Re: [XTalk] Response to Robbins (Part 2)
- Interesting distinction, but I'm not sure it would hold up even thus
refined. Afterall, the trip in Acts 16 (Troas to Macedonia by way of
Samothrace) does not seem to be any longer or more of a sea voyage
than the one in Acts 13 (Seleucia to Salamis, Paphos to Perga).
And while Berea to Athens does seem to be a coast-hugger type journey,
what about Cenchrea to Ephesusus or Ephesus to Caesarea (Chapt. 18),
which are recounted in the third-person.
And the first person plural is used from Assos to Mitlyene, which is a
very short trip.
Chris Price, Esq.
Los Angeles, CA
--- In email@example.com, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@c...>
> Wouldn't it be better to say something like ...substitute for
> All third person sea travel (Acts 13-14, 17) recounts:
> 1) Short sea trips *within visual distance of the coast* as a
> land travel.holes to
> All first person plural sea travel (Acts 16, 20-21, 26-28) recounts:
> 1) Extended open sea *voyages* with the aim of reaching a distant
> After all, all sea trips necessarily start and end at harbors.
> Also, save yourself all that pounding of square pegs into round
> make something of the destination (extended inland mission vs aparticular
> destination). Otherwise, you'd obligate yourself to show hownon-Christian
> third person and first person-plural sea trip accounts show asimilar
> pattern, or at least show how using these conventions in Acts madesome
> clear-cut point. If there *is* previous research on this lattermatter, I'd
> like to know more.
> Dave Hindley
> Cleveland, Ohio, USA