Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

From Wikipedia: According to Bart D. Ehrman, the "we" passages are written by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul's views and activities. Ehrman holds that The Acts of the Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery.[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... %80%93Acts

Abiding the Ehrman principle, the Catholic church has wittingly deceived her audience, and therefore, all such claims of fact are open to re-evaluation. If Acts is a forgery, then by association, so is gLuke, and via some synoptic hypotheses, so are gMatthew and gMark.

Guilt by association, and assuming guilt in the first place.

gmx wrote: the Catholic church has wittingly deceived her audience, and therefore, all such claims of fact are open to re-evaluation

You have a sever lack of comprehension of what it actually states. Your not seeing the forest through the tress.

First there was no church at this time to deceive anyone. This was a community who used the "WE passage" rhetorically in Pauls name to build authority in the book.

A community wrote this, and while Ehrman is correct, forgery in this context means very little. It is an attack on apologist who claim Pauline friends authorship in FKN CONTEXT.


None of us have ever accepted a true Pauline connection.

. If Acts is a forgery, then by association, so is gLuke, and via some synoptic hypotheses, so are gMatthew and gMark.

Learn what rhetorical prose is, and then you will understand this forgery context means nothing to historians and changes nothing we don't already know about.

Pseudepigrapha is well known and nothing new here. Rhetorically attributing authors is part of all the text less Pauls originals.

I have a section about the "we" passages in 'Acts' at http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html (then search on:
Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' )

Cordially, Bernard

Just for the sake of completeness, here is the other "we" passage, the one not often discussed. Acts 11.27-28 (D, itd, itp, itw, copmae, Augustine):


(Text per Bezae Cantabrigienses.)

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Just for the sake of completeness, here is the other "we" passage, the one not often discussed. Acts 11.27-28 (D, itd, itp, itw, copmae, Augustine):

27 Ἐν ταύταις δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις κατῆλθον ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων προφῆται εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν: ἦν δὲ πολλὴ ἀγαλλίασις· 28 συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Αγαβος σημένων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος λιμὸν μέγαν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ' ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην: - ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου.

27 Now in these days there came down from Hierosolyma unto Antioch prophets. And there was much rejoicing; 28 and when we were gathered together one of them named Agabus stood up and spake, signifying by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world; - which came to pass in the days of Claudius.

(Text per Bezae Cantabrigienses.)

Ben.

Ben, many mistakenly attribute "we" in Paul epistles to think of Christians, when he is often speaking of Hellenistic Jews.

http://codexbezae.perso.sfr.fr/cb/ac/ac ... 11&lang=en

But in this context isn't "we" the gathering of Antioch prophets one being named Agabus? ----- So I personally lean to rhetorical participation for explanation of "we" in this.

I would tend to follow Bart on this for the most part.

outhouse wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:Just for the sake of completeness, here is the other "we" passage, the one not often discussed. Acts 11.27-28 (D, itd, itp, itw, copmae, Augustine):

27 Ἐν ταύταις δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις κατῆλθον ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων προφῆται εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν: ἦν δὲ πολλὴ ἀγαλλίασις· 28 συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Αγαβος σημένων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος λιμὸν μέγαν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ' ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην: - ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου.

27 Now in these days there came down from Hierosolyma unto Antioch prophets. And there was much rejoicing; 28 and when we were gathered together one of them named Agabus stood up and spake, signifying by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world; - which came to pass in the days of Claudius.

(Text per Bezae Cantabrigienses.)

Ben.

But in this context isn't "we" the gathering of Antioch prophets one being named Agabus? ----- So I personally lean to rhetorical participation for explanation of "we" in this.

The "we" (ἡμῶν) is grammatically separate from the prophets (from Jerusalem, not Antioch), who are designated in the third person: "them" (αὐτῶν). So no. The "we" have to be people at Antioch, whom the prophets from Jerusalem visited.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:Just for the sake of completeness, here is the other "we" passage, the one not often discussed. Acts 11.27-28 (D, itd, itp, itw, copmae, Augustine):

27 Ἐν ταύταις δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις κατῆλθον ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων προφῆται εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν: ἦν δὲ πολλὴ ἀγαλλίασις· 28 συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Αγαβος σημένων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος λιμὸν μέγαν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ' ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην: - ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου.

27 Now in these days there came down from Hierosolyma unto Antioch prophets. And there was much rejoicing; 28 and when we were gathered together one of them named Agabus stood up and spake, signifying by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world; - which came to pass in the days of Claudius.

(Text per Bezae Cantabrigienses.)

Ben.

But in this context isn't "we" the gathering of Antioch prophets one being named Agabus? ----- So I personally lean to rhetorical participation for explanation of "we" in this.

The "we" (ἡμῶν) is grammatically separate from the prophets (from Jerusalem, not Antioch), who are designated in the third person: "them" (αὐτῶν). So no. The "we" have to be people at Antioch, whom the prophets from Jerusalem visited.

Thank you, I see the mistake I made in "Antioch prophets" from and to.


I understand the gathering of Antioch is "we"

The author is not indicating he was there was well ?

As with all the "we" passages, I think, the prima facie reading of the first person plural is that the author of the text numbered among those designated as "we" (in this case, people at Antioch listening to Jerusalem prophets; in later cases, people traveling in conjunction with Paul).

Of course, the trick is how one interprets this reading. Was the author really there? Or was it written to make the reader think the author was there? Was a genuine journal taken over and absorbed into a later work (the book of Acts)? Did a legitimate "we" passage get lost to most manuscripts at Acts 11.27-28? Or did a normal passage get turned into a "we" passage in Bezae and some of its allies?

The location of a "we" passage in Antioch in Acts 11.28 (D and allies) is probably not unconnected to the tradition that Luke hailed from Antioch (whether the datum started in the "Western" text and leaked out into the tradition or whether the reverse happened and the tradition inspired the textual variant).


Ben.