1. Although it's trendy to reject Q these days, it remains to me the more likely hypothesis. Luke's version of the relevant sayings usually just seems more primitive to me, suggesting that Matthew was not his source for them. (The main competing option right now sees Luke using Matthew and Mark as sources rather than Mark and Q.)
2. I was reminded yesterday of the two sayings regarding "the wisdom of God" in Luke:
Luke 7:35: "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (making Jesus a child of wisdom)
Matthew 11:19: "Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" (implying that Jesus is wisdom)
Luke 11:49: "The Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles...'"
Matthew 23:34: "I send you prophets and apostles..."
Which is more likely? Did Luke decide to de-Jesusify Matthew's sayings and make them be about God's wisdom? Or did Matthew take Q sayings about wisdom and equate Jesus with it? Consider that Matthew 11 has Jesus saying something that Sirach has wisdom saying, suggesting that Matthew has a repeated tendency to equate Jesus with God's wisdom.
3. I don't think there's really any ambiguity here. It is much more likely that Matthew edited the version in Luke to equate Jesus with wisdom than that Luke moved away from equating Jesus with wisdom. This is not definitive evidence but it is one example in a cumulative case.
In the end, those instances where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark can be explained by oral traditions. And, of course, Luke may very well have known Mark, Q, and Matthew.
Showing posts with label Q. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Q. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2016
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The Sermon on the Mount 1
The best known of the five big sermons in Matthew is the Sermon on the Mount. We may miss some profound aspects of this grand sermon if we merely think of it as a sermon Jesus gave on one particular occasion. By the time you finish this book, you will hopefully realize that the main goal of the Gospel writers was not merely to record the things Jesus said and did but also to tell us truths about Jesus by the way they presented the things Jesus said and did.
For example, some of the material in the Sermon on the Mount is in both Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6. Now it is quite possible that Jesus preached similar things on more than one occasion, but that is not the best explanation for what we find in these chapters. We have good reason to conclude that Matthew and Luke were drawing on a common source for this material. [1] If this idea is true, then the differences between the two are significant, because they probably represent something Matthew (or Luke) was meaning to say about Jesus.
What is the significance of the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is on a mountain? Is it merely the fact that Jesus said these words on a mountain? Or has Matthew set these teachings of Jesus on a mountain in order to tell us something about Jesus? Again, this whole line of thinking can be a little troubling when you hear it for the first time. We are programmed merely to think of the Gospels as historical presentations without realizing that ancient writers felt freer to be creative in the way they presented history than we would expect.
So is it possible that Matthew wanted us to think of another word from God that was given on a mountain in the Old Testament? Is it possible that Matthew wanted his original Jewish audience to think of Moses and the Law when they read the Sermon on the Mount? If so, then the key verses of the sermon, 5:17-21, take on a rich meaning.
Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now the Law and the Prophets is a shorthand for the entire Old Testament Scriptures. [2] But the next couple verses go on to talk about commandments in the Law and the rest of the chapter shows how Jesus fulfills the Law.
The point is that the Sermon on the Mount gives Jesus' authoritative interpretation of the Law. It implicitly compares Jesus to Moses as the law-giver. Moses gave the Law. Now in this sermon Jesus gives the fulfilled Law. The sermon closes with the people getting the point: "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (7:28-29).
[1] Because it was German scholars who first explored this issue, they called the hypothetical source "Q" after the first letter of the German word for "source," Quelle. Scholars like Mark Goodacre believe it is more likely that Luke used Matthew as a source directly for this sort of material ***. My point in the main text comes to the same conclusion either way.
[2] The three sections of the Old Testament in the Jewish division are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The "Law and the Prophets" is thus a shorthand way of referring to the whole Old Testament by referring to its two main parts.
For example, some of the material in the Sermon on the Mount is in both Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6. Now it is quite possible that Jesus preached similar things on more than one occasion, but that is not the best explanation for what we find in these chapters. We have good reason to conclude that Matthew and Luke were drawing on a common source for this material. [1] If this idea is true, then the differences between the two are significant, because they probably represent something Matthew (or Luke) was meaning to say about Jesus.
What is the significance of the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is on a mountain? Is it merely the fact that Jesus said these words on a mountain? Or has Matthew set these teachings of Jesus on a mountain in order to tell us something about Jesus? Again, this whole line of thinking can be a little troubling when you hear it for the first time. We are programmed merely to think of the Gospels as historical presentations without realizing that ancient writers felt freer to be creative in the way they presented history than we would expect.
So is it possible that Matthew wanted us to think of another word from God that was given on a mountain in the Old Testament? Is it possible that Matthew wanted his original Jewish audience to think of Moses and the Law when they read the Sermon on the Mount? If so, then the key verses of the sermon, 5:17-21, take on a rich meaning.
Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now the Law and the Prophets is a shorthand for the entire Old Testament Scriptures. [2] But the next couple verses go on to talk about commandments in the Law and the rest of the chapter shows how Jesus fulfills the Law.
The point is that the Sermon on the Mount gives Jesus' authoritative interpretation of the Law. It implicitly compares Jesus to Moses as the law-giver. Moses gave the Law. Now in this sermon Jesus gives the fulfilled Law. The sermon closes with the people getting the point: "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (7:28-29).
[1] Because it was German scholars who first explored this issue, they called the hypothetical source "Q" after the first letter of the German word for "source," Quelle. Scholars like Mark Goodacre believe it is more likely that Luke used Matthew as a source directly for this sort of material ***. My point in the main text comes to the same conclusion either way.
[2] The three sections of the Old Testament in the Jewish division are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The "Law and the Prophets" is thus a shorthand way of referring to the whole Old Testament by referring to its two main parts.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Jesus Tradition 3: Common Sayings in Matthew and Luke
If Mark is a primary source behind Matthew and Luke, then we still have to explain where the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark comes from. For some, it is just easier to go with Matthew as the first gospel. Then Mark and Luke can simply be an abbreviation and rearrangement of Matthew respectively. But if the last post about Markan priority holds true, then we will need an alternative explanation.
The "common oral tradition" explanation does not seem, at least to me in my limited exploration, to be able to account for the amount of this common material (remembering that Jesus did a lot more than what is recorded) and the extent of its verbal similarity (although my sense is that this material is less close verbally than the Markan material). In any case, by far the majority position is that some written source explains this material.
There are two main alternatives. The one sees Luke drawing directly on Matthew and Mark. The other sees both Matthew and Luke drawing on some common source or sources, primarily a collection of Jesus' sayings. Gospel experts are less united on this one. Probably a majority still go with a common source, a collection of Jesus' sayings. It's usually called "Q," which is short for Quelle, "source."
Renewed studies of oral tradition do complicate these hypotheses. Despite any written sources that may have been in play, Matthew or Luke's memory of sayings and events was probably also a factor in how things ended up like they did. Also, even if Luke had a written source of Jesus' sayings in front of him, he might also have a copy of Matthew in front of him or have heard Matthew at some time. If we knew the complete story, I imagine it would be pretty complicated.
So here is my current sense of things as someone who has done some study but who is not an authority on them per se. Yes, there are some places where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark, sometimes used to argue that Luke knew Matthew even though he primarily followed Mark. In the opinion of most, these instances are not significant enough to dislodge Markan priority. However, some believe they are significant enough to make it unnecessary to hypothesize some sayings source (e.g., Mark Goodacre). Rather, they suggest that Luke had Matthew in addition to Mark and that Luke's sayings material comes from Matthew rather than some Q.
On the one hand, I am very open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew. However, in the end, I am still siding with the majority that the evidence ultimately suggests Luke also had a sayings source that Matthew also used. I offer a few reasons why I think this majority position--again, a position that has stuck around for well over 100 years--seems more likely.
First, if we look at Matthew and Luke's common material, sometimes Matthew's version seems more original and sometimes Luke's version seems more original. This speaks to a common source rather than to one of them using the other. On the one hand, I don't know any voice of any significance that argues that Matthew used Luke. It can be argued, of course, but look at the way that Luke arguably edits this saying that is also in Matthew:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather be afraid of the one able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Luke 12:4-5
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after these things are not having something further to do. I will show you whom you should fear. Be afraid of the one who, after killing, has the authority to cast into Gehenna.
Here, it seems to me, Matthew preserves the more original wording and Luke has expanded on the saying. The real question is thus whether Luke at some point has a more original version of a saying and Matthew seems more to paraphrase it. Consider the following possibility:
Matthew 5:3
Blessed [are] the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:20
Blessed [are] the poor, because yours is the kingdom of God.
It is hard to argue for which might be original. The poor are a major theme of Luke, so one might argue that it might despiritualize Matthew's version. On the other hand "kingdom of heaven" is a clear redactional tendency of Matthew, something he might modify from Mark. In the end, I think it slightly more likely that Matthew would spiritualize the saying than that Luke would despiritualize it.
But the strongest reason why I think Luke does not get his common sayings material from Matthew is the fact that I can't think of any reason he would scatter Matthew's teaching. Take Luke 16:14-18. This material appears in three different places in Matthew. Matthew's presentation of it is magisterial and great pedagogically, appearing in coherent sermon contexts. In Luke, though, even the NIV puts as the heading for these verses, "Additional Teachings." They just seem to come out of nowhere and to be grouped somewhat randomly.
In short, it makes sense to me that Matthew might take a sayings source and organize some of its material together. It makes no sense to me that Luke would look at Matthew and partition its sayings material. For this reason, a majority still leans toward the over a century old suggestion that both Matthew and Luke drew on a common source, consisting mostly of Jesus' sayings, for this common material, called "Q" for short. Luke's order for this material is often taken to be closer to how it might have actually appeared in this source than Matthew's order.
Now if you follow this line of thinking, it leads to some thoughts that might feel a little uncomfortable. I am not going to die for any of them but you can see that they are not simply some whacko liberal clap trap. They are the result of experts doing detailed analyses and following the evidence to what seems to be its most logical conclusions. These are not beyond question for certain, but they're also certainly not some attempt to undermine the Bible.
For example, the Sermon on the Mount would turn out to be in part a collection of Jesus material, with Luke's Sermon on the Plain as its core. Matthew as we now have it would probably not turn out to be in the same form as the gospel the second century Papias mentions--a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic. Although it is not a popular suggestion these days, I myself like to think that what we call "Q" was actually an expanded Greek version of an Aramaic collection of Jesus' sayings that the disciple Matthew made. I can't prove it, of course.
The Gospel of Matthew would thus be named after one of its primary sources. We do have examples of these sorts of sayings collections. The Gospel of Thomas is one, as are 4QTestimonia and 4QFlorilegium from Qumran (although they're a little different from what we are picturing here).
In any case, this is some of the stuff that gospel experts assume and some of the stuff they debate...
The "common oral tradition" explanation does not seem, at least to me in my limited exploration, to be able to account for the amount of this common material (remembering that Jesus did a lot more than what is recorded) and the extent of its verbal similarity (although my sense is that this material is less close verbally than the Markan material). In any case, by far the majority position is that some written source explains this material.
There are two main alternatives. The one sees Luke drawing directly on Matthew and Mark. The other sees both Matthew and Luke drawing on some common source or sources, primarily a collection of Jesus' sayings. Gospel experts are less united on this one. Probably a majority still go with a common source, a collection of Jesus' sayings. It's usually called "Q," which is short for Quelle, "source."
Renewed studies of oral tradition do complicate these hypotheses. Despite any written sources that may have been in play, Matthew or Luke's memory of sayings and events was probably also a factor in how things ended up like they did. Also, even if Luke had a written source of Jesus' sayings in front of him, he might also have a copy of Matthew in front of him or have heard Matthew at some time. If we knew the complete story, I imagine it would be pretty complicated.
So here is my current sense of things as someone who has done some study but who is not an authority on them per se. Yes, there are some places where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark, sometimes used to argue that Luke knew Matthew even though he primarily followed Mark. In the opinion of most, these instances are not significant enough to dislodge Markan priority. However, some believe they are significant enough to make it unnecessary to hypothesize some sayings source (e.g., Mark Goodacre). Rather, they suggest that Luke had Matthew in addition to Mark and that Luke's sayings material comes from Matthew rather than some Q.
On the one hand, I am very open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew. However, in the end, I am still siding with the majority that the evidence ultimately suggests Luke also had a sayings source that Matthew also used. I offer a few reasons why I think this majority position--again, a position that has stuck around for well over 100 years--seems more likely.
First, if we look at Matthew and Luke's common material, sometimes Matthew's version seems more original and sometimes Luke's version seems more original. This speaks to a common source rather than to one of them using the other. On the one hand, I don't know any voice of any significance that argues that Matthew used Luke. It can be argued, of course, but look at the way that Luke arguably edits this saying that is also in Matthew:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather be afraid of the one able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Luke 12:4-5
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after these things are not having something further to do. I will show you whom you should fear. Be afraid of the one who, after killing, has the authority to cast into Gehenna.
Here, it seems to me, Matthew preserves the more original wording and Luke has expanded on the saying. The real question is thus whether Luke at some point has a more original version of a saying and Matthew seems more to paraphrase it. Consider the following possibility:
Matthew 5:3
Blessed [are] the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:20
Blessed [are] the poor, because yours is the kingdom of God.
It is hard to argue for which might be original. The poor are a major theme of Luke, so one might argue that it might despiritualize Matthew's version. On the other hand "kingdom of heaven" is a clear redactional tendency of Matthew, something he might modify from Mark. In the end, I think it slightly more likely that Matthew would spiritualize the saying than that Luke would despiritualize it.
But the strongest reason why I think Luke does not get his common sayings material from Matthew is the fact that I can't think of any reason he would scatter Matthew's teaching. Take Luke 16:14-18. This material appears in three different places in Matthew. Matthew's presentation of it is magisterial and great pedagogically, appearing in coherent sermon contexts. In Luke, though, even the NIV puts as the heading for these verses, "Additional Teachings." They just seem to come out of nowhere and to be grouped somewhat randomly.
In short, it makes sense to me that Matthew might take a sayings source and organize some of its material together. It makes no sense to me that Luke would look at Matthew and partition its sayings material. For this reason, a majority still leans toward the over a century old suggestion that both Matthew and Luke drew on a common source, consisting mostly of Jesus' sayings, for this common material, called "Q" for short. Luke's order for this material is often taken to be closer to how it might have actually appeared in this source than Matthew's order.
Now if you follow this line of thinking, it leads to some thoughts that might feel a little uncomfortable. I am not going to die for any of them but you can see that they are not simply some whacko liberal clap trap. They are the result of experts doing detailed analyses and following the evidence to what seems to be its most logical conclusions. These are not beyond question for certain, but they're also certainly not some attempt to undermine the Bible.
For example, the Sermon on the Mount would turn out to be in part a collection of Jesus material, with Luke's Sermon on the Plain as its core. Matthew as we now have it would probably not turn out to be in the same form as the gospel the second century Papias mentions--a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic. Although it is not a popular suggestion these days, I myself like to think that what we call "Q" was actually an expanded Greek version of an Aramaic collection of Jesus' sayings that the disciple Matthew made. I can't prove it, of course.
The Gospel of Matthew would thus be named after one of its primary sources. We do have examples of these sorts of sayings collections. The Gospel of Thomas is one, as are 4QTestimonia and 4QFlorilegium from Qumran (although they're a little different from what we are picturing here).
In any case, this is some of the stuff that gospel experts assume and some of the stuff they debate...
Friday, November 27, 2009
What I'm Reading (11-27-09)
As part of my goal to read at least 30 minutes a day in relation to my writing, I started Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin's book Questioning Q today. I am such a ridiculously slow reader and easily distracted by children and multitudes of other things. After over an hour I had only read the Foreward by N. T. Wright and the 12 page Introduction by Perrin, "Reasons for Questioning Q."
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Hurtado 8: Chapter 4, Part 2
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...
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...
Friday, August 01, 2008
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
