Toto

Layman - I will not be able to get back to this topic until later, but you say:

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

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What other theories about which issue?

Layman

I will be out of town on business myself.

Take all the time you need.

The significance of the "we-passages" issue. You seem to admit that Robbins' theory is not established, but judge it worthy of acceptance because of the purported "weakness" of the Author-participation theory.

Toto

So what other theories are there that you would like to discuss?

Layman

That's not what I said. I said that since your case for Robbin's theory seems mostly to be a rejection of the author-participation theory, I asked if you were aware of other theories about the cause of the "we-passages" in Acts.

You can start another thread on another theory if you would like. Or, when I have the time and interest, I may do so myself.

Toto

I think that Robbins' theory has more explanatory power than the author-participation theory, that's all. But I don't recall any other explicit theories. (I guess there is the "Acts is all fiction anyway" theory.)

There are only a few loose ends on this that I feel the need to tie up. I'm not sure that it is worth more time than that.

Layman

Have you read Kummel? He comes down on the side of seeing the "we-passages" as portions of a journal or account left by one of Paul's companions. Thus separating the author of Acts from the author of the journal.

Do whatever your heart tells you to, Toto.

It does not appear that you have established 1) the existence of any sort of convention along the lines Robbins suggests, or 2) that Acts fits into any such convention regardless.

Toto

To recapitulate:

This thread started when Layman published a detailed refutation of a proposition that he had heard about, which claimed that the use of “we” in Acts was merely a literary convention common in Hellenistic sea stories. Layman evidently wants to argue that the use of “we” in certain passages in Acts means that it was written by a travelling companion of Paul’s. (Although I don’t think he can make a good case for Luke-Acts being written by Paul’s companion in any case, and most critics who take the opposite view do not rely on Robbins argument.)

The idea originates in an article by Vernon Robbins, "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages" in Perspectives on Luke-Acts. C. H. Talbert, ed., which combines two articles written in 1975. It appears at the early part of a distinguished CV that marks Robbins as the originator of the school of “socio-rhetorical analysis”. Robbins’ work is also used by Christian pastors.

In his 1978 article, Robbins postulates that the author of Luke/Acts wrote in Rome for an audience of Roman Christians, and that his purpose was to show “how we got here” – how a religion that started in Galilee was spread by the apostle Paul through the Mediterranean, ending with the church in Rome. His thesis, as detailed near the end of this article, is that the author of Luke/Acts used “we” in certain parts in order to project himself back into the action, and to dramatize the action for his readers. In this article, at least, the idea that “we” is a mere literary convention in sea stories is part of a much broader theme.

In the first part of the article, Robbins theorizes that “we” is used in certain passages related to sea voyages because the standard Hellenistic sea voyage of the period tended to use the first person plural when writing of sea voyages, whether or not the narrator was present during the voyage. Layman has cited a number of opposing scholars who dispute this, principally by finding other reasons for the use of first person plural narration, in particular that the narrator was actually present. In previous posts I have objected to some of his arguments, because they misidentify passages that Robbins used to support his theory, and misstate the theory.

I still object to Layman’s arguments on the Voyage of Hanno, which is one of Robbins main examples. It is indisputable that in the Voyage of Hanno sentence 2 is written in the third person; it appears to begin the narration and not be a part of the introduction; and it is followed immediately by the 3rd sentence in the first person plural. (The entire text can be read here, and the editors of that page have indicated they regard the first sentence as an intro, and the second as part of the narrative.) So I think that the objection to this example that the first two sentences are part of a preface, fails, and fails miserably.

Robbins’ strongest example was not actually addressed by Layman or his sources: it is at the end of the article (and possibly not in the earlier version that some of the critics used): this is a case where a copyist of Xenophon’s Anabasis, while obviously not a participant in the battle described, added a concluding summary which used the first person – demonstrating that the first person plural can be used for emphasis even where the writer is not present.

In any case, it is simply incorrect to describe the argument against Robbins as “more modern research” – Robbins is a modernist, and his critics are not using more recent tools or concepts. This is just a disagreement among scholars, hardly the first or the last.

The second part of Robbins’ article outlines the literary structure of Luke-Acts, showing how the thesis of the first part fits into the overall scheme of the two books. Robbins shows how the rhetorical device known as chiasmus is used, so that gLuke tells a story of <Jesus spreads the Gospel on land in Galilee> paralleled by Acts’ story of <Paul spreads the Gospel via sea through the Mediterranean.> Robbins notes that the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a lake, is described as Lake Genneseret in gLuke, and that the author of Luke not only downgrades the Sea to a Lake, but removes all of the scenes in Mark that place Jesus on the sea, calming the waves, etc. – as if he were saving the theme of sea adventures to use in Acts.

{Note – chiasmus is a familiar tool for Biblical scholars – see, e.g. Mark's Chiastic Gospel Structure }

In short, there is an interesting but perhaps not overwhelming case that “we” reflects a specific literary convention in Hellenistic sea stories. There is a much more persuasive case that Acts contains a number of literary conventions and borrowings and is not meant as straight history (see, e.g. Who Wrote the Gospels? by Randel Helms). But I do not feel that the single issue of the “we” passages is important enough at this time to do what I would have to do to nail it down – get all of the articles written on this subject and track down all of the classic references (after learning Greek, of course). I think that Robbins’ case is plausible, and he is a reputable scholar (if that means anything). He has apparently moved on into other areas of research, and it is not even clear if he would write his paper the same way today as he wrote it then, although he has not disowned the article. The objections to his thesis that Layman has presented appear to be driven by ideology and polemics, and to misstate his case.

I notice on the first page of this thread that Peter Kirby had ordered Talbot’s book. I would be interested to know if he agrees with my assessment.

Peter Kirby

I have read Robbins' article, but I'd also like to read the ancient sources and the replies that Robbins has received. I am currently waiting on Tyndale House to respond to my request for a back issue.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - Just out of curiosity, do you think this is a significant issue? I had some questions about Robbins' assertions, but no way of answering them without some in depth research, and I find it hard to justify putting any more time into this.

There were some side issues that I found that were more interesting for me, in particular the references to The Bacchae in Luke.

Peter Kirby

Yes, I do think that the matter is significant enough to be worth my time. Research on this matter will allow me to appropriately revise my "Information" on Luke-Acts for Early Christian Writings.

best,
Peter Kirby