FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-24-2003, 07:40 PM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default Acts and Virgil

As those of you who have been following the Acts saga here at Infidels know, we;ve been uncovering more and more classical allusions and constructions in Acts. This latest bit of thinking is from Robbins, whose work is being discussed in another thread.

Here is an exchange on XTALK:

******

BOB: Odyssey and Aeneid provide a ready literary model. But if the trajectory is from Troy to Jerusalem to Rome, then Luke has the problem of explaining how, or why, Paul got to Troy. If the Odyssey/Aeneid parallel is influencing Luke, and if it starts at Troy rather than at Jerusalem, then is there any evidence that Luke fudged Paul's previous travels in order to get him to Troy? I don't necessarily mean by changing his itinerary, but perhaps in the rational offered for Paul's movements at various stages of
the journeys from Jerusalem to Troy?

VKR: Thanks, Bob. Very interesting response and query. I suppose an initial place to look is Acts 15:40-16:8, isn't it. Paul and Silas go through Syria and Cilicia (15:40-41), then on to Derbe and Lystra (16:1). Then Phrygia and Galatia (16:6). All of this, of course, is on land. This is a lot of territory to cover, and the reader might expect some specific account of some event in a few of the churches, at least. The reader only hears about Paul's
having Timothy circumcized (16:3). But it is not elaborated as a specific event. There is only a reference to it. All the narration is "summary narration": "they went from town to town," etc. Now that you mention it, it does look as though Luke is getting Paul by inland route as quickly as he can to, guess where?, Troas (Troy: 16:8). And on the way there, what is the meaning exactly of 16:6, they "went through Phrygia and Galatia, having been
forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia"? Luke is getting them quickly through these significant regions of territory past Mysia to Troas (16:8).


Hans Conzelmann's Acts of the Apostles Hermeneia Commentary begins on Acts 16:6-10 with the statement: "The description of this journey is most remarkable: it is an intentional nonmissionary journey! In reality, Paul had worked in this region a long time.... One senses the gaps in Luke's knowledge about central Asia Minor (with the exception of the region from Pisidian Antioch to Derbe). Since Luke's account is devoid of all specifics regarding
stopping places, the itinerary hypothesis can be held only by assuming that Luke must have abridged his source to convey the distinct impression of movement toward the new goal, Europe. In fact, the account creates the impression of being a summary (similar to 18:21b-23)....On the one hand, there are no gaps or breaks which could give conclusive proof that a summarizing
process had taken place. NOR CAN ANY MOTIVE BE ADVANCED FOR SUCH EPITOMIZING."
(p. 126) (my caps)

Perhaps we are finding "a motive" for this brief, non-elaborated inland trip in Acts 16:6-10, and perhaps the abbreviated account in 15:40-16:5 also!

Many thanks, Bob. Very suggestive.

Vernon Robbins, Emory University

*********

But don't worry! I am sure Acts is solid history

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 02-24-2003, 08:52 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Smile

Quote:
But don't worry! I am sure Acts is solid history
Who claimed all of Acts is solid history?
Vinnie is offline  
Old 02-24-2003, 10:39 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Who claimed all of Acts is solid history?
Nobody. Nor did my sarcastic remark claim anybody said all.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 02-24-2003, 10:47 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Would you say that none of Acts is history remembered? Or just a very little bit of it?
Vinnie is offline  
Old 02-24-2003, 11:35 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Vinnie: name the chapters and verses you think might be historical.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 12:05 AM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Would you say that none of Acts is history remembered? Or just a very little bit of it?
None of it is history remembered. All of it is constructed from sources and models.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 12:10 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Why? Are you going to show why its not historical?

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 12:17 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Vorkosigan
None of it is history remembered. All of it is constructed from sources and models.

Vorkosigan
Please explain.

Let me try to put this another way. I think there is history "behind" some of Acts. I consider it somewhat similar to the gospels. If there is history it needs to be extrapolated but I am not convinced that one can simply read Acts as a literal history of the church any moire than I am convinced that one could read Mark to get a literal history of Jesus' ministry.

Though I think Acts can be compared with some of Paul's information and this might "doubly attest" some items. Stuff like that is what I would hold to. Though I have not officially undertaken a detailed study of Acts so I won't contribute much in here.

Vinnie

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 12:27 AM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

In any case, Robbins appears to have decided that Nomad and Layman are not worth debating.

Quote:
Dear XTalkers,

I have become aware that there is a divide in the audience of XTalkers between people interested in learning new things about the relation of early Christian texts to the world of antiquity and people whose primary interest and love is debate. Both kinds of interests are, of course, unending for those who have them. Most of you will know that my interests focus on learning new things. I have no illusion that my interests will satisfy the goals of debaters. I presume that the goal of debaters is to debate. My primary goal is not to debate but to learn new things. Or to put it another way. I am interested in debate only when it is a medium for learning new things. For me, debate is not so much a manner of "persuasion" as it is a matter of "finding" things we have not seen before. Debate is truly interesting when all parties are "looking at the data together." In all of this, I am deeply informed by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which explains how people following one "paradigm" of inquiry often will "totally" discount the primary evidence of people following another paradigm of inquiry.
I guess that takes care of all those nitpicking objectors who can't see the forest for the trees.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 01:56 AM   #10
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robbins lost the argument and so has dropped taking part. He then whines about not debating (ie not being interested in what is true and what isn't) but instead wanting to learn about new things, by which he means more pointless arm waving.

He then picks up a Macdonaldism that says that Alexandria Troas where Paul stayed was Ancient Troy. While Troas is the region of Troy, the city Paul visited is not the city of Illium built right over ancient Troy as this map shows. Of course, in the weird and wonderful world of lit crit you don't have to have a proper parallel just some vague suggestive idea that allows you to string out more tales and more rubbish. We saw with MacDonald that you can build enormous castles on sand using methods that put the Bible Code crowd to shame. Robbins is more of the same and it is a shame only Layman and Nomad are calling him on it.

If a Christian was doing this, Toto would not bother disguise their scorn. Vork can easily state Acts is fiction without compromising his usual clear sightedness by following these non-parrallels he should have realised were bogus ages ago.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.