EarlDoherty

I'm going to use this as the perfect example of what I have been talking about, both in regard to Chris Zeichman and to scholars in general.

P.94 of Kloppenborg's Formation of Q has this to say. He starts by discussing how

So right off the bat, Kloppenborg is admitting that Q lacks the very element which everything that he outlines above relates to in Mark, namely “narrative”. So he is going to have to be careful to supply a different basis on which “logical form” and “qualitative form” applies in Q. If it doesn’t “advance narrative”, which K. admits Q doesn’t have in the sense that Mark has, namely “overarching”, then in what other context does Q’s logical and qualitative form apply? It seems to me that while one hand dismisses overall narrative in Q, the other hand is bringing it in by implication.

But let’s say (and I agree), that K. is right when he dismisses (perhaps with his right hand) large-scale narrative in Q. What is his left hand doing? It replaces narrative with “progression”. (How K.’s application of his term “progression” can really be differentiated from “narrative” largely escapes me, but let’s set that aside.) This, of course, is what Zeichman has done as well. He has retreated from the field of “narrative,” withdrawn through the no-man’s land of “plot” and finally dug in, as K. has, in the trenches of “progression”.

Now, this passage in K., pages 94-95, is the very section that I have called attention to earlier, including in my rebuttal article. Right after the above quoted statement claiming “logical progression” in Q, K. discusses that trio of pericopes: 3:17—7:11-35—13:34-35. He almost immediately qualifies the “logic”:

This is where he “bookends” (as I described it in my article) the middle pericope with the two outer ones, and styles that middle one as “a theological detour”. In fact, this is the sentence:

So “this particular logical progression” would seem to contain a piece of illogic. K. calls it a “detour” but it’s really a “contradiction”, only he can’t bring himself to use such a term.

He goes on to try to justify the progression from the ‘ministry of John’ to the ‘ministry of Jesus’, following an admission at the outset that “there seems to be little affinity between this figure [i.e., John] and Jesus.” This becomes a “qualitative progression” which, if not accidental, must be deliberate on the part of Q. John is an ascetic, Jesus a liberal. John lives in the wilderness, Jesus amid the bustle of towns. John preaches imminent dire judgment by God (or the Son of Man/erchomenos), Jesus has a much broader, more relaxed message. And so on. Yet, according to K., 7:24-28 (John gets turned into Jesus’ herald), and 31-35, “asserts programmatically the fundamental agreement of John and Jesus and thereby serves to effect a transition between their two ministries.” What “fundamental agreement” can be identified here? The latter verses are all about marked distinctions between the two. K. is simply papering this over by calling it a “qualitative progression”. This sort of analysis is basically apologetic.

These sorts of things can be accepted as “feasible solutions” only if one is disposed to wanting them to be so. As for the “qualitative progression” K. has come up with, does it have anything more going for it than the alternative: that the “progression” is one in which the opening pericope reflects one set of circumstances and ideas and the Dialogue represents a later and very different set of ideas and circumstances, which is why they contain logical flaws and theological detours. John forecasts a future apocalyptic figure but must have his role and preaching realigned later in order to accommodate the new founder—this is the much simpler and more logical “progression” between these two pericopes. Zeichman would rather recommend to me scholarly exercises in reading things into texts and offering problematic interpretations, but I prefer my own which contain far fewer problems and contradictions.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Don't get too gleeful, Ben. The basic difference between my use of your phrase and your use of it is that I came to my conclusion after argumentation over the issue. You did it without embarking on any argumentation.

Earl Doherty

Zeichman

I'm not sure that I misused the word, though it seems that you and Jacob think so. I'm making sure my bases are covered. I'm no expert in fiction, narratives, stories or that type of thing in general. Someone who is, and it sounds like Jacob may be, will have to help me out here with definitions.

I think we can agree that a prediction necessarily comes before identification in any story. I'm still not sure I understand how this is unclear in Q:
-the Baptist talks about the coming of the erchomenos (I embrace the redundancy)
-the Baptist asks Jesus if he is the erchomenos via his followers
-Jesus replies by alluding to the same prophetic book as does John, implying "yes"

These, I think we agree, CANNOT occur in any other order and still make sense. We have no reason to believe, as far as I know, that Q should NOT make sense. I would tentatively agree that 12:49f and 13:34-35 is not particularly relevant to the discussion of "plot" (or whatever one cares to call it) here and could well occur anywhere in Q and still make sense. It is irrelevant to this point. If we encountered this logical progression anywhere else, we would call it a narrative or plot or whatever. There is a necessary order to it. I know of no reason to assume this plot/whatever is unintentional. I follow Cotter, Kloppenborg, and Arnal in their interpretation of this "plot."
I didn't know that you needed an all-encompassing word for an idea to be valid, though it may be warranted for it to be well-articulated. I've been using the word "plot" because it seems to be less controversial, though no one has made clear the distinction between this and related concepts.

I once again point out the preclude/require idea. You were arguing against the word I chose, which was irrelevant to my point, and your sources didn't even say what you implied they did.

I'm lost as to what you mean. Q 7:18f is a direct inquiry about the original prediction in Q 3:16f, no one could conceivably deny that. Q 12:49f is also fairly (but less so than Q 7:18f) connected to John's original prediction via an abundance of verbal and thematic links. Again, forgive me, but I'm totally lost about your psychic analogy.

The IQP has included all of the verses I used in their latest publication (The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English) with a "C" grade, if I recall their sigla correctly. I don't have the copy of The Critical Edition of Q or the proper volume of Documenta Q that I did before, so I can't look it up to see what they have to say. I don't feel obligated to summarize arguments for and against, as you can read them if you interlibrary loan or purchase the respective volume of Documenta Q. I hope you won't turn this into an IQP-worshipping thing since I certainly don't agree with them on every point, and am only answering your inquiry. In short: it's not totally secure, but its inclusion is deemed probable.

I'm primarily thinking of the first questions I asked in this thread:
What is the extent of your pre-Q1 source, how did you determine its existence, and how have you identified its extent? Right now it's looking an awful lot like conjecture that supports your assumptions.

Zeichman

Use it. I really couldn't care less. I more or less agree with your sentiment, except I see the contradiction as short-lasting and intentional.

I'm lost as to how this is any less paradigm-affirming than what you claim that Kloppenborg and I are doing. The son of man is never mentioned by John. "erchomenos" is only used of the son of man once (I might note that this "coming" is away from God, a clear contradiction with Daniel 7, for those who believe Q' som to be dependent on that text).

You must be kidding in your summarization of Q 7:31-35. Despite the differences, they are both victims of the deuteronomistic scheme of history. They were sent by God (implicit in the the invocation of the deuteronomistic scheme), and are children of Sophia. I'm not sure how anyone could read the point of this verse as anything other than "despite the skin-deep differences in God's prophets, they are in fact both children of Sophia."

I would say the same with your son of man & the Baptist idea; there are blanks to be filled in and we have done so in the opposite directions. To reiterate, I only believe that you have exaggerated consensus scholarship's treatment of this question. I have contended that there is a contradiction between Q 12:49f and your idea of associating the erchomenos with a future son of man.

Ben C Smith

Not quite. I did it after reading your argumentation on Galatians 3.19 (one of the most unlikely arguments I have ever encountered) in an addendum to your 20 silences (though for a while I remembered it incorrectly as being an actual part of your 20 silences). I scarcely needed to hear my own argumentation in response to be convinced that you and I were approaching things from very different spheres, as it were.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Note: Doherty specifically tackles the issue of "Narrative in Q" in his rebuttal, and indeed has a section titled as such. And Kloppenborg himself is acutely aware that Q is not a narrative even though he obliquely writes as if Q has a narrative quality but he is careful to note that Q has no narrative format and has no overarching narrative framework.
Yet Zeichman, as we see below, proceeds to use the word "narrative" in a cavalier and incorrect fashion that exposes his deficient understanding of the word "narrative" and an inattentiveness and lack of appreciation of the reasons behind why both Kloppenborg is at pains to delineate the absence of a narrative format and framework in Q and more importantly, why Doherty has a section on this subject with a clear title and scare quotes.
Thus Doherty's efforts are wasted on Zeichman and I believe this is a classic example of "talking past each other." Because the very thing that is emphasized is the very thing that Zeichman regards as insignificant. From the misapplication of the word "narrative" comes words like "progression" and other ideas that have no proper basis as those who have followed the thread can see.
But this dispute also exposes another fundamental confusion as I discuss below.
You still have not answered the question I asked. Plus you also have not demonstrated that he is begging the question. That is just a void claim.
Which passage in p.94? You have said many things. What are you referring to in this instance?
I never wrote that K "rejects the word 'narrative' altogether" He wrote that Q does not employ narrative as a framing device and that Q lacks an "overarching narrative framework" whilst also lacking "a unifying narrative format." That only leaves room for narrative within the clusters in Q. I repeat that your statement makes no distinction and incorrectly implies that Q has an overall narrative quality or has a specific narrative thread running through its disparate clusters.
His failure to define narrative does not absolve you from the specific charge I am presently leveling at you, so that is a red herring. In any event, it would be irresponsible for you to employ a word recklessly purely on the basis that no definition is supplied by this specific author.
As Doherty asked, If plot is not different from narrative, "then why are you bothering?" A narrative is a recital of events, usually in chronological order - it is a manner of presentation and can be used to link certain events and to convey certain meanings - hence narrative criticism "interprets the text from the perspective of an idealized implied reader" (Powell, M.A., What is Narrative Criticism?, 1990, p.15)
A plot is a scheme, a plan or a sequence of events aimed at a particular end. Thus, unlike a narrative, typically a plot comprises certain parts or units leading to achievement of a particular aim - whether literary or actual. A narrative can comprise several plots.
As far as I know, Q is not a series of events aimed at a specific goal. Indeed, the very fact that we stratify Q means that Q does not lend itself to being characterised as a "plot."
May have been?!! Are you unsure about what you were describing?

You use the word "plot" when you mean plot and use the word "narrative" when you mean narrative. Plain and simple. They are not synonyms.
This can only be the case when the words are synonyms. Do we talk of a "temptation narrative" or a "temptation plot"? Why dont we talk of a "temptation plot" yet we talk about the "plot to kill Jesus"?
Provide clear examples that demonstrate that one can use the word "plot" interchangeably with the word "narrative". Otherwise, you have no case.
I am sorry Chris, we cannot read your mind. You have to communicate what you mean. That is your job as a writer. Telling us about what you had in mind is a tacit admission of your failure to communicate it.
There is a difference between being careless and arguing that an argument is of little significance. You seem to conflate them.
In any case, you are really waffling. You are admitting, rather than outrightly denying that you may have used the wrong word but instead of actually doing something about it, you are asking for definitions and confirmations and attempting to explain to us what you meant, while claiming the words you used are unimportant and so on. Settle down and face this thing squarely and honestly. The correct thing to do here would have been to either admit or deny that you used the wrong word. If you are unsure about whether you used the wrong word, it is incumbent upon you to be sure first and use the correct word. If you are asking us to help you with definitions of what the word narrative means, and blaming Kloppenborg for failing to supply a definition, it means you are confused about how to use the word.
Come outright and admit it if that is the case because crying "help me out here with definitions" whilst maintaining that you dont care what word you used broadens the field of confusion beyond semantic issues. It means you are confused about the entire process of communication and have abdicated your duty as a writer seeking to clarify matters and edify readers.

Zeichman

Ugh. I thought we already went over this: over-arching narratives (which I understand to be what the canonical gospels have) are what Kloppenborg rejects. He takes the idea of a plot and goes with it. Once more: I'm not sure the word I use is relevant because I've been very clear about what I mean by it. I can see this is going nowhere, as you have noted.

For clarification, you asked Ben this, not me. Why? Because the one he has offered is fallacious?
1Q: How do we know that the dialogue is in Q3?
1A: Because it attributes material to a personified Jesus.
2Q: How does this indicate stratigraphical location?
2A: Because such only occurs only in Q3 (i.e. the temptation narrative)
3Q: Well, that seems thematic and not literary-critical, but anyway... What about the dialogue in Q 9:52f (Doherty has provided no reason to believe this wouldn't be in Q1)? or the Beelzelbub accusation? Or the distant healing? Or the introductory words that occur elsewhere in the first two layers of Q?
3A: Don't worry about those.
4Q: Then how can you possibly be proven wrong?
4A: [silence]

Circular logic does not make a valid argument, and it doesn't look like he's working within the same methodological paradigm as Kloppenborg, even though he claims he is.

Additionally, it's a HUGE double-standard. He's identifies this as a late theme, from what I understand, because of the Q3 temptation narrative. "Zeichman can hardly appeal to this as something "typical" of Q3, or how scripture functions in Q3, or how miracles are understood in Q3, when it is all based on only one example." No, but apparently Doherty is allowed to do so.

I don't have my books unpacked, since I don't have the room to do so. I found this page marked in my notes. Doherty has quoted much of it above.

How do you figure? His statement also means that it can work within a single stratum of Q, which is precisely what I'm saying (he and his own student have, too). Regardless, I'm not obliged to agree with Kloppenborg at every step, as long as it doesn't effect any other aspects of the argument (e.g. introducing thematic or tradition-historical methods into stratigraphical location).

You'll have to explain how this is problematic for me. And I'm not sure it's "reckless" if I didn't do it without care. I'm not a literary scholar and that's the word that I originally thought was correct. After several accusatory posts, you now indicate that I am wrong. This is about the quality of my writing, not the content of my argument and seems a to be a bit ad hominem, if so.

Because you seem to think that it is different, and I was unaware that it is. As I said before, I was keeping my bases covered in case I used the wrong word. Please read my posts before acting like I didn't respond to the charge.

Then this is what I meant and clearly what I talked about.

I didn't say Q was a plot. I said it had at least one plot.

Are we expected to look up the definition of every word before writing it? I use a word that is commonly a synonym and I have just now been shown that I used it incorrectly. "That movie's narrative sucked." "I dunno, man, I thought the plot was pretty decent." They are frequently used synonymously, and I'm not an expert in literary matters so I was unaware of the distinction. I have said it, but it's not of significance to my point, and Doherty has refuted something that I did not say. Wouldn't he be just as guilty of "recklessly" using this word, when doesn't look like that was what I meant? It only took how many posts to do that?

The fact that you have been able to infer correctly what I meant indicates (to some degree) otherwise.

Which I did, once someone defined it for me. It's not like I'm writing a paper about "narrative in Q," I used the wrong word a couple times. I apologize. It only means that Doherty's objections to the term are straw men.

Please. If we had this everytime someone used a word incorrectly, the world would be getting nowhere. I want to point out once more that this is totally irrelevant to my point.
The issue of word choice only came up after I lost access to the library I have been using. The last thing I'm going to do is scrounge around on the internet for a word that I might have used incorrectly. The burden of proof is upon those making the charge that I did something wrong. It seems that in the academy, one is given the benefit of the doubt: innocent until proven guilty. Once someone DID show that I used in incorrectly, I admitted such. Are we going to move on that WAS something of substance?

Ben C Smith

Hi, Earl.

I now have your book in hand again, and see that you do indeed have several arguments, such as they are, for ridding Q2 of an historical Jesus. Please note that Chris Zeichman had claimed only that you had offered no reason for thinking that the Q3 editor specifically had put the dialogue unit together, and he was (and is) right. It was I who extended my questioning to include any and all arguments for taking an HJ out of Q2. I have two comments right now on your arguments for doing so:

1. Your arguments occur, oddly, well before any of the usual Q2 units containing an HJ even come up in the discussion. IOW, you conclude that Q2 lacks an HJ before even glancing at the dialogue unit, the healing at a distance, and the other HJ indicators.

2. I find your arguments quite weak. That is not to say that I should not have recognized them as your arguments (and I did admit to not having your book in front of me when I made my inquiries), but, to take but one example, you argue that Jesus speaking of the son of man as if he were a separate person indicates that there was no Jesus in the Q2 mind to utter these sayings about the son of man.

But how are you making that leap? I pointed out your excluded middle in the thread on Matthew and the guards, and here is another example of one. I nowhere find you dealing with, for example, the possibility that Jesus is indeed speaking about somebody other than himself when he speaks of the son of man! That is what Ehrman holds, after all. You cannot just leap across that possibility (and others) and assume that there was no Jesus to speak about the son of man. Jesus speaking in Q2 about the son of man as if he were a distinct person may mean just that, namely that Q2 portrayed Jesus as speaking about the son of man as a different person. This is not even the bare beginnings of an argument against an HJ in Q2... unless you take pains to exclude the middle that you are apparently pretending does not exist.

The argument you are making on this thread about one part of Q2 (per Kloppenborg) speaking of the son of man as one kind of figure and another part of Q2 (per Kloppenborg) speaking of the son of man as a different kind of figure is, IMHO, your best argument to date. But I cannot find anything of the kind in the book. If you were presenting that argument as one that I missed from the book, I must ask where it is. If you were presenting that argument as an additional consideration, so be it, but I understood you as offering it as something I missed, and I think Jacob Aliet did also, since he asked me, in response to my inquiries about where in the book or online essay you gave arguments:

At any rate, I take back my insinuation that you had no arguments at all.

Sometime this summer I hope to give a slightly more expanded response to some of your arguments on Q and on several other topics of note, including the one that I sent you that PM about.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

This is patently illogical. How does your own misuse of a certain word render Doherty's objections strawman arguments? You may have wanted to state that Doherty should have simply corrected you, reframed your arguments and then adressed them as reframed instead of faulting you for misusing the word - because the word was not the substance of your arguments.
Is that what you meant?
But how could he have done so yet you were not willing to admit you had misapplied the word and have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to face the fact that you misused the word?

Kloppenborg incorrectly speaks of "Logical and Qualitative Progression in Q" in the absence of a narrative and attempts to characterise the dialogue (which is inserted between a historical person and the angelic apocalyptic judge) as a "theological detour." This arises from an incorrect perception that there is a narrative current behind Q. In effect, what enables him to reconcile the two patently dissimilar figures is an unstated assumption that they are linked in a narrativic way. As Doherty asks, weren't these putative redactors aware of the conflict they were creating?

In retrospect, I concur with Doherty that what Kloppenborg does here is apologetic and is similar to Sander's approach which I noted in my recent review. I explain this below.
First, Kloppenborg apparently admits that Q has no narrative. So at the outset, one can straightaway think that he will therefore not treat Q as a narrative. But he is careful to point out that what Q lacks is a narrative format and an overarching narrative framework. That gratuitous qualification implies that Q posesses another unstated form of narrative. It is like stating that "Chris' does not speak good Greek" compared to stating that "Chris does not speak Greek." The first implies that there is a form of Greek that Chris speaks while the latter does not.
Kloppenborg then uses that ambiguity to proceed to argue about "theological detours" and alleged "logical progression of ideas." Indeed, one can write a whole paper about the meta-cognition required to unplug the subtle persuasion behind in Kloppenborg's arguments.

It is like submitting urine samples for a drug test then after coming out negative and winning trust and credibility, proceeding to take drugs so that if an accusation of drug use is levelled, a reference is made to negative drug tests. This is how Doherty adresses this matter:
And Ben Smith agrees that this is a good argument:
Ben has replied:
You have no monopoly of discerning what is or isnt of substance. Doherty thought it was of substance. I did too. You are entitled to your views of course but I would like to point out that when a problem is raised, the debate moves forward much faster when you address it rather than deny it, ridicule it or belittle it as you just did.
At any rate, we have progressed. You have admitted that you misused a word. We maintain that using that word leads you and Kloppenborg (yes Kloppenborg does not use it explicitly but his expressions are loaded with it) to make problematic arguments as I have mentioned above.
Now that is the next level. Do you agree with Doherty's assesment about the alleged "theological detour", the patent discontinuities between Jesus and the coming one?
If, for arguments sake, Doherty is right about this specific matter, what are the implications in this debate in your view?

Zeichman

What he did wrong is argue against the use of a particular word and what it meant instead of what I was talking about. I don't make a big deal when people misspell words because it's usually easy to infer what they ACTUALLY meant.

"Hey man, my sister just got a dog."
"I hate those things. Worst pet ever."
"Why? It's fuzzy, got long whiskers and chases mice."
"Uh... that's probably not a dog, dude. Cats are cool."


I thought we were agreed that the word was "plot." And what exactly is incorrect about it?
Blanks need to be filled in. I find a totally necessary progression (which is yet to be indicated to the contrary) which necessitates a historical Jesus. Doherty fills in his blanks by retrojecting "son of man" in the Baptists' mouth. Q is unclear at this point and we've both tried to conjecturally emmend it.

Where? No one has given a citation of this, so I'm not going to address all of the rest until your premise is demonstrated to be correct.
Again, you'll have to demonstrate that he changed his mind. Someone has yet to show that he ever eschewed the narrative format in Q, and the burden of proof is upon your camp. I would contend that you're only removing nuance. Additionally, someone has yet to tell me why I'm obligated to follow Kloppenborg, whatever his position, at this point. If I find someone else convincing or offer my own convincing arguments, I'm entitled to those.

Be careful about turning comparative claims into absolutes. The reason I haven't said anything about comparatively "strong" arguments is because I knew they would be turned into admissions of weakness such as here. I do think some of Doherty's arguments are better than others, I'm not going to say which (aside from his clever observations about Wisdom, which are problematic) for this very reason.

Can you show me how it was the least bit relevant to my arguments? You keep asserting that it is without demonstrating it. I used the wrong word. Doherty argued against my use of the wrong word. My argument is exactly the same as before except with one word changed.
And I wouldn't claim that that I do have a monopoly. Certain issues, despite my insistence, are yet to be addressed.

I've said the same thing this whole time: blanks need to be filled in. Doherty and I do it differently and our conclusions are viewed by the other as representative of prior assumptions. Someone is yet to show me that I'm wrong about this progression:
1) Acceptance necessitates a previous question
2) The previous question (that is given in Q) necessitates a previous expectation
3) This previous expectation exists. There is an obvious relationship between the verses, given that the Baptist is the theme character, "erchomenos" is the theme word, Isaiah is the theme prophet, and it is overtly about predictions and identifications.
4) Therefore, there is a necessary progression

If there is another way to read Q 7:18-35 in relation to Q 3:16-17, please tell me, because no one has provided anything. Doherty's conjectural relegation of the verses to Q3 solves nothing, since it is clear that relationship still exists.

IF Doherty were correct, Kloppenborg's hypothesis as a whole would need to be re-examined. It is built on the assumption of inter-and-intra-stratum interplay and literary-compositional skill, both of which this point seems to be undercutting. I would contend that Doherty's idea is probably self-refuting and would necessitate another compositional hypothesis for Q.