Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 12-31-2002, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I think that there are many more obstacles, (and I wouldn't call this a "favorite", since I have only seen two religious liberals use it), which is why the scholarly consensus is that gLuke was not written by a companion of Paul. But I'm hoping to leave work early and avoid thinking about this until I see what Robbins actually said.

There is no "scholarly consensus" on that issue. Not by far. Did you just miss my references to Fitzmyer? Nor is he the only one. There are many who find the arguments for authorship by a companion of Paul to be persuasive.

Even Robin Lane Fox -- no apologist -- accepts that conclusion and dismisses attempts to argue otherwise. RLF, The Unauthorized Version.

Toto · 12-31-2002, 02:18 PM

Did you miss that quote I typed into the thread that preceded this one?

Thiessen and Merz, page 32:

Quote:

According to church tradition, Luke the physician and traveling companion of Paul, mentioned in Philemon 24;Col 4.14; II Tim 4.11 is said to have composed the Gospel and Acts. Contrary to this view, which is occasionally still put forward today, a critical concensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters. For example, in the Acts account of the life of Paul the second trip to Jerusalem before the Apostolic Council in 11.30;12.25 contradicts what Paul himself says in Gal. 1.17-2.1. Luke denies Paul the title apostle, which was central to his own self-understanding. Genuinely Pauline theology appears only sparsely. The unknown author of Luke-Acts was certainly not a companion of Paul.

No mention of the "we" passages.

Layman · 12-31-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Did you miss that quote I typed into the thread that preceded this one?

Thiessen and Merz, page 32:

No mention of the "we" passages.

I'm not sure what your point is? You stated that there was a "scholarly consensus" that Acts was not written by a companion of Paul.

I pointed out that this was an overstatement. And a significant one at that. Fitzymer, Fox, Witherington, Bruce, Hendel, and other respected historians and/or New Testament scholars have concluded that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.

Toto · 12-31-2002, 02:41 PM

My point? I guess that "critical consensus" doesn't include a few of your favorites, but that's not my problem. There are always going to be outliers from some consensus, especially in a soft area like Biblical studies, where theories outnumber facts.

But at least you can see that the case against Luke's authorship of Acts does not depend on the "we" passages.

Layman · 12-31-2002, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
[B]My point? I guess that "critical consensus" doesn't include a few of your favorites, but that's not my problem. There are always going to be outliers from some consensus, especially in a soft area like Biblical studies, where theories outnumber facts.

If "critical consensus" does not consider the views of scholars like of Robin Lane Fox, Martin Hendel, Ben Witherington, and Joseph Fitymzyer, then it sounds like Theissen is the one whose definition is untenable.

Perhaps it is your "favorite" that is grossly overstating her case?

Quote:

But at least you can see that the case against Luke's authorship of Acts does not depend on the "we" passages.

Only if you find a way of removing them from the equation. Or you ignore them. As you seem wont to do. They are an important part of any discussion of Acts' authorship.

Layman · 01-09-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Me neither. Maybe I'll email him later today.

Vorkosigan

I was curious if you had tried to email Professor Robbins Vork. Or had heard anything.

Toto · 01-09-2003, 02:32 PM

Layman - I really don't want to get back to this topic until I have gotten a copy of the essay in question.

But I cannot take seriously the idea that the use of the first person plural is any sort of indication of accuracy, whether or not it can be shown to be a literary convention. Fictional works can be written in the first person, and were written in the first person in classical times. If this is the strongest part of the case for authenticity, there is not very much of a case.

Also, Vork let me know that he is going to be swamped with work for the next few months, and we won't be hearing from him for a while.

leonarde · 01-09-2003, 02:48 PM

Partial post by Toto:

Quote:

But I cannot take seriously the idea that the use of the first person plural is any sort of indication of accuracy, whether or not it can be shown to be a literary convention. Fictional works can be written in the first person, and were written in the first person in classical times.

[below sentence edited to read 1st person 2x]
But it isn't just that the 1st person plural is USED, it is that there is a SWITCH (from 3rd person to 1st person plural) at certain points in the narrative. Luke's Greek prose is considered good so this switch is all but inexplicable if there's no convention of using it for maritime descriptions etc. [add via edit] One possible explanation: the "we" passages reflect when the Luke author was an eyewitness (ie when he was a traveling companion of Paul [end edit].

Plus the opening lines of Luke's Gospel (the Gospel and Acts being
companion pieces) indicate that the author was TRYING to be accurate (which would not be necessary in a work of fiction).

Cheers!

Layman · 01-09-2003, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Layman - I really don't want to get back to this topic until I have gotten a copy of the essay in question.

But I cannot take seriously the idea that the use of the first person plural is any sort of indication of accuracy, whether or not it can be shown to be a literary convention. Fictional works can be written in the first person, and were written in the first person in classical times. If this is the strongest part of the case for authenticity, there is not very much of a case.

How many ways are you going to say the same thing Toto? And how many times? You have made it quite clear that nothing will convince you that Acts is something other than fiction. You have also made it clear that you have no response at this time to the topic of the post--whether the "we-passages" were common literary devices in contemporary hellenistic literure for portraying sea-voyages.

Quote:

Also, Vork let me know that he is going to be swamped with work for the next few months, and we won't be hearing from him for a while.

Thanks for the info.

Toto · 01-09-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
How many ways are you going to say the same thing Toto? And how many times? You have made it quite clear that nothing will convince you that Acts is something other than fiction. You have also made it clear that you have no response at this time to the topic of the post--whether the "we-passages" were common literary devices in contemporary hellenistic literure for portraying sea-voyages.

Getting a bit testy there? How have I made it clear that "nothing" will convince me? There are things that would convince me - a new find of documentary evidence from a different point of view that provided independent corroboration of Acts, for example, would be a start. But merely the use of "we" in some parts, but not others - there's no way you could convince a court that document X was reliable just because words in the document indicated it was written in the first person plural.

And I think that most scenes in Acts are fictional, but I could be persuaded that parts of it reflect history. Robert Eisenman and Sid Green seem to think that there is some historical use to be made of Acts, although probably not one that you would agree with.

And, Leonarde, so what if there is a switch between two different narrative voices? The easiest explanation is that Acts was cobbled together from two or more different documents. Use of the first person plural still does not indicate that one of those documents was based on personal observation.

This is hardly the biggest mystery in the Bible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-31-2002, 02:41 PM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	My point? I guess that "critical consensus" doesn't include a few of your favorites, but that's not my problem. There are always going to be outliers from some consensus, especially in a soft area like Biblical studies, where theories outnumber facts. But at least you can see that the case against Luke's authorship of Acts does not depend on the "we" passages.

01-09-2003, 02:32 PM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman - I really don't want to get back to this topic until I have gotten a copy of the essay in question. But I cannot take seriously the idea that the use of the first person plural is any sort of indication of accuracy, whether or not it can be shown to be a literary convention. Fictional works can be written in the first person, and were written in the first person in classical times. If this is the strongest part of the case for authenticity, there is not very much of a case. Also, Vork let me know that he is going to be swamped with work for the next few months, and we won't be hearing from him for a while.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.