Friday Review: Hurtado 7, Chapter 4, Part 1

Today we begin chaper 4 of Larry Hurtado's, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. The chapter is titled, "Q and Early Devotion to Jesus."

First Hurtado assumes Q's existence, with no disrespect to those who disagree. Q here is thought to be mainly a sayings collection, probably composed in Greek, of some 3500-4000 words. He considers John Kloppenborg (Verbin) to be the best argued case for a Q community and for stages of Q development, so Hurtado primarily engages Kloppenborg's work.

The sticking point is the fact that Q apparently had "no narrative of Jesus' crucifixion, no saying where Jesus directly predicts his death, and no explicit references to Jesus' death as an atoning event or to his resurrection" (217).

Secondly, Hurtado agrees with some of Kloppenborg's critiques of some thinking on Q. For example, it shows no Gnostic proclivities (against H. Koester). And it is not a book of general wisdom, but Jesus is seen as the authoritative vehicle of God's revelatory purposes. "So it is incorrect to think of the 'Q people' simply circulating aphorisms of timeless value among themselves, and experimenting with a countercultural lifestyle, without much in the way of recognizably religious motivations" (221).

Thirdly, however, Hurtado disagrees with Kloppenborg's view of Q's Christology. K "posits circles in which Jesus' death was not interpreted as redemptive, and his vindication was not conceived in terms of resurrection" (223). Rather, K believes Q understood Jesus' death as the death of a prophet. Jesus is someone to be imitated, not someone who dies for our sins.

Next, Hurtado begins his critique. He finds it implausible to suggest that a Q community would not know about the fact that other Christians believed Jesus' death to have saving value. This is Kloppenborg's position: "Q simply does not know them" (230). Otherwise, K would presumably have to explain why Q does not engage with these ideas--to discount them if it disagreed or to affirm if it agreed. Rather H thinks the Hellenists are a prime source for Q's origins.

As he extends his critique, Hurtado notes that Q was more likely created for wide circulation. After all, how did Matthew and Luke get hold of it? Then Hurtado makes what I think is a very effective argument. If we look at texts like 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; Romans 1:3-4; Philippians 2:6-11 and so forth, we do not have all the elements of saving death, crucifixion, resurrection, exaltation, second coming present at the same time. Different passages emphasize different things.

Of course with Q we have 225-250 verses without references to resurrection and so forth, but H's point is that different contexts suit different points.

That's a little more than half the chapter. The rest perhaps tomorrow...