'we' and Acts, and Paul's existence

[TedM]

Ok. I won't keep pulling stuff out like this. I just ordered a book from FF Bruce on Acts, and may well get the Pervo book for an opposing view. I have long wanted to form an opinion. Seems there are many theories about Christian origens, and so many ways to approach it, but that a study of Acts -- our best source CLAIMING to be giving us those origins -- should be mandatory. Seems like the sheer volume of it should enable one to form an opinion more easily than the smaller stuff like the TF which can more easily be explained away.

[Secret Alias]

Back to the 'we' sections for a moment. All that this demonstrates is that it is very likely - I would say 'almost certain' - that our recension of Acts has been redacted sometime in the second century. The 'we' section can be argued to coincide with the introduction of Luke as the preferred disciple of Paul. Originally that disciple was John also called Mark. If we were to reconstruct a series of proposed 'layers' to Acts let's start with Epiphanius's attestation of a 'Hebrew' text of Acts where Christians are identified as 'Ishim.' The next stage in transmission would be a text which has John-Mark as the disciple of both Peter and Paul (the glue as it were who holds the narrative together) and no mention of Luke. The third stage in transmission is our text which introduces Luke and the 'we' sections. One of many many-corrupted texts in our canon.

[Secret Alias]

I think a good case can be made that our Acts drew on earlier material - the most obvious example is the stoning of Stephan. A good argument has been made that Stephan's speech sounds very Samaritan or better yet Dosithean. I don't think the presence of sectarian arguments in Stephan's speech is attributable to 'faithfulness' of the author of Acts. Acts took this story from some earlier source.

[TedM]

Back to the 'we' sections for a moment. All that this demonstrates is that it is very likely - I would say 'almost certain' - that our recension of Acts has been redacted sometime in the second century.

How so? How does it 'demonstrate' anything like that? Seems to me it can only be counted as a possibility--but as the commentary noted, an unlikely one due to it's lack of apologetic markers, which seem to be more commonly used. A theory like that has to be analyzed in conjunction with other things -- how likely is it that someone writing in say 160 would have known all of the things mentioned in Acts?

The 'we' section can be argued to coincide with the introduction of Luke as the preferred disciple of Paul. Originally that disciple was John also called Mark.

?? The introduction of Luke says nothing about Mark, John, Paul or Luke.

If we were to reconstruct a series of proposed 'layers' to Acts let's start with Epiphanius's attestation of a 'Hebrew' text of Acts where Christians are identified as 'Ishim.' The next stage in transmission would be a text which has John-Mark as the disciple of both Peter and Paul (the glue as it were who holds the narrative together) and no mention of Luke. The third stage in transmission is our text which introduces Luke and the 'we' sections. One of many many-corrupted texts in our canon.

Yes, I'd like to see such a reconstruction if a coherent one can be produced.

[TedM]

I think a good case can be made that our Acts drew on earlier material - the most obvious example is the stoning of Stephan. A good argument has been made that Stephan's speech sounds very Samaritan or better yet Dosithean. I don't think the presence of sectarian arguments in Stephan's speech is attributable to 'faithfulness' of the author of Acts. Acts took this story from some earlier source.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that if the author of Luke-Acts did rely on sources earlier than the day of his writing that would somehow disqualify the work as being authentic to a companion of Paul?

[Peter Kirby]

the Pervo book

The book I mentioned is on the impact of Paul (basically, everything but an analysis of the 'genuine' epistles -- starting from deutero-Paul, going on through canonical and apocryphal acts, etc.). He has other books actually on Acts.

"Profit with Delight" would probably be the one to pick up, for a duel of viewpoints on the genre of Acts.

[TedM]

Thanks Peter. eom.

[Bernard Muller]

This is what I wrote about the "we" passages in my website (http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html)

Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16):

A) The first two (out of three) "we" passages keep going when the "we" travel by land and even after arriving at destination (Philippi & Jerusalem).

B) In Acts20:1-6, the "we" member(s) are not named (as in the two other "we" passages) but are those who reached Troas with Paul, ahead of the "we":
Ac20:4-6 "And Sopater of Berea accompanied him [Paul] to Asia--also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas. But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days."

C) The first "we" "appears" with Paul at/near Troas (which had no Christians then) as a Christian missionary close to him:
Ac16:10 "Now after he [Paul] had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them."
Then "we" goes to Macedonia with Paul. However it "disappears" when staying in Philippi (as a guest, not a resident --Ac16:15), before Paul & Silas get in trouble & go to jail, but after a Christian community has been created among Gentile women (Ac16:13-15).

Notes:
a) Since Paul traveled with Timothy & Silas only (according to Ac16:1-3), with the former, a new addition from "southern" Galatia, the lesser one of the trio then, the "we" is most likely Timothy. At least, that's what "Luke" wanted his/her audience to believe.
b) In the first "we" passage (Ac16:10-17), Timothy is never named but resurfaced later in Berea (Ac17:14-15), when he & Silas stay behind while Paul goes to Athens.
c) According to my research, "Luke" was a Gentile Roman Christian woman from Philippi; see this page http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html#lk for explanation. That would explain "Luke" using Timothy as a witness for the "historic" crossing from Asia to Macedonia (because of the vision & God!) and the way Christianity started in Philippi (among women, one of them named & mentioned prominently!).
d) Timothy was well known to the Philippians, more so because later he visited them (without Paul): Php4:15 + Ac18:5, Ac19:22, & Php2:19-22
Php2:19-22 "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, ... For I have no one like-minded, who will sincerely care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are of Christ Jesus. But you know his proven character, that as a son with his father he served with me in the gospel."

D) On the second "we" trip (Ac20:6-21:17, from Philippi to/in Jerusalem), Timothy is named among Paul's companions and consequently cannot be one of the "we" (20:4). Because this "we" starts from Philippi, there is a good chance they were from Corinth or/and Philippi: these cities harbored important Christian communities then, but do not have named representatives with Paul (but Berea and Thessalonica have some! Ac20:4, previously quoted).

E) For the third "we" travel (Ac27:1-28:16, from Cesarea to Rome), the "we" starts as apparently being with Paul in Cesarea, according to:
Ac27:1-2 "And when it was decided that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment. So, entering a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, meaning to sail along the coasts of Asia. Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, was with us."
But no other Christian is reported to be a prisoner then with Paul, according to 'Acts' itself! However, Ac24:23 suggests Paul's friends were allowed to visit him.
That could be one of those or "Aristarchus", a close associate of Paul (Ac19:29,20:4 (already quoted), Phm1:24), who would follow his boss wherever he was staying or going.
It is possible; but what about "was with us" (better translated as "being with us")?

Notes:
a) Here "us" can mean all people on board, as the preceding "we" and the other "we" & "us" in Ac27:4-7:
Ac27:7 "When we had sailed slowly many days, and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, the wind not permitting us to proceed, we sailed under the shelter of Crete off Salmone."
b) In ancient literature, it was customary to use first person plural when on board a ship.
c) It seems "them" (in Ac27:2) would have been out of place in the "we" overall context and would wrongly associate Aristarchus with "they", that is the Roman authorities of Cesarea.

F) It is clear there is no general rule about the "we". In the first case, it is implied the "we" is from the perspective of (allegedly!) Timothy; in the second one, from the one of unnamed companion(s) of Paul from Corinth or/and Philippi (but NOT Timothy or Aristarchus; see Ac20:4-6). And finally in the last case, the "we" is probably some companion(s) of Paul in Cesarea, such as Aristarchus.
The "we" word is therefore loosely used and does not indicate a same "we" person (such as the author) participated in the three journeys, but rather different ones. And it appears "Luke" used "we" to suggest a certain passage is quoted directly from eyewitness(es) when the rest would be collected/compiled from various second/third hand sources.

Note: these eyewitnesses (true or alleged) might have died before 'Acts' was written, allowing the author to embellish their story (more so on the journey to Rome!).

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

Thanks Bernard. I can't say I follow nor understand the basic premise as to why 'we' isn't being used by the author to include him/herself as it would normally be interpreted, but when time permits I can look at it more closely, as I know you think about these things very carefully and I usually find your views quite convincing.

[Secret Alias]

Are you saying that if the author of Luke-Acts did rely on sources earlier than the day of his writing that would somehow disqualify the work as being authentic to a companion of Paul?

I don't understand desperate logic. There are clear signs the guy is no good but the girl is so desperate to have a man she overlooks the warning signs. In the same way:

1. Epiphanius makes explicit knows someone who saw a Hebrew text of Acts which was very old which had different terminology:

Browsing through them he [his Jewish friend Joseph] found the Gospel of John translated from Greek to Hebrew, as I said, and the Acts of the Apostles—and Matthew's Gospel moreover, which is actually Hebrew. After reading from them he was once more distressed in mind, for he was somehow troubled over the faith of Christ. But now he was prodded for two reasons, his reading of the books and the patriarch’s initiation. Still, as often happens, his heart was hardened.

and again at the end of the section:

So much for my account and description of these events, which I recalled here because of the translation of the books, the rendering from Greek to Hebrew of the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles.

and again:

They speak of other Acts of Apostles in which there is much thoroughly impious material, and from them arm themselves against the truth in deadly earnest.

the section begins and makes continual reference to this text of Acts calling Christians by the name 'Jesaeans' (Ishim):

So when they were called Jessaeans then shortly after the Saviour's ascension and after Mark had preached in Egypt,29 in those times certain other persons, supposed followers of the apostles, seceded in their turn. I mean the Nazoraeans, whom I am discussing here. They were Jewish, were attached to the Law, and had circumcision.

People have struggled over where the Mark in Egypt material comes from. I suppose that this was part of the original interest in Mark (John) in Acts. No one has ever come up with a better explanation.

2. The stoning of Stephan is from an older source - perhaps the Hebrew text of Acts given its apparent familiarity with native Hebrew sectarian groups like the Dositheans

3. The original text of Acts was developed from the testimony of John/Mark. This becomes apparent when we see Mark (John) WITHOUT the introduction of Luke in the narrative. The invention of Luke is to (a) slight Mark and (b) reorient Christianity away from Mark's eventual founding of the Church in Alexandria. Clement cites from Acts.