Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 09-23-2003, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
If you want to understand Acts, you need to read Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight. The simplistic theological ideas in Acts are part of its literary purpose - it is an entertaining adventure story that incorporates elements from popular Hellenistic literature, and which slips in some moral lessons for the edification of the reader, like a sugar coated vitamin pill. It cannot be read as straight history or sophisticated theology.

I may post some more on this book when I have more time.

Just be sure that Pervo is not all you read.

Stanely Porter, in his book Paul in Acts, levels these criticisms:

First, Pervo fails to fit Acts into an existing literary genre of the ancient novel. Additionally, Porter fails to establish that these ancient novels used historical sources as Acts is alleged to have done. And, in his attempt to cram Acts into this genre, Pervo has to downplay or ignore some of Acts' most prominent features--such as the introduction.

Quote:

Drawing upon a number of ostensibly parrallel features, Pervo claims that the book of Acts is best characterized by genre as an example of a 'historical novel.' Actually, he is ambivalent at this point of definition, and creates a literary genre unparralleled by even the ancient texts he cites.... I confine myself to indicating several of the more problematic logical and literary problems [of his theory]. The most telling is perhaps Pervo's failure to identify the book of Acts with either historical writing or the ancient novel. Such a mixed genre as he posits does not appear to have been a recognized genre of the Greco-Roman world. Pervo is quick to point out what he sees as parrallels in Acts and ancient novels -- such as imprisonments, shipwrecks, travel narratives, and various humorous and lighthearted elements -- all of which are paralleled in both fictional and historical texts of the ancient world, but that do not necessarily imply confusion in the use made of them. In the end, however, he wishes to maintain that Luke's primary source, and one that Luke does represent despite his literary and theological embellishments, is the history of early Christianity. This results in the supposition of a generic category Acts purportedly follows that is at odds with the ancient literature that Pervo cites parallel. Despite their purported use of sources (it is arguable whether the novels use sources in anything like the way or manner that Luke does or claims to do), the ancient novels are not, for the most part, trying to be historical novels, but fictive realistic prose narratives. Thus, Pervo actually creates a new and unique genre for the book of Acts, the very thing he is purportedly trying to avoid in his assessment of the book. He must admit as much when he states the ancient novel was that it was predictacable in its outcome, something that is far from certain regarding Acts, especially with its abrupt and, in many ways, literarily questionable and unsatisfactory ending. Pervo must minimize other feautures of Acts, such as the historical preface, because they are not found in ancient novels.

Stanley Porter, Acts and Paul, 16-18.

Second, Pervo compares Acts to later writings which were fictiotious elaborations of Acts. Such an argument is circular.

Quote:

Thinking to have determined the historical inaccuracy of Acts, Pervo then confirms its fictive nature by comparison with Apocryphal Acts. The circular and and anachronistic nature of this argument is manifest. He uses texts that are self-evidently derivative in order to assess the primary source. However, these later fictive interpretations of scenes from canonical Acts cannot be used to assess the literary of historical dimensions of Acts itself....

Id.

Third, Pervo's parrallels are not all that parrallel.

Quote:

The way Pervo cites the Apocyphal Acts and other texts verges on parallelomania. He is engaging in what appears to be a piling-on of sources that have parrallel elements, but are of highly questionable value when analyzed more closely. Most of the supposed similar elements can be parralleled in ancient historians besides novelists, and their use in the ancient uncontrolled use of purported parallel accounts....

Id.

Interstingly, some of Pervo's most important examples are the same as Robbins--the Odyessy and the Voyage of Hanno, which are supposed to explain the use of the first person plural as literary devices to portray sea voyages.

Kirby has refuted such attempted parrallels here:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/wesea.html

Toto · 09-23-2003, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Interstingly, some of Pervo's most important examples are the same as Robbins--the Odyessy and the Voyage of Hanno, which are supposed to explain the use of the first person plural as literary devices to portray sea voyages.

This paragraph does not make sense. Pervo mentions Robbins' theory on the "we" passages in one sidenote, and is rather equivocal on the question. It is not a significant part of his book.

I may try to find Paul in Acts

Layman · 09-23-2003, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
This paragraph does not make sense. Pervo mentions Robbins' theory on the "we" passages in one sidenote, and is rather equivocal on the question. It is not a significant part of his book.

I may try to find Paul in Acts

Let me be fair to Porter.

He notes that Pervo neglects the "we-passages" and that this is a major failing of his. Hence above Porter referring to Pervo's "sidenote." But the only treatment he does give this important (though neglected) issue by reference to the discredited Robbins thesis.

And less ye bleat about bias, Porter rejects the idea of Lucan authorship.

Toto · 09-23-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Let me be fair to Porter.

He notes that Pervo neglects the "we-passages" and that this is a major failing of his. Hence above Porter referring to Pervo's "sidenote." But the only treatment he does give this important (though neglected) issue by reference to the discredited Robbins thesis.

...

Why is this a failing? Pervo has enough to say about Acts without solving the "we" passages question. He mentions Robbins' thesis and also one of Robbins' critics.

And Robbins thesis is not discredited.

Layman · 09-23-2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Why is this a failing? Pervo has enough to say about Acts without solving the "we" passages question. He mentions Robbins' thesis and also one of Robbins' critics.

It's an important literary phenom in Acts, which great implications as to the meaning and, arguably, the genre of the work.

Quote:

And Robbins thesis is not discredited.

Yes, it has.

Here:

http://didjesusexist.com/wesea.html

and, here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=34367

But you prove, Toto, that hope springs eternal, even for those without faith.

Vorkosigan · 09-23-2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

What leads you to conclude that James the Just is an apostle in Acts? And how do you know he's not a member of the 12 in Gal? Both are rather speculative.

I don't know about Gal. I was referring to 1 Cor, and noting that it seems in opposition to Acts. But I was wrong and you are right, since James is even ghostlier than I realized.

Quote:

You base this on what? Peter has more action in Acts than he does in Paul's letters. If anything, he is the ghost in the Pauline corpus, where Peter is far more character foil than man.

Well, but Eisenman was commenting on how Peter seems important in Acts, but really, he is simply a vehicle for the story, and we know little about him of really great importance, such as we might expect for so important a character. Like how did Peter die?

Bernard Muller · 09-23-2003, 07:46 AM

I'd agree, I don't think Paul was quite Gnostic. But he wasn't exactly Orthodox either.
Regards, Rick

I think Christian orthodoxy got defined not earlier than the later part of the 2nd century. So it is pretty hard to judge Paul by standard which did not exist in his times.
I wonder, how can you say Paul was not Orthodox?
It seems to me you are referring to a more physical view of the heavens (and its "bodies"), which, as far as I can remember my old Catholic catechism days, was not on the menu.
Best regards, Bernard

Toto · 09-23-2003, 11:52 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
[The we passages are] an important literary phenom in Acts, which great implications as to the meaning and, arguably, the genre of the work.

Funny, most scholars seem to treat them as an unexplained phenomenon of no particular theological signficance.

Has Robbins been discredited?

Perhaps you missed this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=57742

I think Robbins has been misinterpreted. Peter has issued a challenge to Robbins, which implies that he thinks there is more to say on the issue. I don't know if Robbins will respond. As I noted before, his response to his critics has been to accuse them of being tone deaf and missing the point. Perhaps he will mount a different response here. Perhaps not. He does have an academic position, other concerns, etc., and the last exchange on Crosstalk (where he is not a regular) ended abruptly.

Layman · 09-23-2003, 12:06 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto
[B]

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
[The we passages are] an important literary phenom in Acts, which great implications as to the meaning and, arguably, the genre of the work.

Funny, most scholars seem to treat them as an unexplained phenomenon of no particular theological signficance.

I agree they are of little theological significance.

Quote:

Has Robbins been discredited?

Perhaps you missed this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=57742

I think Robbins has been misinterpreted.

If so, he's done nothing to correct the misinterpretation. He had several posts on XTalk and completely failed to 'correct' the interpretation that is out there. Of course, if there is any such misinterpretation it's the fault of skeptics like you that parrotted the bleatings of underinformed skeptics.

Quote:

Peter has issued a challenge to Robbins, which implies that he thinks there is more to say on the issue. I don't know if Robbins will respond. As I noted before, his response to his critics has been to accuse them of being tone deaf and missing the point. Perhaps he will mount a different response here. Perhaps not. He does have an academic position, other concerns, etc., and the last exchange on Crosstalk (where he is not a regular) ended abruptly.

Yes, Robbins ended the discussion rather abruptly. Of course, I think it's charitable to say he "ended" it at all. He simply left.

But if Robbins never meant to imply that the "we-passages" of Acts were not meant to indicate author participation, I doubt anyone on this thread would care very much about it.

Rick Sumner · 09-23-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Well, but Eisenman was commenting on how Peter seems important in Acts, but really, he is simply a vehicle for the story, and we know little about him of really great importance, such as we might expect for so important a character. Like how did Peter die?

Peter is only important as the leader at the outset of Acts. The story isn't about Peter, and once the protagonist came into play, there's not much reason to expect Peter to be a focus.

This still doesn't tell me how Peter is less enigmatic in the letters? To use the example you just cited, we don't know how he dies in the Pauline epistles either.

Regards,
Rick

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

09-23-2003, 07:46 AM	#17
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	I'd agree, I don't think Paul was quite Gnostic. But he wasn't exactly Orthodox either. Regards, Rick I think Christian orthodoxy got defined not earlier than the later part of the 2nd century. So it is pretty hard to judge Paul by standard which did not exist in his times. I wonder, how can you say Paul was not Orthodox? It seems to me you are referring to a more physical view of the heavens (and its "bodies"), which, as far as I can remember my old Catholic catechism days, was not on the menu. Best regards, Bernard

09-23-2003, 11:52 AM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman [The we passages are] an important literary phenom in Acts, which great implications as to the meaning and, arguably, the genre of the work. Funny, most scholars seem to treat them as an unexplained phenomenon of no particular theological signficance. Has Robbins been discredited? Perhaps you missed this thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=57742 I think Robbins has been misinterpreted. Peter has issued a challenge to Robbins, which implies that he thinks there is more to say on the issue. I don't know if Robbins will respond. As I noted before, his response to his critics has been to accuse them of being tone deaf and missing the point. Perhaps he will mount a different response here. Perhaps not. He does have an academic position, other concerns, etc., and the last exchange on Crosstalk (where he is not a regular) ended abruptly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.