Whether Q existed or is relevant is not something that is of particular interest to me. Interpretations are anyone's game. History, particular dates for Roman history is, as far as I'm aware, reliable. Hasmonean dates are probably questionable. All one can do is be aware of how Josephus is connecting the two. Whether a Hasmonean date is otherwise to what Josephus assigns to it is not the issue - it's what Josephus does with connecting Hasmonean events to Roman dates that is interesting.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:56 amIn my review of Earl Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", I looked at how he saw the origins of the first Gospels. The extract below is from my review, written about 10 years ago. Doherty sees the Jesus figure of Q (and then the Gospels) to be a symbol of a Q community. The Q community were itinerant 'miracle-wielding' prophets from Galilee teaching about the coming kingdom of God and urging repentence. Basically a whole group of Jesuses, in order to explain one Jesus! I'll note that Dr Carrier rejects the idea of there being a Q document.maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:18 amEarl Doherty: Response to Mary:
Models for the Gospel Jesus
I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.
------------------------------------------
Sorry I can't give link to the Doherty quote - don't know if it's still on his website or if he still has a website.....can't remember - maybe 20 or so years ago.....Readers feedback page.
From my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" (no longer on-line):
------------------------------------------
The Q document is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Many scholars accept that a sayings document best explains agreements between Matthew and Luke that are independent of Mark.
GA Wells – probably the best known mythicist before Doherty – stated a few years ago that he now believes that an actual itinerant Galilean preacher was arguably behind some of the sayings and deeds of the Jesus found in the Gospels. He attributed this change of mind to the work done on Q. He writes:
Some elements in the ministry of the gospel Jesus are arguably traceable to the activities of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, whose career (embellished and somewhat distorted) is documented in what is known as Q (an abbreviation for 'Quelle', German for 'source'). Q supplied the gospels of Matthew and Luke with much of their material concerning Jesus' Galilean ministry...
Wells believes that the dying-and-rising figure in the epistles was merged with the life of the Galilean preacher, to produce some of the material found in the Gospels. I knew that Doherty also accepted the probable existence of Q, so I was interested to see how Doherty viewed the development of Q in terms of a historical Jesus.
Doherty spends much time establishing the existence of Q. He sees the Q community as a Jewish “kingdom of God” preaching movement centred in Galilee, although it seems to have extended beyond that region. He writes:
The itinerant prophets of this new 'counter-culture' expression announced the coming of the kingdom of God and anticipated the arrival of a heavenly figure called the Son of Man who would judge the world. They urged repentance, taught a new ethic and advocated a new society; they claimed the performance of miracles, and they aroused the hostility of the religious establishment. (Page 3)
So Doherty sees a Q community of itinerant 'miracle-wielding' prophets teaching about the coming “kingdom of God” and urging repentence. On the Q community performing miracles, Doherty writes:
As for miracles, there is no question that the Q prophets, as preachers of the kingdom, would have claimed the performance of signs and wonders, for every sectarian movement of the time had to possess that facility. These, especially miraculous healings, were the indispensable pointers of the kingdom. (Page 384)
Doherty agrees with those scholars who see Q divided into a number of strata ('Q1', 'Q2' and a 'Q3') though he has his own views about what went into each layer and the timing of their development. Doherty sees the material in Q1, the earliest layer, as being derived from a Cynic or Cynic-like source which existed prior to the formation of the kingdom preaching movement. (Page 336) The sayings were not attributed to any individual, and there was no reference to any founding figure. (Doherty notes that scholars do see some sayings relating to Jesus, but Doherty argues against them being in the earliest layer.)
Q2 reflects an apocalyptically oriented mind and community, one which prophesies the coming of the Son of Man and a terrible judgement (Page 343). As Ehrman points out:
... Q is chock-full of apocalyptic sayings on the lips of Jesus, sayings in which he predicts the imminent end of the age in a catastrophic act of judgement sent by God. [4]
Again, although scholars do see sayings attributed to Jesus in Q2, Doherty argues against this conclusion (Page 354). It is only in Doherty's proposed Q3 layer that the name of Jesus starts to appear (page 386).
Thus it is in the later layers that sayings begin to be attributed to a Jesus, and it is this Jesus who eventually comes to be regarded as the founding figure of the community. However, in common with many scholars who have worked on Q, Doherty believes that there was no Passion narrative, crucifixion or resurrection in Q.
So, if there was no Jesus figure in the earliest layers of Q, how did such a figure emerge as the author of those sayings? Doherty notes key Q scholar Arnal's observation that in Q Jesus was represented as not qualitatively different from any other teacher in the Q community; rather, he was a “first among equals”, the “most important exemplar of activity that others can and do undertake” (Page 340). Doherty views Arnal's comment as significant. He writes:
This is an extremely momentous admission, because it opens a key door. If the Q community does not treat Jesus as an exalted figure (let alone as deified Son of God), if they allot to him no more than what the Q preachers themselves are and do, then there is no impediment to seeing him as merely symbolic of them. (Page 340)
And this left me scratching my head. “No impediment to seeing him as merely symbolic of them”? I suppose it is possible that a community might decide to adopt a symbolic name to represent them as a symbol. And undoubtedly the name “Jesus”, although a common one, with its meaning of “Savior” would be an appropriate symbolic name. But is that the most obvious choice? Doherty's leap from Arnal's “first among equals” to a “merely symbolic” figure is neither obvious nor natural.
Doherty continues:
Even more significantly, there is no impediment to postulating, based on specific evidence in Q, that earlier versions of many sayings embodied a group reference, lost when the Jesus figure was introduced and elements like pronouns were changed to assign such sayings to him personally.
There is no impediment to postulating any number of things, including that earlier sayings in Q embodied a group reference that were assigned to a Jesus figure, but... exactly how does this lead to a symbolic figure being a likely alternative? The same situation would arise if there were a person who actually rose to prominence within the group. Group sayings might well start to be assigned to such an individual; indeed, as a member of the group, he would actually be using those sayings himself. (In fact, even accepting Doherty's views on the development within Q, I would suggest that this later option is still the more plausible.)
Yep, we both have been back and forth with Doherty over the years. Unfortunately, once he left Wells behind his theory has gone, with Carrier, as far as it can go - brick wall.
That's not, of course, to say Wells is some golden standard for NT research. However, the Carrier approach needs to take a backwards step....