Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 02-19-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Are you sure about this?

Quite. I'll be putting up another argument in a new thread later today.

Do you want a list of Intros and Commentataries that affirm that Acts was written by a companion of Paul?

You could find commentators to say whatever you want. But since there's no evidence in favor of that opinion, it simply remains the hopeful opinion of a group of scholars largely composed of people faith-committed to their "scholarly" positions.

Vorkosigan

Layman · 02-19-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I do not believe his claims about Acts have been refuted by "00s of examples". Nor have you nor anyone else shown that to be the case.

Are you deliberately obtuse? I'm discussing one statement he made about an area clearly outside of Sherwin-White's expertise -- that 40 years is not enough time. There are 00s of examples that refute that claim.

It appears that you guys are being deliberately obtuse. I never used Sherwin-White to make any claim about legendery development.

Quote:

Perhaps you are confused. I have never relied on Sherwin-White to claim that there was no legendery development in the gospels. In fact, I've never relied on Sherwin-White to discuss legendary development at all!

Good. Then why is it an issue for you that we bitch-slap that claim into eternity?

A couple of reasons. First, because my name has been associated with the claim for some reason. Second, beause you guys are hypocritical savaging a position for which you don't even have a cite.

Quote:

And are you saying that someone's position can be deemed untenable even if you have not read the original article expressing that position?

Robbins makes a complex argument across a range of literary genres involving several centuries of works and many different cultures. Sherwin-White makes an offhand comment on a single issue that is obviously refuted by even the most cursory knowledge of history and of the NT. Can you see the difference?

How do you know it's an offhand comment?

And I've read everything I could find about Robbin's theory, which was plenty. I've now engaged the author himself on the topic. And he still can't demonstrate any evidence that there existed any such convention.

Layman · 02-19-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
You could find commentators to say whatever you want. But since there's no evidence in favor of that opinion, it simply remains the hopeful opinion of a group of scholars largely composed of people faith-committed to their "scholarly" positions.

Vorkosigan

So let me clarify this statement:

thinks that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, when the concensus upheld in all the Intro books by writers of whatever stripe, is that she was not Paul's companion.

When you say "upheld" you certainly do not mean that every Intro by "writers of whatever stripe" actually rejects the notion that Acts was written by a companion of Paul? Right? What did you mean?

Quite a few scholars affirm that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.

Vorkosigan · 02-19-2003, 06:24 PM

When you say "upheld" you certainly do not mean that every Intro by "writers of whatever stripe" actually rejects the notion that Acts was written by a companion of Paul? Right? What did you mean?

No, just that the concensus is that the writer was not a companion of Paul, and all the Intro books generally agree that that is the concensus, regardless of the faith commitments of the author. Thus Bart Ehrman the atheist and Udo Schnelle the believer both affirm that.

This whole Sherwin-White thing is a pointless distraction. Let's get back to Robbins' where I thought you were doing good work, eh? The remark on tactics was only to confirm that I thought you taking the right tack, and that you shouldn't listen to Bede.

Vorkosigan

Layman · 02-20-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
When you say "upheld" you certainly do not mean that every Intro by "writers of whatever stripe" actually rejects the notion that Acts was written by a companion of Paul? Right? What did you mean?

No, just that the concensus is that the writer was not a companion of Paul, and all the Intro books generally agree that that is the concensus, regardless of the faith commitments of the author. Thus Bart Ehrman the atheist and Udo Schnelle the believer both affirm that.

IMO, there are too many scholars who accept that Acts was written by a companion of Paul to speak of the disagreement with that theory as a "consensus." I would agree that it is not the majority opinion.

Quote:

This whole Sherwin-White thing is a pointless distraction.

I agree completely, especially since I never defended the point at issue.

Quote:

Let's get back to Robbins' where I thought you were doing good work, eh? The remark on tactics was only to confirm that I thought you taking the right tack, and that you shouldn't listen to Bede.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2003, 06:24 PM	#114
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	When you say "upheld" you certainly do not mean that every Intro by "writers of whatever stripe" actually rejects the notion that Acts was written by a companion of Paul? Right? What did you mean? No, just that the concensus is that the writer was not a companion of Paul, and all the Intro books generally agree that that is the concensus, regardless of the faith commitments of the author. Thus Bart Ehrman the atheist and Udo Schnelle the believer both affirm that. This whole Sherwin-White thing is a pointless distraction. Let's get back to Robbins' where I thought you were doing good work, eh? The remark on tactics was only to confirm that I thought you taking the right tack, and that you shouldn't listen to Bede. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.