Vorkosigan

Found this discussion, extremely interesting and stimulating, of Robbins' work and ideas. Clearly R is a scholar at home in interacting with many different forms of scholarship:

http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dgowler/chapter.htm


Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Robbins' home page

Here

Some of his articles are available as links, but none that are of important in this discourse.

Layman

Probably two of the articles I referred to are the most aggressive point-by-point assault on Robbins' theory.

Colin Hemer, First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28, TB 36, at 70-109 (1985). Hemer repeats the highlights of his rebuttal in Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts.

The other response that seems pretty expansive is:

Susan M. Praeder, "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts." NovT 29, 193-218 (1987).

Layman

I actually thought the cited authorities made good progress in showinbg that there simply was no customry usage of "we" as an indicator of a sea voyage in ancient times.

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Robbins may be a modern scholar, but his work on the "We-Passages" seems outdated.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.

Even in the article you cite, the only works referred to are from the seventies. Of course, that does not itself make them outdated or not modern. I simply mean that I have seen a lot of responses but no replies yet.

I would be surprised if Robbins had not attempted a response to these criticisms, and would love to see references or articles concerning them.

Here are the citations I found in the link you provided:

V. K. Robbins, `The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages', BR 20 (1975) 5-18; idem.,`By Land and By Sea: A Study in Acts 13-28', SBLSP 15 (1976) 381-96; idem, `By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages', in Perspectives on Luke-Acts. (ed. C. H. Talbert; Perspectives in Religious Studies; Special Studies Series, No. 5; Macon, Ga: ercer University Press and Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1978) 215-42.

Layman

Why wouldn't the discussion change anyone's mind? Are you saying no amount of evidence or analysis will affect your view of Acts?

Sauron

Layman, here is an example of how discussions get sidetracked. Toto said:

but I doubt that anyone is going to change their opinion on the historical value of Acts based on how its use of personal pronouns compares to other literature of the era.

It's clear that Toto is saying that the question of pronoun usage and consistency, by itself as a stand-alone argument, is not of sufficient weightiness to decisively sway someone in either direction. I.e., either decisively in favor of the historicity of Acts, or decisively against the historicity of Acts. It's simply not that powerful of an argument, for *either* side in the debate.

Yet instead of seeing that obvious point, you set up a false dichotomy and then expect Toto to defend it. Your response:

Are you saying no amount of evidence or analysis will affect your view of Acts?

"no amount of evidence or analysis" is nowhere near equivalent to what Toto was saying. In addition, your question is accusatory, and imply that Toto's mind is closed to facts. The question has the form of "when did you stop beating your wife"?

So why did you say the above? I have to believe that it was deliberate on your part. I thought you were interested in honest discussion and not derailing arguments with personality clashes.

Toto

I do not think that there is any existing amount of evidence that would allow us to choose between: 1) Acts is mostly historically accurate but written in a literary style, or 2) Acts is historical fiction with some accurate historical details woven into the narrative.

I don't want to get into this topic any more until I read Robbins' essay.

Layman

Yes, you are providing yet another example of how you sidetrack discussions and waste our time.

I asked Toto what he meant. Please note the use of questionmarks. Toto is free to speak for himself and does not need you to babysit him.

Please try and stay on topic.

I tried a new thread so we could have a real discussion about a real issue, rather than your constant, obsessive forays into tangential personal attacks on me or my posting style. So far everyone else has been obliging. I'm sure you could do so too.

Sauron

No, Layman. I am calling you on the carpet for your own behavior.


Very lawyerly of you, Layman. However, the fact that you framed your accusation in the form of a question doesn't change the nature of it. You created a enormous strawman of Toto's position, instead of focusing in on the point that he made. It wasn't like the point he made was obscure or hard to find. It was right there, in front of your noise.

Therefore, your false dichotomy was not only insulting, but redundant, since you already knew what Toto's real point was.

Toto can defend himself. However, since you earlier protested mightily to *me* about how you were different than others around here, because *you* wanted good discussion, I thought it would be instructive to both you and the audience to see how flimsy and short-lived that excuse was.


If only you would follow your own advice. :boohoo: