Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Expand Messages
  • owner-synoptic-s@bham.ac.uk
    ... to ... Galileans , ... tensions; ... on ... concerned ... the ... as ... clearly ... urban ... if ... the ... Jerusalem ... rhetoric, ... Q ... certainly
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      > KC Hanson asks two questions::
      > "Can you comment on what you perceive to be the most important results of
      > your research regarding the social setting of Q?
      > "How does this impact our reading of Q: is it just more depth of what we
      > previously knew, or has this analysis substantively changed your own
      > perspective on Q?"
      > Chap. 5, on Reading Q in Galilee, gave me the opportunity to work through
      > various archaeological and social-historical analyses of the Galilee and
      > wrestle with various conflicting characterizations. In the end, I found
      > myself in more agreement with Freyne and Arnal on seeing urbanization and
      > monetization as important factors (adversely) affecting the social and
      > political economy of the Galilee (from the point of view of the
      > not the various elites in whose interest it was to monetize and urbanize);
      > with S. Schwartz (and to some extent Horsley) on Jerusalem-Galilee
      > with Goodman on debt spirals; and in disagreement with Meyers and Sanders
      > a Torah-true Galilee, and with Horsley on "social banditry." I was
      > to reconstruct the social and economic situation of the Galilee(s)
      > independently of any reading of Q, and to "read Q in Galilee" only once
      > reconstruction was done, as a kind of test to see whether Q's particular
      > rhetoric appeared to fit this situation. As it turned out, it seemed to me
      > that Q can be read sucessfully in Galilee, with Q's focus on issues such
      > loans and debt forgiveness (not a problem exclusive to Galilee, but
      > a problem there); its ambivalent attitudes toward Jerusalem, the Temple,
      > tithing, and purity distinctions; and Q's negative characterization of
      > life.
      > This reading of Q, I think, gives some concreteness to a reading of Q and
      > the reading is cogent, that is its advantage. The reconstruction of the
      > situation of the Galilee, caught politically between the pagan cities of
      > coastal region (Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon) to the north and west, and
      > to the south helps to make sense for me of certain elements of Q's
      > which plays Gentiles against Jews in its shaming strategy. A setting the
      > Galilee, where southern influence via the presence of Pharisees and others
      > was neither strong nor uniformly wecome, makes sense of other features of
      > s rhetoric. On the one hand, Q takes for granted the markers of Jewish
      > identity (circumcision; sabbath observance; some forms of purity
      > distinctions), but problematizes precisely those markers that were
      > associated with a temple-oriented economy: tithing; and purity of vessels
      > vs. the rapacity of representatives of the south.
      > My reading of Q and reconstruction of the situation of the Galilee
      > does not solve all of the questions. I have wondered why Q shows so few
      > signs of the upheaval that characterized the first revolt. It take it that
      > the lack of such signs is an indication of a date prior to 66 CE.
      > Unfortunately, we know very little of the situation prior to Josephus'
      > short sojourn in the Galilee in 66/67 (and very little about it
      > thereafter)..
      > jskv
      Sender: owner-synoptic-s@...
      Precedence: bulk

      This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23 -- Nov. 10 2000).
      Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
      Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.