Zeichman

Sending something to Kloppenborg would be an effective way of having the man who is arguably the world's top Q scholar check over his stuff for mistakes and obvious problems. It's fairly standard practice to have an expert or two look over one's work before publishing it. It would only make sense that if someone wants their claims to be taken seriously, especially if they are trying to turn mainstream scholarship on its head, that such checking would be in order. From what I can tell, this has never occurred with The Jesus Puzzle. It doesn't look like Robert M. Price or Darrell Doughty had anything to do with the project aside from giving it positive reviews.

EarlDoherty

The problem here is that you have to define your terms. This is one of the difficulties we face when two opposing paradigms meet. You tend to interpret me, and ask questions of me, in terms of your own and standard scholarly ways of thinking. That was one of the root problems in your critique.

First, what do you mean by “author”? What do you mean by “created”? I assume both you and Kloppenborg think there was an historical Jesus. I assume both of you think that at least some of the Q1 sayings were spoken in some form by Jesus, while the rest were the product of the “early church” attributed to him. So in what manner is the initial compiler of such material an “author”? In what way did he “create”? How can I answer your question, or figure out what you have in mind, when it is so imprecise and misleading?

I’m sure not even Kloppenborg would understand what you mean by your question. And why do you imagine that Kloppenborg would think that the compiler of Q1 would have invented some of the sayings?

Are you trying to contrast this with how you see my view of Q1’s source, that it is derived from a previously existing body of sayings and instructions, whether oral or written, not from any traditions of an historical man but ultimately having roots in Cynic philosophy and practice? The ‘compilers’ who adopted that source at the onset of the Galilean movement may indeed have exercised some creativity of their own and shaped such a source to their own outlook; it’s difficult to say to what extent they did. But my view of that ‘creativity’ would be different than any you or Kloppenborg would bring to the question, since we have entirely different scenarios about the beginnings of the Q community and the formation of the Q document. If you ask a question solely in terms of your own outlook, it becomes difficult if not impossible for me to answer it in those terms. It also means that you have ignored or made little effort to understand my presentation, which hardly validates the criticisms you level at me. There is no legitimacy in reviewing someone else's work if you fail to even attempt to address and critique it on its own terms.

And what are these “three secure items”? The three parts of the Temptation Story?!! How can you justify breaking up what is clearly one unit? Even if it had been the case that all three segments were not written at the same time, later parts would have been modeled on the earlier, fusing them into one unit. And which “conjecture” is unargued? My grouping of certain items into my Q3 division according to principles which I have laid out—and argued—through three chapters of my book? It is hardly the case that I have given no reasons for creating my own Q3 stratification principles (which are not that different from Kloppenborg's in regard to the earlier strata), and placing the Dialogue in my suggested Q3. You are still measuring me by Kloppenborg’s standards, essentially saying (correctly) that I have provided no justification for placing the Dialogue in Kloppenborg’s Q3, and appealing to the markers in the single unit of his stratum. Do you not grasp the flawed reasoning in that approach?

Honestly, I think I am once again wasting my time here, and am beginning to see why so much of your critique is an awful muddle. I am not looking forward to your response to my rebuttal.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

No, they are the hypothetical set of reasons that Chris gave in his essay for possibly assigning the dialogue about John to Q3.

Chris claimed that Earl had not given any reason to assign this dialogue to Q3, then he listed a few insufficient reasons. The overall sense of the passage was that Chris was challenging Earl to actually produce a reason for the (re)assignment rather than just assuming it. (Earl has since stated that his reason for relocating this pericope is that it assumed the historical figure of Jesus as founder; I do not have the book in front of me, so I do not know whether this reason was implicit or explicit, but in either case it seems circular, and that is probably why Chris did not reckon with it.)

However, in quoting Chris, Earl left out the crucial introductory sentence that would have explained what those reasons were doing in the essay. Leaving this sentence out made it look as if Chris was actually giving his own reasons for not assigning the dialogue to Q3. Now, for all I know Chris may indeed hold those very reasons for not assigning the dialogue to Q3, but that was not the thrust of the passage as a whole; rather, the idea was to point out that Earl should have, like Kloppenborg, given some reasons for the assignment.

One of these reasons was that the use of scripture in the dialogue unit is not typical of that in Q3. Earl pointed out that typicality is not very useful as a concept here, since Q3 consists entirely of a single pericope. He may have a good point here, but he seems to have missed a crucial element, namely that Chris was not actually listing sufficient reasons to keep the dialogue out of Q3 (even if he himself thinks they are sufficient); rather, he was listing insufficient reasons for placing the dialogue in Q3.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Is it your conclusion that Q1 and Q2 do not mention Jesus as an historical figure? If so, what are the evidences that lead to that conclusion? Is it only your practice of removing all pericopes that mention Jesus as an historical figure to Q3? How is that not circular?

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Sorry, but I don’t intend to rise to this bait, and I would hate to see you focus on this as a way of avoiding discussing the issues. I place this idea on a par with those who criticized me for not first running my Lee Strobel “cross-examination” by the scholars he interviewed. You talk about me approaching Kloppenborg as though this would be on a par with mainstream scholars consulting each other on their own new ideas. My situation, vis-a-vis Kloppenborg, or anyone else in his field, is hardly the same. (Checking for permission to turn mainstream scholarship on its head?) My literary agent is currently trying to interest a major U.S. publisher in The Jesus Puzzle. If such a prospective publisher decided to run it by a mainstream scholar to get his opinion, what response do you think it would get?

And what “material” would you have me submit to Kloppenborg? A third of my book? My rebuttal to Zeichman (all 26,000 words of it)? Any approach to him would require a specially-constructed piece, which I have no intention of doing at this time. And I have done what you suggest a couple of times in the past. Several years ago I submitted my Supplementary Article No. 2, “A Solution to the First Epistle of John” to Judith Lieu, who has published on the Johannine Epistles. I submitted my Article No. 4 on the Odes of Solomon, I think it was to Charlesworth. No response from either.

But nothing prevents you or others here from approaching Kloppenborg yourselves. Unfortunately, I’m rather sure that your presentation of my views would be something of a mess.

And by the way, Robert Price thoroughly reviewed The Jesus Puzzle prior to its first publication in 1999, and made many comments which led to minor changes in the manuscript. I also consider Richard Carrier’s review in 2002 to have made some important recommendations which will be incorporated into the second edition.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Another excerpt from my response to Chris Zeichman’s critique.

Perhaps it is Zeichman who needs to run his material by Kloppenborg first. He seems to have misinterpreted or read things into him at so many turns.

Fear and Loathing of Doherty’s Use of Q: A Response to Chris Zeichman

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Ben, you have clearly not read the relevant chapters of the Jesus Puzzle if you can ask this. The whole thrust of that section of the book is to demonstrate that there is good reason to doubt the presence of Jesus in both Q1 and Q2. It is also perfectly legitimate for me to suggest that the apparent presence of Jesus in certain pericopes can be explained by other means, as long as these explanations fit well with my overall argument and are not simply ad hoc. I have done this even for the Dialogue pericope. There are also further arguments in this direction within my response to Zeichman article.

I have no time to reprise all this here. I would suggest that you review my book and article and if you find my arguments wanting, raise them and address them directly, rather than simply accuse me of having no basis for my claims and engaging in circularity. After all, we are discussing my case, and Zeichman's critique of my case, so I consider it encumbent on you or anyone else to familiarize themselves with that case.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Indeed I have. Pretty closely. I admit, however, that I do not have the book in front of me right now.

Yes, of course, I realize that. The question is: What does that demonstration consist of? What is your good reason?

On this very thread you stated that your reason for relegating the dialogue unit to Q3 was because it had Jesus as an historical personage or founder. This was in response to Chris writing that you gave no reason for doing so.

But, if you want your readers to follow your argument to the conclusion that Q1 and Q2 lacked mention of Jesus as historical founder, surely you must have something to back up your argument other than your announced procedure of relegating all mentions of Jesus as historical founder to Q3, which would inevitably vacate Q1 and Q2 of all such mentions. Do you have something to back up your conclusion (besides the very procedure that led inevitably to that conclusion)? Chris read your chapters on Q and found nothing to back it up; I read your chapters on Q and found nothing to back it up.

If I missed something in that regard, I do apologize. I will try to get hold of your book again and look once more for your actual arguments for placing the dialogue unit into Q3.

Ben.

jgibson000

Excuse # 2 as well as a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what dialoguing with Kloppenborg would be.

Excuse # 3.

But to answer your question: it might be the same as Ed Sanders got when he submitted a book that sought to overturn and show as bankrupt the dominant reformation based of what Paul was all about, namely, let's get this to press!

Why not?

Excuse # 4.

And I have done what you suggest a couple of times in the past. Several years ago I submitted my Supplementary Article No. 2, “A Solution to the First Epistle of John” to Judith Lieu, who has published on the Johannine Epistles. I submitted my Article No. 4 on the Odes of Solomon, I think it was to Charlesworth. No response from either.

Did you ever follow up?

All the more reason for you to do it yourself.

JG

Zeichman

Traditions that did not exist before Q1 was written down. I'm sure this could be interpreted any number of ways, but it is irrelevant to the point that I'm making.


Q 16:17, 11:42c are in Q3 (See Kloppenborg's "Nomos and Ethos"). If you're going to talk about Q3 and try to add new items, this is a necessary read. Vaage has argued (unconvincingly, as Tuckett later suggested) that Q 12:10 is Q3. That 10:22-23 are in Q3 is on the tip of Kloppenborg's tongue in Excavating Q, but he provides no reasons why. Mack's additions to Q3 are comparatively well-known.

The dominant question throughout this thread remains unanswered: Why place 7:18-35 in Q3? It is not argued in the book explicitly, and I suspect that the implicit reasons in the book are actually tradition-historical (why else appeal to the composite nature of the dialogue or the Thomasine parallel?). If this is what you mean (and I don't recall encountering this "redaction" aspect in the book):
"I stated why I included the Dialogue in Q3 (or more specifically, the 'redaction' of this pericope, since elements of it may have existed earlier): because it is among those pericopes which clearly introduce an historical founder Jesus."
This IS circular logic, as Ben pointed out. You have not addressed the inadequacies of Kloppenborg's hypothesis as is stands and conjecture "solutions" which are only that for the problems (i.e. a "historical Jesus") you identify (without ever providing reason that it should be viewed as a composition-historical problem), such as Q 9:57-62.

Additionally, your own criticism of doing such "on the basis of a single pericope" can be leveled against YOU at this point. ONE extended pericope has a clear historical Jesus in Q3 (Q 4), and there are several that do in Q2 (Q 7:1-10, 7:18-35, 11:14-20, and you provide no reason to believe that the first and last of those were not attributed to Jesus originally), and some brief bits of Q1 that mention a historical Jesus (Q 6:20 and raising his eyes to his disciples he said...", Q 9:57-60). You offer a lot of "could haves" and "is concievables" without the necessary argumentation. What is wrong with things the way Kloppenborg has done them?

If so, I've missed them. Could you identify the pages for your discussion of changes in methodology?


Given your soon-to-be-participation in the Jesus Project (if I recall the name correctly), which if I recall correctly is by invitation only, this is undue. I'm not going to say that there will probably not be attacks on your credentials (as such, unfortunately, has already occurred), and other knee-jerk reactions, but I can only imagine that it would get positive attention from sympathetic individuals.

I was unaware of this, naturally.