Layman

Robbins dropped the arguments and chose to try and discuss other issues. I haven't seen anyone embrace his theories over there. And Olson seems quite skeptical of Robbin's conclusions, however "brilliant" he may think Robbins is.

I've read Robbins' article. It wasn't any more or less compelling than Robbins himself. Same questions are left unanswered and unaddressed.

Toto

But you don't seem to have been able to frame your questions so that Robbins could take them as serious challenges, and not as an ideologically motivated refusal to understand what he was talking about.

And I guess you missed fawning comments like this:

Layman

You mean Robbins was not able to answer basic questions and challenges about his theory.

I'm still waiting for his defense of his reliance on the Voyage of Hanno. Even YOU thought he would provide such a defense. He did not. Nor can this be chalked up to his being "fed up" with dealing with amateuers. My initial post pointed out the problem with his use of Hanno (before he ever appeared on the boards). He ducked the question right off the bat. And he continued to do so through two other posts where I specifically asked him about his use of Hanno--even though he kept responding on other issues and with other comments.

I don't recall denying "fawning" statements. Such things tend to crop up on Cross-Talk when the Academics themselves show up to discuss their theories. What I did not see was an embracement of his position by any serious scholar on the boards. Even Olson is skeptical of Robbin's conclusions.

I'd be much more impressed if one of the "fawners", including yourself, could actually provide a coherent and substantive defense of his theory.

Toto

I don't think that we should hijack this thread with more on the "we" passages, especially since the topic appears to be exhausted, and it is not very important to any other issue in any case. I don't recall anything Price has written about the issue

I am not a "fawner", but I think Robbins answered your questions, and I do not think he would have to revise any part of his article based on your objections. We went back and forth on the Voyage of Hanno, and you are just refusing to read the words as they are written without an arbitrary break where it would be convenient for your theory.

Layman

Fine, no need to hijack this thread. But if you could point me to where Doherty explained his dependence on the Voyage of Hanno?

And as I've explained to you many times. There is much more going on there than the preface/narrative disjunction that Robbins ignores. The most important fact that neither you nor Robbins adequately address is that Hanno is a first-person narrative because it is written from the perspective of participants in the voyage.

Toto

Quoth Layman:

Need some coffee? You're confusing Doherty with Robbins?

You tried to make that distinction. You are not convincing. I don't think that any more arguments will be productive.

Bede

"Bede, I don't recall Robert Price discussing the "we" passages in Acts, and I don't see any entry in the index of Deconstructing Jesus. It's not the sort of argument that he would make."

Toto,

You are right its not in Decon J, but wracking my brains I recall Peter saying he got it from Price so presumably he does use the argument. Still, he goes for late dates, maximum scepticism etc which is what I mean.

BTW, scholars are almost always fawningly polite to each other, especially when they are putting the knife in .

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Layman

Fine, but none of this explains how the Voyage of Hanno establishes a convention for using the first-person plural for sea-voyages that the author did not participate in.

Ted Hoffman

Very impressive Toto. Your gears are definitely well oiled. You are almost clairvoyant.

Ted Hoffman

Our good friends evidently need to brush up and remove the clogs and rusty patches <clears throat> or they might lose their ability to provide meaningful challenges to ideas propounded here.