Vorkosigan

I can't believe this thread has degenerated into an argument over whether there were snakes on Malta in Paul's time. get over it! It's obviously a trashy miracle story!

I can't believe Bede actually thinks that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, when the concensus upheld in all the Intro books by writers of whatever stripe, is that she was not Paul's companion. Acts is a fictional creation of Luke!

I can't believe Layman posted twice on an article he hasn't read yet, and has actually attempted to argue with the author himself.

<GROAN> Xanax.....must have xanax.....where did I leave my xanax.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Hi Vork,

Again we must agree to disagree although I fail to see what is miraculous about nothing happening when someone is bitten by a non-poisonous snake.

Can you believe how full of shit Robbins is? His replies on Xtalk are now just totally ad hoc as he has admitted that his convention does not always apply but only when it actually does. He is a good object lesson in the need to stick to facts when doing history even if Lit Crit allows one to insert nothing but speculation as long as the language is trendy enough.

Yours

Bede

PS: what is xanax? Does it work as well as a stiff whisky?

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Bede, you are whistling in the dark. Most historians don't agree with you on the question of Acts having been written by a companion of Paul, so what are you going to do about it, except say it's not worth arguing about?

Contrary to your misrepresentation of Robbins, he continues to hold his own in CrossTalk:

In this message he points out to Brian Trafford (Nomad) the critical differences between the 3rd person narration and the first person plural:

The responses to this by some other participants who do not agree but do not take the hostile Nomad-Layman line seen interesting. As they point out, the "we" passages are not evidence that the author was a companion of Paul, especially since the presumed author never identifies himself or writes in the first person singular where he would be expected to.

Layman

Obviously I am worth Robbins' time as he has stuck around to debate the issue. Not that he has bothered to demonstrate the existence of a any purported convention. Or shown how it would apply to Acts seemingly arbitrary use of the first-person plural.

Layman

His theory is quite well known and discussed. You relied on it plenty before ever reading it. And you've read it and can't defend it.

Continuous chiding on this point is no substitute for Robbins actually explaining how he knows such a convention existed or why Luke uses it so arbitrarily.

Possibly, but that is of no help to you at all. If he only uses the "we" when it coincides with his perspective, Robbin's theory fails. Or at least a form of it fails. If he retreats into claiming that it indicate first person perspective AND sea-voyage I would probably have no problem with that.

So you keep asserting.

He's a leading Roman historian. Whether you like it or not. And do you have a source for your trashing?

You are the one who keeps talking about how Acts is not taken seriously as a historical source. Obviously it is. Just not be you.

And ya no what? I never feel obligated to accept everything ever written by every source I cite. No one does.

Layman

Just to clarify, I'm posting on an idea, a theory I've seen discussed in various places, not one article.

Toto

1. I never "relied" on the theory. When it came up on another thread, I tracked down two critics who had mentioned it. There are more persuasive reasons not to treat Acts as historical, and I have never seen this used as a major argument by any critic.

2. I think that Robbins has done well on Crosstalk in refuting the charge that Luke is "arbitrary." There is a pattern there.

He has not yet established exactly what sort of literary convention he is talking about, but the discussion is ongoing.

3. You are doing what you have done with other authors whose theories you do not like. You refuse to read their original work and then argue against a parody of what they say, that misses the point. Now you have put yourself into a mode where you are just denying that Robbins has made any points at all, whever he says. Is that how you practice law?

. . .

Sherwin-White may be a leading historian of Rome, but you have given me no good reason to accept his verdict on taking Acts seriously as history, especially when you reject him on other points.

I don't need a source to point out where someone is obviously incorrect. But Sauron has started a separate thread on how silly his ideas are that it takes 3 generations for legendary development therefore the gospels must have some truth in them.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45833

Vorkosigan

He's a leading Roman historian. Whether you like it or not. And do you have a source for your trashing?

Layman, when a leading historian talks about a field like ethnography or mythology, he does so as an informed layman (no pun intended), not as an expert. Since Sherwin-White's claims are utterly refuted by history (00s of examples), why do you rely on them?

Vorkosigan

Can you believe how full of shit Robbins is? His replies on Xtalk are now just totally ad hoc as he has admitted that his convention does not always apply but only when it actually does.

That's why they call it a "convention." Like a salutation is a conventional part of letters, but not all letters contain salutations. Unfortunately finding several non-examples does not invalidate Robbins' case. Layman is on much safer ground tactically if he focuses only on Robbins' examples.


PS: what is xanax? Does it work as well as a stiff whisky?

Believe it or not, I've never had a stiff whiskey in my life.....it's a painkiller.

Layman

Why did you track down two critics who mentioned it and then uncritically use it in an argument?

Of course I disagree with you assesment. The failure to use "we" in Acts 13 while using it in Acts 16 is inexplicable under Robbins' theory.

Ongoing? He's had over 25 years to establish that any such convention existed and he cannot. His examples all fall apart under any reasonable scrutiny.

This coming from the guy who told me he never has to read any conservative scholars or apologists because he relies on Nomad and Layman to explain their theories.

Moroever, I have not "refused" to read his original article. I tried this very day to get it over lunch. But the library I went to didn't have the right "Biblical Research" (they had "Biblical Research Monthly").

If you want to fax me what you have I'd be happy to read it.

But the fact is that Robbins in person has been unable to explain his theory any more coherently than you have.

We all reject authorities on other points, Toto.

The fact that he is one of the leading Roman historians and has reviewed Acts in the context of Roman history and found it a valuable historical sources is a very persuasive point.

Once more showing your hypocrisy you are skewering someone without even giving a citatin to his work, much less having read it. But what you do is much worse. I have read everything I can find on Robbin's theory. You used a completely unrelated point that you had not read -- or even seen a citation to -- to dismiss ALL of Sherwin-White's conclusions about Roman history!