Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 12-17-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired:


And roundly trounced for your shoddy analysis and lack of substantive argumentation.

Again.

Vague and conclusory assertions.

Again.

Thus reinforcing my decision and justification for not engaging you on this topic. Not until you show some maturity anyway.

Koyaanisqatsi · 12-17-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
I have no intention in getting into a smear match with the master.

Wise decision.

Quote:

MORE: Given your above snide comments, personal attacks, and insults, it is obvious not only that productive discussion with you is impossible, but that it would also be time consuming and highly unpleasant. Not because of the force of your arguments, nor the breadth of your knowledge, but because of the personal nastiness of your approach.

You mean something like this?

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: Sounds like your analysis is simply subjective, self-serving, uneducated opinion-mongering.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Toto · 12-17-2002, 11:30 AM

Layman, while you are posting prior threads, here's another one:

How are Paul's writings reconciled with Acts?

so we don't have to make the same arguments all over again.

Jeremy Pallant · 12-17-2002, 11:49 AM

[MODERATOR]

Gentlemen. Please, let's try and keep this civil. It's been an interesting discussion so far, it would be a shame if it were to get personal.

[/MODERATOR]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

Koyaanisqatsi · 12-17-2002, 12:13 PM

He started it

.

Just kidding. I'm out.

Toto · 12-17-2002, 12:35 PM

BTW - did anyone welcome Artemus to the boards? Where are our manners!?!

Welcome, Artemus. In case you haven't realized it, you have stepped into the middle of a very contentious issue here. Layman is one of our resident Christian apologists. He seems to be a follower of William Lane Craig, and his faith requires that the gospels be accepted as historical documents. He claims not to be an inerrantist, but throw any issue at him and he will argue for the accuracy of the gospels.

He likes to cut off discussion of an issue with an appeal to the "scholarly consensus", but only when it agrees with his position.

I (and a few others here), for some reason, feel called on to challenge his assumptions and methods. He regularly berates me as an ignorant, opinionated, anti-religious bigot, and a gullible hyperskeptic. I just laugh.

Enjoy your stay here.

Peter Kirby · 12-17-2002, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
[QB]Peter,

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the source of this 'we' in sea voyages thing. What other Greek works can we see it in and why does the 'we' travel overland (all the way to Jerusalem in one instance) as well. Just wondering, as this comes up a lot without any kind of referencing.

Hi,

I first heard of this theory a few years ago in an exchange with Robert Price. I have not had the opportunity to check it out in any detail, but from what bibliographical data I can find it appears that Vernon K. Robbins is the originator of the concept. From the footnotes of one of his essays:

V. K. Robbins, The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages, BR 20 (1975) 5-18; idem.,By Land and By Sea: A Study in Acts 13-28, SBLSP 15 (1976) 381-96; idem, By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages, in Perspectives on Luke-Acts. (ed. C. H. Talbert; Perspectives in Religious Studies; Special Studies Series, No. 5; Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press and Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1978) 215-42.

best,
Peter Kirby

Artemus · 12-17-2002, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Well, most historical works contain inaccuracies. So even if you assume some unspecified level of "fiction" you haven't really advanced the ball of the discussion.

But in the case of Luke it is not simply inaccuracies, but known intentional misrepresentations of an earlier source to meet a certain agenda. Why would this not disqualify the other writings of that particular author in cases where no independent corroborating sources are available?

Toto- Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to enjoy my stay, but I always seem to get a migraine when I spend too much time here.

Toto · 12-17-2002, 11:39 PM

On the "we passages", Paul Tobin writes

Quote:

We note that the "we-passages" are limited only to stories which involve travel by sea. It is strange if Luke was only present duyring sea voyages and nowhere else in Paul's ministry. In fact it has been conclusively shown by Vernon Robbins [3] that the author of Acts is merely following an established convention of his (or her [a]) time. Showing examples from Mediterranean literature (Roman and Greek) around the time of the writing of Luke, Robbins showed that the "we-passages" is a mere stylistic device and in no way indicates that the author of Luke was present in any of the journeys.
. . .
[3]. Talbert: Perpectives on Luke-Acts: p 215-243

[a]. Randal Helms in his book Who Wrote the Gospels has argued that the author of Luke was a woman. That this argument is plausible just shows how little we know about the authors.

Geoff Hudson · 12-18-2002, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
 On the "we passages", Paul Tobin writes: that the "we-passages" is a mere stylistic device and in no way indicates that the author of Luke was present in any of the journeys.

More likely the use of "we" was an editor's obfuscation device to avoid telling us who "they" were who were present on the journey.

For example, "we" or "they" could have been "certain priests of my aquaintance" (Life 3) who were with Josephus (imo Paul) on their way to Rome for trial and who Josephus was to defend before Nero. These priests had been "put into bonds" "on a small and trifling occasion" (the editor's are at it again) by Felix. I would suggest that it was these priests who were tried before Felix and Festus in Acts and not Paul (Josephus) who was in effect their lawyer. "We" included James the lord (master) - the bishop of bishops.

Some stylistic device! Tobin's waffle more like!

Geoff

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2002, 11:30 AM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman, while you are posting prior threads, here's another one: How are Paul's writings reconciled with Acts? so we don't have to make the same arguments all over again.

12-17-2002, 11:49 AM	#34
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	[MODERATOR] Gentlemen. Please, let's try and keep this civil. It's been an interesting discussion so far, it would be a shame if it were to get personal. [/MODERATOR] We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

12-17-2002, 12:13 PM	#35
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	He started it . Just kidding. I'm out.

12-17-2002, 12:35 PM	#36
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	BTW - did anyone welcome Artemus to the boards? Where are our manners!?! Welcome, Artemus. In case you haven't realized it, you have stepped into the middle of a very contentious issue here. Layman is one of our resident Christian apologists. He seems to be a follower of William Lane Craig, and his faith requires that the gospels be accepted as historical documents. He claims not to be an inerrantist, but throw any issue at him and he will argue for the accuracy of the gospels. He likes to cut off discussion of an issue with an appeal to the "scholarly consensus", but only when it agrees with his position. I (and a few others here), for some reason, feel called on to challenge his assumptions and methods. He regularly berates me as an ignorant, opinionated, anti-religious bigot, and a gullible hyperskeptic. I just laugh. Enjoy your stay here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.