Tercel

Yuri, can you say "obsession", and "off-topic"?

Toto

Kinda like reading Amos only he makes sense? There's some other quality that Amos' posts have?

And I don't think you know what poisoning the well means.

I am no big fan of postmodernism in general. I see Robbins as someone who has realized that Acts fails as history, and can only be valued as literature, and his job is to evaluate it as literature. But the points that he makes are devastating to Layman and his sources. "Tone-deaf" pretty much sums it up.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Rather, I'd say, concern about honesty in scholarship.

Quote:

and "off-topic"?

How so?

Yours,

Yuri.

Layman

But you'll make an exception -- as you always do when latching on to an anti-Christian point -- in this case, eh?

Where did he make any statement about Acts failing as history?

If you don't say so yourself.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Toto,

I don't think that "Acts fails as history". It's our main historical source about early Christianity, however biased, dissimulating, and theology-laden it happens to be. (I'm not talking just about the "we passages" now.)

"NT as literature" is yet another of my favourite peeves. Certainly, NT is _not primarily_ literature. It's primarily a theological and political document meant to legitimise the primacy of Gentile-Christianity. NT's literary qualities are purely incidental to all that.

This is not in any way any sort of a "literature", as this word is usually understood in a secular sense.

Robbins just happens to be on the liberal side of pomo. But the same literary tricks and word-games can just as easily be employed, and have been employed, to produce the apologetics for the faith.

Even before Robbins it was already pretty clear that the "we passages" were not written by an eyewitness. Thus, Robbins isn't really saying anything new.

Regards,

Yuri.

Toto

Layman -

He's never going to make a statement about Acts failing as history because postmodernists don't do that. The actual truth of the events behind the text is unknowable - all we have is the text. (How convenient for a liberal Christian, to avoid the actual truth value of the foundational documents.)

The closest he get is when he asks

I am not a fan of the extremes of postmodernism and its jargon, but I think that treating the New Testament as literature first has something to say for it. But you have to be willing to admit that it might not be historical truth.

Layman

I am willing to admit this. In fact, at one point in my life I favored that side.

Sounds like you are putting words in Robbins' mouth that he never said.

Toto

Hi Yuri:

I am becoming more and more convinced that Acts fails as history. I think that people do not want to recognize that point because it leaves virtually nothing for first century Christianity, but if that's how the cards fall, that's how they fall.

Acts' literary qualities may be incidental to its theological purpose, but they could be an important part of the success of Christianity, in the way they weave Hellenistic themes into the Jewish base of Christianity.

I am well aware that conservatives can play the pomo game - Charlotte Allen in particular comes to mind.

Layman

I just want to clarify something.

Robbins has not responded to, and to my knowledge has not read, the post I placed here. Nor any of the follow up discussion.

Rather, he responded to a much shorter summary of my points on Cross-Talk.

Layman

And when did you believe otherwise?