jgibson000

Can you tel me please not only where John uses the term "incarnation" but (1) states that the LOGOS had a human personal identity before the creation and (2) speaks of the LOGOS as becoming an ANQROPOS?

Isn't the term "incarnation" anachronistic?

JG

Steven Avery

Greetings

I am trying to figger out where and how did Kenneth Taylor get pulled into this at times interesting discussion (putting aside the other issue of par-for-the-course adversarial and combative sniping-language).

Are we dealing with an attempt to impose a genetic fallacy ?

Is Kenneth Taylor even well known for his Christological writings as e.g. are Larry Hurtado or Richard Bauckham ? What specifically even brought Kenneth Taylor into this thread as some sort of negative Christological-doctrinal example .. twice ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Zeichman

I seem to be doing a lot of horn-tooting lately, and I'm trying not to get an inflated ego, but I think I addressed almost every point of substance Doherty makes about Q, and many that aren't. In retrospect, I realize that I should have also pointed out the problems of his pro-Luke/Marcionitic gospel with the 2 source hypothesis, but I think I was fairly comprehensive. If there is anything large I did not address, please let me know (Jesus' death in Q notwithstanding). My paper was about Doherty's hypothesis as it stands, which I think was made fairly clear, so if he revises it to eliminate these rather large problems and doesn't create any new ones, then I'll be done with this particular issue.

In short:
*How can anything about the Q community stand if his basis for positing a Cynic community (not Cynic-LIKE) have been refuted already and he does not address these arguments? Also, why does he offer preference to Cynic parallels over Jewish ones when positing dependence?
*How can anything he says about the son of man stand if he incorrectly assumes that Daniel 7 is behind the eschatological som sayings in Q?
*How can he claim a vast disconnect between Q1 and Q2 by only appealing to his own authority and old evidence without a meaningful re-interpretation?
*How can his proposal that an HJ does not appear in Q until Q3 if it is based on inconsistent and self-undermining methods?
*How can he dismiss the problem of multiple attestation between Q and Thomas if he doesn't deal with the issue in a meaningful way?
*How can he expect to be taken seriously if he does not submit his work to the same scrutiny that major scholars to their own work?

None of these have been addressed yet, in any way (except number 2 which I hope is not representative of Doherty's scholarship, given its cringe-inducing nature).These seem to be his main points for arguing there was no HJ behind Q, and I addressed each one at its root. The attention to other things serves largely to point out the lack of his credibility when he appeals to his own authority.

I'm willing to point out the problems with any unnuanced and misinformed position (hence my involvement with this thread). If he persists in this, then yes, I will debate him to the ground. His conclusions, however much I disagree with them, are not at issue, it is his methods. If he resolves these problems and does not create new ones, I'm done with it.
This is not my motivation. My motivation is to expose the huge problems with his work. I hope that once I complete grad school any "name" that is known is for the quality of my work, not an easy target. (I will leave the Lee Strobel rebuttals to Doherty) Especially someone whose work is hardly known outside of web-ophiles like those on this board, and has received essentially no attention in the academy. Besides, to say that it's "many" who have argued against Doherty in essay-like fashion is not accurate, in my opinion. I'm not sure how you would be able to discern their motivation anyway. If I could get Doherty to at least be in synch or on the same playing field as mainstream scholarship, I will be happy. If he wants to point out the unquestioned assumptions of scholars in an academic setting, then more power to him. This, though, is far from what he has done.
No, I'm not willing to do it comprehensively. I have far better things to do with my time. I wrote that paper to footnote myself for another paper I wrote and because I want others to understand Doherty is not as familiar with NT scholarship as they might believe he is. I have absolutely no interest in being known as someone who wasted his time on a marginal hypothesis instead of contributing productively to the academy. Being associated with this hypothesis in any real way (unless it actually does receive attention in scholarship, which is extremely doubtful) is about the last thing I want. I cannot overemphasize this. I do NOT want students, grad schools, or potential employers to search for my name on google and immediately connect me with fringe scholarship. I don't think a lot of people realize how little this hypothesis is going to matter in the long run, and its prominence among the poorly-informed should indicate this.

How Q plays into his hypothesis is his problem, not mine. If it's clear that he is incorrect then I will call him out on it. If he's on the level, then I'll let him be.

jgibson000

Nope. Have you read Taylor's "translation" of Jn 1:1 in his Living Bible? Have you read his explanations of what guides his "translating" technique?

JG

Zeichman

You are taking the analogy too seriously. Do people go to school board meetings asking that JM be taught in schools? Do news programs, when talking about the historical Jesus, have the obligatory fringe-JM advocate?

Switch JM for ID and the answers are reversed. You overestimate the prominence of this hypothesis.

Peer review would catch silly mistakes that Doherty makes, and also eliminate much of the rhetoric that detracts from his work (compare the number of question marks on any given page of Doherty's work to that of a degreed scholar, for example). He wouldn't be able to get by making baseless claims like he can online.

Ted Hoffman

If you have to ask, then your mastery of this stuff isn't as solid as we had thought. Is self-doubt creeping into your monadic sty of confidence?

Ted Hoffman

I have question marks on several pages of Sanders and Van Voorst. Bottom line: peer review is not the only available avenue so it is an excuse.
If people can publish crap like Tabor and NT Wright and still remain respectable scholars in the rank and file of NT Scholarship, I cannot fathom how correcting an errant "incompetent" amateur like Doherty alone would smear them with an indelibe dung that would destroy a scholar's career overnight.
I am sorry Zeich but it is argument that cannot fly.
They are terrified that if they respond, other amateurs will also read Doherty and soon, many amateurs will realize that for all their Star Trek PhDs, the scholars are full of crap. And Doherty is right.
And that wouldn't be good for the establishment now, would it Zeichman?

No Robots

But this isn't a scholarly forum. It is public forum where people of all kinds can talk about Jeebus.

Well, of course, I feel the same way about your defense of Doherty. No, wait, I'm not embarrassed for you. I admire you for staking yourself to a position and identifying yourself with a text. You have yours and I have mine. You are welcome to be embarrassed for me, but I can tell you that it is only through Brunner that I have learned anything worthwhile at all. Nothing will ever stop me from singing his praises. And I'm in good company, let me tell you.

No, but I have read his book, The Symbolic Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), and his contributions in his new discussion group. His view is that Jesus is historically unknowable and unimportant. Smells like teen mythicist spirit to me.

I don't want to derail this thread. If you like, I will reply here. I'll pmail you when I post my reply.

Steven Avery

However I didn't ask for an analysis of the deficiencies of Kenneth Taylor's translation and commentary. I did ask for his relevance to this thread. Does Taylor even have a body of respected Christological writing, like Hurtado and Bauckham, that might cause it to be analyzed for this thread ?

Or do we have simply an attempt to impose a strained genetic fallacy ?

Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is -- nothing exists that he didn't make.- John 1:1-3 (Living Bible)

Has *anybody* used this or Taylor's 'translation techniques' as a point of backing for any view on this thread - before Jeffrey brought him up as a duckshoot target ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

You really imagine NT scholars wringing their hands in private meetings over Doherty, hoping his book does not get into too many amateur hands?

Ben.