Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:32:47.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘We’ and ‘I’ passages in Luke-Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Henry J. Cadbury
Henry J. Cadbury
Affiliation:
Haverford, Pa., U.S.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , January 1957 , pp. 128 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 128 note 1 Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1955), pp. 433–6: Stilmittel (bis).Google Scholar

page 129 note 1 The only other instances of ‘we ‘ vs. Paul are xx. c 13–14 and xxi. 12–14, and under the circumstances are perfectly natural.

page 130 note 1 I assume that xx. 5–xxi. 18 is to be reckoned one ‘we’ passage in spite of the interview of Paul at Miletus with the Ephesian elders in xx. 17–38.

page 131 note 1 Ropes, J. H., J. T. S. xxv (1927), p. 71.Google Scholar In this article Ropes called attention to the bearing of the preface on the ‘we’ passages.

page 131 note 2 Beginnings of Christianity, 11 (1922), 501 f. and especially The Expositor, 8th ser. no. 144 (December, 1922), pp. 401–22.

page 131 note 3 For English readers the common version's ‘trace the course’ has contributed to the misunderstanding now that ‘trace’ in English has acquired the connotation of enquiry or discovery and not merely of simple following. Vincent Taylor appears to apply the participle to the previous drafting of Proto-Luke (The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 1933, p. 200).Google Scholar