The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #1

Post by Goose »

I felt Difflugia and I were at the point where we were derailing another thread with a debate he and I were having on this topic so I started this thread. Besides this topic is deserving of its own thread anyway.

In case anyone is interested in the relevant posts in our debate in the other thread here they are in chronological order:
Goose
Difflugia
Goose
Goose
Difflugia

Also, here is the relevant paper from Vernon Robbins.


Question for debate: Is the use of first person plural in the book of Acts a stylistic device?
Last edited by Goose on Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #11

Post by bluegreenearth »

Goose wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:13 amBut you don't need to understand why it matters in order to address my arguments.

Personally, I don't see why someone who can't understand why it matters would even bother posting in this thread in the first place. If it doesn't matter to you or you can't understand why it matters then please feel free to move along to another thread and allow those to whom it does matter, or at least have enough of interest in the topic, and can see why it matters to debate it without irrelevant interjections.
My comment was intended to serve as an invitation for you to explain why it should matter. Presumably, you might think it matters because it would lend credibility to your belief in the supernatural claims described in Acts if the anonymous author was present with Paul on his journeys. However, my previous comments demonstrate where such an outcome would not function in that capacity. Of course, I could be mistaken and am willing to consider your supporting argument.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #12

Post by Goose »

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #11]
Your comments are mostly Red Herrings. It's irrelevant to the question for debate why it should matter or why it matters to me.

I'm inviting you to properly engage either the question for debate or my arguments or asking that you move along if you are unwilling (or unable?) to do so.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #13

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to Goose in post #12]

Attitude acknowledged. Enjoy your debate. :approve:

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #14

Post by Goose »

The following is a response to the remaining part of Difflugia’s last post in the original thread. Continued from here.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:35 pmIn my opinion, what is far more damning is that since Luke mirrored other aspects of the Odyssey in ways that are unlikely to be coincidental,
This statement seems to Beg the Question that Luke mirrored the Odyssey. Further, to assert “Luke mirrored other aspects of the Odyssey” is to badly overstate the implications of a “broad order” argument. Mirroring implies an identical image which in turn implies copying. Something you haven’t even come close to showing.

As for broad thematic elements which you claim are “unlikely to be coincidental” your analysis isn’t anywhere near rigorous enough to use this as support for an argument that Luke used Homer. Most of your examples of alleged parallels bellow seem just as likely to be present in any shipwreck account regardless of whether it’s fictional or historical or from what narrative point of view, first person plural or otherwise. In fact, some of them are not just likely but are, by definition, necessary for the account to even be properly classed as a shipwreck in the first place. So in some of your examples of parallels it’s not so much that they are explained by coincidence as much as they are explained by logical necessity given a shipwreck. If they logically necessary, they are probable.
the appearance of the "we" narration is likely enough to be more conscious mimicry of Homeric style that the probability can't be dismissed.
What does “likely enough” mean? That’s very vague. Does that mean a probability >0.5, nearly 1, 1, or what? How are you calculating this probability? What are your starting assumptions? Or are you saying that because there is a non-zero probability for the premise we can’t outright dismiss it? If you are that’s fine, but that’s hardly a compelling argument and hardly enough to support an argument that it is probable.
Robbins discusses the shipwreck scene of Acts 27, but in my opinion, doesn't adequately explore the parallel between Paul's shipwreck and that of Odysseus in Book 12 of the Odyssey. The individual events of the shipwreck in Acts can be lined up against those in the Odyssey in order. I listed corresponding passages here, but the broad order is followed by both narratives:
Okay let’s break down these alleged parallels.
A prophetic warning of ruin if not heeded

A failure to heed the warning
I’ll take these two alleged parallels together. If both accounts had been prophecies at the outset of the journey this would have been difficult to explain as coincidence or necessity. But it’s rather easy to explain given the fact the Bible is filled with prophecies and people not listening. Not to mention prophecies and omens were quite common in general throughout the ancient world. So nothing particularly odd about that occurring here aside from they both would have been at the outset of a sea voyage. At any rate, it’s not the case both accounts have prophecies occurring at the outset of the voyage anyway.

As for context. The significance of the second parallel failure to heed the warning fails by virtue of the first failing by what seems to be a kind of false equivalence fallacy. Let me explain why.

Odysseus receives lengthy and detailed oracles directly from a divine source, the goddess Circe prior to the voyage. Whereas Paul’s advisement comes much later in the voyage. Odysseus later passes the oracles onto his men only because he feels guilty about them not knowing their fate. Circe’s prophecy entails encountering numerous perils and mythological beings. Whereas Paul seems to be concerned about the dangers of sailing given the time of year. Mostly importantly, and here’s the main contextual difference, Paul’s recommendation is one of his own making in Acts 27:9-10, not a revelation from a divine source. Paul’s warning has no indication of divine origins such as we find, for example, in Acts 27:23-25 which directly contradicted Paul’s fear that if they set sail they would all lose their lives. So this warning from Paul can’t be intended as a prophecy unless Luke was unintentionally throwing Paul under the bus as false prophet. Which would hardly be good Paul’s image as hero.

According to Luke, in Acts 27:9-10, Paul advised (παραινέω) that they do not sail because they were now in a season of the year which would make it dangerous to do so. It was an advisement based on Paul’s own perception (θεωρω – “I perceive”) and not intended as a prophecy.

Hardly a parallel there if they aren’t both a prophecy.
Misleading fair winds followed by a tempest
We see these kinds of references in other sea voyages (Caesar’s Civil War Commentary for example). So why is this, in itself, so unlikely? It seems quite likely if not nearly certain given the shipwreck is caused by a tempest. What would be the alternative here? A tempest followed by a tempest where sailors sets sail during the first tempest?

As for context. You must be inferring the fair winds in the Odyssey because unlike Acts there is no explicit mention of “fair” or “soft” or otherwise favorable winds at this point in the Odyssey. There’s mention of a cessation of a tempest and then the mention of another storm sent by Zeus as soon as they put out to sea and were away from Thrinacia, the island of the Sun-god. The wind from a storm snapped the mast. Not to mention Luke doesn’t attribute the tempest to an act of God like the Odyssey does to the gods.
Loss of tackle
But this seems to be a logically necessity given it’s a shipwreck. Therefore a near certain probability. It’s logically impossible to not have a loss of tackle given a shipwreck. How on earth can a ship go down at sea or otherwise be wrecked and there not be a loss of tackle? Try to imagine the absurd scenario where the ship goes down but somehow all the ship’s tackling is saved because that is what would have to occur for there not to be a loss of tackle.

As for context. Again, you must be inferring this from the Odyssey because there is no explicit loss of tackle reported. Although, of course, it logically follows there would be a loss of tackle if the ship went down. But that’s hardly a parallel if you are inferring it from one account. In the Odyssey a strong wind broke the mast causing it to fall backward and its “tackle” fell into the bottom of the boat. That’s the gear which is being referred to in the Odyssey. In Acts they deliberately cast over board the ship’s “tackle” to lighten the ship.

Moreover, the respective works seem to be referring to different kinds of “tackle”. The Odyssey uses ὅπλον whereas Acts uses σκευή.
Reinforcing of the vessel with ropes
Odyssey – Odysseus bound the broken mast and keel together with ox-hide to make a raft. I’m not sure how you think that’s a reinforcing of the vessel. The vessel was effectively gone by this point. Acts is referring to cables used to secure the skiff to the ship after raising it up. Again, different contexts.
Loss of hope
But if the situation is dire enough to potentially cause a shipwreck this seems to be very likely if not nearly certain. At worst it can’t be less than 50% probability if the two possible outcomes are either one loses hope or one does not. How you would think loss of hope, given the potential of shipwreck, is unlikely is beyond me. Seems like a fairly natural thus common reaction given the scenario.

As for context. Odyssey – pain (ἄλγεα) at the potential return to Charybdis because the winds had shifted. Acts - all hope (ἐλπίς) of being saved was taken away because they had been in a storm for several days. Different words, different contexts.
Escape from the ship upon broken planks
But that seems very probable, if not an outright logical necessity itself, given its 1) a shipwreck (you know, where the ship gets wrecked, thus there are floating planks and stuff), 2) there are survivors who live to tell the tale and 3) it occurred in an era of only wooden ships before the advent of personal flotation devices and requirements for life boats.

As for context. Odysseus doesn’t escape from the ship per se. He uses the keel and mast of the ship as a raft by tying them together with ox hide. It’s a bit of stretch to categorize this as “broken planks.” In Acts, first, those that could swim were told to swim to the shore of the island (the island had to be close because basically they ran aground on its reef). It was the remaining crew who could not swim who were to use planks or other various items from the ship as aids.
Arrival upon an island and subsequent kind treatment.
The land the survivors end up arriving on is either going to be an island or the mainland. There are only two possibilities here. Unless the survivors are first picked up by another ship as was the case with Josephus’ shipwreck. But even in such a case, like Josephus, that ship will eventually arrive at an island or mainland. So the end result will be the same in a matter of speaking. The island or region of mainland the survivors arrive on will either be inhabited or it will not. If there are inhabitants they will either be friendly and prone to kindness or not friendly and prone to hostility. Again, in Josephus’ shipwreck he received kind treatment as well when he eventually arrived at Dicearchia. Or a third possibility could be somewhere in between with indifferent inhabitants. But a scenario where the inhabitants are so neutral as to defy classification as either friendly or not seems unlikely enough in its own right that we can discard it. So given it’s either 1) an island or mainland, 2) inhabited or not, and 3) hostile or friendly the probability that they will arrive on an island and receive kind treatment is something like one in eight or 12.5%. A probability <0.5 to be sure so low enough that one can say it falls in the unlikely end of the probability spectrum. But certainly it’s a probability very far from 0 or impossible. And I think 12.5% probably is high enough as to not prevent someone from reasonably explaining it as coincidence.

As for the context I will take the kind treatment first. The treatment upon arrival at the island in Acts is kindness (φιλανθρωπία). Which is noteworthy since it might not be expected from barbarians (βάρβαρος). In the Odyssey Calypso shows love (φιλέω) and care (ἐκόμει) for Odysseus. Presumably because of her romantic interest in him. I suppose romantic affection implies kindness whereas kindness does not necessarily imply romantic affection. But then the parallel is forced to expand to such a broad overly generalized category of kindness to make room for both kindness and romantic affection that the hope for a strong parallel in “subsequent kind treatment” seems to vanish.

As for the order of arrival on the island and escape on planks, re-read Acts 27:39-44 again. You have Acts following an order of first escaping from the ship on planks to then arrive on the island in order to get it "line up" with the order of the Odyssey. When, in Acts, they had actually arrived at the island before they had to escape on planks. They had to escape because the ship ran aground on the reef which was part of the island.

Now you might argue that it’s not so much the unlikeness of the events occurring themselves but it’s the unlikeness that Luke would follow such an order that seems to parallel that of the Odyssey which makes this argument compelling. Firstly, as I’ve shown above you’ve not got the order right even in your selection of events.

Secondly, a more general point on ordering. At least some events must follow in a particular order to be a coherent narrative in the case of a shipwreck account. So similar order in broad thematic elements does not necessarily imply conscious paralleling. Similar ordering can also be just as easily and perhaps better explained by necessity for coherence. For instance, a tempest must precede the ship going down and subsequent loss of tackle, the ship going down and subsequent loss of tackle must precede an escape from the ship, and an escape from the ship must precede a rescue or arriving on land and so on. You get the idea. What would be more compelling is if Acts followed the Odyssey in order against a coherent shipwreck order.

Thirdly, your ordering is conveniently cherry picked (and incorrectly sequenced even then on a few points as I just mentioned). The shipwreck in Acts doesn’t really follow the Odyssey narrative despite your assertion that “The individual events of the shipwreck in Acts can be lined up against those in the Odyssey in order.” You had to do quite a bit of creative (dare I say misleading?) editing to get there. I noticed you tracked with Acts closely almost verse by verse from 27:9-20 which is the story of a tempest. A tempest which doesn’t directly result in a shipwreck. Then you picked up again at 27:43 – 28:2 the story of a ship wrecked on an island. You omitted a large section of the narrative in Acts 27:21-42 (aside from 33-35 to get your odd “supper” parallel which wasn’t really a parallel at all and was more like breakfast in Acts “as the day was about to dawn” vs. 33). A section where the narrative transitions from a tempest to the shipwreck on an island around verse 27 and continues through to verse 44. In other words, what you did was cherry pick the events in Acts in order to conflate two stories (a tempest and a ship wrecked on an island) into one story to make it seem like Acts “lines up” with the Odyssey which is the story of a tempest that directly causes a shipwreck at sea. But kudos for the creativity. :cool:
There are a number of interesting contrasts as well that look to me to be intentionally ironic.
Well how convenient. The contrasts are intentional and meant to be ironic. You’ve managed to insulate your reasoning from falsification by manufacturing a nice little tautological methodology there. The parallels were intentional and so were the contrasts. Heads you win, tails I lose. Nicely done.
In contrast to the capricious, petty and vengeful Homeric gods, Paul's God is repeatedly merciful. The Homeric gods created the storm to punish the impious sailors, while God ensures the survival of all hands despite their willingness to trust in human judgement, even over divine revelation.
It’s certainly plausible that Luke might want to contrast the nature of God against the Greek gods. But it doesn’t necessarily imply Luke followed the Odyssey when the presence of an apparent contrast between deities can be more easily explained by Luke simply reporting the events he either witnessed or had heard about which he thought would draw the same contrast, if that was his objective here. Luke hardly needs to construct an elaborate shipwreck account mirroring the Odyssey risking a rejection of his work by his audience upon their discovering his associating Paul with Greek mythology to accomplish a contrast since God’s mercy is already a reoccurring theme in Luke’s Gospel. Luke could just simply and explicitly assert Gods’ mercy through Paul as he does through the song of Mary (Luke 1:50, 54) and the prophecy of Zacharias (Luke 1:78).

Luke doesn’t seem to make this contrast very clear in the shipwreck narrative if that was his intention. He never has Paul mention the gods here or mention God’s mercy explicitly which is odd given this would have been a major theological point and climax to narrative. It seems inexplicable Luke would not directly mention the mercy of God in contrast to the gods given his willingness to mention both elsewhere. Luke explicitly refers to the mercy of God about five times in the first chapter of his Gospel alone (Luke 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78). And elsewhere explicitly names Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:11-15). But here in Acts when he is trying to make this important theological contrast Luke goes silent on God’s mercy and the gods. Not a word about either. That seems like an odd silence and missed opportunity to make his point, if that was his point. Indeed, it seems Luke may be implying the reason all the crew were spared was so Paul could get to Rome (Acts 27:24).

But more problematic for your contrast explanation is the contrast points to Luke’s unfamiliarity with the details of the Odyssey which suggests he may have never read it let alone was copying from it. In the Odyssey it’s the gods who explicitly send the storm as retribution for a violation of the sacred and it’s the storm which causes the death of Odysseus’ crew. In Acts the storm is not attributed to God at all. That is a glaring omission if Luke was following the Odyssey and contrasting the merciful nature of God against that of the gods in the Odyssey. If Luke was consciously making this contrast we might expect him to have explicitly attributed the storm to being sent by God and then either save the crew or have, say, Paul calm the storm as Jesus did (Luke 8:22 - 25). Subjecting the crew to the horrible and traumatic experience of a shipwreck hardly seems like an act of mercy.

As it stands, it’s difficult to see how Luke was consciously constructing a contrast here if he was following the Odyssey. Indeed, if there is a thematic element here at all that Luke is following by saving the crew from destruction it seems to be the already existent general Christian theology of God’s power and willingness to save. No need to turn to the Odyssey to explain that.
The story of the shipwreck in the Odyssey is told in the style of first-person plural narration. Whether or not Luke was influenced by the other authors mentioned by Robbins, I think the two shipwreck accounts are too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account. If so, I see every reason to think that he also mirrored the style of narration.
You are a long way off from making the argument the broad parallels in the shipwreck accounts are “too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account.” (Emphasis mine)

A very long way off indeed.

Which means you are a long way off from getting to “he also mirrored the style of narration” since you’ve framed it such that that conclusion follows from “the two shipwreck accounts are too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account.”

But it was a good effort. I will certainly give you that much.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #15

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:33 pm
Goose wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:13 amBut you don't need to understand why it matters in order to address my arguments.

Personally, I don't see why someone who can't understand why it matters would even bother posting in this thread in the first place. If it doesn't matter to you or you can't understand why it matters then please feel free to move along to another thread and allow those to whom it does matter, or at least have enough of interest in the topic, and can see why it matters to debate it without irrelevant interjections.
My comment was intended to serve as an invitation for you to explain why it should matter. Presumably, you might think it matters because it would lend credibility to your belief in the supernatural claims described in Acts if the anonymous author was present with Paul on his journeys. However, my previous comments demonstrate where such an outcome would not function in that capacity. Of course, I could be mistaken and am willing to consider your supporting argument.



I would first like to point out that "Goose" has done a fantastic job here and so I see no need in contributing anything else to his argument. However, as I read through this debate I began to wonder exactly the question you bring up here. In other words, "why does it matter" as to whether the author would have been along with Paul on this journey?

Notice carefully that those of us who hold the position that the author would have been present, do so from the plan, and natural reading of the text, and do not have to come up with any sort of reasoning for this conclusion outside of the text itself. Rather, it is those who are opposed who must come up with some sort of reason as to why we should not take the text at face value. The whole point here is, there must be some sort of reason why it matters so much for one to go to such an extent as to come up with such an explanation as a stylistic technique used by the author. In other words, if it did not matter, then there would be no need in coming up with any other explanation.

But you see, there are certainly those who are opposed who understand that it does indeed matter, and it matters enough they understand they must attempt to come up with some other explanation. The reason why it matters so much is the fact that there are many who are opposed, who want us to believe that these things would have been written long after the events they described, and the authors were simply reporting on what had been passed down to them down through the years. However, if this author would have traveled with Paul, this would mean that at least this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known and spent a lot of time with the Apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

This my friend, this is exactly why it matters!

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #16

Post by DavidLeon »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:30 pmNotice carefully that those of us who hold the position that the author would have been present, do so from the plan, and natural reading of the text, and do not have to come up with any sort of reasoning for this conclusion outside of the text itself. Rather, it is those who are opposed who must come up with some sort of reason as to why we should not take the text at face value. The whole point here is, there must be some sort of reason why it matters so much for one to go to such an extent as to come up with such an explanation as a stylistic technique used by the author. In other words, if it did not matter, then there would be no need in coming up with any other explanation.

But you see, there are certainly those who are opposed who understand that it does indeed matter, and it matters enough they understand they must attempt to come up with some other explanation. The reason why it matters so much is the fact that there are many who are opposed, who want us to believe that these things would have been written long after the events they described, and the authors were simply reporting on what had been passed down to them down through the years. However, if this author would have traveled with Paul, this would mean that at least this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known and spent a lot of time with the Apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

This my friend, this is exactly why it matters!
I don't think so. To spend such time, effort and energy on the subject would be an academic pursuit. But matter? Let those opposed concern themselves with it to such an extent. There certainly isn't anything wrong with it, to each his own, but it isn't for everyone. Certainly isn't for me. I could give it maybe a couple hours in a day and then I'm done. One can't disprove every interpretation of, let's say, the word we. Or flat earth. Or trinity, evolution and on and on and on.

I once saw a cartoon where a woman calls her husband, who's on the computer, to come eat and he says he can't because someone on the Internet is wrong. Well, OK, but me . . . I'm going to go eat.
I no longer post here

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1996 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #17

Post by Difflugia »

DavidLeon wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:50 pmI once saw a cartoon where a woman calls her husband, who's on the computer, to come eat and he says he can't because someone on the Internet is wrong. Well, OK, but me . . . I'm going to go eat.
Image

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #18

Post by Willum »

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #11]

No, one must remember ancient languages are contextual.
Literary devices would screw them up.
I am afraid it is just an apologetic argument that has taken the apologetic-denialists by storm.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #19

Post by DavidLeon »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:04 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:50 pmI once saw a cartoon where a woman calls her husband, who's on the computer, to come eat and he says he can't because someone on the Internet is wrong. Well, OK, but me . . . I'm going to go eat.
Image
Image

Image
I no longer post here

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

Post #20

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Goose wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:15 pm The following is a response to the remaining part of Difflugia’s last post in the original thread. Continued from here.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:35 pmIn my opinion, what is far more damning is that since Luke mirrored other aspects of the Odyssey in ways that are unlikely to be coincidental,
This statement seems to Beg the Question that Luke mirrored the Odyssey. Further, to assert “Luke mirrored other aspects of the Odyssey” is to badly overstate the implications of a “broad order” argument. Mirroring implies an identical image which in turn implies copying. Something you haven’t even come close to showing.

As for broad thematic elements which you claim are “unlikely to be coincidental” your analysis isn’t anywhere near rigorous enough to use this as support for an argument that Luke used Homer. Most of your examples of alleged parallels bellow seem just as likely to be present in any shipwreck account regardless of whether it’s fictional or historical or from what narrative point of view, first person plural or otherwise. In fact, some of them are not just likely but are, by definition, necessary for the account to even be properly classed as a shipwreck in the first place. So in some of your examples of parallels it’s not so much that they are explained by coincidence as much as they are explained by logical necessity given a shipwreck. If they logically necessary, they are probable.
the appearance of the "we" narration is likely enough to be more conscious mimicry of Homeric style that the probability can't be dismissed.
What does “likely enough” mean? That’s very vague. Does that mean a probability >0.5, nearly 1, 1, or what? How are you calculating this probability? What are your starting assumptions? Or are you saying that because there is a non-zero probability for the premise we can’t outright dismiss it? If you are that’s fine, but that’s hardly a compelling argument and hardly enough to support an argument that it is probable.
Robbins discusses the shipwreck scene of Acts 27, but in my opinion, doesn't adequately explore the parallel between Paul's shipwreck and that of Odysseus in Book 12 of the Odyssey. The individual events of the shipwreck in Acts can be lined up against those in the Odyssey in order. I listed corresponding passages here, but the broad order is followed by both narratives:
Okay let’s break down these alleged parallels.
A prophetic warning of ruin if not heeded

A failure to heed the warning
I’ll take these two alleged parallels together. If both accounts had been prophecies at the outset of the journey this would have been difficult to explain as coincidence or necessity. But it’s rather easy to explain given the fact the Bible is filled with prophecies and people not listening. Not to mention prophecies and omens were quite common in general throughout the ancient world. So nothing particularly odd about that occurring here aside from they both would have been at the outset of a sea voyage. At any rate, it’s not the case both accounts have prophecies occurring at the outset of the voyage anyway.

As for context. The significance of the second parallel failure to heed the warning fails by virtue of the first failing by what seems to be a kind of false equivalence fallacy. Let me explain why.

Odysseus receives lengthy and detailed oracles directly from a divine source, the goddess Circe prior to the voyage. Whereas Paul’s advisement comes much later in the voyage. Odysseus later passes the oracles onto his men only because he feels guilty about them not knowing their fate. Circe’s prophecy entails encountering numerous perils and mythological beings. Whereas Paul seems to be concerned about the dangers of sailing given the time of year. Mostly importantly, and here’s the main contextual difference, Paul’s recommendation is one of his own making in Acts 27:9-10, not a revelation from a divine source. Paul’s warning has no indication of divine origins such as we find, for example, in Acts 27:23-25 which directly contradicted Paul’s fear that if they set sail they would all lose their lives. So this warning from Paul can’t be intended as a prophecy unless Luke was unintentionally throwing Paul under the bus as false prophet. Which would hardly be good Paul’s image as hero.

According to Luke, in Acts 27:9-10, Paul advised (παραινέω) that they do not sail because they were now in a season of the year which would make it dangerous to do so. It was an advisement based on Paul’s own perception (θεωρω – “I perceive”) and not intended as a prophecy.

Hardly a parallel there if they aren’t both a prophecy.
Misleading fair winds followed by a tempest
We see these kinds of references in other sea voyages (Caesar’s Civil War Commentary for example). So why is this, in itself, so unlikely? It seems quite likely if not nearly certain given the shipwreck is caused by a tempest. What would be the alternative here? A tempest followed by a tempest where sailors sets sail during the first tempest?

As for context. You must be inferring the fair winds in the Odyssey because unlike Acts there is no explicit mention of “fair” or “soft” or otherwise favorable winds at this point in the Odyssey. There’s mention of a cessation of a tempest and then the mention of another storm sent by Zeus as soon as they put out to sea and were away from Thrinacia, the island of the Sun-god. The wind from a storm snapped the mast. Not to mention Luke doesn’t attribute the tempest to an act of God like the Odyssey does to the gods.
Loss of tackle
But this seems to be a logically necessity given it’s a shipwreck. Therefore a near certain probability. It’s logically impossible to not have a loss of tackle given a shipwreck. How on earth can a ship go down at sea or otherwise be wrecked and there not be a loss of tackle? Try to imagine the absurd scenario where the ship goes down but somehow all the ship’s tackling is saved because that is what would have to occur for there not to be a loss of tackle.

As for context. Again, you must be inferring this from the Odyssey because there is no explicit loss of tackle reported. Although, of course, it logically follows there would be a loss of tackle if the ship went down. But that’s hardly a parallel if you are inferring it from one account. In the Odyssey a strong wind broke the mast causing it to fall backward and its “tackle” fell into the bottom of the boat. That’s the gear which is being referred to in the Odyssey. In Acts they deliberately cast over board the ship’s “tackle” to lighten the ship.

Moreover, the respective works seem to be referring to different kinds of “tackle”. The Odyssey uses ὅπλον whereas Acts uses σκευή.
Reinforcing of the vessel with ropes
Odyssey – Odysseus bound the broken mast and keel together with ox-hide to make a raft. I’m not sure how you think that’s a reinforcing of the vessel. The vessel was effectively gone by this point. Acts is referring to cables used to secure the skiff to the ship after raising it up. Again, different contexts.
Loss of hope
But if the situation is dire enough to potentially cause a shipwreck this seems to be very likely if not nearly certain. At worst it can’t be less than 50% probability if the two possible outcomes are either one loses hope or one does not. How you would think loss of hope, given the potential of shipwreck, is unlikely is beyond me. Seems like a fairly natural thus common reaction given the scenario.

As for context. Odyssey – pain (ἄλγεα) at the potential return to Charybdis because the winds had shifted. Acts - all hope (ἐλπίς) of being saved was taken away because they had been in a storm for several days. Different words, different contexts.
Escape from the ship upon broken planks
But that seems very probable, if not an outright logical necessity itself, given its 1) a shipwreck (you know, where the ship gets wrecked, thus there are floating planks and stuff), 2) there are survivors who live to tell the tale and 3) it occurred in an era of only wooden ships before the advent of personal flotation devices and requirements for life boats.

As for context. Odysseus doesn’t escape from the ship per se. He uses the keel and mast of the ship as a raft by tying them together with ox hide. It’s a bit of stretch to categorize this as “broken planks.” In Acts, first, those that could swim were told to swim to the shore of the island (the island had to be close because basically they ran aground on its reef). It was the remaining crew who could not swim who were to use planks or other various items from the ship as aids.
Arrival upon an island and subsequent kind treatment.
The land the survivors end up arriving on is either going to be an island or the mainland. There are only two possibilities here. Unless the survivors are first picked up by another ship as was the case with Josephus’ shipwreck. But even in such a case, like Josephus, that ship will eventually arrive at an island or mainland. So the end result will be the same in a matter of speaking. The island or region of mainland the survivors arrive on will either be inhabited or it will not. If there are inhabitants they will either be friendly and prone to kindness or not friendly and prone to hostility. Again, in Josephus’ shipwreck he received kind treatment as well when he eventually arrived at Dicearchia. Or a third possibility could be somewhere in between with indifferent inhabitants. But a scenario where the inhabitants are so neutral as to defy classification as either friendly or not seems unlikely enough in its own right that we can discard it. So given it’s either 1) an island or mainland, 2) inhabited or not, and 3) hostile or friendly the probability that they will arrive on an island and receive kind treatment is something like one in eight or 12.5%. A probability <0.5 to be sure so low enough that one can say it falls in the unlikely end of the probability spectrum. But certainly it’s a probability very far from 0 or impossible. And I think 12.5% probably is high enough as to not prevent someone from reasonably explaining it as coincidence.

As for the context I will take the kind treatment first. The treatment upon arrival at the island in Acts is kindness (φιλανθρωπία). Which is noteworthy since it might not be expected from barbarians (βάρβαρος). In the Odyssey Calypso shows love (φιλέω) and care (ἐκόμει) for Odysseus. Presumably because of her romantic interest in him. I suppose romantic affection implies kindness whereas kindness does not necessarily imply romantic affection. But then the parallel is forced to expand to such a broad overly generalized category of kindness to make room for both kindness and romantic affection that the hope for a strong parallel in “subsequent kind treatment” seems to vanish.

As for the order of arrival on the island and escape on planks, re-read Acts 27:39-44 again. You have Acts following an order of first escaping from the ship on planks to then arrive on the island in order to get it "line up" with the order of the Odyssey. When, in Acts, they had actually arrived at the island before they had to escape on planks. They had to escape because the ship ran aground on the reef which was part of the island.

Now you might argue that it’s not so much the unlikeness of the events occurring themselves but it’s the unlikeness that Luke would follow such an order that seems to parallel that of the Odyssey which makes this argument compelling. Firstly, as I’ve shown above you’ve not got the order right even in your selection of events.

Secondly, a more general point on ordering. At least some events must follow in a particular order to be a coherent narrative in the case of a shipwreck account. So similar order in broad thematic elements does not necessarily imply conscious paralleling. Similar ordering can also be just as easily and perhaps better explained by necessity for coherence. For instance, a tempest must precede the ship going down and subsequent loss of tackle, the ship going down and subsequent loss of tackle must precede an escape from the ship, and an escape from the ship must precede a rescue or arriving on land and so on. You get the idea. What would be more compelling is if Acts followed the Odyssey in order against a coherent shipwreck order.

Thirdly, your ordering is conveniently cherry picked (and incorrectly sequenced even then on a few points as I just mentioned). The shipwreck in Acts doesn’t really follow the Odyssey narrative despite your assertion that “The individual events of the shipwreck in Acts can be lined up against those in the Odyssey in order.” You had to do quite a bit of creative (dare I say misleading?) editing to get there. I noticed you tracked with Acts closely almost verse by verse from 27:9-20 which is the story of a tempest. A tempest which doesn’t directly result in a shipwreck. Then you picked up again at 27:43 – 28:2 the story of a ship wrecked on an island. You omitted a large section of the narrative in Acts 27:21-42 (aside from 33-35 to get your odd “supper” parallel which wasn’t really a parallel at all and was more like breakfast in Acts “as the day was about to dawn” vs. 33). A section where the narrative transitions from a tempest to the shipwreck on an island around verse 27 and continues through to verse 44. In other words, what you did was cherry pick the events in Acts in order to conflate two stories (a tempest and a ship wrecked on an island) into one story to make it seem like Acts “lines up” with the Odyssey which is the story of a tempest that directly causes a shipwreck at sea. But kudos for the creativity. :cool:
There are a number of interesting contrasts as well that look to me to be intentionally ironic.
Well how convenient. The contrasts are intentional and meant to be ironic. You’ve managed to insulate your reasoning from falsification by manufacturing a nice little tautological methodology there. The parallels were intentional and so were the contrasts. Heads you win, tails I lose. Nicely done.
In contrast to the capricious, petty and vengeful Homeric gods, Paul's God is repeatedly merciful. The Homeric gods created the storm to punish the impious sailors, while God ensures the survival of all hands despite their willingness to trust in human judgement, even over divine revelation.
It’s certainly plausible that Luke might want to contrast the nature of God against the Greek gods. But it doesn’t necessarily imply Luke followed the Odyssey when the presence of an apparent contrast between deities can be more easily explained by Luke simply reporting the events he either witnessed or had heard about which he thought would draw the same contrast, if that was his objective here. Luke hardly needs to construct an elaborate shipwreck account mirroring the Odyssey risking a rejection of his work by his audience upon their discovering his associating Paul with Greek mythology to accomplish a contrast since God’s mercy is already a reoccurring theme in Luke’s Gospel. Luke could just simply and explicitly assert Gods’ mercy through Paul as he does through the song of Mary (Luke 1:50, 54) and the prophecy of Zacharias (Luke 1:78).

Luke doesn’t seem to make this contrast very clear in the shipwreck narrative if that was his intention. He never has Paul mention the gods here or mention God’s mercy explicitly which is odd given this would have been a major theological point and climax to narrative. It seems inexplicable Luke would not directly mention the mercy of God in contrast to the gods given his willingness to mention both elsewhere. Luke explicitly refers to the mercy of God about five times in the first chapter of his Gospel alone (Luke 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78). And elsewhere explicitly names Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:11-15). But here in Acts when he is trying to make this important theological contrast Luke goes silent on God’s mercy and the gods. Not a word about either. That seems like an odd silence and missed opportunity to make his point, if that was his point. Indeed, it seems Luke may be implying the reason all the crew were spared was so Paul could get to Rome (Acts 27:24).

But more problematic for your contrast explanation is the contrast points to Luke’s unfamiliarity with the details of the Odyssey which suggests he may have never read it let alone was copying from it. In the Odyssey it’s the gods who explicitly send the storm as retribution for a violation of the sacred and it’s the storm which causes the death of Odysseus’ crew. In Acts the storm is not attributed to God at all. That is a glaring omission if Luke was following the Odyssey and contrasting the merciful nature of God against that of the gods in the Odyssey. If Luke was consciously making this contrast we might expect him to have explicitly attributed the storm to being sent by God and then either save the crew or have, say, Paul calm the storm as Jesus did (Luke 8:22 - 25). Subjecting the crew to the horrible and traumatic experience of a shipwreck hardly seems like an act of mercy.

As it stands, it’s difficult to see how Luke was consciously constructing a contrast here if he was following the Odyssey. Indeed, if there is a thematic element here at all that Luke is following by saving the crew from destruction it seems to be the already existent general Christian theology of God’s power and willingness to save. No need to turn to the Odyssey to explain that.
The story of the shipwreck in the Odyssey is told in the style of first-person plural narration. Whether or not Luke was influenced by the other authors mentioned by Robbins, I think the two shipwreck accounts are too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account. If so, I see every reason to think that he also mirrored the style of narration.
You are a long way off from making the argument the broad parallels in the shipwreck accounts are “too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account.” (Emphasis mine)

A very long way off indeed.

Which means you are a long way off from getting to “he also mirrored the style of narration” since you’ve framed it such that that conclusion follows from “the two shipwreck accounts are too similar to be coincidental and that Luke must have been consciously paralleling the Homeric account.”

But it was a good effort. I will certainly give you that much.


Excellent summary.

It seems self evident that all realistic accounts of sea voyages/shipwrecks would bear a certain nmber of similarities.



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply