Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

DCHindley wrote:

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

AND he reached the ancient city of Nineveh, where he found an idol set up of barbarous aspect, and it is, they say, Io, the daughter of Inachus, and horns short and, as it were, budding project from her temples. While he was staying there and forming wiser conclusions about the image than could the priests and prophets, one Damis, a native of Nineveh, joined him as a pupil, the same, as I said at the beginning, who became the companion of his wanderings abroad and his fellow-traveller and associate in all wisdom, and who has preserved to us many particulars of the sage. He admired him, and having a taste for the road, said: "Let us depart, Apollonius, you follow God, and I you; for I think you will find that I can serve you. I can't say you how much more, but at least I've been to Babylon, and I know all the cities
there are, because I have been up there not long ago, and also the villages in which there is much good to be found; and moreover, I know the languages of the various barbarous races, and there are several, for example the Armenian tongue, and that of the Medes and Persians, and that of the Kadusii, and I am familiar with all of them." "And I," said Apollonius, "my good friend, understand all languages, though I never learnt a single one." The native of Nineveh was astonished at this answer, but the other replied: "You need not wonder at my knowing all human languages; for, to tell you the truth, I also understand all the secrets of human silence." Thereupon the Assyrian worshipped him, when he heard this, and regarded him as a demon; and he stayed with him increasing in wisdom and committing to memory whatever he learnt. This Assyrian's language, however, was of a mediocre quality, for he had not the gift of expressing himself, having been educated among the barbarians; but to write down a discourse or a conversation and to give impressions of what he heard or saw and to put together a journal of such matters—that he was well able to do, and carried it out as well as the best. At any rate the volume which he calls his scrap-book, was intended to serve such a purpose by Damis, who was determined that nothing about Apollonius should be passed over in silence, nay, that his most casual and negligent utterances should also be written down. And I may mention the answer which he made to one who caviled and found fault with this journal. It was a lazy fellow and malignant who tried to pick holes in him, and remarked that he recorded well enough a lot of
things, for example, the opinions and ideas of his hero, but that in collecting such trifles as these he reminded him of dogs who pick up and eat the fragments which fall from a feast. Damis replied thus: "If banquets there be of gods, and gods take food, surely they must have attendants whose business it is that not even the parcels of ambrosia that fall to the ground should be lost."

andrewcriddle wrote:The Diary of Damis (whether authentic legendary or forged) must have been originally about Apollonius.
See for example. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aot/laot/laot04.htm

AND he reached the ancient city of Nineveh, where he found an idol set up of barbarous aspect, and it is, they say, Io, the daughter of Inachus, and horns short and, as it were, budding project from her temples. While he was staying there and forming wiser conclusions about the image than could the priests and prophets, one Damis, a native of Nineveh, joined him as a pupil, the same, as I said at the beginning, who became the companion of his wanderings abroad and his fellow-traveller and associate in all wisdom, and who has preserved to us many particulars of the sage. He admired him, and having a taste for the road, said: "Let us depart, Apollonius, you follow God, and I you; for I think you will find that I can serve you. I can't say you how much more, but at least I've been to Babylon, and I know all the cities
there are, because I have been up there not long ago, and also the villages in which there is much good to be found; and moreover, I know the languages of the various barbarous races, and there are several, for example the Armenian tongue, and that of the Medes and Persians, and that of the Kadusii, and I am familiar with all of them." "And I," said Apollonius, "my good friend, understand all languages, though I never learnt a single one." The native of Nineveh was astonished at this answer, but the other replied: "You need not wonder at my knowing all human languages; for, to tell you the truth, I also understand all the secrets of human silence." Thereupon the Assyrian worshipped him, when he heard this, and regarded him as a demon; and he stayed with him increasing in wisdom and committing to memory whatever he learnt. This Assyrian's language, however, was of a mediocre quality, for he had not the gift of expressing himself, having been educated among the barbarians; but to write down a discourse or a conversation and to give impressions of what he heard or saw and to put together a journal of such matters—that he was well able to do, and carried it out as well as the best. At any rate the volume which he calls his scrap-book, was intended to serve such a purpose by Damis, who was determined that nothing about Apollonius should be passed over in silence, nay, that his most casual and negligent utterances should also be written down. And I may mention the answer which he made to one who caviled and found fault with this journal. It was a lazy fellow and malignant who tried to pick holes in him, and remarked that he recorded well enough a lot of things, for example, the opinions and ideas of his hero, but that in collecting such trifles as these he reminded him of dogs who pick up and eat the fragments which fall from a feast. Damis replied thus: "If banquets there be of gods, and gods take food, surely they must have attendants whose business it is that not even the parcels of ambrosia that fall to the ground should be lost."

When the protagonists of the main story are implicitly commenting on the narration of the frame story, this results in a kind of dramatic irony, arising from the fact that the reader knows more than the characters of the text (including in this case the primary narrator). The metafictional statements uttered by characters inhabiting the diegetic world of the rewritten story, can only be reconciled with the claim of our primary narrator that he is indeed only rewriting an already existing and trustworthy account, if we take this to be literary play for which the author should be held responsible, communicating with his reader, as it were, behind the back of both narrators and characters.

This metafictional irony is one of the many strategies that serve to foreground Philostratus’ literary skill, and as such it forms an integral part of the literary art of the VA. It also determines, we would argue, the assessment of the work as a whole, opening a horizon of expectations that may allow the reader to successfully interpret and appreciate the VA, not as the rewritten version of Damis’ scrapbook it is purported to be, but as a sophistic pièce de résistance. (pages 125-126)

DCHindley wrote:
Do we really want to take Philostratus at his word? I noticed an article by Wannes Gyseunck & Kristoffel Demoen, 'Author and Narrator: Fiction and Metafiction in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii' (in Theios Sophistes-Essays on Flavius Philostratus' Vita Apollonii, ed by Kristoffel Demoen & Danny Praet, 2008), in which he relates that Apollonius offers his cover story of a re-write of the barbarian Damis' scrap-book (ὑπομνημάτων) as a ruse to create a metafiction by introducing statements by the characters of the story that play on the cover story:

When the protagonists of the main story are implicitly commenting on the narration of the frame story, this results in a kind of dramatic irony, arising from the fact that the reader knows more than the characters of the text (including in this case the primary narrator). The metafictional statements uttered by characters inhabiting the diegetic world of the rewritten story, can only be reconciled with the claim of our primary narrator that he is indeed only rewriting an already existing and trustworthy account, if we take this to be literary play for which the author should be held responsible, communicating with his reader, as it were, behind the back of both narrators and characters.

This metafictional irony is one of the many strategies that serve to foreground Philostratus’ literary skill, and as such it forms an integral part of the literary art of the VA. It also determines, we would argue, the assessment of the work as a whole, opening a horizon of expectations that may allow the reader to successfully interpret and appreciate the VA, not as the rewritten version of Damis’ scrapbook it is purported to be, but as a sophistic pièce de résistance. (pages 125-126)

https://books.google.com/books?id=wIumA ... ok&f=false

The difference is that Acts does not claim to be a re-write of someone else's account(s). Yet, if he is using sources, then the resulting narrative is effectively a re-write, interjecting the author's POV over the original source's purpose and intent. Philostratus was one of the key figures in the "second sophistic" of the early 3rd century CE, while the author of Acts was probably less polished, although clearly fluent in the use of koine Greek, I think he can just as easily manipulate sources to say whatever he wanted. It all in the sauce.

DCH

Oops!