Toto

In his article, Robbins does show examples of accounts written in third person, in spite of clearly being first person accounts, so yes, he does in fact suggest that Hanno would have been written in the thrid person if it had not been a sea adventure. I have said this before, but you didn't seem to pick it up. It is why you need to read the article.

Who has refused to lend any historicity to Acts? We are not discussing that broad of a topic here. And I specifically listed reasons beyond miracles that tend to indicate Acts is not history: among them scenes copied from other literary works of the Hellenistic era, clear evidence that Acts was modeled on Josephus and used it as a source, and the clear polemical slant of the work.

I am not being selective with Acts; I apply the same standards to other ancient documents. And I am not tossing it in your face. You are the one who brought this topic up.

Layman

Again Toto, you can say anything you want to. Explaining it is the problem here.

How do we know such a convention existed Toto? You can say that the author of Hanno would have used the third-person if he had been describing his own experiences on land rather than at sea, by why on earth should we think that is the case?

The problem is that he cannot prove his convention existed in the first place. All examples of the convention are better explained by established literary practice.

And the Third Syrian War? The author would have described his enemies as "we" if they had been the ones attacking by sea? And his own forces as "they" if they had been on land?

Really Toto, doesn't this strike you as a bit ad hoc?

A host of unsubstantiated assertions in there Toto.

It's not the topic, but the argument that you cling to in desparation.

So you treat Acts like Josephus? Both have similar histoical worth to you Toto?

Toto

"Tone deaf" doesn't begin to describe your arguments. It appears that you are saying that no amount of evidence would convince you that there is any literary convention, if you even knew what a literary convention entailed, so why should you read the pages of detailed references in Robbins article or try to understand what he is actually saying?

Your Third Syrian War example is just silly.

You always say this when I score points against you.

What is so difficult about this?

Applying the same standards to Josephus indicates it has a higher probability of being historically accurate. But I still realize Josphus has his limitations. Luckily I have not based my world view on unsubstantiated historical claims.

Layman

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Vernon K. Robbins" <relvkr@L...>

wrote:
> Dear Chris,
> You, S. Porter, Ben Witherington III, and others are setting up a

requirement
> for my thesis that it is not necessary for my thesis to meet.

I am sorry if that is the case, but I suspect it is not. In order for me to believe that there existed literary convention for describing extended sea-voyages in the first-person plural, I have to have some evidence that such a convention existed.

From what I have learned about many of your examples--Hanno/Third Syrian War/etc--they do not provide any evidence that their use of the first-person plural was due to the presence of a sea-voyage. Rather, they seem to be explained by established literary conventions--using "I" or "we" to describe one's own experiences or the experiences of a fictitious main character.

I do not think that this makes me 'exclusisionary' or unreasonable. I an open to the possibility that someoned described his own experiences in the first-person because they were his own experiences AND they were describing a sea-voyage, but I have seen no reason to do so.

> I am grateful that you acknowledge that there is a "change from some

kind of
> narration" to first person plural "we" when a sea voyage begins in

all the
> texts you cite: Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon; The Voyage

of Hanno
> the Carthaginian; The Third Syrian War; and Dio Chrysostom. You (as

others
> before you) are interested in "disqualifying" these changes in

narration, in
> one way or another, from being a "literary convention." This is, as

I
> indicated before, an "exclusionary" strategy of great interest to

certain (but
> not all) historical, literary, and theological interpreters.

As I indicated above, I am open to the possibility that your purported convention existed as well, but these examples do not make that case because they are easily explained by established, existing practices.

>
> I simply am interested in the "presence" of this "change of

narration" in these
> four texts (and others) in a context of the "formulaic presence of

first person
> plural narration for sea voyages in Homer's Odyssey" (a text with

ongoing
> presence and influence during the Hellenistic period) and the

present of "we
> passages" in Acts that are closely related to sea voyages.

Should not the focus be on the "reason" for the "change in narration" than its mere presence? In each of the examples I discussed, the "reason" for the change is apparently other than the mere presecence of sea-voyage adventure.

For example, I am very skeptical that the author of the Third Syrian War would have used the term "we" to describe his enemies had they been the one's attacking by sea? And would he had described his people as "they" if they had been on land? I think not.


> The abrupt changes to "we narration" in Acts 16, 20, and 27, in each

instance
> when a sea voyage begins, shows a relation to "first person plural

sea voyage
> narration in other Mediterranean literature" that a careful

interpreter should
> acknowledge and use in a context of interpretation. Instead of

using
> "disqualifying" strategies, which I previously called "exclusionary"

strategies
> (another name for this kind of interpretive activity), I am

interested in
> "including" this other literature in an environment of

interpretation where I
> am trying to understand the "social and rhetorical power" of the

Acts of the
> Apostles to entice people into its worldview.

I have no problem with "including" another convention if that convention is established in the first place. I do not believe such is the case here. It seems that Hanno was written in the first-person plural because it was written from the point-of-view of the participants. It seems that the Third Syrian War is written in the first-person plural because the author's side was attacking by sea and the enemie was active mostly on land (although there is a "they" used for some of their action at sea).

As for whether there is evidence in Acts of such a conventio, assuming one exists, I responded to that in "Part 2."

Thank you again for your responses to my posts.

Layman

Not true. I was quite particular. The examples Robbins has provided fail to make this case. Even you said that "Hanno" was his strongest example! Yet Hanno is written by a participant or participants of the voyage--which is the best explanation for the use of "we."

I have tried. And asked questions. And made comments. And neither he nor you have given any reason to believe such a reason existed.

I will remind you that it is HIS example. And yes, it is silly to propose that it lends any support for the existence of his convention.

So please answer the question. Is it not true that if Robbin's use of Third Syrian War is correct, the author would have used "we" to desribe his enemies had they been the ones acting at sea? You were willing to say that Hanno would have written in the third-person if his own voyage had been on land, this is a logical extension of your argument.

Obviously the answer is "no." The author of the Third Syrian War would not have used "we" for his enemies had they been the ones at sea. He uses "we" because it is his own people at sea. He uses "they" because he is describing the enemy, not because the enemy is mostly active on land.

Assumes facts not in evidence--that you scored any points at all.


So you are admitting that Acts is a historical source like Josephus, but you just think Josephus is better? Right?


BTW, you ignored the assesmsent of one of the leading Roman historians:

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

A.N. Sherwin-White, RSRL, 189.

Neither have I.

Toto

But you haven't done the first thing any responsible debater should do, and read Robbins' article.

Quote:

. . . Obviously the answer is "no." The author of the Third Syrian War would not have used "we" for his enemies had they been the ones at sea. He uses "we" because it is his own people at sea. He uses "they" because he is describing the enemy, not because the enemy is mostly active on land.

But if his own side had been on land, he might have used the third person.

Quote:

So you are admitting that Acts is a historical source like Josephus, but you just think Josephus is better? Right?

Wrong. Josephus has more indications of reliability. Acts has very few. It's not based on my personal preference.

Quote:

BTW, you ignored the assesmsent of one of the leading Roman historians: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." A.N. Sherwin-White, RSRL, 189. . . .

AN Sherwin-White seems to be the apologists' favorite Classicist, since he is cited everywhere for that bogus argument that legendary development takes more time than the "mere" 40 years between the crucifixion and the presumed date of Mark. If that is an example of his expertise, I think it is best taken with a grain of salt.

In any case, you are just arguing from authority. You seem to reject his authority on the Lukan census -- not to open that can of worms again, but see here

Sauron

It is not an assertion. It's the most reasonable conclusion from the facts available, consistent with everything we know, and contradicted by nothing presented. Too bad your hypothesis can't say the same.

2. Another strawman - I didn't say that"conditions were the same" as if nothing ever changes. What I said is that there are no poisonous snakes now, and zero evidence to even suggest there might have been any such reptiles 2000 years ago. At least, YOU have utterly failed to present any such evidence.

3. There are no bison in Siberia today. By your desperate argument, if I said "there were no bison in Siberia during the 1800s", that would also be baseless speculation. Never mind that there is no evidence to suggest bison ever lived there in the first place. Yes, I know - I can hear you now: But you don't KNOW that - there might have been bison there, that simply went extinct . Real bullshit there, Layman.

Your hypothesis that a venomous species has gone extinct is the only baseless, unproven assertion here, Layman. And you only raise it, in a crippled attempt to save this story from being tossed onto the scrap heap of bad history in the bible. In your mind, if you can move a story out of the "demonstrably false" category, and nudge it into the "we just can't know" category, then that's a win for you because it avoids the painful admission of a clear error. Unfortunately, however, that's what we have here in Acts - yet another clear error. The only question is why you can't admit it, since you're obviously not an inerrantist on teh topic of Acts in the first place.

Absence any mechanism for species change, absence any evidence of such change, (c) is quite reasonable. Indeed, is the most reasonable position.

No. (b) requires some kind of evidence, a hint of data, that would suggest our current understanding of reptiles on Malta is not applicable to the past. You have presented no such evidence; therefore, (b) is not the most reasonable position.

Re-read what I said. Each claim rises or falls, on its own accord and of its own merit (or lack thereof).

Sauron

Either that, or he realizes from Layman's comments that he obviously still hasn't read the article.

In which case, Layman is just exhibiting the mark of a rank amateur and (quite frankly) isn't worth Robbins' time or effort for response.

Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
I would be more impressed if you (or he) could explain this instead of just asserting it.

Quote:

And.... what is your point? Why do you think that the forestation canopy was lost in the 400 or so years since Quintinus and not in the 1500 or so years before him?

Um, excuse me - YOU'RE the one asserting a linkage between loss of forest canopy, and extinction of venomous snakes. You've given no source for your claim, either in the general, or the specific.

And I've given examples of venomous snakes that thrive in environments totally devoid of any forest canopy. You have failed to counter with any response at all.

And I'm still waiting on your source that says Malta "lost its original forest canopy" since Bible times. That brings up an interesting question, though: how do you know the original forest canopy wasn't lost during Paleolithic times? Or during the Bronze Age?

Toto's just following up on your original (unsourced) claim. Instead of asking him why he thinks that the deforestation fell between certain years, why don't you show us your source for the claim in the first place, hmm?

Bede

Layman,

I know it is maddening but you are wasting your time with these two. Drop it as they will never admit they haven't a clue and this argument was over when you made your first post on Robbins. Robbins himself has only confirmed that by his lit crit rubbish. His 'theory' is so vacuous that it could be fitted to anything. There is no convention of suddenly switching to the first person for sea voyages and even if there was Luke does not seem to follow it with enough consistancy to claim he knows the convention.

Acts was written by a companion of Paul. This is a plain old fact accepted by historians and not worth arguing with the headbangers of this forum.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason