132
. From Craig S. Keener, “First-Person Claims in Some Ancient Historians and Acts,” JGRChJ
10
(
2014
):
9
–
23
. Reprinted with permission from Sheffield Phoenix.
. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts,
3
:
2350–74
.
. See also Jackson, “Conventions,” which, I discovered too late to engage properly in my John commentary, offers an important contribution on this subject. In the
1990
s (but finally published in
2003
), I argued that “Third-person authorial claims appear in antiquity alongside first-person ones” (Keener, John,
105
, citing examples in Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
389
. I focus on the article rather than his larger book (Campbell, “We” Passages) because JBL offers a much wider audience. Although Josephus is the only historian of Campbell’s three from the period of the early empire, other historians of this period did make use of a narratorial “I” (cf. e.g., Tacitus Hist.
1
.
51
,
59
;
2
.
8
,
17
,
27
;
5
.
2
,
10
,
19
).
. Although the genre of Acts is sometimes debated, the majority of scholars view it as ancient historiography; see Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 123–37; Cadbury, Acts in History; Plümacher, “Luke as Historian”; Plümacher, Lukas, esp.
33–38
,
137–39
; Plümacher, Geschichte,
1–32
; Plümacher, “Cicero und Lukas,”
772–73
; Plümacher, “Monographie”; Plümacher, “Historiker”; Palmer, “Monograph (
1992
)”; Palmer, “Monograph (
1993
)”; Schmidt, “Influences,”
59
; Ehrman, Introduction,
133
; Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,”
141–42
,
149–54
(political history); Balch, “Genre,” esp.
11–19. See also my argument more fully in Keener, Acts,
1
:
51–361
.
. Nock, Essays, 827–28
(against a fictitious “we”).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
386
.
. The first person usage is thus “not chiefly a historical marker indicating the presence of the actual author of Acts or one of his sources” (Campbell, “Narrator,”
407
, emphasizing a narrative role; the latter, however, need not be incompatible with a historical marker, since Luke is writing a history).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
386
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
389
,
396
,
399
,
401
.
. Aside from the major reason addressed below, Campbell also contends (“Narrator,”
387
) that it is problematic to suppose that the narrator traveled with Paul because the narrator’s perspectives differ significantly from those in Paul’s letters. Many scholars do share Campbell’s concern at this point, and it is not my point to address it here; I address it more fully in Keener, Acts,
1
:
226–57
, esp.
250–57
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
387
,
404–6
. Campbell does recognize that the first-person singular usage in the Lukan prefaces associates the narrator with the “anonymous” author (
405
).
. The earlier historian Herodotus names himself in the third person (
1
.
1
pref.), but this was not a universal standard. For a survey of prefaces only, some historical prefaces identify their authors only by speaking in the first-person singular (Livy
1
. pref.; Arrian Alex. pref.; Tacitus Ann.
1
.
1
; Hist.
1
.
1
; Herodian
1
.
1
.
1–6
); the foreign wars attributed to Appian identifies him as the author (pref.
15
), but his Bell. civ. does not; Tacitus Germ.
1
does not name the author (though the first-person singular in e.g., Germ.
2
,
46
implies that he is known); cf. also Xenophon Anab.
1
.
1
.
1
(though Xenophon appears as an actor later in the work); Sallust Cat.
1
; Jug.
1
.
. Among biographical prefaces, Diogenes Laertius does not name himself, nor does Tacitus Agr.
1–3
(though his first-person singular usage in Agr.
1
,
3
, and mention of Agricola as his father-in-law in Agr.
2
are plain enough); Suetonius cites the testimony of his father, whom he names (Otho
10
) in a biography that does not open by identifying himself (Otho
1
).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
400
, noting that Josephus identifies himself there only as author of the War. This identification, however, confirms that Josephus’s audience knew his identity.
. One might respond that these historians or biographers did not participate in action in the books (perhaps questionable in some sense at times, e.g., Tacitus Hist.
1
.
1
), but that observation would lack bearing on the question of whether a work that fails to name its author in the preface is thereby an anonymous work, since there are no other reasons for asserting Luke’s anonymity. Extended to other genres (to broaden the base of evidence), it is clear that authors not naming themselves in prefaces, or in fact anywhere in their work, does not make their works anonymous. If one protests that the author was already known, is implied in first-person usage, or was identified in a title on the outside of a scroll, one could offer the same hypotheses, if one wished, for Acts.
. See now, with many more examples than in my essay, Gathercole, “Anonymity.”
. See discussion in e.g., Keener, Acts,
1
:
23
; Gutt, Relevance Theory,
27
,
33
; Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” ch.
2
; Green, “Interpretation”; Green, “Metarepresentation.”
. On dedications, see discussion in Keener, Acts,
1
:
653–57
; on Theophilus as a real person (as dedicatees virtually always were),
657–58
.
. This is admittedly not my preferred solution, since Luke’s “we” appears in particular locations and does not always follow Silas or, apparently, Timothy.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Sometimes for aesthetic reasons, as is explicit in Polybius (
36
.
12
.
2–5
; Campbell, “Narrator,”
395–96
), and as Campbell, “Narrator,”
402
, allows as possible for Josephus’s Antiquities.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
400
. The connection with Josephus’s people is explicit in Ant.
1
.
4
;
20
.
259–60. Josephus does not appear at the event level in the Ant. (Campbell, “Narrator,”
400
).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
402
, also allows that Josephus’s somewhat greater variation of usage in this work might also be partly explained by literary aesthetics.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
405
. His observation of this function of the first-person plural in Acts
16
:
17
(Campbell, “Narrator,”
407
) is reasonable; certainly it has this effect.
. See e.g., discussions in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 184–85
; Jackson, “Conventions,”
12
; Filbeck, “Problems”; Ellingworth, “‘We’ in Paul.” For an example of “we” meaning “I,” see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dem.
58
; probably also Euripides frg.
1066
(from Stobaeus Anth.
4
.
29
.
40
).
. Far more than one hundred times, occasionally very generally for humankind (Acts
17
:
28
), but normally as part of a people (e.g., Luke
1
:
74
;
3
:
8
) or any other group (e.g., Luke
3
:
10
,
12
,
14
;
4
:
23
,
34
;
5
:
5
,
26
; Acts
2
:
32
,
37
). This is also the case when Paul refers to himself and one or more of his ministry companions (
13
:
32
,
46
;
14
:
15
;
15
:
36
;
16
:
28
), fellow believers (
14
:
22
), or fellow travelers (
26
:
14
;
27
:
26
).
. Although undoubtedly not deliberate in this case, the introduction of categories irrelevant to the point of the discussion is a logical fallacy frequently deployed in contemporary scholarship to reduce evidence supporting a position that the scholar wishes to dispute. In this case, the categories are relevant to some of Campbell’s discussion but not to his doubt that Luke’s “we” necessarily implies the narrator’s presence.
. As noted above, Campbell, “Narrator,”
400
, notes this group usage (on the level of narrator) in Josephus’s Antiquities. Elsewhere, e.g., the corporate perspective in Tacitus Agr.
46
. This is technically true even when the inclusion is merely a matter of editorial courtesy to diminish offense, as possibly in the corrected “we” of Tacitus Hist.
1
.
1
(cf. Agr.
2
).
. I have not surveyed all of Diodorus, but he fairly often narrates in the plural (see e.g., Diodorus Siculus
11
.
56
.
1
;
11
.
58
.
4
;
11
.
59
.
1
,
3
,
4
;
11
.
64
.
3
;
11
.
89
.
1
;
11
.
90
.
2
,
3
;
13
.
1
.
1
;
13
.
104
.
8
;
13
.
114
.
3
;
14
.
2
.
3–4
;
14
.
63
.
2
;
16
.
5
.
4
;
16
.
26
.
6
;
16
.
40
.
4
;
16
.
46
.
5
;
16
.
50
.
8
;
16
.
60
.
5
;
16
.
64
.
3
;
16
.
65
.
9
;
16
.
93
.
3
;
16
.
95
.
5
;
17
.
1
.
2
,
5
;
17
.
5
.
1
,
3
;
17
.
6
.
3
;
17
.
47
.
6
;
17
.
63
.
5
;
17
.
118
.
4
; material after
10
.
18
.
6
) and sometimes in the singular (
16
.
26
.
1
). This includes not only narration but on a rare occasion a statement that suggests his active presence and research, as in
17
.
52
.
6
. We should not expect to see him much as an actor on the event level.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
402
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
406
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
407
.
. As many today recognize, historical and literary approaches need not be incompatible; see e.g., Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu,
14–15
; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts,
173
; Klutz, Exorcism Stories,
16
.
. Even a third-person historical narrator could “lie or exaggerate” (Jackson, “Conventions,”
25
); the point is that the norm and expectation for truth claims in factually-based genres was that they be true (see e.g., Aristotle Poet.
9
.
2–3
,
1451
b; Josephus Ag. Ap.
1
.
26
; Pliny Ep.
7
.
17
.
3
;
7
.
33
.
10
;
8
.
4
.
1
; Lucian Hist.
8–9
,
40
; see further discussion in Keener, Acts,
1
:
116–47
, esp. regarding Polybius on
124–26). The exceptions are in ethopoiia, which is relevant in speeches but not in historical writing, or in a hypothetical “I” (such as
1
Cor
13
:
1–3
), again not relevant to historical writing (except where Israel speaks in the first person in some speeches, e.g., Deut
2
:
26–29
;
26
:
5
, again not relevant to the present case).
. See e.g., Harnack, Acts,
264
–
74
; Campbell, “Journeys,” esp.
87
; Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu,
201–6
; Riesner, “Zuverlässigkeit,” esp.
41
–
42
; Keener, Acts,
1
:
226–57
, esp.
250–57
.
. See observations in this book’s preceding chapter; my critique in Keener, Acts,
1
:
237–57
, esp. here
251–52
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
403
, paticularly underlines author variation on the use of person at the narrator level, contrasting Thucydides and Polybius, although the differences are probably partly chronological. But some variation also exists at the event level within narratives, as noted above.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
394–95
(on Polybius
36
.
11
.
1–4
;
39
.
8
.
1
).
. Herodotus sometimes notes his personal inquiry about or reception of accounts from his informants (e.g.,
1
.
20
;
1
.
51
.
3–4
;
1
.
92
.
2
;
1
.
105
.
3
;
2
.
104
.
1
;
3
.
55
.
2
;
7
.
114
.
2
), or suggests other research he did or when he himself was an eyewitness (e.g.,
2
.
99
.
1
;
2
.
127
.
1
;
2
.
147
.
1
;
2
.
148
.
1
;
4
.
81
.
2
;
4
.
195
.
2
;
5
.
59
;
6
.
47
.
1
; negatively,
2
.
73
.
1
). In most of these cases Herodotus’s use of first person does indicate his action and not simply his narrative perspective.
. “We” measured in Herodotus
2
.
127
.
2
; at the narratorial level, cf.
1
.
95
.
1
;
6
.
55
.
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
1
.
7
.
3
(LCL
1
:
23
). He does have far more occasion to mention himself at a purely narratorial level (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
1
.
1
;
1
.
5
.
1
;
1
.
6
.
5
;
1
.
7
.
1
;
1
.
8
.
1
;
1
.
90
.
2
;
2
.
47
.
3
;
9
.
60
.
1
;
9
.
71
.
4
).
. Diodorus Siculus
17
.
52
.
6
.
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
398
; see Josephus Life
1–3
,
5–6
,
8–17
,
19–21
,
27
,
30–31
,
41
,
62–65
,
68–70 and passim. Here Josephus sometimes identifies himself as part of a group or its experience with a first-person plural (e.g., Life
15
,
63
); sometimes it may simply speak politely of Josephus himself in Life
22
,
27–28
).
. E.g., Tacitus uses the first person in mentioning his relationship with his father-in-law, as noted. On biographies as historically-related genres (because of their heavy dependence on information that was believed to be historical), see the sources noted in Keener, Acts,
1
:
56
.
. See Suetonius Aug
7
; Cal.
19
; Otho
10
; Dom.
12
. In this case he was not risking self-commendation, since he was not an actor within the narrative.
. See e.g., Aulus Gellius
1
.
4
,
11
,
13
,
15
,
18
,
21
,
22
,
23
,
26
;
2
.
2
,
6
,
7
,
12
,
13
,
15
,
16
,
19
,
20
,
21
;
8
.sum.
10
;
14
.sum.
2
;
15
.sum.
25
; etc. When Aulus Gellius was traveling with others in a group, he does not shy away from speaking of the group with the first-person plural (nostros,
2
.
21
.
4
).
. Ezra
7
:
1
,
6
,
10–11
;
10
:
1–2
,
5–6
,
10
,
16
. In this case, the first-person material could reflect a source, but first-century hearers probably would not assume this; at the same time, the mixed usage of Polybius could be relevant for the composition of Ezra, and is even more relevant for how a first-century audience would have heard the work.
. In these cases Moses speaks as part of Israel, even in cases where he or some other individuals may not have specifically acted as a warrior (e.g., Deut
2
:
33–36
). Moses nevertheless remains part of the group that acted corporately; in the case in Acts, the “we” narrator would not be part of the group that travels (especially given his sporadic mention of himself) unless he actually traveled with them.
. For the first person, see Isa
6
:
1
,
5–8
,
11
;
8
:
1
,
3
,
5
,
11
,
16–18
(a continuation of the same material that included third person in
7
:
3
); possibly
24
:
16
;
25
:
1
; for the third person, Isa
2
:
1
;
7
:
3
;
13
:
1
;
20
:
2
; and the lengthy narrative unit in chs.
37
—
39
.
. For the first person, see e.g., Jer
1
:
4
,
6–7
,
9
,
11–14
;
4
:
10
;
5
:
4
;
6
:
11
;
10
:
23–24
;
11
:
5–6
,
9
,
18–20
;
12
:
1
,
3
;
13
:
1–3
,
5
,
8
;
14
:
11
,
13–14
;
15
:
1
,
10
,
15–18
;
16
:
1
and passim; for the third person, see e.g.,
7
:
1
;
11
:
1
;
14
:
1
;
18
:
1
;
19
:
14
;
20
:
1–3
;
21
:
1
,
3
;
25
:
1–2
and passim. While one cannot rule out the involvement of different editorial hands, it is possible that the author simply lacked concern for consistency, or even preferred variety. The most narrative portions may prefer third person, but even Jeremiah hearing from God is technically narrated on the event level.
. First person in e.g., Ezek
1
:
1
,
4
,
15
,
24
,
27–28
;
2
:
1–3
,
9–10
;
3
:
1–4
,
10
,
12–16
. Daniel appears in much of the Book of Daniel in the third person, but in later sections appears as narrator, with the two sometimes explicitly identified (Dan
8
:
1
,
15
,
27
;
9
:
2
;
10
:
2
,
7
;
12
:
5
), even in some contexts introduced in the third person (
10
:
1
). Cf. also the speaker in Ecclesiastes (e.g., Eccl
1
:
12–17
), though introduced in the third person (
1
:
1–2
).
. Acts, which does not name its author, and whose author was presumably known to Theophilus, cannot be easily construed as pseudonymous.
. E.g.,
1
En.
1
:
2–3
;
12
:
3
;
13
:
3–4
,
6–10
;
14
:
2–4
,
7–10
,
13–16
,
18–19
;
21
:
1
;
22
:
1
;
23
:
1
;
24
:
1
;
41
:
1
;
44
:
1
; and passim. Enoch is first introduced in the third person in
1
:
1–2
and named with the “I” in
12
:
3
;
19
:
3
;
106
:
13
; Enoch also appears in the third person in
12
:
1
;
13
:
1
; and passim. The work is composite.
. Rev
1
:
9–10
,
12
,
17
;
4
:
1–2
,
4
;
5
:
1–2
,
4
,
6
,
11
,
13
;
6
:
1–3
,
5–9
,
12
;
7
:
1–2
,
4
,
9
,
13–14
;
8
:
2
,
13
;
9
:
1
,
13
,
16–17
;
10
:
1
,
4–5
;
10
:
8
—
11
:
1
;
12
:
10
;
13
:
1–3
,
11
;
14
:
1–2
,
6
,
13–14
;
15
:
1–2
,
5
;
16
:
1
,
5
,
7
,
13
;
17
:
3
,
6–7
,
15
;
18
:
1
,
4
;
19
:
1
,
6
,
9–11
,
17
,
19
;
20
:
1
,
4
,
11–12
;
21
:
1–3
,
6
,
9
,
15
,
22
;
22
:
1
,
6
,
8–10
. John is twice identified with the first person (
1
:
9
;
22
:
8
).
. See Campbell, “Narrator,”
395–96
. In view of cultural distaste for explicit self-commendation, George Lyons, in his discussion of Pauline autobiography, notes that “Then, as now, in numerous instances where the self-assertive first person singular pronoun ‘I’ might have been expected, the plural ‘we’ appears instead” (Lyons, Autobiography, 68–69
, quotation from
69
).
. Often Luke also uses first-person plural pronouns, perhaps for emphasis (in the nominative: Acts
20
:
6
,
13
;
21
:
7
,
12
; in other cases,
16
:
9–10
,
15–16
;
20
:
5
,
7
,
14
;
21
:
1
,
5
,
11
,
16–18
;
27
:
1–2
,
6–7
,
10
,
18
,
20
,
27
;
28
:
2
,
7
,
10
,
15
).
. Campbell, “Narrator,”
407
, suggests that the narrator “presents himself as a major influence in the determination” in Acts
16
:
9–10
, which overstates the narrator’s role. But Campbell rightly goes on to qualify this statement by noting that the full group participates in the decision.
. Campbell would likely agree on this point (“Narrator,”
40
).