The use of first person plural in the book of Acts

[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?

[Goose]

The following is a response to Difflugias last post in the other thread.

My claim and that of the paper I offered as support is that Luke's use of "we" in those sections is similar enough to its rhetorical use in other works that likely influenced Acts, were contemporary with Acts, or both that Luke's use of "we" is probably a rhetorical device,...

Well Robbins’ failed to prove such a premise in his 28 page paper but maybe you’ve got something up your sleeve that he doesn’t? The argument and evidential support has to be weighty indeed in order to show the probability swinging toward stylistic device when the straightforward use of “we” implies presence. And of course that’s not even taking into consideration the weight of the external evidence outside of Acts supporting Luke’s presence.

...so his presence in Paul's party can't reasonably be inferred.

The only way I know of to prevent an inference from being reasonably made is show either the logic is invalid or a premise is false. You’ve done neither.

The inference that Luke was present with Paul et. al at certain points in the narrative can reasonably be drawn from the straightforward meaning of “we” which implies presence. I don’t need anything more than that to reasonably make the inference. For you to show Luke’s presence can’t reasonably be inferred from “we”, given you are attempting to do this by arguing from probability (after all you said “probably a rhetorical device...”), you will need to show that the probability of Luke’s presence is near 0 (impossible) thereby effectively showing the premise false. Even if you managed to show the probability of a stylistic device were 1, it still doesn’t prevent me from making the inference Luke was present because there is the logical possibility that Luke was present and used a stylistic device. Simply offering an alternative interpretation doesn’t at all prevent the inference from reasonably being made.

Now, keep in mind that, though I don't think he was for other reasons, I'm not arguing that the "we" sections preclude Luke being present on the journey, but only that Luke's use of third-person[sic] plural is similar enough to other authors' rhetorical uses of it that it can only be considered very weak evidence that he indeed was present for the events he narrates.

I think you meant first person plural? Since you aren’t arguing for the impossibility of Luke’s presence but rather the much weaker argument for very weak evidence which you are going to argue hinges on the uses being “similar enough”, whatever that may mean, to other authors’ stylistic uses, then all I need to do is show those uses are not similar enough in order to rebut the argument.

It’s odd how you frame the argument here because you tacitly concede the “we” sections are evidence that indeed Luke was present, albeit only weak evidence. That seems like a problematic concession given you are arguing for the probability of a stylistic device.

Further, an end game argument for weak evidence isn’t much of an argument and it hardly prevents me from inferring Luke’s presence since most evidence from antiquity we use to make inferences about the past can be argued is weak.

Besides, given your and Robbins’ supporting arguments so far, the “we” sections in other ancient works can also be argued are “similar enough to other authors' rhetorical uses” thereby likewise making them “very weak evidence that [they] indeed [were] present for the events [they] narrate.” Thereby rendering those sections in those other works, generally thought by historians to be narrated by a witness, as weak evidence that the narrator was a witness. In other words, Acts and these other works are all in the same evidential boat so whatever we say about Acts we’ll have to say about these other works. Which makes it moot to argue for the weakness of Acts since most other works are just as weak. It’s like arguing my wife is weak because she can’t bench press 315 lbs.

Your individual position further includes the claim that my assertion is at odds with my expectation of apologists that they read texts in a straightforward way.

Correct. That much is self evident from your treatment of the “we” passages in Acts, specifically 21:15-18.

"After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present."

The straightforward reading of that text and the other “we” passages in Acts implies the author was present. There just simply is no genuine way to understand the text differently if taken at face value. You are forced to reach for a tenuous argument that appeals to sources well outside of Acts to mount an argument to the contrary.

So please stop claiming apologists don’t follow your methodology that “the most straightforward meaning within the context is most likely what the author meant.” When you plainly refuse to consistently employ that methodology yourself in regards to the “we” passages in Acts. Either that or drop Robbins’ stylistic device argument for Acts. Take your pick.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised you not only decided to double-down on the stylistic argument but are actually arguing it’s probable given that Robbins’ doesn’t even seem to go that far.

Given the argument by Robbins how, then, do we tell a historical sea voyage narrated in the first person plural was actually narrated by a witness? We can’t. Given Robbins’ argument we can't determine any sea voyage which was narrated in the first person to have been actually narrated by a witness.

That may be true, but that's neither an argument against Robbins or in your favor.

It is true and it is certainly an argument against Robbins’ methodology via a kind of reductio ad absurdum. His methodology will always produces the same result for every case – a positive result for stylistic device. Even if the sea voyage is thought by historians to be historical and has numerous indications of really having been narrated by a witness it still yields the same positive result for a stylistic device.

Take for instance two separate sea-voyages narrated in a first person plural that have come down to us from the first century.

”For as our ship was drowned in the Adriatick sea, we that were in it being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night.” – Josephus, Life

”And we said to one another, "We have sailed hither in the middle of winter, in order that we might not be all involved in violation of the law and in misfortunes proceeding from it, without being aware what a winter of misery was awaiting us on shore, far more grievous than any storm at sea.” – Philo, Embassy to Gaius

Given Robbins’ argument these are stylistic devices, the respective narrators (Josephus, Philo) were not present for the voyage. Given Robbins’ argument we would have to make a Special Plea for Josephus and Philo to argue otherwise. The implication of his argument being no sea-voyage narrated in first person plural can be narrated by a witness.

That would simply reinforce the idea that the mere use of first-person plural in this context cannot be relied upon as evidence that the narrator was indeed a witness to the events.

It’s a methodology designed to reinforce the preconceived conclusion that the author of Acts wasn’t present.

If Luke intended, as you believe, to present himself as a participant in the predominantly sea-borne portion of an adventure that ends in a shipwreck, then he would need to offer some contextual way for the audience to know that because the audience would have reasons for believing otherwise.

The consequent doesn’t follow from the antecedent here. The simple fact Luke uses first person plural ipso facto implies his participation. He doesn’t need to offer any further contextual clarification than that for his audience to understand he was implying his presence. All I have to do to show your argument is a non-sequitur is point to Irenaeus who, about a hundred years later, interprets the “we” passages in Acts as evidence of Luke’s presence with Paul without any further contextual clarification.

”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” [cites numerous “we” passages]... As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these particulars proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.14.1ff

Even Robbins concedes as much.

”For Irenaeus, the we-passages demonstrated that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul.” – Vernon Robbins, By Land and By Sea, pg 229.

And let’s not forget Irenaeus was Greek and implies his familiarity with the poems and writings of Homer some of which Irenaeus says speak of Odysseus (Against Heresies 1.9.4). Despite all this Irenaeus still interpreted the “we” passages as implying Luke’s presence. No mention of Homer or a stylistic device from Irenaeus in regards to the “we” passages. I guess Irenaeus missed the subliminal memo.

Besides, you are arguing in a circle here anyway. You are assuming Robbins’ argument is sound; that by the first century such accounts were expected to be in the first person; that it would have been out of vogue to narrate a sea voyage in the third person; that this was the tendency by the first century; that it was how any good writer like Luke would have done it; that Luke was aware of this stylistic device; that Luke anticipated his audience would be aware of this stylistic device. You are further assuming this was such a widely held literary convention by the first century that an audience would simply assume a first person plural narrated sea-voyage was a stylistic device unless given some explicit contextual hint otherwise. So many unproven and circular assumptions are underlying the above argument.

Robbins stretches his argument so thinly he is forced down the absurd path of having to argue that the destination of the sea voyage was Jerusalem.

Robbins doesn't make the argument that the broad details of the journey (like ports of call) are fictional. If Jerusalem was the actual destination of Paul's party at the conclusion of a voyage that was predominantly sea-borne, then it's hardly "absurd" that Luke might have rhetorically presented it that way. It is certainly arguable whether a competent rhetorician (as I think we agree Luke was) would do so, but your emotional polemic isn't evidence that he didn't.

You need to prove the antecedent that, “If Jerusalem was the actual destination of Paul's party at the conclusion of a voyage that was predominantly sea-borne...” Now that’s going to be very difficult, if not impossible, considering the overall journey, as I show in the illustration of Paul’s so called third missionary journey below, is characterized by roughly as much travel on land as on sea. Now if by “voyage” you mean just the “sea voyage” segment to Ptolemais then your consequent does not follow.

Lest I be accused again of an “emotional polemic”, whatever that might be, I will provide the evidence below that Luke didn’t present it that way thus denying the consequent to your argument and thereby allowing me to deny the antecedent and infer Jerusalem was not the destination of the sea voyage.

As an aside, I think that most of the events in Acts are fictional, but are nonetheless based on events portrayed in the Pauline epistles. I'm not arguing that kind of minimalism here, but even so, Luke still has a framework of facts that he must work with and Paul treats Jerusalem as an important destination even in the epistles.

That Jerusalem was an important destination is not in dispute.

”Since the destination of the sea voyage is Jerusalem, first person plural narration continues until Paul goes in to James and the elders (21:18).” -Robbins, p. 232.

Robbins must argue this absurd premise even though Jerusalem is about 70 km inland from the closest port of Ashdod.

While Robbins' argument is somewhat conjectural (we're trying to get into the mind of Luke, after all), once again, it's hardly "absurd."

It implies a contradiction and thus it’s absurd to argue the destination of a sea-voyage is a distant inland city such as Jerusalem. It’s not logically possible to get to Jerusalem by boat. The exception might be if there were a large enough navigable river connecting the sea coast to Jerusalem (or at least running near it). But no such river exists (and no evidence one did exist at the time) in the case of Jerusalem.

Instead, I might say that as your argument relies on making the accounts in Acts appear as different from potential literary parallels as possible, you must argue the hyperbolic premise that including an overland segment in a journey absolutely precludes Luke's literary treatment of it as a sea voyage.

Well you can say that, but you’d be wrong. My argument relies on the prima facie evidence that the straightforward meaning of “we” implies presence. Any argument I might make against alleged parallels is a counter argument to a parallel argument. But that’s all quite irrelevant to the point I’m making here. My arguments, whether I must make them or not, have not required me to argue a contradiction and thus an absurdity as Robbins’ argument does.

And by the way, a significant overland segment in an overall journey does preclude the overall journey from being characterized as a “sea voyage.” Robbins ought to know this if he understands basic logic. But Robbins has no choice but to toss logic in the trash if he wishes to maintain the argument. He must argue the absurd premise the destination of the sea voyage is Jerusalem. Irrational arguments be damned, full speed ahead!

To the contrary, I see evidence that Luke is intentionally setting this up narratively. Luke identifies Paul's destination as Jerusalem several times, including during the sea voyage itself (19:21, 20:16, 20:22, 21:4, 21:11-12).

That the final destination of this particular journey was Jerusalem has never been in dispute. I conceded as much in my last post.

It looks to me like Luke is the one that made Jerusalem the destination of the sea voyage, not Robbins.

Look more carefully. Luke takes the time to explicitly state the sea voyage segment was finished before they made their way to Caesarea and then Jerusalem.

”When we had finished the voyage [τον πλουν διανυσαντες] from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais, and after greeting the brethren, we stayed with them for a day. On the next day we left and came to Caesarea...” – Acts 21:7-8

The word Luke uses is πλόος and it implies the meaning of sea-voyage. διανύω implies to fully accomplish or bring to an end. Luke couldn’t have been more clear that as far as he was concerned the sea voyage had ended well before the land journey to Jerusalem. It’s only in the mind of Robbins’ and his supporters that Jerusalem was the destination of the sea-voyage.

Caesarea is about 90 km (as the crow flies) inland from the coastal city Caesarea. And that’s assuming the final port destination was Caesarea and not Ptolemais (21:7) which would be even further. The ultimate destination of the overall journey was Jerusalem, yes. But the destination of the “sea voyage” leg of the journey was Caesarea (or maybe Ptolemais). No rational person thinks of a 70-90 km land journey as a “sea voyage.” Robbins is forced to commit intellectual suicide here by arguing “the destination of the sea voyage is Jerusalem.” In short, we have first person plural narration taking place in a part of the story which is not a “sea voyage” at all thereby effectively falsifying his entire argument.

If we once again ignore the emotional bulk of your argument, we're left with the claim that extending the "we" narration on land to Jerusalem precludes Luke's conformance to the rhetorical style of a sea journey.

Correct. That’s because narration in the first person plural for the land journey to Jerusalem does not conform to the sea journey stylistic device. Your argument entails that we class both land and sea journeys as sea journeys. That’s patently absurd.

I think that Luke has set up Paul's round trip beginning and ending at Jerusalem as Paul's heroic journey, culminating with his Homeric nostos, the hero's return home by sea.

Appealing to nostos is entirely ad hoc meant to salvage the argument after falsification. Paul’s journey here doesn’t align with the nostos thematic elements most notably the main one which is characterized by the hero returning home by sea. A classic example of nostos being that of Odysseus’ journey in the Odyssey. His journey can be illustrated something like this:


Now compare this to an illustration of Paul’s so-called third missionary journey ending in Jerusalem (Acts 18:23 - 21:17):


Notice Paul’s journey is characterized by travelling from place to place roughly as much by land as by sea. Whereas Odysseus travels from place to place entirely by sea. Further notice there is no “round trip beginning and ending at Jerusalem” for Paul as you claim. Although it seems Paul received his rabbinic education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) it would be debatable that Jerusalem was, strictly speaking, Paul’s home since he explicitly says he was born in Tarsus.

Paul’s journey seems no more closely aligned to the thematic elements of nostos than Caesar’s sea journeys during his Civil War campaigns where we see roughly as much travel by land as by sea and eventual return home to Rome. Caesar’s travels can be illustrated something like the following image.


The interesting part about Caesar’s Civil War commentary is the voyage across the Adriatic Sea is narrated in first person plural. It contains references to favorable winds, weighing anchor in south winds, violent storms, strong winds which blew for days, good fortune, and yes it even speaks of shipwrecks (Civil War Commentaries 3:26-28). Whereas the sea voyage across the Mediterranean Sea to Egypt is in the third person. Given Robbins’ and your arguments we can’t infer the author was present during the voyage across the Adriatic Sea. Are you beginning to see the absurd implications of Robbins’ (and your) arguments yet?

If you are referring to the particular “we” pattern as Robbins imagines it, Acts stubbornly refuses to conform. In fact, Acts offers several counter examples to Robbins’ argument in addition to the above regarding 21:15-18.

For instance, Paul’s so called first missionary journey recorded in Acts 13:4-14:26. On page 226 Robbins virtually glosses over Acts 13 and 14 which is narrated in the third person and contains several sea voyages also narrated in the third person contra Robbins. Robbins attempts to get around this by passing off the sea voyages in these chapters as seemingly insignificant and disconnected “short clauses” where “no detailed sea voyage occurs.” But Robbins ought to know better. He ought to know that a careful reading of these chapters reveals a connected long journey, Paul’s so-called first missionary journey.

You do raise a good point against Robbins here but I think the solution is that the sea voyages prior to Acts 16 aren't part of Paul's nostos. I'm aware of the danger of reading too much into the text, but I'm also struck by the coincidence between Paul's embarkation point of Troas (Τρωάς) and Odysseus's start at Troy (Τροία). Lest they seem too different, note that the same word with a different accent (Τρῶας) is a Homeric word for "Trojans." I think that's one of the details that suggested a Homeric, heroic journey to Luke while he was reading the epistles (2 Corinthians 2:12).

Thank you but it’s not just a good point I raised. It’s an argument which I elaborated on in this unanswered post. An argument which effectively falsifies Robbins’ entire theory.

As for the ad hoc (and somewhat circular) assertion there is a solution in that the sea voyages in Acts 13/14 aren’t part of Paul’s nostos. Firstly, and most importantly, that assertion does not directly address the arguments I made. So they remain standing.

Secondly, basing all this on the coincidence of embarking from Troas for Paul and Troy for Odysseus seems hopelessly insufficient to make the sea voyages in Acts 16 a part of Paul’s Homeric nostos when those voyages refuse to conform to the characteristics of nostos or the Homeric journey of Odysseus anymore than the sea-voyages in Acts 13/14. Not to mention Paul’s place of embarkation on this journey was from the land at Antioch (Acts 15:35 – 18:23). His reason for the journey being...

”After some days [in Antioch] Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” - Acts 15:36

Let’s look at the illustration of this journey again.


Does that really look like one long “sea voyage” to you? Notice this journey, like the others in Acts, is best characterised as movement from place to place by lengthy land and sea segments contra a Homeric-type nostos which is best characterised as movement from place to place by sea. Even if we take Troas as the embarkation point for Paul there is still a sufficient number of lengthy land travel segments between Acts 16:11 – 18:23 to prevent characterising this portion of the journey as a Homeric-type sea voyage. With some of those land events being narrated in the first person (16:13-17) and sea voyages being narrated in the third person (17:14-15, 18:18-22) all contra Robbins.

I would like to further address your suggestion that, “I think that's one of the details that suggested a Homeric, heroic journey to Luke while he was reading the epistles (2 Corinthians 2:12).”

That’s a highly problematic notion given Paul’s explicit command to the Corinthians against such things just a few chapters later in the very letter you argue Luke used to take his narrative cues for Acts.

”14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” – 2 Cor 6:14-16

So despite this explicit warning from Paul, Luke intended to portray Paul as a Homeric hero like Odysseus. A hero who was a descendant of the gods, a partying warrior, and a man who had promiscuous sex with the goddess Circe. Think about how ridiculous that sounds for just a moment.

When you are done thinking about that, think about the response by Paul and Barnabas when the people at Lystra call them Zeus and Hermes and want to make sacrifices.

”11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” 12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain [μάταιος] things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.”

The response from the apostles is twofold. First, Paul and Barnabas rend their garments. A unique and powerful Jewish expression of grief. An expression which other Gospel writers have associated with blasphemy (Mark 14:63). Then, the apostles go on to effectively trash the entire Greek religion and gods as useless by calling it μάταιος.

This passage seems inexplicable given the notion Luke was freely mimicking the heroes of Greek mythology and using them as his template to construct the events in Paul’s life. I mean, if I were making up religious stories about my hero I wouldn’t use the writings of a religion I thought was blasphemous and a pile of garbage as the source for my narratives.

The relatively short sea voyage segment from Troas to Philippi being the only “we” section.

Notice both journey’s are more accurately characterized as long journeys with a combination of both land and sea segments. The first journey being no less a “sea voyage” so to speak than the second. Yet Robbins, conveniently, sees the second journey in chapter 15:35ff as being best characterized as the point where the “extended sea voyages begin.”

”Only in chapter 15 do extended sea voyages begin, and when they occur, the narration moves into first person plural "we."” – pg 216

[...]

• 1. If Robbins’ argument held water then we would expect to see all the sea voyages in Acts narrated in first person plural. We don’t see all the sea voyages in Acts narrated in first person plural.
  2. If Robbins’ argument held water then we would expect to see no first person plural narration for land events. We see first person plural narration for land events.
  3. Therefore, Robbins’ argument doesn’t hold water.

On the other hand, if Robbins' argument could be interpreted to be as universal as you wish to claim, then the Odyssey itself should show no examples of sea voyages told in the third person, at least when Odysseus is involved, but it does (Books 5 and 13 are narrated in the third person).

Firstly, you are not directly engaging either the logic or the premises of my arguments here. My arguments here say nothing specifically about universality or the Odyssey so this seems to be some kind of strawman if it is meant as a refutation of my arguments above.

Secondly, if you now wish to argue against the notion that Robbins’ argument is universal, that’s fine by me. But that seems to be an about-face from your earlier post where you seemed to interpret Robbins’ argument as universal, at least in regards to Acts...

Whether Acts was actually written by a companion of Paul or not, the "we passages" fit a rhetorical pattern found in extant literature, which can be consistently applied to the work as a whole.

If Robbins’ argument isn’t universal or can’t be applied to Acts as a whole, then how can it explain all the “we” passages in Acts? If it doesn’t explain all the “we” passages in Acts how can you maintain your (his) position with that argument?

On a separate note regarding Robbins’ paper. He says...

”In conclusion, there are three texts, in addition to the book of Acts, where third person narrative style shifts to first person plural when a sea voyage is initiated...The we-passages fit the genre of sea voyage narratives. Such accounts would be expected to contain first person narration, whether or not the author was an actual participant in the voyage. Without first person narration the account would limp. By the first century A.D., a sea voyage recounted in third person narration would be considered out of vogue, especially if a shipwreck or other amazing events were recounted. For this reason an alert writer like Luke would place himself on the journey by using first person plural.” pg. 228

And in his concluding remarks when answering the question why does the author use first plural "we" as he narrates those voyages, Robbins says...

”First, it appears that the natural tendency to employ first person plural style within the sea voyage genre was a major factor.” pg 241.

But Robbins survey of first century literature in his paper is rather paltry, highly selective, and self serving. It's nowhere near broad enough to make such hefty and sweeping assertions. There are numerous sea voyages found in first century literature narrated in the third person. Possibly even more than the first person narrated sea voyages. Setting aside the third person sea voyages narrated in the New Testament, here’s a broader sampling working in somewhat chronological order through the first century:

[...]

Need I go on?

All written in the first century (or very close) and all have some kind of sea voyage narrated in the third person contra Robbins.

I agree that Robbins shouldn't have claimed that such narration was a "natural tendency," but I don't otherwise see much effect on the paper's conclusion.

Without that premise of “natural tendency” Robbins’ argument has no bite since he has no concrete parallels. And he shouldn’t have argued it was the “natural tendency” by the first century because that premise is not only intuitively problematic it is demonstrably false as I’ve shown with the works you snipped out.

You don’t see much effect on the paper’s conclusion from that premise being false (or otherwise absent)? Really? It’s a major underlying premise which Robbins tries to build upon throughout the paper. Heck, he even gives it as the first premise literally calling it a “major factor” in his concluding summary argument on page 241 for goodness sakes.

I can’t do much more than show the reasoning is invalid and prove a major premise in an argument to be false. If doing all that isn’t enough, and you still see the argument as persuasive despite the logic being bad and a major premise being demonstrably false, then what more can I do? You are of course welcome to hold onto a falsified argument, but just keep in mind you do so irrationally.

Robbins has established that such a style exists in preserved literature in narrative circumstances that reflect those of Acts.

But simply establishing such a narrative style existed doesn’t get him to Luke using it. He’s got nothing concrete to get him to that conclusion. So he is forced to argue for the general notion of tendency. Once that premise falls, as it has, he’s left standing there lamely pointing to the existence of a stylistic device in other works. To which I would respond, so what does that prove aside from the existence of the stylistic device?

Whether the number of examples rises above some arbitrary limit, several of the examples are in works that were influential then and, indeed, are still influential today.

It’s not just that there are more examples of third person sea narration than first person. That fact alone is sufficient to sink the tendency argument. The argument is much broader than that. It’s also that third person sea narration was found among a wide variety of first century authors, in a variety of literary genres, and written throughout the span of the first century. It thoroughly falsifies the first century tendency argument in every meaningful aspect.

As for examples in other works you assert were influential, well what does that prove aside from their existence? It seems like the existence of a stylistic device, in the end, is all you and your man Robbins have got.

That's all for now, I will address your argument that Acts mirrored the Odyssey in a separate post.

[bluegreenearth]

Question for debate: Is the use of first person plural in the book of Acts a stylistic device?

I have an issue with the way you phrased the question as it may be unrepresentative. It is my understanding that no one is claiming the first person plural in the book of Acts can only be a stylistic device as the question seems to imply but is merely a possibility that has not yet been ruled-out. If that misrepresentation was not deliberately intended, then please rephrase the question accordingly.

Otherwise, it is important to understand that the proper course of action here is to first determine if the claim is falsifiable. In the event that it is determined to be falsifiable, then the next step is to identify the evidence you would expect to find if the claim is false. The final step in the process is to try and discover if that disconfirming evidence exists. Only when you've acquired the disconfirming evidence can the claim be fairly dismissed as a possibility. This is the only way to mitigate for confirmation bias. Now, should you fail to identify what evidence would be required to falsify the claim or fail to discover the disconfirming evidence that would be expected under the presumption of the claim being false, then there will be no way to rule it out as one possible interpretation of the first person plural in the book of Acts.

Note: The same procedure would apply to whatever claim you are endorsing.

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Is the use of first person plural in the book of Acts a stylistic device?

I have an issue with the way you phrased the question as it may be unrepresentative. It is my understanding that no one is claiming the first person plural in the book of Acts can only be a stylistic device as the question seems to imply but is merely a possibility that has not yet been ruled-out. If that misrepresentation was not deliberately intended, then please rephrase the question accordingly.

To be fair, I phrased a statement that way in the original discussion. If that leads to a flawed question (and it might be), it's my fault.

[Goose]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #3]
If you think the question for debate may be a misrepresentation of your (or someone else's) position and thus you have an issue with it, you are under no obligation to attempt an answer. Just like I'm under no obligation to change the question just because you have an issue with it. You could always start a new thread with your own question. Or you could just try to answer my question but in a way that reflects your view.

But, please, whatever you decide to do, do not try to derail this thread into a side show tutorial on your views regarding falsifiability.

[Goose]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

The question isn't flawed. It's just a general question for debate because we need to have a question in the OP.

Let's not get derailed here.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #3]
Or you could just try to answer my question but in a way that reflects your view.

To my knowledge, the evidence that would falsify the claim has not been provided. Therefore, it cannot be ruled-out as a possible interpretation.

[Goose]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #3]
Or you could just try to answer my question but in a way that reflects your view.

To my knowledge, the evidence that would falsify the claim has not been provided. Therefore, it cannot be ruled-out as possible interpretation.

Well, I can only assume you haven't read my posts then. See the links in the OP to those posts where I've provided numerous arguments throughout them that would falsify the claim in as much as a claim about history can be falsified. Feel free to cut and paste those posts here and engage them directly.

[bluegreenearth]

Well, I can only assume you haven't read my posts then. See the links in the OP to those posts where I've provided numerous arguments throughout them that would falsify the claim in as much as a claim about history can be falsified. Feel free to cut and paste those posts here and engage them directly.

Personally, I don't understand why it matters whether the anonymous author of Acts was present with Paul or not. Either way, the claims of supernatural events described in the text have no implicit empirical basis by which to know if they could have possibly occurred in reality unlike other historical claims that do have an implicit empirical basis. Unless your methodology has a means by which to distinguish imagined things from real things, there will be no justification for presuming any conclusion you reach is reliable.

[Goose]

Personally, I don't understand why it matters whether the anonymous author of Acts was present with Paul or not.

But 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.