'we' and Acts, and Paul's existence

[Ben C. Smith]

3. The mention of Luke appears to be the most recent layer and it is likely related to the 'we' layer.

What mention of Luke?

[Ben C. Smith]

The 'we' section can be argued to coincide with the introduction of Luke as the preferred disciple of Paul. Originally that disciple was John also called Mark. If we were to reconstruct a series of proposed 'layers' to Acts let's start with Epiphanius's attestation of a 'Hebrew' text of Acts where Christians are identified as 'Ishim.' The next stage in transmission would be a text which has John-Mark as the disciple of both Peter and Paul (the glue as it were who holds the narrative together) and no mention of Luke.

Does John Mark even meet Peter in Acts? His mother probably does. But he himself?

[Secret Alias]

A number of witnesses, most notably the surviving Coptic tradition read Acts as if John-Mark = Mark the evangelist.

[Ben C. Smith]

A number of witnesses, most notably the surviving Coptic tradition read Acts as if John-Mark = Mark the evangelist.

Understood. Does Mark meet or follow Peter in those versions? Also, do those versions mention Luke?

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus's identification of Luke as 'we'

But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;"(10) and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;"

The section argues effectively that the heretics must accept this particular version of Acts which adds the 'we.' I think it is reasonable to assume that Irenaeus or someone Irenaeus knew added the 'we' and identified the 'we' = Luke. This was not there before Irenaeus or his source. Without the 'we' John Mark is in good standing with Paul perhaps his favorite disciple.

[Secret Alias]

It's been a while since I looked at that tradition. From memory the Homilies on Mark attributed to a Severus in the eighth century have a lengthy narrative tracing Mark back to a few of gospel narratives and say he was present at his mother's house. I think Pope Shenouda summarized the tradition somewhere. I will have to dig it up.

[Secret Alias]

With regards to the 'we' narrative I think the ambiguity 'worked' because there are so many of these anomalies in the gospel. The unnamed disciple, the unnamed Samaritan woman, the naked disciple of Mark 14:52. Just having mentioning 'we' and then associating with it a 'secret tradition' that this figure was named Luke whose name appears in the Pauline letters associating with a written composition which turns out (another secret) to be the gospel commissioned by Paul is just another of these cryptic 'secrets.' But it is late and artificially contrived. Trobisch examines the methodology of Polycarp as editor of the canon in his First Edition. I am not so sure it was Polycarp. Irenaeus seems the more likely candidate to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

Irenaeus's identification of Luke as 'we'

But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;"(10) and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;"

The section argues effectively that the heretics must accept this particular version of Acts which adds the 'we.' I think it is reasonable to assume that Irenaeus or someone Irenaeus knew added the 'we' and identified the 'we' = Luke. This was not there before Irenaeus or his source. Without the 'we' John Mark is in good standing with Paul perhaps his favorite disciple.

Yes, I know that Ireneaus identifies the traveler implied by we as Luke. But you wrote that the mention of Luke was the most recent layer, and was probably related to the we layer:

3. The mention of Luke appears to be the most recent layer and it is likely related to the 'we' layer.

So I am asking (again): is there a version of the text itself that mentions Luke by name? (If so, is it perhaps the Coptic version that you mentioned in another connection?) Not an interpretation of the text, whether by its final redactor or by just another church father, but an actual text of Acts that names Luke in some way?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

No. But again the explicit identification of 'Luke' likely wouldn't have worked if it had been tried. There is always this irony or contradiction in Irenaeus's writings. He condemns the heretics for using numerology and geometry but is willing to make arguments in favor of the fourfold canon using the very methodology of the Valentinians. He condemns the heretics for writing cento gospels but then in the next breath boasts that he would be a master cento poet and then demonstrates his skills. In the same way, he repeatedly condemns the heretics for relying on an oral tradition to dazzle their adherents (who wait on baited breath to learn these secrets) but likely deliberately sprinkled clues to Luke's composition of the gospel in (a) Acts (b) Luke (c) the ends of the Pauline epistles. Similarly look at Timothy's call to guard the deposit another gnostic terminology. He seemed to have recognized that gutting the gnostic religion of its heretical teachings (replacing them with a bland mystery) was necessary. People were attracted to Christianity because of its secrets and mysteries. So he developed a new set of 'razzle dazzle' which really didn't lead to any controversial teachings.

[Secret Alias]

So to answer your question - the text only says 'we' but Irenaeus demonstrates that text was complemented by oral teachings which preserved the identification of Luke was speaking as the 'we.' If you think about it the Gospel of Mark works in the same way. There is nothing specifically (or explicitly) 'Markan' about the text other than the superscription at the top of the manuscripts (all of which came much later viz. once the text was bound with three other gospels). As a stand alone gospel the gospel - or the evangelist - was kept secret or at least unknown. Revelation came through oral tradition.