EarlDoherty

Yes, indeed, Kloppenborg did use Carlson’s phrase two pages later. Hmmm…considering that Kloppenborg couldn’t remember his own original wording in that short a time, can I be absolved for forgetting it entirely? Perhaps I need to call upon Father Ben again…

You see, that wasn’t so difficult now, was it? On the other hand—

So you see, I need to call your bluff again. Don’t you think it would have been a good idea here to actually tell us just how “Q has narrative, even apart from Q3”? How does Kloppenborg demonstrate, outside of Q3, the amount of narrative in Q? I mean, he has already explicitly stated (according to my earlier quote) that Q lacks “overarching” and “unifying” narrative, which is the type that matters in what was at issue here. So I ask again. What sort of narrative does Q have which Kloppenborg outlines (this time, quotes and page numbers, please)? And how does it absolve Zeichman of my particular criticism?

Nor can you appeal to the discussion on page 325f, because that is entirely related to comparing the Temptation story with similar “narrative-biographical introductions” in other sayings collections. That’s his Q3, and you are claiming (are you not?) that there is narrative outside Q3. Let me further stipulate that you can’t simply appeal to certain pericopes which within themselves have some narrative (such as the Dialogue). I did not deny that. I was talking about narrative structure that spanned multiple pericopes or even the document as a whole, because this is what Chris was appealing to in order to justify the missing-Jesus quality of the Baptist’s saying in 3:17.

I can hardly let your claim that I’m “pitiful” stand if you don’t back it up.

Earl Doherty

Zeichman

I don't have access to any of the articles and books that I did before (hopefully I will in a day or two), but Kloppenborg wrote an essay entitled “City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q),” of which I'm sure you can infer the topic discussed (though he is similarly cautious in the way Stephen described). I'll offer more once I get things unpacked.

Have you been ignoring my posts about Wendy Cotter's article? She argued, far more eloquently, the exact same thing that I did: that there is a logical progression in the sayings clusters in Q, especially in regards to the Baptist material. She made the EXACT same point I did about irony of Jesus' character and the Baptist's response (especially regarding the preaching in Q 6:20f contrasting the preaching of John in ch. 3).

This was a total misreading of my point. There is only one, just not precisely the one the Baptist originally expected. The connection between Jesus and the Baptist's erchomenos is clear later on in the sayings gospel (Mack's translation of Q):
John (Q 3:16-17): "I am plunging you in water; but one who is stronger than I is coming, one whose sandals I am not worthy to touch. He will overwhelm you with holy spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his granary. The chaff he will burn with a fire that no one can put out."

Jesus (Q 12:49f): "I came to strike fire on the earth, and how I wish that it were already aflame! Do you think that I have come to bring peace on the earth? No, not peace, but a sword."
...
He said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west you say, 'It is going to rain'; and so it does. When a south wind is blowing you say, 'It will be hot'; and so it happens. If you know how to read the signs of the sky, why can't you judge the signs of the times? Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"

William Arnal's essay on the topic is very helpful in identifying implicit and thematic links between Jesus and the Baptist's erchomenos in Q (e.g., blowing wind & chaff; fire & heat). Again: the Q people only expected one coming one, as did John. The Q people took the liberty of noting the disparity between the Jesus in Q1 and John's coming one and explaining it away. THAT was my point, not anything about dual-apocalyptic figure schema. I would agree that they should not be equated in the most simplistic sense of the term: removing nuance, A = B kind of way. If you want to identify Jesus, the son of man, and erchomenos as fulfilling the similar (and sometimes the same) roles, I won't contest such.

andrewcriddle

One thing I've been wondering is whether the idea of an entirely anonymous early Q document is intrinsically likely.

Q1 etc are supposed to be written documents intended to be made available to others. (as distinct from oral tradition or written private notes).

Most such ancient sayings collections in the ancient world have some indication of the speaker or writer or both (Sayings of Sextus, Proverbs of Solomon, Admonitions of Ipuwer) These claims may well be apocryphal but that is another matter.

One would expect prima facie that the Q documents would have something similar.

(It is of course possible that Q1 etc explicitly attributed their material to someone other than Jesus, but IMO this is not particularly likely and IIUC is a somewhat different position than what Earl Doherty is suggesting.)

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I think he is suggesting that the earliest layer(s) of Q attributed the sayings to wisdom herself. The impression I am getting is that Earl is imagining something like the gospel of Thomas, with its frequent and simple Jesus said, except that in Q1 (and Q2?) it would be the wisdom of God said.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

"Again"?

Stephen

Ben C Smith

I think this is kind of like the old question of whether a falling tree makes a sound if there is nobody around to hear it.

If someone calls your bluff, but you were not bluffing, does it really count as calling your bluff?

Ben.

Zeichman

I suspect he meant "call-your-bluff" again.

Whatever.

Vincent Guilbaud

Carlson said:
I hope you're not going to tell us it is the truth
because Kloppenborg, Vermes, Mack, Crossan or Wendy Cotter said it.

Everybody can read the reconstructed source:
(from Peter Kirby's site for example)
The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

The Contents of Q
A Synopsis for Q
Burton Mack's Translation
...

So we are waiting for quotes from Q1 or Q2.:banghead:

- either you show us these narrative references (and not just 1 or 2 words here and there)
- either you retract and recognize you are bluffing

Hey kids, what kind of unfairly games are you playing?

****************************

Timothy Johnson:
"without story there cannot be character" :angel:

************************************************

By the way I have started a little web site about the Jesus Puzzle theory
From Christ To Jesus

Download Adobe SVG viewer for IE: Adobe SVG Viewer

and thanks for your review of my little presentation:
Before 70CE, there were TWO INDEPENDENT Jewish sects

EarlDoherty

When you do, I hope this doesn't turn out to be another discussion merely of narrative in the Temptation Story, which is what it sounds like.

Again, what is "logical progression in the sayings clusters in Q" in regard to narrative? Such that Q deliberately reflected John not knowing a human Jesus-on-the-scene when he spoke 3:17. Perhaps you'll make that clear to us.

As for Carlson's 'second' bluff, I note that he is still refusing to explain the large-scale narrative structure in Q, and backing it up by explaining Kloppenborg's view of such.

As I pointed out earlier, one can hardly think that the Proverbs of Solomon, in its developmental stages, attributed itself to Solomon right out of the starting gate. Although the time-scale would hardly be that long, I regard Q1 as having essentially been adopted by the initial Q sect from a foreign source, and it too could have passed through a short period with its original foreign attribution decaying or being ignored before the attribution to Wisdom assumed official status. Also, at that time it would have been an "in-house" entity gradually assuming the quality of a foundation document, and would not have immediately required an established attribution, such as for public consumption.

Earl Doherty

S.C.Carlson

Q is a hypothetical source, and its text is a scholarly construct. I don't see why one should ignore what leading Q proponents have to say about it--and that includes Burton Mack whom you now go ahead and appeal to:

The first two links don't present the text of Q, so they're irrelevant. But the third link, Mack's translation, has narrative in all (his) layers of Q.

:huh: You yourself just gave a link that shows that Q has narrative in it. I'm not "bluffing," but you're trying to call with no chips.

For some reason, your website crashes my browser (Firefox).

Stephen