jgibson000

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to list the names of these scholars who "seem to query" the movement from the "ethos" you claim the Q 1 people had to that of the purported ethos of Q 2.

I'd also be grateful if you'd back up your undocumented claim that the "mindset" of Q 1, let alone of "wisdom" was strictly one of "tolerance" and was devoid of a hope or expectation a future divine judgment against unfaithful Israel or Israel's enemies.

The problem with this "solution" is that it is grounded in premises -- that "wisdom" and "apocalyptic"/judgment outlooks and the "ethos" which follow from then are contradictory and never overlapped, and could not be held at once by one person, let alone among the "wise" (pace the author of Daniel and of the Wisdom of Solomon) -- that are assumed and not demonstrated.

On what grounds, let alone on what scholarship which outlines the themes and concerns and ethos of Jewish or cynic "wisdom", do you base your claim?

Jeffrey Gibson

EarlDoherty

I see that Chris has anticipated me in identifying where Kloppenborg "argues" the question at issue in this posting, but I'll let my text stand as is:

Chris needs to be more specific here. Where in Kloppenborg does he “argue” that the first pericope in Q is “authentic” and what does Chris mean by “authentic”? As far as I can see, Kloppenborg first starts discussing specific Q pericopes with chapter 4, “The Announcement of Judgment in Q” on page 102. He refers to Q 3:7-9, 16-17 as “John’s preaching”. He opens this way:

Here Kloppenborg does not argue that these “units of tradition” necessarily belong to John, much less that they are “authentic” to John and go back to his time. Indeed, that very identification has been “supplied” at the Q2 level. Just because K. regards some Q1 material as not authentic, that is, to Jesus, does not mean that either he, or we, can state that the “units of tradition” attached later to John in Q2 have to be earlier than the inauthentic Q1 material he alludes to. K. simply does not address the latter considerations, and thus he is not using tradition-historical methods in the way that Chris would like to impute to him.

Now, he does say, on p.104, that the prediction of “the coming apocalyptic figure—either God himself or some supra-human (angelic?) figure—is arguably of Baptist provenance,” but his reasoning is questionable. The title ho erchomenos “is not obviously Christian” [presumably, this makes it pre-Jesus, but since Jesus is presumed to have been identified with the idea of the “coming one,” a subsequent Q provenance can hardly be dismissed]; and “since the description of that figure accords so poorly with the activity of Jesus.” Quite an admission, which K. never chooses to follow to its logical conclusion. (But I do in the excerpt below.) In analyzing 3:16-17, K. regards its apparent composite character (verse 17 is allegedly a later qualification of John), as prior to “the Q redaction”, meaning Q2, but this falls short of “arguing” that any of it must precede the stage of Q1. Kloppenborg’s “arguably” strikes me as little more than “it is possible,” with a few suggestions as to why so. In fact, he goes on to identify the content of the two Baptist pericopes as “reflect[ing] the deuteronomistic pattern in which the prophets are interpreted as preachers of repentance and as heralds of judgment”; in other words, they reflect the interests of the Q2 material in general, which hardly argues to their authenticity or their historical precedence over Q1.

All of this is pretty weak as a case of Kloppenborg arguing for authenticity of the opening Q pericopes using tradition-historical methods. But if Chris wants to argue it further, or can point me to another passage in The Formation of Q that is more effective in that direction, I’d welcome it. (I’d also appreciate being directed to similar material in Crossan.)

In any event, even if K. is actually introducing a bit of alleged tradition-history argument here, it is not the case that I have ignored it, either in The Jesus Puzzle or in my article. I have been very much concerned with arguing against any claim that the Baptist tradition in Q is in any way authentic beyond the simple fact of his preaching. Kloppenborg, as I mentioned above, makes observations which if followed to their logical implications must lead to a conclusion that would completely divorce John from any founder Jesus. This is another excerpt from my rebuttal article:

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

For Ben:

It doesn't matter now many "markers" Kloppenborg uses to differentiate the Temptation Story from the rest of his Q stratification. That does not change the fact that any of those markers or all of those markers collectively cannot be spoken of as "typical" of (Kloppenborg's) Q3 when they are all contained in only one pericope, which was the issue in regard to Zeichman's claim.

Supposing I described you personally, and said that you were "polite," "even-tempered," "honest," and "knowledgeable". Then I put you in a category which I labelled "opposed to the Jesus myth position." Then I said, Ben is "typical" of the category of those opposed to the Jesus myth position. Clearly, you would not be, or not in all features, since as soon as we bring in others who are opposed to the Jesus myth position, some of theirtraits would not match your own, and thus your features would not in all cases be "typical" of that category. As long as Kloppenborg’s Q3 consists of only one unit, nothing in it can be said to be “typical.”

My markers apply to a variety of pericopes, and my 'Q3' category fits into an evolutionary sequence which I lay out in my discussion of Q. I also have disagreed with Kloppenborg's styling of the Temptation Story as "biographical". The pericope itself is an allegory for the recommended behavior of the Q sect in regard to various temptations its members may face. The description of Jesus it contains is inevitable and necessary to get across that lesson.

And in regard to Jeffrey’s post, I will reiterate my complaint about his tactics:

I am not going to answer this, because it aptly illustrates one of the points I constantly make where Jeffrey is concerned. Rather than argue against a statement I make, he asks for more evidence or argument on my part (or whoever he is pulling this avoidance tactic on). If he disagrees with my statement that Q1's "wisdom" material had no "tolerance" or was "devoice of hope,” etc., then let him demonstrate the contrary. Then I have something by which to judge what his views on the matter are, rather than me having to contribute everything to the discussion and wait for him (perhaps forever) to offer a counter-argument. That's why we rarely get an actual argument out of him.

As for his first query, it's more of the same. If he thinks there are no scholars who subscribe to that outlook, let him state so, then at least I know where he stands. In any case, it's tangential to the issue being discussed. Let him address the direct argument I'm making instead of throwing up smoke, as he always does.

My policy of ignoring him will continue.

(My time over the next 3 days is limited, and so will be any postings.)

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

The thing is, even if I agree with you that typicality is not a very useful concept here, you still seem to be missing the point that said typicality was part of a hypothetical series of reasons.

Ben.

jgibson000

Gee, and ever since I first read the Euthyphro, I was led to believe that it was a perfectly legitimate form of "argument", especially when examining the validity of someone's case, to ask someone who makes a claim to clarify the claim and to back it up. I was also led to believe that it's also a legitimate part of argument to determine whether or not the sources that a claimant appeals to actually exist. After all, one legitimate way of arguing against a statement that someone makes is to show that that statement is full of hot air.

Are you saying this is sophistry? I mean, you use these "tactics", don't you, and you consider your use of them them as a legitimate way of "arguing against" statements, yes?

So I suspect that if anyone is using an avoidance tactic here, it's you.

You have grounded your current argument about Q as a witness to the HJ in a claim that there are scholars who hold the views you say scholars hold. It's also clear that you are aware that if that claim has no basis in fact, your current argument holds no water. Why then rail against someone asking you to provide evidence for your claim since this claim is foundational -- unless you are trying to avoid showing that the claim actually has no basis in fact?


You confuse (inadvertently or deliberately?) my perfectly legitimate request for you to provide evidence that supports your claim about the nature and perspective of "wisdom material" with a claim on my part that I think you are wrong. I am open to the possibility that you are right. But I'd like to see some good evidence for thinking so before I do. Do you have it or not?

Why do you need to know what my views are -- even assuming, as you do, that I have a particular view on the matter at hand -- when the issue is "what evidence supports your views". Either you have evidence or you don't.

Forgive me for saying this, but your characterizing my questions instead of answering then, leads me to believe that you don't.

Why does knowing where I stand on this point have anything to do with whether your claim about scholars having a particular view is true or false and whether you can (or cannot) name those who have the view you say certain scholars have?


It is? Forgive me, but it seems to be foundational to the issue being discussed.

Again, how is asking you to provide me with information that will help me decide if your premises -- which you've asserted as true but not shown there is any warrant for accepting as true -- are true "throwing up smoke"?

And how is pointing out that you have assumed what needs to be proven and that your premises are faulty not addressing your argument?

In any case, how about you establishing your argument first?

:huh: You call this "ignoring" me?

JG

Zeichman

I apologize. The correct page is 104, as you have since noted.

How is this NOT the very wishful thinking you criticize them for? I refuse to believe that he doesn't believe anything in Q1 was the creation of the author. I don't have the time now to read through his entire book to find an example, but I'm sure we can agree that he doesn't think that NOTHING was created by the Q1 author.

You claimed that the idea that Q2 material predated Q1 ones was "without actual foundation" and is only "wishful thinking." Lastly, the claim that "the acutal evidence does not support it, nor does Kloppenborg try to produce any" is just wrong, and you've misrepresented them. I'm not arguing for their authenticity, as I explicitly said before. I did not say they were convincing (or not), explicitly. This shift of emphasis is just a red herring. I'm not talking about ACTUAL tradition history, only tradition-history in the works of these scholars.
I did just that in my last post.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that there are three secure items in Q3 and possibly some more (though I'm not especially convinced). One marker in all three securely Q3 items is the eternal validity of the Law. Nonetheless, you have provided absolutely no justification for placing the dialogue in Q3 at all. Even I have given more reasons to do so than have you (gegraptai and explicit citation). How is THIS unargued conjecture NOT wishful thinking?

jgibson000

One way of settling this is to ask Kloppenborg himself. In fact, given how much Earl thinks Kloppenborg needs to know how badly he (K.) has argued his case about Q, I think Earl has a scholarly, if not a moral responsibility, to send his material on Q to Kloppenborg.

Here's John's address.

john.kloppenborg@utoronto.ca

Anyone want to wager that Earl will not send his material to John?

And shall we also wager on which excuse(s) Earl will use for not doing so?

JG

Zeichman

This would provide an excellent opportunity for Doherty to prove me wrong about my statements regarding meta-cognition. It's a shame that he is being so dismissive of Gibson, despite his worthwhile questions and arguments.

Ted Hoffman

Kloppenborg wrote his book and it is available from the web, bookshops and libraries. If his arguments are unclear, inadequate or entirely missing, one should be able to argue that by reading his book.
Earl has published a book, and in that book, he gives his take on Q. I cannot see why he would isolate that particular section and send it for Kloppenborg's comments. Kloppenborg has no monopoly over the understanding of Q and several scholars have disagreed with him. I find the suggestions that Earl should email Kloppenborg quite silly and bothersome to both Earl and Kloppenborg. Those that think Kloppenborg should be emailed should do so themselves - this is about Q so it is of interest to everyone who is interested - it is not a private dispute between Earl and Kloppenborg Damnit.
At this rate, next thing you know, they will be accusing Earl of being irresponsible for not emailing Crossan. Next thing you know, Earl will be accused for lacking moral standing due to his failure to set up a meeting with Kloppenborg to discuss the stratification of Q face to face. Next thing, Earl will be asked to attend a certain lecture, he will be challenged to a public debate on Q and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Anything to take attention away from the available documents.
Why the fuck would Kloppenborg publish a book if readers have to email him asking for clarification? And exactly what kind of response do you expect from Kloppenborg when you tell him someone characterized his ideas as "wishful thinking"?
Please indulge me a little for I havent followed the argument very well, what are these series of reasons? Are they A-H?

jgibson000

He has? Is a vanity press really "publishing"?

No one said he did.

A fact of which John is right well aware and welcomes.

Are you saying that Earl has no desire to enter into dialogue with John? That that despite his confidence that he is right vis a vis his criticisms of John, he [Earl] doesn't really want John to see or hear these criticisms?

Kloppenborg is not intersted in Q???

Who said it was?

Well, there's excuse # 1. And how Ear'ls doing any of the things that you suggest above would take attention away from the documents (even if that were the issue) is beyond me. Wouldn't Earl's doing these things actually focus attention on them?


A thoughtful and coherent one which, as his seminar on Synoptic-L some time ago shows, as do the Q & A sessions that he willingly participates in at SBL and elsewhere after he has delivered a paper, he is quite willing to give, feeling that that is his responsibility when he publishes anything, and recognizing that publishing his view in a book does not mean that that's the end of the story, and that in doing so (i.e., publishing a book) he is actually inviting criticism of his views and welcoming requests for clarification of them.

JG