Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
To be more precise: he doesn't commit to it, but he acknowledges the possibility.
|
I dont think its important because he doesnt base any of his arguments on the "possibility" that Q was oral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
He apparently doesn't think that he needs to take this course of logic back to Q1.
|
Your point being?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Sure, it could be. As I said before, my point was not one of Jewish/Christian but of Jew/gentile.
|
This is a quibble. If you think you are making an important point with this minor distinction, stick to it. But I dont see how it challenges or improves or clarifies anything regarding Doherty's argument regarding Q1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
If he's going to make controversial claims and changes to Kloppenborg's hypothesis in order to make even more controversial claims, he should justify his actions, which he does not do well, if at all.
|
Q itself is controversial. So I dont know what "controversial points" you are talking about. Anyone who has read Goulder, Kloppenborg and Goodacre on Q knows damn well that Q is wrapped in the cloak of controversy.
You talk as if its a settled matter. It is not. What are your arguments against Goulder's thesis for the non-existence of Q in his JBL article
Is Q a Juggernaut? (online)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
incorrect. He says that liberal scholars (by which he almost always seems to mean the Jesus Seminar and its fellows) find Q2 to be completely inauthentic. I am citing evidence that this assessment is wrong. If I'm wrong, tell me how you interpret the relevant comments on p 157.
|
P.157 has nothing on Q2. I am using 2001 Third printing copy. Do you care to cite the relevant passages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Doherty, Jesus Puzzle, p. 152. “Those [sayings] judged ‘authentic’ [in Thomas] by the Jesus Seminar are from the stratum similar to Q1.”
The cited sayings are Thomas sayings deemed authentic with Q2 parallels. His assessment is wrong.
|
This is an empty declaration. Demonstrate that his assesment is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Other possible interpretations...
|
Which are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
... either indicate he needs to better define what "like" means, are meaningless, or are simply wrong.
|
More empty declarations and baseless conclusions. You need to build your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Unsupported assertion. I only provided what were responses to what might have been his reasons.
Originally Posted by Zeichman
*the son of man “shall arrive at the End-time to judge the world” (Doherty, Jesus Puzzle, p. 146), something that is simply untrue in Q. Unless he has, without stating so, found that Q 22:28-30 referenced the son of man, going against what is essentially consensus. Or if he is, without justification, equating "ho erchomenos" with the son of man.
|
I believe Doherty is referring to the Son of man in Luke 17:23-24 (see p.155).
D says that the figure of the son of man appears in Q (in a saying). Do you agree that the son of man appears in Q?
D also writes (based on Daniel 7 - from which the figure is derived) that the son of man shall arrive at the End-time to judge the world.
Is this true of the son of man according to you?
If yes to both questions, what is the point of disagreement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
It may not be necessary, but this is the route he chose to take. My point has rarely extended outside of the realm of "it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about" or "he's just BSing the whole time." Either way, he could solve these problems by reading some more.
|
What problems Zeich? His BSing the whole time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
No, my point is that, as it stands, it is apparent he is confusing the techniques (tradition-historical, form-critical, and composition historical). I am not making any claims about his conclusions at this point, only that he is quite sloppy in his methods. He would have to demonstrate that this is the way it was in Q1 by showing the introduction to the chreia to be representative of the Q2 (or Q3) stratum, which he doesn't attempt.
|
He does. Why should he show this "representativeness" you talk about? That sounds to me like you expect him to refute himself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
I've been trying to avoid talking about his conclusions so people would not suggest it were things like this. And what premises are you talking about. He simply states that the Q1 is strikingly NON-Jewish, without saying anything particularly new for his premises.
|
Is failure to say anything "new" a way to prove Doherty is wrong? If not, why mention it? Does saying "new" things strengthen a hypothesis?
1. He defines Jewishness as defined by Wright.
2. He shows that Q lacks what would make it Jewish as per (1).
3. He concludes that Q1 is non-Jewish
You dont have to misrepresent him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
I'll leave the issue of itinerants for the time being, but adducing parallels does not even suggest dependence. If Q1 was the product of Cynics, it would be about the only "surviving" piece during a rather long period.
|
Not dependence. Influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
Doherty seems to suggest that Q1 WAS cynic, unlike almost every other advocate of the cynic hypothesis.
|
Once more, what is important are his reasons. Not whether he wears the same stripes as the rest of the gang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
But Doherty does not even acknowledge many of these sort of changes he makes.
|
Changes? I never mentioned changes. What changes does he make and fail to acknowledge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
If you have access to ATLA, Wells and Price have a number of their books reviewed. Arnal, and Craig Evans reviewed "Incredible Shrinking..." and Stephen Brown, George Montague, and Adam English did for Deconstructing Jesus. I can only assume that there are more not on ATLA. His Luke-Acts book has several reviews from feminists. One can find the same of Wells.
|
Price and the rest also have good reviews. So bad reviews dont mean squat. If you have arguments, make them.
I have no access to ATLA. Can you summarize some of the good arguments Arnal and co. make against Price?
02-15-2007, 10:28 PM
