Zeichman

I have written up a response to Earl Doherty's use of Q, which Chris Weimer posted on his web site and contains contributions by other IIDBers, including Ben C. Smith, Ted Hoffman, and Walter Shandruk.

http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=201

I hope it is clear that I am criticizing Doherty's methods and not his conclusions, however much I disagree with the latter.

Ben C Smith

Looks great, Chris! Really sharp in PDF, I might add.

I think your essay takes just the right tack in unravelling the puzzling statements made about Q. It looks to me like it was the confusion of tradition history and literary history that led to most of the other infelicities in those chapters.

Great job. Are you turning it in for a grade?

Ben.

Zeichman

Thanks, Ben.

Actually, I wrote this paper to make a footnote for an independent study I'm doing about uses of Kloppenborg's hypothesis by historical Jesus scholars. Rather than go on a 30+ page excursus, I figured a wholly separate article would be appropriate. Hopefully it turned out alright for a side-project that wasn't really necessary.

EarlDoherty

I have taken note of Zeichmann’s “response” to my use of Q in The Jesus Puzzle and made a quick preliminary reading of the online essay. At this time, I only want to make a couple of comments, as I am engaged in a substantial article for the website on the comparison of the mystery cults with Christianity. I am also doing ongoing work for a second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, which I expect will appear no later than the end of the year, either under my own publication or that of a major U.S. publisher, to which end my new literary agent is now working. I can guarantee that I will be taking a very close look at Zeichmann’s piece and addressing it, if only because it will be very useful in the preparation of that second edition. I am well aware that the segment of the book on Q involves a good degree of speculation (almost inevitable when dealing with a so-called hypothetical document), and his observations and objections can only help me cast my arguments in a more efficient fashion.

But I would like to make a few points here, if only to show that in analyzing another’s work, especially when one fundamentally doesn’t agree with it, either side is capable of misunderstanding. Zeichmann opens on this subject:

Perhaps he can be forgiven for taking the wrong meaning in that opening quote, but I think careful consideration could have seen that I did not mean what he is interpreting me to mean. I have never said that Q1 itself, meaning the initial stage of the ‘document’ as used in the Q community, was oral. The possibility of an oral state applied only to its previous existence in “a foreign source…in a non-Jewish milieu.” At the point when it was borrowed/adopted (or adapted) by what I call the Kingdom preaching movement centered in Galilee, it would have become a written entity (if it was not already). Who exactly did that, I did not venture to decide. But when this Jewish (or Jewish-imitating) sect began to preach, or somewhat around that time, it would have been in possession of a written version of the material we now call Q1 (it would have formed an important basis of its ethical teaching and how it conducted its missionary activities), though we cannot speak to its original details since such material could have undergone some revision as the document evolved—and did, as I maintain and Zeichmann has noted. I fully agree that Q1 as a written source is basic to Kloppenborg’s hypothesis.

Please note, however, that this does not mean, as Zeichmann assumes, that this writing-down process of the Q1 material took place at the same time as the writing-down of the material in Q2. That in fact would be very unlikely, because the Q2 material, reflecting the actual activities of the sect and the response it received from the society it preached in, would have taken a certain amount of time to develop, and to be collected and written down. There could be years between the two phases, and most likely there was. There is always a ‘history’ involved when a literary record is formed, and this is certainly true of Q2. It may not be as true in regard to Q1, if this was a body of ethical and ‘procedural’ tradition taken over from a previous group, but even there who is to say whether elements of a newly-formed kingdom preaching movement did not grow out of Cynic precedents, which to me seems quite possible.

So Zeichmann’s accusation of me basically misunderstanding Kloppenborg and thus somehow skewing my whole analysis is unfounded (at least on this score).

Nor do I think he has legitimately represented me in regard to Kloppenborg’s distinction between tradition-history and literary history.

We should note that this is simply a ‘proviso’ on Kloppenborg’s part. He is not arguing that all or even any of the “prophetic judgment oracles” etc., namely Q2, actually are older or even contemporary with the “wisdom components”. He simply wants to avoid any misunderstanding that he is ruling that out. So I am not ignoring some part of K.’s argument, or not taking into account some sort of case that in fact parts of Q2 are indeed older or as old as Q1. (At least, I think I didn’t. I would have to go back over K. to see if he does in fact advance such arguments, which I am not going to do at present.) In fact, in the above quote, it seems that K. is only offering a presentation based on “literary history” and not the other.

In other words, K. may not be ruling that alternative scenario out, but I am, and I think my three-chapter discussion of Q in the book presents justification for doing so. One can disagree with me, of course, and perhaps I ought to keep such an alternative consideration in mind in presenting that material. As I said, there is always room for improvement. But I have not “misunderstood” K. here, much less confused tradition history with literary history, nor am I obligated to deal with all possible implications of his observations. Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding that every aspect of my argument is based on an acceptance of every aspect of K.’s case and analysis of Q. Zeichmann makes it sound as though I ‘endorse’ everything in that case. That this is mistaken should be obvious. It should be equally obvious that I have struck out on my own and am arguing on the basis of my own observations, quite independent of Kloppenborg.

My final point at this time is to give a representative example of how Zeichmann is somewhat ‘special pleading’ his own preferred view of matters throughout his essay. This is his prerogative, of course, but let’s not imagine that this is any different from the practice of virtually anyone in NT scholarship in dealing with someone else’s views they disagree with. There is always an element of accusing the other side of improper use or understanding of evidence, and I am going to do the same. He makes the point that no Son of Man saying identifiable in Q actually states that the Son of Man will be a judge at the apocalyptic End-time. I would identify this as a common tactic against opposing positions: focusing on a technicality while ignoring other indicators and the ‘spirit’ of the text. To adopt his particular point here, he must discredit my contention that Q2’s pericope on John the Baptist’s preaching about “one who is to come” and who will separate the wheat from the chaff is not necessarily referring to the Son of Man, or to someone not presently on the scene, on earth. That is an unlikely position, given the obvious parallel of this saying to so many other sayings in Q2 about the “coming” Son of Man (such as 12:39), which coming everyone should fear and prepare for. How likely is it that such language could apply to someone already here? How likely is it that such a fear and expectation, the separation of the wheat from the chaff, should not be based on the idea that he will be the judge at such a coming? And Lk./Q 12:8-10 all but spells it out:

What is this “acknowledgement before the angels” but a role as judge? Anything else is simply splitting hairs. It goes against the weight of evidence and the entire spirit of the Q2 texts.

That’s all I’m going to say at this time. Zeichmann’s essay deserves a full addressing, particularly for the indications it can give me to improve my position on the use of Q, and for that I have no hesitation in thanking him. I might suggest he not indulge in so much accusation of “misunderstanding” and the like, but that’s part of the game and goes with the territory. Right now, I’m going back to my article on “The ‘Problem’ of the Mystery Cults and Christianity,” which focuses on the question of comparing the two, and how scholars have traditionally done so. I'm hoping it will be posted by the end of the month.

No doubt Mr. Z. may choose to respond immediately to some of my points above, but I am going to do my best not to be drawn into a detailed and time-consuming debate at this time.

And Ben, you might not want to rush into giving a “grade” to his piece just yet.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Zeichman

I'm going to try limit my response also, simply for the reason that when my paper is addressed at length by Doherty, my original arguments are clear. Though upon looking at the current length of it, I have failed to do so.

I apologize for this misrepresentation. I think we can agree that the antecedent of "which" in the line that I quote above could have applied equally plausibly to the source or to the essence. I assumed the former, probably just because my reading had been going that direction. I do want to point out that I tried to emphasize the non-necessity of this to Doherty's hypothesis.
I fear that I may have been misunderstood here. The self-refuting remark ONLY applies to an oral Q1. That Q1 and Q2 were composed (i.e., written down) at different times is a necessary part of Kloppenborg's hypothesis, as Doherty in this response rightfully points out. However, this issue seems to have been rendered moot, as it was the result of supplying the incorrect noun to a relative pronoun.

It seems that the quote that I gave of Doherty immediately before this quote in my paper (regarding the "genuine" Jesus) says that historical Jesus scholars equate Q1 with authentic and have dismissed Q2 from the discussion altogether. While, of course, this does not apply to Doherty, the validity of this statement is assumed in his belief that all Q2 sayings will be uniformly agreed by scholars to be community creations. This is untrue of HJ scholarship, as I addressed in my appendix.

The justification for inferring a major discontinuity between Q1 and Q2 (I'm assuming this is what is meant here) is based on well-known evidence without justification being given for this radically different interpretation. Since this claim is extremely controversial, assuming that everyone will accept that all Q2 sayings are ecclesiastical formations was not conducive to acceptance of his hypothesis. I agree that Doherty is entitled to limit the authentic material to Q1, but doing so based on stratigraphical location, or inferring tradition-history from Kloppenborg's hypothesis do not constitute good reasons for doing so. This, I might add, is why Mack is unconvincing at points, despite a useful discussion of the compositional history of Q.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt here. To follow the wording of the Jesus Project, I will agree that the historicity of Jesus is a "testable hypothesis," regardless of how strongly (or not) the evidence points one direction. My point though, is that the burden of proof is upon Doherty if he wants to change the face of New Testament scholarship, and I am assuming a backdrop of a historical Jesus, in part, for this reason. Doherty's objections should anticipate the arguments from this sector of scholarship, as he has taken it upon himself to more-or-less overthrow consensus scholarship. If he does not address such arguments, there is little reason for complacent or centristic scholars to take seriously his claims, as he would not have done so for theirs.

Regarding Doherty's discussion of the son of man here, I would like to observe the following. The association of the greater one with the son of man, from what I recall, is based almost exclusively on the erchomenos participle. While I confess I need to investigate this question further before speaking at length about it, the ironic equation of Jesus with this figure in the dialogue between John and Jesus (Q 7:19)suggests that if it is associate with the son of man, it is only in an indirect, A = B, B = C, sort of way (to use an impossibly poor analogy). I would also like to point out the confirmatory bias here, which, though everyone is guilty of it, find a close parallel in Doherty's discussion of Q 14:27. That is, if one is working within a paradigm of the historical Jesus, it makes sense that this saying would refer to Jesus' death. However, I am emphatic to Doherty's oft-repeated dismissal of this saying as evidence for a historical Jesus, as it makes an equal amount of sense when removed from the aforementioned paradigm and upon subsequent placement in a contradictory one (i.e., an ahistorical paradigm). This can also be reversed and said of the son of man/greater one question, as I can see where Doherty is coming from, but he has not convincingly shown this to be the case, as it still makes a great deal of sense in the "historical" paradigm.

Lastly, regarding Q 12:8-9, I have done a moderate amount of research about this saying, and though I lack resources at the moment since I am on vacation, the difference between "advocate" and "judge" has been found to be anything other than semantic. The difference, to extend the metaphor to modern judicial language, is that between a witness and a judge. In Q 12:8-9, the son of man only has the power of the former, offering important testimony for one's eschatological fate, where the latter presumably extends only to God in Q. However, this judicial hermeneutic has been vocally contested in recent years, and many scholars have advocated contrary interpretations of this saying in Q (based largely on the rejection of "emprosthen," "homologeo," and "arneomai" as terms relating exclusively to forensic scenes). While it seems, prima facie, to be amounting much to coincidence for these terms to be used together in a non-judicial way, this must nonetheless be taken seriously. I recall a quote from Kloppenborg's Excavating Q about people "smuggling into" Q a Jesus who is to be an eschatological judge, something that rings true of Doherty's work. I might also add that I think a good case can be made for Q 12:8-9 being Q3 material, though I will save that for a later time (the corrective of Q 12:10's lenient view of confession is key here).

I, of course, cannot reasonably expect Doherty to address all of these in a single, mind-bogglingly comprehensive volume, reasons for rejecting these arguments need to be given. The inference of this model of a basis on Daniel 7, in short, needs to be justified and not assumed in its application to Q. Tuckett cites several top scholars who reject this reading (again, I lack the resources, but Horsley, Kloppenborg, and perhaps Jacobson, Robinson and others, I seem to recall), and does not persuade otherwise. As I said in the article, a paradigmatic approach like this ignores strange findings and nuances within the individual sayings. This calls to mind maximalists who presume a background of the passion narrative and Pauline kerygma for Q, despite a clear lack of evidence, and thus ignoring vital silences.

Regarding Mr. Doherty's forthcoming article of mystery religions, I do hope he makes much of Jonathan Z. Smith's work on the issue of comparison in literature of antiquity, as it is currently the definitive work on the topic. Again, I am empathetic to lamentations of dismissal of the importance of comparative literature, though radical uses of these parallels that reduce the issue to one of genealogy have not been helpful. I do not mean to distract Doherty from his forthcoming article, as I eagerly await his full response to mine.

Chris Zeichman

jgibson000

Really? I'm not so sure, especially since in contexts like the one in which Lk. 12:8 appears, ὁμολογ�*ω, means "to confess’, not "to judge" (see the BDAG entry below), and the verb constructed, as it is here, with ἐν is equivalent to Hebrew hôḏāh le or Aramaic ’ôḏı̂ ḇe and therefore means ‘to acknowledge, declare allegiance to’ (cf. O. Michel, TDNT V, 208 n. 27). Furthermore, the use of ἔμπροσθεν (5:19) stresses that a public acknowledgment/confession is meant. So the role envisaged here for the Son of Man is that of a witness testifying before a judge (God), not a judge issuing a verdict or pronouncing a sentence.

So instead of "splitting hairs", "anything else" looks like good linguistic analysis and exegesis to me, whereas your assertion looks like something that is under researched, linguistically uninformed, lexically impossible, and, to put it mildly, "simply" wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

ὁμολογ�*ω impf. ὡμολόγουν; fut. ὁμολογήσω; 1 aor. ὡμολόγησα (Soph., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Patr.).

1. promise, assure (class.; Inscr. Rom. IV 542 [Phryg.] εὐχὴν. . . , ἣν ὡμολόγησεν ἐν Ῥώμῃ; Jos., Ant. 6, 40) ἐπαγγελίας ἡ̂ς (by attr. of the rel. for ἥν) ὡμολόγησεν ὁ θεὸς τῳ̂ Ἀβραάμ promise that God had made to Abraham Ac 7:17; μεθʼ ὅρκου ὁμ. w. aor. inf. foll. (Bl-D. §350; Rob. 1031f) promise with an oath Mt 14:7. Solemnly promise, vow ὁ. . . ὁμολογήσας μὴ γη̂μαι ἄγαμος διαμεν�*τω Agr 18.

2. agree, admit (Hdt. 2, 81; X., An. 1, 6, 7; Plut., Mor. 202b ὁμολογει̂ταί γε παρὰ πάντων μ�*γας θεὸς εἰ̂ναι; pap.; 4 Macc 13:5; Jos., Ant. 3, 322; Sext. Emp., Adv. Eth. 218) καθάπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὡμολόγησας Dg 2:1. ὁμολογήσαντες ὅτι ξ�*νοι εἰσίν admitting that they were (only) foreigners Hb 11:13. ὁμολογου̂μεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφ�*ναι we admit that we have not received grace IMg 8:1.

3. confess (Pla., Prot. 317b ὁμολογω̂ σοφιστὴς εἰ̂ναι)

a. in judicial language make a confession, confess abs. MPol 6:1; 9:2. τί τινι: ὁμολογω̂ δὲ του̂τό σοι, ὅτι Ac 24:14. Foll. by acc. and inf. ὡμολόγησεν ἑαυτὸν Χριστιανὸν εἰ̂ναι MPol 12:1.—The transition to sense b may be illustrated by John the Baptist’s action in reply to questioning by the authorities καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ �*ρνήσατο καὶ ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι (dir. disc. follows) J 1:20 (cf. Plut., Mor. 509e in interrogation; the contrast ὁμ. and ἀρνει̂σθαι as Thu. 6, 60, 3; Phalaris, Ep. 147, 3 ὁμολογου̂μεν κ. οὐκ ἀρνησόμεθα; Aelian, Nat. An. 2, 43; Jos., Ant. 6, 151; cf. MPol 9:2 and many of the passages given below).

b. as a term in religious and moral usage (Ps.-Aristot., Mirabilia 152 ὁμολογου̂ντες ἃ ἐπιώρκησαν; Arrian, Anab. 7, 29, 2 [s. ἴασις 2]; Jos., Ant. 6, 151) ἐὰν ὁμολογω̂μεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμω̂ν if we confess our sins 1J 1:9 (cf. Appian, Liby. 79 §369 ὁμολογου̂ντες ἁμαρτει̂ν; Sir 4:26).—FSteinleitner, Die Beicht ’13, 109 (inscr. fr. Sardis). S. on ἐξομολογ�*ω 2a.

4. declare (publicly) , acknowledge, confess, also confess that one is someth. ὁμολογήσω αὐτοι̂ς ὅτι (w. dir. disc. foll.) I will say to them plainly Mt 7:23. W. inf. foll. (X., Mem. 2, 3, 9; Jos., Ant. 9, 254) θεὸν ὁμολογου̂σιν εἰδ�*ναι they claim to know God Tit 1:16 (opp. ἀρν.). ὁμολογου̂σιν τὰ ἀμφότερα they acknowledge all of them Ac 23:8.—Esp. of confessing Christ, or the teaching of his church; w. double acc. (Bl-D. §157, 2; 416, 3; Rob. 480.—Jos., Ant. 5, 52) ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς κύριον Ἰησου̂ν if you confess Jesus as Lord Ro 10:9. αὐτὸν ὁμ. Χριστόν confess that he is the Messiah J 9:22. ὁμ. αὐτὸν σαρκοφόρον ISm 5:2. ὁμ. Ἰησου̂ν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh 1J 4:2 (in the text); cf. 2J 7. W. acc. and inf. (Isocr., Or. 4, 100 p. 61 D; Aelian, V.H. 1, 27) ὁμ. Ἰησου̂ν Χρ. ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθ�*ναι Pol 7:1a; 1J 4:2 v.l. ὁμ. τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἰ̂ναι του̂ σωτη̂ρος ἡμω̂ν Ἰ. Χρ. ISm 7:1. W. ὅτι foll. (Isocr., Or. 11, 5 p. 222D) ὁμ. ὅτι Ἰησου̂ς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς του̂ θεου̂ 1J 4:15. ὁμ. ὅτι κύριον ἔχετε Hs 9, 28, 7 (opp. ἀρν.). W. a single acc. of the pers. whom one confesses, or whom one declares to be someth. revealed by the context: ὁμ. τὸν υἱόν 1J 2:23 (opp. ἀρν.). μὴ ὁμ. τὸν Ἰησου̂ν 4:3 in the text (s. λύω 4, end). Cf. 2 Cl 3:2a. τινὰ ἔν τινι someone by someth. ἐν τοι̂ς ἔργοις 4:3; cf. 3:4. ἐὰν ὁμολογήσωμεν διʼ οὑ̂ ἐσώθημεν if we confess him through whom we were saved 3:3. The acc. (αὐτόν) is supplied fr. the context J 12:42; cf. Hs 9, 28, 4.—W. acc. of the thing ὁμ. τὸ μαρτύριον του̂ σταυρου̂ Pol 7:1b. ὁμ. τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν 1 Ti 6:12 (ὁμ. ὁμολογίαν=‘make a promise’: Pla., Crito 52a; Jer 51:25; but=‘bear testimony to a conviction’: Philo, Mut. Nom. 57, Abr. 203).—Instead of the acc. of the pers. we may have ἔν τινι confess someone, an Aramaism (cf. Mlt.-H. 463f; Bl-D. §220, 2; EbNestle, ZNW 7, ’06, 279f; 8, ’07, 241; 9, ’08, 253; FCBurkitt, Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus ’10, 19f). ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τω̂ν ἀνθρώπων whoever confesses me before men Mt 10:32a; cf. Lk 12:8a. But 2 Cl 3:2 uses the acc. when it quotes this saying (s. above). Jesus’ acknowledgment of the believer on the Judgment Day forms the counterpart to this confession: ἐν αὐτῳ̂ Mt 10:32b; Lk 12:8b. αὐτόν 2 Cl 3:2b (opp. ἀρν. in all these pass.—GBornkamm, D. Wort Jesu vom Bekennen [Mt 10:32]: Pastoraltheologie 34, ’39, 108-18). τὸ ὄνομα αὐτου̂ Rv 3:5.—Abs. pass. στόματι ὁμολογει̂ται with the mouth confession is made Ro 10:10.

5. praise w. dat. (Bl-D. §187, 4; Rob. 541. In the LXX ἐξομολογει̂σθαι τῳ̂ θεῳ̂. S. ἐξομολογ�*ω 2c) καρπὸς χειλ�*ων ὁμολογούντων τῳ̂ ὀνόματι αὐτου̂ the fruit of lips that praise his name Hb 13:15.—OMichel, TW V 199-220: ὁμολογ�*ω and related words. M-M. B. 1267.*

S.C.Carlson

I disagree. It can only be plausibly construed in the way that you originally did. No need to back down.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Page 164 of The Jesus Puzzle:

The natural conclusion is that the two layers of Q proceed from two different sources. The original collection of sayings represented by Q1 appears to have been adopted by a Jewish (or imitation Jewish), apocalyptically-minded community which first began to preach a kingdom of God in Galilee, perhaps in response to conditions such as those Crossan describes.

These apocalyptic Jewish preachers can only be the Q2 community, right? Given, I mean, that the Q1 layer purportedly has no apocalypticism. But, on the other hand, that sentence looks parallel to what we find on page 177:

A natural conclusion would be that the essence of Q1 represents a foreign source, whether oral or written, one which first flourished in a non-Jewish milieu. The Jewish preachers of the new movement may have discovered and adopted it, perhaps making minor changes during assimilation, claiming it as the product of Wisdom.

But here, Doherty has affirmed in person, the essence of Q1 is an outside source, not Q1 itself, and thus the Jewish preachers this time round must be the Q1 people who first appropriated this foreign source, right? So the parallelism must be an illusion.

Struggling to put the entire 3 or so chapters on Q together, I get the following picture of the development of Q:

1. Q0, either oral or written, a Cynic and thus foreign collection of sayings.

2. Q1, written, resulting from a take-over of Q0 by Jewish preachers (page 177), who yet added no Jewish flavor to the new document (page 159).

3. Q2, written, resulting from a take-over and editing of Q1 by Jewish or even imitation Jewish apocalypticists (page 164).

4. Q3, written, in which the Q community finally recognizes a human founder, adding Q 7.18-35 (the exchange between Jesus and John) to Q, among other things (page 171), and also taking sayings that wisdom spoke in Q1 and Q2 to put them on the lips of Jesus (page 178).

5. Q4, written, a necessary extra step that Doherty does not discuss very explicitly, since there is a contradiction in the new Q3 layer. Q 7.35 subordinates both John and Jesus to wisdom, whereas the rest of Q3 equates Jesus with wisdom by giving him her sayings (contrast Matthew 23.34 with Luke 11.49).

Doherty does subtly warn us there might be a Q4 layer (and more!) on page 181, where he writes of the final phases of Q3.

Phases within layers of an unattested document. That is slicing the invisible cake pretty thin, indeed.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Great job, Chris!

If anyone finds any typographical errors, please let me know. kthanks.

PS - Doherty - one M.

Ted Hoffman

Zeichman, this is a good piece of work and your effort is highly appreciated. I shall give it a better reading in due course.
I like your narrow focus and thoroughness. But, in my view, dramatic descriptions like the characterization of Doherty's work as "gonzo scholarship" aren't necessary in a serious paper as they are cheap points really. Just stay with the meat and leave breadcrumbs to people like Gibson. If, in scholarly fashion, you succeed in showing that Doherty's scholarship is bogus, the readers will be able to see that without you having to intrude on the work and describe to readers what you call that kind of scholarship.
I also think you tend to overstate your case and your presentation doesnt adequately reflect the fact that there is enough, or even excess controversy regarding Q. For all Goulder and scholars like Goodacre may know, both Doherty and Kloppenborg could be wrong - irrespective of the accuracy of your assesments regarding how D misunderstands or misrepresents K.
In fact, you can be accused of misrepresenting the situation in Q studies by reducing voices that disagree with K as "polemical attacks". You ought to be specific on these allegedly "polemical attacks" against KH. Is Goulder's work for example a "polemical attack"? What attacks are these? Why are they worthy of mention?
Like Robert Price and Darrel Doughty? Are you sure?
Meta-cognition? What is that? Are you playing smart with us?
This is neither an accurate nor a fair assessment IMO.
The title is The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the Existence of a Historical Jesus. This title expresses a commitment? What about:
The Mythical Jesus: Proof of the Non-Existence of a Historical Jesus.
The title simply indicates that the book is an effort at challenging the existence of a HJ: it says nothing about what Doherty is committed to one way or the other. At best, you can say he is comitting that book to challenging...
I also think you may want to consider moving the footnote marker 29 to the position just after the preceeding comma.
Commendable work overall. I wish we could get something similar from Gibson, who appears to have resigned himself to a perpetual sniper. Lurking and waiting for any topic on the JM hypothesis to come up then putting the creases on crosshairs and pressing the trigger and chortling happily, instead of focusing on vital organs.
And speaking of Gibson...
First of all, for someone with a dubious propensity to copy and paste huge chunks of text (instead of simply providing a link) with Greek words like you, I think it is time you learnt how to type Greek characters in BC & H.
If you are too lazy to do that, just provide a link. Your efforts are often an eyesore. There is a reason someone took the time and effort to guide posters on how to type Greek Characters in IIDB.

Secondly, I dont see any "lexical analysis" Z does regarding Lk 12:8. Z simply states that "Nowhere in Q is it said or implied that the son of man or Jesus will judge anyone."(p.9) Then Z proceeds to present his arguments regarding the son of man acting "as an eschatological witness". In essence, Z argues that his own reading is the simpler and straightforward one and challenges Doherty to provide a basis for his preferred reading - which argues that the son of man will be a judge.
The Lexical analysis you mention appears to be a pure fantasy on your part.

Thirdly, characterizing Doherty's reading as "lexically impossible" is naive and is not cognizant of the fact that both context and time can influence the meaning of a word.

Fourth, it is not just a matter of ripping words from a Lexicon and pasting them here. "Son of man" is widely acknowledged to be the title of the apocalyptic judge at end time. This figure is known to us from the Similitudes of Enoch (chs. 37-71), where he acts as the universal judge at the end of time. And from Daniel.
Mahlon Smith cites Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, pp. 230-231:
Ultimately, the bottom line is that dogmatic statements like "lexically impossible" make you appear rather naive because this is not a closed matter and the interpretive framework will not be tied to what you ripped off a Lexicon.
Do not expect to walk away from this subject without fully addressing the issue of the influence of the Similitudes of Enoch and Daniel.