Why Mark and Luke?

[Ulan]

I think it was some literary convention for sea travel stories. I would have to look for the source of this statement though.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think it was some literary convention for sea travel stories. I would have to look for the source of this statement though.

That source would be Vernon K. Robbins in his 1978 chapter, "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, edited by C. H. Talbert (pages 215-242).

Peter Kirby has a longstanding response to that chapter here: http://www.christianorigins.com/wesea.html. His terse conclusion: "There is no precedent, and, thus, there is no such literary device." About a year and two months ago Peter was still able to characterize the notion as "feeble": http://peterkirby.com/the-best-case-for-jesus.html.

Ben.

[Ulan]

Thank you, Ben.

Which basically leaves us with the assumptions about the redactor of the first orthodox NT, who may or nor be responsible for writing and/or editing Acts and the catholic letters (plus pastorals).

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you, Ben.

Which basically leaves us with the assumptions about the redactor of the first orthodox NT, who may or nor be responsible for writing and/or editing Acts and the catholic letters (plus pastorals).

I think so, yes. If Peter is right about the literary device not really being a thing, then we are left with 3 basic options, I think:

• The use of the anonymous first person is an outright fraud, designed to create a connection between the author/editor and the apostle Paul.
• The use of the anonymous first person is genuine, and Acts was written by a companion of Paul.
• The use of the anonymous first person is genuine, but belongs to a travel journal or diary which was later incorporated into the Acts.

[Ulan]

Personally, I tend to lean towards option three, mostly because I think that Acts is a composite text that incorporates several distinct precursor texts. I think the later chapters about Paul's exploits look like they came from some pre-existing tradition about Paul, and the incorporation of a real travel diary (whether originally about Paul or not) makes this perfect. The beginning chapters with Peter and Paul in dialectic harmony and a Jerusalem community modeled after Plato's Republic looks like the work of the redactor to me. Then again, that's not much more than a gut feeling.

[Charles Wilson]

I think it was some literary convention for sea travel stories. I would have to look for the source of this statement though.

Ulan-

Allow me to respectfully offer these passages. The Acts passage occurs in the chapter listed as a "We did this..." passage.

Acts 27: 17 - 19 (RSV):

[17] after hoisting it up, they took measures to undergird the ship; then, fearing that they should run on the Syr'tis, they lowered the gear, and so were driven.
[[Once it was hoisted aboard, they used ropes to undergird the ship...]] - Moffatt trans.
[18] As we were violently storm-tossed, they began next day to throw the cargo overboard;
[19] and the third day they cast out with their own hands the tackle of the ship.

Compare with:

Polybius, Histories:

"But next summer the new Consuls Gnaeus Servilius and Gaius Sempronius put again to sea with their full strength, and after touching at Sicily started thence for Libya. There, as they coasted along the shore, they made a great number of descents upon the country without accomplishing anything of importance in any of them. At length they came to the island of the Lotophagi called Mēnix, which is not far from the Lesser Syrtis. There, from ignorance of the waters, they ran upon some shallows; the tide receded, their ships went aground, and they were in extreme peril. However, after a while the tide unexpectedly flowed back again, and by dint of throwing overboard all their heavy goods they just managed to float the ships. After this their return voyage was more like a flight than anything else. When they reached Sicily and had made the promontory of Lilybaeum they cast anchor at Panormus. Thence they weighed anchor for Rome, and rashly ventured upon the open sea-line as the shortest; but while on their voyage they once more encountered so terrible a storm that they lost more than a hundred and fifty ships..."

This is a very complex passage. I have shown that this general story in Acts is from the story of Anicetus in Tacitus, Histories. The boat is a Camarae boat (Tacitus, Histories, Book 3: "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."). The boat in Acts is held together with ropes (Moffatt). The boat has prows at both ends.
It appears that the passage is composite, taking Tacitus and Polybius as Sources to make a sea faring story with "Paul" foretelling the future. YMMV.

Thanx,
CW

[Secret Alias]

Personally, I tend to lean towards option three, mostly because I think that Acts is a composite text that incorporates several distinct precursor texts.

I hate when people limit the possibilities unnecessarily just to give the appearance of order. Isn't there an option 4 -

The use of the anonymous first person is an outright fraud, and Acts is a composite text.

[Secret Alias]

It is also curious that Marcion is said to be a "ship-owner" and the we passages being associated with sea travel and being backhanded evidence for his intimacy with Paul. What are the odds of that?

Marcion claimed to have some special relationship with Paul or at least the church established by Paul
Marcion was a ship owner or at least associated with sea travel

Luke was backhandedly associated as THE beloved of Paul by means of a literary convention for sea travel passages.

[Ulan]

Personally, I tend to lean towards option three, mostly because I think that Acts is a composite text that incorporates several distinct precursor texts.

I hate when people limit the possibilities unnecessarily just to give the appearance of order. Isn't there an option 4 -

The use of the anonymous first person is an outright fraud, and Acts is a composite text.

Well, if you read my answer closely, you can see that I included that option. Or what else than an "outright fraud" would my comment like "whether originally about Paul or not" be, let alone that I think that the first part of Acts is an outright composition of the redactor.

[Secret Alias]

I was directing my comments at Ben not you.