S.C.Carlson

Neither Zeichman nor I asserted that Q has a "large-scale narrative structure in Q." That is a strawman of your own making. The narrativethat Q does have is sufficient to support Zeichman's critique:
Stephen

Zeichman

It is not. It's been a while since I've read it so have a hard time recalling specifics.

What comes to mind first is about the disparity between John's prediction and Jesus. It'll be another day or two before I am able to dig it out.

Which might be good if Q1, Q2, or Q3 were in the genre of "proverb collections." You have not attempted to demonstrate that any of them are. As it stands, Q1 is instructional, which consistently attributes the sayings to a human founder, Q2 materials are close to chreia collections, of which the same can be said, and the temptation narrative is leaning towards a bios (need I repeat myself?). Right now you're speculating that the hidden orange has no peel on it because of the thinness of such on the apple you can see.

Vincent Guilbaud

Carlson, if you want to see my presentation with Firefox,
you need to remove the default SVG viewer.
here how you can do it: Install Adobe Svg On Firefox
This link is also on my Default page

Still on this default page, I have added a new link
Q1 Sayings: are NT scholars bluffing?
where I answer to the trio of bluffers of this thread.

Ben C Smith

Eh?

The (single) quote you have from me on that page was a statement implying that Carlson was not bluffing about the term biographical-narrative preface being present in Kloppenborg:

That term was indeed shown to be in Kloppenborg. I have intentionally steered clear of the other particulars of that debate because I am waiting for two Kloppenborg books (and one Doherty) via interlibrary loan, and do not wish to speak out of turn. (I think I know what Kloppenborg is discussing there, namely an issue in Q that is almost as old as the discussion of the document itself, but no need to go out on a limb when the books are on their way.)

I respectfully ask you to alter at least that part of your presentation so as not to misrepresent me until the time comes.

Thanks.

Ben.

Zeichman

Hurm... I would be sure to add that "disciples" is in the Matthean parallel to the words preceding the great sermon.

"So Q1 IS the genre of instructional proverb collections."
Instructional proverb collection is something of an oxymoron, from my understanding. Are there examples of dialogues between "Wisdom" and her "disciples," placed in a concrete historical context (Q 16:16 places Q1 sometime relatively shortly after the time of the Baptist; Mack provides no reason to think it was in Q2 or Q3)?

"Notice that anyway, even if there was a leader of the Kingdom of God sect, he could certainly not have been crucified in Jerusalem since the Q people are totally silent about it."
Why must every group care about their founders' death?

Also, there are clear and extended examples of narratives in Q2: the Beelzelboul controversy, the distant healing, the dialogue with the Baptist, and other introductory words. Why is Doherty allowed to privilege these and conjecture that they were not originally attributed to Jesus in Q?

And I'm not making excuses for not having access to articles. I literally JUST got home from college and I need to finish unpacking. I don't have all of the shelves that I did before, so it's kind of difficult to organize things. Your web page seems to be a bit premature, please give us a chance to respond properly here before trying to make us look like weasels.

Also, this:
"We sould not forget that they are considered by NT specialists as the most surely authentic things we can attribuate to Jesus" is patently false (despite what Doherty claimed in his book). I can only name three scholars who hold that position, and only one has provided a reason and there are plenty of better ones to think otherwise (http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=264). Most scholars don't even accept Kloppenborg's stratification of Q, and those that do are cautious about equating it with tradition-history and eschew this type of "Q1 = far-more-likely-to-be-authentic-than-anything-else" thinking that you are implying they do.

I'll offer a better response once I finish getting things unpacked.

Regardless, all of this is pretty irrelevant to my point about the irony in the Q 7:18-35 dialogue. Narrative would be the logical progression of one unit to the next, in a necessary order, involving interactions between characters.

E.g. : 1) John goes to the store, 2) John gets shot, 3) John dies.

You cannot reverse the order of any of those and still have it make sense (unless somebody is moving around and shooting dead bodies). My claim about the Baptist here is essentially the same as that; that a specific order is intended in the reading of Q2 (or Q3) and that it undermines one of Doherty's stronger objections to an HJ in Q. I DO think that the dialogue units you catalog on your page are important and Doherty underestimates their importance, but that was not the claim being made originally.

Lastly, Stephen, iirc, does not even accept the existence of Q, let alone Kloppenborg's stratification. I understand that Ben is skeptical of the dominant model of the two-source hypothesis.

S.C.Carlson

Good thing you didn't go "all in" on that bet with what little chips you have, because your link does indeed find narrative in Q1 (even under the rubric of "virtually non-inexistent [sic]" -- nicely carving out the exception that concedes the point). Furthermore, your page neglects the issue Zeichman and Doherty were actually disputing: the narrative in Q2 relating to John the Baptist.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Yes, Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q (or via: amazon.co.uk), chapter 9 "Narrative Sequence in a Sayings Gospels," has a wonderful argument holding that the narrative sequence that the Q proponents reconstruct comes from Matthew.

I'd also like to mention that the International Q Project's Critical Edition of Q (or via: amazon.co.uk) identifies even more narrative than Kloppenborg previously did in his Formation of Q (or via: amazon.co.uk), for example, the baptism of Jesus and some event in the town of "Nazara."

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Very skeptical, though probably not going quite as far as Stephen would.

Ben.

Zeichman

"City and Wasteland" was not as relevant as I had hoped, though it still is. My claim seems to be presumed by Kloppenborg, "... the narrative world provides a space within which the plot occurs and in whose context plot elements are evaluated and interpreted." (p. 146) All I need is "plot" and Kloppenborg grants that (which he identifies as distinct from "narrative" but I'm not sure how; if I have chosen my words poorly, such is the case, but all I need is "plot").

Arnal agrees with my main point: "A logical progression develops among and between these three references [Q 3:6f, Q 7:18f, Q 13:34-35], beginning with the expectation of the erchomenos, moving on to identify him with Jesus, and finally predicting his future return." (Redactional Fabrication and Group Legitimation, 173-174) He also cites Kloppenborg, "1987a" (presumably Formation of Q), 94 as agreeing. I would once again reiterate that Wendy Cotter has argued this at length in "Yes I Tell You, and More Than a Prophet".

Also, Stephen, thanks for the heads up about Goodacre, I haven't read the book in a while, and I'll ILL it to check that section out.

andrewcriddle

I may be quite wrong here but IIUC the methodology by which the different Q documents are identified seems more plausible if Q1 and Q2 were documents for public consumption made available beyond the group that initially composed them.

IF Q1 and Q2 are private documents then it seems to me that they become stages in the trajectory of the Q tradition rather than concrete texts.

As I said I may be wrong here I haven't studied in detail the methodology of how the Q documents are distinguished.

Andrew Criddle