Vorkosigan

For those of you not on XTALK, Robbins posted this XTALK (I have changed Layman's name to "Layman" and edited a URL, otherwise the passage is unedited:

I want to thank Jeffrey Gibson for inviting me to respond to the message sent by Layman. I have not responded systematically to the studies to which Layman refers, since I have wanted to see if the field of early tian studies has substantive resources in its modes of interpretation to bring into prominence the remarkable socio-rhetorical dynamics of early tian sea voyages (and other accounts) that make them powerful tian texts. It has been informative to see the sustained exclusionary strategies that have been used to defend the perspective of the sea voyages in Acts as authentic eye-witness accounts. The result of
these strategies has been to turn readers' attention away from the truly remarkable qualities of this early tian discourse in the cause of what claims to be "the truth" about Luke and the "historical accuracy" of the Acts of the Apostles. This means, above all, that this early tian discourse is doing its work in the manner of a most powerful ideology, namely the discourse
hides its power from the people whom it entices into its worldview. This means that the Acts of the Apostles is good literature. I am pleased that it is good literature, and I would like all kinds of people to understand what good literature it really is.

Recently, Dennis R. MacDonald has come again to the we passages in Acts in relation to Homer's Odyssey. I expect that his work will soon appear in print, if it has not already. My primary point in the essays I wrote in 1975-78 was to find a beginning point for socio-rhetorical analysis and
interpretation of early tian literature. The study was very helpful to me, because it suggested to me how the dynamics of "real social situations" (like actually voyaging on the sea) nurture the kinds of discourse we use to persuade others of the "truths" that we see and believe. I think my discussion of voyaging on the sea in the introduction of Jesus the Teacher (1992 pbk edition) explains as well as anything what my goal was with the study. People can read that introduction online at:
Online Introduction

Layman, and the people whom he cites, have used historical,
literary, and theological strategies of interpretation in "exclusionary" ways. Exclusionary tactics are based on a philosophical presupposition that truth lies in discrete phenomena when they are separated from other things. My philosophical
approach is "relational." I presuppose that a person draws nearest to "truths"
when one sees phenomena "in relation to multiple other things." In other words,
a person begins to see the "truest" nature of something when one sees how
that phenomenon looks in the context of many other kinds of things.
Concerning the issue here, one begins to understand the nature of sea voyage discourse
in Acts when one sees it in the context of many other kinds of discourse in the
Mediterranean world. It was for this reason that I began my journey
through ancient Mediterranean literature about sea voyages. I was surprised to
discover a significant number of sea voyages presented in first person
plural discourse. Then, to my greater surprise, I found (as some other people
had found) that a number of narratives shifted either from third person
narration or first person singular narration into first person plural narration
when a sea voyage began. This suggested to me that the experience of becoming
part of "a community of voyagers" while one was on the sea was "related to" the
presentation of certain (but not all) sea voyage accounts in first person plural.

First, concerning the "greater number" of sea voyages in third person or
first person singular, versus sea voyages in first person plural. In the 1975
and 1978 essays, I began by contrasting "The Story of Sinuhe" (1800 BCE),
"The Journey of Wen-Amon To Phoenicia" (11 cent BCE), and the Akkadian "Epic
of Gilgamesh," which are presented in first person singular narration, with
Homer's Odyssey. I asserted that Odyssey 9-12 contained the earliest
example I could find in Mediterranean literature of a sea voyage that employed
first person plural narration. Five times the narration moves beyond third
person or first person singular narration into first person plural when a voyage
on the sea begins. I concluded that: "first person plural narration" becomes a
formulaic means for launching the ship, sailing for a number of days,
and beaching the ship at the end of a voyage. Therefore, first person
plural formulaic clauses unify the sailing accounts. Five times, voyages begin
with all or part of the following first person plural formula: 'From there we
sailed on, grieved at heart, glad to have escaped death, though we had lost our
dear comrades?" (9.62-63; 9.565-566; 10.133-134; cf. 9:105; 10.77; 9.142).
Twice the length of a sea voyage is recounted in first person plural (10.28;
10.80). Then the ending is summarized seven times in first person plural
9.546-547; 12.5-7; 9.149-151; 9.169; cf. 9.85; 10.56; 11.20."

Compare now the essay by Ronald H. Hock, "Homer in Greco-Roman
Education," pp. 56-77, in Dennis R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in
Antiquity and tianity (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), for
the remarkable presence and influence of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey during
the time of the emergence of tianity (including the first century CE).
Homeric couplets were naturally on the lips and in the minds of people who had
learned how to read and write Greek during the first century CE. Thus, it would
be natural for Luke, who could write in various styles of Greek (Septuagint,
proverbial discourse and dialogue, extended narrative parable, extended
narrative scenes, judicial speech), also to write in the style of first
person plural or third person narration of sea voyages.

Now to specific statements by Layman:

Layman: "First, some of the works pointed to as "examples" of this
convention -- such as A. Tacitus' Clitophon and Leucippe -- fail because they are
written from the first person perspective throughout."

VKR: Please notice that this should be Achilles Tatius, not A. Tacitus.
Also, the title is Leucippe and Clitophon (Leucippe first). To say my
argument "fails" is an exaggeration motivated by something other than careful
observation. The point is that first person plural narration is "often a
preferred style of discourse" for recounting a sea voyage, because the
social experience of participating in a small community during the voyage is so
close to hand.
I wonder, in this regard, if Layman wants to argue that the first person narrational style of Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon proves that Achilles Tatius actually was an eye witness participant in all the events in the story! This is the point he seems to want to argue. He is
intentionally misreading my identification of sea voyage narrated in first person
plural toward his own exclusionary goals (i.e., every possibility is to be excluded
except the conclusion that Luke had these experiences as an eye-witness participant).

Layman: "Second, there are more examples of third-person sea voyage accounts --
such as Seneca's Agamemnon -- from that period than there are first-person
accounts. And this includes those writings, discussed above, that are completely written in the first person or are of actual sea voyages. This indicates that no convention for the use of the first-person for sea voyages existed."

VKR: What kind of exclusionary concept is "convention" in this last sentence? Does convention mean that "everyone has to do it this way"? Some people will write according to a "convention," while others will not. Again Layman has used exaggeration motivated by something other than careful reading of my essays and the data to which they point.

Layman: "Third, Robbins simply misreads, misunderstands, or mischaracterizes
those texts were there appears to be a shift form the third-person on land to the first-person at sea. See Praeder, "The Problem," at 211-12; Hemer, Acts of the Apostles, at 317-318."

VKR: There is a lot of negative energy latent in these words. In the essays, my primary activity is a description of the data, style, and remarkable description of adventure in the sea voyages. A person who uses the words "misreads, misunderstands, or mischaracterizes those texts" has either not read the essays I have written or is trying to argue "one point at the
exclusion of all others."

Layman: "Fourth, the so-called "sea-voyages" in Acts includes a substantial amount of events occurring on land. Some "we-sections" include more actions on land than it does at sea."
VKR: Layman again has exaggerated when he has said "more actions on land that it
does at sea." But actions at certain points "on land" are, in fact, a very important aspect of certain sea voyages. It is important to notice that the "we-sections" of Acts that occur "on land" are episodes in sea voyages. I had thought, on the basis of previous scholarship that the we-sections in Acts presented Paul and others journeying along roads from city to city. I
discovered something I should have known, but that Layman and others seem not to have thought about. If a person is on an extended sea voyage, one may stop at a certain place (like an island or a harbor city) for a certain period of time, then continue on the voyage by getting back on a boat and continuing on. I was surprised to discover that all the "we-passages on land" in Acts are prior to getting on a boat, in the midst of a sea voyage, or a matter of
having recently gotten off a boat, RATHER THAN FIRST PERSON PLURAL NARRATION
ABOUT TRAVELING FROM CITY TO CITY ON LAND. The real issue, then, is "point of view" of the first person plural narration in Acts. When first person plural appears, either a sea voyage is about to begin, a sea voyage will continue, or it is the ending of a sea voyage.
There is no switch to first person plural narration in Acts except for narration "from a sea voyage point of view." The one other place where first person plural appears is in the prologue to Luke (and not Acts). In the first we-section (Acts 16:10-17) first person plural continues
as they get off the boat and remain for some days in Philippi. The sea voyage
account
extends into their invitation into the house of Lydia and their going to
a
place of prayer (16:13-17). At the point where the story commits to
additional
activities on land (16:18), it switches into third person narration and
stays
in this style as Paul travels "on land" to Amphipolis, Apollonia, and
Thessalonica (17:1); from their on to Beroea (17:10); from there to
Athens
(17:15); from there to Corinth (18:1).
Then come two of the "ten sea voyages" Layman is counting, saying that
"the
length of the voyage account is not important." 18:18: "Paul said
farewell to
the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and
Aquila." and
18:18:21-22: "Then he set sail from Ephesus. When he had landed at
Caesarea, he
went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church, and then went down to
Antioch."
In contrast to Layman, I would propose that there is no transition into
first
person plural in these brief statements, "because there is no commitment
to the
point of view of a sea voyage account." Here the narration is focused
on
"occurrences on land" rather than "occurrences on land that are the
beginning,
continuation, or ending of an adventurous sea voyage." In other words,
sometimes travel on the sea simply is "travel," at other times travel on
the
sea is an adventure "to a place for a special reason in God's plan."
Acts
16:11 begins "a sea voyage to a new place," inaugurated by a vision to
Paul
where a Macedonian man said, "Come over to Macedonia and help us"
(16:9). In
contrast, his voyages to Ephesus and Syria are a matter of returning to
places
he had been. There is no "adventure" here, thus there is no first
person
plural "sea voyage." It is simply "returning by sea to a place he
already has
been."
The we-sections in Acts 20:5-21:18 are parts of an extended sea voyage
from
Philippi to Jerusalem.
The we-sections in Acts 27:1-28:16 present an extended sea voyage from
Adrammttium to Rome.

Layman: "Fifth, there are at least ten sea-voyages in Acts that use the
third-person. Any attempt to argue that this is because of the length
or "eventfulness" of those voyages fails."

VKR: Please read again through Acts 16:6-18; 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16.
If
this is not adventurous sea voyaging enabled by miracle, which takes
people to
places where miracles occur, then nothing in scripture can be
adventurous
and/or miraculous.

Layman: "As Fitzymer points out, the use of the "we-passage" in some
sea-voyages but the failure to use them in other passages which would
be "candidates" for such a literary device defeats any claim that a
literary convention is at work here. The first person appears and
disappears in an almost arbitrary manner, inexplicable except by whim
or access to an eye-witness sources (Fitzymer concludes it's the
author's own). Fitzymer, Luke the Theologian, at 1-26."

VKR: Fitzmyer and others who say things like this appear to be
rhetorically and
socially "tone deaf" when they read the we passages. The issue is
whether or
not "the we-sections are narrated from the point of view of sea
voyages," not
whether all references to sea voyages in Acts are presented in "first
person
plural style."
I do not mind so much if people want to assert that Luke was present at
every
episode narrated with "we" in Acts. But please do not kill the baby in
the
bathwater. The we-sections are told from the point of view of sea
voyages.

Vernon K. Robbins, Emory University

Toto

He nailed Layman there.

I have read several essays in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity and I recommend it for an eye opening view of the first century.

(Incidentally, Vork - when you changed Layman's real name to his handle here, you seem to have changed "Christian" to "tian".)

Vorkosigan

My fault! I never even noticed. WOOOOSSHHH -- space, the final frontier.....

I intend to buy that book above, but last I looked it was out of stock.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Well, I usually try to be polite, but it appears that Robbins is the best example yet of literary critical bullshit. No historian should touch him with a barge pole as he plainly is rooted to the weirdest post modernist fantasies that almost killed the humanities a few years back. His work is worthless and no, I real cannot be bothered to try jelly wrestling a post modernist to the ground.

A warning for infidels, guys like him are your problem too as they would do the same for science as they do to the humanities. Paul Feyerabend as a good example. Be careful who you decide to be friends with a beware the maxim that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Well, I usually try to be polite, but it appears that Robbins is the best example yet of literary critical bullshit. No historian should touch him with a barge pole as he plainly is rooted to the weirdest post modernist fantasies that almost killed the humanities a few years back. His work is worthless and no, I real cannot be bothered to try jelly wrestling a post modernist to the ground.

Disregarding the postmodern jelly, which we can all safely ignore, do you have some serious reponse to his post?

Bede

Hi Vork,

It is quite hard to disregard the jelly as it is pretty pervasive and heavy, but I will try and explain the situation as I see it.

The case for a sea passage literary device ("splid") in Greek literature is at best "not proven". I would put it stronger than that given it escaped the notice of generations of classicists before Robbins came along. Hanno is the best example and that is open to serious question over whether we are talking a heading.

In Acts, 'we' is present on land and there are sea voyagers without it. This is a double negative against a pattern and should end the argument. On Xtalk, Robbins issues his challenge and shows he really does not know what he is talking about by talking about chapters in the text of Acts. A serious howler.

I like to think that you will call a manual digging implement a spade and an aquatic avian which quacks a duck. Robbins has nothing that can be allowed to stand outside the airless halls of post mod lit crit. If Acts is a second century fiction, then the 'we' passages were put in to give a false impression of verisimilitude and that is all you need to say. There is no need to use the non existant splid as a fig leaf to cover the alleged fraud of Act's author. That pseudonymous (sp?) writing was OK looks like it is also a myth so there is no need to construct explanations to preserve the honour of a writer who you think has fabricated history.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

I think that his explanation of why "we" is present in some land passages and not in some sea passages is worth more than a casual dismissal. (It is in fact what I pointed out to Layman in my response to his original post, and Layman refused to acknowledge it. I told Layman he needed to read the article.)

It is clear from the context that Robbins is not confused about chapters.


Acts is full of classical references that its audience would have recognized as such. Your idea that it is even pretending to be a straight history is unsupportable.

But I do agree that Robbins is a postmodernist who is using literary jargon to enhance the prestige of what might otherwise be dismissed as a 2nd century fairy tale of no particular relevance to us today.

Layman

Thanks to those who brought this to my attention.

And Bede, thanks for giving some credence to my first impression that there was more than history going on in his response. I do plan on responding to him, though I'm not sure how my being "exclusionary" rather than "relational" or complaints about my "negative energy" reinforce his point.

FYI-As time permits I will respond to Robbins on Cross-Talk. If time permits after that, I'll post a response here.

Yuri Kuchinsky

While I may not often agree with Bede and Layman, in this case I think they have a point. Generally, I think the whole post-modernism thing is an amazing waste of time.

The biggest sin of all such pretentious jargon-laden theorising is that these pomo drones just _assume_ that the NA Greek text must be the "original thing", and then begin to play lots of word-games with it. Meanwhile, NA text is, quite simply, a fraud -- a late and corrupt 4c text.

From my point of view, the only NT scholarship that makes sense is the textual scholarship. Because we still need to locate that pre-canonical text.

Regards,

Yuri.

Tercel

I think that post of Robbin's is quite possibly the funniest I've ever read. It's kinda like reading Amos - only that the sentences actually make sense. Not only that, but reading his introductory paragraphs - can you say "poisoning the well"?

Apart from that: What Bede said.