> 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"Galileans",
> 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);tensions;
> with S. Schwartz (and to some extent Horsley) on Jerusalem-Galilee
> with Goodman on debt spirals; and in disagreement with Meyers and Sanderson
> a Torah-true Galilee, and with Horsley on "social banditry." I wasconcerned
> to reconstruct the social and economic situation of the Galilee(s)the
> 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 particularas
> 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, butclearly
> a problem there); its ambivalent attitudes toward Jerusalem, the Temple,urban
> tithing, and purity distinctions; and Q's negative characterization of
> 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 thethe
> situation of the Galilee, caught politically between the pagan cities of
> coastal region (Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon) to the north and west, andJerusalem
> to the south helps to make sense for me of certain elements of Q'srhetoric,
> which plays Gentiles against Jews in its shaming strategy. A setting theQ'
> 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 Jewishcertainly
> 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 fewvery
> 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 itSender: owner-synoptic-s@...
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@...