Ted Hoffman

Diogenes the Cynic: I should have said that "Robbins makes a strong case," rather than stating categorically that he had proved it.
Peter Kirby: But he does not. I have shown that and so has Chris Price.
Ted Hoffman: It is my understanding that Robert Price, Burton Mack and Doherty among others do not share your view. What this means is that it is an issue that opinions are divided over. Personally, I found that the bulk of your critique was off the mark and your approach was one-dimensioned and ponderous, thereby ill-fashioned to fully address Robbin's arguments which were fluid and multifaceted.

I have been unaware of Chris Price's ctitique. Thanks for pointing me to it. I will come to it shortly. For those unaware, I have responded to Kirby's critique of Robbins, which is at Kirby on Robbins : Is the Sea Voyage Genre Theory Shipwrecked? .

I responded to Kirby's arguments in the link above.

I noted in my conclusion:

As I was reading the comments of Fitzmyer and others, I kept asking myself everytime I met the statement "there is no literary style here": how would you detect a literary style? how would you detect the difference between when a pronoun is used to designate participants and when they are used to employ literary location or convention?

Abrupt shifts? Well, when given abrupt shifts, like in Antiochene Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, the scholars rub their hands and state its a "difficult case", call it "uncertain material for arguing a literary case", they introduce questions of dating of the document etc.

When presented with the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea as an example exhibiting the literary style, all Porter says is that the text displays an "unstudied and unsystematic use of person, the kind of thing to be expected in a non-literary document". Now the document becomes "non-literary" when the intrusion of the pronouns in the narrative style strains the flow?

So, Robbins is stuck. If he shows well-written texts with "we" passages, they argue normal use - i.e. "we" being used to indicate participation. If he shows abrupt shifts, the document is characterised as difficult, having the wrong or uncertain date or being non-literary. These are arbitrary standards of judgement and simply involve moving of goalposts and raising any available objection.

What would entail a "precedent"?

If a precedent would be "examples of a simply generic first person plural", how did you establish the criteria for such a precedent? What about the way Thucydides introduces himself in History of the Peloponnesian War 4.104.4ff, or Xenophon in book 3 of Anabasis 3.1.4-3.1.8? The way Xenophon introduces himself into the narrative in book 3 in third person then Xenophon becomes a participant in the action and the dialogue?

Kirby did not respond to this last point.

The "We Passages" of Acts as a Literary Device for Sea Travel?

A Critique of Vernon Robbins - By Christopher Price

Overall Impression

As usual, Chris Price, hereafter referred to as CP, writes well. He has a few typos but other than those, his meaning is clear. The yellow background makes the text on his webpage appear like black coals in a sea of fire. Set against a black background acting as a frame, one may have the impression that they are peering at a furnace and the leaping flames animate the whole experience. Beholding the words withstanding the heat from the fire, staring out defiantly at the reader, unmelting, undrowned by the yellow flames, a profound sense of awe courses through the reader.

There is a palpable lack of transparency flowing, crack-like, throughout CP's critique, bereaving it of cohesiveness as its fragments fall through the cracks. The reader starts reading with a sense that they are at the ground floor of a huge building but, in the course of the reading, like sand through the hour glass, the building wastes away, leaving the reader in a vast wasteland. Confused and feeling betrayed.

Introduction

My position is that CP's critique fails to deal decisively and directly with Robbin's arguments and his efforts are selective, incomplete and sometimes fallacious.

Whereas CP's conclusion is that "The examples offered by Robbins fail to support his theory", he never argues, at any point, that "all the examples offered by Robbins fail to support his theory". So the reader is left wondering: which ones passed the test? If ten "failed" did the rest pass?
It is not enough to parade a few examples (ten out of close to fourty texts), challenge them, then conclude that they fail to support Robbin's theory and therefore Robbin's theory is false. CP therefore fails to tighten up his case and the loose ends appear to outnumber his accomplishments.

This is also clear when one considers vague expressions CP uses like "many" in "Many Purported Examples Lack a Shift in Perspective", or "Many Examples are Not Hellenistic or Contemporary to Luke", or "Many Uses of the First Person for Sea Voyages Indicated Actual Presence". "Many", in the cited instances is a meaningless term whose weight CP fails to disclose to the readers.

There are many instances where CP fails to employ critical treatment to the scholarly works that he relies on, even where the arguments made are clearly spurious conjectures. This renders several of his arguments nothing more than appeals to authority.

CP also fails in his role as a critical writer because he neglects to provide guidance where there are disparate scholarly interpretations on the same text (Voyage of Hanno for example). He just states X says this about G and Y says this about G, even where what X and Y state are not consistent. CP thereby abdicates his role by failing to harmonize what the scholars have stated. I fault him for being an absent researcher who flings the reader into a den of scholarly confusion and who fails to throw the reader a ladder that he can use to climb out. Lets move to the specifics. Shall we?

CP starts by declaring that scholars like Witherington have disagreed with Robbin's thesis. This is a good thing. It shows that Robbin's theory has not been accepted by some scholars and must therefore be examined carefully. But it is important to remember that it does not show that Robbin's theory is false.

CP uses Hermer's opinion to argue that the ancient literature that Robbins uses as examples exhibiting the sea voyage narrative as a literary convention are not convincing. CP does not explain why and how Hermer determines this, and at this point, the reader is forced to take CP at his word.

The Problems with Robbin's Thesis according to CP

A. Many Purported Examples Lack a Shift in Perspective

Chris writes: "Some of the works Robbins points to as "examples" of his convention fail because they are written from the first person perspective throughout."

The word "some" is not supported by examples so we cannot assign meaning to it. More importantly, Robbin's argument was *not* that all his examples have a Shift in Perspective. Robbins states that his survey indicates that "there is a natural propensity for portraying sea voyages through the medium of first person narration". The focus of the argument is how the sea voyages are themselves narrated; the shift to that manner of narration may or may not be there in each instance.

Having all examples showing this shift would be more than a "natural propensity": it would render the use of the genre automatic, inescapable and necessary. None of which Robbins argues. So, it is important to note that what Robbins argues (a natural propensity) allows for exceptions and deviations.

CP writes: "Although sometimes there is a shift from first-person singular to first-person plural, they are irrelevant." CP offers no reasons why they are irrelevant. He just makes a declaration. He declares further that "Acts is generally a third person work with some first person plural sections". The reader is forced to wait and see whether these declaraions are supported in the rest of the critique.

B. Examples of Third Person Accounts Predominate

CP writes: "Robbins claims that the first-person plural as a literary device for sea-voyages was so dominate[sic] at the time Acts was written, that it would have been bizarre for its author not to use that it."

This is a strawman argument. Robbins does no such thing. He shows several examples of literature where the sea voyage genre is employed, and argues that it was a distinct genre, not that it was dominant. He argues that "an alert writer like Luke would" not have failed to use it because it was en vogue.

Contrary to CP's blanket usage of "dominant" and "bizarre", Robbins is specific and qualifies his statement with "especially if a shipwreck or other amazing events were recounted". So, first, an author needs to be familiar with Hellenistic literature, then be an alert author like Luke, then have a sea voyage with a shipwreck and other amazing events at sea. That would be when we would mostly find application of first person pluralin the narration.

Professor Praeder's examples, which CP uses to argue that examples of literature that use third person accounts are predominant, are only relevant *if* Robbin's argument was that examples of ancient literature that use first person accounts were predominant (a ratio argument). Robbins does not do that and therefore CP succeeds in knocking down a strawman that he constructed.

C. Many Examples are Not Hellenistic or Contemporary to Luke

CP writes: "Although Robbins claims to be reviewing "Hellenestic literature" contemporary to Acts, his first examples come not form Hellenist or contemporaneous literature, but from ancient Egyptian tales dating from almost 2000 1200 years before Acts was written."

This is what Robbin's writes: "There is a natural propensity for portraying sea voyages through the medium of first person narration. This style for narrating voyages extends as far back as the most ancient Mediterranean literature known to us."

Clearly, CP is wrong to state that Robbins claimed he will restrict his examples to Hellenistic literature.

D. Many Uses of the First Person for Sea Voyages Indicated Actual Presence

The meaning of "many uses" is unclear here. Does it mean that "few uses" of the First Person for Sea Voyages *do not* indicate Actual Presence but are a stylistic device? If the answer to this is yes, then even on CP's own terms Robbin's theory gains validity.

CP writes: "Most times the Hellenistic ancient authors used the first person for sea voyages they did so not for stylistic effect, but to assert that the author (or the author's source) was actually present during the voyage"

CP then cites Barrett and Hermer. Barrett writes "In fact, the occurrence of the first person plural in such narrative means, in almost very case, that the writer was claiming to be present and that not only on the sea"

"In almost every case" means what - that there are some cases when this norm is violated? How many examples? Barrett's statement is thus difficult to weigh. Barrett's argument, with his, "in almost ever case" clause, also allows for cases where the occurrence of the first person plural does not mean that writer was claiming to be present and that not only on the sea. His argument is therefore loose-ended and its yawn is wide enough for Robbin's case to fit snugly in.

Colin Hermer, readers will note, responded by stating that he was having "difficulty in assessing the context" when presented with Episodes from the Third Syrian War as an example of literature that contains third person narration and shifts to first person plural as a sea voyage is recounted.

So, when faced by a stark example, he responds by stating he is having "difficulty". This mealymouthed countenance smacks of duplicity because it is inconsistent with the fact that other scholars have been able to comment on the same text without voicing the same "difficulties".

F. Failed Examples

CP here states that he addresses ten of the examples offered by Robbins to support his theory.

1. The Third Syrian War

CP writes: "Robbins relies on a fragmentary report about the Third Syrian War as an example of such a shift. However, as Praeder and others demonstrate, the shift here is an actual one."

One wonders, if the report was fragmentary as CP claims, how come Praeder and Witherington could "demonstrate" that the shift here is representative of authorial participation?

The answer is: "because though it is fragmentary, what is available is enough for the purposes of making that judgement". The upshot is this is that CP's criticism of Robbin's reliance on a fragmentary report, is a spurious objection.

Thirdly, Praeder and Witherington's assertions fail to explain the shifts. Here is an excerpt from the passage Robbins cites - note that the author talks about Arzibazos in third person and that the narration shifts to first person plural as a sea voyage is recounted:
This is a clear passage where there is a shift from third person to the first person when the sea voyage is recounted. It is false for CP and the scholars he cites to claim that "the shift from third to first person is a sign of authorial participation after the recording of events in which the author didn't participate". Does this mean that the authors cited only participate in sea voyages? And does it mean that the only purporse for using the first person is to convey "authorial participation"?

The answer is no. I can write "I went with CP to London, then we prepared the ship" it means we went together to London. But if I write, "CP went to London, then we prepared the ship", that is an abrupt shift from third person to first person plural. The "we" intrudes into the narrative. CP would have us believe that the "we" above means I participated and that all is fine and dandy. This is clearly an inadequate explanation as it fails to account for the shift.

Also, note that Witherington merely proposes an alternative interpretation and thereby leaves Robbin's argument untouched. In this sense, we can regard Witherington's interpretation as a red herring.

Secondly, note that Robbin's thesis is consistent with what Witherington and Praeder are claiming because Robbins writes: "While this observation [having, in each instance, a sea voyagw beginning as the first person plural narration emerges] can lead the interpreter in various directions, it points vividly to accounts of sea voyages in antiquity".

Thus, Robbins allows for different interprerations: his argument is that the coincidences of sea voyages and first person plural narration, is striking, and pervasive enough in the cited historiographical literature to constitute a literary genre.

It is therefore naive for CP to pick a different interpretation and hold it against the light as evidence that Robbin's theory is false. It betrays a poor appreciation of the postmodernist standpoint that multiple interpretations can exist side by side, without them being mutually exclusive.

2. Voyage of Hanno

CP notes that "Robbins use of the Voyage of Hanno as an example is seriously flawed" and cites Colin Hermer who writes: "the two opening sentences are in the third person, and the remainder of the document in the first plural. But the opening is a formal heading which gives the explorer's commissioning, and it should be printed as a prefatory paragraph, as it is by its editor, and not as part of a continuous undifferentiated narrative, as it is in Robbins' rendering."

Hermer posits what he sees as a solution to a problem. The fact is, we do not know that "the opening is a formal heading which gives the explorer's commissioning" as Hermer claims. It is not written that that is the case and the text is not arranged to portray that meaning.

The text appears as a continuous undifferentiated narrative and the only seam is the shift from third person to first person. One can safely conclude that the notion of "explorer's comissioning" is an arbitrary explanation Hermer has fabricated as there is no indication, from the text, that it is the case.

His argument is similar to stating that my earlier example, "CP went to London, then we prepared the ship" means that the first part is a formal heading which gives the explorer's commissioning. It is a completely baseless claim and we have no reason to agree with Hermer.

Witherington's explanation is even more comical. He writes that "the shift occurs not because of the beginning of the sea voyage report but because the introduction is over."
What? Introductions take place in third person? One is tempted to ask Witherington - is that [introductions being written in third perspective] a literary genre?

C. K. Barrett's explanation is that the first section is "the Carthaginian resolution". This riotous multiplicity of interpretation of the passage by scholars opposing Robbins betrays the idea that they are struggling to make sense of the text, outside of Robbin's interpretation. Porter argues that the first passage is a "declaration by the Carthaginians ".

It is clear that Hermer, Barrett, Porter and Witherington pose red herrings instead of addressing Robbin's argument and fail to even touch Robbin's argument.
There is also a distinct impression that they are engaging in guesswork and employ arbitrary ideas to explain the abrupt shifts. They also fail to show examples where "explorer's commissioning", "the Carthaginian resolution" and "introductions" are done in third person and we therefore have no reason to accept their explanations.

A summary of the points made here are as follows:

a) Robbin's argument has left untouched by all the scholars cited.
b) Divergent and arbitrary explanations are advanced, purely as red herrings.
c) We wouldn't know which one is the correct interpretation between "explorer's commissioning", "the Carthaginian resolution", "declaration by the Carthaginians " and "introductions". It appears there are as many interpretations of the peculiarity and the purpose of the text as there are scholars willing to comment on it. Meaning: they are groping in the dark. Their opinions are therefore worthless.
d) There are no literary precedents provided to show that "explorer's commissioning", "the Carthaginian resolution" and "introductions" were provided in third person after which the narrative could shift to third person.

CP concludes: "So the Voyage of Hanno fails because 1) it was a first-person account of the entire voyage,..."
That is because it was a sea voyage, which is consistent with Robbin's thesis.

CP continues: "... and 2) the one time when the third person is used is in the introduction to the story, having nothing to do with whether events were on land or at sea"

As demonstrated above, arguments underpinning this conclusion are arbitrary and without any basis or supporting examples.

3. Antiochene Acts of Ignatius

CP writes: "While there is shift in the currently surviving text, it is not helpful for Robbins' theory because the surviving text is a composite one and written very late."

The dating is *not* very late because Robbin's does not restrict his literature within a narrow date range as I have shown above. Robbins starts straight from The Story of Sinuhe (1800 B.C.), the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, to third century texts.
Robbin's arguments does not require that the texts be non-composite so that part of CP's argument is also a spurious one.

4. Story of Sinuhe

CP, quotes Professor Fitzmyer, "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."

This is an example of a critic of Robbins missing the point. For Robbin's point to be sustained, all that is needed are examples of sea voyages recounted in first person singular. It is not necessary for this to be accompanied by shifts from or to the third person because Robbins argument, in one part is that "There is a natural propensity for portraying sea voyages through the medium of first person narration". Note that this does not preclude using first person narration in events on dry land.

In analogy, the fact that people write using pens does not preclude that they also use sticks, pencils and the like to write. The important thing, for a case like this would be to show that everytime a pen was used, it was used to write, even if there are cases where other things are used to write, or cases where pens are used to dig wax out of ears. This analogy may not be a perfect match but it conveys my meaning.

5. Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh

Regarding this, CP writes: " ...this example fails because the first person is used to describe events on land that are not part of any journey."
I have addressed this above. It is a case of missing the point. A fault Kirby too, suffers from. I will not repeat it here. The rest of examples that CP lists suffer from similar weaknesses.

CP cites Kirby then notes: "Mr. Kirby has notified Professor Robbins of his article, but has not yet received any response". Well, I have also not received a comprehensive response from Kirby regarding the points I raised regarding his paper. That has no probative value wrt Kirby's paper, or to mine though it may mean other things.

Even Were There Such a Convention, Acts Does Not Use It

CP's comments on Acts, where he argues that "A substantial amount of the "we-passages" are devoted to events on land that are unrelated to sea-travel", is off the mark because Robbin's argument is that "The coincidence of sea voyages and first person plural narration in Acts is striking. There are four we-sections in Acts: 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1 -18; 27:1 -28:16. In each instance, a sea voyage begins as the first person plural narration emerges."

Sample Acts 16:
This is a stark and inescapable example where there is an abrupt shift from third person plural and to first person plural. CP fails to share this with the readers. One can only wonder why.

CP is guilty of moving goalposts: when Robbins shows an abrupt shift in the narration from the third person to the first person plural as a sea voyage is recounted in an instance, CP argues that "a substantial amount of the "we-passages" are devoted to events on land that are unrelated to sea-travel". When Robbins shows that sea voyages are narrated in the first person, CP and like-minded individuals come up with spurious reasons to explain away parts that are in third person then claim that the whole story is in the first person. When Robbins employs examples to use sea voyage imagery to describe the sea voyage, even when there are sections of the joutney on land, as we see in Dio Chrysostom, where, in the seventh discourse, when a sea voyage, which ends in a shipwreck and a journey, is recounted, he uses first person narration, Robbin's opponents argue that "the narration has nothing to do with a sea voyage; it is an overland journey, recounted in the first plural" and so on and so forth.

Conclusion

CP's conclusion, that "Critical scholarship's conclusion that Robbins has failed to demonstrate that Acts' "we passages" are the product of a common Hellenistic literary device for portraying sea voyages is borne out.", is incorrect. There are critical scholars who are sympathetic to Robbin's thesis.

Secondly, the writer of this counter-rebuttal considers CP's critique inadequate to qualify as a debunking of Robbin's thesis. It is an incomplete review, employs strawman arguments, uses appeals to authority and misses the thrust of Robbin's argument. Robbin's thesis, which is over three decades old, stands like a rugged bull that has survived the test of time and CP's critique is like a gadfly on its leaping flanks: a deft flick of the tail can handle it.

Jacob Aliet

Vorkosigan

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Layman

I'm tied up on other projects here, so I'll stand with Kirby's response to your "evaluation" of his article for now and offer only a few more comments. Frankly, I'm skeptical that anyone with an open mind who actually reads Kirby's article and mine, and then reads your responses, will be persuaded that Robbins' theory has been established:

I will add a note on "critical scholarship." As I said in the article, there are some scholars and commentators who take Robbins' theory at face value. But they do not examine it critically:

If you know of an extended treatment of Robbins' theory that affirms it, I'd like to see that. Just provide the reference. Based on the review of the literature, it seems that Robbins' theory simply fails to persuade those scholars who have examined it in any depth.

I also admit that Kirby's exploration of Robbins' supporting examples is more extensive than mine. I focused on the ones that Robbins himself focuses on and which proponents of the theory on these boards have seemed to accept as the most persuasive.

Your supposed rebuttal to my note about how even if such a convention existed is quite unpersuasive. The fact remains that Robbins has failed to articulate a persuasive explanation as to why the "we-passages" are used for some voyages and not for others. Some sea voyages are narrated in the first person and some in the third person plural . Some we-passages occur on land. If there is a literary device at work here, rather than the more reasonable explanation that the "abrut" shifts are explained by the presence of the narrator, then there must be some underlying reason for those shifts. Neither you or Robbins explain what that might be. The purported explanations by Robbins -- the "exciting" features, the length of the voyage, and whether Paul had been there before, -- fail to explain:

The fact that Dio Chrysostom uses first person for a land journey does not explain anything because it was written as a first person account: "I Shall now relate a personal experience of mine, not merely something I have heard from others (7.1)."

Kirby helpfully relates the passage at issue:

The shift is from "I" to "we". And even that shift is prompted by when he is travelling with companions and when he is not. And he's not really even narrating a sea voyage. He mentions the wreck, but the focus of the narrative is not a sea journey, but his overland travels after one ended too abruptly.

Vorkosigan

The fact is, as was explained to you at the time, this point is completely irrelevant.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Layman,
I appreciate your response and Kirby's. I have myself flirted with the idea of taking each text one per thread, and test Robbin's theory against each text, but that would require more time that we may be willing to devote on the matter.

You cite Kirby: "But it makes a world of difference whether the 1st person corresponds to the sections that narrate maritime adventure. If the 1st person is used in other parts of the document, then the author uses the 1st person for some other reason (other than the supposed demands of a sea-faring genre)"

This may be true, but only until we find abrupt shifts from third person to first person being accompanied with the start of sea voyage accounts. Those abrupt shifts demand an explanation. It is not enough to claim that they convey the writers participation yet, for example in Acts 16 there is "they went" shifting suddenly to "we made".

Plus, Robbin's has shown examples where sea-voyage imagery is employed in describing events on dry land to add drama to such events. Why would anyone do this? The answer is, because it achieved the intended effect: heightening the drama.

It is also clear that the first person was especially used to describe voyages with shipwrecks and tumultous storms, and seafaring in raging seas.

These councidences are striking, and pervasive enough in the cited historiographical literature to constitute a literary genre.

The fact that they "offer no discussion on" the theory does not mean that they accept it uncritically.

Most scholars employ the two source hypothesis in their exegetical works without offering any discussion on it. But we do not use that to mean that they accept the 2SH uncritically. After all, the 2SH has its critics.

I do not know where you got the idea that only persuaded people examine the works that have persuaded them in depth. I know that Dembski's Darwin's Black Box has got several reviews and from scientists who do not accept his ID theory. Doherty's book has been reviewed very seriously by Bernard Muller and yourself yet you are not sympathetic to his theory.

Your reasoning on this matter therefore is incorrect.

There are many other possible reasons why we don't see several reviews of Robbin's article:
1. There are few experts in Socio-Rhetorical Criticism.
2. A thorough reviewing of the article demands a lot of time because there are nuances to the arguments, Robbins does not overstate his case and allows for other interpretations: its too fluid to get a handle on.
3. The genre argument does not have special significance to NT studies since, even without it, critical scholars have argued that the author of Acts was not a companion of Paul and Acts is not a historical document (e.g. Richard Carrier).
4. Robbins made a rigorous case and they have nothing to add or critique.

The important thing is, we do not know why they have not reviewed it. That itself has no probative value as far as the correctness of his theory is concerned.

Kirby's essay has scholars dithering and wringing their hands and scratching their heads when they are confronted with examples where there are abrupt shifts from the third person to the first person coinciding with the beginning of a sea voyage narration. So his was easier to fault. You only presented the polished side of these scholar's arguments so yours was trickier. The amount of time Kirby put on the details is very impressive and I am grateful to him for availing those, oh, so very useful links.

You may want to explain what you mean by "the ones that Robbins himself focuses on". I did not know there were "proponents" of his theory here: maybe a few passive sympathizers.

This is a declaration Layman. I am sure you know how IIDB readers don't like empty declarations.

It is important not to treat your position as the fact. We can't have so many contradicting facts Layman. Why don't you try the truth. Or, in my view.
Like I said, some people dig wax out of their ears using pencils: that doesn't prove that ear buds are not used for digging wax out of the ears.

Robbins says there was a "natural propensity" to use first person narrative in sea voyages. He doesn't argue that it was the only way of narrating sea voyages. He doesn't argue that it was automatic and unavoidable.

Robbins did not restrict the we passages to sea voyages. That would entail changing the way people express ideas.
Secondly, having sea-voyage imagery being used to describe events on land shows that sea-voyage imagery were used to add drama to events.

The point about Dio is that the writer's usage of first person appears when he relates his experience which also, incidentally, happens to involve a sea journey and a shipwreck.

How do you explain his consistent usage of "I" in the three consecutive paragraphs yet he was with the person he talks of, they dined and slept together yet he never used "we dined", "we slept" or "we went". He maintains the first person until they "proceed" away from the area close to the sea when he started using "we".

What is your explanation for this? Why doesnt he maintain the "I" even at 7.10?

Robbins states that Dio Chrysostom "most frequently recounts tales in third person narration. But in the seventh discourse, when a sea voyage, which ends in a shipwreck and a journey, is recounted, he uses first person narration."

Robbins explains this peculiarity: "Dio's use of first person narration for this tale of voyage and adventure suggests that he was responding to the genre itself. This style had established itself within the cultural milieu, and writers found it natural to respond to this convention."

I asked earlier: why does he write "we dined" "we slept" yet they dined and slept together?
Look at what Colin Hemer writes: "In the former passage the writer sails with some fishermen, and 'we' reverts to 'I' when his companions leave him: in the latter the plural continues while he travels by land with a companion."
Do you really think this is an answer?
Yes, he was at the sea alone - but didn't the stranger invite him to the strangers dwelling where they slept together? Didn't they dine together?
Why does Hermer argue as if the "I" is used only when the narrator is alone?

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes nothing about it. He merely says: "one may query the relevance of the example cited from the seventh discourse of Dio Chrysostom".
Is this what you call examining in depth? I am very disappointed.

Robbin's explanation makes sense. Fitzmyer can't muster an adequate response or an alternative explanation. Colin hermer is simply being disingenuous.

I hope that, for the purposes of transparency and sharing all viewpoints with those who visit your site, you will link to my posts contra Kirby and contra you - just the relevant sections. I have refined the one below to remove typos and the like.

FWIW, thanks Layman, sorry I lapsed from CP to Layman four times. Old names die hard.

THIS IS FOR THE MODS: PLEASE REPLACE MY OP WITH THE TEXT BELOW (then delete it from this post). SEVERAL TYPOS FIXED, MEANINGS MADE CLEAR BUT ARGUMENTS REMAIN THE SAME.

[Replacement text for OP snipped]

Layman

Explained? Not hardly. We know many people wrote first hand accounts that included sea-voyages. They often used the first person plural to do so. These are real accounts authored by real people. Even if there was a literary style as Vernon suggests, how can you tell it from the real accounts unless there are some criteria to do so? And if such criteria are irrelevant, why did Professor Robbins try to articulate them? He did, but as I and others showed, none of his explanations are borne out in the text of Acts.