faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
The Sayings Gospel Q
The fourth development that invariably resulted in sapiential views of the historical Jesus was an increase in the attention being paid to the Q source behind the gospels of Matthew and Luke (cf. Koester 1992:7; Borg 1994b:17; Patterson, in Miller 2001:71-72; cf also Telford 1994:73; Allison 2010:118). Harnack (1907) was the first scholar to comprehensively discuss Q. In his view, Q was simply a compilation of Jesus’ logia with a catechetical function and intent. Q did not represent a separate community with a distinct theology, Christology or soteriology. Rather, Q was a piece of paraenesis that made use of the didache (teachings of Jesus) to instruct those who had already accepted the kerygma (preaching) about the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Edwards 1976:3). For this liberal theologian, the eschatological elements in Q were subordinate to its ethical character, which was its essential feature. Q functioned as Harnack’s leading refutation against scholars who tried to subordinate Jesus’ ethics to his eschatology. For more than a generation of scholars, this became the prevailing interpretation of Q (cf. Edwards 1976:3).
As we saw in section 1.2.1 above, this devaluation of Q’s significance meant that it was only deemed useful as a supplement to Mark’s portrait of Jesus. Schweitzer did not pay much attention to Q, and it was Bultmann who first noted the importance of Q’s eschatological dimension (cf. Sim 1985:40). According to Bultmann, Q saw Jesus not only as a teacher of wisdom and the Torah, but also as a preacher of eschatological repentance and salvation. This realisation offered proponents of the dominant Schweitzerian view an opportunity to gain additional support for their arguments by appealing to the eschatological dimension of Q. Streeter (1924), for example, argued that Q was most comparable to the prophetic books of the Old Testament, notably Jeremiah. Streeter also argued that Q represented a divergent stream within early Christianity. Whereas some early Christians, like Paul, focused on the death and resurrection of Christ as the centre of their faith and theology, other early Christians were embarrassed by Jesus’ inglorious death, preferring rather to focus on his parousia. Yet, Q was still seen as a supplement to the passion kerygma, and did not represent a distinct community alongside mainstream Christianity. By comparing Q to prophetic literature and by highlighting the importance of the parousia, Streeter underlined the eschatological character of Q over and above anything else. During the No-Quest and New-Quest periods, when the Schweitzerian paradigm predominated, research on Q continued in the same vein. Manson (1949), for example, also held that Q represented a separate stream within early Christianity, and that eschatology was the most prominent feature of Q. Manson’s chief contribution was highlighting two eschatological themes in Q, namely that the eschatological kingdom of God would appear historically in the person of Jesus, and that the eschatological judgment was imminent (cf. Sim 1985:41).
The most influential scholar on Q during the New-Quest period was undoubtedly Tödt (1959), whose prime interest was the Son-of-Man logia – both in general and in Q (see section 1.3.2 above). Tödt investigated the role and significance of the title “Son of Man” in Q, which led him to the all-important (and brand new) discovery that Q was not a supplement to the passion kerygma, but a literary representative of a completely different branch of early Christianity, to be separated from Pauline Christianity (see Edwards 1976:18-21). Whereas Streeter (et al) differentiated between divergent streams within early Christianity, Tödt ([1959] 1965:235-249) differentiated between opposing branches of early Christianity. The reason for Q’s collection and existence is betrayed by its mission instruction, which commissioned the disciples to proclaim the nearness of God’s eschatological kingdom (cf. Sim 1985:42). This message was in continuation with that of the historical Jesus. The Q people did not assume that this message had lost its relevance after the Easter experience. The Easter experience was not supposed to be the content of the proclamation, but its enabler. The Q people’s Christology was centred around the eschatological Son-of-Man figure (cf. Müller 2008:403). Tödt ([1959] 1965:57-60) followed Bultmann ([1921] 1968:112, 122, 128, 150-152) in his belief that the historical Jesus did not identify himself with the eschatological Son of Man (see section 1.3.2 above). Yet, according to Tödt, the early church did make such an identification, and Q expressed as much by creating the so-called “present” Son-of-Man logia (cf. Edwards 1976:19; Müller 2008:403). For the Q people, Jesus could now, in hindsight after Easter, be identified with the Son-of-Man figure, not only at the eschatological event, but also during his earthly career. Despite this association, Q had no concept of a present or realised eschatology (cf. Sim 1985:43). Rather, it supported and professed an utterly futuristic and imminent eschatology. Although Q’s Jesus was already the Son of Man during his earthly ministry, the eschaton would only commence once the Son of Man arrives in the near future. By attaching themselves to the Son-ofMan figure, the Q people had assured their own salvation at the final judgment (cf. Müller 2008:403).
Wisdom, prophecy or apocalypticism?
If wisdom and apocalyptic (and/or prophetic) material are not incompatible, one question still remains: Should Q be seen as being part of the prophetic, apocalyptic or wisdom genre? In other words, is Q a wisdom collection that contains some (albeit important) apocalyptic and prophetic themes, or is Q an apocalyptic and/or prophetic book containing some (albeit important) wisdom material? With regard to apocalypticism, most scholars would agree that the eschatological and/or apocalyptic nature of Q (specifically) is subsidiary to and in service of its prophetic and/or sapiential function as a genre (cf. Horsley 1999:72, 74; see Kloppenborg 1987b:292-303). For the most part, previous views of the intrinsic and all-encompassing nature of apocalypticism as a category of Q’s genre have recently been abandoned (cf. Horsley 1999:72).47 The current debate is rather concerned with choosing between prophetic and sapiential designations for Q’s genre. This does not mean that the apocalyptic character of Q is discarded. On the contrary! Identifying Q as a prophetic genre would accommodate an apocalyptic view of the historical Jesus, since apocalyptic content was often formally advocated by means of prophetic writings (cf. Theissen & Merz 1998:249). Thus, if Q is demonstrated to be a prophetic writing, Jesus could be seen as an apocalyptic prophet, particularly if themes of apocalypticism predominate. There have been proponents on both sides of the spectrum, claiming either sapiential or prophetic predominance (see Tuckett 1996:327-329). There have also been those in the middle, who refuse to choose between the two genres, claiming that the two are not mutual rivals (see Tuckett 1996:328-329).
Most scholars opting for a prophetic designation do so because of the sheer bulk of prophetic material in Q, not least of all the overwhelming presence of the “judgment” theme (cf. Tuckett 1996:342; see e.g. Edwards 1976:50-54). Boring (1991:231) takes this criterion to its logical extreme by calculating the percentages of prophetic material within Q. This line of argumentation is inherently flawed. Percentages of small genres say nothing about the framework genre of Q (see Kirk 1998:46-47). Tuckett (1996:346354) claims that a lot of Q¹ material is blatantly “un-sapiential” and determined more by futuristic eschatology than wisdom as such.48 Boring (1991:323) makes a similar point, claiming that the immediacy of revelation characteristic of Q coheres more with the prophetic genre, which is immediate, than the wisdom genre, which is timeless (cf. also Horsley 1999:66; see Sato 1995:141-142, 150). However, Boring is simply wrong, as there are many intertextual examples of wisdom material typified by revelatory wisdom (see Kirk 1998:45-46; see e.g. Sirach 24, Wis. Sol. 7-9, Pseudo-Phocylides 1-2, Golden Verses 46-48; Hesiod’s Works and Days). Tuckett’s “evidence” for calling texts within Q¹ “un-sapiential” is that some of the sayings teach ideas which are contradictory to conventional wisdom traditions – like, according to Tuckett, Q 12:22-31 (see also Horsley 1999:88-89). In other words, although the structure and form of much of Q¹ cohere with the Instructional genre, the content does not. However, this is not evidence that something is not wisdom, it is simply evidence that it might represent subversive and/or aphoristic wisdom (cf. Kloppenborg 1987a:320; Kirk 1998:306). The same kind of “evidence” could be used against the genre designation of Qohelet, which also calls traditional wisdom into question, but no serious scholar today would consider Qohelet to be anything else than wisdom literature (cf. Kirk 1998:46).49 Q (10:21) itself admits that the content of its wisdom is not in line with that of traditional sages, but based on the unconventional teachings of Jesus (cf. Horsley 1999:118).
A synchronic approach to the Son-of-Man sayings
Theissen and Merz (1998:542) summarised the state of scholarship on the Son-of-Man problem with the following statement: “Unfortunately the two linguistic and literary traditions which could give us a clear understanding [i.e. “Son of Man” as an apocalyptic figure and “Son of Man” as a generic expression] provide no clear information about how the term is to be understood” (cf. also Borsch 1992:144, in Burkett 1999:121). Our foregoing investigation has confirmed this pessimism. Decades of discussing and debating the authenticity of individual Son-of-Man sayings have ended in a cul-de-sac. Although philological research has some promise, we unfortunately do not currently have nearly enough extant texts, from either the right period or the right region, that would enable us to put forward a “solution” with any degree of confidence.
All that is left, then, is to consider Q’s synchronic treatment of the term “Son of Man.” Diachronic questions of authenticity must retreat to the background, so that room can be made for synchronic questions of literary context. Given the wide range of concurrent opinions on which Son-of-Man sayings (in Q) are in fact authentic (see section 3.1.1 above; cf. Burkett 1999:79-80 n. 25), the time has perhaps come to give precedence to a synchronic study of (Q’s) Son-of-Man logia (see Schenk 1997). Bock (2011:89) maintains that “any ‘son of man’ remark [will] be ambiguous unless it is tied to a specific passage or context.” Actually, a synchronic approach is more in touch with our current intention – stated at the outset – which is to uncover how the Q people “remembered and described Jesus.”
Our synchronic investigation will mostly concentrate on what Burkett (1999:32-42) calls “the question of reference.” In other words, the following investigation will mainly concern itself with discovering what each occurrence of the expression “Son of Man” in Q refers to. These results should assist us in our overall quest to determine the relationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. In answering “the question of reference,” we must first determine whether a saying refers to Jesus or not. If it refers to Jesus, we must determine whether it is used as a title or as a straightforward selfreference. If, on the other hand, it does not refer to Jesus, we must determine who (or what) it does in fact refer to. Lastly, if Jesus did use it as a reference to himself in the third person, we must decide whether or not other people were also implied by the term. The sequence in which these questions are discussed will be determined by each individual saying.
Chapter 1: The Research Gap: The Identity of Q’s Jesus
1.1 Jack T. Sanders
1.2 A focused overview of the Old and New Quests
1.3 The Third and Renewed Quests
1.4 The research gap, focal point and central theory
Chapter 2: Q as a Document
2.1 The documentary status of Q
2.2 The stratification of Q
2.3 Family feuds
2.4 The Genre of Q
2.5 Ethnicity and Q
2.6 The eschatology of Q
2.7 Findings
Chapter 3: Apocalyptic-Judgment and Son-of-Man Logia in Q
3.1 Son-of-Man logia in general
3.2 A focused exegesis of Q
3.3 Findings
Chapter 4: « Do not judge! » (µὴ κρίνετε) in Q (6:37-38)
4.1 Reconstructing the Q text
4.2 Micro-genre
4.3 The literary context
4.4 The intertextual context
4.5 Findings
Chapter 5: Findings: The Sayings Gospel Q and the Historical Jesus
5.1 Acceptability of the central theory: The identity of Q’s Jesus
5.2 A response to the Renewed Quest
5.3 A response to the Third Quest
5.4 Building bridges and crossing ditches
5.5 The relevance of Jesus’ wisdom and morality
5.6 Suggestions for further study
