Ben C Smith

Here is a conundrum from the Q chapters of The Jesus Puzzle that I would like to see explained.

On page 160:

Not only are the sentiments of Q1 similar to Cynic philosophy, the way some of them are presented fit the structure of the Cynic chreia. This was a little anecdote about a teacher, consisting of an objection and a response. A famous story about Diogenes took this chreic shape:

"Diogenes was asked why he begged from a statue. He answered, 'So that I will get practice in being refused.'"

To which one could compare Q's chreia-like anecdote:

"A man invited to follow Jesus said, 'Let me go and bury my father first.' But Jesus said: 'Leave the dead to bury their dead.'"

If taken out of context, Q1 could easily be mistaken for a Cynic product.

.... But would it be a mistake?

I submit that it is impossible to take this section as saying anything other than that Q 9.59-60 (about the dead burying their own dead) belongs to Q1, and indeed shows how Cynic in character Q1 is.

But then two pages later, on pages 162-163, we find this:

The only component of the complex [Q 9.57-62] to be found in [the gospel of Thomas] is #86: "Jesus said: 'The foxes have their holes and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest.'" Here it is not connected to the other chreic anecdotes, which do not appear in Thomas at all. It is not even a chreia, since it lacks the lead-in remark.

It is a reasonable assumption that the Thomas version, being much simpler, is the earlier form, and that the complex of three chreiai in Q1 is artificially constructed. The root document, accordingly, would not have contained it. Just when this redacted version was inserted into Q is impossible to say. It would not necessarily have been done at the initial formation of Q1 itself; it could have happened any time after.

Thus it is possible to maintain that in all likelihood, the name "Jesus" was entirely absent from the original Q1 layer.

...we find that at the bedrock layer of Q there is no sign of a Jesus figure at all.

Although an overture is made toward keeping this entire complex in Q1 (note that the phrase the complex of three chreiai in Q1 keeps 9.59-60 as part of Q1), the net effect of this section is to move two of the units (including 9.59-60) out of Q1, so that the figure of Jesus might be dismissed from the bedrock layer of Q.

It appears that, when the topic is how Cynic Q1 is, Q 9.59-60 belongs to Q1. But, when the topic is whether a figure called Jesus appears in Q1, Q 9.59-60 is a later insertion into Q1.

Ben.

Zeichman

I specifically avoided the issue of other solutions to the synoptic problem and Q's compositional history because I am specifically dealing with Doherty here, and this is the route he takes (I believe I state this in the first footnote). You're right, I could after every argument, repeat that this is not a totally secure solution, and that others that mark plausible options are available. However, this would probably get tedious, and any reader with ample knowledge of NT studies could object this him or herself. It may have come off very ad hoc to constantly repeat this, repeating nearly every conceivable objection, however true it may be.
When I was referring to "polemical attacks" against Kloppenborg, I was limiting myself mentally to those (generally theologically conservative maximalists) who have written books such as "Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation" or "Cynic Sage or Son of God" and end up completely missing the point of his work. Maybe I should have made this clear. Doherty too has been the subject of overtly agenda-driven attacks from those with apologistic tendencies.


My edition has the Robert Price quote, three supportive amazon-review-like amateurs, and one rather comical quote against him. The fact that amateurs greatly outnumber the professionals for blurbs on the back of his book speaks loudly, especially given the obvious rhetorical reason for placing the last one in. Admittedly, on page ii there are quotes from professionals (however qualified or not they are to speak on this matter, see especially Judith Hayes' remark), but the fact that these are relegated to a far less visible position the inside of the book speaks loudly about his goals and ideal audience.

This would be like saying any of the books listed here http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesRefut1.htm do not clearly commit to an HJ on the basis of their titles alone. Indeed, it is not explicit, but one need not squint in order to read between the lines here. Thank you for the kind words.

Ben: Regarding Doherty's compositional history of Q and corresponding communities:

I'm not sure I see a Cynic Q0 stated behind his Q1. This line in particular leads me to believe that he claims Q1 itself is actually Cynic:
(p 161) "Mistaken for a Cynic product. But would it be a mistake?" The presumed answer, of course, is "no." My reading is that on p 159 he claims the Q2 community is the first to use Judaizing features, though he does not commit to their actual ethnic or spiritual background. I see this major discontinuity as perhaps the most problematic point in his discussion, as it is:
1) Clearly informed by a Euro-centric bias where the Greeks have "touches of humour" and are incompatible with the "fire-breathing" and "intolerant" Jews (or pseudo-Jews) of Q2. While I would challenge anyone who claims that Doherty is anti-Semitic, it is clear he is working within an ethnocentric paradigm that is far from empathetic to the colonized people of the Roman Empire. Though his discussion of Crossan's work on p 156-158 is a reminder of this background, he seems to completely overlook it and ignore his comments when discussing the Q community. Additionally, it is disappointing that he does not try to correct the supersessionistic assumptions of lay people who regard Judaism as backwards and tribal, and Christianity (or in this case, the Greeks) as taking a large intellectual leap. Given that his readership is probably not familiar with work by EP Sanders and others who have done great work to circumvent this view, this is a rather unfortunate step to take. However, such deep-seated biases can be exposed in most scholars, whether it is of patriarchy, Euro-centrism, or of Christo-centrism and he is not far from the many others in this respect.
2) His case is based on old evidence with no given reason for a wildly different interpretation (177, 164), essentially no precedents, and implicit appeals to his own authority. Price in Deconstructing Jesus is the only counterexample to come to mind, and I would level these same criticisms and more at his work.
3) The dubious grounds for this claim in the first place, given major points of continuity that I pointed out in the article, and the wrongful dismissal of all things Jewish from Q1 (save Solomon).
4) The correlation = causation approach to the use of Cynic parallels. Price is far more guilty of this than is Doherty, but it certainly applies to both. If one is going to argue against the continuity between Q1 and Q2, then Downing's list of parallels that extends to the WHOLE of Q needs to be considered, instead of just dismissing the parallels in later strata for that very reason. However, I repeat my question why the issue of parallels only extends to Cynic ones and not those from Jewish writings. This again evidences a Euro-centric bias.
5) The incompatability of wisdom with eschatology finds no parallels in Jewish literature (as Horsely has forcefully argued, however irrelevantly against Kloppenborg), and is derived by eliminating or ignoring elements of each from the opposing stratum of Q.

So while I find Ben's reading possible, the above quoted line seems to point strongly to the identification of Q1 with Cynic, which reaps a great deal of trouble. I heartily agree that a Q4 after a very small Q3 is a hard claim to accept, especially given its ad hoc reasoning.

I'm no language expert, so I figured I ought to give him the benefit of the doubt above. If Doherty intended that the essence be read as oral, it would support Ben's reading of the text, though it does not seem to be presumed elsewhere in his book. If not, and it applies to the source, it is fair to say that the wording is ambiguous and lends itself to the misinterpretation that I took. My original reading finds evidence in the treatment of Q1 as Cynic elsewhere in the book, corresponding to substance of the sentence.

Chris Zeichman

No Robots

Willi Braun writes:

I am not as optimistic as you are that a verifiably historical Jesus, which is itself a rather phantastic desire rather than an achievable goal of historical research (I cite as my grounds the 200 yrs of questing), adds a lot of "how" to the "that" of early Christian inventions and alterations of Jesus images as "symbolic capital" for "procuring" a variety of social "treasures". Since you mention Paul, he is a good example: his argument for a new "politeuma in the realm of the gods" (Phil 3:20) -- however one construes Paul's elaboration of this foundational statement with ref to ethnicity, etc. -- does not NEED to be seen, as Paul himself does not, as derived from or generated by Jesus of whatever flavour you prefer. Q2, to mention your other example, is demonstrably linked only to Q1 (and Q1 is NOT demonstrably linked to Jesus) and Jesus is not helpful in explaining the ideological shifts from Q1 to Q2. The that, how and why of Mark too is not made intelligible with reference to a historical Jesus, in my opinion. In any case, whoever Jesus was (Wise Guy or Waco Guy), his value as an "explanation" for what was made of him is about zero.

This makes it seem that Doherty's views on Q aren't really outside the mainstream, doesn't it? Doesn't it also seem from this that mythicism is moving into the mainstream?

Ted Hoffman

You are right. The last five years have seen mythicism invade the strongholds of conservative scholarship. The example you provide further affirms this. Progress is slow but steady.

Zeichman

What Braun seems to be saying is that one cannot link Jesus to Q with confidence, and that even if one could it would not tell us much about Christian origins. However, a historical Jesus is clearly presumed in his final sentence. This position is standard among those who contribute to the Christian Origins Seminar, a group of which he is a member and to which he contributed a paper about Q. Instead, the approach to Christian origins is that of social and cultural phenomena, without appealing to specific features of a historical Jesus. Braun does not seem to be addressing the hypothesis of mythicism here. I recall William Arnal (also a member) commenting unfavorably upon Robert Price's view of Christian origins starting at a Jesus, however unhistorical, and treating Christianity as a religious phenomenon and legitimizing the classical approach to the question.

Ben C Smith

I agree with you on the basis of the book alone. On that basis, it is hard to read his statement as applying to anything other than Q1, especially given the seemingly parallel statement that I pointed out on page 164. But Doherty has on this thread popped in to say that this is not what he meant to convey, that what he meant was only that some core part of Q1 had a previous existence. He wrote:

This is the clarification (whether it be original, ad hoc, or what have you) that I was integrating into my Q development list. If Q1 had a previous existence that may have been oral, then that implies a previous stage of development, which I am calling Q0. Like you, I would not have clocked that (and indeed did not clock it) from the book on its own. But his statement here appears to require a Q0 stage.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Remove an oral Q0 stage and you have the origin of Q1 as a writer, or a writer with a stenographer.
What are the odds of that being the case? Jesus the educated mediterranean peasant writing all that sapiental hooey...

Amaleq13

It is technical term for thinking about thinking.

Ben C Smith

I have no problem in theory with an oral tradition standing behind Q1 (although I admit I have problems with Q in general). But Doherty has gone further, apparently, and given this oral tradition a very distinct (and to my mind controversial) profile: Cynic, foreign, non-Jewish, not necessarily coterminous with Q1 (else why talk of its essence?). This profile is so distinct that it may even have been a written document, according to Doherty, belying your simpler characterization of it as an oral Q0 stage.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

That is why I asked. It is a meaningless expression. Cognition is as meta as you can get.