Layman

You are the one doing the whining.

Since there is nothing in your post relevant to any discussion of Acts, there is nothing more to respond to.

Sauron

Not whining. Just pointing out how you say one thing, yet do another. You say you want to avoid personality clashes, but only *after* you take the first swipe at someone.

Illuminating your hypocrisy isn't whining. It's educational.

I've already given my comments on this particular question. I'm awaiting new info on how the problem of internal consistency was resolved.

But since you're back, perhaps you'd care to finish your unfinished business in earlier threads?

Israeli Geological Service's statement on the ossuary
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=41793


Fitzmyer's position regarding authenticity of the ossuary
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=41785

Layman

We already went over Fitzymer's position on the ossuary. You found a more tenuous sounding quote and I supplied a firmer one by him. Of course, that was in previous discussions. And I really don't have the time or interest in hunting it done again to rehash an argument we already made.

So, do you actually have anything to say about Acts? Or are you just wasting time with more childish taunts? It almost seems like its your purpose to derail any serious discussion on threads that I participate in.

Please, let's have a real discussion on the real issue in this thread.

Sauron

Did you? I don't remember that.

What about the Israeli Geological Services statement, and your reliance upon it?


Derail? Not at all. Until you took the gratuitous swipe at Toto, the discussion here was in perfect order. All participants were enjoying the discussion, and salient points were being made. But then you decided to ignore Toto's rather innocuous point, all in favor of creating a ridiculous strawman of his position. That was where the discussion derailed, and it was you doing the de-railing.

And even when I paused to point out your behavior, I did not do so in a childish or shrill manner, Layman.

Are you saying you plan to refrain from creating such straw positions in the future? That would be a welcome change to your behavior, as well as improving the quality of debate.

Layman

Again, since nothing you are posting in this thread has anything to do with Acts or the study of ancient Med. literature and its references to sea voyages, you are proving once again that it is your purprose to disrupt, not discuss.

Please try and keep the topic on focus.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
Robbins may be a modern scholar, but his work on the "We-Passages" seems outdated. I say this because I have seen plenty of rebuttals to his article (and that of others) published in the seventies, but have not seen a response to the critiques of the theory.

Me neither. Maybe I'll email him later today.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Let's put it this way....finding exceptions across many types of literature would not definitively show that there was no such convention. It may well be that the convention was deliberately flouted for artistic effect, or that some authors were not educated enough to be aware, or some genres did not follow convention....

But Robbins' wants to claim that Acts is not flouting this convention for some effect, and that the author is aware of it. However, your observation that there are sea voyages without it would pretty much demolish those two points, unless somehow we can show that Luke did not follow convention for some understandable reason. Don't see how that can be done.

So it looks like you are completely right, pending responses from others. Don't take the lack of response for a lack of interest. Your opening post was very effective, and I believe you are probably right. Going to take powerful arguments to overcome your position.

Vorkosigan

Layman

The authorities I referred to seemed adamant that Robbins simply failed to demonstrate that any such convention existed. And they evaulated some of the specific works he relied on as a basis for establishing the existence of a convention and found them unpersuasive.

Of course, my knowledge of these works is very limited. Which is why I would be interested in seeing how Robbins or others respond to the criticisms.


Assuming that Robbins can establish the existence of such a convention at all, the next big question is how does he define the convention? It would have to explain why Acts has "we" sections discussing events on land as well as has sea voyages that fail to use the "we" first-person.

I was hoping to see how Robbins or others respond to the criticisms of his theory. I haven't read his original work, though I've seen the argument made from time to time. I've never really seen it hashed out though. I figured this was as good a place as any to see what replies there are to the attacks on Robbins' theory. And since much of this scholarly dispute has taken place among journals, I understand that it may take time to track down sufficient information for informed responses.

Sauron

That's funny. When you paused to rebuke other players in earlier threads for throwing out strawmen, are you admitting that your real purpose was only to disrupt? You didn't seem to think so then; you called your behavior "defending your character" and "refuting baseless ad hominems."

Funny how when other people try to avail themselves of that same privilege, suddenly they're being disruptive.


I'll take it that you have now retracted your reliance on the Israeli Geological Service's initial statement on the ossuary, since you have failed to defend your reliance on it - not in here, nor in the original thread, nor in the new thread I opened specifically on that topic. Your Oct 22nd claim still stands unsupported:

Also, the limestone from which the box was made indisputable came from a quarry in Jerusalem.

There appears to be no good reason to question the Jerusalem origins of the ossuary.



The same is evidently true of your claim about Fitzmyer's position on the ossuary. You evidently misunderstood his position to be one of strong confidence in the ossuary, when in reality his actual standpoint is much more tentative.

Your earlier protestation that you provided us all with a Fitzmyer quotation showing a affirmative belief in its authenticity stands unconfirmed. An exhaustive search of the active BC&A Forum as well as the BC&A Archives produced *zero* posts where you provided any such quote from Fitzmyer. The two places you *did* quote Fitzmyer actually demonstrate that you misunderstand Fitzmyer.

First, the Washington Post article you quoted; but unfortunately Fitzmyer plainly says:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

So far the ossuary has withstood scrutiny, but even those who have studied it concede it cannot be fully authenticated: "It will always be controversial," said Aramaic scholar Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, an emeritus Biblical Studies expert at The Catholic University who studied the inscription.

"The problem is how do you determine that the people involved are the people in the New Testament?" he said. "It's certainly possible that they are, but I can't see going beyond that."

You also quoted a beliefnet.com article, which echoed the same sentiment of caution:

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.as...&boardID=47141

The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at Catholic University who studied photos of the box, agrees with Lemaire that the writing style ``fits perfectly'' with other first century examples. The joint appearance of these three famous names is ``striking,'' he said.

``But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that,'' Fitzmyer said.

So your claim of Oct 30th likewise stands unsupported:

Of course, what really impresses me is that so many respected scholars, like Lemaire and McCardy and Fitzmyer have passed their judgment and found it utterly convincing.

At least for Fitzmyer, this is not supported by the evidence.

Layman

I was reviewing Fitzmyer's chapter on Robbins' theory and thought it worthwhile to add some more points and quotes.

Fitzmyer states that his "skepticism rests on several factors."

First, "if it is a studied literary device used by the author of Acts, then why does it appear only where it does?" J. Fitzymer, Luke the Theologian, at 17. There does not seem to be any decipherable purpose for the appearance of the "we" other than as a claim to actual participation. I discussed this point above. "We" is used for some sea voyages, but not for others. In fact, the majority of sea voyages in Acts makes no mention "we" at all.

Second, the "we" sections cover many events that happen on land, including "the first part of the story about Paul's exorcism of the girl with the python-spirit", "Paul's long winded speech in Troas and the Eutychus incident," and "the story about Philip the evangelist and his daughters and Agabus." Id. at 19. While some are important and of interest, others seem incidental.

Third, and perhaps the most interesting addition, Fitzymer criticizes Robbins review of ancient literature.

Although Robbins claims to be reviewing "Hellenestic literature" contemporary to Acts, hhis first examples come not form Hellenist or contemporaneous literature, but from ancient Egyptian tales dating from almost 2000-1200 years before Acts was written. Id. at 19. Moreover, "aside from the fact that these tales are scarcely part of 'Hellenistic literature,' they are narratives using the first person singular, not the plural." Id.

Fitzmyer provides further specific criticisms of Robbins "examples":

"Robbins does not tell us that in the Story of Sinuhe almost the entire tale is recounted in the first singular; it is not restricted to sea voyages or lake crossings." Id.

"Robbins further cites the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, yet the narrative in the first singular is not confined to the journey to Mount Nisir, but includes the building of the ship, the pouring of a libation on a mountaintop, and the granting to Atrahasis to see a dream. Moreover, the third plural is also used with reference to a boat voyage: 'Gilgamesh and Urshanabi boarded the boat; they launched the boat on the waves [and] they sailed away.'" Id. at 20.

"Similarly, examples drawn from Homer's Odyssey prove little, since they are not examples of the first person plural introduced into a narrative when a sea voyage is involved. Rather, Odysseus is engaged in telling a story to King Alcinous and the Phaeacians at a banquet about his personal experiences, which happen to include a sea voyage. In modern usage it would all be set in a quotation marks, and this is quite different from use of "we" in Acts. Robbins makes much of the Homeric shift from the first singularto the first plural, 'a formulaic means for launching the ship, sailing for a number of days, and beaching the ship at the end of a voyage.' But he does not tell us that the first plural is also used in the account of the capture of wives and the looting of the city of Cicones (Od. 9.41), or about how the evil doom of Zeus 'attended us ill-fated men" (Od. 9.52-53). There is, moreover, a constant shift back and forth between the first singular and the first plural even in the story about recounted in direct discourse about Odysseus' sea voyage. Robbins has simply concentrated on the first plural and has not sufficiently attended to the use of the fist singular." Id. at 20.

"The same has to be saida bout the passage cited by him from Virgil's Aeneid 3.1-9. It is part of the story being recounted by Aeneas at Dido's banquet, and his story moves back and forth from the first singular to the first plural; and the latter is not restricted to sea voyage accounts." Id.

Fitzmyer goes on to note that even when Robbins cites from more contemporaneous Hellenistic literature, he fails to make his case.

"[H]ow much can one really draw from Varro's Menippean Satires (nos. 276, 473), when they are only one- or two-line epigrams? Those quoted deal, indeed, with boating, but there are other epigrams using the first plural that deal with dining (nos. 102, 103)." Id. at 21.


Regarding the Dio Chrysostom, Robbins' comment that the seventh discourse recounts a sea voyage that ends in a ship wreck uses the first person is unhelpful because the whole discourse is a personal account. The very beginning of the discourse begins, "I Shall now relate a personal experience of mine, not merely something I have heard from others (7.1). Indeed, it appears that the passage referred to by Robbins as being in the first-person plural is in fact referring to a land journey. As Fitzmyer notes, "the narration has nothing to do with a sea voyage; it is an overland journey, recounted in the first plural." Id. at 21.

After reviewing Robbins' argument and the material Robbins depend on, Fitzymer rejects his theory. Robbins has failed to show a convention and failed to show that Acts meant anything other than a claim to personal participation.

The conclusion reached by Fitzymer is that the author of Acts was indeed Luke -- a companion of Paul -- and that the "We" sections are from his own journal. Interestingly, though, Fitzymer notes that too much is often made of this fact:

I ... concluded against Irenaeus that these passages did not reveal that the author of Acts had been an 'inseperable' companion, as Irenaeus had maintained. The evidence of the We-Sections shows that he was at most a sometime companion of Paul. Thus this position was based in part on Paul's own statement in Phlm 24, where "Luke" is mentioned among his synergoi, and in part on the restricted evidence of the We-Sections themselves that suggest that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul for a time. Id. at 4.