Layman

I do not believe his claims about Acts have been refuted by "00s of examples". Nor have you nor anyone else shown that to be the case.

Perhaps you are confused. I have never relied on Sherwin-White to claim that there was no legendery development in the gospels. In fact, I've never relied on Sherwin-White to discuss legendary development at all!

And are you saying that someone's position can be deemed untenable even if you have not read the original article expressing that position?

Layman

Every example I have specifically discussed are Robbin's own examples: Hanno, The Third Syrian War, Dio Chrystrom, Tatius' fiction.

Layman

Are you sure about this? Do you want a list of Intros and Commentataries that affirm that Acts was written by a companion of Paul?

Toto

I tracked it down because that's what I do. It was an easy google search. I don't recall using the argument, uncritically or not. It took me a while to understand it, and I don't know how well it will hold up. My position has always been that it is not necessary, but probably an adequate rebuttal to the very weak argument that the use of "we" shows that the author of Acts was there in person.

If I took the initiative to criticize a scholarly theory on a scholarly list, I would read it first, especially if I were going to use the emotional words you chose. The article is too long to just copy and fax.

If you search the internet you can find copies of Talbert, New Persepctives on Luke-Acts, which contains the essay. (Or the unspecified library you visited might have that book.)

http://www.superauction.com/new/prod...9;&pagecount=3

Quote:

. . . . . . hypocrisy . . .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!

Bunk. You read everything you could find from evangelicals who were upset with Robbins' theory, but not the essay itself. So your impression of what Robbins thesis entailed was incorrect, and you did not look at his presentation of the evidence for it.

I used an idea widely attributed to Sherwin-White to imply that his expertise needs to be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted uncritically. I have nowhere dismissed all of his conclusions about Roman history. In fact, I believe that his conclusion that Acts is a reliable source of history is outside his area of real expertise in Roman history, and probably is not entitled to any deference at all.

Layman

Now there's a detailed answer! You tracked it down to argue against a proposition you did not like. So yes, you used the argument. How do you think it ended up here?

It is? 27 pages is too long to fax?

If you are going to accuse me of lying about searching for the article, please come out and just say so.

I already checked for Talber's book. Months ago. Not there.

You are wrong. Not everything I read about Robbin's theory was by evangelicals. In fact, not everything I read about Robbin's theory concluded that Luke was the author of Acts.

And when did you take the time to read what he wrote about his idea?

How is concluding that Acts' statements about Roman history and Roman law generally historical outside the expertise of someone who is an expert in Roman history and Roman law?

Toto

I'm getting tired of this argument chasing back and forth over two threads. Sherwin-White is an expert on Roman history, but not the New Testament, and not mythology. Nothing so hard about that, is there?

I said I tracked it down because that's what I do - I check out things when I am curious. Your statement that I "tracked it down to argue against a proposition [I] did not like" implies that I care much more about the proposition than I really do. On the other hand, perhaps my mission in life is just to counter your propaganda in the II boards.

And do you think I have nothing better to do than xerox 27 pages and feed them into the office fax machine? Okay, don't answer that.

Layman

What you seem intent on ignoring is I never relied on Sherwin-White regarding legendeary develpment or mythology at all.

What is so hard about that? I talked about his assesment of the history in Acts as an expert in Roman history and Roman law.

All I can do is state the facts. What implications people draw from those I cannot help. But if you don't care about this topic much, why are you chasing it around in so many different threads?

Apparently so.

If you are simply saying you can't be bothered to fax a document to me fine. But implying that its too big to fax is rather misleading.

So I take that as a definitive NO. You will not fax the article to me?

Please?

Toto

Gee Layman, when you put it that way . . .

Why don't you ask Professor Robbins to send you a copy? Maybe he would even autograph it for you.

Layman

So that is a no? You refuse to fax me a copy?

How about if I send you a self-addressed stamped envelope?

Vorkosigan

I do not believe his claims about Acts have been refuted by "00s of examples". Nor have you nor anyone else shown that to be the case.

Are you deliberately obtuse? I'm discussing one statement he made about an area clearly outside of Sherwin-White's expertise -- that 40 years is not enough time. There are 00s of examples that refute that claim.

Perhaps you are confused. I have never relied on Sherwin-White to claim that there was no legendery development in the gospels. In fact, I've never relied on Sherwin-White to discuss legendary development at all!

Good. Then why is it an issue for you that we bitch-slap that claim into eternity?

And are you saying that someone's position can be deemed untenable even if you have not read the original article expressing that position?

Robbins makes a complex argument across a range of literary genres involving several centuries of works and many different cultures. Sherwin-White makes an offhand comment on a single issue that is obviously refuted by even the most cursory knowledge of history and of the NT. Can you see the difference?

Vorkosigan