And now the second half of chapter 4, "Q and Early Devotion to Jesus" in Larry Hurtado's, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
The second half of the chapter begins with a section on "The Argument from Silence." H claims that "an argument from silence is only as strong as the alleged 'silence' can be shown to be conspicuous and difficult to account for except on the explanation one offers" (239). But he doesn't believe the silence of Q on the resurrection or Jesus' salvific death is significant.
For one thing, "Q presumes ... acquaintance with tradition about Jesus beyond what it relates" (240). The purpose of Q, he thinks, was as an "instructional text intended primarily to call for obedience to Jesus, and aiming to 'position' that obedience by its eschatological significance and outcome" (242). The author thus focuses on Jesus' death as an inspiring example rather than as atoning. "But this choice hardly indicates an ignorance of, or lack of interest in, other construals of Jesus' death."
The last part of the chapter then gets to Hurtado's real interest, "Devotion to Jesus in Q." He points out again the centrality of Jesus in Q. Jesus is not portrayed in Q as just some teacher of generic wisdom. Rather "in Jesus the kingdom of God came to decisive eschatological expression" (245). Kloppenborg would agree with H on this one (contra Burton Mack, for example). Jesus is the polarizing issue in Q.
Hurtado fascinatingly invokes the concept of Q's "narrative world" also. That world assumes, for example, a good deal of the OT story. There's a doctoral dissertation in the making, if it hasn't been done already! H further believes that "those who composed Q fully expected readers to bring this 'story' [broader story of Jesus], which we might term the 'enabling narrative,' to their reading of this text" (247). H thus follows those who believe Q to have a somewhat narrative framework, even if a very basic one.
The most frequent Christological term in Q is "son of man," but it does not function as a confessional title. The term Christ does not appear in Q. Lord does not obviously function in its highest NT sense in Q. H tries his best to here hints of a "high Christology" here, but I think all we really have is an implied sense that Jesus is the Messiah. The highest title Jesus has in Q is "Son of God," implied by Satan during the temptation.
And that's about it. Hurtado does speculate on "religious life in Q." His basic claim is that Q was "an instructional text that seems intended to encourage and help shape discipleship to Jesus" (255).
It is with some melancholy that I read this chapter. First, I teach Paul's writings, Hebrews, and the General Epistles here at IWU. I don't get to study the gospels in depth in the course of teaching. But even then, Q is not of particular interest or value in my evangelical circles. It is a kind of "strong historical meat." The Surgeon General has suggested that it can cause vomiting and diarrheia.
Then again, the whole Q discussion is frustrating, despite the amount of scholarship that has been devoted to it. How would we know whether some unique Matthean material belonged to it that Luke didn't include? Visa versa, how would we know that Matthew didn't include some Q material that is in Luke? Further, what if Mark has some Q material that isn't assigned to Q because it isn't unique to Matthew and Luke?
As is often said, the reality of the gospels' composition is bound to have been far more complicated than you could sell as a theory. I personally like the idea that there was a Q1 that was the original Aramaic collection of Jesus' sayings that Papias attributes to Matthew. No one buys this these days (although I think Dale Allison is game). Then maybe a Q2 that was a Greek version of it that is the focus of current scholarly discussion.
But Mark Goodacre probably has a piece of the puzzle too. I personally am very open to Luke knowing both Matthew and Mark. But alas, it's hard to see my life ever affording me an opportunity to pursue these sorts of things... Maybe after retirement...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I tend not to be sure about Q--I don't have as much faith, let's say, that Q ever existed, at least as an independent TEXT. There are other models for the development of traditions that we have perhaps not yet attempted. Instead of literary reliance, perhaps we underestimate the traveling Jesus traditions that were committed to memory. The Rabbinic model of passing down information from teacher to student may be helpful here.
Whether it ever existed as a separate document or not, I am continually amazed that so much scholarly energy has been going into what comes down to a purely hypothetical document, when there are so many other documents that we actually have in hand that are not being studied with such intensity--most of the Nag Hammadi collection, Syriac documents, etc. Or, if such energy were poured into deciphering the so many papyri from Oxyrynchus that have not been touched yet, perhaps we would have advances in our knowledge rather than going in circles with the same well-worn theories (often in new guises).
I hadn't realized Papias was a trustworthy source of historical information. (Or is Papias the last name of a modern scholar also?)
My attitude toward Papias and early traditions is that there is probably a kernel of truth behind them that is twisted in some way. I don't take his thoughts at face value, but I don't completely ignore them either. The Matthew one in particular is quite different from the Gospel of Matthew, so doesn't seem to me to be legendary speculation on the Gospel with that name.
Of course Bauckham argues further than I do in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. I see more possible spin in Papias on Mark.
Post a Comment