FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-2007, 04:28 PM   #61
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Quote:
(Perhaps while you’re at it you might identify the location in The Formation of Q for Carlson’s phrase “biographical-narrative preface” which he tried to ridicule me on for not recognizing as Kloppenborg’s. He seems to be passing up the chance to tell me himself and discredit my thought that he might be bluffing. But then, he has also passed up explaining how he was misinterpreted as maintaining that there was indeed some kind of narrative structure to Q.)

Kloppenborg's exact phrase is "narrative-biographical introduction," which I trust is close enough to what Carlson said to satisfy you. He uses and discusses it in Formation, 325f. Kloppenborg may have used the exact phrase Carlson quoted elsewhere (he uses the word "preface" in this discussion, too), but I'm not going to scrounge for it, as it is inconsequential. I hope the matter will be laid aside.
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…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlson
If the exact phrase is important, page 327 has "biographical-narrative preface."
You see, that wasn’t so difficult now, was it? On the other hand—

Quote:
Doherty's "narrative structure" is still tilting at the strawman. Q has narrative, even apart from Q3 (as Kloppenborg defines it). One of Kloppenborg's major contributations to Q studies is to show that the amount of narrative in Q is not unusual when compared with other sayings collections. Thus, Doherty's attempt to appeal to Kloppenborg--of all people--for the proposition that Q lacks narrative is rather pitiful.
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
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 09:26 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
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)?
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.

Quote:
And how does it absolve Zeichman of my particular criticism?
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).

Quote:
Although he doesn't come right out and say it, Zeichman's implication is that we should not equate the Son of Man with John's erchomenos. (Otherwise, why fault me for assuming it?) So now we have two apocalyptic figures due to arrive at the End-time, no doubt each with its own entourage. Will there not be a conflict between them in their apocalyptic activities?
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.
Zeichman is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 11:18 AM   #63
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

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
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 11:39 AM   #64
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
(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.)
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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 08:04 PM   #65
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
You see, that wasn’t so difficult now, was it? On the other hand—

So you see, I need to call your bluff again.
"Again"?

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 05-22-2007, 06:15 AM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson View Post
"Again"?
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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 05-22-2007, 06:35 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
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.
I suspect he meant "call-your-bluff" again.

Whatever.
Zeichman is offline  
Old 05-22-2007, 07:32 AM   #68
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Posts: 42
Default

Carlson said:
Quote:
Q has narrative, even apart from Q3
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
Vincent Guilbaud is offline  
Old 05-22-2007, 07:49 AM   #69
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZeichman
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.
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.

Quote:
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
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.
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
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 05-22-2007, 11:44 AM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
Carlson said:
Quote:
Q has narrative, even apart from Q3
I hope you're not going to tell us it is the truth
because Kloppenborg, Vermes, Mack, Crossan or Wendy Cotter said it.
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
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:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
- 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
: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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
By the way I have started a little web site about the Jesus Puzzle theory
From Christ To Jesus
For some reason, your website crashes my browser (Firefox).

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.