'we' and Acts, and Paul's existence

[TedM]

Peter wrote at some time in the past, here http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html:

Chief among the features of Luke-Acts that have always been thought to support the idea that the author knew Paul are the "we passages" found in 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16. For example, Acts 16:10-17 reads, "We set sail from Troas, making a straight run for Samothrace, and on the next day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, a leading city in that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We spent some time in that city. ... As we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl with an oracular spirit, who used to bring a large profit to her owners through her fortune-telling. She began to follow Paul and us, shouting, 'These people are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.'" Paul exorcised her and was imprisoned for his trouble. Paul was saved as an answer to his prayer, and he proceeded to travel through Thessalonica, Beroea, and Athens. Paul set sail for Syria by way of Ephesus, landed in Caesarea, and went to Antioch. After travelling around Galatia and Phrygia, Paul came to Ephesus in Asia Minor where Apollos was baptizing in the name of John. After an upset with the silversmiths in Ephesus, the first person narration picks up again as follows: "When the disturbance was over, Paul had the disciples summoned and, after encouraging them, he bade them farewell and set out on his journey to Macedonia. As he travelled throughout those regions, he provided many words of encouragement for them. Then he arrived in Greece, where he stayed for three months. But when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return by way of Macedonia. Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, from Beroea, accompanied him, as did Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia who went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. We sailed from Philippi after the feast of Unleavened Bread, and rejoined them five days later in Troas, where we spent a week. On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight. ... We went ahead to the ship and set sail for Assos where we were to take Paul on board, as he had arranged, since he was going overland. When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. We sailed away from there on the next day and reached a point of Chios, and a day later we reached Samos, and on the following day we arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order not to lose time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if at all possible, for the day of Pentecost." (Acts 20:1-16) Notice that the first passage refers to "Paul and us" and that the "we" who sailed to Assos are distinct from Paul, who travelled overland. Notice also that the "we" narration drops off at Philippi and then picks up in the second passage with "We sailed from Philippi." This nonchalant and matter-of-fact dovetailing convinces me that the author of Acts was among those who were left behind at Philippi and joined up with Paul to sail from there later. The distinction between Paul and "us" discredits the idea that the first person perspective in these passages is some kind of literary device, which would take the perspective of Paul (for example increasing the drama of Paul's adventure or increasing the connection of Paul to the group), and for which there is no precedent in ancient literature. The alternative is that the author of Acts was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul. This prompts the question of why the author made this claim in such a subtle way, instead of ensuring that the reader could not miss it by emphasizing the point, as apocryphal writers often did. It also leaves us wondering as to why the false claim to participation is restricted to a few passages, leaving Paul alone for most of the narrative--though this is understandable if the author's participation was in fact sporadic. The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware.

For Peter: It seems from posts I've read here in the last year or so that you must no longer agree much with the above conclusion, because it seems you have real doubts about Paul's existence. I assume some arguments disputing Paul's existence have taken on greater weight, but wonder if those alone have weakened your position on the 'we' passages, or if that position has weakened based on direct arguments pertaining to the 'we' passages.

For anyone else, what are your main objections to the above analysis?

Please avoid reading motivations into my question. I do find the above to be fairly persuasive, but I am wanting to understand the views of those who don't, including perhaps the original author himself.

[Peter Kirby]

I still, of course, reject the "we-sea literary device" argument of V. K. Robbins ( http://christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html ), quite uncritically accepted by Doherty and Carrier, because it has no factual or literary basis (as I've made most clear -- http://christianorigins.com/wesea.html -- long ago when I reviewed it thoroughly). It is possible that the author has clumsily inserted a source or that the author is putting on a false affectation.

While I did have a dalliance with doubting the authenticity of the letters of Paul, I've been lately been coming around on that, and it should make an interesting tale if I ever find the means and time to set all of it down (as, like the historicity of Jesus, it is woefully underdeveloped... people are too busy building sand castles).

That said, the argument I made back then on the webpage, is not without force.

[Ben C. Smith]

While I did have a dalliance with doubting the authenticity of the letters of Paul, I've been lately been coming around on that, and it should make an interesting tale if I ever find the means and time to set all of it down (as, like the historicity of Jesus, it is woefully underdeveloped... people are too busy building sand castles).

Do you mean here that your own view on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is woefully underdeveloped, and that is at least partly the fault of people being too busy building sand castles? Or do you mean that scholarly research overall on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is woefully underdeveloped, and that is the fault of people being too busy building sand castles?

(And what, if I might ask, is a good example of one of these sand castles?)

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

While I did have a dalliance with doubting the authenticity of the letters of Paul, I've been lately been coming around on that, and it should make an interesting tale if I ever find the means and time to set all of it down (as, like the historicity of Jesus, it is woefully underdeveloped... people are too busy building sand castles).

Do you mean here that your own view on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is woefully underdeveloped, and that is at least partly the fault of people being too busy building sand castles? Or do you mean that scholarly research overall on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is woefully underdeveloped, and that is the fault of people being too busy building sand castles?

(And what, if I might ask, is a good example of one of these sand castles?)

Scholarly research overall on the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is woefully underdeveloped.

There is a lot of research into the Pauline letters, even a fair amount on 'comparative' authenticity (ruling out the Pastorals, say), but precious little, relatively speaking, on the question of the authenticity of the letters as a basic and foundational question.

One candidate for a 'sand castle' (does the phrase bother you?) is a precise chronology of the letters & the life and times of Paul (it would appear, to me anyway, that more ingenuity has gone into such solutions than has gone into the very matter of authenticating the letters themselves).

[JoeWallack]

Peter wrote at some time in the past, here http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html:

The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware.

JW:
The only source I can find for this is They Never Said That. While it is on Peter's site, I think the chances of The Young Wolf composing it are about as good as "Luke" knowing Paul. Why is it that Peter's always forget what was said in the previous Chapter?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[TedM]

Thanks for your answer above, Peter. I recall from a number of years ago a posting by an apologist on the old IIDB forum which showed a huge number of consistencies between Acts and the 'authentic' letters of Paul. The number was so great that a number of those who were skeptical about Acts as a 1st century document by anyone that knew Paul took on the position that the writer of (a late) Acts was very familiar with Paul's letters--a position that very few scholars seem to hold. I wish I had that list now, but it would seem to me to provide additional strong evidence for the authenticity of both accounts if the scholars are right, in that they can be used as independent corroborative sources.

[Peter Kirby]

... a position that very few scholars seem to hold.

I don't generally like the idea of polling all scholars in this field for particular opinions (most have probably not even considered every particular question personally & extensively). If necessary, I'd ask what individual published specialists think. For example, Pervo, who has a good half dozen books and a decade or two looking specifically at Acts and at Paul's impact on later literature, maintains (in The Making of Paul) that Acts was influenced by the Pauline letters, minus any demonstrable influence from 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or the Pastorals.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks, Peter.

(And no, the phrase does not bother me. I just wanted an example, since I was not sure what sort of thing you meant.)

[TedM]

... a position that very few scholars seem to hold.

I don't generally like the idea of polling all scholars in this field for particular opinions (most have probably not even considered every particular question personally & extensively). If necessary, I'd ask what individual published specialists think. For example, Pervo, who has a good half dozen books and a decade or two looking specifically at Acts and at Paul's impact on later literature, maintains (in The Making of Paul) that Acts was influenced by the Pauline letters, minus any demonstrable influence from 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or the Pastorals.

Someday I'm going to have to read Pervo's stuff on Acts. I take it your own views may have changed from this? Again, this isn't meant to provoke, just being curious:

The disagreements noted between the narrative of Acts and the letters (mainly Galatians) may frequently be reconciled, but in any case are explained if the author of Luke-Acts didn't own any copies of Paul's letters to which he could refer. It is, after all, improbable that Paul would dispatch a letter both to a church and then to all his sometime companions. The ignorance of the letters of Paul on the part of the author of Luke-Acts actually speaks for a date before ca. 100, after which these letters were collected, published, and canonized.

[Peter Kirby]

... a position that very few scholars seem to hold.

I don't generally like the idea of polling all scholars in this field for particular opinions (most have probably not even considered every particular question personally & extensively). If necessary, I'd ask what individual published specialists think. For example, Pervo, who has a good half dozen books and a decade or two looking specifically at Acts and at Paul's impact on later literature, maintains (in The Making of Paul) that Acts was influenced by the Pauline letters, minus any demonstrable influence from 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or the Pastorals.

Someday I'm going to have to read Pervo's stuff on Acts. I take it your own views may have changed from this?:

The disagreements noted between the narrative of Acts and the letters (mainly Galatians) may frequently be reconciled, but in any case are explained if the author of Luke-Acts didn't own any copies of Paul's letters to which he could refer. It is, after all, improbable that Paul would dispatch a letter both to a church and then to all his sometime companions. The ignorance of the letters of Paul on the part of the author of Luke-Acts actually speaks for a date before ca. 100, after which these letters were collected, published, and canonized.

Yes. I haven't updated most bits on the website. In general the website is more likely to contain 'mainstream' opinion rather than personal opinion.