S.C.Carlson

Much better, thanks. It's an interesting piece of work.

Vorkosigan

Ben and Win, here's the relevant passage from Winkler's intro:

"Contemplating the fragmentary novels, one is often struck by the accuracy of Bahktin's observation about the plasticity of the novel form and the way in which it "fused together in its structure almost all genres of ancient literature."(1981:89). The Sesonchosis fragments are a case in point. (This is an historical romance whose protagonist is pharoah of the Twelfth Dynasty -- Senwosret, or Sesostris as Herodotos calls him.) A fragment of Sesonchosis, when first published, was identified as history. Only later was it reclassified when a new and more extensive peice of it came to light. A cogent argument was made to assign one fairly extensive fragment to a lost oration of Lysias, until proved to be from Lucian's Ass Tale. A part of Metiochos and Parthenope was originally labeled "philosophical" because it opens with a discourse modelled on Plato's Symposium, the subject of which was the power of Eros. Such examples can be multiplied."(p8-9)

Layman

Toto,

I offer the same quote from Pervo in my article.

Layman

Did I argue that the author of Acts had no knowledge of Paul's letters? I thought I was arguing that the author of Acts did not use them as source material.

Layman

At first I thought it was something worth mentioning. I do not imply the absence of anything like our modern day bodice-ripping novels was suggestive. But the more I looked into the apocryphal Acts the more telling I thought this point was. The tremendous popularity of this element, often involving a woman in jeopardy who maintains her moral uprightness throughout the novel, is revidence in almost all ofthe apocryphal Acts, most obviously in the Acts of Paul's portrayal of Thecla and Paul, but also in the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and even the Acts of Peter. So yeah, I did think that its omission from the Acts of the Apostles was significant.

Vorkosigan

That's an element of the erotic novels, including the hellenistc ones, the Christian ones, and the oddball Joseph and Asenath. But if you look at the fiction that is lumped together under the "erotic" title, the range of stuff is pretty vast. Admittedly, this varies by author and lumper. I was wrong to speak so strongly. Please accept my apology.

At the same time, the point understands the issue in a shallow way. Obviously Acts is not overtly a romance novel. But it does make thorough use of the conventions of Greek erotic fiction. I urgently recommend that you hunt down Winkler's collection, as it has both the greek and english side by side, and all of the fragments, and a good introduction to each well, as well as a general intro. The distinction of "romantic' is somewhat artificial. As Winkler notes, speaking of the way the novels evolve and send out new forms: "Certainly the recasting of the Greek novel Metiochos and Parthenope as a Coptic martyr tale and later as a Persian poem is an inverse demonstration of how such transformations can occur as well as what unexpected permutations they may take."(p12) It's simply not relevant that there's no romance in Acts.

Diogenes is right in that your writing is off much higher quality than Strobel's. There's a huge market for apologetic stuff in the US. As Samuel Johnson said, he who does not write for cash is a blockhead.

Once again, please accept my apology

Michael

Toto

You only quote the first sentence of the block that I quoted. But even that does not support your assertion that "as Pervo candidly admits, he simply assumes rather than demonstrates that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies."

I think that this sentence of yours is simply inaccurate, and you would do well to revise it.

Toto

You argue:

While you do not phrase this as an argument that the author of Acts had no knowledge of Paul's letters, your argument does not make much sense if that author knew of Paul's letters but just did not use them as source material in any identifiable way. The author would still have been able to work his or her knowledge into the tale.

Just before the paragraph quoted here, you quote Knox to the effect "So far as the evidence goes, then, I should say that no convincing case can be made for Luke’s reliance on the letters of Paul or for his knowledge of them at all."

You then argue for an early dating of Acts in order to place it before Paul's letters became widely known.

Vorkosigan

I think another thing is worth mentioning. Robert Alter points out in the Art of Biblical Narrative that if you watch hollywood westerns, you'll soon experience the convention of the sheriff who blasts bad guys with his six shooter and strong right arm. If you see a dozen movies, and 11 have the six-shootin' sheriff, you're watching a convention. However, in the 12th movie, if you see a sheriff with a withered right arm who shoots a rifle, you're still seeing the same convention, but it has been suppressed. it would be a mistake to assign it to a different genre. Similarly, if you see dozen novels that are like Acts but have romances, it is a mistake to assign acts to a different genre. It's a romance novel in which the romance has been suppressed.

It's important to put yourself in the audience's place. Both they and the writer know the conventions. Hence, the audience expects that at the end the male and female heroes will be re-united in love. So who is Paul's lover, and how is he re-united with him at the end. Well, it might be possible to read Acts as Paul's going to his death and re-unification with God. That reading might be wrong or right, but the point is, the audience would still read the conventions into the tale even when the author has suppressed them. So how should that affect your analysis of Act's genre?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

Just for handy reference, here is the famous Thucydidean passage on speeches (The Peloponnesian War 1.22.1, translation from Richard Crawley):

Και οσα μεν λογω ειπον εκαστοι η μελλοντες πολεμησειν η εν αυτω ηδη οντες, χαλεπον την ακÏ?ιβειαν αυτην των λεχθεντων διαμνημονευσαι ην εμοι τε ων αυτος ηκουσα και τοις αλλοθεν ποθεν εμοι απαγγελλουσιν, ως δ αν εδοκουν εμοι εκαστοι πεÏ?ι των αιει παÏ?οντων τα δεοντα μαλιστ ειπειν, εχομενω οτι εγγυτατα της ξυμπασης γνωμης των αληθως λεχθεντων, ουτως ειÏ?ηται.

With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.

And the somewhat less famous note by Lucian, How to Write History 58 (text and translation from K. Kilburn in the Loeb edition, Lucian VI):

Ην δε ποτε και λογους εÏ?ουντα τινα δεηση εισαγειν, μαλιστα μεν εοικοτα τω Ï€Ï?οσωπω και τω Ï€Ï?αγματι οικεια λεγεσθω, επειτα ως σαφεστατα και ταυτα. πλην εφειται σοι τοτε και Ï?ητοÏ?ευσαι και επιδειξαι την των λογων δεινοτητα.

If a person has to be introduced to make a speech, above all let his language suit his person and his subject, and next let these also be as clear as possible. It is then, however, that you can play the orator and show your eloquence.

Vinnie, do you see the speeches in Acts as invented within the limits implied by Thucydides and Lucian (suitable both for the person and for the occasion), or do you see them as freewheeling concoctions of a more strongly fictitious kind?

Ben.