Amaleq13

It is not meaningless in the context of my job but I'm unsure of the relevance here. Teaching kids to think about how they are thinking helps with both learning disabled and emotionally disordered students.

Perhaps it is a reference to having the necessary training to think like the ancients might have thought?

EarlDoherty

Let me assure Chris Zeichman (sorry for the extra 'n' earlier) that I have indeed devoted a large amount of space to Jonathan Z. Smith in my upcoming article on the mystery cults. (It will be in three parts, and approaching the length of my infamous--but unread--"Refutations" article). Surprisingly, he seems to be rather out of sympathy (commendably) with much of recent scholarship on the question of the comparison of the mysteries with Christianity, an improvement over his earlier “Dying and Rising God” article.

Now, I’m beginning to wonder just how ambiguous I really was over that key sentence on Q1 which led to Chris’ misunderstanding. It struck me when Ben quoted it that it could have been taken in no other way than what I said I meant:

The “whether oral or written” follows directly on “a foreign source”, thus it is the foreign source—i.e., previous to its appearance as a root Q document—that could have been oral. The use of the word “essence” just prior also detaches the idea from a Q1 itself (as the first layer of a written document). Then the following sentence does that as well, since it is “post-“ this possibly oral phase that any aspect of Q comes into play, in the ‘discovery and adoption’ of it by “Jewish preachers of the new movement”. So, sorry, Chris, I’m going to have to withdraw my allowance for ambiguity on my part as an excuse for your ‘misunderstanding.’ :-) (I’ll also question Mr. Carlson’s eager seconding of your misunderstanding as well.)

Ben, your observation about the chreia business in Q1 is very clever. I am definitely going to have to rework that. Considering that I have potentially dismissed that particular chreia structure from Q1 as a later reworking, I agree that this removes such chreia as providing examples (in Q1) of this Cynic feature. (Fortunately, there are other Cynic features present to support the identification.) The only other Q1 pericope having a chreic shape is 12:13-14. [Someone from the crowd said to him: “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Sir, who made me your judge or lawyer?”] Ironically enough, this saying is also present in the Gospel of Thomas (#72), but in its full form, with the lead-in. Would that qualify it for reliable inclusion in Q1, I wonder? Now, I realize that on the face of it, this would have the effect of inserting a “teacher” figure into Q1 where I have claimed there really was none. However, I have also said that part of the process of the evolution of Q was to assign the activities and teachings of the members of the sect itself to the invented founder when he was finally introduced. Sayings like this one could have been recorded initially as exchanges between sect preacher and audience, and only later came to be associated with the founder. Note that there is no use of the name “Jesus” in this one. My purpose in demonstrating the later construction of the three-chreia block in 9:59-60, was to support the contention that someone under the name Jesus could not be found in Q1.

I generally like your suggested breakdown of the evolution of Q, and would agree that a layer Q0 is theoretically valid, although the terminology is misleading, since it is really not part of any Q document. But the thought is legitimate. As for a Q4, I think you are making too much of any distinction between both Jesus and John being “children” of wisdom, and wisdom sayings being attributed to Jesus. Just because wisdom sayings are placed in Jesus’ mouth doesn’t mean that those who do so regard the two as “equated”. I would see it more as a metaphorical linkage, but it does speak to the esteem in which the new founder is being held, to regard him as the spokesperson of Wisdom herself.

As for the posting by “jgibson000”…remind me again who this guy is?

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Zeichman

In psychological terms, it more specifically refers to one's self-awareness of thinking and ability to assess it in others. To use the example of biblical scholarship:

A young fundamentalist who doesn't like Crossan finds many of his claims silly and unnecessarily skeptical of the NT tradition. However, this person finds Lee Strobel quite convincing, and recommends his books to all of their friends. It is pretty obvious in this situation that the individual lacks the meta-cognition to assess the claims and arguments of each, instead falling back, however unintentionally, upon confirmatory bias to grind their axe. What I propose Doherty has does is the same, except for non-Christians, as this book is extremely accessible to the point where it oversimplifies some issues and his ideal readers are unaware of this. If this book were less immediately accessible, and clearly directed to NT specialists, then his audience would be for those who have the appropriate meta-cognition, where one cannot get away with any silly claim they fancy, such as the throne of God in Ezekiel being a spacecraft. I think I can find some psychology journal articles for you to read, if you'd like, once I get back to my apartment next week. Two that come to mind are "Ignorant and Unaware of It" and "The Overconfidence of Ignorant Experts," though I'm fairly sure those titles are not entirely correct.

I might also note that accessible books are typically done at the end of careers, once the claims have been tested within the academy and refined to more acceptable positions (e.g., Crossan, Sanders, Funk, Robinson) and are generally not a testing ground for extremely controversial claims like those Doherty makes.

jgibson000

Why should anyone do so? Haven't you yourself claimed that what matters is what is said, not who says it?

Perhaps instead of asking for credentials, let alone asking for credentials as a way both of dismissing an argument raised against your claim about Lk 12:8 and of avoiding dealing with it, you'd do us all the favour of pointing out just how the argument jgibson000 presented against your claim is wrong and what, if any, linguistic/lexical data supports your idea of what the use of ὁμολογeω in Lk. 12:8 signifies?

JG

youngalexander

However, he does at least allow for the possibility in the next reply after that quoted above

I do care about trying to find a historical Jesus. And I do think that IF we could, we would then say something about Christian Origins. If for
example, one were to conclude Jesus never existed, then that tells us a great deal about Christian Origins.

even tho he does continue

On a less extreme example, when we discover, as we can I think through the various theories of source and redaction criticism, that Jesus was himself a sayer of wise things ... then that too tells us about Christian Origins

EarlDoherty

Ah, Jeffrey, you never learn. You shoot from the hip without thinking things through, so secure are you in your own sense of superiority….

Really? You are very good at quoting lexicons, but you’re not so good at considering contexts. Perhaps you’re not even all that familiar with the texts.

Consider the parallel to Luke 12:8 in Matthew 10:32:

You claim that this can only mean that the Son of Man is merely a “witness before a judge”, namely God, and not a judge himself. There are a number of contextual problems with this narrow understanding.

One: Since Matthew (and Luke) understood this to be Jesus, this means that they cannot have conceived of Jesus as a judge at the End-time. This is patently false, since the whole of Christianity, especially once an historical Jesus was developed, envisioned him as the End-time judge upon his coming or return. If there is anything associated with the Parousia of Jesus, both in the Gospels and in the epistles, it is that Jesus arriving at the Parousia will judge (Mt. 12:18, 25:31f, Jn. 5:22, 27, 2 Cor. 5:10, Rom. 14:10 (some mss), 2 Tim. 4:1, although the epistles also speak of the judgment of God). 2 Thess. 1:8 is very dramatic: “when our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in blazing fire, then he will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

Two: The reason I converted to Matthew’s version of the saying was so that I could make a direct link between it and the famous judgment scene in 25:31f, where the Son of Man is portrayed as ‘coming in his glory, will sit in state on his throne, he will separate men into two groups, those on the right are told to enter the kingdom ready for them, those on the left are consigned to eternal fire, etc.’ If this ain’t judging, I don’t know what is. No role is given to God here. Jesus is not a mere advocate. If Matthew clearly portrays Jesus the Son of Man as apocalyptic judge here, he can hardly have the understanding you claim in 10:32, that he is simply an advocate and not a judge.

There is one isolated case (as I recall) in which the Son is portrayed as an advocate before the Father, that’s 1 John 2:1 (which by the way does not use homologeō), but in that epistle there is no concept of the arrival of the Son on earth, only of God himself (2:28). The Gospel of John, on the other hand, in 5:22 says explicitly, “the Father does not judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son.”

Three: Can you really think that all that dramatic language and threats about the coming Day of the Son of Man does not envision him as an apocalyptic judge? The results will be immediate. Matthew 24:39f: “So it will be when the Son of Man comes. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken, the other left; two women grinding at the mill; one will be taken, the other left.” 24:50-51: “then the master will arrive on a day that the servant does not expect, at a time he does not know, and will cut him in pieces. Thus he will find his place among the hypocrites, where there is wailing and grinding of teeth.”

According to you, I guess God is meant to be coming in tow here, so he can sit on the bench and listen to the Son of Man prosecute all these people. (How would you like to be in the jury pool for that trial?!) Clearly the Son of Man himself is going to be doing the taking and the cutting here. Are Q and the evangelists saying: “You better be ready, because God’s prosecuting attorney is going to arrive when you least expect him!”?

Four: Luke 12:8 and Matthew 10:32 are usually included in Q, even though there is a somewhat similar saying in Mark (8:38). The same understanding of the Son of Man as judge must have been present in Q as it clearly is in Matthew. Matthew, as do all the synoptic evangelists, comes from communities that have Q roots. Are we to think that the Q community itself had no concept of their Son of Man as a judge and Matthew only a little later, using the Q document, turned that understanding upside down? Obviously, he is continuing the previous understanding, that the Son of Man is coming to do the judging as his prime task, and that’s what the first pericope in Q indicates, John’s forecast of the coming one who will baptize with fire and separate the wheat from the chaff. (The only thing I'm "smuggling into Q" is common sense.)

Jeffrey, you never change, which is why I hate wasting my time on you. Too many of your counters are simply bogus. You ask JS for evidence that pagan myths are the source of Jesus’ birth stories, and when he gives you a handful, you demand “primary sources”, as though no modern commentator can ever be used or trusted (which would wipe out probably 90% of the appeals made by mainstream NT researchers). Of course, this is just your regular obstructionist tactic, and an avoidance of answering the argument yourself. What you don’t seem to acknowledge is that in civilized debate, if you disagree with a statement or a reference made by an opponent, you need to offer an argument on your side as to why you do so, not simply demand more and more from him. If you have reason to think it’s not legitimate to appeal to a given “paraphraser” you need to argue why that paraphraser is not to be trusted or why he or she has things wrong. You dismissed the appeal to Edith Hamilton’s “paraphrase” as not worth the bandwidth, but you don’t back it up with anything. This sort of thing is why we never get a decent argument out of you. But then, you’re too intelligent a person not to realize all this, which is why you drive everyone on this board crazy with your deliberately reprehensible antics.

And I let myself get sucked into it too often. Which is why I’m going to go back to ignoring you.

And please give "Louise" a rest.

Earl Doherty

jgibson000

When did I say "merely"?


The only thing I claimed was that in Q 12:8 this is so. And it is.

What narrow understanding?

Who said this? Not me.

In any case, it is clear, as many commentators have noted, that at Lk. 12:8 Luke, drawing upon Mk 8:38, does not consider the Son of man referred to to be Jesus. And Matthew does not speak of the Son of Man at all in his parallel. Nor, BTW, does Matthew speak at Matt. 10:32 of Jesus judging anyone. As Donald Haegner has noted, "ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοί, lit. “confess in me,” is an Aramaism meaning “confess me” Such "confession" (on the part of the disciples) will result in a corresponding "confession" by Jesus of the disciple as faithful to God in the heavenly court.


When did I ever say "mere" advocate. You are putting words in my mouth.

Why not, if in Matthew 10:32. Matthew is not portraying Jesus, as the language of that passage shows he is not, as a judge, but, as O. Michel has noted ("ὁμολογ�*ω,  ἐξομολογ�*ω, ἀνθομολογ�*ομαι,  ὁμολογία, ὁμολογουμ�*νως" TDNT V, 208), as "the eschatological Witness").

And speaking of taking account of, and of paying good attention to context, I note that none of this [i.e., Matt 25:31-46] appears in Q. So it's interesting to me that to make your case, you have to do a Schmuel, and bring in non Q material in order to make Q/Lk 12:8 say something you want it to say, but which the language and the context of that passage shows is not being said.

I also note that in Matt. 25 the Son of man does not judge, but only bears witness to who should/does and who should/does not have his father's blessing (cf. Matt. 25:34.

I never denied, as you seem to think I have, that one of the roles that the Son of man has in Q (or Luke or Matthew) is that of Judge. What I've been and am denying is that that is the role he is portrayed as playing in Q 12:8.

Nope. And you are putting words in my mouth when you say otherwise.

Did I say that the Q community had no concept of the Son of Man as judge? All I'm saying is that at Q/Lk. 12:8 that role plays no part. And it doesn't.

But are you saying that the only concept of the Son of Man that the Q community (or Matthew or Luke) had was that of Judge? If so, how do you explain (or explain away) what do you make of Matt. 11:19//Lk. 7:34 (Q 1); Matt 8:20// Luke 9:58; Matt.9:6//Lk. 5:24.

Can you tell me what modern commentator he adduced and that I rejected?

But I did offer an argument -- a lexical one that, notably, you have yet to refute. Is there any chance that you'll not dodge it again as you have done in all the above?


JG

Ted Hoffman

You mean unconsciously incompetent(lowest at the competency ladder) and unconsciously competent(the highest level)? That often appears in what is called a competency ladder which is studied under Management excellence.
I maintain that meta-cognition is not the term you want to use. Meta, as used in metaphysics (in literary theory - not in Philosophy) refers to any thought system that depends on a foundation, a ground or a first principle.
Meta as used in metadata, is data about data as used in database management systems - this is close to meta as used in metaphysics(Philosophy).
Instead of meta-cognition, I suggest you use the word competence. Keep it simple ans straightforward.
Thinking about how to think - metathinking? How about Psychology? So writing about how to write becomes metawriting? No, meta often refers to an underlying or basic theory - as we see in metaethics.
I submit that Meta assumes some sort of hierarchy where a lower item supports, explains or produces an upper as we see in substructure, metalanguage (generative grammar), metaethics, metatheory and so on.
Enough said or else I will end up hijacking this thread with this meta tangent.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Doherty. That was beautiful. I am looking forward to Zeichmann's response to it.
This would be damaging to your case Gibson. Which commentators are these?

judge

However you did misrepresent what Jeffrey said.

Contrary to your claim

Jeffrey wrote

and
He may have point though.

If you want to improve your work there no point having people suck up to you. And JG could never be accused of that.