., sea voyages, interrupted by storms, were an established part of Mediterranean literature outside of epic. And first person narration of voyages appears to be not only fashionable but preferred. Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 40-after 112), from whom portions of 78 discourses are extant, most frequently recounts tales in third person narration. But in the seventh discourse, when a sea voyage, which ends in a shipwreck and a journey, is accounted, he uses first person narration ... Dio's use of first person narration for this tale of voyage and adventure suggests that he was responding to the genre itself. The style had established itself within the cultural milieu, and writers found it natural to respond to this convention." (p. 221)

Here is the passage (Cohoon, pp. 287-293):

Rather than responding to a genre, Dio Chrysostom seems to be using pronouns in the expected way: first person narration because Dio Chrysostom is relating "a personal experience of mine" and first person plural where companions are with him, whether on sea or on land.

Colin Hemer writes: "In the former passage the writer sails with some fishermen, and 'we' reverts to 'I' when his companions leave him: in the latter the plural continues while he travels by land with a companion." (p. 85)

16. Petronius, chapter 114.

Source: http://www.gis.net/~kcollins/petron/satyr/satyr.html

Source: Firebraugh, W. C. The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, Liveright: New York, 1943.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Within sea voyage accounts, the shipwreck became an increasingly attractive feature. Petronius (1st cent. A.D.) exhibits this interest in shipwreck accounts and also shows the natural propensity for first person narration in them. It only seemed proper to recount the dangerous episode with first person plural." (p. 221)

Firebraugh translates the passage as follows (pp. 199-200):

The whole work is set in the first person, and the first person plural is not limited to the sea voyages. Indeed, the first person plural here is used in reference to the previous discussion before the storm, and the third person referring to the "panic-stricken sailors" (which Robbins omits in an ellipsis) is found in the middle of the story of the storm. The first person singular is used shortly after the quotation above, when Lycas implores "me," Encolpius.

17. Josephus, Life 3.14-16.

Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s/autobiog.htm

V. K. Robbins writes: "Even the Jewish historian Josephus mentions a sea voyage and a shipwreck in his biography. And little surprise it is that he shifts from first person singular to first person plural as he recounts it."

Colin Hemer writes: "In ostensibly autobiographical literature, whether fact (Jos. Vita 3.15) or fantastic fiction (Lucian VH 1.5-6), the whole is structured on a first person narrative, which becomes plural not only at the outset of a voyage but wherever the writer is identified with a group." (pp. 84-85)

Stanley Porter writes: "Robbins's only other example comes from Josephus's Life 3.14-16, but this example hardly proves his case, since it contains an expected and legitimate alternation between first-person singular adn plural within the context of an acknowledged historical account: 'I reached Rome ... for our ship foundered ...'" (p. 23)

18. Ovid, Tristia 1.2.31-34.

Source: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/C...d.tristia.html

Source: Riley, Henry T. The fasti, Tristia, Pontic epistles, Ibis, and Halieuticon of Ovid, G. Bell: New York, 1899.

V. K. Robbins writes: "By the first century A.D. the sea voyage, threatened by shipwreck, had established itself as a distinct genre. An essential feature of this genre was first person narration. The status of the genre provided the possibility for authors to employ the situation of a sea voyage to interpret many situations in life. Thus Ovid, in Tristia 1.2.31-34 (composed A.D. 8-9), compares his life in exile to a sea voyage threatened by shipwreck. ... Being in exile is like being thrown on a ship that starts on a voyage. One is dependent upon the crew for the outcome, but even the crew cannot predict the fortune of the journey. Together they face the peril of the sea, and when the wind becomes a storm and the waves begin to threaten, every occupant of the ship faces the same jeopardy. Together they experience the confusion, the fear, and the hope that all is not lost." (pp. 221-222)

The whole poem reads as follows (Riley, pp. 252-256):

Barrett writes: "It is simply that in any vehicle larger than a bicycle there may well be a number of passengers who become, for a time, a community. 'I left Durham on the 14.55, and we reached London on time.' So we did." (p. 53)

Colin Hemer writes: "The example from Ovid's personal lament in exile (Trist. 1.2.31-34) depends on one first plural verb form, but ignores the commonplace of Latin verse by which 'we' stands freely for 'I' metri gratia. A glance at the poem shows the use of the first plural in lines 16, 38, 67 and 70, all in non-maritime contexts, whereas the nautical imagery of 75-84 happens to contain only the singular, and 17-18 mixes the numbers, but the meaning in every case is 'I'." (p. 85)

19. Lucian, A True Story 1.5-6.

Source: Fowler, H. W. and F. G. Fowler. The Works of Lucian of Samosata, vol. 2, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1905.

V. K. Robbins writes: "In the second century A.D., Lucian (A.D. 125-180) wrote a sea voyage parody entitled A True Story. If Ovid's use of a sea voyage to interpret his exile leaves any doubt with regard to the status of this genre, Lucian's parody gives even firmer evidence. In his work Lucian recounts a fantastic voyage with tongue in cheek. His parody reveals the essential features of the sea voyage genre. He narrates the voyage as Odysseus, Aeneas, Dio Chrysostom and Josephus narrate theirs. He begins in first person singular and shifts to first person plural at the embarkation. ... Even though Lucian made light of sea voyage accounts by presenting one of the most fantastic voyages imaginable, the sea voyage genre had a firm place within the literature of the culture." (p. 222)

Robbins quotes from the beginning just after the preface, which reads as follows in the Fowler translation (pp. 137-139):

The whole story is in the first person, and the first person plural is used so as to include the narrator's companions, whether travelling on land, on sea, or on air.

20. Achilles Tatius, Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, 2.31.6, 3.1.1, 4.9.6.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Achilles Tatius (A.D. second century) includes a sea voyage in the Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon, and the appeal of the account is strengthened by first person narration." (p. 222)

Colin Hemer writes: "The same is true [that the first person narration is not limited to a voyage motif] of a more specific sample from a very different genre, the Hellenistic romance, where Achilles Tatius' hero Clitophon tells his story as a first person narration within a first person framework. In 2.31.6 and 3.1.1 'we' denotes Clitophon and Leucippe and their companions, and continues the pronoun used of the same party travelling by land in 2.31.4-5, which is not cited by Robbins. 4.9.6 is in direct speech, part of a lament in which Clitophon apostrophises his supposedly dead love and recalls their shared experiences." (p. 84)

21. Heliodorus, Ethiopian Story, 5.17.

Source: Underdowne, Thomas. An Aethiopian history of Heliodorus, Simpkin: London, 1924 [1587].

V. K. Robbins writes: "This style continues in the third century (A.D. 220-250) in Heliodorus' Ethiopian Story about Theagenes and Chariclea. The author has established third person style of narration up to this point, so he leads the voyage with this style. ... But after only a few lines, Heliodorus turns the narrative over to Calasiris for a personal account of the voyage." (p. 222)

The first person plural narration fits unobtrusively as part of Calasiris' speech.

22. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea.

Source: Huntingford, G. W. B. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Hakluyt: London, 1980.

V. K. Robbins writes: "A similar manual tradition emerges in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (A.D. 50-95). This document is a third person description of the harbors, cities and peoples along the coastline of the Indian Ocean. Even in this account, however, the propensity for first person plural is exhibited. When the author is describing a dangerous section of the coastline, he automatically slips into first person plural style. ... Thus, even in third person manual periploi, first person is likely to intrude." (p. 224)

The passage quoted by Robbins is in chapter 20:

Stanley Porter writes: "The Periplus, like a number of geographical texts, displays an unstudied and unsystematic use of person, the kind of thing to be expected from a non-literary document. For example, in 20 and 57, the Periplus uses first person plural as a substitute for the impersonal third-person singular in describing the course one (or 'we') would sail in a particular circumstance--not an actual voyage but a recommended course." (Paul in Acts, p. 21)

23. Arrian, Periplus of the Euxine Sea.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Arrian, however, is credited with a Periplus of the Euxine Sea. Because the author formulated the account as a letter to Hadrian, he was able to recount the voyage in first person plural." (p. 225)

There is no shift from third person to first person here.

24. Caesar, Gallic Wars 5.11.

Source: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.html

V. K. Robbins writes: "While Arrian perpetuated the third person historiographical style as employed by Xenophon, Ceasar (1st cent. B.C.) allowed first person plural comments within a third person narrative style. Most frequently, in the Gallic Wars, first person plural emerges in accounts of battle. But in at least one voyage account the author allows first person plural to intrude. ... In Caesar's account, therefore, an autobiographical feature is allowed within historiography, especially in battles and a voyage. Is it too much to suggest that this becomes a characteristic typology for historiography in the 1st century B.C. and A.D., and that the writer of Luke-Acts construes his narrative in relation to this typology?" (p. 225)

Stanley Porter writes: "He does cite Caesar's Gallic Wars (Bellum Gallicum) 5.11-13 as evidencing a shift from third-person to first-person technique, but this is a in a passage that has nothing to do with a sea voyage; in fact, it is not even in narrative, but recounts meteorological observations, as Barrett has pointed out." (pp. 22-23)

25. The Voyage of Hanno

Source: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

Source: http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hanno/hanno02.html

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

V. K. Robbins writes: "In Acts the narration shifts from third person to first person plural, and the narrator is not the main actor. A precise parallel exists in the Voyage of Hanno the Carthaginian. This document exists in Greek and was written down between 350-125 B.C. It reflects the convergence of the historiographical tradition and sea voyage tradition as it appears in Acts. Some interpreters suggest it was translated from Punic into Greek under the influence of the historian Polybius; others suggest the influence of Herodotus. This three page account begins with third person narration and shifts into first person narration ... First person plural narration continues to the end of the document, where, on account of the lack of further supplies, they return to Carthage." (pp. 225-226)

Colin Hemer writes: "The two opening sentences are in the third person, and the remainder of the document is in the first person plural. But paragraph 1 is a formal heading, recording briefly the explorer's commissioning. His report begins at paragraph 2, and is all in the 'we'-form, not as a literary device for a fiction, but because he reports on the actual adventures of his party. Paragraph 1 should be printed as a prefatory paragraph, as it is by K. Mueller, not as part of a continuous undifferentiated narrative, as it is by Robbins." ("First Persn Narrative in Acts 27-28," Tyndale Bulletin 36 [1985], pp. 82-83)

Stanley Porter writes: "Hanno's voyage, cited by Pervo and relied upon heavily by Robbins as one of his three most important examples, is more straigtforward than their presentations of it might lead one to believe. The use of third person at the beginning of the document (εδοξε...πλειν...και επλευσε) is reflective of the conventions of the scientific preface that Alexander has studied in detail. In her description, she shows that these prefaces can be isolated from the ensuing text, and that these prefaces have their own style and literary characteristics, often the use of the third-person or first-person singular. This describes Hanno's account quite accurately. The preface (1), which consists of a declaration by the Carthaginians regarding the sailing task of Hanno, is followed by a description of the voyage that the author undertook (2-18), conveyed throughout the rest of the work, as one might expect, in the first person plural (επλευσαμεν). Müller's edition understands the text that way and prints it as such, with a break between the preface and body of the text. This has implications for Robbins's analysis, however. If this were a valid parallel, just as this account in Hanno purports to be the record of an actual voyage by the narrator, are we to take the 'we' passages in Acts as the same kind of record? This is not what Robbins apparently has in mind. And neither are the literary proportions in Hanno's account at all comparable with what we find in Acts, where there are several smaller first person plural sections embedded within an essentially third-person narrative, not a first person plural narrative prefaced by a short third-person programmatic description." (pp. 21-22)

The entire document, apart from the preface, is written in the first person.

26. Episodes from the Third Syrian War

Source: not available.

V. K. Robbins writes: "Another parallel to the style of narration in Acts is present in a four-column papyrus dated ca. 246 B.C., which is best entitled Episodes from the Third Syrian War. I.1-II.11 contains third person narration. In II.12 the narration shifts to first person plural as a sea voyage is recounted." (p. 226)

Robbins provides this translation: ". . . Arzibazos, the satrap in Cilicia, intended to send [the captured money] to Ephesus for Laodice's group, but when the people of Soli and the satraps immediately agreed among themselves, and the associates of Pythagoras and Aristocles vigorously helped, and all were good men, it happened that the money was kept and both the city and the citadel became ours. But when Arzibazos escaped and reached the passes of the Tauros and some of the inhabitants cut him off at the entrance, he went back to Antioch. Then we [made ready] the things on the ships, and, when the first watch began, we embarked in as many ships as the harbor of Seleucia (at Orontes) was likely to hold and sailed to a port called Poseidon and we anchored ourselves at the eighth hour. Then, getting away from there in the morning, we went to Seleucia. And the priests and rulers and other citizens and officers and soldiers, crowned with wreaths, met us . . . (2.6-25)." (p. 226)

Colin Hemer writes: "Robbins says that column I line 1 to II.11 contains third person narration, which shifts to first person pluaral in II.12 as a sea voyage is narrated. But there is a difficulty in assessing the context: the first half of every line in the first column is lost, and no continuous sense can be reconstructed. Yet the surviving part of line 18 contains a first plural (παρ ημων) comparable with καθ' ημας in II.13 (not 12), to which Robbins attaches special significance. The real transition comes in II.16, where L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken restore an emphatic ημεις δε. The point throughout is that this is a narrative of conflict between 'us' and 'them', the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, narrated by a participant on the Ptolemaic side. Where the 'enemy' are at sea (II.2-3), their voyage is recounted in the third person, but Robbins' citation only begins at II.5, and misses the interaction of first and third persons which can be traced throughout the document, so far as columns I, III and IV are preserved, alike in land and sea episodes of the campaign." (p. 83)

Stanley Porter writes: "Regarding the Episodes from the Third Syrian War (Robbins's title), this is a fragmentary papyrus containing a narrative account of several episodes in the conflict in c. 246 BC between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. It appears that Robbins has moved beyond the evidence--the four column text is so fragmentary that one must work from a text missing the first half of every line of the first and third columns (the third is worse than the first), and thus without a continuous sense. It appears that 'we' is used for the Ptolemies, whose spokesman is narrating the account, and 'they' is used for the Seleucids. It is true that for the most part the 'we' portion is located on the sea and the 'they' portion on the land, but this is not maintained consistently, since at one place 'they' is used of what happened by sea (col. 2, lines 2-3). The pronouns are apparently used to designate the participants, not to indicate the literary location or convention." (p. 23)

27. The Antiochene Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius

Source: Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2, Vol. 2, Macmillan: New York, 1889.

V. K. Robbins writes: "In second and third century Christianity, two documents of the Acts-genre contain first person plural in relation to sea voyages. Undoubtedly the first century Acts of the Apostles has influenced these documents. It is informative, however, to observe first person plural narration in the midst of sea voyage material. In the Antiochene Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, third person narration shifts unannounced to first person plural as the author gives a summary of the voyage ... In these three texts and the book of Acts, third person narration is established as the style for recounting the events that occur. However, when a sea voyage begins the narration shifts, without explanation, to first person plural." (pp. 226-227)

Here is the complete document as given by Lightfoot.

J. B. Lightfoot writes: "It has been seen then, that these Acts have no claim to be regarded as an authentic narrative. But the possibility remains that they may have embodied some earlier document and thus may preserve a residuum of genuine tradition. Such a residuum, if it exists at all, will naturally be looked for in those poritions which profess to be related by eye-witnesses, and in which the first person plural is employed. ... Still I should be disposed to believe, that the martyrologist had incorporated into the latter portion of his narrative a contemporary letter of hte martyr's companions containing an account of the journey from Philippi and the death, though freely interpolating and altering it, where he was so disposed." (pp. 389-390)

Colin Hemer writes: "This is much the most difficult and elusive case. There is certainly an abrupt and unmarked shift to the first person plural in mid course. J. B. Lightfoot (pp. 383-391) is severe on the evident historical flaws of this account which seems to be composite and very late. But it is precisely where the 'we-section', allied to an eyewitness profession and to its intrinsic plausibility and lack of demonstrable blunders apparent elsewhere, which leads him to entertain the possibility that this part contains authentic tradition. In any case the document as a whole does not further Robbins' thesis. As it is probably both late and composite, it is at best uncertain material for arguing literary intention. Moreover, as it stands, the preceding part of the voyage (where this document contradicts the authentic letters) is rendered in the third person, and the 'we-passage' (which has better credentials) begins at sea but is largely devoted to leave-taking in Rome. The martyr is distinguished from those ostensibly present with him." (pp. 83-84)

Stanley Porter writes: "Robbins concludes his list of parallels considered significant with an example from the Antiochene Acts of Ignatius (Acta Martyrii Ignatii). However, this text is of questionable relevance to the entire discussion, since it is significantly later in date of composition than the book of Acts and composite in origin. One interesting correlation with the book of Acts, however, is the apparent trandom beginning and ending of the 'we' section during a sea voyage, and the extension of it beyond the end of the sea voyage. Lightfoot sees this as a method by which Ignatius is singled out from his companions, including the narrator, possibly, though not necessarily, including authentic tradition regarding Ignatius. This, of course, does nothing to support Robbins's hypothesis regarding the use of 'we' to indicate a convention for telling of sea voyages." (p. 24)

Rather than being a response to a sea voyage genre, the first person plural in these acts is a claim to presence at the events: the document says that "we" have "beheld these things with our own eyes." If this is considered to be an example in favor of any theory on the Acts of the Apostles, it would be the theory that the author of Luke-Acts has incorporated an earlier first person source.

28. The Acts of Peter and the Twelve

Source: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/actp.html

V. K. Robbins writes: "Yet another text holds interest for this study, although it does not represent an exact parallel to the narrative style of Acts. In The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, Nag Hammadi codex VI.1, the narrative alternates between first person and third person narration. Unfortunately, the first part of the text has been destroyed, so that it is impossible to know if the document began with first person or third person narrative style. The extant portion begins with a scene in which Peter and the apostles covenant with one another to take a special voyage on the sea. Immediately after this scene, they go down to the sea and begin their venture. First person plural narration governs the composition of these two episodes. ... For the purposes of this study, it would be informative to know if The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles began, as well as concluded, with third person narration. There is a possibility that it began with third person narrative style, adopted first person narrative style in the context of the sea voyage, then returned to third person style at the end of the account. Without further evidence, it is impossible to know. It does seem fair to conclude that this document, probably written during the latter part of the second century, has been influenced both by the sea voyage material in the canonical book of Acts and by first person narrative style in romance literature. Among the apocryphal Acts material, it attracts special interest because of the coincidence of first plural narration with a sea voyage. During the second and third centuries, however, first person narrative style influenced the apocryphal material beyond the context of sea voyages." (pp. 227-228)

V. K Robbins states: "In conclusion there are three texts, in addition to the book of Acts, where third person narrative style shifts to first person plural when a sea voyage is initiated. In a fourth text, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, the narration shifts freely among first person plural, first person singular, and third person narration." (p. 228)

The first clear break to third person narration is 5,2 where it is said that "Peter answered," whereas earlier the text says "I, Peter" (1,30). The first person narration is found again in 6,8. Here it is not during a voyage but while having been on land for a long time that the first person is used. A partition hypothesis has been suggested by Krause (as noted by R McL. Wilson and Douglas M. Parrot in The Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. 11, p. 200). While the mysteries of this text await further study, it does not provide an example of generic first person narration during travel over sea, given that the first person is found in other portions of the text.

29. Summary of Anabasis

Source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...n.+Anab.+7.8.1

Source: Brownson, Carleton L. Xenophon, vols. 2-3, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1921-1922.

V. K. Robbins writes: "If we think it would be impossible for an author who did not paticipate in the events to compose in this style, we need to entertain one more piece of information. Xenophon, as we recall, used third person narration throughout the Anabasis, even for scenes in which he depicts himself as a participant. A later copyist of the Anabasis, obviously not a participant in the events, wrote a conlcuding summary which he attached to the narrative. ... This copyist, and many writers, entered into the narrative as a participant even though later analysts can see that the style of narration does not comply with the rest of the document. Perhaps we should suggest that Luke participated in the sea voyages precisely in this way." (pp. 241-242)

The passage appended to the Anabasis reads as follows (in the Loeb translation):

Although it is not clear why the first person plural appears here, this addition describes a journey over land, not over sea.

Conclusion

Now that we have surveyed the material to which Robbins refers, we can reach some conclusions about maritime narrative and the use of first person plural. The Shipwrecked Sailor, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Dio Chrysostom, Josephus, and Lucian illustrate the change from first person singular to first person plural during travel on a ship. Since sea voyages are always undertaken with others, it is expected for the narrator, if already speaking in the first person, to use the first person plural. The interesting feature of Acts is that the first person plural is used in a generally third person narrative. As Colin Hemer states, "Of course such narratives are often first person accounts, because they recall personal experience, and plural because they recall communal experience. The same tendency is as true of colloquial Engilsh 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." (p. 82) Robbins suggests that the first person plural intrudes in the narratives of sea voyages found in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Caesar, Hanno, the Third Syrian War, and Antiochene Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, as well as possibly in the Acts of Peter and the Twelve and the concluding summary of Anabasis. The difficulties in interpreting these texts as representing a generic style of first person plural in seafaring stories have been indicated above. The line in the Periplus is not a story but a recommendation, Caesar's account is not even a sea voyage, the entirety of Hanno's account is in the first person excepting the preface, the fragmentary Third Syrian War correctly uses pronouns for different perspectives, the Antiochene Acts may incorporate an older text framed as a first person account, the first person is not limited to seafaring in the Acts of Peter and the Twelve, and the scribal gloss of the Anabasis is about an overland journey. Careful analysis shows what one would expect on common sense grounds: the first person is used to indicate presence at the events narrated. There are no known examples of a simply generic first person plural (where the person speaking is not present but rather employing an expected style) in an ancient sea voyage story, and this suggests strongly that an ancient author would not have slipped into the first person plural in response to a supposed demand of a sea travel genre. There is no precedent, and, thus, there is no such literary device.
[list=1]
Brief Bibliography[*]Barrett, C. K. 1987. "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning and Method (ed. B. P. Thompson; Hull University Press), pp. 51-64.[*]Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1989. Luke the Theologian (New York: Paulist Press), pp. 16-23.[*]Hemer, Colin. 1985. "First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28," in Tyndale Bulletin 36 (ed. M. J. Harris; Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press), pp. 79-109.[*]Porter, Stanley. 2001. Paul in Acts (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson), pp. 20-24.[*]Praeder, Susan M. 1987. "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts," in Novum Testamentum 29 (Leiden: E.J. Brill), pp. 193-218.[*]Robbins, Vernon K. 1978. "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. C. H. Talbert; Perspectives in Religious Studies; Special Series No. 5; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press), pp. 215-42.[/list=1]

Toto

Peter - I really have little more to say on this since the last go round with Layman. But if you can get permission from Robbins, I will edit the HTML for his article so you can put it online.

I think you have produced a more polite and better researched version of Layman's diatribe, but it still does not engage Robbins on his own terms.

You have not dealt with some basic questions. How do you define a literary convention? What evidence would you expect to find for it? What would disprove it?

If the use of "we" is not some sort of literary convention, do you think it constitutes evidence for showing these passages from Acts to be part of an eyewitness account? If so, why?

Peter Kirby

OK, I will ask V. K. Robbins about that.

What are the terms under which I should engage Robbins?

I don't think that what I have produced is a "version of Layman's diatribe."

There was some talk on XTalk about the difference between "precedent" and "convention," with the former being easier to prove. I did not use the word "convention" at all in my comments, although it is found in quotes from Robbins and Porter. I used the word "precedent," which is any singular instance of the alleged phenomenon. The alleged phenomenon in question is a shift from third person to first person plural, without the speaker claiming to be present (in truth or in the story), during a sea voyage narrative. The evidence that I expect is an account in which the first person plural is found in a sea voyage, while elsewhere the third person is used, where the speaker does not appear to be intimating his or her own presence.

I deliberately did not go on to discuss the issue of the authorship of Acts. The point of my essay is that there is no ancient precedent for an otherwise unexplained switch from third person to first person in response to a sea voyage genre. This rules out the theory that Robbins proposes on the "we passages," but it does not positively demonstrate another theory. Even if the originator of the "we passages" is claiming to be present at the events, that claim could be a lie or fiction. A decent online article covering these issues is found here:

http://www.degruyter.de/journals/znw/pdf/93_78.pdf

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Thanks for that article.. The discussion was good although I felt that the conclusion was a bit contrived.

It's been a while since I read Robbins article, but this is what I remember as its theme: the "we passages" contained a literary device that served to heighten the interest and the drama in certain passages in Acts. The use of "we" is an allusion to common sea adventure stories from the era, and not necessarily an indication of personal participation (although Robbins does not rule that out.)

Robbins' thesis is very literary, tentative, suggestive. He did not claim to have found a key element that proved or disproved anything about Acts.

The opposition to his ideas, from Colin Hemer and some of his students, is totally disproportionate. It appears that historicists need to believe that there is some historical basis for Acts, and the "we passages" are a key linchpin to their faith, so that any indication that the passages are not first person narrative has to be shot down mercilessly. I am a little disturbed that you just quote Hemer as if he were a disinterested observer.

Robbins discusses sea adventures in general, although he does not claim that each of the adventures in his article is comparable to the "we passages." Both you and Layman spent a lot of time discussing examples that Robbins lists as background but does not claim to support his thesis, which just adds to the volume of cases you can claim do not fit the pattern.

The opposition to Robbins has also spent a lot of time finding anything to distinguish each of Robbins' examples, some of which seem contrived. I may continue with this later (have to get up tomorrow.)

Bede

Peter, thank you for this. You have done a lot of work and set things out clearly. For those of us who like our history based on facts rather than literary criticism, it is good to see one such example of the later being properly examined.

I presume that the article will go on 'Did Jesus Exist?' Perhaps a nod to Layman for opening up this debate would be appropriate somewhere, even though he is (rightly) not an authority you quote from.

Anyway, thanks again. As I'm sure, if only out of politeness, you have informed Robbins of your critique, it would be interesting to know what his responce is.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Geoff Hudson

When Jesus goes on a sea voyage, its always "they", not "we", so may be he never made a sea voyage. But then I have maintained that the real events related to "Jesus" all occurred in Judea on land, and that they really applied to John the prophet who was a landlubber, as were his disciples. There were no "boats", "nets", or "fishermen", and the lake, as in Luke, was the Dead Sea, the Lake Asphaltitis, where there are no fish.

Geoff

Toto

I think Peter needs to confront the central issue: what is the meaning of the "we passages"?

I see three primary options:

1. random noise of no particular significance.

=> the primary argument against this is that the author of Luke-Acts produced a well crafted document without the sorts of loose ends that this implies, and there is a certain pattern to the use of "we" - sea adventures and their surrounding events.

2. some evidence of an eyewitness account.

=> the same arguments apply as in 1. The author of Luke-Acts tells us that s/he used a number of sources, one of which might have been an eyewitness account; but that author did not just cut and paste, but rewrote passages, corrected Mark's errors, etc., and could have changed "we" to the third person. We also know that many first person accounts from the era were written in the third person.

So aLuke-Acts must have had a reason for the use of "we" other than a reference to an actual first person account.

Besides, if this were a first person account, we would expect some other indication of it - the name of the person, some use of "I" in addition to "we". We might also expect that this traveling companion of Paul's would know more about Paul, might have read his letters or heard of them, etc. These are all the standard reasons for rejecting the idea that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul's.

3. some sort of literary device meant to add to the narrative.

=> I think this is the default position, and the most reasonable one. But the question then becomes, what sort of evidence supports it, and what evidence would refute it?

I think that you can make an argument from the text alone that the use of "we" is a mere literary device, even if the evidence of an exact literary precedent is weak or nonexistent. I don't think it matters that you can pick apart Robbins' examples and find a distinguishing feature here or there.

Besides, you say

However, you and your sources (primarily Hemer) explain away all of the evidence by assuming that the first person plural always appears to be intimating his own presence. In The Voyage of Hanno, there is a shift from third person to first person plural, but you define that away by assume the first two sentences are a "preface" and then assuming that the rest of the document is a first person account, although there is no evidence for this. (I recall arguing over this with Layman: the first sentence looks like a preface, the second seems to start the narrative in the third person.)

Similarly with The Antiochene Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, which follows a similar pattern of shifting from third to second person plural - but which your sources waive away as a later document, and one in which the use of "we" reflected first person narrative - although there is no real evidence of this.

Anabasis does support Robbins' thesis, but you waive that away because it is a battle, and not on sea. But it does support the shift from 3rd person to second person plural with no apparent explanation.

In short, as I said in the prior manifestation of this debate, I think Robbins has an interesting case, probably not very strong, but he himself does not claim too much for it. I don't want to get into defending him, because he does a better job of it (which is why I volunteered to edit the HTML for his article - I think anyone reading the article can appreciate his argument for what it is.)

I think also that he is a liberal Christian who is avoiding the difficult issues of the objective truth of the scriptures by substituting literary criticism, and the opposition to his article is fueled by crypto-fundamentalists who cling desparately to the idea that the NT has some historical value. I'm not really sure what side an atheist should take in that battle.

Layman

Although I agree with you that your article is not a "version" of my earlier posts, it certainly has the benefit of more research and analysis of the primary evidence. Speacking of which, thanks for spending so much time delving into the primary sources.

Peter Kirby

Bede, what you see above is "pre-publication." Eventually I will post it on the web and notify Robbins of it.

As the starter of this thread, I get to define what the central issue is here. That issue is whether there are examples of the literary device that Robbins describes in ancient literature. I am not entering into the larger question of the authorship of Acts in this thread. If you would like to pursue that point, please start a new thread. (I may participate there anyway--but not here.)

The matters that I note are not irrelevant details (like, say, whether the account concerns the Adriatic or the Aegean). The matters that I note concern the defining feature of the literary device that Robbins claims to find: that a generally third person account can switch to first person just for sea voyage narratives without implying the speaker's presence at the events.

The question of whether the first two sentences should be identified as a preface is an important point but not the most important point. The most important point is that the document as a whole is written from a first person perspective, which is plain to any casual reader. There is no shift in a generally third person narrative into first person for a sea voyage and then back again into the third person. Is it really your contention that the first sentence is the preface, that the second sentence is the only sentence in the whole body of the document to be written in the third person, and that the entire remainder of the document constitutes a shift from third to first person narration for the sea voyage genre?

Look again--I have provided the entire text above. In one of the "we passages" of the Antiochene Acts, it is said that "we" have "beheld these things with our own eyes." That certainly sounds like evidence of first person narrative. Lightfoot argued that the latter part of this account derived from an earlier source (itself presumably all in the first person) long before Robbins was born.

I think you mean a shift from 3rd person to first person, not second. But it is wrong in any case, as there is no shift made by any one writer. The concluding summary is by a separate hand, so how can this be used as an example of an author making an unexplained change of person? The scribe simply has not understood the conventions for ancient historiography and supposes that Xenophon might have written this appendage in the first person. And it is not the position of Robbins, so far as I know, that ancient documents change person inexplicably--it is Robbins's thesis that these changes, in some cases, are in response to a sea voyage genre.

I also encourage people to read Robbins for themselves.

Obviously any person, atheist or not, should take those positions that are supported by reason.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Peter Kirby is a "crypto-fundamentalist"?