Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:41 pmWhat do you think of the points Trobisch makes in his article, some of which I quoted in my first post in this thread, in relation to the 'we' passages which your OP in this thread is about?
Well, I certainly agree with him that canonical Luke-Acts makes it look like the (unnamed) author wrote both volumes before the death of Paul. I like Trobisch in general, as well, though of course I am not going to agree on every point. As for the main point of the article, I am very interested in the idea of canonical John, in addition to canonical Luke, reacting to Marcion; I have given that notion some thought before, and will certainly consider the article in that respect, as well.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Post by Secret Alias »

Trobisch had the misfortune of getting tied up with the Museum of the Bible so all the liberal haters make it like he is a 'collaborator' with Hitler. It's fucking insane. Trobisch has shown a loser like me nothing but kindness. So he works/worked for the Greens? I'd work for them. I'd work for anyone that would pay me - like Michael Caine's attitude to making movies. Sometimes I hate these self-righteous scholars who sneer about a colleagues employer. In this field just getting paid is an accomplishment.

The advantage of him being tied with the Museum of the Bible is we've run across each other when I am in town to do work with the OKC Thunder (which is itself a trip [extended segue coming] my son who was a huge Russell Westbrook and KD fan would tag along. When you do a halftime show for an NBA team you expect sexy, excitement etc. We did the homer opener of the Clippers it was splash fanfare Fergie from the Black-eyed Peas. You go to OKC and they have a minister take center stage doing a group prayer with the whole audience. It's fucking weird. And OKC the city is like one street and its a region that stumbled into a pile of money because of the windmills and - as a resident of Seattle there is lingering resentment at this shady business leaders managed to buy our Supersonics [end of segue without really tying meeting Trobisch in OKC]).

Anyway, Trobisch's books are enjoyable to read unlike 90% of the rest of scholarship. You really get the feeling like his knowledge about what he is writing about allows him to almost aim the book at 5 year olds.

He's just recovering from what he says is 'minor surgery.' I am not sure it is. He's too nice. Classy guy. Helpful man. When Quesnell died he's the one I left dealing with the Quesnell's estate to preserve the boxes of papers in the dead professors garage. Didn't charge anything for his services. Just did all this work for the sake of scholarship. One day I was corresponding with Father Justin at St Catherine's of Sinai and Trobisch and it turned out Trobisch and Father Justin were together at the monastery or at least that's the way I remember it. It could be that I might have erased Tselikas from my memory as Tselikas was dealing with Trobisch at the Jerusalem Patriarchate (I am sure of that) and I was dealing with Trobisch and Tselikas at the same time and then when I contacted Father Justin, Tselikas was there. It's hard to remember exactly but Trobisch gets around.

Tselikas just had a heart bypass operation.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Post by Bernard Muller »

From 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 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
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thanx all for an interesting Thread. The "We Passages" are still opaque to me for the most part although Giuseppe points out some good material for study with possibly early material surrounding "Lord" - See also John, "Behold the Lamb of God" - "Immar-Yah". Very Semitic. See Pettinato, Ebla, " 'nmmr - Ha'ad", "Panther of Ha-ad", NIMROD.

Ben --

Your map is interesting. Look for a moment at the Notation for Malta:

"MALTA
Shipwreck/
Paul survives snake bite"

Tacitus Histories, Book 3:

All other nations were equally restless. A sudden outbreak had been excited in Pontus by a barbarian slave, who had before commanded the royal fleet. This was Anicetus, a freedman of Polemon, once a very powerful personage, who, when the kingdom was converted into a Roman province, ill brooked the change. Accordingly he raised in the name of Vitellius the tribes that border on Pontus, bribed a number of very needy adventurers by the hope of plunder, and, at the head of a force by no means contemptible, made a sudden attack on the old and famous city of Trapezus, founded by the Greeks on the farthest shore of the Pontus. There he destroyed a cohort, once a part of the royal contingent. They had afterwards received the privileges of citizenship, and while they carried their arms and banners in Roman fashion, they still retained the indolence and licence of the Greek. Anicetus also set fire to the fleet, and, as the sea was not guarded, escaped, for Mucianus had brought up to Byzantium the best of the Liburnian ships and all the troops. The barbarians even insolently scoured the sea in hastily constructed vessels of their own called "camarae," built with narrow sides and broad bottoms, and joined together without fastenings of brass or iron. Whenever the water is rough they raise the bulwarks with additional planks according to the increasing height of the waves, till the vessel is covered in like a house. Thus they roll about amid the billows, and, as they have a prow at both extremities alike and a convertible arrangement of oars, they may be paddled in one direction or another indifferently and without risk.

The matter attracted the attention of Vespasian, and induced him to dispatch some veterans from the legions under Virdius Geminus, a tried soldier. Finding the enemy in disorder and dispersed in the eager pursuit of plunder, he attacked them, and drove them to their ships. Hastily fitting out a fleet of Liburnian ships he pursued Anicetus, and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus, where he was protected by the king of the Sedochezi, whose alliance he had secured by a sum of money and other presents. This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees. So ended this servile war.

Where have we seen this?

Acts 8: 27 - 39 (RSV):

[27] And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
[28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
[29] And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
[31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
[32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter
or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
[33] In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth."

[34] And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?"
[35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
[36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
[39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

This is not "Malta" This is at the mouth of the Cohibus. Anicetus, in one of the most stupendous passages of indirection and cynicism in the NT, is the "Lamb led to slaughter". He gets gutted for his troubles.

Which leads to the question: "Do the "We" Passages stand in the same Level of rewrite as the early Indirection in Acts?

Thanx,

CW
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Neglected "we" passages in Acts.

Post by MrMacSon »

Trobisch certainly comes across as a thoughtful and nice guy, as this video shows https://youtu.be/NmDC-bVnO_o

His writings are thought-provoking, as it this most recent one.

To Ben: beside the proposition that the author/s or final editor/s of John might have been reacting to Marcion are the more general things Trobisch says such as

Creative writers, however, may choose to tell a story through the voice of a character, and therefore the narrative details of when and where a story was written down may or may not be historical.

And, some comments which, though Trobisch relates to John 21:24 ("This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true") and the incipit of Luke, might have more general implications +/- in application to the we passages in Acts -

.
As readers we are told that the editors used a manuscript written by “this disciple” as the basis of their publication. They explicitly endorse the manuscript by insisting that the “testimony is true”. But they also refer to themselves in the first person plural “we” and expect the readers to make a distinction between the authorial voice of the manuscript and the voice of its editors.

Clearly, the editors would have had other possibilities. They could have used the authorial voice and write: “I, the disciple whom Jesus loved wrote these things down and I testify that everything I wrote is true” ... the perspective chosen in the Gospel According to Luke ...

But the fourth gospel lives up to what the title suggests, this is not the “Gospel of John” - it is the Gospel “According to John”. The editors do not hide their voice, they invite the readers to distinguish between their editorial work and the manuscript of the “beloved disciple”.

How should the readers distinguish between editor and author? ...

< . . snip . . >

From a historical point of view, the editors of the Canonical Edition, and some of their implied readers, would have been familiar with the book on Jesus and with the collection of Paul’s letters that Marcion had published ...

http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/arti ... arcion.pdf

Post Reply