jgibson000

How so? My case is based upon the meaning of ὁμολογεω has and what it means when it is constructed with ἐν and used with ἔμπροσθεν, not whether or not the Son of Man referred to in Q/Lk. 12:8 is thought by Luke or the tradents behind Q to be Jesus.

What's your's based on?

Try I.H. Marshal, J. Nolland, J. A. Fitzmyer, R. Bultmann, F. Hahn, A.J.B. Higgins, H.E. Todt, J. McDermott, G. Haufe, C. Colpe, for starters.

I'll do a "you" and let you look up what they have to say.

JG

Ted Hoffman

I see that you have revised your earlier position. You are off the hook.
I have no case. I am just an active commentator.

jgibson000

I have? Could you please show me how I've done so?

Truer words..., KTL.

JG

Amaleq13

Metacognition = you thinking about how you think.

Being capable of altering your own thinking so as to avoid/diminish personal bias requires metacognitive ability.

That is thinking about how people in general think.

Zeichman

This refers to the consciousness of their competence. The incompetent generally have no way of assessing their competence for this very reason. I used the term because I encountered it in several pysch articles. I assure I did not make this term up, and it seems Ameleq has provided a good summary of what the terms means, as I may have been unclear.

I'm going to wait a few days until I get back to my apartment before replying to it fully and write about these specific verses at a greater length. But here are some remarks for the time being:

This claim of universality of the motif is assumed and not demonstrated, despite the fact that that is the very question here. Doherty has not shown that it is the case in Q, which seems circular, even though it would be silly for anyone to argue that many Christian sects did not believe Jesus was an eschatological judge (but contrast these writings, in no uncertain terms: Thomas, Q1, miracle chains, signs, some of the parable collections). Similarly, it would be silly for someone to deny that many Christian sects interpreted Jesus' death (whether historical or not) as salvific. There is a distinct lack of evidence for both of these beliefs in Q (and other sources above), and again, Doherty is reading into the text. If he can claim this, then why cannot apologists claim that Jesus' passion and Pauline kerygma are assumed behind Q? There is no clear difference to me. The prevalence of a particular belief at a later time is no indication of it at an earlier one, as Doherty's own work sets to show on the issue of historicity.

The equivocation of Matthean christology with Q christology (ESPECIALLY based on a saying derived from redactional activity on Markan material) is unhelpful and not the least bit convincing. Q 14:27 is also interpreted as referring explicitly to the passion in the Markan parallel (8:34). It would be ridiculous to claim that this also represents Q's theology on this basis alone, despite similar logic. Doherty seems to be mistaking redactional activity for a source's intent.

Doherty has not actually argued that Q 12:39-46 means that the son of man will judge. Though there is clearly a connection between the two figures (the use of erchomai in both pericopes), the standards for the judgment (if we are to assume Doherty is correct) are completely contradictory. This does not seem to be judgment as it is used elsewhere, as in Q 12:8-9 it is based on confession (as it is elsewhere in Q, evident in the idea of repentance), whereas allegiance to the Jesus movement is presumed in Q 12:42-46, and the FAITHLESS are given the reward! One could hardly ask for a more stark contrast to the logic of judgment behind the Deuteronomistic schema. And though an argument by rhetorical question is rather difficult to respond to, I guess I would say the answer is yes, following top Q scholars, though I confess I need to do more research on the matter.

The son of man enigma is one that I doubt will be ever answered conclusively, though I do find this reading plausible for Q (however anachronistically and jokingly Doherty cares to phrase it), though the son of man has taken on a completely different role in the evangelists' work, as is obvious.

The evangelists have not been completely faithful to their sources, to argue otherwise would be naive. In this same way, Q2 reinterprets aspects of Q1, and same of Q3 and Q2. If continuity in this understanding is so obvious, I hope Doherty will finally lay out evidence for this claim and refute the arguments of Kloppenborg and others who are mistaken. Once more, I could use this logic to assume that the Q people held the passion narrative closely, because Matthew and Luke did, too. Evidence of a belief at a later time is no indication of it earlier.

Again, the identification of the greater one with the son of man is assumed and not demonstrated. I have objected to this several times, especially given the irony of the conversation in ch. 7. Regardless, his role is again NOT that of a judge. Judgment beforehand is clearly presumed, but that is not the coming one's role, as he does not determine who is wheat and who is chaff.

Doherty should take note of the parallels between the Q saying and the Markan one, which also clearly refers to the son of man as a witness, not a judge, though in far more apocalyptic terms, as precedence for a similar role being present in a parallel. (I am unfamiliar with Revelation and Pastoral Epistle scholarship on these verses [2 Tim 2:12, Rev. 3:5], but they seem rather ambiguous) Once more, I confess I need to look into these verses at greater length before commenting more.

Ben C Smith

Earl, how can you possibly ask the following argumentative question with a straight face?

Your entire case, in dozens of aspects, absolutely depends on earlier communities having no concept of certain things and later communities turning things upside down.

Are we to think that the Q1 and Q2 communities themselves had no concept of a human founder, and Q3, only a little later, using Q2, turned that understanding upside down?

For starters.

Ben.

jgibson000

Not to mention how often Earl has attempted to make his case for his understanding of such thinks as the meaning of GENOMENON (EK GUNAIKOS) by claiming that the way a phrase or a topos is used in one place (let alone in virtually all places) should not and cannot be seen or used as evidence, let alone determinative evidence, for what they mean in some other place.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Indeed! It seems a little like going after wood with a blowtorch, not noticing that one lives in a straw house.

Ben.

Steven Avery

And on this topic it is well known that there is a huge gap between popular claims and primary sources. The disclaimer that is put on the Kersey Graves book is an example .. however the disclaimer can be bypassed by some, or missing in extracts. And thus his material, and that of Doane, gets recycled by modern writers.

Another simple example .. Farrell Till, skeptic writer, has a number of these claims online in an article published in "The Skeptical Review" .. including even krishna being virgin born. Even though it was acknowledged as defacto inoperative the claim keeps a "commentary" life of its own. Supposedly the web-site-guy is hard to contact to make the correction (though somebody pays the bills year after year).

On some topics primary sources are key. And a request for primary sources on pagan birth story claims, including the virgin birth, is simply to be expected and the surprise and concern above looks a bit strained and feigned.

This is without even getting into the topic of syncretism which may account for some of the claims .. in reverse. (Perhaps involved in the infamous Freke & Gandy bookcover, to the degree that it is authentic.)

So primary sources, and their dating and clarity and reliability, is key.

On this toipc a modern commentator sans primary references is pretty much useless, even if one was supplied.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Zeichman

Doherty has posted his response, for those interested: http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesZeich.htm

I've yet to read it all the way through, and I probably won't get around to writing a full response for about a month, given upcoming papers, social events, and graduation. That said, he's definitely out-clevered me with his title.