Sauron

That's definitely ironic.

Layman insisting that someone read something, before commenting on the author's position.

Unless, of course, the author's name is Vernon K. Robbins, in which case reading the author is suddenly not so necessary after all.

Vorkosigan

Or does he claim that the existence of Jesus as a significant historical figure itself is an unlikely legendary development over a span of 40 years?

Layman's point is valid. Unfortunately, it is also disproved by many historical examples of myth swamping history. Who was Jon Frum?

I am also confused. Sherwin-White was not used by Layman, and Toto did not blame Layman for S-W's misunderstandings and faulty logic (White's argument is circular). How did Layman get blamed for this?

Vorkosigan

Wiploc

- The cargo cult.

- Cattle mutilation.
crc

Toto

I don't think anyone is blaming Layman for anything, actually.

The sequence of events was: Layman threw out a quote from Sherwin-White to the effect that Acts was a historical document, and demanded that I acknowledge S-W's authority. I pointed out that Sherwin-White is also cited as the originator of the arugment cited by many Christian apologists that the gospels had to be true because there was insufficient time for legendary development. I said that this was such a lame argument it cast some doubt on Sherwin-White's authoritativeness. I also pointed out that Sherwin-White did not support Layman in his argument on the Lukan census.

Then Sauron started this thread on how quickly legendary development sets in.

Layman is now doing his typical obfuscation on the issues. He has still not explained why S-W is an expert when he says that Acts is historical but not when he undermines Layman's position on the date of the nativity, or why we should respect the expertise of someone who made this obviously bogus legendary development argument.

So Layman, if I had the book right here and read S-W's words for myself, would I discover that all of the Christians who used his argument have distorted it? Otherwise I'm just going to continue to hold it against you that you wrote an extensive vitriolic essay against someone's work without having read it.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Toto. Now I see. I didn't really get how S-W popped into space here.

Wiploc

Hey, if microevolution can't ever lead to macroevolution, then the changes that take place to a story in the first 40 years can't ever lead to legend.
crc

Gooch's dad

9-11 spawned many legends that don't seem to die off, such as the one about several thousand Jewish workers at the Trade Centers calling in sick on 9-11.That legend started within a couple of days of the disaster. I keep seeing that myth being presented as truth in discussion board and chat rooms all over the place, even though it has been soundly refuted by urban legend sites suchs as snopes.com.

Michael Horner tried using this tactic in his debate with Dan Barker.

Transcript of the debate

Using an example from Medjugorge in Yugoslavia, in 1981, Barker just nailed Horner to the wall. The legend of an apparition of the Virgin Mary developed within just a few days.

Now Horner, being a good fundy, has to think that Catholicism is bunk, so any Mary sighting is to be discounted. He said it was most likely a legend. A legend that developed within a few DAYS.

As Barker said in his debate--a touchdown.

-Kelly

Layman

Quite ironic since you spend most of this post blaming me for stuff.

Funny how I "demaneded" but you simply "pointed out." In fact, you said that because SW made a particular argument, you take anything he says with a grain of salt (even on a completely unrelated point).

Also a completely unrelated point.

By associating my name with an argument I never made.

No, I am making it clear that I had nothing to do with the strawman being erected in this thread. And I also found it amusing that you guys are trashing an argument without having the faintist idea what was actually said--and that you would use that fact to discount everything that SW had done.

I actually explained why I thought SW's expertise was quite appropriate for determining how Acts conforms with Roman history and law, since it has quite a bit to say about that.

I never said that SW was not an expert when it came to the date of the nativity.

Are you finally admitting you've never even seen the book?

I've actually engaged the author that was the subjet of my "essay." And he's utterly failed to vindicate his theory. Nor could you, having read one of his articles, offered any substantive defense of his theory.

And to top it all off, when I politely ask you to fax it to me, you complain its too long to fax. When I point out its only 27 pages long, you complain that its too much effort to fax. When I offer to send a SASE, you are silent.

Might you spare some time to explain how the Voyage of Hanno or the Third Syrian War offers any support to Robbin's theory? Back on the appropriate thread, of course.

Layman

Actually, that was exactly the irony I was pointing out to you guys.

Toto

You've actually engaged the author, and if you don't think that he has cleared up some of your confusion, it must be because you have your fingers in your ears (metaphorically) so you can't hear.

I think that if you really had wanted to find a copy of the essay, you could have located it by now. Asking for a copy at this late date is hardly an act of good faith. And I do not run a copying service or have a secretary to do this sort of thing for me.

We went over the Voyage of Hanno on the original thread. You could only hold to your position by arbitrarily defining the second paragraph in the Voyage as being part of the title. I see no reason to pursue that matter any further. I would rather wait to see what develops on Crosstalk, since the scholars who don't seem to have any ideological requirements as to how the question works out will be more likely to shed light on the matter.

BTW - what have I ever blamed on you? The decline of western civilization?? Sometimes I think you have rolled all your enemies and internal demons into one and projected them on me.