Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Regarding ancient mimesis, MacDonald notes on pg. 5 of his Homeric Epics that, "Imitations of Homer were common in prose as well ... Quintilian supposed his readers would have taken this activity for granted: 'I think we shall all agree that this [paraphrasing] is specially valuable with regard to poetry; indeed, it is said that the paraphrase of poetry [into prose] was the sole form of exercise employed by [the rhetor] Sulpicius' [Inst. Or. 10.5.4]. Philodemus asked, 'Who would claim that the writing of prose is not reliant on Homeric poems?' [On Poetry]."

And that:

"Prose authors imitated the Odyssey more frequently than any other book of the ancient world. It was supplemented, parodied, burlesqued, dramatized, prosified, and transformed to serve an array of un-Homeric values ... No limits obtained to what features of the hypotext an author might imitate ... Imitative reliance on the 'classical tradition did not stifle or constrain originality according to the ancient point of view, because the type of imitation it evolved was in no sense plagiaristic and only sporadically was close verbal imitation employed' [Fiske]."

MacDonald mentions that in addition to Jewish writings such as Tobit, "The writings of Josephus display several possible imitations of the epics, and in some cases one suspects that he expected his readers to detect and appreciate his free adaptations."

This is also discussed here by Chapman (beginning on page 121):

https://books.google.com/books?id=jIpVP ... ry&f=false

It's somewhat off track because it's not Mark, but Acts 20 is another possible example of the influence of Homer in Judeo-Christian writings (though it has a possible OT parallel). MacDonald summarizes this on page 13, and on page 14 he writes, "The most important hypertextual clue ... is the name Eutychus. Homer repeatedly emphasized Elpenor's bad fortune ... Elpenor himself stated that he was the victim of 'an evil fate' and called himself an 'unlucky man.' Odysseus too addressed him as 'unlucky.' Eutychus, on the other hand, means 'lucky.'"

Odyssey 10-12

1. Odysseus and his crew left Troy and sailed back to Achaea.

2. The account is narrated in the first-person plural.

3. After a sojourn, Odysseus and his crew ate a meal.

4. Disaster came at night.

5. The crew slept in Circe's "darkened halls."

6. The narrator switches to the third person.

7. "There was a man, Elpenor, the youngest..."

8. Elpenor fell into "sweet sleep."

9. "[He] fell down from the roof. His neck / broke from the spine, and his soul went down to the house of Hades."

10. Associates fetched the body, dead.

11. Elpenor was not buried until dawn.

Acts 20:7-12

1. Paul and his crew arrive at Troas en route to Jerusalem from Achaea

2. The account is narrated in the first-person plural.

3. After a sojourn, Paul and the believers there ate a meal.

4. Disaster came at midnight.

5. "There were many lamps in the room upstairs where they were meeting."

6. The narrator switches to the third person.

7. "A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window."

8. Eutychus fell into a "deep sleep."

9. "He fell to the ground three floors below and was picked up dead. But Paul went down,...and said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his soul is in him.'"

10. Associates took up the body, alive.

11. Eutychus was not raised alive until dawn.


MacDonald discusses the possible OT parallel here:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/mcdonald.html.

"The most commonly proposed written narrative behind Acts 20:9-12 is Elijah's raising of a widow's son in 1 Kings 17:17-24."

"Elijah said to the woman, 'Give me your son.' He took him from her breast and brought him up to the upper room (uperôon) where he himself slept and made him recline on the bed. Elijah cried out and said: "Woe to me, Lord, the witness of the widow with whom I am staying! You have done wrong in killing her son!" He breathed on the child three times, called on the Lord, and said, 'Lord, my God, may the soul (psuchê) of this child return to him.' And so it did; the child cried out. Elijah brought him down from the upper room into the house, and gave him to his mother, and said, 'Look, your son is alive (zê)!' (1 Kings 17:19-23 [LXX], see also 2 Kings 4:18-37)."

"Here and in Acts 20:7-12 a holy man revives a dead boy by lying upon him. In both stories one encounters an upper room (uperôon): Elijah takes the lad up to his room to revive him; Paul descends from the upper room to revive Eutychus. Both stories comment on the status of the victim's spirit or soul. Elijah prays, 'May the soul (psuchê) of this child return to him'; Paul declares, 'His soul (psuchê) is in him.' One also might argue that Luke intended this scene to establish Paul's power to raise the dead, in the tradition of Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and Peter. Even if 1 Kings 17 influenced Luke's telling of the Eutychus story, this hypothesis cannot account for the most vexing features of Acts 20:7-12, such as the emphasis on the many lamps, Eutychus's fall from a windowsill, and especially Paul's delay in reviving him, leaving the task for others to do after he had left."

John2 wrote:It's somewhat off track because it's not Mark, but Acts 20 is another possible example of the influence of Homer in Judeo-Christian writings (though it has a possible OT parallel).

What interests me here is that the Homeric connection would apparently at least have something to do with, if not explain, one of the "we" passages. Are the other "we" passages also susceptible to Homeric explanations?

Regarding the other "we" passages in Acts, Robbins notes that:

"The coincidence of sea voyages and first person plural narration in Acts is striking. There are four we-sections in Acts: 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1 -18; 27:1 -28:16. In each instance, a sea voyage begins as the first person plural narration emerges. While this observation can lead the interpreter in various directions, it points vividly to accounts of sea voyages in antiquity. Sea voyages are often couched in first person narration. Either the author narrates it as a participant (I sailed to Byblos ... .) or the author stages a participant recounting the voyage (he then said, "As I was sailing to Byblos ...."). Sea voyage narratives in Greek and Roman literature, however, become a distinct genre. One of the features of this genre is the presence of first person plural narration. Undoubtedly the impetus for this is sociological: on a sea voyage a person has accepted a setting with other people, and cooperation among all the members is essential for a successful voyage. Therefore, at the point where the voyage begins, the narration moves to first person plural."

http://www.christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html

John2 wrote:Regarding the other "we" passages in Acts, Robbins notes that:

"The coincidence of sea voyages and first person plural narration in Acts is striking. There are four we-sections in Acts: 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1 -18; 27:1 -28:16. In each instance, a sea voyage begins as the first person plural narration emerges. While this observation can lead the interpreter in various directions, it points vividly to accounts of sea voyages in antiquity. Sea voyages are often couched in first person narration. Either the author narrates it as a participant (I sailed to Byblos ... .) or the author stages a participant recounting the voyage (he then said, "As I was sailing to Byblos ...."). Sea voyage narratives in Greek and Roman literature, however, become a distinct genre. One of the features of this genre is the presence of first person plural narration. Undoubtedly the impetus for this is sociological: on a sea voyage a person has accepted a setting with other people, and cooperation among all the members is essential for a successful voyage. Therefore, at the point where the voyage begins, the narration moves to first person plural."

http://www.christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html

I have read that chapter. Peter Kirby has a longstanding response to it 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.

Ben,

This stood out to me in the first link you gave:

"Now that we have surveyed the material to which Robbins refers, we can reach some conclusions about maritime narrative and the use of the first person plural. The Shipwrecked Sailor, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Dio Chrysostom, Josephus, and Lucian illustrate the change from first person singular to first person plural during travel on a ship. Since sea voyages are always undertaken with others, it is not unexpected for the narrator, if already speaking in the first person, to use the first person plural."

Homer, Josephus (and possibly the Aeneid) are what stand out for me here because there are arguments that Luke knew of both of them. He doesn't necessarily have to know all of Greek literature. The use of Josephus alone would explain the change in Acts to first person plural in the "we" passages since they pertain to sailing. If Luke was emulating Josephus here and not Homer it would amount to the same thing since Josephus was familiar with Greek literature. Chapman also notes this and cites Feldman's Loeb translation of Ant. 20.263 (with Feldman's brackets) on page 122: "I have also labored strenuously to partake of the realm of Greek prose [or: learning] and poetry, after having gained knowledge of Greek grammar [or: after acquiring practice in writing]..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=jIpVP ... ry&f=false

Neil Godfrey has a series of posts on his blog that discusses Robbins (http://vridar.org/2006/11/29/the-we-pas ... tion-pt-1/) and another discussing the parallels between the account of Josephus' shipwreck and Paul's in Acts (http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ul-part-3/).

But again I'm keeping an open mind and enjoying all points of view.

John2 wrote:Ben,

This stood out to me in the first link you gave:

"Now that we have surveyed the material to which Robbins refers, we can reach some conclusions about maritime narrative and the use of the first person plural. The Shipwrecked Sailor, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Dio Chrysostom, Josephus, and Lucian illustrate the change from first person singular to first person plural during travel on a ship. Since sea voyages are always undertaken with others, it is not unexpected for the narrator, if already speaking in the first person, to use the first person plural."

Homer, Josephus (and possibly the Aeneid) are what stand out for me here because there are arguments that Luke knew of both of them. He doesn't necessarily have to know all of Greek literature. The use of Josephus alone would explain the change in Acts to first person plural in the "we" passages since they pertain to sailing.

I have a very different take on it. Kirby's arguments drive toward a conclusion that there existed no literary device whereby an author writing in the first person was understood (by readers) not to have actually participated in the voyage. Sorry for the double negative, but basically: the first person narrative cannot be stripped of its usual meaning ("I was there") on the basis of such a literary convention, because no such literary convention existed. In the examples that Robbins presents and Kirby examines, it turns out that the "we" is still a claim of personal participation in the voyage (whether historical or fictional); it is not a literary device used by nonparticipants to make things more vivid.

What I was doing in my response was basically imagining another literary convention, one in which emulating a work like the Odyssey would also entail picking up some of its first person narration style. I have no evidence, mind you, for such a convention (just because a later historian, for example, relies upon an earlier historian who personally witnessed the events does not normally lead the later historian to start writing in first person). I was just wondering, since MacDonald seems to feel that the first person narration in this instance mirrors something in Homer, whether the other instances in Acts might be explained that way as well.

But again I'm keeping an open mind and enjoying all points of view.

That is commendable.

Ben.

John2 wrote:Neil Godfrey has a series of posts on his blog that discusses Robbins (http://vridar.org/2006/11/29/the-we-pas ... tion-pt-1/) and another discussing the parallels between the account of Josephus' shipwreck and Paul's in Acts (http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ul-part-3/).

I like Neil's stuff, and I browse through his blog quite a bit; I have also read those pages of his on Acts before; but I am not convinced. For me it still seems more likely that the use of the first person in Acts is a claim of personal participation in the events, whether that claim be genuine or fraudulent. (A hybrid case exists, as well, in which they are extracts from a genuine travel journal incorporated either innocently or fraudulently into the text of Acts.)

Ben C. Smith wrote:

John2 wrote:Neil Godfrey has a series of posts on his blog that discusses Robbins (http://vridar.org/2006/11/29/the-we-pas ... tion-pt-1/) and another discussing the parallels between the account of Josephus' shipwreck and Paul's in Acts (http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwr ... ul-part-3/).

I like Neil's stuff, and I browse through his blog quite a bit; I have also read those pages of his on Acts before; but I am not convinced. For me it still seems more likely that the use of the first person in Acts is a claim of personal participation in the events, whether that claim be genuine or fraudulent. (A hybrid case exists, as well, in which they are extracts from a genuine travel journal incorporated either innocently or fraudulently into the text of Acts.)

I suppose it's a shame, really, that I haven't looked closely at Neil's web page(s). Like you I also think Neil is great.

As for the idea that the "we" passages were from an independent account of a sea voyage that was integrated into the book of Acts with a few tweaks, I think that the idea is very possible. But, was the "we" passage material just another person's view of a series of events?

Let's say that someone participates in a sea voyage, possibly a literate member of the merchant class, and that he was literate enough to keep a journal of some kind.

He could even have been the financier (and thus likely a freedman) of the nautical adventure. My impression is that shipping ventures tended to involve multiple ships, and that expected losses would have figured into the bottom line. So, since the "we" narrator shows not a trace of concern for the financial aspects of his ship being lost, or of the proximity of "sister" ships in the convoy, I do not think he could have been the financier.

Heck, the "we" narrator may just have been aboard as a passenger on some errand for a rich patron, or "ships doctor" member of the crew. His concerns would center on the fate of the particular ship and crew he happened to be with, and things like shipwreck and chance encounters with islands and other ships are almost unexpected. This fellow was not a nautical guy.

Regardless, I seem to recall Philostratus did something like this when he wrote his Life of Apollonius of Tyana. He says he came across a personal diary of one Damis, a companion of Apollonius, probably his slave, and used it to flesh out the narrative Philostratus was composing about the life of Apollonius. There is a lot of modern critics who plainly do not believe what Philostratus stated he had as a source to use. Maybe the diary was not actually by some companion of Apollonius, but just happened to be available and could be useful to add some "local color" to the narrative.

So, it seems that both the author of Acts, and Philostratus, used some sort of diary to enhance their own narratives. I'd even suggest that a way be found to compare the two narratives and see what part of them was just "common knowledge" about such things, and what was unique to the two authors.

Time for bed ...

DCH

About the "we" in 'Acts', I have another viewpoint at http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html, then use the browser "find" function with >> Remarks <<.

Cordially, Bernard

Ben C. Smith wrote:

John2 wrote:Regarding the other "we" passages in Acts, Robbins notes that:

"The coincidence of sea voyages and first person plural narration in Acts is striking. There are four we-sections in Acts: 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1 -18; 27:1 -28:16. In each instance, a sea voyage begins as the first person plural narration emerges. While this observation can lead the interpreter in various directions, it points vividly to accounts of sea voyages in antiquity. Sea voyages are often couched in first person narration. Either the author narrates it as a participant (I sailed to Byblos ... .) or the author stages a participant recounting the voyage (he then said, "As I was sailing to Byblos ...."). Sea voyage narratives in Greek and Roman literature, however, become a distinct genre. One of the features of this genre is the presence of first person plural narration. Undoubtedly the impetus for this is sociological: on a sea voyage a person has accepted a setting with other people, and cooperation among all the members is essential for a successful voyage. Therefore, at the point where the voyage begins, the narration moves to first person plural."

http://www.christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html

I have read that chapter. Peter Kirby has a longstanding response to it 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.

Yes. There was a glorious discussion about all this on the old IIDB. At the time "Layman" (Chris Price) was criticizing the Robbins article (and his critique is online - http://www.christiancadre.org/member_co ... sages.html - it references my own but is not too bad itself).

A couple of those threads:

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthread6660.html
http://www.bcharchive.org/3/thearchives ... d355f.html

If you cut underneath it all, you find three points reiterated the most:

1) Vernon Robbins is a pro. Chris Price and Peter Kirby are not.

Irrelevant; besides which, Robbins has also been criticized in print by other pros for this conclusion. Once someone linked my article to Earl Doherty, and Doherty essentially deigned not to read it carefully because I'm an amateur criticizing the professional, Robbins. I found that a bit stunning (and stinging).

2) Robbins' position is the atheist position somehow.

Literally at one point "Toto" asked whether there was any position more appropriate for an atheist to take. As if we should choose philological positions the same way we pick which color shirt to wear to a sporting event.

3) You just don't get it, man... postmodernism!

This was basically Robbins' own position.