The Parables in Q 9780567678720, 9780567678744, 9780567678737

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

582 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

THE PARABLES IN Q

Dieter T. Roth

T&T Clark Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 This paperback edition published 2020 Copyright © Dieter. T Roth, 2018 Dieter T. Roth has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7872-0 PB: 978-0-5676-9263-4 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7873-7 eBook: 978-0-5676-8423-3 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, 2513-8790, volume 582 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

To Colleen, Christian, and Michael

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 Q PARABLES 2.1 Challenges in Parables Research 2.2 New Approaches in Parables Research 2.3 Implications for the “Parables in Q” Chapter 3 Q PARABLES 3.1 Challenges in Studying the “Text” of Q 3.2 New Approaches in Studying the “Text” of Q 3.3 Methodological Implications: Exegeting Plots, Characters, and Images 3.3.1 Narratival Elements: Plot and Characters 3.3.1.1 Plot 3.3.1.2 Characters 3.3.2 Images (bildspendender Bereich and Bildfeldtradition) Chapter 4 THE Q PARABLES OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND OF THE CENTURION 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The Q Parables of John the Baptist 4.2.1 Parable of the Ax at the Root of the Trees (Q 3:9) 4.2.1.1 Plot Analysis 4.2.1.2 Characters 4.2.1.3 Images 4.2.2 Parable of the Winnowing (Q 3:17) 4.2.2.1 Plot Analysis 4.2.2.2 Characters 4.2.2.3 Images 4.2.3 The Parables of John the Baptist in Q 4.3 The Q Parable of the Centurion 4.3.1 Parable of an Authority under Authority (Q 7:8)

xii

1

7 7 13 18

23 23 39 44 45 45 47 53

57 57 58 58 59 60 62 66 67 69 71 73 78 78

viii

Contents

4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.1.3 4.3.1.4

Plot Analysis Characters Images The Parable in Q

78 79 84 84

Chapter 5 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “MASTER”/“SLAVE” PARABLES 5.1 Parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42-46) 5.1.1 Plot Analysis 5.1.2 Characters 5.1.3 Images 5.1.4 The Parable in Q 5.2 Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26) 5.2.1 Plot Analysis 5.2.2 Characters 5.2.3 Images 5.2.4 The Parable in Q 5.3 Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16-23) 5.3.1 Plot Analysis 5.3.2 Characters 5.3.3 Images 5.3.4 The Parable in Q

87 88 89 92 99 102 106 109 114 122 125 128 131 134 140 142

Chapter 6 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “SON OF MAN” PARABLES 6.1 Parable of the Children in the Marketplace (Q 7:31-35) 6.1.1 Plot Analysis 6.1.2 Characters 6.1.3 Images 6.1.4 The Parable in Q 6.2 Parable of the Thief in the Night (Q 12:39-40) 6.2.1 Plot Analysis 6.2.2 Characters 6.2.3 Images 6.2.4 The Parable in Q 6.3 Parable of One Taken and One Left (Q 17:34-35) 6.3.1 Plot Analysis 6.3.2 Characters 6.3.3 Images 6.3.4 The Parable in Q

145 146 148 149 153 156 164 166 167 170 171 176 177 178 181 183

Chapter 7 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “SAPIENTIAL” PARABLES 7.1 Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39) 7.1.1 Plot Analysis 7.1.2 Characters

189 190 191 192

Contents

ix

7.1.3 Images 7.1.4 The Parable in Q 7.2 Parable of the Fowl and the Flowers (Q 12:24, 27-28) 7.2.1 Plot Analysis 7.2.2 Characters 7.2.3 Images 7.2.4 The Parable in Q 7.3 Parable of the Salt (Q 14:34-35) 7.3.1 Plot Analysis 7.3.2 Characters 7.3.3 Images 7.3.4 The Parable in Q 7.4 Parable of the Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37) 7.4.1 Plot Analysis 7.4.2 Characters 7.4.3 Images 7.4.4 The Parable in Q

193 195 198 199 201 203 205 211 212 212 213 216 219 220 220 221 224

Chapter 8 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “DISCIPLESHIP” PARABLES 8.1 Parable of the Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40) 8.1.1 Plot Analysis 8.1.2 Characters 8.1.3 Images 8.1.4 The Parable in Q 8.2 Parable of a Tree Being Known by Its Fruit (Q 6:43-44) 8.2.1 Plot Analysis 8.2.2 Characters 8.2.3 Images 8.2.4 The Parable in Q 8.3 Parable of God or Mammon (Q 16:13) 8.3.1 Plot Analysis 8.3.2 Characters 8.3.3 Images 8.3.4 The Parable in Q 8.4 Parable of the Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24-26) 8.4.1 Plot Analysis 8.4.2 Characters 8.4.3 Images 8.4.4 The Parable in Q 8.5 Parable of a Light on a Lampstand (Q 11:33) 8.5.1 Plot Analysis 8.5.2 Characters 8.5.3 Images 8.5.4 Parable in Q

229 229 230 231 233 234 238 239 241 242 244 246 248 248 250 252 255 256 257 259 261 265 266 267 268 270

x

Contents

8.6 Parable of the Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2) 8.6.1 Plot Analysis 8.6.2 Characters 8.6.3 Images 8.6.4 The Parable in Q 8.7 Parable of the House on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47-49) 8.7.1 Plot Analysis 8.7.2 Characters 8.7.3 Images 8.7.4 The Parable in Q

274 275 276 281 283 286 288 290 291 293

Chapter 9 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “KINGDOM (OF GOD)” PARABLES 9.1 Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18-19) 9.1.1 Plot Analysis 9.1.2 Characters 9.1.3 Images 9.2 Parable of the Leaven (Q 13:20-21) 9.2.1 Plot Analysis 9.2.2 Characters 9.2.3 Images 9.2.4 The Parables in Q 9.3 Parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself (Q 11:17-18) 9.3.1 Plot Analysis 9.3.2 Characters 9.3.3 Images 9.3.4 The Parable in Q

297 298 300 300 305 312 312 313 315 320 327 330 330 331 333

Chapter 10 THE Q PARABLES OF JESUS: “COMMUNITY” PARABLES 10.1 Parable of Settling Out of Court (Q 12:58-59) 10.1.1 Plot Analysis 10.1.2 Characters 10.1.3 Images 10.1.4 The Parable in Q 10.2 Parable of the Splinter and the Beam (Q 6:41-42) 10.2.1 Plot Analysis 10.2.2 Characters 10.2.3 Images 10.2.4 The Parable in Q 10.3 Parable of Asking of a Father (Q 11:11-12) 10.3.1 Plot Analysis 10.3.2 Characters 10.3.3 Images 10.3.4 The Parable in Q

339 339 341 342 345 347 352 353 354 357 359 362 363 365 367 368

Contents

10.4 Parable of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7) 10.4.1 Plot Analysis 10.4.2 Characters 10.4.3 Images 10.4.4 The Parable in Q

xi

374 376 379 385 387

Chapter 11 CONCLUSION 11.1 Select Themes and Teachings of the Q Parables 11.1.1 Discipleship 11.1.2 “Masters” and “Slaves” in Q 11.1.3 “Son of Man” and Judgment 11.1.4 Functional “Christology” 11.1.5 “This Generation” 11.1.6 “Kingdom of God” 11.2 Methodology and the Function of the Q Parables 11.2.1 The Q Parables as Intertexts 11.2.2 Locating the Q Parables in Q 11.2.3 The Function of the Q Parables 11.3 Concluding Observations and Future Research

391 392 392 392 394 395 397 398 400 400 403 404 407

Bibliography Pre-Modern and Modern Authors Subject Biblical Passages Ancient Sources

409 445 453 455 468

PREFACE This monograph is a slight revision of my 2016 Habilitationsschrift submitted at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz. I would like to express my appreciation especially to Prof. Dr. Ruben Zimmermann for offering me a postdoctoral position as part of the “Gleichnisse in der Logienquelle Q” research project in Mainz and for all the stimulating academic discussions concerning parables and Q that took place during the writing of this work. I would also like to extend a special word of thanks to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for funding this research project. Furthermore, I  am particularly grateful to Prof. Dr. Friedrich Horn and Prof. John Kloppenborg for their reading of this work within the context of my Habilitationsverfahren and for their constructively critical comments that improved the volume at several key points. In addition, I would like to thank my colleagues in Mainz, especially Dr. Susanne Luther, along with all the colleagues at various conferences and the SBL Q section over the past several years, who provided both encouragement and helpful challenges to the research and work ultimately leading to this monograph. Finally, I  would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Chris Keith for accepting this work in the Library of New Testament Studies series and to Bloomsbury T&T Clark for publishing it.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

The parables of Jesus and Q—these two fascinating, though intensely debated, subjects are brought together in the following study through its consideration of the Q parables. Though it is not unexpected for a monograph to begin with a discussion of the status quaestionis and important methodological issues, there are few fields within NT studies where the preliminary considerations shape a work as profoundly as in the study of parables and of the presumed second major source, alongside of Mark, for Matthew and Luke. For this reason, not only this introductory chapter, but also the second chapter, focusing on Q parables, and the third chapter, considering Q parables, are devoted to laying the foundation for the actual study of the relevant Q passages. This brief chapter, therefore, in some ways merely offers an introduction to the introduction to the study of the parables in Q!1 And yet, it is by considering the broader context for this present study and subsequently addressing the various preliminary questions related to the Q parables that I hope to provide some clarity concerning the presuppositions, aims, and methods of this work concerning subjects that admittedly are not only difficult and debated, but at times also rather convoluted. Even a cursory survey of major research fields in NT studies reveals that the parables of Jesus have been of particular interest for many decades,2 with the 1.  A more condensed and summary overview of the issues discussed in these three opening chapters can be found in Dieter T. Roth, “Die Parabeln in der Logienquelle: ‘Alte’ Probleme und ‘Neue’ Ansätze,” in Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (ed. Christoph Heil, Gertraud Harb, and Daniel Smith; BToSt; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). 2. The literature dealing with parables is far too vast to list here, even if one were to limit the list to merely the past decade. More recent works include, among numerous others, Ruben Zimmermann et al., eds, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), a second edition of which was printed in 2015; Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent:  A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2008); Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus:  The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (New York:  Harper One, 2014); and Ruben Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). A somewhat uneven, but nevertheless still helpful, overview of primarily 1990s parables literature can be found in

2

The Parables in Q

parables in Matthew and Luke having received several individual treatments in the scholarly literature.3 At the same time, however, given the attention paid to parables in general and the continuing predominance of the two-document hypothesis in Synoptic Gospels research,4 it is somewhat surprising that no Ulrich Mell, “Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung 100 Jahre nach Adolf Jülicher,” TRu 76 (2011):  37–81; and a survey of parables scholarship from the early church to the 1970s in Warren S. Kissinger, The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (ATLA Bibliography Series 4; Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1979). 3. Important in this regard are, e.g., Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13:  A Study in Redaction-Criticism (Richmond:  John Knox, 1969); Bernhard Heininger, Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas (NTAbh 24; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991); Ivor H. Jones, The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary (NovTSup 80; Leiden:  Brill, 1995); Warren Carter and John Paul Heil, Matthew’s Parables:  Audience-Oriented Perspectives (CBQMS 30; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998); Jeffrey Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel of Luke (JSNTSup 162; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Christian Münch, Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium:  Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion (WMANT 104; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004); Jürgen Roloff, Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthäusevangelium: Ein Kommentar zu Mt 13,1–52 (ed. Helmut Kreller und Rainer Oechslen; BThS 73; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener, 2005); and recently, Ernst Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount:  New Approaches to a Classical Text (WUNT 351; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 4.  This is not to say, however, that the two-source or two-document theory is universally accepted. On the one hand, there has been a revival of the Griesbach hypothesis, particularly in the US context (cf., e.g., William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem [London:  Macmillan, 1964]; several essays in David L. Dungan, ed., The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M. É. Boismard, W. R. Farmer, F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984 [BETL 95; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1990]; Allan J. McNicol, et al., Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies [Valley Forge:  Trinity Press International, 1996]; and David B. Peabody, ed., One Gospel from Two:  Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke:  A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies [Harrisburg:  Trinity Press International, 2002]). On the other hand, the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis has been set forth, particularly, though not exclusively, in the British context (cf., e.g., Austin Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.  H. Lightfoot [ed. Dennis E. Nineham; Oxford:  Blackwell, 1955], 55–88; Mark D. Goulder, “On Putting Q to the Test,” NTS 24 [1978]: 218–34; idem, Luke—A New Paradigm [JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989]; and Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, eds, Questioning Q:  A Multidimensional Critique [Downers Grove:  InterVarsity Press, 2004]). In Germany the latter hypothesis has more recently been advanced by Werner Kahl, “Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder: Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems,” Transparent-Extra 75 (2004):  1–36; idem, “Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems,” in Kontexte der Schrift:  Band II:  Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache—Text: Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. Christian Strecker;

Introduction

3

monograph-length treatment of the parables in Q has appeared.5 Of course, the numerous challenges associated with both the study of Q and the study of the parables may understandably have dampened the enthusiasm for tackling such a daunting project. It almost goes without saying that when considering the parables in Q, one quickly realizes that in this particular field of research one is confronted with the challenges of not merely one, but two significant fields within NT studies. On the one hand, there are the challenges of parable research, including the most fundamental question: “What is a parable?” or, phrased slightly differently, “How does one define or identify a parable?”6 On the other hand, there

Stuttgart:  W. Kohlhammer, 2005), 404–42; and idem, “Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition:  Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse,” ZNW 103 (2012):  20–46. Thus, though Willi Marxsen’s well-known suggestion in the 1960s that the two-document hypothesis has been so widely accepted that it should no longer be called a “theory” in the sense of a “hypothesis” and that it should be regarded as a “gesichertes Ergebnis” can hardly presently be entertained (Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme [Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1963], 106), the theory does continue to retain the support of a significant majority of NT scholars. 5. It is, nevertheless, important to note that several shorter studies focusing on Q parables have been published. Cf., e.g., John S. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. Ronald A. Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden:  Brill, 1995), 275–319; and Christoph Heil, “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension der Gleichnisrede Jesu in Q,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (ed. Andreas Lindemann; BETL 158; Leuven:  Peeters, 2001), 649–59. The Q parables have also, on occasion, been considered as part of larger projects, e.g., James G. Williams, “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel,” Semeia 43 (1988):  85–114; Risto Uro, “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q,” in Symbols and Strata:  Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. Risto Uro; SESJ 65; Helsinki:  Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki, 1996), 67–118; Martin Ebner, Jesus  – ein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess (HBS 15; Freiburg: Herder, 1998); Jacobus Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas (BZNW 102; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001); Pascale Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit? Untersuchung zum Erfahrungsbezug von Weisheitslogien in der Q-Tradition (AThANT 87; Zürich: TVZ, 2006); Zimmermann et al., eds, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, 47–254; and Michael Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes und seine performativen Abbildungen: Gleichnisse, Parabeln und Bilder als Handlungsmodelle im Dokument Q,” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte (ed. Ruben Zimmermann in collaboration with Gabi Kern; WUNT 231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 259–82. 6.  Heininger begins the first major section of his monograph on the parables in Luke’s Sondergut with the statement, “Es gibt sicher eine ganze Reihe von Fragen, die einfacher zu beantworten sind als die, was ein Gleichnis sei” (Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung, 6).

4

The Parables in Q

are equally, if not even more, daunting challenges within Q scholarship. Here, questions such as “What parables were included in Q?” and “How does one go about reconstructing the parables in Q?” add a significant layer of complexity and complication to scholarly forays into this area of scholarship. Thus, rather than speaking of the field of research on the parables in Q, it may in some ways be more appropriate to speak of the minefield of such research. Nevertheless, such a study remains a scholarly desideratum in order to consider the possible insights into Q that it could offer.7 To that end, this work seeks, in particular, to continue and advance a more focused dialogue concerning both the understanding of parables in the earliest Gospel traditions and how to “access” them in Q. As already noted, the several challenges and methodological issues that arise when considering the parables in Q make it vital to devote attention both to the challenges of studying the parables in Q and to new approaches in these areas. In so doing, the possibility presents itself to offer some thoughts that may allow for the challenges to be addressed in a manner that moves the scholarly discussion forward. It is only once this theoretical and methodological groundwork has been laid that the actual study of the Q parables can proceed. For this reason, Chapter 2 considers questions related to parables research and argues that an appropriate definition of a parable leads to a far greater number of Q passages being classified as parables than has previously been the case. Chapter 3 focuses on issues in Q research and concludes not only that the attempted verbatim reconstruction of Q material, though helpful in many respects, does not, and indeed cannot, provide a precise Q-text, but also that such a reconstruction is actually unnecessary. The argument is laid out that rather than seeking to recover the Q-text as a source behind Matthew and Luke, focus should be placed on the source as an “intertext” between Matthew and Luke through the consideration, in particular, of the metaphorical and narratival elements of a given parable.8 Chapter 4 then offers an 7. For example, an analysis of the use and major themes of the parables in Q may shed some light on theological concerns and emphases in the document and provide further insight into whether Q really is merely a “topsy-like grab bag” or “theological ‘grab bag,’ ” as stated by John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume Two: Mentor, Message, and Miracles (ABRL; New York:  Doubleday, 1994), 181 and 271n1 (cf. the criticism of such a view in John Kloppenborg, “Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus [ed. Andreas Lindemann], 163–4). 8. Admittedly, the terms “intertext” and “intertextuality” are somewhat slippery, and so Chapter 3 also offers a discussion of how this study conceives of Q as an “intertext” and how “intertextuality” functions within the context of studying Q. A question that could arise at this point concerns how the Gospel of Thomas relates to an “intertextual” study of the Q parables. This question, of course, is complicated by the debated nature of the relationship of this text to Matthew and Luke (cf. the brief but helpful overview of positions in Jörg Frey, “Die Lilien und das Gewand: EvThom 36 und 37 als Paradigma für das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Überlieferung,” in Das Thomasevangelium:  Entstehung  – Rezeption  – Theologie [ed. Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard

Introduction

5

analysis of the three Q parables not spoken by Jesus and Chapters 5 through 10 the various parables recounted by Jesus. Each chapter contains not only a discussion of the parables themselves but also a consideration of the significance of the discussed parables in Q.9 A concluding eleventh chapter summarizes the insights Popkes, and Jens Schröter ; BZNW 157; Berlin:  de Gruyter, 2008], 127–43). Though occasional references to a parallel passage in the Gospel of Thomas do occur in this work, in general, I am persuaded by the view that the Gospel of Thomas is, at numerous points, familiar with Matthew and Luke, though perhaps not in each and every instance. Cf. the recent works by Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2012); and Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (SNTSMS 151; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2012). Concerning several non-Q parables, John P. Meier has published articles arguing that the Gospel of Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics. Cf. John P. Meier, “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas?,” CBQ 74 (2012):  528–47; idem, “ The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24–30):  Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?,” JBL (2012): 715–32; and idem, “ The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in the Vineyard:  Is the Gospel of Thomas Independent of the Synoptics,” in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul:  Essays in Honor of Frank J.  Matera (ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson; SBLECL 7; Leiden:  Brill, 2012), 129–45. He also devoted a chapter of the most recent volume in his A Marginal Jew multivolume work to the issue, ultimately concluding that “both inside and outside the parable tradition, no matter what the literary genre or content, we have found it more likely than not that Thomas displays signs of some sort of dependence on the Synoptic material, be that dependence direct or indirect, be it through literary dependence or secondary orality, be it mediated through copies of the Gospel texts, Gospel harmonies, catechetical summaries, or mere memorization, however faulty” (idem, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables [vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; AYBRL; New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2016], 89–188, citation from p.  146). For this reason, though I  recognize there are scholars advocating a different model and reference is also made to their work in relevant footnotes, I  largely see the Gospel of Thomas as providing vital insight into the development of the parables predominantly subsequent to Matthew and Luke and how their presentations of the parables, perhaps with occasional elements of earlier or independent traditions, were incorporated into and adapted by other Christian groups (cf. similarly ibid., 146). I, therefore, would not view the Gospel of Thomas as a primary source for insight into Q as a source for Matthew and Luke (cf. Christopher M. Tuckett, “Q and Thomas: Evidence of a Primitive ‘Wisdom Gospel’?: A Response to H. Koester,” ETL 67 [1991]: 346–60), though it may occasionally provide a helpful point of reference. For a brief overview of and general observations on the parables in the Gospel of Thomas, cf. Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 430–52; and now Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 362–7. 9.  For such a consideration I largely agree with Kloppenborg’s statement, “What is of interest for our purposes is the strategy employed by Q for dealing with these parables.

6

The Parables in Q

gained through this work, locates these within the broader context of Q scholarship, and considers avenues for further research.

Clues to the interpretation of the parables in Q are to be sought both in the way they have been structured, and in their placement in Q” (Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” 307). At the same time, however, given uncertainties in Q reconstructions, considering the placement of the parables in Q must be approached with caution.

Chapter 2 Q PARABLES

2.1 Challenges in Parables Research As the brief comments in Chapter 1 noted, a basic question in parable research involves the definition and this issue is perhaps the initial reason why “understanding parables is clearly not simple, uncomplicated, or uncontroversial.”1 Before directly addressing this question, however, it is illustrative to highlight the importance of this point as it relates to Q by offering a brief survey of the enumeration of Q parables in various works. Such a survey serves to reveal the manner in which the identification and definition of a parable significantly impacts the presentation of the parables in Q.2 For example, Adolf von Harnack, in the first attempted reconstruction of the Greek text of Q in 1908, listed thirteen parables and similitudes in Q, though it should be noted that he excluded from Q the parable of the Invited Dinner Guests and the parable of the Talents, which, if included in Q, would bring the tally to fifteen.3 In 1969, Dieter Lührmann listed six “Gleichnisse” found in Q4; in a brief section of his 1971 article “An Approach to a Theology of Q,” Richard A. Edwards lists ten parables in Q, though it appears that the list was not comprehensive5; and in 1976, Jan Lambrecht presented nine 1. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 4. 2.  In order to allow for clearer comparison, in the following numberings the two double parables (i.e. the parable of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven and the parable of the Householder and the Servant Left in Charge) are counted individually. 3. Adolf von Harnack, New Testament Studies II: The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; CrTL; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1908), 164. The passages are Q 6:39; Q 6:43-44; Q 6:46-49; Q 7:31-35; Q 10:3; Q 11:33; Q 12:39; Q 12:42-46; Q 12:58-59; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 13:24; and Q 15:4-7. The two parables Harnack viewed as not in Q are Q 14:16-23 and Q 19:12-26. 4. Dieter Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 90n8. He here stated, “Gleichnisse: außer den Parusiegleichnissen Lk 12,39-46/Mt 24,43-51 und Lk 19,12-27/Mt 25,14-30 Lk 15,3-7/Mt 18,10-14; Lk 13,18-21/ Mt 13,31-33; Lk 7,31f/Mt 11,16; Lk 14,15-24/Mt 22,1-10(11–14).” 5.  Richard A. Edwards, “An Approach to a Theology of Q,” JR 51 (1971):  247–69. On pp. 265–6, Edwards referenced Q 11:11-13; Q 11:24-26; and Q 12:39. In n. 43 on p. 265, he stated, “Other examples of parables are:” and listed Q 6:39; Q 6:41-42; Q 6:47-49;

8

The Parables in Q

parables in Q.6 Somewhat more recently, James G. Williams also listed nine parables in Q, though if all “parabolic forms” (i.e. “parables,” “parabolic sayings,” “metaphorical sayings,” “near-parables,” and “near-parabolic sayings”) are counted, the list expands to eighteen7; Migaku Sato states that it is “sehr ungewiß” if there were any “Parabeln” in Q and mentions only four “Gleichnisse”8; Helmut Koester counts a total of twelve “similitudes and parables” in the sayings source9; John S. Kloppenborg leans toward a list of ten parables in Q10; Christoph Heil works with nine “Gleichnisse und Parabeln”11; Harry Fleddermann lists twelve parables

Q 11:34-36; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; and Q 13:20-21. That the list is not comprehensive is indicated, e.g., by Edwards’s referring to Q 14:34-35 as the “parable of salt,” Q 17:35 as a “parable-like saying,” and Q 19:12-26 as a “parable” in A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 109, 142, 144. 6.  Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York:  Crossroad, 1981), 19. The original Dutch version appeared in 1976. The parables are Q 7:31-35; Q 11:24-26; Q 12:39-40; Q 12:42-46; Q 12:58-59; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-24; Q 15:4-7; and Q 19:11-27. 7.  Williams, “Parables and Chreia,” 88–9. The “parables” are Q 11:24-26; Q 12:36-38; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 13:25-27; Q 14:16-23; Q 15:4-6; Q 19:12-13, 15-26. The additional “parabolic forms” are Q 6:43-45; Q 6:47-49; Q 7:33-35; Q 9:58; Q 10:3; Q 11:11-12; Q 11:33-34; Q 12:2-3; Q 12:6-7. 8.  Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie:  Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 81. The “Gleichnisse” he lists are Q 7:31-32; Q 12:39; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-21. He then states, “Ob es in Q Parabeln gab, ist ungewiß; Lk 15,4-7 par und erst recht die langen Parabeln in Lk14,16–24 par; 19,12-27 par sind als Q-Stoffe sehr unsicher.” Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in cited material is original. Cf. also his comment that there is “in Q kein sicheres Beispiel einer Parabel” (ibid., 61). 9. Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London:  SCM, 1990), 96. The passages are Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-32; Q 12:16-21; Q 12:35-38; Q 12:39; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-24; Q 15:3-7; Q 15:8-10; Q 19:12-27. 10. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 285–7. The passages are Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-32; Q 12:16-20; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-23; Q 15:3-7; Q 15:8-10; Q 19:12-27. Somewhat curiously, Q 11:21-22 does not appear in this list as Kloppenborg has elsewhere written, “Q illustrated Jesus’ triumph over demons by citing a parable of a strong man (Q 11:21–22). Unfortunately, it is impossible to reconstruct this parable with any certainty” (“The Representation of Violence in the Synoptic Parables,” in Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in Their First Century Settings [ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson; WUNT 271; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 336). Though this publication significantly postdates his contribution on the parables, already in 1987 Kloppenborg wrote, “It is possible that the parable of the stronger man (11:21–22) followed in Q” (The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections [SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 125). 11. Heil, “Beobachtungen,” 650–1. The passages are Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-32; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-21, 23; Q 15:4-5a, 7; Q 15:8-10; Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26.

Q Parables

9

in Q12; and the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu lists twenty-eight parables of Jesus in Q,13 a list toward which Michael Labahn also orients his thinking.14 Most recently, John P. Meier has listed seven parables in Q, though the fact that the list includes Mt. 22:1-10//Lk. 14:16-24 and Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:12-27, both of which Meier believes were not in Q, reduces the number to five.15 Furthermore, though the difference in the number of parables is patently obvious, a closer look also reveals that different lists also include different passages. Thus, for example, Kloppenborg’s list of ten parables includes two parables found in Lukan Sondergut (the Rich Farmer [Lk. 12:16-21] and the Lost Drachma [Lk. 15:8-10]), which are not found in Fleddermann’s list. Therefore, the respective lists of ten and twelve parables actually entail six, and not merely two, differences. The accuracy of Fleddermann’s observation is indisputable: “Parables play a prominent role in Q, but there is no agreement on their number.”16

12.  Harry T. Fleddermann, Q:  A Reconstruction and Commentary (BToSt 1; Leuven: Peters, 2005), 94. The passages are Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-34; Q 11:21-22; Q 11:24-26; Q 12:39-40; Q 12:42b-46; Q 12:58-59; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-21, 23; Q 15:4-5, 7; Q 19:12-13, 15-20a, 21, 20b, 22-24, 26. 13. Zimmermann et al., eds., Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, 59–60. The passages are Q 6:39; Q 6:40; Q 6:41-42; Q 6:43-45; Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-35; Q 10:2; Q 10:22; Q 11:9-13; Q 11:14-15, 17-20; Q 11:24-26; Q 11:33; Q 11:34-35; Q 12:24, 26-28; Q 12:39-40; Q 12:42-46; Q 12:54-56; Q 12:58-59; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 13:24-27; Q 14:16-23; Q 14:34-35; Q 15:4-5a, 7; Q 16:13; Q 17:34-35; Q 17:37; Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26. It should be emphasized that this list is explicitly identified as the parables of Jesus in Q and therefore does not include other passages that, according to the operative definition in this work, could be classified as parables. In addition, four of these parables are not discussed in the Q section, but rather in another section of the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. These are: Q 10:22 in Jn 5:19-23; Q 11:14-20 in Mk 3:22-26; Q 13:18-19 in Mk 4:30-32; and Q 14:16-23 in Mt. 22:1-14 and Lk. 14:12-24 (cf. the table in ibid., 59–60). 14. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 263–4. 15.  Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 193. The five “narrative parables” for Q are:  Q 6:47-49; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; and Q 15:4-7. Meier argues that the parables of the Invited Dinner Guests and of the Entrusted Money should be viewed as coming from M and L (ibid., 260, 288). 16.  Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 93. The lack of agreement concerning the number of Q parables reflects the broader disagreement concerning the number of parables in general (cf. Hultgren, Parables, 2–3 and nn. 5 and 6 on those pages). Paul Foster has recently offered a suggestion for enumerating the number of parables in Q along the lines of a “lowest common denominator” approach to their numbering. Foster first lists ten possible parable pericopae in Q: Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-35; Q 12:39-40; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; Q 14:16-21, 23; Q 15:4-5, 7; Q 15:8-10; and Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26. He then surveys several volumes on parables (C. H. Dodd, J. Jeremias, B. B. Scott, A. J. Hultgren, and K. R. Snodgrass), noting which volume(s) identify pericopae in the list generated by Foster as parables. Foster concludes that only six passages (Q 6:47-49; Q 7:31-35; Q 12:42-46; Q

10

The Parables in Q

Kloppenborg has helpfully highlighted the methodological issue concerning the question surrounding which Q passages should be treated as parables, querying if it should be “only those stories that modern parables research has identified as parables?”17 In pursuing such identification, modern parables research has offered numerous definitions of parables, often emphasizing “narrative” or “metaphor,”18 among other elements, in their attempt to identify a parable. For example, T. W. Manson wrote, “A parable is a literary creation in narrative form designed either to portray a type of character for warning or example or to embody a principle of God’s governance of the world and men.”19 C.  H. Dodd contended, “At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.”20 Madeleine I. Boucher views a parable

13:18-19; Q 13:20-21; and Q 15:4-5, 7) have a “high probability” of being parables in that 80–100 percent of the surveyed works identify these passages as parables (cf. Paul Foster, “Q Parables:  Their Extent and Function,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q [ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn; WUNT 315; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 275, 281). Though his survey is helpful in many ways, there are two major problems with such an approach. First, as Foster himself recognizes, his list of possible parable pericopae already depends upon the definition of the parable genre, which means that a different definition would lead to a different list of pericopae to be considered. The second problem is that by attributing “high probability” to a pericope being a parable based on 80–100 percent agreement between five scholarly works surveyed necessarily skews the results toward the most restrictive definition and conception of a parable found among those works. It is obvious that the question of definition remains the central and crucial issue in identifying parables, a point to which my discussion returns below. 17. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 285. 18.  Though not discussed in the present study, it should also be mentioned that the question of how “allegory” is related to “metaphor” and how the former term should be defined have been of particular interest to some scholars working on parables. Cf., e.g., the survey in Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 30–69; Greg W. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel (JSNTSup 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 25–33; Hans-Josef Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (2d ed.; NTAbh 13; Münster: Aschendorff, 1978), 4–31, 354–61; and the literature found in Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 88n11. Cf. also the brief, but helpful, discussion of the challenges surrounding the recent use of the term “allegory” in Dieter Reinstorf and Andries van Aarde, “Reflections on Jesus’ Parables as Metaphorical Stories Past and Present,” HvTSt 58 (2002): 727–8. 19.  T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus:  Studies of Its Form and Content (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 65. 20.  C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (2d ed.; London:  Nisbet, 1936), 16. For further reflection on this definition, cf. Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 133–62.

Q Parables

11

as “a structure consisting of a tropical narrative, or a narrative having two levels of meaning; this structure functions as religious or ethical rhetorical speech.”21 Arland J. Hultgren offers, “A parable is a figure of speech in which a comparison is made between God’s kingdom, actions, or expectations and something in this world, real or imagined.”22 Bernard Brandon Scott sees a parable as “a mashal that employs a short narrative fiction to reference a symbol.”23 A. M. Hunter offers the following reflection: “In germ, then, a parable is a figurative saying: sometimes a simile . . ., sometimes a metaphor . . . What we call parables are simply expansions of these.”24 John Dominic Crossan, however, sets forth a limit to that expansion with the definition: “Parable is a very short metaphorical narrative.”25 Bernhard Heininger focuses on the idea of a “Gleichnis” as “erzählte Metapher,”26 whereas Robert H. Stein, recognizing the difficulties involved in defining a parable, states, “Simply for convenience we shall define a parable as a figure of speech in which there is a brief or extended comparison.”27 Most recently, Meier has defined a “narrative parable” as “a striking short story that employs figurative language (i.e., a metaphor or simile stretched out into a narrative) and is meant to be puzzling enough to tease the mind into active thought and personal decision.”28 Though there are certainly helpful insights to be found in the modern grappling with an appropriate definition for a parable, aspects of their inadequacy are readily identifiable. Are all parables actually narratives, at least as far as their actual form is concerned? When Meier refers to a “full narrative parable” does that mean there could be “partial narrative parables”? 29 Are all parables 21.  Madeleine I. Boucher, The Mysterious Parable:  A Literary Study (CBQMS 6; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977), 23. 22. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus, 3. 23.  Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 8, 35. 24. A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (rev. ed.; London: SCM Press, 1964), 9. 25. John Dominic Crossan, Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus (New York: Seabury, 1980) 2. Here Crossan is building on Paul Ricoeur’s discussion of metaphor and narrativity as it relates to parables (cf. Paul Ricoeur, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 4 [1975]:  29–148). Cf. also the overview and discussion in Thomas Söding, “Die Gleichnisse Jesu als metaphorischeErzählungen [sic]:  Hermeneutische und exegetische Überlegungen,” in Die Sichtbarkeit des Unsichtbaren: Zur Korrelation von Text und Bild im Wirkungskreis der Bibel: Tübinger Symposion (ed. Bernd Janowski and Nino Zchomelidse; AGWB 3; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 81–118. 26. Heininger, Metaphorik, 27. 27.  Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 1981), 22. 28.  Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 41. In a note Meier restates the definition of what he requires “for a true parable” writing, “a parable is a metaphor or simile stretched out into a whole narrative into which the audience can be drawn, a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end (at least in miniature)” (ibid., 61n14). 29. Cf. ibid., 214n6.

12

The Parables in Q

vivid or strange, and do they all leave doubt concerning their application?30 Does a metaphor simply have to be present, or does it need to function in a particular way? Questions such as these have been posed by Klyne Snodgrass and others31; however, when Snodgrass then goes on to state, “In most cases then a parable is an expanded analogy used to convince and persuade”32 the question arises as to how to identify and consider the cases that are not one of the “most cases.” In general, Kloppenborg has rightly observed that “modern definitions of parables are usually much more restrictive than ancient usage” and goes on to make the important observation that “in fact ‘parable’ is not a discrete genre at all.”33 Indeed, if the term “parable” is construed along rather restrictive lines, the observation of Amos M. Wilder appears entirely à propos: “We must say that the term ‘parable’ is

30.  Here Zimmermann rightly notes, “As has often been stated . . . the distinction between the normal and the unusual is questionable” (Puzzling the Parables, 122; cf. the discussion in ibid., 122–3). 31. Cf. similar comments in Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 7; and Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 36. 32. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 9; emphasis added. 33. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 285. Aristotle’s references to παραβολή in Rhet. 2.20 illustrate this point. Marsh H. McCall, Jr. rightly observed, “ The identifying features of παραβολή do not, in Aristotle’s mind, seem to include a particular form . . . Aristotle appears to think instead of παραβολή as a general term” (Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison [Loeb Classical Monographs; Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1969], 27, 31; NB: Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 286, also makes reference to the work of McCall though incorrectly cites the first statement as concluding with “particular genre”). The issue of genre and classification is even more pronounced in German scholarship where multiple “classes” of “parables” have often been discussed. For example, Adolf Jülicher argued, “Drei Klassen sind unter den synoptischen ‘Parabeln’ zu unterscheiden, von denen zwei eine frei erfundene Erzählung, eine eine allgemein anerkannte Erfahrung aus dem Gebiet des täglichen Lebens bieten. Letztere ist das Gleichnis, die andern sind die Parabel im engeren Sinne, d. h. die Fabel im Dienst religiöser Ideen, und die Beispielerzählung” (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu [2 vols; 2d ed.; Freiburg:  J. C.  B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),  1910], 1:117). Rudolf Bultmann later added a fourth classification to this list, that of a “Bildwort” (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition [10th ed.; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  1995], 181–4). Cf. also the discussion in Wolfgang Harnisch, Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu: Eine hermeneutische Einführung (4th ed.; UTB 1343; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 42–108. Some more recent German scholarship, especially in the work of Ruben Zimmermann, has questioned the validity of such classifications (cf. n. 43 below). At the same time, one also finds complex divisions of parabolic material into even more categories. Cf., e.g., Klaus Berger’s twelve categories listed in Formen und Gattungen des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2532; Tübingen:  Francke, 2005), 81–120; or Kurt Erlemann’s ten categories in Gleichnisauslegung: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (UTB 2093; Tübingen: Francke, 1999), 63–98.

Q Parables

13

misleading since it suggests a simple pattern, and often distorts our understanding of this or that special case.”34 However, some definitions remain rather vague and imprecise, on occasion leading to a “parable” being defined far too broadly and including far more material than seems reasonable.35 It is of vital importance to recognize that when considering parables, the issue is not merely a question of formulating a definition, but also involves how one approaches and understands the much broader question of genre. For this reason, recent scholarly discussion must be brought to bear upon both questions of genre more broadly and upon the definition of a parable.

2.2 New Approaches in Parables Research It is crucial, first of all, to note the manner in which (post)modern genre theory in literary studies has moved away from the understanding of genre as correspondence with a narrowly defined set of supra-historical linguistic norms.36 Three decades ago, Alastair Fowler wrote, “There is no doubt that genre primarily has to

34.  Amos M. Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric (Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1964), 81. 35.  For example, in a recent volume David M. Brown offers the following definition of a parable: “A parable is an ordinary story that teaches spiritual truth by analogy” (All the Parables of Jesus: A Guide to Discovery [Bloomington: WestBow, 2012], 21). Though Brown offers helpful observations in the pages preceding this definition (cf. ibid., 19–20) and a discussion of “story” in chapter 3 (ibid., 23–36), his basic definition of a “story” as “a saying that has a subject and a plot” quickly comes to include “special cases” where a passage has “story-ness” (ibid., 29) or a “story seed” that has the “potential of being a full story” (ibid., 34). In this way, the category of “parable,” in my estimation, quickly becomes so vague as to no longer be helpful. In fact, by the time Brown has compiled all the pericopae he views as “parables” there are a total of 150 (!) in the Gospels. 36.  As Anis S.  Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff observe concerning what they call Neoclassical approaches to genre, these approaches “utilize a theoretical, trans-historical set of categories (or taxonomies) in order to classify literary texts. Such taxonomic approaches start with apriori, macro-categories which are then used to define and clarify kinds of literary texts according to internal thematic and formal relations . . . The main critique of such approaches has been the way they universalize the ideological character of genres rather than seeing genres as emerging from and responding to socio-historically situated exigencies” (Genre:  An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy [Reference Guides to Rhetoric and Composition; West Lafayette: Parlor, 2010], 15, 16). For further discussion of genre theory in modern literary criticism, see David Duff, ed., Modern Genre Theory (Longman Critical Readers; Harlow :  Longman, 2000); Rüdiger Zymner, Gattungstheorie:  Probleme und Positionen der Literaturwissenschaft (Paderborn:  Mentis, 2003); and idem, ed., Handbuch Gattungstheorie (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2010).

14

The Parables in Q

do with communication. It is an instrument not of classification or prescription, but of meaning.”37 Ruben Zimmermann has more recently noted, dass man heute nicht mehr von der Existenz eines übergeschichtlichen Klassifikationssystems von Gattungen ausgehen kann, in das dann Einzeltexte aufgrund von Übereinstimmung oder Abweichung einzelner Merkmale eingeordnet werden könnten . . . Gattungen sind keine statischen, sondern dynamische Gebilde, die zutiefst in geschichtliche Kommunikationsprozesse eingebunden sind.38

In other words, instead of seeking an abstract and supra-historical definition of a particular “genre,” or in this case of a “parable,” one should instead consider how a particular “genre” functions in the processes of communication in a particular era.39 Though it is not simply a matter of terminology, it is interesting that in both Matthew and Luke these Gospel writers employ the term “παραβολή” in Q contexts, though not in the same Q contexts. For example, Luke refers to the material in Q 6:39; Q 12:39-40; Q 15:4-5a, 7; and Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26 as “parables,” as does Matthew for the material in Q 13:18-19, Q 13:20-21, and Q 14:16-23. Kloppenborg has a helpful discussion of these references; however, his primary concern is to demonstrate that these occurrences of the term “παραβολή” in Matthew and Luke are redactional and that the term did not appear in Q.40 Kloppenborg is likely correct in this assessment, though the point that interests me is the fact that Matthew and Luke chose explicitly to identify certain Q material as a “parable.” It is noteworthy that though many of the passages in the above list appear in the various numberings of parables presented at the outset of this chapter, the material in Lk. 6:39 and following is, apart from Edward’s passing reference in a footnote and in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, conspicuously absent.41 This is perhaps not

37.  Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature:  An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 22. 38. Ruben Zimmermann, “Formen und Gattungen als Medien der Jesus-Erinnerung: Zur Rückgewinnung der Diachronie in der Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments,” in Die Macht der Erinnerung (ed. Martin Ebner et al.; JBTh 22; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007), 140–1. Cf. also idem, “Parabeln  – Sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmung jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort,’ ‘Gleichnis,’ ‘Parabel’ und ‘Beispielserzählung,’ ” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann), 407–408; and idem, “Gleichnisse als Medien der Jesuserinnerung: Die Historizität der Jesusparabeln im Horizont der Gedächtnisforschung,” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann), 87–121. 39.  Cf. now the helpful English-language overview in Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 133–7. 40. See Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 282–5. 41.  Cf. also the brief reference to this “parable” in Edwards, A Theology of Q, 89. There are, of course, others who have also referred to Lk. 6:39 and the following verses

Q Parables

15

particularly surprising, since, as Joel B. Green observes, this section has long puzzled commentators as Luke’s opening words here εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς are “enigmatic, since what follows is a series of proverbial sayings, similes, and a parabolic story.”42 It seems to me, however, that this enigma is created by modern scholarship itself through its identification of the following verses as things like “proverbial sayings” or “similes” or “a parabolic story,” rather than simply as “parables.”43 That is to say, it is the modern conception of a “parable” that leads to confusion when Luke uses the term here.44 When considering a passage such as this, two options present themselves. One can either hold fast to a conception of “parables” that remains at odds with Luke’s use of the term and thereby not consider this Q material as belonging to the parables in Q, or one can attempt to broaden one’s understanding of a “parable” so that the material in Lk. 6:39 and the following verses is considered as part of the Q material belonging to the parables in Q.  Of course, it is entirely possible that a modern and more technical use of a term is not only legitimate, but also helpful. As Boucher puts it: “In modern scholarship . . . terms should . . . be defined as sharply as possible. If the definition is more precise in contemporary scientific writings than in the ancient sources, that should create no difficulty; it means only that the words are used differently in antiquity and in the present.”45 Such a perspective, though in my estimation

as “parables” (cf., e.g., T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus [London:  SCM, 1949], 57; and I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978], 268). Jülicher also treats Lk. 6:39, 40, 41-42, 43-46, and 47-49 in volume 2 of his Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, though he argues that παραβολή in Lk. 6:39 refers only to this verse and not to the ensuing ones (cf. Gleichnisreden, 2:50). Lk. 6:39, however, is treated under the heading “Gleichnisse” (cf. n. 33 above for Jülicher’s divisions). 42. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 276. 43.  See also the discussion in Zimmermann, “Parabeln,” 383–419; and idem, “How to Understand the Parables of Jesus: A Paradigm Shift in Parable Exegesis,” Acta Theologica 29 (2009): 167–9. It does not seem helpful to me to argue, as does Meier, that since “cases where parabolē clearly means something other than a narrative parable are in the definite minority in the Synoptics” one should simply not call them parables (Probing the Authenticity, 63n15). That, in my estimation, is simply to truncate the ancient genre conception and impose a misguided “majority rule.” 44. As Hultgren observes, the Gospel writers “call some materials ‘parables’ that virtually no one would classify as such today” (The Parables of Jesus, 2). 45.  Boucher, The Mysterious Parable, 13. In a subsequent commentary on the parables, Boucher makes the point more forcefully, and more problematically, stating, “The term ‘parable’ is not, and indeed should not be, used in the same senses in scholarly discussion today as it was in antiquity” (The Parables [New Testament Message 7; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981], 13). Meier reflects a similar mentality when he writes, “A single sentence containing a metaphor might well qualify as a māšāl in Hebrew and a parabolē in Greek, but hardly as a parable in the English usage of modern biblical scholarship” (Probing the Authenticity, 363–4).

16

The Parables in Q

problematic in terms of its tacit assumptions concerning genre, is defensible; however, the justification for altering the meaning or scope of a term in academic discourse should be found precisely in the creation of greater precision and clarity, ultimately leading to greater and improved insight and consensus. And yet, the multiplication of terminology and subgenres for “parables,” whether in English- or especially German-speaking scholarship, has not led to greater clarity and consensus—quite the contrary.46 Therefore, the difficulty of providing an adequate definition for a parable continues to be discussed in the literature, and there is a fear, as Snodgrass puts it, that “possibly no definition of parables will do, for any definition that is broad enough to cover all the forms is so imprecise that it is almost useless.”47 Nevertheless, I find this view overly pessimistic and would submit that a definition like the one found in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse 46.  Cf. Zimmermann, “Parabeln,” 399–401. Mary Ann Beavis recognizes the tension between the classifications and the material in writing, “Adolf Jülicher’s threefold classification of Jesus’ parables in terms of similitudes, parables proper and exemplary stories is somewhat helpful, although it does not exhaust the multifariousness of the parable tradition” (“Introduction: Seeking the ‘Lost Coin’ of Parables about Women,” in The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom [ed. Mary Ann Beavis; BiSe 86; London: Sheffield Academic,  2002], 20). In addition, though Michael Wolter’s discussion of how “nodal points” (following the terminology of Claude Bremond, Logique du récit [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973]) in narratives create opportunities for a certain type of entrance into the narrative on the part of readers is helpful, it is less clear that “the difference between the parable with plot options and those without them corresponds more or less to the line that classical parable research has drawn between ‘similitudes’ and ‘parables’ ” (“Jesus as a Teller of Parables: On Jesus’ Self-Interpretation in His Parables,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective:  The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005 [ed. James H.  Charlesworth with Petr Pokorný ; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans,  2005], 135)  precisely because this line has often been anything but clear. As Dodd, who himself adopted Bultmann’s classifications, noted, “It cannot be pretended that the line can be drawn with any precision between these three classes of parable—figurative sayings, similitudes, and parables proper” (Parables, 17). If one wishes to utilize “plot options” not simply to confirm supposed existing distinctions but as an actual tool to create the distinction, the question then becomes whether Wolter’s conception of how “nodal points” allow an entrance into the narrative is the only manner in which listeners can enter into the narrative as potential actors, a view that he seems to imply (cf. “Jesus as a Teller of Parables,” 135). 47. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 7. As is well known, a similar difficulty exists with the Hebrew term “māšāl” (cf. Andreas Schüle, “Mashal (‫ ) ָמ ָשׁל‬and the Prophetic ‘Parables,’ ” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann], 205–16; and Robert H. Stein, “The Genre of the Parables,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables [ed. Richard N. Longenecker; MNTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 39–47). However, as Zimmermann observes, “gerade diese Offenheit [in the use of the term ‫ ] ָמ ָשׁל‬erlaube den Brückenschlag zum ähnlich disparaten Gebrauch des Begriffs παραβολή im Neuen Testament” (“Gleichnishermeneutik im Rückblick und Vorblick: Die Beiträge des Sammelbandes vor dem Hintergrund von 100 Jahren Gleichnisforschung,” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann], 54).

Q Parables

17

Jesu is wide ranging enough to do justice to the broad, ancient conceptions of parables while at the same time remaining eminently useful. That definition reads as follows: A parable is a short narratival (1) fictional (2) text that is related in the narrated world to known reality (3)  but, by way of implicit or explicit transfer signals, makes it understood that the meaning of that which is narrated must be differentiated from the literal words of the text (4). In its appeal dimension (5) it challenges the reader to carry out a metaphoric transfer of meaning that is steered by contextual information (6).48 48. Slightly adapted from Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 137. The original, German definition reads as follows: “Eine Parabel ist ein kurzer narrativer (1), fiktionaler (2) Text, der in der erzählten Welt auf die bekannte Realität (3) bezogen ist, aber durch implizite oder explizite Transfersignale zu erkennen gibt, dass die Bedeutung des Erzählten vom Wortlaut des Textes zu unterscheiden ist (4). In seiner Appellstruktur (5) fordert er einen Leser bzw. eine Leserin auf, einen metaphorischen Bedeutungstransfer zu vollziehen, der durch Kound Kontextinformationen (6) gelenkt wird” (Ruben Zimmermann, “Eine Leseanleitung zum Kompendium,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 25; cf. also Zimmermann, “Parabeln,” 409–19). An initial English-language discussion of this definition can be found in Zimmermann, “How to Understand the Parables of Jesus,” 170–3. An updated discussion, including the new translation of the definition referenced above that avoids some of the problems found in the initial formulation, can be found in Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 137–50. For instance, whereas the initial definition stated that a parable is “a short narrative (1) fictional (2) text” (“How to Understand the Parables of Jesus,” 170) the revised definition more accurately states that a parable is “a short narratival (1)  fictional text” (Puzzling the Parables, 137). Thus, when Stephen I.  Wright criticizes this definition of a parable as indicating that “a parable is always narrative” and stating, “thus, while accepting the depth of ‘narrative’ structure in many short proverbial sayings, one might reasonably argue that to treat such a saying within essentially the same analytical matrix as a full-length ‘story’ is to invite the blurring of important rhetorical distinctions” (Jesus the Storyteller [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015], 2), his objection appears to betray a misunderstanding. The point is precisely one of highlighting the presence of narratival structure or a plot, even if it is of an absolute minimal nature. Only in this “narratival” sense is the parable a “narrative.” Cf. now especially the discussion in Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 138–40. The definition draws on several helpful insights in Rüdiger Zymner, “Parabel,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. Gert Ueding; 10 vols; Darmstadt:  Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992–2012), 6:502–503. Earlier studies were already pressing toward this type of definition as seen, e.g., in the definition by Liebenberg:  “The parables are short narrative fictions which exploit the possibilities offered by the conceptual instruments that enable ordinary metaphoric designation. They prompt detailed metaphoric mapping of the slots, events and relations in the parable story onto corresponding slots, events, entities and relations in the parable’s target field in a way that is not possible in an ordinary juxtaposition of the source and target fields involved. The process is determined by the narrative episodes of the parable story, the conventional

18

The Parables in Q

Therefore, considering once again the example of Lk. 6:39, the two questions “Can a blind person guide a blind person?” and “Will not both fall into a pit?” can readily be understood as a parable.49 The verse is narratival through its presentation of a miniature narrative involving leading and then falling, even if these actions are not directly narrated as such.50 The text is fictional, though drawn from the world of known reality. Within the context of Jesus’s teaching the metaphorical transfer to spiritual issues is evident, as is the implicit appeal for self-evaluation as an addressee of Jesus’s words.51 At the same time, the above definition also allows for a clear distinction between such a passage and the simple comparison between the Son of Man and lightning in the sky in Q 17:24, for example.52 The “lack of narrativity” in passages such as this one excludes them from being regarded as parables.53

2.3 Implications for the “Parables in Q” In essence, based on recent developments in the understanding of genre and parable, I  am advocating for an expansion of how one conceives of a parable and, therefore, for a reconsideration of the number of parables in Q.54

metaphors evoked by it and especially the contextualization of the parable” (The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 157). William G. Kirkwood has rightly observed, “That some stories challenge listeners to make personal decisions or judgments is a pervasive concept in the literature of New Testament parable studies” and provides a brief summary of scholars highlighting this aspect (“Parables as Metaphors and Examples,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 [1985]: 426–7, citation from p. 426). 49. See also Gabi Kern, “Absturzgefahr (Vom Blinden als Blindenführer) – Q 6,39f.,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 61–7. 50. That is, the passage is clearly narratival even though the account is not narrated as “a blind man led another blind man and they both fell into a pit.” 51. Along these lines the passage confirms how “parables as language events are calls to action” (Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 142). 52.  So also Zimmermann, “Parabeln – sonst nichts!,” 411. Zimmermann also refers to Mt. 10:16 and 5:13-16 as not being parables due to “mangelnder Narrativität.” 53. So also Zimmermann, “How to Understand the Parables,” 171. 54.  Along similar lines, Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, has reconsidered the number of parables in the Sermon on the Mount. Though there is much of tremendous value in this monograph and I agree completely with his sentiment that “it is too little observed that about one third of the SM [Sermon on the Mount] are parables or metaphorical language” (ibid., 4), it is disappointing that essentially no attention is given to how one defines or conceives of a “parable” in order to arrive at this statistic. In fact, the manner in which Baasland himself arrives at this number is rather confusing. On the same page, Baasland identifies passages as “parables” (e.g. Mt. 6:26 and 6:28-30), “metaphorical sayings” (e.g. Mt. 6:24), and “similes (‘Bildworte’)” (e.g. Mt. 5:13), immediately following these identifications with the comment, “This means that about thirty sayings, more than forty verses (about one third of the SM) is parables” (ibid.,

Q Parables

19

Significantly, the above suggested definition of a parable allows for the discussion of considerably more Q-texts as parables than has often been the case in Q scholarship, a reality that was already recognized in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Not surprisingly, my sympathy for the definition of a parable utilized in this Kompendium results in the parables of Jesus considered in this work largely mirroring the list of parables for Q found in the Kompendium. At the same time, however, there are a few differences. First, though perhaps Jn 5:19-23 can be classified as a parable, the parallel in Q 10:22 is not a parable and is therefore not considered here.55 I would also contend that there is insufficient narrativity in Q 11:34-35 for it to be included in the list of Q parables and, as discussed in the ensuing chapter, text-critical uncertainty leads to excluding Lk. 12:54-56 from this study.56 Finally, I  made the difficult decision not to include the parable in Lk. 13:25-27. The challenge here is that even though a parable with a particular structure is present in Luke, Matthew has parallel elements embedded within his parable of the Ten Virgins (vv. 10–12 in Mt. 25:1-12), further parallel elements in Mt. 7:22-23, and aspects parallel to the introduction to the parable found in Lk. 13:24 in Mt. 7:13. Though arguments can certainly be made that all these elements were found in Q, I am not confident enough concerning the form of the parable in Q to analyze it here.57 Thus, in this monograph and as set forth in the 4). It thus appears that all such passages are considered to be “parables,” but what is the difference between a “parable” that is a “parable” and a “metaphorical saying” that is a “parable”? And why is Mt. 5:13 here identified as a “simile” (Bildwort), when in the analysis of the passage the heading is “The Parable Matt 5,13 (the Metaphor of ‘Salt’)” (ibid., 76), especially if Baasland is of the opinion that it is only “with some hesitation” (ibid., 77) that one can call it a parable? Adding to the confusion is that a few pages later Baasland observes, “The difference between example and parable is often maximized in scholarship. In this book the difference is minimized, and accordingly also examples like Matt 5,35ff and 5,39ff are analysed here” (ibid., 16). Are these passages then still “examples” or are they “parables,” or is there no discernible difference between the two? The closest mention of a definition that I could find is when Baasland states that of the three rhetorical arguments upon which he focuses, “the parable (narrative with one or more similes and metaphor) is most powerful” (ibid., 15). But on the basis of the definition “narrative with one or more similes and metaphor,” is one-third of the Sermon on the Mount still “parables”? On the one hand, Baasland states that Zimmermann’s claim that we have “parables and nothing else” is “in general correct,” but on the other hand, he contends that “one should be open for divisions into subgroups of parables” (ibid., 13).Without clear criteria for making such distinctions, however, it seems to me that uncertainty and a certain level of bewilderment arise concerning the use of terminology other than simply “parable.” 55. Cf. also Foster, “Q Parables,” 271. 56. Cf. Chapter 3, nn. 2 and 38. 57. This position, admittedly, is slightly different from that in a previous publication in which I analyzed elements of the “master” character found in these parallel verses. Cf. Dieter T. Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parable in Q (ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn), 382–3, 393–4. In the course of the present study, however, the consideration of more than simply one character,

20

The Parables in Q

table below, the Q parables discussed include two of John the Baptist, one of the centurion, and twenty-four parables of Jesus.58 Parables of John the Baptist Q 3:9 Q 3:17

Parable of the Ax at the Root of the Trees Parable of the Winnowing Parable of the Centurion

Q 7:8

Parable of an Authority under Authority Parables of Jesus

Q 6:39 Q 6:40 Q 6:41-42 Q 6:43-45 Q 6:47-49 Q 7:31-35 Q 10:2 Q 11:11-12 Q 11:17-18a Q 11:24-26 Q 11:33 Q 12:24, 27-28 Q 12:39-40 Q 12:42-46 Q 12:58-59 Q 13:18-19 Q 13:20-21

Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind Parable of the Disciple and the Teacher Parable of the Splinter and the Beam Parable of a Tree Being Known by Its Fruit Parable of the House on Rock or Sand Parable of the Children in the Marketplace Parable of the Workers for the Harvest Parable of Asking of a Father Parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself Parable of the Return of the Unclean Spirit Parable of a Light on a Lampstand Parable of the Fowl and the Flowers Parable of the Thief in the Night Parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave Parable of Settling out of Court Parable of the Mustard Seed Parable of the Leaven

i.e., plot, other characters, images, and the place of the parable in Q created significantly greater uncertainty. This uncertainty is also different than the situation in, e.g., the parable of the Invited Dinner Guests in which a posited underlying parable is recognizable within its differing presentations in Mt. 22:1-10 and Lk. 14:16-23 (cf. the discussion in Chapter 5, Section 5.3) or the parable of the Tree being Known by Its Fruit where Mt. 7:18, 16 parallel Lk. 6:43-44 with one phrase in Lk. 6:44 being found in Mt. 12:33 (also worth noting is that the ensuing Lk. 6:45 has extensive parallels with Mt. 12:35, 34). In the latter parable the narrativity and plot elements do not build upon each other through the various elements found in a differing order/location in Matthew and Luke (cf. the discussion in Chapter 8, Section 8.2). 58. The order of the parables in the table is chronological according to the versification found in Luke, the now customary manner in which to refer to Q verses. This ordering is not meant to imply that this was the order of the parables in Q, nor is it the order of the parables of Jesus discussed in this monograph for which I have undertaken a heuristic grouping of the parables.

Q Parables

Q 14:16-23 Q 14:34-35 Q 15:4-5a, 7 Q 16:13 Q 17:34-35 Q 17:37 Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26

21

Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests Parable of the Salt Parable of the Lost Sheep Parable of God or Mammon Parable of One Taken and One Left Parable of the Vultures around a Corpse Parable of the Entrusted Money

Regardless of whether one agrees with the precise number of Q parables identified and analyzed or not, it is clear that the importance of the parables and their function in Q is more prominent than often recognized and should therefore be studied to a greater degree than has presently been done. Such a study, however, quickly runs into a second major difficulty, namely, the questions surrounding the reconstruction of Q.

Chapter 3 Q PARABLES

3.1 Challenges in Studying the “Text” of Q The challenges in reconstructing the Q parables revolve around two primary questions. First, there is the question of which parables, as defined in the previous chapter, were part of the Q document. Second, there is the question related to how one envisions, reconstructs, and “accesses” the text of those parables.1 The question of how many parables were found in Q depends in part, as already seen, upon how one defines a parable, though it also depends upon the extent to which one is willing to consider Sondergut to have been present in Q and how one evaluates certain so-called Mark/Q overlaps.2 Parables discussed 1.  Q studies are very clearly confronted with the issue pointed out by Sandra K.  Dolby-Stahl, namely, that there is a “never-ending struggle to determine what a text means, what is or is not a part of the text, what in fact is a text at all” (“A Literary Folkloristic Methodology for the Study of Meaning in Personal Narrative,” JFR 22 [1985]: 45). 2.  Despite my disagreement at a few points, the brief discussion in John S.  Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q:  The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 91–101, concerning the reconstruction of the extent of Q is eminently helpful in regard to the issues involved [NB: since Kloppenborg Verbin has returned to publishing only under the surname Kloppenborg this name will be used in abbreviated references to his works]. Two issues in addition to the question of Sondergut and Mark/Q overlaps involve questions of NT textual criticism and how one evaluates a “parallel.” For instance, on the one hand, one’s evaluation of the textually uncertain Mt. 16:2-3 may affect whether one would include this passage in Q (cf. also n. 39 below). On the other hand, though it is possible to treat Lk. 12:35-38 as Sondergut and argue that it came from Q (cf. Alan Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q [NovTSup 91; Leiden:  Brill, 1998], 227–32; on p. 227, he states that Q 12:35-38 is “unattested in Matthew”), if one seeks to include Lk. 12:35-38 based on it being parallel with Mt. 25:1-13, this requires that one actually accept that the passages are parallel (cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, 148; four different views on the relationship are listed by Craig L. Blomberg, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case: The Lucan Parables,” WTJ 46 [1984]:  84). Lührmann thus stated that the passage could have come from Q, “doch sind . . . die literarkritischen Voraussetzungen

24

The Parables in Q

in regard to the former issue are especially those of the Rich Farmer in Lk. 12:16-20 and of the Lost Coin in Lk. 15:8-10,3 and occasionally of the Friend zu ungewiß” (Redaktion, 69), and Bernd Kollmann argues that Lk. 12:35 was in Q with vv. 36–38 more likely than not also present in Q (“Lk 12,35-38 ein Gleichnis der Logienquelle” ZNW 81 [1990]:  254–61). A  further point worth mentioning in terms of how one approaches the parables in Q is related to how one views posited redactional layers in Q. For instance, a stratiographical approach to Q following the work of Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, or the model set forth by Dale C. Allison Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 1–66, and the positing of various, identifiable redactional layers in Q (i.e. Q1, Q2, Q3) can result in the attribution of various parables to various layers of Q, leading to their being numbered and considered first and foremost in relation to other parables in the same posited “layer” (for an eminently helpful overview of the history of research involving the compositional analysis of Q, cf. Kirk, Composition, 2–64). The immense challenges involved in such an endeavor comprise not only the identification of layers, but also the interpretation of them. For instance, Kloppenborg views Q 16:17 as a late gloss to be placed in the final redactional phase, Q3, due to its focus on the centrality of the Torah (Excavating Q, 153). Friedrich Wilhelm Horn offers the diametrically opposed view, placing the verse in the earliest stage of Q (“Das älteste Spruchgut”) precisely because “the frühen Tradenten . . . an der unverbrüchlichen Geltung von Gesetz und Propheten, an jedem Häkchen des Gesetzes auf Ewigkeit fest[halten]” (“Christentum und Judentum in der Logienquelle,” EvT 51 [1991]: 347). In any case, in the present study, I will not be employing such a paradigm and will focus instead upon the “final form” of Q (cf. Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity [Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1996], 79; idem, “Q and the Historical Jesus,” in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung [BZNW 114; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002], 220; and Joseph Verheyden, “Le jugement d’Israël dans la source Q,” in La source des paroles de Jésus [Q]: aux origines du christianisme [ed. Andreas Dettwiler and Daniel Marguerat; MoBi(G) 62; Genéve: Labor et fides, 2008], 197–8). As such, I find myself in agreement with Christopher Tuckett’s views of stratification theories: “I would argue that such theories are too hypothetical to be useful or usable. Undoubtedly individual traditions in Q have their own (possibly very complex) tradition histories, some of which we may be able to trace on the basis of our available evidence; but whether we can identify the literary history of the document Q in the same way seems to me more doubtful. I therefore confine attention here to the Q which is discernible to us in the form in which it was available to Matthew and Luke” (“Q and the ‘Church’:  The Role of the Christian Community within Judaism according to Q,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet [ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997], 67). 3.  Surveys on opinions on these two passages can be found in John S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, & Concordance (FF [Reference series]; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988), 128; and Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 96–8. Concerning 12:13-21, Kloppenborg earlier wrote that “there is even a possibility that the chria in Luke 12:13–14 and the parable of the rich fool (12:15–21) came from Q” (Formation, 216).

Q Parables

25

at Midnight in Lk. 11:5-84 and Be Watchful and Ready in Lk. 12:36-38 (if this is considered to be Sondergut).5 Though arguments have been made both for and against the inclusion of these parables in Q, at the very least it must be said that the primary control for Q material, namely, the double tradition material in Matthew and Luke, is lost by definition when Sondergut comes into consideration. Therefore, it seems, at least from a methodological standpoint, more prudent not to include these parables in a study of the parables in Q and to apply Arland D. Jacobson’s view of the Parable of the Lost Coin, “It is best simply to leave this parable out of consideration for an understanding of Q,” to the other Sondergut parables as well.6 For this reason, no Sondergut passages are found in the table listing the Q parables at the end of Chapter 2. In regard to the latter issue, that is, the “Mark/Q overlaps,” one example is found in the parable of the strong man in Mt. 12:29-30//Lk. 11:21-23. Fleddermann, 4.  The debate surrounding this parable can be followed in David C. Catchpole, “Q and ‘The Friend at Midnight’ (Luke xi. 5–8/9),” JTS 34 (1983):  407–24, who argued for its inclusion in Q; the response by Christopher Tuckett, “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom,” JTS 40 (1989): 367–76; and a rejoinder by Catchpole, “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom: A Rejoinder,” JTS 40 (1989): 377–88. Cf. also the recent discussion by Giovanni B. Bazzana, “Violence and Human Prayer to God in Q 11,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70 (2014): 6–8. Fleddermann considers all three parables not to be present in Q (cf. Q:  Reconstruction, 73–4, 459–61, 594–6, 772–4). 5.  Cf. the comments in n. 2 above and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 251. Tuckett makes the interesting observation that since part of the argument for the inclusion of this parable is that it “coheres so well with other Q material” one can conclude that “at one level, not a great deal is gained in understanding Q by including the parable: it simply confirms the picture already established” (ibid.). 6.  Arland D. Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma:  Polebridge, 1992), 228. Kloppenborg contends that such a minimalist approach to Q “is the simplest approach, but not the most reasonable” because, in this case, it “implicitly rejects the possibility that on occasion Matthew or Luke chose not to include a Q pericope” (Excavating Q, 98–9). This criticism, however, does not seem quite to the point. In my estimation it is certain that at points Matthew and/or Luke chose not to include a Q pericope. Whether or not they did so, however, is not the central issue. Rather, the question is a methodological one in that one must decide whether or not one is willing to take the methodological step of moving outside of the foundational critical control for Q material and apply other considerations for determining Q material (e.g. the often-cited principles set forth in Petros Vassiliadis, “ The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document,” NovT 20 [1978]:  67). To choose not to do so seems, at least to me, imminently reasonable. In this way, only including material common to Matthew and Luke in a study of Q allows one at the very least, as Adela Yarboro Collins puts it, “to avoid undue speculation” (“The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source,” in To Touch the Text:  Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. [ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski; New York:  Polebridge, 1989], 360n1; cf. also Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 96).

26

The Parables in Q

for example, argues that the parable was in Q,7 though others have strongly contested this view.8 At the same time, even if one uses the above-suggested definition of the parables and limits oneself to largely undisputed double tradition material, in some ways the challenge only increases when addressing the question of how one envisions, reconstructs, and “accesses” the text of Q at these points. Rather than at the outset attempting to offer theoretical answers to such questions, it is important to consider the present state of Q scholarship and how these questions have been answered in recent works on Q.  Thus, for example, how is one to understand the statement by Ron Cameron: “It is necessary to be insistent at this point. We do have a text of Q; what we do not have is a manuscript”?9 Clearly, a particular conception of “text” and a definite perspective on how to access this “text” must underlie such an assertion.10 Though Cameron does not offer specifics, insights into the present paradigm for Q reconstructions can be found by considering the significant, and fairly recent, publications The Critical Edition of Q (CEQ) and Fleddermann’s Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary.11 7.  Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 484–8; idem, “Mark’s Use of Q:  The Beelzebul Controversy and the Cross Saying,” in Jesus, Mark, and Q:  The Teaching of Jesus and Its Earliest Record (ed. Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt; JSNTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 17–33; and idem, Mark and Q:  A Study of the Overlap Texts (BETL 122; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1995), 54–5. Cf. also Josef Schmid, Matthäus und Lukas: Eine Untersuchung des Verhältnisses ihrer Evangelien (BibS[F] 23; Freiburg:  Herder, 1930), 292–3; and Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (WUNT 2.54; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 111. It is also included in Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q:  Textheft zur Logienquelle (2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 52. Cf. further the comments in Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980), 84, 130–1. Manson argued that one may “though with some hesitation, assign Lk. 1121f. to Q” (Sayings, 85). Kloppenborg states that “it is possible that the parable of the stronger man (11:21–22) followed [11:20] in Q” (Formation, 125). 8.  Cf., e.g., Frans Neirynck, “The Sayings Source Q and the Gospel of Mark,” in Geschichte  – Tradition  – Reflexion:  Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer; 3 vols; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 3:127; idem, “Assessment,” in Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 271. Cf. also Lührmann, Redaktion, 33 and Siegfried Schulz, Q:  Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 205. 9.  Ron Cameron, “The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus:  A Response to John S. Kloppenborg,” HTR 89 (1996): 352. 10. A similar observation can be made of Michael Labahn’s statement that though Q is “eine rekonstruierte Quelle im Rahmen einer Theorie der synoptischen Frage,” as a symbol “steht [Q] aber auch für mehr, nämlich für einen  – durch Rekonstruktion und kritische Diskussion gewonnenen – Text” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 259). 11. James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:  Fortress,

Q Parables

27

Right at the outset of the preface to the CEQ, James Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg indicate to the reader, “The text of Q need no longer be just an imaginary black box lurking somewhere behind certain Matthean and Lukan verses as their source, but can emerge as a text in its own right.”12 Toward the conclusion of Robinson’s introductory essay to the CEQ, “History of Q Research,” he observes:  “Whereas in previous generations the trend had been to leave open the exact wording, and refer only to the verses ‘behind’ which a Q saying lurks, there has been, during the time when the International Q Project has been doing its work, a striking escalation of efforts, even outside that context, to reconstruct the actual wording of Q.” 13 Though it is important to recognize that there is considerable sophistication and nuance concerning the goal of the CEQ,14 it is also evident that the ultimate intention is to present the “exact” and “actual” wording of the Q text as it is uncovered from “behind” the verses and words of Matthew and Luke. In the final pages of the over 200-page introduction found in Q:  A Reconstruction and Commentary, Fleddermann offers a summary of the development of the methodology of reconstructing Q that has occurred since Harnack offered the first Greek reconstruction of Q at the beginning of the twentieth century.15 In essence, the evolution of the methodology can

2000); and Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction. It is worth noting that the question of the reconstruction of Q remains a current topic within Q scholarship as evidenced, for example, by Paul Foster’s paper “The Extent of the Recoverable Q Material” presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA, in November 2010. 12. CEQ, xv; emphasis added. 13. Ibid., lxix. 14. For example, Robinson also explicitly states, “It is not to be assumed that the present text is a last word” (ibid., lxxi). Elsewhere Kloppenborg has written: “What deserves to be underscored, I think, is that the ‘reconstruction’ of any source text—Q, the Two Ways document of the Didache, the base document of 1QS—is a heuristic exercise which posits an imaginary source that accounts for the subsequent textual developments which (we think) occurred, not an archaeological excavation of a buried document” (John Kloppenborg, review of Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, eds, Questioning Q:  A Multidimensional Critique, BTB 36 [2006]:  43). Cf. also Robinson, “A Critical Text of the Sayings Gospel Q,” in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays (ed. Christoph Heil and Joseph Verheyden; BETL 189; Leuven:  Peeters, 2005), 309–17; John S. Kloppenborg, “Goulder and the New Paradigm: A Critical Appreciation of Michael Goulder on the Synoptic Problem,” in The Gospels According to Michael Goulder:  A North American Response (ed. Christopher A. Rollston; Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2002), 43–44n32; and idem, Q: The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 51–5. 15.  Cf. Fleddermann, Q, 202–203. Harnack’s work was originally published in German as Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die Zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas (Leipzig:  J. C. Hinrichs, 1907).

28

The Parables in Q

be summarized through the contributions of five key figures. First, Harnack began by reconstructing the passages where Matthew and Luke agree closely, then moved to more difficult passages, and finally considered the most difficult ones. At each stage he attempted to incorporate insights from the previous stage, thus applying the insights gained in clearer instances to more difficult instances.16 Second, J.  C. Hawkins cataloged the characteristic vocabulary of the Synoptic Gospels in order to discover the set of preferred terms for each Gospel writer.17 Third, Henry J. Cadbury expanded the analysis beyond words to issues of grammar and style so as to better understand a writer’s literary profile.18 Fourth, Josef Schmid studied how Matthew and Luke used Mark in order to apply the knowledge of their editorial tendencies in cases where they depend on Q but transmit different wordings.19 Finally, Lambrecht combined the results of previous studies by bringing together the characteristic vocabulary and style of the Synoptic writers with their redactional tendencies and aims.20 Fleddermann offers his conclusion: “By combining the statistical method with redaction criticism Lambrecht forged a tool that would prove adequate to reconstruct the original wording of Q.”21 Once again, the goal is to offer the “original” wording of a written document by sifting through Matthew and Luke. Significantly, it is readily apparent that the paradigm for approaching Q is a source-critical and redaction-critical one, that is, a study of the Synoptic sources and their use is the path that leads to the wording, or “the text,” of Q.  Classic, in this sense, as it relates to work on Q parables, is the 1987 article by Wendy J. Cotter on the Parable of the Children in the Marketplace.22 The first third of the article is devoted to reconstructing the wording of Q, and then, as a subsequent step, interpretive options of that reconstructed text are considered. More recently,

16. Cf. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden, 202. 17.  Cf. J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae:  Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), 3–53. 18.  Cf. Henry J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1920), 73–6. 19. Cf. Schmid, Matthäus und Lukas, 183–91. 20.  Cf. Jan Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 3–8. 21.  Fleddermann, Q, 28; emphasis added. Simon J. Joseph provides a similar perspective in summary form: “The high degree of verbal agreements between Matthew and Luke, the presence of numerous peculiar phrases in Q, and the identification of Matthean and Lukan redactional habits in syntax, vocabulary and theology, have all led to the conclusion that Matthean and Lukan ‘fingerprints’ can be identified and a critical Greek text of Q (re)constructed” (Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls [WUNT 2.333; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2012], 37–8). 22. Wendy J. Cotter, “The Parable of the Children in the Market-Place, Q (Lk) 7:31–35: An Examination of the Parable’s Image and Significance,” NovT 29 (1987): 289–304.

Q Parables

29

Heil, in his consideration of the Parable of the Entrusted Money, has asserted that the parable “muss . . . in ihrem wahrscheinlichen Wortlaut rekonstruiert werden. Dann erst kann sinnvoll untersucht werden, was die Parabel denn eigentlich erzählt.”23 As revealed in these citations and articles, the goal in the most recent Q reconstructions and in many corners of Q scholarship remains reconstructing the “exact,” “actual,” or “original” wording regardless of the precise extent to which one believes it can actually be achieved. Therefore, it is not only the question, “How close have these works come to reconstructing the original wording of Q?” that presents itself, but also the fundamental methodological question, “Does the methodology employed in Q reconstructions result in the discovery of the original wording of Q?”24 It must be noted that on a theoretical level it is recognized, as Kloppenborg puts it, that when Matthew and Luke disagree, “either Matthew or Luke (or both) have adapted the text redactionally.”25 Furthermore, again citing Kloppenborg, “there are instances where both versions [i.e. Matthew and Luke] betray the editorial interests of the evangelists and hence, the original wording of Q may be irrecoverable.”26 Or, as Robinson puts it, “if the Lucan reading is shown not to be that of Q, it does not necessarily follow that the Matthean reading is that of Q, since it is quite possible that neither reading is that of Q.”27 Similarly, it is interesting to follow Fleddermann’s line of thought when it comes to reconstructing the wording of Q. He begins by stating, “Determining the original extent and order of Q seems complicated, but these two tasks pale into insignificance when we turn to the original wording.”28 The tremendous 23. Christoph Heil, “Was erzählt die Parabel vom anvertrauten Geld? Sozio-historische und theologische Aspekte von Q 19,12-26,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn), 339. 24.  Michael Goulder repeatedly argued that a faulty methodology is employed by the reconstruction of the IQP, namely, that there is an underlying assumption that “Matthew’s language and Q’s language are different” (“The Derrenbacker-Kloppenborg Defense,” JBL 121 [2002]:  332; cf. earlier idem, “Is Q a Juggernaut?” JBL 115 [1996]:  667–81; and idem, “Self-Contradiction in the IQP,” JBL 118 [1999]:  506–17). I am not persuaded that this accusation holds (cf. Robert A. Derrenbacker Jr. and John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, “Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder,” JBL 120 [2001]: 57–76) and therefore the question must be considered from a different vantage point. 25. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 103. 26. Ibid., 101. Kloppenborg had earlier stated that “it is beyond the reasonable expectations of modern scholarship to determine the exact wording and the exact position of every Q pericope. It is impossible, for example, to rule out the possibility that both Matthew and Luke occasionally altered the wording and location of some sayings” (Formation, 41). 27. Robinson, “A Critical Text,” 313. 28. Fleddermann, Q, 201. On the radically differing views in the literature on the original extent and order of Q, cf. already Stewart Petrie, “‘Q’ is Only What You Make It,” NovT 3 (1959):  28–33. David R.  Catchpole, commenting on the Mission Discourse, also notes the difficulty of reconstructing the wording of Q by observing that “the reconstruction of

30

The Parables in Q

challenge here is that in order to reconstruct the original wording of Q “we must resolve all the differences, the variants or variation units as they’re called, between Matthew and Luke.”29 Shortly thereafter Fleddermann notes, “At times so many variants pile up in a single verse the reconstructor despairs of finding an underlying Q text” and goes on to state that “neither Matthew nor Luke consistently preserves the original wording, so we have to approach each variant without prejudicing the decision in Matthew’s favor or Luke’s.”30 Fleddermann then concludes: “The reconstruction in the present volume uses the methodology that has evolved over the past century to resolve all the variants between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition and to provide a continuous Greek text of Q with the arguments that led to the reconstruction.”31 At this point it is instructive to consider Kloppenborg’s observation:  “Given the fact that the reconstruction of Q begins from the vocabulary and syntax of Matthew and Luke, Q’s vocabulary and syntax will inevitably resemble either or both of the later gospels.”32 It is precisely here that a highly problematic phenomenon can be observed. Despite the theoretical caveats stated above by the CEQ editors and Fleddermann, on the practical level it seems that “resemble” is a rather large understatement, for in the actual wording of Q reconstructions, one

the original Q text is not easy, never has been, and never will be, and the arguments set out below have to be expressed with proper tentativeness” (The Quest for Q [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993], 151). 29.  Fleddermann, Q, 201. A  different approach to the variations between Matthew and Luke is offered by Daniel Kosch:  “Im Verlauf meiner Arbeit an Texten aus Q bin ich zur Auffassung gelangt, dass es in der Regel nicht unmöglich ist, einen Mt und Lk vorausliegenden gemeinsamen Q-Text zu rekonstruieren, auch wenn dabei immer wieder Unsicherheiten in Kauf zu nehmen sind. Bei der Untersuchung der Differenzen zwischen der Mt- und der Lk-Fassung zeigt es sich allerdings relativ häufig, dass diese sich nicht, oder zumindest nicht eindeutig, auf den jeweiligen Endredaktor zurückführen lassen, so dass in der Tat mit der Existenz unterschiedlicher Q-Rezensionen (QMt/QLk) zu rechnen ist. Als Q-Fassung eines Textes ist deshalb das letzte Stadium seiner Traditionsgeschichte vor ihrem Auseinanderfallen in einen zu Mt und einen zu Lk hinführenden Zweig zu bezeichnen” (Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q [NTOA 12; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  1989], 32; cf. also idem, “Q:  Rekonstruktion und Interpretation:  Eine methodenkritische Hinführung mit einem Exkurs zur Q-Vorlage des Lk,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 36 [1989]:  412–16). Kosch’s view seems to be that one is first confronted with QMt and QLk (found, respectively, in redacted form in Matthew and Luke) and that not everything found in QMt and QLk was ultimately found in Q. Peeling away two layers in order to arrive at Q clearly involves a very optimistic view of one’s ability to reconstruct sources and identify Matthean and Lukan redaction in Q material. 30. Fleddermann, Q, 201 and 202. 31. Ibid., 203. 32. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 101n99; emphasis added.

Q Parables

31

finds essentially “precisely and only” either or both the vocabulary and syntax of Matthew and Luke. Whether Matthew and Luke have approximately 20 percent (the parallels for Q 6:47-49), 60 percent (the parallels for Q 7:31-35), 80 percent (the parallels for Q 10:2), or 98 percent (the parallels for Q 16:13) of their texts verbatim, the reconstructions found in the CEQ and Fleddermann contain texts that reflect nearly 100  percent agreement with the words of either Matthew or Luke. For this reason, the reader of the CEQ or Fleddermann’s work is given the strong impression that within individual pericopae the entirety of Q’s wording can be found in an eclectic combination of Matthew and Luke.33 Perhaps the clearest and most striking way to make the point is by not only presenting the statistics for a few passages as found above, but also providing the data for the wording of the reconstructed Q texts for the list of Q parables spoken by Jesus as found in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu.34 In the following table, the Q text is listed in the first column. The second column provides statistical information concerning the Matthew/Luke agreements in the form x/y/z, where “x” is the number of verbatim words appearing in the same order, “y” is the number of verbatim words irrespective of order, and “z” is the number of verbatim and similar words (i.e. the same root though with a variant case, verbal tense, or number, spelling, etc.). This is followed by the total number of words in Matthew (M) and the percentage of that total represented by the numbers x/y/z and the total number

33.  This impression is only furthered by the fact that since the CEQ and Fleddermann are working within essentially the same methodological paradigm, their word-level reconstructions are very similar. As Kloppenborg noted, Fleddermann’s “reconstruction of the wording of Q differs little from that of the IQP and where there are differences, little or nothing hangs on those differences from an exegetical point of view” (review of Harry T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, BTB 37 [2007]: 137). 34.  Cf. Zimmermann et  al., eds, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, 59–60, and the list found in the previous chapter in n.  13. Important to note here is that these statistics are not being employed within the context of debates concerning the Synoptic Problem and the existence of Q as in, e.g., the series of exchanges:  Theodore R. Roscheé, “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis,” JBL 79 (1960):  210–20; A. M. Honoré, “A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem,” NovT 10 (1968):  95–147; Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, “Once More: Statistics in Q,” HTR 64 (1971):  59–78; John J. O’Rourke, “Some Observations on the Synoptic Problem and the Use of Statistical Procedures,” NovT 16 (1974): 272–7; Sharon L. Mattila, “A Problem Still Clouded: Yet Again—Statistics and ‘Q,’” NovT 36 (1994):  314–29; Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, “Statistics and Q—Some Further Observations,” NovT 41 (1999): 108–23; Sharon L. Mattila, “Negotiating the Clouds Around Statistics and ‘Q’: A Rejoinder and Independent Analysis,” NovT 46 (2004): 105–31; and the excellent overview and summary in John Poirier, “Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreements and Their Impact on the Synoptic Problem,” CBR 7 (2008):  68–123. Nor are they being used to question when a parallel is actually a parallel (cf. Blomberg, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?,” 78–103). Rather, the point here is to highlight issues related to the word-level reconstruction of Q.

32

The Parables in Q

of words in Luke (L) and the percentages of that total represented by the numbers x/y/z.35 The third column gives the number of words in the Q reconstruction of the CEQ and then notes the percentage of those words that are from Matthew or Luke. Within brackets it is noted how many words are placed within double square brackets, indicating the reading is “probable but uncertain.”36 Within angled brackets (< >) the number of emended readings, either a “blank” emendation by omitting words or a “filled” emendation where a word is reconstructed that is found in neither Matthew nor Luke, are noted. The numbers within parentheses indicate the number of words found in Matthew (M) and Luke (L) at points where an ellipsis is written to indicate that no wording for Q was reconstructed. In the final column, Fleddermann’s reconstruction is considered; however, since he utilizes far fewer critical markings, only the total number of words and percentage of them drawn from Matthew or Luke, along with the number of words found in Matthew (M) or Luke (L) when no text is reconstructed, is listed. Q Text

Mt./Lk. Verbatim

CEQ

Q: A Reconstruction

Q 6:39

5/5/6: M 15 (33%/33%/40%); L 15 (33%/33%/40%) 10/10/10: M 28 (36%/36%/36%); L 14 (71%/71%/71%) 47/51/58: M 65 (72%/80%/91%); L 69 (68%/74%/84%) 29/34/42: M 67 (43%/51%/63%); L 63(46%/54%/63%) 20/20/30: M 98 (20%/20%/31%); L 86 (23%/23%/35%) 43/46/58: M 65 (66%/71%/89%); L 76 (57%/61%/76%) 20/21/22: M 26 (77%/81%/85%); L 25 (80%/84%/88%)

10, 100%

10, 100%

15, 100% [5]

27, 96%

59, 100% [3] (M 4, L 6)

65, 100%

57, 98% [5]

60, 100%

91, 100% [20] (2M, 2L)

92, 97%

68, 97% [4] (1M, 1L)

70, 100%

24, 100% (1M, 1L)

26, 92%

Q 6:40

Q 6:41–42

Q 6:43-45

Q 6:47-49

Q 7:31-35

Q 10:2

35.  Though the statistics found in Robert Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse (Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1971), 258–61, remain useful, greater precision and the inclusion of more categories (verbatim, same word but different order, similar word) are provided here. The word counts are based on the CEQ parallels and are facilitated by the detailed sigla used in that work. 36. Cf. CEQ, lxxxii.

Q Parables

33

Q Text

Mt./Lk. Verbatim

CEQ

Q: A Reconstruction

Q 10:2237

24/24/29: M 33 (73%/73%/88%); L 34 (71%/71%/85%) 51/56/58: M 74 (69%/76%/78%); L 75 (68%/75%/77%) 65/72/75: M 115 (57%/63%/65%); L 112 (58%/64%/67%) 48/53/54: M 68 (71%/78%/79%); L 56 (86%/95%/96%) 7/8/9: M 20 (35%/40%/45%); L 20 (35%/40%/45%) 31/32/33: M 45 (69%/71%/73%); L 40 (78%/80%/83%) 46/51/57: M 82 (56%/62%/70%); L 79 (58%/65%/72%) 28/29/31: M 39 (72%/74%/79%); L 34 (82%/85%/91%) 79/83/87: M 111 (71%/75%/78%); L 106 (75%/78%/82%)

32, 100% [2]

32, 97%

72, 100% (1M, 1L)

72, 99%

97, 99% [3]

97, 99%

57, 100% [1]

56, 100%

19, 95% [9]

41, 95% [1] (2M, 2L)

21, 95%

17/23/30: M 43 (40%/53%/70%); L 49 (35%/47%/61%) 18/20/22: M 50 (36%/40%/44%); L 40 (45%/50%/55%) 15/15/17: M 19 (79%/79%/89%); L 21 (71%/71%/81%)

44, 98% [9] (1M, 2L)

45, 93%

38, 100% [1]

40, 95%

21, 100%

24, 96%

Q 11:9-13

Q 11:14-15, 17-20 Q 11:24-26

Q 11:33 Q 11:34-3538

Q 12:24, 26-28 Q 12:39-40

Q 12:42-46

Q 12:54-5639 Q 12:58-59

Q 13:18-19

Q 13:20-21

44, 100%

73, 100% [5]

75, 100%

34, 100% [2]

34, 100%

101, 100% [11] 103, 100%

37.  As noted at the conclusion of the previous chapter, n.  55, this verse is not a parable in Q. 38. As noted at the conclusion of the previous chapter, n. 56, I do not see adequate narrativity in these verses to consider the content to be a parable in Q. 39.  Due to the text-critical question surrounding the authenticity of this passage in Matthew, I have not included the statistics for these verses. They are reconstructed in double

34

The Parables in Q

Q Text

Mt./Lk. Verbatim

CEQ

Q: A Reconstruction

Q 13:24-2740

21/21/27: M 130 (16%/16%/21%); L 76 (28%/28%/36%) 11/12/17: M 150 (7%/8%/11%); L 145 (8%/8%/12%) 10/10/11: M 26 (38%/38%/42%); L 29 (34%/34%/38%) 19/22/29: M 48 (40%/46%/60%); L 53 (36%/42%/55%) 27/27/27: M 27 (100%/100%/100%); L 28 (96%/96%/96%) 6/7/11: M 21 (29%/33%/52%); L 30 (20%/23%/37%) 5/6/6: M 9 (56%/67%/67%); L 9 (56%/67%/67%) 36/49/60: M 282 (13%/17%/21%); L 234(15%/21%/26%)

73, 96% [19]

66, 91% (31M, 16L)

55, 96% [8] (26M, 50L) 22, 100% [4]

108, 88% (18M, 8L)

45, 98% [9] 41

55, 100%

27, 100%

27, 100%

22, 100% [3]

21, 100% (1M, 5L)

7, 100%

9, 100%

180, 98% [38] (39M, 28L)

237, 78% (12M, 2L)

Q 14:16-23

Q 14:34-35

Q 15:4-5a, 7

Q 16:13

Q 17:34-35

Q 17:37 Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26

22, 100%

In my estimation, these examples reveal a significant problem in reconstructions of the wording of Q as they evidence the manner in which, on the practical level of actually reconstructing the text, it appears that the operative assumption is not only that Matthew and Luke have preserved the wording of Q when they agree in their wording, but also that when Matthew and square brackets in the CEQ and not reconstructed by Fleddermann. The textual uncertainty at this point has led me not to include this parable in the discussion of the Q parables. Though some have argued for the presence of the parable in Q, Lührmann expresses the perspective of many scholars when contending “die Verse Mt 16,2b.3 fehlen in den wichtigsten Handschriften und sind ad vocem ‘Zeichen’ sekundär aus Lk 12,54-56 eingedrungen” (Redaktion, 35–36n8). For references to those affirming and those denying the presence of the passage in Q, cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, 152n219. 40. As noted at the conclusion of the previous chapter, uncertainty regarding the form of this parable in Q led me to not consider it in this study. 41. The angle brackets in the reconstructed text of the CEQ are blank, and their presence is explained by emendations suggested in the IQP reconstruction. The editors of the CEQ list these conjectural emendations and label them as “indeterminate” (CEQ, 480).

Q Parables

35

Luke disagree in their wording either Matthew or Luke has somehow preserved the wording of Q.42 Thus, resolving the variation between Matthew and Luke essentially reduces to following the wording of either Matthew or Luke, even if eclectically. Or, using Robinson’s terminology, though it is theoretically “quite possible” that neither Matthew nor Luke contains the reading of Q, in practice the impression is given that this possibility almost never actually occurs on the word level.43 In other words, though Matthew and Luke are viewed as having redacted Q, their redaction did not eradicate the words of Q—one simply has to figure out which words in Matthew and Luke are “Q words” and how to combine them. Furthermore, since the reconstructed text then essentially does not, and without conjecture indeed cannot, offer any wording beyond the wording found in either Matthew or Luke, the abovementioned impression that within individual pericopae the entirety of Q’s wording can be found through an eclectic combination of Matthew and Luke seems unavoidable.44 This impression, however, is, in numerous cases, likely incorrect. 42. The notes that accompany the reconstruction in CEQ, e.g., constantly query “Luke’s X or Matthew’s Y?” reinforcing the impression that it is always either one or the other that contains the wording of Q, and never really neither. Michael Wolter has also drawn attention to this problem in “Reconstructing Q?,” ExpTim 115 (2004): 115–19; and idem, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 13. 43. It is also interesting to note the direction in which changes in wording found in The Critical Edition of Q (CEQ) went when compared with the text as reconstructed by the IQP and published in JBL between 1990 and 1997. In the comparison done by Frans Neirynck, in fifty-two instances where the IQP text contained ellipses (undecided with regard to Mt/Lk variants) for letters, in forty-seven instances CEQ replaced the ellipses with the reading from Matthew or Luke (though often with double square brackets [cf. the comment referenced by n. 36 above]) and in fifty cases of ellipses for words in the IQP text, thirty-five (sixteen in double square brackets) are replaced by the Lukan or Matthean parallel (“The Reconstruction of Q and IQP/CritEd Parallels,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus [ed. Andreas Lindemann], 64–8). Cf. also the comments on the differences between the IQP text and the CEQ by Marco Frenschkowski, “Kyrios in Context: Q 6:46, the Emperor as ‘Lord,’ and the Political Implications of Christology in Q,” in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und Römische Herrschaft: Vorträge auf der Ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies (ed. Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg; TANZ 36; Tübingen: A. Franke, 2002), 102. One may therefore be inclined to ask why, when Robinson writes of “a sliding scale, from relatively certain readings, where Matthew and Luke agree, or when it is easy to identify which has retained Q and which has edited out the Q wording, to readings that can no longer be recovered, because a choice between the Matthean and Lucan wording cannot be reached, or because both have edited out the Q wording” (“Critical Text,” 311) there seem to be so few readings judged to be at the latter end of the scale? 44.  A similar assumption appears to underlie Frenschkowski’s statement, “I take for granted that Q was a Greek language document roughly identical with the text we can reconstruct from Matthew and Luke,” even though there is some ambiguity concerning what, precisely, “roughly identical” means (“Kyrios in Context,” 95).

36

The Parables in Q

Though a full discussion cannot be presented here, perhaps the most convincing manner to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem is by considering the only possible point of comparison, namely, the “thought experiment” of reconstructing the text of Mark based on Matthew and Luke, as presented in a critical edition. This experiment has been suggested by numerous other scholars45 and was carried out in detail by Joseph Allen Weaks in his 2010 doctoral dissertation.46 The point of particular interest here is not simply the reconstruction of the general content of Mark; rather, it is the reconstructed wording of Mark.47 Of course, the benefit that such a reconstruction has is that we actually possess a text of Mark with which to compare the results and thereby gain insight into how close a reconstruction could come to the “exact,” “actual,” or “original” text, again at least as it is conceived of in a critical edition.48 Overall, Weaks has shown that by verse count 63 percent of Mark is found in the “Mark” that can be reconstructed from Matthew and Luke (418 of 661 verses),

45. Cf., e.g., with slightly different emphases and purposes, Craig Evans, “Authenticating the Words of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; NTTS 28; Leiden:  Brill, 1999), 3–14; C. S. Rodd, “The End of the Theology of Q?,” ExpTim 113 (2001): 5–12; idem, “The Theology of Q Yet Again: A Reply to the Responses of Christopher Tuckett and Paul Foster,” ExpTim 114 (2002): 80–5; Eric Eve, “Challenging Q,” ExpTim 113 (2002):  408–409; and idem, “Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment,” in Questioning Q (ed. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin; London: SPCK, 2004), 89–114. Often overlooked in discussions of this “thought experiment” is F.  Crawford Burkitt, who as early as 1906 observed, “We see, clearly enough, that we could not have reconstructed the Gospel according to S. Mark out of the other two Synoptic Gospels, although between them nearly all of Mark has been incorporated by Matthew and Luke. How futile, therefore, it is to attempt to reconstruct those other literary sources which seem to have been used by Matthew and Luke, but have not been independently preserved” (The Gospel History and Its Transmission [Edinburgh:  T&T Clark,  1906], 17; cf. idem, review of Adolf von Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, JTS 31 [1907]:  454–9). Nearly a century later, Jens Schröter similarly concludes, “Der Versuch, Mk aus Mt und Lk zu rekonstruieren, würde unweigerlich zu einem Text führen, der in erheblicher Weise von demjenigen abweicht, den wir aus den Manuskripten des MkEv erheben” (Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie:  Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens [BThS 47; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2001], 94–5). 46.  Joseph Allen Weaks, “Mark without Mark:  Problematizing the Reliability of a Reconstructed Text of Q” (PhD diss., Brite Divinity School, 2010). 47. Kloppenborg, e.g., in an admittedly introductory discussion, mentions only the issue of omitted pericopae and statistics concerning verses; he makes no mention of the issue of precise wording (Q: Earliest Gospel, 45). 48.  It is important to remember that a critical Greek NT is not actually a text that is anywhere extant. It is critically and eclectically reconstructed from the manuscript tradition and only corresponds to a theoretical “historical” text. Recent trends in textual criticism have thus moved away from speaking of an original text and have begun referring to the reconstruction of an Ausgangstext, i.e., the earliest accessible text given the present

Q Parables

37

but that by word count it is only 52 percent (5,754 of 11,105 words).49 At the same time, the number of words at least partially doubly attested in Matthew and Luke is only 2,743, or only 25 percent of canonical Mark.50 When considering specifically the parables in the triple tradition, with a “parable” defined as above and simply using the text of NA28 for heuristic purposes, there are parables in which the entirety of the Markan wording is found in either Matthew or Luke. Thus, assuming that when a difference between Matthew and Luke exists, the correct decision is made in each case as to the wording of the source,51 the 18 words of Mk 10:15 (Mt. 18:3//Lk. 18:17; the Lukan verse follows Mark verbatim) and the 30 words of Mk 13:28-29 (Mt. 24:32-33//Lk. 21:29-31) could theoretically be reconstructed.52 The situation, however, becomes significantly more complex when considering parables with more extended wording. For example, if one considers the Parable of the Sower in Mk 4:3-9 (Mt. 13:3-9//Lk. 8:5-8) only 71 of Mark’s 104 words are found verbatim in either Matthew or Luke. In the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Mk 12:1-11 (Mt. 21:33-44//Lk. 20:9-16) only 103 of Mark’s 156 words are found verbatim in either Matthew or Luke. C.  S. Rodd discussed various problems in regard to reconstructing this parable in Mark (i.e. the introduction, the listing of the three sendings in Luke versus the summary in Matthew, different wordings, and the conclusion),53 to which can be added that both Mt. 21:39 and Lk. 20:15 have the tenants throw the heir out of the vineyard before they kill him—the reverse of the order in Mk 12:8.54 The vital point to recognize is that in the case of these two triple-tradition parables, fully one-fourth or one-third of Mark’s words, respectively, are impossible to reconstruct from Matthew or Luke because they are not found in either Matthew or Luke.55 manuscript evidence. A brief but helpful caution related to this issue and the study of Q can be found in David C. Parker, review of David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q, SJT 50 (1997): 507–508. 49. Weaks, “Mark without Mark,” 230. 50. Ibid., 242. 51. This “correct decision” would involve not only deciding if Matthew or Luke is following Mark, but also determining which words in Matthew or Luke to omit. 52. The verbs γένηται and ἐκφύῃ in Mk 13:28, however, could not be placed correctly in the verse apart from conjectured changes to the Matthean word order. 53. Cf. Rodd, “End of Theology?,” 7. 54. This particular “minor agreement” simply highlights the fact that every “minor agreement” would be interpreted as definitely present in Mark, even though, by definition, the modern eclectic text of Mark at each and every one of these points disagrees with Matthew and Luke. For this reason, I also find Markus Tiwald’s statement quite problematic: “Dort, wo MtEv und LkEv über den Mk-Text hinaus wortwörtlich miteinander übereinstimmen, macht die Wiederherstellung des verlorenen Textes keine Schwierigkeiten – hier haben Mt und Lk ihre Q-Vorlage offenbar wörtlich übernommen” (Die Logienquelle Q: Text, Kontext, Theologie [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016], 25). This is only the case if one assumes that there is never a “minor agreement” between Matthew and Luke against Q. 55. Though Snodgrass comes from a position of significantly greater skepticism, I am at least somewhat sympathetic with the conclusion of his sentence: “I am not convinced of the

38

The Parables in Q

Of course, cautions about the precision of the reconstructed text of Q have been noted previously by other scholars. Several decades ago Olof Linton stated, “In a case where the version of ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ are especially closely related, it could be reasonable to ask for the common prototype of both (as I have tried to do above), even though I think that we should be reluctant to produce reconstructions and even more reluctant to believe in them.”56 Regarding more recent work on Q, Martin Hengel, who clearly had a negative view of the CEQ as a “Kunstprodukt,”57 stated that this work is “gewiß in vielerlei Weise nützlich, bringt aber als Konstruktion von Q die Gefahr einer unkritischen Verwendung mit sich . . . Jetzt besteht die Gefahr, daß dieser künstlich hergestellte Text zitiert wird wie der Nestle-Aland und eine Sicherheit vorgaukelt, die in keiner Weise besteht.”58 Similar sentiments have been expressed in reviews of the CEQ by Fleddermann, who sees a real danger in Q studies suffering a setback in that “scholars, frustrated with the difficulties of reconstructing Q, will simply quote the CritEd as the received text of Q.”59 Fleddermann’s publication of his own Q reconstruction was clearly not derailed by the appearance of the CEQ and one wonders if the same existence of Q, but even if it did exist in some form, the procedure used in reconstructing or determining original forms is not trustworthy” (Stories with Intent, 222). 56. Olof Linton, “The Parable of the Children’s Game: Baptist and Son of Man (Matt. XI. 16–19=Luke VII. 31–5): A Synoptic Text-Critical, Structural and Exegetical Investigation,” NTS 22 (1976): 165. 57.  Cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (vol. 1 of Geschichte des frühen Christentums; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 187n62. For Hengel’s general skepticism concerning the ability to reconstruct Q, cf. “Der Lukasprolog und seine Augenzeugen: Die Apostel, Petrus und die Frauen,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (ed. Loren T.  Stuckenbruck, Stephen C.  Barton, and Benjamin G.  Wold; WUNT 212; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 211; and idem, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ:  An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (Harrisburg:  Trinity, 2000), 178, 206. Cf. also James D.  G. Dunn’s comments that it is “exceedingly difficult” to reconstruct Q “with much confidence on many textual details” (Jesus Remembered [vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2003], 149). Though Dunn is perhaps too quick to move in the direction of “oral dependency” in Mt./Lk. double tradition (cf. n. 65 below), he also raises a series of important questions regarding how a literary “default setting” has affected Q scholarship in his article “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,” NTS 49 (2003): 139–75. 58. Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, 224–25n149. 59. Harry T. Fleddermann, review of the CEQ, CBQ 64 (2002): 392. Along similar lines, Christopher Tuckett observes, “As far as the text of Q itself is concerned [in the CEQ], one must say that the text given is certainly one possibility, but only one possibility!” and prefers to speak of “A Critical Edition of Q” that “cannot claim to be ‘the’ critical edition if this implies that the burden of proof should now lie with those who wish to argue for a different reconstruction at any point” (Review of the CEQ, JTS 53 [2002]: 631; cf. also Julian V. Hills, review of the CEQ, TS 63 [2002]: 387).

Q Parables

39

concern could not be expressed concerning his own 2005 reconstruction. Labahn also cautions that the text should not be confused with an “unhinterfragbaren textus receptus.”60 At the same time, it is at least interesting to note that though it is not an uncritical appropriation, there does in some measure seem to be a scholarly trend essentially to accept the CEQ text as the basis for subsequent Q studies. For the parables, at least, this is the case for the brief study by Heil,61 for the studies found in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu,62 and for the study by Labahn.63 Of course, the CEQ can be employed in different ways, and following the reconstruction as a general guide for passages in Q can still be embraced as eminently useful, even if one questions the full validity of exegeting, as it were, the words of the CEQ reconstruction.64

3.2 New Approaches in Studying the “Text” of Q It is important to note that although I am arguing that scholarship should be rather more skeptical about the wording of Q, I am not advocating the position that Q

60.  Michael Labahn, review of the CEQ, OLZ 97 (2002):  773. Cf. also his reiteration of this warning in “Das Reich Gottes,” 259–60n2; and idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (ABIG 32; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 134–6. Cf. also the discussions in Frédéric Amsler, “Comment le texte de la Source a-t-il été reconstruit? Notes sur l’histoire des editions de Q,” in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q):  Aux origins du christianisme (ed. Andreas Dettwiler and Daniel Marguerat; MoBi[G] 62; Geneva:  Labor et fides, 2008), 71–2; Gabi Kern’s observations in the “Einleitung” to the Q section in Kompendium, 51–2; Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency (WUNT 195; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 284–5; and Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 13–14. Peter Head and Peter Williams explicitly question whether the wording of Q can ever be reconstructed with any certainty (“Q Review,” TynBul 54 [2003]: 125). 61. Heil simply states that the CEQ text is “vorausgesetzt” (“Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension,” 650n7). 62.  In the “Leseanleitung zum Kompendium,” Zimmermann observes that in the CEQ reconstruction “zwar einige Probleme und Unsicherheiten von Q evident werden,” but that the CEQ “insgesamt doch eine brauchbare Arbeitshypothese darstellt” (Kompendium, 31). With this embracing of the CEQ text as a “working hypothesis,” the CEQ wording is used for every Q parable discussed. 63.  Labahn notes that since his study is considering the way in which Q, in “der Bildersprache Jesu,” expresses a particular “Sinnkosmos” it “beschäftigt sich daher mit der Textgestalt, die sich aufgrund der literarkritischen Analyse aus Matthäus und Lukas erschließen lässt, und zwar unter Verwendung von The Critical Edition of Q als jeweils kritisch geprüfter Textbasis” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 262–3). 64. It should be noted that in some ways Labahn is already pressing in this direction as he approaches the parables, as found in Q, literarily—through narrative criticism and the performative use of metaphors (“Das Reich Gottes,” 263–4).

40

The Parables in Q

was not a written text or that it is completely inaccessible.65 Nor would I want to restrict analysis of Q to those texts where very high verbal agreement perhaps creates less doubt about the wording of Q.66 Rather, I  would advocate that though appreciating and appropriating the insights gleaned through the source-critical and redaction-critical model of approaching Q,67 the way forward is to broaden our conception of “textual reconstruction.” Such a shift in thinking would result in approaching the “text” of the Q parables via the words of Matthew and Luke, not in order to seek to recover the precise, original words of Q, but to recover insight into the source that presented itself as useful to Matthew and Luke through an analysis focusing particularly on metaphors and images along with literary and narratival elements.68 Of course, such an analysis cannot function on an entirely “wordless”

65.  Still persuasive on the written nature of Q is Kloppenborg, Formation, 42–51. For a helpful discussion of how even passages in Matthew and Luke with low verbatim agreement do not necessarily point to an oral Q, cf. John S. Kloppenborg, “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?,” ETL 83 (2007): 53–80. 66. Thus, I would not want to follow Thomas Bergemann in restricting Q to “einer durch große Übereinstimmung im Wortlaut definierten Quelle” with the corollary that “alle Texte, die diesem Kriterium nicht genügen, dürfen nicht Q zugeschrieben werden” (Q auf dem Prüfstand [FRLANT 158; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  1993], 60). Schmid had already pointed out the wide range of verbal agreement in Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark, so it is not surprising that a similar phenomenon is observable in their use of Q (Matthäus und Lukas, 188). 67. Though I find the sentiment perhaps somewhat overstated, there is at least some truth to Oda Wischmeyer’s comment, “Wenn ich richtig sehe, ist die Rekonstruktion der Quelle Q der bedeutendste Beitrag der jüngsten Forschung zu diesem Gebiet [i.e. die großen Themen des neutestamentlichen Faches]” (“Die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Überlegungen zu ihrem Selbstverständnis, ihren Beziehungsfeldern und ihren Aufgaben,” in Herkunft und Zukunft der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft [ed. Oda Wischmeyer; NET 6; Tübingen: A. Francke, 2003], 264). A real value in Q reconstructions in their present state is the work demonstrating that, as Kloppenborg observes, the “text of Q obviously shares some elements with Matthew, but it also has elements that appear in Luke; what it lacks are those features that appear to be Matthean and Lukan editorializing” (“On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew,” NTS 49 [2003]: 224). Even if one questions the extent to which the reconstructed text actually represents the wording of Q, the careful analysis highlighting Matthean and Lukan editorializing is extremely helpful from a negative vantage point, namely, the identification of words and phrases likely not in Q. 68.  It is also possible to consider these elements as the remembrance of Q in Matthew and Luke, for as Renate Lachmann succinctly states: Literature “does not leave . . . earlier texts as it finds them but transforms them in absorbing them. The memory of a text is its intertextuality” (“Cultural Memory and the Role of Literature,” European Review 12 [2004]:  173). Of course, the precise definition and understanding of “intertextuality” has been debated intensely. For helpful early overviews of the many issues involved, cf.

Q Parables

41

level; however, there is a fundamental difference between conceiving of the “text of Q” as a reconstruction of the original wording and approaching it as a metaphorical and narratival realm, an intertext as it were, accessible through Matthew and Luke.69 In such an analysis, it is important, first of all, to recognize that in the broadest sense “intertextuality,” as observed by Renate Lachmann, “is the semantic interchange, the contact between texts literary and non-literary.”70 Such interchange in literary texts can occur on the word level, but it also occurs on many other levels, including narrative structures and techniques, images, stylistic devices, characters, motifs, and so forth.71 In other words, when Matthew and Luke incorporated Q into their own Gospels, they did not simply pick up on the words of

Hans-Peter Mai, “Bypassing Intertextuality:  Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext,” in Intertextuality (ed. Heinrich F. Plett; Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; Berlin:  Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 30–59; and Henning Tegtmeyer, “Der Begriff der Intertextualität und seine Fassungen – Eine Kritik der Intertextualitätskonzepte Julia Kristevas und Susanne Holthuis,” in Textbeziehungen:  Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität (Tübingen:  Stauffenberg, 1997), 49–81; more recently, and with reference to New Testament interpretation, cf. Kristina Dronsch, “Text und Intertextualität:  Versuch einer Verhältnisbestimmung auf interdisziplinärer Grundlage,” in Intertextualität: Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Arbeitsfeld (ed. Karin Herrmann and Sandra Hübentahl; Sprache & Kultur; Aachen: Shaker, 2007), 26–39. 69. Cf. also the comments of Arne Bork, drawing on the work of Ruben Zimmermann and my own work, in his discussion of a “Mainz Approach” to Q under the heading “Ein intertextueller Zugang zum Q-Text” (Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle [WUNT 2.404; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 22–8, 37). It is also important to note the particular manner in which the very nature of Q studies involves the scholar in the process of accessing Q. Whether the reader of Matthew and Luke attempts to argue for and work back to a particular textual reconstruction of Q or seeks to identify intertextual connections between Matthew and Luke that point to Q, it is in and through the reading of Matthew and Luke that Q comes into existence. In regard to intertextuality, this reality confirms the observations of Susanne Holthuis that intertextuality “konstituiert sich . . . als Relation zwischen Texten erst im Kontinuum der Rezeption und nicht, wie von ausschließlich textimmanent verfahrenden Konzeptionen angenommen, im und durch den Text selbst. Auch wenn davon auszugehen ist, daß intertextuelle Organisationsstrukturen explizit im Text manifest sein können, müssen sie vom Leser als solche erkannt und verarbeitet werden, damit der ‘Gang der Texte’ . . . überhaupt erfaßt bzw. in Gang gesetzt werden kann” (Intertextualität:  Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption [Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1993], 31–2). 70. Lachmann, “Cultural Memory,” 173. 71.  Günter Weise notes that the interchange can occur “in formal-struktureller und / oder in inhaltlich-pragmatischer Hinsicht” (“Zur Spezifik der Intertextualität in literarischen Texten,” in Textbeziehungen:  Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität [ed. Josef Klein and Ulla Fix; Stauffenburg Linguistik; Tübingen: Stauffenberg, 1997], 39).

42

The Parables in Q

their source, but drew out a whole realm of metaphors and images as well as narratival and sociocultural elements.72 Stefan Alkier, in discussing the work of Julia Kristeva, observes, “Jeder Text schreibt und liest sich in Bezug auf bereits Geschriebenes und Gelesenes oder noch umgreifender: Jede Zeichenproduktion und Zeichenrezeption findet auf der Folie vorhergehender Zeichenproduktionen und –rezeptionen statt.”73 It is in this sense that I am employing the often slippery term “intertextual”:  Q is an intertext for Matthew and Luke in that its “signs,” which includes far more than Q’s words, were taken up and incorporated into their own Gospels. Thus, Q as a source cannot be reduced simply to the words of Q and at the same time, a specific, word-for-word reconstructed Q text is not necessarily a prerequisite for analyzing Q as a source.74 At this point another significant observation of Alkier’s must be noted. In general, scholarship has traditionally thought of a text’s “closeness” to its source as largely determined by how close that text remains to the wording of its source. Yet, when one begins to assess the relationship between a text and its source more broadly, it is essential to recognize that “mit der Feststellung einer intertextuellen Disposition eines Textes ist noch nicht die Funktion der intertextuellen Bezugnahme gegeben. Ein vollständig wiedergegebenes Zitat zeigt nicht unbedingt die größere Nähe des Textes zum referierten Text an als etwa eine leise und versteckte Anspielung.”75 In other words, we are not necessarily “closer” to Q in passages with high verbatim 72. I am aware of the danger expressed by Gerrie Snyman that “intertextuality becomes banal source criticism when it is understood as ‘textual influence’ and parallelism” (“Who Is Speaking? Intertextuality and Textual Influence,” Neot 30 [1996]:  435). Thus, I am not attempting to do source criticism by a different name but rather to pursue understanding Matthew and Luke and the text they were reading and using for their own “production of meaning” (ibid., 436). 73. Stefan Alkier, “Intertextualität – Annäherungen an ein texttheoretisches Paradigma,” in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110 (ed. Dieter Sänger; BThSt 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 7. 74.  Clearly this idea is on a collision course with the reigning paradigm of Q studies and challenges the assumption behind such statements as Robert A. Derrenbacker Jr.’s “Any treatment of Q’s use of Scripture must presuppose a specific reconstruction of the wording of the sayings source” (review of Dale C. Allison Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q, CBQ 64 [2002]:  151) and the sentiment expressed by Christoph Heil cited in Chapter 5, n. 102. Cf. also Risto Uro’s comment “Word-for-word reconstructions like the one offered in this chapter will, of course, always remain hypothetical; in some cases they are no more than conjectures . . . Such problems notwithstanding, the reconstruction of the Q text is a necessary step in our work which helps us to test the results of the redaction-critical analyses and to present them in an illustrative form” (Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q [AASF: Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987], 73). 75.  Alkier, “Intertextualität,” 16. The reference to a “vollständig wiedergebenes Zitat” and a “versteckte Anspielung” also highlights that intertextual relationships can take place in a variety of ways along a continuum. Various pairings for either pole along the

Q Parables

43

agreement between Matthew and Luke. Nor is it necessarily the case that clearer insight can be gained into Q if there is less debate about the wording of Q. Though significant and important, the connection between Matthew or Luke and their source Q encompasses far more than a verbal connection. In fact, a preoccupation with this verbal connection and the ensuing verbal reconstruction of the source that brought the connection about may at times actually distract from the very present intertextual connections between Q and Matthew and Luke. Along these lines, Zimmermann has recently argued, “Even though Q is accessible to us today only as an intertext from written sources, it has preserved a form of oral narrative culture that bonded together the group of early Christians.”76 As such, there is a recognizable content, form, and, to a certain extent, fixed structure in the Q parables, even if the Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Mt. 22:1-14// Lk. 14:16-23), for example, reveals that the form is not “linguistically completely fixed.”77 Helpful along these lines are the reflections of Albrecht Koschorke concerning a narrative “schema.” Though his discussion is largely focused on “ideal” schemas or formulas and their impact upon stories in general, several comments are relevant for considering the structure, and perhaps even a schema of the Q parables, taken up in Matthew and Luke. Koschorke notes that it is important to distinguish between “dem Erzählformular” on the one hand and “der individuellen Art, das Formular ‘auszufüllen.’ ”78 That is to say, “Das Schema bietet dem Erzähler nur ein Gerüst, eine Abfolge von Handlungsknoten . . . Als ‘ideales’ Schema wird es durch die Erzählkette weitergereicht, während es dem geschickten Erzähler obliegt, seine aktuelle Ausführung mit den Umständen an Ort und Stelle, den Wünschen des Publikums etc. in Einklang zu bringen.”79 When considering the manner in which Matthew and Luke take up the Q parables, as Zimmermann helpfully puts it, “The form-bound memory is no longer completely free. Its

continuum have been offered in the literature. Cf., e.g., the overview of “offen–kryptisch,” “deutlich–undeutlich,” “explizit–implizit,” “marquée–rentrée,” “foregrounded–concealed,” and “markiert–unmarkiert” in Jörg Helbig, Intertextualität und Markierung: Untersuchungen zur Systematik und Funktion der Signalisierung von Intertextualität (Beiträge zur neueren Literaturgeschichte 3.141; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1996), 17–57. The relevant point, however, remains that the proximity to the wording of the source does not determine the proximity to the “text” of the source. 76. Ruben Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism: The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge between Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process,” in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres (ed. Annette Weissenrieder and Robert B. Coote; WUNT 260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 139; emphasis added. Cf. also Zimmermann, “Formen und Gattungen,” 154–5, where there is brief mention of Matthew and Luke preserving the “memory” of Q. 77. Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism,” 142. 78.  Albrecht Koschorke, Wahrheit und Erfindung:  Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Erzähltheorie (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 2012), 34. 79. Ibid.

44

The Parables in Q

wording may not be defined; however, the prominent characteristics and structures that place it into a genre are set.”80 Thus, though some elements of Q and the exact wording of Q remain impossible to reconstruct, this does not mean that the entirety of a Q parable becomes opaque and hopelessly lost behind Matthew and Luke. Similarly, though I would in essence agree with Michael Wolter that “important aspects of the theology of Q are not known” and “therefore we are far from being able to determine something which comes near to an overall view of Q’s theology,”81 this is not the same thing as saying that no insight into any component of Q’s theology can be gained. Therefore, this study is devoted to pursuing insight into the parables of Q, and therefore on some level to elements of the theology of Q, through a different set of methodological approaches than the traditional source-critical and redaction-critical ones and on the basis of something other than a word-level reconstruction. Though it is understandable that NT scholars largely move in a world focused on exegeting words in written texts, an advance in Q studies requires an attempt to exegete the images, narratival elements and structures, metaphors, and theological trajectories, not of a concrete, (re-)constructed Q text directly, but of Q as an intertext between Matthew and Luke.

3.3 Methodological Implications: Exegeting Plots, Characters, and Images In the light of the above observations, the fundamental starting point advanced in this study is that something other than a complete and precise verbal reconstruction of Q still allows one to pursue insight into the Q parables. In fact, studying the parables apart from a particular reconstruction of the wording of Q alleviates the danger of basing one’s argument on a potentially faulty text. Furthermore, even without a precise word-level reconstruction some of the differences between the parables in Q and Mark as listed by Jacobson, that is, the element of comparison being more common in Q, the eschatological setting of Q parables, and striking appeals to everyday experience, can still be considered and analyzed.82 Though I would contend that at many points the exact wording of Q remains impossible to reconstruct and argue that one should not approach Q through an always problematic word-level reconstruction, the result is not a dead-end for Q studies. On the contrary, this study attempts to advance Q studies by pursuing insight into the parables of Q through a different set of methodological approaches than those present in the reigning paradigm focusing upon word-level reconstruction. Though the study of narratival and metaphorical elements in the parables is nothing new, the use of such elements for accessing Q as an intertext does represent a new emphasis for Q studies. The resultant exegetical work is not, therefore, in the first instance focused upon vocabulary and syntax of a reconstructed 80. Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism,” 143; emphasis added. 81. Wolter, “Reconstructing Q?,” 119. 82. Cf. Arland D. Jacobson, “The Literary Unity of Q,” JBL 101 (1982): 377.

Q Parables

45

text, but rather upon the narratival elements and structures, characters, images, metaphors, and theological emphases of an “intertext.” Concretely, the analysis of the parables in the following chapters draws on key elements in the definition of a parable offered in the previous chapter, ultimately focusing primarily on both narratival elements, in particular the explicit or implicit plot of a parable and the characters presented through it, and the images found in the Q parables. It is readily apparent that the issues of plot and characterization and the images found in the parables and their metaphors have been the subject of much scholarly discussion in both literary and biblical criticism. In the final sections of this chapter, it is not my intention to provide a full survey of the theoretical discussions concerning these points, nor would it be possible to do so. Instead, only the most relevant issues related to the present study will be mentioned, the specific details and application of which can be found in the chapters devoted to the Q parables themselves. 3.3.1 Narratival Elements: Plot and Characters As mentioned above, the two narratival elements of particular interest are the plot and the characters found in the Q parables and a few comments concerning these narratival elements are in order. 3.3.1.1 Plot In his consideration of the parables and their relationship to the historical Jesus, Robert W. Funk made the observation, “Although the Gospels have probably not preserved the actual words of Jesus, it is entirely possible that the evangelists have retained the original plot in most cases.”83 If one shifts the focus from the historical Jesus to the question of the reception of the Q parables by Matthew and Luke, the same point can be made concerning both the words and the plot of the parables in Q. That is to say, although Matthew and Luke have not preserved the actual words of the Q parables, the plot of those parables remains visible. Yet, what precisely is a plot and how should one go about analyzing it? Peter Brooks has correctly observed that there are “a number of different ways one might go about discussing the concept of plot and its function in the range of narrative forms.”84 Seymour Chatman has pointed out: “Structuralist theory argues that each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire), the content or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters, items of setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means by which the content is communicated.”85 He goes on to note the manner in which such distinctions can be traced all the way back to Aristotle in his Poetics and provides examples of their appearance in 83.  Robert W. Funk, Funk on Parables:  Collected Essays (ed. with an introduction by Bernard Brandon Scott; Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2006), 165. 84.  Peter Brooks, Reading for the Plot:  Design and Intention in Narrative (Oxford:  Clarendon, 1984), 5. 85.  Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse:  Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 19.

46

The Parables in Q

the works of the Russian formalists and French structuralists.86 Chatman himself states that “the events in a story are turned into a plot by its discourse, the modus of presentation.”87 Of course, important studies of the structure of parables have been presented by, for example, Dan O. Via and Wolfgang Harnisch,88 where particular emphasis also fell on the hermeneutical implications of the structure of parables.89 Though these studies and their observations are not insignificant, the present work is not the place to pursue further the intricacies of a theoretical discussion of plot or an overview of the history of research of largely structuralist considerations of the parables. Suffice it to say, concerning the theoretical aspect of plot, again citing Brooks, “a narrative without at least a minimal plot would be incomprehensible” and, on a basic level, plot is “the principle of interconnectedness and intention which we cannot do without in moving through the discrete elements—incidents, episodes, actions—of a narrative.”90 For the Q parables, when considering the interconnectedness and moving through discrete elements of those parables as found in Matthew and Luke, in nearly every instance, the plot of those parables in Q is comprehensible. In order to facilitate the discussion of the plot and the plot analysis pursued here, the analysis unfolds according to the quinary scheme; thus, it organizes and considers the plot along the lines of the initial situation, complication, transforming action, denouement, and final situation.91 Since this scheme is essentially an expansion of Aristotle’s observations on the plot of tragedies,92 it maps onto certain parables better than others. Nevertheless, the unfolding of the plot, even in compact parables with minimal narratival development, always reveals points of contact with at least some of the elements of this scheme. As this approach to analyzing plot is applied here, the initial situation offers the information necessary to understand the issue(s) developed in the parable. The complication either introduces a problem or develops the initial situation in order to highlight the challenge or difficulty of that situation. The transforming action does not always reverse the initial situation or complication, but can also be the action that tragically confirms the complication.93 The denouement classically refers to the resolution of the complication, but could also, on the level of the advancement of the plot, refer to the 86. Ibid., 19–20. 87. Ibid., 43. 88.  Cf. Dan O. Via, The Parables:  Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); and Harnisch, Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu. 89.  Cf. the helpful, summary overview in Zimmermann, “Gleichnishermeneutik im Rückblick und Vorblick,” 32–4. 90. Brooks, Reading for the Plot, 5. 91.  For a helpful overview of plot analysis, cf. Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories:  An Introduction to Narrative Criticism (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1999), 40–57. The labels utilized here for the five components of the quinary scheme are taken from this text (ibid., 43). 92. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics 1455b, 24–9. 93. This is especially the case in parables with miniature narratives involving judgment or destruction.

Q Parables

47

state resulting from the transforming action that leads to the final situation. In a parable centering on judgment, for example, the “denouement” may not resolve the complication, but actually press the complication forward toward the definitive judgment found in the final situation. Of particular interest is not only the sequence of events or bare structure of a particular parable, but the progression of, in the words of Paul Ricoeur, “a kind of causality” which is interested not only in the question “And then?” but in the “Why?”94 This language, of course, picks up on the famous comments by Edward M. Forster concerning his definition of “story as a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence” and of “plot,” though also being a narrative, as having the emphasis fall “on causality.”95 Despite Forster’s distinction between story and plot having rightly received criticism,96 the issue of causality remains significant. From a perspective considering not merely a bare progression, but also the causes and significance of the progression it is possible to recognize the manner in which “the ‘plot’ as such . . . is the bearer of the metaphoric process.”97 Along these lines, it is important to notice the manner in which the plot has as its function, in the words of Chatman, “to emphasize or de-emphasize certain story-events, to interpret some and to leave others to inference, to show or to tell, to comment or to remain silent, to focus on this or that aspect of an event or character.”98 3.3.1.2 Characters Second, when considering the characters in Q parables, R.  Alan Culpepper’s simple and foundational observation remains helpful in highlighting why literary characters are so fascinating: “One of the most interesting elements of any story is the cast of characters which populate it. Characters are defined by what they do (action) and what they say (dialogue) as well as what is said about them by the narrator or by other characters.”99 The words and deeds of characters, along 94. Cf. Ricoeur’s comment, “The temporal structure is ruled by the ‘plot,’ particularly by a kind of causality which overcomes the mere chronological succession of events. We do not ask, ‘And then?’ but ‘Why?’ ” (“Biblical Hermeneutics,” 38). Later in the same article Ricoeur rightly takes issue with rigid structuralist approaches to plot, noting, “The ‘plot’ is not, like the forms and the codes of the followers of Propp, an underlying structure which makes the told story unessential, as a mere epiphenomenon of the codes themselves; the plot is the very structure of the narrative” (ibid., 97). 95.  Edward M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London:  Edward Arnold, 1927), 82. The entire passage reads as follows: “Let us define a plot. We have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. ‘The king died and then the queen died,’ is a story. ‘The king died and then the queen died of grief ’ is a plot.” 96. Cf., e.g., Chatman, Story and Discourse, 45–6. 97. Ricoeur, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 98. 98. Chatman, Story and Discourse, 43. 99.  R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 7.

48

The Parables in Q

with the manner in which they are presented or interpreted in both explicit and implicit ways, are integral to the creation of meaning in a narrative or parable.100 Of course, the field of character analysis has become tremendously complex and multifaceted,101 and unfortunately many detailed and otherwise helpful suggestions for a character analysis do not lend themselves to the characters in Q more generally and even less so to the characters in the Q parables.102 In fact, even Forster’s now classic and most basic distinction between “flat” or “round” characters is not particularly useful when considering Q for only Jesus, if any character at all, could possibly be considered “round” in this document.103 A further challenge is highlighted when considering Chatman’s comment: “I argue—unoriginally but

100.  Labahn rightly states, “Die Charaktere in Erzählungen und ihre Darstellung sind keine ‘objektiven’ Größen. Die direkten, indirekten und metaphorischen Merkmale der Charakterisierungen können bestimmt und aufgelistet werden, aber das Bild, das von einer Figur entsteht, wird letztendlich durch den Leser / die Leserin gestaltet bzw. in ihren Imaginationen erschaffen” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 245). It is not only the text-internal elements that shape the understanding of a character, but also the readers themselves who shape characters through their own perspectives and “temperament” (cf. Suzanne Keen, “Readers’ Temperaments and Fictional Character,” New Literary History 42 [2011]: 295–314). 101.  Cf., e.g., the lengthy overview in Jens Eder, Die Figur im Film:  Grundlagen der Figurenanalyse (Marburg:  Schüren, 2008), 12–130. A  very brief and helpful overview of important works and research in the past century is found in Ruben Zimmermann’s introductory comments in “Figurenanalyse im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zu Sinn und Wahrheit narratologischer Exegese,” ZNW 105 (2014):  22–6. Cf. also the references to literature exploring characterization in biblical narratives in Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus:  Characterization as Narrative Christology (Waco:  Baylor University Press, 2009), 10n33. Mieke Bal has made an interesting observation concerning the complexity of character analysis noting, “Characters resemble people . . . That no one has yet succeeded in constructing a complete and coherent theory of character is probably precisely because of this human aspect” (Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative [trans. Christine van Boheemen; 2d ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985], 80). 102.  One need only consider how few of Sönke Finnern’s questions in his twelve categories of character analysis can be answered for the characters found in Q parables (Narratologie und biblische Exegese:  Eine integrative Methode der Erzählanalyse und ihr Ertrag am Beispiel von Matthäus 28 [WUNT 2.285; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 134). Though these categories can be quite useful for extended narratives and developed characters, they are decidedly less so for Q. Another striking example is the recognition of how difficult it is to discover the four principles Bal, Narratology, 86, sets forth for the construction of the image of a character (i.e. repetition, accumulation, relations to other characters, and transformations) in parables. 103. Cf. Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 75–85. With regard to the comments made in the preceding note, Fotis Jannidis rightly observes, “There has always been a need to categorize characters in order to facilitate description and analysis. However, most proposals seem to be either too complex or theoretically unsatisfying, so that Forster’s classification into flat

Q Parables

49

firmly—for a conception of character as a paradigm of traits; ‘trait’ in the sense of ‘relatively stable or abiding personal quality,’ recognizing that it may either unfold, that is, emerge earlier or later in the course of the story, or that it may disappear and be replaced by another.”104 In the Q parables, however, it is difficult for a paradigm of traits, as conceived by Chatman, to be discovered, for the characters therein are, on the level of the narrative, unique to the parable in which they are situated. Though there are indeed similar characters in several parables, for example, a “master” or “lord” on the one hand and a “slave” or “servant” on the other, the same “master” or “slave” does not appear throughout the Q parables.105 Within the miniature narratives of each individual parable, there is very little opportunity for stable or abiding traits to become established on the narrative level.106 Yet, this does not mean that no character traits are present at all, but simply that the constructed characters remain relatively undeveloped and do not possess enduring stability or unfolding across Q. Concerning characters as constructs, James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz rightly observe: “Characters do resemble possible people, they are artificial constructs that perform various functions in the progression, and they can function to convey the political, philosophical, or ethical issues being taken up by the narrative.”107 Though the characters in Q parables may perform very few or, in some instances, only one function in the progression of a given parable’s miniature narrative, they still convey meaning. Even those characters that make the briefest of appearances in a parable are “textually grounded models of individuals-in-a-world”108 and can be analyzed as such. Regardless of how simple or “incomplete” a character is in its presentation, “the crucial issue in the process of characterization is . . . what information . . . a reader is able to associate with any character as a member of the storyworld and where this information comes from.”109 vs. round characters continues to be widely used” (“Character,” in Handbook of Narratology [ed. Peter Hühn, John Pier Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert; Narratologia: Contributions to Narrative Theory; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009], 15–16). 104. Chatman, Story and Discourse, 126. 105.  Cf. Labahn’s observation, “Einen überraschend häufigen, aber keineswegs konsistenten Auftritt in Q erlebt die Figur des Hausherrn” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 300). In addition, the use of the term in Q is one example of a further complication in that sometimes the κυρίος character appears to be Jesus (e.g. Q 13:25) and at others appears to be God (e.g. Q 10:2). This issue is discussed further in Chapter 5. 106. As noted below, however, there may be certain traits that a reader or hearer incorporates into a “mental model” of a character beyond a single parable, particularly as it relates to the symbolic value of a character. 107. In David Herman, James Phelan, Peter J. Rabinowitz, Brian Richardson, and Robyn Warhol, Narrative Theory: Core Concepts & Critical Debates (Theory and Interpretation of Narrative; Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2012), 111. 108. David Herman in David Herman et al., Narrative Theory, 125. 109.  Jannidis, “Character,” 22. Cf. also the summary of the six fundamental aspects of character analysis in idem, Figur und Person:  Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie (Narratologia 3; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 106–108.

50

The Parables in Q

Along these lines, recent reflection on the theory of character analysis has highlighted the importance of how a character is received, visually or aurally, by an audience.110 As readers of Q, Matthew and Luke pick up on the explicit and implicit character traits of figures in the Q parables and develop certain conceptions, or “mental models,”111 of those characters based on these descriptions, as well as on their own respective worldview and experiences.112 Thus, it is precisely the reception and utilization of Q characters by Matthew and Luke that provide the avenue for insight into those characters in Q where it is not the differences in the “mental models” reflected in the writings of Matthew and Luke which are of primary interest, but the manner in which the models drawn from a common source give us insight into that source. As a heuristic model for the character examination in the present work, particular inspiration is drawn from the Uhr der Figur developed by Jens Eder and the three components of character in the integrative model of character analysis of Phelan set forth in Reading People, Reading Plots.113 Though aspects of Eder’s approach are

110. Eder notes, “Da kommunikative Handlungen und Texte funktional auf die Rezeption ausgerichtet sind, können auch die Eigenschaften von Figuren letztlich nur im Rückgriff auf Formen der Rezeption festgestellt werden” (Figur im Film, 132). On the following page he continues that the most important categories of a character analysis are derived from the reception of that character for “erstens machen wir bei der Analyse nicht nur Aussagen über Figuren, sondern auch über die verschiedenen Formen der Figurenrezeption. Und zweitens setzten Aussagen über Figuren letztlich Aussagen über die Rezeption voraus.. . . Figurenanalyse ist im Grunde nichts anderes als eine systematische Rekonstruktion und Elaboration verschiedener Rezeptionsformen auf der Basis möglichst genauer Daten und Beobachtungen” (ibid., 133). 111.  On characters as a mental construct or mental models, cf. the overview in Uri Margolin, “Character,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (ed. David Herman; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2007), 76–9, and the significantly longer discussion under “Eine kognitive Theorie der Figurenrezeption,” in Ralf Schneider, Grundriß zur kognitiven Theorie der Figurenrezeption am Beispiel des viktorianischen Romans (ZAA Studies 9; Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 2000), esp. 59–98, in the section “Die literarische Figur als mentales Modell.” A helpful overview of Schneider’s discussion is depicted in the diagram at the conclusion of this section (ibid., 98). 112. As Finnern observes, “Die erzählte Welt existiert im Bewusstsein des Rezipienten, daher sind die Figuren als Teil der erzählten Welt dementsprechend ‘mentale Modelle’ . . . Um ein solches ‘mentales Modell’ einer Figur zu konkretisieren, ergänzt der Leser die Figureninformationen im Text durch sein Weltwissen und sein Wissen über die erzählte Welt” (Narratologie und biblische Exegese, 127). Cf. also Labahn’s comment: “So richtig es ist, dass die Erzählung einen eigenen Sinnkosmos mit textinternen Interpretationssignalen bildet und vor allem auf diesem Hintergrund gelesen werden will, so partizipiert jede Erzählung auch an der textexternen Enzyklopädie, der sie sich in der Regel in Abgrenzung und Anschluss bedient” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 245). 113.  Cf. the summary diagram in Eder, Figur im Film, 711; and James Phelan, Reading People, Reading Plots:  Character, Progression, and the Interpretation of Narrative (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 1–14.

Q Parables

51

relevant only for cinematic presentations of characters (the focus of Eder’s study), there are helpful components for the analysis of literary characters. In Eder’s Uhr characters are considered under four rubrics: (1) characters as Artefakt where the question “How and through what means is a character presented?,” with particular emphasis on the aesthetic presentation, is considered; (2) characters as fiktives Wesen where the central question is “What is the character—what characteristics, relationships, and conduct does the character exhibit as an inhabitant of a fictional world?”; (3) characters as Symbol where one considers “What does the character represent and what ‘indirect meanings’ does the character convey?”114; and (4) characters as Symptom where the interest lies in the reasons why a particular character appears or is presented in a certain way and what outcomes the character effects.115 My own analysis of the characters in the Q parables places particular emphasis upon the diegetic presentation of the character, the conception of the character in the narrative and sociocultural context, and the extension of the conception of the character into the symbolic realm.116 For this reason, two of the categories from Eder’s model are especially relevant, namely, characters as fictional entities and characters as symbols. At the same time, when considering the fictive person or entity (cf. Eder’s fiktives Wesen), I have adapted Eder’s category so as to include here the constructed nature of the character and the manner in which this construction is effected (cf. Phelan’s synthetic component of character, i.e., “character as artificial construct”117) along with the traits/characteristics of that character (cf. Phelan’s mimetic component of character, i.e., “character as person”).118 The extent to which this fictional character represents or is connected to other figures or ideals through a metaphoric or symbolic transfer is considered through examining the character as a symbol (cf. Eder’s Symbol and Phelan’s thematic component of character, i.e., “character as idea”).119 Significantly, even if on the level of the fictional character in 114.  Here it is important to recognize the full import of a character as symbol in relation to Jannidis’s very useful definition of a character: “Character is a text- or media-based figure in a storyworld, usually human or human-like” (“Character,” 14). In the opening two parables in Q recounted by John the Baptist, e.g., agricultural elements function as human-like characters precisely because of a symbolic association. 115. Cf. the summary in Eder, Figur im Film, 710, 712. 116. As Snodgrass has rightly noted, “With religious language the literal and metaphorical planes are often intermingled” (Stories with Intent, 751n97). 117. This, and the ensuing two id est comments relating to Phelan’s components, are his own brief descriptions in James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Theory and Interpretation of Narrative Series; Columbus:  Ohio State University Press, 1996), 29. 118. In a sense, therefore, I am integrating questions related to Eder’s Artefakt, which he applies specifically to the elements relevant for the filming and presenting of a character on a screen, into components of Phelan’s categories and placing all of this under the category of fiktives Wesen. 119.  Phelan provides helpful summary statements at various points in his discussion concerning his terminology:  “Mimetic dimensions, as we have seen, are a character’s

52

The Parables in Q

the narrative no continuity exists between the various parables, on the symbolic level the reader or hearer may organize the traits of several characters into one symbolized entity, person, or group of people. In addition, the symbolic level of the characters also allows for certain nonhuman “characters” to be analyzed, as in, for example, trees which either do or do not bear fruit in the opening parable of John the Baptist (Q 3:9). Presenting the above discussion in a table, the character analyses in this work proceed along the following lines: Character Analysis 1. The character as fiktives Wesen in its synthetic component (the manner in which the character is constructed) and its mimetic component (the characteristics and traits of the character) 2. The character as Symbol in its thematic component (the idea or figure represented by the character) A final observation is that this theoretical framework is intended to function as a heuristic device in a deliberately “open” approach to the characters in Q. The approach here has as its goal the gaining of insight into the characters appearing in these parables without forcing a particular analytical rubric onto every parable or ultimately slotting the character into a specific or even somewhat clichéd classification.120 Taking both components of the narratological focus of this study into account, the following analyses have particular interest in considering the plot and characters in the Q parables so that both the narrated world and narratively derived theological import of these parables, as received by Matthew and Luke, come into focus.121

attributes considered as traits”; “Thematic dimensions, as we have seen, are attributes, taken individually or collectively, and viewed as vehicles to express ideas or as representative of a larger class than the individual character”; and “The distinction between the mimetic and thematic components of character is a distinction between characters as individuals and characters as representative entities” (Reading People, Reading Plots, 11, 12, 13). 120.  Despite numerous helpful components in Cornelius Bennema’s studies on character in the Fourth Gospel, even his attempted non-reductionistic classification in locating characters on a continuum of “degree of characterization” from “agent” to “type” to “personality” to “individuality” results in a somewhat clichéd presentation (cf. Cornelius Bennema, “A Theory of Character in the Fourth Gospel with Reference to Ancient and Modern Literature,” BibInt 17 [2009]:  375–421; and idem, Encountering Jesus:  Character Studies in the Gospel of John [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009]). 121.  Cf. the importance of the interplay between plot and character in the parables in, e.g., the observation by John A. Darr:  “Audiences ‘actualize’ plot in terms of character and character in terms of plot” (On Character Building:  The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts [Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992], 39).

Q Parables

53

3.3.2 Images (bildspendender Bereich and Bildfeldtradition) Finally, insight into the Q parables can also be gained by considering the images utilized therein and the world from which they are drawn. The metaphoric elements in Q often reveal what Harald Weinrich, with reference to E. R. Curtius, referred to as “die Traditionsbedingtheit der Bildersprache.”122 Metaphors and the images therein do not stand in isolation, but rather are anchored in a Bildfeld where one realm presents the image (the bildspendender Bereich) and another receives it (the bildempfangender Bereich).123 Concerning the bildspendender Bereich, it is certainly not possible to present an exhaustive analysis of all sociohistorical and sociocultural aspects and contexts of a particular parable within the confines of the analysis of any particular parable. And even if a comprehensive discussion were possible, source material for the first century of the Common Era would only allow a partial (re-)construction of such aspects and contexts. Nevertheless, ancient sources do allow some important insight into certain realities reflected in the parables. To that end, various ancient sources must at least be considered when seeking to elucidate the images found in the parables in Q. Though it is important to recognize that symbolic significance can occur and be evoked by an individual image (a “symbol”), of particular significance for a Bildfeld is the manner in which an image has become coupled with another element.124 For instance, as Zimmermann observes, “man [kann] nicht von einem 122.  Harald Weinrich, “Münze und Wort:  Untersuchungen an einem Bildfeld,” in Romanica:  Festschrift für Gerhard Rohlfs (ed. Heinrich Lausberg and Harald Weinrich; Halle: Veb Man Niemeyer, 1958), 509. 123.  Cf. ibid., 514–15, though note that Weinrich uses the terms bildspendendes and bildempfangendes Feld. On the following page Weinrich observes, “Solange man . . . nicht das bildspendende und das bildempfangende Feld gleichzeitig im Auge hat, ist von Metaphorik gar nicht die Rede” (ibid., 516). A  similar understanding of a metaphor is set forth by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2003), 5, when they write “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” For further discussion, cf. Ruben Zimmermann, “Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache:  Ein methodologischer Versuch,” TZ 56 (2000): 108–33. 124.  For a helpful discussion of metaphors and symbols, cf. Ruben Zimmermann, “Imagery in John: Opening Up Paths into the Tangled Thicket of John’s Figurative World,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann in collaboration with Gabi Kern; WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 15–23. Zimmermann, in my view rightly, contends, “The surplus of meaning of the symbolic image is, unlike a metaphor, not created through the interaction of two domains of meaning on the level of text [sic]. The symbol appears in the text as a single item, for example as water, light, or cross. That which it stands for or which it indicates must be filled in or ‘thrown in’ (thus etymologically: συμ-βάλλειν) by the recipient” (ibid., 20).

54

The Parables in Q

‘Hochzeits-Bildfeld,’ wohl aber von einem ‘Messias-Hochzeits-Bildfeld’ sprechen.”125 Similarly, “man [kann] nicht von einem ‘Frucht-Bildfeld,’ wohl aber von einem ‘Glaubens-Frucht-Bildfeld’ sprechen.”126 It is precisely such traditionally coupled elements, along with alterations to such couplings, that are vitally important for the communication and understanding of metaphors within the parables.127 For this reason, when considering images found in the Q parables, this study will place particular emphasis upon not only examining the first-century world and its understanding and experience of nature, agriculture, dwellings, vertical space, societal structures, and so on (the above-mentioned bildspendender Bereich),128 but also the symbolic and religious imagery found particularly in the traditions of the HB and Second Temple literature, though also in the Greco-Roman World. It is this traditional imagery that constitutes the Bildfeldtradition, as the repeated association of certain images in such constellations creates “stock metaphors” that are immediately recognizable within certain communities and traditions.129 Examples of such “stock metaphors” can be found, and will be discussed in some detail, in the analysis of numerous Q parables.

125. Ruben Zimmermann, Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis (WUNT 2.122; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 41. 126. Zimmermann, “Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache,” 125. Zimmermann has provided an extensive and helpful discussion of the shepherd as employed in a Bildfeld in “Jesus im Bild Gottes: Anspielungen auf das Alte Testament im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Hirtenbildfelder in Joh 10,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums:  Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (ed. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle in collaboration with Juliane Schlegel; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 81–116; and Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 171; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 320–30. 127.  Cf. also Zimmermann, Geschlechtermetaphorik, 42: “Die Wirkung und Rezeption einer Metapher wird durch das spezifische Verhältnis von Tradition und Innovation innerhalb ihres Bildfelds bestimmt.” 128.  Cf. the overview of the importance of an examination of the world from which the images of the parables are drawn in the section entitled “Sozialgeschichtliche Analyse (Bildspendener Bereich)” on pp. 36–9 of Zimmermann’s introduction to the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. 129.  Cf. the comments concerning the significance of the symbolic and traditional background of images utilized in the parables found in the section entitled “Analyse des Bedeutungshintergrunds (Bildfeldtradition)” on pp.  39–41 of Zimmermann’s introduction to the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. For a consideration of the hermeneutical and interpretive implications of conventional patterns, language, and knowledge of narrated images with a view toward the parables in particular, see, e.g., Dieter Massa, “Verstehensbedingungen von narrativen Bildern aus kognitiver Sicht,” in Bildersprache verstehen: Zur Hermeneutik der Metapher und anderer bildlicher Sprachformen (ed. Ruben Zimmermann; Munich: Fink, 2000), 313–30.

Q Parables

55

Though Ricoeur’s comments concerning the plot as the bearer of metaphoric transfer in the parables were presented above, the plot is not the only realm in which such transfer takes place. To summarize the brief discussion above: The images utilized in the Q parables are not neutral pictures floating in some atemporal realm, but are rooted in both the cultures and traditions of first-century Palestine. These cultural understandings and traditions draw on a variety of sources, in particular Jewish sources that shaped at least part of the identity of the community in which the early Jesus movement took root. Through a consideration of the origins and employment of such images, not only the context but also the metaphoric transfer that takes place within a parable becomes clearer. That is to say, one can better understand not only the origin of a particular image but also the manner in which it is applied and the symbolic significance with which it is imbued. As will be seen in the ensuing chapters, by drawing upon and utilizing particular religious images or metaphors carrying particular theological connotations, along with depictions of life taken from the realms such as agriculture, animal husbandry, and finance, the social, ethical, and theological interests embedded in the Q parables begin to be revealed.

Chapter 4 THE Q PARABLES OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND OF THE CENTURION

4.1 Introduction Several decades ago, Walter Wink pointed out that the Q traditions about John the Baptist “throw into sharp relief John’s significance for the eschatological crisis created by the presence of Jesus.”1 In fact, “the Q collection presents sayings which help to create this crisis by laying upon men the absolute demand of God in the last hour.”2 John the Baptist’s proclamation, as found in the Q material, contains two parables (Q 3:9 and Q 3:17), both of which are quite intense in their imagery

1. Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 18. Concerning John the Baptist in Q more generally, Ivan Havener has rightly observed that “he is second only to Jesus in importance” (Q: The Sayings of Jesus [Good News Studies 19; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987], 62). 2. Wink, John the Baptist, 18.

58

The Parables in Q

and their message.3 It is with these two parables that the consideration of the Q parables begins.4

4.2 The Q Parables of John the Baptist 4.2.1 Parable of the Ax at the Root of the Trees (Q 3:9) Mt. 3:105

Lk. 3:9

ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

3. Not surprisingly, there are various identifications of these passages in the scholarly literature. Edwards refers to Q 3:9 as a “prophetic parable” and Q 3:17 as a “prophetic judgment parable” (A Theology of Q, 81, 82). In a largely unknown work from 1918, Carl Albrecht Bernoulli explicitly referred to Mt. 3:10 and Mt. 3:12 as “Gleichnisse” (Die Kultur des Evangeliums: Erster Band: Johannes der Täufer und die Urgemeinde [Leipzig:  Der Neue Geist Verlag, 1918], 76), perhaps picking up on Martin Dibelius having identified both passages as a “Gleichnis” (Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer [FRLANT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911], 54). The passages are also labeled “Gleichnisse” by Ernst Lohmeyer, “Vom Baum und Frucht:  Eine exegetische Studie zu Matth. 3, 10,” ZST 9 (1932):  378–9; Marius Reiser, Die Gerichtspredigt Jesu:  Eine Untersuchung zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu und ihrem frühjüdischen Hintergrund (NTAbh 23; Münster: Aschendorff, 1990), 161, 165; and Detlev Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10? Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum:  Narrative Strategie mit Chrie, Wundergeschichte und Gleichnis,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn), 203. Others reveal some variation in labeling the passages as, e.g., François Bovon refers to the first parable (Lk. 3:9) as a “Gleichnis,” but refers to the second (Lk. 3:17) as a “Metapher” (Das Evangelium nach Lukas [4 vols; EKKNT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1989–2009], 1:173, 177). W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr. do not label the first saying (Mt. 3:10), but identify the second (Mt. 3:12) as a “short parable” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew [3 vols; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97], 1:309, 318). Similarly, Gerd Häfner refers to Mt. 3:12 as a “kleine[s] Gleichnis” (Der verheißene Vorläufer:  Redaktionskritische Untersuchung zur Darstellung Johannes des Täufers im Matthäusevangelium [SBB 27; Stuttgart:  Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994], 80). Josef Ernst uses the term “Bildwort” to describe both passages (Johannes der Täufer [BZNW 54; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 40). 4.  As this study begins to analyze the actual parables in Q, there will be ample opportunity to observe the veracity of Eckhard Rau’s paradoxical observation: “Gleichnisse sind anspruchslos, einfach, eindeutig, zeitlos und leicht verständlich. Und Gleichnisse sind anspruchsvoll, kompliziert, vieldeutig, zeitbedingt und schwer verständlich. Und beides ist wahr” (Reden in Vollmacht: Hintergrund, Form und Anliegen der Gleichnisse Jesu [FRLANT 149; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990], 395). 5. For each parable I provide a parallel presentation of the Matthean and Lukan passage as printed in NA28.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

59

The first parable of John the Baptist, and the first parable in Q, is found in Q 3:9.6 Here, Matthew and Luke present an essentially verbatim text with the only difference being found in Luke reading καί after the opening ἤδη δέ. 4.2.1.1 Plot Analysis An initial consideration of this parable reveals an extremely compact plot development. The initial situation presents an ax that has already been laid at the root of the trees where it “is resting on the tree root, ready to be raised for the first blow.”7 The ἤδη reveals something occurring at the present moment and raises the question of why the ax is already laid now.8 The complication is presented with a reference to trees not bearing good fruit, and the transforming action involves the use of the ax to chop down such trees.9 Thus, the answer to the question of the present placement of the ax is that there is an immediate threat to the tree:  imminent judgment.10 An assumed denouement of sorts follows, 6.  Based on a theory involving proto- or deutero-Mark, it has, on occasion, been questioned whether John the Baptist’s preaching was found in Q. Cf., e.g., Nikolaus Walter, “Mk 1,1–8 und die ‘Agreements’ von Mt 3 und Lk 3: Stand die Predigt Johannes des Täufers in Q?” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols; BETL 100; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1992), 1:457–78; and Albert Fuchs, “Exegese im elfenbeinernen Turm: Das quellenkritische Problem von Mk 1,2–8 par Mt 3,1–12 par Lk 3,1–17 in der Sicht der Zweiquellentheorie und von Deuteromarkus,” SNTSU 20 (1995): 23–149. For problems with such views, cf. Frans Neirynck, “The First Synoptic Pericope,” ETL 72 (1996): 41–74. 7. Manson, Sayings, 40. Interestingly, of the twenty-five uses of ἤδη in the Synoptics, it is sentence initial only here and in Lk. 7:6. The initial situation also reveals the only difference in wording between Matthew and Luke, namely, the presence of καί in the Lukan opening mentioned above. For John’s preaching in general William Arnal has observed, “The divergences between Matthew and Luke are largely cosmetic and have little effect on our reading of the text’s original significance” (“Redactional Fabrication and Group Legitimation: The Baptist’s Preaching in Q 3:7–9, 16–17,” in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q [ed. John S. Kloppenborg; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995], 167). 8. Cf. similarly Lohmeyer, “Vom Baum und Frucht,” 379. 9. The second half of the parable, which begins here with the complication, also appears verbatim on the lips of Jesus in Mt. 7:19. 10. Cf. Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer, 56. Along these lines Carl R. Kazmierski refers to the parable as “a prophetic oracle in which the wrath of God is at issue, to be manifest in a judgment which is said to be sure, imminent, and utterly horrible” (John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist [Collegeville:  Liturgical, 1996], 111). In an earlier publication Kazmierski went on to contend that in this parable the judgment had already begun and that the laying of the ax at the root meant nothing less than the ax actually chopping down the tree (cf. Carl R. Kazmierski, “The Stones of Abraham: John the Baptist,” Bib 68 [1987]:  30 and 30n35). Such a view, however, is unconvincing in its interpretation of κεῖται (cf. Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew’s Narrative [JSNTSup 167; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998], 89–90). Dibelius, though not suggesting that the felling action was already taking place, did suggest that at least one blow had been struck stating “κεῖται geht wohl auf die erste Einkerbung, in der die Axt festsitzt” (Johannes, 50).

60

The Parables in Q

namely, the tree in its felled state. Though not directly mentioned, this clearly is an intermediate state between being chopped down and the final situation of being thrown into the fire. A close reading of this plot brings several curiosities to light. Ernst Lohmeyer rightly noticed, “Das Bild selbst ist in seinem plastischen Sinn nicht ganz deutlich.”11 In the initial situation the parable refers to one ax (ἡ ἀξίνη), which, strictly speaking, can only be used to chop down one tree at a time. The parable continues, however, with this one ax being laid at the root of multiple trees—a curious image which is discussed below. In terms of the plot, the parable assumes that the threatened “chopping down” action of one ax is simultaneously being applied to multiple trees, namely, every tree not bearing good fruit. Though technically impossible, the parable’s plot is not concerned with such details and rapidly presses to a definite and irreversible judgment: being felled and thrown into the fire.12 At the same time, however, the parable itself indicates that this plot development from the initial to the final situation is not inevitable. Joseph Verheyden notes that this is the only judgment saying in Q where “un element d’espoir” remains.13 The parable appears to entertain the possibility that a particular tree could be bearing good fruit, and thus be able to avoid the blows of the ax and the fire.14 Thus, though the opening ἤδη “underscores the necessity of response in the present, for divine judgment is imminent”15 and the parable utilizes “vivid present tenses”16 the crisis is not unavoidable. In fact, with this parable John “provokes a crisis,”17 the outcome of which is not yet definitively determined. 4.2.1.2 Characters This parable involves two “characters”: the implied wielder of the ax and the trees.18 First, it is striking that in the initial situation noted above, the position of the ax is 11.  Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Urchristentum:  1. Buch:  Johannes der Täufer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932), 63n3. 12.  Cf. Verheyden, “Le jugement d’Israël,” 211, who refers to a judgment “définitif et irreversible.” 13. Ibid., 202. Cf. Tuckett, who notes that “the implication of v. 9 is that every tree which does produce fruit will not be cut down and burnt—it will be preserved alive and well” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 112, cf. also 123, 203). Though Stephanie von Dobbeler emphasizes “daß die Aussicht auf ein Bestehen im Gericht nur kurz aufleuchtet” (Das Gericht und das Erbarmen Gottes [BBB 70; Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1988], 76), it nevertheless remains significant that this possibility is clearly present. 14. This much is clear even as “the details of the judgment and a full description of how to escape remain unclear” (Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 107). 15. Green, Luke, 177. 16.  Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols; WBC 33; Dallas:  Word, 1993–95), 1:50. Also, Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 163:  the “zeitliche Dringlichkeit wird im griechischen Text noch unterstrichen durch die Präsentia bei allen drei Verben.” 17. Green, Luke, 177. 18.  In the previous chapter, Section 3.3.1, a brief comment was made concerning trees as a “character.”

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

61

highlighted, but the individual who has placed the ax at the root of the tree is not clearly identified.19 As a fiktives Wesen, the synthetic component of this character is presented through the figure being the implied agent of the passive verbs. The character is thus described in terms of the action and activity performed, without being explicitly mentioned or identified. The most prevalent mimetic component of the ax-wielder is his standing in a threatening relationship over and against the trees, for it is this character who would fell the trees and also, presumably, burn the chopped-down trees. This character as Symbol clearly represents judgment; however, the thematic understanding of the figure executing this judgment is debated. Lohmeyer insisted that God himself cannot be depicted here and that the image must refer to some agent of God.20 This position, however, must be challenged. The immediately preceding verse in Q (Mt. 3:9//Lk. 3:8) explicitly identifies God as the one who is able to “raise up” children of Abraham from rocks. For this reason, the reader is to a certain extent guided toward viewing the passive construction in both Matthew and Luke as a divine passive and to concluding that it is, in fact, God who has laid the ax and who is preparing to “cut down” the trees.21 The character thus appears in the parable first and foremost as a result of the eschatological understanding of the present moment in the preaching of John the Baptist. The effect of the appearance of this character is that judgment has drawn near. As Marius Reiser puts it, “So nahe wie der erste Schlag des Fällers nach dem Anlegen der Axt an die Einschlagstelle, so nahe ist der Beginn des Zorngerichts Gottes.”22 There is, however, also a sense in which the presentation of the ax-wielder is done in a manner drawing attention to the trees and their fruit. This observation naturally leads to a consideration of the second group of “characters” in the parable. Through their symbolic significance, the trees also function as characters in this parable. In order to consider the trees as Symbol, however, it is necessary to attend to the image of both the “tree” and the “fruit,” presented below. The trees are presented as a fiktives Wesen in that they are being threatened by the action(s)

19. Cf. Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer, 82: “Eines fällt sogleich auf, daß diese Gestalt mit keinem Worte deutlich bezeichnet wird.” 20. Ibid. 21.  Green states, “Following as it does so closely the use of God as subject in 3:8, the undeclared subject of ‘to cut down’ in 3:9 is presumably divine as well” (Luke, 177). Davies and Allison simply assert, “God is implicitly the agent of the passive” (Matthew, 1:309; similarly Blaine Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew’s Gospel [JSNTSup 79; Sheffield:  JSOT Press, 1992], 123n1; Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 164; and Elisabeth Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation mit den letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle [MThA 21; Altenberge:  Oros, 1993], 276). Marshall is slightly more cautious: “The passive form of the verb may signify that God is the active subject” (Luke, 141). Overall it can be said concerning both the image and the character: “Das Bild von der an die Wurzel gelegten Axt knüpft an das Motiv der Abrahamskindschaft an” (Peter Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer: Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas [SNTSMS 99; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 160). 22. Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 163.

62

The Parables in Q

of the divine ax-wielder. They are also depicted as still standing, though in imminent danger of being felled and burned. The “conduct” of bearing or not bearing good fruit is a vital, determinative characteristic, as is the implied responsibility of the trees vis-à-vis the wielder of the ax, for it is he who will evaluate whether or not the good fruit is indeed present or not. François Bovon highlights a key component of this aspect of their characterization with the statement: “Wichtig ist die Verantwortung der Bäume; ihr Wesen wird an ihren Früchten abgelesen.”23 The presence or absence of “good fruit,” here in essence a type of character trait, determines whether the plot will advance beyond the threatening initial situation into the actual felling and burning of a tree. 4.2.1.3 Images It is quite clear that the parable itself utilizes well-known images drawn from the cultivation of (fruit) trees. It has been argued, therefore, that in the parable one encounters nothing “was ihm den Charakter eines Gleichnisses gäbe, sondern jedes Wort scheint in dem Gebiete der Baumzucht zu bleiben.”24 At the same time, however, the imagery employed has a rich tradition in the HB and apocalyptic texts,25 where it is utilized in textual contexts involving judgment. Therefore, even if the parable were not imbedded in John’s preaching,26 the images utilized in the parable could in and of themselves evoke a metaphoric transfer from an agricultural context to a theological one.27 Particularly important in this respect are the abovementioned symbolic function of the trees/fruit, along with the ax and the fire. As just noted above, the trees appear in the parable as a type of character. A precise identification of these (fruit) trees, however, is not offered. Lohmeyer contended that the specific fruit “tree” in view is a Weinstock and he based a great deal of his discussion on this assumption. Though possible,28 this particular

23. Bovon, Lukas, 1:173. 24. Lohmeyer, “Vom Baum und Frucht,” 378. 25.  Though numerous texts are considered below, even a consideration of only Mal. 3:19 already provides the foundational imagery for both of John’s parables. Cf. the similar observation in Hartmut Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (4th ed.; Herder/Spektrum 4128; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 300. Cf., however, n. 72 below for the caution against overemphasizing this verse. 26. As Fleddermann points out, “The threat [in Q 3:9] refers back to both the rhetorical question and the disputation speech [in Q 3:7–8]” (Q: Reconstruction, 228). 27. Lohmeyer recognized this point as well, noting how “diese Bilder durch Konvention und Tradition schon gedeutet sind” (“Vom Baum und Frucht,” 380). 28.  For example, Darrell L. Bock, Luke (2 vols; BECNT 3; Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1994–96), 1:307; and Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1976), 142, mention that the image of Israel as God’s vine (e.g. Hos. 10:1; Jer. 2:21; and Ps. 80:9) might lie behind this passage. Reiser states: “In diesem Gleichnis greift der

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

63

identification is not necessarily the case, leading Stephanie von Dobbeler to note that “vom Text her sind für die Behauptungen Lohmeyers keine Anhaltspunkte gegeben.”29 For this reason, much of the specific imagery concerning vineyards discussed at length by Lohmeyer, and often invoked in his interpretation, does not appear to be as directly relevant as he imagined.30 It is, after all, not only vines and vineyards that are used metaphorically in the HB. On the one hand, on the basis of such passages as Ps. 1:3, Jer. 17:7-8, and Dan. 4:20-22, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr. note how “leaders, as well as reputedly righteous people and scholars, were sometimes compared to trees.”31 It is worth noting that in the recounting and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Daniel 4, the tree represents the king and though it is cut down, the root is left (Dan. 4:15). In this way, the tree is not completely destroyed. Differently, in Amos 2:9 the Amorite as a tree is utterly destroyed:  the fruit from above and the root from below. On the other hand, larger groups of people being compared to trees can also be found in, for example, Judg. 9:7-16 and 2 Bar. 39:1-8. Thus, regardless of whether the addressees in Q are specifically religious leaders or a crowd more generally,32 there is precedent for trees representing individuals generally, and Israelites more particularly. In addition, the reference to πᾶν δένδρον “[läßt] an einen prinzipiell nicht beschränkten Adressatenkreis denken” so that even if Q contained a more narrow designation of the audience, the principle espoused in the parable need not be limited simply to religious leaders.33 It is also clear that these trees are being evaluated on the basis of the presence or absence of “good fruit,” a presence or absence that is determinative for the trees’ future. Though John in Mt. 3:7 speaks of bringing forth καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας and in Lk. 3:8 of καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας,34 in the parable both Täufer ein schon im Alten Testament geläufiges Bild für Israel auf: das Bild der Pflanzung Gottes” (Gerichtspredigt, 161). 29. Von Dobbeler, Das Gericht, 140. 30. The exclusive emphasis on a Weinstock also led Lohmeyer somewhat problematically to state: “Der vierte Evangelist [hat] das Motiv der Täuferrede aus der Spruchquelle deutlich bewahrt, und nicht nur solche, die auf den Weltvollender hindeuten. Er allein bewahrt das Wort von den Reben, die ‘herausgeworfen und ins Feuer geworfen werden,’ wie denn auch der Täufer von den Weinstöcken in ähnlichem Sinne gesprochen hat” (Johannes der Täufer, 29). 31. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:309. 32.  In Matthew (3:7), John is addressing religious leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees) whereas Luke (3:7) refers to “crowds.” Preference is usually cautiously given to the Lukan reading. The CEQ reconstructs ὄχλοις in double square brackets. Cf. also the cautious statement in Christoph Gregor Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterzeichnung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk (HBS 31; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 155n24. 33.  Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 62. In n.  1 on the same page Häfner actually contends: “Die Formulierung πᾶν δένδρον sperrt sich etwas gegen die Mt Einleitung des Abschnitts.” 34. As is often noted, Luke presents his understanding of the “fruits” in Lk. 3:10-14. Cf., e.g., Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 175–212.

64

The Parables in Q

Matthew and Luke refer to singular “good fruit.”35 Wickedness of some sort being compared to fruitlessness or to bad fruit is not unusual as an image (cf. Sir. 6:3; Wis. 4:3-5), and in context here it would appear that the good fruit is somehow to be understood as ἄξιος τῆς μετανοίας.36 The precise nature of the καρπὸς καλός, however, is not explicated within the parable itself.37 At a minimum, the fruit image presses toward the perspective, as R. T. France puts it, that “it is by what we do in response to God’s demands rather than by what we hear or say that we will be judged.”38 Concerning the ax, Petra von Gemünden, with reference to Josephus Ant. 9.36.41, 1QM XIV, 11, and a relief in Sennacherib’s palace, observes how this tool was probably “kriegerisch konnotiert, da das Fällen von Bäumen zur orientischen Kriegstechnik gehörte, wie auch ikonographische Darstellungen zeigen.”39 The use of the ax as a weapon of destruction or within military imagery is also found, for example, in Ps. 74:4-6 and Jer. 46:22. Even though the term ἀξίνη does not appear, the use of a felling instrument by God in judgment is also found in Isa. 10:33-34.40 Though there are, of course, also entirely “neutral” references to axes in the HB (e.g. Judg. 9:38 and 1 Sam. 13:20-21), the depiction of an ax in destruction or judgment is readily at hand.41 As noted above in the discussion of the plot

35.  The connection to the preceding leads Fleddermann to observe that “fruit” is one of two catchwords in John’s speech (Q: Reconstruction, 224). The other catchword, “fire,” is discussed below. 36.  Paul Hoffmann also simply refers to “eine Frucht, die der Umkehr angemessen ist” (Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle [3d ed.; NTAbh 8; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982], 27). 37. As observed in n. 34, Lk. 3:10-14 provides a reply to the question of what the “good fruit” is within the context of his Gospel. Matthew, however, as observed by Häfner “gibt uns jedenfalls keinen Hinweis aus dem Textzusammenhang, was in der Predigt des Täufers unter καρπός zu verstehen sei” (Der verheißene Vorläufer, 66). Petra von Gemünden may be correct in contending “das Fruchttragen ist . . . nicht mit der Buße gleichzusetzen” (Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Eine Bildfelduntersuchung [NTOA 18; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993], 123n7). At the same time, however, it is wise to refrain from drawing firm conclusions (cf. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 44). Reiser makes the general comment that “mit dem Fruchtbringen [ist] . . . das Leben nach Gottes Gesetz [gemeint]” (Gerichtspredigt, 162; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.117 and L.A.B. 28.4). 38. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 111. 39. Gemünden, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 123–4. 40.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer contends that the allusion to Isa. 10:33-34 is “not certain” precisely because Q uses the term “axinē, whereas the MT of Isaiah has used barzel, ‘iron,’ and the LXX machaira, ‘sword’ ” (The Gospel According to Luke [2 vols; AB 28; Garden City:  Doubleday, 1981–85], 1:469). It is worth asking, however, if allusions require such precision in vocabulary. 41. Dale C. Allison Jr. makes reference to a “divine ax” that “is about to hack at the root of the trees” (The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q [Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000], 104).

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

65

of this parable, the parable refers to a single ax (ἡ ἀξίνη) having been placed at the root of multiple trees (τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων).42 Strictly speaking, of course, one ax cannot be laid at the root of multiple trees. It appears that the depiction of the judging ax within the context of eschatological urgency has impacted the manner in which the image is presented for “a single ax at the root of many trees does not make for good visual imagery, but suits the eschatological temper of John’s warning.”43 Furthermore, the fundamental and radical threat posed by the ax is emphasized by its placement at the root of the tree.44 The final image to be considered here is the πῦρ mentioned at the end of the parable. Based on the simple reference to πῦρ, Joseph A.  Fitzmyer has argued that it here “has no special connotation, being merely part of the general description of what is done with dead wood.”45 The problem with this view, however, is that given the close connection between fire and judgment in the HB there is a sense in which, as John Nolland puts it, “destruction by fire is a universal image of judgment.”46 First, as an eschatological image, it is found in a plethora of HB passages, for example, Isa. 10:16-17; 66:24; Nah. 1:6; Zeph. 1:18; and Mal. 4:1, and other Second Temple texts, for example, 1QpHab X, 5, 13; 1QHa III, 29–34; 1QS II, 8; 1 En. 10:6; 54:1-2; 90:24-25; 100:9; 102:1; Jub. 9:15; 36:10; Pss. Sol. 15:4-5, 6-7, 10-15; and 4 Ezra 7:36-38.47 In addition, the image appears

42. The immediately subsequent reference to πᾶν δένδρον confirms that many trees are in view. Cf. Bock, Luke, 1:307, who also highlights that “more than one tree is in view, since John speaks of every (πᾶν, pan) tree.” 43.  John Nolland, Luke (3 vols; WBC 35; Dallas:  Word, 1989–93), 1:149. In his Matthew commentary John Nolland offers a slightly different angle, asking, “Are we to think of a single axe or many coordinated axes, with each tree said to be in a ready-to-be-felled situation? Perhaps the latter:  each tree is in an ‘axe to root’ situation” (The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 145). 44. Cf. the comment of France: “Cutting at the root indicates a final removal of the tree rather than pruning” (Matthew, 112). Less convincing is Yamasaki: “The mention of the axe lying near the root of the trees does not envision an attack on the root. Instead, it envisions an attack on the trees themselves by which they are chopped down (cf. v. 10b) and thus severed from their root” (John the Baptist, 90). Even here, however, the understanding of having been severed from the root of Abraham is no less radical a judgment. 45.  Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:469. He continues by contending that a different connotation is conveyed in Lk. 3:17 (discussed below). 46.  Nolland, Matthew, 145. Jürgen Becker highlights how “Zorn und Feuer schon im Alten Testament ganz verwandte Motive sind, um Gottes Gerichtshandeln zu beschreiben” (Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth [BibS(N) 63; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972], 27). Cf. also Rudolf Mayer, Die biblische Vorstellung vom Weltenbrand:  Eine Untersuchung über die Beziehungen zwischen Parsismus und Judentum (BOS 4; Bonn: Orientalisches Seminar, 1956). 47. Cf. further the references in Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 159n8.

66

The Parables in Q

rather pervasively not only in contexts of judgment falling upon Israel’s enemies but also upon the unfaithful in Israel.48 Examples of the former can be found in Amos 1:7, 10, 12, 14; Jer. 43:12; Nah. 3:13; and Zech. 11:1 and of the latter in Isa. 10:17-18; Jer. 4:4; 5:14; 11:16; 21:14; and Ezek. 15:6-7.49 Given this context, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the metaphoric transfer of fire destroying dead wood to fire destroying the individual represented by the tree that has been felled would be natural, if not expected. Thus, after the ax has been laid, the good fruit has been found to be wanting, and the tree has been chopped down, the parable concludes with an image reflecting that “[a]m Tage des Gerichts Gott mit dem Feuer [straft].”50 In sum, Gemünden has captured the cumulative effect of the parable with the statement, “Der Täufer realisiert Metaphern aus der prophetisch(apokalyptisch)en Tradition, verschärft sie aber sachlich (Axt an die Wurzel der Bäume statt am Baum(stamm)) und zeitlich (statt Gericht in unbestimmter Zukunft) im Sinne seines Anliegens.”51 4.2.2 Parable of the Winnowing (Q 3:17) Mt. 3:12

Lk. 3:17

οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ διακαθᾶραι τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ συναγαγεῖν τὸν σῖτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ. τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ. The second parable of John the Baptist is found in Q 3:17. Once again, there are considerable similarities between Matthew and Luke, with only two differences being found in the two accounts. First, Matthew uses future verbs throughout whereas Luke has two infinitives before the future κατακαύ σ ει, and second, the placement of the third αὐτοῦ varies in Matthew (τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ) and Luke (τὴν ἀποθ ήκην αὐτοῦ).52 Though the second difference may have 48. Cf. also von Dobbeler, Das Gericht, 141. 49.  In Jer. 22:7, trees are burned as part of the judgment of God upon the house of the king of Judah. 50. Roland Schütz, Johannes der Täufer (ATANT 50; Zürich: Zwingli, 1967), 78. A specific connection of the fire here and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is possible (cf. John S. Kloppenborg, “City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q),” Semeia 52 [1990]:  145–60), but not necessarily the case (cf. Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 75–6). 51. Gemünden, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 123. 52.  Bovon, Lukas, 1:177n54, sees the infinitives as Lukan redaction (cf. also Nolland, Luke, 153, who sees Luke improving the syntax), whereas Davies and Allison, Matthew,

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

67

slight interpretive import within the context of Matthew, as Robert L. Webb notes, “The minor variations between Matthew’s and Luke’s versions do not materially affect the sense.”53 4.2.2.1 Plot Analysis In this presentation of what would have been a common scene in Palestine,54 the reader is presented with a compact plot leading Bovon to observe: “Die aufeinander folgenden Handlungen sind gedrängt dargestellt.”55 In the initial situation the stronger, coming one (Mt. 3:11//Lk. 3:16)56 has a πτύον in his hand. It appears that both the complication and the transforming action are encompassed in the action in which he διακαθαρίζει τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ. There is some debate as to whether this phrase refers to the actual process of winnowing or to the clearing of the threshing floor after the winnowing has already taken place. 1:318 attribute Matthew’s future tenses as redactional. The placement of αὐτοῦ in the Lukan position is seen as original by, e.g., Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 19, whereas Harnack, Sayings, 3, viewed the Matthean location as original. 53. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 277. Alfred Loisy similarly observed: “Les variants à l’égard de Matthieu n’ont aucune portée” (L’Évangile selon Luc [Paris: Émile Nourry, 1924], 140). Bock, in his comments on Lk. 3:17, states, “The idea expressed here agrees with Matt. 3:12 exactly, though Matthew uses verbs where Luke has infinitives—a difference that is only stylistic” (Luke, 1:325). Matthew’s reference to “his wheat” is often understood in connection with the parable in Mt. 13:24-30 (the parable is interpreted in vv. 37–43). Ulrich Luz, e.g., comments, “Das Bildwort von der Worfschaufel und Verbrennen der Spreu aus Q paßt gut zur matthäischen Theologie . . . Die Scheidung von Spreu und Weizen in der Tenne entspricht der Konzeption der christlichen Gemeinde als corpus permixtum (13,40–42; 22,11–14)” (Das Evangelium nach Matthäus [4 vols; EKKNT 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener, 1985–2002], 1:149). Harry Fleddermann, who views Matthew’s wording as secondary and redactional, sees the first evangelist emphasizing an “allegorical understanding of the wheat by shifting the position of the pronoun αὐτοῦ” (“John and the Coming One [Matt 3:11–12// Luke 3:16–17],” SBLSP 23 [1984]: 380). 54.  Cf. Hagner, Matthew, 1:52. Reiser further states, “Der Stoff des Gleichnisses ist der Landwirtschaft entnommen und setzt die Kenntnis des im gesamten Raum der Antike üblichen Reinigens des gedroschenen Getreides durch Worfeln voraus” (Gerichtspredigt, 165; cf. also Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 31). 55. Bovon, Lukas, 1:177. 56.  The figure is described slightly differently in Mt. 3:11 (ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν) and Lk. 3:16 (//Mk 1:7; ἔρχεται δὲ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου). Concerning the difference, Webb rightly notes, “While both statements express similar ideas, the first emphasizes the characteristic of strength, while the latter emphasizes the action of coming . . . They are not distinguished in their sense, only in their emphasis” (John the Baptizer, 270–1). Webb continues with a statement completely à propos for the present study: “Since we are not seeking the precise wording of John’s saying here, it is sufficient for us to conclude that John proclaimed a figure who was both coming and mightier” (ibid., 271).

68

The Parables in Q

Webb has argued that the image is to be understood as presenting a scene in which “the winnowing has already taken place, and the farmer is now poised to remove the already separated piles of wheat and chaff from the threshing floor.”57 He bases his argument for this understanding on πτύον being a winnowing shovel and not a winnowing fork, διακαθαίρω not meaning “winnow,” and the threshing floor and not the grain being the object of cleansing.58 Basing the interpretive decision upon these terms, however, is problematic. Gerd Häfner, for example, rightly notes, “Die Worfschaufel kann nach dem Gebrauch der Worfgabel beim zweiten Worfelgang eingesetzt werden”59 and that though διακαθαίρω is not one of the more common verbs for “winnow,” the very similar καθαρίζω clearly is attested as meaning “to winnow.”60 Furthermore, ἅλων can be either the threshing floor or the threshed grain which was taken to the threshing floor.61 Thus, Häfner appears to be correct in concluding that the meaning “sich . . . nicht an den Wörtern entscheiden [kann], die die Aussage tragen.”62 In addition, it seems that the καί used to join the two actions tends to point toward two activities occurring 57. Robert L. Webb, “The Activity of John the Baptist’s Expected Figure at the Threshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17,” JSNT 14 (1991):  105. Cf. also Webb, John the Baptizer, 296–9. This view is also advanced by Nolland: “The most likely image is that of clearing the threshing floor after the winnowing has separated the grain and the chaff, but the imagery has been taken to refer to the winnowing process: he will cleanse the threshed grain from its chaff by the winnowing process” (Matthew, 148). Cf. also Nolland, Luke, 1:153: “The winnowing which makes it possible to gather up separately the grain and the chaff has already been done. The winnowing-fork is now to be used for shoveling up the grain to be taken off to the grainery.” 58. Webb, “Activity,” 106–107; cf. idem, John the Baptizer, 296. 59. Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 81. 60. Cf., e.g., Xenophon, Oec. 18.6 (καθαροῦμεν τὸν σῖτον λικμῶντες) as well as the comments in Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 81; and Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 166, 166n12. 61.  Cf., e.g., LXX Ruth 3:2 for the latter meaning. Marshall, Luke, 148, simply draws attention to the fact that the term has one of these two possible meanings. 62.  Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 81. Illustrative of this point is a passage from the Letters of Alciphron. A passage found in Ep. 2.23.1 (ἄρτι μοι τὴν ἅλω διακαθήραντι καὶ τὸ πτύον ἀποτιθεμένῳ ὁ δεσπότης ἐπέστη καὶ ἰδὼν ἐπῄνει τὴν ΐλεργίαν) is cited by Webb, John the Baptist, 297, followed by his conclusion that “just as in John’s portrayal, the object being cleaned is the threshing floor, presumably after the winnowing had been completed, and the instrument used for this cleaning is the winnowing shovel” (ibid., 298; cf. idem, “Activity,” 108). Häfner, however, rightly observes that this passage leaves the precise meaning of the verb open and therefore cannot be used by Webb to “presumably” support his position (Der verheißene Vorläufer, 81n3). In fact, the ambiguity of the passage is underscored by noting that Reiser, Die Gerichtspredigt, 166, can cite the exact same passage to support a diametrically opposed view, namely, that what is in view is not “die Tenne fegen” but “den Ausdrusch (durch Worfeln) reinigen”! It is an overstatement to contend that “the language John uses actually presumes that the process of winnowing has already been completed” (Green, Luke, 182; emphasis added).

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

69

subsequent to each other, that is, winnowing and then separating leading to a gathering into the barn of the wheat and burning of the chaff.63 It appears, therefore, that the plot describes a winnowing, an action that then leads to a type of denouement in the separation of σῖτος and ἄχυρον as well as to the rapid arrival of the final situation with the σῖτος gathered into a barn and the ἄχυρον consigned to fire. Though it does appear to be the case that a winnowing activity is in view before the final gathering and burning action in the parable, Nolland is absolutely correct in noting, “The interest here is not, however, in a whole harvest process, with the point being made that its terminal phase is about to occur.”64 In addition, the order of events in the final situation seems to give slight emphasis to the burning of the chaff.65 Ultimately, regardless of how the precise phase of winnowing and/or separating is envisioned and interpreted, the parable emphasizes that it is the “Coming One,” the one to whom the harvest and farm belong, who will, on the one hand, gather his wheat, and, on the other hand, burn the chaff. It is worth noting that the parable’s plot focuses entirely on the action of the individual who is coming.66 4.2.2.2 Characters In this parable there are three “characters” present: the one with the πτύον in his hand, the σῖτος, and the ἄχυρον. The synthetic component of the first character

63. So also Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 81–2. Differently Webb, whose view forces him to conclude: “The next two statements [gathering and burning] . . . refer essentially to the same action, but now it is described with respect to the wheat and chaff specifically” (“Activity,” 108). 64. Nolland, Luke, 1:153. Heinz Schürmann observes that “die Erntearbeit, ja selbst schon die Tennenarbeit am Ende ist” (Das Lukasevangelium [HTKNT 3; 2 vols; Freiburg: Herder, 1969–94], 1:177). 65.  Davies and Allison also point out that this slight emphasis is supported by the parable’s “present context” (Matthew, 1:318). Interestingly, in the reference to this parable in Pistis Sophia 133, the order is reversed as reference is first made to the burning of the chaff and then to the gathering of the grain. 66.  For this reason, it is at the very least somewhat tenuous, even if Webb is correct in his interpretation that winnowing is not in view in the parable, to conclude that “instead of separating these two groups, the expected figure’s ministry is actually to take these two groups to their end, whether to the ‘granary’ or to the ‘fire,’ that is, whether to blessing or to judgment . . . It is John’s own ministry which has effectively separated the wheat from the chaff, the repentant from the unrepentant . . . It is John’s ministry which separates the repentant from the unrepentant, and it is the expected figure’s ministry which administers the restoration and judgment on these groups” (Webb, “Activity,” 109; cf. idem, John the Baptizer, 298–9). To my mind it is unlikely that the parable presupposes that the winnowing has already been done by John the Baptist and that the Coming One only takes these groups “to their end” and simply administers restoration and judgment. Cf. also Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:474, who emphasizes that the eschatological sorting imaged here is “to be accomplished by him who is the more powerful one,” i.e., the individual who is coming.

70

The Parables in Q

as a fiktives Wesen is constructed, as mentioned above, through a direct contextual identification as a figure who is both stronger than John the Baptist and one who is “coming.” The descriptive characterization of this figure through the narrator of the parable continues in the mimetic component of the character when he is introduced with a πτύον in his hand, a clear indication that this individual is about to engage in an agricultural activity. As the parable progresses, Webb has helpfully observed, “It is interesting to observe in John’s description that it is the owner of the grain who is performing the action.”67 Unlike in, for example, Q 10:2, a parable of Jesus discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.6, where the image entails the owner or master sending laborers into the harvest, here there is no indication of the presence of hired hands. Only the owner is in view and only he engages in the cleansing, gathering, and burning. A potential reason for this singular focus upon the owner arises when the character begins to be considered as a Symbol. The lack of an explicit identification, as Fleddermann notes, leads to the natural question, “Who is the Coming One?,” a question that “opens up a narrative arc that pulls the reader into the story.”68 Within the context of Q, this figure is clearly to be understood as Jesus,69 a highly significant point to which I return when considering the

67.  Webb, John the Baptizer, 296. Webb continues, “This is indicated by the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ indicating ownership of the wheat (so Mat. 3.12) or the granary (so Luk. 3.17),” to which he correctly adds, “Whether the pronoun modifies the wheat or the granary is irrelevant at this point (the owner of the farm would probably own both the grain and the grainary); it is the owner of the farm who is performing the work.” 68. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 107. 69.  Cf. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 33: “[Q] identifiziert den Richter mit dem (als Menschensohn kommenden) irdischen Jesus.” Claus-Peter März similarly concludes:  “Im Zusammenhang der Quelle ist dabei ohne Zweifel von Jesu die Rede” (“Zum Verständnis der Gerichtspredigt in Q,” in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung:  Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament [ed. Hans-Josef Klauck; QD 150; Freiburg:  Herder, 1994], 137). Cf. also Bock, Luke, 1:324: “Jesus separates between people, and the winnowing fork is in his hand already” and W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (AB 26; Garden City:  Doubleday, 1971), 27:  “This verse emphasizes the role of the Messiah in judgment when he comes with his baptism.” Michael Tilly, Johannes der Täufer und die Biographie der Propheten: Die synoptische Täuferüberlieferung und das jüdische Prophetenbild zur Zeit des Täufers (BWANT 137; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993), 78, contends that the “historical John” would have identified the “Coming One” as God and not as Jesus. This position is also cautiously advanced by von Dobbeler, Das Gericht, 76–7, 144–7. Manson, however, disagrees with this sentiment, “The language of v. 16 is not the kind that John would have used of God” (Sayings, 41). Be that as it may, the question of what was “originally” meant by John in his preaching, though interesting to consider, is, however, essentially irrelevant for the identification in Q for “in Christian circles, and certainly in Q, ὁ ἐρχόμενος was identified with Jesus (as Q 7:18–23 shows)” (Kloppenborg, Formation, 104; cf. also idem, Excavating Q, 391). For a survey of the various figures identified with the “Coming One” in scholarship, cf. Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation, 307–11, who herself also sees the term referring to Jesus as the Son of Man.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

71

place of John the Baptist’s parables in Q.  In any case, it is readily apparent that the character is presented in this way in continuation of the imagery of judgment found in the first parable (Q 3:9). The second and third “characters” are the σῖτο ς and the ἄχ υρ ον, and they are simply placed into the story as part of the unfolding of the agricultural activity of the plot. When considered with a view toward their mimetic component, unlike in the first parable told by John the Baptist where the “plant character” is implicitly responsible for the action of bearing good fruit, here the σῖτο ς and the ἄχ υρ ον are only acted upon. They are, however, brought into a clear relationship with the owner who judges their “traits” by gathering the precious former up into his barn and burning the worthless latter. As was the case with the “trees” above, in order to consider σῖτο ς and ἄχ υρ ον as Symbol, it is necessary to examine these two “characters” as images. 4.2.2.3 Images As discussed more fully in Chapter 8, Section 8.6 (Q 10:2), the time of the harvest is a common image of the time of the eschatological judgment in the HB and Second Temple literature. In this parable, a θερισμός is not explicitly mentioned; however, imagery associated with the harvest is clearly present. The imagery of harvesting, threshing, and winnowing is used both for depicting Judah and Israel destroying their enemies (e.g. Isa. 41:14-16 and Mic. 4:12-13) and for what has befallen Israel at the hand of others (e.g. Isa. 21:10). Though the term ἄχυρον does not appear all that often in the LXX and most often renders ‫בּת‬ ֶ ‫( ֶן‬straw),70 the term can be used as an image for the wicked, as in Job 21:18 or in Isa. 17:13.71 When the semantic field is expanded to include the variety of terms used to describe that from which the grain has been separated in the winnowing process, the depiction of those upon whom judgment falls as the “non-grain” elements in the harvest is rather commonplace. In addition, judgment being depicted as the burning of the καλάμη (rendering the Hebrew ‫ )שַׁק‬can be found in, for example, Isa. 5:24; Nahum 1:10; Obad 18; and Mal. 3:19.72 70. Cf. Gen. 24:25, 32; Exod. 5:7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18; Judg. 19:19; Job 41:19; Isa. 11:7; and 65:25. Particularly interesting is Jer. 23:28 where ‫ ֶתּ ֶבן‬, rendered with ἄχυρον, is explicitly contrasted with ‫( ַבּר‬threshed grain). Reiser quite confidently states, “Was also im Gleichnis des Täufers verbrannt wird, ist nicht ‘Spreu’ . . . sondern ‘Stroh’ oder ‘Häcksel’ ” (Gerichtspredigt, 165). 71. In the latter verse ἄχυρον renders the Hebrew ‫( מֹץ‬chaff). In Isa. 30:24, where ἄχυρον is a reference to the feed of oxen and donkeys, the Hebrew ‫ ָח ִמיץ‬, which it renders, is explicitly described as having been winnowed with a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork. In addition, in Dan. 2:35, the term renders the Aramaic ‫( עוּר‬chaff), where the verse explicitly indicates that this is found on the summer threshing floor. 72. A further instance of ‫ ַקשׁ‬being burned can be found in Isa. 47:14, though here the LXX reads φρύγανον. On Mal. 3:19 being recalled in John’s “portrait of what is to come,” cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 122. Rightly cautious, however, of a tendency, at times, to connect Q 3:17 almost exclusively to Mal. 3:19 (cf., e.g., Jeffrey A. Trumbower, “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel

72

The Parables in Q

Though this use of the image in the Jewish tradition would likely be sufficient to effect a metaphoric transfer from the burning of chaff in agriculture to the destruction of the wicked in judgment, the fact that the fire used to burn the ἄχυρον is described as πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ alludes to the Bildfeld linking God’s judgment, wrath, or anger with a fire that cannot be quenched (e.g. Isa. 66:24; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 17:27; 21:12; Amos 5:6).73 As Nolland observes, “The word [ἀσβέστῳ] protrudes somewhat from the imagery as an allegorical element designed to evoke images of the fire of God’s irreversible final judgment.”74 Lohmeyer, therefore, rightly recognized that the unquenchable nature of the fire is one of the ways in which the text reveals another layer of meaning as a parable.75 It is clear that the advent of the final stages of the harvest along with the fate of the wheat and the chaff continue in the vein of the imagery of imminent eschatological judgment already found in John the Baptist’s first parable.76 Against the backdrop of these explicit contextual elicitors of metaphoric transfer found at the end of the parable, it is readily apparent that the prior-mentioned grain, as Fitzmyer puts it, “symbolize[s] the persons who will be saved by the judge who is to come.”77 As the reader or hearer of this parable is confronted

[ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 35–6), Allison states, “John’s word about judgment may not allude to any one text in particular but rather illustrate a natural concatenation of traditional eschatological motifs” (Intertextual Jesus, 124). Cf. also the comments of James D. G. Dunn in the chapter following Trumbower’s in the same volume (“John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel [ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 49). 73. In each instance a negation involving the verb σβέννυμι appears in the LXX. Cf. also the imagery in Isa. 34:9-10. Again cautioning against drawing a direct connection between Q 3:17 and only one verse, in this instance Isa. 66:24, is Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 227–8. 74.  Nolland, Matthew, 149. Cf. also Nolland, Luke, 1:152–53. Cf. in addition France, Matthew, 115, who views the words as one of two that point “beyond the pictorial scene to the reality it signifies” (διακαθαίρω/διακαθαρίζω being the other) and Richard Valantasis, The New Q: A Fresh Translation with Commentary (New York:  T&T Clark, 2005), 48, who speaks of “inextinguishable fire” having “cosmic connotations.” Though the “cleansing” may convey purification or refining as in Mal. 3:2-3, Kloppenborg points out that despite the verbs διακαθαίρω or διακαθαρίζω not being common, there are examples of cognate nouns appearing in papyri and referring to the pruning of plants (“The Power and Surveillance of the Divine Judge in the early Synoptic Tradition,” in Christ and the Emperor: The Gospel Evidence [ed. Gilbert Van Belle and Joseph Verheyden; BToSt 20; Leuven: Peeters, 2014], 159n37, with reference to P.Soter. 4.24–28 and P.Strass. IX 872.7–9). 75. Lohmeyer, “Vom Baum und Frucht,” 379. 76.  Cf. Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew:  A Commentary (Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, 1981), 97; Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 31; and Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer, 56. 77. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:475.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

73

with the particular manner in which the agricultural imagery is employed and developed, the σῖτος becomes associated with those who avoid the fire, and thus avoid judgment. Furthermore, as Josef Ernst notes, “Das Einführen des Weizens in die Scheunen erinnert an die eschatologische Sammlung der im Gericht Geretteten.”78 This image of “gathering” is significant due to its several occurrences in Q, a point that is discussed further below. Through the gathering of the grain, the parable may well express, as Hoffmann observes, “die Möglichkeit der Heilserlangung,” and yet it is important to recognize that “im ganzen . . . jedoch auch hier die Gerichtsansage [überwiegt].”79 This is due not only to emphasis falling upon the burning of the chaff due to its placement at the end of the parable, but also, as discussed above, because of the burning of the chaff with π υρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.80 Both of these elements ultimately serve to underscore the parable’s focus upon judgment.81 In conclusion, it is worth noting that the burning with which the parable concludes is not the apocalyptic Weltbrand as the imagery does not involve the whole world in destruction; rather, “jeder einzelne Mensch wird vernichtet, insofern er nicht zu dem ausgesiebten guten Weizen gehört.”82 4.2.3 The Parables of John the Baptist in Q At the outset of this chapter the significance of John the Baptist in Q was briefly noted, as well as elements of the manner in which the sayings attributed to him function in Q. It has often been observed, as Christopher Tuckett puts it: “One of the more surprising features of Q is the amount of space devoted to John the Baptist. John’s preaching is set out in detail in Q 3:7–9 and in 3:16 f., and a long section a little later in Q (7:18–35) discusses the position of John in some detail.”83 A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that the preaching in which the two parables spoken by him are found may very well have been part of the opening sayings of Q,84 leading Ernest Bammel to comment that “it 78.  Ernst, Lukas, 146. Fleddermann carries the metaphoric transfer one step further with his conclusion: “In the context of Q the barn can only stand for the kingdom of God” (Q: Reconstruction, 231). 79. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 31. 80. The attempt by Günther Schwarz, “τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει” ZNW 72 (1981): 264–71, to reconstruct an Aramaic original behind Matthew in Luke in which there is no reference to “fire” is not convincing. 81.  Cf. also Kloppenborg’s conclusion:  “Q’s interest lay in the destructive side of the Coming One’s role” (Formation, 107). 82. Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 167. 83.  Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 108. For numerous references to other scholars commenting on John’s prominence in Q, cf. Clare K. Rothschild, Baptist Traditions and Q (WUNT 190; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 7–8n11. 84. Risto Uro expresses this view more strongly: “The comparison of Matthew and Luke makes it obvious that Q opened with a collection of John’s sayings” (“John the Baptist and

74

The Parables in Q

is even more surprising that a document that is supposed to consist merely of sayings of Jesus starts with sections dealing with John.”85 As such, both the figure of John the Baptist and his message, including these two parables, play an important role is setting the stage and providing several theological trajectories for Q. In addition, these parables reveal the applicability, at least in part, of Fleddermann’s comments on Q 11:24-26 to the parables of John: “The parables in Q are not embellishments; they do not serve just to dress up the argument by introducing striking images. Instead, they help develop the argument of the speeches and dialogues further.”86 In fact, there is a sense in which the messages and imagery of the parables perform a function that a simple speech or dialogue cannot and thus, these parables play a unique role alongside John’s other speeches and dialogues. The most often noticed component of these two parables is the emphasis upon judgment.87 Here it should expressly be noted that neither parable merely presents an image of the future final judgment but also employs depictions pointing to the proximity of this judgment.88 In this way, John the Baptist’s preaching locates Q within a context of urgency:  judgment is upon us.89 The repeated use of “fire” as a catchword within the discourse (cf. vv. 9, 16, the Jesus Movement: What Does Q Tell Us?” in The Gospel Behind the Gospels [ed. Ronald A.  Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden:  Brill,  1995], 234). Both Matthew and Luke identify the preaching as that of John the Baptist and it is generally accepted that this identification was also found, in some form, in Q (cf. Harry Fleddermann, “The Beginning of Q,” SBLSP 24 [1985]: 153–59; and Kloppenborg, “City and Wasteland,” 149–51; cf. Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 35, who points to the “sachliche Gemeinsamkeiten” that are present “bei aller Differenz im Wortlaut zwischen Mt und Lk”). Ron Cameron, however, contends “Q 3:7–9, 16–17 do not explicitly mention John by name. Although the embedded contexts of these verses in Matthew and Luke identify the speaker as John (the Baptist), the extant text of Q does not make that identification explicit” (“ ‘What Have You Come Out to See?’ Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels,” Semeia 49 [1990]: 37). The reference to “the extant text of Q” presumably means the Q reconstruction accepted by Cameron. 85. Ernest Bammel, “Seminar Report: The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition,” NTS 18 (1971): 99. 86. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 508. 87. Tuckett is absolutely correct in noting that “for example, Q 3:9, when taken in isolation, could be just saying that useless trees are cut down and burnt” but that due to its placement in Q “in the midst of eschatological warnings” we are not here dealing with “general aphoristic proverbs seeking to persuade by their innate clarity and sweet reasonableness” but rather an attempt “to make even more vivid and threatening the direct warnings which the immediate context . . . is trying to get across” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 350). 88.  For this reason Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 82–3, seems to place too much emphasis on the future judgment in the second parable, discounting that here “der Richter als solcher vor der Tür steht.” 89.  Kloppenborg points out that “John is primarily a prophet of the coming end” and that the pericopae in which the two parables of John are found “reflect the deuteronomistic

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

75

17) serves to connect the various elements of the Baptist’s sayings, and at least in the parables the fire is clearly depicting judgment.90 Fleddermann notes that in this speech “the catchwords are not arbitrary. Together they announce a major theme—either produce fruit or be thrown into the fire.”91 Later in Q, this producing of fruit is an image taken up again in Q 6:43-44, discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.2, where in Jesus’s teaching the nature of the fruit functions to indicate the nature of the tree.92 It is also significant that in both Matthew and Luke the first parable’s announcement of proximate judgment follows a reference to the possibility of the addresses referring to themselves as having Abraham for a father, that is, of being Abraham’s children. This leads Hoffmann to conclude, “Die Rede richtete sich in Q an die Kinder Abrahams, an Israel.”93 Israel as addressee highlights the important point “daß in Q nicht ein Teil, sondern das ganze Volk insgesamt angesprochen werden sollte.”94 At the same time, to state “Johannes wird hier gezeichnet  als öffentlich auftretender scharfer Kritiker des Judentums”95 is more problematic, as such a comment can far too easily be construed as viewing John the Baptist criticizing the Jewish religion rather than Israel. It is decidedly not Judaism that is in view, but the Jewish nation. As Kloppenborg rightly observes, Seen within the context of the eschatological expectations of Second Temple Judaism, John’s oracle is not terribly out of place. Like judgment sayings after trito-Isaiah, it assumes that the essential division is not between Israel and the nations, but within Israel—those who display μέτανοια and those who refuse. And like other oracles from this period, it pronounces destruction on the latter.96

pattern in which the prophets are interpreted as preachers of repentance and as heralds of judgment” (Formation, 105). 90.  Cf. Uro, “John the Baptist,” 243; and Wendy Cotter, “Yes, I  Tell You, and More Than a Prophet,” in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. John S. Kloppenborg; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 137. Cf. also Dibelius, Johannes, 50, who explicitly highlighted the repetition of the term. Kloppenborg refers to “John’s warning of an impending and fiery judgment and an injunction to repent (Q 3:7–9). On its heels follows a description in similarly fiery terms of the ‘Coming One’ (Q 3:16–17)” (Excavating Q, 118). 91. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 224. 92. Cf. also Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 27. 93.  Ibid. Cf. also Ernst who states that the preaching is directed to the “angesprochene Abrahamskinder, also . . . die jüdische Generation im allgemein” (Johannes der Täufer, 41). 94. Ibid., 42. 95. Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 75. 96.  Kloppenborg, “Power and Surveillance,” 159. Tuckett states that John “implicitly rejects any special exemption from divine judgement which can be claimed by Jews qua

76

The Parables in Q

However, and as also already noted above, it is important to recognize the salvation imagery found within these judgment parables. Ernst rightly sees in John’s preaching: “Der in die Drohung eingeblendete Umkehrruf hebt auf die Entscheidung in der Gegenwart und auf die Möglichkeit der Rettung ab.”97 He subsequently observes, “Johannes ist wie die Propheten des Alten Testamentes Gerichtsprediger, das kommende Heil ist zwar nur ein Nebenmotiv, aber man darf es nicht untergehen lassen.”98 The “good fruit” in the first parable that a tree could bear was already seen to be an image that reoccurs in Q; in the second parable the “gathering” image is one that also finds expression in the “gathering” of people from the four corners of the earth to the kingdom (Q 13:28, 29)  and in Jesus’s parable of the Invited Dinner Guests discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 5, Section 5.3). Thus, when Edwards refers to these parables as instances where “an item of common experience serves as the basis for instructing the listener about the inevitability of God’s judgment,”99 the statement is correct in the general sense (i.e. “God’s judgment is inevitably coming”) but not necessarily in the individual sense (i.e. “God’s judgment will inevitably fall on me”). An additional component of the place of John the Baptist’s parables in Q is the manner in which these parables, with their emphasis, but not exclusive focus upon judgment, brings the message of John the Baptist and Jesus into contact.100 Hoffmann has rightly observed, “die Logienquelle greift ohne Korrektur diese Gerichtsankündigung [of John the Baptist] auf ” concluding that this is a sign that “auch für sie die johanneische Naherwartung noch Gültigkeit besitzt.”101 As will also be seen in several parables discussed in the ensuing chapters, Dieter Zeller was correct in pointing out “wie Johannes so stellt sie [die Logienquelle] auch Jesus als Bußprediger dar.”102 It is, therefore, on the one hand, noteworthy that John the Baptist not only announces the Coming One but also prefigures a major component of the message of the One to come.103 On the other hand, as a forerunner to Jesus and the followers of Jesus, the coinciding of Jesus’s message with

Jews. Something more is now required and anyone failing to produce that ‘more’ is threatened with destructive judgement” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 114). 97. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 46. 98. Ibid., 308. 99. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 82. 100.  For the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist in Q more generally, cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 307–15. 101. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 28. Cf. also Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 55. 102.  Dieter Zeller, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (SKK.NT 21; Stuttgart:  Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984), 19. 103.  As Ernst puts it, “Trotz der gravierenden Unterschiede vertreten für Q der Täufer und Jesus die gleiche Sache Gottes” (Johannes der Täufer, 47).

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

77

that of John the Baptist allows Q to begin with an “outsider’s” validation of that message.104 Despite the importance and significance of the connection between John the Baptist and Jesus that Q presents, in my estimation there is an even more significant, though barely discussed, connection made between the primary actors in Q’s opening parables. To be sure, it is often pointed out, as Reiser puts it, “Beide Gleichnisse haben dasselbe Thema:  die endzeitliche Reinigung Israels durch Gottes Tat.”105 It is also often noted that the “Coming One” of the second parable is identified by Q as Jesus (cf. Q 7:19; 13:25).106 Kloppenborg draws an important connection in stating “John’s Coming One . . . bears a striking similarity to the forensic figures encountered in the Tanak who separate the righteous from the wicked, destroying the latter.”107 I. Howard Marshall further notes that “the distinctive feature here as against earlier usage is that the task of judgment is assigned to the stronger One rather than to God himself.”108 What generally seems to have been overlooked, however, is that the apparent use of a divine passive in the first parable presents God as the prosecutor of judgment whereas the second parable assigns this role to the “Coming One,” that is to Jesus. If this interpretation is correct, John’s parables already create a direct connection between God’s activity and Jesus’s activity, a connection that is also clearly found in Q 10:2 and 3, for example. Concerning these parables, Risto Uro, in the context of arguing that Q 3:7-9 and Q 3:16-17 did not originally belong together, stated, “Although the announcement of the imminent judgment occurs in both sayings, the first is simply a threat of judgment and a call to repentance, while the latter focuses on a figure who will bring a more powerful baptism and fiery judgment.”109 Though there is perhaps a slight difference of emphasis in the two parables, both clearly depict agents of the judgment and in the former it is God, in the latter it is Jesus. Thus, even if one follows Cotter’s view that “each of the two logia shows a composite structure” and that “they have been joined to achieve a semblance of a unitary address,”110 it would appear that a key component of that unitary address is not only the theme of judgment but also the equating of the activity of God and that of Jesus. 104. Cf. Arnal’s statement, “John, a figure who stands outside the community, is, in reiterating the precise message of Q and of Q’s Jesus, made to legitimate the beliefs of the embattled Q people” (“Redactional Fabrication,” 176). März observes, “Besonders hervorzuheben ist, daß die Quelle in der Täuferpredigt mit dem Bußruf an Israel einsetzte und von diesem Ausgangspunkt bis zum Schluß bestimmt bleibt” (“Zum Verständnis,” 133). 105. Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 167. 106. Cf., e.g., the discussion in Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 229–30; and Uro, “John the Baptist,” 240–3. Cf. also n. 69 above. 107. Kloppenborg, “Power and Surveillance,” 160. 108. Marshall, Luke, 148. 109. Uro, “John the Baptist,” 244. 110. Cotter, “ ‘More Than a Prophet,’ ” 136.

78

The Parables in Q

4.3 The Q Parable of the Centurion 4.3.1 Parable of an Authority under Authority (Q 7:8) Mt. 8:9

Lk. 7:8

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.

Within the pericope involving Jesus’s encounter with a centurion, the dialogue of the centurion with Jesus includes this parable.111 Though there has been some debate concerning how much of the narratival elements of the miracle story were found in Q, even the most radical position, as exemplified in Manson’s statement “it is almost certain that the dialogue alone belongs to Q,”112 affirms that this parable is clearly part of Q.113 The solitary difference between the Matthean and the Lukan version is the presence of the participle τασσόμενος in Luke,114 generally ascribed to Lukan redaction and elucidation.115 4.3.1.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation of this, once again, very compact parable is simply the presence of a centurion who is one both under authority and having authority. Precisely 111.  Bovon, Lukas, 1:351 states, “Der Gleichniserzähler vernimmt hier seinerseits ein Gleichnis.” Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 189, 203, also refers to the passage as a “Gleichnis.” 112.  Manson, Sayings, 63. Contra Manson, cf. the comments in Kloppenborg, Formation, 118, who notes that “although the hands of the evangelists are in evidence throughout both versions of the story, the miracle narrative is too intrinsic to be considered redactional.” 113.  David Catchpole’s reference to the passage being an “apophthegmatic miracle story” reflects the challenges scholarship has faced in explicating the genre of this account (“The Centurion’s Faith and Its Function in Q,” in The Four Gospels 1992:  Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 1:518). Cf. the brief overview in Kloppenborg, Formation, 118. 114. The participle is also found in a few manuscripts of Matthew, including ‫א‬ and B. 115.  Cf. Uwe Wegner, Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum (WUNT 2.14; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 208. Extensive documentation can be found in Steven R. Johnson, Q 7:1–10: The Centurion’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 306–12.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

79

under whose authority the centurion finds himself is not explicitly stated; however, the ones over whom he has authority are identified, at least at the outset, as στρατιώτας. Subsequently, and in rapid succession, three parallel actions, each with their own, but parallel final situations, are recounted.116 In the first action, the centurion says to “this [soldier],” πορεύθητι, and he goes. In the second action, the centurion says to “another [soldier],” ἔρχου, and he comes. And in the third action, a new figure not included in the initial state, namely, a slave, is introduced. In this final action the centurion says to his slave, ποίησον τοῦτο, and he does it. Though the opening statement of the centurion in the initial situation is a well-known crux interpretum, discussed further below when the centurion as a character is considered, the relevant aspect of that statement for all the ensuing recounted actions is directly related to the centurion having authority. On the basis of this authority, each action and final situation is readily understandable as illustrative of the exercise of authority and its ability to effect that which is commanded. At the same time, however, though the plot parallels three actions and final situations, it is striking that the first two actions involve soldiers but the final one a slave. This point must also be given further attention below. 4.3.1.2 Characters Both Matthew and Luke identify the speaker as a ἑκατοντάρχης, a centurion. Though there has been some debate concerning whether this centurion belonged to auxiliary forces or the Roman legions and the precise nationality of this centurion,117 it is quite clear that he is a Gentile.118 With a view toward the tradition lying behind this account, Kloppenborg observes, “whether or not the petitioner was identified as a Gentile from the outset . . ., this identification is crucial to the Q story as it stands.”119 Important to note, however, is that this centurion plays a role 116.  The extreme brevity of each of these miniature narratives results in there only being an action and final situation with no complication, transforming action, or denouement. 117.  Cf. the comments of Wendy J. Cotter, The Christ of the Miracle Stories:  Portrait through Encounter (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 109–11, who considers whether the centurion was a Roman or not (ultimately concluding that he was and providing an informative discussion of Roman centurions on pp. 111–19) and Wegner, Der Hauptmann, 372–5, who briefly surveys suggestions that he was Roman or Syrian. 118.  Cf. Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 190–91. In a discussion of the entire pericope in Matthew, I  argued “ob der Kommandant ein Syrer ist . . . bleibt unklar, aber sicherlich handelt es sich um einen heidnischen Kommandanten, möglicherweise aus den Wach- und Schutzeinheiten der Söldnertruppe des Herodes Antipas (Flav. Jos. Ant. 17,198; 18,113f.;. . .)” (Dieter T. Roth, “Glaube und Fernheilung [Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum],” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Band 1: Die Wunder Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.; Gütersloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013], 393). For a lone voice that the centurion may not have been a Gentile, cf. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:527–28. 119. Kloppenborg, Formation, 118.

80

The Parables in Q

both as a “historical” person in Q 7:1-10 and as a character in the parable found in Q 7:8. It is this latter role that is of present interest, even though it must be admitted that there is an overlap of these two roles. When considering the centurion as a fiktives Wesen, an initial question concerning the synthetic element of this character is how the opening phrase καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας is to be understood. The challenges lie in understanding the point of comparison (i.e. is the centurion comparing his being under authority with Jesus being under authority?) and the seeming incongruence of the first and second half of the verse (i.e. why does the centurion speak of being “under authority” when he actually goes on to highlight his having authority?).120 In order to escape the difficulties posed, some have suggested a textual or translation problem. For instance, G. Zuntz suggested that the reading of sys in the Matthean passage, rendering ἐν ἐξουσία or ἔχων ἐξουσίαν, preserves the original form of the account, though Uwe Wegner rightly objected that this reading “erstens zu schwach bezeugt ist und zweitens die lectio facilior darstellt.”121 Others have posited a mistranslation of a supposed Aramaic original, a view that had already been set forth by Julius Wellhausen.122 As has often been noted, however, it is far from certain that such an original Aramaic text ever existed,123 and in any case Martin Hüneburg is correct in pointing out “für die Interpretation auf der Ebene von Q muß vom bestehenden griechischen Text ausgegangen werden.”124 A  different proposal is that of France, who interpreted the καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ not as leading to the reading “For I too (like you) am a man under authority” but rather “For I indeed am a man under authority,”125 though this seems a bit like special pleading. David C. Catchpole viewed the centurion as associating himself with mere humans and the ἔχων clause as concessive so that the centurion is stating, “Although I have soldiers under me, who come and go

120. Cf. the comment in Manson, Sayings, 65: “The words ‘for I also am a man set under authority’ are difficult; for the centurion goes on at once to say that he has men under him to whom he gives orders, whereas the opening phrase means one who receives orders.” 121.  Wegner, Hauptmann, 83. Cf. also the comments of Nolland, Luke, 1:317 and Hagner, Matthew, 1:204–205. Zuntz presented his view in “The ‘Centurion’ of Capernaum and His Authority (Matt. VIII. 5–13),” JTS 46 (1945): 183–90. 122. Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904), 36. Wegner, Hauptmann, 274–5, supports this view and also provides an overview of others offering various suggestions of how a translational problem could have led to the reading (ibid., 83–5). 123.  Cf., e.g., Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (2d ed.; NTD 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 138. 124.  Martin Hüneburg, Jesus als Wundertäter in der Logienquelle:  Ein Beitrag zur Christologie von Q (ABIG 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 132. 125.  R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice:  Two Samples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (ed. I. Howard Marshall; Carlisle:  Paternoster, 1972), 259.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

81

at my bidding, and a slave, who does what I say, I as a man am like them under authority.”126 Though, clearly, a variety of interpretive options have been offered for the opening statement of the centurion, in the words of Tuckett, the “more traditional interpretation” sets forth the view that “the centurion implies that Jesus, like he himself, is under authority (for Jesus, under God), but thereby in a position to give orders to others.”127 Though the debate concerning the precise interpretation of this statement is likely to continue, there is a certain amount of truth in France’s statement: “minor points of text and translation . . . are, of course, quite inessential for a basic exegesis of the passage. The main point of the verse is beyond doubt, the assertion of Jesus’ absolute authority by analogy with that of a military commander.”128 At the same time, however, regardless of the presence or implications of a comparison of the position of the centurion to the position of Jesus, it seems that there are at least two significant aspects to the synthetic component of the centurion as a fiktives Wesen, namely, his both being under and having authority, only one of which usually receives attention in the literature. The one aspect often mentioned is, as summarized by Catchpole, “as with the centurion’s being under authority so that he has power to issue commands which are obeyed, so also Jesus’ authority which derives from God implies that he needs only to speak and the demons of sickness will obey.”129 Or, as Oliver O’Donovan put it, “To be under authority is to be in a chain of command that authorizes. When the centurion says, ‘Go!’ or ‘Come!’ he exercises the authority that he stands under.”130 Here the emphasis falls on the centurion drawing on the authority he is under in order to exercise his own authority. Yet, it is also significant that since this character is constructed as both under authority and having authority, the centurion understands the power of a command both as the commanded and as the commander. To be sure, the parable focuses on the centurion as the one giving commands; however, this character simultaneously understands what it means to be under authority (and therefore what it means to be bound to follow an order) and also to be an authority (and therefore what it means to have others bound

126. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:535. For critical comments on this interpretation highlighting several reasons why such a reading has not become widely adopted, cf. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 216–17. 127. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 217. Though critical of this interpretation, Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:533, recognizes that it is the “dominant” one. 128. France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 259. 129. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:533–4. 130.  Oliver O’Donovan, “The Moral Authority of Scripture,” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible:  How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance; Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic, 2008), 166. Cf. also Schulz, Q, 243: “denn so wie ihm [the centurion] als Militär gerade aufgrund seiner eigenen Subordination wirksame Befehlsgewalt kraft seines bloßes Wortes zukomme, genauso stelle er sich die Macht und Befehlsgewalt Jesu über die Dämonen der Krankheit vor.”

82

The Parables in Q

to follow his order).131 This dual understanding may be part of the reason why he can express with such confidence that Jesus’s word can effect the desired healing (Q 7:7); he understands the voice of authority both in how it is heard and how it is spoken. As Cotter appropriately summarizes, there is no rank of soldier more appropriate for explaining how authority functions “than the centurions, renown [sic] for instilling obedience to commands and fulfilling them to perfection themselves.”132 The mimetic component of the centurion as a character in the parable, that is the manner in which this construction of him is effected and his traits, is set forth both through direct speech (the centurion describes his position) and through narrated action (he speaks a command and it is executed). Here, once again, the reader encounters an overlap of the centurion outside of and within the parable. On the one hand, in the opening situation the centurion directly relates the position of the character in the parable vis-à-vis his own being under authority. On the other hand, the final situations of the three fictive examples involving the soldiers and the slave serve to portray and reveal the authority this character has. In essence, with the introduction of three other characters, two soldiers and a slave, the issue of authority is focused onto the character trait of the centurion as one having authority. As Detlev Dormeyer puts it: “Drei Handlungen mit Befehlen an anonyme Personen veranschaulichen die Vollmacht des Centurio.”133 Here the issue of the centurion as Symbol arises, for it is clear that the thematic component of this character is the metaphoric transfer of the authority of the centurion’s words, exhibited in commands to soldiers and a slave, to the authority of Jesus’s words, with which the centurion believes Jesus can heal. Catchpole, however, has suggested one further thematic component with his view of the meaning behind the three examples of the exercise of authority: the centurion “gives three instances, the first two of which are symmetrical and therefore preparatory for the climactic third instance.”134 The third instance is climactic in that the reference to a δοῦλος “hints at the antonym . . . and thus to his status as a κύριος,” which Catchpole views as ultimately pointing to an even higher κύριος, namely, Jesus.135

131. The attempt by J. A. G. Haslam, “The Centurion at Capernaum: Luke 71-10,” ExpTim 96 (1985): 109–10, to understand the centurion as “under commission” without being controlled by orders is unconvincing. 132. Cotter, Christ of the Miracle Stories, 133. Cf. also the paraphrase of the implied meaning by Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 196: “I know from personal experience what a word from one in authority can do. A word from my superiors secures my obedience, and a word from me secures the obedience of my subordinates.” Cf. also France, Gospel of Matthew, 314. 133. Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 193. 134. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:535. 135.  Ibid., 1:535–6. Also seeing κύριος as carrying significant christological weight in the passage as a whole is Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 350. Differently, Kloppenborg, Formation, 117n73.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

83

As will be seen as early as the next chapter, however, Q employs a variety of “antonyms” for δοῦλος, and the extent to which the hearer’s or reader’s mental model of the centurion would include a definitive conception of him as a κύριος is not clear. One remains on firmer footing in seeing Q certainly employing the centurion as a Symbol for authority with only a slight possibility of here implicitly invoking specific κύριος conceptions that are to be metaphorically transferred to Jesus. The two soldiers and the slave have just been mentioned, and when considering these minor characters as fiktive Wesen, it is apparent that they are constructed as the recipients of commands, that is, as those under the centurion’s authority. The significant mimetic component of these characters, therefore, is the presentation of a common soldier (miles gregarius) and a slave as figures from whom unquestioning obedience was expected and required.136 It is this trait that is essential: when a soldier or a slave hears the authority over him speak, the command is carried out.137 When considering these characters as Symbol, a point that must be considered is that there are grounds for viewing this account as “a healing rather like an exorcism.”138 The question then arises, as to whether or not the soldiers and the slave are representative of demons. Hüneburg, however, would seem to be correct in stating: “[D]er Vergleich mit dem Befehlswort zwingt nicht dazu, einen personalen Adressaten als Befehlsempfänger [i.e. a demon] anzunehmen.”139 That is to say, though it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a transfer of the imagery of the parable could be made to the demonological realm,140 the imagery of the

136. Cf. also Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 366. 137.  Cf. the à propos comment of Bovon, Lukas, 1:351: “Was uns heute vielleicht stört, war damals möglicherweise der springende Punkt des Vergleichs: Der gehorsame Soldat oder Knecht darf keinen eigenen Willen zeigen.” 138. Ronald A. Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (ed. Andreas Lindemann), 321. 139.  Martin Hüneburg, “Heilung per Befehl (Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum):  Q 7,1.3.6b-9,” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013), 176. Of course, granting that having personal addressees in the parable does not require a demon to be in view in the healing does not mean that it is not possible to interpret the illness “in a quasi-personalised way” (Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers,” 323). 140.  Cf. the comments of Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 193:  “Der Übertrag bezieht sich auf das dämonologische Weltbild. Zwar fehlen bei der Krankheit hier noch die Dämonen, doch für das erwartete Wunder muss Jesus die Krankheitsdämonen austreiben. Der Hörer muss diese Leerstelle zunächst mit seinem zeitgeschichtlichen Wissen auffüllen. Die zweite Wundergeschichte (Q 11,14) und das anschließende Gespräch über die Dämonenaustreibungen (Q 11,15–20) holen dann diese Erklärung nach.” Davies and Allison, however, leave the question open, simply asking, “Should we, following Ps.-Clem. Hom 9.21; Rec 4.33, draw out the analogy so as to make Jesus the commander of demons?” (Matthew, 2:23n59).

84

The Parables in Q

parable itself and the primary thematic component of the characters remain on the level of military and societal structures and the exercise of authority therein. 4.3.1.3 Images Beyond the characters themselves, there are no individual images employed in the parable. There is, however, a narrated image that picks up the connection between “saying” and “doing”—what the centurion says others do.141 Put simply, the miniature narratives here depict the power present in a command.142 The manner in which this image is related to other passages in Q is explored below. It is also interesting to note that both the image and the construction of the “authority and obedience” element of the parable is not unknown in other ancient literature as it is quite similar to an account found in Epictetus, Diatr. 1.25.10 in which King Agamemnon states πορεύου with the result πορεύομαι and ἔρχου with the effect ἔρχομαι.143 4.3.1.4 The Parable in Q Regardless of the extent to which one might find Catchpole’s statement “It is scarcely possible to overestimate the importance for Q of this apophthegmatic miracle story and the theology it aims to articulate”144 hyperbolic, it is undoubtedly true that a number of important theological themes are raised in Q 7:1-10. In particular, the debated questions surrounding the centurion’s faith, especially as it relates to the question of a Gentile mission and Gentile faith in Q, arise out of this passage.145 The parable of present interest, however, does not touch directly upon these issues, but rather functions as the basis for the statement about the centurion’s faith while setting the stage for the Fernheilung by Jesus.146 It is thus not the function of the entire pericope in Q, but the function of the parable within the pericope, along with that which the parable draws on in Q, that is the focus here.

141.  For comments on the centurion’s understanding and his belief about “the connection between Jesus’ ‘saying’ and the ‘doing’ that flow from the word,” cf. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 352–3. 142. Wegner refers to “die Macht des befehlenden Wortes” (Der Hauptmann, 387). 143.  Also noted by Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:24. Cf. also Roth, “Glaube und Fernheilung,” 397. 144. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:518. 145. Cf. the differing perspectives of Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:518–20; and Kloppenborg, Formation, 117–20, or, a generation earlier, Lührmann, Redaktion, 58, 86–8; and Schulz, Q, 244–6. For a survey of older scholarship on the issue of a “Gentile Mission” in Q, cf. Wegner, Der Hauptmann, 304–31. 146.  This is not to say, however, that the issue of healing from a distance is already present in the centurion’s words as contended, e.g., by Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (4th ed.; Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; Leipzig:  A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1922), 339.

The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion

85

Two points are of primary significance:  first, what the parable illustrates about Jesus and second, what the parable illustrates about faith. When considering the teaching of the parable in relation to Q’s teaching concerning Jesus, Dormeyer has posited a connection between the power the centurion exercises and the power Jesus displays in the temptation account. He states, “Wie der Centurio unter der Vollmacht des Kaisers steht und diese über seine Soldaten ausübt, so hat Jesus die Vollmacht des Geistes Gottes inne, der ihn in die Wüste führte (Q 4,1), und übt die Vollmacht seitdem über den Teufel, die Menschen, den Tempel und den Kosmos aus (Q 4,1–12).”147 The supposed parallel between the source of the centurion’s and Jesus’s authority is not, however, the central focus of the parable. Rather, the emphasis, as Fleddermann puts it, falls upon the manner in which “the centurion understands authority and especially the power that authority confers,” and thus his acknowledging “that Jesus can order disease away as easily as the centurion can send away one of his soldiers.”148 Fleddermann therefore rightly concludes that the parable makes visible what it means to speak “the authoritative word that accomplishes what it says.”149 Though the centurion and his words here have, at times, been viewed as a Beispielserzählung illustrating obedience to Jesus as expressed in Q 6:46-49,150 Alan Kirk rightly notes that even if he is an example of the submission to Jesus required in the sermon, the centurion’s “request and his speech point to Jesus’ authority. As such the story has, like the Temptation, a legitimating function.”151 Along these lines, Labahn has noted the manner in which the passage involves a christological assessment on the part of the centurion: “Die Aussage über die eigene Vollmacht ist in Relation zu V.7 eine Aussage über die Vollmacht Jesu und damit eine titellose, aber dennoch direkte christologische Wertung des Centurio als Teil des Q-Textes.”152 In fact, Wegner has contended, “dem Worte Jesu [wird] durch die Vv 8bβ.9 eine Macht zugeschrieben . . ., die im AT in dieser Radikalität nur dem Worte Gottes selbst zugetraut wird.”153 Such power of God’s word is found in well-known accounts such as the creation account in Genesis 1 or in verses such as Ps. 33:9 and Isa. 55:10-11. Regardless of the extent to which one sees connections to the power of God’s words here, it is abundantly clear that the parable functions to demonstrate that the centurion places full trust and supreme

147. Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 193. 148. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 351. 149. Ibid., 352. 150. This is especially the case due to the catchwords κύριε (Q 6:46 and 7:6) and λόγος (Q 6:47, 49; 7:7). For helpful comments on both this interpretation and weaknesses in pressing the point too far, cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 366n437 and Kirk, Composition, 387. 151. Kirk, Composition, 387. 152. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 366. 153. Wegner, Der Hauptmann, 389.

86

The Parables in Q

confidence in the power and authority of Jesus’s words. What is more, Jesus’s amazement and comparison of the centurion’s faith with the faith he has found in Israel (Q 7:9) serves to underscore the question raised by the text of whether the reader or hearer of this parable can express this same faith. Q, with its tradition focusing on the words of Jesus, not only uses this parable to illustrate the power of Jesus’s words but also to query of its readers whether they have the same trust and confidence in the power and authority of Jesus’s words expressed here. Or stated slightly differently, the parable sets forth an appeal to join the centurion in his christological assessment of Jesus. At this point, the second emphasis mentioned above, namely, what the parable illustrates concerning faith, has already emerged. Yes, the passage exposes the power of the word of Jesus, and yet, as Catchpole puts it, “it is the word of the centurion which is, if anything, more arresting. For his word supremely witnesses to Jesus’ word, and if the word of Jesus is the direct cause of the miracle it is the word of the centurion that is the indirect cause.”154 The centurion has applied his own experiences to his understanding of Jesus.155 As Cotter observed, the military world, “the very world that would have been considered most coarse and the greatest liability to religious understanding turns out to have imparted the best and purest insight into Jesus’ authority.”156 Almost fifty years ago, Heinz Eduard Tödt highlighted how the unusual and surprising faith of the centurion “besteht darin, daß er der Kraft des Wortes Jesu unbedingt traut.”157 There is a sense in which “the centurion seems to know more than he ought!”158 For Q, however, that which the centurion knows is precisely that which all ought to know. The trust in the power and authority of Jesus’s word that the centurion expresses in his parable, a faith which amazes Jesus, is precisely the posture Q seeks to evoke in all its hearers and readers. Thus, once again, we see that the parable functions both to illustrate a truth about Jesus’s words and appeals to the reader of Q to agree with the centurion in this assessment.

154. Catchpole, “The Centurion’s Faith,” 1:540. 155. Cf. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 94: “Here is a man who has learned by observation, who sees the connection between his own experience and the ways of the world. This lesson is then applied to his situation in relation to Jesus.” 156. Cotter, Christ of the Miracle Stories, 134. 157.  Heinz Eduard Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1959), 234. Of course, it is the unusual faith of the Gentile centurion that the entire pericope thematizes at its conclusion. Cf. Schulz, Q, 245: “Auch wenn Israel damit keineswegs als ungläubig hingestellt wird – Jesus hat durchaus in Israel Glauben gefunden! – und der heidnische Offizier die große Ausnahme bleibt, hat er mit seinem vorrausetzungslosen Zutrauen das auf seine Offenbarungs-Tradition so stolze Israel beschämt.” 158. Green, Gospel of Luke, 288.

Chapter 5 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E S U S :  “ M A S T E R” / “ S L AV E ” P A R A B L E S

The three parables considered in the previous chapter are the only instances in Q where Jesus is not the parable teller, which allowed those three parables to be grouped according to the speaker of the parable. Though these parables are not insignificant in Q, the vast majority of the parables in Q are told by Jesus. Their sheer number highlights both their particular importance and the challenge of grouping them into more manageable categories. Each of the ensuing chapters thus considers a heuristic grouping of Jesus’s parables and their significance in Q focusing upon either a thematic component (e.g. characters such as “master”/“slave” or the “Son of Man” or content such as “discipleship” or the “kingdom of God”) or the approach of the parable to its content (e.g. “wisdom” or “community” parables). It is important to note that the organization of the parables in this manner is merely an attempt to discuss similarly themed or structured parables together and is not intended to imply a hard and fast distinction between the groupings.1 For instance, there is no intention of indicating that the following “master”/“slave” parables are not parables involving principles of discipleship or issues relevant to the kingdom of God or even aspects of Q’s understanding of the Son of Man. Nor are these the only parables in which a “master” or a “slave” character appears. Rather, in these parables, either the interaction between the “master” and a “slave” or several “slaves” factors prominently or these characters play a particularly important role in the primary emphases of the parables.2 As such, the organizational boundaries for the parables in this work are fluid and though others may be inclined to group 1.  Meier has noted the manner in which “we need only look at the table of contents of major books on the parables to discover that each book organizes and labels the parables in its own way” (Probing the Authenticity, 191). Meier’s suggested “relatively neutral standard” for organizing the parables by source (Mark, Q, M, or L) obviously does not work when one is only considering the Q parables! 2. Though these characters are therefore significant for understanding these parables, it is also important to remember that even as a parable asserts main premises, “they do so with all the richness of a well-told story, inviting the interpreter to explore various secondary or supportive meanings that are suggested by the story’s specific details” (Michael P. Knowles, “ ‘Everyone Who Hears These Words of Mine’: Parables on Discipleship [Matt 7:24–27//Luke 6:47–49; Luke 14:28–33; Luke 17:7–10; Matt 20:1–16],” in The Challenge

88

The Parables in Q

the parables differently, hopefully the present arrangement is at least comprehensible.3 Bearing these points in mind, in this chapter I begin by considering a group of parables that have often posed numerous challenges for the interpreter, namely, the “master”/“slave” parables.4

5.1 Parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42-46) Mt. 24:45-51

Lk. 12:42-46 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος·

τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφὴν ἐν καιρῷ; 46 μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει οὕτως ποιοῦντα· 47 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν. 48 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ κακὸς δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· χρονίζει μου ὁ κύριος, 49 καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς συνδούλους αὐτοῦ, ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ πίνῃ μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων, 50 ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, 51 καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.

τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος ὁ φρόνιμος, ὃν καταστήσει ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι ἐν καιρῷ [τὸ] σιτομέτριον; 43 μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος, ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως. 44 ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν. 45 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας, ἐσθίειν τε καὶ πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι, 46 ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει.

Though there are a few differences between the Matthean and Lukan presentation of this parable, Brian Han Gregg expresses the widely held view that “Matthew and Luke’s versions of the parable display a large degree of verbal correspondence, of Jesus’ Parables [ed. Richard N. Longenecker ; MNTS; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2000], 287). 3.  Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 184–8, has pointed out both the variety of approaches in grouping parables and the challenges one faces in attempting to capture them systematically. 4. In regard to the “master” in these parables, at points there is overlap between the material discussed in this chapter and in Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables,” 371–96.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

89

rendering it quite clear that they both come from Q.”5 In those instances where there are variations, Craig L. Blomberg correctly notes that “the variations which do occur almost all involve the substitution of one synonym or grammatical form of a word for another.”6 In addition, some differences, such as Matthew referring to a “servant/slave” in the opening sentence whereas Luke makes reference to a “steward” are not consistently different, that is, after this one use of οἰκονόμος, Luke subsequently uses δοῦλος throughout the remainder of the parable. In some instances, one version simply makes explicit what is implicitly clear in the other version, as when Matthew refers to a κακὸς δοῦλος in the second half of the parable.7 Thus, again, Scott’s comment reflects the general consensus: “It is obvious that Matthew and Luke have inherited a common parable.”8 5.1.1 Plot Analysis When considering the basic structure of this parable, Kirk provides a succinct synopsis with the statement: “Verses 42–46 strike a conventional wisdom theme by asking about a ‘faithful and wise’ servant, define him or her in a beatitude as one who is constantly prepared, promise a future reward, and then conclude with a description of the antitype and the corresponding sanction.”9 At the same time, a closer look at the plot provides a few insights of particular relevance for the analysis of the parable. The initial situation is presented through a question

5. Brian Han Gregg, The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q (WUNT 2.207; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 213. A  helpful overview of the two presentations in Matthew and Luke is found in Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 208–10. Cf. also Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 496–7; and Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus, 158–9; and the literature cited there. On the integrity of the parable, Erich Gräßer reflects the general consensus with his statement, “Die Komposition des Gleichnisses selbst ist einheitlich” (Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte [3d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977], 90). Cf. also the discussion in Arthur J. Dewey, “A Prophetic Pronouncement:  Q 12:42–46,” Foundations & Facets Forum 5 (1989):  102–103. It should be noted, however, that Dewey questions whether the passage should be called a “parable” and is of the opinion “that we have here a prophetic pronouncement of Wisdom” (ibid., 103). The only indication of why Dewey here rejects the genre label “parable” is the curious statement: “we find no introductory lead-in to some comparison here” (ibid.). 6.  Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 123. This, of course, is not to say that the differences are insignificant for understanding the parable in its Matthean or Lukan context. 7.  Several of the other differences are briefly discussed at relevant points in the discussion below. 8. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 210. 9. Kirk, Composition, 234. Cf. also the overview in Christine Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit (Vom treuen und untreuen Haushalter) Q 12,42-46 (Mt 24,45-51/Lk 12,42-46),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 161–2.

90

The Parables in Q

that “provides the mise en scene by describing the task given the servant.”10 This question, however, not only introduces a slave, a master, and the responsibilities entrusted to the slave by the master, but also draws the reader into the parable through the inquiry concerning the “who,” that is, concerning the identity, of a faithful and wise slave. This initial situation is the same for both “halves” of the parable, and thus antithetically parallel plot developments arise out of the same initial situation. It is interesting to note that in the initial situation in Q 12:42, the reader implicitly assumes that the master, the κύριος, is present with the slave in order to entrust him with the responsibilities mentioned. When one continues with v. 43, however, a close reading of the narrated actions of the κύριος reveals that the explicit reference to his coming is not preceded by any mention of his having departed.11 In other words, there is a narrative gap in that when encountering the scenario of the master’s coming in v. 43, the hearer of the parable has to mentally fill in a departure of the κύριος before “catching up” to the narrative with the master’s return. Significantly, in terms of the plot, the complication is found in this gap, for it is the departure and absence of the master that brings the stewardship responsibilities of the slave into sharp relief. Also worth noting is that in v. 43, the issue of the duration of the master’s absence is not raised. Thus, as the reader fills the narrative gap here, there is simply an indeterminate amount of time involving the master’s absence. In the second half of the parable, however, the gap is presented slightly differently in that the slave contemplates the delay of the κύριος. In v. 45, the indeterminate time of absence is expanded, at least in the sense that it is long enough for the perception of a delay to occur. The significance of this observation is that the key issue for the advancement of the plot in the second half of the parable is not the departure and absence of the master, but rather that the return of the master is delayed.12 For this reason, in v. 45 the complication is

10. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 635. Blomberg observes that the type of work presented, along with the type of reward and the particular nature of the evil servant’s wickedness “are dictated simply by the standard responsibilities, rewards and vices of servants in first-century Jewish households” (Interpreting the Parables, 192). 11.  This is also noted by Gerber in her consideration of the narrative elements in the parables. She observes, “Die Darstellung beschränkt sich auf das Notwendigste, so dass das Gesagte in den Vordergrund tritt” (“Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 162). Fleddermann notes that “it becomes clear as the parable develops that the master is absent” (“The Householder and the Servant Left in Charge,” SBLSP 25 [1986]: 25; emphasis added). 12. Pace Hultgren, Parables, 160. In the context of a discussion concerning the authenticity of this parable, Kloppenborg argues that the “blessed” statement in 12:43, the internal monologue of the servant in 12:45a, and 12:46 with the master’s return “all presuppose the Son of Man saying in 12:40 rather than any narrative element in the parable itself ” (John S. Kloppenborg, “The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus,” HTR 89 [1996]:  341). Although the parable may indeed pick up on 12:40, there is a clear sense in which the delay is required by the plot, for as Snodgrass points out, “In the second scene the

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

91

slightly different in that it includes “the temptation afforded by the master’s delay in returning that might turn a good servant into a bad one.”13 As one turns to the transforming action, denouement, and final situation, Crossan has helpfully summarized the parallel structure with the observation: “The positive reaction in the first half of the story has three moments: the commission, the return, and the reward. So also the negative alternative in the second half of the story has three corresponding points: the omission, the return, and the punishment.”14 The complication of the absence in the first instance offers the opportunity for the transforming action of faithful service, with the denouement of the coming (v. 43) setting the stage for praise, leading to a final situation of reward (v. 44). Both Matthew and Luke highlight this reward within the parable, and also lift the reply out of its context in the world of the parable, by employing the words λέγω ὑμῖν. The final situation thus recounts the final state of the slave by recounting it directly to the audience.15 In the second instance, the complication of the delay leads to the transforming action of unfaithfulness, resulting in the denouement of the plot, that is, the coming of the master,16 which servant is tempted to shirk his responsibility only because of the delay” (Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 499). Cf. also Evald Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament (LUÅ 55; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963), 99–100. I am unconvinced by A. Strobel’s attempt to understand χρονίζω here as not expressing a delay but rather questioning a return at all, which requires Strobel to view καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει as a later addition to the parable and to interpret ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ as originally referring to the “ ‘Tag,’ an welchem der ‘böse Knecht’ nicht mehr länger auf das Kommen seines Herrn wartete” (Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdischen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff. [NovTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961], 215–22, citation from p. 221). Cf. also the criticisms in Alfons Weiser, Die Knechtsgleichnisse der Synoptischen Evangelien (StAnt 29; München: Kösel, 1971), 190–1. Finally, though the delay is not the only emphasis, I cannot agree with Joachim Jeremias’s claim that “in the story no emphasis was laid on the delay of the master’s return” (The Parables of Jesus [2d ed.; trans. S. H. Hooke; London: SCM Press, 1972], 57; emphasis added). 13.  John Dominic Crossan, In Parables:  The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New  York:  Harper & Row, 1973), 100. As Patrick J. Hartin noted, “The coming of the master is presented as inevitable and certain. When the master is delayed, this coming sinks into the recesses of the mind of the servant, to be ultimately ignored and practically forgotten” (“Angst in the Household: A Deconstructive Reading of the Parable of the Supervising Servant [Lk 12:41–48],” Neot 22 [1988]: 381). 14. Crossan, In Parables, 100. Lührmann commented that in the parable “werden nach dem Schema von Segen und Fluch zwei Verhaltensweisen einander gegenübergestellt” (Redaktion, 70). 15.  Cf. also Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 162, who refers to a “metasprachliche Anrede” and it being “besonders herausgehoben.” 16.  Tuckett rightly notes that regardless of one’s view concerning the “delay” (cf. n. 12 above) “the fact of the ‘coming’ is emphatically asserted” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 157).

92

The Parables in Q

results in the final situation of severe punishment for the slave when the master discovers how he has behaved.17 In this final situation for the wicked slave, it has sometimes been argued that there are two incongruous punishments found in the text. For instance, Nolland states that the assigning of the severed servant to a place with the unfaithful (Luke) “moves right outside the story logic of the parable.”18 Gregg correctly counters, however, that “the two punishments may very well have been intended to communicate the totality of the judgment, both temporal and eschatological,”19 an observation that is in line with the allegorical nature of the parable.20 As such, in terms of the plot, the “two” punishments are not necessarily linear developments of the punishments within the final situation, but rather an expression of the totality of the judgment. 5.1.2 Characters As will be seen in nearly all the Q parables spoken by Jesus, there is very little about the parable’s characters that is revealed directly.21 This results in a character analysis, by force of necessity, focusing predominately on the indirect characterization of the particular character under consideration.22 At the same time, however, even when considering various categories of indirect characterization, including, for example, speech, action, external appearance, environment, and comparison/contrast, one quickly realizes that there is a paucity of even these elements present. Thus, in the general absence of the description of a character and very little dialogue, it is largely through the actions of and the

17. Within the context of ancient agricultural management, it would have been expected for the master to inspect his estate to ensure that everything is running properly and smoothly. For instance, Columella, Rust. 1.8 indicated that upon his return from the city, the master should visit all his lands and inspect whether in his absence discipline or watchfulness has lapsed (numquid absentia sua de disciplina et custodia remiserit). 18.  Nolland, Luke, 700. Cf. also the comments of Paul Ellingworth on how Lk. 12:46 sounds in most translations: “ ‘I’ll saw you in two and treat you as a pagan.’ To the modern reader the second part of this sentence comes as rather an anticlimax after the first part. Once someone has sawn me in two, I shouldn’t be very interested in the way he treated me afterwards!” (“Luke 12.46—Is There an Anti-climax Here?” BT 31 [1980]: 242). 19. Gregg, Historical Jesus, 216. 20.  Gregg states, “We are dealing with an explicitly allegorical parable” (ibid.). Cf. further the discussion below. 21.  For a summary of different types of characterization, namely, direct characterization (the narrator tells the reader something about a character), indirect characterization (the action and interaction of characters in a narrative), and characterization through analogy (using metaphors with ethical or ideological values), cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 243–4. 22.  Cf. the comments in D. B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (ESEC 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 73.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

93

implicitly communicated components concerning a character that any type of analysis can take place. As noted above in the plot analysis, the parable begins by querying “who is” a πιστός and φρόνιμος δοῦλος (Mt. 24:45)/οἰκονόμος (Lk. 12:42), and in the context of this question also introduces the κύριος who entrusts his “household” to a subordinate.23 Though other slaves also appear in the parable as stock characters (cf. Mt. 24:49//Lk. 12:45), the focus of the parable lies upon the relationship between the master and the servant left in charge. That these two characters are closely related to each other throughout the parable is clear,24 and Blomberg has observed that the general thrust of the parable reveals that “as with other triadic, monarchic parables, an authority figure judges between two types of behavior of his subordinates.”25 At the same time, however, a variation in the pattern seen elsewhere is found in this parable utilizing the same slave in different scenarios to depict both the good and bad behavior.26 This point needs to be kept in mind as the δοῦλος is considered.27 With a view toward the δοῦλος as a fiktives Wesen, the synthetic component of the character is initially constructed on the basis of his relationship with the κύριος, or, more precisely, with the task entrusted to him by his master. It is simply related to the audience that the slave has been tasked with providing provisions for the household. In the first half of the parable it is then stated that a slave doing so while the master is absent is μακάριος. Thus, at the outset the slave is presented only through the action of the master toward him and then his actions as a response. In the second half of the parable, however, a brief interior monologue takes place as the same slave, instead of performing the entrusted task, begins contemplating the master’s delay. It is that which transpires ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ that sets the stage for the characterization to be set forth, once again, by the description of the slave’s actions. The actions of the slave are also the most significant, though not the only, element for the mimetic component of the δοῦλος as a fiktives Wesen. By asking about the identity of one who is πιστός and φρόνιμος, the thoughts of the reader or hearer of the parable are already directed toward certain desirable traits. With the ensuing macarism, the parable explicitly indicates that those traits are expressed through faithful and wise action in regard to the task entrusted

23. Matthew writes ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτου and Luke ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτοῦ. 24. Cf. Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 162: “Durchgängiges Thema beider Teile ist die Beziehung zwischen einem Herrn und seinem von ihm beauftragten Sklaven.” 25. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 191. 26.  Cf. also Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 162–3, 166; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 499; and Jeremias, Parables, 55: “the parable speaks of one, not of two servants.” Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 162, briefly considers the possibility of a temporal progression from part one to part two of the parable, though quickly, and rightly, rejects a reading seeing the two sections as subsequent for one seeing them as alternative. 27. As already noted above, after the one, opening use of οἰκονόμος, Luke also refers to a δοῦλος throughout the remainder of the parable.

94

The Parables in Q

by the κύριος. Reward awaits the slave acting in the manner expected of him by the master. It is interesting that the actions of the faithful slave are not expanded upon further. He simply is doing as the master commanded. The activity of the unfaithful slave,28 however, is described in much more expansive detail. He beats the other slaves and joins the drunkards in their revelry.29 As Alfons Weiser puts it, “Das Benehmen des bösen Knechtes wird in grellen Farben gemalt, damit seine Verwerflichkeit ganz deutlich werde.”30 For this reason, Snodgrass quite rightly observes that “both from the rule of end stress and from the amount of words used the emphasis falls on the negative example.”31 It is the mimetic component of the faithless slave that is highlighted. For the thematic component of this character, the opening question is particularly significant. With its query of “who is . . .,” this question breaks through the boundaries of the text and draws the addressees directly into the realm of the inquiry and its question involving conduct.32 The nature of this question has often led to recognizing an explicitly allegorical component in the parable that is relevant for the character as Symbol. Rudolf Bultmann, for instance, stated that the significance of the interrogative form here is to ask “who will identify himself with the subject” thus leading him to conclude that the parable is “given to allegory.”33 With both Matthew and Luke beginning the parable in this manner, Siegfried Schulz is most likely correct in his observation:  “Die Allegorisierungstendenz geht nicht erst auf die Endredaktoren Matthäus und Lukas zurück, sondern von ihr war bereits die Q-Tradition von Anfang an geprägt.”34 For this reason, already in Q, the parable appeals to its addressee to consider how she or he identifies with the δοῦλος.35 In this way, the δοῦλος is not simply a character within the narrative, but in his thematic component represents a reader or hearer of the parable and appeals to him or her to consider his or her own conduct as one entrusted with responsibilities in the absence of the κύριος.36 This observation quite naturally leads to the consideration of the κύριος as a character. 28. Though Matthew explicitly identifies this servant as κακός, even without the adjective it is patently obvious that the slave is neither “faithful” nor “wise.” 29. Here Gerber rightly notes, “die Rekonstruktion des Q-Textes von V. 45b ist unsicher, der Sinn aber klar” (“Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 163). 30. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 193. 31. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 499. Cf. also Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 168. 32. So also Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 387. 33.  Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 171. 34. Schulz, Q, 274. Cf. also Weiser’s statement that the parable appears and functions “in Q nicht als reines Gleichnis, sondern als eine stark von allegorischem Verständnis durchsetzte Mahnung” (Knechtsgleichnisse, 180). 35. Cf. also Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 164, and her discussion of the Transfersignale in the parable. 36.  For example, nearly all of Hultgren’s discussion of the parable focuses on the issue of conduct (Parables, 157–68). Cf. also the summary in Snodgrass, Stories with Intent,

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

95

The examination of the synthetic component of the κ υρίο ς as a fiktives Wesen begins with the observation that at the outset the “master” is introduced by the narrator, and it is the narrator who mentions him again in vv. 43–44. It is also quite clear that on the level of the parable, the κ ύριο ς appears as “der soziale Gegensatz zum δοῦλο ς.”37 The locating of the κ ύριο ς firmly within the context of his relationship to the slave, however, occurs not merely from the narrator’s perspective from outside the parable, but also from the perspective of a fellow character within the parable. In v. 45, the κύριος is mentioned by the slave in his interior dialogue and is referred to as “my master.” This shift to a text-internal perspective on the master, however, is short-lived as in v. 46, the reference to the κύριος once again appears in the comments of the narrator. As such, the synthetic component of this character is constructed both from outside and within the parable, and as already noted in the consideration of the plot, the κύριος is present in the parable at every turn even as his position in the timeline of the parable’s narrative changes: he has given a task (past time), he is absent (present time), he will return (future time).38 The element of greatest significance for the mimetic component of the κύριος and his characterization is his conduct toward his slave. Regardless of whether one is persuaded that a formal patron-client relationship or context is the background of this parable or not,39 Christine Gerber rightly notes that “als Bildspendebereich fungiert der antike Haushalt, konkret die Relation zwischen einem Sklaven und seinem Besitzer.”40 It is obvious that this κύριος has numerous slaves, and the special arrangement regarding tasks and responsibilities that he establishes with one of these slaves creates the framework within which the slave’s actions and the master’s response occur. When considering the presentation of the response of the

500–501. With the emphasis of the parable falling upon the faithless slave, the addressee is, in particular, confronted with a stark warning concerning his or her conduct. In addition, Labahn has noted that though the mention of μακάριος “an die grundlegende Heilszusage in Q erinnert” he also points out that Q “lässt jedoch keinen Zweifel aufkommen, dass dieses Selig-Sein eine zu bewährende Existenz ist,” a point underscored in this parable (“Das Reich Gottes,” 276). 37.  Folker Siegert, “Jesus und sein Volk in der Quelle Q,” in Israel als Gegenüber: Vom Alten Orient bis in die Gegenwart:  25 Studien zur Geschichte eines wechselvollen Zusammenlebens (ed. Folker Siegert; SIJD 5; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 107. Though Siegert is correct in this observation, his inclination to restrict the meaning to this social identity is less than adequate, a point which will become clear in the discussion of this character as Symbol. 38. Cf. also the discussion in Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 163–4. 39.  Scott, e.g., interprets the parables of departure and return as employing “a specific part of the patron-client network” (Hear Then the Parable, 211). For criticism of using this category to analyze parables involving slavery, cf. Jennifer A. Glancy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Matthean Parables,” JBL 119 (2000): 69–70, 74–5. 40. Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 164.

96

The Parables in Q

κύριος, only that which he does is recounted. There is no explicit presentation of how this “master” feels. That he is pleased in v. 44 and enraged in v. 46 is part of the mimetic component of this character only through the mental image created by the reader.41 Though the positive example in vv. 43–44 results in a matter-offact relating of a certain benevolence of the κύριος in his rewarding the slave with an elevated status, as already noted above, the emphasis in the parable falls on the negative example. In this negative example, the brutally harsh punishment in response to the unfaithful actions of the slave, vividly depicted through the use of the verb διχοτομέω (literally “to cut in two”42), is striking.43 This seems to be a clear example of the sentiment expressed by Cicero: “severity must be employed by those who keep subjects under control by force—by masters, for example, towards their slaves.”44 This violent image is discussed further below, but here one must observe that the violent end to which the slave shirking his duties is subjected contributes to what can only be described as a terror-filled mental model of the

41.  This is a perfect example of the observation by Finnern, Narratologie, 135:  “Die Gefühle einer Figur werden vom Rezipienten oft unbewusst mitgedacht. Sie sind in klassischer wie in neuerer Literatur nur selten explizit genannt.” 42. διχοτομέω appears only in this parable in the NT and is used only once in the LXX (Exod. 29:17). A similar image using different verbs is found in Sus. 1:55, 59. Kloppenborg points to this verb as one of numerous examples of rare or unattested LXX/NT words to support the point that “it is difficult to suppose that such unusual verbs would appear in both Matthew and Luke were it not for a written source” (Formation, 47). Cf. also the comments in Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 86, on the “difficult διχοτομήσει” pointing to the written tradition being in Greek and not Aramaic. Whether the master puts the slave μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν (Mt. 24:51) or μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων (Lk. 12:46) does not affect the clear idea that the location is an undesirable one. 43. Hultgren rightly notes that “while appealing” the suggestion that the term means “to cut a person off from the community . . . is not warranted” (Parables, 161). Cf. also Kloppenborg, “Representation of Violence,” 338–9, and his conclusion that “there are no defensible grounds for avoiding the plain meaning of Q’s verb” (p. 339) along with Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 502–503. Though rightly seeing the literal violence of the verb, the view of David C.  Sim that “since [Mt.] 18:34 stipulates that those who mete out punishment to sinful Christian leaders are angelic torturers, it stands to reason that in Mt 24:51 it is not Jesus the judge who slices the wicked servant in two, but representatives of this group of avenging angels . . . Jesus causes the dissection of the wicked servant by ordering his angels to impose this punishment” (“The Dissection of the Wicked Servant in Matthew 24:51,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 58 [2002]: 180) is speculative both in its interpretation of Mt. 18:34 and its causative reading of Mt. 24:51. 44.  Cicero, Off. 2.24, as cited by Richard A. Horsley, “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Reluctant Recognition by Modern Scholars,” Semeia 83/84 (1998): 38. Cf. his discussion on pp. 38–46.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

97

κύριος, who, despite being able and willing to reward faithfulness, could arrive at an unexpected moment and execute horrifically violent judgment.45 For this reason, the consideration of the κύριος as a Symbol is fraught with difficulties, particularly for the modern reader. First, it is quite clear that a rather extensive Jewish Bildfeld tradition exists concerning the metaphorical use of master/God and servant/Israel or humanity terminology.46 It is also quite clear that Q employs the term “κύριος” as a designation for both God and Jesus.47 That is to say, the addressees of Q have already encountered both God and Jesus having been identified and referred to as κυρίος. In addition, Marco Frenschkowski has argued that Q 6:46 should be understood as an acclamation of Jesus stemming from “a royal—which means messianic—interpretation of Jesus,” reflecting a “messianic kyrios-christology.”48 If this view is correct, then Q’s audience has also already heard the κυρίος/Jesus identification in at least somewhat exalted terms. At the same time, regardless of the extent to which one finds this perspective persuasive,49 the point remains that a κυρίος identification with God or Jesus is found outside of the context of the Q parables. Significantly, and differently 45. Mary Ann Beavis, “Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–8),” JBL 111 (1992):  42, observes that “for ancient audiences the idea of a slave being ‘dismembered’ for misbehavior would not necessarily have been implausible or startling” and provides examples of other sadistic punishments of slaves attested in antiquity as mentioned by Keith R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (CollLat 185; Brussels: Latomus, Revue d’Études Latines, 1984), 121–2. In any case, the depiction of such brutality highlights the violent judgment that the master could execute and the danger of being on the receiving end of it. As Bradley rightly concludes, “The point is that there was no real restraint on the slave-owner, other than his own temperament or conscience, to prevent outrage or extremity if circumstance led to it: any slave who offended his owner could expect not only punishment but severe punishment, the penalty apparently often exceeding the transgression” (Slaves and Masters, 122). 46.  Cf. Christian Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren (Von den anvertrauten Geldern) Q 19,12f.15–24.26 (Mk 13,34 / Mt 25,14-30 / Lk 19,12-27,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et  al.), 245; idem, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 202; and Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 22–7. 47. Dormeyer, “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10?,” 192, presents the occurrences of κύριος for God as Q 4:8, 12; 10:2, 21; 13:35; and 16:13 and for Jesus as Q 6:46 bis; 7:6; and 9:59. 48. Frenschkowski, “Kyrios in Context,” 111, 112. 49.  Paul Foster offers a different assessment of the significance of Q 6:46. He contends that this verse “betrays a certain antipathy towards those who use this title, but who, at least from the perspective of the one who penned this question, fail to do what they have been instructed by Jesus. This appears to show that Q considers the faith of those who use this title as being defective, at least in some sense. Consequently, this scepticism about groups of Christians who use the title Lord without the requisite matching actions might explain the almost total reluctance on the part of Q to apply it to Jesus” (“The Pastoral Purpose of Q’s Two-State Son of Man Christology,” Bib 89 [2008], 82–3).

98

The Parables in Q

from the situation in the parable in, for example, Q 12:39 discussed in the ensuing chapter, where a “master” is affected by the coming Son of Man, here it is the coming of the “master” that brings about a specific effect. In addition, though there is the mention in the parable of the potential for a reward at the master’s coming, it is the image of the severed servant that grabs the hearers’ attention.50 When, therefore, it is baldly stated that “the master represents no ordinary master, but rather Jesus returning in judgment”51 or as Schulz asserted, since the parable is “allegorical” from the outset, “der Kyrios-Titel . . . also deshalb durchaus christologische Bedeutung [hat],”52 such disturbing images seemingly representing an extremely violent depiction of Jesus (or God) give many reason for pause.53 For instance, with reference to Mt. 25:14-30, Jennifer A.  Glancy rightly observes how “modern sensibilities are likely to shrink from an endorsement of the master’s grasping and punitive nature.”54 Luise Schottroff ’s personal

50.  Even if the arguments of Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 183, that Jesus gave no content to the master and servants in this parable were found to be convincing, the question is actually irrelevant. The reader will necessarily fill these characters with some type of content, including metaphorical content. In the context of Q, the likely connection of this parable to 12:40 (see further below) almost makes it unavoidable that the master here will be associated with ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, a point also recognized by Weiser (ibid.). Cf. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 634–5; Gregg, Historical Jesus, 216–17; and most recently Kloppenborg, “Power and Surveillance,” 168, who states that the allegorical identification of the “lord” in Q 12:46 with the “son of man” in Q 12:40 is actually “inevitable.” Cf. the same sentiment in Kloppenborg, “Representation of Violence,” 341: “The allegorical identification of the ὁ κύριος of 12:46 with ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου of 12:40 is inevitable given the close and deliberate structural similarities between the two parables.” See also further below under the heading “5.1.4 The Parable in Q.” 51. Gregg, Historical Jesus, 216. Cf. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 218, who states that Q “probably” sees the master of the parable as the returning Jesus. 52.  Schulz, Q, 276. Cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 387:  “In nachösterlicher Perspektive ist kaum von einer chrstologischen Interpretation zu abstrahieren und die story der Parabel von der Abwesenheit des erhöhten Christus mit der Erwartung seiner Parusie zu trennen.” 53. The accuracy of Snodgrass’s comment, “In the end, whether the parable refers to the coming of God or the coming of the Son of Man is relatively unimportant” may hold some truth if one only has the final outcome in view, for Snodgrass continues by pointing out that in either case “the final kingdom coming with power and glory” is depicted (Stories with Intent, 500). If, however, one is interested in the manner in which the hearer of this Q parable imagines the “master” along with the potential christological implications of the actions of Jesus being brought into the orb of the actions of God, then the referent may not be so “unimportant.” For instance, if Gregg, Historical Jesus, 216–17, is correct that the historical Jesus viewed the master as God, then Q (followed by Matthew and Luke) has “shifted” the parable onto Jesus, demonstrating the close proximity of the activity of God and the activity of Jesus already seen in John the Baptist’s parables. 54. Glancy, “Slaves and Slavery,” 89.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

99

discomfort with the institution of slavery in antiquity and with the violent imagery of parables involving masters and slaves is entirely understandable55; however, it seems doubtful that the attempt to avoid any connection of the “master” image to Jesus or God can succeed on the level of the mental model of the reader since both the imagery of the HB and the use of the κύριος terminology in Q evokes inter- and intratextual connections of figures outside the parables with characters inside the parables.56 In fact, it may very well be a disturbing, even terrorizing, element of a parable, such as the image found here, that contributes in a vital way to its function in Q. This is a point briefly considered further below and one to which I return in the final chapter of this monograph. 5.1.3 Images Though one, at times, finds comments in the history of scholarship positing dependence of this parable on Ahiqar, J. M. Lindenberger rightly states: “The conclusion drawn by some older writers that Jesus and the evangelists must have known Ahiqar goes considerably beyond the evidence.”57 Nevertheless, there are certainly common images regarding household slaves and the issue of their faithfulness or unfaithfulness found in that text and the present parable. Though numerous images as they related to Q 12:42-46 have already been mentioned in the discussion above, a few further observations can be made here. First, it is quite clear that the parable utilizes a common societal structure for the portrait of its characters. As Weiser puts it, “Jesus griff die Bildelemente des Gleichnisses aus den alltäglichen Verhältnissen seiner Umwelt auf.”58 It was not at all unusual, and, in fact, quite common to have a slave appointed as an overseer

55.  Cf. the discussion in Luise Schottroff, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (2d ed.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 225–35. 56. I find the attempt by Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 231–2, to avoid any association of the master with God in this parable through an appeal to Lk. 12:47-48 unpersuasive. She contended that the application “nimmt nur einen Zug aus dem Gleichnis und dem angefügten Gleichniswort auf,” namely, the “Beauftragung mit einer großen Verantwortung” (ibid.). It scarcely seems possible that the text only identifies God as one having given much with a concomitant great expectation, but with no identification of him as the punishing master or judge if those expectations are not met, as argued by Schottroff (ibid., 232). As Hartin states, there is a feeling of angst that becomes “more urgent and oppressive” during the course of the parable, beginning “in the delay of the return of the master who, in the light of the intertext [i.e. 12:35-40], is seen as the Son of man” (“Angst in the Household,” 382). 57. J. M. Lindenberger, “Ahiqar,” in OTP 2:488. “Older” writers is not entirely accurate as Davies and Allison state that they find the link to the story of Ahiqar “plausible” and “suspect” that the language here has been influenced by that story (Matthew, 3:390–1). 58. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 183.

100

The Parables in Q

or administrator of an estate.59 Second, it is quite clear that the immediate social context is not the only bildspendender Bereich for the parable. That the Hebrew Scriptures also provide imagery related to the stock metaphor of the master/slave relationship as one of the depictions between Yhwh and his people was already noted above. There are, however, further points of contact worth noting. Otto Betz contended that the parable “is an eschatological version of Psalm 37,”60 a comment that rightly highlights the comparison of the righteous and the wicked and their fates found in the psalm and the parable, even if his conclusion that the wicked being “cut off ” from the people is the proper interpretation of the fate of the wicked slave is not persuasive.61 There is also the question of whether the provision that the slave is to provide is drawing on LXX Ps 103:27 (MT 104:27) where it is said of Yhwh πάντα πρὸς σὲ προσδοκῶσιν δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εὔκαιρον.62 Allison notes that in several respects Matthew is closer to the psalm than Luke and ultimately concludes that “it seems prudent to assign the scriptural language in Mt 24:45 not to Q but to Matthew.”63 Labahn argues for the connection with the psalm for Q, but makes this contingent upon Q reading τροφή, arguing that this word should be reconstructed for Q 12:42.64 It seems to me, however, that when contemplating the κύριος as Symbol, the image of the psalm could be utilized as part of the background of connecting the activity of the “lord” in this parable with the activity of Yhwh as described in the psalm, especially since both Matthew and Luke refer to the provision occurring ἐν καιρῷ.65 In any case, Labahn rightly notes how the placement of the slave in this position of provision, and his actually providing for his fellow slaves, leads to the parable in Q highlighting the care of others as of vital importance in being “faithful and wise.”66 The actions of the faithful and unfaithful slave are also possible to consider in relation to images found in Wisdom literature. Claus-Peter März, for instance, points to certain points of contact between the parable and the depiction of the “capable wife” (NRSV) in Prov 31:10-31 as seen in similarities between 12:42b and Prov. 31:10, 15 or Lk. 12:43 and Prov. 31:30 and the 59.  Cf. ibid., 45, 184n37. Kloppenborg observes, “The appointment of a manager was normal on all large estates since owners normally preferred other activities to day-to-day supervision” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 294). Cf. also Beavis, “Ancient Slavery,” 40–1. 60.  Otto Betz, “The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot (Light on the Dark Passages: Matthew 24, 51 and Parallel; Acts 1, 18),” RevQ 17 (1964): 47. 61. Cf. n. 43 above. For specific comments contra the interpretation of Betz, cf. Charette, Theme of Recompense, 152n2; and Kathleen Weber, “Is there a Qumran Parallel to Matthew 24, 51 / / Luke 12, 46?,” RevQ 16 (1995): 657–63. 62. A similar comment is made in LXX Ps. 144:15 (MT 145:15). 63. Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 239. Cf. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 185: “Die Formulierung des Mt-Textes ist dem Ps 103 (104), 27 angeglichen.” 64. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 388n499. 65.  Cf. Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 161, who also notes the connection to the psalms regarding the “proper timing.” 66. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 388–9.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

101

contrast between Lk. 12:45 and Prov. 31:21.67 Concerning the behavior and drunkenness of the unfaithful slave, Labahn observed, “Dass hier ein Topos weisheitlicher Kritik ber ührt wird, der in der Gemeinschaft mit Betrunken ethischen Verfall und soziale Verantwortungslosigkeit sieht, ist deutlich.”68 Criticism of the drunkard can be seen, for example, in Prov. 21:17; 23:20-21; or 26:9. In his drinking the faithless slave has forgotten both his master and his fellow slave, leading to his downfall. A final image to consider further here is the violent end that befalls the unfaithful slave. Blaine Charette is certainly correct in stating that “the ‘cutting in two’ (διχοτομέω) of the slave is a particularly brutal depiction of God’s wrathful judgment” though his assessment “it does, however, seem a fitting punishment for this hypocritical and contemptuous servant”69 is quite a bit more controversial. Scott sees this punishment as one of those instances of “exploding” the everyday:  “The severity of the punishment—its cruelty—is shocking in light of the servant’s actual misdeeds . . . It is true that Jesus’ parables do partake of the everyday. Yet we ought not be blinded from observing those occasions in almost every parable which explode the everyday. This is one of them.”70 The question remains, however, concerning the extent to which the image truly is shocking, at least in its first-century context, for, as Mary Ann Beavis has noted, “the difficulty of v. 51, however, may have more to do with the scruples of modern interpreters than with the values of Greco-Roman slave owners.”71 Kloppenborg, with reference to an inscription from Puteoli from the Augustan period and the comedies of Plautus, observes that “although the punishment is gruesome in the extreme, it is hardly unrealistic” and, like Beavis, concludes, “despite the seeming hyperbole of Q’s picture of a bisected slave and the ways it might offend modern sensibilities, such bodily punishment fell within the range of the imaginable.”72

67. Cf. Claus-Peter März, “. . .laßt eure Lampen brennen!”: Studien zur Q-Vorlage von Lk 12,35 – 14,24 (ETS 20; Leipzig: Benno, 1991), 63n28. 68. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 389. 69. Charette, Theme of Recompense, 152. 70. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 210–11. 71. Beavis, “Ancient Slavery,” 42. See also n. 45 above. 72.  Kloppenborg, “Representation of Violence,” 389, 390. In the list compiled by Peter Spranger of threats and punishments of slaves in Plautus’s plays, one finds beatings (with whips, leather straps, scourges, clubs, etc.), laying in chains, throwing into pits, tying to a stake, cutting off of hands, breaking of bones, digging out eyes, knocking out teeth, burning at the stake, and crucifixion (cf. Peter P. Spranger, Historische Untersuchungen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz [Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur:  Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse:  Jahrgang 1960:  Nr. 8; Wiesbaden:  Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, 1961], 84–6).

102

The Parables in Q

The violence is not, however, to be seen only within the context of ancient slavery, for the punishment, as Charette noted, “recalls the fate suffered by those who transgress such covenants as are established by means of the ceremony described in Gen. 15.9–17 and Jer. 34.18-20.”73 In addition, the coupling of the phrase διχοτομήσει αὐτόν with the additional assignment of the slave among the unbelievers or hypocrites clearly brings the eschatological dimension to the fore and ultimately transposes the image into the realm of the final judgment. Thus, the final, violent images serve as a “dramatization of ‘the Day’ and its terrible consequences”74 as they move beyond the world “of estate management and bring the terrifying powers of the divine Judge into view.”75 5.1.4 The Parable in Q Having analyzed various elements of this parable, a few final words can be said concerning this parable in Q. Kloppenborg has rightly noted, “A survey of the contents of Q quickly reveals that the motif of a coming judgment runs throughout.”76 This motif, already seen in the parables of John the Baptist, is clearly also graphically present in this parable. Tuckett also makes this connection, writing, “In the face of possibly differing views, Q emphatically asserts a belief in the coming of the SM [Son of Man] which may occur at any time. John the Baptist’s prediction is thus affirmed.”77 Specifically concerning the coming judgment, however, at times either the sudden and unexpected return or the delay of the return of the κ ύριο ς has received almost exclusive emphasis in the interpretation of the parable. Hoffmann, for instance, subordinates the sentiment of the delay expressed by the slave to the sudden return of the master and contends that the delay is indicative of those rejecting the message of Q and not a doubt found in the Q-group. He concludes, “Das Gleichnis bringt im Gegenteil gerade die sehr bald bevorstehende ‘Enttäuschung’ jener Haltung zum Ausdruck, die nicht bereit ist, mit dem baldigen Kommen des Herrn zu rechnen.”78 Fleddermann sees the issue quite differently in criticizing Hoffmann’s view and arguing that Hoffmann has misunderstood the parable. On the one hand, Fleddermann states that “the parable criticizes the servant not for miscalculating the time of the master’s return but for unjust conduct while the master is away.”79 On

73.  Charette, Theme of Recompense, 152. The noun διχοτόμημα is used in LXX Gen. 15:11, 17 and in Aquila in Jer. 34:18-19. Cf. Timothy A. Friedrichsen, “A Note on καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτόν (Luke 12:46 and the Parallel in Matthew 24:51),” CBQ 63 (2001): 258–64. 74. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 300. Cf. also Kirk, Composition, 299. 75. Kloppenborg, “Power and Surveillance,” 172. 76. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 118. 77. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 157. 78. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 48. 79. Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 26.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

103

the other hand, Fleddermann contends that the parable “treats the delay as a fundamental shift that has created a new situation with important consequences for Christian living.”80 In both of these analyses, however, the two issues cannot be so clearly separated. It is true that the delay creates the temptation for unfaithfulness and is the framework for the unjust conduct, but it is also true that the coming of the master is sudden and unexpected, and at least in that sense, permanently imminent. In addition, as was seen in the plot analysis, the complication in the first half of the parable is the absence of the master and only in the second half is it the delay. Thus, it is not quite right for Fleddermann to claim, “From now on the prudent take account of the delay and use it not as an excuse for wrongdoing but as an opportunity to show fidelity to the master’s charge,”81 for the prudent simply continue in faithful service without any notice of or concern about a delay. Elsewhere Fleddermann has written, “For Q the delay of the parousia opens up a time for the Christians to demonstrate their fidelity to the absent Lord,”82 though here again there is an overemphasis on the delay, for it is the absence of the κύριος, regardless of the length of that absence, that provides the opportunity for the demonstration of faithfulness.83 In general on this point, Tuckett’s caution is à propos, namely, that it would be “quite wrong to assume that an awareness of a delay in the Parousia (‘Parousieverzögerung’) and an expectation of imminent eschatological events (‘Naherwartung’) are mutually exclusive options.”84 There may well be a delay, and the parable refers to one, but that does not mean that the expectation of an imminent return can no longer be present, for the parable points in that direction as well.85 Along these lines Kloppenborg points out that “given the emphasis

80. Ibid. Cf. Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 91, who also made reference to the question of the two types of conduct being posed in the light of the delay. 81. Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 26. 82.  Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 637. März notes the manner in which Q 12:45 traces the “als Möglichkeit angezeigte Fehlverhalten des Knechtes auf eine falsche und illusionäre Einschätzung der gegebenen Zeit zurück und läßt . . . im Hintergrund das Problem der Parusieverzögerung erkennen” (“. . .laßt eure Lampen brennen,” 63). 83.  Kloppenborg rightly notes, “Q’s parable . . . stresses not only the master’s absence—which was not uncommon, since owners often did not wish to be involved in the daily operations of their estates—but his delay and sudden return” (“Representation of Violence,” 342). The absence and the delay are both stressed. Labahn helpfully comments, “Die Geschichte ist in Q . . . deutlich auf das Leben als religiösen Dienst im Kontext der Erwartung des Menschensohnes (V.43:  ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ; vgl. V.45 und 46) geprägt” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 388). 84. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 140. 85.  Cf. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 210, who sees the wicked slave as being punished because he did not reckon with the “baldiger Ankunft” of the master. Cf. also Gräßer, who, despite focusing on the parousia delay in the parable, noted, “die Haltung [allein ist klug],

104

The Parables in Q

of Q’s parable, its main thrust appears to encourage the same consciousness as that enjoined by Q 17:26–30,” namely, that the Day of the Lord can come without warning during the course of normal, everyday events.86 A related issue arises in regard to the connection of this parable with the parable in Q 12:39-40. If the parable was attached to Q 12:39-40, then Kloppenborg rightly notes that it gains an “explicit connection with the coming Son of Man.”87 At the same time, it was already seen in the previous chapter that Q clearly identifies Jesus as the “Coming One” and in the discussion above that the κύριος as Symbol invites the thematic identification of this character with Jesus, even apart from this posited connection to Q 12:39-40. In addition, though Kloppenborg views the parable as originally serving “as a warning for community leaders to be faithful stewards,” this posited attachment to Q 12:40 leads him to conclude that “what becomes important in the context of Q . . . is the unexpected and sudden coming of the parousia—in spite of its apparent delay—and the disastrous consequences which attend it.”88 It seems to me, however, that even if Kloppenborg is right in his view that “the Q composition 12:39–40, 42–46 takes on the character of a warning to be prepared in the face of the unforeseen and catastrophic coming of the Son of Man”89 this does not mean that it no longer has a warning function for the community, or for community leaders, as well. The evil slave’s words and actions reflecting “the reckless

die mit der jederzeit möglichen Rückkehr des Herrn rechnet, die trotz des unvorhergesehenen Verzuges immer so lebt, als ob er jeden Augenblick käme” (Parusieverzögerung, 113). 86. Kloppenborg, “Representation of Violence,” 342. 87.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 150. Elsewhere Kloppenborg writes, “Q’s warning to be prepared for the coming of the Son of Man (12:40) is joined by means of the illative particle ἄρα (‘then, therefore’) to the following parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave (or steward; 12:42–45), such that the parable becomes an elaboration of the consequences of the day of the Lord” (Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 127; cf. the same point in Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 293). Weiser, however, viewing ἄρα as already present in the parable before its inclusion in Q, contends that it here does not have a “folgernden Sinn” (Knechtsgleichnisse, 181). In any case, Tuckett points out that “12:40 coheres extremely closely with 12:42–46 in terms of subject-matter: both concern the unexpected return of the ‘SM’ [Son of Man] (12:40) / the master (κύριος) of the story (12:42–26) which will involve potential disaster for those who are unprepared” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 251). As Dewey puts it, “one cannot overlook the ‘family resemblances’ which occur between vv.39–40 and vv.43,46” (“Prophetic Announcement,” 99) and Kirk even states that Q 12:40 supplies “the interpretive key by which to unlock the specific referents and applications veiled by the metaphors household, steward, servants, and master” in Q 12:42-46 (Composition, 233). Cf. also Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 70, who sees Q 12:39-40 fulfilling “die Funktion einer Einleitung zum folgenden Gleichnis [Q 12:42–46].” 88. Kloppenborg, Formation, 150. 89. Ibid. Kloppenborg goes on to point out that this motif is also encountered elsewhere in Q (e.g. 3:8–9; 11:24-26, 34-36; 13:26-27, 28-29) (ibid., 151).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

105

disregard of Q’s proclamation of the unforeseen coming of the Son of Man”90 warns both those within and outside of the community.91 Thus, it is perhaps slightly overstated to argue that “the point is not to encourage responsible leadership within the church-household, but instead to conjure a vision of how ‘the Day,’ unforseen [sic] and unforseeable [sic], will winnow and separate. The only means by which to avoid it is to embrace the ethos of Q.”92 Though Kloppenborg’s criticism of an attempt to restrict the parable’s addresses to “leadership within the church-household” is valid,93 it is nevertheless the case that precisely by pointing to the necessity of embracing the ethos of Q, the parable not only addresses the unforeseen and unforeseeable, but also responsible, wise, and faithful living before the return of the master by those within his household.94 In sum, Scott has argued that this parable “makes the simple point that a servant who can be trusted only when his master is present is a worthless servant.”95 Though this point is true, Scott continues: As a metaphor for the kingdom, it unmasks the uselessness of an apocalyptic expectation that needs God’s presence to right wrongs or to extract moral behavior. God’s intervention is surely decisive, but it does not change the basic situation . . . The servant fails in the parable by failing to realize that the kingdom is now—something with which he is entrusted.96

It seems to me that Scott here conflates an apocalyptic expectation that needs God’s presence with an expectation that needs God’s arrival/return. The slave is indeed responsible regardless of whether the master is present or not; however, part of the motivation for fulfilling the responsibility is the consideration of what will happen when the master returns. For this reason, it is significant that “the 90. Kloppenborg, Formation, 150. 91. In a more recent publication Kloppenborg also recognizes this point, writing that “it is remarkable that Q turns the threat of such violence on its own partisans” (“Representation of Violence,” 341). 92. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 295. 93.  Cf. the comments of Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 26, who notes that though Luke may have the leadership of the community in view, this is “probably not” Q’s understanding. So also Paul Hoffmann, “Blinde Führer? Christliche Gemeideleitung [sic, though correct in the table of contents] im Visier des Lukas,” in Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John (ed. J. Verheyden, G. van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt; BETL 218; Leuven:  Peeters, 2008), 30–3, who notes Luke’s focus on congregational leadership in several parables. Hultgren, however, opines that “perhaps already in Q” those “being exhorted to faithful ministry would have been Christian leaders” (Parables of Jesus, 161). 94.  Cf. also the comments of Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 168: “Nicht, an welcher Aufgabe der treue Sklave sich bewährt bzw. versagt, ist wesentlich für die Reaktion des Herrn, sondern ob er seine Aufgabe erfüllt.” 95. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 212. 96. Ibid.

106

The Parables in Q

apocalyptic emphasis is reasserted again at the end of the collection implying that the Q community feels that it lives in the interim.”97 In other words, Q employs this parable to underscore the eschatologically shaped perspective that the only wise manner of behaving is one that expects the coming of the κύριος at any point in time. Faithfulness or unfaithfulness in the here and now is determinative for the outcome when the master returns.98

5.2 Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26)

Mt. 25:14-29

Lk. 19:12-26

Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἀποδημῶν

εἶπεν οὖν· ἄνθρωπός τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν καὶ ὑποστρέψαι.

ἐκάλεσεν τοὺς ἰδίους δούλους καὶ

13

παρέδωκεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ, 15 καὶ ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ δύο, ᾧ δὲ ἕν, ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν

ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς δέκα μνᾶς καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· πραγματεύσασθε ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι.

καλέσας δὲ δέκα δούλους ἑαυτοῦ

δύναμιν, καὶ ἀπεδήμησεν. εὐθέως 16 πορευθεὶς ὁ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα λαβὼν ἠργάσατο ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκέρδησεν ἄλλα πέντε· 17 ὡσαύτως ὁ τὰ δύο ἐκέρδησεν ἄλλα δύο. 18 ὁ δὲ τὸ ἓν λαβὼν ἀπελθὼν ὤρυξεν γῆν καὶ ἔκρυψεν τὸ ἀργύριον τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ. 14

οἱ δὲ πολῖται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς.

97. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 127. 98.  Cf. Charette, Theme of Recompense, 153: “The period of delay which occurs before the coming of the Son of Man is intended to be a time when faithfulness to that covenant relationship is demonstrated. This parable warns that transgressors of that covenant are visited by curses similar to those attached to former covenants.” Manson goes one step further, specifically connecting the labor to the mission instructions by stating: “The task of the disciples is not confined to watchfulness. They have positive duties to perform and those who stand nearest to Jesus have the heaviest responsibility. The work is the work of the Kingdom as already defined in the Mission Charge” (Sayings, 117).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

107

Mt. 25:14-29

Lk. 19:12-26

19

μετὰ δὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἔρχεται ὁ κύριος τῶν δούλων ἐκείνων καὶ συναίρει λόγον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. 20 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα λαβὼν προσήνεγκεν ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα λέγων· κύριε, πέντε τάλαντά μοι παρέδωκας· ἴδε ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα ἐκέρδησα.

15

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ εἶπεν φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους τούτους οἷς δεδώκει τὸ ἀργύριον, ἵνα γνοῖ τί διεπραγματεύσαντο. 16 παρεγένετο δὲ ὁ πρῶτος λέγων· κύριε, ἡ μνᾶ σου δέκα προσηργάσατο μνᾶς.

21

ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ· εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ, ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς πιστός, ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε καταστήσω· εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν χαρὰν τοῦ κυρίου σου.

17

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· εὖγε, ἀγαθὲ δοῦλε, ὅτι ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ πιστὸς ἐγένου, ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ἐπάνω δέκα πόλεων.

22

προσελθὼν [δὲ] καὶ ὁ τὰ δύο τάλαντα εἶπεν· κύριε, δύο τάλαντά μοι παρέδωκας· ἴδε ἄλλα δύο τάλαντα ἐκέρδησα.

18

καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ δεύτερος λέγων· ἡ μνᾶ σου, κύριε, ἐποίησεν πέντε μνᾶς.

23

ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ· εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ, ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς πιστός, ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε καταστήσω· εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν χαρὰν τοῦ κυρίου σου.

19

εἶπεν δὲ καὶ τούτῳ· καὶ σὺ ἐπάνω γίνου πέντε πόλεων.

24

προσελθὼν δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸ ἓν τάλαντον εἰληφὼς εἶπεν· κύριε, ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας, 25 καὶ φοβηθεὶς ἀπελθὼν ἔκρυψα τὸ τάλαντόν σου ἐν τῇ γῇ· ἴδε ἔχεις τὸ σόν.

20

καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἦλθεν λέγων· κύριε, ἰδοὺ ἡ μνᾶ σου ἣν εἶχον ἀποκειμένην ἐν σουδαρίῳ· 21 ἐφοβούμην γάρ σε, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρὸς εἶ, αἴρεις ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκας καὶ θερίζεις ὃ οὐκ ἔσπειρας.

26

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· πονηρὲ δοῦλε καὶ ὀκνηρέ, ᾔδεις ὅτι θερίζω ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρα καὶ συνάγω ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισα; 27 ἔδει σε οὖν βαλεῖν τὰ ἀργύριά μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ.

22

λέγει αὐτῷ· ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου κρινῶ σε, πονηρὲ δοῦλε. ᾔδεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρός εἰμι, αἴρων ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκα καὶ θερίζων ὃ οὐκ ἔσπειρα; 23 καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἔδωκάς μου τὸ ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τράπεζαν; κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ ἔπραξα.

28

ἄρατε οὖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ τάλαντον καὶ δότε τῷ ἔχοντι τὰ δέκα τάλαντα·

24

καὶ τοῖς παρεστῶσιν εἶπεν· ἄρατε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν μνᾶν καὶ δότε τῷ τὰς δέκα μνᾶς ἔχοντι- 25 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· κύριε, ἔχει δέκα μνᾶς-

29

26

τῷ γὰρ ἔχοντι παντὶ δοθήσεται καὶ περισσευθήσεται, τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι παντὶ τῷ ἔχοντι δοθήσεται, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται.

108

The Parables in Q

The remaining two parables discussed in this chapter are two of the most difficult in terms of considering their structure and function in Q.  In this second “master/slave” parable, one is confronted with an account in which there are considerable differences between Matthew and Luke, leading some to question whether one is here even dealing with a parable drawn from a single source.99 Nevertheless, once again numerous scholars have seen sufficient reason to assign the parable to Q, agreeing with the assessment of Edwards: “Matthew and Luke have clearly modified a parable to suit their own purposes. The similarities are enough, however, to posit a common tradition.”100 Kloppenborg is absolutely 99. As noted in Chapter 2, nn. 3 and 15, both Harnack and Meier excluded this parable from their consideration of Q (cf. Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, 122–6; and Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 288). Schottroff went so far as to state that here we have “zwei völlig unterschiedliche Parabeln vor uns” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 246). Crossan states that it is “most likely” that “Matthew and Luke did not get this parable from Q but from their own special and independent sources” (In Parables, 100–101; cf. also Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 255–8). Manson also viewed M and L as the source for the parable in the respective Gospels though also contended that “the main outline of the story was already fixed before the M and L traditions took shape; and makes it probable that the parable, in its original form, goes back to Jesus himself ” (Sayings of Jesus, 245). Similarly, Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 83, believes that the two versions “strongly suggest” that separate but similar stories told by Jesus are in view. In an article six years earlier, he had already concluded “that the parables of the pounds and talents are not genuine parallels, but two separate elaborations of a basic theme which Jesus utilized on (at least) two different occasions” (Blomberg, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?,” 96). Snodgrass states, “I do not think the two accounts render the same parable or have any genetic relation” (Stories with Intent, 531). For a list of differences between the two versions, cf. Hultgren, Parables, 272–3, who himself also concludes that the two versions have come from M and L traditions rather than from Q. On p. 2 of his article Ernest van Eck provides a brief overview of predominantly recent scholarly opinion regarding the presence or absence of this parable in Q (“Do Not Question My Honour: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Parable of the Minas (Lk 19:12b–24, 27),” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 [2011], Art. #977, 11 pages. doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.977). Cf. also the literature listed in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 200. 100. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 144. A  similar sentiment is expressed by Walter Bindemann: “Doch bei aller Verschiedenheit lassen die beiden Versionen ein gemeinsames Grundgerüst erkennen” (“Harter Herr oder gnädiger Gott? Zur Auslegung des Gleichnisses vom anvertrauten Geld (Mt 25,14-30 par. Lk 19,12-27),” in Bekenntnis und Erinnerung:  Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Hans-Friedrich Weiss [ed. Klaus-Michael Bull and Eckart Reinmuth; RThSt 16; Münster: Lit, 2004], 130). Richard Q. Ford sees a common source for the parable, though recognizes that it “has two versions” (The Parables of Jesus: Recovering the Art of Listening [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 32). Even though Meier does not view the source to be Q, he states that “we are justified in speaking of one parable that has come down to us in two versions or performances, one Matthean and one Lucan” (Probing the Authenticity, 283). Cf. also the basic outline by Jeremias, Parables, 60–1; and Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 180–1, resulting from the removal of the elements they

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

109

correct both in his assessment that in Q, “the parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12–26) is perhaps the most difficult parable to reconstruct, since there is so little initial verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke” and in his observation that “there is, however, agreement in the basic narrative structure (complicated by Luke’s insertion of a story of a throne claimant).”101 For this reason, it is precisely along the lines of the basic narrative structure, and not on the basis of a verbatim reconstruction that this parable must be analyzed.102 5.2.1 Plot Analysis Crossan has stated that in the Matthean and Lukan versions of this parable, the structure of the story and the sequence of the elements are “completely parallel.”103 Regardless of whether one agrees with the assessment that the elements are completely parallel or not, the agreements in the basic narrative structure viewed as Matthean and Lukan redaction. Numerous scholars have considered the possibility that Luke or the pre-Lukan tradition fused this parable with a second, independent parable concerning a throne claimant, often thought to have been modeled on the account of Archelaus claiming his throne (cf. Josephus Ant. 17:299–323 and Bell. 2:80–100). Cf., e.g., Crossan, In Parables, 100, 103; Jeremias, Parables, 59, 95; Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 283–5; Armand Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents (Mt 25, 14–30) ou des mines (Lc 19, 11–28),” in À cause de l’évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire (LeDiv 123; Paris:  Éditions du Cerf, 1985), 171; and M. Zerwick, S.I., “Die Parabel vom Thronanwärter,” Bib 40 (1959): 654–60. Cf. also the ensuing citation from Kloppenborg in the main text. This view, however, is debated. Cf., e.g., Lührmann, Redaktion, 71; and Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 246. Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 116, saw a heightened allegorization, and not a second parable, as the reason behind Luke’s version. Similarly, Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 175–6. 101.  Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 295. Cf. also Crossan, In Parables, 101; Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 92; and Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 275n64, who, though recognizing the possibility of independent sources, concludes that “die Ableitung aus Q eine aufgrund der sprachlichen und sachlichen Parallelen durchaus zu ergreifende Option [ist].” Cf. also Lührmann, Redaktion, 71, who saw Q as a common source “vor allem im Aufbau, aber teilweise auch im Wortbestand.” Also recognizing the challenges of reconstructing the Q text is Zeller, Kommentar, 83: “Leider hat es [the parable] schon vor der Bearbeitung durch die Evangelisten einige Wandlungen durchgemacht, so daß seine Q-Fassung bis auf den Schlußteil vage bleiben muß.” 102. Thus, I completely disagree with Christoph Heil’s assertion, cited above in Chapter 3, that the parable “muss . . . in ihrem wahrscheinlichen Wortlaut rekonstruiert werden. Dann erst kann sinnvoll untersucht werden, was die Parabel denn eigentlich erzählt” (“Was erzählt die Parabel vom anvertrauten Geld?” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q [ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn], 339). 103. Crossan, In Parables, 101. Cf. also the list of actions found in the underlying narrative structure in Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “A Peasant Reading of the Parables of the Talents/ Pounds: A Text of Terror?,” BTB 23 (1993): 32.

110

The Parables in Q

can be brought to light through an analysis of the parable’s plot.104 The five plot elements guiding the present analysis take place over the course of three scenes in the parable.105 The first scene, despite some differences in the specific details,106 presents the initial situation in which a man entrusts funds to several slaves. As part of this scene, Luke explicitly indicates that the slaves were commissioned to “engage in business” or “trade” (πραγματεύομαι) with the funds, an expectation that may also be implied in Matthew’s statement that the funds were allocated to the slaves κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν.107 Matthew then explicitly relates the departure of the master (Mt. 25:15), which Luke does not narrate but clearly indicates in having the master state that business is to be done ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι (Lk. 19:13).108 As was the

104. Cf. the outline in Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 174. 105.  Roman Heiligenthal summarizes these scenes as follows:  “In einer ersten Erzählphase geht es um die Übergabe des Kapitals. Es wird die Übergabe des Geldes und die Abreise des Herren beschrieben. In der zweiten Phase geht es um das Handeln der Knechte während der Abwesenheit des Herrn und in der dritten Erzählphase erfolgt die Schilderung der Abrechnung nach der Rückkehr des Herrn” (“ ‘Gott als Banker’: Die Parabel von den ‘anvertrauten Talenten’ (Mt 25,14–30),” in Wahrheit suchen – Wirklichkeit wahrnehmen:  Festschrift für Hans Mercker zum 60. Geburtstag [ed. Elisabeth Reil and Rolf Schieder ; Landauer Universitätsschriften:  Theologie 4; Landau:  Knecht Verlag, 2000], 85). 106.  Lk. 19:13 mentions ten slaves, whereas Mt. 25:14-15 implies that there were only three. Luke also speaks of entrusted μνᾶς, whereas Matthew has τάλαντα entrusted to the slaves. Since, however, in Lk. 19:16-21 only three slaves are in view and in Mt. 25:21, 23, that which was entrusted is described as a “little,” which the talents, regardless of their precise value, most definitely are not, some commentators have concluded, as Jeremias puts it, “Luke, then, has increased the number of the servants while Matthew has immensely magnified the amounts involved” (Parables of Jesus, 28; cf. also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 840–1). Highlighting the challenge of making any definitive decision on these and related points is Werner Foerster, “Das Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden,” in Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Eine Festschrift für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 16. Juni 1953 (ed. Werner Foerster; Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1953), 44–8. 107.  Münch contends that the phrase in Matthew “später keinerlei Funktion oder Bedeutung mehr hat. Es leuchtet ein, wenn hier viele Ausleger einen metaphorischen Sinn vermuten” (Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 230). Though the wording certainly contributed to a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation in the history of this parable’s interpretation, it may be the case that the slave’s ability in business is used to generate the expectation that that ability be put to use in some manner. In any case, Snodgrass comments that “Luke 19:13b only makes explicit what everyone would assume” (Stories with Intent, 532). 108.  Thus Kloppenborg rightly notes that Matthew and Luke agree “in indicating the distance (spatial or temporal) of the the [sic] master from the scene” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 295).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

111

case in Q 12:42-46, the complication is found in the absence of the master,109 an absence which sets the stage for the second scene.110 With the master having departed, the second scene involves a shift of the parable’s focus to the activity of the slaves in the master’s absence. In the synoptic presentation above, it is readily apparent that this scene is not narrated in the Lukan form of the parable. In fact, it is only through the dialogue and recounting of what was done during the absence of the master in the third scene that the gap concerning the activity that took place during v. 15 is filled.111 Matthew, however, actually recounts what the slaves did during their master’s absence.112 Whether already at this point or in retrospect, the addressee of the parable becomes aware of the transforming actions of the slaves and their results, namely, two engaged in business and earned more and one did not. Upon the master’s return, he desires an accounting from the slaves (σ υναίρει λόγον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν Mt. 25:19;

109.  Daniel A. Smith also notes the connection between these two parables, writing: “Q contains two parables that feature absent masters returning to render judgment (Q 12:42–46; 19:12–13, 15–24, 26)” (Revisiting the Empty Tomb:  The Early History of Easter [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010], 74). Cf. also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 856. 110.  Cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 390:  “Wieder ist das zeitliche Moment, auf dem die Erzählung aufruht, die zwischenzeitliche Abwesenheit des Eigentümers des / der Sklaven, der zu einer Ordnung seines Eigentums zwingt.” Cf. also Bindemann, “Harter Herr,” 135. In the Matthean context, Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 169, views a delay as being in view and sees Mt. 25:29 as corresponding to Mt. 24:48 and 25:5. Both Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 218, and Lührmann, Redaktion, 71, saw the emphasis of the call to faithfulness in the parable as arising within the context of a delay of the master, though it must be noted that neither Matthew nor Luke actually make any mention of a delay (also noted by Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 295n63). Hoffmann notes, “daß sich in solchen Forderungen die Parusieverzögerung zeige . . . nicht die einzig mögliche Erklärung [ist]” (Studien zur Theologie, 49)  and goes on to point out that the expectation of the imminent parousia did not exclude paranesis, but actually, as in John the Baptist’s sermon, formed part of the motivation and basis for the demand to bear fruit of repentance. Indeed, Kloppenborg has bluntly stated, “The point of this parable is not the delay of ‘the Day’ or what one ought to do in the meantime—indeed, there is no delay, only the absence of the master for some unspecified period of time” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 299). The plot only requires an absence and not a delay. 111.  Cf. also Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 240. The dynamic of the Lukan version is somewhat different from Matthew’s due to Lk. 19:14. In this verse, not only is the kingship imagery in Luke expanded, but the hearer is told that the man is “hated” and that his citizens reject his rule. These enemies are later slaughtered in the Lukan account (19:27). 112.  Manson noted that in regard to the tasks they were to perform in the master’s absence, “so far as the work is concerned they are as good as free” (Sayings, 246; cf. also Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 264). In other words, the master expressed no requirement for or expectation of engaging in a specific type of business.

112

The Parables in Q

τί διεπραγματεύσαντο Luke 19:15). Here the third and most extensive scene begins. In the final scene, it is clear that a “return on investment” is important for the master.113 Again, despite differences in the precise wording,114 as the plot moves into the denouement, it is readily apparent that in both Matthew and Luke the master is pleased with the first two slaves referring to them as ἀγαθός.115 Blomberg contends, “The exact amounts that the servants are given are not relevant, nor are the amounts they make through their investment. The point is that they both invested and received a return.”116 The final situation for these two slaves is thus one of reward, specifically “first the approval of the master, and second the opportunity for more abundant and more responsible service.”117 When the third slave speaks, however, the scene takes a notable dramatic turn, for instead of moving into the denouement as with the first two slaves, the plot for the final slave enters into a new complication.

113.  Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 242, refers to the words and final actions as being based on a “Logik des Gewinns.” It was pointed out above (cf. n. 107) that this likely is what the master commissioned the slaves to do in the first place (clearly stated in Lk. 19:13 and possibly implied in Mt. 25:14; cf. Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 168; and Jean-Noël Aletti, “Parabole des mines et/ou parabole du roi: Lc 19, 11–28: Remarques sur l’écriture parabolique de Luc,” in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles: XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon [1987] [ed. Jean Delorme; LeDiv 135; Paris: Cerf, 1989], 316). 114.  In addition to differences due to points already noted above, such as “talents” versus “minas” and the Lukan use of imagery drawn from the context of a throne claimant, Matthew and Luke also contain different rates of return (cf. n.  115 below). Overall, however, Fleddermann rightly notes, “Matthew and Luke agree that three servants come forward, two who successfully traded and one who hid the Lord’s money” (Q: Reconstruction, 845). His ensuing insistence in attempting to reconstruct the precise wording of “the original Q text peeping through the later redactions” (ibid.) seems to me to be unnecessary. 115. Matthew explicitly mentions an emotion with the master’s statement that the slave should enter his “joy” (Mt. 25:21, 23). It is worth noting that though the returns stated by Matthew, and particularly by Luke, are massive and likely exaggerated (cf. Rohrbaugh, “A Peasant Reading,” 35) in neither account does the master give any indication of the amount of return he expected. This point is considered further in the discussion of the master as a character. 116. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 214. 117.  Manson, Sayings, 246–7. Further responsibility is expressed by both Matthew and Luke even if Matthew recounts the master saying that the slaves will be set “over much” and Luke has the slaves entrusted with “cities.” This similarity between Matthew and Luke is also noted by Foerster, “Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden,” 47. Again noting a point of contact with the first parable discussed in this chapter, Snodgrass states, “The idea of being placed over all the master’s possessions (Mt. 24:47/Lk. 12:44) is mirrored in Mt. 25:21, 23/ Lk. 19:17-19 where servants are placed over many things or cities” (Stories with Intent, 497).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

113

It has often been pointed out that the parable focuses on this third slave and that the dramatic tension comes to a head in the encounter between the master and this final slave.118 Though the specifics of what the slave and master say is considered below in the discussion of this parable’s characters, in terms of the plot, this renewed complication is presented in a more extensive dialogue than what took place between the master and the first two slaves.119 The third slave, instead of speaking of the entrusted money speaks of the character and his fear of his master, which resulted in his hiding the entrusted funds, now returned in full—no more and no less.120 In the transforming action of the new complication, the master finds this response utterly inadequate, viewing the slave to be πονηρός and demanding that at the very least his money should have been deposited with the bankers so as to have earned interest. The denouement and final situation for the third slave thus involves judgment and the master taking that which he has from him (Mt. 25:28//Lk. 19:24).121 Via points out the way in which the plot moves “downward” from well-being to loss and how “this falling point (form) enforces the inadequacy of his [the man with one talent] self-understanding (content),”122 at least from the perspective of the master. Following the final situation, both

118.  Cf., e.g., Puig i Tàrrech’s observations, “la narration est orientée vers la troisième scène, où on trouve les trois dialogues (style direct)” and “la parabole atteint son point aigu de tension dramatique maximale avec le dialogue conflictuel entre le troisième serviteur et le maître” (“La parabole des talents,” 167, 177) or Jeremias’s succinct comment, “the emphasis lies on the reckoning with the third servant” (Parables of Jesus, 61). 119.  Cf. also the comment of Heiligenthal:  “die Abrechnung mit dem dritten Knecht [wird] besonders ausführlich geschildert” (“ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 85). 120.  Jeremias noted regarding the different accounts in Matthew and Luke, “While, according to Mt. 25.18, he had at least taken the precaution of burying the money entrusted to him, according to Luke 19.20 he had wrapped it in a napkin, thereby neglecting the most elementary safety measure” (Parables of Jesus, 61). 121. It is interesting that in the parallel to this parable in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, preserved in Eusebius, Theophania 22 on Mt. 25:14-15, “in addition to the servant who had multiplied the money entrusted to him, and the one who hid his talent, there appears a third servant who squandered the money on harlots and flute-players; the first is commended, the second blamed, and the third is thrown into prison” (Jeremias, Parables, 58). As Kloppenborg has noted, this version displaces “the punishment from the servant who hides the talent (who is only rebuked) to another servant, who had squandered the money on prostitutes” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 297). Gräßer identifies the likely motive for such a change to the parable: “Das Motiv zu solcher Veränderung mag in der Anstößigkeit liegen, die die Behandlung des dritten Knechtes im synoptischen Gleichnis bereitet” (Parusieverzögerung, 118; similarly, Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 183). 122.  Dan O. Via, “The Relationship of Form to Content in the Parables: The Wedding Feast,” Int 25 (1971): 175.

114

The Parables in Q

Matthew and Luke include an interpretive verse, indicating that Q 19:26 concluded this parable in Q.123 5.2.2 Characters Turning to the characters, Crossan has observed that the parable uses a “standard folkloric threesome.”124 Though the final scene involves the master interacting with three slaves, Funk’s analysis of the participants and plot of this parable rightly pointed out that the first two slaves, referred to by him as “the five talent and two talent servants,” are, in essence, a group character due to their acting in concert.125 Therefore, as can be seen in the manner in which the plot of the parable is constructed, the parable has, in Funk’s vocabulary, a determiner (the master) who relates to two respondents (the two sets of slaves), each of which will be examined in turn.126 At the outset of the parable, both Matthew and Luke begin with a reference to an ἄν θρ ωπο ς (Mt. 25:14; Lk. 19:12), though Luke further qualifies τις ε ὐγ εν ής, which is then developed through the royal imagery in the Lukan version of the parable. The immediately ensuing reference to this person having δοῦλοι clearly transports him into the perceived realm of a “master.”127 When considering this master as a fiktives Wesen along the lines of his synthetic component, though this character is introduced by the narrator, Christian

123. Though Bindemann, “Harter Herr,” 131, views Mt. 25:29//Lk. 19:26 as a later addition to the original form of the parable, he argues that it was already present in the version found in Q and used by Matthew and Luke. In fact, he views this verse as a key indication that the parable was found in Q (ibid., 140). Cf. also Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 296, who considers the parallels to Q 19:26 found as isolated verses in Mk 4:25 and G. Thom. 41 as evidence of its secondary addition to the parable. 124. Crossan, In Parables, 102. 125.  Robert W. Funk, Parables and Presence:  Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 36. 126.  Funk explained: “D [the determiner] determines the terms or situation to which responses are made. In this sense, D determines the course of the narrative. One could therefore say that D provides the axis on which the parable turns, either as something D is or as something D does” (ibid., 38). Concerning the two respondents, David Flusser noted that “one can recognize that the plot of the parable itself is built upon the contrast of only two protagonists, the positive and the negative hero” (“Aesop’s Miser and the Parable of the Talents,” in Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity [ed. Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod; SJC; New York: Paulist Press, 1989], 11). 127. As already noted above, Matthew makes reference to three slaves (25:15), whereas Luke recounts that there were ten (19:13). In both instances, however, multiple slaves are in view and the difference in number is only found at the parable’s outset. In the discussion of the plot above it was pointed out that in the second half of the parable the master only interacts with three slaves in both accounts.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

115

Münch rightly observes that this parable is one “in der viel geredet wird” and that dialogue constitutes much of the account.128 The dialogue begins earlier in Luke’s account in that there the master relays his instructions to his slaves with direct speech, whereas Matthew’s account only reports an entrusting of property on the part of the master. Both Matthew and Luke, however, have the master engage in a series of conversations with his slaves once the master returns to the scene.129 Here the slaves address the master as κύριε, and from this point on, the characterization of the master continues through speech. In his dialogue with the final slave, the master’s character becomes more complex through the negative depiction of the master by the slave. Interestingly, after the final slave speaks, though the wording is not identical, both Matthew and Luke have the master speaking until the conclusion of the parable, even if Luke also includes one interjection along the way (Lk. 19:25). In this manner, the master is a figure characterized through dialogue to an extent far greater than usually seen in the Q parables. Turning to the mimetic component of the master as a fiktives Wesen, the parable presents significant challenges in understanding this master’s moral character. As already noted above, the real difficulty arises when the third slave begins to speak. It is quite clear that this slave presents the master in unflattering terms, to say the least, and goes on, in one of the few instances in the Q parables where an emotion is explicitly mentioned, to indicate his “fear” of his κύριος.130 The slave makes reference to the severity or harshness of the master,131 following up with statements in both Matthew and Luke indicating the reaping of reward from something he did not sow. Interestingly, as Manson observed, “the master makes no attempt to rebut the charge.”132 Instead, he turns the slave’s own words back upon him, demanding that with this knowledge and even with his fear, the slave could have at least earned interest on the money.133 Regardless of whether the master’s words are intended to be heard as spoken with irony or not,134 there is a sense in which the description

128. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 240. Cf. also the observation by Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 176. 129. Here Mt. 25:19 specifically refers to the character as ὁ κύριος τῶν δούλων. 130. Matthew and Luke do not present the master with precisely the same terms; however, in both instances it is clear that the depiction is negative. For passages from other ancient sources, including Plato, Philo, and Josephus, indicating that Luke’s αἴρεις ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκας is an expression referring to a “grasping” person, cf. F. E. Brightman, “Six Notes,” JTS 29 (1928): 158. 131. Luke has the slave refer to the master as αὐστηρός (Lk. 19:22) whereas Matthew has σκληρός (Mt. 25:24). 132. Manson, Sayings, 247. 133. Cf. also Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 241–2. 134. Advocating for irony are, e.g., Heiligenthal, “ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 89 and Harnisch, Gleichniserzählung, 39. Arguing against this view are, e.g., Christoph Kähler, Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie und Therapie: Versuch eines integrativen Zugangs zum kommunikativen Aspekt

116

The Parables in Q

is accurate concerning the relationship between a slave and a master: the labor of the slave is the gain of the master. Refusing to contribute to such gain is judged to be πονηρός.135 Here, however, several recent commentators have specifically contended that the image of the master is compromised “durch die rücksichtlose Geldgier . . ., die ihn als eine unsympathische oder zumindest fragwürdige Figur erscheinen lässt.”136 But is this particular criticism justified? For instance, it seems to me to be problematic for Kloppenborg to refer to “a rapacious landowner” and to “the practically unattainable demands he makes of his retainers.”137 A similarly problematic and even more specific statement is made by Schottroff: “Er [the master] wirft dem Sklaven vor, dass er das Geld nicht so eingesetzt hat, dass es sich verdoppelt – oder wenigstens Bankzinsen erbracht hätte.”138 Yet, there is simply no rebuke of the third slave for not having doubled the money and no precise, much less “unattainable,” demand anywhere in the parable.139

von Gleichnissen Jesu (WUNT 78; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 173; and, apparently, Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 183. Still helpful in terms of what the parable actually states is Foerster’s comment: “Es ist nicht gesagt, daß der Herr tatsächlich rücksichtslos hart ist, sondern nur, daß der Knecht ihn dafür hält” (“Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden,” 49). Flusser, who views the reply as ironic, ultimately concludes, “In any case, it seems to me that we cannot know anything certain about the real character of the master” (“Aesop’s Miser,” 23n14). At the same time, Snodgrass observes that “the master’s treatment of the first two servants suggests that the charge is unfounded” (Stories with Intent, 534). 135.  Cf. also Manson, Sayings, 247: “As between master and slave the statement of the case is correct. That is the situation. The slave works and the master takes the results of his labours. The good and faithful slave accepts the situation and does his best in it. The slave who refuses to do his best is a bad slave.” 136. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 243. Schottroff was even harsher in her opinion: “Der dritte Sklave spricht die Wahrheit. Er wirft dem Sklavenbesitzer Diebstahl vor” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 292). 137.  Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 299. More recently Kloppenborg has referred to “completely unrealistic” returns on investment “expected by the householder” (“Power and Surveillance,” 174; emphasis added). 138. Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 292. 139.  That the master was most pleased with the first slave, who had the largest return in absolute terms in Matthew and the largest return in Luke on percentage terms, can be seen in the master giving him the one talent/mina entrusted to the final slave (Mt. 25:28// Lk. 19:24). But being pleased with the return is not the same thing as having demanded the return. With a view toward the master’s demand, Heiligenthal points to a sense in which he views the master as unjust on internal grounds in Matthew, stating “unverkennbar trägt das Bild des Herren hier ungerechte Züge, denn er fordert etwas ein, das er zu Beginn nicht ausdrücklich gefordert hat” (“ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 89). At the same time, though not explicitly required, it was noted above that even in Matthew there is at least an implicit expectation to do something with the entrusted funds.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

117

A similar problem is found in Richard Q. Ford’s analysis, in which the master is viewed as symbolic of “distant Roman overlords, rapacious of their colonies, who masked their greed under a facade of law” and the “well-positioned slaves who are called upon to exploit” as “coopted [sic] Jewish aristocrats, endlessly taxing and otherwise exploiting their fellow Jews.”140 Despite the assumption pervading Ford’s analysis, the parable itself gives no indication that the master expects or that the slaves actually pursue the exploitation and robbing of peasants for the return on the entrusted capital. In addition, Münch notes that there is no precise indication of the amount of time that the master was gone and during which the funds grew, an issue relevant for assessing the gains.141 In any case, as Armand Puig i Tàrrech correctly noted, “selon le maître, il faut absolument avoir obtenu un benefice,” but it is “peu importe” if this is a massive return based on speculative investment or the minimal interest earned in a bank.142 As such, it does not seem to me that the master has any expectation of exorbitant return nor does he necessarily require a willingness on the part of his slaves to take massive risks. It is not that the slave’s inaction is set opposite of risk-taking, but rather simply opposite of action.143 Thus, Labahn points out that the master may be an ambivalent, but not necessarily a negative, character as even the comments in Q 19:21-22 are, at least at first glance, no more than expressions of the master’s sovereignty and power. Therefore, Labahn concludes, “Qualitätsurteile wie die Beschreibung des Herrn als Antihelden erscheinen daher mehr an wirtschaftsethischen Vorstellungen sozialer Marktwirtschaft orientiert.”144 In any case, suffice it to say that regardless

140. Ford, Parables of Jesus, 36; cf. also Christian Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu (EHS.T 653; Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 240–1. 141. Cf. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 244. 142. Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 182, cf. also p. 179. 143.  For this reason, I am not certain if “Risikobereitschaft” is necessarily the trait of “unmoralischen Helden” that the third slave lacks as posited by Tim Schramm and Kathrin Löwenstein. They write, “Risikobereitschaft, von den unmoralischen Helden so selbstverständlich realisiert, fehlt dem ‘faulen’ Knecht im Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden . . . der ‘sein’ Geld vergräbt, anstatt damit Handel zu treiben, und dadurch schuldig wird” (Unmoralische Helden:  Anstößige Gleichnisse Jesu [Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986], 158). Cf. also Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 265–6. 144.  Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 391. Cf. along these lines the comments of Ford, Parables of Jesus, 35: “In the judgment of nearly every contemporary First World commentator, this dominant parable protagonist [the ‘master’] is someone to be believed. Only Western listeners, steeped in the mores of modern capitalism, could so thoroughly miss what was obvious to Jesus’ original peasant audiences, namely that this master’s mode of operating is criminal.” Notice also the language of Riniker: “Die Bildwelt der Parabel ist für mich anstössig:  Die Wucherer werden für ihren Wucher gelobt und belohnt, der einzige, der mit seinem Geld keinen Schaden gestiftet und es doch getreulich verwahrt hat, wird getadelt und bestraft” (Gerichtsverkündigung, 240). In response to such perspectives, note the sharp criticism by Bindemann, “Solche Auslegung liegt zwar im

118

The Parables in Q

of whether the slave’s words are an accurate description of the character of the master or not, and regardless of whether the master’s response implicitly confirms the characterization or is an ironic parody of the slave’s words, it is clear that in either case, the slave was right to fear the master’s displeasure for he is judged to be “wicked” and that which was entrusted to him is taken and given to the first slave. The significance of this entire line of discussion concerning the mimetic component of the master is especially relevant when shifting the analysis to the thematic component of this character and considering him as a Symbol. Is the master to be identified with God? Does the master act in a manner in which Jesus would act? Or is the parable actually an anti-parable revealing what God, or Jesus, is not like? Schottroff, for instance, wrote, “Das Gleichnis von den Talenten (Mt 25,14–30) war das Gleichnis, das mich schon seit langem an der Deutung der Gleichniskönige und Gleichnisherren auf Gott hat zweifeln lassen.”145 Münch observed, “Womöglich führt die Assoziation [between the master and God/Jesus] in die Irre . . . oder es liegt eine kühne Metaphorik vor.”146 Be that as it may, the point within the parable is that the judgment of the master seems to be viewed as correct, even if the master himself is unsympathetic.147 Though perhaps not demanding a transcendent referent,148 the likely Q context, discussed further below, creates the possibility of viewing the actions and attitude of the master as connected to those of Jesus at his parousia.149 For this reason, Puig i Tàrrech contends that Q

Trend antikapitalistischer Protestbewegung, doch verfehlt sie die Intention Jesu” (“Harter Herr,” 134n24; cf. also pp. 149–50). Even if one is inclined to agree with Bindemann’s criticism, it seems unlikely that his own view that the parable was originally directed against the Pharisees and their misunderstanding of God as a harsh Lord requiring perfection in obeying the Torah (cf. “Harter Herr,” 134)  is any closer to Jesus’s intention! For similar misguided statements, cf. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 118–19; and Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 234. Cf. the criticism of similar, earlier views in Foerster, “Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden,” 52. 145. Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 292. 146. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 245. 147. Cf. also ibid., 247. 148.  Cf. the statement of Crispen Fletcher-Louis that this is one of the parables “that in no way demand[s] a transcendent referent, but which [is] regularly assumed, if original to Jesus, to pertain to his ‘apocalyptic eschatology’ ” (“Jesus and Apocalypticism,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter; 4 vols; Leiden: Brill], 3:2881). 149.  Münch noted, “Der Q-Kontext der parabel redet von der Parousie des Menschensohnes, so dass im Zusammenhang der Redenquelle eine Identifikation Jesu mit dem Herrn nahe liegt” (“Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 247). Flusser poses the rhetorical question, “How would it be possible to prevent the hearers from ascribing metaphoric meaning to the plot of the parable” (“Aesop’s Miser,” 20), and Fleddermann noted, “Q relies heavily on metaphors, and within this metaphorical context the man leaving on the journey can only be the Christians’ absent Lord” (Q: Reconstruction, 858).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

119

already began the line of interpretation followed by Matthew and Luke. “Dominée déjà par un intérêt christologique, la parabole devient allégorisme.”150 Interestingly, Labahn has laid out the thematic component of the master slightly differently, stating, “dieses Gleichnis hat motivlich eine nicht annähernd starke Kontextaffinität wie die Gastmahlgeschichte, wenngleich schon seit der einleitenden Täuferpredigt (Q 3,7–9) deutlich wird, dass der Mensch zur Bewährung vor Gott aufgefordert ist.”151 Curious, however, is that Labahn, though recognizing that different figures appear in the judgment, states that the eschatological judgment “ist letzlich Gott vorbehalten.”152 It has been seen, however, that already in Q 3:17, such a strict sense of “God’s unique role” in judgment is challenged in Q and it is therefore not certain that the ἄν θρ ωπο ς of this parable is “besonders im Blick auf Gott konkretisierbar.”153 It was already noted above that when considering the slaves, at the conclusion of the parable one finds a group character of two slaves and one other slave. At the outset of the parable, however, before the master departs, the slaves are presented as one single group character. Thus, at least initially, the slaves as fiktive Wesen are introduced as the characters opposite the master. That which Matthew and Luke share is that these slaves are simply presented as those to whom the master entrusts property. Yet, upon the master’s return, the slaves appear one by one and it is here that one finds the interesting and important (sub-)group character and individual character. The first two slaves approach their master and address him as κύριε.154 It is noteworthy that the synthetic component of this group character as a fiktives Wesen is now being constructed through dialogue. Through this opening address of the master as “lord” the mimetic component is already being brought into association with the figure to whom the account is now being given. The addressee of the parable also discovers through the dialogue exactly what these two slaves accomplished during the master’s absence—that with which they were entrusted earned more. Vital in terms of these slaves’ mimetic component is the evaluation of them by the master. Both Matthew and Luke indicate that the master identifies each slave as ἀγαθός and that their activity was judged to be πιστός. As discussed further below when considering the imagery of this parable, these positively connoted terms in Q serve to create a positive mental model of these slaves. Thus, in addition to the brief comments above, this evaluation within the dialogue of the

150.  Puig i Tàrrech, “La parabole des talents,” 173. Similarly, though Jeremias viewed it as a divergence from the original meaning, he recognized that both Matthew and Luke apply the parable to the Parousia and concluded that this “allegorical interpretation” is not “due to the two evangelists, but belonged to the tradition which already lay behind them” (Parables of Jesus, 67). 151. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 323. 152. Ibid. 153. Ibid. 154. Mt. 25:20, 22 and Lk. 19:16, 18.

120

The Parables in Q

parable and the context of Q is a further indication of Ford’s problematic identification of these slaves as “collaborating exploiters” who manifest a “stringent refusal to acknowledge their victims.”155 As one moves into the final exchange in the parable, though the master remains the determiner in this parable, this reality does not necessarily mean that the master remains the most important character at this point. As the parable presses toward its conclusion, there is a clear sense in which the third slave becomes of primary narratival interest.156 Though the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is also constructed through dialogue, the words very quickly reveal that the narrative is presenting this slave in binary opposition to the preceding two.157 After uttering the same κύριε address as his fellow slaves, the third slave does not initially make reference to what the master entrusted to him, but rather to that which he “knows” about the master.158 The focus is thus shifted away from that which was entrusted and to that which the slave thinks. Turning to the mimetic component of this slave as a fiktives Wesen, over sixty years ago Werner Foerster observed, “Die Beurteilung des Charakters und des

155.  Ford, Parables of Jesus, 35. On the same page, Ford also refers to the slaves as the master’s “trusted lieutenants.” 156. This reality leads Harnisch, Gleichniserzählungen, 77–8, to distinguish between the Handlungssouverän (the master) and the dramatische Hauptfigur (the third slave) along with the dramatische Nebenfigur. Cf. also Bindemann, “Harter Herr,” 131. This terminology is helpful for avoiding potential confusion in statements identifying the last slave as the “parable’s main character” (e.g. in Ford, Parables of Jesus, 40) since it allows for a clear indication of the sense in which one views a particular character as a “main” character. 157.  Cf. Harnisch, Gleichniserzählungen, 31. Cf. also Heiligenthal’s assessment:  “Die beiden ersten Knechte stehen in einem Gegensatz zum dritten Knecht, der keine Belohnung, sondern Bestrafung erhält” (“ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 85). Harnisch goes on to observe the narratival function that such opposition often contains with the observation, “Beachtet man jedoch die Frage nach der jeweiligen Position der Figuren, so zeigt sich, daß die dramatische Zuspitzung der Erzählungen sehr häufig mit darauf beruht, daß Kontrastfiguren eingeführt werden” (Gleichniserzählungen, 32). Concerning this contrast, Funk stated, “Though they [the servants] are not specifically identified in all versions at the outset as good and bad, the reader is reasonably certain that the number of talents given in trust corresponds to the level of the servants’ competence. We are therefore not surprised that the story turns out as it does. It meets common expectations” (Parables and Presence, 57). I am not certain, however, of the extent to which this sentiment holds true. After all, in Matthew, where the statement of the entrusted funds corresponding to ability occurs, the return on investment by the two slaves is exactly the same (100 percent). In Luke, all the slaves are given the same amount, though here the returns are different (1,000 percent and 500 percent, respectively). Regardless of the precise amount entrusted and the exact returns recorded in Q, is it really the case that there is no surprise in the words and (in)action of the final slave? 158.  Note, by way of contrast, πέντε τάλαντά μοι παρέδωκας (Mt. 25:20) and δύο τάλαντά μοι παρέδωκας (Mt. 25:22) along with ἡ μνᾶ σου (Lk. 19:16, 18).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

121

Verhaltens des dritten Knechtes ist in der Literatur nicht einheitlich.”159 The point remains just as true now as it was then. Though in the abstract Scott may be correct in pointing out that the third slave’s approach was normal in order to ensure that an investment was protected against loss,160 the absence of any return on the funds entrusted to this slave due to his having hidden them away stands in stark contrast to the return gained by his fellow slaves. In fact, Roman Heiligenthal has noted the manner in which “wider Erwarten begründet er [the third slave] das Vergraben des Geldes nicht mit der üblichen legalen Praxis. Er scheint zu wissen, dass sein Herr damit nicht zufrieden sein wird.”161 If this supposition is correct, then the slave himself is aware of the inadequacy of his actions. Here Manson was of the opinion that “the obvious course is to complain about the conditions of his service and to blacken the character of the master,”162 though this perhaps imputes too much cunning to the slave and lacks an adequate recognition of how his fear paralyzed him.163 More recently, Ernest van Eck has made the following statements: How would the nobleman have heard this? Most probably in the sense of “Master, I have so much respect for you (I am honouring you), that I did not want to take

159. Foerster, “Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden,” 48. 160. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 228–9. 161. Heiligenthal, “ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 88–9. In Luke the slave did not bury the funds, but wrapped them in a cloth. Though this could reflect a certain carelessness (cf. n. 120 above), it did not result in the final slave not being able to return all that was entrusted to him. In this sense then, the accounts in Matthew and Luke have the same result despite different manners of preserving the master’s funds. 162. Manson, Sayings, 247. Manson also stated, “His argument appears to be: If I make a profit the master gets it; if I make a loss he will come upon me to make it good. Therefore the best course is to do nothing” (ibid.). 163. In Ford’s analysis of the parable, he contends that “the behavior of its major character, a timid slave, makes no sense. He knows well that his master insists on taking in what he does not deposit and on reaping where he does not sow; fully aware of these harsh expectations, this seemingly fearful subordinate proceeds—unnecessarily—both to frustrate his master and to humiliate himself ” (Parables of Jesus, 32). His view is that there are two possible explanations for this behavior. First, the slave is not fully aware of his predicament and in his fear, knowing that the master is harsh, he believes that the “best service is to keep the money unproductively safe.” Alternatively, he knows what the master wants him to do (on Ford’s view this is to “exploit”) but he cannot do it. “So he shuts down. He puts the money in a safe place and refuses to think about it” (ibid., 42). It seems to me that neither option is necessarily the case. The problematic assumption about “exploitation” was already considered above, but even in the first option, the slave may have been aware of the inadequacy of his actions, but nevertheless too fearful to do anything about it. Likely moving in the direction of a completely different interpretation is the comment of J. Duncan M. Derrett that “the sauciness of the speech is fascinating. It both upbraids and defies” (Law in the New Testament [London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970], 26).

122

The Parables in Q

a chance with your money. I did what I thought was the honourable thing to do, that is, to protect what belongs to you” . . . The slave acted responsibly. He was a “bad slave,” compared to the other two. But yet he respected (honoured) his master, although he made no profit. Consequently, the master let him go with only a label around his neck.164

This, however, is all quite unconvincing. There is simply no indication that this is how the master heard what the slave said or understood what the slave sought to do. The “only a label” (πονηρός) with which the master “let him go” is catastrophic within the image world of Q. Unfortunately, the slave’s fear led to the very state of affairs that he feared, namely, being confronted with the severe displeasure of his master. At least from within the parable, Glancy’s comments with reference to Matthew’s version also hold true for Q, namely, “Jesus does not consider the possibility that the slave’s moral options are separable from the master’s interests”165 and for this reason it is difficult, at least within the context in Q, to agree with William R. Herzog III’s view of this slave as the “hero” of the parable.166 The slaves as Symbol in Q are directly addressed in the interpretive concluding verse. In nearly verbatim wording Matthew and Luke indicate that the parable concerns “everyone” (πᾶς) who has or does not have. Thus, the thematic component of these characters is connected explicitly to the reader or hearer of the parable, who would be included among the “all.” On this level, an appeal is made to the addressee to consider which group she or he belongs to and whether the first group of slaves or the final slave reflects her or his own circumstances.167 5.2.3 Images The entire foregoing discussion has revealed the most prominent image in this parable, namely, the financial world of an upper-class household in

164. Van Eck, “Do Not Question My Honour,” 10. 165. Glancy, “Slaves and Slavery,” 76. Cf. also Riniker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 242. 166.  Cf. William R. Herzog III, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 1994), 165–7. Snodgrass bluntly states, “Attempts to suggest that Jesus’ hearers would have identified with the third servant . . . will not work” and “the third servant is a thoroughly negative example, and this parable has nothing to do with warning against mistreating the poor” (Stories with Intent, 532, 534). Cf. also the comments critical of Herzog’s views and those similar to it in Heil, “Was erzählt?,” 365–8. 167.  Manson provided the following expansion of the parable’s conclusion (with reference to Mt. 25:29): “To him who has added something of his own to what I entrusted to him, more of mine shall be entrusted and he shall have abundance. But from him who has added nothing of his own to what I entrusted to him, shall be taken away what I entrusted to him” (Sayings, 248).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

123

antiquity.168 Labahn rightly notes, however, that despite this fact, the parable is “kein Ratschlag zum Wirtschaften und erzählt auch keine Wirtschaftsethik. Der Sozialhintergrund ist Bildmaterial, mit dem der Einsatz für den beauftragenden Menschen illustriert wird.”169 Three elements from this realm will be discussed further here in terms of their relevance for the parable: accounting, return, and interest. As highlighted in the plot analysis above, upon the master’s return he pursues an accounting of what the slaves did in his absence, culminating in a judgment of their actions. From the opening parables of John the Baptist it has already been seen that the idea of judgment by God and Jesus as the “Coming One” is strongly thematized in Q.  Once one moves to the characters in the parable as Symbol, Heiligenthal’s observation is quite à propos:  “Der metaphorische Sinn der Metapher ‘Abrechnung’ ist den christlichen Rezipienten direkt zugänglich: Das Gericht des kommenden Menschensohnes, der dieses stellvertretend für seinen Vater halten wird, ist gemeint.”170 In addition, the parable makes quite clear the master’s expectation that the funds he has entrusted to the slaves are to grow. His investment is not to remain a static entity, but should expand. Along these lines, Weiser has pointed out that a similar dynamic is present in the conception of the kingdom of God, also expressed in parables,171 and thus concludes, “Will also der Mensch Anteil an dem sich dynamisch verwirklichenden Reich Gottes erhalten, dann muß auch er etwas dafür tun.”172 This conception, however, is perhaps too narrowly focused upon the kingdom. Though certainly not unrelated to the kingdom of God, in Q there is a clear sense in which it is the words of Jesus that have been entrusted along with the explicit expectation that one “does something” with these words.173 Thus, there is a warning here for all those who do not “do anything” with the words of Jesus.174

168. Cf. Heiligenthal, “ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 85: “Das die Parabel konstituierende Bildfeld ist dem Bereich der Geld- und Geschäftswelt einer feudalistischen Gesellschaft entnommen.” 169.  Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 393. Cf. also Bindemann, who notes that it is important to recognize that “die Parabel zwar ihre Motive aus dem Alltagsleben schöpft, aber keineswegs eine ‘realistische’ Erzählung sein will, die Marktgeschehen beschreibt, kritisiert oder gar heiligt” (“Harter Herr,” 134n24, cf. also pp.  149–50). Similarly, Heiligenthal, “Es gibt . . . zwischen der Bild- und Sachhälfte nur formale, oder besser gesagt, abstrakte Vergleichspunkte: Einsatz, Risikobereitschaft, Kritik am Nichtstun und Passivität” (“ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 91). 170. Heiligenthal, “ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 88. 171. Cf., e.g., the parables discussed in Chapter 9. 172. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 264. 173. Cf., among the parables, Q 6:47-49. Jeremias, Parables, 62n56, also made reference to the later use of the image of a “deposit” for the Word of God in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12, 14). 174.  So also Bindemann, “Harter Herr,” 141, even though I  disagree with his, in my estimation simplistic, view of the conflict clearly being between “die Q-Gemeinde” and “das synagogale Judentum.”

124

The Parables in Q

There is also an interesting parallel involving the image of “productivity” with one of Aesop’s fables, “The Miser”175: A miser sold his property, bought a lump of gold, and, once he had taken this out and buried it, kept coming back to look at it. One of the men at work nearby saw him coming and going and, guessing what he was up to, removed the gold after he had left. When the miser came back again and found the hole empty, he began to weep and tear his hair. Someone saw him in this excess of grief, and when he found out what the reason was, he said to him, “Don’t grieve, my friend; just take a stone and put it in the hole and then pretend that’s your gold. You didn’t use it when you had it, anyhow.”176

David Flusser has observed that the parable has a deeper meaning and broader application than the one found in the concluding sentence for “the plot itself teaches us much more than that unused property has no value.”177 For Flusser, “the practical issue of the Aesop story is simply that if a sum is hidden in the earth, it is unproductive.”178 For this reason, Michael Wojciechowski draws the connection that as in the parable under consideration here, “the fable condemns keeping hidden treasures without use, and punishes the guilty by the loss of money.”179 Finally, Münch has also pointed out that an aspect of the ambivalent characterization of the master may also extend to his having suggested that the slave deposit the funds with bankers so as to have gained interest. He points out that interest was prohibited in Judaism, at least for debts between Jews (Deut. 23:20-21; Exod. 22:25), and that for a Jewish audience “wirft die Empfehlung, zu den Bankiers zu gehen und Zinsen zu kassieren, auch ein Licht auf den Herrn selbst.”180 Whether a Jewish audience would have negatively judged the master for mentioning “interest,” however, is not entirely clear. A second image to consider here is the emotion “fear” as expressed by the third slave. Kurt Erlemann has noted, “Die Rede von Gott, der bei den Menschen Furcht

175.  Fable 225 in Ben Edwin Perry, Aesopica (Urbana:  University of Illinois Press, 1952). 176. The translation is that of Lloyd W. Daly, Aesop without Morals: The Famous Fables and a Life of Aesop (New York:  T. Yoseloff, 1961), 187. The fable is also cited in Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 391n511, and Michael Wojciechowski, “Aesopic Tradition in the New Testament,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008): 103. 177. Flusser, “Aesop’s Miser,” 16. 178.  Ibid. Flusser also discussed Antiphon the Sophist’s (fifth century BCE) version of the fable, which included a missed opportunity to loan the money with interest (cf. ibid., 16–17). 179. Wojciechowski, “Aesopic Tradition,” 103. 180. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 245.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

125

auslöst, ist atl.-jüdisches Traditionsgut.”181 Indeed, it is not difficult to find HB passages using the term “fear” with reference to those inclined to do God’s will (e.g. Exod. 1:17; Lev. 19:14, 32; Deut. 6:24; 31:12; 2 Chr. 19:7; Neh. 5:15; Prov. 24:21; Isa. 50:10, among many others).182 In the parable, however, the “fear” does not lead to doing the master’s will, but actually paralyzes the third slave and keeps him from doing the master’s will. Thus, a perhaps more positively connoted term within the context of the HB relationship between the people as “slaves” and God as “master” is here employed in a negative sense with the fear resulting in unfaithful instead of faithful service. A final image of particular significance within the context of Q is the opposition of the first two slaves being labeled ἀγαθός and the final slave πονηρός. Already in Q 6:45 these two terms are used in antithetical parallelism with the good person bringing forth good things and the evil person bringing forth evil things. In the parable, it is the actions of the slaves that reveal their character within the ethical realm operative in Q. As such, the good slaves are rewarded and the evil slave is judged. At least along the lines of the spoken judgment, Erlemann seems to be correct in his observation: “Die Frage nach der Gerechtigkeit Gottes soll keine Rolle spielen beim rechten Tun.”183 Regardless of what the slaves thought of their master, the parable does not seem to provide sufficient grounds to overthrow the assessment of the master of his slaves and the resultant evaluation of the slaves within the ethical worldview of Q. 5.2.4 The Parable in Q It has already become evident that a variety of interpretations of this parable, read in and from a variety of contexts, has been offered. For example, Richard L. Rohrbaugh admits that he is reading the parable “stripped of the additions of Matthew and Luke” and is entertaining what interpretations “might have been” possible “for the story’s first audience” when reading the parable as a warning “not to those lacking adventurousness or industry, as frequently assumed in the West, but to those who mistreat the poor.” At the same time, he must also admit that “we are left to speculate about the parable’s original audience.”184 Even if one were to be sympathetic to such a reading in the abstract, read as a Q parable, the parable has a relevant context of characters and images. In terms of the parable’s immediate conclusion, Gräßer has argued that Mt. 25:29//Lk. 19:26 is a later addition changing the focus to God’s justice and being able to stand before it only through faithfulness, but since this passage was already in Q there is a definite sense in which also in Q “diese Treue bis zum

181.  Kurt Erlemann, Das Bild Gottes in den synoptischen Gleichnissen (BWANT 126; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988), 220. 182. Cf. also Bindemann, “Harter Herr,” 132. 183. Erlemann, Das Bild Gottes, 208. 184. Rohrbaugh, “Peasant Reading,” 32–3.

126

The Parables in Q

Ankunft des Herrn . . . darum auch das eigentliche Anliegen des Gleichnisses [ist]. Wer treu befunden wird, der geht ein in das Reich des Messias. Wer nicht, der wird verdammt!”185 Along these lines, Heiligenthal sees the understanding of the “Abrechnen des Herrn” as the crucial point for how the parable is interpreted. Here, however, he contends that if one views it as simply part of the necessary development of the story, then one could understand the point of the parable “im Sinne einer allgemeinen ethischen Mahnung . . . Es ginge dann darum, dass von Gott Anvertraute zu wahren und zu mehren.”186 If, however, one views the accounting as an intentionally introduced metaphor for the judgment of God, then the third slave functions to make clear the message of the kingdom of God.187 The question can be posed, however, of whether such a stark contrast or this either/or reading is necessary. Within the context of the parable there is a clear ethical expectation and an ethical judgment. Yet, this does not preclude a metaphoric transfer of the imagery to include the teaching of Jesus and kingdom elements. As Kloppenborg has noted and as cited above, within Q this parable serves as part of Q’s larger rhetoric of the “dramatization of ‘the Day’ and its terrible consequences.”188 Though I do not agree with elements of Kloppenborg’s interpretation arising from the idea that the master is making unattainable demands of the slaves, he is certainly correct in noting that here the point is being made that “adherence to Q’s teachings of Jesus . . . is the only means by which to triumph over the frightening spectre of ‘the Day.’ ”189 In addition, Lambrecht points out the manner in which the parable also challenges those who would see God as depicted here as “unjust,” viewing the parable as an attack upon those who “revolt against a God who asks more than the normal, who unexpectedly enters into their lives and throws everything into confusion, and who manifests, in such an astonishing and revolutionary way, his own being in this Jesus.”190 It is thus not simply doing evil that leads to judgment, as was the case for the wicked slave in Q 12:42-46, but simply doing nothing that is also judged: “The disciple should not just avoid evil, he or she needs to actively

185. Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 115. 186. Heiligenthal, “ ‘Gott als Banker,’ ” 89. 187. Ibid., 89–90. 188. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 300. Cf. also Riniker, Gerichtsverkündigung, 243; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 147–8. 189.  Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 299. As Snodgrass puts it, “As a master rewards or punishes his servants for their productivity during his absence, so Jesus will hold his followers accountable for their productivity in the kingdom during his absence” (Stories with Intent, 535). Cf. also Heil, “Was erzählt?,” 370. 190. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 186. Here it is also interesting to note Riniker’s comments on the conclusion of the parable where he states that though the imagery is “anstössig” it is also realistic and, according to Jesus, reflects religious realities. For this reason, offended hearers, and he himself, “müssen sich vom Schlussdialog der Geschichte her also geschlagen geben” (Gerichtsverkündigung, 243).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

127

pursue the demands of the kingdom.”191 Only in this way does one fulfill the demanding character of God.192 As Münch puts it, “Spätestens in der Redenquelle ist die Parabel . . . ausdrücklich als eine Gerichtsparabel verstanden worden.”193 It is noteworthy that many have postulated that this parable occurs very close to the end of Q, with only one further pericope present, namely, Q 22:28, 30.194 If this is the case, then the parable leads into the saying that Jesus’s disciples, those who have followed him, will sit upon thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In other words, the parable not only picks up on images used previously in Q but also points to Q ending with an eschatological emphasis.195 With reference to the Didache, Lührmann observed that this is “eine auch sonst in jüdischer und urchristlicher Literatur typische Erscheinung.”196

191.  Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 862. Tuckett states, “The third servant is condemned by his master simply because he has not used what he has been given. He has not beaten up the first two servants or even mocked them in any way. He has simply done nothing and it is this which the parable condemns” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 295). Bindemann reflects upon this point theologically, “Wenn wir mit Gottes Gaben falsch umgehen, wird aus dem gnädig gebenden Gott der richtende” (“Harter Herr,” 135). For comments on both the formal and thematic similarities, as well as the differences, between Q 12:42-46 and this parable, cf. Kirk, Composition, 298–9. 192.  Cf. also the interpretation of Fleddermann who writes that “the servant who fails fails because he does not correctly understand the demanding character of his Lord” (Q: Reconstruction, 863). 193. Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 249. 194.  Kloppenborg states, “there is agreement . . . in the fact that 19:12–27 occurs as the last or second-last Q text cited” in Matthew and Luke (Formation, 72n121). 195.  Cf. Harnack, Sprüche, 125; Kloppenborg, Formation, 164–5; and Lührmann, Redaktion, 90. 196. Lührmann, Redaktion, 90.

128

The Parables in Q

5.3 Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16-23) Mt. 22:1-10

Lk. 14:16-23

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν εἶπεν ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λέγων·

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ·

2

ἄνθρωπός τις ἐποίει δεῖπνον μέγα, καὶ ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, ὅστις ἐποίησεν γάμους ἐκάλεσεν πολλοὺς τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ.

3

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους εἰς τοὺς γάμους, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν. 4 πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους λέγων·

17

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ δείπνου

εἴπατε τοῖς κεκλημένοις· ἰδοὺ τὸ ἄριστόν εἰπεῖν τοῖς κεκλημένοις· ἔρχεσθε, ὅτι ἤδη μου ἡτοίμακα, οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα καὶ πάντα ἕτοιμα· δεῦτε ἕτοιμά ἐστιν. εἰς τοὺς γάμους. 5

οἱ δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ὃς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ· 6 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ κρατήσαντες τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ ὕβρισαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν.

18

καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν· ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον. 19 καὶ ἕτερος εἶπεν· ζεύγη βοῶν ἠγόρασα πέντε καὶ πορεύομαι δοκιμάσαι αὐτά· ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον. 20 καὶ ἕτερος εἶπεν, γυναῖκα ἔγημα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐ δύναμαι ἐλθεῖν.

7

21 ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ὠργίσθη καὶ πέμψας τὰ καὶ παραγενόμενος ὁ δοῦλος ἀπήγγειλεν στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ ἀπώλεσεν τοὺς φονεῖς τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα. τότε ὀργισθεὶς ὁ ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν ἐνέπρησεν. οἰκοδεσπότης 8

τότε λέγει τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν γάμος ἕτοιμός ἐστιν, οἱ δὲ κεκλημένοι οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι· 9 πορεύεσθε οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν καὶ ὅσους ἐὰν εὕρητε καλέσατε εἰς τοὺς γάμους. 10 καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς συνήγαγον πάντας οὓς εὗρον, πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς· καὶ ἐπλήσθη ὁ γάμος ἀνακειμένων.

εἶπεν τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ· ἔξελθε ταχέως εἰς τὰς πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας τῆς πόλεως καὶ τοὺς πτωχοὺς καὶ ἀναπείρους καὶ τυφλοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς εἰσάγαγε ὧδε. 22 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ δοῦλος· κύριε, γέγονεν ὃ ἐπέταξας, καὶ ἔτι τόπος ἐστίν. 23 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος πρὸς τὸν δοῦλον· ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμοὺς καὶ ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν, ἵνα γεμισθῇ μου ὁ οἶκος·

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

129

Though in this parable the role of the slaves, as well as the interaction between the slaves and the master, is slightly different than in the two considered above, the presence of these characters, alongside of others, leads me also to consider Q 14:16-23 in this chapter.197 Similar to the situation for the parable of the entrusted money in Q 19, there are quite significant differences between Mt. 22:1-14 and Lk. 14:12-24.198 These differences have led to the parable, at times, not being considered to be in Q.199 Despite the dissimilarity at certain points between the Matthean and Lukan text, it remains the case that many scholars view the parable as a Q parable.200 Even when the passage is considered to be a Q parable, however, 197.  In the section entitled “The Servant Parables,” Crossan includes the two parables discussed above in his grouping of nine “servant parables” in the Gospels (In Parables, 99–102). The present parable is not included as it is an example “where servants are present but where the story does not revolve around a critical reckoning between master and servant” (ibid., 97). Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 43, also includes Q 12:39-40 in his identification of three “Knechtsgleichnisse” in Q, a parable that I  examine in Chapter  6, Section 6.2. 198.  For this reason, the CEQ, in my estimation rightly, refrained from reconstructing several of this parable’s verses. Complicating the issue is that, on the one hand, it has been posited that Matthew has perhaps combined this parable with a second parable in order to create his version (cf., e.g., Victor Hasler, “Die königliche Hochzeit, Matth. 22,1–14,” TZ 18 [1962]: 28; Jeremias, Parables, 65; and Manson, Sayings, 129) and that, on the other hand, Luke may have expanded the parable with, e.g., his double concluding invitation (cf. Jeremias, Parables, 64). There is also a parallel version of the parable in Gos. Thom. 64. Tuckett points out that the version in the Gospel of Thomas is more original in the sense that it does not have the “clearly redactional elements in the synoptic versions, e.g. the burning of the city of the murderers (Mt 22,7) and the double mission of the servants (Lk 14,23)”; however, at the same time the excuses in the Gospel of Thomas may “indicate a further link between GTh and LkR, though the evidence is admittedly not very strong” (“Q and Thomas,” 358). 199.  Cf., e.g., von Harnack, New Testament Studies II, 119–22; Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 260; and the summary list in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 166. As was the case above for the parable in Q 19, Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 83, thinks that the two versions “strongly suggest” that separate but similar stories told by Jesus are in view. Cf. also his discussion, with reference to other scholars questioning the presence of the parable in Q, in idem, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?,” 85–90. Eta Linnemann contends that “Lc 14 und Mt 22 nicht Paralleltexte, sondern Varianten sind” (“Überlegungen zur Parabel vom großen Abendmahl: Lc 14 15-24 / Mt 22 1–14,” ZNW 51 [1960]: 247), though she does not provide further discussion of precisely how she understands either the term “parallel” or “variant.” 200.  Cf., e.g., the literature cited in Detlev Dormeyer, “Literarische und theologische Analyse der Parabel Lukas 14,15–24,” BibLeb 15 (1974):  208n2; Harnisch, Gleichniserzählungen, 244n197; and Hultgren, Parables, 334n6 (though Hultgren himself opts for the view that Matthew and Luke drew the parable from their own special traditions). Anton Vögtle, Gott und seine Gäste: Das Schicksal des Gleichnisses Jesu vom großen

130

The Parables in Q

the variation found in the versions of the parable in Matthew and Luke creates significant challenges. In fact, the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu decided to discuss the parable twice, once in its Matthean form and once in its Lukan form.201 Though his assessment of the (in)ability to gain insight into the Q form of the parable may be slightly overstated, Edwards captures much of the general sentiment with the comment, “What it may have been like in Q is impossible to say; that it was there, seems quite evident.”202 In any case, it would appear that the only sensible manner in which to approach or consider this parable is precisely the one advocated in this work, namely, along the lines of the overlap in the basic plot and underlying structure as well as the characters and images involved.203 Gastmahl (BThS 29; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener, 1996), 12, states that the parable was “höchstwahrscheinlich” found in Q.  Though subsequently writing “from Q [?]” in discussing Matthew’s parable of the Wedding Feast, Funk initially rather forcefully states that “there can be no doubt” that the versions in Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas “represent a single tradition” (Language, 165 and 163, respectively). Labahn states that the parable “zu dessen Rekonstruktion, Überlieferung und Stellung in Q sich viele Fragen stelle, dürfte trotz aller Ungewissheiten als ein Teil von Q zu betrachten sein” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 269; cf. also the literature cited on the same page in n.  40). Cf. further Rudolf Hoppe, “Das Gastmahlgleichnis Jesu (Mt 22,1-10; Lk 14,16–24) und seine vorevangelische Traditionsgeschichte,” in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien: Festgabe für Paul Hofmann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Rudolf Hoppe and Ulrich Busse; BZNW 93; Berlin:  de Gruyter, 1998), 277–93. 201.  Cf. Zimmermann et  al. (eds), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, 479–87 and 593–603. 202.  Edwards, A Theology of Q, 134. Tuckett states that here, as in the parable of the entrusted money in Q 19, “it seems that the same story is being told but the verbal agreement is very much reduced” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 92). Cf. also Meier’s sentiment that though he does not view the parable as part of Q, the “common core of the story confirms that we are dealing with a single parable preserved in two different versions rather than with two different parables” (Probing the Authenticity, 258). Uncertainty about the Q form also makes statements such as the one by Dormeyer, “Die ausgestaltete Fassung des Lukas steht . . . der Verkündigung Jesu näher als die Kurzfassung von Q” rather problematic (“Literarische und theologische Analyse,” 212). The decision by Gregory Sterling not to include the wording of this parable in a Q column in his study of its versions in Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas is based in part upon his correct assessment that “the variations between Matthew and Luke . . . make it extremely difficult to establish the wording of Q” (“ ‘Where Two or Three are Gathered’: The Tradition History of the Parable of the Banquet [Matt 22:1-14/Luke 14:16-24/GThom 64],” in Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie [ed. Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Jens Schröter; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 97n13). For a helpful overview in chart form of the differences between Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas, cf. Hultgren, Parables, 334. 203.  As Zeller stated, “Ihre [the parable’s] Gestalt in Q ist noch in Umrissen zu gewinnen,” to which he added “wobei vielleicht auch das Thomasevangelium (Logion 64) herangezogen werden kann” (Kommentar, 87). Cf. also the comments in Kloppenborg,

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

131

5.3.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation of this parable is found in the sending out of (a)  slave(s) in order to relate to those who had been invited that the feast is prepared and ready.204 A  double invitation is assumed, with the original invitation not being mentioned in the parable as it is temporally located prior to the initial situation. Thus, the narrated invitation functions as a reminder to the invited by relaying to the guests that the preparations have been completed and that their attendance is now requested.205 Further differences between Matthew and Luke are evident, beginning with Matthew relating another attempt by other slaves to call those who have been invited to the feast. Matthew and Luke also differ with Mt. 22:3, 5-6 containing a narrated account of the invitees rejecting the invitation and Lk. 14:18-20 containing first-person dialogue recounting the excuses related to the slave by the invitees for why they will not be able to attend.206 In both accounts, however, it is clear “Jesus and the Parables,” 291–2; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 146. Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism,” 140–3, offers a brief discussion of how characteristics and structure can be fixed and set even as the wording is not (cf. the discussion in Chapter 3, Section 3.2, and the citations referenced by nn. 76 and 80). Vögtle observes: “Aus den drei genannten Fassungen [Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas] ergibt sich ein Erzählgerüst, in dem alle drei übereinstimmen” (Gott und seine Gäste, 11). Only by focusing on details and specific elements instead of the basic structure can Blomberg conclude that when comparing Matthew with Luke “the structure of the alleged parallel is markedly different” (Interpreting the Parables, 237). 204.  In Mt. 22:2-3, a king has planned a wedding banquet and sends out numerous slaves, whereas in Lk. 14:16-17 a man has planned a large dinner and sends out one slave. In Gos. Thom. 64 it is also only one slave who is sent out. 205. Cf. Hultgren, Stories with Intent, 307, contra Crossan, In Parables, 72–3. For an overview of several invitations as found in Egyptian papyri, cf. Chan-Hie Kim, “The Papyrus Invitation,” JBL 94 (1975):  391–402. In Luke the double invitation is explicit and it seems to me that Matthew’s καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους is also best understood as a reference to those who had already been invited even if the phrase could be understood as “to call those to be invited” (cf. Schweizer, Matthäus, 272; cf., however, the criticism of this view in Funk, Language, 164n4). 206. Gos. Thom. 64 also includes first-person dialogue as excuses are offered for why the invitees cannot come. Luke, however, contains three excuses, whereas the Gospel of Thomas includes four. Summarizing the four excuses, Helmut Koester writes: “The excuses are ‘I have claims against some merchants,’ ‘I have bought a house,’ ‘My friend is to be married,’ and ‘I am on the way to collect rent from a farm’ ” (Ancient Christian Gospels, 99). Scott notes that in the canonical versions having the third invitee also provide an excuse “violates” the “triadic expectation” of the third individual responding positively, which “underscores the totality of the rejection” (Hear Then the Parable, 170). Linnemann, troubled by vv. 22–24 and the sense there that “Der Hausherr . . . ausdrückliche Maßnahmen [trifft], um Gäste auszuschließen, die gar nicht kommen wollen,” contends that the Lukan version

132

The Parables in Q

that for a variety of reasons, the invitation is now rejected.207 Quite clearly, this rejection is the complication in the plot, and the slight it entails leads to the host becoming enraged.208 The anger of the host results in the transforming action, a course of action in which he seeks to replace those who have rejected the invitation with others.209 Again, despite differences between Matthew and Luke in whether others are to be invited (καλέω in Mt. 22:9) or brought in (εἰσάγω in Lk. 14:21) and ultimately forced in (ἀναγκάζω εἰσελθεῖν in Lk. 14:23),210 Erlemann is correct in

points to the excuses not declining the invitation but only indicating that the guests would come later (“Überlegungen,” 249). This view, however, by Linnemann’s own admission, must understand the excuse offered in v. 20 as qualitatively different from the others and not part of the original parable (ibid., 250, 252) and it does not seem to correspond with the expected meaning of παραιτέομαι (cf. BDAG, s.v.). 207. Norman A. Huffman rightly sees the “refusal apparently by all of the invited guests” as the first of two surprising and “unexpected developments” (“Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus,” JBL 92 [1978]:  213). Regarding the refusal, Harnisch has argued:  “Ein grundlegender Mangel der üblichen Exegese liegt m.E.  darin, daß sie auf das bloße Daß der Absagen abhebt und von den konkreten Beweggründen in der Regel abstrahiert” (Gleichniserzählung, 253). His own interpretation, therefore, uses the excuses as its springboard. The difficulty, however, is that though Harnisch has offered his view of what the source for the parable’s form in Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas reads (cf. ibid., 243–4), the details are far from certain. Therefore, I would contend that working with anything other than the “bloße Daß der Absagen” in Q is to construct an interpretation on a far too uncertain foundation. Cf. also Verheyden, “Le jugement d’Israël,” 203. In the oft-cited rabbinic parallel of Bar Ma’jan (y. Sanh. 6.23c), the host is identified as a tax-collector and the rejection of the invitation is guided by a different thought: “mit einem Sünder dürfen Fromme keine Gemeinschaft halten” (Dormeyer, “Literarische und theologische Analyse,” 212). 208.  Cf. Mt. 22:7 (ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ὠργίσθη) and Lk. 14:21 (ὀργισθεὶς ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης). The significance of the explicit identification of the host becoming angered is discussed below when the “master” as character is considered. With a view toward the excuses, Manson noted, “The different excuses are offered with varying degrees of politeness; but they all come to the same thing:  ‘we have other and more important business to attend to’ ” (Sayings, 129–30). Whether the excuses are actually “durchaus begreiflich und keineswegs gezwungen oder fadenscheinig wirken” (Hans Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern:  Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen [FRLANT 120; 4th ed.; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990], 187) or “ridiculous and implausible” (Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 45) is quite irrelevant. The point is the manner in which the host took them—clearly he was deeply and profoundly offended. 209. Linnemann observes, in “v. 21 wird die Einladung der Ungeladenen motiviert durch den Zorn des Hausherrn” (“Überlegungen,” 248). The issuing of this general invitation is the second surprise identified by Huffman, “Atypical Elements,” 214 (cf. n. 207 above). 210. Differences in the description of this replacement group are discussed below when the parable’s characters are considered. It is also interesting to note that whereas Matthew

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

133

noting:  “Die Bildebenen beider Varianten . . . sind durch die Struktur:  ‘statt der Erstgeladenen kommen andere zum Festmahl’ charakterisiert.”211 The replacement of the original invitees results in the denouement of a stated or envisioned “filled” venue (Mt. 22:10; Lk. 14:23).212 Presumably the “positive note of the parable” to which Hultgren refers is this inclusion of those from the “highways” in the meal,213 though whether the denouement, and ensuing final situation, really contain a “positive note” is considered further below. If Zeller is correct in his comment, “Wahrscheinlich endete die Geschichte mit einem Wort über die Geladenen (vgl. Lk 14,24 mit Mt 22,8), das sie vom Mahl ausschloß,”214 then this is the final situation.215 If, however, the location in Luke is secondary, as posited by Funk,216 then the denouement and final situation would largely coincide. In sum, though it is also important to keep the denouement and final situation in mind, Francis W. Beare provided a helpful outline of the basic plot development when he wrote that the “original form” of the parable “might be outlined as follows. A wealthy man invited many guests to a banquet at his home. At the last moment they all begged off, on the pretense of more pressing engagements, and the host in anger sent his slave out into the streets to invite the beggars of the town in their place.”217

recounts two attempts to have the original invitees come, Luke relates two actions bringing the replacement guests in. 211. Erlemann, Das Bild Gottes, 170. Though I am not sure about the language of “next best,” Jeremias made a similar point:  “A common feature of all three versions [Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas] is the refusal of the invitation by the invited guests and their replacement by the next best” (Parables of Jesus, 63). 212.  The image of the filled locale is the same even as the terms employed by Matthew (πίμπλημι) and Luke (γεμίζω) to relate this state are different. 213. Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 349. 214. Zeller, Kommentar, 88. 215. Funk has provided two different analyses of the elements of the plot, both of which differ from my own. In the more recent publication, Funk wrote, “In the Great Supper, the invitation to the banquet could be taken as a disguised crisis, to which there is a first response in the form of a series of excuses denoting refusal. The second (passive) response follows and serves also as the denouement [i.e. the ‘uninvited’ being brought in]” (Parables and Presence, 44–5). It seems to me, however, that it is not quite correct to label the initial situation as a “crisis,” disguised or otherwise, nor does it seem quite appropriate to label a (passive) response as the denouement. In his earlier publication Funk included the first invitation under the heading “Introduction,” the preparing of the banquet and the guests’ refusal to come under “Development and Crisis,” and the host’s wrath, replacement guests, and judgment on the original invitees under “Denouement” (cf. Funk, Language, 165–6). Here it strikes me as curious to include the host’s wrath under the denouement. 216. Cf. Funk, Language, 173–4, 187. 217. Francis W. Beare, “The Parable of the Guests at the Banquet: A Sketch of the History of Its Interpretation,” in The Joy of Study:  Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects

134

The Parables in Q

5.3.2 Characters In this parable, the characters to consider are the “master,” his slave(s), and the two groups of invitees. Beginning with the “master,” both Matthew and Luke refer to an ἄνθρωπος, even if Matthew further describes him as a βασιλεύς.218 The fact that he has at least one slave (Lk. 14:17), or even slaves (Mt. 22:3), clearly presents this character as some sort of “master” even if Matthew continues to refer to him as a βασιλεύς (Mt. 22:7) and Luke subsequently calls him both κύριος and οἰκοδεσπότης (Lk. 14:21).219 It must be admitted that when attempting a character analysis, this variation in the presentation of the synthetic component of the fictive person creates some difficulties for considering the character in Q, for when a narrator introduces a βασιλεύς the mental image created may differ in several respects from the one arising when an οἰκοδεσπότης is introduced.220 As a realistic depiction of a Greco-Roman meal unfolds, the scene implies that the host has a certain level of affluence even if this point is not narrated directly.221 The “master”

Presented to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant (ed. Sherman E. Johnson; New York: MacMillan, 1951), 3. Cf. also the statement by Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 236: “The parable focuses, in turn, on the three main activities of the various participants [i.e. invitations of the master, rejection of those first invited, subsequent call for replacements]” and the similar summary in Zeller, Kommentar, 87. 218. Louise Schottroff observes that with this depiction, Matthew’s naming “ordnet die Parabel in die in der Welt jüdischer Gleichniskultur üblichen Szenarien ein. Es sind hunderte von rabbinischen Königsgleichnissen überliefert, die immer wieder neue Geschichten von Königen, Königssöhnen, Königspalästen usw. variieren” (“Verheißung für alle Völker [Von der königlichen Hochzeit] Mt 22,1-4,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 480). 219. Though Labahn makes the comment with a view toward his conception of the specific text of Q, the statement “erst im Kontext der Ablehnung wird aus dem Menschen von V.16 ein οἰκοδεσπότης (V.21)” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 302) does not seem quite accurate in the light of the “man” having sent the slave, an action recognized by Labahn himself as an indication that one is dealing with a slave/master relationship. It can also be noted that the depiction in the parable points toward the man being an elite master, which would allow for a certain ease of transition from “master” to “king” language. As a general observation, Labahn is absolutely correct in pointing out: “Einen überraschend häufigen, aber keinsewegs konsistenten Auftritt in Q erlebt die Figur des Hausherrn” (ibid., 300). 220. Thus, the extent to which Q relates an account reflecting “imperialer Gastmahlpolitik” (Schottroff, “Verheißung,” 481), present in Matthew, is unclear. 221. Though Harnisch may be correct in terms of the explicit commentary in the parable when he observes, “Über die Position dieses Mannes erfährt man zunächst ebensowenig wie über Herkunft und Stand der Gäste” (Gleichniserzählung, 246), Scott rightly contends that once both a banquet and a servant have been introduced, this “sets the man up as an individual of wealth and power” (Hear Then the Parable, 169). Cf. also the observations of Santiago Guijarro, “The Family in First-Century Galilee,” in Constructing Early Christian

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

135

continues to be described by the narrator in Luke (14:17), whereas in Matthew the narrator’s description (22:3) and the king’s words to other slaves are recorded (22:4). Unfortunately, uncertainty about the Q text makes further consideration of this section nigh unto impossible, though both Matthew and Luke contain a narrator’s description of the “master” upon the return of the slave(s) (Mt. 22:7; Lk. 14:21) before then having the master himself speak (Mt. 22:8-9; Lk. 14:21, 23-24). In sum, it is clear that the “master” is a dominant character throughout the parable,222 as well as the fact that this character is presented by both the narrator as well as through his actions and speech. The mimetic component of this fiktives Wesen is first shaped by his having the means to prepare some type of banquet or dinner. The ownership of slaves, of whom one or several are sent out to relay a message to the invited guests, further underscores the already mentioned implied affluence of the “master.”223 Particularly significant for the development of the mimetic component of the master is the manner in which the rejection of the invitation functions as an Emotionsauslöser224 and leads to the “master” being described as “angry” (ὀργίζω).225 Although the fact that the “master” becomes enraged and its significance for the subsequent action is, at times, mentioned,226 I am nevertheless unaware of any discussion of its significance for the characterization of the “master.”227 This is one of very few instances in Q, as accessible in modern scholarship, in which the emotion of a character is directly presented instead of implied through action.228 The overt statement of the presence of this anger dramatically affects the mimetic component of

Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London:  Routledge, 1997), 48–9. 222.  Via observes that this character “gives the story its unity” (“The Relationship of Form to Content,” 183). 223.  Though Luke only mentions one slave, his account can hardly be understood as implying that only one slave was present in the household (cf. Luise Schottroff, “Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen [Das große Abendmahl] Lk 14,12-24 [EvThom 64],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 597). 224.  Cf. the chart in Anke Inselmann, Die Freude im Lukasevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese (WUNT 2.322; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 45. 225. Clearly, from his perspective, and as noted above, the excuses for not coming, whatever they entailed, were not valid. 226. Cf., e.g., Dormeyer, “Literarische und theologische Analyse,” 213; Funk, Language, 165; and Schottroff, “Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen,” 595. 227.  Erlemann, in his discussion of the image of God in this parable, states that God’s judgment “wird bildhaft als Folge von ‘Zorn’ und ‘Enttäuschung’ . . . dargestellt,” and simply concludes, “Das Bild von Gott erhält hier anthropopathische Züge” (Das Bild Gottes, 180). 228.  Note that this direct characterization of the “master’s” anger is not found in Gos. Thom. 64.10-11. It was noted above that the third slave in the Parable of the Entrusted Money indicates his own fear through dialogue. One further instance of an emotion being mention is found in Q 7:9 where the narrator recounts that Jesus was “amazed.”

136

The Parables in Q

this character. Most notably, all subsequent directives and actions suddenly occur within a mental model of an angry character and thus will be viewed to a significant extent as arising out of this now determinative trait. This basic perception is upheld in both Matthew and Luke, despite their differences in the details of what actually ensues.229 For this reason, I am not sure if I can follow Funk in considering the uninvited, that is, the second group of guests, as “recipients of grace” in that they are a group that “does not expect anything but is pleasantly surprised by the way things turn out.”230 Given the master’s “anger,” is this really the case? One may be inclined to query precisely how positive this “inclusion” really is when at the conclusion of the parable the depicted “master” is either looking around for someone to cast back out (Matthew)231 or seems to be satisfied with a “forced” full house, not because of those who are there, but because of those who are not (Luke).232 At the very least, the perspective and actions of the “master” result in a strong undercurrent of ambiguity present in this parable.233

229. Matthew’s king sends out his troops to destroy those who murdered his servants and to burn their city (22:7), indiscriminately fills his house with “good and bad” (22:10), and then patrolling the crowd, tosses an inappropriately clothed guest out into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (22:11-13). Luke’s master sends out the servant to bring in replacement guests, but those who come do not fill the house (14:21-22). The master therefore sends his servant a second time in order to “force” (ἀναγκάζω) more to come (14:23), apparently to ensure that there is no room for any of the originally invited guests (14:24). 230. Funk, Parables and Presence, 59. 231.  The exclusion of those without the proper attire from a banquet has a rabbinic parallel in b. Šabb. 153a. 232.  On the “forcing” of outcasts to come in the Lukan account, cf. Schottroff, “Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen,” 597. John Paul Heil, The Meal Scenes in Luke-Acts:  An Audience-Oriented Approach (SBLMS 52; Atlanta:  SBL Press, 1999), 109, argues that the master institutes a “social conversion” through his turning to non-elites, a position which Schottroff rightly criticizes (“Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen,” 600). For this reason, it is not clear that Via’s assessment is correct: “Luke, then, represents structurally the exclusion of the excuse makers as dominant, but in content he emphasizes the gracious inclusion of the poor” (“The Relationship of Form to Content,” 177–8). Though Luke clearly reveals a special concern for those now included (cf. Lk. 7:22; 14:12-14), is it really the case that one can move so quickly from an “angry inclusion” to a “gracious inclusion”? As Schottroff puts it, “es leuchtet nicht ein, dass sein Interesse, den Saal zu füllen und die Erstgeladenen auszuschließen, die Erfüllung der Mahnung Jesu, die Armen einzuladen ist” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 71). 233.  On this point I  agree with Schottroff, who remarked that the parable seems to portray “die Geschichte eines beleidigten Gastgebers, der sich Ersatzgäste einlädt, um die Erstgeladenen zu ärgern und öffentlich zu diskriminieren” (“Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen,” 600). Therefore, though Manson stated that “the closing word excludes from the feast those, and those only, who have already excluded themselves. The only people who do not enter are those who do not wish to enter” (Sayings, 130), this does not change the

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

137

Turning to the “master” as Symbol, in terms of Labahn’s statement “Das Stück zielt auf Handlung, nicht auf Allegorisierung,”234 it must be observed that it is notoriously difficult to pin down at what, precisely, any parable is “aiming,” at least in any exclusive sense. In fact, despite this comment, Labahn immediately recognizes that “im Kontext der Gottesreichsverkündigung Jesu an Gott, im Kontext von Q erneut auch an Jesus denken lässt.”235 Thus, whether it is the “aim” or not, the identification of the “master” with God or Jesus immediately offers itself to the addressees of the parable. In fact, Manson simply stated, “ ‘A certain man’ is God, and the feast is the Kingdom of God, considered as a great blessing which God is prepared to bestow.”236 Of course, it is also possible to read Lk. 14:16-23 in a different manner, as does Schottroff:  “Der beleidigte Hausherr praktiziert das Armenrecht der Tora nur halbherzig. Das Gleichnis kritisiert ihn und seinesgleichen.”237 One could also contend that Matthew, who has much more violent imagery in his parallel, must be understood in an anti-imperial context so that the parable “sich kaum anders als ein antithetisches Gleichnis lesen [lässt], dass Gott und diesen König scharf einander kontrastiert.”238 The difficulty, however, arises in denying the metaphorical development beyond such readings, a development that the broader context of the Gospels or Q makes almost impossible to avoid.239 Thus Snodgrass’s comment for Luke is also true for Q: “The expectation of an eschatological banquet, the context, and the focus on all being ready require that the meal is understood as the end-time celebration, and surely the first thought is that the host of that meal is either God or the Messiah.”240 The second character to consider is the slave sent out by the master.241 Funk labeled this character as a “subordinate character,” though in noting that such

fact that it is a snubbed and “angry” master who actually enforces, and even desires, the exclusion. 234. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 302. 235.  Ibid. Several pages later, Labahn again observes, “Ein Bezug des anonymen Menschen auf den zur Heilsgemeinschaft einladenden Jesus als Menschensohn ist ein naheliegender Gedanke” (ibid., 323). 236. Manson, Sayings, 129. 237. Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 77. 238. Schottroff, “Verheißung,” 483. 239.  In addition, with a view toward Matthew’s version, Erlemann has argued:  “Das ungerecht erscheinende, schokierende Bild Gottes soll aufrütteln, jetzt klug zu handeln” (Das Bild Gottes, 184). That is to say, the shocking imagery is employed as a strategy within the appeal structure of the parable. Such a use of imagery cannot be excluded for Q and its “angry” host. 240. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 315. Cf. also Warren Carter, “Resisting and Imitating the Empire: Imperial Paradigms in Two Matthean Parables,” Int 56 (2002):  269–71; Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 302; and, more generally, Glancy, “Slaves and Slavery,” 82. 241.  As noted above, Matthew’s version of the parable has multiple slaves. Even there, however, the slaves function as a group character and so the discussion of the Q parable here will take place predominantly in the singular.

138

The Parables in Q

characters “in no case play more than ancillary roles,” one must be careful not to allow “subordinate” to be confused with “insignificant.”242 The synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is constructed slightly differently in Matthew and Luke, since in Matthew the actions of the slaves are described by the narrator and what they are to say is spoken by the master. In other words, there is no dialogue by the slaves themselves. In Luke (14:22), however, the situation is slightly different in that the slave himself speaks. Focusing on the commonality, the significance of the slave can be seen in the slave being presented by the narrator as a “middle man” between his lord and the invited guests.243 As “middle man” the mimetic component of the slave is governed by his carrying the master’s message to the invitees. In its simplest form, this message is “Come” (Mt. 22:4; Lk. 14:17). In both Matthew and Luke, despite the differently constructed synthetic component of this character, the slave is faithful in relaying the master’s message to the invitees and also faithful in carrying out the master’s wishes when he decides to replace the original invitees with those from the ὁδοί.244 When considering the slave as a Symbol, Frenschkowski understands the Q missionaries as being “the slaves who invite in the name of their Lord, who is God or perhaps Christ, though in the light of the saying about the lord of the harvest more probably God is meant.”245 In addition Dormeyer has observed the manner in which ἀποστέλλω carries with it the meaning “mit Vollmacht senden” in Jewish and Christian tradition.246 As such, there is a sense in which those within the group identifying with the teachings of Q could view themselves as depicted by the slave in the parable. A different possibility presents itself if one views the master as God. In this case, the sent slave could be identified with Jesus as the one sent to proclaim God’s invitation.247 The final two characters to consider are the two groups of invitees. Considering the first of these two group characters, the synthetic component of this group as a fiktives Wesen is constructed initially through the narrator indicating their being the object of a double invitation. As was the case with the slave, however, in Matthew (22:5) no dialogue spoken by this group of invitees is reported as their 242. Funk, Language, 192. Cf. also idem, Parables and Presence, 36. 243. Labahn also makes this observation and rightly notes that the activity of the slave is not “selbstständig,” drawing a parallel to the slave in Q 7:8 “da sein Handeln in Entsprechung zu den Anweisungen des Befehlsgebers steht” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 390). 244.  In both Matthew and Luke the message of the slaves to the first group of invitees remains unheeded; however, in Mt. 22:6 the slaves are actually mistreated or even killed as a result of having been the bearers of the master’s message. 245.  Frenschkowski, “Kurios in Context,” 104. Note again the ambivalence possible in Q concerning the role(s) of God and Jesus and the identification of one or the other with characters in the Q parables. 246. Dormeyer, “Literarische und theologische Analyse,” 217. 247.  Manson, for instance, wrote, “The first invitation is a reference to the promises in the Old Testament. The servant who comes to announce that the feast is ready is Jesus Himself ” (Sayings, 129).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

139

response to the slave is simply narrated. In Luke (14:18-20), after stating that “all” began making excuses, the actual excuses of certain invitees are recounted and, as such, the characterization of these group members is constructed through their own words. Once again, despite these differences of presentation, the mimetic component of this group is the same in both Matthew and Luke as the group is presented, regardless whether through narration or dialogue, as rejecting the invitation to come to the meal due to a preoccupation with other tasks. The rejection on the part of the first group leads to the creation of a second group of invitees. This group as fiktives Wesen is constructed in its synthetic component in both Matthew and Luke solely on the basis of the narrator’s comments. The precise description, however, differs in Matthew and Luke, not least because of the dividing of this second group into two subgroups in Lk. 14:21-23.248 Both Matthew and Luke do agree, however, in indicating that at least some of those in the second group were found on the ὁδοί. Thus, Matthew and Luke (along with the Gospel of Thomas), as Anton Vögtle put it, “sprechen . . . von der Herbeiholung auffindbarer Menschen von außerhalb der Stadt.”249 This group’s mimetic component is determined by their apparently accepting the invitation, for both Matthew and Luke relate their then being present at the meal.250 Here it is quite clear that a contrast has been constructed “entre les nouveaux venus admis au Royaume (et même invités à y entre) et ceux qui refusaient devenus ceux qu’on refuse.”251 When considering these two groups as Symbol, the scholarly literature and commentaries are replete with observations concerning the manner in which the first group represents the Jews and the second group the Gentiles.252 Regardless of the extent to which one sees a Gentile mission in Q, Lührmann is correct in noting:  “Mindestens ist die Abfolge einer von den zuerst geladenen Gästen abgewiesenen und einer erneuten Einladung offen für eine Auslegung in dieser Richtung, wie ja Lk und Mt je auf ihre Weise zeigen.”253 As discussed further below, 248.  It is often noted that Lk. 14:21 seems to be a redactional element in the parable modeled on Lk. 14:13. 249. Vögtle, Gott und seine Gäste, 24. 250.  Of course, the Matthean version has one of the members of this group being cast back out (Mt. 22:11-13). 251. Verheyden, “Le jugement d’Israël,” 216. 252.  Representative is Vögtle’s statement:  “Jesus verstand die Parabel vom großen Gastmahl als Drohwort an die seinem Heilsangebot sich verweigernden Israeliten:  Die Gottesherrschaft wird zu ihrem Ziel kommen und als Endheil erfahren werden, wenn nicht mit euch, den privilegierten Heilserben, dann mit Heiden aus aller Welt” (Gott und seine Gäste, 78; Vögtle helpfully summarizes a variety of other interpretations of the parable, not necessarily in Q, on pp. 26–8, 64–75). Of course, there are also dissenting voices. Cf., e.g., Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 234: “There is nothing in the parable’s imagery to suggest that any non-Israelites are in view.” 253. Lührmann, Redaktion, 87. Manson, Sayings, 130, stated that the invitation beyond the city boundaries is meant to suggest a mission beyond the border of Israel to the Gentiles. Cf. also Kloppenborg, Formation, 230.

140

The Parables in Q

this thematic component of the two groups is possible for Q. However, though, with Schottroff, I  am sympathetic to avoiding a present-day “antijudaistische Auslegung” and eschewing contemporary anti-Jewish applications of the parable,254 it is problematic to embrace her interpretation of the parable as originally juxtaposing specifically the “rich” and the “poor” for this requires Lk. 14:21 to be the reading of Q.255 Perhaps, however, a more general class distinction can be made between the two groups as Scott has argued “from a formal perspective, all three performances [Matthew, Luke, Gospel of Thomas] agree that the new guests are from the outcast, the lower classes.”256 Regardless of the specific thematic components of these group characters, one can agree with Blomberg’s conclusion: “The invited guests who refuse to come, [stand] for those who reject the call to his kingdom, and the second group of guests who do come, for those who accept the call.”257 5.3.3 Images Though there are numerous images present in this parable, two of particular significance are considered further here:  the meal and the ὁδοί.258 First, as already briefly mentioned above, the parable presents a realistic depiction of a Greco-Roman meal.259 The meal, however, is also a standard image of the 254. Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 209. 255. So also Vögtle, Gott und seine Gäste, 106–107. 256.  Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 168. The first guests presumably would have been from the upper classes leading Harnisch to observe that the invited and the replacement guests are an “antithetisches Zwillingspaar” (Gleichniserzählungen, 32). Cf. also Funk’s contention that the invitation of the first group marks them with some level of status: “I have argued that the invited are so depicted as to suggest social status; in the narrative, however, their status is unmarked, except as a contrast with the street people. In any case, they are marked as invited guests, and that specifies status of some order in relation to the uninvited from the street” (Parables and Presence, 47). 257.  Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 233. Gos. Thom. 64 concludes with the exclusion of “dealers and merchants” from “the places of my Father,” thus apparently directly applying the exclusion to those who rejected the invitation without any metaphoric transfer. 258. If greater certainty could be achieved concerning the wording of the excuses, possible, interesting points of contact could be found with the excuses in Deut. 20:5-9 for certain individuals not joining Israel in battle. In Deuteronomy 20, however, the excuses are spoken by the officers as apparently legitimate reasons for not going to battle, whereas in Q, regardless of their precise wording, they are viewed as illegitimate. 259.  For extensive treatment of banquets, cf. Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist:  The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis:  Fortress, 2003). On p.  219 of this work, Smith states:  “Meals in the Gospels consistently reflect the Greco-Roman banquet tradition.” For a discussion of the accounts in Luke 14 as drawing from the Greco-Roman tradition of a “symposium,” cf. Josef Ernst, “Gastmahlgespräche: Lk 14,1–24,” in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schürmann (ed. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Josef Ernst, and Joachim Wanke; Freiburg: Herder, 1978), 57–78.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

141

end-time celebration of God’s people as seen, for instance, in the description of the eschatological banquet in Isa. 25:6.260 Commenting on the image of the meal and the imagery of the parable in Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas together, Scott observes, “All three extant performances of our parable see the meal as a thing of value and identify admittance to the meal with salvation.”261 It is also interesting to note that in the parable, though those invited change, the banquet itself remains constant. That is to say, as Rudolf Hoppe observed, the parable emphasizes that “the banquet would take place no matter what.”262 The constancy of this image, the persistency of the meal, serves to underscore the significance of being present at it. Second, though the image of the ὁδοί is employed slightly differently by Matthew and Luke, they agree that at some point the slave is sent there to extend an invitation to people not originally invited. Matthew simply refers to all who are found there (Mt. 22:9) whereas Luke actually lists the poor, crippled, blind, and lame (in 14:21, with ὁδοί not being explicitly mentioned until v. 23), but in either case, as Marshall observed, the main streets are places where “one would find the beggars of the town.”263 Even if it were perhaps better to express the idea as the roads being the locations where one could find beggars, it seems clear that even in Matthew’s more general phrasing the second group, at the very least, would also include a mix of social classes, including the marginalized, out and about on the roads.264 This observation would support Labahn’s point, “Das Gleichnis begründet die Ausrichtung der Botschaft vom Gottesreich an die religiös und sozial Marginalisierten. In der Reichgotteskonstruktion durch Q werden die Adressaten des Dokuments mit den auf den Wegen Gefundenen 260.  Cf. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 233; and Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 322. 261. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 172. 262.  Rudolf Hoppe, “How Did Jesus Understand His Death? The Parables in Eschatological Prospect,” in Jesus Research:  An International Perspective:  The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005 (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný ; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2009), 165. Further down on the same page, Hoppe reiterates, “It is essential for the construction and development of the narrative that the holding of the banquet and the invitation in themselves are not affected by the rejection by the first group of invitees, but that the existing invitation for the same banquet is now directed at the new group of invitees.” 263.  Marshall, Luke, 590. A  potential complement to this image, but not further discussed here, is the πόλις. Jeremias contended that “the allegorical representation of the πόλις as Israel and the supper as the feast of the time of salvation is not his [Luke’s] work, but, as is shown by the agreement with Matthew, is older than either” (Parables of Jesus, 69). 264.  As Nolland observes, in this invitation “no distinctions are to be made; everyone who comes by is to be invited” (Matthew, 888). Of course, Matthew’s point, as the continuation of his form of the parable reveals, is likely that both good and bad are to be invited (cf. Luz, Matthäus, 3:243).

142

The Parables in Q

identifiziert.”265 Focusing on such a group and with reference to Isa. 35:5-6, Bovon points out the manner in which it picks up on “eine alttestamentlich Tradition der Barmherzigkeit Gottes . . . und des Vorrangs, den er den Kleinen, Besitzlosen, Randständigen, Kranken und Gebrechlichen verleiht.”266 At the same time, since the extent to which Q focused on the marginalized here is uncertain,267 the primary emphasis for an intertextual reading is that a broad group on the ὁδοί, a group comprised of those not originally invited, now accepted the invitation and came to the banquet. 5.3.4 The Parable in Q As Kloppenborg has observed, the two sayings likely preceding this parable (Q 13:28-29 and Q 13:34-35) provide a context in which “it is difficult to avoid imposing an allegorical code upon the parable of the Great Supper and reading the first set of invitees in light of 13:34–35, and the second in light of 13:28–29.”268 That is to say, as already adumbrated above, Q 13:14-35 suggests a possible intratextual link between those accepting the invitation and those gathered from the East and the West to the table of the Patriarchs and those rejecting the invitation and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.269 The non-allegorical nature of the parable in Gos. Thom. 64, for instance, thus stands in marked contrast to Q’s use of the passage in its rhetoric against those rejecting its message.270 As Joachim Jeremias put

265. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 269. Cf. idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 488–9. It is also interesting to note that both Matthew and Luke explicitly employ the parable in their respective depictions of what the Kingdom of Heaven/God is like (cf. Mt. 22:2 and Lk. 14:15). It is, in my estimation, incorrect to see the parable in Q quite differently, namely, as “firstly just about breaking social boundaries” apart from so-called canonical allegories as posited by Sterling Bjorndahl, “An Honor Map of Q,” in Wenn Drei das Gleiche sagen – Studien zu den ersten drei Evangelien mit einer Werkstattübersetzung des Q-Textes (ed. Stefan H. Brandenburger and Thomas Hieke; Theol[Lit] 14; Münster: Lit, 1998), 71. 266. Bovon, Lukas, 2:512. 267.  I am therefore more hesitant than is Bork, e.g., in his statement that the parable “eine Heilszusage für Marginalisierte [akzentuiert]” (Raumsemantik, 161). 268.  Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 292. He makes similar comments elsewhere: “Seen within the context of Q 13:24–30, 34–35, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in Q the invitation to the dinner was also understood allegorically as invitations to the kingdom and to its ‘dinner’ already mentioned in 13:29, 28” (idem, Formation, 229). In Luke, the parable is more immediately an illustration of Lk. 14:12-14 (cf. Jeremias, Parables, 45, 97). 269. The latter intratextual link is also posited by Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 270. The connection between Q 13:34 and the rejected invitation is also discussed in idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 322. 270. Cf. Kloppenborg’s comments on the comparison between the parable in the Gospel of Thomas and in Q where he argues that in Q, “the parable is preserved in the context of

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Master”/“Slave” Parables

143

it, “We have here one of the numerous parables which . . . were applied by Jesus to his critics and opponents in order to vindicate the good news against them.”271 Thus, once again, regardless of the extent to which one views a Gentile mission present or adumbrated in Q, and regardless of the precise location of Q 13:28-29 and Q 13:34-35 in the Q document, the parable dovetails with the presentation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem rejecting the invitation with the result of their being excluded and others being brought in to sit at the banquet. It is also striking that the gentle image of a hen gathering her brood, which is the image of the “invitation” in Q 13:34-35, is replaced by an irate master once the “invitation” has been rejected. As such, this parable appears to be part of a series of passages in Q where a prominent theme in the theology of the Deuteronomistic History, namely, the repeated sending and perpetual rejection of God’s envoys, is illustrated.272 The parable depicts the consequences of this rejection quite concretely in its portrayal of the forfeiture of the places at the meal.273 Thus, Q 14:16-24 “functions as commentary on the rejection of God’s envoys by Israel, the first invitees, and their eventual reception by others.”274 Though this rejection, dominated by the image of an angry master, figures prominently in the parable, it should not be overlooked that there is a banquet with individuals present at it. For this reason, though I would view the Deuteronomistic theology and the theme of judgment as predominant,275 the banquet still takes place and there are individuals present at it. Though the circumstances surrounding their presence, as discussed above, are not presented in terms of a “gracious inclusion,” their presence, nevertheless, contains at least a bare minimum of positive connotation in being at the banquet. This presence comes about for those who do accept and heed the invitation.

Q’s campaign against ‘this generation’ where it is used to dramatize the preceding polemical sayings, and to place Jesus and the Jesus movement, unsuccessful at summoning ‘this generation,’ on the side of Sophia and at table with the heroes of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 292). He also notes the manner in which the parable is part of a larger rhetoric involving “indictment of ‘this generation’: the illustration of wrongheadedness and of the consequences of its refusals” (ibid., 300). 271. Jeremias, Parables, 63. 272. Kloppenborg, e.g., views this passage as one of the examples of the manner in which “Q refers to God’s continual sending of the prophets (11:47–51; 13:34–35; 14:16–24) and Israel’s continual rejection of them (6:23c; 11:47–51; 13:34–35; 14:16–24)” (Formation, 93). 273.  Cf. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 294:  “disobedience and faithlessness can lead to their forfeiting the privileges which should be theirs.” 274. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 121. 275. Thus, I cannot agree with where Hultgren places the emphasis of the parable in his comment that “the element of refusal is the means by which to make the main point of the parable come to light. The parable centers in the good news of God, who seek to embrace those who have nothing to offer, who must in fact be urged to come to the banquet, the feast of eschatological salvation” (Parables of Jesus, 340).

Chapter 6 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E SU S :  “SON OF MAN” PARABLES

In the CEQ, the term “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου” is reconstructed for Q in nine verses with one further instance being “probable but uncertain.”1 In the three parables considered in this chapter, the term “Son of Man” itself does not occur within the parable proper; however, it is found in the immediate context and governs the interpretation of at least an aspect of each respective parable.2 Of course, as already seen in the previous chapter, and as will be seen in ensuing ones, the Q character of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is relevant for quite a few parables3; however, the parables grouped together here have been placed in this chapter because of the significance of the term for understanding the particular parable itself.

1. The verses are Q 6:22; Q 7:34; Q 9:58; Q 11:30; Q 12:10; Q 12:40; Q 17:24; Q 17:26; and Q 17:30 with the occurrence in Q 12:8 enclosed in double square brackets. 2. The parable in Q 17:37, at least in its location in the CEQ, is also found in close proximity to several instances of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Q 17. However, I have discussed this parable in the chapter on “Sapiential” Parables based on the parable’s content (cf. Chapter 7, Section 7.4). However, though the concluding element of the commentary on the parable in Q 7:31-32 makes reference to “Wisdom” (Q 7:35), I have discussed that parable in this chapter due to the parable’s immediate application to “John” and “the Son of Man.” 3.  One could thus here see an example of Lambrecht’s observation that “speaking in parables is a very rich happening indeed!” (Once More Astonished, 187).

146

The Parables in Q

6.1 Parable of the Children in the Marketplace (Q 7:31-35) Mt. 11:16-19

Lk. 7:31-35

τίνι δὲ ὁμοιώσω τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην;

τίνι οὖν ὁμοιώσω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι;

ὁμοία ἐστὶν παιδίοις καθημένοις ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ἃ προσφωνοῦντα τοῖς ἑτέροις 17 λέγουσιν· ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε, ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκόψασθε.

32

ὅμοιοί εἰσιν παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις καὶ προσφωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις ἃ λ έγ ει· ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε, ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκλαύσατε.

18

ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, καὶ λέγουσιν· δαιμόνιον ἔχει.

33

ἐλήλυθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς μὴ ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον, καὶ λέγετε· δαιμόνιον ἔχει.

19

34

ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγουσιν· ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, τελωνῶν φίλος καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. καὶ ἐδικαιώ θ η ἡ σ ο φία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς.

ἐλήλυθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγετε· ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, φίλος τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. 35 καὶ ἐδικαιώ θ η ἡ σ ο φία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς.

This composite passage consists of the introduction and parable proper (Q 7:31-32),4 an application in which “John” and the “Son of Man” are mentioned (vv. 33–34), and a concluding proverbial statement (v. 35).5 The difficulties confronting the interpreter when attempting to understand this passage are well known

4. Somewhat curiously, in 1987, Cotter referred to vv. 31–32 as a “parable” (“The Parable of the Children,” 293) but in 1989 as a “similitude” (Wendy J. Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora:  Q [Luke] 7:31–35,” Forum 5 [1989]:  66). Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 176, refers to the two verses as a “mini-parable” and Luz, Matthäus, 2:183, to the verses as a “kurze[s] Gleichnis.” 5.  For discussion, cf. Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 289, 293; Kloppenborg, Formation, 110–12; Schulz, Q, 380; and Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 224–5. Cf. also the further literature cited in Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 293n19 and eadem, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 66n15. Hermann von Lips refers to only two components, namely, a “Gleichnis (31f) und Deutung (33–35)” (Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament [WMANT 64; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990], 268).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

147

and often noted in the literature.6 In fact, the interpreter may even have difficulties understanding scholarly opinion on this passage since one can find blatantly contradictory statements such as David P. Moessner stating that “the parable . . . is notoriously difficult to decipher”7 but Manson opining that “the parable . . . is perfectly simple and obvious”!8 In any case, in the following, the parable itself is of primary interest; however, the other sections have been included in the synoptic presentation of Matthew and Luke above due to their relevance for understanding the parable in Q. The wording of the parable is quite similar in Matthew and Luke, with only minimal differences found in the respective verses.9 Nearly every difference is, as Cotter states in regard to the placement of καθημένοις, “not especially significant,”10 even if the difference between the readings τοῖς ἑτέροις (Mt. 11:16) or ἀλλήλοις (Lk. 7:32) may influence the manner in which one construes the characters in the parable. Before considering this issue, however, the discussion, as usual, begins with the plot.

6.  For instance, Cotter notes the “complex character of the parable” and refers to discussions of “the difficulties both literal, and conceptual, which work together against the interpretational efforts of biblical scholarship” (“The Parable of the Children,” 289). In a recent paper entitled “Children Who Refuse to Acknowledge the Baptizer” presented at the conference “Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis,” Roskilde, Denmark, June 21–24, 2015, Claire Rothschild rightly observed that not only is it difficult to parse the relationship between the three sections, but also that each section presents its own challenges. 7. David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis:  Fortress, 1989), 102. Cf. Arto Järvinen’s calling it a “difficult parable” (“The Son of Man and His Followers:  A Q Portrait of Jesus,” in Characterization in the Gospels:  Reconceiving Narrative Criticism [ed. David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni; JSNTSup 184; Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 1999], 199) and Labahn’s reference to the passage as a “rätselhafte[r] Text” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 278). 8. Manson, Sayings, 70. 9.  Cotter observes that when comparing the two passages in Matthew and Luke, “the similarities between them are remarkable” (“The Parable of the Children,” 289). On pp.  289–93 of her article she offers a discussion of the differences within the context of her attempted reconstruction of the text as found in Q. Cf. the similar discussion in Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 63–6. Earlier comments on the differences between Matthew and Luke can be found in Linton, “The Parable of the Children’s Game,” 160–5. I am particularly sympathetic to a statement he makes in the course of his discussion: “My main intention is not to propose a certain ‘reconstruction,’ which anyhow must be questionable, but to demonstrate that there is little to prevent the assumption that the source is the same. The differences can even be accounted for in more than one way” (ibid., 161). 10.  Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 291. Similarly, Lührmann stated, “Die Differenzen zwischen der Lk- und der Mt-Fassung sind unbedeutend” (Redaktion, 29).

148

The Parables in Q

6.1.1 Plot Analysis Though Matthew and Luke introduce the parable with slightly different wording, it is clear that the query involves the question of “to what” this generation is to be compared (Mt. 11:16a//Lk. 7:31). Once again, the plot of the ensuing miniature narrative is extremely compressed, essentially containing only an initial situation and a complication. The initial situation is one of children sitting in a marketplace. Apparently, they are, or have been, involved in some sort of game where, regardless of the number of groups involved or the precise manner in which the game is construed, there are children calling out (προσφωνέω). The complication arises in that the expected or appropriate response, at least from the perspective of those calling out, does not take place. There is no “dancing” (ὀρχέομαι) as a response to “playing the flute” (αὐλέω) nor “mourning/weeping” (κόπτω/κλαίω)11 as a response to “singing a dirge” (θρηνέω). Whether the passage sets up antithetical parallelism, where, on the one hand, a joyful response is withheld and, on the other hand, a sorrowful response is withheld,12 or whether one is here confronted

11.  Jeremias suggested that “in Luke 7.32 ἐκλαύσατε may be used with the intention of avoiding the passionate Palestinian gesture of smiting the breast (par. Matt. 11.17, ἐκόψσατε) as a sign of mourning” (Parables of Jesus, 27). Linton offered a different view, stating, “Here Luke possibly found the word ἐκόψασθε—used about children—ambiguous, and by the strict form of the rhyme he was bound to use only one word: hence ἐκλαύσατε” (“Parable of the Children’s Game,” 162). Cotter makes the erroneous statement, “Cadbury notes that out of 13 occurrences of the verb κλαίειν in Luke’s gospel, 9 are Lukan redaction” (“The Parable of the Children,” 291). First of all, Luke only uses the verb eleven times and a quick glance at p. 184 in The Style and Literary Method of Luke, referenced by Cotter, reveals that only four of the thirteen verses Cadbury lists there employ κλαίω. In addition, the nine verses from among the thirteen Cadbury mentioned as potentially involving Lukan redaction do not all involve κλαίω. He wrote, “The last nine cases may well be due to a predilection on Luke’s part for κλαίω (used only twice in Matt.) and an aversion for δέω (used only twice in Luke’s gospel).” The former “predilection” is seen in four verses and the latter in five. 12.  This is the view found widely in the scholarly literature, generally with no indication that any other possibility exists. For instance, in Blomberg’s comment, “the picture is not entirely clear and has been interpreted as depicting two groups proposing alternate games, ‘wedding’ and ‘funeral,’ or one group proposing the two different games to their recalcitrant companions who refuse to join in either,” the lack of clarity only relates to how one is to understand the group(s) of children, but not to the game(s) involved (Interpreting the Parables, 208). Similarly, older literature, e.g., Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:27; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 161; and Franz Mussner, “Der nicht erkannte Kairos (Mt 11,16–19 = Lk 7,31–35),” Bib 40 (1959):  599–601, right up to recent works, e.g., Peter Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel [Von den spielenden Kindern] Q 7,31-35 [Mt 11,16-9 / Lk 7,31-35],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 102, clearly assume that there are two games proposed, one of “weddings” and one of “funerals.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

149

with synonymous parallelism in which two types of mourning are withheld,13 the complication remains that the desired response is not offered.14 In fact, it is not simply once, but twice, that the appropriate response is withheld.15 As such, Tuckett is correct in contending that “the parable is clearly about children responding,”16 even if this is not the only thing that the parable is about. For, even though the parable simply breaks off at this point with no explicit account of a transforming action and no expressed indication of any denouement or final situation, the final situation that is strongly implied is that based on the lack of appropriate responses, no game is taking, or even can take, place. There is an explicit gap related to the further plot development, and Q points the reader to the implication that no game can be played and the ensuing comments concerning John the Baptist and the Son of Man, along with the concluding proverb, as the available means to fill that gap. Thus, the abrupt end to the parable after the complication arrests the reader or hearer of this parable and leads to the question of how the depicted situation relates to “this generation” and how this situation will be resolved. 6.1.2 Characters The characters in this parable are initially introduced as a group. There are “children” sitting in the marketplace. The synthetic component of the children as fiktive Wesen is thus constructed at the outset through their introduction by the narrator. In the ensuing account, however, though the narrator continues to describe the scene, this group is also constructed through the words spoken and the actions performed. As already adumbrated in the comments on the plot above, there is some uncertainty concerning how this group of children is to be understood and what, precisely, occurs in the exchanges. For instance, at times there is a difference posited between Matthew’s reference to the children calling τοῖς ἑτέροις and Luke’s reference to them calling ἀλλήλοις.17 If one posits that there are two groups of children, Moessner, for

13. This suggestion was recently made by Rothschild, “Children Who Refuse.” The imagery employed in the parable leading her to this interpretation is discussed below. 14. Müller comments, “das Spiel misslingt, weil zwar einige Kinder die Initiative ergreifen, die anderen sich darauf aber nicht einlassen” (“Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 100). As discussed further below, the details of how one understands the calling and response depends on how one interprets the group(s) of children and their representation of this generation as well as John and Jesus. 15. Cf. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 101: “das Spiel [misslingt] in einem doppelten Sinn.” Cf. also ibid., 103, and the same sentiment in idem, In der Mitte der Gemeinde: Kinder im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener, 1992], 250:  “Der Akzent der Aussage liegt deshalb nicht nur darauf, daß die angesprochenen Kinder sich verweigern, sondern daß sie sich doppelt verweigern.” 16. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 176. 17.  Cf. ibid.:  “do the children in the market place call to others within their own group (ἀλλήλοις: so Luke) or to another group of children from whom they are separate (ἑτέροις: so Matthew)?”

150

The Parables in Q

example, highlights a further challenge in his query, “Are the two groups of children represented as (a) exchanging reproaches (ἀλλήλοις), or (b) does only one group reproach the other first for not dancing and then for not mourning?”18 Even if the Matthean reading is followed, however, my sense is that Peter Müller is correct in his observation concerning the children, namely, “dass sie ‘den anderen’ etwas zurufen, bedeutet nicht, dass generell zwei Gruppen von Kindern unterschieden werden. Es sind vielmehr Kinder auf dem Marktplatz, die miteinander spielen könnten.”19 Thus, I would argue that regardless of the term employed, the group character introduced in the opening statement remains just that, a single group character involving different children. The actions of different children within that group are then described without a new construction of the children into multiple groups taking place.20 When considering the mimetic component of the children as fiktive Wesen, it is interesting to note that the narrator provides a description of the actions of the children that is apparently neutral (“sitting” and “calling to”) whereas it is ultimately members of the group of children themselves who provide a negative characterization through direct dialogue.21 There are clearly children who have refused to respond 18. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, 231n97. 19. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 100. 20.  Though Jeremias argued that the difference between ἀλλήλοις and τοῖς ἑτέροις “is not irrelevant, since the application of the metaphor varies according to the way it is answered” (Parables of Jesus, 161) it seems to me that such a view assumes that the metaphor must be applied differently in Matthew and Luke. Perhaps, however, this is not necessarily the case. If one focuses on the basic issue of an “inappropriate response” and the “not playing,” as done in the plot analysis above, the particulars of how many groups are involved in the invitation and response and the precise nature of the response are no longer determinative. Further parsing the children into a group of “boys” and a group of “girls,” based on presumed rolls at weddings and funerals, so that a gendered couplet appears here (c.f., e.g., Jeremias, Parables, 161; and Helga Melzer-Keller, “Frauen in der Logienquelle und ihrem Trägerkreis,” in Wenn Drei das Gleiche sagen – Studien zu den ersten drei Evangelien mit einer Werkstattübersetzung des Q-Textes [ed. Stefan H. Brandenburger and Thomas Hieke; Theol(Lit) 14; Münster: Lit, 1998], 52) seems to me unwarranted (cf. also the critical comment of Müller, In der Mitte, 252n148). 21.  In Cotter’s interpretation, however, the description of the children by the narrator is not entirely neutral. She understands “sitting” as a reference to sitting in judgment in a court and προσφωνεῖν as being a formal address. Therefore, this generation is compared to “children sitting in judgment at the courts . . . no matter how ‘this generation’ may convince itself by externals, and by the prestige of office, . . . its very judgments betray the superficiality it labours to hide” (Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 302. Cf. also eadem, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 68). Kloppenborg comments, “Read in this way, the parable becomes a burlesque, mocking the self-importance of ‘this generation’ by comparing it with children play-acting as judges in the agora” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 290). As noted below, the persuasiveness of this perspective is somewhat undermined by the very particular interpretation of “sitting” and “calling to” required for Cotter’s view. Hoffmann contends that the “Kinderrufen” in and of themselves have “keine Bedeutung und keinen eigenen

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

151

appropriately to the invitations of other children. As already noted above in the plot analysis, it is this repeated refusal to respond appropriately that the parable highlights and it is a key component of the scenario involving the children. Whereas there are numerous references in early Christian texts to children that cast them in a positive light (cf., e.g., Mk 9:33-37; 10:13-16) here the mimetic component of the children as a group character reveals them, or at least some of them, to be truculent and immature (cf. 1 Cor. 14:20).22 This observation, however, raises further questions to discuss when considering the children as Symbol, a consideration that must also begin to draw the verses following the parable into consideration. That the parable presents a symbolic and polemical commentary on “this generation” is clear23; however, the precise manner in which this is the case is a bit more difficult to decipher. Nearly four decades ago, Zeller noted that though it is obvious that the parable has “this generation” in view, scholars disagree concerning “was die Bildseite Tadelnswertes schildert und wer da ‘dieses Geschlecht’ verkörpert.”24 Is “this generation” the children calling out, two groups of children accusing each other and hindering the game, or the children who refuse to play?25 Further questions involving the thematic component of this group character arise when one considers the ensuing verses. As Kloppenborg asks: “Are the uncooperative children those who were summoned by John to repentance and by Jesus to participation in the kingdom? Or is it ‘this generation’ which calls the uncooperative John and Jesus? Or again, is ‘this generation’ both groups of children, calling to one another and perversely refusing the other’s summons?”26 Ultimately, Kloppenborg opts for an interpretation seeing John the Baptist and Jesus representing some of the children and this generation representing others. He concludes, “The identification of John and Jesus with the children who do the calling, and ‘this generation’ with those who refuse to respond, seems the most natural interpretation.”27 As has often been pointed out, however, such an interpretation seems somewhat at odds with how the parable introduces the comparison with “this generation.”28 It is also far from certain

Bildwert,” rather, they serve “als Stilmittel, um in direkter Rede die Situation der auf dem Marktplatz sitzenden Kinder zu veranschaulichen” (Studien zur Theologie, 225). Though the point might be overstated concerning the imagery, Hoffmann is correct in terms of the function of the “calling out.” 22. On the various images of children, cf. also Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 70. 23. Cf. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 290. 24.  Dieter Zeller, “Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 11 16f. / Lk 7 31f.,” ZNW 68 (1977): 252. 25. Ibid., 253–5. Cf. also the summary in Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 294–5. 26.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 111. Cf. also the similar questions set forth by Cameron, “Characterizations of John,” 40; Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 294; and the list in Marshall, Luke, 300–301. 27.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 111. Kloppenborg also draws attention to v. 35, where he sees John and Jesus called “children” of Sophia (ibid.). 28. Cf., e.g., Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 295.

152

The Parables in Q

that Blomberg is correct in his assertion that “both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus interpreted the children’s festive play as symbolizing his joyful ministry, their mourning as reflecting John the Baptist’s more austere lifestyle, and their immovable playmates as the Jews who rejected both John and Jesus.”29 As Zeller rightly argued, one does not need to concretize the call of the children “etwa auf die einladende Frohbotschaft Jesu und seine Bußpredigt. Noch ferner liegt eine Bezugnahme auf die unterschiedliche Lebensweise des Täufers und Jesu, weil schon die Reihenfolge nicht eingehalten ist.”30 In any case, viewing a (sub-)group of children rejecting the invitations as the symbol for “this generation” is faced with the difficulty that the initial comparison seems to be made to the whole group of children. Viewing the children calling out as “this generation” and Jesus and John rejecting the overtures not only runs into the same difficulty but also adds the further complication that Jesus and John in the role of those rejecting is difficult to align with how the passage continues.31 Thus, it seems that a more holistic perspective is in order and that the entire group of children in the parable—now sitting, with accusations flying, and no longer playing because a series of overtures was rejected—is, on the symbolic and thematic level, representative of “this generation.”32 In other words, though the plot

29. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 109–10. 30. Zeller, “Bildlogik des Gleichnisses,” 255. Cf. also Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 177: “There is no need either necessarily to identify John’s message with the ‘wailing’ or Jesus’ with the ‘piping.’ ” 31.  Cf. also Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 106. Jülicher had already made the observation, “Schief ist mithin die Vergleichung durchweg, in welcher Weise man sie auch unternimmt” (Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2:31). 32.  On the one hand, Tuckett recognizes this point, writing “the comparison may be a much more general one, equating the situation of this generation with (aspects of) the whole picture painted in the parable,” but on the other hand, immediately continues “thus the people of this generation are not necessarily to be identified with the calling children, but rather with the other, non-responding children” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 177). Though the nonresponsiveness is certainly vital in the parable, it seems possible to remain on the level of the whole picture of a game that cannot continue because of rejected overtures without necessarily restricting “this generation” to either those children calling out or those who did not respond. Tuckett later states “ ‘this generation’ is compared with grumbling children” (ibid., 203), where the “grumbling children” are identified as those not responding positively; however, it is also possible to view the children calling out and rejected as those who are “grumbling”! Again, though Luz rightly notes that the commentary on this generation highlights that “Wie spielende Kinder wißt ihr nicht, was ihr eigentlich wollt.. . . Ihr entlarvt durch eure Widersprüchlichkeit, daß ihr letztlich gar nicht wollt!” (Matthäus, 2:186) and Schulz correctly stated that because of the children’s “launischen Eigenwillens” there is no possibility of a “gemeinsame[s] Spiel” (Spruchquelle, 380–1), it remains possible to see this generation, on the most basic level, as all the children not playing in the marketplace because the condition necessary for playing, namely, a positive response to an invitation, is not present in the group.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

153

does highlight the centrality of failing to respond appropriately, this lack of response directly results in the inability of the game to continue or even take place and all the children are negatively affected. The entire group, including those who called out and those who refused, is a “not playing” group and is thus cast in a negative light.33 The eschatological image of restoration involving boys and girls playing in the broad streets of the city (Zech. 8:5) is nowhere to be found. 6.1.3 Images The parable contains several images, the first of which is the depiction of the children “sitting” in the marketplace.34 Cotter quite forcefully states, “It would seem that the composer of the parable does not appear to have much knowledge of how children behave,” for “what the children say suits angry, aggressive children, but what the children do, i.e. sit down in the market-place, does not suit these children.”35 Personally, I  readily admit ignorance as to the actual experience of the parable’s composer with children, but even if Cotter is correct in viewing the children as “angry” and “aggressive,” this does not necessarily mean that the group cannot be pouting and seated in exasperation. As Müller notes, “auch Laune, Trotz oder Sich-Entziehen gehören zum Verhalten von Kindern.”36 In any case, it does

33. Though Müller states, “Die doppelte Ablehnung ist offensichtlich der Vergleichspunkt zwischen dem Verhalten der Kinder und diesem Geschlecht” (In der Mitte, 250), he shortly thereafter tempers this statement slightly by writing that in the parable “wird weniger das Verhalten dieses Geschlechts mit dem der Kinder genau identifiziert; vielmehr geht es in beiden Fällen um das Grundverhalten der Ablehnung, das sich gerade in der Ablehnung beider Angebote ausdrückt” (ibid., 252). The rejection is, of course, key, but there is no precise identification of the actions of this generation and the children. Jülicher posited, “Es wird Jesu wohl nichts daran gelegen haben zu entscheiden, welche von den beiden Gruppen der spielenden Kinder im Unrecht war; ich denke, das Unrecht wird sich auf beiden Seiten, wie in solchen Fällen fast immer, ziemlich gleich verteilen” (Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2.32). Hoffmann even argues, “Der Vergleichspunkt, der Bild- und Sachhälfte verbindet, liegt nicht in der Nörgelei, in der Launenhaftigkeit oder in dem Trotz, die man in den Rufen häufig dargestellt findet, sondern darin, daß diese Kinder – wie es die Vorwürfe, welche sie sich gegenseitig machen, veranschaulichen  – nicht zum Spielen kommen” (Studien zur Theologie, 225–6). Though the rejection is perhaps more significant than Hoffmann recognizes, his recognition of the significance of the children “not playing” is helpful. 34.  On the ἀγορά itself, cf. Bork, Raumsemantik, 90; and Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 507–508. 35. Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 296. 36.  Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 101. Cf. also idem, In der Mitte, 252. On a personal note, I have more than once observed children at my boys’ schools stomp away from a soccer game, sit down on the sideline in exasperation, and yell back at the group about some element of the game with which they are frustrated or upset.

154

The Parables in Q

not seem to me that the image is so unusual or curious as to demand some sort of special explanation.37 The immediately ensuing parallel image involves playing a flute (αὐλέω), not dancing (ὀρχέομαι), singing a dirge (θρηνέω), and not mourning/weeping (κόπτω/κλαίω). As mentioned above, the images are almost always interpreted in an antithetical manner with “fluting” and dancing associated with a joyous occasion and the singing and mourning/weeping associated with a sorrowful one. Though the second image is quite clear, with Cotter rightly noting how “ ‘wailing’ or ‘singing a dirge’ is frequently coupled with ‘weeping’ (and ‘mourning’ for that matter) in both the LXX and the Hellenistic literature in general,”38 the first image is more ambiguous. Whereas playing a flute (αὐλός) could take place at banquets or joyous occasions (LXX 2 Sam. 6:5; 1 Esd. 5:2; Isa. 5:12; 30:29) and its absence used as an indication of desolation (1 Macc. 3:45), the flute could also be played at times of mourning (e.g. Mt. 9:23).39 Again, dancing could express joy (Exod. 15:20; 1 Sam. 8:6; Jer. 31:4, 13)40 and there is a tradition of opposing mourning and dancing, as in Eccl. 3:4, leading Ulrich Luz to write that “Tanz und Trauer sind traditionell vorgegebene Oppositionen.”41 At the same time, however, it is important also to note the place of dance at both Greek and Roman funerals, which at the very least raises the question of how traditionally opposed dance and mourning really were. Steven Lonsdale, in a chapter entitled “The Dance of Death: Privileges of the Dead,” notes that “as early as the Early Minoan period archaeological evidence can be found for funerary dances in the paved dancing grounds adjacent to the vaulted tombs of the Mesara.”42 With reference to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.72.12, Günther Willie noted that “die Tänze am Grab vornehmer Verstorbener, die Dionys in Rom sah,. . . von diesem selbst als griechisch bezeichnet worden.”43 There are also interesting couplings of playing a flute and dancing in other ancient literature. Cotter notes that “fluting and dancing are coupled in two of Aesop’s fables and in one proverb attributed to him,”44 and mention is often

37. On Cotter’s interpretation, cf. n. 21 above. 38. Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 69. 39.  Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 102 also recognizes that flutists are present at a death in Mt. 9:23 and makes reference to Tg. Ket. 4.4 requiring even the poorest in Israel to have at least two flutists and one woman singing songs of mourning at a funeral. Yet he does not comment on the manner in which this association could alter the nature of the image in the parable. 40. Cf. also Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 102. 41. Luz, Matthäus, 2:186. 42.  Steven H. Lonsdale, Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 258. 43.  Günther Wille, Musica Romana:  Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Römer (Amsterdam: P. Schippers N.V., 1967), 68. 44. Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 69. The fables are numbers 11 and 97 and the proverb number 115 in Perry, Aesopica.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

155

made of the parallel in Herodotus Hist. 1.141 where Cyrus employed a parable in responding to an Ionian and Aeolian messenger offering to be Cyrus’s subjects under the terms they had with Croesus after Cyrus’s victory even though they had been unwilling to revolt against Croesus prior to Cyrus’s victory.45 Herodotus records: Once, he [Cyrus] said, there was a flute-player who saw fishes in the sea and played upon his flute, thinking that so they would come out on to the land. Being disappointed of his hope, he took a net and gathered in and drew out a great multitude of the fishes; and seeing them leaping (παλλομένους), “You had best,” said he, “cease from your dancing (ὀρχεόμενοι) now; you would not come out and dance then, when I played to you.”46

Though the issue of dancing when the flute is played does appear here and the issue of “obedience” may thus be implicitly present,47 the fable primarily illustrates that, as Zeller noted, “was man nicht freiwillig tut, kann in einer Zwangslage getan wertlos werden,” leading him to conclude “insofern hat sie kaum unser Gleichnis beeinflußt.”48 In any case, however, at the very least it is clear that playing the flute and dancing are not always, and not necessarily intuitively, associated with joyous occasions. Ultimately, whether the parable employs parallel or antithetical parallelism, and the application employing antitheses along with early receptions of the text as in Acts John 95 ultimately may well point in the latter direction, in either scenario, the fundamental problem is that invitations were refused.49 Once again, with a view toward the image in Zech. 8:5 mentioned above, as Müller puts it, “Das Spielen der Kinder auf den Plätzen wird zum eschatologischen Bild des Heils.”50 But if no one plays in the marketplace, if the invitation to play is rejected, then the

45. For an analysis of the fable in Herodotus, cf. Herbert Thompson Archibald, The Fable as a Stylistic Test in Classical Greek Literature (Baltimore: J. H. Furst Company, 1912), 61–4. 46. Herodotus, Hist. 1.141 (A. D. Godley, LCL). 47.  Rothschild, however, states that the parable “emphasizes obedience, namely, dancing when the music is played” and “emphasizes foolishness, that is, imagining that after disobeying a given fish might alter its fate” (“Children Who Refuse”). 48. Zeller, “Bildlogik des Gleichnisses,” 253. Cf. a similar rejection of the relevance of the parable in Zahn, Matthaeus, 432n27. Arnold Ehrhardt was of the opinion that “the lack of interest in this parallel shown by both classical scholars and theologians is unjustified” (The Framework of the New Testament Stories [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964], 52). Of course, one can still show interest in the parallel without being convinced that it is particularly relevant. 49. Zeller makes reference to a loose parallel in 12. proem Midr. Lam. where there is no response to singing by a “hardened son” though he also recognizes “die Situation ist nicht ganz die unseres Gleichnisses” (“Bildlogik des Gleichnisses,” 256). 50. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 104.

156

The Parables in Q

prophetic image is not fulfilled and, by extension, the offered salvation is refused. This element becomes even clearer as the place of the parable in Q is considered. 6.1.4 The Parable in Q As already noted in the introductory comments to the discussion of this parable, an application is found in Q 7:33-34 and a concluding, proverbial statement in Q 7:35. Though there is always a level of uncertainty when considering the order of passages in Q, the fact that in both Matthew and Luke the parable appears in the context of material on John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:2-15 and Lk. 7:18-30) makes it quite probable that this was also the context in Q.  Franz Mussner represents the view of numerous scholars:  “Offensichtlich hat er [the text Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35] schon in der Quelle eine zusammenhängende Einheit gebildet.”51 If this is correct, then there is also a sense in which Q 7:35 functions as more than simply a conclusion or application of the parable, for it can be seen as culminating Q 7:18-35.52 In this way, the parable finds its place within passages concerning John the Baptist and the radical discipleship required in following the Son of Man.53 In the immediate context, however, Mussner rightly observed, “das Urteil, das Jesus über ‘diese Generation’ mit dem Gleichnis fällt, bedurfte auch durch ihn einer Begründung. Diese wird mit dem Logion gegeben.”54 It is through this logion that John and Jesus, as the “Son of Man,” enter into the picture.55 An initial observation to be made in terms of the identification of Jesus is that the term “Son of Man,” as already noted by Jeremias, “is not used here as an

51. Mussner, “Der nicht erkannte Kairos,” 606. 52.  Cf. M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1970), 35–8; and Tuckett’s comment, “The section acts as the literary climax, and serves to provide the interpretative key, for the passage [Q 7:18–35] as a whole” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 178–9). 53. Cf. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 100. 54. Mussner, “Der nicht erkannte Kairos,” 605–606. Järvinen states that “the irony that is hidden in the parable is explained in Q 7.33–35” (“The Son of Man and His Followers,” 200). 55. As Cameron puts it, “It is the addition of the interpretation which brings the parable into the context of a discussion of John and Jesus” (“What Have You Come Out to See?” 40). The suggestion of Rothschild in her paper “Children Who Refuse to Acknowledge the Baptizer” that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is a reference to John the Baptist seems unlikely. On the one hand, the early association of Jesus with tax collectors and sinners cannot be easily discounted (cf. Mk 2:15-16//Mt. 9:10-11//Lk. 5:29-30; also Lk. 15:1) and on the other hand, Lk. 5:33 identifies the disciples of John as fasting and the disciples of Jesus as eating and drinking. In my estimation, these depictions present a stronger link in the description of the Son of Man here than does the term φίλος, which Rothschild points out is never used of Jesus but is used of John the Baptist in Jn 3:29 (ὁ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου). Cf. also Labahn, who argues that the context points to the fact “dass der Menschensohn hier als Platzhalter für Jesus steht” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 279).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

157

apocalyptic term, but in the same sense as the ἄνθρωπος which immediately follows it, representing the Aram. bar naš.”56 Regardless of precisely how one understands the term “Son of Man” in Q57 and independently of whether one agrees fully or not with Fleddermann’s statement, “Q grounds the future Son of Man in the Son of Man who came as a full human being,”58 it is clear that in the application of this parable the latter sense is in view.59 Though Tödt contended, “Das Tun des Menschensohnes erscheint hier in einem bestimmten Licht: er handelt in souveräner Vollmacht, wenn er Zöllnern und Sündern die Tischgemeinschaft gewährt;. . . offensichtlich ist das Tun des Menschensohnes . . . ein spezifisches Hoheitshandeln, das sich über die Schranken des Gesetzes zugunsten einer besonderen Sendung hinwegsetzt,”60 Tuckett rightly noted that this view, and any view similar to it, “appears to read quite a lot into the text.”61 It seems to me that Tuckett is correct in highlighting that it is a much simpler issue depicted here: John and Jesus are being opposed by this generation. Therefore, the Son of Man here “is primarily a figure who arouses hostility and rejection.”62 Worth noting in both John and Jesus being opposed is that, as Tuckett puts it, “there is no hint at all of any rivalry between Jesus and John. The two are simply placed in parallel.”63 For this reason, it seems clear that, on the one hand, John is here treated “as a friend of the kingdom”64 and that, on the other hand, John and Jesus have a “mutual opposition to ‘this generation.’ ”65 The precise nature of their being placed in parallel, however, is not quite as clear. Jacobsen argues that “this treatment of John is possible because, in the context of the deuteronomistic tradition, John and Jesus are both seen as sent to call Israel to repentance.”66 And yet, L. Ann Jervis has pointed out that “Q describes no requirement of repentance for those to whom Jesus teaches about and enacts the reign of God. Whereas John does call for repentance (Q 3:7-8) and distinguishes himself by not playing with sinners, Jesus is known as a friend of tax collectors and sinners, and as a glutton and drunkard (Q 7:34)” concluding that “Jesus’ mission is not characterized by preaching repentance.”67 In fact, Jervis contends that “Jesus may be a prophet in

56. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 160n37. 57. Cf. the helpful overview of research and discussion in Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 239–82. 58. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 385. 59. Cf. also Lührmann, Redaktion, 85. 60.  Heinz Eduard Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1959), 107. 61. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 254. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid., 131. So also Lührmann, Redaktion, 29. 64. Kloppenborg, Formation, 117. 65. Ibid., 323. 66. Jacobson, “Literary Unity of Q,” 386–7. 67.  L. Ann Jervis, “Suffering for the Reign of God: The Persecution of Disciples in Q,” NovT 44 (2002): 322.

158

The Parables in Q

Q, but he is unquestionably also more than a prophet. Consequently, his role in Q bursts the bonds of a Deuteronomistic framework. Q presents Jesus as a figure more complex than simply a prophet preaching repentance.”68 Whether one agrees more with Jacobsen or Jervis depends on more than simply the interpretation of this passage in Q, with the point here, as again recognized by Tuckett that “what is now important is not any concern to upgrade Jesus at the expense of John, but rather to show Jesus and John as opposed to this generation.”69 Clearly, “the object of any ‘polemic’ is . . . ‘this generation’ and not John”70 and regardless of anything else John and Jesus may or may not have in common, they share the rejection of “this generation.”71 In sharing this rejection, Q 7:33-35 recognizes that John and Jesus are both different in their public appearance and yet connected to wisdom.72 Each of these two issues is important to consider in turn.

68. Ibid., 327. Schulz argued that Jesus “aus dieser langen Prophetenlist (Weish 10) einschließlich des Johannes herausragt und diese eschatologisch beschließt,” thus positing at least some inferiority/superiority element in the parable (Spruchquelle, 386). Richard A. Edwards asserts that because Jesus is addressed here as the “Son of Man,” the use of this title “implies his superiority” (“Matthew’s Use of Q in Chapter Eleven,” in Logia: Les Paroles des Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus [ed. Joël Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982], 266). Similarly, Edward P. Meadors contends that “Jesus qualitatively distinguishes his ministry from that of John by assuming the epithet Son of Man” (Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation [WUNT 2.72; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995], 42). 69.  Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 179. Rightly critical of inferiority/ superiority views of this verse is Kloppenborg, Formation, 112, and von Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen, 269. In addition, Meadors’s language of seeing “Jesus as a mere envoy of Sophia” and glossing this statement with “having the same ontological status of John” seems to import theological concerns that simply are not present in the parable itself (Jesus the Messianic Herald, 42; emphasis added). 70. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 179. With reference to the presentation of John the Baptist in Luke, Ernst noted, “Der Täufer steht als Bote der Weisheit (7,35) und als Lehrer des Betens (11,1) neben Jesus” (Johannes der Täufer, 110). 71.  Cf. also Fleddermann’s comment, “The ‘children’ of the parable refuse to cooperate with either John or Jesus, showing their complete capriciousness” (Q: Reconstruction, 384); Jacobson’s observation, “Q places both John and Jesus in a common front against ‘this generation’ which rejected both” (“Literary Unity,” 381; cf. idem, The First Gospel, 122–3); Müller’s statement, “Obwohl Johannes und Jesus verschieden und unterscheidbar auftreten, werden beide abgelehnt” (“Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 101); and Zeller’s comment, “Das haben Johannes und Jesus gemeinsam: die Ablehnung” (Kommentar, 44). Similarly, Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation, 358. 72.  Kloppenborg states that Q 7:31-35 “places John beside Jesus, acknowledging their very different appearances and activities, but nonetheless affirming that both are ‘children of Sophia’ (7:35),” (Excavating Q, 123). Cf. also his comment: “Differences between John and Jesus are admitted, but their roles are nonetheless subsumed under the Heavenly Sophia (7:35)” (ibid., 126).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

159

An initial observation concerning the descriptions of John and the “Son of Man” is highlighted by Müller: “Einen narrativen Grundzug haben die beiden Sätze, weil sie Geschichten von Johannes und Jesus voraussetzen und auf sie anspielen.”73 In other words, in order for this representation of John and Jesus to be comprehensible, at least some “narratival” knowledge of their manner and actions is assumed and even necessary for the addressees of vv. 33–34.74 From a sociological point of view, Halvor Moxnes has provided a helpful analysis of these verses. He wrote: As a form of communicative nonconsumption, fasting means a negation of the reciprocities that make up social interaction. Fasting, therefore, places the one who performs the fasting outside social bonds, in a liminal position. It may be for only a period, and it may actually be in order to strengthen bonds and boundaries in the community. To fast may be a way to focus attention on something that is wrong with the community, and to express repentance and ask for forgiveness in relation to God.75

From the perspective on John’s opponents, his fasting “was not a position of representative liminality on behalf of the group, but rather proof that he was ‘out of place,’ possessed by a demon. His fasting was considered dangerous.”76 In regard to Jesus, the accusation was just the opposite, of “being ‘out of place’ on the opposite side of the spectrum . . . Jesus is accused of lack of control of his own body, and of not keeping proper control of the boundaries of the social body concerning meals.”77 In both cases, as Daniel A. Smith rightly concludes, “the name-calling (demoniac, glutton, and drunk) effectively places John and Jesus outside of the people of God.”78 For the accusation against Jesus, and along the lines in which Aristotle states that one’s friends reflect one’s own self,79 Cotter highlights the implication that “to say that Jesus’ friends are tax-collectors and sinners is to claim that Jesus is as base as these people are perceived to be.”80 It is also possible that

73. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 101. 74. Again, there are slight differences of wording in the description of John’s “fasting” in Matthew and Luke; however, regardless of the precise wording and meaning, the contrast with the “Son of Man” is obvious. Cf. the brief discussion in James A. Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation (WUNT 176; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 9–10. 75.  Halvor Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place:  A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 102. 76. Ibid. Cotter points out that Apollonius of Tyana also had “to defend himself against a charge of wizardry on account of his spare diet of vegetables and water” (“Children Sitting in the Agora,” 73; cf. Philostratus, Appolonius 8.7.9). 77. Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place, 102. 78. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 69. 79. Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 2.4.4. 80. Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 76.

160

The Parables in Q

the denigration of Jesus as a “man of food and wine” is derived from the imagery invoked in describing a stubborn and rebellious son in Deut. 21:20.81 In any case, Kloppenborg has pointed out an important observation, namely, that “the rejection of the two in vv. 33–34 is apparently not based upon their preaching, but upon their respective life styles.”82 Though these lifestyles are images reinforcing, on the one hand, John’s message of judgment (Q 3:9, 17) and feasting with Jesus in the eschatological banquet (Q 14:16-23),83 it is only in the ensuing v. 35 that John and Jesus become emissaries and preachers connected to “Wisdom.” A first point to make here is that though Matthew and Luke differ in whether Wisdom is justified ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων or ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων, Manson was likely correct when arguing that “the point of the saying is not affected in any case; for it is simply that while the failure of both John and Jesus with one section of the community is a fact, it is also a fact that both John and Jesus found a response in another section, and that this response is itself a proof that the work of both was part of God’s plan.”84 This is not to say, however, that the respective wordings are not significant for Matthew and Luke in their respective contexts and for their respective agendas85; rather, the point is that the association with Wisdom can take place in either reading. Thus, even though most Q scholars view “children” as the reading of Q, Edwards could state: “Jesus and John are wisdom’s children or deeds because they both do God’s work [emphasis added].”86

81.  Cf. also Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 160; Marshall, Luke, 302; and the literature cited in Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 279n143. Noting that the term οἰνοπότης used by both Matthew and Luke is closer to the language of the Targums, Allison suspects “that Q 7:34 goes back to an Aramaic original that was influenced by a targumic tradition” (Intertextual Jesus, 41). He further reflects on the possibility that the stoning of the rebellious son is connected to the stoning that “is the punishment of the prophets in Q 13:34” and, more speculatively, that since Deut. 21:22-23, with its reference to a man being hung on a tree, immediately follows this description of Jesus, “a hearer of Q, familiar with the story of Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. Q 14:26), might associate Q’s allusion to Deut 21:20 with Jesus’ fate: the elders did in fact put to death one they perceived to be a rebellious son and a ‘glutton and drunkard’ ” (ibid.). 82.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 111. Cf. also Cameron, “What Have You Come Out to See?” 40–1. 83. So also Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 104. 84. Manson, Sayings, 71. 85. Cf. the observations in Müller, In der Mitte, 258. 86.  Edwards, A Theology of Q, 99. Edwards’s continuation of this sentence with “even though they undoubtedly stand at two different places or levels in God’s plan of action” requires the inclusion of perspectives and interpretations beyond those found in this parable and its immediate application. In fact, it is precisely along these lines that Luz sees a difference between Q and Matthew: “Während in Q die göttliche Weisheit Johannes und Jesus als ihre Gesandten auf die gleiche Ebene stellt, deutet Matthäus seine besondere Hoheit an: Jesu Taten sind die Werke von Gottes Weisheit” (Matthäus, 2:189).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

161

Though it is clear that John and Jesus are associated with Wisdom, there is also a very real sense in which Fleddermann appropriately observes, “Wisdom appears abruptly in Q, and the verse bristles with exegetical difficulties.”87 If the reading in Lk. 11:49 (diff. Mt. 23:34) reflects the wording of Q, then the sending function of Wisdom in sending out the prophets and sages there would connect to the imagery of Q 7:35.88 That wisdom sends forth emissaries, however, is already found in Prov. 9:3 and wisdom entering the souls of prophets or servants of the Lord is depicted in Wis. 7:27 and 10:16.89 In this sense, at least, “Sophia is personified in this Q passage,” for “she sends out messengers who ultimately are rejected.”90 The question has at times been raised as to the precise relationship between Jesus and Wisdom here91 (which already reveals a problem in that the question in 87. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 385. Müller further notes, “ ‘die Weisheit’ und ‘die Kinder der Weisheit’ [deuten] einen Sinnüberschuss an, der über den Rahmen der bisher Angesprochenen hinausgeht” (“Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 102; cf. also ibid., 104). 88.  Cf. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 105. For the view that Q 11:49-51 is a Second Temple “Wort der Weisheit,” cf. Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten:  Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967), 51–3, 222–7. Commenting on Q 11, Kloppenborg notes that a “refusal to respond positively to John, Jesus and the Q preachers as the envoys of Sophia constitute the grounds for judgment and condemnation” (Formation, 169). 89.  Part of the purpose for the sending out by or indwelling of Wisdom in these passages and others is the “persistent quest for men by means of her envoys” (Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, 39). Cameron points out how “in appealing to her [Wisdom] to validate its thesis, Q lays claim to an old order elaborately characterized as new” (“Characterizations of John,” 61). 90. Patrick J. Hartin, “ ‘Yet Wisdom Is Justified by Her Children’ (Q 7:35): A Rhetorical and Compositional Analysis of Divine Sophia in Q,” in Conflict and Invention:  Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. John S. Kloppenborg; Valley Forge:  Trinity Press International, 1995), 154. Similarly, Bovon, Lukas, 1:382, who speaks of a “personalisierten Qualität Gottes,” and apparently Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 305, who refers to the introduction of Wisdom here “als Person.” Differently, Marshall, who stated, “In this passage, however, there is little to suggest that wisdom is thought of as a personal being, and the thought is rather than [sic] the rightness of God’s plan . . . is demonstrated by those who accept it” (Luke, 303). 91.  For example, the two are apparently identified by Karl Löning in his “Interpretationsansatz für Lk 9,58b par” when he writes “Die Ortlosigkeit des Menschensohnes ist hier im Sinne der Unauffindbarkeit der Weisheit innerhalb der Lebenswelt des Menschen nach ihrer Abweisung (= Lk 7,34 par; vgl. 11,33ff par) zu verstehen” (“Die Füchse, die Vögel und der Menschensohn (Mt 8,19f par Lk 9,57f),” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus:  Für Joachim Gnilka [ed. Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge; Freiburg:  Herder,  1989], 95). For brief comments and criticism of this view, cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 279–80 (NB: the cross-reference by Labahn on p. 305n232 to “Seite 270” is incorrect).

162

The Parables in Q

this context should always be one of the relationship between John and Jesus and Wisdom) and Kloppenborg has rightly pointed out that though Jesus is placed in the “line of envoys of Sophia” this “does not mean that Q has a ‘Sophialogy’ rather than a Christology.”92 In the light of this statement, however, I find his comment toward the end of his volume that Q 7:35 is one of several passages introducing the “functional unity of Jesus with Sophia” slightly confusing.93 The functional unity here appears to be more between John and Jesus, not between Jesus and Wisdom, for, as Graham N. Stanton recognized, “in the Q logion Jesus and Sophia are not identified; Jesus and John are Sophia’s representatives.”94 If, as believed by many, Q referred to τέκνα Σοφίας, then, in a rather overt manner, “John and Jesus . . . are set alongside the characters of the parable in an attempt to capitalize on the dynamics of the parable and to further Q’s polemic against ‘this generation.’ ”95 Yet, once again, regardless of the precise wording, vv. 34 and 35 work together “to expose the superficiality of the accusers” for they demonstrate “that two men representing two opposite roads to wisdom are both viciously labeled and rejected on grounds that shift with each hero.”96 Interestingly, that Wisdom will be justified “implies that Wisdom herself has been maligned, through the maligning of John and Jesus,”97 and, by extension, has been maligned by “this generation” as represented in the parable. Thus, Cotter contends, “The closing proverb carries a promise, and perhaps a threat that the vindication of

92. Kloppenborg, Formation, 201. 93. Ibid., 319–20. 94.  Graham N. Stanton, “On the Christology of Q,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley ; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1973), 36. Similarly, Lührmann’s comment, “Freilich wird Jesus nirgends in Q . . . mit der Weisheit selbst identifiziert. Das läßt sich weder für Lk 11,49/Mt 23,34 noch für Lk 7,35/Mt 11,19 oder andere Stellen behaupten” (Redaktion, 99)  and Gertraud Harb’s observation, “Für Q ist eine christologische Identifikation von Weisheit und Jesus auszuschließen” (Die eschatologische Rede des Spruchevangeliums Q: Redaktions- und Traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Q 17,23-27 [BToSt 19; Leuven:  Peeters, 2014], 199n392). Cf. also the statement by Suggs that Jesus has not “displaced Wisdom in Q.  Rather, the concluding saying of this section [Q 7:35] . . . still places him in the line of Wisdom’s prophets, even though the larger context obviously assigns to him and in somewhat lesser measure to John the Baptist a position of pre-eminence among the prophets” (Wisdom, 50–1). 95. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 290. 96.  Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 78. Kloppenborg further contends that “Q includes a sequence (7:24–28, 31–35) which asserts programmatically the fundamental agreement of John and Jesus and thereby serves to effect a transition between their two ministries. The effect of such a qualitative progression is to affirm rhetorically the commonality which exists between two figures who, as Q 7:33–34 expresses well, were quite different” (Formation, 95). 97. Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 303.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

163

Wisdom will prove the indictment and punishment of her accusers.”98 Here the verses come full circle: “Der Schlusssatz interpretiert somit die Parabel und die Deutung aus der Perspektive der Q-Gruppe.”99 Those associated with Wisdom are “those responding to Wisdom’s call (cf. Prov 8:32; Sir 4:11; 15:2) so that Wisdom’s children provide the antithetic parallel to the people of this generation who have not responded.”100 In this way, the rejection of those associated with “Wisdom,” whether John, Jesus, or the Q group, by “this generation” results in precisely those who have not responded being excluded from the blessings, both temporal and ultimately eschatological, envisioned by Q for those who do respond.101 In terms of Q 7:31-35, as Cotter put it, Q charges “that the denouncing of John and Jesus does not rest on any substantial grounds, but on the self-serving foolishness of the puffed up charletans [sic] who are incapable of recognizing Wisdom.”102 In order to have a “successful game,” one must respond to the message of John and of Jesus, a point that Q also makes in several other parables.103 Finally, in an even broader sense, it can be argued that an important feature “guiding the connection of 7:1–10 and 7:18–35 is the implicit criticism of Israel’s lack of response to Jesus’ἐξουσία (7:9; cf. 7:35).”104 As has already been seen in the discussion of the master/slave parables in the previous chapter and as will be seen at points in the following chapters, numerous parables have a lack of response to Jesus’s message as presented in Q as part of their theme, along with the attendant

98.  Cotter, “Children Sitting in the Agora,” 80. Cf. also her comment elsewhere that the proverb in Q 7:35  “serves three separate functions. First, the child image identifies John and Jesus, as well as all those who share their perspective, as the children of Wisdom. Second, the saying indicates that the Q community is willing to accept a broad range of Christian practice. Third, in the conflictual context of Q 7:31–34, the proverb now takes on the character of a threat against those who have opposed and condemned John and Jesus. If Wisdom is to be justified, it can only be because she has been wronged” (Cotter, “ ‘Yes, I Tell You, and More Than a Prophet,’ ” 146). 99. Müller, “Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 106. 100. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 178. 101.  Cf. Hartin’s statement, “This passage demonstrates the opposition, in effect the situation of conflict, that exists between ‘this generation’ and the children of Sophia, of whom John and Jesus are preeminent” (“ ‘Yet Wisdom Is Justified by Her Children,’ ” 154). Cameron contends that the behavior of John and Jesus “characterized in an inverse order from that protested to in the analogy, supports that of the Q people . . . The appeal to John and Jesus is thus designed to present a negative example of the terms of the rationale. The failure of ‘this generation’ in the past to accept John’s role or understand Jesus’ identity is indicative of the present difficulties confronted by the Q group in its encounters with its contemporaries” (“Characterizations of John,” 60). 102. Cotter, “The Parable of the Children,” 303. 103. This, then, is the answer to Müller’s pointing out that here, “Die Frage ist: Was müssen die Kinder tun, damit das Spiel gelingt?” (“Vom misslingenden Spiel,” 109). 104. Kloppenborg, Formation, 118.

164

The Parables in Q

consequences of such a lack of response. As such, this parable comprises part of the Deuteronomistic theology found at points in Q.  Along these lines, Kloppenborg has observed that the parable serves as part of the larger rhetoric of Q involving the “indictment of ‘this generation’: the illustration of wrongheadedness and of the consequences of its refusals.”105

6.2 Parable of the Thief in the Night (Q 12:39-40) Mt. 24:43-44

Lk. 12:39-40

Ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι

τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε ὅτι

εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ.

εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.

44 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι, ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται.

40

καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι, ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται.

This short parable106 is found in a very similar form in both Matthew and Luke.107 Apart from a few minor differences in vocabulary, word order, and expressions, there 105.  Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 300. Idem, Formation, 167, argues that though the actual audience of Q are those sympathetic to the preaching of the kingdom, the projected audience is those opposed to the preaching and teaching of the Q “community.” He identifies the passage in Q 7:31-35 as one of several where “one cannot help getting the impression that the redactor of this part of Q holds out little hope for Israel’s [equated here by Kloppenborg with ‘this generation’] conversion. Original missionary fervor has turned into sectarian polemics” (ibid.). 106.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 48, e.g., stated that the passage is a “little parable” (original: kleines Gleichnis) and Bovon, Lukas, 2:330 refers to a “kurzes Gleichnis.” Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 17, also calls it a “short parable” (cf. similarly Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 633) and France, Matthew, 942, a “miniparable.” Kloppenborg, Formation, 169, refers to it as a “hortatory parable.” Somewhat curiously, Marshall, Luke, 538, states: “The second parable in the series [12:39-40] is nothing more than a parabolic saying followed by an application.” It is not clear to me what distinction, if any, Marshall is making between a “parable” and a “parabolic saying.” John Kloppenborg observes that quite a few recent commentaries on the parables have either ignored this parable or discussed it only very briefly in conjunction with Q 12:42-46 (“The Parable of the Burglar in Q: Insights from Papyrology,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q [ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn], 290). 107. Some aspects of the ensuing discussion overlap with and expand upon my discussion in Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables,” 378–9, 392–3.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

165

is significant verbatim agreement.108 A form of the parable is also found in Gos. Thom. 21 with points of contact to the saying in Gos. Thom. 103.109 Also worth noting is that both Matthew and Luke present the parable proper followed by an application that is vitally important for understanding the parable in Q.110 Thus, both verses are considered here.

108. Gräßer referred to “belanglose synopt. Differenzen” (Parusieverzögerung, 93n1) and Manson observed that “the agreement between Mt. and Lk. is close” (Sayings, 116). Minor differences in whether the temporal reference is to a φυλακή (Mt. 24:43) or a ὥρα (Lk. 12:39), whether the “permitting” διορυχθῆναι is described with the verb ἐάω (Mt. 24:43) or ἀφίημι (Lk. 12:39), and whether the house was referred to as an οἰκία (Mt. 24:43) or an οἶκος (Lk. 12:39) are largely insignificant in terms of the narratival elements presented in the parable. Adolf Smitmans argued, in my view correctly, “entgegen dem ersten Anschein ist es nicht möglich, einen Wortlaut [of Q] zu rekonstruieren” but still believed that insight could be gained into the Q form of the parable and its source “denn die Übereinstimmungen zwischen Mt und Lk wie zwischen möglichen Q-Fassungen überwiegen ja bei weitem” (“Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” in Wort Gottes in der Zeit: Festschrift Karl Hermann Schelkle zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden, Schülern [ed. Helmut Feld and Josef Nolte; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973], 46, 48). 109.  Fleddermann views the version in the Gospel of Thomas as fully dependent on the Synoptic Gospels:  “Since Thomas [21] reflects redactional Matthew and redactional Luke, Thomas depends on the synoptic gospels . . . Th 103 reflects redactional Luke” (Q:  Reconstruction, 632). Concerning Gos. Thom. 103, Schramm and Löwenstein contend that it contains “nur noch eine entfernte Reminiszenz an das Gleichnis vom Dieb” (Unmoralische Helden, 50). Tuckett more cautiously states that the view that the parable in Gos. Thom. 21, without the application found in Q, is more original “is possible but by no means necessary” (“Q and Thomas,” 357). Richard Bauckham is of the opinion that the christological interpretation has “there [in the Gospel of Thomas] disappeared because of Gnostic reinterpretation” (“Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” NTS 23 [1977]:  165n3). For the contrary view, cf., e.g., Bovon, Lukas, 2:331; and Kloppenborg, “The Parable of the Burglar,” 302–303. Early views are briefly and helpfully summarized in Smitmans, “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” 53–4. 110.  Cf. Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 633; and Michael Labahn, “Achtung Menschensohn! (Vom Dieb):  Q 12,39f. (Mt 24,43f. / Lk 12,39f. / EvThom 21,5),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 155. Though Kloppenborg believes “as many have noted, 12:39–40 is itself a secondary composition” (Formation, 149), at the same time, “the verses already belong together in Q” (ibid., 149–50). David Flusser’s view that Lk. 12:40, on the basis of its absence in a handful of manuscripts including family 1, “sich aus Matthäus in die Handschriften des Lukasevangeliums eingeschlichen [hat]” is unwarranted and text-critically indefensible (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus: 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse [JudChr 4; Bern: Peter Lang,  1981], 89). Thus, it is not the case that “Die absurde Deutung des Kommens des Diebes auf die Parusie des Menschensohnes also eine ausschliessliche Erfindung, bzw. Deutung, des Matthäus [ist]” (ibid.).

166

The Parables in Q

6.2.1 Plot Analysis The parable begins with a direct appeal to the reader or hearer to “know this.”111 The initial situation of an οἰκοδεσπότης being at peace in his house is not directly narrated but only implied by the account. That which is stated is already the complication, namely, that unbeknownst to the οἰκοδεσπότης, a κλέπτης was coming. Even this complication, however, is not directly presented, but rather set forth by both Matthew and Luke in a counterfactual-hypothetical conditional.112 That is to say, the parable recounts what would have happened had the οἰκοδεσπότης known when the κλέπτης was coming.113 As it is, however, since the householder did not know, the transforming action of the robber’s coming leads to the denouement/ final situation of the house having been broken into (literally “dug into”).114 The parable proper ends here, though an application admonishing the addressee to 111. ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε in Mt. 24:43 and τοῦτο δὲ γινώσκετε in Lk. 12:39. 112. The Thomas version of the parable in Gos. Thom. 21.5 has a future conditional. 113. The Matthean statement that the master ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν, not found in Luke, does add the image of sleeping/being awake in Matthew’s presentation and picks up on the depiction in Matthew 24 of preparedness as “eschatologische Wachsamkeit” (Labahn, “Achtung Menschensohn!,” 159; cf. also Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium, 224–5). The presence or absence of this phrase in Q, however, does not change the hypothetical counterfactual involving the knowledge of the householder and the coming of the thief. The hypothetical counterfactual also, it seems to me, focuses upon the householder and so I am not sure if Schramm and Löwenstein are correct in stating that the perspective is “die des Diebes und nicht die des Hausherrn” (Unmoralische Helden, 51–2). 114.  Cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 383. The contention, however, that the “narrative Gesamtbewegung” finds its goal and conclusion “in der erfolglosen Abwehrreaktion” (Labahn, “Achtung Menschensohn!,” 158) may place two much emphasis on the “reality” of what occurred in the parable without taking the emphasis of the counterfactual statement sufficiently into account. The same applies to Fleddermann’s statement, “If we consider the parable by itself, we might conclude that the householder should do nothing. Since he cannot know when the burglar will come, he should go about his business, not worrying about what he can’t prevent” (“The Householder,” 24). That the narrative arrives at the point of a break-in that could not be hindered is clear; yet, the parable highlights that had one known when this would occur, or if one had been prepared for this occurrence, then the break-in could have been thwarted. Though Labahn sees this point in the application of the parable in v. 40 (cf. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 268), it seems already to be present in the parable itself. Thus, I do not agree with Christfried Böttrich’s contention that in this parable “geht es . . . nicht um die Verhinderung des Einbruches, sondern allein um das Moment seiner Unberechenbarkeit” (“Das Gleichnis vom Dieb in der Nacht: Parusieerwartung und Paränese,” Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag [ed. Christfried Böttrich; GThF 11; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006], 38). The position of Jeremias, following C.  H. Dodd, that the aorists “surely show” that “Jesus draws the parable from an actual happening, some recently effected burglary, about which the whole village is talking” (The Parables of Jesus, 49) is unnecessary.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

167

be ready and prepared for the unknown hour of the coming of the Son of Man immediately follows. 6.2.2 Characters Both Matthew and Luke identify the two main characters in the same way: there is an οἰκοδεσπότης and there is a κλέπτης. Though the miniature narrative revolves around these two characters, it is interesting to note that in the account as presented, as Blomberg observes, “no interaction occurs between the two individuals.”115 It is only in the hypothetical situation of the master of the house knowing when the thief was coming that an interaction would take place. In the actual situation, though both characters are vitally important for the parable, they have no narrated or implied contact with each other. In addition, it should be noted right at the outset that these characters remain essentially completely undeveloped within the parable itself. Turning first to the οἰκοδεσπότης, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is constructed simply by naming the character. The narrator mentions this figure at the outset of the parable and there is essentially no further comment concerning or reflecting upon the character; he is simply there as a solitary, though realistic, figure.116 In addition, seeing as there is no need to posit an actual occurrence behind this parable, and thus no reference to an actual or known “master of a house,”117 this character is introduced into the world of the parable and initially brought into association with a household only through the designation implied by the term οἰκοδεσπότης. At the conclusion of the parable, however, there is an explicit mention of οἶκος αὐτοῦ, confirming the mental image generated by the parable’s use of οἰκοδεσπότης that a dwelling and household belonging to this character are involved. The mimetic component of the householder is likewise presented in sparse terms. The only trait of which the reader or hearer of the parable is made aware is that the householder was ignorant of the time of the thief ’s coming, a significant point for the mimetic component of this character. Thus, the οἰκοδεσπότης is characterized by a lack of knowledge, which, as the parable progresses, results directly in damage to and/or loss from his house. At the same time, due to the parable’s highlighting that if this ignorance had not been present, that is, if the οἰκοδεσπότης had known, then the outcome would have been different, a strong sense of the desirable nature of not being ignorant and thus not suffering loss at the hand of the thief is created in the parable’s addressee.

115. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 277. 116.  Concerning the figure of an οἰκοδεσπότης, especially within the broader context of family life, cf. Ernst Dassmann and Georg Schöllgen, “Haus II (Hausgemeinschaft),” in RAC 13:802–905. 117. Cf. n. 114 above.

168

The Parables in Q

As such, when considering the householder as a Symbol, his thematic component is developed along the lines of being a character in a situation in which the reader or hearer does not wish to find him- or herself. Quite differently, therefore, from the οἰκοδεσπότης seen in the “master”/”slave” parables discussed in Chapter 5, here this individual is not the one acting. He has been acted upon in an undesirable way by a thief. It is his inactivity, based upon his ignorance, that is precisely the reason he has suffered loss. A  question presenting itself at this point is whether the hearer or reader of the Q parable would, in the first century, more likely construct a mental model of this οἰκοδεσπότης focusing upon his lack of knowledge or upon his adversely perceived condition after having been robbed. Given that the ignorance is used as a foil in the negative counterfactual, the emphasis of the parable seems to fall upon the loss suffered by the householder. Interestingly, Kloppenborg has pointed out how the rhetoric found in numerous Greek papyri reflects the anger and frustration felt on account of a thief ’s violation of a householder and his home, along with the violence that often accompanied the intrusion.118 It is likely, therefore, that precisely this sentiment figured prominently in the mental model of the robbed householder with an attendant desire to avoid such a state oneself. For this reason, the οἰκοδεσπότης functioning as a representation of the situation in which one does not wish to find oneself leads to the character as Symbol already appealing to the addressees to not find themselves in that position. That is to say, through the character of the householder, the parable works backward from his being robbed to his having been negatively affected in this manner on account of his lack of preparedness which can be traced back to the mimetic component of his ignorance. This progression ultimately serves to create a figure functioning as an example for the addressee and leads to the thematic component of this character functioning as part of the appeal structure of the parable for the action desired in its hearers or readers. Specifically, since it is essentially impossible to pursue a course of action leading to being informed of when a thief will come,119 the mimetic and thematic components of this character create an appeal to avoiding the state of being robbed through a permanent state

118.  Cf. Kloppenborg, “The Parable of the Burglar,” esp.  292–301. The complaints of having been wronged and the depiction of the thieves as “bandits” are particularly clear examples of this phenomenon. 119.  Labahn rightly states, “Diebe halten sich bekanntlich nicht an Zeiten in denen sie erwartet werden; es gehört vielmehr zum Wesen des Diebstahls, dass er unerwartet und möglichst unentdeckt durchgeführt wird” (“Achtung Menschensohn!,” 155). The objection that the issue of preparedness therefore cannot be in view precisely because “das Wachen dem Hausbesitzer also gar nicht möglich [war], weil er den Zeitpunkt des Einbruchs ja nicht kannte” (Luz, Matthäus 3:454) seems to miss the point of the counterfactual-hypothetical conditional. The parable does not appear concerned with whether the knowledge of the time of the thief was possible for the householder or not, rather the point is simply that if it had been known he would have prepared and acted accordingly.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

169

of vigilance and preparedness so as to be able to ward off a thief who could appear at any time.120 Given the sparse characterization of the οἰκοδεσπότης, it is unsurprising that the κλέπτης is similarly briefly presented. Just as was the case for the householder, the synthetic component of the thief as fiktives Wesen is hardly constructed as the character is simply inserted into the plot as the one exploiting the householder’s ignorance. His mimetic component is partially set forth through the negative connotations carried simply by being a κλέπτης, a point discussed further below, as well as through his destructive actions of “digging through” a wall of the house. The damage thus caused, and presumably the access thus gained to goods that could be stolen, highlights the destructive aspect of the traits associated with the thief. For this reason, a particularly acute challenge is created when considering the κλέπτης as a Symbol. The thematic component of the thief, his symbolic identity, seems to be brought into contact with the Son of Man in some manner in Q 12:40. Schottroff, however, sought to avoid any possible allegorical identification of Jesus/the Son of Man with the thief by stating that the parable emphasizes “einen einzigen Gedanken,” namely, “die ungewisse Zeit der Ankunft.”121 A  few sentences later she reiterated the point: “Die Anwendung des Gleichnisses in V. 35 und 40 stellt auch nur einen Bezug zum Gleichnis her:  Die Glaubenden sollen jederzeit auf das Kommen des Menschensohns vorbereitet sein.”122 This selective emphasis, however, completely ignores the strongly implied connection between the Son of Man and the thief for it is not only the timing, but also their coming that is paralleled. It is not that the emphasis posited by Schottroff is not present; it is simply not the only emphasis present. Therefore, as Paul Foster observes, in Q 12:39 we find a “striking metaphor” where “the Son of Man is compared to a burglar whose unannounced arrival demands concentrated watchfulness.”123 This aspect of the thief as Symbol receives additional consideration in the discussion below concerning this parable in Q.

120.  Similarly Nolland, Luke, 2:702: “The point of the parable seems to be that thieves do not send calling cards ahead to announce their arrival. If one is to be ready for a thief ’s intrusion, one needs to be ready all the time.” Nolland makes the same point in Matthew, 2:720. Cf. also France, Matthew, 942–3: “The call seems to be for a constant alert [sic], since no amount of calculation can anticipate the surprise.” 121. Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 230. 122. Ibid. 123. Foster, “The Pastoral Purpose,” 89. Even if 12:39 is considered apart from the connection with the Son of Man in v. 40 and is instead considered in relation to the kingdom of God, as is done, e.g., by Schramm and Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden, 52, they nevertheless rightly note that the comparison of God’s reign with a thief remains “ein höchst antößiges Bild” (ibid., 52). Schulz referred to a “kaltblütige[r] Vergleich des Menschensohnes mit dem unvermutet auftauchenden Dieb” (Spruchquelle, 269).

170

The Parables in Q

6.2.3 Images Two images in this parable invite further reflection, namely, the “thief ” and his “digging through” or “breaking through” (διορύσσω) the wall. First, though the thief is clearly a character who acts in the parable, he also functions as an image in that certain associations are immediately made with thieves in general.124 Quite expectedly, references can easily be found to the negative image associated with a thief. For instance, there is only shame for a thief when caught (Jer. 2:26), and it is the mark of a sinner to be pleased with a thief (Ps. 50:18). Partnering with a thief is to hate one’s own life (Prov. 29:24). The thief is employed in a vision of judgment as one of the characters falling under the curse (Zech. 5:3) and a thief is employed as an illustration of the destruction coming with God’s judgment (Joel 2:9). That one requires protection from the thief can be read, for example, in Virgil, Georg. 3.406–408 where reference is made to the benefits of guard dogs, one of them being the protection they offer from the thief in the night (nocturnum . . . furem). At the same time, as is often pointed out, the image of the unexpectedness and suddenness of a thief is utilized in the NT as a depiction of the coming of the Day of the Lord (cf. 1 Thess. 5:2 and 2 Pet. 3:10). This metaphor also picks up on the manner in which this day is said to “break in” as in, for example, Amos 5:18-20.125 As already mentioned above and discussed further below, the boldness of the metaphor is increased, however, when it is applied not to the day, but to the Son of Man himself, as in our parable, or to Jesus, as in Rev. 3:3 and 16:15.126 As Richard Bauckham noted, “The content of Rev. iii. 3b is close to the Q version of the Thief (both parable and application), except that John introduces the motif of staying awake, as Paul and Matthew had done.”127 In all these instances, in addition to images of destruction in the coming judgment, images that are also associated with the coming of a thief, particular focus falls upon the unexpected nature of a thief ’s coming. The second image to be considered here is the one action performed by the thief in this parable described with the verb διορύσσω. As Manson already

124.  Cf. Zimmermann’s comment: “In some cases, the use of one word like ‘thief ’ . . . opens up a whole imaginative realm” (Puzzling the Parables, 144; cf. a very similar statement in ibid., 102). 125. Gräßer noted, “Das Bild vom Dieb ist in der urchristlichen Literatur feststehender Terminus für den plötzlich hereinbrechen jüngsten Tag” (Parusieverzögerung, 93n2). 126.  Concerning the “Bild des ‘Diebes’ ” in the NT and this point, cf. Zimmermann, “Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache,” 124. For extensive discussion of the image in all the NT verses, cf. Wolfgang Harnisch’s “Exkurs II: Der Gebrauch des Bildes vom ‘Dieb’ in der urchristlichen Literatur,” in Eschatologische Existenz:  Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1.  Thessalonicher 4,13–5,11 (FRLANT 110; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 84–116. 127.  Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables,” 170. Kloppenborg, Formation, 149, also highlights that only in Revelation is Christ himself the “thief.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

171

observed quite some time ago, this expression appears to depend “on the fact that in Palestine the walls of houses were commonly made of clay.”128 Here it is interesting to note that the description of the break-in as digging through a wall indicates that this is most likely a master in a nonelite house. As Kloppenborg points out, “Houses of the non-elite were probably more often the targets of burglary, probably because the houses of the elite were more likely to be constructed of stone, more difficult (though by no means impossible) to undermine, with doors more heavily barred, and guarded by slaves and dogs. Houses of the non-elite were made of poorer materials, easier to penetrate.”129 The use of the verb to describe the manner of entry by a burglar was also common in other areas with similar constructions of dwellings, as evidenced, for example, in the descriptions found in papyri such as P.Mich. VI 421.2–9, P.Oxy. XLIX 3467.3–7, and SB XXII 15781.130 The verb is also used in LXX Job 24:16 in an apparent comparison between an adulterer and a thief as the adulterer διώρυξεν ἐν σκότει οἰκίας while shutting himself up inside by day.131 Ultimately, it appears that this manner of entry by a thief was so common that it often appears as a reference to the act of burglary as in, for example, Aristophanes, Plut. 565, where Chremylus uses the verbs κλέπτω and διορύσσω in parallel. 6.2.4 The Parable in Q As noted above, the parable is applied in the ensuing verse, so it is with this application that the discussion of the parable in Q must begin. Though Fleddermann has commented that “the interpreter faces a formidable task in trying to hold these parts together, for they appear to move in opposite directions,”132 he expresses this sentiment due to his conviction that the parable emphasizes “do nothing” and the application “be ready.”133 As already seen at several points in the foregoing discussion, this tension may not be as prominent as Fleddermann believes.134 What is abundantly clear is that Q 12:40 expresses an appeal to the addressee of the parable to “be ready” for the unexpected coming of the Son of Man. As such, v. 40

128.  Manson, Sayings, 116. Contra the specific interpretation of Manson, however, Jeremias argued that the verb “need not lead us to assume that the thief, avoiding the door from superstitious motives . . . broke through the wall of the house” (Parables of Jesus, 48n98). 129. Kloppenborg, “The Parable of the Burglar,” 299. 130. The texts of these and a few other relevant papyri are helpfully offered with text and translation in Kloppenborg, “The Parable of the Burglar,” 295–7. 131. Though using a slightly different expression, the same image is found in the description of what a thief could be doing when found in Exod. 22:1 (ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ διορύγματι εὑρεθῇ ὁ κλέπτης . . .). διορύγματι also appears in a discussion of thievery in Philo, Spec. Leg.  4.7. 132. Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 24. 133. Ibid. 134. Cf. the comments above in n. 114.

172

The Parables in Q

makes explicit an appeal that was already made implicitly through the symbolic level of the householder character in the parable. This appeal to watchfulness, preparedness, and general readiness in the light of the unknown moment of the Son of Man’s arrival has often been highlighted in discussions of this parable and its application.135 For instance, Labahn notes, “Hier wird das erwartete Kommen des Menschensohnes mit einem Dieb in der Nacht verglichen, um die stetige Bereitschaft für diesen Tag zu motivieren.”136 It is also seen in the paraphrase of the passage offered by März: “Der Hausherr wird vom Einbruch überrascht. Euch soll es bei der Parusie nicht so gehen . . . denn das Kommen des Menschensohnes ist wie ein Einbruch nicht kalkulierbar.”137 Stated simply, the parable illustrates that “judgment will come suddenly and without warning”138 and because of this, “der Sinn für beide [Evangelisten] ist völlig klar: es geht um die Intensivierung der Wachsamkeitsforderung.”139

135.  Curiously, however, Catchpole has written, “The parable of the so-called watchful householder is misnamed, for protection against burglary is not watchfulness but prevention” and that all three parables in Mt. 24:42-25:13, of which this parable is a part, “are parables about ignorance of the time of a coming, but they are not parables demanding watchfulness” (Quest for Q, 57). It is precisely the ignorance, however, that leads to the necessity of watchfulness. 136.  Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 293. Cf. also “Der Hausherr und sein Eigentum ist Exempel im Dienst der Rhetorik, die ein Einsehen in ein bestimmtes Verhalten aktiver Nachfolge zu vermitteln sucht” (ibid., 301). Similarly Smitmans argued that the parable “will positiv mit Hilfe des negativen Gleichnisbildes im Hörer . . . Bereitschaft wecken” (“Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” 56). 137.  Claus-Peter März, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Lk 12,35–48:  Beobachtungen zur Komposition der Logientradition in der Redequelle,” in Christus Bezeugen: Für Wolfgang Trilling (ed. Karl Kertelge, Traugott Holtz, and Claus-Peter März; Freiburg:  Herder, 1990), 171. Cf. also Fleddermann’s statement, “The uncertain coming of the thief prepares for the uncertain coming of the Son of Man” (Q: Reconstruction, 634). 138.  Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 118. I am not certain that there is a sharp distinction between “sich nicht überraschen zu lassen” and “die Aufforderung, aus der Tatsache, daß man überrascht wird, die Konsequenzen zu ziehen” as is posited by Georg Strecker when he argued for the latter view (Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus [3d ed.; FRLANT 82; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 242). One can be convinced that the Son of Man is coming and thus not surprised when he comes with a view toward the event while still being surprised that it came at that particular moment. In other words, one can prepare for his coming (and in this sense not be surprised by it) while awaiting its unknown time of occurrence (and in this sense be surprised by it). 139.  Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 93. Gräßer, however, also saw this motif as strongly shaped by the delay of the parousia and contended that the parable was applied to this situation by the Urgemeinde (ibid., 94). Though the parable may well be applicable to such a situation, it is argued in the discussion below that the parable does not require it.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

173

From this perspective, Q 12:40 is one of several verses identified by Kloppenborg as passages in which an “intensification of End-expectation” becomes visible.140 In addition, he observes that “the Son of Man appears in four warnings (12:40; 17:24, 26, 30) where what is elaborated is not the person or function of the Son of Man, but rather the unanticipated nature of the judgment.”141 Without a doubt, a point of contact between the thief and the Son of Man in this metaphor is the manner in which the parable presents the coming of both as occurring at an unknown time.142 Yet, numerous scholars have found a tension between being prepared for the coming of a thief on the one hand and the coming of the Son of Man on the other. Labahn, for instance, points out that “V. 40 . . . nicht am Erfolg des Diebes interessiert [ist], sondern an der Bereitschaft, ihn jederzeit abzuwehren”143 and then goes on to observe, “Den Einbruch des Diebes will man vermeiden, das Kommen des Menschensohnes – hier wird die Brüchigkeit zwischen Parabel und Anwendung wieder deutlich – nicht, im Gegenteil.”144 Abstractly it may be true that the coming of a thief is not desired whereas in early Christian communities the coming of the Son of Man is desired; nevertheless, it seems to me that this supposed “Brüchigkeit” is not actually present. From the perspective of the householder, the state of being robbed is clearly negative; yet, significantly, the state of being “not-robbed” is merely neutral and not actually positive. Put another way, being robbed results in a loss; yet, not being robbed does not result in a gain but only in the averting of a loss. For this reason, the image of the thief functions exclusively as a negative deterrent for the οἰκοδεσπότης:  be prepared for the thief so as to avoid destruction to your home and the loss of property. This

140. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 85. Cf. also Edwards, A Theology of Q, 126: “The parable itself could be understood as apocalyptic or gnomic. But the admonition that follows (Lk. 12:40) makes the explicit assertion that the Son of Man is the one who comes unexpectedly, thus clearly stating the apocalyptic context. This particular verse could serve as a statement of the theme of the Q community—be ready for the Son of Man’s coming.” This Son of Man saying is therefore clearly one that should be ascribed to those sayings having the eschatological activity of this figure in view (cf. also the observations in Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 252–3). 141. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 392. 142.  As the following comments reveal, however, I think that Luz overstates this point of contact by asserting: “Das einzige Analogon zwischen dem Gleichnis und der Sachhälfte besteht m.E. darin, daß weder der Zeitpunkt eines Einbruchs noch derjenige des Kommens des Menschensohns voraussehbar ist ” (Matthäus, 3:455; emphasis added). Labahn agrees with this sentiment in principle, though adds “wobei das ‘Analogon’ auch die Charaktere mit ihren Verhaltensmustern in ein neues Verhältnis setzt” (“Achtung Menschensohn!,” 155). 143. Ibid. 144. Ibid. Similarly, Jeremias stated that “the application of the parable to the Son of Man is strange; for if the subject of the discourse is a nocturnal burglary, it refers to a disastrous and alarming event, whereas the Parousia, at least for the disciples of Jesus, is the great day of joy” (Parables of Jesus, 49). Cf. also Gräßer, Parusieverzögerung, 93.

174

The Parables in Q

image would then seem to translate to the Son of Man as: be prepared so as not to be destroyed when he comes.145 It is the very real possibility and threat of destruction that here connects, at least in part, the two images.146 And the threat of judgment or destruction is one generally proclaimed in Q. In fact, with reference to Q 17:34-35; 12:39-40, 49, and 51-53, Kloppenborg has argued that in Q the parousia “is treated as an ominous and gloomy happening, not a point of joyful liberation.”147 In other words, in Q, here and elsewhere, “the coming of the SM [Son of Man] . . . is clearly associated with judgement.”148 The warning is universal in that “Q 12:40 (as also the sayings in Q 17) seem to imply that the coming of the SM will have negative effects on those who are unprepared.”149 Significantly, it seems that though the parable recounts what happened because the householder was not prepared, it also implies that had the householder been prepared, he could have stopped the break in. As such, it seems problematic to state that the point of comparison between the kingdom and rule of God and a thief “bezieht sich allein auf die Unabänderlichkeit beider Geschehen”150 or exclusively upon the unknown time of their arrival.151 Instead, “besides the element of unexpectedness, the image of the thief . . . also expresses an element of affliction and disaster,”152 disaster that cannot be avoided if one is unprepared but that can be averted if one is prepared.

145.  Cf. ibid.: “Die Pointe liegt in dem Plötzlichen, Unvermuteten, mit dem – wie der Dieb  – das Ende strafend kommen wird für den, der nichtsahnend ist.” Bauckham also pointed out that “Rev. iii.3 is sufficient evidence that, even for Christians, the parousia may be regarded as threat” (“Synoptic Parousia Parables,” 165n3). Cf. also Lövestam who rightly pointed out that in the use of the imagery of the thief in the NT it “appears that also the consciousness of the unpleasant and the disastrous in the visit of a thief is real and sometimes dominating” (Spiritual Wakefulness, 97) and Schulz, Q, 270. 146.  Green states that “no allegorical connections need to be made in order to understand how Jesus appropriates the brief parables of v. 39. The coming of a thief is unpredictable; so is the coming of the Son of Man” and comments in a note “hence, e.g., the destructive aspects of burglary are not developed in this co-text” (Luke, 502). Since, however, the destructive elements of burglary are so obvious and the coming of the Son of Man is often connected with judgment or destruction in Q, it is not clear to me that simply asserting a “no allegory necessary” perspective can avoid such associations. 147. Kloppenborg, Formation, 164. 148. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 175. 149.  Ibid., 267n96. Cf. similarly Bauckham’s observation, “The Thief focuses on the parousia as threat to the unprepared” (“Synoptic Parousia Parables,” 165)  and Jeremias’s comment, “Jesus’ hearers would have understood the parable of the House-breaker: as a rousing cry to the crowd in the view of the oncoming eschatological catastrophe” (Parables of Jesus, 49). 150. Schramm and Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden, 52. 151. Cf., e.g., n. 142 above. 152. Lövestam, Spiritual Wakefulness, 98, cf. also 101–102. Smitmans is thus absolutely correct in stating, “Wer immer sich auf die Bildhaftigkeit des Textes einläßt, erfährt die

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

175

A further point to consider here is raised by the argument, for example, of Fleddermann when he contends that this parable, along with the parable of the faithful or unfaithful slave, “provide[s] the decisive evidence that Q felt the impact of the delay of the parousia.”153 And yet, it is not immediately obvious why the parousia must have been delayed in order for Q to make the point that “since we do not know the time of the end, we must be ready which means that we must be prudent” nor does it seem to be necessary that it is the delay “that gives us the opportunity to show that we are faithful.”154 This is not to say that the issue of a “delay” cannot be part of the background of the parable, it simply is not necessarily the case. Tuckett’s point is well taken that the parable may reflect the situation where the expected, imminent coming has been delayed or it may reflect a situation in which a belief in an imminent coming never existed, “but in either case, the aim of the parable and its application in Q is to urge such a belief on the listeners.”155 One further interpretive note to consider in regard to this parable in Q is the suggestion offered by Christfried Böttrich in his connecting this parable with the teaching found in Q 12:33-34. From this perspective, part of the specific manner in which one prepares for the coming of the thief, and by extension the coming of the Son of Man, is that one no longer has anything in the “house” that can be lost. That is to say, one is prepared for a thief at any and every moment in time if all one’s treasures are in heaven and there is nothing in one’s earthly house that the thief can steal.156 Along these lines, the parable can be seen as including instruction concerning a specific element of the ethos advocated in Q, namely:  “Die Zeit der Erwartung ist Zeit der Bewährung, die auf alle Sicherheiten des Lebens verzichtet.”157 Finally, if it is accurate as essentially universally accepted, that this parable precedes the parable in Q 12:42-46, then it is important to recognize the manner in which, as Fleddermann puts it, “the Householder points forward to the Servant

Bedrohung aus der Gestalt des Diebes und seinem unerwarteten Kommen zugleich” (“Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” 48). 153.  Fleddermann, “The Householder,” 26. Cf. also Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 69–70:  “In dieser Mahnung . . . spiegelt sich die Parusieverzögerung” (cf. also the literature cited in ibid., 70n1). Tuckett observed that particularly “earlier studies of the material in Q such as the parables of the thief (Q 12:39f.), the watching servants (Q 12:42–46) and the talents/pounds (Q 19:12:ff.) have often argued that these have been heavily influenced by the delay in the Parousia” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 140). 154.  Ibid. Cf. also the criticism of such a view in Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, 47; and Marshall, Luke, 539. 155. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 156. Cf. also the discussion of the issue of the delay in regard to Q 12:42-46 in the previous chapter. 156. Cf. Böttrich’s statement: “Er hat seinen ‘Schatz’ bereits aus dem Zugriffsbereich von Dieben herausgenommen und ‘im Himmel’ deponiert” (“Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” 39; cf. also ibid., 41). 157. Ibid., 42.

176

The Parables in Q

Left in Charge.”158 In this way, Q 12:42-46 “gains its explicit connection with the coming Son of Man through its attachment to 12:39–40.”159 Thus, “the Q composition 12:39–40, 42–46 takes on the character of a warning to be prepared in the face of the unforeseen and catastrophic coming of the Son of Man.”160 In sum, with the connection to Q 12:42-46, the parables here seek to illustrate “that the coming of the Son of Man announced in the center (12:40) can have two possible outcomes, depending on faithfulness, even for members of the household.”161

6.3 Parable of One Taken and One Left (Q 17:34-35) Mt. 24:40-41

Lk. 17:34-35

τότε δύο ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται·

λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται·

41

35

δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλῳ, μία παραλαμβάνεται καὶ μία ἀφίεται.

ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἡ μία παραλημφθήσεται, ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται.

Unlike in the previous two parables, there is no explicit application of this parable to the “Son of Man.”162 Nevertheless, the immediate context in both Matthew and Luke163 relates the imagery of the parable to the coming of the “Son of Man,” 158. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 634. 159. Kloppenborg, Formation, 150. 160. Ibid. 161.  Kirk, Composition, 232. On Kirk’s view the parables are not only Q 12:39 and 12:42-46, but also Lk. 12:35-38, which he argues was present in Q (cf. Chapter 3, n. 2 above). 162.  Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 105, labels the verses a “Doppelbildwort,” though classifying it as a “prophetisches Drohwort” (ibid., 231)  and Kloppenborg, Formation, 159, refers to the verses as a “double metaphor.” Kirk, Composition, 257, 260, simply states that the verses are “examples” whereas Schluz, Q, 281, referred to a “Doppelbeispiel.” Josef Zmijewski, Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 21, 5-36 und Lk 17, 20-37 (BBB 40; Bonn:  Peter Hanstein, 1972), 490, offered a further identification of the verses as a “Doppelspruch”; yet, he also called it a “Doppelbeispiel” (ibid., 493). Though Friedrich Hauck, Das Evangelium des Lukas: Synoptiker II (THKNT 3; Leipzig: Deichert, 1934), 218, spoke of a “Doppelgleichnis,” the revision of this work refers to a “Doppelbeispiel” (cf. Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas [2d ed.; THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961], 344). 163. In Luke, despite 17:32-33 mentioning Lot’s wife and the securing/losing of one’s life, the clear references to the coming of the “Son of Man” in 17:30-31 still govern the parable.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

177

leading to it being considered in this chapter.164 Though the basic structure of the parable is the same in Matthew and Luke,165 the first image involving two men differs in the two accounts,166 and in the second image involving two women grinding, Matthew explicitly states they are ἐν τῷ μύλῳ whereas Luke simply has them ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. Though these differences are mentioned at various points in the discussion below, it is precisely due to the elements of interest in the present study that the parable can be assigned to Q as well as best analyzed, that is, on the basis of a foundational commonality in structure and characters, along with a fundamental similarity even between the differing images.167 6.3.1 Plot Analysis Once again, the reader of this parable is confronted with a highly compressed plot structure with the parable lacking a true denouement. In the first image, as already noted, the initial situation differs. Matthew has two men ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ whereas Luke has them ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς.168 Though Matthew’s image involves an arena of labor or activity 164. Of course, this rationale could also be applied to Q 17:37; however; the fact that a “wisdom” theme is far more prominent in that parable has led me to discuss it in the following chapter. Cf. also n. 2 above. 165.  Cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 105, and the literature cited on the same page in n. 195. 166. Here, many incline to the view that Matthew preserves the wording found in Q. Cf., e.g., Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 826; Michael Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative mitten im Alltag (Mitgenommen oder zurückgelassen): Q 17,34f. (Mt 24,40f. / Lk 17,34f. / EvThom 61,1),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et  al.), 233; idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 515n208, where Labahn states, “Das häusliche Bild vom Liegen auf der Kline in der Nacht (Lk 17,34) stellt eine sekundäre Interpretation dar . . . die im lukanischen Kontext als Kontrast zur Situation der Menschen außer Haus fungiert”; and Melzer-Keller, “Frauen in der Logienquelle,” 50–1. Offering a different opinion, however, are Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:382. Kirk, Composition, 257, 260, 261, also posits “on one couch” for Q. 167. At the conclusion of her reconstruction of this parable, Harb admits that we “nicht eindeutig zwischen ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ und ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς entscheiden können” yet, in sum, “die Entscheidung . . . also  – trotz einiger Unsicherheit  – zugunsten des matthäischen Textes [fällt]” (Die eschatologische Rede, 114–15). Here, once again, the intertextual approach advocated in this study can avoid basing an analysis of Q upon an “Unsicherheit” in wording. To state, as does Helga Melzer-Keller, that “die meisten Differenzen [between Matthew and Luke] . . . mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auf Lukas zurück [gehen]” seems to me unwarranted (Jesus und die Frauen: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung nach den synoptischen Überlieferungen [HBS 14; Freiburg: Herder, 1997], 341; emphasis added). 168.  The precise image in Luke is not entirely clear. Is it two men sharing a bed? Or two men reclining on a dining couch? Alicia Batten, for instance, mentions two men “on one couch . . . which may refer to two men reclining at a banquet” (“More Queries for Q: Women and Christian Origins,” BTB 24 [1994]: 48), and John Kloppenborg states that

178

The Parables in Q

and Luke’s one of lying in a bed or reclining at a table, an underlying similarity is that in both instances the two individuals find themselves in the same circumstances. That is to say, there is no difference in regard to the locale of the men, whatever that locale might be. The complication is not explicitly narrated, namely, that in the midst of the situation in which these two men find themselves, the moment of the “Son of Man’s” coming or his revelation arrives. The transforming action is the “taking” or “leaving” with the final situation that of one having been taken and one having been left.169 The parallel second image170 has the same initial situation in Matthew and Luke, even if they identify in a different way the location where the two individuals, in this case women, are grinding.171 Once again, the complication of the “Son of Man’s” coming is not narrated and both the transforming action and final situation are the same as in the first image.172 6.3.2 Characters In the broadest terms, this double parable has five characters: two sets of two individuals, with one of each set being taken and one of each set being left, and the

“Luke’s δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς (17:34) probably refers to two males (ὁ εἷς. . .ὁ ἕτερος) at table” (“Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q,” HTR 80 [1987]:  302n57; cf. also Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 493–4). Christoph Heil is far more certain in his formulation: “Die κλίνη ist hierbei nicht das ‘Bett,’ sondern das ‘Speisesofa’” (Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q [BZNW 111; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003], 173n48). For further discussion of the issue, cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 108–109. There is a parallel to the Lukan version of this saying in Gos. Thom. 61, concerning which Labahn states, “M.E. setzt EvThom 61,1 Lk 17,34 voraus, aber zwischen beiden Texten liegt eine weitere Phase produktiver Interpretation und Weitergabe, die vereinfacht, auslässt und verdeutlicht” (“Die plötzliche Alternative,” 233). Differently, April DeConick sees oral tradition and not Luke as the more likely source for the saying, for, “the logion when compared with the Synoptic versions displays characteristics of oral transmission and shows no signs of secondary orality” (The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel [London: T&T Clark, 2007], 201). On the challenge of evaluating the potential parallel in Apoc. Zeph. 2:2-4, cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 112–14, 205. 169.  Despite Mt. 24:40 being in the present and Lk. 17:34 in the future tense, παραλαμβάνω and ἀφίημι are passive in both accounts. In addition, despite Matthew and Luke referring to each of the two individuals slightly differently (Matthew twice uses εἷς whereas Luke uses εἷς followed by ἕτερος), the meaning is obviously the same. 170. The tight parallelism between the two sections in the parable is often noted. Labahn, for instance, refers to a “strenger paralleler Komposition” (“Die plötzliche Alternative,” 227; cf. idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 515). 171. As noted above, Matthew has them ἐν τῷ μύλῳ and Luke simply states ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. 172.  Here again Matthew has present passive verbs and Luke future passive verbs. Matthew also twice uses μία whereas Luke uses μία followed by ἑτέρα.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

179

implied subject of the passive verbs. The paralleled characters will be considered first before giving attention to the one engaging in the taking and leaving. When considering the two men and the two women as fiktive Wesen, the first point to make about their synthetic component is that they are presented as a so-called gendered couplet.173 Despite the differences in the presentation of the parable in Matthew and Luke, both set forth two men in the first example and two women in the second example.174 This is significant, on the one hand, in that having two in each group is necessary for the narratival element setting forth two distinct fates,175 and, on the other hand, for the universality of the parable, a point to which I return below. In addition, and perhaps not surprisingly in such a brief parable, no character is involved in any dialogue, though the depiction of each scene presents or implies some sort of “activity,” a point which begins moving toward the mimetic component of these characters. The “activity” in which the men are engaged, whether reclining and eating, or lying in a bed and sleeping, or working in a field, is implied by the location they are in. The women, however, are explicitly said to be grinding, that is, working at a mill, regardless of whether that locale is then directly identified or not.176 The activity of these characters in the first instance, whatever that activity may be, is contrasted with their passivity when the parable describes their sudden fate. As such, “die im Vordersatz aktivisch eingeführten zwei Personen sind im zweigliedrigen Nachsatz passiv dem Schicksal aus Mitnahme oder Zurücklassen ausgeliefert.”177 The fact that both men/women

173.  Gerd Theißen terms it “eine geschlechtssymmetrischen Paarbildung” (“Frauen im Umfeld Jesu,” in Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gerd Theißen [ed. Annette Merz; FRLANT 202; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003], 95). 174.  Cf. Schweizer, Matthäus, 300: “Bei beiden [Matthew and Luke] handelt es sich im ersten Beispiel um zwei Männer, im zweiten um zwei Frauen.” Unlikely is Manson’s view that a “man and wife” in bed are depicted (Sayings, 146; cf. also Melzer-Keller, “Frauen in der Logienquelle,” 50–1; and eadem, Jesus und die Frauen, 312, where she sees this logion as part of Luke’s “Relativierung der Ehe” and 342). Labahn is rightly critical of this view, noting that it is “sprachlich und sachlich nicht gerechtfertigt” for Luke too preserves the gendered couplets (“Die plötzliche Alternative,” 233; cf. also Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 496). 175.  Cf. Labahn’s observation: “Die Zweizahl der Personen in beiden Gliedern ist die notwendige Anzahl für das Erzählen einer Alternative” (“Die plötzliche Alternative,” 228). 176. If the image in Q is the Lukan one and if the men and women are understood to be engaged in their respective activities concurrently, then the observation by Theißen might be relevant: “Und was tun die Männer im Haus? Sie schlafen – während die Frauen an der Mühle schon arbeiten. Die Lastenverteilung ist sehr asymmetrisch” (“Frauen im Umfeld Jesu,” 97). Theißen may have a point; however, it is not entirely clear that the temporal component of such a comparison, that is, “the men are doing this while the women are doing this,” is necessarily intended and in any case, the intertextual comparison cannot be based upon the precise reading of one of the evangelists. 177. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 515.

180

The Parables in Q

are engaged in the same activity and yet face different fates raises the question of what mimetic component of these characters actually determines their fate? The parable itself does not answer this question leading the hearer or reader to seek an answer through the context of the parable in Q.178 That context is considered below. Finally, when considering these characters as Symbol, the central aspect of their thematic component appears to be related to both the fact that they appear as a gendered couplet and that they are engaged in some sort of daily activity. As rightly highlighted by Fleddermann, “The gender pairing in the first and third clauses reinforces the image of a universal judgment that engulfs all men and women and divides them into two groups.”179 Simply stated: “Alle sollen sich in diesen Figuren wiedererkennen können.”180 As such, not only is there an appeal to the addressee of the parable to ask on what basis the fates of these characters are determined, there is also an appeal for the addressee to ask further, “Which of these two fates is my own?” Luz helpfully sums up the point in his comment, “Die große Scheidung . . . trifft einfache, nicht besondere Menschen. Die Leser/innen sollen denken: Sie könnte auch dich und mich treffen.”181 In addition to the men and women, a further character is implicitly presented through the use of passive verbs. As a fiktives Wesen, the synthetic component of this character is thus constructed by implication. The mimetic component of this character is shaped by the actions of “taking” and “leaving,” which, in turn, ascribes a judging, or at least a distinguishing, activity to the figure. When attention is given to the identity of this character, which in this case is the thematic component of the character as Symbol, several scholars have seen the agent to be the angels of God along the lines of the image in, for example, Mk 13:27, Rev. 14:15, or 1 En. 100:4.182 Yet, there are also references to God being involved in the activity of “gathering” (e.g. 2 Macc. 2:18; Wis. 4:10-11; and Did. 10:5) and Josef Zmijewski notes that “von ‘einsammelnden’ Engeln im Text nicht die Rede [ist].”183 He therefore concludes, “das Passiv ist vielmehr – wie sonst im biblischen Sprachgebrauch – Umschreibung göttlichen Tuns.”184 Heil agrees with this latter interpretation and suggests that there may be a 178.  Labahn rightly recognizes, “in der unerwarteten Plötzlichkeit liegt ein Appelcharakter, auch wenn sich keine direkte oder durch die Charaktere ausgesprochenen Regel findet” (“Die plötzliche Alternative,” 228). 179. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 835. Cf. also the statement by Zmijewski: “Klarer als durch dieses Doppelbeispiel kann nicht zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, daß die göttliche Scheidung bei der Parusie auf alle Menschen (Mann und Frau) in gleicher Weise erstreckt” (Eschatologiereden, 496). 180. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 181. 181. Luz, Matthäus, 3:450–51. 182.  Cf., e.g., the statement by Joachim Jeremias:  “Die Engel Gottes vollziehen die Scheidung” (Die Verkündigung Jesu [vol. 1 of Neutestamentliche Theologie; 3d ed.; Gütersloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1979], 130). Schulz agrees and refers to further literature supporting this view (Q, 285n161). 183. Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 502. 184. Ibid.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

181

remembrance of the taking up of Enoch or Elijah.185 Such an allusion is not beyond the realm of possibility; however, the context of this parable within the discussion of the coming of the Son of Man problematizes this connection to Enoch or Elijah.186 In any case, regardless of the precise identification of the actor behind the passive verbs, that the activity is ultimately to be traced back to God is clear, as is the fact that in Q, the emphasis falls upon this event as related to the revelation of the Son of Man. Of significance concerning this figure as Symbol, and a point that is considered further in relation to other parables at the conclusion of this volume, is that whether the actions are viewed as being performed by angels or by God, the activity here does not seem to be connected to the actions of the Son of Man, but rather as that which is done at his revelation. Therefore, as noted by Gertraub Harb, “in Q 17 tritt Jesus also nicht als Richter auf.”187 6.3.3 Images The present study of Q as an intertext cannot provide a detailed analysis of the image involving the male characters in this parable due to the uncertainty of which image was present in Q.  On the one hand, if the reading was the Lukan ἐπὶ κλίνης, this depiction could reveal that one is dealing with an event affecting even the closest relationship of those sharing a bed. Alternatively, if the image points to a dining couch, this could create a connection to the eating and drinking mentioned in Q 17:27 with reference to the days of Noah.188 On the other hand, if the reading was the Matthean ἐν τῷ ἀγρω, then the men, along with the women discussed below, “werden in typischer Arbeit an typischen Orten und in typischen Verhaltensweisen ihres zeitgenössischen Alltagslebens vorgestellt.”189 Of course, there is no “on the third hand,” but it could be that the precise wording of Q was not retained by either Matthew or Luke. The second image is the same in both Matthew and Luke and involves women who are “grinding.” As Gustav Dalman noted, “daß die Tätigkeit an der Handmühle Frauensache ist . . . wird in Matt. 24,41, Lk. 17,35 vorausgesetzt.”190 At the same time, 185.  Heil states, “Die Verwendung des passivum divinum παραλαμβάνεται in den vv. 34 f. erinnert an die ‘Aufnahmen’ Henochs (Gen 5,24) und Elijas (2 Kön 2,11)” (Lukas und Q, 173). 186. So also Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative,” 231. 187.  Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 184. This point and its significance is discussed further in the concluding chapter under the heading “11.1.3 ‘Son of Man’ and Judgment.” 188. Cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 108–109. 189.  Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 515 (NB: the cross-reference by Labahn on p. 354n403 to “Seite 506” is incorrect). Cf. Xenophon, Oec. 7.19–22, for the sentiment that man’s nature is adapted for outdoor tasks and woman’s for indoor tasks. There is, however, also evidence pointing to women likewise working in the field, as a brief perusal of the Book of Ruth already reveals. Cf. also the comments and references in Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative,” 229–30. 190.  Gustav Dalman, Von der Ernte zum Mehl:  Ernten, Dreschen, Worfeln, Sieben, Verwahren, Mahlen (vol. 3 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina; SDPI 6; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann,

182

The Parables in Q

precise details are lacking for Harb rightly notes that “die Situation nicht genau beschrieben, sondern als typisches Beispiel erwähnt wird.”191 In any case, though it has already been observed that many see the parallel formulation in Matthew (ἐν τῷ ἀγρω . . . ἐν τῷ μύλῳ) as the reading in Q, it is interesting that the intertextual point, that is, the component that Q as a source undoubtedly had and that Matthew and Luke picked up on irrespective of the precise wording, is precisely that which the Lukan wording expresses in the second image. The fundamental point is that the men and the women are ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. That is to say, they are in the same place, doing the same thing, and, based on external factors, indistinguishable. This is the foundational aspect of the image provided by Q, independently of the actual words found in Q. The general point made by Harb is absolutely correct: “Nur einer von denen, die das Gleiche tun, wird mitgenommen – nur einer zurückgelassen. Dasselbe Szenario spielt sich auch auf weiblicher Seite ab.”192 In some ways no greater precision than this is possible, nor is it necessary.193 A second image is found in the actions described by the passive verbs παραλαμβάνεται/παραλημφθήσεται and ἀφίεται/ἀφεθήσεται. Here one is confronted with a certain ambiguity concerning which of the images is to be interpreted positively and which negatively, leading Dodd to have written that “it is not even clear whether the one taken or the one left has the better lot.”194 Quite often the “taking” is viewed positively in the sense of being taken to God. With a view toward other posited occurrences of the verb in Q, Fleddermann argues that “we should probably understand ‘one is taken’ to refer to salvation and ‘one is left’ to refer to judgment (compare Q 13,35).”195 Yet, Kloppenborg contends, “Although the language of ‘taking’ (παραλημφθήσεται) and ‘leaving’ (ἀφεθήσεται)

1933), 229. For a description of hand mills, cf. ibid., 219–30, with references to depictions at the end of the volume. For rabbinic references to women grinding, cf. Str-B 1:966. Cf. also the discussion in Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 180, including summary references to the insightful and descriptive discussion in Carol Meyers, “Archäologie als Fenster zum Leben von Frauen in Alt-Israel,” in Tora (vol. 1.1 of Die Bibel und die Frauen; ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto, and Andrea Taschl-Erber; Stuttgart:  Kohlhammer, 2010), 63–109. 191. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 179. 192. Ibid., 204; emphasis added. 193. Note also the insightful comment by Harb concerning this parable: “Wahrscheinlich soll die Darstellung viele Identifikationsmöglichkeiten bieten und dürfte demnach absichtlich offen formuliert sein” (ibid., 298). Unfortunately, however, she nowhere seems to consider how such openness in certain imagery within Q offers an avenue for considering how such open imagery could also be recognized apart from a verbatim reconstruction of Q. 194. Dodd, Parables, 87. 195.  Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 836. So also, among others, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:383; Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative,” 228; Luz, Matthäus, 3:450; and Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Leipzig:  Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 420.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

183

might in another context connote the taking up of the faithful to which Paul refers, here the allusion is to the Lot story, and the imagery is reversed: some are ‘swept away’ (συμπαραλαμβάνω) as in Gen 19:17 while Lot and his king are spared (ἀφίημι, Gen 18:26).”196 Kloppenborg here bases his point upon an “allusion” to the Lot story,197 though Zeller argued that with a view toward the time of Noah the same sentiment can be found as the wicked were torn away whereas the righteous were spared.198 The precise manner in which the image functioned may not be resolvable, but regardless of which element is positive and which is negative, the basic point remains that one of the two men and one of the two women faces judgment while the other does not. 6.3.4 The Parable in Q If the order as reconstructed by Harb,199 the CEQ, and Fleddermann200 of Q 17:23-24, 37, 26-27, 30, 34-35 is correct, then this parable concludes the eschatological discourse in Q.201 Regardless of its precise placement, however, it is clear that both Matthew and Luke locate this parable in the context of sayings concerning the coming of the Son of Man. In this context, the parable picks up on the idea of the “suddenness” of this coming in Q 17:24202 and, in conjunction with Q 17:27, of the judgment falling “while people engage in the full range of human activities, ordinary activities like eating and working and special activities like celebrations.”203 Kirk has argued that “verses 34–35 form a counterpart to the Noah-Lot examples 17:26–29. Both sections concretize the opening metaphor of ‘lightning’ by

196. Kloppenborg, “City and Wasteland,” 152. 197. Elsewhere he formulates slightly differently, though making the same point, namely, that on the basis of the verbs used in LXX Gen. 18:26 and 19:17, “the Lot story is invoked . . . implicitly in 17:34–35” (Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 119). If Lk. 17:28-29 was in Q (cf. n. 205 below), then the allusion to the Lot account may no longer be implicit but rather explicit. 198. Cf. Zeller, Kommentar, 91. For further discussion of the view that being “taken” is a reference to judgment, cf. the discussion in Benjamin L. Merkle, “Who Will Be Left Behind? Rethinking the Meaning of Matthew 24:40–41 and Luke 17:34–35,” WTJ 72 (2010): 169–79. 199. Cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 123–4. 200. Cf. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 827. 201.  So also Schulz, Q, 281. Cf., however, the discussion of the placement of Q 17:37 under the heading “7.4.4 The Parable in Q.” 202.  Cf. also Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative,” 228; and idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 516. 203. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 836. Though these activities are viewed as neutral by many (cf. e.g., Zeller, Kommentar, 91), Louise Schottroff offers a feminist reading that posits a presentation of “schuldhaftes Beharren und Weitermachen . . . Die Schuld der Flutgeneration wird inhaltlich als Beharren auf der Intaktheit des partriarchalen Hauses beschrieben: essen und trinken, heiraten und verheiraten . . . sind die Orientierungspunkte des Alltags, die nicht verrückt werden sollen . . . Wir finden hier eine androzentrische Patriarchatskritik, die

184

The Parables in Q

depicting judgment suddenly striking and interrupting the normal course of human activities.”204 Regardless of whether one views the Lot account as present in Q or not,205 Kirk’s final comments are undoubtedly correct: the judgment will come suddenly and it will interrupt humanity’s daily routines. It is noteworthy that this point remains true completely independently of the precise wording of the parable in Q 17:34-35. The parable depicts that it is during and in the midst of “ordinariness” that the coming of the Son of Man will occur. Furthermore, the sudden and unexpected judgment brings “inexorable severance, even where mortal eyes see no distinction.”206 Or, as Kloppenborg puts it, “eschatological division will occur in the midst of quotidian activities and it will tear apart families, friends, and coworkers.”207 There is then an unsettling component to the parable. As Labahn noted: Im Kontext der Aussagen über den erwarteten Tag des Menschensohns in Q (17,23–37) rauben die beiden Parallelerzählungen über die zwei Männer und die zwei Frauen die Sicherheit der Adressaten; die Plötzlichkeit, Universalität und Unberechenbarkeit des Tages des Menschensohns fordern stetige Bereitschaft, um in der Alternative zwischen Heil und Gericht auf der Seite des Heils zu stehen.208

This robbing of the addressee’s security leads to the above-noted questions arising in the mind of a hearer or reader of the parable, namely, the questions concerning one’s own fate and what it is that determines that fate.209 Though Labahn correctly refers to the necessity of a “stetige Bereitschaft” in the above citation, the an die Wurzeln von patriarchalem Männerverhalten heranreicht, aber trotzdem weiterhin die Situation der Frauen nicht ernst nimmt” (“Wanderprophetinnen:  Eine feministische Analyse der Logienquelle,” EvTh 51 [1991]: 334). 204. Kirk, Composition, 261. 205.  Cf. ibid., 256n398, for those advocating that the Lot example in Lk. 17:28-29, not paralleled in Matthew, was found in Q.  A  helpful presentation of arguments often presented in favor of including the passage in Q can be found in Catchpole, Quest for Q, 248. Kirk himself refers to the Q-status of vv. 28–29 as having “still unresolved problems” (Composition, 256). 206. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 53. 207.  Kloppenborg, “Symbolic Eschatology,” 302. Elsewhere Kloppenborg has similarly stated that this Q saying “raises the specter of co-workers (in Matthew) or co-workers and friends (in Luke) being torn apart” (“City and Wasteland,” 152). Cf. also Manson’s statement:  “The day of the Son of Man cuts across all human relations; it has no regard for ties of blood or marriage, for economic or social distinctions. It has its own principle of division and on that principle it makes a clean cut, separating mankind into two classes” (Sayings, 146). 208. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 271. 209.  As Schottroff put it, “Das Logion rückt den HörerInnen auf den Leib:  Bist du es oder deine Nachbarin, die es treffen wird? Bist du wachsam, hörst du auf die Stimme Gottes?” (“Wanderprophetinnen,” 337).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

185

parable does not indicate what that entails.210 It is, in fact, other Q parables, along with other Q logia, that provide the answers.211 In the final chapter of this volume further attention will be given to this point, though it is not difficult to see how the return of a master, a house in a storm, and even the issue of serving God or mammon feed into the scenario depicted in this parable. Though individual Q parables contribute to the document in their own way, they are also intertwined and interconnected with each other. A further interesting point here is that in the parable, as indeed throughout the context in Q 17, there are no signs that accompany the coming of the Son of Man. In fact, it is quite the contrary. As Kloppenborg has helpfully observed, “the Day” will appear “in the midst, not of apocalyptic disasters (like Mark 13), but of the perfectly ordinary (Q 17:26–27, 28–30). There will be no signs (17:23). It will be as unheralded as the destruction of Sodom or the generation of Noah, and village bonds created by kinship and work will be torn apart (Q 17:34–35).”212 In addition, in the absence of signs, Schulz has noted that in Q “von Flucht wie in Mk 13,14ff . . . überhaupt keine Rede sein [kann].”213 Thus, quite differently from the “little Apocalypse” in Mark, Q makes no mention of warnings or events through which the coming, eschatological end can be perceived, and there is no place to which one can withdraw in the face of a looming disaster. One moment it will be “life as usual” and in the next, the day of the Son of Man’s coming will have been revealed. Interestingly, however, the division that takes place in the parable when the Son of Man comes is already adumbrated, and in a certain sense even effected, through the division that Q 12:51-52 depicts on account of Jesus having come.214 Thus, there is perhaps a sense, even in Q, of an “already” depicting that which is “not yet.” In any case, as Harb rightly notes, “Die eschatologische Scheidung wird nach der Entscheidung für oder gegen Jesus gefällt (vgl. Q

210.  Similarly, Zmijewski is correct in his observation that “die Scheidung vollzieht sich dabei nach dem geheimnisvollen Ratschluß Gottes, der nicht äußere Maßstäbe anlegt, sondern auf die innere Beschaffenheit der Menschen schaut” (Eschatologiereden, 505); yet, even though the parable does indeed point to the “innere Beschaffenheit” as being crucial, it does not reveal what constitutes it. 211. Cf. the sentiment of Harb: “Die Zeit der Bewährung und Bekehrung ist jetzt. Dabei enthält die gesamte Rede in Q 17 eigentlich keine näheren Anweisungen, wie man gerettet werden kann. Es muss auf die Gesamtheit des Spruchevangeliums rückverwiesen werden” (Die eschatologische Rede, 178). 212. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 298–9. 213. Schulz, Q, 285. 214.  Harb even states, “In gewisser Weise nimmt das Bekenntnis zu Jesus die eschatologische Scheidung bereits vorweg, vor der in Q 17,34-35 gewarnt wird” (Die eschatologische Rede, 185; cf. the similar statement in ibid., 217). Cf. also Tuckett’s comment: “in Q 12:51–53, it is Jesus himself who brings the eschatological division within families” (Q and the History of Earliest Christianity, 210).

186

The Parables in Q

12,8-9). Diese Entscheidung muss im Hier und Jetzt fallen, sonst ist es zu spät (vgl. Q 17,34-35).”215 One final point to consider here is the significance of this parable incorporating women as characters. On the one hand, the imagery (especially if fieldwork and milling are the images) simply adopts gender stereotypes and patriarchal structures. Indeed, Schottroff asserted, “Die Logienquelle spricht durchweg eine androzentrische Sprache, die der patriarchalen Ideologie entspricht,” observing that “nur im Bereich häuslicher Arbeit werden Frauen als handelnde Menschen wahrgenommen (Mühle mahlen Mt 24,41/Lk 17,35; Brotbacken Mt 13,33/Lk 13,20f).”216 Nevertheless, she also observed, “Diese Wahrnehmung von Frauenhausarbeit ist für die patriarchale Gesellschaft ungewöhnlich. ‘Normaler’weise wird Frauenhausarbeit nicht als ‘Arbeit’ im Sinne von Männerarbeit ernstgenommen, in der Regel wird sie nicht erwähnt.”217 For this reason, Alicia Batten seems to be correct in pointing out that “the pairing of these two sayings is another example of Q’s rhetorical efforts to address both men and women.”218 Along these lines, Labahn, recognizing the presence of gender stereotypes and stating that in a contemporary context such uncritical acceptance of prescribed gender roles must be questioned, also observes that men and women are treated fully equally in the “being taken” or “being left behind” with the result: “Sie werden von dieser Alternativsetzung als religiöse wie ethische Wesen gleichermaßen ernst genommen und gefordert.”219 When considering the possible significance of this fact, Willam E. Arnal is certainly correct in cautioning that neither this saying, nor any of the other gendered couplets, “is part of an argument about or discussion of women or the role of women within the group” and that this fact “should give us some pause in extrapolating directly from the phenomenon to actual female itinerants, supporters, or functionaries of any sort.”220 At the same time, he rightly concludes “that the basic appeal to 215. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 217. 216. Schottroff, “Wanderprophetinnen,” 332–3. 217. Ibid., 335. 218.  Batten, “More Queries for Q,” 48. Kloppenborg refers to this parable of one of “at least four gender pairs” in Q (Excavating Q, 97; the others are Q 11:31-32; 12:24-28; and 13:18-21; cf. Chapter 7, n. 60, and Chapter 9, n. 93). 219.  Labahn, “Die plötzliche Alternative,” 232. Cf. also the statements by Melzer-Keller: “Durch die Verwendung eines Bildes sowohl aus der männlichen als auch aus der weiblichen Arbeitswelt wird deutlich, daß die endzeitliche Diakrisis universal ist und daß alle Menschen, Männer wie Frauen, ohne Unterschied zur Entscheidung aufgerufen sind und dementsprechend gerichtet werden” (“Frauen in der Logienquelle, 51) and Schottroff: “Hier wird den Frauen eine eigene Entscheidung und eigenes Handeln in der Nachfolge Jesu zugetraut” (“Wanderprophetinnen,” 337). 220.  William E. Arnal, “Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations:  From Rhetoric to Social History,” JBL 116 (1997):  81. Contra, e.g., the conclusions in Schottroff, “Wanderprophetinnen,” 344. Similarly critical is Harb:  “Ob Frauen tatsächlich in der christlichen Gemeinde eine spezielle Rolle hatten und welche das war (wie z.B. Wanderprophetinnen), kann aus dieser Stelle jedenfalls nicht abgeleitet werden” (Die eschatologische Rede, 207).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Son of Man” Parables

187

adherence to the Q program is launched with examples drawn from the world of both male and female experience . . . suggests that Q’s tradents envisioned their agenda as broadly pertinent to the village society around them.”221 At the same time, in at least a limited sense, the abovementioned fact that women are apparently required to make a choice just like the men entails at least a potential level of patriarchal critique.222

221.  Arnal, “Gendered Couplets,” 92–3. I  agree with Arnal’s cautious statements and therefore am not sure if this parable, or other passages in Q, really provide “glimpses of a group of people who offered a more inclusive environment for women” (Batten, “More Queries for Q,” 49). Cf. also the assessment similar to that offered by Arnal in Melzer-Keller, “Frauen in der Logienquelle,” 59–61. 222.  As such, this saying could, in the words of Amy-Jill Levine with respect to passages in “Q1,” “demonstrate egalitarian potential” but it is not necessarily any more than that (“Who’s Catering the Q Affair?: Feminist Observations on Q Paraenesis,” Semeia 50 [1990]: 151).

Chapter 7 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E SU S :  “ S A P I E N T IA L” P A R A B L E S

A further heuristic grouping of parables could loosely be referred to as “sapiential” or “wisdom” parables. Tuckett has rightly observed, “There is no doubt that Q does contain elements which most would regard as ‘sapiential’ in some sense, i.e. appealing to experience, to the regularity of the created world, etc.”1 and then pointed out, for example, that “the saying about the blind leading the blind (Q 6:39) or salt losing its taste (Q 14:34) seem clearly to fall into this category.”2 Of course, the debate concerning whether Q should be understood primarily in “wisdom” or “prophetic” categories is well known, and it is not my intention to foray into this issue here. The point here is not a consideration of the genre of Q as such, but rather a grouping of parables highlighting a “sapiential” component in the sense set forth by Tuckett above. Once again, in nearly every instance, these parables could also have been located in another chapter, such as the ensuing chapter of “discipleship parables” or the final chapter considering “community parables.” For this reason, their “sapiential” nature is not to be understood as a denial of the presence of other important themes.

1.  One can here find several clear examples of Robert C. Tannehill’s point: “The image is part of the everyday world, the world which we recognize as real, and yet, as image, it is the concentrated representation of something else, something which does not appear except through the image” (The Sword of His Mouth [SBLSemeiaSt 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 62). 2.  Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 353. Tuckett’s broader discussion indicates that in many instances he is skeptical concerning the identification of other examples of “wisdom” as “sapiential,” seeing them rather to be “clearly placed in an eschatological, or other specific, context” or as “prophetic.” Wishing to avoid making “wisdom” a term so broad and inclusive that it can encompass almost any tradition, Tuckett concludes that “if we keep to a stricter definition of wisdom then perhaps Q is rather less ‘sapiential’ than many in the recent past have supposed” (ibid., 353–4).

190

The Parables in Q

7.1 Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39) Mt. 15:14

Lk. 6:39

εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς· ἄφετε αὐτούς· τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοί μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; [τυφλῶν]· τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται. οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐμπεσοῦνται; This parable3 is introduced in Matthew with a phrase apparently referring back to the Pharisees mentioned in Mt. 15:12,4 whereas Luke specifically refers to Jesus speaking a “parable” to the disciples (Lk. 6:39 and 6:20).5 Despite its brevity, the parable contains significant differences between the version found in Matthew and the one found in Luke.6 As will be seen, however, 3.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 20, thought that the term παραβολή here should be rendered “proverb” (original: Sprichwort; also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 87, who labels the saying a “proverb”) though Jeremias later described the third section of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain as “parabolic” (original: parabolisch) (Parables of Jesus, 93). Similarly, Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 207, includes the verse in a list of “short proverbs or aphorisms” but in idem, Jesus Tradition in Q, 93, sees a link between Q 6:43-46 and Q 6:39-42 on the basis of “parabolic speech.” Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 1:368, outdoes all these commentators in speaking of “der sprichwortartige, gleichnishafte Spruch.” In contradistinction to such unhelpful parsing of language, reasons for why this verse should simply be considered a parable were offered above in Chapter 2. 4. Ulrich Luz comments on the Matthean location, “Matthew has kept the sharp Q saying about the blind leading the blind . . . for his polemical section 15:1–20 and thus connected this section with the Woes Discourse” (Studies in Matthew [trans. Rosemary Selle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 52n37). 5.  As Ronald A. Piper has pointed out, “ The most vexing problem for the reconstruction of this collection of sayings is whether the sayings in Lk 6:39 and 40 were part of the collection known to Matthew. The two sayings should be considered separately, for in Matthew they are employed independently in Mt 15:14 and 10:24–5” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition:  The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus [SNTSMS 61; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1989], 39; for an overview of views concerning the compositional history of Q 6:37-42, cf. Kirk, Composition, 165–7). Jeremias noted the difference in location and then concluded in a note: “In neither of the two Evangelists is the context original” (Parables, 41). Thus, the challenge of considering the place of the parable in Q, as noted below, is significant. 6. The differences, for instance, are considerably greater than in the likewise very short parables spoken by John the Baptist and the Centurion discussed in Chapter  4. Though many scholars ascribe the parable to Q, there are dissenting voices. Cf. the discussion in

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

191

despite these differences the basic plot, characters, and images drawn from Q are the same.7

7.1.1 Plot Analysis As is the case with other very brief parables, the narrative progression is highly compressed. The parable itself is presented by Matthew as a conditional statement (Mt. 15:14; cf. Gos. Thom. 34),8 but Luke (Lk. 6:39) offers two rhetorical questions.9 The initial situation is set forth as a scenario in which one blind individual is leading another blind individual. The complication is already contained within this initial situation, for the fundamental problem of one person who cannot see attempting to lead another person who cannot see is patently obvious. The transforming action involves the shift from leading to falling, with Matthew simply stating what the outcome of a blind person leading another blind person will be and Luke, once again, utilizing a question to indicate the result. The complication is thus not resolved but rather leads to the final situation of having both blind individuals in a pit.10 In sum, the plot, as presented in both Matthew and Luke, involves a miniature narrative concerning blind individuals involved in the actions of leading/being led, falling, and winding up in a pit.11

Linden E. Youngquist et  al., Q 6:37–42:  Not Judging—The Blind Leading the Blind—The Disciple and the Teacher—The Speck and the Beam (ed. Christoph Heil and Gertraud Harb; Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 126–45. Cf. also the much briefer overview in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 38. 7.  Jülicher even stated, “Mt’ [sic] Bericht weicht von dem des Lc nur bezüglich des Kontextes erheblich ab. Das Gleichniswort selber lautet bei ihm so ähnlich, dass man schon nur eine gemeinsame griechische Quelle postulieren möchte” (Gleichnisreden, 2:52). 8.  Concerning the parable in Gos. Thom. 34, Fleddermann is of the opinion that “since the Thomas saying depends on the redactional text of Matthew, it is secondary” (Q: Reconstruction, 716). 9. The Lukan form is often posited for Q. Delbert Burkett, e.g., contends that “this difference in wording probably arose when Matthew adapted the saying to the Markan context into which he inserted it” (The Unity and Plurality of Q [vol. 2 of Rethinking the Gospel Sources; SBLECL 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009], 120), though this assumes that the Matthean location is secondary. 10. Matthew utilizes the verb πίπτω and Luke ἐμπίπτω. 11.  Here Zimmermann’s observation in regard to this parable, despite its brevity nevertheless having a plot sequence or sequence of action, is helpful: “It is not the quantitative extent of an action that is decisive but rather that an action is actually being narrated or introduced” (Puzzling the Parables, 138–9; cf. also p. 193). This observation is applicable to numerous other parables in Q.

192

The Parables in Q

7.1.2 Characters This parable has two characters, both of which are blind individuals. As fiktive Wesen, their synthetic component is constructed as the narrator simply presents them in their relationship to each other. The imagery of their being blind is significant in this construction, an image that is considered further below. The scene is set, there are two blind individuals who have hit the road, and as soon as their actions are described their mimetic component begins to be shaped. Here Gabi Kern is absolutely correct to observe, “die beiden Personen [verkörpern] innerhalb der Parabel trotz gleicher körperlicher Disposition zwei unterschiedliche Umgangsweisen mit ihrer Blindheit,”12 and this point is significant. In general, when pondering physical blindness, the idea that a blind individual would be led is not surprising. It would even be expected for those who cannot see to seek and accept assistance, when necessary, for them to find their way. But when the parable, right at the outset, states that it is another blind individual who is doing the leading, the light in which the characters are cast is significantly affected. Concerning the blind person allowing him- or herself to be led, it is possible for this individual to be unaware of the fact that his or her guide is blind. As such, this blind individual becomes the victim of a blind guide. If, however, for whatever reason, a blind person allows another blind person to lead the way that, quite clearly, would reflect negatively upon the judgment of the one being led. Differently, the physically blind person doing the leading definitely knows that she or he is blind. There is no possibility of a positive spin being put upon the situation. The question presents itself: why would a blind individual do such a thing? At the same time, however, the parable shows no interest in reflecting upon the narrated activity in terms of how the characters’ actions within the narrated world reflect upon their moral character. Rather, it is the image of blindness itself, coupled with the arresting depiction of one blind individual leading another, and the tragic end to which such a situation will come that falls into the center of the parable’s focus. In other words, as discussed further below, when considering the image of blindness, the parable itself points away from the mimetic component of the blind individuals within the narrative of the parable itself and toward the symbolic meaning of the scenario and events depicted. When considering these characters as Symbol, various concrete suggestions have been made for understanding the thematic component of blind leaders, in particular. Of course, to a certain extent this issue touches upon the place of the parable in Q, though a few preliminary observations can be made here. First, Hoffmann interpreted the “blind guides” as Zealots,13 though this interpretation has not convinced many. Tuckett, for example, refers to this view as one of the facets

12. Kern, “Absturzgefahr,” 61. 13. Cf. Paul Hoffmann, “Die Anfänge der Theologie in der Logienquelle,” in Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments (ed. Josef Schreinger and Gerhard Dautzenberg; 2d ed.; Würzberg: Echter Verlag, 1978), 149.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

193

of Hoffmann’s theory that are “unconvincing”14 and Kloppenborg noted that “if 6:39–45 is anti-Zealot criticism, it is highly oblique: nothing in the speech touches on the principal political tenets of the Zealot movement.”15 Heinz Schürmann contended that this verse was anti-Pharisaic and part of a collection of such material.16 Though this is the context in which the passage is found in Matthew, Kloppenborg again rightly counters that when considering the verse apart from its Matthean context, this image was common in antiquity and that “there is no reason to constrict its application to the Pharisaic opponents of the community.”17 7.1.3 Images Three significant images appearing in the parable are blindness, leading, and the pit. In the initial situation presented in this parable, Q clearly presents a point of contact with knowledge out of everyday experience, namely, the general truth that blind people cannot function as guides for other blind people.18 In conjunction

14. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 362. 15. Kloppenborg, Formation, 183. Cf. also the critical remarks in ibid., 254–6. 16.  Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 1:369. Schulz, Q, 473–4, also saw an anti-Pharisaic polemic operative in Q 6:39. Though Marshall states that “the original application must be a matter of guess-work” he also writes “that a polemical saying against the Pharisees is here [in Luke] used to warn the disciples may be near the mark” (Luke, 269). 17. Kloppenborg, Formation, 184. Kloppenborg actually goes a bit further in contending that though taking aim “at teachers (actual or imagined) who do not follow Jesus in his radical lifestyle and ethic . . . there is no compelling reason to suppose that 6:39–42 is formulated with outsiders and opponents in mind” (ibid., 184–5). It seems to me, however, that though it is helpful to argue against an exclusive interpretation of the parable as directed against the Pharisees, it is less helpful to restrict the interpretation in such a way as to exclude any outsiders from being in view. Would teachers who “do not follow Jesus” not be considered “outsiders”? Based on the view that the positions in both Matthew and Luke are redactional, Marcus J. Borg looked to Rom. 2:19 and the reference by Paul to fellow Jews being a “guide to the blind” in positing that Jesus “applied the proverb to those charged with a teaching responsibility in Judaism” (Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teachings of Jesus [SBEC 5; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1984], 116). The difficulty of determining precisely how Paul viewed such Jews along insider/outsider categories, however, highlights the challenge of the formation of community identity in early Jesus movements more generally. 18.  Cf. the opening lines by Καρίων in Aristophanes, Plutus, especially lines 13–17, where he bemoans that his master is leaving the temple of Apollo infected with madness and insistent on following a blind man. He states that this is opposed to all good sense and that it is up to those who can see clearly to guide those who can’t, but instead his master is following a blind man and compelling Καρίων to do the same. This passage is also mentioned by Kern, “Absturzgefahr,” 62. Labahn states that the image “knüpft an die Erfahrungen der Adressaten an” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 281) and Marshall refers to the thought as “proverbial” (Luke, 269).

194

The Parables in Q

with the comments above concerning the blind individuals as characters, it can be argued that the statement already appeals for a metaphorical transfer to the theological realm of “sight,” for, as Labahn observes, “die augenscheinliche Banalität stellt einen Hinweis darauf dar, dass das Wort nicht auf diese Erfahrungsebene zielt, sondern auf den metaphorischen Gehalt des semantischen Feldes ‘blind’ anspielt.”19 Metaphorically, blindness and seeing are images often employed as a commentary upon one’s ethical or spiritual state.20 Besides HB examples of this image (cf. Isa. 6:10; also LXX Ps. 145:8),21 Plato could refer to the “blind” as those who could not recognize goodness, beauty, or truth (cf. Resp. 6.484d; 6.506c; 7.518c or Phaedr. 270e) and gnostic groups used “blindness” (cf. Gos. Phil. 60 or Gos. Thom. 28)  as a description of the unenlightened.22 In Philo one finds a statement that Adolf Jülicher already labeled as “die frappanteste Parallele zu Lc 6 39,”23 namely: “But if some, regarding the wealth of nature as nothing, pursue that of vain opinions, relying on what is blind rather than what can see, and thus taking for their guide on the road that which is impaired, they are of necessity bound to fall.”24 Thus, it is fundamentally the image of one blind person being led by another blind person from which the parable draws in order to make its (metaphorical) point. The image of “being led” is related to concepts of leading and following in the teacher/disciple relationship,25 especially when viewed from the perspective

19.  Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 281. Cf. also Valantasis, The New Q, 69, and Bork’s comment, “Diese Parabel kann selbstverständlich nicht in ihrem wörtlichen Sinn erschöpft sein” (Raumsemantik, 162). 20. Cf. Jülicher’s conclusion that in this parable, “Jesus von leiblich Blinden sprach, aber eine Anwendung auf ähnliche Zustände im religiösen Leben wünschte” (Gleichnisreden, 2:54). 21.  Allison, in the context of discussing points of contact between Q 6 and Leviticus 19 considers the fact “that both Q 6 and Leviticus 19 speak of the blind, of fruit, and of measures” (Intertextual Jesus, 37). Here, however, the connections made are rather tenuous, and when Allison states “if Q 6:39 refers to the blind (τυφλός) leading the blind (τυφλόν), Lev 19:14 cautions against putting a stumbling block before the blind (LXX, τυφλοῦ),” he immediately admits “we are not here dealing with meaningful thematic parallels, but maybe the common words and images are intended to help further associate the two passages” (ibid.). 22. Cf. also the comments in Kern, “Absturzgefahr,” 63. 23. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:52. 24.  Philo, Virt. 2.7. Section division and translation are that of Walter T. Wilson, Philo of Alexandria On Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 3; Leiden:  Brill, 2011), 46. Geza Vermes makes the general observation: “The maxim taken out of context has an obvious general meaning. If the teacher has no true knowledge, both he and his pupils will go astray” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus [London: Allen Lane, 2003], 108). 25. Cf. the images in Q 9:57, 60, for example.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

195

of the symbolic use of the image of blindness. The connection between learning, or, more precisely, the lack of learning with blindness is also made by, for example, Sextus Empiricus. In Pyr. 3.259 he noted the impossibility of successful learning when teacher or pupil are incompetent, as in such a case a successful outcome is just as impossible as a blind person being able to lead another blind person.26 Ultimately, however, the parable points to the tragic end that befalls both blind men if the scenario depicted in the parable comes to pass. The leading of a blind individual by another blind individual results in both of them falling into a pit. As is often pointed out, the “pit” (βόθυνος) is a familiar image of destruction in the HB (cf., e.g., Ps. 7:16 [LXX λάκκος]; Prov. 28:10 [‫ ;]ְשׁחוּת‬Isa. 24:17-18; and Jer. 48:43-44 [LXX 31:43-44]; also LXX Isa. 47:11). Davies and Allison, with reference to Job 33:18; Ps. 16:10; 30:9; Isa 38:18, pose the question, “Does βόθυνον . . . here allude to Sheol, which is sometimes called a ‘pit’ (šaḥat)?”27 In any case, the image of destruction, and possibly death, is clearly an undesired and catastrophic outcome for the blind individuals.

7.1.4 The Parable in Q As already noted, the parable is found in differing locations in Matthew and Luke, and it is often posited that neither location is “original.”28 Quite obviously, this state of affairs creates a significant challenge for those seeking to reconstruct Q.  Hoffmann rightly observed a bit of a shift in Q scholarship in that “während von der Mehrzahl der älteren Autoren die lukanische Position der Sprüche als redaktionell beurteilt wird, gehen die Meinungen bei den neueren auseinander.”29 In his reconstruction, Fleddermann places this verse between Q 14:5 and Q 14:11,30 the former being a verse that the CEQ does not include in its reconstruction and the latter being a verse set in double square brackets. Fleddermann’s placement of this verse far later in Q thus leads him to view this parable as summarizing “the second half of the Woes against the Pharisees.”31 Though the possibility of seeing the Pharisees as one instance of the “blindness” depicted here is entirely appropriate, a definitive association, as mentioned in the discussion of the blind individuals as characters above, is not necessarily the case.

26. For this reference I am indebted to Kern, “Absturzgefahr,” 64. 27.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:533. The suggestion, not surprisingly, is rejected by Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:51. 28. Cf. n. 5 above. 29.  Hoffmann, “Blinde Führer?,” 12n43. For extensive documentation of the various views, cf. Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 145–213. 30. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 903. 31. Ibid., 717.

196

The Parables in Q

If one posits the Lukan context for Q, one comes to a different emphasis for the parable. Here the parable is the first in a series of brief parables in the middle of Jesus’s “sermon.” Kern observes that here there is a surprising shift from macarisms and imperatives to “die Sprache der Bilder.”32 It is thus within the context of Q 6:39-45, a series of verses, as Kloppenborg puts it, that is “unified by the concern with speaking and teaching (or correcting),”33 that the parable is interpreted. Looking to this setting, therefore, Kloppenborg states: “In the context, the saying implies that the ‘blind guides’ are those who try to outstrip their master by judging others. Thereby they fail to emulate divine mercy and show themselves to be blinded.”34 Ronald A. Piper posits a potential thematic point of contact with Q 6:41-42 so that “the reference to ‘leading’ is primarily parallel in thought to ‘judging’:  that is, putting oneself in a position of superiority.”35 Bringing various such thoughts together is Manson in his comments: “For one sinner to judge another is a piece of presumption. For one sinner to legislate for another is to court disaster. The only person who is fit to guide others is one who has himself seen the light. The only true teacher is he who has first been taught of God.”36 As such, via the parable the addressees are confronted with, on the one hand, “the theme of ‘disciple ethics,’ ”37 and, on the other hand, with the question of what competent leadership looks like, or perhaps better, who a competent leader is.38 With this latter question in mind, possible significance

32. Kern, “Absturzgefahr,” 61. 33. Kloppenborg, Formation, 187. Though also seeing the passage unified in Q, Allison, with a view specifically to vv. 39–42, argues that “the transparently independent origin of the materials is consistent with their being separated in the Gospel of Thomas. The parallels to Q 6:39 and 6:41–42 appear in Gos. Thom. 34 and 26, respectively; Q 6:40 is without parallel in Thomas” (Jesus Tradition in Q, 92n113). Cf. also Kirk’s survey of various composition theories referenced above in n. 5. 34. Kloppenborg, Formation, 184. 35. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 40. 36. Manson, Sayings, 57. Cf. also Bovon, Lukas, 332: “Solange sie noch blind sind, dürfen sie andere nicht beraten.” 37. Migaku Sato, “Wisdom Statements in the Sphere of Prophecy,” in The Gospel behind the Gospels, 154. 38. Cf. also Hoffmann’s comment: “Im Rückgriff auf eine alltägliche Erfahrung werden die Angesprochenen auf die Gefahren einer blinden Führerschaft hingewiesen und so  – a negativo  – provokativ der Frage konfrontiert, was einen kompetenten Führer in der Gemeinde kennzeichnet, der die ihm Anvertrauten nicht ins Verderben führt” (“Blinde Führer?,” 25). Kirk states that Q 6:39, along with 6:40, “thus interprets the general admonition, ‘judge not,’ in the direction of competence and incompetence as regards moral teachers and their leadership. Some who judge thereby arrogate for themselves moral leadership positions for which they are seriously unqualified” (Composition, 169).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

197

for the parable in Q independent of a decision concerning its precise location becomes possible. For instance, Kloppenborg views Q 6:39 (along with Q 6:40; 10:16; and 22:28-30) as reflecting “on the relationship between Jesus and his followers in respect to both hortatory sayings and the prophetic judgments.”39 Such reflection, regardless of the proximity in which Q 6:39 stood to these other Q passages, allows one to recognize the manner in which the parable supports Q’s goal of presenting Jesus as the authoritative teacher. In fact, Martin Ebner posits that the parable could have been spoken as a response to the accusation that Jesus is not “teacher material”:  “Ausgerechnet du willst ein Führer für Blinde sein?”40 Q would thus be underscoring that those following Jesus are not falling into a pit and that on the basis of the causal “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang” Jesus is proving himself a capable and competent guide.41 If one views this parable as presenting a negative example of what the teaching of Jesus is not like, the “falling” that happens here is precisely a “falling” that does not happen when one builds upon the teachings of Jesus (cf. the parable in Q 6:47-49).42 Ultimately, Edwards was of the opinion that “the classic appeal to experience is used to establish a general conclusion. But we cannot be more precise about the Q application because the context in Matthew and Luke differs,”43 though this is perhaps a slightly too pessimistic perspective. Undoubtedly, Ernst’s observation is true when he notes that the parable “für verschiedene ‘Anwendungen’ offen ist.”44 In general, however, Q elsewhere uses the eye and seeing as symbols for the recognition of the revelation of God (cf. Q 10:21-24) and it is not difficult to see, pun intended, that here the precise opposite image is in play. Blindness is the result of not embracing the message of Q with the result that those opposing the teaching of Q not only fall to their own destruction but lead others into it as well.45

39. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 67. 40. Ebner, Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer?, 340. 41. Ibid. 42. Cf. also the discussion in Hoffmann, “Blinde Führer?,” 27–9. 43. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 89. 44. Ernst, Lukas, 233. 45. So also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 717–18. Along the lines of “false teaching” leading to destruction, Labahn contended, “Dass auch die Frage der Orthodoxie von Lehre im Raum steht, lässt eine weitere Aussage in Q vermuten, die um das Problem des Verführens (Q 17,1f.) kreist. Das in dieser Aussage sanktionierte bzw. kritisierte Fehlverhalten korrespondiert der metaphorisch formulierten Warnung vor blinden Blindenführern” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 281).

198

The Parables in Q

7.2 Parable of the Fowl and the Flowers (Q 12:24, 27-28)

Mt. 6:26, 28b-30

Lk. 12:24, 27-28

ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά· οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;

κατανοήσατε τοὺς κόρακας ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ταμεῖον οὐδὲ ἀποθήκη, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τρέφει αὐτούς· πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὑμεῖς διαφέρετε τῶν πετεινῶν. 27 κατανοήσατε τὰ κρίνα πῶς αὐξάνει· οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει· λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. 28 εἰ δὲ ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον ὄντα σήμερον

28

. . . καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν· οὐ κοπιῶσιν οὐδὲ νήθουσιν· 29 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. 30 εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέζει, οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι.

Concerning this passage Jeremias referred to a “double parable” employing birds and flowers.46 Manson pointed out that generally in Q 12:22-31 “the verbal agreement between Mt. and Lk. is high,”47 and the observation holds true for the verses considered here. Those differences that do exist do not significantly affect the meaning. Once again, the parable proper (Q 12:24a, 27 [including an idea from v.  28]) includes additional commentary and application that is important for understanding the parable in Q. The broader context of not being anxious and not

46. Cf. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 90 [original: Doppelgleichnis]. Michael G. Steinhauser, however, identifies it as a “Doppelbildwort” (Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien: Eine form- und traditionskritische Studie [FB 44; Würzburg: Echter, 1981], 215). Kirk initially refers simply to an “illustration,” though later speaks of “the parable of the ravens” (Composition, 219, 222). Piper consistently refers to a “double illustration” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 26–7). 47. Manson, Sayings, 111. For an argument that the Q hypothesis best explains the relationship between Matthew and Luke in this passage, cf. David Catchpole, “The Ravens, the Lilies and the Q Hypothesis: A Form-Critical Perspective on the Source-Critical Problem,” SNTSU 6/7 (1981/1982): 77–87. Cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 377–9.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

199

worrying about what one is to eat or wear (as set forth in Q 12:22-23, 26, 29) also cannot be ignored when interpreting the parable.48 Yet, even if the entire pericope must be considered when examining the parable in Q, only the most immediate application in Q 12:24b, 27b-28, and not the entire section, has been set forth in the parallel columns above. 7.2.1 Plot Analysis Both Matthew and Luke introduce the parable with an appeal to the reader to “look at” (ἐμβλέψατε in Mt. 6:26) or “consider” (κατανοήσατε in Lk. 12:24) something.49 The initial situation of the parable proper is the introduction of that which is to be taken notice of, namely, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Matthew) or οἱ κόρακες (Luke).50 The complication is that these birds do not engage in sowing, reaping, or storing any food, implying that they find themselves in the precarious position of not being able to feed themselves.51 The transforming action is that the deity feeds them,52 thus contrasting the inactivity of the birds with the activity of

48.  The parallel in Coptic Gos. Thom. 36 consists of only one sentence and focuses on the issue of not being anxious. In P.Oxy. 655, a longer, and presumably earlier, version of the saying appears. There has been considerable discussion concerning the reconstructed Greek reading of this saying in the Oxyrhynchus fragment as it relates to lines 9–10 and whether the text read ἅτινα αὐξάνει οὐδε νήθει or ἅτινα οὐ ξαίνει οὐδε νήθει. The latter reading was suggested by T. C. Skeat, “The Lilies of the Field,” ZNW 37 (1938):  211–14. The debate involves the earliest reading of the pericope and whether a Greek scribal error is already found in Q, with one implication being the demonstration that Q was a written, Greek document. Though the issue cannot be considered further here and is not pertinent for the present discussion, a helpful overview of the relevant publications in the debate can be found in the literature cited in nn. 120–5 in Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 605–606. Cf. also the extensive discussion in Frey, “Die Lilien und das Gewand,” 147–52. 49.  Hans Dieter Betz contends that such an appeal “implies that whatever the example has to teach is open to everyone’s observation” (The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain [Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49] [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 474). 50.  Schulz stated that the decision between the two readings (assuming Q read one of the two) is “schwierig” (Q, 150). Similarly Steinhauser opined that the original reading is “schwer feststellbar” (Doppelbildworte, 216). Many opt for the Lukan reading. 51. The actions of “reaping” and “sowing” are presented verbatim in Matthew and Luke, though they present the act of storing food differently: οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας (Mt. 6:26) and οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ταμεῖον οὐδὲ ἀποθήκη (Lk. 12:24). Manson was of the opinion that “the parallelism of lines 2 and 3 in Lk. is destroyed by Mt.’s ‘they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns’ which is more logical but less poetical” (Sayings, 112). Fleddermann points out how both examples emphasize “the lack of coordinated activity” (Q: Reconstruction, 609). 52. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος in Matthew and simply ὁ θεός in Luke.

200

The Parables in Q

God.53 The end result is an implicit denouement that food is provided and a final situation of the birds not starving. The presentation of the second part of the parable begins in a manner similar to the first. Once again the addressee is admonished to “observe” or “notice” something.54 The initial situation here, however, introduces not only lilies but also their growth. That is to say, the admonition is not simply to take note of the plants, but the manner in which they develop.55 This is interesting in that the parable draws attention to the dynamic unfolding of the flower, which could be construed as part of the transforming action, before introducing the complication, namely, that it does not work or spin.56 Then, the narrator, here Jesus, inserts himself into the narrative of the parable with a λέγω ὑμῖν.57 The final situation, therefore, is presented in direct speech involving the application of the imagery to a “historical” figure as the flowers are said to be arrayed in a manner greater than Solomon in all his glory. A further curiosity here is that the other element of the transforming action, namely, that God clothes the grass and flowers, is found intercalated in the application in Mt. 6:30//Lk. 12:28. Thus, though both halves of this double parable contain parallel plot elements, the structure is presented slightly differently.58 53. Cf. Christoph Heil, “Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes (Sorgt euch nicht) Q 12,24.26-28 (Mt 6,26.28-30 / Lk 12,24.26-28 / EvThom 36,1-4 [P.Oxy. 655] / Agr 124),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 144, who also highlights this point as one of the four components to v. 24. 54.  In 6:28b, Matthew changes his verb to καταμανθάνω whereas Lk. 12:27 again employs κατανοέω. 55. Cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 403. 56. Matthew and Luke both employ forms of the verbs κοπιάω and νήθω. 57.  Schulz, Q, 155 referred to these words as a “prophetische Einleitungsformel” in arguing for a strongly eschatological component to this section and its call to poverty. Kloppenborg, however, rightly pointed out that “in view of the statement which follows the formula, its use in 12:27 can scarcely be deemed ‘prophetic’ ” (Formation, 219). More generally Kloppenborg points out that λέγω ὑμῖν followed by an imperative is “a characteristically sapiential locution” (ibid., 210, with examples in 210n164). Cf. also the criticism of Schulz in Paul Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (NTAbh 28; Münster:  Aschendorff, 1995), 94; and Dieter Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüchen bei den Synoptikern (FB 17; Würzburg: Echter, 1977), 84. Though Piper is also critical of Schulz’s assessment of the section as “a radical prophetic command for poverty in the face of the imminent End-time” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 31), Piper rightly notes, “Of course the reference to God’s kingly rule does presuppose some kind of eschatological expectation, so the question really concerns of what kind it is and how it functions” (ibid., 33). It should also be noted that even as Schulz emphasized the “apocalyptic” kingdom, he also stated, “Alles kommt darauf an, den prophetisch-eschatologischen wie weisheitlichen Hintergrund nicht nur zu sehen, sondern bei der Exegese zum leitenden Gesichtspunkt zu machen” (Q, 155). 58.  So also Piper: “The nature of the argument presented by each illustration is closely parallel, but the second is elaborated slightly by the reference to the figure of Solomon

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

201

7.2.2 Characters This parable clearly reveals its “wisdom” character in the fact that the animal and plant “characters” are not presented first and foremost as actors, but as observed entities.59 They also are not introduced as fiktive Wesen in any overtly discernible manner at the outset of the parable. Rather, consonant with the sapiential nature of this parable, they are simply the birds and flowers that the hearers or readers of this parable can see around them. As such, they are also images requiring attention below. At the same time, however, they take on a certain characteristic of a fictional character as their synthetic component is constructed further. The negative statements of what they do not do carry with them the somewhat humorous image of what it would look like for a bird to sow, reap, and gather or for a flower to work and spin. The mimetic component of these “characters” is thus not found in what they do but in what (human activities) they do not do.60 In this way, it is also clear that these “characters” are also not a Symbol in quite the same way as, for instance, the trees in John the Baptist’s first parable, as those trees are presented as actively either bearing or not bearing good fruit. Here, the thematic component of these “characters” is the manner in which they are provided for by God.61 Thus, (Mt 6:29/Lk 12:27) and by the address of the hearers” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 27). To contend that the depiction of the lilies “läuft nicht parallel” (Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 233) to the depiction of the birds is to overstate the differences significantly. Kirk states that “the formal similarities of the Lilies and Ravens units are so obvious as to hardly need comment” (Composition, 223). Tannehill argues that this difference, especially the reference to Solomon, makes the section on the lilies “not only longer but more forceful” (The Sword of His Mouth, 64). See further on this point in Section 7.2.3, “Images.” 59. For reasons that will hopefully become clear during the course of the discussion of the birds and the flowers in the following, I consistently refer to these somewhat unique “characters” in quotation marks. Zimmermann lists this parable as an example of how “the nonhuman domain can also become the center of interest, for example, when animals or plants are the main characters or subjects of particular parables” (Puzzling the Parables, 102). 60.  Kloppenborg views the description of what the birds do not do (farming) and what the lilies do not do (spinning) as creating one of at least four “gender pairs” in Q (Excavating Q, 97; the others are Q 11:31-32; 13:18-21; and 17:34-35; cf. Chapter 6, n. 218 and Chapter 9, n. 93). Arnal, “Gendered Couplets,” 82, however, in his list of seven or eight gendered couplets in Q does not include this passage. Though it may be the case that domains of work typically associated with men or women are utilized here, and may even be used within the second element regarding the lilies (“work” male; “spin” female; cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 390) it does not seem to me that a “gendered” couplet is functioning here as in the parables in Q 13:18-21 (cf. Chapter 9, Sections 9.1 and 9.2) or Q 17:34-35 (cf. Chapter 6, Section 6.3). 61.  Rondez speaks of a “Zusammenspiel” of three levels in the image of the ravens: “Den Raben wird explizit ein dreifaches Nicht-Tun angedichtet (erste Ebene des Kontrastes). In dem ihnen angedichteten Nicht-Tun kontrastieren sie implizit ein elementares menschliches Tun (zweite Ebene des Kontrastes). Dem Nicht-Tun der Raben

202

The Parables in Q

they are a natural representation and image of God’s providential care. It is in this “being cared for” that the introduction of the divine character into this parable is effected. Unlike other parables in which God only enters the world of the parables through the thematic component of a character as Symbol, this double parable explicitly introduces God into the narrative. As a fiktives Wesen, the divine character is introduced, as noted in the plot analysis, in the transforming action and is thus constructed along the lines of the activity undertaken by the deity with regard to the fowl and the flowers. This action of provision is also that which constitutes the primary element in God’s mimetic component. That which the birds and lilies do not do is contrasted with that which God does for them. The point is not whether it is indeed the case or not in nature that a bird never goes without food or whether or not a lily really radiates beauty, but rather the illustration of how in the absence of (human) activity on the part of birds and flowers, God provides. Though a divine character is overtly present in the parable, there is still a thematic component to this character as Symbol present in the image of a “father.” As pointed out in a footnote in the plot analysis, whereas in Matthew ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος is mentioned in the element of the parable involving the birds, Luke simply reads ὁ θεός. Here, Piper, like most scholars, argues that the Lukan reading was the one found in Q and that therefore “ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν only appears in the final verses of the collection (Mt 6:32/Lk 12:30).”62 The point to notice is that regardless of the term used in Q to describe the one who provides for the birds, both Matthew and Luke include the image of a “father” in Q 12:30. For this reason, the Matthean reading of the parable is not required for the image of a divine father to be invoked here; the image is offered by the context. There are rather obvious connections to Q 11:11-12 and the manner in which the provision of an earthly father for his son is used to illustrate God’s provision. That same “father” image is utilized here, not with a view toward family relationships, but with a view toward the familial relationships as transferred to creation.

wird sodann explizit das eine Tun Gottes an ihnen gegenübergestellt (dritte Ebene des Kontrastes)” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 95). Similarly, for the lilies: “Den Lilien, die in ihrem Wachstum zu beobachten sind, wird explizit ein zweifaches Nicht-Tun angedichtet (Kontrastebene 1a). Im ihnen angesonnen Nicht-Tun kontrastieren sie implizit elementares  – ein alltäglich-grundlegendes und ein konkret-handwerkliches  – menschliches Tun (Kontrastebene 2a). Sodann werden die Lilien explizit mit dem nonplusultra menschlicher Kleidungspracht verglichen, wobei sie aus diesem ungewöhnlichen und anachronistischen Bekleidungswettebewerb als unübertroffen schön Umhüllte hervorgehen (Kontrastebene 2b). Dem spezifischen Tun bzw. Nicht-Tun der Lilien wird im Fortgang des Logions zuletzt explizit das eine Tun Gottes an ihnen gegenübergestellt (dritte Ebene des Kontrastes)” (ibid., 102–103). 62. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 28.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

203

7.2.3 Images When considering the images in this parable, once again its “wisdom” characteristics are highlighted. As Kloppenborg pointed out, “The use of an illustration from experience (i.e., 12:24, 26–28) to buttress an admonition corresponds to one of the conventional structures of OT sapiential admonitions.”63 Considering first the birds, it is often posited that Matthew has changed the Q text in order to have the description of the birds more closely align with common HB imagery.64 And yet, if the reading in Q was “ravens” (κόραξ), Zeller rightly noted that, as seen in Ps. 147:9 (LXX 146:9) and Job 38:41, they “sind nicht minder biblisch als der mt Ausdruck.”65 Of course, according to Lev. 11:15 and Deut. 14:14 the κόραξ is unclean,66 and yet this bird is specifically mentioned as being given food by the Lord in both Ps. 147:9 (LXX 146:9) and Job 38:41.67 The provision of birds with food is not only a biblical image for one reads in Arrian, Epict. diss. 1.16 that Epictetus stated: “Marvel not that the animals other than man have furnished them, ready prepared by nature, what pertains to their bodily needs—not merely food and drink, but also a bed to lie on—and that they have no need of shoes, or bedding or clothing, while we are in need of all these things” (Oldfather, LCL). The parable draws attention to birds having food provided for them, despite never sowing, reaping, or storing up produce for themselves.68 63. Kloppenborg, Formation, 217. Kirk makes a similar observation of how the parable “conforms to conventional wisdom argumentation, which frequently supports programmatic admonitions with analogies taken from the natural world” (Composition, 219). Cf., e.g., Prov. 3:11-12 and the use of the reproof by a father of a son in whom he delights to illustrate the reproof by the Lord of one whom he loves. 64.  Cf., e.g., Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 250–1. τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανου occurs twenty-two times in the LXX translation of the HB and in Jdt. 11:7; Odes Sol. 8:80; and the Theodotian text of Dan. 3:80. The image is discussed more fully in the commentary on the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Chapter 9, Section 9.1). 65.  Zeller, Weisheitliche Mahnsprüche, 82. Cf. also the statement of Henry J. Cadbury, “The choice among birds of ravens, as recipients of God’s care, doubtless goes back to Job 38.41 and Psa. 147.9, a choice repeatedly echoed in the early rabbinic literature” (“Animals and Symbolism in Luke [Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts, IX],” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature [NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972], 6). The image is discussed in Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 164–5. 66.  Rondez rightly states:  “Dieser kultische Aspekt spielt hier überhaupt keine Rolle” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 95n462). 67.  Cf. Heil, “Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes,” 147. In Ps. 147:8-9 the images of God causing grass to grow (cf. the reference to “grass” in Q 12:28) and feeding ravens are found together. It is also ravens that the Lord commands to provide Elijah with bread and meat (1 Kgs 17:4, 6). Related imagery is found in the Lord providing animals with water to drink (Ps. 104:10-11) and food to every living thing (Ps. 145:15-16). 68.  Though undoubtedly the parable utilizes harvest imagery, I  would not follow Zimmermann in referring to the parable as one of the “parables of harvest” based on this

204

The Parables in Q

Turning to the lilies, it should be noted first of all that the parable is not interested in presenting a particular “lily” or “flower,” as the image is a general one.69 Here, however, the parable does not simply state that despite not engaging in work or spinning the flowers are simply “clothed,” a statement that would be more strictly parallel to the birds being “fed,” but rather that they are clothed (περιβάλλω) in greater glory (δόξα) than Solomon. It is striking that though Solomon is the representative par excellence of a wise man (cf. Q 11:31), here it is not the wisdom of Solomon that is in view, but rather his appearance as a king.70 Since the “clothing” of field flowers is not usually compared to that of a king, Robert C. Tannehill argues that via the comparison with Solomon, “the lilies are given a position which sharply contradicts the ordinary estimate of field flowers, and this surplus of significance reflects their function as images.”71 The arraignment that God provides the lilies surpasses even that with which a king is adorned. Here brief attention must also be given to the manner in which the application of the parable’s image occurs for in Q 12:28 reference is made to the fleeting nature of “the grass in the field.”72 Once again, the withering of plants is found in numerous contexts in the HB. For instance in Job 8:12 there is a reference to the paths of all who forget God being like papyrus and reeds withering and Ps. 37:2 speaks of evil-doers fading like the grass and withering like herbs. In numerous instances, for example, Ps. 103:15-16; Job 14:1-2; and the famous passage in Isa. 40:6-8, the image of the growing and withering of a flower is utilized to illustrate the shortness

imagery (Puzzling the Parables, 187). If one insists on using the term “harvest” in describing the imagery of this parable, it would be more appropriate to speak of a “parable of non-harvest.” 69. Luz, Matthäus, 1:479, points out that we do not know precisely what type of flower is in view, noting that κρίνον can generally be used for “flower.” Rondez observes, “Das Logion ist an einer präzisen botanischen Bestandesaufnahme und damit an der Frage, ob es sich hier um die Weisse Lilie, die Rote Kronen-Anemone (Purpuranemone) oder den Lotos etc. handelt, nicht interessiert” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 102n505). Similarly Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 476–7. Heil states, “Wie in V. 24 besteht auch hier [in v. 27] kein Interesse an einer präzisen biologischen Bestandsaufnahme; die pragmatische Aussageabsicht dirigiert ganz das Bild” (“Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes,” 145). 70. This point is also noted by Heil, “Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes,” 147. Betz points to Josephus, Ant. 8.190, referring to Solomon as the “most glorious” of kings (Sermon on the Mount, 477n427). 71. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth, 64. Though I do agree that there is a “surplus of significance” present here, it is at least interesting to note Sir. 40:22 and its statement that though the eye desires χάριν καὶ κάλλος, it wishes to see the first shoot of grass or grain more than either. Here, however, this desire is not due to the first shoot being more glorious in appearance than grace or beauty but because it is the herald of that which is life sustaining. 72. Though the word order is different in Mt. 6:30 and Lk. 12:28 the image is obviously the same.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

205

of human life.73 In the parable, however, as Manson stated, “Jesus gives the old motif an original and characteristic turn.”74 The primary issue is not that a flower or grass must pass and so must we, but that God cares for these fleeting things despite their being in the field one day and in the oven (κλίβανος) the next.75 As one begins to transition to the consideration of these images and this parable in Q, Fleddermann has noted the manner in which “food and clothing stand for all the basic physical needs of human beings. From beginning to the end of Q the author works to clarify the relationship between faith and discipleship on the one hand and the pressing physical needs of human beings on the other.”76 It is not simply that Q’s audience is taught such lessons in didactic statements and phrases. Rather, through the power of the images, “the text does not simply command but seeks to make possible what it commands.”77 The depictions in the parable create mental images that simply cannot be created apart from depictions such as these. Bearing this thought in mind, attention can be given more extensively to the place of the parable in Q. 7.2.4 The Parable in Q As is often the case, the pre-Q version and composition of the larger passage within which this double parable is found is debated.78 With a view toward the

73.  Cf. also Manson, Sayings, 112–13. Somewhat curiously, after citing the entirety of Lk. 12:22-31//Mt. 6:25-33, F. Gerald Downing commented, “Apart from references to the short life of grass—Isa. 40.7–8 etc.—there seem to be no close Jewish parallels” (Christ and the Cynics:  Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition [JSOTM 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988], 68). As seen in the discussion above, the passage as a whole certainly has more parallels than just this. 74. Manson, Sayings, 113. 75. Edwards contended that “the mention of fire in Lk. 12:28 has apocalyptic overtones” (A Theology of Q, 124), though this seems to press the image of an “oven” a bit too far. Similarly, Rondez’s statement, “Auf abrupte Weise tut sich eine zerstörerische und gewalttätige Dimension inmitten der Welt der Lilien und der hierauf angesprochenen Menschen auf ” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 104) reads significant violence into an image that seems to be primarily focused on the fleeting nature of a flower/grass rather than on the manner in which it is destroyed. 76.  Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 611. On p. 616 he makes a similar statement: “By exploring the relationship between faith and basic human needs the pericope develops fully a central theme of Q. It fits perfectly in the theology of Q.” 77. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth, 67. 78.  Cf. the overview of various options in Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation, 88–106 and Odar [sic, Oda] Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25-34 par:  Die Spruchreihe vom Sorgen,” ZNW 85 (1994):  6–10, as they argue for their own, differing, conceptions. Tuckett notes that “the section on Cares is widely agreed to be non-unitary” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 149). Though Tuckett argues that one may be justified in considering editorial modifications, and he himself sees “an earlier tradition expressing confidence in God’s care

206

The Parables in Q

passage within Q, however, Mt. 6:25-33 and Lk. 12:22-31 present essentially the same elements in the same order.79 The issues of primary concern are that one should not worry or be anxious (Q 12:22)80 and that life consists of more than food and clothing (Q 12:23).81 The double parable addresses the first issue82 through twice employing an a minore ad maius argument, that is, if God provides for birds and flowers how much more will he provide for you (Q 12:24b; 28).83 In sum, the analogy here “rationally supports the programmatic admonition not to be anxious for basic necessities, for it demonstrates the provident care of God for his creatures observable in the daily course of nature.”84 Though it is true that the parables appeal to that which is observable in nature, Pascale Rondez is absolutely

for His creation” having been “overlaid by a secondary layer of tradition placing concern for the material needs of life very low on any agenda of priorities and placing all weight on the eschatological future kingdom of God” (ibid., 318), he makes the very important point that “we should pay attention to all the material which the Q editor has decided to include” (ibid., 149). 79. There is, of course, the well-known difference between Mt. 6:28a and Lk. 12:26 with most scholars viewing Matthew as representing Q and Luke as redactional. 80. Worry about food is seen in the wisdom tradition as having an adverse effect upon life, even shortening it. For instance, Sir. 30:24-25 tells its audience “Jealousy and anger shorten life, and anxiety brings on premature old age. Those who are cheerful and merry at table will benefit from their food.” This point is made, with reference also to further literature, in Zeller, Mahnsprüche, 88. Cf. also the discussion in Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 260. 81.  Here Manson contended, “Jesus is not preaching asceticism. He does not suggest that there is any religious value in starvation or nakedness. What He demands is a sense of proportion and a true valuation of things” (Sayings, 111). 82.  Kloppenborg argues, “Verses 24, (26), 27–28 are tailored precisely to provide the motive clauses for the admonitions in 22b and only for those admonitions, treating them in order: first eating, then clothing” (Formation, 218). Though the observation is true as far as it goes, as discussed below, the parables may also have relevance for the perspective expressed in Q 12:23. 83. Not surprisingly, this is often pointed out in the scholarly literature. Cf., e.g., Richard J.  Dillon, “Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25–33/Luke 12:22–31),” CBQ 53 (1991): 612; Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 609; Manson, Sayings, 112; Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place, 119; Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 26; Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 8; and Zeller, Weisheitliche Mahnsprüche, 90. As Heil puts it, “Im Schlussverfahren vom Geringeren auf das Bedeutendere (a minore ad maius) wird solche göttliche Fürsorge gerade auch für die Menschen reklamiert” (“Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes,” 144). 84.  Kirk, Composition, 219. Cf. similarly Piper’s comment:  “The sayings are compatible with the perspective of experiential wisdom. The divine care is portrayed as providential, appealing to the order of the natural world” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 28). Manson argued that the main point is that “God has given man life and that He may be trusted to give also what is necessary for the maintenance of life” (Sayings, 112).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

207

correct in noting that one is here presented with “1. einen Blick in die Welt, der nicht neutral beobachtet und beschreibt, sondern 2.  auffordernden Charakter hat und die so Angesprochenen 3.  existentiell betrifft.”85 As such, it is important to consider the fundamental appeal that the parable sets forth. Quite clearly, as Fleddermann points out, “by exploring the relationship between faith and basic human needs the pericope develops fully a central theme of Q.”86 The parable actively calls for a radical trust in and expression of radical dependence upon God. This is indeed “eine Zumutung und Provokation.”87 Even if one does not view these words as addressed exclusively, or almost exclusively to “wandering charismatics,”88 Gerd Theissen is correct in noting that it is wrong to read words like this [these parables] in the mood of a family walk on a Sunday afternoon. There is nothing here about delight in birds and flowers and green fields. On the contrary, these words express the harshness of the free existence of the wandering charismatics, without homes and without protection, travelling through the country with no possessions and no occupation.89

The connection to the imagery employed in the mission discourse and the attitude of dependence already set forth in its introductory parable (Q 10:2)90 is certainly related to the attitude of dependence required here.91 Pointing to the admonition in Q 12:31, Labahn argues, “Das radikale, in dieser Bildrede [12:22b-31] vorgestellte Vertrauen zu Gott dem Schöpfer und Erhalter von Gut und Böse ist wohl die deutlichste Entfaltung, was das Dokument Q als πίστις versteht: Suche der Gottesherrschaft als Empfangen und völlige Hinwendung zu Gottes Handeln.”92 This “faith” is something that is already being called forth in the parable. With a view toward Q 12:23 and its emphasis upon the fact that there is more to life than food and clothing, the faith which the parable seeks to elicit through the illustration of how God cares for his creation, as Piper rightly recognizes, is implicitly a reflection upon a greater priority than basic necessities and the assurance that one’s needs will be met.93 85. Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 107. 86. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 616. 87. Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 99. 88. Cf. Chapter 8, n. 256. 89.  Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1978), 13. 90. Cf. Chapter 8, Section 8.6. 91.  Heil, “Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes,” 148, rightly points out that this dependence upon God is different from another stream of tradition in the HB in which nature and animals function as an example of diligence and industriousness (cf., e.g., Prov. 6:6-8). Cf. also Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 272–3. That Q 12:22-31 ironically turns Prov. 6:6-11 on its head, as tentatively suggested by Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 172–5, seems to me unlikely. 92. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 280. 93.  Cf. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 27–8. Wischmeyer makes reference to a passage in Let. Aris. 140–1, contrasting that which is sought after by the Egyptians with

208

The Parables in Q

Before coming to Q 12:31 and the issue of the “kingdom,” one other aspect of this sense of a “greater priority” needs to be considered. Jeremias argued that the two metaphors “do not speak of anxiety, but of effort” and so Jesus “forbids his disciples to expend their efforts in pursuit of food and clothing.”94 Yet, Hoffmann has observed, “Die Annahme, daß die Sprüche nicht nur die Sorge um Nahrung und Kleidung, sondern auch jegliche Tätigkeit zu ihrer Beschaffung verbieten, wird jedoch durch den Wortlaut nicht zwingend nahegelegt.”95 Of course, it is true that there is no explicit prohibition of the activities in which the fowl and the flowers do not engage; yet, it is difficult to avoid the implicit sense that in the pursuit of a higher priority, at the very least, less attention will be given to the tasks normally required for procuring food and clothing.96 This aspect becomes even clearer with the admonition to seek the kingdom. Giovanni Bazzana has recently noted the manner in which “Verse [Q 12:]31 closes the entire description of God’s caring for his creatures (ravens and lilies)

that which is sought after by the Jews (“Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 11). The relevant passage reads:  “But there are people who are concerned with food, drink and shelter. For their entire disposition has recourse to these things. But for our people [the Jews] these things have been considered as nothing, but throughout the whole of life their reflection is on the sovereignty of God [τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστείας]” (Benjamin G. Wright III, The Letter of Aristeas: “Aristeas to Philocrates” or “On the Translation of the Law of the Jews” [CEJL; Berlin:  de Gruyter, 2015], 266–7). See also, however, Wischmeyer’s, perhaps debatable, comment that the situation in the Gospels is different from those of the “Weisheitslehrer,” for “für sie ist die Rede von Gott dem Schöpfer ein Theologumenon, das sie zu theologischer Betrachtung der Schöpfung verpflichtet . . . Sie gehören der Mittelschicht an und haben weder die lastenden Existenzsorgen der Armen noch die falschen Sorgen der Reichen” (“Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 17). 94. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 214. Similarly Catchpole, who sees in the verbs the actions “typical of the sort of labour which alone will produce the normal and necessary basics of human existence—and yet they are here seen as an expression of that care which the tradition requires the hearers to avoid!” (“The Ravens, the Lilies,” 82). 95.  Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation, 96. So also Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25-34 par,” 16. 96. Thus, though Baasland’s contention that “it is surprisingly often overlooked that the birds and lilies are not models and that the examples do not entail an imperative (‘Be like them!’)” (Parables and Rhetoric, 396) is formally correct, the implicit sense of the parables pushing in this direction cannot be completely discounted. Ebner speaks of the “Vorbild” of the ravens and the lilies and that they are an example in that “sie diese selbstverständlichen Tätigkeiten der seßhaften Bevölkerung nicht ausführen” (Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 259; cf. ibid., 263, where he refers to the ravens and lilies as exempla). The purpose of the example is to illustrate that “das Handlungsloch der Raben und Lilien durch das zuvorkommende Handeln Gottes ausgefüllt wird” (ibid., 26). Ebner does, however, view the statements that one should not worry as shifting the focus from work to worry and thus moving against the original intention of this parable (ibid., 263).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

209

by creating a political parallel with the caring of a sovereign for the welfare of the subjects.”97 Though Piper rightly notes that in the absence of precise details, “it is difficult to define what is meant,” seeking the kingdom “appears to be concerned here fundamentally with an attitude or orientation which acknowledges a trust in God’s coming kingly rule as well as in his general providence. Both represent trust in God’s ultimate control.”98 Once again, the issue of trust and dependence is brought to the fore. Regardless of whether the admonition to store up treasure in heaven preceded (Matthew) or followed (Luke) this double parable, the imagery of the importance of the kingdom is related to the idea of not storing up earthly but heavenly treasure (Q 12:33). Zeller viewed all these images as connected to the engagement of the Wanderprediger as preachers “für das nahe Reich Gottes . . . Unbekümmert um Vorrat und Kleidung machten sie sich auf den Weg und durften immer wieder erfahren, daß sie in den Häusern gastliche Aufnahme fanden, wenn sie ihre Botschaft ausgerichtet hatten.”99 As such, this double parable reveals points of contact with other Q parables, including those found in Q 10:2; Q 11:11-12; and Q 12:39-40.100 Within the broader context of Q there are, of course, numerous passages related to this expectation of the kingdom, and yet the extent to which it is operative here is debated. The differing interpretations also place differing emphases upon how precisely the parable functions. As Oda Wischmeyer noted: “Die weistheitliche Interpretation betont die Bedeutung der Schöpfung als der Ermöglichung

97.  Giovanni B. Bazzana, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q (BETL 274; Leuven:  Peeters, 2015), 206. Zeller spoke of the “Ziel” of the passage: “[Mt. 6] V. 33 gibt dann das Ziel vor, das allein lohnt und die Zuhörer absorbieren soll: die βασι λεία Gottes. Denen, die danach trachten, gewährt er jetzt schon alles Nötige” (Weisheitliche Mahnsprüche, 90), and Wischmeyer of a “Zielsatz”: “Der Zielsatz ist [Mt. 6] V. 33: Sucht zuerst die Gottesherrschaft” (“Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 1). 98.  Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 31. In this thought there seems to be a remarkable parallel in Pss. Sol. 5:8–10, 18, where the psalm makes reference to God giving rain so that the green grass may grow and concludes with a reference to the Lord’s goodness being upon Israel in his kingdom (cf. also Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25-34 par,” 12). The relevant passage reads καὶ ἡ χρηστότης σου ἐπὶ Ἰσραὴλ έν τῇ βασι λείᾳ σου (Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text [Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 1; New York: T&T Clark, 2007], 102). Wright translates “May your kindness be upon Israel as your rule.” 99.  Zeller, Kommentar, 80. Cf. also the comment by Tuckett: “The priorities of the Q Christians (as propounded by Q’s Jesus) seem clear. They are not to concern themselves with the material needs of life; rather, they are to devote their entire energies to the kingdom of God” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 151). 100. It was already noted in Chapter 6, Section 6.2, in the discussion of Q 12:39-40 that treasure in heaven is inaccessible to a thief.

210

The Parables in Q

einer sorgenfreien Existenz. Die eschatologische Interpretation betont die zeitliche Dimension:  die sorgenfreie Existenz sei von dem bald hereinbrechenden Endgeschehen her zu verstehen.”101 It seems to me, however, that the “kingdom” as depicted here in the “final form” of Q is not exclusively one or the other but is connected to both wisdom and eschatological conceptions.102 On the one hand, there is the present component to God’s provision. That is also already seen, as mentioned in the Zeller citation above, in the mission discourse (Q 10:6-8), even as the disciples proclaim that the kingdom of God has drawn near or is imminent (Q 10:9). But the imagery of God’s kingdom or God’s provision is not exclusively relevant for those involved in the mission—it is also promised to the poor (Q 6:20). There is a sense in which the parable is addressed to all. It is not simply an image for “wandering charismatics”; it is for all who pray the Lord’s Prayer with its petition for the kingdom to come (Q 11:2).103 As such, Wischmeyer is right to note that the passage “wendet sich also an Landarbeiter, Bauern und Bäuerinnen, and Handwerker wie an Jünger.”104 At the same time, even though it is certainly too much to claim, as Richard J. Dillon does, that “this passage vibrates with apocalyptic eschatology in arguing the alternative of two mutually exclusive worlds,”105 he is correct to note that “an integral act of creaturely obedience recognizes the unity

101. Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 3. Cf. the brief overview of the two approaches in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 412–13. 102. Cf. also the comments in n. 57 above. 103.  In the abovementioned passages Giovanni Battista Bazzana sees Q relating “the βασιλεία of God to the satisfaction of very basic needs as [sic] hunger, poverty, indebtedness, and illness” (“BASILEIA—The Q Concept of Kingship in Light of Documentary Papyri,” in Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament: Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 3.–4. Dezember 2009 am Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte der Universität Salzburg [ed. Peter Arzt-Grabner and Christina M. Kreinecker; Philippika:  Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 39; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010], 164). 104.  Wischmeyer, “Matthäus 6,25–34 par,” 16. Strongly critical of “eine einzige Übertragung” of meaning and pleading for the recognition of “des vielfältig angelegten Sinnpotentials” is Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 98–9. 105.  Dillon, “Ravens, Lilies,” 626. Similarly, Hoffmann is too one-sided when stating, “Die Sprüche gegen das Sorgen . . . stellen den Vorrang der Suche der Basileia heraus. Sie fügen sich also dem naheschatologischen Erwartungshorizont von Q ein” (Studien, 41). Cf. also Catchpole’s assertion that there is here “a resounding clash with the wisdom tradition which lavishly praises the worker and severely chides the non-worker” and that “only one explanation seems ready at hand for such a clash”; namely, “the tradition belongs to a situation which is special in character and short in duration . . . conditioned by the expectation of an imminent eschatological crisis” (Quest for Q, 35; emphasis added). Tuckett, who does view the redacted form of Q 12:22-31 as “heavily eschatologically oriented,” nevertheless also recognizes that “the tone of these sections is not as polemical as other parts of Q” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 349).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

211

of God himself, as creator of both the world that is and the world that will be.”106 Seeking the kingdom has both present and future implications and ramifications, both of which are found in Q and both of which are part of the perspective of this double parable.

7.3 Parable of the Salt (Q 14:34-35) Mt. 5:13

Lk. 14:34-35

ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς·

καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας·

ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται;

ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;

εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

35

οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.

In addition to the parable as found in Matthew and Luke,107 a version is also found in Mk 9:49-50a. Though sometimes a non-Q origin for this parable is entertained,108 it is widely argued that one here finds another instance of a Mark/Q overlap.109 As is the case for numerous passages in Q, and despite the brevity of this parable, “the reconstruction and interpretation of this saying are also plagued by many uncertainties.”110 Once again, therefore, the plot structure and narratival elements provide the least problematic point of access for considering the parable in Q. Here I am in full agreement with Ernst Baasland: “It is not necessary to reconstruct the exact Q-text.”111

106. Ibid., 623. 107.  Following Bultmann’s identification of the saying as a “Bildwort” (Tradition, 102), Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 109, referred to this parable as a “simile” (original:  Bildwort) as did Schulz, Q, 471. The varying and somewhat confusing references to this passage by Baasland in Parables and Rhetoric were mentioned in Chapter 2, n. 54. 108.  Cf., e.g., the view of Manson: “The saying occurs independently in a small collection in Mk. It is possible that the form in Mt. is independent of the other two, and derived from M” (Sayings, 132). 109. A helpful summary of the reasons for this view, including the observations that neither Matthew or Luke locate the saying in its Markan context and that they agree in using the unusual word μωρανθῇ, can be found in Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 130–1. Cf. also the discussion in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 77–8, 80. 110. Kloppenborg, Formation, 232. 111. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 80.

212

The Parables in Q

7.3.1 Plot Analysis As compact plots have already been seen in several brief parables discussed up to this point, it is not surprising to find another instance of a compressed plot, common to Matthew and Luke, in their respective versions of this short parable. The initial situation is created simply by mentioning ἅλας.112 The complication is set forth in a question involving with what (ἐν τίνι) this salt, if it has become “insipid,”113 can be made salty (ἁλίζω Mt. 5:13) or seasoned (ἀρτύω Lk. 14:34). Though the Markan parallel breaks off here, in Matthew and Luke the parable continues with a strong indication that no transforming action is possible.114 Despite offering variant images, both Matthew and Luke reveal that there is no denouement for this complication: the salt is useless.115 Therefore, once the complication has come to pass, once the salt is “insipid,” there is only one possible final situation: the salt is to be cast out.116 7.3.2 Characters It is quite clear that though ἅλας is the primary image in this parable, it does not function as a “character.” In fact, apart from the uniquely Matthean ἄνθρωποι appearing at the conclusion of his version of the parable, no character is explicitly mentioned. As such, the only character present is the one implicitly presented as the subject of the verb βάλλω. With this observation, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen has already been presented: the character 112.  The reference in Matthew and Luke varies, however, with Matthew stating ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς and Luke καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας. 113.  Matthew and Luke, apart from a καί in Luke not found in Matthew, present this process verbatim: ἐὰν δὲ [καὶ] τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ. The term μωρανθῇ and the image associated with it are considered below. 114. Though Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer is correct in stating, “Die implizierte Antwort, dass das Salz so nicht würzen kann und dass nichts das Salz ersetzen kann, bleibt unausgesprochen” (“Vom Wirken des Salzes [Vom Salz] Q 14,34f, [Mk 9,49f. / Mt 5,13 / Lk 14,34f.],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 200), the absence of an explicit statement to this effect does not minimize the clear implication that this is indeed the case. 115. Mt. 5:13 states εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει and Lk. 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν. Though the CEQ follows Luke here, Oscar Cullmann argued, presumably with a view toward the historical Jesus, “Die Erwähnung des Salzes als Dünger dürfte freilich kaum ursprünglich sein, da diese Verwendung von Salz in Palästina nicht bezeugt ist” (“Das Gleichnis vom Salz:  Zur frühesten Kommentierung eines Herrenworts durch die Evangelisten,” in Oscar Cullmann: Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962 [ed. Karlfried Fröhlich; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966], 195). The same point is made by Jeremias, Parables, 27n2. Marshall, Luke, 597, makes reference to the use of salty earth as a fertilizer in modern Egypt. 116.  Matthew and Luke offer a variant order of the words and a different form of the verb; however, they both express this idea with βάλλω and ἔξω.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

213

is constructed merely as the implied subject of a verb. In Luke, the plural form constructs a mental model of multiple individuals acting in this manner, whereas the passive infinitive in Matthew leaves the number of actors undetermined. Adumbrating a point made below, this difference does not affect the plot or meaning of the parable. The mimetic component of the individual(s) explicitly noted to be acting in the “casting out” is also developed in an implicit manner as the mental model of this character comes into being in the mind of the hearer or reader. Working backward, when salt is cast out, this is only done if one has come to the realization that it is worthless. One comes to the realization that the salt is worthless in the recognition that it has become “insipid.” One can only recognize the state of something which one possesses or comes in contact with, and so, the character(s) implicitly present at the end of the parable is seen to be present at the outset: the salt is not purely abstract for it exists in relation to people doing something with it. Significantly, the mimetic component of the character(s) thus includes an evaluative, or even judging, function with regard to the salt. And once the judgment of “insipid” has fallen, the character(s) engage(s) in the necessary consequence: the salt, now useless, is cast aside. These final observations already point in the direction of this character or group as Symbol. Here it is not important whether the parable presents one individual as coming to the conclusion that the salt has become worthless or a group of individuals, each of whom has come to this determination, for the thematic component of the character rests upon the judgment rendered. As will be seen below in both the imagery of “casting out” and the context in Q, the offer to read this final image as an eschatological judgment lies close at hand. Thus, the character functions not simply as the human making a decision about salt, but as the eschatological judge making a decision concerning the value of the object being judged. 7.3.3 Images Three images in this parable are particularly important to consider further, namely, the salt, its becoming “insipid,” and the “casting out.” First, as has often been recognized and noted, ἅλας has a wide range of uses and images associated with it. In the HB references to salt, one, unsurprisingly, finds references to the seasoning function of salt on food (e.g. Job 6:6).117 There are also, however, the use of salt in the (miraculous) purification of water (2 Kgs 2:19-22), descriptions of the use of salt in childbirth (e.g. Ezek. 16:4), prescriptions for salt being used in certain offerings (e.g. Lev. 2:13; Ezra 6:9), and the association of salt with covenant (e.g. Num. 18:19; 2 Chr. 13:5; cf. also Jub. 21:11). These final two images highlight salt as a symbol of permanence. Confirming this sense is Philo, in comments on Lev. 24:7,118 who

117.  The metaphorical use of the image of seasoning is found in Col. 4:6, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt.” 118. LXX Lev. 24:7 states with reference to the rows of loaves, καὶ ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον καθαρὸν καὶ ἅλα whereas the Hebrew does not mention “salt,” reading ‫וְ נָ ַת ָתּ ַﬠל־‬ ‫ ַה ַמּ ֲﬠ ֶר ֶכת ְלבֹנָ ה זַ ָכּה‬.

214

The Parables in Q

stated that the salt is used “to shew the permanence of all things” (Spec. Leg. 1.175; F. H. Colson, LCL). At the same time, salt can be used as an image of destruction, barrenness, or distance from God (e.g. Gen. 19:26; Judg. 9:45; Jer. 17:6; Zeph. 2:9). On the basis of such varying images and associations, Wolfgang Zwickel is correct to highlight that in antiquity salt had “einen ambivalenten Charakter.”119 Pliny the Elder also offered an extensive discussion on the sources for, along with qualities and uses of, salt in Nat. 31.73–105. Salt is used to season meat and food (Nat. 31.87), it helps sheep and cattle produce more milk (Nat. 31.88), it can be used as payment (salariae; Nat. 31.89), and it is medicinal (Nat. 31.98–105). It is readily apparent that salt could be used with food, in agriculture, in medicine, in religious ceremonies, and with metaphorical significance.120 For this reason, Baasland helpfully concludes, “The universal usage of salt made it a powerful and ‘democratic’ symbol. People could relate to something everybody knew well from everyday life, but they still had different expectations regarding salt.”121 Given the plethora of available images, Donald A. Hagner’s observation and conclusion are helpful: Since it is virtually impossible now to know which of its several associations would have come most readily to the minds of the disciples when they heard these words, it may be best simply to take the metaphor broadly and inclusively as meaning something that is vitally important to the world in a religious sense, as salt was vitally necessary for everyday life.122

In this final point, Hagner is reflecting a sentiment already expressed in Sir. 39:26, where salt is listed as one of the chief needs for human life, or by Pliny the Elder in his view that a civilized life is impossible without salt (Nat. 31.88).123 Salt is something eminently valuable and something eminently useful. A second important image is presented in the parable’s statement ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ. This highly unusual use of the verb μωραίνω (become foolish) has elicited much discussion. One view posits that the meaning “foolishness,” and not an otherwise unattested meaning of “become insipid,” is intended. Baasland, for instance, argues that “the language of stupidity is consciously chosen . . . It is an exaggeration. Everybody knows that salt cannot lose its savour. What is salt has to be 119. Wolfgang Zwickel, “Salz: Lebensfeindlich, aber schmackhaft,” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 38 (2005):  73. Cf. the entirety of his article on pp. 73–5 for additional references to salt in antiquity. 120. Cf. also the overview using these categories in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 82–3. 121. Ibid., 83. Cf. Baasland’s extended discussion in ibid., 80–9. A succinct overview of various considerations pertinent for understanding “salt” is found in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:472–3. 122. Hagner, Matthew, 1:99. 123.  For further discussion of salt and its symbolism, along with particular attention to the phrase “for everyone will be salted with fire” in Mk 9:49, cf. James E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism of Salt (ThH 64; Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1982).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

215

salt . . . Trying to make salt deteriorate is as stupid as building one’s house on sand.”124 Apart from the fact that far from “trying to make salt deteriorate,” the parable simply views such a deterioration of the “saltiness” of salt as something negative, it is also curious that Baasland contends that everyone knows that “salt cannot lose its savour.” Perhaps this is true on the level of the chemical compound; however, Pliny the Elder made reference to a salt obtained through boiling water from a spring in Chaonia where, once the water cools, salem faciunt inertem nec candidum, presumably due to impurities.125 In addition, the salt crust from the Dead Sea or small lakes, as pointed out by Jeremias, “is never pure, but contains impurities (magnesia, lime, vegetable remains) which, when the salt is dissolved by moisture, remain as useless refuse.”126 With such a process of salt becoming “insipid” in view, a particular view concerning the use of the unusual verb is reflected in further comments by Jeremias: “The strange locution: ‘If the salt becomes foolish’ . . . rests on a faulty translation . . . Mark has translated it correctly:  ‘If salt loses its salinity’ . . . Matthew and Luke . . . have clearly anticipated the interpretation of the saying as referring to the foolish disciples, or foolish Israel.”127 In presenting this view, Matthew Black, on the one hand, refers to John Lightfoot, who “points out, in a note on Lk. xiv. 34, that ‘μωρανθῇ suits very well with the Hebrew ‫לפת‬, which signifies both unsavoury and a fool’ ” and, on the other hand, sees a further confirmation of the word being original in that “it gives a word-play with the Aramaic for ‘salted,’ ‘seasoned’ (tabbel).”128 Though such a translation error, or at least translation variant, is also posited by others,129 Kloppenborg rightly observes, “This is possible, but it hardly explains what the saying could have meant in Greek!”130 He, therefore, goes on to point out that “the cognate μωρός occurs

124. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 94. 125. Nat. 31.82. 126.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 169. Similarly, Hagner, Matthew, 1:99; and Luz, Matthäus, 1:223. For additional scholars advocating this view, cf. Cullmann, “Gleichnis vom Salz,” 194n4. Kloppenborg refers to this idea as the “best answer” to the question “Can salt in fact lose its flavor?” (Formation, 233). Leonhardt-Balzar points out that if a real possibility is being contemplated, this is likely what is in view; however, if the Lukan introduction was in Q and the salt is referred to as “good” in the sense of “pure,” then in this way “wird die prinzipielle Unmöglichkeit der Entwicklung herausgestellt: Das Salz kann seinen Geschmack nicht verlieren” (“Vom Wirken des Salzes,” 201). 127. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 168. 128.  Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford:  Clarendon, 1967), 166. The citation from Lightfoot is found in John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor evangelistas:  cum tractatibus chorographicis, singulis suo evangelistae praemissis (ed. Johann Benedikt Carpzov ; Leipzig:  Joh. Heinrici Richteri, 1684), 837. 129. Cf., e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:474; Hagner, Matthew, 1:99; and Marshall, Luke, 595. 130. Kloppenborg, Formation, 233. Cf. also Piper: “The choice of the Greek μωρανθῇ in the double tradition is still significant!” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 248n172).

216

The Parables in Q

at least three times with the meaning ‘insipid,’ and hence it is possible that μωραίνω could have this meaning too.”131 Regardless of the precise type of salt in view132 or precisely what has occurred to the salt or how it has become μωρός,133 the point in the parable is that the salt has undergone some change that has rendered it useless.134 Thus, as Nolland notes, “Salt has been chosen for the image, because if any other savory foodstuff is or becomes insipid in taste, it can be seasoned with salt, but if the salt itself were to become insipid, then there would be no possibility of retrieval.”135 This impossibility of retrieval leads to the final image to be considered here. Even though the conclusion of the parable is presented differently in Matthew and Luke,136 Edwards rightly observed that “Matthew and Luke agree about the fate of salt-less salt—it is cast out” to which he adds “an image of judgment.”137 In both Matthew and Luke, that which was eminently useful and valuable has become entirely useless and worthless.138 Luz noted the manner in which the emphasis lies upon this final image and the threat that goes along with it, concluding that “ ‘Hinausgeworfen werden’ . . . weck[t] Assoziationen an Gerichtsterminologie.”139 This imagery of judgment is thus an important aspect of the place and function of this parable in Q. 7.3.4 The Parable in Q When approaching the interpretation of this parable, Baasland has written: “The power and effect of salt is an enigma, and many scholars also seem to see this saying on salt as enigmatic . . . The rough meaning is easy to grasp, but the saying on the other hand, is open to a variety of interpretations.”140 It is also true that “the

131.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 233. So also Bovon, Lukas, 2:547. For the three uses, Kloppenborg lists Diocles, Fragmenta 138; Comica Adespota 596; and Dioscurides Pedanius Mat. med. 4.19. 132.  Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 91–3, for various options that have been suggested. 133.  Cf. Bovon, Lukas, 2:546, for a brief overview of various suggestions found in the scholarly literature. 134. Marshall commented: “The thought is simply of loss of usefulness” (Luke, 595). 135. Nolland, Luke, 2:765. Nolland, however, introduces these statements with the comment, “The issue of realism is probably a false focus of concern.” This may or may not be the case. 136. In regard to the statement in Lk. 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, cf. n. 115 above. 137. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 136. 138. Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 95: “Luke has different expressions, but still has the same shame dimension.” 139. Luz, Matthäus, 1:223. Cf. also Bovon, Lukas, 2:545. 140. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 76.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

217

interpretation of this key parable is open because salt as metaphor has a variety of meanings. To postulate just one aspect of salt as the meaning is of course arbitrary.”141 At the same time, the context within Q does set certain boundaries for the “playing field” within which the interpretation takes place.142 For instance, with a view toward several rabbinic passages, Wolfgang Nauck pointed out the use of salt as a metaphor for wisdom and argued that the saying here is admonishing one to be a teacher of wisdom.143 And Oscar Cullmann, drawing on the manner in which salt is connected with acts of sacrifice, argued that here in Q one finds the spirit of self-sacrifice and self-denial connoted.144 Yet, in regard to Nauck’s suggestion, Kloppenborg rightly pointed out that “in the Q context there is really nothing to suggest this interpretation although it might be suitable for Matt 5:13,”145 and even though elements of self-denial are certainly part of the conception of discipleship in Q, Kloppenborg again rightly notes that “the logic of 14:34–35 does not strongly suggest a sacrificial interpretation for the saying.”146 The “salt” image should thus probably not be construed along these specific, and actually narrow, senses.147 Furthermore, though Schulz saw the passage as applied to “das jüdische Volk” and as a “Drohwort gegen Israel,”148 it appears that the Q context focuses more upon the issue of discipleship, even if an association with Q 13:28 is possible.149

141. Ibid., 97. Similarly Hagner, Matthew, 1:99. 142. For brief comments on the image of a “playing field” in the interpretation of metaphors and parables, cf. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 205. 143.  Cf. Wolfgang Nauck, “Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions for Discipleship,” ST 6 (1952): 165–78. 144. Cf. Cullmann, “Gleichnis vom Salz,” 197–8. 145. Kloppenborg, Formation, 233. 146. Ibid. 147.  Note, for instance, the manner in which Cullmann focuses and narrows his interpretation:  “Jüngerschaft ohne die Bereitschaft, sich selbst zu verleugnen und zu leiden ist ein ebenso offenkundiger Widerspruch wie Salz, das seine Salzeigenschaft verloren hat” (“Gleichnis vom Salz,” 200). In his view, the idea of a disciple “der nicht zur Selbstverleugnung, zum Opfer und zum Leiden bereit ist” was inconceivable for Jesus (ibid., 201). 148.  Schulz, Q, 472. Slightly differently, but still with a view toward “outsiders,” Kirk opined, “The insipid nature of useless salt may be a figurative way of expressing the indifferent response to Jesus criticized by the parabolic units as well as a derogatory characterization of the quality of a life monopolized by the horizontal demands of property and social conventions” (Composition, 254). 149.  Cf. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 277. Steinhauser observes, “Da sich die anderen Drohworte in Q gegen Israel gerichtet haben, besteht der Verdacht, daß der Salzspruch auch eine Drohung gegen Israel enthalten könnte” (Doppelbildworte, 347; cf. also Luz, Matthäus, 1:220). Nevertheless, in Q he views the salt as referring to “die kreuztragenden Jünger” who could become insipid “indem sie die radikale Forderung in der Nachfolge ablehnen” (Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 347).

218

The Parables in Q

Along the lines of this point, Cullmann rightly recognized that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all relate the saying to the disciples and that “es . . . um die Frage nach der grundlegenden Bedingung der Jüngerschaft [geht].”150 In particular, if the order of the Q sayings is preserved in Mt. 10:37-39 (Q 14:26-27; 17:33) and these sayings immediately precede the parable of the salt as widely argued,151 then some of Q’s demands for following Jesus are clearly set forth in the immediate context. Fleddermann thus contends, “The saying on Salt reinforces the teaching on discipleship by emphasizing the need for the salt to remain genuine.”152 He continues that there is here a demand “that the disciple remain true to discipleship,” for if the demands become too burdensome and one falls away, one will be “cast out.”153 In the view of Fleddermann, the saying thus picks up on the “eschatological urgency” of entering through the narrow door (Q 13:24).154 The closing threat of insipid salt being “thrown out” also may be related to those who had been excluded or thrown out from the (eschatological) banquet depicted in Q 14:16-23.155 In conjunction with such eschatological imagery, Tuckett points out that though sayings like this one can in theory be isolated from their context, and can be seen to make reasonable sense on their own . . . the question remains whether in fact it is right to isolate them in this way . . . Again and again the Q context forces such wisdom features into a strongly eschatological mould, breaking out of the wisdom tradition, and referring not to experience and the regularity of the world, but to the radical new order that is coming.156

150. Cullmann, “Gleichnis vom Salz,” 196. 151. Cf., e.g., Leonhardt-Balzer, “Vom Wirken des Salzes,” 200. Kloppenborg argues, “In the present instance, the saying warns that those who do not take seriously the demands of discipleship outlined in 14:26, 27 and 17:33 will be cast forth like insipid salt” (Formation, 234). Cf. also Manson, Sayings, 132, for a similar focus on discipleship. Kloppenborg views this passage as concluding an original cluster of sayings Q 13:24; 14:26-27; 17:33; 14:34-35; though in its final form Q appears to have other intervening material (cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, 237; and Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 146). This editorial conception is also accepted by Kirk, Composition, 241. 152. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 758. 153.  Ibid. Cf. also Marshall, Luke, 596:  “Disciples who cannot stay the course are as useless as ‘salt’ which has lost its flavour”; and Nolland, Luke, 2:765. The suggestion by Leonhardt-Balzer, “Vom Wirken des Salzes,” 203, of a possible interpretation that though pure salt cannot lose its saltiness, the image of the parable employs an “impossible” image to refer to disciples who should be faithful in discipleship but are not and threatens them with being cast out, seems less likely. 154. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 758. 155. So also Kirk, Composition, 254. 156. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 351.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

219

In sum, Piper’s general conclusion is helpful: “It would appear that the main point is a warning against reversion or relapse from what is a desirable condition . . . to the contrasting opposite.”157 The salt image is employed in such a way as to highlight the parable being, as Baasland put it, “about identity. The very fact of being salt is important. Its intrinsic nature is important. Loss of identity has fatal consequences. To be salt or not to be salt is indeed the question.”158 At the same time, even as this brief parable implicitly invokes and appeals to the nature and qualities of salt, there is no explicit statement concerning which of these qualities might be especially in view, nor how salt remains “salty,” nor, for that matter, how it becomes “insipid.”159 In other words, and returning to the insight of Baasland quoted at the beginning of this section, the parable does not restrict itself to one aspect of the multifaceted value of “salt” nor does it describe the process of it losing this value. Specifics are lacking in order to focus upon the basic, powerful image: if that which was once valuable loses its value, it will be discarded. For the relevant instruction concerning the details of how metaphorical transfer of this image to the life of the disciple works itself out, other Q parables and teachings, as already seen, for example, in the parables by John the Baptist and the Master/Slave parables, but also parables in the following chapter, must be considered.

7.4 Parable of the Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37) Mt. 24:28

Lk. 17:37b ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·

ὅπου ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί

ὅπου τὸ σῶμα, ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται.

In the final parable160 discussed in this chapter, one finds another instance involving events taking place in the course of nature. In the parable, Matthew and Luke 157.  Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 131. Cf. also the comment of Hans Klein: “Der Weckruf schärft den Ernst der Nachfolge ein. Es geht um das Hören, Aufnehmen und Umsetzen der Botschaft in die richtige Tat” (Das Lukasevangelium [10th ed.; KEK 1.3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006], 518). 158. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 99. 159. The same observation is made by Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 277. Cf. the similar point made by Leonhardt-Balzer:  “Das Salz in der Parable [beschreibt] keine bestimmte Eigenschaft derer, die Jesus nachfolgen, sondern ihre Funktion, ihr Wirken in der Welt . . . Die Parabel selbst legt nicht fest, was das Salz-Sein, das Wirken der Hörenden, ausmacht, ob etwa auf eine reinigende oder konservierende Funktion des Salzes angespielt wird” (“Vom Wirken des Salzes,” 203). 160. Ehrhardt, Framework, 53, simply referred to a “Saying of Jesus” that has a “proverbial character.” Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 506, labels it a “Bildwort.” Jülicher, Gleichnisreden,

220

The Parables in Q

reveal minor differences of syntax and word order along with Luke’s use of a compound verb that Matthew does not employ. One slightly more significant difference involves the designation of the cadaver around which the carrion birds gather, though even here, the meaning is the same. As Arnold Ehrhardt observed, “Matthew uses πτῶμα for carcass and Luke σῶμα. With regard to meaning this is a distinction without a difference, for σῶμα is often used by the LXX to mean corpse.”161 As discussed below in Section 7.4.4, “The Parable in Q,” the primary issue of disagreement is neither concerning whether this parable was in Q nor the content of the parable itself, but rather its precise location in Q.162 7.4.1 Plot Analysis This verse is one of the briefest parables in Q. In fact, the barest of narratives involves only the initial situation of a dead body, the action of ἀετοί gathering around the corpse, and the attendant final situation of the carrion birds’ presence, after having gathered, by the corpse. 7.4.2 Characters As already seen in other parables heuristically grouped here under the heading “sapiential,” this parable is again focused on activity taking place in the nonhuman realm.163 As such, a character analysis cannot take place in the usual sense of the term. That the parable can be understood to have characters is once again clear through the history of allegorical interpretation where the body was either seen as sinners and the ἀετοί as the Son of Man coming in judgment or the body was seen as the Son of Man and the ἀετοί as the elect being drawn to him. On occasion the “eagles” were also identified with the angels gathering the elect.164 In any case, both the ἀετοί and 1:134, identified is as a “Gleichnis” though only with the further comment that “dessen zweite Hälfte fortgelassen worden ist.” Hauck, Lukas, 217, spoke of a “Rätselwort,” and Grundmann, Lukas, 345, utilized the term “sprichwortartiges Bildwort.” Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 232, following Bultmann, Geschichte, 179, calls it a “Sprichwort.” Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 87–8, identifies it as “parabolic.” 161.  Ehrhardt, Framework, 53. John Topel comments, “Σῶμα here means dead body, corpse, as it had done in Greek literature from the time of Homer to the New Testament” (“What Kind of a Sign are Vultures? Luke 17,37b,” Bib 84 [2003]: 404). 162.  Cf. the similar sentiment expressed in Harb, Eschatologische Rede, 115: The verse “ist weniger schwer zu rekonstruieren und auch, dass der Vers in Q stand, wird weithin vertreten. Die eigentliche Frage ist vielmehr, wo er in Q stand.” Harb notes that in the forthcoming Documenta Q volume on Q 17, the prepublication version of which I have not seen, there are no entries for the “Not in Q” category of this verse. 163.  This parable is another example listed by Zimmermann revealing the “center of interest” being upon the “nonhuman domain” (Puzzling the Parables, 102; cf. n. 59 above). 164. Cf. Topel, “What Kind of a Sign?,” 404; and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:355–6. Cf. also n. 166 below.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

221

the πτῶμα/σῶμα function primarily as images, though there is a sense in which a synthetic component of these figures as fiktive Wesen is constructed in relation to each other. As Müller noted, “Aas und Geier werden mit Hilfe einer räumlichen und einer zeitlichen Beziehung verbunden.”165 As is to be expected, the cadaver is not active in the parable and so does not develop a mimetic component. The question of the πτῶμα/σῶμα as Symbol, however, is related to the manner in which one views the image functioning and whether one sees the parable pressing for an allegorical interpretation. The mimetic component of the ἀετοί is shaped through two activities. One is the recognition of the corpse to which they are drawn and the other is the gathering there. Both of these components will be seen to factor in the interpretation below. Concerning these birds as Symbol, the same issues involved with the πτῶμα/σῶμα are in play. If one eschews an allegorical interpretation, the symbolic level is found on the level of this animal as an image and not as a character. In order to pursue these issues further, it is precisely to the images that attention must be given. 7.4.3 Images First, as noted above, though Matthew employs the term πτῶμα, whereas Luke utilizes σῶμα, both terms can be and are used to refer to a cadaver.166 It is widely recognized that Q is employing the image of a corpse. Completely unconvincing in arguing against this view is the sentiment expressed by Steven L.  Bridge:  “It seems incredible that Luke (or his source) intended to compare so glorious an image (the saints around the Lord) to such a gruesome one (vultures around a corpse).”167 This image is no more difficult than the thief discussed in the previous chapter! In addition, though aspects of Catchpole’s statement are valuable, when he writes, “In Q 17:37b the plural subject and the future tense of the verb do not prevent the saying from remaining a statement of what is always true, though συναχθήσονται may well be intended to assimilate the saying to the future setting

165. Peter Müller, “Schnell und unausweichlich (Vom Aas und den Geiern) Q 17,37 (Mt 24,28 / Lk 17,37),” Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 235. 166.  In particular, the use of σῶμα here and for the body of Jesus in Lk. 23:52, 55; 24:3, 23 has led to allegorical interpretations of the parable where the dead body is Jesus and the ἀετοί are the elect gathered to him. Cf. even recently Steven L. Bridge, “Where the Eagles Are Gathered”: The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology (JSNTSup 240; Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 2003), 21, who argues that this is how Luke understood the saying; various patristic commentators with this view are listed with relevant passages in ibid., 151–5. Nolland similarly states, “Though the image is rather gruesome, in the present setting it is likely to represent the gathering to the Son of Man those to be delivered . . . they will be gathered to him like eagles/vultures to the prey upon which they will feast” (Luke, 2:863). Müller, “Schnell und unausweichlich,” 238, provides an interesting citation from Luther, who, with reference also to Lk. 22:19, stated, “Von diesem Aas haben wir das ewige Leben.” 167. Bridge, “Where the Eagles Are Gathered,” 20–1.

222

The Parables in Q

in which a sudden descent from heaven brings death and disaster,”168 the conclusion is problematic since a corpse is already dead. Issues related to this point are discussed further below in Section 7.4.4. Second, the image surrounded in greater controversy is the ἀετοί with the initial question concerning the issue of whether “eagles” or “vultures” are in view here.169 Jeremias expressed a widely held position that “instead of ἀετοί (eagles) we must understand γ ῦπες (vultures). Only vultures feed on carcasses, eagles hunt living prey.”170 He went on to contend that here “it is a question of mistranslation; the Aram. nišrai can mean either ‘eagle’ or ‘vulture.’ ”171 Kloppenborg, however, responds that this is unconvincing for “nešer in the MT is always translated by ἀετος and never by γ ύψ” and “eagles do take carrion.”172 In order to support this latter point, Kloppenborg points to observations found in Aristotle, Historia animalium 9.32 and Pliny the Elder, Nat. 10.3 with reference to the περκνόπτερος. These references, however, likely only state that this eagle carries away the cadaver before consuming it whereas other eagles alight next to their kill, not that they actually eat carrion.173 After surveying relevant literature Harb concludes that, according to her knowledge, there are no references in the Hellenistic world to eagles actually feeding on carrion.174 Worth pursuing further are the abovementioned terms ‫ֶנֶ֗שר‬, ἀετός, and γ ύψ as found in the HB and LXX.

168. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 253. 169.  Vermes offers a translation of the verse with both terms: “Wherever the body is, there the vultures (eagles) will be gathered together” (Authentic Gospel, 108). 170. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 162n46. 171. Ibid. 172. Kloppenborg, Formation, 162. 173.  In his description Aristotle stated that this bird κακόβιος καὶ τὰ τεθνεῶτα φέρων (“lives poorly [and] takes dead animals” [D. M. Balme, LCL]). Admittedly, the phrase is ambiguous, but it probably should be understood along the lines of the relevant passage in Pliny the Elder that this eagle is the sola aquilarum exanimata aufert corpora, ceterae cum occidere considunt (“is the only eagle that carries away the dead bodies of its prey; all the others after killing alight on the spot” [H. Rackham, LCL]). Cf. also Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 148; eadem, “The Meaning of Q 17,37: Problems, Opinions and Perspectives,” ZNW 102 (2011): 284; and Gail R. O’Day, “ ‘There the ? will gather together’ (Luke 17:37): Bird Watching as an Exegetical Activity,” in Literary Encounters with the Reign of God (ed. Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 292–3. 174. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 149; eadem, “The Meaning of Q 17,37,” 285. Cf. also Warren Carter’s discussion of the problems involved in reading “eagles” here as “vultures” in “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:27–31),” JBL 122 (2003):  469–72; and Bridge, “Where the Eagles Are Gathered,” 60–5. It seems slightly problematic, therefore, for Müller to assert, “Nach antiker Auffassung gibt es also eine Adlerart, die eher als Geier anzusehen ist und sich wie ein Geier verhält” (“Schnell und unausweichlich,” 236).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

223

A ‫ ֶנֶ֗שר‬is mentioned in numerous passages and can be seen to represent speed (Deut. 28:49; 2 Sam. 1:23; Job 9:25-26; Hab. 1:8), heavenliness (Prov. 23:5; Lam. 4:19), and image of divine judgment (Jer. 4:13; Hos. 8:1).175 In each of these instances the LXX renders ‫ ֶנֶ֗שר‬with ἀετός, and it seems that an eagle is in view. At the same time, however, Prov. 30:17 presents a scene in which the young ἀετοί feed on the eyes that ravens have picked out and Mic. 1:16 refers to making oneself bald like an ἀετός. In these instances it seems more likely that a “vulture” is in view.176 Unconvincing, however, is Marshall’s contention that ἀετός means “vulture” in Lev. 11:13 and Deut. 14:12, for in Lev. 11:14 and Deut. 14:13 there is a reference to a γ ύψ.177 Yet, interestingly, in Job 39:27, the Hebrew text refers only to a ‫ֶנֶ֗שר‬, but the LXX employs both ἀετός and γ ύψ. Though Warren Carter refers to this verse to indicate that the vulture “is the subject of the singular verbs and pronouns in Job 39:28–30,” he does not note that only ‫ ֶנֶ֗שר‬appears in the Hebrew.178 It does seem to be the case, therefore, that the ambiguity of the Hebrew term ‫ ֶנֶ֗שר‬has created an ambiguity for the Greek term ἀετός. Even apart from an actual Hebrew or Aramaic source for Q, Harb points out that perhaps “die fehlende Unterscheidung zwischen Adler und Geier in der hebräischen Sprache . . . es schwer machte, die Unterscheidung im Griechischen passend durchzuführen.”179 Furthermore, John Topel helpfully observes, “Popular proverbial speech is based on general behavior, not on the distinctions of scientists, and so when a proverb describes an ἀετός as attacking living prey, it is an eagle; when it gathers to feed in a flock on a single carcass, it is a vulture.”180 I also agree with Larry J. Kreitzer’s observation, “The image of an eagle as a symbol of swift judgment is frequently found in the Old Testament, and this offers a promising way forward.”181 That is to say, the use of the term ἀετός allows the full range of images found in the HB passages to be invoked, while still allowing the bird in view to be one that feeds on carrion. Though there is much truth in Gail R. O’Day’s

175. Cf. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 252; and Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 151, for these and other references. 176.  Cf. also Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 151; and eadem, “The Meaning of Q 17,37,” 285. 177.  Marshall, Luke, 669. Cf. also O’Day’s comment: “The lists of unclean birds in Lev 11:13–19 and Deut 14:12–18 make clear that eagles and vultures are two different bird species: each is included separately in the two lists” (“ ‘There the ? Will Gather,’ ” 289). 178. Carter, “Are There Imperial Texts?,” 470. 179. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 163. Bridge contends that “if Job 39.30 is ultimately the source of our saying, then the appearance of ἀετός in Q is readily explained” (“Where the Eagles Are Gathered,” 65). Bovon somewhat boldly stated, “Der Satz von Q muß eine Anspielung auf diese Schriftstelle [Job 39:30] sein [emphasis added]” (Lukas, 3:180). 180. Topel, “What Kind of a Sign?,” 405. 181.  Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images:  Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World (JSNTSup 134; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 59.

224

The Parables in Q

statements:  “Nothing in its context suggests that Jesus’ saying intends to conform with the canons of the natural world (as the translation of hoi aetoi as vultures assumes). The natural world is not presented as the control on eschatological expectations. Instead, eschatological expectations are the lens through which one’s vision of the natural world is refracted,”182 conceiving of an ἀετός as a vulture might not be as “unnatural” as she implies. A final point that needs to be made here is another line of allegorical interpretation concerning the “eagles,” namely, the possibility that this animal is used to represent Rome. Here, Harb, for example, recognizes that ἀετός can be used symbolically for Rome or for Roman soldiers, a symbol that is ready at hand since it was found on the Roman standard. At the same time, I would tend to agree with her sentiment that “sich generell zwischen den Motiven von Adler und Blitz keine so eindeutige Verbindung zu Rom ausmachen [lässt]” as is posited, for example, by Kreitzer and Carter.183 Though it is always quite difficult to demonstrate that an allusion is not present, in the context of this eschatological discourse it seems to me that the imagery is pointing in a different direction and that it is difficult to argue for this allegorical reading in a way that makes sense of its meaning within this discourse.184 In the words of Hagner, “As tempting as it appears to many commentators, the proverb need not be allegorized.”185 7.4.4 The Parable in Q As noted in the introductory comments to this parable, Matthew and Luke place it in differing locations within the eschatological discourse. Luke places the parable at the conclusion of the eschatological discourse; Matthew places it immediately following the logion concerning the appearance of the Son of Man being like lightning (Mt. 24:27//Lk. 17:24). Thus, in Luke this parable forms an inclusio with the beginning of the discourse and in Matthew it appears in combination with another image drawn from nature.186 Even though numerous recent studies opt for the Matthean position, this view is not universally held. For instance, affirming the Matthean position is Catchpole when he asserts, “This saying probably did occur in Q where Matthew has it (Matt 24:28), rather than at the end of the complex as a whole where Luke has it

182. O’Day, “ ‘There the ? Will Gather,’ ” 301. 183.  Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 116. Cf. Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 66–7; and Carter, “Are There Imperial Texts?,” 476. 184.  So also Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 117, 157–60; eadem “The Meaning of Q 17,37,” 287–9. Contra Jacobson, The First Gospel, 235–6; and Carter, “Are There Imperial Texts?,” 477–87. Harb, however, entertains the possibility that in the later context of the Jewish War a reinterpretation of the image with Israel as the “corpse” and the Romans as the “flock” could have been possible (Die eschatologische Rede, 270). 185. Hagner, Matthew, 2:707. 186. Cf. also Harb, Eschatologische Rede, 115.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

225

(Luke 17:37b),”187 even as Kirk disagrees, opting for the Lukan position.188 Important for the present study is that regardless of the precise location of this parable, Piper rightly notes that “both Matthew and Luke agree in placing the aphorism in the general context of double-tradition sayings which describe in vivid terms the events surrounding the coming of the Son of Man.”189 Yet, what is this vividness depicting?190 That this parable is “enigmatic,” or a similar sentiment, is a recurring refrain in the scholarly literature.191 Topel even goes so far as to state that the history of research “agrees on only one point—the proverb is enigmatic.”192 At the same time, there are several avenues, both spatial and temporal, via which insight into the parable can be gained within the context of the eschatological discourse and Q more broadly. First, there are two spatial realms operative in the parable. The body is on the earth and the birds are, at least initially, in the sky. As they “gather,” they may initially do so by circling in the realm in which they begin, though they will eventually descend to the corpse. As such, there is a movement in which the heavenly and earthly realms come into contact and where movement occurs between the two (Q 17:34-35).193 Kirk speaks of a “heaven to earth access” and this leads him to point out a second consideration, namely, that the Son of Man “will come from heaven and be visible to all.”194 The issue of visibility is present in the parable from two vantage points already adumbrated in the comments on ἀετοί as “characters.” Harb poses an either/or question, “Ist das Aas für die Adler unübersehbar . . . oder sind Adler, versammelt

187.  Catchpole, Quest for Q, 252. The reconstruction of, e.g., Harb, CEQ, and Fleddermann in this order was mentioned in Section 6.3.4. “The Parable in Q,” in the discussion of Q 17:34-35. 188. Kirk, Composition, 262–6. 189. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 138. 190.  Tuckett points out that it is possible to see this verse as a kind of “proverb” that isolated from its context would simply say “that vultures gather around a corpse” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 350). He goes on to note, however, that it is precisely the context that makes this saying much more than simply a wisdom proverb. 191.  Marshall, e.g., comments, the “verse is enigmatic” (Luke, 668). Cf. also Hagner, Matthew, 2:707. Heinz O. Guenther sees Jesus as being “intentionally enigmatic” (“When ‘Eagles’ Draw Together,” Forum 5 [1989]:  140–50). Bovon states, “Lukas erbt aus der Logienquelle einen rätselhaften Spruch” (Lukas, 3:179) and Nolland observes, “Luke’s climax is graphic, but obscure” (Luke, 2:863). Underscoring the challenge of interpretation is Bridge’s statement, “In my own review of the scholarly literature, I have discovered no fewer than 20 different exegetical options regarding this one verse” (“Where the Eagles Are gathered,” 3). 192. Topel, “What Kind of a Sign?,” 403. 193.  Klein contends that the message here “ohne Bild gesprochen” is “Wo Menschen sind, wird das Gericht des Menschensohnes hinkommen” (Lukasevangelium, 576). 194. Kirk, Composition, 266.

226

The Parables in Q

um Aas, unübersehbar?,”195 though it seems that both perspectives are present in the parable. In order for the ἀετοί to gather, they must see the body, but as soon as they are gathered they are easily seen. Heinz O. Guenther, for instance, highlights this latter aspect: “Birds of prey wheeling the sky are clearly visible. By analogy, the advent of the Son of Man, too, will be clearly visible to all mankind—believers and unbelievers.”196 The issue of visibility is also related to a temporal component in that even if the ἀετοί are not visible yet, whenever there is carrion, they are coming. In addition, there is an implied certainty in their coming, a coming that will take place very soon. In this way, the parable presents not only the visible, definite arrival of ἀετοί but also a temporal progression involving only a brief time span.197 Both of these points are possible points of contact with and expansions upon the arrival of the Son of Man discussed in the context of Q 17:24, regardless of whether 17:37 followed immediately upon this verse or is connected to it via the nature imagery. Speed and certainty are involved. As Kloppenborg comments, “The Son of Man will appear in a spectacular, heavenly, and unavoidably obvious manner (17:24) . . . This is reinforced by the ‘eagle saying’ (17:37b) which evokes not only the idea of aerial visibility but also the proverbial swiftness and sureness with which an eagle locates prey (cf. Job 39:30).”198 As already noted above, the speed with which the ἀετοί arrive is a particularly relevant component of the HB imagery with which ἀετοί are associated. The focus on the absence of signs was noted in the comments on the parable of One Taken and One Left,199 and the parable underscores “the argument of the whole discourse,” as Topel puts it, “that the appearance of the Reign of God will be so sudden that there will be no time to say, ‘Here it is!’. ”200 The swiftness of the coming, however, is also connected with its certainty. Piper, for instance, argues, “Although the ‘lightning’ saying may announce (as an ‘eschatological correlative’) the unmistakable recognition of the Son of Man, the ‘vultures’ maxim carries with it a logic of assurance.”201

195.  Harb, Eschatologische Rede, 115n254. Luz, Matthäus, 3:431, e.g., advocates for the first view whereas Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium (2 vols; HTKNT 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88), 2:326, e.g., for the second. 196. Guenther, “Eagles,” 145. 197.  Cf. also Müller, “Schnell und unausweichlich,” 235, and his comment on p. 237: “Das Bild – ob Geier oder Adler – . . . [deutet] auf die Schnelligkeit, die Sicherheit und Unausweichlichkeit, mit der die Adler ihre Beute und die Geier den Kadaver finden.” 198.  Kloppenborg, “Symbolic Eschatology,” 302. Zmijewski comments that in Q “[ist] der Spruch in den Zusammenhang mit dem Bildwort vom ‘Blitz’ gestellt worden” resulting in the tertium comparationis being “die ‘unverkennbare Sichtbarkeit’ bzw. ‘Plötzlichkeit’ seines Kommens” (Eschatologiereden, 512). 199. Cf. Chapter 6, Section 6.3. 200. Topel, “What Kind of a Sign?,” 409. 201.  Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 141. Cf. also Harb’s comment: “So sicher und unvermeidbar es ist, dass Geier dorthin kommen bzw. Geier anzutreffen sind, wo es Aas gibt, so sicher wird der Menschensohn wie ein Blitz erscheinen” (Die eschatologische Rede, 164), and Fleddermann’s statement: “If Christians live the demands of the kingdom in the

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Sapiential” Parables

227

The two sayings involve images that operate in tandem, independent of whether there is intervening material or not: Q 17:24 highlights that “as sudden as a lightning flash so will be the day of the Son of Man”202 and this parable picks up on this image and expands it with additional images so that “as inevitably as the vultures find the corpse, so the end time will appear obvious to all.”203 Finally, it is important to note that vultures come after the body is dead or irreversibly dying. Thus, as Topel argues, though there is not a prior sign of the Son of Man’s coming there is a post-factum sign: all will know the when and the where of the Son of Man’s coming, “but only after the process has irreversibly begun.”204 The emphasis upon the parousia and the judgment that comes with it is ready at hand throughout the eschatological discourse.205 As has been seen already in several other parables, and as rightly recognized by Kloppenborg, in Q “the parousia is not regarded with . . . unmixed enthusiasm . . . On the contrary, it is something to be described with ominous metaphors such as housebreaking, flood and cataclysm (17:26–30) and eagles gathering over carrion (17:37). It is something fearful for Christians as well as for unbelievers and the impenitent.”206

present, they have nothing to fear from the end time that comes as surely as the vultures gather around the corpse” (Q:  Reconstruction, 837). Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 1:136, also focused on the issue of the certainty of the coming. 202. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 833. 203. Ibid. Similarly, Hagner, Matthew, 2:707. 204. Topel, “What Kind of a Sign?,” 411. 205.  Cf. Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 523:  “Daß in Q der Akzent auf dem Gerichtsgedanken liegt, geht nicht nur aus dem Bildwort vom ‘Aas und den Geiern’ hervor, sondern auch aus den Logien, die von der Scheidung bei der Parusie sprechen.” 206.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 150. Here the thoughts of Tuckett are also relevant, ideas already adumbrated in n. 78 above: “It would seem that any sapiential elements in the tradition have been overlaid by a powerful eschatological/prophetic element which uses any sapiential traditional elements to build up a powerful critique against the present world order and against all those who wish to cling to that order” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 353). Incidentally, Tuckett here also addresses the issue of the stratigraphy of Q mentioned in Chapter 3, n. 2, writing, “In one sense this might support Kloppenborg’s thesis of a prophetic Q2 succeeding a sapiential Q1. I am however skeptical about how successfully we can reconstruct the layers of the tradition behind our Q with such accuracy. I  am also more skeptical than Kloppenborg about the extent of such ‘sapiential’ traditions: on several occasions they seem to be far less extensive than Kloppenborg argues, and many seem to be ‘prophetic,’ rather than ‘sapiential’ ” (ibid.). Regardless of whether one is more persuaded by Kloppenborg’s or by Tuckett’s reasoning, the point upon which they agree is that, in the “final form” of Q, prophetic warnings and eschatology have, at least to a certain extent, reshaped the sapiential elements of Q, including certain Q parables.

Chapter 8 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E SU S :  “ D I S C I P L E SH I P ” P A R A B L E S

Without a doubt, the theme of “discipleship” is a major one in Q. Edwards even went so far as to state that “the focal point of the Q theology . . . is discipleship—not primarily Christology or theology.”1 There is a real sense in which nearly every parable could be connected to the issue of “discipleship” broadly conceived. Once again, grouping certain parables together in this chapter is not meant to imply that other parables are not related to the issue of discipleship. Rather, the parables discussed in this chapter either explicitly employ the imagery of a disciple and teacher, as in the first parable discussed below, or have a particularly strong focus on the words and actions performed or expected of someone following Jesus in the manner conceived of by Q.2

8.1 Parable of the Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40)

Mt. 10:24-25a

Lk. 6:40

οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον οὐδὲ δοῦλος ὑπὲρ τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ.

οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον·

25

κατηρτισμένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ.

ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ.

1. Edwards, “An Approach,” 269. 2. In parables of discipleship, Ignaz Ziegler’s observation is particularly a propos, namely, “eine unerläßliche Voraussetzung für die Wirksamkeit eines Gleichnisses ist die Mitthätigkeit des Zuhörers” (Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit [Breslau: Schleisische Verlags-Anstalt v. S. Schottlaender, 1903], xxiii–xxiv).

230

The Parables in Q

This parable3 contains both notable verbatim elements as well as several differences.4 Attention is drawn to both these similarities and differences at relevant points in the discussion below, though the most notable difference should be mentioned right at the outset, namely, the inclusion of the slave/master correlation in Matthew, an element not found in Luke. Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether this element was added by Matthew or omitted by Luke, or whether it was perhaps found in “M” material.5 Within the methodological confines of the intertextual approach utilized in this study, however, only the overlapping imagery can be considered resulting in the presentation of the disciple/teacher being determinative for the study of this parable.6 8.1.1 Plot Analysis Not only is the plot of this parable highly compact, there are also several gaps that must be filled by the reader or hearer. The initial situation presents two characters, namely, a disciple and a teacher.7 The verbatim negative statement in Matthew and Luke, οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον, does not explicitly state a complication, but it could be found either in the inverse of the statement, namely, a

3.  Jülicher noted that many do not consider this passage as one of the “Gleichnisse.” He contended that in Lk. 6:40  “das Gleichnishafte zerstört und nur eine Gnome übrig geblieben [ist]” but that in Matthew one still finds “ein kleines Gleichnis” (Gleichnisreden, 2:45). Even in Luke, however, the verse exhibits all the elements found in the definition of a parable employed here and argued for in Chapter 2. It is, in my estimation, too little to say that the verse is simply a “short proverb” or “aphorism” (cf. Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 207). 4.  Similar to the situation in Q 6:39, many argue that the verse was found in Q even though there are those who disagree. Cf. Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 254–71. Once again, a brief overview can be found in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 38. 5.  For details, cf. Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 295–324. The evaluators of this variant incline to seeing the Lukan version as corresponding to Q with Hoffmann and Verheyden grading Luke = Q as {B}; however, Youngquist and Kloppenborg reveal great uncertainty by evaluating it as {C}. Davies and Allison suggest, “Perhaps Lk 6.40 = Q, is an excerpt from the unit preserved independently in M” (Matthew, 2:192n100). Similarly, Luz states, “Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach ist also die Langform eine von Mt übernommene Sondertradition” (Matthäus, 2:119). 6.  There are similar statements found in Jn 13:16 and Jn 15:20. Fleddermann is of the opinion that this is an obvious indication that John knew either Matthew or Q (Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 744), though some might find the confidence with which he presents this view somewhat overstated. 7.  Though Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 353, notes that “perhaps” this verse can be identified as “sapiential” in some sense, due to the explicit reference to a μαθητής found therein I  have here grouped it with “discipleship” and not “sapiential” parables.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

231

disciple being, or attempting to be, above the teacher or in the teacher having a limitation above which the disciple cannot rise. A further gap then occurs in that the actual development of the μαθητής is not recounted but must be assumed in order to understand the second phrase of the parable.8 Here, regardless of whether Matthew or Q (or neither) reflects the precise Q wording, the denouement and final situation are collapsed into the idea of the disciple being, not above nor below, but like his teacher (ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ).9 8.1.2 Characters There are two characters in this short parable, the disciple and the teacher. Beginning with the μαθητής, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is constructed solely on the basis of his or her positional relationship to the teacher. Even the gap during which the disciple learns and grows is constructed with a view toward the teacher on the basis of the final comparison of being like his teacher. For this reason, the mimetic component is also created on the basis of this relationship. Depending on the perspective from which one considers becoming or being like the teacher, on the one hand, it is possible to view the mimetic component positively along the lines of the disciple who recognizes her or his position of not being above the teacher and thus matures into being like the teacher. On the other hand, the mimetic component could be seen negatively in that it is not possible for a disciple to develop beyond the limitations of the teacher. To a certain extent, the manner in which one views the thematic component of this character as a Symbol shapes the manner in which one views the disciple’s mimetic component. If this verse, alongside of Q 6:39, is understood in the context of an anti-Pharisaic polemic, or at least as a commentary on those in Judaism tasked with teaching others,10 then it is possible to understand this parable as indicating “that the disciples of the Pharisaic scribes cannot be any more sighted than their teachers.”11 Such an

8.  Cf. also the comments in Gabi Kern, “Größenwahn?! (Vom Schüler und Lehrer): Q 6,40 (Mt 10,24-25a/Lk 6,40/Joh 13,16; 15,20),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 69, though her discussion is based on the Matthean wording (ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται) being that of Q. 9. Alfred F. Zimmermann argued, “Da in Mt 10,25 par Lk 6,40b der Wortlaut bei Lukas und Matthäus recht stark auseinandergeht, ist die Rekonstruktion der Q-Fassung hier praktisch unmöglich” (Die urchristlichen Lehrer [WUNT 2.12; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1984], 192). He goes on to conclude, in my estimation rightly, that “wichtig ist . . . der gemeinsame Gedanke, der sich im gleichlautenden ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος ausdrückt” (ibid.). Cf. also the observation of Piper, “both [Matthew and Luke] include a following observation in somewhat different words about the disciple ‘being as his teacher’ ” (Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 132). 10. Cf. the view of Borg referenced in Chapter 7, n. 17. 11.  Borg, Conflict, 324n143. Cf. also Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 190–3; and Zimmermann, Die urchristlichen Lehrer, 192–3.

232

The Parables in Q

anti-Pharisaic polemic, however, is somewhat problematic to posit for Q, even if it cannot be ruled out entirely.12 The context in Matthew in particular, linking the disciples “with the foreshadowed Beelzebul charge against Jesus (10:25b),”13 could allow one to view the disciple/teacher relationship as “a kind of counterpart to the tradition of the fate of the prophets, who were rejected and killed for the message they bore.”14 Even if, however, the Matthean context is not the Q context, Piper is correct to note that teachers and prophets are not mutually exclusive categories so that this connection or an interpretation along these lines may well be “suitable” when simply considering “the form of the saying itself.”15 Many, however, view the parable as having to do with the followers and disciples of Jesus. As Kern puts it, “Eingebettet in eine lange Kette von Parabeln (Q 6,39.41f.43–45.47–49) weist auch dieser Text metaphorisch über sich hinaus, wenn man den schillernden Begriff des Schülers (μαθητής mathētēs) in seiner ganzen semantischen Weite wahrnimmt und so immer schon mithört, dass hier gleichzeitig von den Jüngern die Rede ist.”16 This point is discussed further below when the parable is considered within Q. The διδάσκα λος as a fiktives Wesen also has its synthetic component constructed through the relationship with the disciple. Just as the disciple in the parable is presented with a view toward the teacher, so the teacher is presented as the counterpart to the disciple. Regardless of whether one views Matthew’s ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται, Luke’s κατηρτισμένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται, or neither reading as that of Q,17 the emphasis falls on being like one’s master. The mimetic component of the teacher is thus determined by the extent to which one views this figure as one who should be emulated or one like whom one ought to become. As already noted above in the comments on the disciple, the positive or negative perspective is determined by the thematic component. If this character as Symbol represents the “blind guide” from Q 6:39, then the parable is holding forth a negative example and the reason why the blind follower of a blind guide is doomed to fall—he or she cannot rise above their master. Yet, the parable is often interpreted not as an extrapolation upon Q 6:39 but in contrast to it. Thus, Jeremias wrote, “Jesus loved to speak of his mission in the various figures and symbols which traditionally depicted the deliverer. A thread of eschatological meaning runs through all the figures belonging to this category . . . The teacher instructs his scholars concerning the will of God (Matt. 10.24;

12. Cf. n. 89 below and Chapter 7, Section 7.1. 13. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 132. 14. Ibid., 133. This is how Schulz, Q, 450–1, understood the saying in Q. 15. Ibid. 16. Kern, “Größenwahn?!,” 69. 17. Cf. the discussion in Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 325–42. Illustrative of the uncertainty here for those seeking to reconstruct the precise wording of Q are Kloppenborg’s evaluations of the two variation units. He twice grades Matt = Q as {D}.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

233

Luke 6.40).”18 Alternatively, Allison considers whether the teacher here might not be Jesus but God instead, in particular due to Q 6:36 and its command to be merciful as the “divine Father is merciful” (assuming the Lukan and not the Matthean reading for Q). Allison queries, Might this use of the imitatio Dei just a few verses before 6:40 be the key to interpretation? . . . It is possible that Q 6:40 carries forward the theme that one must be like God, whose example is precept: if God shows mercy, then how can one condemn a brother or sister? The disciple is not about the divine teacher but rather hopes to become like that teacher.19

Jülicher was right to observe that “μαθ ητής und διδάσ κα λο ς werden zwar [Mt.] 9 11 nebeneinander für die Jünger und von Jesus gebraucht, aber weder für die Jünger noch für ihn sind das besonders auszeichnende Titel”20; nevertheless, that it is Jesus (and his disciples) who are depicted here seems most likely for Q. 8.1.3 Images Apart from the general manner in which there is a certain imagery involved in the very nature of a disciple/teacher relationship, there is one particular image employed in the parable to consider further here. The relationship between the disciples and the teacher is initially presented in spatial terms, a disciple is not ὑπέρ the teacher. Spatial depictions of the position of a pupil and a teacher are also found, for example, in Sir. 51:26, where, after having stated that one should acquire wisdom without money (Sir. 51:25), the addressees are told τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν [of wisdom] and Acts 22:3 where Paul describes himself as having been taught παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Γαμα λιήλ. Ebner helpfully observes the manner in which “Über- und Unterordnung in der Alten Welt zur prägenden Struktur des gesellschaftlichen Gefüges [gehört].”21 In addition to passages such as those above, in which the spatial imagery is used in all seriousness to connote the posture between the one being taught and the one teaching, there is also the well-known servus callidus figure in ancient comedies, who is presented as

18. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 121. 19.  Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 95. It should be noted that through an intertextual approach to Q, the basic point of the imitatio Dei can be made apart from a decision concerning the precise wording of Q, whether Luke’s οἰκτίρμονες or Matthew’s τέλειοι or some other word entirely. 20. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:45. In the Lukan context Jülicher contended, “an Jesus als Meister ist nicht zu denken” (ibid., 2:49). For the NT references to Jesus as διδάσκαλος, cf. Zimmermann, Die urchristlichen Lehrer, 85. 21. Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 342.

234

The Parables in Q

superior to his master, at least in wit and intellect, and thus, at least in this sense, turns traditional structures on their head. It would appear that Q rejects such a posture.22 8.1.4 The Parable in Q Consonant with the observation made at the outset of this chapter, Fleddermann comments concerning this parable, “The pericope develops a major Q theme, the identity of the disciple and teacher.”23 As has already been seen in the various suggested thematic understandings of the disciple and the teacher as characters, “Q 6:40 is a puzzle for any reconstruction . . . The commentators on Q are as baffled as those on Luke, and any number of suggestions have been offered.”24 A first issue is one that also affects Q 6:39 discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.1, namely, the question of the location of Q 6:40 in Q. Even though a majority of scholars views it as being found in the Lukan position, the issue is debated.25 Once again, Fleddermann does not posit the Lukan location for the passage as he, along the lines of his placement of Q 6:39, locates the verse in the context of Q 14.26 This leads him to understand a disciple not being above his teacher in particular along the lines of the disciple also needing to be prepared to suffer and to carry the cross. In other words, to be Jesus’s disciple is to imitate the life of Jesus. As such, Fleddermann contends that “the author folds christology into discipleship and discipleship into christology.”27 Though this conclusion may be slighted overstated, even if the parable was not found in Q 14, there is a sense in which discipleship in Q certainly involves the elements highlighted by Fleddermann. Again, regardless of whether one finds Fleddermann’s description of Jesus as a “model Christian” in the temptation account anachronistic for Q or not, Fleddermann is correct in his observation that Q there presents “Jesus as the ideal Israelite obedient to the Torah.”28 Thus, questions involving the identity and behavior of a “disciple” are present from the outset of Q.  In

22. Cf. the comments in Ebner, Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer?, 342. 23. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 744. 24. Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 94. With a view toward commentaries on Luke, Jülicher stated, “Alle denkbaren Irrgänge ist die Exegese bei der Erklärung dieses Sätzleins gewandelt” (Gleichnisreden, 2:48). A series of more recent interpretations are listed in Marshall, Luke, 269–70. 25.  Cf. Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 272–94, and the comments in Hoffmann, “Blinde Führer?,” 12–22. 26.  Cf. Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 904, where he places Q 6:40 between Q 14:16-21, 23 and Q 14:26-27. 27. Ibid., 745. 28. Ibid., 744–5.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

235

addition, passages such as Q 9:57-60 set forth not only the lifestyle of Jesus but also the necessity of radical devotion to following him in that lifestyle, a point which illustrates the concept of a disciple becoming like his teacher. Nevertheless, imitation of the teacher is not the only relevant issue and it should not be overemphasized.29 Taking up a further aspect, as was noted in the discussion of Q 6:39, Kloppenborg views Q 6:40 as one of several verses reflecting “on the relationship between Jesus and his followers in respect to both hortatory sayings and the prophetic judgments.”30 As such, “the point of the saying is not to establish at the Pharisees’ expense that the disciple always emulates his master (and his faults!), but to fault those who strive to go beyond their master, i.e., those who do not emulate their master.”31 At the same time, however, this does not necessarily require a context in which certain individuals are actually attempting to go above and beyond Jesus.32 Kern points out that “lehren und lernen wären verfehlt, wenn es darum ginge, in nie aufhörender Konkurrenz selbstherrlich aufeinander herabsehen zu wollen.”33 Thus, the parable is teaching elements related to the

29.  On the other hand, neither should it be underemphasized. Nolland thus overstates his point in the first half of his comment even while recognizing an important aspect of the parable: “While it receives no emphasis, the teacher/disciple relationship is assumed to be one in which the teacher does not merely impart a body of information but rather teaches the disciple to be as a person what the teacher already is” (Luke, 1:307). The assumption of this element and the fact that the parable is included within Q results in the fact that the imitation of the teacher receives at least some emphasis. 30. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 67. 31.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 184. Cf. the discussion above for further, brief comments on the parable not being an anti-Pharisaic polemic. Though Marshall observes that the point of this verse “is not clear” and lists four possible interpretations found in commentaries on Luke, he also finds the view that “the disciples must not behave differently from, or in a superior fashion to, Jesus” as the mostly likely interpretation (Luke, 270–1). 32.  Such a conflict is assumed, e.g., by Ebner when he contends that the addressees of the saying “sind eine bestimmte Gruppe unter den christlichen Jüngern, nämlich diejenigen, die ‘über’ den Lehrer Jesus hinaus wollen. Der Spruch zeigt also bereits einen Gruppenkonflikt innerhalb der christlichen Gemeinde” (Jesus  – ein Weisheitslehrer?, 343). 33.  Kern, “Größenwahn?!,” 72. Cf. also the comments of Edwards: “The second part of the saying cannot be reconstructed completely but the exact agreement (‘like his teacher’), as well as its similar use in Matthew and Luke, indicates that the point was to warn the disciple to be patient and to persevere so that his goal of reaching the level of the teacher might some day be achieved. The result is an emphasis on discipleship as a way of achieving; by oneself, the goal cannot be attained” (A Theology of Q, 89).

236

The Parables in Q

foundational principles of discipleship in the disciple/teacher relationship.34 And yet, the parable is a comment, not only upon the disciple/teacher relationship in the abstract but also concerning the actual speaker and teacher of the discourse.35 For this reason Riesner here sees a logion that “auf Lehr- und Lernprozesse im Jüngerkreis Jesu zurück[weist].”36 The parable focuses in particular upon the point:  “Ein Jünger aber ist vor allem auch darin ‘nicht über seinem Meister,’ daß er ganz von dessen Lehrtradition abhängig ist.”37 Understood in this manner, even the Lukan phrasing in the second half of the parable, much like the Matthean phrasing, focuses on the disciple not being superior to Jesus and being dependent upon the teaching of Jesus.38 This perspective also links the parable with further Q passages. With a view toward the dependence upon the teaching of Jesus, Manson observed, “This verse is then the statement in general terms of a principle, which is presently to be more particularly applied in 646, 47–49.”39 Consonant with the point made above concerning the manner in which this parable reflects upon Jesus as the speaker and Manson’s point concerning the connection to Q 6:46, 47-49, Kloppenborg rightly observes, “Q 6:40 and 6:46 imply that the speaker is represented as a teacher or master, and the following warning (6:47–49) implies that his words are to be taken with the utmost seriousness.”40 In addition, regardless of the precise location of the parable in Q, the imagery here contrasts with the “blind guides” of Q 6:39,41 as well as the “hypocritical corrector” in 34. Harry Fleddermann refers to the passage as a “text on discipleship” (“The Demands of Discipleship: Matt 8,19-22 Par. Luke 9,57-62,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols; BETL 100; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1992], 1:545). 35.  Cf. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 281. He also draws attention to Q 13:26 where a specific reference to Jesus’s teaching is made. 36.  Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (2d ed.; WUNT 2.7; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 259. 37.  Ibid. Cf. also his further comment that this logion “weist darauf hin, daß die Jesus-Jünger Traditionen lernten” (ibid., 443). 38. Cf. the view of Marshall who sees the Lukan phrasing in synonymous parallelism with “the force being ‘a disciple is not superior to his teacher.’ This interpretation brings the meaning close to Mt. 10:24” (Luke, 270). Ebner argues, “Mit Q 6,40 wird das Autoritätsverhältnis zwischen Schüler und Lehrer festgeschrieben, präzise: die Überordnung des Schülers über den Lehrer abgelehnt und eine mögliche Gleichordnung als äußerste Grenze ins Auge gefaßt” (Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer?, 341). 39. Manson, Sayings, 57. 40. Kloppenborg, Formation, 319. 41.  Concerning the Lukan location, Hoffmann rightly observes, “Indem Lukas der Warnung vor den Gefahren blinder Führerschaft in 6,40 den Lehrer-Schüler-Spruch

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

237

Q 6:41-42.42 Based upon the view that the Lukan order is that of Q, Kirk argues that “6:40 is flanked by two units, 6:39, 41-42a, to whose ridiculous parodies of pretentious, incompetent, and hypocritical moral leadership it offers the strongest possible contrast.”43 Yet again, however, independent of the precise location of any of these parables, it is thus quite true that the disciples “sollen nicht blinde Führer sein (V 39), sondern sich an das Wort und die Art Jesu halten (V 40).”44 For this reason, in Q 6:40 “the true sage’s educative, corrective competence is set forth positively and soberly.”45 Nolland helpfully summarizes, “The imagery lends itself most naturally to identifying and delimiting appropriate aspirations for the disciple in connection with what is to be achieved in the disciple’s relationship to the teacher.”46 These aspirations include imitation as well as devoting oneself to that which is taught by the teacher, elements of the discipleship paradigm in Q also seen in several other parables. In addition, as a parable, the verse is particularly suited to “present not so much a finished product but a work in progress that evolves and emerges as the student engages with the mind of the teacher, as the follower engages with the thinking of Jesus, as the reader or hearer internalizes the voice and message of Jesus in ever-new contexts and circumstances.”47

anschließt, macht er deutlich, was einen Führer, der nicht ins Verderben führt, kennzeichnet” (“Blinde Führer?,” 26). In the context of Q, however, it seems unlikely to me that this parable is seeking to answer the question “Warum sind die Führer blind?” as posited by Joachim Wanke, “ ‘Kommentarworte’:  Älteste Kommentierungen von Herrenworten,” BZ 24 (1980): 214. 42.  The parable of the Splinter and the Beam in Q 6:41-42 is discussed in Chapter 10, Section 10.2. 43.  Kirk, Composition, 171–2. Cf. also his statement:  “In the heart of this cluster the authoritative claims of Jesus are uncompromisingly advanced. The compositional arrangement urges submission to the master (6:40) in place of arrogant presumption of leadership (6:39, 41–42)” (ibid., 172). Bovon similarly comments on the context as presented by Luke: “Der Jünger steht weder über dem Lehrer noch über anderen Jüngern; und wie der Herr nicht gerichtet hat, soll kein Jünger seinen Bruder richten. Andernfalls erweist er sich als blind, als ungebildet” (Lukas, 1:333). 44.  Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 1:370. It is along these lines, but without as many negative connotations, that Nolland asserts, “One should not accept inadequate teachers because as a disciple one is constrained by the limitations of one’s teacher” (Luke, 1:307). 45. Kirk, Composition, 171. Schürmann commented, “Wer nicht lehrt ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος, ist abzuweisen. Die Lehre Jesu, wie sie 6, 27–38 vorgelegt wurde, ist und bleibt der Maßstab” (Lukasevangelium, 1:369). 46. Nolland, Matthew, 433. 47. Valantasis, The New Q, 72.

238

The Parables in Q

8.2 Parable of a Tree Being Known by Its Fruit (Q 6:43-44) Mt. 7:18; 12:33; 7:16

Lk. 6:43-44

7:18

οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν,

οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν. 12:33 Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν, ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν·

οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν.

ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται.

44

ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκεται·

7:16

ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς.

μήτι συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν σταφυλὰς ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων σῦκα; 12:35 ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά.

οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν. 45 ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν·

12:34

γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ.

ἐκ γὰρ περισσεύματος καρδίας λαλεῖ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ.

Independent of particular scholarly views of this parable,48 it is essentially universally recognized that this passage has a complex tradition history. As Baasland 48.  The verses are referred to as a “Bildwort” by Bultmann, Geschichte, 181–2, and Hoffmann, “Die Anfänge der Theologie,” 149, though Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:116, and Schluz, Q, 319, called it a “Gleichnis.” It is recognized as being a “parable” by Marshall, Luke, 272. Piper writes, “The change in metaphor as one progresses from Lk 6:43, 44a to 6:44b to 6:45a, b and finally to 6:45c is more suggestive of a combination of independent sayings than of a parable and application(s)” (Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 47). Here one could ask whether the combination of sayings could, in fact, create a parable, especially when Piper himself writes on the subsequent page, “a pattern of argument emerges in which one moves from general aphorisms to more specific application through several distinct steps” (ibid., 48). In addition, even his own objection that “the passage also has none of the narrative which often characterizes parables in the synoptic tradition” (ibid.,

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

239

rightly observed, “The basic metaphors are the same . . . and yet there are still many differences.”49 It is often argued that Luke’s form reflects that of Q, with Matthew having relocated and reordered certain elements.50 Marshall finds arguments for this view “broadly convincing”; however, one should also remain cognizant of his observation that there are “some points which are not easily explained on this basis (especially the names of the plants and fruits).”51 The parable itself (Q 6:43-44) contains both a general observation and a specific illustration, which is followed by an application in Q 6:45, included in the synoptic presentation above due to its importance for understanding the parable in Q. 8.2.1 Plot Analysis As noted above, the parable contains, and likely begins with, a general observation. The observation is set up in antithetical parallelism with the initial situation of both components simply involving the image of a tree and its fruit.52 The complication involves the nature of the fruit produced based upon the nature of the 47) uses wording (“often,” not “always”) allowing for other types of parables in the synoptic tradition. Narratival elements are clearly present. Baasland discusses the verses under the heading “Metaphors of ‘Tree and Fruit’ (Matt 7,16–20)” though goes on to state:  “Matt 7,16–20 is indeed a parable . . . The metaphors, in the hearer’s imagination, can be perceived as a narrative. The parallel, Luke 6:43–45, is obviously a parable” (Parables and Rhetoric, 522). The opening section to Baasland’s chapter reveals the same difficulties in following his reasoning when identifying parables as he states “Matthew has five or in fact eight parables in the peroratio [Matt 7:13–27]” (ibid., 492) since there is no explanation for why “five or in fact eight” is written or of what factors would result in the different numbering. 49. Ibid., 526. 50. There is also a parallel found in Gos. Thom. 45. For comments, cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:707–708, who point out the agreement in order with Matthew but the agreement with Luke in three particular elements, ultimately concluding that “the supposition of its independence here is a sensible verdict.” Fleddermann, once again, is of a different opinion, writing, “Thomas depends on the Synoptics” (Q: Reconstruction, 313). 51.  Marshall, Luke, 271–2. Cf. also Hans-Theo Wrege, who argued, “Die Differenzen zwischen Mt und Lk lassen sich redaktionell kaum auflösen, wir haben es vielmehr auch hier mit einer Variation des Bildmaterials zu tun, die nicht erst durch die Evangelisten veranlaßt ist” (Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt [WUNT 9; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1968], 139–40). Baasland, however, contends that “this theory is unnecessary . . . Luke and Matthew handle the double tradition differently” (Parables and Rhetoric, 529). Davies and Allison highlight the uncertainty felt by many, asking, “How does one account for the ordering of the material?” and replying “Perhaps we are not dealing with Q but with variants from oral tradition (M and L . . .). Or perhaps at this point Qmt and Qlk were not identical . . . We favour the last option . . . We must, however, admit that a redactional solution cannot be ruled out completely” (Matthew, 1:706–707). Cf. also n. 61 below. 52. Cf. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 48.

240

The Parables in Q

tree. The negative statements indicate what is not possible, namely, the production of fruit with a nature different than the nature of the tree.53 Here it is also interesting to note that the growth of fruit implies the passage of time even if this is not narrated.54 Regardless of whether the “good” tree/fruit55 is viewed as καλός or ἀγαθός (with possible meanings of “healthy,” “of good quality,” or “useful”) and the “bad” tree/fruit as σαπρός or πονηρός (with possible meanings of “rotten” or “unfit”56) the contrast is quite clear. Assuming that the Lukan order is that of Q, and that Matthew has displaced the statement to 12:33 in his Gospel, the only further element in the plot of the general observation is the final situation in which it is stated that it is by its fruit that a tree is known.57 Significantly, however, the final situation highlighting the issue of “knowing” actually results in these verses “lay[ing] a certain responsibility upon the hearers and thus function[ing] implicitly as an admonition.”58 When one turns to the specific instance or illustration of the general observation, it is worth noting that this illustration, regardless of whether it preceded or followed the comments about the tree and its fruit, only extrapolates upon the preceding or ensuing depiction of the “bad” tree. As Bovon puts it, “Die Nutzlosigkeit des schlechten Baumes soll anklagend durch seine Unfruchtbarkeit bewiesen werden.”59 Both Mt. 7:16 and Lk. 6:44 employ the verb συλλέγω to refer to the picking or gathering of the fruit, an activity that once again assumes the passage of time.60 Matthew and Luke also both refer to an ἄκανθα as the first plant.

53.  As Dierk Starnitzke puts it “Keine Pflanze kann eine andere Frucht hervorbringen als es ihrem eignen Zustand entspricht” (“Von den Früchten des Baumes und dem Sprechen des Herzens [Vom Baum und seinen Früchten]: Q 6,43-45 [Mt 7,16-20; 12,33-35 / Lk 6,43-45 / EvThom 45],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 81). 54. Cf. also ibid., 81. 55.  Bovon argues that the singular καρπόν (Lk. 6:43; cf. Mt. 12:33) was found “in der Überlieferung” and that Matthew changed it into a plural in Mt. 7:17-18 (Lukas, 1:337). 56. Cf. the comments in Marshall, Luke, 272; and Hagner, Matthew, 1:184. 57.  Fleddermann points out how the initial statements involving this image move from cause to effect whereas in this statement the argument moves from effect to cause (Q: Reconstruction, 333). 58. Kirk, Composition, 173. 59. Bovon, Lukas, 1:337. 60.  Cf. Kirk, Composition, 174, who points out that in the background is the image “of harvesters picking good fruit from good trees.” Here, again, as was the case in the discussion of the parable of the Fowl and the Flowers in Chapter 7, Section 7.2, despite this background image involving harvesters and there being a depiction of a type of harvest that cannot occur (fruit from weeds), I would not refer to this parable as an example of a “harvest parable” as does Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 187 (cf. also my comments in Chapter 7, n. 68). The harvest imagery here only appears tangentially and is thus employed quite differently than, e.g., in John the Baptist’s parable of the Winnowing (Q 3:17) or in the parable of the Workers for the Harvest discussed below under heading 8.6.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

241

Matthew, however, has a “bunch of grapes” (σταφυλή) not being gathered from this plant whereas Luke has a “fig” (σῦκον). The second plant is a βάτος in Luke and a τρίβολος in Matthew, and this time Luke states that a “bunch of grapes” (σταφυλή) cannot be gathered whereas Matthew refers to a “fig” (σῦκον). Despite these differences and regardless of what the actual reading was in Q,61 the fundamental point is the same: it is impossible to gather fruit from weeds.62 Thus, in this specific situation the implied narrative imagines a thorny weed or plant, the complication of such a plant not bearing fruit, and a transforming action/denouement/ final situation all being related to the recognition of the folly of ever attempting or expecting to find fruit on such plants.63 Therefore, just as the imagery of the specific illustration fills out the abstract concepts of the general observation, the plot of the specific illustration fills out the basic structure of the general observation. In addition, since, as mentioned above, this concrete instance actually highlights the impossibility of a “bad” tree being able to produce “good” fruit, the emphasis of the plot seems to fall on this element of the parable.64 8.2.2 Characters Though there are “harvesters” in the background of Q 6:44, no emphasis is placed upon these stock characters themselves as the parable instead highlights a particular activity and especially the imagery of an “impossible harvest.” For this reason, as was the case in John the Baptist’s parable of the Ax at the Root of the Trees, it is the trees who function as “characters” in this parable, with a possible further sense in which the ἄκανθα and τρίβολος/βάτος also function as “characters.” Though Q 6:43-44, in and of itself, can be understood simply on the agricultural level, the intratextual connection to John the Baptist’s parable as well as the content of Q 6:45 reveal that once again it is as Symbol that the trees, thorns, and thistles/ thornbushes do, in fact, function as “characters.” The imagery of “trees” and “fruit” undergirding this symbolic significance was already discussed in Chapter  4, Section 4.2.1.3, and is also commented upon briefly below. Also worth noting is

61.  Fleddermann rightly states that attempting to reconstruct Q here “involves many extremely difficult decisions” and that “some scholars like Schmid and Schulz decide not to decide; and Marshall despairs of any literary solution, appealing to oral variants” even as Fleddermann himself is convinced that “the situation is not quite as desperate” as some have feared (Q: Reconstruction, 302). This final assessment, however, is an issue very much in the eye of the beholder and exegeting the general image, rather than seeking to establish the precise wording, appears to be, if I am permitted a pun, a more fruitful approach. 62.  Cf. Schulz’s view:  “Eine Entscheidung, welches der jeweiligen Gegensatzpaare ursprünglicher ist, ist kaum möglich . . . und auch sachlich vollkommen belanglos” (Q, 317). 63.  On this final point, cf. also Marshall, Luke, 273. Kirk comments that “the framing of the example as a rhetorical question helps coerce the assent of the auditors” (Composition, 174). 64. So also Marshall, Luke, 272.

242

The Parables in Q

that whereas in Matthew (7:15), the thematic component of these characters is developed in the context of false prophets,65 in Luke (6:39-42) the context is more strongly focused upon issues of discipleship and leadership. The identity of whom precisely the parable has in view is disputed,66 and the function of the parable in Q is a point to which I return below. The synthetic component of the trees and plants as a fiktives Wesen is here created simply by the description of the narrator. For each δένδρον, its respective attributes and the production of fruit consonant with those attributes are simply presented and set forth. Similarly, the ἄκανθα and τρίβολος/βάτος are mentioned along with a comment of what fruit is not found on them. The mimetic component of these characters is constructed exclusively along the lines of the “fruit” produced by the plant. Though here the trees are not being threatened by the action(s) of the divine ax-wielder as in John the Baptist’s parable, the same determination of the character of the tree via its fruit is found in both parables. The emphasis here, however, falls upon the fact that it is by the fruit found on the tree or plant that its character can be deduced. Whereas in Q 3:9 it was the presence or absence of “good fruit” that functioned as a type of character trait, here the presence of “good” or “bad” fruit reveals the nature of the “character.” 8.2.3 Images When turning to the imagery of the parable it is often, and rightly, noted that the parable draws on common images that would have been part and parcel of everyday life for anyone living in an agrarian culture.67 It is also interesting to note that in all the images, “the parable deals with impossibilities and is mainly formed in the negative.”68 That which a certain type of tree cannot do and fruit that cannot be found on certain plants is emphasized. When considering the δένδρον, it is also of significance that the parable only highlights the quality of the tree as determinative

65.  Baasland observes that for this reason the “fruit” in Matthew is “often perceived as an allegory about false prophets” but argues that “to limit the perspective to the lack of good works among false prophets is too narrow an approach” (Parables and Rhetoric, 536). 66.  Cf., e.g., on the one hand, Bovon’s comment, “Mit keinem Wort wendet sich der Text gegen Irrlehrer. Vielmehr denkt Lukas  – und schon die Tradition vor ihm  – an die Glaubenden” (Lukas, 1:336) and, on the other hand, Steinhauser’s statement, “Innerhalb der Logienquelle dient dann das Doppelbildwort als illustrierende Warnung vor Falschlehrern” (Doppelbildworte, 89). Leaving the question as unanswerable is Gemünden:  “Ob das Doppelbildwort schon in Q vor Falschlehrern warnen will, oder ob die Aufmerksamkeit des Hörers/Lehrers auf die Bedeutung seiner Taten gelenkt werden soll, ist nicht mehr sicher auszumachen” (Vegetationsmetaphorik, 144). 67. Baasland points out, “The fruits of trees can be observed in a wild forest, in a field or in a garden. Even people living in the desert or in cities can relate to this metaphor because of the widespread cultivation of fruit trees” (Parables and Rhetoric, 530). 68. Ibid., 527.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

243

for the quality of the fruit, completely ignoring other factors, such as drought, heat, or cold, that could negatively affect the growth of fruit.69 That no other factors are mentioned leads to the focus being placed upon “internal” and not “external” factors, a point that becomes significant for the use of the parable in Q. Furthermore, it is not simply on the level of “trees as character” that this parable is linked with John the Baptist’s parable, for due to its placement at a later point in Q, it is actually the case that “the tree image” in the present parable “picks up the tree image of John’s Preaching (Q 3,8–9).”70 There is a sense in which that image is developed here in that, at least in part, it gives the rationale for why a tree not bearing good fruit is chopped down: if there is no “good” fruit, it is not a “good” tree.71 As Nolland puts it, “Since the role of a fruit tree is to produce fruit, its adequacy as a tree is seen from the fruit that it bears,”72 a depiction also found in, for example, Sir. 27:6. Hans Dieter Betz is surely correct: “That the quality of the tree corresponds to that of the fruit is no accident; it cannot be otherwise.”73 The specific instance involving σταφυλάς and a σῦκα carries this image further by highlighting that “the fruit of a plant is in accord with the identity of the particular plant.”74 Kloppenborg has rightly noted the manner in which these images are employed both elsewhere and in the current context with his observation, “The metaphor of the grapes and figs (44b), which is a Stoic commonplace, and which also occurs in James 3:12 in the context of warning to teachers, provides further grounding for vv. 43, 44a.”75 He makes reference to (Arrian) Epictetus, Diatr. 2.20: “Such a powerful and invincible thing is the nature of man. For how can a vine be moved to act, not as a vine, but like an olive, or again an olive to act, not as an olive, but like a vine?” (Oldfather, LCL) and Plutarch, Tranq. an. 472F: “But as it is, we do not expect the vine to bear figs nor the olive grapes” (Helmbold, LCL).76

69. Cf. also Starnitzke, “Von den Früchten,” 83. 70. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 332. Labahn points to καρπός and ποιέω as specific terms forging this link (“Das Reich Gottes,” 265–6). Matthew, of course, makes this connection even more explicit through Mt. 7:19, which reproduces Mt. 3:10 verbatim. Thus, Nolland rightly comments that Mt. 7:19 “identifies the Matthean Jesus with the judgment emphasis of John” (Matthew, 338). 71.  Ebner points out, “Innerhalb des Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs steht ‘Frucht’ gewöhnlich für die Folge der Tat (Ps 1,3; 58,12; Spr 1,31; Sir 6,18f; Jes 3,10; Jer 17,10; Hos 10,13) oder für die Tat selbst (LXX Spr 10,16; 19,22)” (Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 278n7; cf. also Gemünden, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 143). 72. Nolland, Luke, 1:308. 73. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 538. 74. Nolland, Matthew, 337. In his Luke commentary he notes that “[Luke] v 44b underlines the point by pushing it to an absurd extreme” (idem, Luke, 1:308). 75. Kloppenborg, Formation, 182. 76.  Ibid. Baasland adds examples from Seneca (e.g., Ep. 87.25) and Marcus Aurelius (Parables and Rhetoric, 534). Cf. also Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 537n163 for references to further literature listing parallels.

244

The Parables in Q

Davies and Allison also cite Seneca, De ira 2.10.6, “Do you think a sane person would marvel because apples do not hang from the brambles of the woodland? Would he marvel because thorns and briars are not covered with some useful fruit? No one becomes angry with a fault for which nature stands sponsor.”77 In addition, the HB functions as a bildspendender Bereich regarding the plants in Q 6:44. If the wording of Q is reflected in Matthew’s ἄκανθα and τρίβολος, these terms are coupled in both Gen. 3:18 and Hos. 10:8.78 Even if one focuses only upon the “thorns,” which both Matthew and Luke share in common, this image functions, in the words of Ebner, “als Zeichen der Verwüstung und der Unfruchtbarkeit.”79 Here one can consider references to ἄκανθα in the LXX, including Jer. 4:3, where one is not to sow among the thorns; Isa. 7:23-25, where thorns are central in the images of desolation; and 2 Sam. 23:6, where thorns are thrust away. With a view toward the fruit that is not found on such plants, Manson wrote: “The fig and the grape, two of the most highly prized fruits of Palestine, are not gathered from thorn bushes and brambles.”80 Once again, there are numerous passages in the HB that bring together the images of grapes and figs as produce of value and beauty as seen, for instances, in passages such as Song 2:13; Jer. 8:13; Hos. 9:10; and Joel 2:22.81 8.2.4 The Parable in Q When turning from the consideration of individual elements of this parable to the place of Q 6:43-45 in Q, these verses are another example of the type of passage (along with Q 3:9; 17:37; and 10:2) that Tuckett points out could simply be “some kind of ‘proverb’ or relatively banal statement about the way the world is” when isolated from its context.82 In other words, “Q 6:43–45 says that good trees produce good fruit, and bad trees bad fruit,” a reality observable in any field, in any place, at any time.83 Of course, as true as this statement is, that Q is saying significantly more through this parable was already seen when discussing the “characters” as Symbol and the imagery involved in the parable. Now, the implication of the parable, as found in the statement about the good or bad man bringing forth good or bad treasure and about speech being determined through

77. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:709. 78.  Ebner correctly comments, “Botanisch gesehen sind diese Angaben zwar ziemlich unspezifisch, literarisch aber sind sie in dieser Kombination aus markanten Passagen der atl Überlieferung vertraut” (Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 283). In n. 23 on the same page Ebner notes that there are six Hebrew words for ἄκανθα and three for τρίβολος. 79. Ibid. 80. Manson, Sayings, 60. 81. For these and additional verses, cf. also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 302n311. 82. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 350. 83. Ibid.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

245

the state of one’s heart (Mt. 12:34//Lk. 6:45), drives home the point through an “anthropological revelation” that is “used in the service of other argumentative goals.”84 As Dierk Starnitzke put it, “Der Mensch nimmt an diesem Punkt . . . die Stelle ein, die vormals die Pflanze innehatte. Er selbst ist es, der wie eine Pflanze aus sich heraus etwas hervorbringt.”85 Though the basic fact that one individual is “good” and the other “bad” is not insignificant, the further detail forthcoming at this point is vital: the “treasure” is the “heart” and that which is brought forth is speech.86 That is to say, the point is that one reveals one’s own character as “good” through the actions one takes, the deeds one performs, and especially the speech that crosses one’s lips.87 Thus, on the one hand, the parable and its imagery is used in Q in order to indicate, as again Starnitzke observes, “wie man einen Baum an seinen Früchten erkennen kann, so kann man das Herz eines Menschen an seinen Worten erkennen . . . Wie man das, was am Baum gewachsen ist, in der Ernte sehen kann, so drückt sich das, was bei den Menschen im Herzen wächst, in ihren Worten aus.”88 This speech, then, would be particularly, though not exclusively, related to the parable of the Splinter and the Beam in Q 6:41-42 discussed in Chapter  10, Section 10.2, and the judgmental speech found there.89 It is also possible that there may be a play on words between κάρφος in the previous parable and καρπός in this one.90 On the other hand, as the first discourse in Q draws to a close, this parable creates a composite picture with the parable of the House Built on Rock or Sand found in Q 6:47-49. As Labahn puts it, “so erweist

84. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 394. 85. Starnitzke, “Von den Früchten,” 81. 86.  Similar points are made by Starnitzke, “Von den Früchten,” 82. The image of “treasure” also comes up in the discussion of the parables in Q 12:39-40 (cf. Chapter 6, Section 6..2) and Q 12:24, 27-28 (cf. Chapter 7, Section 7.2). 87. Cf. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 266. 88.  Starnitzke, “Von den Früchten,” 82. Cf. also Kirk, Composition, 174; and Zeller, Kommentar, 34. 89. Cf. also Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 50; and Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 278. Q 6:45 also likely points back to 6:42 (cf. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:122; Kosch, Die eschatologische Tora, 252; and Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation, 175). Baasland contends, “This text is a warning against double standards and an admonition to keep words and acts congruent” (Parables and Rhetoric, 524). Piper also rightly argues against Polag’s and Schürmann’s view (cf. also Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 94–5) that Q is here specifically opposing the legal teaching of the Pharisees (Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 49–50). Highly problematic is Schulz’s language of Q here striking a contrast “zum pharisäischen Judentum: Der Mensch wird nicht aufgrund seiner guten oder bösen Werke zu einem guten oder bösen Mensch, sondern gerade umgekehrt” (Q, 319) due to its “works righteousness” assumptions concerning the nature of Pharisaic Judaism. 90. Cf. also Starnitzke, “Von den Früchten,” 87.

246

The Parables in Q

man sich als gut (→ 6,43ff.) und hat im eschatologischen Gericht Bestand (→ 6,47ff.),”91 a point that receives further elucidation in the discussion of the latter parable below in Section 8.7. For this reason, though there may be specific connections to the preceding verses in Q, Jacob Kremer is at least partially correct in his statement:  “Diese Verse bieten zwar keine direkte Begründung für die voraufgehende Anrede, sondern unterstreichen in einer weit ausholenden Weise . . . alle vorherigen Mahnungen.”92 In sum, “The metaphors are indeed powerful. They are able to describe acts, speech, and the person involved. They can be used together with crucial theological themes like righteousness, fellowship, wisdom and judgement—in short:  the relation to God.”93 Q makes use of nearly all of these possibilities, which only serves as another example underscoring how significant parables are within Q.

8.3 Parable of God or Mammon (Q 16:13) Mt. 6:24

Lk. 16:13

οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν·

οὐ δεὶς οἰκ έτ ης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν·

ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.

ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει.

οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ. οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.

91. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 265. 92.  Jacob Kremer, “Mahnungen zum innerkirchlichen Befolgen des Liebesgebotes: Textpragmatische Erwägungen zu Lk 6,37–45,” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus:  Für Joachim Gnilka (ed. Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 241. Cf. also Baasland’s general contention that “the text wants to define life and uses ‘conceptually sustained metaphors’ to describe the connection between indicative and imperative in a powerful way” (Parables and Rhetoric, 538). Though Hoffmann, in the context of the speech in Q 6 and picking up on the Q preaching of John the Baptist, is correct in noting, “Gewaltlosigkeit und Feindesliebe sind jene Frucht der Umkehr, die den Menschen in den bevorstehenden [Endzeit-] Katastrophen vor dem Untergang bewahren wird,” his contention that this view is developed in contrast to the perspectives of the Zealots is speculative (“Die Anfänge der Theologie,” 149). Cf. also the comments in Chapter 7, Section 7.1. 93.  Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 532. Piper is certainly right that “it is possible to understand the instruction directed at the problem of critical speech” (Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 71) even though it must be emphasized that this is not the only possible understanding of the parable in Q.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

247

In this brief parable,94 Matthew and Luke present an almost precisely verbatim text.95 Once again, however, the parable is found in different locations,96 though Baasland rightly notes that both Matthew and Luke “have money/treasures as the background for the saying.”97 Within Q, Kloppenborg refers to this passage as one which is “not 94.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 29, referred to this parable as a “metaphor” (original:  Bildwort). Kloppenborg, Formation, 46, calls it a “proverbial saying.” Jacques Dupont, “Dieu ou mammon: (MT 6,24; LC 16,13),” in Études sur les évangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck; 3 vols; BETL 70; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1985), 2:552, referred to the passage as “une similitude.” Baasland states that “the wisdom saying is a parable” (Parables and Rhetoric, 364). Betz, however, contends that “in terms of literary genre, the saying should not be classified as a parable or similitude, unless one wants to give these categories a very broad definition” (Sermon on the Mount, 455n271). Betz unfortunately provides no insight into what, in his view, a “very broad,” or, for that matter, a “less broad” definition of a parable would be. In my estimation, an ultimately unconvincing view of the passage is presented in Ian H. Henderson, “Gnomic Quatrains in the Synoptics:  An Experiment in Genre Definition,” NTS 37 (1991):  481–98, in which Henderson proposes, as the title already implies, the novel genre “gnomic quatrain” for the verse. 95. Luke’s οἰκέτης is the only difference between the versions in Matthew and Luke. It is often viewed as Lukan redaction (cf. Heil, Lukas und Q, 121 and 121n10) even though Betz contends that the Lukan wording “almost certainly represents the older Q-version” and sees the omission as the redaction of the Sermon on the Mount (Sermon on the Mount, 455). The parallel in Gos. Thom. 47.2 utilizes the same image without the concluding connection of the image to God and Mammon. Though Michael Labahn states that Kloppenborg refers to Gos. Thom. 47.2 as a “performance variation” of the Q parable (“Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft [Vom Doppeldienst] Q 16,13 [Mt 6,24 / Lk 16,13 / EvThom 47,1f.],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et  al.], 220), the statement is actually made in reference to Gos. Thom. 47.1 which refers to the impossibility of one individual riding two horses or drawing two bows (Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 57n4). Questioning the view that the version in the Gospel of Thomas is more original than the version in Q is Tuckett, “Q and Thomas,” 352–3. A further parallel is found in 2 Clem 6.1 (cf. the brief comments in Hanns Christof Brennecke, “ ‘Niemand kann zwei Herren dienen’: Bemerkungen zur Auslegung von Mt 6,24/Lk 16,13 in der Alten Kirche,” ZNW 88 [1997]: 160). 96. Cf. the discussion in Dupont, “Dieu ou mammon,” 554–8, who concluded “qu’aucun des deux contextes dans lesquels Matthieu et Luc transmettent la sentence ne permet de remonter jusqu’à la situation dans laquelle cette sentence a d’abord été prononcée” (ibid., 557). 97.  Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 363. Concerning the location in Luke, Francis E. Williams commented, “Luke 16 13—an obvious floating saying—was added in order to give the pericope a suitably emphatic conclusion. It will be noted that this verse fits neither the story [of the unjust steward] itself, nor with the appendix of vss. 10 ff., since nothing in these twelve verses has suggested the case of a man trying to serve two masters at once. But the saying was condemnatory, and mentioned the word μαμωνᾶς, which the steward certainly could be said to have served; hence it was felt apropos to the warning against

248

The Parables in Q

obviously part of a larger complex of sayings.”98 He does, however, see the verse in connection with other passages in Q that “advocate a self-renunciatory posture which takes the form of denial of material, social and familial obligations.”99 All of these points are relevant for the discussion below, in particular under the heading “8.3.4 The Parable in Q.”100 8.3.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation presents a slave or servant and makes the general statement that it is impossible for him or her to serve δυσὶ κυρίοις.101 The complication is thus implicitly present in any attempt to render service to two masters. It is worth noting that the parable is not interested in whether it was literally possible to have more than one master (cf., even within the NT, Acts 16:16, 19) but focuses rather upon the issue of actually serving (δουλεύω) two masters.102 An inversely parallel and chiastic statement highlights this inability as any action results in hatred for or despising of the master not served and love of or devotion to the master being served.103 The absence of an explicit transforming action or denouement leads to the emphasis falling upon the final situation, which comes full circle to the initial situation, and concretely applies the point to the inability to serve both God and mammon. It is the stark contrast of the final situation that implicitly appeals to the addressee to make a decision concerning the κύριος being served in her or his own life. 8.3.2 Characters The characters of this parable are somewhat unique in Q. On the one hand, there is the character being served and on the other hand, there is the figure rendering service. First of all, the reference to a κύριος at the outset of this parable is different from every other occurrence of this character within the Q parables for

dishonesty which early commentators saw in the parable” (“Is Almsgiving the Point of the ‘Unjust Steward’?,” JBL 83 [1964]: 297). 98. Kloppenborg, Formation, 100. 99.  Ibid., 232. Kloppenborg refers to Q 9:57-58, 59-60, 61-62; Q 12:22-31, 33-34; and Q 14:26 as other examples. 100.  Aspects of the ensuing discussion draw and expand upon Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables,” 387–8, 392. 101. No specifics concerning the precise nature of this service are stated; it is simply the act of serving in general that is in view. Cf. also Labahn, “Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft,” 220. 102. Cf. similarly Marshall, Luke, 624. 103. On the structure cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 364; and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:642. Nolland rightly points out that “the second statement is really only a restatement of the first (‘or [to say it another way]’)” (Matthew, 304).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

249

the narrator does not here introduce a specific character, but rather the abstract concept of a character. That is to say, the synthetic component of the “master/lord” as a fiktives Wesen is constructed through a saying asserting that it is, in general, not possible to serve δυσὶ κυρίοις. This concept is therefore one that, at least at first, the hearer or reader of the parable fills with meaning. The use of the plural highlights that there may well be multiple κύριοι, and thus multiple “master/ lord” characters, even as the possibility of serving more than one is excluded. The most natural immediate thought would be of an individual who is a “master” over others, in other words, a slave-owner. When attempting to analyze the mimetic component of this character, however, one immediately realizes that the κύριος does not himself act; actions are only taken toward him. In this way the character is clearly present, but static. Even though undeveloped, the character(s) remain(s) present in the parable as the object of the ensuing comments as the figure(s) that one either hates/loves or is devoted to/despises. At the outset of the parable, the identity of the κύριος, or of the κύριοι, is thus developed only in the mind of the addressee. When one arrives at the parable’s conclusion, however, the κύριος as Symbol is no longer left to the imagination of the addressee. The initial abstraction becomes concrete with the narrator specifically addressing the reader or hearer and mentioning two possible masters: θεός and μαμωνᾶς.104 “Mammon” is considered further below as an image, and for the moment it is enough simply to note the manner in which it is placed alongside of God as a (personified) entity. Whether or not Blomberg is correct in asserting that “ultimately money is the single greatest competitor with God for human affection,”105 in this parable it, in its broadest sense, is clearly set over and against God. The second character in the parable is the individual who offers service to a κύριος. As Labahn rightly notes, the idea of “serving” the κύριος draws another character into the world of the parable for “im verb [δουλεύω] steckt . . . der Gegenbegriff zum Herrn: der Diener bzw. Sklave.”106 The synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is thus constructed in relationship to and as the counterpart of the “master.” The mimetic component of this figure is developed through the reference to the act of service, with the act of serving one κύριος described as love for/devotion to him and hatred for/despising of the other. These descriptions are also considered further below as images, though it is striking that there is no elucidation of what actions constitute either the

104. The parable here takes a decided theological turn in that it does not simply offer a “clear-cut ‘either-or’ stance” but also because “God is set over against ‘another master.’ It is not simply a contrast of ‘God versus possessions’; it is undivided devotion to God in contrast to undivided devotion to another” (Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers,” 345). Cf. also Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 454–5. 105.  Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 308. It is also not clear to me that Q 16:13 is necessarily “an attack on wealth as one of the measures of social status, in ancient Mediterranean society no less than in ours” (Bjorndahl, “Honor Map,” 69). 106. Labahn, “Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft,” 220.

250

The Parables in Q

“hating” or “loving.” It is also worth noting that the placement of the negatives at the beginning and conclusion of the two antitheses results in this element receiving the greater emphasis,107 causing the mimetic component of the one serving being shaped more strongly by the image of the master who is being slighted than by the master who is being served. When one arrives at the conclusion of the parable, therefore, the depiction of the manner in which God is not served when another κύριος is served predominates. Just as the final statement in the parable presents a specific thematic component of the κύριος, the second person plural address in both Matthew and Luke108 connects the slave as Symbol to the reader or hearer of the parable. That is to say, the narrator specifically applies the general concept of not being able to serve two masters to the addressee of the parable specifically being unable to serve God and mammon. 8.3.3 Images When attention is given to the images of the parable, one notices that, as Baasland put it, “the narrative is not seen from the perspective of the slaves nor that of the slave-owner.”109 It is the narrator who makes observations about the relationship between a slave and his master, ultimately applying the observations to two masters in particular. Thus, images of significance to consider further here are the love/hate dynamic expressed in the parable as well as the reference to mammon at its conclusion. First, it should be noted, as is often pointed out in scholarly discussions of this passage, that there are numerous parallels in other ancient literature to the sentiment expressed at the outset of this parable. For instance, in Plato, Resp. 8.555c one reads, “It is impossible for the citizens of a city to honour wealth and at the same time acquire a proper amount of temperance; because they cannot avoid neglecting either the one or the other.”110 Similar sentiments can be found in Philo, frag. 2.649, and in Poimandres, 4.6. In T. Jud. (18:6) a warning is spoken against sexual immorality and the love of money for such things draw one away from God in making one a slave of two opposing passions and so unable to obey God.111 The sentiment is also “similar to the wisdom theme of the ‘two ways’ which we find in the Didache, among other places.”112 In a comment on Q 14:26, to which Heil

107. So also ibid. 108. Both Matthew and Luke formulate the direct address as οὐ δύνασθε . . . δουλεύειν. 109. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 368. 110. Cited in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:642. 111.  For additional references, cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 366; and Dupont, “Dieu ou Mammon,” 443n4. 112. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 137. Shmuel Safrai and David Flusser discuss the points of contact with rabbinic and Qumranic teaching, though their conclusion that we “see the subtle creativity of Jesus’s thought in the manner in which he succeeded here, as on other occasions, in fusing rabbinic and Essene ideas into one, personal unity” may be overstated

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

251

refers in his discussion of Q 16:13, he observes, “Das Verb μισέω muß hier aus einer semitischen Perspektive verstanden werden (vgl. ‫)שׂנא‬, die weniger auf die Emotion als auf die beobachtbare Tatsache Wert legt.”113 Along these lines reference is often made to passages in the HB where the presentation of “love” and “hate” has to do with, on the one hand, preferential treatment or, on the one hand, of being put in second place (e.g. Gen. 29:31, 33; and Deut. 21:15-17; Mal. 1:2-3).114 With reference to Ps. 119:113, Baasland even goes so far as to state that the sentiment here “is more than a psychological phenomenon. It is a theological statement.”115 For this reason, E. P. Groenewald has helpfully observed, “These verbs are indicative of an attitude towards a person . . . total devotion and availability (as a slave is forever at the bidding of his master); or, on the contrary, of an attitude of estrangement and a severing of ties and obligations.”116 The image is thus highlighting that if one is fully available for one master, it is impossible to be fully available for another. In this sense one is “loved” and the other “hated.” As already noted above, at the conclusion of the parable one encounters (personified) mammon. The term itself is a Hebrew/Aramaic loanword of disputed etymological origin and even though the term is not used in the HB, France points out that it is “used in the Targums without qualification in the neutral sense, as in Proverbs 3:9 ‘Honour Yahweh with your mammon,’ and even in the Palestinian Targums of Deuteronomy 6:5, ‘You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mammon!’ ”117 As such, though Luke in 16:9 and 16:11 referred to “unrighteous mammon,” the term itself “came to be used quite neutrally of all the possessions that make up one’s wealth, whether much or little (money, property, slaves, etc.).”118 At the same time, however, Labahn has pointed out, “Eine metaphorische Verwendung oder gar Personifizierung des Begriffs kann vorntl. nicht nachgewiesen werden.”119 Concerning the imagery as found in Q, Jacobson has argued that “mammon” here is to be understood as “the ordinary business of making a living” and that since “the ‘economy’ in first century Galilean villages was enmeshed in the family, then it becomes clear that what is being set in opposition is service to God and service to home and family.”120 For this reason he concludes, “Q 16,13 is, in

(“The Slave of Two Masters,” in David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity [Jerusalem: Magness, 1988], 169–72, citation from p. 172). 113.  Heil, Lukas und Q, 98. Similarly, Davies and Allison state, “ ‘Love’ and ‘hate’ refer not so much to emotions as to faithful labour: to love = to serve” (Matthew, 1:642). Cf. also Bovon, Lukas, 3:95; Hagner, Matthew, 1:159; and Luz, Matthäus, 1:362. 114. Cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 369. 115. Ibid. 116. E. P. Groenewald, “God and Mammon,” Neot 1 (1967): 61. 117. R. T. France, “God and Mammon,” EvQ 51 (1979): 9. 118. Nolland, Matthew, 304. Cf. also Hagner, Matthew, 1:159. 119. Labahn, “Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft,” 22. 120. Arland D. Jacobson, “Jesus against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson,

252

The Parables in Q

effect, an anti-family saying.”121 It must be stated, however, that this would be a rather oblique manner in which to make this point, especially given the fact that Q does not mince words in Q 14:26. Even if this view could be part of what it means to serve God and not mammon, to read the parable simply as an “anti-family saying” is too narrow a perspective. As Piper observes, “It is not impossible that ‘Mammon’ represents all that is in opposition to God’s kingdom.”122 This point also factors in the consideration of the parable in Q. 8.3.4 The Parable in Q Baasland comments that on the surface, the message of this parable is abundantly clear through its application: “to love God and not Mammon is the clear message.”123 He continues with the thought that “the challenge for exegesis is thus to grasp the consequences and the extension of the saying.”124 Of course, if one wishes to be pedantic, Baasland’s “clear message” has already effected a certain restriction of the saying for he mentions only “love” and not “love and serve.” In fact, Baasland himself, just a few pages later, states that “the main issue is indeed ‘serving,’ δουλεύειν.”125 Be that as it may, however, Baasland’s point is well taken and the consequences of the parable and its extension in Q are of particular interest here. First of all, as already noted above, it is the negative imagery—the “hating” or the “despising”—that is highlighted within this parable. It would therefore appear to be the case that a profound concern with the slighting of God, the “master,” forms the background of this parable. Coupling the issue of serving God, and by extension God’s kingdom, and earthly possessions has points of contact with several other passages in Q. For instance, the parable is connected to the temptation of Jesus in which the devil offers him the kingdoms of the world and their splendor if Jesus were to bow down before him.126 Furthermore, Tuckett has noted how “money (‘mammon’) appears as a potential rival to God for the object of service”127 and rightly observes that “this in turn links with the material in the mission charge and on cares, where the hearers are encouraged to put all concern for the material goods and money on one

Kristin De Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; BETL 146; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 2000), 196. 121. Ibid. 122. Piper, “Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence,” 235. 123. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 361. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid., 371. 126.  Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 212–13; idem, Formation, 252; Labahn, “Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft,” 222–3; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 421. Piper comments that the passage and its quasi-personified mammon “is not far removed from the Q temptation narrative” (“Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence,” 253). 127. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 421.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

253

side.”128 Piper comments on the connection to Q 12:33-34 where “there is no direct judgement upon earthly treasure itself as ‘unrighteous’ or tainted; its defect is that it is corruptible and temporary.”129 Nevertheless, “its danger is that it is both futile and brings into question one’s loyalty—where one’s heart is.”130 Thus, “trust in mammon in the sense of ‘what one relies upon for physical security,’ and the contrast of this with trust in God, fits easily with the attitudes expressed in the other Q texts about wealth, poverty and subsistence.”131 In the light of several warnings in Q involving money, treasures, or possessions, Tuckett has argued that “Q sayings such as 12:29–31, 33–34; 16:13 imply that possessions were real options, albeit ones to be rejected”132 and that “warnings about storing up treasure on earth (Q 12:33f.) or against serving mammon (Q 16:13), only make sense if directed against those who have a certain amount of money and/or possessions.”133 Yet, is it really the case that one must have a certain amount of money in order to be worried about or pursuing money? It seems to me that one’s attitude toward material possessions could very well be completely independent of the extent of one’s earthly riches.134 Baasland rightly queries, “Must the text be read from the theory of itinerant radicals, a group of charismatic itinerants who were preaching and practising this ethos?”135 Warnings concerning the service of “mammon” are, in my estimation, relevant for individuals in any economic situation or class. As such, an appropriate expansion of the text “is to see the sayings as examples of what seeking the Kingdom of God implies.”136 At the same time, Piper points out that the “dualistic conflict of two personalised powers sets the saying apart somewhat from other Q sayings that contrast anxiety

128.  Ibid. Cf. also Labahn’s comment, “Geld und das Streben danach stehen der In-Dienstnahme durch Gott ebenso im Weg wie dem Sich-Verlassen auf Gottes Fürsorge” (“Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft,” 222). 129.  Ronald A. Piper, “Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence in Q,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin De Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; BETL 146; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 232. 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid., 235. 132. Kloppenborg, Formation, 251. 133.  Tuckett, Q and the History or Early Christianity, 360. Cf. also his comment a few pages later that these verses “suggest an audience which is not destitute” (ibid., 365). 134. Martin Hengel, for instance, also connects Q 12:22–31 and Q 16:13 without recourse to considering the economic well-being, or lack thereof, of the addressees: “Die Nähe der Gottesherrschaft fordert die Freiheit gegenüber Besitz, den Verzicht auf alles Sorgen, das völlige Vertrauen in die Güte und Fürsorge des himmlischen Vaters (Mt 6, 25–34  =  Lk 12, 22–32). Der Dienst gegenüber Gott und gegenüber dem Mammon schließen sich grundsätzlich aus” (Eigentum und Reichtum: Aspekte einer frühchristlichen Sozialgeschichte [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973], 32). 135. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 367. 136. Ibid., 373.

254

The Parables in Q

about material things with ‘God’s kingdom’ in Q 12,31, or even ‘treasure in heaven’ with earthly treasures in Q 12,33-34.”137 There is an important sense in which the imagery here does not simply entail worrying about or concern with mammon, but actual service of mammon. As such, the opposition is absolute and the choice is stark. Only one master can be served.138 In this way Baasland correctly recognizes the appeal in the parable, writing: “The audience is challenged: There is no middle ground, you have to choose between the two masters, between God and Mammon.”139 The issue is thus more than simply a state of mind or of a carefree attitude toward possessions, for the parable strikes more deeply at the central issues of following Jesus. As Hagner put it, “The nature of discipleship is such that it allows no such divided loyalties. If one chooses to follow Jesus, the commitment and service entailed are absolute.”140 Q employs this parable in order to underscore this point. Finally, it is often, and rightly, observed that there is a certain “wisdom nature” to the parable, the opening statement in particular. For instance, Kloppenborg refers to Q 16:13 as “clearly a wisdom sentence.”141 And yet, Edwards made the important observation that “the significance of the statement of a general truth depends upon the stance of the hearer. Given the eschatological interest of Q, the imminent appearance of the Son of Man as judge, so-called gnomic statements gain new and different meaning.”142 This also includes this parable. In the light of the kingdom of God, the coming of the Son of Man, and the task to which the followers of Jesus are called in Q, the parable sets forth the manner in which discipleship requires radical commitment to God with undivided service.143 Though

137. Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers,” 345. 138.  Cf. also the observations Halvor Moxnes: “The servant has two possibilities; there are two masters whom he can serve, God and mammon. ‘Mammon’ is no longer a resource that the faithful servant can control and put to good use. It has become another master who is able to enslave the servant. Thus, ‘mammon’ is put over against God in a dualistic pattern” (The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel [OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988], 143). Betz also points out that the theological demand of serving only God is nothing new for Judaism and queries, “Then what is the point? The saying is peculiar in that it sees this undivided loyalty as threatened by the service to another deity, Mammon, that is directly opposed to God . . . In the concrete situations of life, therefore, one must choose between serving the true God and serving a pseudo-deity, Mammon” (Sermon on the Mount, 454). 139. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 371. 140.  Hagner, Matthew, 1:160. Cf. also the sentiment of Dupont: “Ce qui est demandé n’est pas simplement un geste par lequel on se libérerait d’un seul coup de la tyrannie de Mammon; il s’agit des dispositions du cœur qui inspirent un service prolongé, capable de résister à l’usure du temps” (“Dieu ou mammon,” 567). 141. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 381. 142. Edwards, “An Approach,” 261. Cf. also Schulz, Q, 460. 143.  Cf. also the comments of Labahn, “Es geht um die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Hingabe an Gott. So wird die mit der Einladung zum Reich verbundene and hinter dem

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

255

Nolland observes, “A slave with two masters is a slave with problems,”144 a disciple of Jesus with two masters is an impossibility.

8.4 Parable of the Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24-26) Mt. 12:43-45

Lk. 11:24-26

Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,

Ὅταν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,

διέρχεται δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει.

διέρχεται δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκον·

44 τότε λέγει· εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ἐπιστρέψω ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον· καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σχολάζοντα σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον.

[τότε] λέγει· ὑποστρέψω εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον· 25 καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον.

45

26

τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ· καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. οὕτως ἔσται καὶ τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ πονηρᾷ.

τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει

ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ· καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων.

In the midst of the larger passage Q 11:14-32, a passage that Jens Schröter refers to as “einen wichtigen Bestandteil der Mk/Q-Doppelüberlieferungen,”145 one finds a parable that only Matthew and Luke relate.146 For this reason, the passage is usually Wort vom Doppeldienst stehende Umkehrforderung Jesu auch zu einer Grundforderung für die Gestaltung des Daseins der Adressaten von Q in einer Zeit der Erwartung des Kommens des Menschensohnes” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 278). 144. Nolland, Luke, 2:808. 145.  Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 242–6, citation from p. 240. Schröter provides a helpful summary of the reasons for positing a Q parallel to Mark in the verses found in all three Gospels. 146.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 197, referred to 11:24-26 as a “parable” (original:  Gleichnis). I am not sure why Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 233, though stating that it is a “Gleichnis,” placed the term in quotation marks. Kloppenborg only calls it “a teaching on demonology” (Formation, 169). Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 261, calls it a “Bildwort,” though he also notes that in the Lukan version it has “den Charakter eines Gleichnisses” (ibid., 262). Curiously, Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 120–2, states precisely the opposite. “The Matthean version clearly functions as a parable, for (unlike the Lukan version) it ends

256

The Parables in Q

assigned to Q. In addition, as was seen in the table in Chapter 2 and as noted in numerous discussions of the passage, the agreement between Matthew and Luke here is among the highest in the double tradition.147 8.4.1 Plot Analysis Unlike several other parables in Q, in this parable the plot development is clearly narrated over the span of three verses. At the same time, the plot functions on two levels: on the level of the unclean spirit and on the level of the person.148 The initial situation is that an ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα has gone out from an ἄνθρωπος. In other words, an exorcism that is not narrated has taken place and there is now a “homeless” unclean spirit as well as an “uninhabited” person.149 The complication for the spirit is that now, as it goes through waterless places, it finds no place to rest. As a result, the spirit states that it will return150 to its former “house.” Arriving there, the element that is the denouement for the unclean spirit, namely, that the “house” is

with this ‘so will it be also with this evil generation’ ” (ibid., 120). Concerning the Lukan version Allison states, “When one turns from Matthew to Luke one leaves daylight and enters darkness: it is not at all clear how the unit of the returning demon functions in the Third Gospel” (ibid., 121–2) and concerning Q he argues that “there is no reason to regard the unit as a parable” (ibid., 127). As far as I can tell, the rationale here employed by Allison as to whether the passage is a parable or not is based upon whether a word of application follows. If, however, this were to function as a criterion for or part of the definition of a parable, considerable material in the Gospels widely accepted as parables would need to be excluded. Whether the Gospel text contains an explicit application or not is irrelevant for identifying a parable. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 508; Jacobson, The First Gospel, 170; Nolland, Luke, 2:645; and Marshall, Luke, 480, refer to it as a “parable.” It is not quite clear to me what Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 289–90, intends to express by calling it a “mini-‘parable,’ ” with “parable” in quotation marks. 147.  Cf., e.g., the comments in Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (WUNT 2.185; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 128, 159. Particularly striking is Matthew and Luke’s agreement in using the unusual term σαρόω in Mt. 12:44//Lk. 11:25 (cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, 47; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 85). 148. As Michael Labahn puts it, the parable “berichtet zunächst über das Schicksal eines aus einem Menschen ausgetriebenen Dämon, um mit einem Erzählerkommentar über das Schicksal des Menschen zu enden” (“Füllt den Raum aus – es kommt sonst noch schlimmer! [Beelzebulgleichnis] Q 11,24-26 [Mt 12,43-45 / Lk 11,24-26],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 126. 149.  Plummer’s view that no exorcism took place is not convincing (Luke, 304). Even though it is not explicitly stated, an exorcism is to be assumed (cf., e.g., Bovon, Lukas, 2:180; and Hagner, Matthew, 1:356). 150.  Regardless of the precise verb used, both Matthew and Luke express the idea of a “return.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

257

σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον,151 is simultaneously the complication for the person. As the spirit moves toward the final situation of his plot by going and bringing seven other, more evil, spirits, the complication is augmented for the person. This ἄνθρωπος, then, does not experience a transforming action or denouement in that the final situation for the unclean spirit, and now also seven fellow spirits, of entering in and dwelling in the “house” leads directly to a final situation for the person being in a state worse than the one just prior to the parable’s initial situation. That is to say, for the spirit the parable presents a plot that resolves in a positive ending; however, this ending is profoundly negative for the person who is now worse off than she or he was before the actions recounted in the parable began.152 8.4.2 Characters In this parable one finds two individual characters, namely, the person and the unclean spirit (i.e., a demon), and one group character, namely, the seven “even more evil” spirits whom the unclean spirit brings with him at the conclusion of the parable. Only the individual characters are developed in any sense as the stock group character appears only to highlight the “worse state” at the conclusion of the parable. When considering the individual characters, Labahn has observed, “Der ausgetriebene Dämon . . . ist zwar die Figur, der der größte Raum in dieser Erzählung eingeräumt wird, aber die eigentliche Identifikationsgestalt ist der Mensch, in dem der Dämon seine Wohnstätte verloren hat und wieder einnimmt.”153 The synthetic component of the person as fiktives Wesen is initially constructed “midstream” in that the parable begins with an unclean spirit having gone out from this individual. Thus, the hearer or reader fills the gap and mentally notes that one is dealing with an individual who was possessed by a demon, but is no longer inhabited by this demon. The ἄνθρωπος then momentarily fades from view as the wandering of the unclean spirit is described, only to be reintroduced through the direct speech of the demon with the reference to “my house.” As such, even though the demon has departed from the “house” of this individual, the person is still presented as the unclean spirit’s “home,” at least from the perspective of the demon himself.154 The conclusion of the parable confirms this perspective as the

151.  Mt. 12:44 also states that the house is σχολάζοντα. Allison states that “it may or may not be redactional” (Jesus Tradition in Q, 121n7), a statement that cannot be erroneous! 152.  Cf. also Wahlen’s observation that the “picture progressively deteriorates” for the ἄνθρωπος (Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits, 129). Nolland comments, “The upshot of it all is that this demonized person has known a temporary improvement in his lot, which quickly gives way, however, to a situation disastrously worse than that from which he began” (Luke, 2:646). 153. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 275. 154. Cf. also the description of Labahn, who notes the manner in which the individual “im religionsgeschichtlichen Rollenschema Objekt des Dämons [bleibt]” (“Füllt den Raum aus,” 127).

258

The Parables in Q

unclean spirit not only returns, but brings seven of his friends with him. The mimetic component of the ἄνθρωπος as fiktives Wesen is developed through the actions that this individual performs while the demon is wandering. Apparently, the “house” has been “swept” and “put in order.” Precisely what the individual did that is described in these terms is not revealed, and yet the point is that the house was available, and actually even hospitable, for the demon to return. For this reason, even though there is no indication that the activity in which the individual engaged, whatever it may have been, was evil, it is abundantly evident that it was completely inadequate and entirely ineffective for avoiding ending up in a worse state than the one in which one started. Therefore, the mimetic component of this character is clearly negative. Turning to the ἄνθρωπος as Symbol, the thematic component of this character presses beyond the specific situation involving an exorcism. That is to say, the parable speaks not only to those who were once demon-possessed and are now confronted with the possibility of ending up in a worse state but uses this scenario to make a point more broadly relevant for Q’s audience. Though this point is considered further below under the heading “8.4.4 The Parable in Q,” there is an implicit sense in which the parable raises the question in the mind of the reader or hearer, “How can I ensure that I would not be considered a welcoming ‘house’ for a demon?” By extension, therefore, it is entirely possible for the addressee to identify with the ἄνθρωπος even if she or he never experienced an exorcism. Concerning the “unclean spirit,” the synthetic component of this character is constructed at the outset along similar lines to the person. That is to say, the spirit is introduced as having left the person and is then described as wandering δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων and seeking a place to rest. Though the imagery involved here is discussed below, significant for this character is that the narrator describes this search as unsuccessful. At this point, unlike the person, who is described throughout the entire parable by the narrator, the demon speaks and so presents himself through his own words. This moment of indirect characterization is also relevant for his mimetic component. Yet, the direct speech ends after one sentence and the synthetic component is once again constructed through direct characterization, on the basis of the description by the narrator, all the way to the conclusion of the parable. Turning to the mimetic component of τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα as a fiktives Wesen, it is quite clear that such an entity carries immediate and strongly negative connotations.155 In addition, though the group of seven demons mentioned at the conclusion of the parable is a stock character, the fact that they are described as “more evil” (πονηρότερα) obviously means that the unclean spirit himself is “evil.”156 The fact that the demon cannot find rest does not elicit sympathy on the

155.  This is evident in the numerous references to unclean spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, the two occurrences in Acts (5:16 and 8:7) and the two occurrences in Revelation (16:3 and 18:2). 156. Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 20, views πονηρός as linking Q 11:24-26, Q 11:29-32, Q 11:33-36, and Q 11:39-44, a term which Allison also sees forging connections to 6:22, 35, and 45.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

259

part of the addressee, and his comment that he will return to his house, far from evoking the sentiment of hope in the reader or hearer that the demon can find rest there, raises a specter of doom as the addressee knows that the unclean spirit is seeking to repossess the individual from whom he was sent out. As is often the case with supernatural characters, the thematic component of the demon as Symbol does not appear to press into a further metaphorical level. The unclean spirit is already connoted as an enemy of God and a hostile entity for humanity. Thus, the demon qua demon already symbolizes a force aligned against the kingdom of God as the exorcising of such demons is associated by Jesus in Q with the presence of the kingdom (Q 11:20). 8.4.3 Images When turning to the images in this parable, Richard Valantasis has helpfully observed the manner in which “the space where spirits live takes center stage and becomes the primary concern of the saying.”157 Thus, there are a series of spatial images worth noting.158 First, at the outset of the parable, there is the “waterless place” through which the demon is wandering seeking a resting place. Marshall here commented that “the point is perhaps not the dryness but the absence of men from such desert regions, so that the demon cannot find anywhere to rest.”159 In any case, Jeremias, with reference to Tob. 8:3, Mark 5, and the temptation accounts in Matthew and Luke, stated that the desert is “the natural abode of demons.”160 There is indeed a tradition linking demons with deserted and desolate locations as seen, for example, in Isa. 13:19-21; Bar. 4:33-35; and Rev. 18:2. As Davies and Allison put it, “In Jewish and Christian belief, as in Persian and Egyptian religion, the wilderness was the haunt of evil spirits, a dangerous zone outside the boundaries of society.”161 In a certain sense, then, the demon is precisely where he “belongs,” at least from the perspective of humanity, as he moves through this “waterless place.” The problem, however, is that the demon apparently is not where he wants to be, leading him to express the desire to return to the house from which he came. As is often noted, the term οἶκος has a wide semantic field including both physical structures of various types and those dwelling within such structures.162

157. Valantasis, The New Q, 131. 158.  Bovon goes so far as to state, “In dieser ganzen Einheit VV 14–26 geht es um Räume, die zu besetzen sind” (Lukas, 2:182). 159. Marshall, Luke, 479. 160. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 197. Labahn contends that the specific term ἔρημος not being utilized here “entspricht ihrer anderartigen Verwendung in Q” in Q 4:1; Q 7:24; and Q 17:23 (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 498). Be that as it may, the precise term used to describe the barren location is not of primary significance. 161. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:354. Also noting the danger present in the desert is Bork, Raumsemantik, 154. 162. Cf., e.g., Labahn, “Füllt den Raum aus,” 130.

260

The Parables in Q

As noted above, in a statement by the unclean spirit, he identifies an individual as “my house,” thus claiming the person as his own and the individual, conceived of as a space, as the realm of his power and authority. Indeed, the plot on the level of the unclean spirit as discussed in the plot analysis reinforces this sentiment as the parable ultimately points to the danger of this state of affairs. The description of this “house” when the demon returns to it (σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον) functions as an indication that the unclean spirit would find it a welcoming alternative to the “waterless place” through which he has been traipsing. As Jülicher had already pointed out, “Selbstverständlich will der Text mit den drei (oder zwei) Prädikaten nur das – im Gegensatz zur Oede draussen – Einladende des alten Hauses malen.”163 It is striking that at no point are specific negative consequences of a demon possession mentioned; rather the focus is simply on the individual as “space,” and more specifically “uninhabited space” or “inhabited space.”164 From this perspective it is readily apparent why Labahn argues, with the term Freiraum “lassen sich Bild und ethischer Gestaltungsspielraum sehr treffend fassen.”165 The space occupied by the demon prior to the initial situation of the parable was “freed” of his presence; however, again as noted by Labahn, “Die geschaffene Freiheit gilt es nunmehr zu bewähren . . . wird der gewährte Freiraum nicht ausgestaltet, so bereitet dies den Raum für eine noch schlimmere Unfreiheit vor.”166 Along these lines, Fleddermann concludes that “anyone freed from the power of evil needs to submit to the power of the kingdom.”167 With this observation, however, one is already moving into the understanding and purpose of the parable in Q. Yet, before turning to this purpose, there is one final image that often receives attention in scholarly literature. Even though it was noted above that the “seven unclean spirits” are a stock group character who, apart from serving to reveal that the unclean spirit is also “evil,” only underscore that the final state of the individual in view is worse than that person’s initial state, the fact that it is seven such spirits, however, has at times been seen to be significant. Though Jülicher, not surprisingly, saw the number here only representing “die Vielheit der beim zweiten Mal einziehenden Dämonen . . . gegenüber der Einzahl des ersten bösen Gastes,”168 the numerical value may have symbolic meaning. One does not, of course, need to go as far afield as Johann Albrecht Bengel, referenced by Jülicher, and posit that the ensuing eight demons teach us that there are eight cardinal sins, when, nevertheless, positing some sense of “completeness” being represented by the number seven. Jeremias argued, “Seven is the number of totality; the seven evil spirits represent every form of demonic seduction and wickedness”169 and Hagner

163. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:235. 164. Cf. Labahn, “Füllt den Raum aus,” 126. 165. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 275n62. 166. Ibid., 275. 167. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 508. 168. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:235–36. 169. Jeremias, Parables, 197.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

261

was of the opinion that the seven demons imply “thorough domination.”170 Given the fact that the parable underscores the “worse” state of the ἄνθρωπος at the parable’s conclusion the use of the numeral seven may well have been intentionally employed due to the symbolism associated with it. 8.4.4 The Parable in Q In Q, it is apparent that regardless of this parable’s precise location, there is a connection to the exorcism mentioned in Q 11:14.171 In addition, the parable appears in close connection with the Beelzebul controversy in both Matthew and Luke,172 and as such it is evident that the parable picks up on the sense in which “das Austreiben des Dämons . . . Ausdruck der Präsenz des Gottesreiches (Q 11,19 f.) und damit von Freiheit [ist].”173 With a view toward Q 11:19, Allison presses this point further seeing “a critique of exorcists outside the faith . . . When others cast out demons, those demons typically return, and with a vengeance. If one does not fill the space left by a demon with faith in Jesus, then no lasting good is done. The last state will be worse than the first. In other words, non-Christian exorcists are not truly effective.”174 This is a somewhat curious argument, however, for it implies that it is the exorcist who determines whether the space left by a demon is filled with “faith in Jesus.” Surely, however, though the exorcist is active in the exorcism it is the individual from whom the demon is cast who must be active in faith.175 The warning regarding the state of the individual is not

170. Hagner, Matthew, 1:357. Hagner also refers to seven demons having been cast out of Mary Magdalene (Lk. 8:2). Dieter Trunk notes the manner in which “Eine Gruppe von sieben Dämonen bzw. sieben Geistern . . . in der Antike eine feste Größe [ist]” and comments on the manner in which the number seven became a symbol for “totality” during the time of the Babylonian exile (Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium [HBS 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1994], 96). 171.  Labahn states that in this parable “die Abbreviatur eines Exorzismus aus Q 11,14 wieder aufgenommen wird” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 275). 172. This does not, however, mean that the parable is an “Exorzismusregel” in which “die exorzistische Tätigkeit der Jünger” was brought together with “Jesu Wirken” as posited by Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie, 37. 173. Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 275. 174. Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 127. Similarly, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:360. 175.  I thus also find Schulz’s argument unpersuasive. He stated, “Es genügt in dieser letzten Zeit keineswegs mehr, den unreinen Geist aus einem Menschen auszutreiben  – das tun ja auch die Pharisäer; das Haus bliebe dann leerstehend und wartete nur auf den Wiedereinzug einer noch schlimmeren und mächtigeren Dämonschar –, sondern da die Dämonenaustreibungen Jesu mit dem ‘Finger Gottes’ zugleich die Ankunft der Basileia sind, wird der betreffende Geheilte endgültig unter den Schutz des endzeitlichen Geistes und der anbrechenden Basileia gestellt” (Q, 479). It does not seem to me that Q here advocates a view that one exorcism guarantees kingdom membership and the other does not. The emphasis

262

The Parables in Q

dependent upon the exorcist, but rather upon the exorcised’s response of faith or lack thereof. Of course, a “Christian” exorcist may proclaim the necessity of embracing the message of Jesus, a proclamation unlikely to be made by a “non-Christian” exorcist, but the presence or absence of the proclamation is not the point.176 Rather, the point is whether the individual from whom the demon has left remains “empty” or not.177 As Alfred Plummer rightly noted, “The disastrous conclusion is the result, not of the imperfect methods of the exorcist, but of the misconduct of the exorcised.”178 For this reason, Hüneburg, in my estimation rightly, observes, “Verse 24–26 sind in ihrer Stellung nach V. 20 nur im Zusammenhang mit V. 23 verständlich.”179 The connection with Q 11:23 is therefore of particular significance and importance, for even though the parable itself does not provide any details concerning precisely how or with what the freed space is to be filled, Q 11:23 likely provides insight.180 As Kloppenborg puts it, Q 11:23 implies that failure to recognize and accept the kingdom in Jesus’ preaching is tantamount to opposing the kingdom and allying oneself with Beelzebul. Q 11:24–26 serves as an illustration. It is impossible to be free of demonic occupation if one has not positively responded to the kingdom. Neutrality is not an option in the face of a confrontation with divine power.181 rests not upon the identity of the exorcist but upon the activity of the one from whom the demon was cast. Cf. also the criticism of Schulz in Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 142–3. 176. Contra Marshall, Luke, 479. 177.  Adding to the curiosity is that Allison recognizes these points in relation to the meaning of the passage for the historical Jesus: “It makes good sense to interpret Q 11:24–26 as the record of an injunction given by Jesus, probably to a healed demoniac. It meant something like this: now that you have been delivered by my act of exorcism, you must embrace my proclamation, or the last state will be worse than the first . . . For Jesus the point was probably that to benefit from his ministry of exorcism without accepting his message was to forfeit that benefit. But in Q the story of the returning spirit evidently served to interpret the exorcisms of outsiders: they are not truly efficacious” (Jesus Tradition in Q, 131). I am not persuaded by this view. For this reason, I also do not see this passage as relating “Jesus’ competitors fail” paralleled to “Moses’ competitors fail” in the points of contact Allison posits between Q 11:14-26 and the Moses traditions (Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 56). 178.  Plummer, Luke, 307. Note that Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 129, also quotes this passage! Alfred Plummer elsewhere stated that the view positing Jewish exorcists being able to provide only temporary relief but Jesus offering a permanent deliverance is an interpretation “read into the narrative; it is not found there” (“The Parable of the Demon’s Return,” ExpTim 3 [1892]: 349–50). 179. Hüneburg, Jesus als Wundertäter, 196. 180. Cf. the comment of Plummer, “It is out of this declaration [found in v. 23]—one of the most solemn and far-reaching statements in the whole of the Bible—that the parable before us grows” (“Parable of the Demon’s Return,” 349). 181.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 127. So also Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 290–91: “In the context of 11:23, the parable may be saying again that neutrality

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

263

Conversely, the imagery of the parable helps interpret the meaning of Q 11:23 and aids in understanding it through a concrete illustration.182 Labahn also notes this connection to Q 11:23 though further contends “ ‘für Jesus zu sein’ (11,23:  ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ) kann wieder gleichbedeutend mit dem Hören und dem Tun seiner Worte verstanden werden.”183 In this way, the connection of this parable to the parable in Q 6:47-49 is made where the image of a house is also employed, albeit in a different manner.184 Taking the images of these two parables together, then, Q argues that both the constructing and building of one’s own “house” must be based on being “for Jesus” in putting his words into practice. Thus, when querying what would have made this individual an inhospitable, rather than a hospitable, space for the unclean spirit it would seem that Labahn is absolutely correct in stating, “Umkehr und Nachfolge Jesu sind Handlungsoptionen, die im Sinne des Erzählers eine den Dämon nicht mehr einladende, eine ihm letztlich unzugängliche Wohnstätte bereitet hätten.”185 Or, put another way, “in terms of Q’s context, one must be actively engaged on the side of Jesus, rather than remaining passively dormant.”186 There may then be a sense in which Q implies that exorcism is not the cure, but only the beginning of the cure.187 Again quoting Fleddermann, in a sentiment similar to the citation in the

is impossible” and similarly Valantasis, The New Q, 132: “This saying reinforces the previous saying. If a person is not with Jesus, that person opposes him; if the person does not gather, the person dissipates.” Cf. further Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 144–7. 182.  Cf. Trunk’s comment:  “Wer nicht auf der Seite Jesu steht, verfällt hoffnungslos dem Einfluß des Bösen wie ein ehedem Besessener dem bleibenden Inkorporationsdrang des ausgefahrenen Dämons” (Der messianische Heiler, 100). I  am not persuaded that Q 11:23, 24-26 “im Gemeindeleben notwendigen Paränese [dienten], die Taufgnade treu zu bewahren” (Heinz Schürmann, “QLk 11,14-36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 1:585). 183.  Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 275. Cf. also idem, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 498. 184. Cf. the discussion below under the heading “8.7.3 Images.” 185. Labahn, “Füllt den Raum aus,” 127. Valantasis rightly observes, “Without any suggestion from the narrative itself, readers must import principles from other sayings to construct meaning” (The New Q, 132). 186. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 291. 187.  Cf. also Edwards’s comment:  “Since Matthew and Luke place it close to the Beelzebul controversy, it may have been used by Q to imply that exorcism in itself is no cure” (A Theology of Q, 112). Manson expressed a similar view, “The meaning of the whole seems to be that exorcism by itself is not sufficient. The expulsion of the demon and the restoration of the victim to his normal condition leaves things exactly as they were before the demon first took possession . . . God must take possession of the vacant dwelling” (Sayings, 88).

264

The Parables in Q

previous section, “The parable dramatizes the need to accept the kingdom. It is not enough to turn away from evil, as the evil can return in an even more virulent form.”188 Finally, it would appear that this message is addressed as a warning to both those outside and inside the Q group. On the one hand, Dieter Trunk points out the manner in which “Q 11,24-26 . . . aus der Perspektive der eine Entscheidung fordernden Gerichtspredigt der Q-Missionare zu lesen [ist].”189 Thus, Kloppenborg points out a difference between Mark and Q in that “while the threat given by Mark in 3:28–29 applies only to those who accuse Jesus of complicity with Beelzebul, Q’s threats (11:19, 24–26) apply to all who in any way oppose or reject the presence of the kingdom manifest in Jesus’ miracles or preaching (11:23).”190 At the same time, however, Piper observes that “following Q 11,23, the sayings about the return of the evil spirits most naturally suggest a warning against apostasy and drop-outs, of a house once swept clean but not kept up so that the last state is worse than the first.”191 It is thus a warning to those who have not accepted the message of the kingdom to do so posthaste as well as a warning to those who have accepted the kingdom to ensure that they remain diligent in hearing and doing the words of Jesus.

188.  Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 508. Cf. also Tuckett’s contention, “It is not enough to drive out an unclean spirit and leave the house empty—otherwise the spirit will return with seven others and make things even worse” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 291), and Wahlen’s statement, “The story of the impure spirit’s return serves as a warning of the danger inherent in rejecting Jesus’ kingdom proclamation” (Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits, 160). Similarly, Hagner, Matthew, 1:357. Allison states that Q 11:24-26 “was presumably a call for adherence to the cause of Jesus, a call to accept his proclamation of the kingdom of God” (Jesus Tradition in Q, 130). Just prior to this comment, Allison wrote that “it would be going too far to consider Q 11:24–26 an implicit call to discipleship” (ibid., 130); however, this is because he points out in a note that he is envisioning “discipleship” here in the very specific sense of abandoning family and possessions which he cannot imagine would have been the condition of participating in the kingdom of God for all (ibid., 130n66, citing Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers [New York:  Crossroad, 1981], 61). If, however, one conceives of “discipleship” in a broader sense, then there appears to be no difficulty in viewing this parable as implicitly calling for it. 189. Trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 100. 190.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 127. Schröter helpfully concludes:  “Innerhalb von Q stellt die gesamte Einheit V.23–26 somit ein geschlossenes Argument dar . . . Durch dieses wird die Auseinandersetzung Jesu mit den Gegnern aus 11,15 nunmehr mit einer neuen Blickrichtung versehen, indem nämlich aus der Widerlegung der Vorwürfe die Konsequenz bedingungsloser Gefolgschaft abgeleitet wird” (Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 269). 191.  Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers,” 339–40. Cf. also Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 146.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

265

8.5 Parable of a Light on a Lampstand (Q 11:33) Mt. 5:15

Lk. 11:33

οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον [οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον] ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ.

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι τὸ φῶς βλέπωσιν.

Versions of this parable192 are found not only in Mt. 5:15 and Lk. 11:33, taken from Q, but also in Lk. 8:16, a doublet from Mk 4:21,193 and Gos. Thom. 33.2-3.194 Despite differences in context,195 wording, and application of the different canonical

192.  Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 344; and Schulz, Q, 474, referred to the verse as a “Bildwort.” In the English translation, Jeremias’s view of the parable as a Bildwort is variously translated as “simile” and “metaphor” (Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 66, 95, 120). Nolland, Luke, 2:656, calls it a “similitude” and Kirk, Composition, 199, a “gnome.” Kloppenborg refers to the verse both as a “saying” and as “an exhortation to preach,” along with including it in a listing of “proverbs and wisdom sayings” (Formation, 138, 169, 239). Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 515, simply calls it a “saying” with Bovon, Lukas, 2:209, calling it a “sprichwortartige[n] Satz.” Betz states that “the second proverb is expanded into a parabolic narrative” (Sermon on the Mount, 162) and Baasland rightly refers to the verse as “The Parable of Light and Its Effects” (Parables and Rhetoric, 111). 193. For a comparison of the parable in Mark with the version in Q, cf. Jacques Dupont, “La transmission des paroles de Jésus sur la lampe et la mesure dans Marc 4,21-25 et dans la tradition Q,” in Logia: Les Paroles des Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus (ed. Joël Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1982), 209–14. For a discussion of the parable in its two Lukan contexts, cf. idem, “La lampe sur le lampadaire dans l’évangile de Saint Luc (Lc 8,16; 11,33),” in Études sur les évangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck; 3 vols; BETL 70; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), 1032–48. A helpful overview of the wording of all four passages can be found in the table provided by Ferdinand Hahn, “Die Worte vom Licht Lk 11,33–36,” in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Für Josef Schmid (ed. Paul Hoffmann in collaboration with Norbert Brox and Wilhelm Pesch; Freiburg:  Herder, 1973), 135. 194.  Wolfgang Schrage demonstrated that the version in the Gospel of Thomas is most closely related to Lk. 11:33 (Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung [BZNW 29; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964], 81–5). Fleddermann goes so far as viewing the version of the Gospel of Thomas as reflecting redactional elements form Matthew, Luke, and Mark (Q: Reconstruction, 522). 195.  Marshall, e.g., noted that Matthew applied it “to the need for disciples to let their light shine before men in Christian witness” whereas Luke used it to argue “that God has

266

The Parables in Q

accounts,196 Baasland rightly observes that “the imagery is the same in all four traditions . . . The Setting is a private home and the action is the same: one lights the lamp and puts it on a lamp-stand,” though then somewhat bluntly states “stupidity is the point in all four sayings.”197 In the Q version reflected in Mt. 5:15 and Lk. 11:33 a significant text-critical question regards the reading οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον in Luke. Even though the phrase is present in many and diverse witnesses, including ‫א‬, A, B, C, D, it is not present in several manuscripts and witnesses including P45, P75, L, Γ, Ξ, 070, f1, and sys among others. In addition, since Luke did not retain μόδιον from Mark in Lk. 8:16, it may be a later interpolation in Lk. 11:33.198 Furthermore, it is often pointed out that the wording in Lk. 11:33 seems to be influenced by Luke’s own reworking of Mk 4:21 in Mt. 8:16, which may also explain some of the differences between Luke and Matthew.199 In any case, however, once again a common structure and images can be recognized independently of the precise wording in Q. 8.5.1 Plot Analysis When considering the plot of this parable, Baasland has pointed out that “the light parable—like the salt saying—gives a short narrative, telling of both a foolish and a wise behaviour.”200 Despite several, significant differences between the wording of Matthew and Luke, the parable has four common parts,201 the progression of

given in Jesus a light which is not hidden (so that a sign would be needed to confirm his message) but which is sufficiently clear to give light to all” (Luke, 487). 196.  Davies and Allison, e.g., comment, “In Mark the reference is to Jesus or the gospel, in Gos. Thom. 33 to the gospel. In Luke the inner light (cf. 11.34–6) is apparently the theme, although this is far from certain. In Matthew the parable is applied to the disciples” (Matthew, 1:476). 197. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 113. Vernon K. Robbins, also including the Gospel of Thomas, observes, “All five performances of the saying begin with a negative assertion about putting a lamp under something and contain, immediately after the initial clause, a positive assertion about putting a lamp on a lampstand” (“Rhetorical Argument about Lamps and Light in Early Christian Gospels,” in New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark [ESEC 3; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 203). 198.  Cf. the comments in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 134. 199.  Cf. also Bovon, Lukas, 2:207–208; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 228–9; and Nolland, Luke, 2:656–7. Bovon notes that “ausnahmsweise ist es Lukas, der eine Dublette überliefert” (Lukas, 2:207). 200. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 113. 201.  Cf. also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 526. Zimmermann again notes the narrativity of this extremely brief parable: “one hears about the lighting of a lamp as well as about its being set down and its effect on the house (Q 11:33), thus creating a three-level plot within only one verse” (Puzzling the Parables, 193). If one includes the “gap” discussed above, then one actually has a four-level plot.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

267

which corresponds to the implicit narratival progression. The initial situation is that of a lamp which has been lit.202 The complication is found in a gap in which the individual(s) having lit a lamp is/are confronted with the question, “What do I/we now do with this lamp?” The transforming action first presents the foolish thought of hiding the lamp in some way, either ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον (Matthew and possibly Luke203) or putting it εἰς κρύπτην (Luke).204 The clause initial negation in both Matthew and Luke reveals that the parable is constructed so as to reject such a ridiculous notion.205 Thus, the self-evident course of action is to place the lamp ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν. Here then is an appropriate denouement to the question implied in the complication, ultimately leading to a final situation of light being provided to those in or coming into the house.206 8.5.2 Characters This parable has two characters, (an) imagined individual(s) lighting or having a lamp burning and a group of individuals to whom light is given or who can see on the basis of the lit lamp. As already noted in the plot analysis, the character(s) with the lamp is introduced through a negation. That is to say, the synthetic component

202. Matthew depicts the lighting with καίω and Luke with ἅπτω. In addition, Matthew uses a third-person plural and Luke a third-person singular form of their respective verbs, but this difference is not significant. Marshall observed, “It is hard to say whether the third person singular form is secondary as compared with the plural in Mt. 5:15” (Luke, 488). 203. As can be seen in the synoptic presentation above, NA28 places οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον in brackets, indicating uncertainty about its presence in Luke. Cf. the comments referenced by n. 198 above. 204.  Following the reading found in Matthew for Q, Labahn understands the question posed in the gap slightly differently. He writes, “Es wird nicht gesagt, dass das Licht mangels Sauerstoff unter einem Scheffel nicht brennen kann. Rezipienten, die dieser Pointe gewahr sind, erkennen, dass das Licht nur brennen kann, wenn es offen und sichtbar steht” (Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 277). Though, of course, the lamp needs oxygen to burn, it seems to me that the gap does not focus on the question of where one puts a lamp in order to keep it burning, but where one puts a lamp in order for it to provide light. 205.  Fleddermann rightly states, “Rhetorically, such a statement coopts [sic] the reader’s response right from the beginning—no one would dare disagree” (Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 526). Cf. also Rondez’s observation, “Das Logion etabliert indirekt  – über die Negation einer als unsinnig erklärten unüblichen Umgangsweise  – eine Selbstverständlichkeit im Umgang mit der Lampe” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 168). Ebner states, “In einer Art ‘multiple choice’ wendet sich das Logion an den gesunden Menschenverstand. Auf pragmatischer Ebene wird vom Adressaten Ablehnung der ersten und Zustimmung zur zweiten Option eingefordert, also zur gängigen Praxis im Alltag” (Jesus  – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 71). 206.  Here again Matthew and Luke differ quite considerably in their wording even as they both present an image of the light on the lampstand illuminating its surroundings.

268

The Parables in Q

of this character as a fiktives Wesen is constructed abstractly with a statement concerning what those or someone lighting a lamp would not do. The parable continues with a description of what one rather would do with the lit lamp retaining a direct characterization throughout the parable. The mimetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is determined by the described activity. If, for some (unimaginable) reason, this character were to “hide” the light, either ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον or εἰς κρύπτην, the figure would immediately be viewed as foolish. If, however, the expected action of placing the lamp ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, the appropriateness and rightness of this action underscores the manner in which this character, of course, would act according to common sense. The thematic component of this character as Symbol arises through the manner in which the hearer or reader identifies with this figure. The scenario is constructed so as to elicit the agreement of the parable’s addressee and draw out the sense that she or he too would act in such a manner. By gaining this identification and assent, the parable sets up the addressee for the application considered below when discussing the place of this parable in Q. The second, group character involves a set of individuals who benefit from the light given by the lamp. Its synthetic component as a fiktives Wesen is constructed simply by the narrator mentioning the group at the conclusion of the parable. Its mimetic component is essentially completely undeveloped as the group is simply affected by the light. Significant however, is the point that they can only be provided with light or see, if, in fact, the lamp ends up on the lampstand. As a Symbol the group’s thematic component is thus linked to how one understands the significance of the images of the lamp and the light in the parable. The precise benefit that accrues to this group is therefore dependent upon the function of these images in Q, discussed in the ensuing two sections. 8.5.3 Images The primary images of this parable are all related to light. This is true for the lamp, whatever is involved in hiding the lamp, the lampstand, and even the spatial dimension of the house and those within it at the conclusion of the parable. In terms of “light,” Luz rightly observes, “ ‘Licht’ ist eine ‘offene’ Metapher, deren Sinn nur der Kontext erhellt. Im Judentum begegnen wir ihr in verschiedener Verwendung:  Israel, einzelne Gerechte und Lehrer, die Tora, der Gottesknecht oder Jerusalem können als Licht (der Welt) bezeichnet werden.”207 Before considering these uses of the lamp/light image, however, it is important to note that in the parable, the image begins purely on the realistic level. In all likelihood, the lamp envisioned here is a small terra-cotta oil lamp,208 and the activity of lighting

207. Luz, Matthäus, 1:223–4. 208.  Thus, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:475–6 and Nolland, Matthew, 214. On lamps, cf. Robert Houston Smith, “The Household Lamps of Palestine in New Testament Times (Third in a three-part series),” BA 29 (1966): 2–27. Cf. also Donald M. Bailey, Greek and Roman Pottery Lamps (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1963).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

269

it or having it burning is one that would be performed often.209 Thus, on a practical level, this brief parable appeals to a knowledge of everyday behavior involving a lamp and the simple fact that it does not belong hidden.210 Part of the logic may very well be that since burning an oil lamp involved the burning of a consumable foodstuff and since there was a cost involved in burning oil,211 the useless burning of a lamp would be utter foolishness. The lamp is to be placed on a lampstand,212 which is not only wise behavior, but also ends up benefiting others. As already seen in the Luz citation above, there are numerous significant elements to the use of the image of a lamp in the HB. For instance, it is an image for life and strength (2 Sam. 21:17; Ps. 18:28), and if it goes out, it is a sign of the loss of a future with anything of value (Prov. 13:9; 20:20; Job 21:17). It is God’s light of guidance (2 Sam. 22:29), also expressed as God’s word (Ps. 119:104). In 2 Baruch, Moses is spoken of as having lit a lamp for Israel (2 Bar. 17) and the messengers of God themselves are called lamps (2 Bar. 17:13).213 In all of these instances, Kristina Dronsch is right in observing, “Immer ist bei diesen bildlichen Verwendungen an eine Lichtquelle zu denken, die dem Menschen zugute kommt.”214 Thus, both the realistic and symbolic imagery associated with a lamp is not unrelated to a broader benefit. It was already noted above that regardless of Q’s precise wording, the image of “hiding” the lamp remains constant. If, however, the reading in Matthew reflects the reading in Q as is sometimes posited,215 brief mention of the interpretation of the imagery by Jeremias needs to be mentioned. He understood the imagery of placing a μόδιος over a lamp as an act of extinguishing it and posited that the imagery is therefore reflecting the sense that one does not light a lamp in order to extinguish it again right away.216 Against this view, Luz argues, “daß ein Scheffel ein 209. Cf., e.g., the description of the preparation of the room for Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:10. 210.  Cf. also Kristina Dronsch, “Lieber eine Leuchte als ein unscheinbares Licht (Die Lampe auf dem Leuchter / Vom Licht auf dem Leuchter): Q 11,33 (Mk 4,21 / Mt 5,15 / Lk 8,16; 11,33 / EvThom 33,2f.),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 133. 211. In Prov. 31:18, for instance, the continual burning of a lamp is linked with wealth. 212.  Concerning archeological remains of lampstands, Smith states, “Nothing which could very plausibly be regarded as a lampstand has been found among Palestinian remains of the Herodian period, perhaps because—as probably was the case in the Iron Age—lampstands were usually made of wood and did not survive the ravages of time” (“Household Lamps,” 7). 213. Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 116; and Manson, Sayings, 92. Cf. also the comments in Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 231–3. Burton L. Visotzky rightly observed that “Matt 5:15 is only one among dozens of verses in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that invoke the imagery of lamp and light” (“Overturning the Lamp,” JJS 38 [1987]: 79). 214. Dronsch, “Lieber eine Leuchte,” 135. On this page Dronsch also discusses the above listed verses, among others. 215. Cf., however, the CEQ, which places εἰς κρύπτην in double square brackets. 216.  Cf. Joachim Jeremias, “Die Lampe unter dem Scheffel,” ZNW 39 (1940):  238–40. Thus, Jeremias posited that the historical Jesus uttered this parable with reference to his

270

The Parables in Q

geeignetes und übliches Instrument zum Auslöschen einer Öllampe sei, kann man aber beim besten Willen nicht behaupten.”217 In addition, though Jeremias makes reference to several rabbinic passages, including m. Šabb. 3.6 recommending putting a bushel over the lamp on the Sabbath, Klauck rightly notes that the rabbinic contexts are not everyday occurrences but emergency situations.218 The point of the image does not seem to be one of extinguishing the lamp but of hiding its light. If Luke’s wording reflects Q, it is often posited that a “cellar” is in view, though it is possible that simply a “hidden place” is meant. In any case, the point of the imagery is that both Matthew and Luke note that the lamp is not put in a place where its light is of no use.219 In fact, Baasland highlights the point that “the hyperbolic imagery . . . has a humorous tone,”220 and Jakob Jónsson stated that “everybody would smile at a person who is so naive or foolish as to think that the candle is lighted in order to be covered under the bushel or in any other secret place.”221 This point is made by the parable regardless of the wording of Q, and it only remains to consider how the rich imagery of a lamp and light, the foolishness of hiding it, and it shining for the benefit of others functions within Q. 8.5.4 Parable in Q When seeking to interpret this parable and its context, on the one hand, Rondez has noted the potential banality of the parable, “Eine Öllampe, die nicht zugedeckt wird, sondern auf den Leuchter gestellt. Gut, möchte man sagen, und fragt sich, worin überhaupt eine Aussage des sich selbst erklärenden Bildes liegen mag.”222 On the other hand, Susan R.  Garrett has observed, “For many interpreters, the several sayings about ‘light’ in Luke 11:33–36 are themselves a fount of darkness.”223 Nevertheless, despite the challenges involved in ascertaining the location

own mission: “The lamp has been lit, the light is shining, but not in order to be put out again! No, but in order to give light!” (Parables of Jesus, 121). 217. Luz, Matthäus, 1:221. 218.  Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 230. As Jakob Jónsson puts it, “The light of Sabbath, as a matter of fact, was not supposed to be put out until the day ended, but it was permitted to cover the light with a bushel if there happened to be danger of fire from it” (Humour and Irony in the New Testament: Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash [Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 28; Leiden:  Brill, 1985], 96). Cf. also the critical comments by Gerhard Schneider, “Das Bildwort von der Lampe: Zur Traditionsgeschichte eines Jesus-Wortes,” ZNW 61 (1970): 191–2. 219.  Cf. the comment of Luz, “das Bild meint eine sinnlose Haltung, ohne daß diese näher an einem alltäglichen Vorgang festgemacht werden könnte” (Matthäus, 1:221). 220. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 119. 221. Jónsson, Humour and Irony, 96. 222. Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 158. 223.  Susan R. Garrett, “ ‘Lest the Light in You Be Darkness’:  Luke 11:33–36 and the Question of Commitment,” JBL 110 (1991): 93.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

271

and context of the parable in Q and the interpretation of the parable itself, several observations can be made here. Initially it is important to recognize, as Nolland has rightly observed, that “though the material of this verse is used rather differently by each of the Evangelists . . . in each case there is an interest in the coming to visibility of what is being effected by Jesus’ ministry.”224 There is thus a very real sense in which the parable has as its emphasis “actively making visible.”225 Precisely what is being made visible, however, is slightly more challenging to ascertain. It is usually argued that the Lukan context and order of this parable and the surrounding verses reflects the Q context.226 If this is correct, several significant observations can be made as the parable, along with Q 11:34-35, thus “offers a reflective comment on the two pericopes that surround it. It diagnoses the cause of the adversaries’ opposition to Jesus in the Beelzebul Controversy and the Demand for a Sign, and it leads to their condemnation in the Woes.”227 First, there may be a sense in which the parable is commenting on the issues involved in the Beelzebul controversy and the request for a sign: “the adversaries deliberately do not ‘see’ correctly.”228 When drawing in Q 11:34-35, Piper, in particular, has noted the manner in which these verses are connected to the Beelzebul controversy and the parable found there: The either—or choice of commitment to Jesus in Lk 11:23 is matched in the “eye/light” sayings by the equally strong contrast between the body being wholly light or wholly dark, depending on the soundness of the eye. There is no middle ground. Further, the image of the evil spirit having left its home only to return later (Lk 11:24–6 par) is matched by the warning against the light in one being darkness.229

The adversaries do not recognize Jesus’s exorcistic activity correctly for they cannot see. That is to say, then, that the material in Lk. 11:33-36 “serve[s] to apply the image of the lamp to what is present in the ministry of Jesus . . . and to identify as willful blindness the failure to perceive it correctly and be appropriately transformed by it.”230 Furthermore, Klauck connects this thought to the issue of the demanded sign, writing, “In Q steht das Logion im Kontext der Zeichenforderung.

224. Nolland, Matthew, 214. 225. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 120. 226. Cf., e.g., the order of the verses in the CEQ. 227. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 524. 228. Ibid., 526. 229. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 129. Garrett’s comments about Luke are also relevant for Q: “The motifs of lamp, light, and darkness serve not so much to refer to specific entities as to remind the reader about the irreconcilable contrast between the realms of darkness and light” (“ ‘Lest the Light in You Be Darkness,’ ” 96). 230. Nolland, Luke, 2:656.

272

The Parables in Q

Die Lichtmetapher wird dadurch christologisch ausgerichtet. Jesus selbst ist das geforderte, allen sichtbare Zeichen.”231 At the same time, it must be admitted that this connection is not made by Matthew and that, as observed by Rudolf Laufen, “der gedankliche Zusammenhang . . . sehr lose [ist].”232 Kirk, however, views the parable as moving the composition Q 11:29-35 forward in that “it supplies the maxim elaborated and applied by 11:34–35,”233 a view that may be correct. The lamp on the lampstand, understood along these lines as the ministry of Jesus, is visible and gives light to all in the house or all entering in. And the ensuing verses indicate why it is that some individuals do not “see the light.” Schröter has argued, the “Sichtbarmachen des λύχνος wird hier . . . paränetisch interpretiert, indem nämlich dem Stellen der Lampe auf den Leuchter hier das Sichtbarmachen des σῶμα φωτεινόν durch das Verhalten des Menschen korrespondiert, wie umgekehrt dem Verbergen das am ‘bösen Auge’ ablesbare σῶμα σκοτεινόν.”234 Or, as Jacques Dupont put it, “Si la lumière n’éclaire pas, ce n’est pas qu’elle soit cachée (v. 33); c’est parce que ceux qui n’en bénéficient pas ne font pas le geste ‘d’entrer’ (v. 33c), parce que leurs dispositions personnelles sont mauvaises (vv. 34–36).”235 The lamp on the lampstand and the light of the parable do not reach Jesus’s adversaries because they do not recognize his work or the manner in which he is the “sign” they desire. In sum, Jesus’s opponents in Q “are self-centered and unable to treat Jesus in a 231. Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 233. 232. Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 140. Seeing no connection between Q 11:29–32 and Q 11:33-35 are Williams, “Parable and Chreia,” 100; and Sato, Q und Prophetie, 40. Cf. also the somewhat overstated notion of Jülicher: “Die Ratlosigkeit der Exegeten in Herstellung eines Gedankenzusammenhanges bei Lc 11 29–36, die Baur veranlasste, 35–36 als zusammenhangsloses Einschiebsel zu betrachten, stellt wohl definitiv fest, dass das Lichtgleichnis hierher nur durch Unglück geraten ist” (Gleichnisreden, 2:88). 233. Kirk, Composition, 200. Cf. also Hahn, “Die Worte vom Licht,” 133: “Vor allem aber ergibt sich, daß Lk11,33–36 eine bereits vor der Abfassung des Lukasevangeliums gestaltete Spruchgruppe darstellt, die dem Evangelisten in ihrer Verbindung mit V. 29–32 bereits vorgelegen haben muß.” 234.  Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 345. Also viewing the context as key for understanding the verse is Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 169–70. She concludes that in this context, “der Aspekt der existentiellen Betroffenheit für V.34f (und im Nachhinein auch für V.33) zentral ist” (ibid., 176). Similarly, as Klauck put it in relation to Luke, which, if reflecting the order in Q is equally à propos for Luke’s source here: “Die Verse Lk 11,34–36 geben der Lichtmetaphorik in Q eine Wendung ins Paränetische. Wer das Licht verschmäht, um den wird es bald gänzlich finster sein” (Allegorie und Allegorese, 234). On Lk. 11:36, which does not have a Matthean parallel, not being part of Q, cf. Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 164–5. Dale C. Allison Jr., “ The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23=Luke 11.34–36,” NTS 33 (1987):  72–3, however, argues for its presence. 235. Dupont, “La transmission des paroles de Jésus,” 228.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

273

generous fashion because they are filled with darkness (11:35)—even though a great light has come to them (11:33).”236 And yet, considering the parable as simply about the ministry of Jesus would be to narrow its scope for as Baasland observes, the parable is about “stupid versus wise” but it is “also about no light versus light cast widely.”237 In other words, there is also a point in the parable that “a light can be hidden, but to do so would be absurd and contrary to the light’s very purpose of giving light to all in the house.”238 Though Schulz was of the opinion that the passage “ist auch vom Kontext der Q-Stoffe her nicht zu erklären, weil die Metapher von der Leuchte . . . verschiedene Bedeutung annehmen kann,”239 he, nevertheless, was convinced that it is most likely to be understood with a view toward the Q mission. He thus concluded, “Ihre Basileia-Verkündigung in Israel vor dem nahen Ende soll keinem vorenthalten werden, sondern allen gelten.”240 There is thus also a sense in which the parable is not only about Jesus being revealed and his ministry being recognized, but also about disciples making his message known.241 Baasland therefore argues that the parable “invites the listeners/readers into the story . . . The lamp on the lamp-stand (λυχνία) is in focus and the storyteller instructs everybody in the house to let the λυχνία be lighted (λάμπειν).”242 As such, it is not unrelated to the parable in Q 10:2 and the petition for workers to be sent into the harvest and also picks up on the mission on which the disciples are sent out in the mission discourse.243 For this reason, the parable is both about Jesus and about the proclamation of Jesus’s message: “Es ist an die gesamte Wirksamkeit Jesu in der Öffentlichkeit gedacht” so that “die Einheit von Verkündiger und Verkündigung vorauszusetzen ist.”244

236.  Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, 166. Cf. also Kloppenborg’s comment: “The gnomic statement in 11:33 implies that this preaching/sign is plain for everyone to see” (Formation, 138). Later in the same volume Kloppenborg argues that this text, along with Q 11:14-23 and 11:29-32 focuses “on the recognition of Jesus’ ἐξουσία by outsiders, not members of the community” (ibid., 117n74); however, as discussed below there may also be a sense in which the parable is relevant for those in the Q group as well. 237. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 120. 238.  Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 163. Cf. also Hagner’s comment: “The purpose of a lamp is to give light” (Matthew, 1:100). Similarly, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:475–6; and Nolland, Matthew, 214. 239. Schulz, Q, 475–6. 240. Ibid., 476. 241. Cf. the comment of Labahn: “Unbildlich gesprochen: Wer als Nachfolger/Nachfolgerin zu den Adressaten von Q gehört, hat diese Identität durch sein/ihr Handeln öffentlich zu machen, da nur so die Existenz als Nachfolgende möglich ist” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 278). 242. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 120. 243.  Kloppenborg states, “This saying implies that the preaching of the kingdom is not something obscure or hidden, but universally and openly manifest, so that all might respond” (Formation, 138). Cf. also Nolland, Luke, 2:657. 244. Schneider, “Das Bildwort von der Lampe,” 193.

274

The Parables in Q

Finally, at the conclusion of the parable, Bovon argues that οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι must be understood with a view toward Lk. 6:47.245 Regardless of whether this phrase was in Q or not, there is a sense in which the final image of seeing the light or being enlightened is connected to hearing and doing the words of Jesus. Thus, the parable reveals that the light is shining and sets forth the implied question not only of whether or not those hearing or reading the parable see the light or are enlightened by the lamp but also whether they will embrace the message of Q about Jesus and let this message shine upon others.246

8.6 Parable of the Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2) Mt. 9:37-38

Lk. 10:2

τότε λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ·

ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς·

ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι· 38 δεήθητε οὖντοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θερισμοῦ ὅπως ἐκβάλῃ ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ.

ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι· δεήθητε οὖντοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θερισμοῦ ὅπως ἐργάτας ἐκβάλῃ εἰς τὸν θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ.

This parable,247 which, apart from one variant in word order, appears verbatim in Matthew and Luke,248 functions as an introductory image to the mission discourse.249 In Luke, it is one of two immediately preceding, introductory comments, 245.  Bovon, Lukas, 2:210. I do not agree with Manson’s view that Matthew’s wording at the conclusion of the parable contemplates “a reformation within Judaism,” whereas Luke envisions “conversions from outside” (Sayings, 93). Nevertheless, picking up on the points just made, Manson was right to see a missionary activity in the parable, for, as Davies and Allison comment, “a missionary concern is certainly evident in both texts” (Matthew, 1:478). 246. Cf. also Hagner, Matthew, 1:100. 247.  Laufen refers to the verse simply as “das Wort von der Ernte und den Arbeitern” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 205). Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 168, identifies the verse as a “Bildwort,” as does Horn, “Christentum und Judentum,” 347. 248. In Gos. Thom. 73, the opening sentence parallels the Q passage, though in the petition there is no reference to the lord “of the harvest” and the harvest is not referred to as “his” harvest. Cf. the brief comments in Ruben Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte! [Arbeiter für die Ernte] Q 10,2 [Mt 9,37f/Lk 10,2/EvThom 73],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 117–18. Cf. also the short “Source Discussion” in DeConick, Original Gospel of Thomas, 231. 249. I have discussed the mission discourse in Q further in Dieter T. Roth, “Missionary Ethics in Q 10:2–12,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68 (2012):  1–7, and in the slightly edited and expanded version of that article in idem, “Missionary Ethics in Q

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

275

whereas in Matthew (9:37-38) the parable is followed by the commissioning and listing of the twelve disciples (Mt. 10:1-4) and only subsequently by their being sent out. Though most Q scholars have contended that Luke’s order here most closely reflects the order of Q,250 it remains the case that in both Luke and Matthew the parable governs at least part of the missional conception, regardless of whether the parable immediately preceded the mission instructions or not. 8.6.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation in the parable is of a harvest that is described as πολύς. This statement, however, is immediately followed by the complication, namely, that there is a paucity of workers (οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι).251 Since the timing or the size of the harvest cannot be changed, the only variable that can be altered is the number of workers sent out to bring the harvest in. Thus, the plot’s transforming action unfolds with a call to petition the κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ to send workers into the harvest.252 At this point the

10:2–12,” in Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity (ed. Kobus Kok et al.; WUNT 2.364; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 81–100. Some elements of the analysis here, which focuses primarily on the parable in 10:2 and not further elements of the discourse, are drawn from these previous publications. 250. Leif Vaage observes, “Among persons who accept the classical two-source hypothesis, there is unanimous agreement regarding Luke 9:1–6 and 10:1–16 par that Luke 9:1–6 preserves essentially Mark, whereas Luke 10:1–16 preserves essentially Q.  Accordingly, the single parallel passage in Matthew (10:5–16) conflates Mark and Q.  I  know no one who thinks otherwise” (“Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence” [PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1987], 72). Cf. Willi Braun, “The Historical Jesus and the Mission Speech in Q 10:2–12,” Foundations & Facets Forum 7 (1991): 279–80; Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 403; and Uro, Sheep among the Wolves, 25–6. At the same time, Nolland rightly cautions: “Because both Matthew and Luke have been quite active editorially, and because the materials were from the beginning a set of isolated sayings that have been connected on the basis of common themes and catchwords, it is very difficult to ascertain the form of their additional shared source” (Luke, 2:547). 251.  Zimmermann thus rightly observes, “So wird hier weniger die Freude über eine große Ernte zum Ausdruck gebracht, als vielmehr sofort ein Problem markiert” (“Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 111). 252.  Both Matthew and Luke refer to a petition to “cast out” (ἐκβάλλω) these workers. This is different from, e.g., Mt. 20:2 where the sending is described with the more expected ἀποστέλλω. Bazzana has recently pointed out that the oddity of this term is “an element that is not noted by commentators working on Q 10,2” (Kingdom of Bureaucracy, 88). On the basis of usage found in Egyptian papyri (BGU XVI 2602 and P.Mich. XI 618), Bazzana observes that the term is used in Egypt to describe compulsory work done on dikes or canals. Though such work is obviously not in view in Q, he argues that “Q 10,2 contains two implicit elements that may well have rendered easier for its author this creative use of

276

The Parables in Q

parable and the plot simply break off. The reader or hearer is not told if more workers were sent and thus does not know the fate of the harvest. A denouement and the final situation are apparently not of interest, resulting in an emphatic focus upon the appeal to petition for an increase in the number of workers as it is the last plot element presented before the parable abruptly ends. This brief parable, therefore, presents an opening situation and complication illustrating a need that leads to a marked imperative. Significantly, the progression of the plot does not simply recount that the lord of the harvest needs to be informed about the large size of the harvest, but underscores that he should be petitioned to send more laborers. As discussed further below, this interesting turn in the plot may create a certain level of cognitive dissonance, for it raises the question of why the parable draws attention to the one to whom the harvest belongs needing to be asked to send sufficient workers to reap the harvest. By giving attention to the characters and imagery of this parable these points can be considered further. 8.6.2 Characters An initial observation is that in this parable, and differently from numerous other Q parables, the hearer is included as a “character” through the imperative addressed to her or him. Thus, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is not constructed from within the world of the parable, but through the use of an imperative that incorporates the addressee as an actor into the parable. The mimetic component of this character is presented through the action undertaken, namely, the action of petition. The significance of this “petition” in terms of its metaphoric transfer to “prayer” and the attendant “posture of dependence” is considered further below. For the moment it suffices to note that it is particularly when the hearer or reader of this parable is confronted with the imperative δεήθητε, she or he is drawn into the parable and admonished to direct a request to the “lord of the harvest.” The question involving this incorporated character as Symbol poses the question, what or who is this “character as idea”? In the parable, at least on the surface, one group of individuals is to petition that another group be sent to bring in the harvest. Thus, it is often contended, as Kloppenborg puts it, that “Q 10:2 signals a shift in setting from missionary instructions as such to the broader setting of advice to a community involved in the preparation and commissioning . . . of preachers.”253 In order to underscore this perspective, the context of the parable in Q is also taken into account. It appears to numerous scholars that some type of “settled

imagery and phrases evoking liturgies,” namely, the “urgency” of the work and the “hierarchical structure” implied by the term κυρίος τοῦ θερισμοῦ (ibid., 95). As a result, Bazzana posits that “the occurrence of ἐκβάλλω within the image of a harvest in urgent need of a larger workforce makes most sense if we think that the groups within which the text was authored and then circulated were composed of people acquainted with the specific Greek terminology for liturgies and for the management of liturgical services” (ibid.). 253. Kloppenborg, Formation, 200.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

277

community” is implied in the parable, but that a different, “itinerant” group is in view in Q 10:3, in which Jesus states that he is sending “you” out like sheep in the midst of wolves.254 Again, Kloppenborg observes, and is not necessarily incorrect in doing so, “While Q may contain some materials directed to itinerants, in the present form it is the product of a settled group or groups.”255 Nevertheless, one may be permitted to query whether or not it is only “settled” groups who can be engaged in sending and supporting missionaries and thus should be envisioned as praying to the Lord to send workers into the harvest.256 Marshall, for instance, observed that “it is in fact missionaries themselves who are most conscious of the need for more workers.”257 It is even possible, as Zimmermann notes, that while petitioning the lord of the harvest in dependence upon his sending more workers, those involved in such petitioning may themselves become more acutely aware of the need and end up presenting themselves as workers to be sent into the field.258 For this reason, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that through the appeal structure of the parable, an addressee included in the parable as a Symbol of the petitioning character could also end up identifying with the Symbol of the ἐργάται.

254.  Thus, Dieter Zeller, “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jesus (ed. Joël Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1982), 404–405, posited a change of audience or setting between Q 10:2 and Q 10:3, a position held by many others. Cf., e.g., the comment by Harb, “Vielleicht stammen aus dieser Zeit, in der die WanderpredigerInnen abnahmen, auch die Bitte um ArbeiterInnen für die Ernte (Q 10,2)” (Die eschatologische Rede, 41). 255. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 183. 256. Catchpole, though seeing vv. 2 and 3 arising out of different contexts, also cautions against driving a wedge between “the mission of the wandering charismatics” in a Jewish setting and a “church mission” aimed at the conversion of Gentiles (Quest for Q, 159). He prefers to speak of “a settled but charismatic church sponsoring a charismatic mission” (ibid., 160); however, even here one could inquire just how “settled” a church must be in order to pray. In any case, Q, as available to Matthew and Luke, does not reflect a group of exclusively itinerant workers or “wandering charismatics” (for cautionary comments on making too much of the “itinerancy” model for understanding Q, cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 211). Richard A.  Horsley with Jonathan Draper rather directly state their problem with approaches locating vv. 2 and 3 in different contexts, contending that “the move from a petition to ‘the lord of the harvest’ to send out (more) laborers in Q 10:2 to the declaratory sending of (more) laborers in 10:3 would be only appropriate if not expected. Detection of a discrepancy between these two closely related steps in the standard mission discourse is an inappropriate application of modern Western logic of literary compositional consistency and is perhaps rooted in a lack of class analysis” (Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q [Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999], 242). 257. Marshall, Luke, 416. 258. Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 116. It is therefore not quite clear that “Q 10:2 indicates that there must be some kind of ‘base community’ that sends out workers, rather than workers forming groups” (Batten, “More Queries for Q,” 47).

278

The Parables in Q

Before coming to that point, however, it should first be noted that in addition to the somewhat unconventional character just discussed, a character who is brought into the parable from the world outside of it, there are two characters found within the world of the parable itself, namely, the ἐργάται and a κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ.259 It is to these two characters that attention is now given. First, when considering the ἐργάται as a fiktives Wesen, it is important to note that this group character appears in two ways. There is the group that is identified as being (too) few and then, there is the group that the petition wishes to be sent. Thus, the synthetic component of this group character is initially constructed through their being mentioned as present in or near the field but then expanded to include a group for which petition is to be made. For this reason, there are workers who actually appear in the world of the parable, namely, those that are too few, and workers who are not yet present, namely, the imagined group that the parable wishes to appear to work in the harvest. The ἐργάται are, therefore, agricultural workers as also depicted elsewhere in the NT (cf. Mt. 20:1, 2, 8 or Jas. 5:4).260 Since their labor is clearly a desideratum in the parable, the mimetic component of this group character is positively connoted. Their work can save the harvest.261 When considering the ἐργάται as Symbol, the term can be seen to have a theological component in a negative description of ψευδαπόστολοι as “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13; cf. Phil. 3:2) or positive sense of being a worker for God “rightly explaining the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) or “the Lord’s worker” and providing food for those who do good works (T. Benj. 11:1).262 Already anticipating comments that will be made below concerning the place of this parable in Q, with its function of introducing the mission discourse, the thematic component of the character for Q is tied to the preachers of its message. As Kloppenborg puts it, “For Q the kingdom is currently in the process of self-manifestation (10:23–24; 11:20; 12:2; 13:18–21), and the mission of the Q preachers is part of the eschatological harvest (10:2).”263 For this reason, Zimmermann rightly concludes, “Wie

259. Though, as noted below, on a symbolic level the harvest can be seen as representing the people responding to those sent by the Lord, the “harvest” does not function as a character in this parable and is thus not considered here but rather as an image in the ensuing section (cf. also the sentence referenced by n. 273 and the comment in that note below). 260.  With a view toward this sense of the term, M.-J. Lagrange observed, “ἐργάτης est un cultivateur, ou un travailleur loué à la journée” (Évangile selon Saint Luc [EtB; Paris: LeCoffre, 1948], 293). 261. For a description of harvest work drawing heavily on Dalman, cf. Joachim Habbe, Palästina zur Zeit Jesu:  Die Landwirtschaft in Galiläa als Hintergrund der synoptischen Evangelien (NThDH 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996), 80–3. 262.  Davies and Allison note the manner in which the term was likely interpreted by Matthew: “Because the disciples of 9.37 are most naturally identified with the twelve (see 10.1–4), the ‘workers’ . . . are probably, in Matthew’s mind, to be identified with the missionaries of the post-Easter period” (Matthew, 2:150). 263. Kloppenborg, Formation, 236.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

279

Fremdarbeiter bei der Ernte sollen sie [the disciples of Jesus] im Auftrag und in Vertretung des Herrn durch Basileia-Verkündigung und Wunder ganz Israel sammeln.”264 Turning to the second character in this parable, both Matthew and Luke refer to a “lord of the harvest.”265 Concerning this figure as a fiktives Wesen, the synthetic component is explicitly constructed only through the use of the term κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ in the parable’s imperative statement. The term itself is interesting in that it does not appear prior to this occurrence in the extant Greek literature, and though there are LXX references, for example, to κύριος τοῦ λάκκου (Exod. 21:34), κύριος τοῦ οἴκου (Judg. 19:23), κύριος τοῦ ὄρους (1 Kgs 16:24), and a similar NT reference to a κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (Mt. 20:8, 21:40; Mk 12:9; Lk. 20:13, 15), in these instances the owner as possessor of a locale, and not the possessor of the produce of a location, are in view.266 The character’s mimetic component is strongly shaped through his presentation as the figure who has the authority to send workers into the field, and indeed the one upon whom the sending is dependent. As such, Laufen is correct in noting that the Lord of the Harvest is “der eigentlich Handelnde.”267 At the same time, that the parable specifically refers to petitioning the “master” to send the laborers so that the large harvest, or better his large harvest, is not lost raises the question of why such a petition should be necessary. Is the absent master foolish or disinterested?268 Or is it rather that this curiosity presses the addressee to consider that the act of petitioning reveals the fact that the resolution to the problem lies completely within the hands of the

264. Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 115. 265. Some elements of the following discussion concerning this “master” draw on Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables,” 375–7, 392. 266. Zimmermann refers to the term as a “kühne Metapher” (“Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 115). Marco Frenschkowski notes, “Kyrios with a genitive is common in polytheistic contexts; but here it is derived from the metaphorical background of the designation” (“Kyrios in Context,” 103). 267. Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 271. 268.  Kloppenborg states that “the scenario used by Q is a standard one in the agricultural realm,” assuming that an absentee landlord is in view (“Power and Surveillance,” 164). Even if this view is correct, the papyri that Kloppenborg cites in support of his view, namely, PSI VI 345 and P.Cair.Zen. I 59049.3–4, only make mention of a request to send ten guards during the harvest time and of a manager requesting that the owner send someone to collect the hay since he is otherwise occupied. It seems to me that a request for guards or a replacement is not quite the same scenario as the one presented in this parable. Concerning the difficulties of ascertaining the agricultural situation in Galilee, cf. Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. (SJCA 5; Wilmington:  Michael Glazier and Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 156–70. Habbe is of the opinion, “Lk 10,2 scheint mit seiner Bezugnahme auf größeren Grundbesitz eher auf Jesreel-Ebene oder Judäa als auf Galiäa zu deuten” (Palästina zur Zeit Jesu, 107).

280

The Parables in Q

master and that one is dependent upon him to act? In this way, perhaps the parable uses the petition to prompt reflection on a position of dependence in a situation involving something more than an economic concern and in a reality beyond an annual grain harvest.269 With this potential impetus to consider a reality beyond the confines of the parable, the κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ as Symbol can be considered. In regard to the thematic component of this character, there is widespread consensus that here “kyrios is God.”270 Zimmermann has highlighted both the manner in which the κύριος term invites the obvious connection to God and the way in which “sending” terminology is a theological Signalwort in the language of early Christianity.271 Therefore, the hearer may well engage in a process of metaphoric transfer and begin considering that the imperative to “ask” of the κύριος to send workers has a deeper meaning as a prayer to the Lord to commission laborers,272 and by extension that 269.  Cf. Eder’s comment that when one is confronted with information concerning a character that results in a certain level of cognitive dissonance, the result is that one either ignores or reinterprets the disturbing information, or modifies the model or framework within which one views the character (Figur im Film, 213; cf. also Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 115). 270.  Frenschkowski, “Kyrios in Context,” 103. On the manner in which the parable presses toward this identification, cf. Roth, “Missionary Ethics,” 2–3; and Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 112. Differently, Bork, Raumsemantik, 227, who identifies this figure as Jesus on the basis of a connection to Q 3:17. Though Bork is right to note the manner in which Jesus is depicted as “owning” the harvest in Q 3:17, the imagery involved there puts Jesus in the role of a “worker” in the harvest. Catchpole also presents reasons for seeing Jesus as being designated with the term κυρίος here, though hesitates in seeing prayer to the exalted Jesus as too high a Christology for Q. In my estimation it is difficult on the basis of both language and context to see the κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ here as Jesus. Nevertheless, Catchpole rightly sees the functional equivalence between God and Jesus in vv. 2 and 3, discussed below (Quest for Q, 160–1). 271.  Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 112. Though, as noted above, Zimmermann is correct in stating that κυρίος τοῦ θερισμοῦ does not appear prior to this occurrence in the extant Greek literature (ibid., 115), the LXX references to similar terms reveal that it is not simply the term κυρίος τοῦ θερισμοῦ that signals a theological significance, but the term in context. More recently Zimmermann has stated, “The sending of workers into the harvest by itself cannot claim to be read metaphorically. Only the textual signal by means of the genitive metaphor ‘Lord of the Harvest’ provides a strong signal to read the text against the background of prophetic imagery and stock metaphors of the eschatological harvest” (Puzzling the Parables, 202–203). I would be more cautious in seeing any one term as determinative and focus rather upon the manner in which multiple signals operate in tandem within the parable. 272.  Interestingly, though δέομαι is often employed by Luke in Luke–Acts, Matthew uses it only in 9:38. Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3; 4th ed.; Leipzig:  A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr.  Werner Scholl, 1920), 407, repeatedly spoke of a “Gebet” here and Plummer, Luke, 272, of a “prayer.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

281

the harvest to be gathered, the harvest of the κύριος, is an image of those individuals belonging to “the Lord.”273 8.6.3 Images It is quite clear that the key image of this parable is the “harvest” as the θερισμός features prominently. In fact, the parable begins with a description of the θερισμός as πολύς, then refers to a κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ, and finally highlights that it is to this master that the harvest belongs (θερισμός αὐτοῦ). Thus, not only does the image appear repeatedly in rapid succession, it also appears at the outset, in the middle, and at the end of this brief parable, further underscoring its significance. What precisely, however, is envisioned with the image of a “harvest”? Marshall rightly notes that θερισμός can be the crop of the harvest itself (cf. Rev. 14:5) or the process/time of harvesting (cf. Mt. 13:30, 39; Mk 4:29; Jn 4:35).274 Here, the former seems to be in view. Though, in antiquity, the size of the harvest was conceived of and measured in relation to the seed that had been sown,275 here imagery in this parable is simply one of “plenty” without any reference to a specific multifold harvest. And yet, the joy that would normally be associated with the blessing of a large harvest is immediately tempered in the parable by the paucity of workers for the harvest. The inadequate number of workers to bring the harvest in out of the field presents the very real danger of the harvest being lost or ruined.276 It is important to note that the emphasis is not on a need existing because the harvest is near, but rather because the harvest is large.277 Though on some level

273. Regardless of whether one agrees with her point concerning a qualified equality in Q or not, Levine’s statement, “In terms of Q instruction, the exhortations given in 10:2–12 cannot be received by all sympathetic to the general message. Rather, some—those closest to the paradigm of Jesus—take to the road; others, the ones to be harvested (10:2) and the children of peace (10:6), provide them support” (“Who’s Catering?,” 150), rightly recognizes the manner in which the harvest represents individuals. 274. Marshall, Luke, 416. 275.  Cf. the references in Zimmermann, “Folgenreiche Bitte!,” 112–13, to “Übertreibungen” in references to sixty- or even a hundredfold harvests (Gen. 26:12; the perhaps textually corrupt reference in Pliny the Elder, Nat. 18.20); ten- to fifteen-fold returns in Varro, Rust. 1.44, where the focus is on the difference of return from the same seed being due to the locality and type of soil; average eight- to more exceptional tenfold harvests in Sicily (Cicero, Verr. 2.3.112 [NB: there is a typographical error in Zimmermann’s reference to “2 III [47] 12”]); and hardly a memory of anything greater than a fourfold return throughout the greater part of Italy is in the memory of Columella (Rust. 3.3.4). 276. For comments on the loss of a harvest, cf. 1 Sam. 12:17; Prov. 26:1; and Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 4.13.6. 277.  For this reason, when Hoffmann states that “Nicht die ‘Weite des Missionsfeldes,’ sondern die drängende Zeit veranlasst die Bitte an den Herrn der Ernte, Arbeiter in seine Ernte zu schicken,” he is correct in his first contention but incorrect, or at least unbalanced, in his second (Studien zur Theologie, 291–2). Cf. also the overriding emphasis on

282

The Parables in Q

there is an implicit sense of urgency, the danger of losing the harvest in the imagery of the parable is not first and foremost due to a lack of time, it is due to a lack of workers. There is a plentiful harvest that, without workers, may be lost.278 In other words, the time of the harvest is simply a given, and it seems that one could legitimately assume that the parable implies that if the harvest were smaller, then few workers would be sufficient, but since the harvest is large more workers are needed.279 A further point to mention is that, as is well known, the time of the harvest as an image of the time of the eschatological judgment has a rich background in the HB and Second Temple literature (cf. Isa. 18:5, 27:12; Joel 4:13, Mic. 4:12; 2 Bar. 70:2; 4 Ezra 4:28-32).280 For this reason, the conclusion is often drawn, as expressed by Catchpole, “that the harvest metaphor is used so frequently with the End in mind must favour the view that Q 10:2 does the same, and in so doing it could endorse the proclamation of the nearness of the kingdom which was central to the main body of the mission charge.”281 As just noted, however, the focus here is not on the temporal nearness of the harvest. Furthermore, unlike other instances of the image in Q discussed further below, there is no explicit reference to judgment of any sort in this parable. For this

“apocalyptic” issues in Schulz, Q, 410–11. Also critical of these views is Marshall, Luke, 416:  “the saying explicitly points to the greatness of the task” (cf. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, 135). Schröter observes, “Der Akzent liegt . . . nicht allein auf der Ernte, sondern auf dem Mißverhältnis von deren Größe und der geringen Zahl der zur Verfügung stehenden Arbeiter” (Erinnerung and Jesu Worte, 170). 278.  Cf. the comments of Hermann-Josef Venetz, “Bittet den Herrn der Ernte: Überlegungen zu Lk 10,2//Mt 9,37,” Diakonia 11 (1980): 152–3. 279. Uro is therefore correct in viewing the image, in a certain sense, as “optimistic” (Sheep among the Wolves, 209); however, the purpose of the image is not to reflect “optimistic” or “pessimistic” views, but rather to set the stage for the action of the hearers of the parable. 280.  Markus Tiwald rightly cautions against moving too quickly into judgment imagery with the term θερισμός as only in Isa. 18:5 is it used in the LXX as a metaphor for judgment (Wanderradikalismus Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt [ÖBS 20; Frankfurt:  Peter Lang,  2002], 151). Nevertheless, the harvest imagery as image for the eschatological judgment, as Tiwald also recognizes, is clear. Cf. also the discussion in Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 119, where he comments “Harvest and vintage symbolize in particular the Last Judgement with which the New Age begins.” 281.  Catchpole, Quest for Q, 164. Horsley with Draper states, “In the context of Q as a whole and the mission discourse in particular, the harvest would appear to be primarily the ingathering now that the right time has finally come, with the implication toward the end of the discourse that those who reject the preaching of the kingdom and the healing bring judgment upon themselves” (Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 242). Braun comments that the harvest refers “to the Christian mission as the final ‘reaping’ (for salvation or judgment) of God’s people” (“Historical Jesus and Mission Speech,” 310) and Laufen states, “Zweifellos hat das Bild von der Ernte eschatologische Bedeutung” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 270). The question of a Gentile mission appearing in Q through the harvest imagery here is mentioned briefly in the next note and discussed further below under the heading “8.6.4 The Parable in Q.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

283

reason, Nolland cautions that the “harvest here is not exactly an image of (eschatological) judgment . . . nor is it straightforwardly an image of the eschatological gathering of Israel.”282 Of course, I do not wish to dispute that the image assumes that the time of the harvest, understood eschatologically, has come and that there is a certain urgency in bringing the harvest in.283 Myung-Soo Kim may well be right in contending, “In dem Spruch geht es um das endzeitliche Bewußtsein der urchristlichen Q-Gemeinde und ihren gegenwärtigen Missionsauftrag. Hier wird das Selbstverständnis der Q-Gemeinde als endzeitliche Sendungs- und Sammlungsgemeinde dargestellt.”284 And yet, the temporal element remains in the background. Once again, the primary component of the use of the image here in the opening of the parable, and that which is brought into the foreground, is not the time/nearness of the harvest, but rather the size of the harvest.285 The harvest is πολύς.286 8.6.4 The Parable in Q Several aspects of this parable’s place in Q have already been mentioned in the discussion above. First of all, it was already noted in the introductory comments to the discussion of this parable that in both Matthew and Luke the imagery introduces a mission discourse. In regard to this point, and picking up a further element in the consideration of the harvest imagery in the parable, Lührmann was of the opinion that since the harvest image occurs regularly in the context of God’s judging the Gentiles, it should be seen here as including the in-gathering of the Gentiles. Kloppenborg, however, rightly notes that “caution is in order here . . . since this metaphor also occurs with reference to Israel alone (Hos 6:11; 4 Ezra 9:1–25, 29–37).”287 Thus, even if one is inclined to see a Gentile mission in Q, “Q 10:2 is not incontrovertible evidence of that mission.”288

282.  Nolland, Luke, 2:550. Tuckett rightly expresses reservation about seeing a Gentile mission in Q 10:2 and in any case he is correct to note that the harvest “image can be used of judgement directed to Israel as well as Gentiles” (Q and the History of Earliest Christianity, 400). 283. See the discussion below. 284.  Myung-Soo Kim, Die Trägergruppe von Q  – Sozialgeschichtliche Forschung zur Q-Überlieferung in den synoptischen Evangelien (WBEHS 1; Hamburg:  an der Lottbek, 1990), 275. 285.  Though much of Tiwald’s discussion of the mission discourse in Q is helpful his perspective that “Quer durch die Aussendungsrede zieht sich eigentlich nur ein einziger roter Faden: die Naherwartung der basileia” may be overemphasizing that which is actually found in the background and not the foreground of this image (Wanderradikalismus, 159). 286.  Picking up on this point, and consonant with observations made above, Wolter notes, “Die Näherbestimmung von θερισμός durch πολύς macht . . . deutlich, dass hier nicht von der Größe des Missionsfeldes die Rede ist, sondern von der Größe des zu erwartenden Ertrags” (Lukasevangelium, 378; contra Lührmann, Redaktion, 60). 287. Kloppenborg, Formation, 193. 288. Ibid.

284

The Parables in Q

Nevertheless, several aspects of harvest imagery are significant in Q more broadly. There is a certain sense, as noted above, in which Q 6:43-45 relates images from a harvest. In that context, the depiction of harvesting is related to a recognition of the nature of the plant from which something is harvested. The image thus has an identifying function, which is a function rather different from the one found here.289 A  different type of harvest image is present in the parables spoken by John the Baptist,290 in which the harvest imagery is overtly related to eschatological judgment. That imagery may be more relevant to the imagery of this parable, and indeed, it is regularly highlighted in discussion of this verse.291 Even if certain details involving eschatological judgment are far clearer in the words spoken by John the Baptist, there is at least a certain parallel between the depiction of the harvest in Q 3:16-17, for instance, and the image utilized in this parable. At the same time, though Moessner rightly notes the manner in which these metaphors are connected, his comment “the metaphor of gathering a harvest mirrors . . . John’s picture of Jesus’ ministry in [Luke] 3:17,”292 if pressed too far, runs into the problem that Jesus does not appear to be included in the “workers” of the parable. To be sure, Jesus was sent by God; yet, the fact that he already was sent results in the petition for the “Lord of the harvest” to send more workers, in addition to those already present, seeming to have others in view. In fact, the identification of Jesus with a character in this parable seems to occur at a different point, especially, but not only, if the Lukan order of 10:3 immediately following 10:2 was found in Q.293 As already noted in Chapter 5, both God and Jesus are identified as κύριος in Q.294 Of significance here is that the very act assumed to be an act that God must perform in 10:2 (the act of “sending”) is precisely the act that Jesus then performs in 10:3. Thus, the parable and the ensuing saying are another instance in Q in which this document set forth a “functional equivalence” between God and Jesus.295 This “functional equivalence” serves to underscore the manner in which Jesus and God are connected via both their actions and the term 289. The function is also different from the one found involving the harvest imagery in Q 12:24. 290. Cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.2. 291.  Thus, Horsley with Draper, e.g., state, “Decisive for reading/hearing the harvest image in Q 10:2 is the parallel imagery elsewhere in Q discourses” (Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 242). 292. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, 135. 293. In Matthew, Q 10:3 follows Q 11:14 (Mt. 9:32-33) and precedes Q 10:9b (Mt. 10:7). As I argued elsewhere, however, “even if the connection with the parable is more overtly obvious in the Lukan order where the saying immediately follows, the same connection in regards to the issue of ‘sending’ also exists in Matthew despite intervening material” (“Missionary Ethics,” 88). 294. Cf. Chapter 5, n. 47. 295.  Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 393. Catchpole states, “God’s sending is involved in his [Jesus’s] sending” (Quest for Q, 161). Labahn observes that the use of the term κύριος

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

285

κύριος. Thus, though it is disputed whether or not κύριος is a term of particular christological significance in Q,296 it is clearly a term through which Jesus and God are brought into close contact and at least a somewhat ambiguous term in the parables when the question is asked as to whether its symbolic referent is God or Jesus. Since this parable is another one in which a “master” appears, and the questions involving the identification of these characters in Q with God or Jesus has already been seen in Chapter 5, it is not surprising that similar questions concerning the precise, metaphorical identity of a κύριος also arise elsewhere.297 Finally, though the relationship between the addresses in Q 10:2 and Q 10:3 was already discussed when considering the “you” behind the imperative of the parable as Symbol, here a further point can be mentioned, which is ultimately determinative for the “discipleship” nature of this parable. At the conclusion of the parable, it does not merely “point to a way out of the difficulty by tracing the Christian mission back to God who as Lord of the harvest calls and sends laborers into his mission.”298 In fact, of central import to the parable is that there is a clear demand for action on the part of the hearer. It is quite significant that when considering the nature of this action it becomes apparent that the action required is one that, when performed, expresses overt dependence upon God. As Nolland correctly notes, “All depends finally on the initiative of the farm owner, who must take responsibility for orchestrating the harvest.”299 Action is indeed required, but it is the “dependent” action of prayer; this petition must be offered, but ultimately the plentiful harvest can only be brought in if God hears the plea for more workers and sends them.300 Fleddermann rightly notes that “the ultimate initiative for the mission, and its success, lies not with the disciples, nor even with Jesus, but for both God and Jesus brings them “in ein enges Verhältnis” even if it does not result in an “Identifikation beider Größen” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 295, 296). Cf. also Jacques Schlosser, “Q et la christologie implicite,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (ed. Andreas Lindemann), 304. 296.  Cf. the essentially diametrically opposed statements by Catchpole, Quest, 161, where he identifies κυρίος as “the dominant christological category of Q” and Tuckett, Q and the History of Earliest Christianity, 218, who states that “kyrios for Q does not appear to be a term of great christological significance.” 297.  Though Tuckett recognizes that aspects of the parabolic stories are “seen by Q as Christologically significant,” he views it likely “that the κυρίος references in the parables are simply parts of the stories” (Q and the History of Earliest Christianity, 218). As already noted in considerations of such characters earlier in this work, I am not sure that in the minds of the hearers the κυρίος as a Symbol can simply remain a “part of the story” without any sort of metaphorical transfer taking place. 298. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 429. 299. Nolland, Luke, 2:551; emphasis added. 300.  Cf. also the sentiment of Laufen that “die Sendung der Glaubensboten letztlich nicht Sache der Gemeinde, sondern Tat Gottes ist. Am Anfang aller Sendung steht der κυρίος τοῦ θερισμοῦ, der seine ἐργάται selbst erwählt und den die Gemeinde um solche Arbeiter nur bitten kann” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 286).

286

The Parables in Q

with God, the Lord of the harvest,” that, as such, “the command to pray to the Lord of the harvest opens up the prayer theme” found in the ensuing pericopes.301 Ultimately, however, this issue of dependence is foundational for the instructions and ethical considerations that follow in the mission discourse and for the attitude that the Q group is to embrace, not only in terms of their approach to any “mission,”302 but also in terms of their discipleship. It must always be performed in a posture of absolute dependence.303

8.7 Parable of the House on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47-49) Mt. 7:24-27

Lk. 6:47-49

πᾶς οὖν ὅστις

πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός με καὶ

ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς,

ἀκούων μου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος·

ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν

48

ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν· 25

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν, τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. 26 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ μὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον· 27

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπ εσ εν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη.

ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι οἰκίαν ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν· πλημμύρης δὲ γενομένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ,

καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν. 49

ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας

καὶ μὴ ποιήσας ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμός,

καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγ α.

301. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 430. 302. Cf. the conclusion in Roth, “Missionary Ethics,” 96–7. 303. Though the issue cannot be pursued further here, there has been considerable discussion concerning the relationship between the instructions of the Q mission discourse

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

287

The Q parable in view here304 is found in two slightly different versions in Mt. 7:24-27 and Lk. 6:47-49.305 It is, however, widely held that on the basis of “form, content, and even wording” there are “grounds for attributing [the two versions] to a common source (Q).”306 For this reason, Snodgrass reflects the general scholarly consensus in recently having noted that the suggestion that the evangelists had two different versions of the parable is probably unnecessary.307 As will be highlighted in the discussion below, Michael P. Knowles rightly observes: “The differences between the portrayals of this parable are largely matters of narrative detail” with the basic structure and imagery of the parable essentially

and Cynic philosophy (cf. the brief overview and references in Roth, “Missionary Ethics,” 93–4). In terms of at least one point, however, Tuckett has underscored the “radical difference” between the ethos in Q and among Cynics: “With cynics, the ethos is to give up one’s possessions and live a life of austerity and physical deprivation in the belief that that life as such will provide true and lasting happiness and fulfillment. Moreover the ideal for the cynic is a life of self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) and independence from the rest of society. In Q the ethos is radically different: it is to encourage not independence, but dependence—upon God” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 389). 304.  Aspects of the following discussion overlap with my previous discussion of this parable in Dieter T. Roth, “The Words of Jesus and the Torah: A Consideration of the Role of Q 6,47-49,” in Kein Jota wird vergehen:  Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie (ed. Markus Tiwald; Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 200; Stuttgart:  Kohlhammer, 2013), 89–110. Again highlighting the problems of terminology, Jülicher identified the passage “nur als Vergleichnung, nicht einmal als Gleichnis” (Gleichnisreden, 2:259) and on the ensuing page called it a “Halbparabel” (ibid., 2:260). Bultmann, however, referred to it as a “Gleichnis” (Geschichte, 187). 305.  There are also two well-known rabbinic parallels of the parable in ‘Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 24 and m. ‘Avot 3.17. For discussion, cf. Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse, 102–103; and Moisés Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten’ (Hausbau auf Felsen oder Sand) Q 6,47–49 (Mt 7,24–27 / Lk 6,47–49),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 95–6 [NB: the reference to “mAv 3,18” is incorrect]. 306. Hultgren, Parables, 132. 307.  Cf. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 330; and Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 566–8. Nevertheless, some have disagreed with this assessment, contending that the differences do reveal two different versions of the parable or at least cannot be explained in their entirety by redaction. Cf., e.g., the brief summary of such proposals in Hultgren, Parables, 132; and Marshall, Luke, 274. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 559, posits a “Q/Luke” and a “Q/Matt” version. Interestingly, Blomberg, who on the basis of word statistics, which generally inform his argument, argues that “it could well be that these two versions reflect independent traditions” here recognizes that “since both evangelists place the parable at the conclusion of what is at the core the same basic sermon of Jesus, it seems hard to believe in this instance that the writers had two distinct settings in mind” (“When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?” 100–101). A  helpful overview of the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the parable can be found in the chart in Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 331.

288

The Parables in Q

unaffected.308 In addition, since the parallel introductory statement in Matthew and Luke is important for understanding the parable in Q, it has been included in the table above. 8.7.1 Plot Analysis Before considering the specific elements of the plot, it should be observed that though the parable first presents one type of house and then another, it should not be classified as a double parable,309 but rather as “a single parable in antithetical parallelism.”310 In the parallel elements, the initial situation is the same in the sense that both Matthew and Luke present an individual involved in the construction of an οἰκία. In the first element of the parallel construction, Matthew and Luke explicitly mention the individual constructing the house, though using different terms and with Matthew adding the descriptor φρόνιμος.311 As is also the case in the parable in Q 12:58-59, discussed in Chapter  10, Section 10.1, the plot here has the curious situation that the transforming action, namely, the act of building and the manner in which it is done, is presented prior to the complication. As such, the transforming action is not performed in response to a complication, but rather in the potential anticipation of one. The first οἰκία mentioned is one that had been built ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (Mt. 7:24) or where significant labor had been invested and the builder had laid θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (Lk. 6:48). It has often, and rightly, been noted that Matthew focuses on a wise man and the type of foundation, whereas Luke highlights the building process and the resulting presence of a foundation.312 In both instances, however, the image of the stability of the house as it relates to the question of its foundation is brought to the fore.313 As is

308.  Knowles, “ ‘Everyone Who Hears These Words of Mine,’ ” 287. Cf. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, who, despite offering a reconstructed text, focuses on interpreting “des grandes lignes du texte reconstruit” (“Une parabole à l’image antithétique: Q 6,46–49,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus [ed. Andreas Lindemann], 682). I  would contend that these “grandes lignes” are clear even without a word-level reconstruction of Q. As Marshall states, “The difference in detail does not affect the main point at issue” (Luke, 275). 309. It is referred to as a “double parable” by, e.g., Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 305; and Manson, Sayings, 61. 310.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:719. Cf. also Puig i Tàrrech, “Q 6,46–49,” 681. Jülicher had already noted that “man die Rede kaum eine Doppelparabel nennen [darf]” (Gleichnisreden, 2:260). Cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 556–7. 311. Mt. 7:24 reads ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ and Lk. 6:48 ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ. 312.  Cf., e.g., Hultgren, Parables, 135; Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:264; Marshall, Luke, 275; and Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 93. As will be seen below, the same difference is seen regarding the “foolish” builder (Matthew) and the process of building without a foundation (Luke) in the second half of the parable. 313.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:722, contend that Luke’s reading “because it had been well built” in Lk. 6:48 “changes the sense: the house stands not because of its good

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

289

the case with the construction of the houses, Matthew and Luke’s presentations of the storm that constitutes the plot’s complication differ. Matthew (7:25) writes καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ whereas Luke (6:48) has πλημμύρης δὲ γενομένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ. There is no denouement of the storm, for the final situation is one brought about by the storm itself. For the first house, the final situation is that it οὐκ ἔπεσεν (Mt. 7:25) or that the river οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν (Lk. 6:48). In other words, this house remains standing. As one comes to the second element in the parable’s structure, Luke again refers to the builder simply as an ἄνθρωπος whereas Matthew makes a clearer identification of an ἀνήρ who is μωρός.314 As the plot advances here, the antithetical parallelism becomes clear as the construction of the second οἰκία, by way of contrast to the first, is ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον (Mt. 7:26) or ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου (Lk. 6:49). When the complication arises, this transforming action is revealed as inadequate, for the storm315 leads to the final situation that the second house ἔπεσεν (Mt. 7:27) or εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν (Lk. 6:49). A further comment is appended to the final situation by both Matthew and Luke, highlighting the manner in which “the accent falls on the folly of the second man whose story forms the climax of the parable.”316 Even though Matthew’s concluding words (καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη; 7:27) are once again slightly different from Luke’s (καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα

foundation but because it has been well built.” It is true that Luke changes the emphasis; however, I am not persuaded that the sense is changed since the house being well built in Luke is intimately connected with it having its foundation laid on the rock. As Marshall notes, “The difference in detail [well built or on rock] does not affect the main point at issue; both forms of the parable advocate wisdom and diligence in building” (Luke, 275). I  would thus disagree with Manson’s sentiment that Luke’s “not well built” is not to the point, since “we are to imagine that both houses as equally well built. The only difference is that correctly given by Mt.: one was founded on rock and the other on sand” (Sayings, 61). Whether a house was built on rock or on sand would strongly influence the image of whether the house is well built or not. Though Blomberg likely has an apologetic interest in asserting that “no theological differences appear in Luke’s parable,” he does rightly note that the imagery of the two versions of the parable is largely parallel and ultimately the same (“When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?” 101–102, citation on p. 102). Similarly, though Wrege views Matthew as emphasizing the storm and Luke the care in construction, he concluded: “Das sind verschiedene Schwerpunkte im Anschauungsmaterial, die den Inhalt der Aussage nicht verändern” (Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt, 155). 314. Cf. nn. 311 and 312 above. 315.  Interestingly, both Matthew and Luke vary their wording slightly regarding the storm. Matthew does include many elements verbatim, though here the winds προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ. Luke drops the reference to the πλήμμυρα. 316. Marshall, Luke, 275. The full citation includes “and the sermon” at its conclusion, a point that will be taken up below under the heading 8.7.4, “The Parable in Q.”

290

The Parables in Q

τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα; 6:49), they both reflect “a proverbial expression meaning ‘a complete collapse.’ ”317 8.7.2 Characters As already noted above, the parable presents two characters who “are described in turn and in parallel terms.”318 On account of the antithetical parallelism, the application of the character analysis rubric employed here would largely result in simply repeating for one character, though from the opposite perspective, that which was already stated for the other. Thus, both characters will be considered concurrently. The synthetic component of these characters as fiktive Wesen is constructed only on the basis of the description of the character and the character’s actions offered by the narrator. That is to say, there is no direct speech by or thought of a character related in the parable. As already noted above, only Matthew contains a specific reference to a builder of a house being either φρόνιμος or μωρός. In this way, the mimetic component of both characters is effected in Matthew through direct characterization and the reader or hearer is explicitly told that one is dealing with either a “wise” or a “foolish” man (ἀνήρ). This assessment, however, is also strongly implied for the individual (ἄνθρωπος) presented in the Lukan account.319 Through the actions undertaken by the Lukan builder, the same mimetic components found in Matthew are presented through indirect characterization. The wisdom of the builder putting together a well-constructed house with a foundation on rock and the foolishness of having a house with a foundation on sand or no foundation at all is not only rather self-evident,320 but becomes particularly obvious when the structure is subjected to the forces of nature. Therefore, if the Q account did not include these adjectives, Rudolf Pesch and Reinhard Kratz may well be correct in arguing that with these descriptions Matthew simply drew out, “was im Q-Gleichnis schon angelegt war.”321 The metaphoric transfer for these characters is governed by the sentiment found in the introduction to and the transition between the parallel elements of the parable. Both Matthew and Luke indicate that these builders as Symbol are to

317. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:724, with reference to Philo Mut. 55; Migr. 80; and Ebr. 156. Cf. also Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 194n8; and Nolland, Matthew, 344n522. 318. Manson, Sayings, 61. 319. Blomberg observes that both the Matthean and the Lukan imagery “naturally suggests wise and foolish behavior” (Interpreting the Parables, 259). In addition, Manson’s comment that “the issue shows plainly enough that one is wise and the other foolish” applies equally to Matthew and Luke (Sayings, 61). 320. See the discussion below under the heading “8.7.3 Images.” 321. Rudolf Pesch and Reinhard Kratz, So liest man synoptisch: Anleitung und Kommentar zum Studium der synoptischen Evangelien V: Gleichnisse und Bildreden: Teil II: Aus der zweifachen Überlieferung (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1978), 29.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

291

be understood as, on the one hand, an individual “hearing and doing” and, on the other hand, “hearing and not doing” the words of Jesus. Thus, the thematic component of the two builders is found in the idea of the wisdom and foolishness depicted in the parable being transferred to the lives of those hearing Jesus’s words. The wise build their lives firmly on Jesus’s words and stand strong whereas the foolish construct their lives without taking Jesus’s words to heart and are swept away. Not surprisingly, it will be seen below that this overt thematic component of the parable is the element highlighted in Q. 8.7.3 Images Two prominent images found in this parable are first, and of primary significance, that of an οἰκία and second, that of a storm. Regarding the image of a house, quite clearly this is an image that would be easily accessible to the audience of the parable as the construction of some sort of dwelling is a common concept, not only in the first century,322 but in nearly any era. As Puig i Tàrrech observes, “Le fil narratif débute sur une image tirée de la vie ordinaire.”323 In addition to the everyday experience that one has with dwellings, Vitruvius’s De architectura, the most important architectural work surviving from antiquity, discusses and reflects upon the laying of a foundation, and by implication its importance, at several points, including 1.5.1; 3.4.1-2; and 6.8.1.324 Furthermore, a traditional use of various sorts of construction imagery can be found in numerous Jewish and Christian texts, including passages such as Deut. 20:5-6; Job 8:15; Ps. 92:14; Jer. 1:10; 18:9; Amos 9:12-15; Sir. 22:16-18; 1QS VIII, 5; and 1 Cor. 3:6-10.325 Geza Vermes has also drawn attention to the manner in which two Thanksgiving Hymns from the Dead Sea Scrolls employ architectural imagery involving a foundation: “One speaks of a fortified city whose foundation is set on the rock and whose walls will be built with solidly laid tried stones (1QH 14[formerly 6]:24–26). In the other we similarly encounter an edifice constructed on eternal foundations and fortified with a strong tower and high well-built walls which will never be shaken (1QH 15[formerly 7]:8–9).”326 An additional point to be made concerning the first οἰκία in the parable is that both Matthew and Luke indicate that this house was constructed ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. From a geographical vantage point, building a house on rock is entirely possible within much

322.  Cf. the observation of Baasland:  “Houses and construction became a popular theme in the first century, when the rapid urbanisation had a great impact on everyday life” (Parables and Rhetoric, 571). 323. Puig i Tàrrech, “Q 6,46–49,” 689. 324.  For an English translation of the text, cf. Ingrid D. Rowland and Thomas Noble Howe, Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 325. Some of these texts are also mentioned in Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 93. Snodgrass refers to building and foundation images as “stock metaphors for learning and other human (and divine) efforts” (Stories with Intent, 332). 326. Vermes, Authentic Gospel, 126.

292

The Parables in Q

of Palestine.327 On the metaphorical level, it is also significant that the term “rock” in these descriptions harkens back to a common image for security or salvation, as found particularly in the Psalms (e.g. Ps. 40:2 [MT 40:3; LXX 39:3]).328 Thus, it is not only the stability of the foundation, but specifically the stability of a “rock” that underscores the structural stability of the house. The stability, or lack thereof, becomes particularly significant in the light of a storm for, as Arne Bork puts it, “Das Haus wird in dieser Parabel . . . in seiner Schutzfunktion vor Unwetter herausgestellt.”329 Turning to the storm, it was already noted in the discussion of the plot that Matthew and Luke present the storm with slightly different images. Often, the differences in the descriptions are attributed to the supposed envisioning of different locations by the evangelists.330 At the same time, however, either scenario is within the realm of possibility for Palestine (i.e. flash flooding during a storm in the rainy season or a storm leading to the flooding of the Jordan)331 even if Luke’s “singular portrait of a river rising and overflowing is more fitting for a non-Palestinian setting.”332 Regardless of the extent to which Matthew and Luke reflect different locales with their images, and regardless of the precise image that actually appeared in Q, in either case the storm image would be a vivid one for Q’s ancient audience.333 A storm, rain, or a flood is often found as a traditional image for God’s judgment in the HB and in Second Temple literature (e.g. Job 22:15-16;

327. Cf. the comments in Hultgren, Parables, 133. 328. Though the HB often uses ‫“( צור‬rock”) as a metaphor for God, the LXX consistently avoids the image in its translation of the term (cf. Staffan Olofsson, God Is My Rock:  A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint [ConBOT 31; Stockholm:  Almquist & Wiksell, 1990], 35–80). In the history of the interpretation of this parable this “rock” was often interpreted allegorically to be Christ or the church (cf., e.g., Augustine, Serm. Dom. 2.25.87). Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 563–6, sees significant connections between the rock imagery and Peter, though this seems to be a bit of a stretch. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (vol. 2 of The New Testament and the People of God; Minneapolis, Fortress, 1996), 334, has made the unlikely suggestion that the “house built on rock” should be understood as a clear allusion to the temple. Cf. also the discussion of the image in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 573–5. 329. Bork, Raumsemantik, 126. 330.  Cf. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 81; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 194n4, and the observation in Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 94. BDAG, s.v. ποταμός, states that the term in Luke is “a river that flows continuously near the house in question” but that in Matthew, the rivers “are to be understood as the mountain torrents or winter torrents which arise in ravines after a heavy rain and carry everything before them.” The connection of the flood to the Sintflut by Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 49n6, is generally viewed as overreaching (cf. Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 96; and Pesch and Kratz, So liest man synoptisch V, 28). 331. Cf. Jones, The Matthean Parables, 94. 332. Hultgren, Parables, 135. 333. Cf. France, Matthew, 296.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

293

Ps. 83:14-15 [MT 83:15-16; LXX 82:15-16]; Isa. 28:17; 30:27-28; Ezek. 13:13-14; 2 Bar. 53:7).334 At the same time, however, the storm, which decides the fate of the structures,335 is not overtly connected to God’s judgment leading Kloppenborg to contend that “although Q 6:47–49 . . . warns of destruction, that destruction is due to stupidity rather than punishment inflicted by a divine agent.”336 When the parable brings the two images together at its conclusion by relating that whereas one house stands firm in the storm, the storm causes the other house to collapse, the “stupidity” of the builder of the latter house comes to light. Once again, the HB provides images of both the house of the wicked being overthrown but the house of the righteous standing (e.g. Prov. 14:11 and 12:7, respectively) and of the wicked being destroyed by a storm while the righteous survive (e.g. Prov. 10:25). The only question remaining, then, is precisely how Q utilizes these images. 8.7.4 The Parable in Q In some ways, the above discussion has perhaps simply confirmed Snodgrass’s observation that the parable’s intent “is straightforward and clear.”337 It remains important, however, to consider how this parable functions in Q. First, concerning the context of the parable, in Matthew the parable concludes the Sermon on the Mount and in Luke it concludes the Sermon on the Plain; it is virtually certain that Matthew and Luke have retained, in their respective Gospels, the discourse-concluding function that the parable had in their source.338 That is to say, the parable functions as part of a larger argumentative strategy in that it provides “a concluding dramatization”339 through its placement at the end of a larger discourse. Kloppenborg also points out that Q 6:47-49 specifically picks up the teacher/master imagery from the preceding verses and “implies that his [Jesus’s] words are to be taken with the utmost seriousness (though this warning in itself does not distinguish Q from other sapiential instructions which predict shipwreck for those who do not hearken).”340

334. Cf. the discussion of some of these passages in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 576–7. 335. Cf. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 259. 336. Kloppenborg, “Representation of Violence,” 336. 337. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 333. 338.  Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.719; and Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 330. Heil, “Beobachtungen,” 652, refers to this parable as an example of how parables in Q also function “als Überleitung von einer Kompositionseinheit zur anderen.” 339. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 317. 340.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 319. Flusser sees “my words” as a redactional interpolation in the parable and contends that, on the level of the historical Jesus, “Jesus in Wirklichkeit über die Worte des Gesetzes Mosis [sprach]” (Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse, 100). Regardless of whether one is persuaded by this suggestion or not, on the level of Q the parable clearly involves Jesus’s words. Looking forward in Q, however,

294

The Parables in Q

As stated at several points above, Matthew and Luke connect the images of the parable with, on the one hand, “hearing and doing” Jesus’s words (Mt. 7:24// Lk. 6:47) and, on the other hand, “hearing and not doing” Jesus’s words (Mt. 7:26//Lk. 6:49). Of significance here is that Q thus uses the parable in a manner that directs its message inwardly, that is, toward those hearing Jesus’s words, and not outwardly toward outsiders, that is, toward those who have not heard Jesus’s words.341 The difference is not between those hearing and those not hearing, but rather between those hearing and doing and those hearing but not doing.342 The connection between “hearing” and “doing” again picks up on an important theme in Jewish literature (cf., e.g. Lev. 26; Deut. 28; 30; Jer. 22:4; Ezek. 33:32; As. Mos. 12:10-13),343 though here it is vitally significant that the “doing” or “not doing” is said in relation to the teaching of Jesus. Thus, Moisés Mayordomo has rightly noted, “Auf der pragmatischen Ebene fordert die Gegenüberstellung von zwei Lebensschicksalen die Hörerschaft zur Entscheidung im Hinblick auf die Lehre Jesu heraus.”344 As Snodgrass puts it, “Regardless of what else is involved, the point of this analogy with wise and foolish builders is that security depends on hearing and doing Jesus’ teachings and that mere hearing without doing leads to destruction.”345 It is not simply, however, that Jesus is presented as a highly significant teacher346; it is also that in a sense God’s people are being defined by obedience to Jesus’s teaching.347 In the light of this fact Knowles rightly points out that not only Kloppenborg wrote: “The connection of 7:1–10 with the immediately preceding Q pericope (Q 6:46–49) may be based on the catchwords κύριε (6:46; 7:6) and λόγος (6:47, 49; 7:7). Otherwise the intrinsic affiliation is quite tenuous” (Formation, 117). Be that as it may, the parable clearly has a primary function as the conclusion of this block of Jesus’s teaching. 341.  This point is also highlighted by France, Matthew, 296; Gregg, Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 91; Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 96–7; and Schlosser, “Q et la christologie implicite,” 310. 342.  Cf. also Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 96:  “Jesu Lehre spaltet seine Hörer und Hörerinnen in solche, die das Gehörte in die Tat umsetzen, und solche, die es beim Hören belassen.” Or, as Jeremias, put it, “Everything depends on action; . . . Merely hearing the word of Jesus may lead to perdition, everything depends on obedience” (Parables of Jesus, 194). Manson succinctly stated, “The rock is ‘hearing and doing’ ” (Sayings, 61). 343. Cf. further references in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 562–3. 344. Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 93. 345. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 334. 346. On the importance of Jesus as a teacher in Q, cf. William Arnal, “The Q Document,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:  Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Matt A. Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 122; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 211. 347. Cf. Paul D. Meyer, “The Gentile Mission in Q,” JBL 89 (1970): 412. For points of contact between this position of Jesus in Q and Enoch in 1 Enoch, cf. Markus Tiwald, “Die protreptische, konnotative und performative Valeur der Gerichts- und Abgrenzungsmetaphorik in der Logienquelle,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn), 129.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Discipleship” Parables

295

does the parable make the remarkable assertion that the response to Jesus’s teaching entails dramatic consequences, “but also that Jesus possesses the authority to command such obedience.”348 Thus, as Labahn puts it, “Diese Autorität Jesu und die Grundorientierung auf seine Worte werden frühzeitig und programmatisch in Q festgestellt.”349 Finally, Fleddermann observes, “The judgment theme begun in John’s Preaching surfaces once again. Those who do the kingdom demands will stand in the judgment, those who don’t will fall.”350 In this regard, the question has often arisen as to whether the image of the storm and the house standing or falling is one of eschatological judgment or one that (also) can be applied more generally to the trials and tribulations of everyday life.351 In my estimation it clearly would be incorrect to remove the eschatological dimension entirely352; yet, one is not faced with an either/or proposition resulting in the parable being used in Q with implications for both contexts.353 In sum, therefore, Q employs the imagery of this parable as a

348. Knowles, “ ‘Everyone Who Hears These Words of Mine,’ ” 290. Cf. also the comment by Marguerat: “C’est de la reconnaissance de l’autorité des paroles de Jésus qu’il en va dans la parabole” (Le jugement, 207); along with Cromhout, “We are Judean,” 808. Along these lines Fleddermann notes the “complex relationship” between “Jesus’ teaching and Jesus the teacher” as on the one hand Jesus’s authority establishes his teaching and on the other hand the power of his teaching establishes his authority (Q: Reconstruction, 334). 349.  Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 265. Labahn specifically refers to the mutually reinforcing images in Q 6:43-45 and Q 6:47-49 in support of this point. 350. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 334. Cf. also Labahn, “Das Reich Gottes,” 265–6. 351.  Highlighting the former are, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:720–1; Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 334–5; Green, Luke, 281; Gregg, Final Judgment Sayings in Q, 88; Hagner, Matthew, 1:189–91; Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law, 404–405; Marguerat, Jugement, 204–205; Schulz, Q, 316; and Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 142n13. The latter is highlighted by, e.g., Catchpole, Quest for Q, 96–7, and was already found in John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 24.3. Once again, the history of interpretation reveals allegorical interpretations of the storm (cf., again, e.g., Augustine, Serm. Dom. 2.25.87). 352.  Schlosser, “Q et la christologie implicite,” 309, rightly notes, “l’horizon eschatologique [of the parable] est difficilement contestable.” Labahn argues that through taking up the images from John’s preaching, Jesus’s disciples, as “die, die das Kyriosbekenntnis zu Jesus sprechen und nach seinen Worten handeln, zu dem Personenkreis [werden], der die Täuferforderung realisiert, und zu Menschen der Umkehr, die damit seine Gerichtspredigt nicht trifft” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 266). Cf. also Sevenich-Bax, Israels Konfrontation, 434–6. 353.  Mayordomo, “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten,’ ” 96, notes, “Apokalyptische und weisheitliche Lektüren sollten . . . nicht gegeneinander ausgespielt werden . . . Das eigene Dasein im Licht des Gerichts zu bedenken, ist eine weisheitliche Haltung zur Bewältigung der Gegenwart.” Betz sees the imagery “first of all, in terms of this-worldly survival”; yet, “there are no doubt also eschatological meanings involved” (Sermon on the Mount, 558). A few pages later he observes, “The text . . . intends to speak of this world, without excluding

296

The Parables in Q

call to decision, underscoring the significance of “doing” that which is “heard” in Jesus’s teaching so that when confronted with a storm of whatever kind, one may stand and not suffer a catastrophic collapse.354

the eschatological dimensions” (ibid., 566). Cf. also Bork, Raumsemantik, 127; France, Matthew, 297; Hultgren, Parables, 134; Nolland, Matthew, 344; and Puig i Tàrrech, “Q 6,46–49,” 686n22. 354. So also Baasland: “Both the imagery and the application show that the parable is a call to decision” (Parables and Rhetoric, 583). Though Valantasis may technically be correct that the parable does not “condemn those who appear to have built their houses on sand” (The New Q, 80) this appears to be a moot point for the parable reveals that they will end up condemned for having done so.

Chapter 9 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E SU S :  “ K I N G D OM ( O F G O D ) ” P A R A B L E S

One of the curiosities concerning the parables in Q is that even though it has essentially become a truism in NT studies that the parables were about the kingdom,1 only two Q parables, namely, those of the mustard seed (Q 13:18-19) and of the leaven (Q 13:20-21), explicitly mention the kingdom of God/heaven.2 These two parables, discussed first in this chapter, belong to the best-known of Jesus’s parables.3 There is quite a bit of truth in Jeremias’s observation that the parables of the mustard seed and of the leaven “are so closely connected by their content that it seems necessary to discuss them together.”4 Regardless of whether the two parables

1. The sentiment has also often been expressed, as stated by Otto Kuss, that in parables concerning the kingdom of God, we see “dass sich das, was Jesus unter ‘Reich Gottes’ versteht, als eine vielschichtige Grösse, ja zuletzt als ein Geheimnis erweist” (“Zum Sinngehalt des Doppelgleichnisses vom Senfkorn und Sauerteig,” Bib 40 [1959]: 642–3). 2.  Cf. the discussion in Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 287, who refers to this issue as the “third puzzle” in connection with Q’s parables. Zimmermann states that it is a “generally overlooked fact that the oldest sources, Q and Mark, introduce the kingdom of God only twice (Q 13:18–21; Mark 4:26, 30) in the midst of an abundance of parables” (Puzzling the Parables, 94). 3. Interestingly, Schulz noted that though many refer to these passages as “Parabeln,” in his own comment he agreed that “der erzählende Charakter des Stückes . . . diese Einordnung als sachgemäß erscheinen [läßt]” while at the same time recognizing the problem of the terminology employed in German parable studies by concluding, “wenn auch die Übergänge zum Gleichnis fließend sind” (Q, 301-2n298). Laufen posits that two “Gleichnisse” have in Q become a “Parabel” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 178, 189–90). Snodgrass states that we are here dealing with a “similitude” and not a “parable” because there is no “developed plot” and instead simply “an analogy between the mustard seed and plant and the present and future kingdom” (Stories with Intent, 216). No further comment is offered concerning the difference between a supposedly “developed” versus an “undeveloped” plot. 4.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 146. Kloppenborg, Formation, 92, groups them together as “two parables of growth” and Snodgrass states, “Obviously this parable is a twin with the Leaven Parable” (Stories with Intent, 219).

298

The Parables in Q

were initially independent or not,5 in Q they almost certainly belong together. For this reason, though the plot, characters, and images will be discussed separately, the place and significance of these two parables in Q will be discussed together. Though different from the first two parables and their overt identification with the kingdom of God, I also here discuss Q 11:17-18, with its engagement of kingdom imagery. Once again, however, discussing these three parables together in this chapter in no way implies that other parables cannot be about the kingdom or issues related to the kingdom.6 For instance, closely related to the issue of the kingdom of God as such is Q’s presentation of the ethos of those living in the light of this kingdom. Though that issue has also appeared in numerous parables already discussed, the following, and final, chapter of Jesus’s parables in Q reflects upon and interacts with the theme of life within the group following Q’s teaching.

9.1 Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18-19) Mt. 13:31-32

Lk. 13:18-19

Ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν

Ἔλεγεν οὖν·

κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ· 32 ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.

19

τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν; ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ,

καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.

5.  Worth noting is not only that Mark does not contain the parable of the leaven but also that though the Gospel of Thomas contains a parallel to both parables, they are found in two different locations (Gos. Thom. 20 and 96). Cf., e.g., Bultmann, History, 194–5, for the view that the two parables were originally independent and the strong statement of Werner Kümmel to the contrary: “gegen die Ursprünglichkeit dieser Verbindung [ist] kein ernstlicher Einwand möglich” (Verheißung und Erfüllung:  Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu [3d ed.; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1956], 124). 6.  Kloppenborg comments that the lack of numerous parables in Mark and Q explicitly invoking the kingdom “does not mean that other (or all?) parables were not in some way about the kingdom at the stage of their earliest oral performance” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 289).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

299

A version of the parable of the Mustard Seed is found in Mk 4:30-32; however, on the basis of similarities between Matthew and Luke not shared by Mark, the parable is generally thought to have been present in Q as well.7 A further version of the parable is found in Gos. Thom. 20.8 Though one should take the variation between the different versions seriously, there is a sense in which “the basic message is the same in each gospel.”9 Thus, when Blomberg states that “parallel versions of a given parable often differ in imagery employed, even though the message remains unaltered,”10 it is slightly more accurate to say here that it in nearly every instance, with the use of “tree” in Q perhaps being a noteworthy exception, it is aspects of the imagery employed in Mark and Q that differ.11 In regard to the Q version, it is

7. Cf. the overview in Hultgren, Parables, 393; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 210–13; and the brief comment in Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 91–2. For an extensive, and in my estimation persuasive, argument that the Markan and Q version of this parable are independent, cf. Timothy A. Friedrichsen, “ ‘Minor’ and ‘Major’ Matthew–Luke Agreements against Mk 4,30–32,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1992), 1:649–76; and idem, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed:  Mark 4,30–32 and Q 13,18–19:  A Surrejoinder for Independence,” ETL 77 (2001):  297–317. For an argument that the two-document hypothesis provides the least problematic explanation for the forms of the parable, cf. Zeba Antonin Crook, “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven:  A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypotheses,” JSNT 78 (2000):  23–48. Franz Kogler’s argument that there was no Q version of this parable based on the theory of deutero-Mark has not been widely accepted (Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Urkirche [FB 59; Würzburg: Echter, 1988]). 8.  Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma:  Polebridge, 1993), 27–8, views the parallel as independent of the Synoptics, though numerous others see it as drawing on the Synoptic accounts (cf. the literature cited in Hultgren, Parables, 394n8; and the discussion in Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 111–15; whether “virtually all commentators view the account in Gos. Thom. as inferior” [Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 662n194] is debatable). 9.  Meadors, Jesus the Messianic Herald, 205. Meadors continues with his view of this basic message: “The kingdom ironically compares with a tiny mustard seed. The kingdom, like the seed, has a small beginning.” Snodgrass expresses a similar sentiment concerning a common meaning: “Whatever else is debated, this parable pictures the presence of the kingdom in Jesus’ own ministry, even if others do not recognize it, and Jesus’ expectation of the certain full revelation of the kingdom to come” (Stories with Intent, 222). 10. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 81. 11.  Snodgrass expresses a similar sentiment, though with an important qualification:  “the differences . . .—apart from the possible significance of the ‘tree’—do not constitute a difference in meaning” (Stories with Intent, 222). The “tree” imagery is discussed further below.

300

The Parables in Q

generally recognized that “the version . . . in Mt. is a conflation of Mk. and Q”12 and that thus Luke is closer to Q.13 In any case, however, the Matthean and Lukan parallels apart from Mark provide insight into the parable as found in Q. 9.1.1 Plot Analysis After the introductory question querying what the kingdom of God is like, the initial situation of the parable itself introduces a κόκκῳ σινάπεως. In the comparison, there is no clear complication; both Matthew and Luke refer to an individual λαβών the seed and the parable moves directly into the action of the sowing of this seed in the ground.14 The action results in growth, as the seed is said to become a tree,15 resulting in a final situation of not only the presence of the tree, but birds of the sky dwelling/ nesting in the branches.16 Worth noting is the shift in subject from the initial situation (a sower), to the growth (the mustard seed), to the dwelling (the birds).17 9.1.2 Characters Despite its brevity, this parable is rather unique in that it can be seen as having “characters” drawn from the human, plant, and animal worlds, each of them, as just pointed out, functioning as the subject in a different section of the parable. The first character introduced in the Q version of this parable is an ἄνθρωπος, understood to be a man because of the gendered couplet created with the ensuing parable.18 When considering him as a fiktives Wesen, this character’s synthetic

12. Manson, Sayings, 123. So also Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 320–1, and most commentaries. 13. E.g., Schluz, Q, 300, and most commentaries. 14.  Here Matthew and Luke present slightly different images. Mt. 13:31 reads ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ whereas Lk. 13:19 reads ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ. 15. Matthew’s additional comment that the grown seed is “larger than garden herbs” is taken from Mk 4:32. 16.  In a summary statement, Cotter points out four elements of agreement in the various versions of this parable: “(a) the mustard seed is a referent of the kingdom; (b) the seed is introduced into the soil; (c) the seed produces a much larger growth; (d) this final growth provides shelter for the birds” (Wendy J. Cotter, “The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: Their Function in the Earliest Stratum of Q,” TJT 8 [1992]:  39). Though the NRSV, e.g., translates κατασκηνόω with “make nests,” the verb is perhaps best rendered simply as “dwelling” (cf. Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 314n15; and Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 243). 17.  Georg Gäbel, “Mehr Hoffnung wagen (Vom Senfkorn): Mk 4,30-32 (Q 13,18-19/ Mt 13,31-32/Lk 13,18-19/EvThom 20)” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 334, also points out this rapid progression of subjects. 18. Also pointed out by Luise Schottroff, “Itinerant Prophetesses: A Feminist Analysis of the Sayings Source Q,” in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. Ron A. Piper; NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 350n16. Cf. also Blomberg’s statement: “At least in

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

301

component is constructed simply by mentioning him and his action of “sowing” or “throwing” the seed on the ground. Unlike in Mark or in the Gospel of Thomas, there is an agent involved19; yet, Laufen contends that this agent plays no real role in the parable.20 Kloppenborg approvingly refers to this view, stating, “Laufen has rightly observed that in the Mustard Seed the ἄνθρωπος has no proper function; the sower immediately fades from sight and attention is turned to the seed.”21 Blomberg presses this thought further, stating, “The parables are entirely about the mustard seed and leaven, and the human characters are introduced only because seeds do not plant themselves and bread does not leaven itself.”22 Though one can appropriately recognize another “character” and state, as did Blomberg, “the main ‘character’ in both cases, then, is the small plant—the seed and the yeast—but each is depicted in two contrasting stages,”23 it is simply not correct to assert that “the man who does the sowing does not become a character within a story,” as does Hultgren.24 Despite “fading from sight,” the parable draws a figure into its narrative so that something occurs with the seed. In fact, the plot as presented in Q presents this man and his action as the hinge between the seed itself and that seed finding its way into the ground. The mentioning of the action performed by this man leads to the consideration of his mimetic component. Any insight into the mimetic component of this man as a fiktives Wesen, in the absence of any further description by the narrator or dialogue, can only be gained by his action. Based on the assumption that the Lukan ἔβαλεν was the reading of Q, Kloppenborg suggests that the unusual choice of verb may suggest a furtive action.25 Apart from requiring a specific reading in Q, it seems that this sense of “furtiveness” may have been more strongly influenced by the parallel with the parable of the leaven than the actions of the man. Be that as it may, Amy-Jill Levine returns to the issue of the role of this character, once again pointing out that the one “who sowed [the seed] is much less important than the tree into which the seed grows. The final image is not a focus on the human actor, but on the results of the action.”26 At the same time, however, she notes that a seed has potential, but a

their Q form, the twin parables of the mustard seed and leaven each introduce one human character, the man who sows the seed and the woman who leavens the bread” (Interpreting the Parables, 284). 19. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 306, also points out this difference. 20. Cf. Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 178. 21. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 306. 22. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 284. 23. Ibid. 24. Hultgren, Parables, 394. The comment is made in the context of defending the classification of these verses as a “similitude” and not a “parable.” In addition, his statement on the same page that “the features of an actual story are missing” is equally erroneous. 25. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 307. The use of σπείρω by Mark and Matthew is far more usual. Cf. ibid., 307–8n99, for a few examples of the use of βάλλω. 26. Levine, Short Stories, 167.

302

The Parables in Q

potential that needs to be actualized: “the seed has to be planted. Even small actions, or hidden actions, have the potential to produce great things.”27 As will be seen in the concluding thoughts to these two parables in Q, this fact may yet hold some significance and thus perhaps make the mimetic component of this character more significant than is often realized. A final point to consider in terms of this character as a fiktives Wesen is that two of the three ways in which Cotter sees the Q version as standing apart from other versions of the parable are in the fact that “an agent introduces the seed” and “the agent’s behaviour is slightly odd.”28 The “oddness” of the verb was just considered, though Cotter also states that a further oddity is that in this parable, “the man takes only one seed and throws it into the garden.”29 It is true that Matthew and Luke refer to the kingdom being like κόκκῳ σινάπεως; however, Snodgrass is likely correct in contending that “it is doubtful, as some assume, that the analogy thinks of a single mustard seed being sown.” Rather, as he concludes, the comparison is “between a small seed and the large plant”30 and since in this comparison this one plant grows from one seed, the singular is used. Focusing an interpretation on a single seed that has been cast away, as is done when Holly Hearon and Antoinette Clark Wire claim that a single seed would not be sown so “the point here seems to be that an invisible discarded seed can fill the sky with birdsnests”31 is somewhat speculative. Turning to this character as a Symbol, the history of (allegorical) interpretation reveals, at the very least, that this man was indeed often viewed to be a character in the parable. As is the case for the woman in the parable of the leaven, various symbolic interpretations of this character are found in patristic and medieval writers including viewing the figure as God (Paschasius), human intelligence (Jerome), and the discerning of truth (Albert the Great), though “the sower, for the majority of authorities, is Christ or Everyman.”32 In more recent interpretation, 27. Ibid., 166. 28. Cotter, “Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 40. 29. Ibid. The solitary seed is sometimes picked up on in order to make a connection to John 12:24. “Therefore,” in the words of Levine, “read within John’s shadow, the parable is about the mystery of the resurrection,” though surely such an interpretation has moved far beyond the context of Q (Short Stories, 153). Cf. also the further development of this idea in 1 Clem 24:4-5. 30. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 221. 31.  Holly Hearon and Antoinette Clark Wire, “Women’s Work in the Realm of God (Mt. 13.33; Lk.13.20, 21; Gos. Thom. 96; Mt. 6.28–30; Lk. 12.27–28; Gos. Thom. 36),” in The Lost Coin:  Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom (ed. Mary Ann Beavis; BiSe 86; London:  Sheffield Academic, 2002), 147–8. Also mentioning “invisibility,” though from a different perspective, is Warren Carter who states: “When the seed has been planted only the sower knows it is there. Most others do not know it exists or that anything significant is happening” (“Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed [Matt 13:31–32],” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann], 196–7). 32.  Stephen L. Wailes, Medieval Allegories of Jesus’ Parables (Berkeley :  University of California Press, 1987), 111.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

303

the one casting the “seed of the kingdom” is often, at least implicitly, connected to Jesus. For instance, Carter connects this parable to the idea that “the revelation of God’s empire in Jesus’ activity and words is presented as an act hidden from many,”33 which is quite similar to the view expressed by Claus-Hunno Hunzinger many years earlier: “Deutlich liegt dem Gleichnis der Anspruch zugrunde, daß im gegenwärtigen Wirken Jesu die βασιλεία bereits zeichenhaft präsent ist, wenn auch verborgen und unscheinbar.”34 At the same time, even without returning to the allegorical interpretations of previous generations, there may be a sense, as discussed below in the consideration of this parable in Q, in which the implicit appeal of the parable allows a thematic identification on the part of the hearer or reader of this parable with the man and his actions.35 As mentioned above in the plot analysis, the mustard seed becomes the subject of the growth verb as the parable progresses and thus also functions as a “character” of sorts.36 In the same manner as was the case when considering the agricultural images in the parables of John the Baptist, however, in order to evaluate this character as a Symbol, the imagery associated with it is of primary significance. For this reason, the mustard seed is discussed extensively in the ensuing section. The key element in the mustard seed as a fiktives Wesen is that, after simply being introduced as a point of comparison with the kingdom of God in the initial situation and being acted upon (sown) by the human character, both Matthew and Luke refer to it growing. In this action, the parable points to both a change or transformation and a contrast between the beginning and ending state. That both of these elements are present is quite significant, a point to which I return below. Finally, at the end of the parable both Matthew and Luke refer to τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ coming and dwelling/nesting (κατασκηνόω) ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ of the tree (δένδρον) into which the mustard seed has grown. Once again, there are numerous depictions involved, not only the birds themselves, but also their actions and the tree in which they dwell. Focusing primarily on the birds here, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is constructed by the narrator of the parable introducing them in the parable’s conclusion as animals that come to the tree that has grown. The mimetic component is related to their “dwelling,” that is, not simply perching but “taking up abode” in the tree.37 With a view toward this action, Funk 33. Carter, “Matthew’s Gospel,” 197. 34. Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” TWNT 7:290. 35.  Even if one is sympathetic to Snodgrass’s protests against “allegorizing” the parable as found in his statement “yes, the mustard seed is analogous to Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom and the insignificant beginnings of his ministry, but it is allegorizing to label the details of the similitude” (Stories with Intent, 223), there still remains room for the hearer or reader of the parable to enter the world of its images through its implicit appeal. Snodgrass’s insistence that we are confronted with an “analogy” is true as far as it goes (ibid.), but parables do more than simply state analogies to be observed, they offer analogies to be lived. 36. Cf. also the citation by Blomberg referenced by n. 23 above. 37. In the LXX, the only reference to τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ dwelling (κατασκηνόω) is in Ps. 103:12 (MT 104:12). LXX Ezek. 31:6 makes reference to ἐν ταῖς παραφυάσιν αὐτοῦ

304

The Parables in Q

wrote “birds come and dwell in or under the shrub.. . . the parable indulges in a bit of exaggeration, hyperbole if you will, which every common hearer, who might have been expected to know something of the mustard plant first hand, would scarcely have missed: foolish birds to take up their abode in the short-lived mustard.”38 Though perhaps Funk’s point can be made in regard to the parable in Mark, in Q the birds are not “foolish,” at least in the sense presented by Funk, for they are not dwelling, as noted in the discussion of the imagery below, in a mustard plant, but in a tree. In addition, the focus here is on the provision of a habitat for the birds, not any potential problem that birds can cause in agriculture. They are nesting in a tree, not feeding on the plants or seeds in a field.39 Finally, how to understand the birds as Symbol, if at all, is disputed. On the one hand, with a view toward the verb used here and in Jos. Asen. 15.7, Jeremias contended that “κατασκηνοῦν . . . is actually an eschatological technical term for the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God.”40 This interpretation of the passage in Joseph and Aseneth was already disputed by Schluz,41 and Snodgrass rightly noted that there simply is “little evidence” for Jeremias’s view.42 On the other hand, is it really the case, as Snodgrass put it, that “one can see how people

ἐνόσσευσαν πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. LXX Dan. 4:21 (MT 4:18) refers to τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὰ νοσσεύοντα ἐν αὐτῷ, where the Theodotian text makes reference to ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ κατεσκήνουν τὰ ὄρνεα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. The only related phrase elsewhere in the NT is in Matt 8:20//Luke 9:58 αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις. 38.  Robert W. Funk, “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds: Ezekiel 17:22–24; Mark 4:30–32,” Int 27 (1973): 5–6. 39. Writing in 1986, Douglas E. Oakman, in entertaining the idea that the birds are negative symbols, stated, “To my knowledge, no scholar has ever considered in the explication of this parable that birds are natural enemies of the sown” (Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day [SEBC 8; Lewiston: Mellon, 1986], 127). Even if that may have been the case then, it certainly is no longer the case now. For instance, one can find statements made in regard to this parable such as “birds are unwelcome in a garden” (Earle R. Rabb, The Case of the Missing Person: How Finding Jesus of Nazareth Can Transform Communities and Individuals Today [Eugene:  Wipf & Stock, 2010], 112) or that the plant “attracts birds to nest in its branches (the last thing a farmer wants in a grain field!)” (Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel [NHMS 84; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 158). Such observations might be true in the abstract; however, such a sentiment does not seem to be present here. In responding to other views focusing on birds being destructive to cultivated fields, Levine humorously notes that in such perspectives these birds “could have been cast by Alfred Hitchcock” (Short Stories, 154). 40. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 147. 41. Cf. Schulz, Q, 305n316, similarly critical is Meurer, Gleichnisse Jesu, 629, both making reference to the study by Christoph Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth (WUNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965), 118–19. 42. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 224.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

305

jump to the conclusion that the birds represent Gentiles, but that is going too far”?43 There are several references in the HB (cf., e.g., in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:11-12 and the interpretation by Daniel in Dan. 4:20-21; Ezek. 17:22-24; 31:6) intermingling images of trees and birds when depicting empires and nations.44 Levine is correct in noting “unlike the image of the vineyard, which had become a conventional image of Israel, birds nesting in a tree was not a conventional image for empire”45 and that the term is rarely connected with Gentiles.46 This does not mean, however, that the image never appears or is never connected with Gentiles. Further consideration of this question, however, requires the incorporation of the “tree,” one of several important images in the parable. Before turning to those images, however, one final point needs to be made concerning the birds. Q refers to them as τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which, on the one hand, simply takes up a common description of birds (cf. among many other passages, e.g., Gen. 2:19; 40:17; 2 Sam. 21:10; 1 Kgs 12:24; Ps. 8:9; 49:11; Isa. 18:6; Jer. 15:3; and Hos. 2:14). On the other hand, the “heavenly” realm has spatial significance in Q and there may be a sense in which there is symbolic significance to animals from the heavenly realm requiring and finding a place to dwell on earth.47 9.1.3 Images Right at the outset of the parable the reader or hearer is confronted with the kingdom being like κόκκῳ σινάπεως. Interestingly, mustard is not mentioned in the HB or LXX, nor is it found in the DSS, Second Temple Pseudepigrapha, or Apostolic Fathers.48 For this reason, it is likely that such a comparison would immediately have struck a first-century audience as somewhat unusual.49 In addition, the question of what types of association would be made with “mustard” immediately presents itself.50 Here one

43. Ibid. Cf. also the critical comments in Levine, Short Stories, 164–5. 44.  These passages are often cited in the scholarly literature. Zeller is representative in his comment, “Die ‘Vögel des Himmels’ meinen nach der Traumdeutung in Dan 4,7–9 (vgl. Ez 17,23) alle Völker” (Kommentar, 82). 45. Levine, Short Stories, 164; emphasis added. 46.  Levine rightly points out that in the Tanak and Deuterocanonical texts, “mostly, the birds are exactly that, birds” (ibid.). It is thus unconvincing when Manson unequivocally stated, “Both in apocalyptic and rabbinical literature ‘the birds of heaven’ stand for the Gentile nations” (Sayings, 123; cf. also Manson, Teaching of Jesus, 133n1). 47. Cf. Bork, Raumsemantik, 197–8. 48. Cf. Gäbel, “Mehr Hoffnung wagen,” 332. 49.  Cf. the similar sentiment expressed by Gäbel:  “Ein Senfkorn zum Gegenstand religiöser Rede – und zumal zum Vergleichsgegenstand für die Königsherrschaft Gottes – zu machen, muss für antike jüdische und hellenistisch-römische Rezipienten ausgesprochen ungewöhnlich und überraschend gewesen sein” (“Mehr Hoffnung wagen,” 332). 50. The literature is rife with references to the mustard plant in question being the brassica nigra, presumably because, with a view toward the “tree” descriptor, it can grow to be

306

The Parables in Q

often finds references to mustard being thought of as a “weed,” usually with reference to Pliny the Elder, Nat. 19.170: “It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once” (Rackham, LCL). As such, Crossan referred to it as “not exactly a horticultural or agricultural desideratum.”51 Ryan S. Schellenberg, however, has persuasively argued that this view of mustard as a “weed” with negative connotations cannot be sustained.52 In fact, in the light of Pliny not referring to the plant as a weed—he discusses it in the context of plants which are to be sown (seruntur) at the autumn equinox—and his praise of mustard as a medicinal plant (cf. Nat. 19.170; 20.236-40), Schellenberg observes, “It is not self-evident that the hardiness Pliny attributes to mustard is undesirable in such a valued medicinal herb.”53 This point is worth considering quite apart from the fact that one does not usually sow weeds! In addition, Schellenberg references the views of other Greco-Roman authors and concludes: “Mustard is uniformly considered a cultivated crop, albeit a quickly germinating crop that requires little attention. Its medicinal properties are highly lauded. Occasionally its culinary use is discussed. There is no evidence of a negative metaphorical use.”54 A different issue is often raised with a view toward the Jewish law or considerations of “purity,” especially when paired with the assumption that the Lukan reading εἰς κῆπον was found in Q. For instance, Sterling Bjorndahl expresses that the idea of sowing a mustard seed in a garden “naturally invites comparison with the documented (but admittedly later attested) rabbinic tradition that mustard should not be planted in a garden. Within the Q context, at least, one is led to the conclusion that the underlying issue is one of purity.”55 Yet Levine has pointed out the evidence for “the illegal presence of mustard in a garden with other plants is

about 10 feet tall. If one does not attempt to make the type of mustard plant fit the description at the end of the parable, numerous other options are available. Levine, for instance, points out that “salvadora persica, also found in the land of Israel, produces a modest bush growing no more than a foot in height” (Short Stories, 155). Gäbel notes, “Die Antike kennt eine Vielzahl von Senfsorten bzw. senfähnlichen Pflanzen” and provides a brief and helpful overview. His conclusion for the version of the parable in Mark is also true for Q: “die Entscheidung zwischen den Senfsorten [ändert] inhaltlich nichts am Verständnis der Parabel” (“Mehr Hoffnung wagen,” 330–31). Quite different is, e.g., Mary’s concern with the type of mustard seed, whether heavenly or earthly, in Dial. Sav. 144.5–7. 51.  John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus:  The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 157. Cf. also Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions, 124. 52. Cf. the discussion in Ryan S. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” CBQ 71 (2009):  532; and Levine, Short Stories, 162. 53. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 532. 54. Ibid. Cf. also n. 58 below. 55. Bjorndahl, “Honor Map,” 68.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

307

not as secure as is frequently asserted.”56 For instance, she notes that though m. Kil. 2.8 states, “ ‘They do not flank a field of grain [with] mustard or safflower,’ it goes on to note, ‘they flank a field of vegetables [with] mustard or safflower.’ . . . Mustard in a vegetable garden; no problem.”57 Thus, for example, Scott’s contention, on the basis of m. Kil. 1.4, that the action of the man is a violation of the Law and thus constitutes a challenge to conceptions of “purity” is not convincing.58 One point, however, remains, and it is a significant one, for this is not the only instance in Q where we are confronted with a mustard seed. In Q 17:6 there is a reference to having faith, presumably of the size of a mustard seed being able to move a mountain (Matthew) or uproot a mulberry tree (Luke). Regardless of precisely what large object is moved or uprooted, the point seems to be a comparison between a small amount of faith and tremendous results. Thus, even though there is no specific comment concerning the size of the mustard seed, within the context of Q there is a metaphorical connection of this seed being representative of something small. Once again, this point is considered further below. Though the parable begins with a mustard seed, toward its conclusion, as already seen in the discussion of the birds above, the reader or hearer is suddenly confronted with a δένδρον. There certainly is no lack of attempts to defend the appropriateness of this designation for the plant that grew out of a mustard seed. For instance, Edward P. Meadors, who, it seems to me, wishes at every point to minimize any differences between Mark and Q, asserts, “Since the terms δένδρον and λάχανον were related in ancient times, the terms are both suitable for the developed mustard plant.”59 The question of “suitability” is tricky even if it is possible for δένδρον to occasionally refer to tall plants,60 for, as Levine puts it, even if one posits that brassica nigra is in view, “to describe it as a ‘tree’ is generous.”61 Others, recognizing the difficulty here, have distanced themselves from the reading δένδρον. Thus, Harvey K. McArthur argued that δένδρον was not the original term employed in the parable on the basis that “contrast is a legitimate point for the parable but not incongruity . . . [A] mustard seed that turned into a tree

56. Levine, Short Stories, 161. 57. Ibid. Cf. also Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 536. 58.  Cf. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 387. Rightly critical of Scott’s view is Cotter, “Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 41–2, and this perspective is effectively refuted by Levine, Short Stories, 159–62; and Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 533–7. In general, Schellenberg notes that “when surveying ancient references to mustard, the almost complete absence of metaphorical usage is immediately striking” (Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 531). 59. Meadors, Jesus the Messianic Herald, 206. 60. Cf. Hultgren, Parables, 396. 61.  Levine, Short Stories, 155. Similarly, Hermann-Josef Meurer, despite asserting that the designation is “nicht unkorrekt” does recognize that it is “übertrieben” (Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Paul Ricoeurs Hermeneutik der Gleichniserzählung Jesu im Horizont des Symbols “Gottesherrschaft/Reich Gottes [BBB 111; Bodenheim: Philo, 1997], 624).

308

The Parables in Q

would be a monstrosity not characteristic of the parables correctly attributed to Jesus.”62 Regardless of what the “original” reading was, surely such an argument is less than persuasive. In any case, Norman A. Huffman is correct in noting that “to call the mustard plant a tree, with birds nesting in its branches, as Q does, is quite an exaggeration.”63 But this may well be part of the point as the parable provides an account “about a particular mustard seed which—mirabile dictu—became a tree!”64 The perhaps curious comparison at the outset of the parable leads to an even more curious end. The arresting shift raises the question, why a tree? The most persuasive answer to this question is highlighted by Moxnes with his observation that “the image shifts to that of a tree. And the tree moves by biblical associations into another space . . . the tall tree is a political symbol that stands for the power of the people or of a ruler,” leading to the image of both a mustard seed and a tree being “preserved, but played out against one another in an unexpected way.”65 Here, the verses mentioned above when considering the birds as Symbol again become relevant (e.g. Dan. 4:11-12, 20-21; Ezek. 17:22-24; 31:6). In addition, a similar image along these lines is found in 1QHa XVI, 8-9 where winged birds perch on the branches of a glorious tree.66 Crossan, however, was of the opinion, “If one makes the mistake of actually looking up these references, one immediately senses a problem: the allusion is not very explicit and not very appropriate.”67 He instead considers a different image and concludes that “if there is any Old Testament allusion . . . it is no more and no less than an allusion to God’s loving providence in the pastoral scene of Psalm 104:12.”68 Nevertheless,

62. Harvey K. McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” CBQ 33 (1971): 210. 63. Huffman, “Atypical Features,” 211. 64.  Ibid., 212. Tuckett states, “The end product of the growth of the mustard seed is a mighty tree . . . This then is not the description of ‘nature’ or any natural process. It is rather the image of a divine miracle” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 143–4). 65. Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place, 113. 66. Commenting on the passage, and mentioning “Matt 13:31 f.” as a reference, Helmer Ringgren wrote, “A little plant grows up into a big tree which gives protection and food to all the beasts and birds of the earth” (The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls [trans. Emilie T. Sander; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], 195). 67. Crossan, In Parables, 47. Similarly, idem, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” JBL 92 (1973): 255. The question of “appropriateness” is again a slippery one. For instance, is it appropriate that the cedar tree in Ezek. 17:23 bears fruit (‫?) ְפּ ִרי‬ 68.  Crossan, In Parables, 48. This conclusion is drawn specifically with reference to Mark 4:31; however, Crossan repeats it in his discussion of the Q version (ibid., 49). Again, Crossan makes a similar point in “Seed Parables,” 255. Though Levine opines that “it is not to the benevolent sheltering trees [of Psalm 104] that commentators go in search of understanding the mustard seed” (Short Stories, 163), Crossan, at least to a certain extent, does so. In her own understanding of the parable, Levine is even of the opinion, “With this intertext [Psalm 104], the parable hints not only of divine greatness, but also of humanity’s participation in the greatness even if we do not realize it” (ibid.).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

309

even if it is unlikely that there is a direct, word-level dependence on any one particular passage,69 Snodgrass pointed out that the possible allusion, if present, “is not to a particular text but to the general idea of a sheltering tree symbolizing a kingdom.”70 In fact, Snodgrass may ultimately be correct in concluding that “in the end whether this parable alludes to the OT tree symbolism or not does not affect the meaning. Any idea of empire and provision for the nations is already inherent in the mention of the kingdom of God . . . If there is an allusion to the OT, it only strengthens what is already assumed.”71 And yet, key elements allowing such allusions to be seen—including both a tree with branches to which birds flock to dwell—are present in both the parable and the HB passages.72 For this reason, a strong case remains for seeing Q presenting the conclusion of this parable against the background of the symbol of the mighty tree, or mighty cedar, and consciously invoking this kingdom imagery.73 The surprising “twist” here then is, as Luz puts it, “Etwas anderes, als ihr denkt, wird zum biblischen Baum Gottes!”74 Though, 69.  I would be more hesitant than Jeremias was in stating that in Matthew and Luke we find a “free quotation from Dan 4:18” (Parables of Jesus, 31; emphasis added). Even in the HB there are slight differences, leading Laufen to conclude, “Diese Ausdrucksvarianten zeigen die verschiedenen Formulierungsmöglichkeiten ein und derselben allgemein bekannten Vorstellung. Auf diese wird am Schluß des Senfkorngleichnisses angespielt, ohne daß eine direkte Zitierung vorläge” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 181). McArthur stated, “It is likely that the parable’s verbal dependence on the OT—insofar as that dependence exists, is on one or more of the four passages” (“Mustard Seed,” 203). On p. 206, McArthur speaks of “allusions.” 70.  Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 224. Cf. also the discussion and response to Crossan in Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 134–7. 71. Ibid., 225. 72. Cf. also in response to Crossan the comments in Hultgren, Parables, 396. 73.  Cf. the even stronger statement of Funk:  “The parable of the mustard seed is undoubtedly to be read against the background of the history of the symbol of the mighty cedar, a symbol utilized not only by Ezekiel, but found also in Daniel 4 and elsewhere in the Old Testament” (“The Looking-Glass Tree,” 4). Though Carter is correct in observing that in the HB traditions, “it is significant that . . . all the trees/empires are subjected to God’s sovereignty” (“Matthew’s Gospel,” 198), the direction in which he takes his interpretation seems less certain: “The tree image is ambiguous. It can depict God’s empire as well as evoke these various traditions outlined above which use the image of trees to present a theological analysis of human imperial power and reign. The ambivalency of the image allows the ways of human empires and of God’s empire to be brought together” (ibid., 200). Is it really the case that the “paradigm evoked by the tree image” in the parable reveals that “God also brings empires low” (ibid.)? 74. Luz, Matthäus, 2:332. Though his view of mustard as “unclean” was seen to be unpersuasive, Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 386, rightly notes the contrast between the image of a “mustard tree” and the use of the cedar or (oak) trees usually employed to depict the kingdom of God (cf., e.g., Ezek. 17:23 or Dan. 4:10-12). Note also the depiction of Cotter: “The outrageous character of the parable is brought to light here. A mustard seed is

310

The Parables in Q

on the one hand, this unexpected ending comes suddenly in the parable with the introduction of a δένδρον and the birds coming to dwell in it, on the other hand, both Matthew and Luke refer to the process of transformation from a seed to a tree through the process of growth (αὐξάνω).75 It is the, repeatedly debated, question of growth along with the issue of small beginnings and a large end that comprises the final image to discuss. “Das Q-Gleichnis nach Lukas ist ohne Zweifel ein Wachstums- und kein Kontrastgleichnis”76; thus is the explicit statement of Schulz. However, Hultgren’s use of the terms “not [growth]” and “instead [contrast]” is a clear example of Carter’s observation that some recent interpreters have downplayed the element of growth.77 That this supposed, significant difference is nearly impossible to maintain can be seen in Schulz’s own words a few pages later than the above citation where he speaks against a one-sided interpretation focusing on growth and also recognizes the presence of a contrast: “die hyperbolische Gegenüberstellung von allerunscheinbarstem Samenkorn und Riesenbaum zum Ausdruck gebracht wird und damit auch der Kontrast erhalten bleibt.”78 Against a one-sided focus upon contrast, Ernst Percy correctly highlighted that “weder des Emporwachsen der Senfstaude noch die Durchsäuerung des Teiges ist geeignet, ein blitzschnelles, unvermitteltes Geschehen zu veranschaulichen.”79 It seems most appropriate to recognize that a clear-cut either/ or perspective here is unhelpful and that instead there is a both/and: there is a process of growth, at the beginning and end of which stands a marked contrast.80

said to produce a tree whose description is normally awarded to the cedars and oaks of Old Testament tradition” (“Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 42). 75. Cf. the comment of Rau, who brings the two elements discussed above together: “Es handelt sich um ein Prozeß, der auf ein Ziel zusteuert, und daß dieser Prozeß eine zeitliche Dimension hat, kann als unausgesprochene Voraussetzung mitschwingen. Mitschwingen wird aber vor allem auch . . . Es ist überaus erstaunlich und zeugt von großer Kraft, daß aus einem Senfkorn ein Baum wird” (Reden in Vollmacht, 117). 76. Schulz, Q, 300. Cf. the literature both for and against this view in n. 288 on the same page. Often referenced is the argument of Jeremias: “It is not the purpose of either parable merely to describe a process: that would be the way of the western mind. The oriental mind includes both beginning and end in its purview, seizing the paradoxical element in both cases, the two successive, yet fundamentally differing, situations” (Parables of Jesus, 148). 77.  Cf. Hultgren, Parables, 401. Similarly Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:415, 416n42 (though see n. 80 below). Carter’s observation is found in “Matthew’s Gospel,” 197. 78. Ibid., 302. 79. Ernst Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung (LUÅ 49; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1953), 208. 80.  This also appears to be Percy’s ultimate conclusion (ibid., 210). Cf. also Marshall, Luke, 560: “the ideas of growth and of the contrast between the small beginning and the great end result are both present.” Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 225, 665–66n245, makes reference to recent interpreters advocating precisely such a both/and approach (cf. also Meurer, Gleichnisse Jesu, 626–7; and Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 233). Even Davies and Allison

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

311

Different from the case in Mark, Matthew, and the Gospel of Thomas where the parable designates the mustards seed as μικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Mk 4:31), there seems to be no such explicit identification in Q.81 At the same time, the little evidence that there is outside the NT for the metaphorical use of a mustard seed comes from rabbinic literature where it is used “to refer to a small quantity that nevertheless has implications for the status of the whole.”82 As noted above, however, a similar trope does seem to be present in Q 17:6, which at the very least “demonstrates that this usage was current at the time of the parable’s transmission,”83 a fact that should not be underestimated in implicitly bringing the smallness of the mustard seed into the parable.84 As Crossan put it, some contrast in size “was unavoidable, and therefore intentional, once a mustard seed was chosen.”85 There is thus the sense in the parable that “remarkably small beginnings produce amazingly large results”86 while at the same retaining the sense that that which is small at the outset grows into something large.87 Before turning to the significance of all of the above

note “if the main point of the parable of the mustard seed lies in the theme of contrast, that is not reason to think that the only point” (Matthew, 2:419). Though Laufen sees a contrast as central, he also states, “ein Entweder-Oder zwischen Kontrast- und Wachstumsgleichnis ist nicht angebracht” (Doppelüberlieferungen, 190; cf. also his conclusion on p. 192). Similarly, Klauck comments, “Die Wachstumsnotiz rückt . . . nicht ins Zentrum des Gleichnisses, aber sie gehört dazu” (Allegorie und Allegorese, 214). Unconvincing is Gräßer who points to the issue of growth as evidence that Luke and Q have “enteschatologisiert” in that the interest is no longer focused “auf der eschatologischen Vollendung der Basileia” but rather “auf der Ausbreitung des Evangeliums in aller Welt durch die missionierende Kirche” (Parusieverzögerung, 142). 81.  As is to be expected, this point is made often in the literature. Cf., e.g., Crossan, In Parables, 48; and Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 542 among many others. 82. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 543, with similar observations on p. 537. It is unclear why Snodgrass states that “in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman world mustard seeds were proverbially known for their small size” for his note provides no evidence of this use by Greco-Roman authors (Stories with Intent, 220; emphasis added). 83.  Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 543. Though this connection is important, Kirk’s view that the Q editor has “signaled a macro-compositional relationship between 13:18–21 and 15:4–10; 16:13; 17:1b–6 by means of a ‘mustard seed’ framework in 13:19 and 17:6” (Composition, 300), however, is less than certain and is based on other assumptions about Q, including the presence of a double parable in Q 15:4-10. 84. Cf. also Meurer, Gleichnisse Jesu, 624, 626. 85. Crossan, “Seed Parables,” 259. 86.  Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 284. Cf. also Franz Mußner, “1QHodajoth und das Gleichnis vom Senfkorn (Mk 4,30–32 Par.),” BZ 4 (1960): 128–30. 87. As discussed further below when considering the parable of the Leaven, though Manson argued, “A process has been started which must go on to its inevitable end . . . once the seed is sown, each subsequent stage till the harvest follows inevitably” (Sayings, 123), it is debatable how much the sense of inevitability is present in the process. Cf. Section 9.2.3, “Images.”

312

The Parables in Q

discussed aspects of this parable in Q, attention will first be given to the immediately ensuing and closely related parable of the leaven.

9.2 Parable of the Leaven (Q 13:20-21)

Mt. 13:33

Lk. 13:20-21

Ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς·

καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν·

ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

21

τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ; ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ [ἐν]έκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

Despite slightly different introductions, with Matthew explicitly stating that Jesus told “another parable [παραβολή]” and Luke repeating the question concerning the comparison with the kingdom of God,88 the parable itself appears nearly verbatim or verbatim, depending on how one resolves the text critical issue in Lk. 13:21.89 9.2.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation of this parable presents leaven. As was the case with the previous parable, in the context of the comparison there is no real complication as the account progresses directly into an action undertaken with the leaven. A woman took the leaven (ζύμη) and hid it in σάτα τρία of flour, an amount apparently of some size, where again a form of the verb λαμβάνω is used to describe the taking. Interestingly, the action undertaken with the leaven is not the expected activity of working it into the flour, but both Matthew and Luke use a form of the verb (ἐν)κρύπτω in order to indicate that the yeast is “hidden” in the flour. Once this action has been completed, as Edwards observes, “the structure of the 88.  In the parallel in Gos. Thom. 96.1-2, the comparison of the kingdom is not made with the yeast, but rather with the woman who took the yeast. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 66–7, again views the version in the Gospel of Thomas as independent, along with Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 323. Others see the version in Thomas as derived from the canonical texts (cf. the literature cited in Hultgren, Parables, 404–5n6). Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 228, makes the same points for considering this passage to be a “similitude” and not a “parable” that he did in relation to the parable of the mustard seed (cf. n. 3 above). 89. ἐνέκρυψεν is read by numerous manuscripts, including, P75, ‫א‬, A, D, W, f13, and the majority text. ἔκρυψεν is read in B, K, L, N, and a few other witnesses.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

313

parable implies a time lag,”90 for the final situation of all of the flour being leavened requires both further working of the dough and the passage of time.91 Though a passage of time is not narrated, it is clearly necessary for the narrative progression of the parable, and leavening activity of the ζύμη, to reach its conclusion and the final situation of the entirety (ὅλος) of the dough being leavened. 9.2.2 Characters As was the case for the parable of the mustard seed, one here finds a nonhuman “character” alongside a human character. At numerous points the parallels between these two parables are also seen on the level of their characters. Beginning with the woman (γυνή) as a fiktives Wesen, she, as the man in the previous parable, is simply introduced into the narrative by the narrator as an agent.92 Her introduction completes the gender pairing also found at other points in Q93 and allows something to be done with the leaven. Though some would de-emphasize the woman as a character,94 Levine is right in not wanting to “dismiss the woman as the main actor,”95 for it is through her that the parable can progress in its narrative plot. Again, as was the case in the parable of the mustard seed, the activity is the only manner in which the mimetic component of the human character is developed and, as already pointed out in the plot analysis, one is again struck by an unexpected verb. Cotter notes that the woman’s behavior is unusual in that she “is said to hide the leaven rather than mix it,” and in this way, “the agent’s action calls attention to itself as somehow especially significant.”96 Though further consideration of other elements in the parable are necessary before drawing firm

90. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 130. 91.  Cf. also Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer, “Gott knetet nicht (Vom Sauerteig) Q 13,20f. (Mt 13,33 / Lk 13,20f. / EvThom 96,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et  al.), 186. The manner in which the gap contributes to the metaphorical image of the passage is discussed further below. Rau, without considering the gap as a separate element, thus speaks of the parable having “drei klar erkennbare Bausteine. Es beginnt mit dem Hinweis auf den Sauerteig, erwähnt anschließend die Frau, die den Sauerteig in Mehl vermengt, und es weist schließlich auf die Durchsäuerung hin” (Reden in Vollmacht, 113). 92. Cf. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 306. 93. Cf. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 286. Kloppenborg refers to Q 13:18-21 as one of “at least four gender pairs” in Q (Excavating Q, 97; the others are Q 11:31-32; 12:24-28; and 17:34-35; cf. Chapter 6, n. 218, and Chapter 7, n. 60). 94. Cf., e.g., Elizabeth Waller, “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women,” USQR 35 (1979–80): 99–109. 95. Levine, Short Stories, 119. 96.  Cotter, “Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 40. Here, as above (cf. the comment referenced by n. 25), Kloppenborg refers to a possible “furtive action” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 307).

314

The Parables in Q

conclusions, reference can already be made to Levine’s observation that “ ‘hiding,’ like ‘yeast,’ can have a negative valence, but in this parable it is a hiding that will lead to something wonderful.”97 For this reason, no negative imagery is necessarily tied up with the mimetic component of the woman as a character.98 When considering the γυνή as a Symbol, once again her place as a character in the parable is confirmed by the history of (allegorical) interpretation. Even if one views a variety of patristic and medieval identifications of this woman as wisdom (Augustine), Mary (Peter Chrysologus, Bernard of Clairvaux), or the church (Ambrose), as the product of an overactive theological imagination,99 this does not necessarily mean that “the woman in our parable is not herself a symbol . . . She is no more symbolic than ‘the man’ of v. 31.”100 Apart from the fact that the man in v. 31 may perhaps indeed be symbolic on some level, there are possibilities presented by Q itself for an addressee to develop a thematic understanding of this character. In fact, Schottroff argued, “this particular parable directs attention to the hands of a woman, who takes the leaven and covers the dough and then waits with clasped hands. Her hands are compared to God’s hands; in them the hungry see a sign from God.”101 In addition, the same point in terms of seeing Jesus symbolized as the inaugurator of the kingdom made in regard to the parable of the mustard seed can also be made here. Such interpretations are possible, though the question of the manner in which the implicit appeal of the parable draws the addressee into the account is of particular relevance. These aspects of the parable are considered further below when reflecting upon the place of both of these parables in Q. As has repeatedly been the case when a nonhuman “character” in a parable has been considered in this study, in order to understand the character as a Symbol, the imagery associated with it is of determinative significance. Once again, therefore the “leaven” is considered in some detail in the following section on images in the

97. Levine, Short Stories, 121. 98. Again, though the leaven as a Symbol and image is yet to be considered, Scott seeing an overt depiction of issues of purity and impurity in this parable is correctly countered by Cotter, who points out that “the image of a woman using leaven to make bread would not immediately strike the ordinary listener/reader as a metaphor of impurity” (“Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 42). Levine, Short Stories, 114–18, also criticizes Scott’s view and those similar to it. 99. Cf. the overview in Wailes, Medieval Allegories, 114–16. 100. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:423. 101.  Schottroff, “Itinerant Prophetesses,” 352. Presumably it is for this reason that Schottroff views this parable as the one that “most obviously shatters the laws of patriarchal perceptions of women’s labor, since it equates a woman’s labor with God’s activities” (ibid., 351). Cf. similar statements in eadem, Lydias ungeduldige Schwestern: Feministische Sozialgeschichte des frühen Christentums (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994), 130–1. Cf., however, the critical comments of Batten, “More Queries for Q,” 48, even if she problematically relies on Scott’s statements concerning leaven as a negative image and one of moral corruption (cf. the discussion in Section 9.2.3, “Images” below).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

315

parable. As was the case with the mustard seed, a key aspect of the leaven as fiktives Wesen is that, after being introduced as a point of comparison with the kingdom of God in the initial situation and then being acted upon (hidden) by the human character, both Matthew and Luke refer to the process of leavening (ζυμόω). Thus, there is another instance of a change or transformation taking place and a contrast between the state at the beginning and at the end. The import of these issues is discussed further below. 9.2.3 Images Though the parable, as unfortunately also numerous others, has at times been employed in rather overt anti-Jewish readings, for example, the leaven “is mightily permeating the dead lump of religious Judaism,”102 such blanket negative readings have no place in a reading of Q.103 And yet, precisely how one is to understand the images of this parable raises a series of questions. There is a certain amount of truth in Levine’s observation, “Most interpretations of the parable of the Leaven, like interpretations of most parables, are obvious and uninteresting.”104 And yet, the pursuit of not-so-obvious and interesting interpretations is not without its dangers. For instance, Levine’s own association of the imagery with pregnancy in the statement “perhaps the parable tells us that, like dough that has been carefully prepared with sourdough starter or a child growing in the womb, the kingdom will come if we nurture it” might be a bit of a stretch as Levine herself seems to recognize in feeling the need to defend the suggestion against readers who might “conclude that my feminist inclinations or my hormones are seeing pregnancy where there is none.”105 In any case, however, that several images, including the leaven, the “hiding,” the amount of flour, and the element of time do require further attention. First, when considering the initial situation of the parable and the presentation of ζύμη, the obvious and immediate question relates to the associations involved in this image. Specifically, is leaven marked by negative connotations? On the one hand, Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer argues, “Dominierend für die Bildfeldtradition ist der Gegensatz von Gesäuertem und Ungesäuertem im Kontext der Passafeier.”106 The removal of leaven during Passover is indeed an important image, not only in that the command is given to remove all leaven but also in the fact that refusal to remove the leaven results in the removal of the offender from the congregation of

102. Dodd, Parables, 193. Perhaps only slightly less problematic is Robert W. Funk’s suggestion, “The Kingdom arrives as a negation of the established temple and cult and replaces them with a sacrament of its own—a new and leavened bread” (“Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: The Parable of the Leaven,” Int 25 [1971]: 162). 103. For criticism of such readings, cf. Levine, Short Stories, 110–11. 104. Ibid., 108. 105. Ibid., 124. 106. Ostmeyer, “Gott knetet nicht,” 188.

316

The Parables in Q

Israel (Exod. 12:15-20). In addition, the use of leavened bread in offerings is forbidden in, for example, Exod. 23:18 and Lev. 2:11, just to name two instances. And, as is well known, Paul employs leaven with negative overtones in 1 Cor. 5:6-7. Yet, though Scott’s statement “that leaven in the ancient world was a symbol for moral corruption has long been recognized” is partially true,107 it does not tell the full story and is thus incorrect when stated on its own.108 Is it really the case that one here finds a “subtle form of irony not characteristic of Jesus’ teaching elsewhere”?109 For instance, despite prohibitions of leavened bread being used in some offerings, in Lev. 23:17 one finds the command to use leavened bread in the “elevation offering.” Even Hultgren’s qualified statement, “the imagery may indeed have been shocking, but not necessarily, for there are positive uses of the imagery of leaven in Jewish literature as well (although the sources are admittedly rabbinic and post-NT),”110 is both right and wrong. Positive uses of leaven imagery are already found in Philo. In fact, Philo is helpful in demonstrating that the same imagery, namely, leaven rising, can be employed both negatively and positively. His metaphorical references to leaven include both a negative characterization of being puffed up with pride and a positive association with joy. On the one hand he could write, But as for the deeper meaning, this is worth noting, (namely) that that which is leavened and fermented rises, while that which is unleavened is low. Each of these is a symbol of types of soul, one being haughty and swollen with arrogance, the other being unchangeable and prudent, choosing the middle way rather than extremes because of desire and zeal for equality. (QE 1.15 [Marcus, LCL])111

On the other hand, he could state that “everything that is leavened rises, and joy is the rational elevation or rising of the soul” (Spec. Leg. 2.185 [Colson, LCL).112

107. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 324. 108.  For this reason it is misleading to discuss the parable of the leaven in a chapter entitled “One Rotten Apple” (Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 321). Of course, Scott is not the only one to have focused exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on the supposed identification of leaven as “evil” (cf., e.g., Beare, Matthew, 309; and Dodd, Parables, 192). Funk categorically stated, “Leaven was apparently universally regarded as a symbol of corruption” (“Beyond Criticism,” 161). Though also focusing on the negative image of leaven, Schweizer does provide a minor qualification: “Vielleicht hat Jesus das, im Judentum meist negativ verwendete, Bild vom kultisch unreinen Sauerteig, den man vor dem Passa wegfegt . . ., bewußt aufgenommen ” (Matthäus, 199; emphasis added). 109. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 287. 110. Hultgren, Parables, 406. 111. Similarly QE 2.14 and Spec. Leg. 1.293. 112. Cf. also the comments in Levine, Short Stories, 116–18; and Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 538–9. For both positive and negative references in rabbinic literature, cf. Levine, Short Stories, 117; and Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 540. In the writings of Ignatius one can also find both negative and positive use of the image as in his

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

317

For this reason, Levine rightly insists that “whether the term is positive or negative needs to derive from context.”113 It is thus not entirely certain that Schulz was correct in contending, “in geradezu anstößiger Weise wird hier also diese jeden Juden bekannte Metapher vom Sauerteig und seiner durchsäuernden Wirkung auf die Basileia selbst angewandt.”114 Similarly, since leaven is not necessarily negative, Scott’s interpretation that this image is used in order to “warn that instead the expected evil that corrupts may indeed turn out to be the kingdom” is potentially problematic.115 There is no immediately obvious negative overtone in the parable when all the leaven (ζύμη) does is leaven (ζυμόω).116 As considered further below in the discussion of this parable in Q, the significance of the image seems to focus on the leaven working out its activity in the entirety of the dough. As already noted above, the verb used to describe the action that the woman performs with the yeast is unexpected. As Ostmeyer puts it, “Zu einer regulären Bereitung von Weizensauerteig gehört . . . notwendig die φύρασις (phyrasis – das Kneten; vgl. Hos 7,4;. . .). Das Kneten wird in Q 13,20f. nicht nur nicht erwähnt, sondern an seine Stelle tritt das backtechnisch ungeeignete und sprachlich auffällige ‘Verbergen’ in der Mitte der Parabel.”117 Disagreeing with the sentiment that anything unusual is being described with the verb (ἐν)κρύπτω, Schottroff paraphrases the progression as follows:  “the woman takes the leaven (mixes it with flour) and covers the dough, so that it can rise.”118 The problem with this view, however, is that it does not seem that the “hiding” spoken of in the parable is

admonition to set aside τὴν κακὴν ζύμην and to turn εἰς νέαν ζύμην, which is Jesus Christ (Ign. Magn. 10.2). 113.  Levine, Short Stories, 117. With a view toward the depiction of leaven in rabbinic literature and the NT, Schellenberg concludes, “Leaven symbolizes a pervasive agent that transforms the character of the whole. The influence of this agent can be positive or negative” (“Kingdom as Corruption?,” 541). Cf. also the observation by Snodgrass: “Leaven is not to be used with burnt offerings, but neither is honey. No one concludes that honey is negative. When leaven is used negatively, the context makes that clear, whether in Scripture or elsewhere” (Stories with Intent, 233). 114. Schulz, Q, 309; emphasis added. 115.  Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 328–9. Cf. also the critical comments of Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 233. 116.  Schellenberg, in fact, contends the opposite: “The use of leaven as a cipher for the kingdom of God makes it clear that here leaven represents the pervasive power of something good” (“Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 542). Similarly, Fleddermann, Q; Reconstruction, 209. Harb, however, rightly points out that there are several unusual or negative images employed in Q for the arrival of the kingdom of God or of the Son of Man, resulting in the fact that one also cannot simply assume a positive sense (e.g. Q 12:39–40; cf. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 209n433). 117. Ostmeyer, “Gott knetet nicht,” 187. 118. Schottroff, “Itinerant Prophetesses,” 351.

318

The Parables in Q

depicted as a covering of the dough after the leaven has been mixed with flour but a description of what is done with the leaven in regard to the flour.119 Thus, we remain confronted with an unusual description. The question, however, is what, if anything, is one to make of this verb? Here again scholarly opinion is divided. Blomberg argues, “The fact that the woman ‘hides’ the leaven should not be overinterpreted to mean deliberate concealment of the kingdom. This is just a graphic way of picturing the mixing in of the yeast, according to common baking practice.”120 Stein states a nearly diametrically opposed opinion: “The use of the term ‘hidden’ does seem intentional . . . and may allude to the ‘hiddenness’ of the kingdom of God in its present manifestation.”121 Though one could perhaps agree with Blomberg that there is not a deliberate concealment of the kingdom, whatever that may be, it does seem that an arresting verb is used to focus the attention of the addressee upon the fact that the agent of change in the dough is tucked away and not visible, even as its transformative power is at work. For this reason, Hultgren appears to be correct in his explanation of the significance of this image:  “The imagery of hiding the leaven should not be lost since it designates the hiddenness of the kingdom.”122 A further point to note here is that the leaven is said to have been hidden in εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία. Comments concerning this measurement can be found in most any commentary. Representative is Marshall who states that σάτον “is a transliteration of Aramaic s’ātâ (Hebrew se’āh), a quantity equivalent to 4¾ gallons or 13.13 litres (1½ times a Roman modius).”123 Lohmeyer commented that the amount would provide the daily bread of around thirty-six people,124 even as Marshall states it is “sufficient to feed about 160 people.”125 Though such figures are routinely mentioned in the literature, Snodgrass rightly cautions that “precision is not available for ancient measurements” and the estimation of how many people could be fed is only “if the measurements have been understood appropriately.”126

119. Cf. also Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 326. More questionable, however, is his insistence that the “hiding” is necessarily negative. 120. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 285. 121. Stein, Introduction, 161n32. 122.  Hultgren, Parables, 406. Cf. also Dodd, Parables, 192, who saw the hiddenness in that initially nothing happens when the leaven is placed in the dough. 123. Marshall, Luke, 561. Cf. also the discussion of the measures in Hultgren, Parables, 406–407. Note, however, that the LXX does not render ‫ ְס ָאה‬with σάτον. μέτρον (or δίμετρον) is used in eight instances (Gen. 18:6; 1 Kgs 18:32; 2 Kgs 7:1 [bis], 16 [bis], 18 [bis]) and οιφι is used in 1 Sam. 25:18. 124.  Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (KEK Sonderband; 2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 219n2. 125. Marshall, Luke, 561. 126.  Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 232. Though slightly overstated, Scott comments “ ‘Measure’ is meaningless to us. How much is it?” (Hear Then the Parable, 327). Cf. also Funk, “Beyond Criticism,” 159.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

319

That a large amount is involved, however, seems fairly certain and that raises the question of why the parable refers to an amount of flour that apparently is significantly larger than would usually be used by a woman on an average day of baking.127 It is possible that the amount is mentioned simply in recognition of a traditional figure. For instance, in Gen. 18:6 it is the amount that Abraham tells Sarah to make ready in order to bake cakes for the three guests.128 That such associations “suggest that the occasion is no ordinary one, perhaps even an epiphany,” however, seems unlikely.129 Another possibility is to see an emphasis on the size in contradistinction to the amount of leaven as the point of the image in the parable. For example, Huffman contends that the parable highlights the fact that “the yeast has the ability to leaven an extraordinarily large batch of dough,” leading him to conclude, “So the power of the kingdom will permeate extensively.”130 Though Werner Kümmel stated that the small amount of yeast and large amount of flour is not “betont,” the recognition that it is an “ungewöhnlich große Menge Mehl” led him also to see the emphasis being placed upon the unexpectedly large impact of the yeast in leavening the entire dough.131 Even if a marked contrast is not found in the Q parable, it is certainly clear that an amount of leaven far smaller than the amount of flour is used by the woman. Finally, it could be that a very simple explanation points to the significance of the amount. On a first reading, the preparation of such a large amount of dough would naturally lead to the thought that the woman is not simply preparing to bake bread for herself or for a single family. Instead, food is being prepared for many. Thus, Davies and Allison opine that the large amount “would suggest a feast, and Jesus often spoke of the kingdom as a great banquet.”132 There

127.  Cf. the similar comment by Meadors: “The leaven permeates a remarkably large amount of dough—far more than that usually associated with a woman’s daily baking” (Jesus the Messianic Herald, 207). Jeremias made a similar, succinct statement: “no housewife would bake so vast a quantity of meal” (Parables, 147). 128. Cf. also 1 Sam. 1:24 and Judg. 6:19, which are relevant since a ‫ ְס ָאה‬was one-third of an ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫( ֵא‬cf. BDB s.v. ‫) ְס ָאה‬. Cf. further the discussion in Levine, Short Stories, 122–3; and Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 234. 129. The suggestion is that of Funk, “Beyond Criticism,” 161. 130. Huffman, “Atypical Features,” 212. 131.  Kümmel, Verheißung und Erfüllung, 124. Rau apparently agrees, though also with perhaps a note of caution: “zwar wird beim Sauerteig die Kleinheit der Menge als selbstverständlich vorausgesetzt sein, und es ist davon auszugehen, daß beim Mehl die Größe der Menge betont werden soll. Doch wird die Kleinheit nicht erwähnt, die Größe nicht als solche bezeichnet” (Reden in Vollmacht, 114). The image is employed differently in Gos. Thom. 96, where, on the one hand, the comparison of the kingdom is made with the woman, and, on the other hand, attention is drawn precisely to the small amount of leaven and the large loaves that are baked. 132. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:423. Perhaps it is along these lines that the conclusions of the parable can be seen from the perspective that “the results are not just large but life-giving . . . shelter for birds of the sky, food for people of the earth” are prominently in

320

The Parables in Q

is indeed much to commend the view that the leaven of the kingdom of God is permeating a great amount of flour in preparation for a large feast. One last point to make in this section once again relates to the issue of the passage of time. As noted in the plot analysis, there is a temporal gap in the parable between the hiding of the leaven in the dough and the entire lump of dough being leavened. Whether this passage of time points to the inevitability of all the dough being leavened is debatable,133 even if there may very well be a certain expectation of the occurrence.134 In any case, the clear necessity of time passing points to a transformative process on the part of the leaven leading to the entirety of that in which it has been “hidden” being affected through being leavened.135 9.2.4 The Parables in Q At this point, the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven in Q will be considered together in terms of their place in Q. Since it is very difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the precise location of these parables in Q, their connection to each other is of primary, though not exclusive, significance.136 As such, the parables will be discussed primarily in relationship with each other, though at relevant points also with a view toward other Q passages. In addition, though Levine

view (Hearon and Wire, “Women’s Work,” 148). Even if one is inclined not to see the “provision” as a primary emphasis of the parable, it does seem that such a component is not completely absent. Carter, for instance, sees a depiction in the parable of the mustard seed of both “its provision for all creation” and the evocation of “narratives in the tradition concerning trees and nesting birds that depict the establishment of God’s reign” (“Matthew’s Gospel,” 198). 133. Cf., e.g., the comment of Manson, “Once the leaven has been put into the dough the leavening process goes on inevitably till the whole is leavened” (Sayings, 123). 134. Cf. the observation of Kuss: “Saat und Ernte und was dazwischen steht und ebenso das Durchsäuertwerden eines Brotteiges sind ‘natürliche,’ immer wieder nach festen Gesetzen eintretende Vorgänge” (“Zum Sinngehalt des Doppelgleichnisses,” 651). A similar observation, though with a slightly different emphasis, is found in Ostmeyer, “Gott knetet nicht,” 190: “Wie im markinischen Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat oder im Gleichnis vom Unkraut unter dem Weizen, lässt Gott den von ihm initiierten Dingen ihren Lauf, statt verbessernd oder beschleunigend einzugreifen. Gott bewässert keine Saat, Gott lässt kein Unkraut jäten, und Gott knetet nicht.” 135.  So also Rau, Reden in Vollmacht, 114:  “Es soll das Ziel und das Ergebnis des Handelns der Frau hervorgehoben werden: die vollständige Durchsäuerung des Mehls.” 136. So also Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 321n76. Zeller, Kommentar, 82, admitted that we can no longer determine the place of this Gleichnispaares in Q. Kirk, however, is more confident of the location in Q and therefore argues that “the parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven, which portray the emergence of the Kingdom, are conveniently followed by the Enter Through the Narrow Door instruction, which explains how one gains entry to the kingdom” (Composition, 304).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

321

has humorously noted, “The parable of the Mustard Seed has put forth so many branches of interpretation that the birds of heaven could build multiple nests and still have room for expansion,”137 a few comments on the function and meaning of both the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven in Q will be ventured. The first point to be made here is also recognized by Kloppenborg, namely, “the pairing of the parables, which perhaps first took place in the Sayings Gospel, represents an important interpretative manoeuvre.”138 Whether Q received or created a double parable is not the issue; rather, it appears that regardless of how it came about, Q contained a double parable. Kloppenborg goes on to provide a very helpful summary of the significance of reading the parables together: The deliberate creation of parallels between 13:18–19 and 13:20–21 has the effect of stressing (1) that the kingdom of God is the subject of the discourse, (2) that human action is involved in the initial “hidden” state, and (3) that the process of growth is, like mustard germination or leavening, rapid, dramatic, and incessant, producing results out of proportion to the initial state.139

Aspects of each of these three points are important for the parable in Q and are part of the way in which Q depicts the manner in which the kingdom of God has begun, the process of growth in which it finds itself, and the grand conclusion at which it will arrive.140 Q utilizes these parables to say something about its conception of the kingdom of God. That it is to say, via the parabolic use of a mustard seed and leaven, Q speaks of the kingdom. And it is perhaps not only the introduction that indicates this reality, but even the content of the parables themselves. Jeremias, for example, was of the opinion: “The features of the parables which transcend the bounds of actuality, δένδρον Mt. 13.32; Luke 13.19 (mustard is not a tree), σάτα τρία (no housewife would bake so vast a quantity of meal), are meant to tell us that we have to do with divine realities.”141 The mustard seed becomes something unexpected; the woman hides the leaven in an unexpected amount. Already in the fact that the mustard seed and the leaven are emplotted in narrative contexts points

137. Levine, Short Stories, 152. 138. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 306. 139. Ibid., 308. Concerning the third point, cf. also Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 321: “[Es] zeigt sich, daß Q ein Doppelgleichnis gebildet und beide Teile sprachlich und inhaltlich einander angeglichen hat. Die Aussage ‘Kleine Ursache – große Wirkung’ wird somit durch die sich gegenseitig interpretierenden Bilder von Senfkorn und Sauerteig expliziert.” 140.  Though Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 192–4, argues that this conception of the expansion of the kingdom requires a Gentile Mission in Q, Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 321n76, rightly points out that this is not necessarily the case. 141. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 147.

322

The Parables in Q

to Schellenberg’s key observation, “It is important to note that these parables do not compare the kingdom of God to leaven or mustard seed per se, but rather to the function that leaven and mustard seed have in their specific parabolic narratives.”142 In other words, the images do not float freely, but are connected to the narratival elements of a parable. Indeed, again quoting Schellenberg, “though metaphorical use of mustard seed and leaven was not unknown, it was certainly not ubiquitous. Therefore in both parables the significance of the symbols must be derived from the parabolic narratives in which they are embedded, not only or even primarily from an established cultural repertoire.”143 It is evident that in these parables the kingdom is in process of “self-manifestation” (cf. also Q 10:23-24; 11:20; 12:2).144 Several observations arise out of the above discussion and especially a verse like Q 11:20 where Jesus says that the kingdom of God has come upon you. There is already a beginning of the kingdom now, but there will be growth until the end.145 Thus, in these parables, the kingdom of God is “seen as an expansive power.”146 When taken within the context of Q, and regardless of whether one agrees with Schulz or not that in these parables one finds the first instance of “die ursprünglich apokalyptische Vorstellung der Basileia” being set in relationship “mit einem typischen Vorgang aus der Natur,” these parables present the kingdom “als eine in Zeit und Raum wachsende, wenn auch unbedingt eschatologische Größe.”147 Though the passage of a certain amount of time is in view, Schulz was right to point out, “Niemals treten die Wachstumsgleichnisse in Konkurrenz zur Naherwartung.”148 Enough time remains, as seen in other parables, for invitations to be sent out, for investment to be made, and for life to be lived and yet, with every moment that passes the kingdom grows and the end draws closer. With a view toward elements of Q mentioned in the final thoughts of this section, by hearing and doing the words of Jesus, by praying for workers

142. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 541. 143. Ibid. 144. Cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, 236. 145. Cf. also Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 211. 146. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 391. 147. Schulz, Q, 302. 148. Ibid., 304. This is not to say, however, that Schulz was right to see the Naherwartung actually present in the parables. Lührmann also referred to these parables as one of the instances in which Q took up the proclamation of Jesus concerning the “Nähe der βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” (Redaktion, 94). Cf. also Hoffmann’s emphases: “In den zwei Kontrastgleichnissen vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig . . . wird der notwendige Zusammenhang zwischen dem kleinen Anfang in der Gegenwart und dem weltumfassenden Anbruch der Herrschaft Gottes in der (nächsten) Zukunft dargestellt. Die Gleichnisse fügen sich der Naherwartung von Q ein” (Studien zur Theologie, 41). Cf. the criticism of such views in Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 144, and his conclusion that the fact that nothing is said about the relative time-scale involved means that neither a delay nor the imminence of the parousia can be supposed (so also Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu, 136).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

323

for the harvest and sending them/being sent out, the kingdom expands.149 To mix the metaphors of the double parable, the leaven is working its way through the dough and suddenly the (eschatological) tree is fully grown.150 As Kloppenborg puts it, the parables “concern the vigorous and ineluctable growth of the kingdom from something small and hidden to something of amazingly large proportions.”151 Three further, specific issues are relevant in regard to the kingdom of God. First, it is interesting to consider the perspective of Cotter, who, though viewing the images of the seed and the leaven as not completely positive, does not follow Scott in seeing the issue as one of purity and impurity. Rather, she holds “that [seed and leaven] stand in humorous contradiction to the political/religious authorities of the state, who claim God’s authorization for their manipulations of the people.”152 Though I am not sure that the emphasis of the parable of the mustard seed lies here and I am hesitant to follow a strongly politically subversive reading of these parables, Schottroff was right to ask whether the mustard bush (Mark) or a tree (cedar [?], Matthew and Luke) that grows out of a mustard seed is meant to indicate the different quality of God’s cosmic majesty in contrast to the imperial world powers. For the image of the world tree, in whose branches the birds find shelter, is a widely used imperial symbol.153

The images do at least implicitly raise the question of how the tremendous growth of God’s kingdom affects earthly kingdoms, even if the images themselves turn out not to be “burlesques” as contended by Cotter.154

149.  Schluz is certain, “Die Basileia . . . breitet sich aus, aber nicht in der Völker- und Heidenwelt, sondern allein in Israel” (Q, 304). I am not convinced, however, that one can insist either that the Gentiles definitely are not or that they definitely are in view here. 150.  Along these lines Kirk posits an affinity of these parables with the eschatological discourse due to both dealing with “something hidden ineluctably revealed” (Composition, 303–304). 151.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 223n214. Cf. also Tuckett’s comment that “the idea of the present reality of the presence of the Kingdom of God remains tiny and invisible is presupposed in the twin parables of the mustard seed and the leaven” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 128). In the parables, however, the “present reality” is moving toward something grand and quite visible. 152. Cotter, “Parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven,” 43. 153. Schottroff, Parables, 118. 154.  Snodgrass’s comment in response to Funk presenting the mustard plant as a caricature of the mighty cedar, at first glance a “light-hearted burlesque of Ezekiel’s figure” but on second glance a “serious satire” (Funk, “Looking-Glass Tree,” 7; cf. also Funk, “Beyond Criticism,” 160) is also applicable to Cotter: “The mustard seed is not chosen to create a parody, but because of its small size” (Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 224). At the same time, it is not simply that the issue of size is in view, but that we are not necessarily dealing with negative images. The same point can be made in regard to Crossan’s statement “When one starts

324

The Parables in Q

A second issue that arises here is the manner in which this kingdom conception is connected with the Q group. Schellenberg has observed the manner in which supposed negative, first-century cultural associations have been employed in order to draw parallels “between the alleged symbolism of mustard and leaven and the apparent social location of the Q tradents.”155 For instance, drawing on Burton L. Mack’s identification of the “kingdom” as a cipher for Q,156 Arnal has written, “What . . . appears to be at issue in both parables is the type of behavior advocated by the people responsible for this document; the proverbial noxiousness of mustard and leaven further reinforce the impression that it is the inversionary and countercultural ethos of Q that constitutes the ‘kingdom’ in these instances.”157 And yet, as seen above, such clear, negative associations with mustard and leaven are not necessarily correct.158 Kirk presents a different perspective in writing that the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven . . . envision a radical alteration of status. The growth images of a tiny seed becoming a large tree and a pinch of leaven permeating a large batch of dough express the self-understanding of the Q group; that is, they metaphorically express the sect’s belief that it is the vanguard of the Kingdom about to be fully and suddenly revealed, with the group revealed as the elect eschatological community.159

In other words, at present the group is insignificant and hidden, but it will grow and be marvelously revealed. The third issue relates to the issue of the passage of time and the growth of the kingdom. Both parables assume a passage of time between the beginning and the end. Though Snodgrass admits that “resistance to the idea of growth is understandable in light of the evolutionary ideas of the past, especially when the growth of the kingdom was associated with the growth of the church,” he also rightly points out that such protests “do not derive from the text but are driven by the history of interpretation and theological concerns.”160 Q, in these parables, does conceive of the kingdom a parable with a mustard seed one cannot end it with a tree, much less the great apocalyptic tree, unless, of course, one plans to lampoon rather rudely the whole apocalyptic tradition” (In Parables, 48). Why must the use of the unexpected “lampoon” rather than simply be an intentional mixing of metaphors in order to utilize the unexpected as a strategy for making a point? As Allison puts it, “Allusion to the passages in Ezekiel and Daniel may be a way of surprising hearers, who do not expect a parable about a mustard seed to end with words traditionally associated with cedars” (Intertextual Jesus, 136). 155. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant?,” 530. 156.  Cf. Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel:  The Book of Q & Christian Origins (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 123–7. 157. Arnal, “Gendered Couplets,” 84. 158.  Levine states:  “Yeast is not impure or ‘unclean’; neither is mustard seed” (Short Stories, 116). 159. Kirk, Composition, 303. 160. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 226.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

325

growing—hidden (leaven in dough) and also out of unexpected things in unexpected ways (the eschatological tree out of a mustard seed)—and becoming in the end something that it is “already” but “not yet” at the present.161 At the same time, this fact does not mean that these parables necessarily deal with the delay of the parousia.162 There is no reference to the length of time that will pass, whether short or long, but simply that the beginning and the end are not simultaneous and that a transformation takes place from something small and insignificant to something large and significant.163 A second point concerning these two parables in Q is the use of a gendered couplet. As briefly mentioned in considering the parables’ human characters, the gendered couplet first presents “the example of a man scattering seeds, and second the example of a woman baking bread.”164 Though it was already seen above that this couplet has sometimes been linked with reflections involving the activity of God being illustrated by both masculine and feminine imagery,165 Arnal appears to be right in observing that “in spite of mentioning a ‘human’ agent, what Q really appears to regard as interesting and critical to its argument is the ordinary fact of growth, and not the agency by which it is promoted.”166 Thus, though it is worth noting that the imagery to describe growth is drawn from the realms and worlds of both males and females, the gender of these agents is not the focus of the accounts and, as Arnal concludes, there seems to be no real basis for seeing a figuration of God here in feminine terms.167 As was the case in Q 17:34-35, Q here places “value on both the woman’s and

161.  Cf. also Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 210: “although the final stage of the process leading to the fully established eschatological Kingdom of God lies in the future, it is also already present” and the comments in Stefan Schreiber, “Apokalyptische Variationen über ein Leben nach dem Tod: Zu einem Aspekt der Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu,” in Lebendiger Hoffnung – Ewiger Tod?!: Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum (ed. Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang; ABIG 24; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 143–4. 162. Contra the confident assertion of Harry Fleddermann: “There can be no doubt that Q reckoned with the delay of the parousia . . . The Mustard Seed and the Leaven assign a reason for the delay on a cosmic level. The delay allows the tiny, hidden kingdom to grow and permeate the whole world” (“The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas,” SBLSP 28 [1989]: 233). Also disagreeing with such interpretations is Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 226: “I see no basis for such a conclusion.” 163.  Meurer states that in these parables Jesus brings “den Gedanken einer punktuell beginnenden, sich kontinuierlich fortsetzenden und sich schließlich universell verwirklichenden Transformation der bestehenden Welt zum Herrschaftsbereich Gottes auf metaphorische Weise zum Ausdruck” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 642). 164. Arnal, “Gendered Couplets in Q,” 82. 165.  On the feminine imagery in particular, cf., e.g., Schottroff, Lydias ungeduldige Schwestern, 130–1; and eadem, “Itinerant Prophetesses,” 351, 353. 166. Arnal, “Gendered Couples in Q,” 83. 167. Ibid. So also Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 210.

326

The Parables in Q

the man’s activity,”168 a point that remains significant in regard to the activity, a point emphasized at the conclusion of this section, even if not resulting in profound shifts in theological paradigms concerning gender. A third and final point concerning the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven is that they are part of a larger argumentative strategy in Q. Even if the precise location of these parables in Q remains hidden, it is clear that within the world of Q, questions arise concerning Jesus and his ministry (cf. Q 7:18-19, 22-23). As such, these parables are part of the answer to doubts of Jesus’s proclamation and the presence of the kingdom (Q 11:20) and possibly unfulfilled expectations.169 “Eschatology commences not with a bang but with something unspectacular.”170 There is a sense in which one focus of these parables “is on the organic unity between Jesus’ present ministry in Israel and the coming kingdom of God. The end, the end that everyone knows and longs for, is already in the beginning, the beginning inaugurated by Jesus and now at work.”171 And yet, as has already been adumbrated at numerous points above, it is not only the kingdom work of Jesus that can be found in these parables. In the discussions of both the male and female characters as Symbol, the question was raised concerning the extent to which the reader or hearer of this parable could be drawn into the world of the parable on the level of this character. Though the thematic component of this figure, if considered at all, is most often connected, as just mentioned, to the activity of Jesus in inaugurating the kingdom or a divine act in initiating the kingdom,172 there may also be space here for an appeal to the addressee. Considering that we have already seen Jesus’s involvement in the harvest (Q 3:17) not preclude Q admonishing petition for additional workers for the harvest to be sent (Q 10:2), it becomes clear that simply because Jesus is involved in a work does not mean that a community cannot be involved in the same work. Is it possible that since there is a time of growth and development of the kingdom in both parables, that addressees might consider the ways in which their own “kingdom seed” or “kingdom leaven” could be sown or hidden in their own life or in the world around them?173 This is meant, not in the nineteenth-century sense of seeing the growth

168. Batten, “More Queries for Q,” 48. Levine is also, at least in part, thinking along these lines in her statement, “Both images are of domestic concerns . . . The kingdom of heaven is found in what today we might call ‘our own backyard’ in the generosity of nature and in the daily working of men and women” (Short Stories, 167). 169. Similarly, Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 234. 170. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:421. 171. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 225. Also referring to an “organic unity” are Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:416. 172. Cf., e.g., Carter’s comment cited above (n. 31). 173.  Though not connecting the appeal to the character in the parable of the mustard seed, Zeller here saw encouragement for those proclaiming Jesus’s message:  “In der

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

327

of the kingdom as the maturation of faith or ethical growth of the individual, but rather as a concrete contribution to the presence of the kingdom on earth. As they preach that the kingdom of God has drawn near (Q 10:9), they are also involved in the process of it drawing near.174 Interestingly, such an action would again be one requiring dependence upon God,175 and would not be dissimilar to the sentiment expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 3:6. In this manner, perhaps the parables present analogies not simply to be observed and understood but to be embraced and put into practice, especially as encouragement for persevering in a “mission” confronting resistance (cf. Q 10:10-11).176

9.3 Parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself (Q 11:17-18) Mt. 12:25-26

Lk. 11:17-18a

25 εἰδὼς δὲ τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·

17 αὐτὸς δὲ εἰδὼς αὐτῶν τὰ διανοήματα εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·

πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται καὶ πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται.

πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει.

26

18

καὶ εἰ ὁ σατανᾶς τὸν σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη· πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ;

εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν διεμερίσθη, πῶς σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ;

Gewißheit, daß Gott schließlich seine Herrschaft wunderbar auf der ganzen Erde offenbaren wird, trieben die Boten Jesu Mission” (Kommentar, 82). 174.  Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 70: “Nach der Instruktionsrede ist der Jünger ‘Arbeiter’ in der endzeitlichen Ernte Gottes, er vermittelt den endzeitlichen Friedensgruß und proklamiert die Nähe des Reiches durch Tat und Wort.” 175. Cf. the discussion of the petition in Q 10:2 in Chapter 8, Section 8.6. 176.  Cf. also n.  35 above. Initial thoughts in this direction are also found in Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 191. With a slightly different emphasis and assuming that these parables immediately followed Q 12:58-59, Labahn states that the admonition to come to terms with your adversary in that parable “schärfen die Gottesreichgleichnisse gegenüber den Nachfolgewilligen die Konzentration auf die verantwortliche Haltung gerade angesichts des sich durchsetzenden Reiches ein” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 269). On the reassuring element in the parable, cf. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 421.

328

The Parables in Q

As was the case with the first parable considered in this chapter, the parable of the kingdom divided against itself is a Mark/Q overlap text.177 Interestingly, though Matthew and Luke, likely following Q, do not introduce the passage as a παραβολή, Mark does:  καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ἐν παραβολαῖς ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς (Mk 3:23). Nevertheless, the version in Q is also a parable.178 Despite a few differences between Matthew and Luke,179 there is also substantial verbatim agreement along with significant overlap in the images and structure of the parable.180 Though some of these differences are mentioned in notes below, one more significant issue is at

177.  For an accessible, summary overview of the approach of various solutions to the Synoptic Problem in regard to the larger Beelzebul pericope, cf. Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits, 179–85, entitled “Appendix 2:  Source Analysis of the Beelzebul Pericope.” Wahlen concludes that the approach of the two-document solution is most persuasive. An analysis of the pericope invoking Deuteromarkus can be found in Albert Fuchs, Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtli che und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach Jesus (SNTSU 5; Linz:  Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1980), though his view has not persuaded many. An analysis of the passages arguing that Mark used Q, again not persuading many, is found in Fleddermann, “Mark’s Use of Q,” 18–27. 178.  Fleddermann simply refers to the “metaphor of a kingdom facing civil war” (Q: Reconstruction, 505). Following Bultmann (Geschichte, 10), Lührmann, Redaktion, 33; Wiefel, Matthäus, 237; and Zeller, Kommentar, 60, call it a “Bildwort” and Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 174–9, discusses the passage under the heading “Bildworte in Mk 2 und 3.” Joel Marcus, “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; 2 vols; NTTS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 247, in my view, rightly speaks of “the Parable of the Divided Kingdom in Mark 3:23–26 = Q 11:17–18.” With reference to an example in Quintilian, Inst. 6.3.63, Michael L. Humphries considers Jesus’s response as the reply in a double chreia, i.e., “two sayings by different characters, with the second often given in the form of a retort against the first” (Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999], 29). Kloppenborg notes that “Mark treats Jesus’ response as parabolic speech” but that “Q takes an entirely different tack, stating that the response was provoked by supernatural knowledge of the thoughts of the opponents” (Formation, 121–2). Though Q does refer to supernatural knowledge, this does not mean that the response is not parabolic speech and so the tack may not be quite as starkly different as Kloppenborg implies. 179. In addition to minor differences such as the use of different prepositions (κατά/ἐπί) or verbs (μερίζω/διαμερίζω), there are also other variants such as Matthew presenting a further image (πόλις) or more expansive statement (including τὸν σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει). Though such issues present challenges for the reconstruction of Q’s wording, they do not alter the basic contours and content of the parable. 180.  Nevertheless, I  am not as confident as Schulz, Q, 204:  “Die Feststellung der ursprünglichen Q-Vorlage ist nicht besonders schwierig.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

329

stake when considering the structure of the imagery. In Mt. 12:25, the statement καὶ πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται is posited for Q by the CEQ and clearly sets up a parallel to the initial observation about a βασιλεία. The question, however, is whether Lk. 11:17, with its καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει, posited for Q by Fleddermann,181 does the same, for the phrase, as Marshall rightly observed, “is not clear.”182 Though many, but certainly not all, Bible translations opt for a translation assuming a parallel structure many commentators see Luke not presenting a parallel.183 Representative is Bovon:  “Anstelle des semitischen Parallelismus, der die ausgesprochene Wahrheit wiederholt, zieht es Lukas vor, das Bild zu erweitern:  die Ruinen der Häuser illustrieren die Verwüstung des Reichs.”184 The fundamentally important point to bear in mind, however, and a point that can easily be lost in the debate concerning the interpretation of the Lukan phrase or the precise reading in Q, is that even if Luke does not have a parallel construction, and even if this was the reading of Q, the intertextual point remains that Q contained an image portraying the collapse of a societal institution due to division.185 For this reason, the following analysis proceeds with a focus on this singular image along with the recognition that a parallel structure could have been, but was not necessarily, present in Q.

181. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 481. 182. Marshall, Luke, 474. 183.  English Bible translations presenting a parallel structure are the American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, Darby Bible, English Revised Version, English Standard Version, King James Version, New American Standard Version, NET Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, and Revised Standard Version. Seeing the houses collapsing as a result of the division of the kingdom are the Complete Jewish Bible, New American Bible, and, notably, New Revised Standard Version. The French Louis Segond, along with the German Luther translation and Einheitsübersetzung all do not present a parallel structure. The German Elberfelber and Schlatter translations, however, do reflect a parallel. 184.  Bovon, Lukas, 172–3. Though cf. n. 47 on the same pages, where Bovon admits, “Man könnte denselben Parallelismus auch bei Lukas erblicken.” Cf. also Grundmann, Lukas, 238:  “Ein Reich, das in inneren Widerstreit gefallen ist, zerfällt und endet in Verwüstung und Zerstörung; die Markus-Parallele von Reich und Haus-Familie ist hier nicht vorhanden; Lukas spricht noch vom Zusammensturz der Häuser, wie es in einem Bürgerkrieg geschieht” or Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese, 176: “Lk hat den übertragenen Sinn von οἰκία = Familie nicht wahrgenommen und das Zusammenstürzen von Gebäuden als passende Illustration für die Verwüstung eines Reiches angesehen.” Similarly, Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 128–9; and Plummer, Luke, 301–302. Marshall refers to this view as giving “the best sense grammatically” (Luke, 474), with Zahn, Lukas, 459n39, contending that the phrase can only be understood in this way. 185. Similarly, in Plummer’s observation that “Lk. gives one example, a divided kingdom; Mk. two, kingdom and house; Mt. three, kingdom, city, and house” (Luke, 302) the difference is in the number of examples, not in their nature.

330

The Parables in Q

9.3.1 Plot Analysis Regardless of the precise reading and structure of the parable in Q, the plot does not develop linearly. Potentially parallel elements and the use of a rhetorical question in the application move a significant amount of the narrative progression to the mind of the hearer or reader. If the imagery is to be understood as parallel, the first statement presents a kingdom in the initial situation, a complication of it being divided, with a resulting final situation of that kingdom being laid desolate. The second statement would then have an initial situation of a house,186 a complication of that house being divided,187 and the resulting collapse of that house.188 If the structure in Q was not parallel, or not intended to be understood as parallel, the initial situation still presents a kingdom, the complication remains the division, and the final situation is still a kingdom laid desolate, though with the added imagery of houses also falling due to the downfall of the kingdom. Significantly, what is either a parallel scenario or one scenario with two images of the resultant desolation is then used to create a new initial situation involving Satan. Either structure still allows the application question posed on the heels of the parable, namely, if Satan faces the complication of being divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?189 The question assumes that the reader or hearer would respond that if Satan were acting to so divide his kingdom it, in fact, could not stand. This answer thus results in a denouement in regard to the context in Q by setting forth that Satan would not be acting to divide his own kingdom, which, on the basis of the imagery of the parable, is to say that Satan would not be acting in such a way as to lead to his own downfall. This context in Q is discussed and explained further below. 9.3.2 Characters This parable is somewhat unique in Q in that though the application has a clearly identified character (Satan) there is a sense in which it could be argued that it does not contain an explicit character.190 It is, of course, possible to view the βασιλεία

186.  Matthew (12:25) also includes a reference to a πόλις here. Wiefel contends, “Stadt ist von Matthäus hinzugefügt, so daß eine Abstufung entsteht:  βασιλεία – πόλις – οἰκία” (Matthäus, 236). 187. On this view, Matthew repeats the verb whereas Luke does not even as he intends to reuse the “division.” 188. The image here reflects the same reality, though Mt. 12:25 expresses it as the house οὐ σταθήσεται and Lk. 11:17 as the house πίπτει. 189. Assuming a parallel structure, Humphries presents the passage as comprising two parts: “a parallelismus membrorum (v. 17) and a conclusio (v. 18a)” (Christian Origins, 30). On the “logic” of this argument, cf. the discussion below Section 9.3.4, “The Parable in Q.” 190. Since “Satan” is not a character in the parable proper, this figure is not considered further here. A few remarks are made below in Section 9.3.4, “The Parable in Q.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

331

or the οἰκία/οἶκος as personified and thus envision the kingdom as an individual at odds with her- or himself, though this seems unlikely. Rather, it appears that in using the βασιλεία term, the parable envisions the people comprising the kingdom. Similarly, if the οἰκία/οἶκος image is set in parallel to the kingdom, it would be the members of a household who are in view. Thus, the fiktives Wesen here is the implicitly invoked individuals making up the βασιλεία, or the οἰκία/οἶκος, as the case may be. The synthetic component of this character is thus constructed simply by the introduction of the institution. The mimetic component is described through the activity of being divided, or, more precisely, the consideration of the ensuing state of affairs when such an institution is divided. The clearly negative image involved in ἐρημόω, utilized by both Matthew and Luke and discussed further below, highlights the strongly negative nature of the division.191 9.3.3 Images Though it is evident that in the broader context of the parable conceptions of the “kingdom of God” or the “kingdom of Satan” are in view,192 the parable itself has “every” (πᾶσα) kingdom in view. Thus, it is clearly invoking earthly kingdoms in order to ultimately make a point about kingdoms bearing more overt theological import.193 Examples of such kingdoms being divided and adversely affected can be found in the announcement to Solomon that after him the kingdom will be divided (1 Kgs 11:9-13). There is also reference to a divided kingdom in Dan. 2:41-43 and 11:4. With a view toward events at least roughly proximate with the composition of Q, Gerd Theißen contended, “Wenn Jesus . . . im Beelzebubgespräch sagt, daß ein in sich gespaltenes ‘Reich’ keinen Bestand habe, so haben die Leser wahrscheinlich an das 68/69 n.Chr. von Bürgerkriegen zerrissene Römische Reich gedacht.”194 Even if one posits Q as having been composed prior to this, there is no lack of examples of the destructive power of civil war or the results of an empire

191.  Bovon asks, “Gibt es in der Antike Parallelen zu dieser Formulierung?” and responds, “Man denkt unwillkürlich an die bekannte politische Devise divide et impera” (Lukas, 2:172n46). 192. Concerning the latter concept, note also T. Dan. 6:1, which admonishes the reader to be on guard against Satan and continues in 6:4 to state that the angel who intercedes for you will stand in opposition to the βασιλεία τοῦ ἐχθροῦ. 193. For this reason, it is not quite right for Bazzana to state that “Q 11 is the only section of the Sayings Gospel in which the notion of βασιλεία is introduced with negative connotations since Q 11,18 refers to a ‘βασιλεία of Satan’ directly in opposition to the ‘βασιλεία of God’ ” (Kingdom of Bureaucracy, 208). The βασιλεία is actually introduced neutrally in the parable. 194.  Gerd Theißen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien:  Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (2d. ed.; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 273.

332

The Parables in Q

divided. One must look no further than the division of Herod the Great’s kingdom after his death ca. 4 BCE.195 In addition, both Matthew and Luke refer to the kingdom ἐρημοῦται. Though the idea of “ruin” is not absent from the word, as seen, for example, in its use in the description of the destruction of the “great city” in Rev. 18:16-18, the concept of “desolation” is strongly present. In 1 Macc. 2:12, for instance, the Temple ἠρημώθη and the Gentiles have profaned it (cf. also 1 Macc. 1:39; 4:38) and T. Levi 15:1 uses the term to speak of the temple of the Lord being desolate because of the uncleanness of the people. In 1 Macc. 15:4 the reference is to many cities in the kingdom have been made desolate and Philo, Decal. 152 (chapter 28) notes the manner in which evil that springs from “desire” (ἐπιθυμία) causes people to become estranged and is the reason why “great and populous countries are desolated by internal factions” (LCL, Colson; χῶραι . . . μεγάλαι καὶ πολυάνθρωποι στάσεσιν ἐμφυλίοις ἐρη μοῦνται).196 It should not be overlooked that there is also a definite spatial dimension present in the parable’s image. Though at the moment I have primarily the kingdom in view and Martin G. Ruf comments concerning both a “kingdom” and a “house,” he rightly notes that both of these images are “nicht nur Bezeichnungen für eine soziale Struktur, sondern auch für eine räumlich-geographische Größe.”197 Empires and houses, along with the individuals living in them, occupy a certain space. This inhabited space is then made desolate through a destruction that is also spatially conceived. As Schröter has noted, “durch die Verwendung des ἐρημοῦσθαι [tritt] die Metaphorik des Bürgerkrieges in den Vordergrund, in dem ein in sich zerstrittenes Reich bzw. Haus verwüstet wird.”198 The second image to consider here is that of the οἰκία/οἶκος. Of course, it must be admitted that the image functions somewhat differently based on whether a parallel construction is present or not. If no parallel structure was used, then the οἰκία/οἶκος is simply the physical structure that falls due to the dissolution, abandonment, and desolation of a kingdom. It would thus form a subset of the βασιλεία that is negatively affected by the division that tears the kingdom apart. However, if it is a parallel image to the kingdom, then the οἰκία/οἶκος takes on connotations of much more than a physical structure; it becomes a household. As Moxnes observes, “It is not the family as an ‘emotional unit’ that we encounter in the Gospel descriptions of households in Galilee, but rather as a group that lives

195. Cf. also the comment by Martin G. Ruf: “[Es] möge Jesus und den ersten Tradentinnen und Tradenten noch die Wirren um die Thronstreitigkeiten nach dem Tode Herodes’ des Großen (4 v.Chr.) gegenwärtig gewesen sein” (“Zoff bei Beelzebuls [Beelzebulgleichnis] Mk 3,22-26 [Q 11,14-20 / Mt 12,22-28 / Lk 11,14-20],” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu [ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.], 281). In general, Luz observes, “Erfahrungen, z.B. in Bürgerkriegen, bestätigen dies [the inability of a city to stand when divided] und sind auch vielfach ausgedrückt worden” (Matthäus, 2:259). 196. The Greek text is that of the Loeb edition. 197. Ruf, “Zoff bei Beelzebuls,” 281. 198. Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 255.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

333

and works together within the context of socio-economic inter-relations.”199 Further thoughts along these lines are found in Santiago Guijarro’s work pointing out how, “in the traditional Mediterranean culture, the family was the basic reference of the individual, and the channel through which he or she was inserted into social life.”200 Here Guijarro identifies four different family types in the Galilee of the first century: a small percentage of large families (living in palaces or mansions), a more significant group belonging to multiple families (living in courtyard houses), nucleated families (living in single room houses), and scattered families (homeless).201 Ruf has pointed out how, on the one hand, the literal “division” of a family with an attendant division of land and possessions, would be bound up with a loss of status, and, on the other hand, the “division” of a family that could no longer work together would lead to the inability to secure income and threaten its ability to continue to subsist.202 In any case, it is abundantly clear that for one or both images “common experience affirms that their stability depends upon inner unity.”203 9.3.4 The Parable in Q Differently than in Mark, both Matthew and Luke present this parable as one of three responses to the accusation that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the other two being found in vv. 19 and 20.204 Thus, the exchange is introduced through the reference to an exorcism,205 and Fleddermann rightly

199.  Halvor Moxnes, “What Is Family?:  Problems in Constructing Early Christian Families,” in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London: Routledge, 1997), 23. 200. Guijarro, “The Family,” 62. Cf. also Scott’s comments: “In the ancient Mediterranean world everyone had a social map that defined the individual’s place in the world. It told people who they were, who they were related to, how to react, and how to behave. At the center of that map was the family, especially the father; then came the village; finally came the city and beyond, to the ends of the world. This social map furnishes a metaphorical system for the kingdom of God” (Hear Then the Parable, 79). 201. Cf. Guijarro, “The Family,” 57–61, and especially the helpful table on p. 58. 202. Cf. Ruf, “Zoff bei Beelzebuls,” 281. 203. Humphries, Christian Origins, 30. 204. Cf. the discussion in Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 504; and Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 252–3. Similarly Kloppenborg, Formation, 49. For discussion of suggested compositional histories for the verses, cf. ibid., 122–4. The issue of Jewish exorcists in Q 11:19 is not discussed further here. For brief comments, cf. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 106–108. Cf. also the comment in n. 226 below and Chapter 8, Section 8.4.4 where Q 11:19 is considered in relation to Q 11:24-26. 205. Cf. also the observation of Stephen Hultgren: “Within a narrower narrative context . . . there does appear to be a common framework. In both Matthew (12.22–24) and Luke (11.14–15) the Beelzebul Controversy proper (that is, the sayings material) is immediately preceded by a short account of an exorcism” (Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A

334

The Parables in Q

notes that this reference not only provides the occasion for the ensuing dispute, it also “already engages the theme of the following controversy.”206 As such, the parable finds itself within the orb of one of two miracle stories in Q, the other being in Q 7:1-10.207 Regardless of whether one agrees with Kloppenborg’s stratigraphic model or the precise details of how Q came to have its final form or not, he is correct in noting how the miracle account provides “narrative framing” for Jesus’s rebuttals here.208 In addition, the charge leveled against Jesus that he is casting out demons by “Beelzebul,”209 demonstrates that he is being opposed, at least by some.210 His opponents assert that Jesus’s “exorcisms are evil and he is evil,” which is also “a matter of being marked as an outsider: Jesus and his followers do not belong.”211 Of course, Q’s audience knows, on the basis of the temptation account, that Jesus has already resisted and “defeated” Satan, and yet the figure appears again here, ultimately in order that something can be said about the kingdom of God.212 The parable itself is part of Jesus’s argument in which “die Rhetorik der Argumentation . . . darauf angelegt [ist], von der Legitimität der Exorzismen Jesu zu überzeugen, indem das Argument der Gegner ad absurdum geführt wird.”213 Precisely how this argument works, however, is sometimes questioned. In particular, weaknesses in the logic of the argumentation in the application of the parable

Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative [BZNW 113; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002], 249). 206. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 504. 207. Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 66. 208. Cf. ibid., 160. 209. Commentaries often note the challenges surrounding the origin of this name, highlighting its lack of attestation elsewhere. For our purposes here it is enough to note that in this passage, “the equivalence of Satan and Beelzebul is taken for granted” (Marshall, Luke, 474). For brief comments and literature dealing with “Beelzebul,” cf. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 406–407, 406n561. 210.  Fleddermann has written, “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Demand for a Sign [Q 11:16] define the adversaries by having them attack Jesus’ ministry and demand from him a sign. Both the attack and the demand dramatize the main characteristic of the adversaries—their unbelief ” (Q: Reconstruction, 500–501). 211.  Humphries, Christian Origins, 29. Cf. also the comments by Tuckett, “Jesus’ cause is opposed: after performing an exorcism he is charged with using demonic power” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 289). 212. Cf. the observation by Labahn: “Der Teufel spielt im Dokument Q schon aufgrund seiner Stellung in der Schrift eine wichtige Rolle. Ähnlich wie der Täufer wird er an zwei Stellen im Dokument erwähnt” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 405). With a view toward Satan’s first appearance in Q, Labahn continues, “Ist der Täufer der Wegbereiter Jesu, so stellt der Teufel eine Folie dar, vor der sich Jesus bewährt und seine grundlegende Charakterisierung als Gottessohn erhält.” 213. Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte, 255.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

335

in Q 11:18a are sometimes pointed out. For instance, Joel Marcus contends that the argument sets forth (1) that if Jesus casts out demons by means of Beelzebul, then Satan’s kingdom has become divided; and (2) a divided Satanic kingdom means that it has been laid waste. This then supposedly necessarily requires (3) but Satan’s kingdom has not been laid waste, in order to be able to arrive at (4) Satan’s kingdom has not become divided and (5) Jesus thus does not cast out demons by means of Beelzebul. According to Marcus, however, step (3) in the argument conflicts with Q 11:20 and Q 11:21-22, a tension that he argues needs somehow to be resolved.214 I am not sure, however, that the argument in the parable operates according to this syllogism, or indeed any tightly structured syllogism.215 Though Marcus insists that in a situation of conflict as depicted here “it is important not only to assert one’s conclusion, but also to demonstrate it,” as far as I can tell, he does not deal with the problem that Jesus did not, in fact, demonstrate the very first contention in the argument.216 Somewhat

214.  Cf. Marcus, “The Beelzebul Controversy,” 248–51. Since the interest here is in Marcus’s suggestion of how the argument functions, the precise solution he suggests need not concern us further in detail at this point and can simply be presented in the words of Marcus’s own summary: “In the present case, I believe I have shown that certain parts of the Beelzebul controversy reflect an early stage in Jesus’ ministry, in which he had not yet become convinced that Satan had fallen from heaven. Rather, he was still sure, and could treat it as a self-evident fact, that Satan was enthroned in a position of cosmic lordship. Later, however, after his baptism, he became convinced of Satan’s deposition from power, and saw his own exorcisms as evidence for the progressing overthrow of the Satanic regime” (“The Beelzebul Controversy,” 274). If the argument is functioning differently than posited by Marcus, however, his “solution” may be unnecessary. 215.  Cf. also Laufen’s brief discussion in Doppelüberlieferungen, 136–7, and comment, “Nicht ob die Widerlegung der Anschuldigung Menschen des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts überzeugt, ist entscheidend, sondern daß die Antwort Jesu von seinen Zeitgenossen als überzeugend akzeptiert werden konnte, wie die Aufbewahrung des Wortes durch seine Anhänger beweist” (ibid., 137). 216.  A different issue is brought up by Humphries:  “while Jesus’ retort appears to respond to the accusation, it does not address the intent of the accusation directly. There is nothing contained in the twin images of a divided kingdom and house that counters the implicit charge of deviance. On the contrary, the retort targets the surface of the accusation, not its intent, and thereby simply attacks its logic . . . To be sure, this is a clever piece of sophistry, not unlike the skillful way with words we find in the numerous Cynic chreai” (Christian Origins, 30–1). Here, however, I am not sure if the logic of the accusation does not also address the substance of the accusation. In other words, if it is absurd that Jesus is casting out demons by demonic power, this would seem to be an attempt clearly to disassociate Jesus from the demonic and thus from deviance. Kloppenborg points to the parable as evidence of “a christological agenda” being “far less prominent in Q” for “the implicit christological question raised in the challenge of Q 11:15, ‘it is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons,’ is not answered directly by a christological claim, but indirectly, by a reductio ad absurdum (11:17–19)” (Excavating Q, 391). It may well be

336

The Parables in Q

ironically, Marcus’s statement just cited is made in reply to Klauck’s assertion that the details in the argument should not be pressed, and it is precisely this weakness in the first assertion that Klauck highlights.217 In addition, Marcus’s assertion that Jesus’s response with a reductio ad absurdum, “which concludes with a conditional sentence implying that, if the opponents’ charge were true, Satan’s kingdom would have fallen” is not necessarily the case.218 It seems to me that the point is not that the kingdom would have to have fallen for the opponents’ charge to hold, but rather that if the opponents’ charge were true, then Satan would be acting in a self-destructive manner in that he himself would be bringing about the downfall of his kingdom.219 Such an activity would be absurd.220 It is not therefore, that the opponents are refuted through the power of Satan’s kingdom still being intact,221 but simply on the basis of the absurd true that a christological agenda is less prominent in Q; however, it is not clear that a subtle argument instead of a direct one necessarily provides insight into a supposed agenda or lack thereof. 217.  Cf. Klauck’s comment, “Ob [der Widersacher] durch solche Tricks [a “Kriegslist” by Satan to blind the masses], wie Jesu Gegner sie ihm unterstellen, seiner Sache wirklich schadet, ist durch das Bildwort nicht erwiesen” (Allegorie und Allegorese, 178). 218. Marcus, “The Beelzebul Controversy,” 259. 219. A similar thought is expressed in the succinct comment of Edward J. Woods: “Satan would not embark upon a course of self-destruction. That would be self-defeating” (The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke–Acts [JSNTSup 205; Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 2001], 143). Cf. also Zahn, Matthäus, 457. 220. Marcus addresses this view in his article, noting the manner in which it is presented by, e.g., Anderson, Barrett, Davies and Allison, Juel, Pesch, and Robbins (cf. “The Beelzebul Controversy,” 254, 256, and the literature cited in 254–55n23 and 256nn26, 27, 29, 30). I do not find Marcus’s attempts to refute this position persuasive. On the one hand, he states that “if the force of Jesus’ argument were that Satan’s kingdom was being exploded rather than imploded [in Mark 3:23–26 = Q 11:17–18], how well would it serve that argument for him to mention that divided kingdoms end up being devastated? Surely invaded kingdoms do too!” (“The Beelzebul Controversy,” 255). This seems to miss the point that it is not the question of whether a kingdom is being devastated that is at issue, but the manner in which it becomes devastated. Again, the point would then be, why would Beelzebul act in such a manner as to divide his kingdom? On the other hand, his refutation of the “Satanic intentionality” interpretation based on grammar in that if “Satan’s presumed cogitations” are in view, one would expect ἐάν + subjunctive or εἰ + future indicative” instead of εἰ + aorist indicative misses the point that the reference is not to Satan’s contemplation of the situation, but to the situation as presented by the opponents, behind which one would have to presume irrationality by Satan. The argument rests on the absurdity of the position that Satan himself would be acting in order to bring about the downfall of his own kingdom. As Labahn puts it, this contradicts “die Logik eines Reiches” (Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 407). 221. Contra Bovon, who apparently sees the refutation on the basis of the reality, “Leider aber ist das Reich des Bösen alles andere als geteilt und steht noch, ohne zu wanken” (Lukas, 2:174).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Kingdom (of God)” Parables

337

nature of such an activity being posited. In any case, and regardless of precisely how one sees the conclusion to the parable functioning, it is clear that, on the one hand, the parable is providing the imagery to refute the characterization of Jesus’s activity being in league with the “kingdom of Satan” and, on the other hand, sets the stage for the overt association of Jesus’s activity with the “kingdom of God.” In commenting on these verses, Kirk points out that “verses 17–19, while exposing the accusation as false, leave the correct answer hanging in the air, and thus require the positive counter-assertion of 11:20.”222 The climax of these verses is thus found in Q 11:20 with the statement that if Jesus is actually casting out demons by the finger (Luke)/spirit (Matthew) of God,223 then far from being a manifestation of Satan or his kingdom, it is actually an attestation of the kingdom of God having come.224 Q uses Jesus’s speaking of this parable as part of the argument that God’s kingdom is present in his activity.225 Though the coming of the kingdom in the exorcistic activity of Jesus is the primary emphasis here,226 this parable and its context also contain thematic 222. Kirk, Composition, 188. 223.  Though often the Lukan reading is posited for Q, arguments have also been made against the Lukan reading as being that of Q. Cf., e.g., C. S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” ExpTim 72 (1961):  157–8; or James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London:  SCM Press, 1975), 45–6. Twelftree went one step further in stating that “there is good reason for taking ‘Spirit’ as the original in Q” even while pointing out that “in any case, the meanings of the variants are similar” (Jesus the Exorcist, 108). For an overview of the positions and those advocating them, cf. Woods, The “Finger of God.” Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly argued “that the variation in words is of very little consequence and cannot be taken to reflect the theological emphases of either [evangelist]” (“A Note on Matthew XII.28 Par. Luke XI.20,” NTS 11 [1964–1965]: 167–9). Similarly, Davies and Allison, after briefly surveying scholarly opinion on which wording represents Q and stating that they believe Q probably read “finger,” they nevertheless state, “The conclusion, however, is really academic, for the OT equates ‘finger of God’ with ‘hand of God’ and ‘Spirit of God’ ” (Matthew, 2:340). 224.  Cf. also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 506. Bazzana rightly notes, “The Greek verb φθάνω does not take the classical meaning of ‘anticipating’ or ‘acting first’, but rather the nuance of ‘reaching’ or ‘achieving’ more common in the later period of Koine Greek” (Kingdom of Bureaucracy, 208). 225.  Cf. also Hoffmann’s comment, “In der sogenannten Beelzebulperikope . . . interpretiert Jesus seine Dämonenaustreibungen nach Q als Erweis der Gegenwart der Basileia: ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Lk 11,20/Mt 12,28)” (Studien, 37). 226.  Cf. also Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 148n30: “the saying in Q 11:20 clearly associates the presence of the ‘kingdom’ with Jesus’ exorcistic activity.” Tuckett makes this remark in the context of arguing against a “Cynic conception” of the kingdom in Q. Cf. also ibid., 210: “Q 11:20 asserts that, in some respects at least, the eschatological Kingdom of God is present in Jesus’ exorcistic activity.” In addition, this assertion is also juxtaposed to the Jewish exorcists mentioned in Q 11:19. Cf. the observation by Jens Schröter, “in 11.14–20 an exorcism is the cause of a dispute over the origin of Jesus’ power, which culminates in the statement that the decisive difference between Jesus’ exorcisms and those of other Jewish exorcists consists in the fact that the activity of Jesus signifies

338

The Parables in Q

points of contact with the parable of the return of the unclean spirit discussed in the previous chapter. The kingdom of God having come and its manifestation in the performing of exorcisms requires discipleship as a response.227

the appearance of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (‘Kingdom of God’)” (“The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q,” in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records [ed. Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt; JSNTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001], 49). 227.  Cf. the discussion in Chapter  8, Section 8.4, Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24-26).

Chapter 10 T H E Q P A R A B L E S O F J E SU S :  “ C OM M U N I T Y ” P A R A B L E S

In the final group of parables discussed in this monograph, I have brought together parables highlighting the conduct of individuals toward each other or, in the final parable, toward “sheep.” The designation “community” parables is thus intended to focus upon the manner in which these parables reflect upon the behavior of those found within the Q group, both toward other community members and toward “outsiders.”1 As has been seen repeatedly with the other heuristic groupings of parables undertaken in this work, this grouping is not intended to imply that only these parables deal with behavior or that only these parables deal with interrelationships. It is simply that interpersonal relationships are particularly present in either the imagery or application of these parables.

10.1 Parable of Settling Out of Court (Q 12:58-59) Mt. 5:25-26

Lk. 12:58-59

ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ,

ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις μετὰ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου σου ἐπ᾽ ἄρχοντα, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ,

μήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ μήποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν, καὶ ὁ κριτής σε παραδώσει καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ πράκτορι, τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ καὶ ὁ πράκτωρ σε βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν. καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ· 26

ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, 59 λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. ἕως καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον λεπτὸν ἀποδῷς.

1. Certain parables here could also be illustrative of Baasland’s statement that they “make people laugh, at least until they see the impact for themselves” (Parables and Rhetoric, 433). Baasland specifically has Mt. 7:3-5 in view.

340

The Parables in Q

In the first parable considered here,2 Matthew and Luke, though presenting the parable in different contexts, have “essential agreement in content, in spite of minor verbal differences.”3 Baasland states, “The identical application is the best argument in favour of a common source, but the narrative also points in this direction,”4 and then rightly concludes: “The parables in Matthew and Luke have a similar structure.”5 George B. Caird went so far as to state that even though “many

2. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 43, made reference to this “little parable” (original: kleines Gleichnis). Bultmann, Geschichte, 185, spoke of “ein aus einem Bildwort entwickeltes Gleichnis.” Kloppenborg, Formation, 169, describes Q 12:57-58 [sic] as “a sapiential admonition.” Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 271, states it is a “gleichnishafte[r] Mahnspruch.” Betz asserts that in the Sermon on the Mount the passage is an “example story” and therefore “not a parable,” highlighting the problem of rigid categories in certain conceptions of parabolic speech (Sermon on the Mount, 227n234; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 183, states precisely the opposite: “it is not an example story”). A similar, in my estimation unhelpful, juxtaposition is made by Jörg Frey when he writes, “It is more appropriate to read the scene not as a parable but as a prudential or sapiential admonition” (“The Character and Background of Matt 5:25–26:  On the Value of Qumran Literature in New Testament Interpretation,” in The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting [ed. Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer; CahRB 60; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Éditeurs, 2005], 21; cf. also Luz, Matthäus, 1:252). Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 657, rightly identifies the passage as a “parable.” 3. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 43. He went on to contend in a note that these differences “are principally determined by the fact that Matthew is thinking of Jewish (ὑπηρέτης) legal procedure, and Luke of Roman (ἄρχων, πράκτωρ)” (ibid., 43n73). This issue is discussed further below in Section 10.1.3, “Images.” 4. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 186. In Did. 1.5, wording similar to the conclusion of this parable (μέχρις οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην) is used to warn those who receive support of the consequences of receiving it if one does not have a need. 5.  Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 186. Despite these comments, Baasland makes a few curious statements. First, he states, “The differences in style and wording show that Matthew and Luke are not simply copying a written tradition” (ibid., 187), but it is not clear to me who has ever asserted that Matthew and Luke are “simply copying.” He goes on to state, “The Q-Sayings were most likely bilingual (Greek and Aramaic) from the very beginning, and one or both of the evangelists are making translations” while apparently criticizing Fleddermann in a footnote for giving “his reconstruction based on the assumption that Q was basically a written source” (ibid., 188 and 188n318). It is also not clear to me, at this point, how Baasland is envisioning Q. For an argument that the two-document hypothesis best explains the parable as found in Matthew and Luke, primarily based on the argument that Luke did not use Matthew, cf. Sarah Rollens, “ ‘Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves What is Right?’: A Consideration of the Synoptic Relationship between Mt 5,25–26 and Lk 12,57-59,” ETL 86 (2010): 443–63. Though Rollens does base some of her argument on the wording of Q, she also presents “one major methodological caveat” namely, that “scholars do not have access to the original wording of Q” (ibid., 462). For this reason, her conclusion, rightly in my opinion, relies more upon a macro-analysis than a word-level analysis: “In

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

341

of the words used in the two versions are different . . . in substance the two versions are identical.”6 Be that as it may, despite an occasional dissenting voice, the parable is generally attributed to Q.7 10.1.1 Plot Analysis Though Matthew and Luke begin the parable in slightly different ways, they agree that the initial situation addresses someone who is ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ with his ἀντίδικος.8 The fact that the initial situation is located within an appeal to resolve the situation with this opponent9 results in the curious situation in the plot that the transforming action to be performed is presented before the details of the complication are offered. It is also interesting to note that there is no indication of how long this “way” is nor of how long the two characters will travel on this “way,” it is simply the time during which a resolution is still possible. The complication is then presented as that which might happen if the transforming action is not performed during the available time,10 namely, you could be handed over to the judge (κριτής), who

sum, when one examines the likelihood that Luke’s version of the settling out of court saying was derived from Matthew’s and pairs that discussion with a rhetorical analysis of the possible original contexts of the passage, it becomes evident that the saying fits best within the context of Q. Not only is it unlikely that Luke redacted Matthew’s version to arrive at his own version, but it also seems unlikely that Matthew’s context is the original locus of the passage” (ibid.). 6.  George B. Caird, “Expounding the Parables: I: The Defendant (Matthew 525f.; Luke 58f. 12 ),” ExpTim 77 (1965): 37. 7. Cf., e.g., Bovon’s comments which recognize “allgemein werden diese Verse Q zugewiesen” (Lukas, 2:348n19), even as he himself posits that “zwei verschiedene Traditionen denkbar sind (für Matthäus Q und für Lukas sein Sondergut)” (ibid., 2:348). A complete rejection of a common, written source is found in Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte, 62. Frey states, “I would like to presuppose that the source [Q] existed,” though immediately adds “possibly in two different versions (QLk and QMt)” (“Character and Background,” 15). 8.  Luke’s ἐπ᾽ ἄρχοντα provides a specific destination for the “travelling companions,” though some such destination is also implied by Matthew. Of course, the two did not simply meet on the road by chance. As Kloppenborg points out, “What Q has in view here is a form of manus iniecto, compelling a defendant to come before a court” (The Tenants in the Vineyard [WUNT 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 345n263). This is particularly clear in the Lukan term “κατασύρω.” 9. Mt. 5:25 expresses this coming to terms as ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ and Lk. 12:58 as δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. εὐνοέω is a hapax legomenon in the NT, and ἀπαλλάσσω is used only here and in Acts 19:12 and Heb. 2:15. 10. Both Matthew and Luke transition to what could happen with the subordinate conjunction μήποτε. For the threat focusing upon the alternative to not performing the transforming action, cf. Charles W. Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fictions:  The Creative Voice of Jesus (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1994), 12.

342

The Parables in Q

would pass you on to the servant (ὑπηρέτης Mt. 5:25) or the officer (πράκτωρ Lk. 12:58) of the court, who, in turn, would throw you into prison.11 Curiously, none of the details of the case that would result in this series of actions is provided. That is to say, there is a gap concerning the “back story” of the parable.12 In any case, acting upon the admonition to perform the transforming action would lead to the denouement of the situation, allowing one to avoid the series of complications that would result in the final situation of being thrown into jail. Concerning this final situation, Jesus, as the parable teller, interjects himself into the narrative (λέγω σοι) with a “metasprachliche Einleitung,”13 indicating that one will not get out from the locale of incarceration until the last quadrans (κοδράντης Mt. 5:26) or small copper coin (λεπτός Lk. 12:59) has been paid. As such, the final situation, which is a final warning, underscores the seriousness and significance of the preceding exhortation to solve the problem before arriving at the court.14 10.1.2 Characters This brief parable has several characters. There is the “second person” character, who is directly addressed throughout the parable; there is the ἀντίδικος; and there are the characters present at court, the κριτής and the ὑπηρέτης/πράκτωρ.

11.  Though Luke begins with a unique detail (μήποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν), both Matthew and Luke utilize the verbs παραδίδωμι and βάλλω, even if they employ them in different positions and forms. 12.  Cf. the comment by Betz, “The narrative is abbreviated in that the first part of the story . . . is omitted” (Sermon on the Mount, 226). 13.  Michael Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung (Der Gang zum Richter) Q 12,58f. (Mt 5,25f. / Lk 12,58f.),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 178. Baasland states that the phrase “functions both inside and outside the parable” (Parables and Rhetoric, 200). Zeller pointed to the phrase as an example of “der synoptische Typ der prophetischen Ansage” (Mahnsprüche, 65) and thus Kloppenborg observes that “the concluding phrase (12:59) is more typical of a prophetic judgment statement” (Formation, 153). For a reflection on the points of contact of this direct address with Quintilian’s concept of brevitas, cf. Rau, Reden in Vollmacht, 80–1. On the use of the phrase in Matthew, cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 216–18. 14.  So also Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 178. Thus, despite Matthew using more temporal expressions (ταχύ, in particular), both Matthew and Luke present a clear element of urgency (cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 187). In fact, Rollens even argues that the context in Luke demonstrates that his focus “must be on the temporal aspect of the saying—settling the situation immediately” (“ ‘Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves?,’ ” 448). At the same time, her contention “especially when compared to Matthew, whose focus is on the priority of reconciliation over sacrifice, Luke’s saying encourages the need for immediate action” (ibid.) seems to have overstated the context and inadequately considered the content of the Matthean version. Matthew’s version is not any less urgent than Luke’s.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

343

Beginning with the second person character, the synthetic component of this character as fiktives Wesen is constructed through the direct placement of the figure in the narrative progression. Right at the outset of the parable, this “you” is placed in the situation of being on the way to court with an adversary. The “you” is then depicted as being at the mercy of the court. And finally, the “you” is locked up in prison, where “you” will remain until the very last cent is paid. Interestingly, the synthetic component highlights that throughout nearly the entire parable, the “you” is being acted upon. In fact, there are only two moments when the “you” is able to act: at the very outset while still on the way or at the conclusion by paying the last cent. Presumably, however, if the means to pay were available to “you,”15 the threat of the court would not be hanging over her or his head. For this reason, the construction of the synthetic component of this character as fiktives Wesen already highlights that the mimetic component is found right at the very outset. The action of being reconciled or coming to an agreement with the opponent lies at the heart of the mimetic component of the “you” character. Payment does not seem to be an option and the description of the process once one lands before the judge reveals that the “you” is at the mercy of an unmerciful court.16 The point at which the transforming action to avoid the court and prison must be undertaken is, as highlighted in the plot analysis, right at the outset of the parable. As such, having arrived at the conclusion of the parable, one realizes that it is at the outset that the mimetic component of the character is developed. When considering this character as a Symbol, Labahn rightly noted that as an anonymous “you,”17 the character creates a direct point of application to the hearer or reader of the parable. In an overt and direct manner, the thematic component is created by the sense of any individual member in the audience of the parable being addressed directly and imagining her- or himself within the narrative account. The second character is described by both Matthew and Luke as being ἀντίδικος σου. Thus, the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is initially constructed in direct relationship to the “you,” both through the second-person possessive pronoun and being placed “with” him on the way. His or her mimetic component as fiktives Wesen is also developed in regard to the “you.” The actions undertaken by the adversary are set against “you”—“you” are being taken to court and “you” will be handed over to the judge. Thus, the adversary presents a clear threat in the parable, and this threat lies at the beginning of the potential complication in the plot that is to be avoided. When turning to this character as Symbol,

15.  The scenario involved in the scene before the court is considered further below in Section 10.1.3, “Images.” 16.  Labahn presses this point further in stating, “aufgrund des negativen Ausgangs des Verfahrens lässt sich erschließen, dass der Angeredete das Recht nicht auf seiner Seite hat” (“Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 179). His conclusion “so gesehen ist er ein Antiheld” (ibid.), however, is not necessarily required for the character could just as easily be a tragic hero rather than an antihero. 17. Ibid., 178.

344

The Parables in Q

Baasland notes how “interpreters have tried to identify the ἀντίδικος: a brother, a friend, a rich man, an evil person, or, in the allegorical interpretation, the devil himself.”18 Though such identifications can, of course, occur in the mental models of reader-response approaches, it does not seem to be the case that the parable itself presses for a thematic identification outside of the parable itself. As will be seen below, the imagery as employed in Q seems to be functioning as a whole for a particular purpose. Finally, the parable contains two court characters: the κριτής (both Matthew and Luke) and the ὑπηρέτης (Matthew) or πράκτωρ (Luke).19 The synthetic component of these characters as fiktive Wesen is constructed in the depiction of the “you” being handed over to the court and then being passed down the line in order to arrive in prison. As such, these characters are presented as links in a causal chain. As Labahn notes, and this begins to relate to the mimetic component of these characters as fiktive Wesen, the presentation of the court characters in rapid succession to the opponent having turned “you” over to the judge creates “ein Bild des Ausgeliefertseins an eine gesetzmäßige Kausalität/Ereignisfolge.”20 Though the mimetic component remains largely undeveloped, the one aspect that is emphasized is the “handing over” by the judge to the assistant and the “throwing” into jail by that assistant. In this way, these characters are the pivot points around which the court process revolves, resulting in “you” landing in jail. They are a further development of the threat initially posed by the adversary. Finally, when considering these characters as Symbol, their thematic component has also been subject to direct allegorical transfer.21 As noted above and discussed further below, the parable seems to be pointing in a direction away from such symbolic identifications and Marshall’s caution is appropriate: “It may be wrong to try to press the details of the parable allegorically in order to get a clear interpretation of it.”22

18. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 195. Cf. also n. 59 below. 19.  Additional elements related to the identification of these characters are considered further below when discussing the imagery of the court case. 20. Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 179. 21.  For a brief summary of the allegorical elements identified by Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine, cf. Brent Kinman, “Debtor’s Prison and the Future of Israel (Luke 12:57–59,” JETS 42 (1999):  411. Kinman himself offers a different allegorical interpretation stating that “Israel is represented as the debtor and God as the judge” (ibid., 416n25). And though not wanting “to press the details of the parable too far, it would perhaps not be far fetched [sic] to understand the opponent as Jesus” (ibid.). In addition, he states, “If we were to hazard a guess as to what sort of punishment might be referred to by the φυλακή of the parable, consideration would have to be given to the coming destruction, captivity and Diaspora” (ibid., 416) and the “last cent” is “the debt one owes to God” (ibid., 421). 22. Marshall, Luke, 552.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

345

10.1.3 Images Two images in particular are important to consider further here, namely, the “way” (ὁδός) and the court/court case. Though the ὁδός here is in the first instance clearly the physical path upon which the two individuals find themselves on the way to court,23 Labahn has also pointed out, “Die in der Parabel genutzte Konzeption des ‘Weges’ knüpft an das atl.-jüdisch und ntl. bekannte Bild für menschliches Handeln und Ergehen über einen bestimmten Zeitraum hin oder auch auch [sic] für das gesamte Leben an.”24 There is thus a sense in which ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ may contain not only a physical sense, but also a temporal sense. That is to say, while “on the way” is also a reference to this particular instance in one’s life—the present moment, the present path upon which one finds oneself, the here and now is the moment to act. In this way, Bork has rightly noted the manner in which the parable develops its appeal by making the “way” a location in which “Handlungsspielräume eröffne[n].”25 That is to say, “Das Raumkonzept Weg erscheint als Möglichkeitsraum, welcher eine Wendung zum Guten vorstellbar werden lässt.”26 Discussions of this parable have often considered the court scene and attempted to ascertain its setting and the issue at hand. Concerning the figures involved in the court scene, it is often asserted that Matthew’s ὑπηρέτης was more common in a Jewish setting, and that Luke changed the reading to πράκτωρ, reflecting a Roman judicial setting.27 It is important to note, however, that there is evidence of both terms being used in the Roman setting with the former term describing the court official who executed the sentence more generally and the latter term describing the official who dealt with debts.28 For this reason, Jörg Frey states, “Luke’s version is not the result of a higher degree of Hellenization; Luke merely chose a more

23. Also recognized by Bork, Raumsemantik, 160. 24.  Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 182. Cf. also Baasland’s comment that “on the way” is “frequently used as a metaphor for ‘life,’ ‘on pilgrimage’ or for Christianity as ‘the way’ (Acts 9,23; 24,14)” (Parables and Rhetoric, 199). Cf. among many possible examples, Exod. 18:20; 1 Sam. 18:14; Job 34:21; Prov. 30:19; Ps. 139:24 (LXX 138:24); and Jer. 21:8. 25. Bork, Raumsemantik, 160. 26. Ibid. 27.  Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 189n328; and Jeremias, Parables, 27. Many view Matthew’s ὑπηρέτης to be Q’s reading as opposed to Luke’s πράκτωρ. Cf., e.g., CEQ; Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 655; and Schulz, Q, 422. Strecker, however, appears to have held the opposite view: “indem statt πράκτορι (= ‘Gerichtsbeamter’) unkonkret ὑπηρέτῃ gelesen wird, ist die Allegorisierung des Gleichnisses deutlich” (Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 159). Wilfred L. Knox also viewed πράκτωρ as original, yet for an entirely different, and apparently purely aesthetic, reason. It is “vivid . . . as against the colourless ὑπηρέτης” (The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels:  Volume Two:  St. Luke & St. Matthew [ed. H. Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957], 74). 28. Cf. Marshall, Luke, 551.

346

The Parables in Q

specific term.”29 Furthermore, on the one hand, A. N. Sherwin-White considered the administrative figure of ὁ κριτής depicted here as “fundamentally un-Roman and un-Hellenistic,” and for this reason, and not surprisingly, concluded that the passage “has a very un-Roman and un-Greek ring to it.”30 On the other hand, reference is often made to Bernard S.  Jackson pointing to the imprisonment of a debtor as “a Roman institution.”31 Reiser, for his part, noted that the description “entspricht . . . erstaunlich genau dem, was wir über die Rechtsverhältnisse und das Gerichtsverfahren im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten wissen,”32 a point recently also made by Kloppenborg.33 It seems that the points of contact with descriptions found in the Egyptian papyri do provide the closest parallels for the process described here. Be that as it may, the final scene of the parable makes it clear that most likely, as Baasland put it, “the case is about a debt or a loan of one kind or the other.”34 In the concluding statement, as noted in the plot analysis, the repayment to the last “cent” is presented differently as Matthew speaks of a κοδράντης (Latin: quadrans; BDAG notes that it was the smallest Roman coin) and Luke of a

29. Frey, “Character and Background,” 20. Cf. also Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 274. 30. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures 1960–1961 (Oxford:  Clarendon, 1963), 133. The reason behind this judgment is that “the judge does what he likes, he is a permanency . . . The word κριτής corresponds to nothing in Roman usage or in the magisterial hierarchy. The Roman single iudex of the civil law was an arbitrator appointed separately by the proconsul or pretor for each particular case. Judging is only one aspect of the imperium of the Roman magistrate . . . But in the Gospels it is the whole matter, or a function in its own right” (ibid., 133–4). 31.  Bernard S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford:  Clarendon, 1972), 144. Jackson here made reference to Plato, Leg. 9.857a. Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 190:  “The procedure seems to be similar to the Roman institution of the imprisonment of the debtor” and his comment that “the parable reflects the Roman influence in Israel” (ibid., 191). Jeremias asserted that “imprisonment for debt is unknown to Jewish law. Hence we must conclude that Jesus is deliberately referring to non-Jewish legal practice which his audience considered inhuman . . . to stress the fearfulness of the judgement” (Parables of Jesus, 180). So also Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 181. 32. Reiser, Gerichtspredigt, 272. 33. Cf. Kloppenborg, Tenants in the Vineyard, 346. 34.  Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 189. Cf. also Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 226: “In all likelihood, the case concerns the owing of debts, since the person is summoned into court by his opponent.” Frey, “Character and Background,” 21–31, discusses the relevance of Proverbs, Ben Sira, and especially 4QInstruction for understanding the manner in which “advice on financial matters shows that guidance on borrowing, pledging and surety were an essential part of Palestinian Jewish sapiential tradition” (ibid., 31).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

347

λεπτός (a small copper coin).35 Both terms appear in Mk 12:42 in the context of the offering of the poor woman where Mark states that she ἔβαλεν λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης. Despite the difference in the amount (though the quantitative difference is likely miniscule),36 both Matthew and Luke highlight that the accounting will be done down to the last increment of monetary measure. As Jeremias put it, “Not a farthing will be remitted: the accuracy employed in the accounting serves to illustrate how rigidly the sentence will be executed.”37 Regardless of what the Q reading was, this sentiment is clear. Finally, though Matthew exhorts the addressee ἴσθι εὐνοῶν whereas Luke admonishes δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι, both clearly depict that one should make an effort to be reconciled outside of the legal system.38 Thus, it appears that the entire court setting was presented by Q as something to be avoided, which Kloppenborg suggests could be a negative reflection upon an institution that would have been present in Tiberias and Sepphoris, cities not mentioned in Q but having “immediate and baneful influences” on the Lower Galilee.39 In addition to this possible socio-historical aspect, Kloppenborg also rightly noted that there are HB passages with “similar admonitions to settle speedily with one’s creditors and to avoid judicial proceedings.”40 Of particular interest is the manner in which Sir. 18:20 (πρὸ κρίσεως ἐξέταζε σεαυτόν καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς εὑρήσεις ἐξιλασμόν) brings together the idea of examining oneself and one’s position with propitiation and reconciliation in the hour of (divine) visitation.41 10.1.4 The Parable in Q As already mentioned in the introductory comments, Matthew and Luke placed this parable in different contexts. Jeremias commented that the Matthean form focuses on going “to all lengths to come to an agreement with the opposite party”

35. On the amounts, cf. the discussion in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 190–1. 36. Cf. also Rollens’s comment, “The quantitative difference between a λεπτὸν [sic] and a κοδράντην seems of little significance” (“ ‘Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves?,’ ” 455–6). 37.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 180. So also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 191: “The point in the narrative is not the amount, but the accuracy of the refund and that there is no mercy at all. Every quadrans has to be paid back.” 38. Fleddermann thinks that Mt. 5:24 preserves the original Q reading and thus reconstructs with the conjecture διαλλάγηθι (Q: Reconstruction, 653, 656). The CEQ follows Luke. 39. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 256. 40. Kloppenborg, Formation, 153. Cf., e.g., Prov. 6:1-5 and 25:7b-8, 9-10. In regard to the latter passage, Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 191, highlights the shaming aspect of what can occur in court. 41.  Cf. Zeller, Mahnsprüche, 65–6. Luz comments on this passage “mit ähnlicher Transparenz des Alltagsrats für das Gottesverhältnis wie Mt 5,25f.” (Matthäus, 1:260n65) and Kloppenborg notes the manner in which “Sirach transposes the idea [of settling

348

The Parables in Q

so that you can be reconciled for not until then will God “accept your offering and your prayer for forgiveness.”42 Thus, “in Matthew our parable is construed as a direction for the conduct of life.”43 For Luke, however, “the whole stress lies on the threatening situation of the defendant” where at any moment a series of legal steps could be executed with the danger of condemnation and imprisonment.44 Thus, it is often pointed out that Lk. 12:58-59 is in an eschatological context,45 whereas Mt. 5:25-26 is in the context of being reconciled to a brother.46 Sarah Rollens, on the one hand, rightly points out that Matthew and Luke both utilized the passage in a similar manner, at least to the extent that they “were not intent on simply imparting legal advice, but rather on applying the metaphor of legal settlement to their own particular concerns.”47 On the other hand, it is not uncommon for these metaphorical uses to be seen as at odds with each other. Again, Rollens comments, “One may surmise . . . that the metaphor of settling out of court is incorporated by Matthew to argue for harmonious community relations,”48 but the focus for Luke is “on response and repentance, not community relations.”49 Though it certainly is the case that Matthew and Luke employ the parable for different purposes, it seems that Q made both metaphorical uses available and allowed, or even invited, both senses. First, Baasland has correctly seen that “time as limited good is an issue in both parables.”50 As Kirk puts it, “The parable’s description of the situation as being ‘on the way’ to the judge takes up the motif of immanency and urgency . . . only a short time remains before the place of judgment is reached.”51 If the “you” in the parable wishes to avoid the catastrophic end, he or she must act now to change the situation. Though Caird bemoaned the state of homiletics in his day in which “a note

speedily with one’s creditors and avoiding judicial proceedings] to the plane of divine judgment” (Formation, 153n223). 42. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 43. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid., 43–4. 45.  Rollens rightly cautions, however, of simplistically labeling the Lukan passage “eschatological discourse” for even if “the seemingly apocalyptic imagery of 12,54-56 may skew the interpretation towards something overtly eschatological . . . the passage, although admittedly urgent, says nothing specific about the end times” (“ ‘Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves?,’ ” 449). 46.  Rollens observes that in Matthew, the context within the antitheses places the parable within a discourse where “one can see that the discourse is concerned primarily with community relationships in general,” and therefore “verses 25-26 pick up on the theme of reconciliation and judgment seen in the preceding material” (ibid., 445). 47. Ibid., 443. 48. Ibid., 447. 49. Ibid. 50. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 181. 51. Kirk, Composition, 239.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

349

of urgency . . . has largely disappeared from our modern preaching,”52 this certainly was not the case for Q! It is precisely this urgency, this threatening situation that Luz takes up in his comment, “Diese bedrohliche Situation weist hin auf die metaphorische Tiefenebene.”53 If the parable followed Q 12:54-56, as often contended, then this metaphorical transfer to an eschatological context was ready at hand.54 Yet, even without this immediate context, we have already seen Q’s implying the need for constant readiness and present action in the light of the unknown and unpredictable coming of Son of Man (e.g. Q 12:39-40; Q 17:34-35).55 Here Baasland rightly observed, “The eschatological interpretation of the parable . . . emphasises the tremendous crisis: one has to take the right step before it is too late.”56 The entire scene thus utilizes the imagery of immediately doing all one can to avoid an earthly court as the impetus for appealing to an immediate response to the teaching and preaching of Q so as to avoid the final court of judgment.57 Thus, Schmid called the original form “ein in Parabelform gekleideter Ruf zur Umkehr im Hinblick auf das eschatologische Gericht.”58

52.  Caird, “Expounding the Parables,” 39. Jeremias highlighted the urgency as follows: “You, says Jesus, are in the position of the defendant who must shortly appear before the Judge, and at any moment may be arrested, and who meets his opponents on his way to court . . . Make a settlement while there is still time!” (Parables of Jesus, 180). 53. Luz, Matthäus, 1:260. 54.  So Strecker, “Die eschatologische Ausrichtung dürfte schon der Logiensammlung angehört haben” (Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 159). 55. As Tuckett notes, “The saying about the importance of reconciliation before it is too late (12:57–59) again stresses the importance of the present in view of the imminent nature of a future which will overtake those who are unprepared all too quickly” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 158). 56. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 192. 57.  Edwards stated, “A community under persecution or distress would find this kind of advice quite helpful. If the end is near, it is best to avoid any unnecessary restraints and work to one’s limit” (A Theology of Q, 129). It also seems to me that the idea of the delay of the parousia is not present here, nor does it seem quite right to assert that “the delay of the parousia dominates Q’s eschatology,” as asserted by Fleddermann, Q:  Reconstruction, 657 (emphasis added) (also seeing the delay operative here is Schulz, Q, 423). This is not to say that a “delay” is irrelevant for Q, it simply does not seem to dominate (cf. also the discussion in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.4). As Kloppenborg puts it, “In spite of the apparent acknowledgement of the delay of the parousia, Q repeatedly implies that there is little time left” (Formation, 153). Therefore, I also do not agree with Fleddermann’s view as it relates to this parable that specifically “the delay of the parousia opens up the present as a crucial period of unfolding of the kingdom” (Q: Reconstruction, 657). 58. Josef Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT 1; 5th ed.; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1965), 99. Manson stated, “The moral of the parable is sufficiently obvious. Men are even now on their way to the court, where they must give account of their lives” (Manson,

350

The Parables in Q

Frey, however, has argued against an eschatological interpretation, specifically with a view toward Matthew; however, I do not find his arguments convincing. His first objection is that “if the trial is basically a metaphor for the impending judgment, who is the opponent with whom the hearer or reader has to make friends ‘on the way’?”59 It must be queried as to why the overarching eschatological image requires a specific identification of the opponent. Simply because one may have difficulties positing an allegorical identification for the opponent does not mean that an eschatological metaphor is not present. In addition, his “even more compelling” problem, querying “Should anyone get out of the fiery hell by repaying his last quarter-penny?” is, to my mind, even less compelling, for the imagery of the parable itself in no way advocates the position that if one is unable to come to terms with the adversary on the way to court, then that is just fine since one can just pay the debt and go free. The final image, as discussed above, assumes that the debt cannot be paid and focuses on the exacting nature of the punishment. Further reflection is also of value concerning the clear depiction in Q of seeking to avoid a court case. Piper here sees advice “to avoid conflict and to avoid any situation at all that might be contested and ultimately go to court” based on “a lack of confidence in normal social and commercial intercourse” and “fears about the actions of authorities.”60 Though it is difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty the Sayings, 122). A call to repentance here is also discussed by Labahn, “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 183. 59.  Frey, “Character and Background,” 11. Frey makes reference to twentieth-century suggestions: a human being who will accuse his fellow man at the judgment (Schniewind); God (Schulz); or the devil (Klostermann) (ibid., with references in nn. 19–21). 60. Ronald A. Piper, “ The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q,” in Conflict and Intervention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. John S. Kloppenborg; Valley Forge:  Trinity Press International, 1996), 61, 62. Cf. also Kloppenborg’s comment: “Q 12,58–59, on settling quickly with one’s creditor, offers pragmatic advice aimed at the small debtor, in the knowledge that the élite creditor always had an advantage over the debtor in the eyes of the court and that therefore any settlement prior to a judicial action was preferable to a court-ordered settlement (and the dishonour that attached to this)” (Tenants in the Vineyard, 126; similarly Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 194). Quite unlikely, however, is Knox’s contention that the parable originally had the “perfectly clear meaning” that “the hearers are to judge of the danger of ‘this time’ . . .; they are to have the good sense to reconcile themselves to the Roman government, before it is too late and they find themselves in the position of the loser of a lawsuit in which the winner will be entirely merciless” (Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, 75). Richard Horsley views the parable as part of the manner in which Q encouraged local cooperation in village life with these verses providing “instructions on ‘working things out’ between two adversaries” (Sociology and the Jesus Movement [2d ed.; New York: Continuum, 1994], 123).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

351

precise motivation for avoiding a court, that the avoidance of a court functions as a powerful image in this parable is indisputable. Thus, it is possible that Betz’s one suggestion concerning the interpretation of the parable, namely, that the “advice given could be a matter of clever foresight,”61 could relate to both actual realities and divine realities for the Q group.62 Betz also makes reference to the statement in Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca historica 31.3.1 that “forgiveness is preferable to punishment,”63 a statement that is true for both human and divine realities. That the “now” moment of this parable is located within the time of growth or leavening in the, probably ensuing, parables in Q 13:18-21 appears to be the case.64 That is to say, with a view toward the coming kingdom, “in dieser spannungsvollen Gegenwart fällt bereits die Entscheidung über die Zukunft  – auf dem Weg zum Richter ist die Abwendung des Urteils noch möglich.”65 At the same time, however, the parable is not unrelated to the command to love one’s enemies (Q 6:27-28).66 As Schulz put it, “Diese eschatologische Bildrede und Gemeinderegel nimmt den prophetisch-enthusiastischen Imperativ der ältesten Q-Traditionen zur Feindesliebe auf.”67 It is not merely the avoidance of the court that the parable presents, but also the resolving of the dispute with one’s adversary and coming to terms with an opponent. Even as the eschatological aspect is clearly relevant, it is not insignificant that the present reality involves reconciliation.68 As such, Tuckett argues that the act of present reconciliation depicted in this parable likely also has points of contact with the instruction on forgiveness in Q 17:3-4 and the parable about the Speck and the Beam.69 It is to this parable that attention will now be given.

61. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 227. 62. Thus, in addition to the statement above (cf. n. 58), Manson also stated, “The shrewd Galilean peasant would not go to court with a hopeless case. He would use every persuasion, every artifice to come to terms before the hearing, and so avoid the possibility of being imprisoned for the debt with no prospect of release until all is paid” (Sayings, 122). Cf. also Labahn’s observation, “Die Ablehnung oder kritische Distanz zu den weltlichen Gerichtsorganen hat auch mit der Gerichtserwartung in diversen neutestamentlichen Schriften zu tun” (“Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung,” 182). 63. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 227. 64. I find unconvincing, however, Fleddermann’s positing that the ἕως in the final phrase of this parable points forward to the “until it leavens the whole” (Q 13:21) as this association seems to be a stretch. 65. Schreiber, “Apokalyptische Variationen,” 144. 66. So also Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 658. 67. Schulz, Q, 424. 68.  In fact, Allison even calls the parable the “Parable of Reconciliation” (Jesus Tradition, 26). 69. Cf. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 433.

352

The Parables in Q

10.2 Parable of the Splinter and the Beam (Q 6:41-42)

Mt. 7:3-5

Lk. 6:41-42

τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς;

τὴν δὲ δοκὸν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ὀφθαλμῷ οὐ κατανοεῖς;

4

ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ;

42

πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἀδελφέ, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου, αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων;

5

ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ἐκβαλεῖν.

ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου.

Differently from the possibly preceding parables in Q 6:39 and Q 6:40, there is nearly unanimous agreement that the parable of the Splinter and the Beam70 was in Q.71 Although attempts at reconstructing the precise wording of Q must discuss 70. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 167, referred to this parable simply as a “metaphor” (original:  Bildwort). Hoffman, “Blinde Führer?,” 24, likewise refers to the verses as containing a “Bildwort.” Nolland, Luke, 1:306, calls it “an extended metaphor.” Though Marshall had referred to 6:39 as a “parable,” he here refers to a saying that is “a parabolic piece of teaching” (Luke, 270). It is unclear what difference Marshall sees, if any, between a “parable” and a “parabolic piece of teaching.” Though I view the passage as a parable, it is not clear to me that “there is nearly complete agreement among scholars that Matt 7,3ff is a parable” (Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 437). Zimmermann points to this parable as an example of texts “only seldom taken into consideration, even though their narrative form, including several complex characters, a plot, and direct speech, fulfills all the criteria found in the so-called long parables” (Puzzling the Parables, 213–14). 71. There is a parallel in Gos. Thom. 26, reading “Jesus said, ‘The speck which is in your brother’s eye you see, but you do not see the beam which is in your eye. When you cast out the beam from your eye, you will then be able to see to cast out the speck from your brother’s eye’ ” (translation of Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas:  Introduction and Commentary [Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 11; Leiden: Brill, 2014]). Part of the Greek text of the logion is preserved in P.Oxy. 1. Patterson argues that “both Thomas and the synoptic authors share a saying each has inherited from an older tradition” (Gospel of

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

353

every variant between Matthew and Luke,72 Edwards has rightly observed that “the differences between Matthew and Luke are basically stylistic and do not affect the meaning.”73 Baasland, in fact, comments that the two versions are “close to identical”74 and their commonality is, once again, particularly evident in the type of analysis presented here. 10.2.1 Plot Analysis When considering the plot of this parable, Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer rightly observes, “Die Parabel selbst erzählt zwar keine Geschichte, aber sie versetzt die Angesprochenen in einen Erzählablauf.”75 That is to say, though this parable is not an actual narrative, it is clearly narratival. The initial situation is created by converting the addressee into the parable’s actor, an actor who has noticed a κάρφος in his “brother’s” eye. The parable presents the complication through posing the question of why it is that this splinter is noticed, but the δοκός in his or her own eye is overlooked. This complication is compounded with a further, parallel question of how the addressee can offer to “cast out” (ἐκβάλλω) the splinter while not addressing or dealing with the beam in her or his own eye. This sentiment is found in both Matthew and Luke even though Mt. 7:4 reads ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ and Luke 6:42 αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων.76 Worth noting is that as the plot continues, as Fleddermann puts it,

Thomas and Jesus, 31). Gathercole, however, states, “The comparative rarity of both κάρφος in 26.1 and διαβλέπω here means that a literary relationship with the Synoptics is very probable” (Gathercole, Gospel of Thomas, 322; cf. also Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels, 31). Fleddermann simply contends, “The Greek version [of Thomas] depends on redactional Luke . . . so it is secondary to the synoptic gospels” (Q:  Reconstruction, 313). DeConick explains the variation in the Coptic preposition (“from” instead of “in” as read in P.Oxy. 1) as a “secondary scribal adaptation to Matthew’s version” (Original Gospel of Thomas, 128). 72. This is done, e.g., over the course of sixty-one pages in the Documenta Q volume (cf. Youngquist et al., Q 6:37–42, 345–406). 73. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 89. 74. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 434. 75.  Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche (Vom Splitter und dem Balken) Q 6,41f. (Mt 7,3-5/Lk 6,41f./EvThom 26),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 77. Zimmermann describes the parable as depicting “in a very few lines a dialogue between brothers about a splinter in the eye” (Puzzling the Parables, 193). 76.  That the “you” is speaking is also clear, even though Matthew states πῶς ἐρεῖς and Luke πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν. The parallel nature of the questions is often noted (cf., e.g., Leonhardt-Balzer, “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche,” 77 and n. 79 below). Bovon, however, also points out that the questions are not simply parallel, for “aufmerksame Leser spüren eine progressive Gereiztheit zwischen der ersten Frage . . . und der zweiten” (Lukas, 1:334), and Sevenich-Bax contends, “Die Doppelung der Fragen verleiht der Ironie spezielle Schärfe” (Israels Konfrontation, 429–30).

354

The Parables in Q

“Jesus turns on the reader”77 by calling the actor a ὑποκριτής.78 The transforming action follows immediately with the statement that first the beam should be “cast out.”79 The transformation is also marked in that whereas in the two questions the speck in the brother’s eye is noted first, now the beam in the addressee’s eye is the first to be mentioned. The transforming action thus allows the issue of removing the beam in one’s own eye to be addressed, which would then allow for the denouement of clear vision, leading to the final situation of being able to remove the speck from the brother’s eye.80 10.2.2 Characters As was the case in the previous parable considered, in this parable the speaker or narrator of the parable interjects himself at a point in the plot with a word spoken “from outside” the parable to a character within the parable. The parable itself, however, has two characters, namely, the addressee and the ἀδελφός. Here also, a point of contact with the parable of Settling out of Court exists in that the addressee is addressed with direct speech. As such, the synthetic component of this character as fiktives Wesen is constructed by displacing the hearer of the parable into the role of an actor within the parable. As Leonhardt-Balzar expresses it, “Durch die direkte Anrede werden alle Hörer in diese konkrete Situation der Parabel hineingestellt.”81 The construction thus initially takes place through direct address 77. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 332. 78. Though Kloppenborg rightly notes that Q 6:42 is an example of a “typical sapiential admonition with a motive clause” (Formation, 206) it is here also part of the development of a miniature narrative presented through the parable. 79. Baasland notes the manner in which “two rhetorical questions in the first part of the parable uncover the false attitude” followed by imperatives which “dominate the second part.” In this way, the parable “clearly divides imagery and application” or, perhaps better, initial situation and complication from transforming action (Parables and Rhetoric, 438). Allison describes the verses as consisting of “two parallel questions followed by a strong exhortation” (Jesus Tradition, 92). 80. Attending to all the elements of the denouement and final situation reveals that it is not quite correct to state that after the “decisive step” (marked by πρῶτον in the parable), “there is no second thing to do after the first action. The first thing to do is the only thing to do” (Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 440; emphasis added). Even if one were to view the final situation as purely hypothetical, at least on the level of the plot of the parable, the removal of the “beam” from one’s own eye leads to the state of affairs of seeing clearly in order to remove the “speck” from the brother’s eye. Similarly, it appears that Schulz’s statement that the individual addressed by the parable “soll grundsätzlich das Richten seines Mitbruders lassen, weil er immer einen Balken, der Bruder aber immer nur einen Splitter im Auge hat” (Q, 149) renders the transforming action, denouement, and final situation of the parable impossible. Hagner comments, contra these and other commentators (e.g. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 1:371), that “there is no need to conclude from this passage that one is not to judge at all” (Matthew, 1:170). 81. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche,” 76.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

355

and direct description. At the same time, however, in the parable’s second question, that it is not simply that which the “you” does which is presented; rather, reference is made to that which the “you” says. This means that even though the character is still being constructed through direct characterization, the direct address includes a “report” of what the “you” says. In this way the parable utilizes not only the description of the parable’s narrator but also the reported words of the “you” character in order to present this character, thus allowing indirect characterization to occur as well. This observation is particularly relevant when considering the mimetic component of the second-person character as fiktives Wesen, for this component is correlated, therefore, with both the content of the descriptions of the actions and of the words set forth in the parable. In other words, the traits of this character are developed through that which is said of both the deeds and the words of the “you.” In the action described there is both a recognition and a lack of recognition. The “you” sees (both Matthew and Luke employ the verb βλέπω) and thus takes notice of a κάρφος in her or his brother’s eye. It is worth noting that at this point only an observation has been made on the part of the “you.” Yet, this seeing, observing, or recognizing is immediately cast in a negative light as it is coupled with the “you” not noticing (both Matthew and Luke employ the verb κατανοέω) the δοκός in his or her own eye. Though these images are discussed further below, here it is sufficient to note that this character sees something minor in his or her brother’s eye while not noticing something major in her or his own eye. The mimetic component of this character only becomes more negative when the parable’s second question presents the “you” as offering to remove the κάρφος without addressing the δοκός. Thus, that which originally manifested itself only as an act of observing something minor in someone else, though problematic in being coupled with a lack of recognition of something major in oneself, has now become the offer of an action to do something about that minor issue while not addressing the major issue.82 It is at this moment that the word “hypocrite” is spoken, a word that presses home the negative mimetic characterization of the “you.” Given that this judgment is based on a lack of recognition, Bovon is correct in noting, “Diese Haltung des ‘Du’ entspricht der eines uneigentlichen Menschen, eines Scheinheiligen, nicht im Sinn bewußter Heuchelei, sondern im Sinn unbewußter Selbsttäuschung.”83 And yet, it is clearly implied that there is culpability involved in this self-delusion. It is also with the term “hypocrites” that the question of the “you” as Symbol arises. Though Matthew and Luke elsewhere identify specific (Jewish) opponents as “hypocrites,”84 this thematic association is not present here.85 Rather, the direct 82.  In this development of the mimetic component of the “you” character as a fiktives Wesen, the intensification of the negative evaluation and the increasing irritation mentioned in n. 76 above is especially visible. 83. Bovon, Lukas, 1:334–5. 84. Cf., e.g., Mt. 15:7; Lk. 13:15; and references throughout Matthew 23 for this designation being used for Pharisees, Scribes, or a synagogue official. 85.  Cf. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 117; and Kremer, “Mahnungen,” 240. Even Schürmann, who viewed Q 6:39-45 as an anti-Pharisaic collection, did not view

356

The Parables in Q

address, the “you” of the parable, already identifies the addressee as the individual symbolized by the character created within the world of the parable. Thus, as Luz comments, “Der Hörer wird in Frage gestellt; er erschrickt. Die direkte Anrede mit ‘Du’ verstärkt diesen Effekt.”86 The pursuit of this line of thought will occur below when considering this parable in Q; however, for the moment two observations by Allison are relevant in terms of the characters in this parable. First, concerning the character just considered, “the harshness of the concluding address (‘hypocrites’) is new” within Q, and, second, “New too is the ecclesiastical orientation, signaled by the use of ‘brother’ (6:41, 42).”87 Or, stated without invoking ekklesia terminology, “the reference to ἀδελφός would most naturally imply an intracommunity problem.”88 It is to this second character that attention will now briefly be given. Demonstrating yet a further similarity with the parable considered immediately previously in this chapter, the ἀδελφός is not introduced in the abstract, but in direct relationship with the “you”—it is the splinter in the eye τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. In addition, this brother is addressed in the reported speech of the “you.” Both of these facts reveal that the synthetic component of the ἀδελφός as a fiktives Wesen is constructed alongside or over and against the “you.” Furthermore, the brother’s mimetic component is also determined through this relationship with the “you.” It is noteworthy that the parable at no point denies that a κάρφος is present in the brother. In fact, the final situation of the parable reveals that the κάρφος is actually something that should be removed from the brother. Whereas in certain contexts this characterization could reflect negatively on a figure, here, because the one pointing out this problem or offering to help resolve this problem is afflicted by a δοκός, the brother and his peccadillo are actually presented along the lines of a victim. His κάρφος is being singled out when it is really the δοκός in the parable that should be addressed. Upon reflection it may indeed be the case that the splinter should be removed from the brother’s eye (Q 6:42b); however, this mimetic component of the brother as fiktives Wesen receives far less emphasis than his being hypocritically handled. As a Symbol, and as noted above, the “brother” terminology most naturally refers to someone within the community. At the same time, it is often contended that because this person is a “brother,” he cannot be an “enemy.” Yet, even if the context is within the community and therefore the immediate sense is not directed toward an “enemy” who is an outsider, it is entirely possible that in the course of an interpersonal relationship, an “insider” could become viewed as an “enemy.” Bovon rightly comments, “Die Situation ist

vv. 41–42 as originally polemical and recognized that is used for opponents other than Pharisees (Lukasevangelium, 1:372). 86. Luz, Matthäus, 1:379; emphasis added. 87.  Allison, Jesus Tradition, 92. Cf. Bovon, Lukas, 1:335. Does Hagner, by stating “the repeated reference in these verses to ‘your brother’ indicates that it is primarily the Christian community that is in view” (Matthew, 1:169; emphasis added), allow for the parable’s applicability outside this community as well? 88. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 42.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

357

eine zwischenmenschliche, ohne daß wir wissen, ob sie gespannt ist oder nicht.”89 There may be significant tension present, or there may be none. The parable does not say and thus remains open to various scenarios. 10.2.3 Images The two images to be discussed here are those of the κάρφος and the δοκός. The former term occurs only here in the NT and once in the LXX. In Gen. 8:11 the dove is said to have φύλλον ἐλαίας κάρφος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῆς. Here a meaning like “twig” seems closest to the intended sense. Though δοκός also appears only here in the NT, there are a few more uses in the LXX. In Gen. 19:8 it appears to refer to the beams of the roof of Lot’s house and a similar meaning seems to be present in, for example, 1 Kgs 6:15; 2 Chr. 34:11; Song 1:17; and Sir 29:2. In 2 Kgs 6:2, 5 the sense is more that of a log that would be used in construction. Glancing at the definitions offered in standard lexica like BDAG or LSJ reveals the range of definitions found in Greek literature, and Baasland rightly observes, “ ‘Splinter’ and ‘log’ are not very precise terms, and translations are therefore vague.”90 At the same time, it seems to me that J. Duncan M. Derrett is a bit too eager to press possible and then particular meanings when stating that κάρφος certainly means “chaff,” that Hesychius and Stephanus give ἄχυρον as a reliable synonym, that “chaff ” is refuse (Isa. 41:15; though here the word is χνοῦς, which Derrett does not mention) and then concludes that the image becomes amusing in that “the brother” is accused “of being disposed like the wicked whom God will blow away, or burn.”91 Similarly, he presses the δοκός not only to the appropriate meaning “beam,” but also states that “stakes and thorns are inextricably mingled in well-known metaphors”; thorns are a metaphor “alternative to the ‘stumbling-block’ ” and “all thorns are destined for the fire.”92 There is a limit to the extent to which images and associations can be strung together and posited as related. What is indisputable is that the imagery of “the parable is frankly hyperbolical. One utter absurdity is exposed by another.”93 Though one can imagine a speck of dust in someone’s eye, a splinter or twig becomes more difficult, not to mention the depiction of a load-carrying roof beam! As is often pointed out, the hyperbolic nature of the text points to the metaphorical nature of the image.94 Regardless of the precise meaning of the terms involved or the particular images involved in them, the primary issue is the contrast between the small, even minuscule particle in the eye of the one the “you” sees and the overwhelming large object that the “you” him- or herself does

89. Bovon, Lukas, 1:334. 90. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 439. 91. Derrett, “Christ and Reproof,” 274–5. 92. Ibid., 275. 93. Manson, Sayings, 58. 94. Cf., e.g., Leonhardt-Balzer, “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche,” 76.

358

The Parables in Q

not take notice of.95 As Kremer points out, “Die hyperbolische Gegenüberstellung von Splitter-Balken im Auge als Metaphern für kleine bzw. große Fehler deckt grell das blinde Fehlverhalten des belehren wollenden Kritikers auf.”96 This observation highlights not only the metaphorical nature of the images, but also the related image of blindness, or at least of not being able to see properly, upon which the parable picks up. As may well be expected in the light of the discussion of Q 6:39 in Chapter 7, Section 7.1, above, this aspect of the image in the present parable will reappear below when connecting this parable with other passages in Q. Before considering the parable of the Splinter and the Beam in Q, however, it should be pointed out that there are also important rabbinic and classical parallels to the image presented here. First of all, there is the well-known parallel in b. Arak 16b. Here, in comments on Lev. 19:17, “R. Tarfon said, ‘I wonder whether there is any one in this generation who accepts reproof, for if one says to him, “Remove the mote from between your eyes,” he would answer, “Remove the beam from between your eyes.” ’ ”97 Of interest here is that Lev. 19:17 makes mention of not hating one’s brother and of reproving one’s neighbor. For this reason, Allison sees not only a connection with the Q passage on the basis of the imagery but also due to the use of the “brother” terminology in the parable.98 In addition, Tuckett has pointed out that this “oft-noted parallel . . . suggests that the context for the saying is to be located in a situation of reproof and correction of one party by another.”99 Here Tuckett also contends that “reproof implies an attempt to reconcile, to overcome divisions that arise, to nullify enmity and discord, and to create community.”100 This is also a point to which the discussion returns below when considering this parable in Q. Second, classical parallels are found in passages such as Plutarch, De Curios. 515d and Horace, Sat. 1.3.25, along with Cicero, Off. 1.146 where we read, “For it happens somehow or other that we detect another’s failings more readily than we do our own” (Miller, LCL).101 In addition, Musonius Rufus, Fragment 32, stated, 95.  Similarly, Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 440: “The main issue is the opposition of small versus big, hard versus weak, visible for everybody else versus visible for yourself.” 96.  Kremer, “Mahnungen,” 240. Baasland here provides a helpful reminder: “Like all hyperbolic texts the grotesque and exaggerated imagery has the function of making one point very clear. This does not mean, however, that a parable can have only one point” (Parables and Rhetoric, 437). 97. As cited in Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 33. Though see George B. King, “The Mote and the Beam,” HTR 17 (1924): 394–8, for an argument that the reading here should be ‫שיניך‬ (“your teeth”) and not ‫“( עיניך‬your eyes”). Cf. also his further comments in idem, “A Further Note on the Mote and the Beam (Matt. vii. 3–5; Luke vi. 41–42),” HTR 26 (1933): 73–6. 98.  Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 33. Cf. also Catchpole, Quest for Q, 128; and Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 116. 99. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 432. 100. Ibid., 432–3. 101. For these and further parallels, cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 435–6; and Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 487.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

359

“Do not expect to enjoin right-doing upon men who are conscious of your own wrong-doing.”102 Finally, Plutarch offers a lengthy comment concerning how to deal with an enemy in this regard: If you wish to distress the man who hates you, do not revile him as lewd, effeminate, licentious, vulgar, or illiberal, but be a man yourself, show self-control, be truthful, and treat with kindness and justice those who have to deal with you. And if you are led into reviling, remove yourself as far as possible from the things for which you revile him. Enter within the portals of your own soul, look about to see if there be any rottenness there, lest some vice lurking somewhere within you whisper to you the words of the tragedian: Wouldst thou heal others, full of sores thyself? (Inim. Util. 88C–D; Babbitt, LCL)103

There is certainly a sense in which the imagery employed by this parable is being used to illustrate a widely recognized point and problem. 10.2.4 The Parable in Q Though the general principle of hypocritical judgment of others is readily apparent, the details concerning what precisely is in view or which particular issues are being addressed are not presented within the parable itself. Thus, Leonhardt-Balzer observes, “Die Parabel selbst hat keine Einleitung, sie bezieht ihre Deutung aus dem Kontext.”104 Looking to the context, however, creates several challenges. First, the discussion of the parables in Q 6:39 and 6:40 has already made apparent that Q 6:41-42 is not found in the same immediate context in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the parable follows immediately upon Mt. 7:1-2 with its injunction not to judge lest you be judged and that the measure with which you judge will be the measure by which you will be judged. In Luke, the parallel to these verses is found in Lk. 6:37-38, with the parables in vv. 39 and 40 intervening. The issue for the moment, however, is not the question of whether Q 6:41-42 followed immediately upon Q 6:37-38, but rather how the parable relates to these verses. Regardless of whether any verses stood between the two passages, the question still arises of how Q 6:41-42 and Q 6:37-38, as part of the same document, are to be read in light of each other. One option is presented by Baasland when he states that the point of the parable is “to

102.  The translation is that of Cora E. Lutz, “Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates,’ ” YCS 10 (1947): 133. 103.  In addition to references to classical authors in the West, J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Christ and Reproof (Matthew 7.1-5/Luke 6.37–42),” NTS 34 (1988): 272, refers to a parallel in the Mahābhārata where the “Sanskrit saying alleges that one sees others’ ‘cracks’ as big as mustard-seeds, whilst choosing to ignore one’s own crack the size of an apple.” Thus, he concludes, “people from East to West were aware that critics forget their own faults while criticising others’ ” (ibid.). 104. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche,” 76.

360

The Parables in Q

abolish every kind of judging, arbitrary judgements, judgement with double standards, measuring oneself mildly and others harshly, etc. We should leave judging to the reign of God.”105 But is this really the case? Q 6:37-38 could be read in this way, but, as already mentioned above, the final situation of the parable at least presents the removal of the splinter from the brother’s eye. And it certainly creates challenges with a view toward Q 17:3, where, despite slightly different wording in Mt. 18:15//Lk. 17:3, it is clear that one is to rebuke a brother who has sinned. It is no wonder that Allison writes, Q 6:37–38 tells disciples not to judge (μὴ κρίνετε) lest they be judged. It is unclear what exactly a hearer of Q is supposed to make of this in the light of 6:42 (“then you will see clearly to cast out the speck from the eye of your brother”) and 17:3 (“If you brother sins, warn him”), which endorse the imperative to rebuke in Lev 19:17.106

For this reason, regardless of whether Q 6:37 (or Mt. 7:1-2//Lk. 6:37-38) was at some point independent in the development of the tradition or was at some time understood as a categorical rejection of any type of judging,107 within Q, the present parable functions to focus this injunction upon a particular scenario. Piper thus rightly comments, “The interpretative role of these sayings is to narrow the general admonition ‘Judge not’ to refer particularly to the matter of the hypocrisy of being critical of one’s brother.”108 Tradents thus did not understand 6:37, as Kremer expresses it, “als starres Gesetz . . . das keine Ausnahme duldet, sondern als Appelle, die den Hörer verpflichten, aber nicht gänzlich vom eigenen Urteil entbinden.”109 This parable seems to function in Q so as to render “do not judge” as meaning “do not judge a certain person in a certain way.” This observation, in turn, raises the question of the relationship between this parable and other passages in Q. Allison, for instance, commented that “unlike 6:27–38, in which the issue is how disciples should act towards their enemies, in 6:39–42 the issue is how they should relate to one another.”110 But is the ethos found throughout these verses really so easily separated into actions directed toward two different groups? Without dismissing all differences or locating these sayings in precisely the same context, it is worth at least considering the manner in which division or disharmony within a group can blur the distinction between a brother and an enemy. Therefore, though there is clearly an immediate relevance for the actions required in regard to a fellow member of the community (a “brother”),111 there may be a place for also considering the posture required

105. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 441. 106. Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 33. 107. Cf., e.g., the discussion in Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 114. 108. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 63. 109. Kremer, “Mahnungen,” 245. 110. Allison, Jesus Tradition, 92. 111. Cf. especially Valantasis, The New Q, 73–4.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

361

here as relevant for judgment directed outside of the community. In any case, the image certainly indicates that “consistency in the application of principles is an absolute requirement if one expects others to listen to one’s exhortation,”112 and especially that, as Nolland helpfully comments, “it is sheer hypocrisy to seek to help others with ethical minutiae while failing to attend to those central demands of discipleship.”113 If this parable was found in its Lukan location in Q, that is to say, if Q 6:39-40 immediately preceded Q 6:41-42, other contextual connection presents themselves. At the same time, however, it should be noted that even if these connections are slightly more difficult to make if the sayings were in their Matthean or some other location, their presence in the same document would still allow some points of contact between them, even if not quite as directly or overtly. If, however, Q 6:39-40 immediately preceded the parable, Kirk has pointed out the manner in which Q 6:39 and this parable are both based on “sight-gags” and are “correlated through key words from the semantic field of ‘sight’ . . . with the total blindness of verse 39 gradually giving way to the ‘seeing clearly’ . . . of the final admonition.”114 In addition, as already noted and cited in the discussion of Q 6:40, in that verse the corrective competence of the true sage is set forth in a positive manner with a view toward the teacher/disciple relationship.115 Finally, reference should be made to Tuckett’s observation, “There is enough significant overlap between Q 17:3f. and 6:41f., as well as possibly 12:58f., to show that [sic] importance of the theme of personal reconciliation for the Q Christians in their environment.”116 Catchpole, focusing on the “mercy” commanded in Q 6:36, concludes that members of the Q group, “as adherents of Jesus and members of the community of Israel . . . bring to effect what it means to be the community of God.”117 Yet, even without placing “mercy” at the center of this statement, it is a helpful description of what Q is depicting in this parable. Even a rebuke, as commanded in Q 17:3, must take place, not as one blinded by a beam (which would essentially make one a blind guide), but rather as having recognized the necessity of and actually having embraced the Q teaching regarding the most fundamental aspects of the kingdom before addressing any perceived problem or issue in anyone else, especially a “brother.”

112. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 90. 113.  Nolland, Luke, 1:308. Cf. also the statement of Manson: “Zeal for the reformation of others coupled with a serene complacency about one’s own life is stigmatized by Jesus as hypocrisy” (Sayings, 58). 114. Kirk, Composition, 170. 115. The terminology here is taken from the citation of Kirk, Composition, 171, already presented in Chapter 8: “the true sage’s educative, corrective competence is set forth positively and soberly.” 116. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 433. 117. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 134.

362

The Parables in Q

10.3 Parable of Asking of a Father (Q 11:11-12)

Mt. 7:7-11

Lk. 11:9-13

αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν·

Κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν·

8

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται.

10

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγ[ήσ]εται.

9

11

ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; 10 ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει, μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;

αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἰχθύν, καὶ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει; 12

11

εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιναὐτόν.

τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα

ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ᾠόν, ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ σκορπίον;

13

εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ [ὁ] ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν.

Coming to the penultimate parable in this monograph, it is interesting to note that Baasland, with a view toward Bultmann and Snodgrass ignoring the parable and Jülicher and Jeremias granting it massive significance, began his commentary on the parable with the statement: “Scholarship has both overestimated and underestimated the importance of this parable.”118 Hopefully the following discussion will be able to find the happy medium between these two poles. The parable itself is found in Q 11:11-12,119 though the surrounding verses once again set the context 118. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 469. 119.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 105 referred to 11:9-13 as a “group of logia” and on p. 144 made reference to 11:11-13 as a “simile” (original:  Bildwort). Bultmann, Geschichte, 181, identified the verses as a “Bildwort” and Hultgren, Parables, 236, views them as a “similitude.” Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:36, called the passage a “Gleichnis” and Luz, Matthäus, 384, refers to “Gleichnisse.” Karl-Heinrich Rengstorf, “ ‘Geben ist seliger denn nehmen’:  Bemerkungen zu dem außerevangelischen Herrenwort Apg. 20,35,” in Die Leibhaftigkeit des Wortes:  Theologische und seelsorgerliche Studien und Beiträge als Festgabe für Adolf Köberle zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (ed. Otto Michel and Ulrich Mann; Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1958), 29, somewhat curiously called it a “Gleichnis,” i.e., “mehr als ein Gleichnis . . . und deshalb den von Jesus gewünschten Schluß a minori ad maius ermöglicht.” Manson, Sayings, 81, correctly identifies the verses as a “short parable” as does Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 469, in calling it a “parable.”

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

363

and provide the application of the parable, both of which are vital for understanding the parable in Q. For this reason, Q 11:9-10, 13 are also included in the above synoptic presentation. For the parable proper, Edwards observed, “Although the details of the parable have been redacted somewhat, the basic idea and structure remains.”120 For this reason, Betz contends that “one can say that the substance of the saying comes from Q, but its precise wording and the exact primary context seem to be beyond recovery.”121 As indeed has been the case throughout this study of the parables in Q, it is not the details, but the basic ideas and structure to which particular attention is given. 10.3.1 Plot Analysis The initial situation of the parable is the presentation of a parent, referred to either as a person in general who has a son (Mt. 7:9, ἄνθρωπος) or specifically as a father (Lk. 11:11, πατήρ), to whom questions are posed. Manson wrote that in these questions “we have three points in the parable. The first is attested by Mt. (and Lk.?),122 the second by Mt. and Lk., the third by Lk. alone.”123 Though this observation is correct in terms of content, assuming that the Nestle-Aland text is correct, there are not three points in terms of the parable’s structure as both Matthew and Luke present only two components. It is thus perhaps more accurate to speak of the parable having two points with Matthew and Luke having one point in common, which Matthew presents as the second point and Luke as the first.124 The plot

120.  Edwards, A Theology of Q, 109. Davies and Allison, however, comment that “we have here as near as we can get to proof that Matthew’s edition of Q was at points dissimilar from Luke’s” (Matthew, 1:681). Marshall, Luke, 469, attributes the difference to “different branches of an oral tradition.” Baasland, however, argues that the differing versions are due to the rhetorical interests of Matthew and Luke: “Matthew has a peculiar interest in the theme of stone versus bread. It links the text to the temptation narrative (4,1–11) and also to the Lord’s Prayer (6,10). Luke also mentions the snakes and scorpions in 10,19. The different adjectives have to do with their respective favourite vocabularies” (Parables and Rhetoric, 474). 121. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 503. 122. The question mark in the citation is due to text-critical questions surrounding the verse. The short reading (i.e. the parings fish/serpent and egg/scorpion) is found in several witnesses, including P45, P75, B and some OL manuscripts, whereas the longer reading (e.g. the pairings bread/stone, fish/serpent, and egg/scorpion) is found in a variety of witnesses, including ‫א‬, A, C, W, f1, f13, and the majority text. 123.  Manson, Sayings, 81. Bovon, Lukas, 2:154, opts for the longer version of the text with three pairings. Cf. also C. Leslie Mitton, “Threefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus,” ExpTim 75 (1964): 230. Cf. also the discussion in Kenneth Ewing Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 136–7. 124.  So also Hultgren, Parables, 235: “We actually have twin sayings in each Gospel, and only one is common to both.” Ebner observes, “Eindeutig für Q belegt ist nur die

364

The Parables in Q

development is interesting here in that the entire sequence of actions occurs only through the reflection that takes place in the reading of the parable’s questions. In other words, one realizes the plot only retrospectively, having read the questions and having arrived at the end of the parable. Regardless of the precise wording used and how many questions were present in Q, each question presents the scenario of a son asking his parent for something nourishing (ἄρτος, ἰχθύς, or an ᾠόν), with the parent being queried as to whether the son would be given something useless (λίθος) or even dangerous (ὄφις or σκορπίος). Though not narrated directly, this query implicitly raises the complication by inquiring whether or not something completely contrary to that for which the son asks will be given.125 The transforming action is determined by the strongly implied impossibility of any parent giving a son something worthless or dangerous when he asks for food,126 leading to the denouement consisting of the conviction that no one would do such a thing,127 and a final situation of the son receiving that for which he asked. Though not directly narrated, this plot is without doubt created by each question employed in the parable.

Kombination Fisch/Schlange” (Jesus  – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 304). For this reason, the discussion here focuses primarily upon that element which both Matthew and Luke attest. 125. Though Matthew and Luke may well differ in their emphases, as noted by Luz, “Die beiden Bilder [in Matthew] denken im Gegensatz ‘unbrauchbar – brauchbar’, nicht, wie bei Lukas, im Gegensatz, ‘gefährlich  – nützlich’ ” (Matthäus, 384; cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 474), a commonality simply on the level of the offering of something contrary to what was requested remains. In addition, though Catchpole observes, “It is frequently suggested that Luke describes harmful objects whereas Matthew describes useless ones,” he rightly cautions that “this should not be pressed, since ὄφις occurs in both” (Quest for Q, 211). 126.  In Matthew the impossibility is significantly clearer than in Luke due to the use of μή and τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν in the former. As Jeremias observed, “τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν . . . in the New Testament regularly introduces questions which expect the emphatic answer ‘No one! Impossible’ or ‘Everyone, of course!’ ” (Parables of Jesus, 158). Despite the lack of overt linguistic markers in Luke, however, it is not in doubt that here also the questions function as rhetorical questions expecting that no one would answer, “Sure, I  would do that.” As Rondez puts it, the passage “weckt für einen Augenblick erschreckende Bilder elterlicher (Un-)Möglichkeiten, um sie himmelweit von sich zu weisen und so zu skizzieren, worauf wahrhaftig zu vertrauen ist” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 113). I must admit that I do not understand Baasland’s statement, “Matt 7,9 is expecting the answer ‘No!,’ Luke 11,11 the answer ‘Yes!’ ” (Parables and Rhetoric, 473). 127.  Rondez helpfully points out, “Dabei wird nicht gefragt, ob es grundsätzlich denkbar, schon geschehen ist oder jemals geschehen wird, dass ein Mensch dem eigenen Kind, das ihn um ein Brot bittet, nichts oder etwas anderes als ein Brot gibt. Diese durchaus denkbaren Möglichkeiten spielerisch variierter, verpasster oder bewusst bzw. gar böswillig

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

365

10.3.2 Characters This parable contains two characters, a parent and a son. Beginning with the parent, in the same way that the first two parables considered in this chapter bring the addressee into the parable as a character through direct address so this parable draws the addressee into the parable through the use of a rhetorical question. Despite the opening of the question being formulated differently in Matthew and Luke, they both construct the synthetic component of the parent as a fiktives Wesen through the presence of ἐξ ὑμῶν in the question. The hearer or reader is drawn in through this direct address and then given a particular identity within the parable. This identity is created through the identification of the addressee as an ἄνθρωπος interacting with a υἱός (Matthew) or with a πατήρ interacting with a υἱός (Luke). Baasland comments that in this parable, “the most significant difference is between ἄνθρωπος and πατήρ”128; however, though it is true, as will be seen below, that the use of “Father” creates a more explicit link to the application found in Q 11:13, the link is also there in Matthew through the presence of υἱός.129 For this reason Piper stated that Luke’s πατήρ “serves only to make explicit what is already implied in the common reference to υἱός.”130 Of course, it is possible that if the reading was ἄνθρωπος in the original logion of Jesus, an analogy comparing God to mother and father and thus to “väterlichen und mütterlichen Instinkten” could have been present.131 Yet, it seems to be somewhat unlikely, at least in the first-century context of Q, that ἄνθρωπος would have been read as “mother” and in any case, with references to “father” in the immediate context (Q 11:2, 13) any such association with a “mother,” though valid and indeed important, would have been pushed nearly entirely into the background. In any case, the fundamental point is that the synthetic component is created through direct address and the placement of the character in relationship with the υἱός. It is within this context that the mimetic component of the “father” as fiktives Wesen comes into focus. The rhetorical question depicts a child asking for an item of food and creates the unimaginable scenario of that request being blatantly rejected through the provision of something entirely inappropriate, whether useless or dangerous. Piper rightly observes that “the force of the saying lies not in any accusation verweigerter elterlicher Fürsorge werden durch die Frageweise wie die evozierte Bildwelt ausgeblendet und interessieren hier gerade nicht” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 121). 128. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 473. 129. Thus, instead of stating, with Baasland, that πατήρ “gives linkage to the application” (Parables and Rhetoric, 473) it would be more accurate to state that the term gives a more explicit linkage to the application. It does not, however, create a link that would otherwise not be present. 130. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 18. Marshall even argued that πατήρ “is so awkward and redundant (in view of the presence of υἱός) that it is hard to credit it to Luke” (Luke, 468). 131.  Ebner, Jesus  – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 314. Cf. also Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 122n598.

366

The Parables in Q

against the hearers, for they hardly are condemned for giving their sons serpents instead of fish(!), but rather in its presentation of an admittedly hyperbolic and ridiculous situation.”132 As noted in the plot analysis the question is formulated so as to elicit the response that of course no one would act in that manner, quite the contrary.133 As such, the image of the “father” of providing for the son creates the sense that, as Baasland points out, “the father is here acting as benefactor.”134 Within the parable, the mimetic component is thus positive in the sense that the image rejects that the “father” would give his son a worthless or harmful thing and implies instead that appropriate provision will be made. The consideration of the “father” as Symbol necessarily involves the application of the parable in Q 11:13, a verse that is considered in further detail when the place of this parable in Q is discussed. In this verse the thematic component of the father is explicitly created “by applying the fatherhood image to God.”135 Though the terminology does not appear all that often, there is significant Father-God Bildfeld in Jewish tradition. God is, for instance called the “father” of Israel (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 31:9; and Mal. 2:10); the “father” of Solomon (2 Sam. 7:14); and the “father” of the fatherless (Ps. 68:5). He is also cried out to as “father” in Sir. 51:10. Of course, it should also be noted that images associated with motherhood are also found in the HB to depict God’s relationship with his people (e.g. Isa. 49:15; Hos. 11:3). In any case, the metaphorical transfer from the human father to the divine father is vital for the parable in Q. Turning to the υἱός, the synthetic component of the “son” as a fiktives Wesen is created in relationship to the “father” mentioned first in the parable. Consonant with the benefactor image of the father, the υἱός is constructed as dependent upon the father. The mimetic component of this character is created through his petitioning his father for food. Baasland has here correctly observed that in the parable “the child is asking, but it is not seen from the perspective of a child.”136 Though the parable assumes that the child did ask, thus demonstrating dependence upon his father, this aspect of the implied narrative is not thematized leaving the mimetic component of the son as a fiktives Wesen largely undeveloped. Similarly, the son as a Symbol is also barely developed. Just as there is a God-Father Bildfeld found in the verses above, the converse component is an Israel-Son Bildfeld. Though this thematic component is thus part of the depiction, the emphasis falls upon the giver. At the same time, in the context of Q 11:9-10 and the reference to τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν in Q 11:13, there is a sense in which the hearer or reader, originally identifying with the “father” in the parable becomes identified with the son. 132. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 19. 133.  Jacobson makes the, to my mind, curious statement, “The simile in Q 11:11–12 is also remarkable. It implies that the father might not give ‘good things’ ” (The First Gospel, 158). Such an implication seems to be the furthest thing from that which the rhetorical question implies (cf. nn. 126 and 127 above and the comments in Section 10.3.3, “Images”). 134. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 476. 135. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 472. 136. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 479.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

367

10.3.3 Images The images considered in this study, as already adumbrated above, are only those which Matthew and Luke share. Thus, the “father”/son imagery, already considered when looking at these figures as characters, is further explored briefly here as is the imagery of the fish and the serpent. As already highlighted several times, in the presentation of the “father”/son relationship, “the situations supposed in the parable are deliberately and frankly absurd. Each question demands the answer, ‘Of course not.’ ”137 For this image, Zimmermann is correct in pointing out that “in many cases, importance is attached not so much to the properties of an object as to the social relationships connected to the object.”138 Of course, it is true “dass die Eltern sich darauf verstehen, ihren Kindern gute Gaben zu geben (V. 13a), dürfte den Erfahrungen entsprechen. Dass sie es stets täten, wird nicht gesagt.”139 At the same time, however, I am not sure why Zimmermann refers to this parable as an example of how “observation turns to the tense relationships among people.”140 There is no tension depicted here, quite the contrary. An image of what a responsible “father,” caring for his son, would do is operative. It is this relationship that is exploited by the parable to effect its metaphorical transfer and make its theological point. As Gerber notes, “Metapherntheoretisch gesprochen geht es um die Basismetapher der Übertragung vom Menschlichen als Bildspendebereich auf Gott als Bildempfänger.”141 The (self-evident) response of a human father to his son offers the image that is then transferred to the divine father. In the versions of the parable in Matthew and Luke one finds a “paired” image “where the same ideas are expressed in different symbols”142 So, even though only the image of the ἰχθύς and the ὄφις appears in both Gospels, the basic idea found in all the questions is found in it.143 One often finds references to the possible similarity in appearance between a fish and a serpent. For instance, in the course of their arguments, Nolland comments, “Both fish and snakes are smooth and 137. Manson, Sayings, 82. 138. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 101. 139.  Christine Gerber, “Bitten lohnt sich (Vom bittenden Kind) Q 11,9-13 (Mt 7,7-11 / Lk 11,9-13),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 122. 140. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 101. 141. Gerber, “Bitten lohnt sich,” 121. 142. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 90. 143.  Piper finds the arguments for Matthew’s wording being that of Q to be “compelling,” but also points out that “it is worth noting that in any case all three questions have in common a request for an item of food” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 18). For an overview of the arguments for a Matthew/Q correspondence, cf. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 211–12. Fleddermann, who with many others views the first petition in Matthew as coming from Q, sees a significance in that imagery in that it “picks up the images of a stone and bread introduced in the first temptation” (Q:  Reconstruction, 472). Cf. also Jacobson, The First Gospel, 159. Note, however, that Nolland uses this point to argue against the pairing being in Q:  “The Lukan form probably has best claim to originality, with the Matthean being influence by the Temptation narrative” (Luke, 2:630).

368

The Parables in Q

‘slithery,’ but no human father is going to offer his son a venomous snake when his son asks for a fish,”144 and Betz observes, “The snake is chosen not only because of it similarity to the fish but also because of its poisonous and dangerous nature.”145 Marshall took the point even further, stating, “The general similarity between a fish and a serpent is sufficient to make the point. The postulated cruelty thus has the elements of refusing to give what is asked, deceiving the recipient into thinking that he is getting what he wants, and (if the reptile is alive) giving something positively harmful.”146 The idea of such deceit, however, seems to press the issue too far. In any case, though it may well be possible that some fish and serpents resemble each other, I am sympathetic to the position of Rondez: “Eine allfällige Ähnlichkeit der Form zwischen manchen Fischen und Schlangen, wie sie bei der Auslegung des Logions gerne herangezogen wird, ist nicht Thema: Nicht die Ähnlichkeit der Form, sondern die Unangemessenheit als Antwort bzw. Entsprechung auf die Bitte um einen Fisch steht im Zentrum.”147 The issue does not seem to be whether fish and serpents are similar but simply that giving a serpent instead of a fish is more than inappropriate, it is unthinkable. Fish and serpents also carry meaning as individual images. As James H. Charlesworth points out, “As the fish denote sustenance and renewed life, the serpent may symbolize death or the Death-Giver.”148 The venomous nature of the serpent is highlighted in other biblical references, for example, Mk 16:18; Acts 28:3-6 (here ἔχιδνα); and 1 Cor. 10:9 (referring to the account in Num. 21:6).149 It may be the case that in this parable the serpent is seen “simply as a dangerous creature full of poison,”150 further underscoring the unfathomable nature of the idea that a “father” would give such a creature to his son. 10.3.4 The Parable in Q When considering this parable, Baasland is of the opinion that “the interpretation of the parable is very easy on one level . . . On the other hand, the parable has an openness that leads the interpretation in different directions.”151 This observation also

144. Nolland, Luke, 2:632. 145. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 505. 146. Marshall, Luke, 468–9. 147. Rondez, Alltägliche Weisheit?, 124. 148. James H. Charlesworth, The Good & Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized (AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 357. 149. For further discussion, cf. Bórge Hjerl-Hansen, “Le rapprochement poisson-serpent dans la prédication de Jesus (Mt. VII,10 et Luc XI,11),” RB 55 (1948): 195–8. Hjerl-Hansen also reports having seen Galilean fisherman occasionally catching a snake while fishing. Also referring to the Numbers 21 passage is the fascinating verse in Jn 3:14: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” 150. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 481. 151. Ibid., 470.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

369

applies to the parable in Q, even on the level of how the parable functions. Schulz, for instance, despite agreeing that these verses are an example of a wisdom saying, argued that Q presents it as a prophetic pronouncement.152 Kloppenborg, however, rightly responds that “this cluster of sayings does not attempt to promote itself on the basis of a special disclosure of divine will or a revelation of future divine purpose; instead it seeks to convince by argument and analogy from ordinary human experience.”153 In any case, the likely Q context aligns the interpretation of the parable within the framework of relationships, particularly the relationship with God. On the one hand, both Matthew and Luke present the parable within the context of a saying considering asking, seeking, and knocking (Mt. 7:7–8//Lk. 11:9-10).154 Here Kloppenborg contends that “there is a slight shift in perspective between 11:9–10 and 11–13: in the former ‘receiving,’ finding’ and ‘opening’ are represented as the inevitable and expected effects of persistent actions, whereas in 11:11–13 the superabundant generosity of God is the cause of all good gifts.”155 It is not certain, however, that in the immediate context of this parable the issue of “persistence” is being emphasized. There is no mention of repeated “asking,” “seeking,” or “knocking.”156 Though it may be the case that this passage “has been enlarged by the addition of originally independent sayings,”157 it is not clear that a real shift of perspective occurs in Q for the outcome and receipt could be due to

152. Cf. Schulz, Q, 163. 153. Kloppenborg, Formation, 205. 154. Partial parallels to these verses are also found in Gos. Thom. 92 and 94. Fleddermann contends, “Thomas only picked up the second pair of terms from Q 11,10 and used them to develop gnostic ideology” (Q: Reconstruction, 465). Similarly, Crossan argued, “On the gnostic trajectory, then, the triad of ask/seek/knock (as in Q) is contracted first to seek/knock (Gos. Thom. 94), then to seek alone (Gos. Thom. 2; Oxy P 654)” (In Fragments, 101). Seeing precisely the opposite development is Patterson, “The single-stich form found in Thom 2:1 and 92:1 is no doubt primary over against the double-stich form of Thom 94 or the triple-stich form in Luke 11:9//Matt 7:7, Q” (Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 19). In Q, Kloppenborg notes, “Structurally 11:9–10 provides an excellent example of a sapiential exhortation, consisting of imperatives with a carefully balanced motive clause” (Formation, 204). 155. Kloppenborg, Formation, 204. 156. In a recent article, Bazzana has considered the use of κρούω “against the backdrop of documentary papyri and Greek literary texts, that employ the verb to evoke a stock scene of aggression and the threat at the door of a house” ultimately concluding that the passage in Q advances “a complex and ambiguous representation of human agency in prayer, which is not conceived as a mere passive expectancy of God’s intervention” (“Violence and Human Prayer,” 8). Though this may be a bit much to read into one verb, it is worth pursuing further and may end up requiring further nuance to the above observations. 157. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 87. Cf. also Crossan, In Fragments, 97, and Catchpole, Quest for Q, 219, for the view that vv. 11–13 were originally independent of vv. 9–10. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:682; and Zeller, Mahnsprüche, 127–8, however, argue that the verses formed a unity.

370

The Parables in Q

the generosity of God throughout, just as the examples supporting vv. 9–10 drawn from human experience assume the generosity of the parent.158 The parable, however, essentially only takes up the first of these pairings with its focus upon asking/ receiving,159 and it is the issue of “asking” that is found again in Q 11:13. Thus, the question arises concerning the nature of that for which petition is made and that which is received. Though Tuckett argued that one is to relate these actions to eschatological realities of the kingdom, that is, asking for and receiving, knocking and being admitted to, seeking and finding the kingdom,160 Catchpole contended that this does not work in Q because not all who knock will have the door opened (cf. Q 13:25-26) and thus “v. 10 would have to be understood religiously but non-eschatologically by the readers of Q.”161 Tuckett, however, responds that “on any showing, the promises of 11:9f. cannot be meant universally and without any kind of restriction, either in terms of personnel asking, etc. or in terms of what is requested.”162 Though I disagree that Q 11:9-10 must be read as the conclusion to Lk. 11:5-8 (and thus Q 11:5-8),163 the parable in 11:11-12 does function to make the point “that God will most certainly provide for the material needs of his people” and that it had the purpose “of strengthening the argument that God will provide.”164 Of course, this does not mean that this is the only manner in which God will provide, even if it is foregrounded here. If the Lukan order preserves that of Q, then 11:2-4 highlights the manner in which both physical needs and kingdom realities can exist side by side.165 As Kloppenborg notes, “When attached to 11:2–4, Q 11:9–13 highlights and develops several points in the prayer” concluding with an observation that

158.  In addition, though the maxims “are almost embarrassing in the scope of what is encouraged and promised . . . maxims are never comprehensive generalizations about the world; they always express insights true to an aspect of experience rather than to human experience as a whole” (Piper, “Evidence of Design,” 412–13, 414). 159. Cf. the similar observation in Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 307. With regard to Matthew, Piper observes, “As the collection in Mt 7:7–11 par now stands, ‘asking’ is the most prominent theme, and ‘seeking’ is clearly subsidiary” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 23–4). 160.  Cf. Tuckett, “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom,” 375–6; and idem, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 154–5. 161. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 220. 162. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 155n53. 163. Cf. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 221–2. 164. Ibid., 222, 223. 165.  Cf. Gerber, “Bitten lohnt sich,” 119:  “Voraus geht vermutlich in Q das Unser-Vater-Gebet . . . Bitten an Gott als ‘Vater’ zu richten, ist also bereits das Thema des größeren Kontextes.” Kloppenborg also sees a connection to 11:2-4 on the basis of the catchwords “give” and “bread” (Formation, 205). Piper comments, “If Matthew’s rendering of ἄρτον in Mt 7:9 is original, then a significant correspondence is produced” (Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 23).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

371

even though the other items mentioned in the prayer—the thematic “Reign of God,” debt/sin forgiveness, and preservation from testing—are left undeveloped, the characterization of God that 11:9–13 provides and its appeal to confidence create a rhetorical situation in which these expectations also become believable. If the divine Father provides food more abundantly than human fathers, this God will surely also forgive debts and preserve his own, thus bringing about his Reign.166

Thus, it seems to be too one-sided to see Q 11:2-4 and 9-13 as “determined by a futurist eschatology”167 just as it seems to be too one-sided to see no eschatology here at all. With a view toward Q 11:13, and the potential context of the Lord’s Prayer, Kloppenborg has also pointed out that “ ‘ask,’ ‘seek,’ and ‘knock’ now serve as metaphors for prayer, but there is no reason to suppose that 11:9–10 was always used in that context.”168 For instance, in addition to seeking God (e.g. Deut. 4:29; Isa. 55:6), there is the “seeking” of wisdom (Prov. 8:17), of the law (Sir. 32:15), or the kingdom (Q 12:31), or of revelation (Gos. Thom. 92).169 Betz also notes the manner in which “in Greek philosophy, ‘seeking and finding’ sums up major concepts and methods for search and investigation in the pursuance of truth.”170 In Q, however, the specific application to prayer is apparent and important. Before considering the prayer dimension, the use of ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες as Q transitions to the application of the parable must be given attention. Jeremias, with reference to A. T. Cadoux, saw ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες as a polemical utterance indicating that the parable was addressed to the Pharisees,171 though this seems to be

166. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 125. 167.  Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 347. Tuckett, of course, recognizes that the Lord’s Prayer contains a petition for bread, but states that “it is clear that this petition scarcely dominates the Lord’s prayer as it now stands” and goes on to argue “what does dominate is the relationship implied between the petitioner and God as one of son to Father, and the opening petitions which pray for the establishment of the Kingdom of God” (“Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom,” 375). If one can leave behind the language of “domination,” the point immediately becomes clear that both elements are present in the prayer. 168. Kloppenborg, Formation, 204. 169.  Cf. the references in Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 501; Kloppenborg, Formation, 204n137; and Ronald A. Piper, “Matthew 7,7-11 par. Luke 11,9-13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of Jesus’ Sayings,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jesus (ed. Joël Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 43n10. For references to several HB and ANE passages expressing confidence that God hears a petitioner, cf. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 128–30. 170. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 501, with references and citations on pp. 501–502. 171.  Jeremias, Parables, 144. Cf. A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use (New York: MacMillan, 1931), 76–7. So also Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 140–1.

372

The Parables in Q

unlikely and certainly is not required by the phrase.172 Possible, but also less than probable, is Ebner’s contention that the verse was read differently at different stages of the Q redaction. Initially the word was addressed to the “Q-Leute selbst,” but in the later, larger compositional stage of Q it became a word against “this generation” and thus “eine Kritik an gleichgültigen Außenstehenden, während sich die Q-Insider mit dem Zusatz ‘Gutes geben denen, die ihn bitten’ eine sozusagen identitätsverstärkende Zusicherung ihrer besonderen Verbindung zum Vater durch das Gebet ins Album geschrieben haben.”173 Baasland also points out that the systematic-theological reading by Bengel that one here has a “klares Zeugnis von der Erbsünde”174 is widely rejected by commentators.175 It seems far more likely that the purpose of this turn of phrase is one of contrast. Again citing Baasland, “The contrast to ‘evil’ is in the first place the good deeds even evil people can do. The basic contrast is between humans and God, between people who have evil tendencies and God.”176 The application of the parable here “invites a qal wehomer conclusion about God’s willingness to answer prayer.”177 In fact, Gerber observes that v. 13 actually

172. So also Marshall, Luke, 469; and Nolland, Luke, 2:631. Rau’s view also seems unlikely to me that “das Gleichnis ursprünglich an Gerechte adressiert ist, die an Jesu Umgang mit Sündern Anstoß nahmen” (Reden in Vollmacht, 181). 173. Ebner, Jesus – Ein Weisheitslehrer?, 309. 174. The comment is found in Johann Albrecht Bengel, Der Gnomen: Lateinisch-deutsche Teilausgabe der Hauptschriften zur Rechtfertigung:  Römer-, Galater-, Jakobusbrief und Bergpredigt: Nach dem Druck von 1835/36 (ed. and trans. Heino Gaese; Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 646. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:40, provides the Latin: illustre testimonium de peccato originali. Cf. also the observation by Davies and Allison that this is a phrase “which theologians have often taken to support the doctrine of original sin” (Matthew, 1:683). 175.  Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 482. For discussion of the issue in older literature, cf. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, 2:40, who himself points out that several Greek church fathers “treffen das Richtige” in seeing the terminology as a juxtaposition of humans and God. 176.  Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 482. Jacobson makes reference to the statement in Corp. Herm. frag. 11.2.48 “What is God? An unchangeable good. What is the human being? A changeable evil (κακός)” (The First Gospel, 158n14). Cf. also Hultgren, Parables, 237, who sees the term as “a comparative term in which a contrast is made between God, who is absolutely good, and human beings, who are not.” Similarly, Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 130. Rondez argues that the term is more than simply “ein rhetorisches Mittel” in that “die Formulierung greift auf, was im Logion ausgeblendet wurde:  Die erschreckenden Möglichkeiten menschlichen Tuns” (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 131). 177.  Kloppenborg, Formation, 204. Cf. also Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric, 484; Hultgren, Parables, 238; and Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition, 19. For an extensive list of qal waḥomer arguments in rabbinic literature, cf. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 247n231. Zeller noted, “Der Schluß vom Kleineren auf das Größere geht davon aus, daß die Jünger als echte Israeliten Gott als Vater kennen” (Kommentar, 58).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

373

“sogar noch etwas spitzfindiger nicht allein quantitativ [a minore ad maius], sondern qualitativ ‘a malo ad bonum’ [schließt].”178 How much more is that which was self-evident for human fathers true for the divine father. The parable functions to gain the assent of the reader or hearer before Q draws the, now inescapable, conclusion.179 That God surely will give is evident; however, what precisely he gives is complicated by a difference between Matthew (ἀγαθά) and Luke (πνεῦμα ἅγιον). Jeremias argued, “Ἀγαθά (Matt. 7.11) has the same eschatological significance as πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Luke 11.13), since τὰ ἀγαθά (Semitic speech lacks the superlative) frequently designates the gifts of the Messianic Age.”180 Though this statement may be correct as far as it goes, one should not gloss over the difference between Matthew and Luke here, especially with a view toward the manner in which they employ the verse in their respective Gospels. At the same time, however, even if one adopts the Matthean reading for Q,181 it is still possible to interpret ἀγαθά as either “this-worldly food” or as “the gifts of the Eschaton.”182 Zeller was, on the one hand, right to note, “nichts deutet darauf hin, daß etwa die erbetenen ἀγαθά erst in der messianischen Zukunft liegen.”183 On the other hand, the kingdom is already in some manner present now and once again there may be more of a both/and here rather than an either/or. Though both Davies and Allison and Hagner are specifically commenting on Matthew, their observations also hold true for Q, namely, “the ‘good things’ are precisely all that is required to live the life of faithful discipleship as this is set forth in the great sermon”184 and “the ‘good things’ cover certainly the ongoing needs of the disciples . . . but in the larger context of the Gospel, they suggest also the blessings of the kingdom.”185 In any case, however, what is clear is that

178. Gerber, “Bitten lohnt sich,” 121. 179. Cf. also the statement by Piper: “Assent to the general argument is carefully won before the specific application is made” (Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 19). This is similar to the assent gained from the hearer or reader in the parable of the Lost Sheep discussed below. Schulz pointed out how the depiction here with the answer that “keiner” would act in such a way “ist jedem einsichtig, in sich evident und klar” (Q, 163; cf. also Catchpole, Quest for Q, 212). 180.  Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 145. Marshall commented that “the ‘good gifts’ in Mt. should certainly be understood in a spiritual sense . . . so that the meaning in Mt. and Lk. is very much the same” (Luke, 470). 181. This is often done, though cf. Marshall stating that “this is not certain” and that “it is difficult to arrive at a certain verdict on the point” (Luke, 470). 182.  Cf. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 213–17, for the former view; and Tuckett, “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom,” 376, and idem, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 152–5, for the latter. Jacobson’s view that the Lord’s Prayer concludes with the petition not to be led into temptation so “since Q 11:11–13 denies that God can give anything evil, it may have functioned as exposition of the Lord’s Prayer” (The First Gospel, 159) seems to equate “leading” and “giving” in a somewhat unnatural manner. 183. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche, 130. 184. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:685. 185. Hagner, Matthew, 1:175.

374

The Parables in Q

on either reading, the application “develops the father–son relationship”186 and the fundamental point of God’s provision, already seen in the parables in Q 10:2 and Q 12:24, 26-28, remains the same. As was the case in those parables, “the conclusion of the whole matter is that disciples may trust God absolutely for all their needs.”187 Finally, Hultgren is of the opinion, “The thought lying behind the parable and its application is the very obvious view that God seeks the good of his children. God will in no way give evil gifts.”188 Yet, if “God’s children” are facing difficulties, rejection, and physical need, perhaps this point is not quite so “very obvious,” which is precisely why Q included the teaching. For Q it was worth emphasizing and repeating; the divine father will provide for the physical needs and give the eschatological gifts τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν.

10.4 Parable of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7) Mt. 18:12-14 τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἐὰν γένηταί τινι ἀνθρώπῳ ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν, οὐχὶ ἀφήσει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ πλανώμενον; 13

καὶ ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν αὐτό,

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι χαίρει ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα τοῖς μὴ πεπλανημένοις.

Lk. 15:4-7 τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ ἀπολέσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἓν οὐ καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ πορεύεται ἐπὶ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ἕως εὕρῃ αὐτό; 5

καὶ εὑρὼν ἐπιτίθησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ χαίρων

6

14

οὕτως οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μικρῶν τούτων.

καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας λέγων αὐτοῖς· συγχάρητέ μοι, ὅτι εὗρον τὸ πρόβατόν μου τὸ ἀπολωλός. 7 λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως χαρὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἔσται ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα δικαίοις οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν μετανοίας.

186. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition, 20. 187. Manson, Sayings, 82. Cf. also Kloppenborg, Formation, 206: “Like 6:27–35, it portrays God as a generous patron, and as in 12:4–7, 22–31 it counsels the members of the community to rely completely upon God for provision of their daily needs.” Cf. also idem, “Symbolic Eschatology,” 293. 188. Hultgren, Parables, 240.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

375

Turning to this final, and indeed famous parable, the majority view is that it was found in Q.189 At the same time, however, it is also widely recognized that Matthew and Luke have this parable in different contexts in their respective Gospels and that they employ and redact the parable in different ways in order to highlight themes and perspectives important to them.190 Nevertheless, Edwards’s assessment that “redactional activity has been too extensive here . . . to allow any analysis of structure” appears overly pessimistic.191 There is a fundamental narrative structure to the parable that Matthew and Luke draw from their source, and it is to this plot that attention will first be given.192

189.  It should be noted, however, that a few scholars have questioned that Matthew and Luke drew their respective versions of the parable from the same source. Cf., e.g., Alfred M. Perry, “An Evangelist’s Tabellae: Some Sections of Oral Tradition in Luke,” JBL 48 (1929):  208; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London:  Macmillan, 1930), 245; Manson, Sayings, 283; Marshall, Luke, 600; Blomberg, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel?,” 97; and Luz, Matthäus, 3:26. Snodgrass suggests that two independent and equally valid traditions lie behind the accounts and states “it is reasonable to think that Jesus told this parable several times and quite possibly for different purposes” (Stories with Intent, 103–104; cf. similar comments in Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 83). Jeremias’s statement that Luke’s version is literarily independent of Matthew coupled with his views of the Synoptic Problem also seem to imply that Matthew and Luke are working with different versions of the parable (cf. Joachim Jeremias, “Tradition und Redaktion in Lukas 15,” ZNW 62 [1971]: 181–5; and idem, Die Verkündigung Jesu, 47–9). Cf. also the summary in Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 48–9. 190.  Fleddermann, e.g., states, “Matthew and Luke present very different texts of the Lost Sheep. Both radically altered the original parable to adapt it to the context of their gospels” (Q: Reconstruction, 766). Cf. also, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:768; Jacques Dupont, “Les implications christologiques de la parabole de la brebis perdue,” in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (ed. J. Dupont; 2d ed.; BETL 40; Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 1989), 331; Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 311–12; and Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 98–9. Michael D. Goulder offers interpretations of the different emphases in Matthew’s and Luke’s version in “Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels,” JTS 19 (1968):  52, 53, 55, 56, 63, 64. Cf. also the extended discussion in John S. Kloppenborg and Callie Callon, “ The Parable of the Shepherd and the Transformation of Pastoral Discourse,” Early Christianity 1 (2010):  240–56. A  helpful list of thirteen differences between the two versions is found in Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 37. 191. Edwards, A Theology of Q, 136. However, given the nature of the debates concerning the Q form of many elements of this parable, the statement by Weder “Eine Rekonstruktion des Q-Textes ist mit Ausnahme einiger kleiner Details gut durchzuführen” is rather overly optimistic (Gleichnisse Jesu, 170). 192. Cf. Hagner, who notes, “There is, to be sure, a common story line” (Matthew, 2:525).

376

The Parables in Q

10.4.1 Plot Analysis That the parable in Q utilized some type of opening rhetorical question in order to present the initial situation, complication, and transforming action seems to be confirmed by both Matthew and Luke opening the parable with such a question, though with different wording.193 The initial situation is that of a shepherd “having” 100 sheep,194 where the “having” is most likely to be understood as “having under his care” rather than “owning.”195 At some point one of these sheep becomes “lost.” Though this is quite clearly the complication in the plot, Luke simply refers to the sheep as being “lost” (ἀπόλ λυμι), whereas Matthew speaks of the sheep “going astray” (π λανάω). There has been much debate concerning which verb is “original,”196 and, at times, and in my estimation somewhat problematically, entire interpretations of the parable have, to a large extent, been based on the decision to follow either Matthew or Luke in the presentation of the complication.197 It seems more prudent, perhaps, to focus on the ensuing state of “lostness” for the sheep, in the sense of no longer being with the flock and the shepherd, which both Matthew and Luke drew from Q. In other words, though the plot analysis on the intertextual level cannot reveal how the sheep ended up

193. Cf. Bovon, Lukas, 3:24; Jeremias, “Tradition und Redaktion,” 181–2; Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 313–14. Charles W. Hedrick contends that although in this parable, along with six others that use an interrogative form to solicit a response, “the extant form of the stories must be attributed to the evangelist, the interrogatives may preserve a historical memory of the original open-ended character of the stories” (Parables as Poetic Fictions, 58). 194.  Matthew (18:12) writes ἐὰν γένηται . . . ἑκατὸν πρόβατα and Luke (15:4) ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα. 195.  Though it is often assumed in the literature that the shepherd is the owner of the sheep (cf. recently, e.g., Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 102), Andrew Main, in an article focusing on Ezekiel 34, has pointed out that normally shepherds, from the Old Babylonian to the Persian period, were not owners of the flock (cf. Andrew Main, “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds: Economic and Theological Perspectives on Ezekiel 34,” JSOT 31 [2007]: 497). This view has been further substantiated, especially with reference to Egyptian papyri, in Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 56–60; and Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 222–5, 226. 196.  Cf., e.g., Jacques Dupont, “La parabole de la Brebis perdue (Matthieu 18, 12–14; Luc 15, 4–7),” Greg 49 (1968):  274–5, for the view that the Matthean verb is redactional; and William L. Peterson, “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,” NovT 23 (1981): 140–2, for the view that the Lukan verb is redactional. Further references can be found in Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 221–222n8. 197. For example, Schulz opts for Matthean verb and builds an entire interpretation on the “verirrtes Schaf ” being a lapsed Israelite who has turned away from obedience to the Torah (Q, 389–91).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

377

“lost,” that it is “lost” is clear. It is simply this state of “lostness” that constitutes the complication.198 The transforming action that arises out of this complication is found in the shepherd “leaving” (ἀφίημι in Mt. 18:12) or “leaving behind” (καταλείπω in Lk. 15:4) the ninety-nine sheep in that he “goes” (πορεύομαι in Lk. 15:4) or “goes to seek” (πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ in Mt. 18:12) the one lost sheep.199 Regardless of the precise verbs in Q, the depiction of a departure and the result of the shepherd no longer being with his remaining flock is identical. In terms of the manner in which this element in the plot is presented, it is important to note that in both Matthew and Luke, the questions utilized to present the three initial elements in the parable’s plot expect the reader to fully agree with the transforming action.200 Luke’s use of τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν and οὐ in his question “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?” reveals that the expected answer is “None of us.”201 Similarly, Matthew, with his use of οὐχί in his question “If someone has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?” assumes the answer will be “of course.” As Animosa Oveja puts it, the opening question “erwartet unmissverständlich Zustimmung . . . Natürlich würde jeder so handeln.”202 Furthermore, Dupont

198.  Dupont states, “Sur le plan de l’image, il n’y a pas de difference entre une brebis égarée et une brebis perdue” (“Les implications,” 334). Similarly, though Lambrecht recognizes the manner in which the Matthean application draws on the word he uses, he also notes, “As long as we confine our attention to the figurative part no great distinction can be made between the expressions ‘going astray’ (Mt) and ‘losing’ (Lk)” (Once More Astonished, 38). 199.  Fleddermann argues, “Because of this emphasis on mission, we probably should put some emphasis on the participle ‘going’ (πορευθείς) that describes the shepherd’s activity” (Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 777n287). As seen in the discussion below, I am sympathetic to seeing a missional element in the parable; however, even if Q read the participle, a missional component to the parable does not necessarily require “emphasizing” the fact that the shepherd “goes.” 200.  Zimmermann observes, “Both traditions call for the direct approval of the reader for this act [of leaving and searching]” (Puzzling the Parables, 217). 201. Cf. the observation by Jeremias cited in n. 126 above. 202.  Animosa Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug! (Vom verlorenen Schaf) Q 15,4-5a.7 (Mt 18,12-14 / Lk 15,1-7 / EvThom 107),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.), 206 [NB: it should be noted that “Animosa Oveja” is a pseudonym for the collective authorship of Detlev Dormeyer, Annette Merz, Christian Münch, and Ruben Zimmermann utilized in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. It is here retained out of convenience]. Similarly, John S. Kloppenborg observes: “Q’s version . . . is framed as a rhetorical question expecting the addressee to agree that the shepherd’s action is typical” (“Pastoralism, Papyri and the Parable of the Shepherd,” in Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament:  Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 3.–4.

378

The Parables in Q

pointed out that even if one is not fully convinced that the parable in Q opened with a rhetorical question, “il est clair que le récit parabolique doit obtenir l’assentiment des auditeurs pour pouvoir en tirer la leçon à laquelle il veut aboutir.”203 In other words, the advancement of the plot is presented in a manner expecting agreement on the part of the hearer or the reader with the manner in which the shepherd acts.204 Though this point has by no means gone unrecognized,205 many have found it difficult to envision how exactly the narration of the parable reveals behavior that would be considered typical,206 a point that is discussed further below. The denouement of finding the sheep is, once again, brought to expression slightly differently by Matthew and Luke. Luke (15:4) includes the finding in the question and implies the certainty of finding the lost sheep in his statement ἕως εὕρῃ αὐτό whereas Matthew (18:13) leaves the finding as a matter of possibility:  ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν. In the terms of the plot, however, both versions of the parable cannot move forward unless the lost sheep is recovered. That is to say, this recovery, whether certain or a potential that in this case occurs, is presupposed for the continuation of the parable by both Matthew and Luke.207 Thus, the finding of the lost sheep can be intertextually posited for Q. As the plot moves to the final situation, it is significant that up until this point a scene has unfolded which, in its appeal to a common, everyday situation and expected actions only now reveals the point driving further reflection. In other words, the shepherd having, losing, leaving, going/seeking, and finding press toward the foregrounded element of the parable that is marked with the words λέγω ὑμῖν (Lk. 15:7; Mt. 18:13).208 What is highlighted in the final situation is “joy,” and not

Dezember 2009 am Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte der Universität Salzburg [ed. Peter Arzt-Grabner and Christina M. Kreinecker; Philippika:  Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 39; Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz, 2010], 49). Cf. also Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 179. 203. Dupont, “Les implications,” 334. 204.  On the appeal structure, cf. Franz Schnider, “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf und seine Redaktoren,” Kairós 19 (1977): 148; and Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 41. 205.  Cf., e.g., Eta Linnemann, Gleichnisse Jesu:  Einführung und Auslegung (7th ed.; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 71; and Wolfgang Schenk, Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien:  Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher Übersetzung mit kurzen Erläuterungen (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981), 113. 206.  Cf. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 314. Kloppenborg further notes how the parable is “deliberately styled to emphasize the normalcy of seeking out lost items even when one has others” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 315). 207.  Though it is erroneous to see both Matthew and Luke emphasizing repentance, James G. Crossley is at least partially correct in noting that “despite the famous differences [when compared with the Lukan version] in the Matthean version (Mt. 18.10–14), the idea of that which was lost re-turning is still present” (“The Semitic Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus,” JSHJ 2 [2004]: 141n8). 208. Dupont rightly recognized how the narrative structure divides itself into two, distinct parts, noting, “la première décrit la conduit du berger qui a perdu une brebis: abandonnant

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

379

simply “joy” but the greater joy expressed for the lost-now-found than for the other ninety-nine.209 10.4.2 Characters The opening scene of the parable introduces two characters, the shepherd and the sheep.210 Considering first the sheep, Blomberg rightly highlights both the use of animals as one of the “main” characters and the manner in which the parable employs “groups of characters as collective units to fill the role of one of the subordinates.”211 The collective nature in which the synthetic component of the sheep as a fiktives Wesen is presented is significant. The sheep are introduced as a group of 100.212 Thus, an immediate sense of a collective is created as each sheep is a numbered member of a flock. A question that has repeatedly been raised is whether or not a flock of 100 sheep would be perceived as rather large, rather small, or “rather average” in size.213 Somewhat typical of many comments in the exegetical literature is Hultgren’s statement: At Genesis 32:14, when Jacob presents a very generous gift to Esau, the flock amounts to 220 sheep. Even one hundred sheep is therefore a large flock indeed . . . And the matter is important exegetically. To lose one sheep out of a hundred is a loss, but it is hardly devastating. The nuance to be observed is that the shepherd cares about the one that is lost, even if he could in fact get along without it.214

toutes les autres, il part à la recherche de celle qui est perdue . . . La seconde parle de la joie du berger qui a retrouvé la brebis perdue” (“Les implications,” 332). Using a slightly different image Linnemann notes:  “Das Gefälle der Erzählung läuft auf den Schluß des Gleichnisses zu” (Gleichnisse, 72). 209.  Kloppenborg correctly observes that “the similarity between Mt 18:13b and Lk 15:7b . . . indicates that in Q the parable concluded with some reference to celebration over the finding of the lost sheep” and that “the narratives do not end merely with the finding of the item, but with a celebration” (“Jesus and the Parables,” 313, 314; cf. also Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 40). Of course, concerning the Lukan version of the parable, Manson rightly pointed out that the shepherd’s “joy at finding it [the lost sheep] is described much more fully than in Mt” (Sayings, 283); yet, the fact remains that both accounts focus on the “joy” in their final situation. As Zimmermann puts it, “Despite the differences between Matthew and Luke . . . the plot remains constant in that the focus is on the rejoicing” (Puzzling the Parables, 217). 210. Cadbury referred to the shepherd with sheep as belonging to “one of the most characteristic features of life in Bible times” (“Animals and Symbolism,” 11). 211. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 179. 212. Both Matthew (18:12) and Luke (15:4) make reference to ἑκατὸν πρόβατα. 213. Cf. also the discussion in Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 50–1; and Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 222–7. 214. Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 53.

380

The Parables in Q

This view of the flock as “rather large,” and the related interpretation that the loss of one is not all that significant, is, however, problematic. Though the issue of the loss is discussed further below when considering the shepherd as a character, here it is important to note that 100 sheep is not a “large flock indeed”; rather, it seems to be quite average. Zimmermann points out that Varro, in Rust. 2, indicates that one shepherd was sufficient for a flock of 80–100 animals, a report also referenced by Kloppenborg and Callie Callon.215 The latter also provide references to numerous papyri attesting flocks ranging from 25 to 150 animals being tended by a single shepherd (whether or not all 100 animals are owned by a single individual or not).216 In other words, the ancient hearer or reader presented with this scene likely would not be struck by the size of the flock and would find it consonant with the world around him or her, or, as Kloppenborg and Callon put it, “Q’s one hundred sheep and one shepherd display verisimilitude with ancient practices.”217 The characteristic of the sheep as a flock and as a group is thus a key, initial mimetic component of this character. For this reason, it is all the more striking when this group character becomes divided. As noted above in the discussion of the plot’s complication, despite different verbs being used by Matthew and Luke, the resultant “lostness” of one sheep is the same. The group character is thus split into 1 “lost” sheep and 99 that are “not lost.”218 These “not lost” are left in order to go after the “lost.” One final point to be made is that once the lost sheep is found and presumably reunited with the flock, the group character does not return to the state it had at the beginning of the parable. The reason for this is that the “lost-but-now-found sheep” has been singled out as bringing about greater joy than the sheep who remained “not lost.” I will return to this point below when considering both the sheep and the shepherd as Symbol. Turning to the character of the shepherd, the first observation to make when analyzing the synthetic component of this character as a fiktives Wesen is that neither Matthew nor Luke explicitly identify him as a shepherd. They only make reference to an ἄνθρωπος.219 Nevertheless, that the immediately constructed mental model of this character is one of a shepherd is clear both on the basis of his

215. Cf. Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder, 298n127; and Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 226. 216.  Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 226n18. As is to be expected there is significantly greater nuance in Kloppenborg’s 2010 scholarly contributions than in his earlier statement “it is a poor shepherd who has a small flock of one hundred sheep and must care for them himself,” in a more popular presentation (Kloppenborg, Q, the Earliest Gospel, 48). 217. Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 226. 218. Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 206, goes one step further, stating that ninety-nine are “perfekt sicher im Sich-nicht-Verirren”; however, whether they are “perfectly safe” or not does not seem to be in the foreground of the parable. 219.  In the version of the Gospel of Thomas, however, the character is identified as a “shepherd” (rōmē nšōs; Gos. Thom. 107).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

381

association with the sheep and his ensuing actions.220 In fact, for nearly the entirety of the parable, the shepherd is presented only through his actions, which requires the hearer to posit the emotions and motivations based on what is implied in these actions. In this way, the precise details of the mimetic component of the character are dependent upon the mental model of the reader as constructed based on the implied traits and characteristics. Here, however, a great deal of ambiguity is present. First, in the abstract, shepherds are associated with a rather varied set of images. Zimmerman has noted the manner in which an ideal image of a shepherd can be found, for example, in Varro, Rust. 2.2.20 and Columella, Rust. 7.3.26, while at the same time, despite such idealizations, noting that there are also numerous attestations of a negative image of a shepherd as a criminal, violent, or at the very least, marginal figure.221 In this particular parable involving a shepherd, as noted above in the comments on the plot, the transforming action has often raised the question of whether the shepherd, in leaving the ninety-nine behind, was behaving irresponsibly. Tom Thatcher, for example, states that “the shepherd foolishly risks the lives of ninety-nine sheep in hopes of saving one,”222 a sentiment also echoed by others.223 Others, apparently concerned with the negative impression of this “leaving,” have

220.  Zimmermann highlights the manner in which the parable “shows” rather than “tells” the audience that the character is a shepherd (Puzzling the Parables, 222). I find it rather curious that Lauri Thurén is highly critical of any identification of the shepherd in this parable as God or Jesus, primarily because “there is no shepherd in the story, just an owner of sheep” (Parables Unplugged:  Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014], 85, cf. p. 367). The reason for my surprise at this statement is that apparently for Thurén, in Lk. 15:4-7, when a man has sheep, watches over them, and pursues one of them when lost, one does not find a shepherd, even though he has no problem speaking of “one character, referring to a tailor” in Lk. 5:36, when one reads of a piece of cloth from a new garment and sewing it on an old garment (ibid., 261). 221.  Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder, 297–8, 298n126. Cf. also Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 180; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 102; Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 48–9; and especially the extended discussions in Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 227–30, 238–40. It is less likely, however, that the marginal nature of a shepherd was due, as sometimes suggested, to the idea that shepherds were regarded as ceremonially “unclean” or “impure” (cf. Green, Luke, 573–74n211). 222.  Tom Thatcher, Jesus the Riddler:  The Power of Ambiguity in the Gospels (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 2006), 59. He makes this comment with reference to Lk. 15:4-6. 223. Cf., e.g., the comments in Charles Hedrick, Many Things in Parables: Jesus and His Modern Critics (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 2004), 14, 49–50; Huffman, “Atypical Features,” 211; Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 54; and Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 415–17. Snodgrass offers the summary observation: “A number of commentators are sure the shepherd abandoned the ninety-nine sheep and interpret the parable accordingly as absurd, as showing that God’s mercy is a mystery or that the shepherd is irresponsible, or as making

382

The Parables in Q

suggested that the shepherd certainly would have left the sheep either in an enclosure or in the care of others.224 Though these types of reflections are understandable, a challenge to this line of thought is that, as already pointed out, the parable does not seem to give any indication that the leaving of the ninety-nine to search for the lost sheep would cause significant cognitive dissonance for the hearer or reader. The action is presented as if it is “entirely predictable.”225 Furthermore, on the macro level, as Hultgren puts it, “the security of the remaining sheep is not a matter of concern in the story.”226 Or, as Snodgrass notes, “Parables are marked by focus and brevity and do not care about unnecessary issues. Like all literature they often have gaps. This parable does not care about any of these questions, for it is focused on the certainty of searching and the celebration at finding.”227 At the same time, however, it does appear that at least a bit more insight into this action by the shepherd can be gained. Comments by Kloppenborg in his contribution to the 2008 de Jonge Festschrift are quite important here and are worth quoting at some length: One of the hallmarks of at least some of Jesus’ parables is that they tell of unusual actions or unexpected reactions . . . The history of parable interpretation is littered with disputes concerning which elements represent typical and unexeptional [sic] elements, which elements were unusual, and which are downright incredible or fantastic . . . Often such disputes are refereed by resorting either to modern commonsense or to ambiguous biblical or Mishnaic data, whose pertinence and date are open to question. What has usually gone unnoticed is that . . . Greco-Egyptian papyri provide a wealth of social, economic and legal data that may illumine precisely the processes or actions that are the subject of the parables.228

the shepherd a symbol of risk-taking” (Stories with Intent, 105; cf. Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 234). 224.  Cf. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 149–50; E. F. Bishop, “The Parable of the Lost or Wandering Sheep:  Matthew 18.10–14; Luke 15.3–7,” AThR 44 (1962):  49–50; Jeremias, Parables, 133; N. Levinson, The Parables:  Their Background and Local Setting (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1926), 152–3; and Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York:  Harper & Row, 1976), 99. Schottroff simply states, “Die 99 sind versorgt; das ist kein Thema” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 198). Reference is occasionally made to the account of Muhammad ed-Deeb who left his flock with others when he went to look for a lost animal and discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. W. H. Brownlee, “Muhammad ed-Deeb’s Own Story of His Scroll Discovery,” JNES 16 [1957]: 236). 225. Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parables of the Shepherd,” 235. 226. Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 54 227. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 105. Cf. Bovon, Lukas, 3:25n46. 228.  John S. Kloppenborg, “The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Deeds of Gift,” in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge (ed. Rieuwerd

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

383

Of significance in the question about the (ir)responsibility of the shepherd is the question surrounding the value of the sheep. The idea of the relatively little value of the sheep is often expressed, as was already seen at several points in the discussion above and can also be seen in the observation by Hans Weder that the numerical relationship between ninety-nine and one “dient dazu, die vollkommene Unerheblichkeit des einen Schafes herauszustreichen.”229 Recent studies, however, have highlighted that for the shepherd, one sheep likely was anything but insignificant or negligible. On the basis of papyrological evidence, Kloppenborg and Callon contend that the motivation to recover one lost sheep is actually quite clear: “The replacement cost of a male would be about one month’s wages, the loss of a female would likely amount to more than a month’s wages, and if the herd were leased, the loss of an animal would not only represent a replacement cost but it would also reduce the income from the flock with which the lessee paid the rental costs.”230 Of course, as Kloppenborg notes, it may be that the parable could still be interpreted as a “metaphor of divine solicitude, but in that case the parable works on the logic of inference from the ordinary rather than from the description of extraordinary action.”231 It seems to me, however, that as long as the idea remains that the one sheep has relatively little value the thrust of the opening rhetorical question cannot truly be appreciated. The interpretation becomes skewed toward the perspective of “Isn’t it amazing that the shepherd would go and look for just one sheep?” and skewed toward the idea that what is being depicted is some type of extraordinary care on the part of this shepherd.232 In other words, even though in pursuing the lost sheep and leaving the “not lost” behind the shepherd engages in an action that

Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander, and Johannes Tromp; NovTSup 130; Leiden:  Brill, 2008), 170–1. 229. Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu, 174. Cf. also Jeremias, Parables, 134; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching, 101; Schnider, “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf,” 147; and n. 232 below. 230.  Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 233. The same conclusion is found in Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 64. These observations indicate that Oveja’s comment, “Plausibilität gewinnt das erzählte Geschehen nicht in erster Linie aus den sozialgeschichtlichen Details, sondern aus dem Bild vom Hirten und seiner Aufgabe” needs to be more nuanced (“Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 208). Cf. also the comments in Schottroff, Gleichnisse Jesu, 198. 231. Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 51. 232.  Brad H. Young, e.g., sees “the contrast between the great value of the ninety-nine sheep in comparison with the relatively little value attached to one straying sheep” as “integral to the original parable.” Thus, for him the main thrust of the parable is that “God’s love reaches out to the lost person, and Jesus is consumed with a passion to find those outcasts who need divine compassion” (The Parables:  Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998], 191). It is therefore clear why he approvingly cites Manson’s comment, “The characteristic feature of these two parables is not so much the joy over the repentant sinner as the Divine love that goes out to seek the sinner before he repents” (Sayings, 284). Cf. also the sentiment in Stephen C. Barton, “Parables on God’s

384

The Parables in Q

on some level likely involves a certain amount of risk,233 nevertheless, it is an action that is entirely understandable, and can be recognized as such on the basis of other ancient evidence.234 For this reason, the mimetic component of the character of the shepherd, as already implied by the use of a rhetorical question expecting assent, is developed along the lines of the entirely expected actions of a shepherd. The implication of this observation is that the mental model of the shepherd reinforces the observation made in the plot analysis that the element intended to evoke deeper reflection in the hearer or reader is not centered in any of the activities of the shepherd. Rather, at the conclusion of the parable, at the only point in which there is an explicit statement setting forth a characteristic of the shepherd, the mimetic component of the shepherd functions as a means to highlight and reinforce the focus of the plot. When the shepherd is explicitly said to have “greater joy” at having found the lost sheep, the parable is expressing an important insight not only into this character, but also his relationship to the lost-but-now-found sheep. In the light of the preceding comments concerning the parable’s characters as fiktive Wesen, it is quite evident that these characters populate a world depicting the everyday context and experience of shepherding in antiquity. For this reason, Catchpole’s caution against using the HB shepherd imagery for God (Isa. 40:11; Ezek. 34:11-16) in interpreting the parable based on his observation, “for the parable uses shepherding experience in ordinary life . . . as a basis of argument,”235 is, to a certain extent, an important reminder. At the same time, however, it is indisputable that in Jewish tradition there are clear and repeated religious associations with the image of “sheep,” often as the people of Israel, and the “shepherd,” often as God236 (e.g. Ps. 23; Isa. 40:10-11; Jer. 23:1-6; Ezek. 34; Mic 2:12; Zech. 11:3-17).237 Derrett rightly highlighted, “The story of a shepherd searching for lost sheep is extremely familiar in the prophets.”238 For this reason, it is almost inevitable that Love and Forgiveness (Luke 15:1–32),” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; MNTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 205. 233.  The parable does, after all, explicitly state that the shepherd left the ninety-nine, and uses a comparison of one sheep versus ninety-nine sheep. Cf. also Kloppenborg, “Pastoralism, Papyri,” 52. 234.  Therefore, it does not seem quite right to speak of the shepherd engaging “in an exaggerated search” and once having found the sheep “in an equally exaggerated sense of rejoicing” (Levine, Short Stories, 41). 235. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 196. 236. On the shepherd as God, cf. Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu, 174. 237. Zimmermann rightly notes, “Das Idealbild [von einem Hirten] kann auch anhand von Negativbeispielen bzw. aus metaphorisch-übertragenen Texten erschlossen werden” (Christologie der Bilder, 296n121). Cf. Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 208, and the discussion of the various stock metaphors (Bildfelder) involving shepherds in Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 224–8. 238.  J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin,” NTS 26 (1979):  37. The image of sheep having gone astray is found, e.g., in Ps. 119:176; Isa. 53:6; and Ezek. 34:4.

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

385

this imagery will impact both the sheep and the shepherd as Symbol. This is not to say that the parable’s characters cannot be understood in a manner other than a symbolic one, nor is it to say that this stock metaphor is necessarily the source of the parable itself.239 Though the depiction is perhaps made too antithetically, there is truth in Snodgrass’s observation, “The shepherd is not God, Jesus, or anyone else, and the sheep is not a person or group. These figures reside in and stay in the story . . . At the same time, images selected for stories are not chosen at random; they are specifically chosen to set off resonances.”240 Stated with slightly more nuance, the shepherd and the sheep as fiktive Wesen stay in the story, but through the resonances created by these images the characters as Symbol transcend the story. If one queries precisely how the thematic component of these characters is to be understood, the sheep as people, and the lost sheep as a lost person, is an identification that lies ready at hand. When considering the shepherd, however, there is some ambiguity in whether this character functions as a symbol for Jesus or for God. Catchpole, for instance, seeks to discover precisely whose joy the parable presents: is it human joy, that is, that of Jesus and the disciples, or divine joy?241 Yet, this seems to present a false dichotomy. At several points we have already seen Q blurring the lines between divine activity and the activity of Jesus, between God’s perspective and Jesus’s perspective. Along these lines, Dupont noted, “il semble que la parabole parle à la fois de la conduit de Dieu et de celle de Jésus.”242 This, possibly deliberate, ambiguity of the shepherd character as Symbol is considered further below in the discussion of this parable in Q. 10.4.3 Images Though attention has already been given to the images associated with a shepherd and sheep in the discussion of the parable’s characters, two other images can be mentioned here: the locale where the ninety-nine sheep who are not lost are left and the “joy” mentioned in the parable. First, there is, once again, a difference between Matthew and Luke as to where the ninety-nine sheep are left. Mt. 18:12 states that they are left ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, whereas Lk. 15:4 states that it is ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Regardless of whether one agrees with the widespread view that Matthew preserves the reading of Q, which Luke changed, Kloppenborg and Callon are certainly correct in noting that “this has invited much discussion but little clarity.”243 With a view toward the intertextual commonality suggested by these two 239.  For this reason I find the notion by Weder, namely, that “Ausgangspunkt für das Verständnis des Gleichnisses auf der Jesusstufe ist die metaphorische Qualität des Begriffs ‘Schaf ’. Im AT . . . steht das Schaf (bzw. die Schafherde) für das ‘Volk’ ” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 173) to be slightly overstated. 240. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 107. 241. Cf. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 195–6. 242. Dupont, “Les implications,” 347. 243.  Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 253. See also the extensive discussion in their n. 99 beginning on the same page.

386

The Parables in Q

locations, two points are significant. First, it seems that both the “mountain” and the “desert” are uninhabited.244 Derrett suggests that in the “wilderness” a shepherd was able to avoid the suspicion of “feeding their flock on private pasture and crops,” though ultimately concludes that “in the wilderness” or “in the mountains” amounts to the same thing.245 Second, even if one does not focus on the region as “uninhabited,” and, following the reading “mountains,” views the location as “Orte der Gefärdung,”246 or a location that could be understood as “schützend,”247 or even allegorically as the Q “Gemeinde,”248 it cannot be disputed that regardless of precisely where they are left, the clear result is that the shepherd is no longer with the ninety-nine. Thus, the imagery as analyzed here focuses not on the precise location in which the ninety-nine “not lost” sheep are left but rather on the manner in which the ninety-nine being in a location where the shepherd is not highlights the fact that the shepherd’s attention and activity has shifted to the sheep that is no longer with him. The second image to which it is worth giving brief attention is the “joy” that is mentioned when the sheep is found. Independently of the issue already mentioned above concerning the question of whether human or divine joy (or both?) is in view, a fundamental observation is, in Cameron’s words, “the version of this parable in Q 15:4–5, 7 emphasizes joy in recovering what was lost.”249 Or, as Catchpole puts it “Q clearly emphasized the ultimate joy of the seeker (Matt 18:13/Luke 15:5)” and “Joy 244.  Dupont argues that Luke made a redactional change in order to make the uninhabited nature of the area in which the sheep were left more clear (“La parabole,” 276). Kloppenborg and Callon are critical of this view, stating that “it is not at all obvious why at 15:4 the sheep ought to be stationed away from humans” (“Parable of the Shepherd,” 254n99). Whether a redactional change or not, Robert W. Funk noted:  “ἡ ἔρημος here [Lk. 15:4] probably denotes uninhabited pasture land in contrast to the villages and towns which Jesus frequented on his journeys” (“The Wilderness,” JBL 78 [1959]:  212). Oveja, though noting the difference in terms, sees a commonality in the vague and general reference to a location, and goes so far as to contend that “beide Angaben bleiben austauschbar” (“Neunundneunzig sich nicht genug!” 205). 245. Derrett, “Fresh Light,” 40, 59. 246. So Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender, 477. 247. So Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 208. 248.  Sasagu Arai contends that if this was the Q reading, “Vom Standpunkt der Q-Gemeinde aus müßte dieser ‘Berg’ natürlich die ‘Gemeinde’, der die Gläubigen angehören, bedeuten” (“Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf  – Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,” AJBI 2 [1976]: 125). 249.  Ron Cameron, “Myth and History in the Gospel of Thomas,” Apocrypha 8 (1997): 204. Also highlighting the issue of “joy” is Schenk, though his somewhat eccentric reconstruction of the Q text (Matthew’s “verirrt,” the inclusion of “Ja, wenn er es gefunden hat, ‘packt er es auf seine Schultern,’ ” and the final statement referring to God’s and not the shepherd’s joy) leads him to interpret the joy as “endzeitliche Freude” that is “ein Trostwort für die von Israel sich trennende christliche Gemeinde, das zugleich zum Gerichtswort für Israel gemacht wird” (Synopse, 113).

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

387

emerges as the dominant theme.”250 The significance of these observations is that the emphasis in the shepherd’s activity is not found in the leaving, going/seeking, or finding, as important as these actions are for the narrative; rather, the emphasis is in the rejoicing, and particularly in the “greater” rejoicing. This observation comprises one important component of considering this parable in Q. 10.4.4 The Parable in Q Turning to the place of this parable in Q, I am quite sympathetic to Kloppenborg’s conclusions in his discussions, which view the parable, and its sense of “without a doubt, no shepherd will let one sheep go astray, even if there are still ninety-nine left,” as introducing a reevaluation of the values of protecting honor and status that are also challenged in other Q passages.251 Specifically, he contends that “the entire section from Q 15:4 to 17:6 deals with reconciliation and peacemaking in a social situation where the categories of honour and status threaten stability by valuing the large, the numerous, the male, the elder, the ‘just’ and the powerful over their opposites”252 and that because “of course, no shepherd will let one sheep go astray, even if there are still 99 left . . . Why then in community relationships should there be differential valuations according to the standards of gender or standing or honour and why should those standards be permitted to destroy and dishonour the one or the weak?”253 At the same time, however, the contention that this parable (in Kloppenborg’s view, this parable along with the parable of the lost coin) introduces the Q section from 15:4 to 17:6 is more speculative. First, it is difficult to be certain of the order of the Q pericopes throughout this section.254 Kloppenborg’s view requires that the parable preceded a “cluster of sayings” in Q 16:16, 18; 17:1-2, 3-4, 6.255 Though the CEQ, of course, mentions the question of order in a footnote,256 it chose to locate Q 15:4-7 after Q 17:1-2, that is, in the middle 250. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 193, 195. Cf. also Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 180; Bovon, Lukas, 3:25; Linnemann, Gleichnisse, 66; Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu, 174. It is precisely this “joy” element in Q that Matthew and Luke, for their own purposes, develop in slightly different directions (cf. Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 214, 215–16). 251.  Cf. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus,” 314–17. These conclusions are repeated in Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 237. Agreeing with this set of conclusions is Kirk, Composition, 302, who also states: “Failure to appraise the connection of the parables with the paraenesis which follows has led Q scholars to produce a wide range of mutually irreconcilable interpretations of the Lost Sheep parable in particular” (ibid., 302n92). 252. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 316–17. 253. Ibid., 317. 254.  Kloppenborg himself listed this parable as an example of one of “those sayings whose position in Q cannot be determined with certainty” (Formation, 100). 255. He states that the parable “serves to set the stage for the following cluster of Q sayings: Q 16:16, 18; 17:1–2, 3–4, 6” (Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 315). 256. CEQ, 478n1.

388

The Parables in Q

of the “cluster.” Furthermore, even if the parable did introduce this cluster, the argument, by Kloppenborg’s own admission, leaves the location of Q 16:13 unresolved and excludes Q 16:17 from consideration because it is viewed as a tertiary glossing in Q257—points that are not entirely undisputed. Third, and most significantly for the present analysis, the parable in Q also seems to incorporate mission themes and not simply inclusionary themes. The “greater joy” spoken of here, I would contend, includes more than honor and status issues and extends to the Q mission. At the end of the parable, the point is not simply the financial motivation for pursuing a lost sheep, but is directly tied to the amount of joy in the recovery being greater than the joy in having. The sheep has a financial worth that presumably is the same as that for any other sheep in the flock,258 and yet it has a “joy worth” by virtue of it having been lost but now found that surpasses that of the other sheep.259 It is here that I cannot help but see at least some element of the mission theology of Q appearing in the pursuit of the lost and the joy in its recovery as set forth in the parable. Without falling back into the usual pattern of seeing extraordinary “love,” “care,” “grace,” and so on in the shepherd,260 this “greater joy” element in its missional context does seem to allow

257. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 315n122. 258.  This is not the case for the version of the parable in Gos. Thom. 107 where the lost sheep is said to be the “largest” and the shepherd states, “I love you more than the ninety-nine.” As Lambrecht concludes, “Here the stress undoubtedly lies on the great value of the sheep which was lost” (Once More Astonished, 42). 259. Dupont spoke of an “appel à un mécanisme psychologique que tout le monde connaît bien: ce qu’on vient de perde prend subitement une importance disproportionnée à sa vraie valeur objective” (“La parabole,” 281). Similarly, Helmut Merklein states, “Der Wert einer Sache im Augenblick des Verlustes [wird] besonders intensiv erlebt, so daß sie im Falle des Wiederfindens mehr Freude hervorruft als an sich gleichwertige Sachen, die man nicht verloren hat” (Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu [FB 34; Würzburg:  Echter, 1978], 189). I would also contend that for this reason, Weder’s statement “Der Vergleich mit den neunundneunzig steht ausschließlich im Interesse, die Freude des Augenblicks zu illustrieren, und impliziert keine Wertung der neunundneunzig” is not quite accurate (Gleichnisse Jesu, 174). Similarly, though Zimmermann may well be correct in pointing out that rejoicing “even more” about the lost sheep who is now found “does not necessarily have to be understood negatively with respect to the ones that were left behind, as if they have suddenly become less important. Each of them could have caused the same worry and rejoicing” (Puzzling the Parables, 218) it remains the case that a “lost but found” sheep is rejoiced over “even more” than one that was never lost (also recognized by Zimmermann; cf. ibid., 224). 260.  Fleddermann, e.g., concludes, “The second half of the parable richly unfolds both the joy of the shepherd and the echo of the shepherd’s joy in heaven . . . The Son of Man comes to find the lost, and the joy reflects the love for the lost that drives the mission. The numbers in the parable, ‘one,’ ‘ninety-nine,’ and a ‘hundred,’ reinforce the joy, and they also show the shepherd’s extraordinary love for every individual. Every ‘one’ who is found triggers the shepherd’s joy and the heavenly echo of the shepherd’s joy” (Q:  Reconstruction,

The Q Parables of Jesus: “Community” Parables

389

at least the beginnings of a theological reflection concerning the shepherd and sheep, particularly in the light of the tradition history of these images. The comments by Kloppenborg and Callon, “There was no need to attempt to transform the figure into something else beyond its surface meaning. The shepherd has not been romanticized or transformed into a messianic king or savior. Q’s shepherd is a perfectly ordinary agrarian figure and the appeal to verisimilitude is precisely the point for Q”261 may be true, at least to an extent, for the parable up until the “I say to you.” But precisely here, the reflection required, particularly as it relates to this “greater joy,” should not be construed so as to exclude a “deeper” or more “theological” meaning in Q. It is at least worth considering whether the mere introduction of this “I say to you,” where the speaker in Q is clearly construed to be Jesus, in and of itself opens a theological dimension to the parable, as argued, for example, in the discussion by Oveja.262 The joy that is mentioned immediately thereafter highlights the point that finding creates joy, indeed greater joy.263 As Weder has noted, “Grund der Freude ist ursprünglich nicht die Umkehr des Sünders, sondern dessen Gefunden-Werden.”264 Though N. T. Wright, for instance, argued that in Luke “the point of the parable in each case [i.e. Lk. 15:4-7, 8-10] was to validate and vindicate Jesus’ own activity in taking the initiative and seeking out the lost,”265 Catchpole observes, “The possibility of a role for this material in quite general proclamation, serving the purpose of invitation rather than defence, is worth entertaining seriously.”266 Catchpole continues by stating that “lostness” is the situation of every person addressed by the gospel and every person is found at the moment when he or she answers its call.

777). Though his broader discussion makes numerous helpful observations, this conclusion seems, at certain points and in particular concerning the issue of “love,” to read quite a bit back into the parable. Also critical of an exegesis relying too much on the “love” theme is Dupont, “La parabole,” 282–5. 261. Kloppenborg and Callon, “Parable of the Shepherd,” 237. 262.  Oveja, “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug,” 207. Of course, if one follows Fleddermann who argues that a final sentence involving a heavenly reaction of joy was also present in Q, “since both Matthew and Luke record one,” then the theological element is patently obvious (Q: Reconstruction, 770). The CEQ makes no mention of “heaven” in its reconstruction of the conclusion of the parable (cf. pp. 480–3). Interestingly, in the IQP reconstruction, which differs in several respects from the CEQ, the conclusion to the parable reads [[]] λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως . . . ἐν οὐραν . . . χαίρει ἐπ’ [[αὐτῷ]] [[]] ἢ ἐπὶ [[τοῖς]] ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα (Milton C. Moreland and James M. Robinson, “The International Q Project Work sessions 23–27 May, 22–26 August, 17–18 November 1994,” JBL 114 [1995]: 483). 263.  Cf. Linnemann:  “ ‘Wiederfinden schafft überschwengliche Freude’  – das ist der Vergleichspunkt des Gleichnisses” (Gleichnisse, 72). 264. Weder, Gleichnisse Jesu, 175. 265. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 254. 266. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 197.

390

The Parables in Q

With the covenant with Israel always in the background, this must mean that each person is being warned of the need to actualize all that is implicit in membership of the privileged community, to recognize the implications of a mission’s being directed towards those who already rely corporately upon the grace of God, to accept the harsh reality of alienation from God, and to understand the joy which attends the restoration of the relationship.267

If this sentiment is at least in part present in Q, then not only is there the beginning of a theology of seeking, even a theology of “mission,” present in this parable, Q employs the parable as a parable of Jesus to highlight not only God’s rejoicing, but the rejoicing Jesus has, or would have, at a response to his message as presented in Q. This all becomes possible through the imagery employed in the parable, from the shepherd to the sheep, from lostness to being found, and ultimately simply in “greater joy.” As Zimmermann observes, Jesus as “the parable narrator evokes the well-known symbolism of YHWH-Shepherd, but at the same time, he speaks about himself.”268 The reader or hearer of this parable is called upon to evaluate the reasons for and causes of the joy with which the parable concludes and to consider the manner in which both God and Jesus are involved in this process in Q.269

267. Ibid. 268. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 230. 269.  Cf. the reflections of Weder:  “Berücksichtigt man den metaphorischen Gehalt von ‘Schaf ’-‘Hirt’, so wird deutlich, daß Jesus sein Verhalten mit dem Verhalten Gottes gegenüber dem Sünder legitimiert; mehr noch, daß er sich selbst in einer Funktion sieht, die Gott zusteht. Was Gott für Israel immer schon war, ist Jesus jetzt – in seinem Werk und Wort – wiederum” (Gleichnisse Jesu, 175). Note the conclusion of Zimmermann: “Therefore, it makes no sense to play the two attributions of the shepherd—either to Jesus or to God—off against each other, as has been done in the interpretive tradition” (Puzzling the Parables, 230).

Chapter 11 C O N C LU SIO N

Having considered each of the twenty-seven parables identifiable in Q, this concluding chapter begins by focusing on several aspects of the Q parables and the contributions made in this study under two broad headings: (1) select themes and teachings of the Q parables; and (2) the issue of methodology and the function of the Q parables. Under the first heading, important themes and teachings of the Q parables are brought together. In this section it is not my intention to revisit all of the elements already discussed in each of the “Parable in Q” sections throughout this monograph, nor is it to provide an exhaustive discussion of every theme or teaching found in the Q parables. The purpose here, rather, is to highlight a few broader connections between the content of the Q parables, as accessible via Matthew and Luke, and Q as a whole.1 Under the second heading, and in consort with the methodological discussion in Chapter 3, final thoughts are offered concerning the Q parables as intertexts. That is to say, brief reflection is offered upon the contribution to the study of Q parables, and to Q more broadly, that has been made in the preceding chapters on the level of method and approach. Here the location of the Q parables are also considered, where it is the striking pervasiveness of parables and the location in which they likely appear that is given attention. This section leads quite naturally to a further section in which the function of the parables in Q is highlighted, for it is not only the sheer number and the varied teachings of the Q parables that underscore their significance but also the manner in which they are utilized in Q. Under a final heading, a few concluding comments are offered along with a brief consideration of a potential avenue for future research on Q.

1.  Ricoeur once wrote, “My guess is that parables make sense if and only if they are taken together. An isolated parable is an artifact of the historico-critical method. Parables constitute a collection—a ‘corpus’—which is fully meaningful only as a whole” (“Biblical Hermeneutics,” 100). Here I  seek to consider the parables of Q as a “corpus” and their meaning as a whole.

392

The Parables in Q

11.1 Select Themes and Teachings of the Q Parables When reflecting upon the themes and teaching of the Q parables, there are several points to consider. Again, detailed discussion of individual parables and their place in Q can be found under the respective “Parable in Q” heading for each parable. The purpose here is not to recapitulate earlier discussion, but rather to bring together select broader thematic connections across multiple parables and beyond the heuristic grouping offered in the foregoing chapters. 11.1.1 Discipleship As Zimmermann has rightly observed, “In the Q document as a whole, the eschatological perspective plays an important role in the parables.”2 Here it is particularly significant that in numerous parables, this expectation of “the end” is utilized to portray the significance of certain behavior and the importance of certain actions.3 In the chapters above it has often been seen that many parables present the time now being spent in the expectation of the return of the Son of Man as a vital and crucial time of discipleship as one puts Jesus’s words into practice.4 Along these lines, Fleddermann is absolutely correct in his contention that “the present is the time of discipleship, the time when the disciple demonstrates fidelity to the absent Lord . . . and when the kingdom grows and penetrates the whole world.”5 It is striking that the examples used by Fleddermann to underscore this point, namely, Q 12:39-40; 42-46; Q 19; and Q 13:18-21, are all parables. Though Q speaks of these themes in other passages as well, a fundamental appeal to discipleship occurs in and through the parables and their imagery. 11.1.2 “Masters” and “Slaves” in Q Related to the issue of discipleship is the manner in which the issue of faithfulness or unfaithfulness is connected with the image of the relationship between a “master” and a “slave.” Once again, there are more parables involved here than simply the ones discussed in Chapter 5. There are, in fact, eight parables in which a “master” appears: Q 7:8; Q 10:2; Q 12:39-40; Q 12:42-46; Q 13:24-276; Q 14:16-23; Q

2. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 215. 3. Cf. also the observation by Zimmermann, “A striking principle of the parables’ composition is the use of contrast, in which good and correct behavior is contrasted with bad and reprehensible behavior (Q 6:47–49; 12:42–26; 17:34–35; 19:12–13, 15–24, 26)” (ibid.). 4. Thus Labahn rightly observes, “Schreitet man die Parabeln in Q ab, so lässt sich feststellen, dass die Zeit der Erwartung des Menschensohnes die Zeit radikaler und verantwortlicher Zuwendung zu den Worten Jesu ist.” (“Das Reich Gottes,” 279). 5. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 508–509. 6.  For the rationale behind this parable not being included in this study, cf. the final pages of Chapter 2 and n. 57 there.

Conclusion

393

16:13; and Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26.7 It is noteworthy that in several of these parables, this “master” is presented with troublesome or problematic images. It is readily apparent that the “master” in Q parables, not only in the three parables discussed in Chapter 5, is often associated with violence, loss, or anger. It is particularly when this character is considered as a Symbol that disturbing components become particularly acute, and yet, as difficult as it may be for a modern interpreter to conceptualize, perhaps it is precisely these disturbing elements that are desired by the composer(s) of Q. Münch’s comments on Q 19 are quite à propos: “Die Q-Gemeinde befindet sich vermutlich in einem Prozess der Identitätsfindung, der sich in einer scharfen Polemik gegen jenes jüdische Umfeld äußert, das sich nicht zu Jesus und seiner Botschaft bekennt (vgl. Q 11, 14–52 u.a.).”8 In addition to the parables listed above, anger or incredulity at the rejection of Q’s message can also be found in another parable, for example, the parable of the Children in the Marketplace (Q 7:31-35) as well as other passages including Q 10:13-15; Q 11:49-51; and Q 13:34-35. Certainly this negative imagery is not the only imagery found in Q; nevertheless, when the response to Q’s message, the response to the proclamation of the kingdom, the coming of the Son of Man, and Q’s presentation of Jesus is described, there is a definite sense in which rejection is one component of Q’s context. This frustration at the negative response to the message of Q is not only lurking just below the surface, but at times overtly breaks through. It is also important to note that even though some of this sentiment is directed toward outsiders, in other instances it appears, at least in some sense, to be directed inward, that is, toward members of the “community” (e.g. Q 12:42-46 and Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26).9 Perhaps, then, one of the ways in which the difficulty of coming to grips with rejection, found both outside of and within the community, is reflected in Q is through the words and actions of a “master” character in the parable. Here a parable’s character has been employed and remembered in ways that are often unsavory to the modern reader, and yet, in a frustrated and irritated community, precisely in a way that gave some expression to their anger.10

7. Cf. Roth, “ ‘Master’ as Character,” 374. Aspects of the following discussion draw from and overlap with the comments and conclusions found in ibid., 391–6. 8.  Münch, “Gewinnen oder Verlieren,” 249. Cf. also Kloppenborg, Formation, 167–8, on the manner in which judgment sayings and the conflict with outsiders serves a constructive purpose for the Q community. 9.  Here the actions of the master are taken against slaves who are in the household. Again, it can be noted that harsh judgment directed inward is also found, e.g., in the Qumran sectarian documents (cf., e.g., 1QS II). 10.  Thus, though the depiction of the “master” at numerous points can rightly be considered as part of the “Irritation” of the parables (Schramm and Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden, 154), it can also be seen as expressing the irritation of the community in which the parables were transmitted and the transfer to God of the desire for vengeance. There is a sense in which, e.g., the imprecatory Psalms also functioned in this way for Israel. Cf. Thomas Römer, Dark God: Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament (New York: Paulist, 2013), 107–23.

394

The Parables in Q

The apparent location of several “master” parables in Q within the context of discussion concerning “the day of judgment” places the rhetoric firmly within the schema of vindication for the community and judgment falling upon unresponsive outsiders or backsliders,11 an “us/them” mentality that may have led to the inclusion and embracing of at least some elements of the “master” parables. 11.1.3 “Son of Man” and Judgment This issue of judgment is related to a third theme, namely, the “Son of Man” and judgment in Q and the Q parables. As is well known, there are passages in Q in which the “Son of Man” is one who “has come” (e.g. Q 6:22; Q 7:34; and Q 9:58). In addition, there are passages in which the “Son of Man” is one who “is coming” (e.g. Q 11:30; Q 12:8, 10, 40; and Q 17:24, 26, 30). As already seen in Chapter 6, it is precisely in parables that this coming of the Son of Man is often brought into contact with Jesus.12 In this way, the Q parables are instrumental in developing the presentation of Jesus as the “Son of Man” in Q.13 Here, it is worth noting, as Smith has argued, that the Q sayings about the coming of the Son of Man . . . talk about a period of absence followed by an unmistakable visible presence, and they hint at the restored presence as a time of separation and judgment. This is confirmed by the parables in Q that describe an absent master returning from a journey and evaluating his slaves’ conduct.14

At his coming, the “Son of Man” will indeed reward the faithful, a point also made in the parables, even as the emphasis falls upon his executing judgment. At the same time, however, though the theme of judgment is clearly a prominent one in numerous parables and the “Son of Man” is a figure of judgment in several of them, I agree with Stanton’s assessment that there are “good reasons for hesitating to accept that a ‘future’ Son-of-Man christology is the central christological

11. Cf. also Kloppenborg, “Sayings Gospel Q,” 300. 12. Heil makes a similar point when noting, “In Q werden öfter allgemeine Aussagen über das Kommen des Menschensohns mit einem Gleichnis verbunden, das den angesprochenen Jüngern ihre Verantwortung dem Kyrios gegenüber deutlich macht” (“Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension,” 651; emphasis added). 13.  Tuckett is absolutely correct in his observation: “If one is considering the problem of the SM [Son of Man] in Q, and if one defines ‘Q’ as the ‘final’ stage in any development of the Q tradition, then it is clear that the ‘SM’ in Q is Jesus and Jesus alone” (Q and the History of Early Christianity, 243). Cf. also the observation of Lührmann: “Der zum Gericht kommende Menschensohn ist für die Redaktion der Logienquelle auf jeden Fall Jesus, denn auch in Q kann ja schon der irdische Jesus als Menschensohn bezeichnet werden (Lk 7,34// Mt 11,19; Lk 9,58//Mt 8,20)” (Redaktion, 42). 14. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 93.

Conclusion

395

theme in Q and that the proclamation of the Q community was concerned solely or even primarily with impending judgement.”15 For instance, it was seen in the discussion of the parables in Q 17 that it does not appear that Jesus as the “Son of Man” is in view as the actual judge there. Noting this fact, Harb sets forth a contention regarding Q and its redaction in writing, “In Q 17,34-35 wird z.B. durch das passivum divinum Gott (und nicht der Menschensohn) als Richter vorausgesetzt, was der Q-Redaktion (vgl. besonders Q 3,16-17) nicht entspricht.”16 At the same time, however, even if one agrees with the first half of her statement, does the second half necessarily follow? After all, in all likelihood it is not in the comparison of Q 17:34-35 and Q 3:17 that such a difference first comes to light, for, as argued in Chapter 4, in the parables of John the Baptist, God is the judge in Q 3:9 even as Jesus is the judge in Q 3:17. Rather than viewing such differences first and foremost as an indication of an amalgamation of tradition- and redaction-determined elements, in my estimation it is far more interesting to note the manner in which Q seems deliberately to create ambiguity in setting forth the functional unity of God and Jesus in their activities and the manner in which the parables intentionally contribute to this ambiguity. Before turning to this point, however, one final observation should be made here. It is not only unsavory masters that the Q parables present in the context of judgment, it is also the case that more extensive negative imagery is utilized. As Harb observes, “Wie in Q 17,24.26-27 werden auch in Q 12,39-46 durchwegs negative Bilder für die Ankunft des Menschensohnes verwendet.”17 As underscored in the discussion of the parables in Q 12 in Chapters 5, Section 5.1, and Chapter 6, Section 6.2, it is not only the violent master in Q 12:42-46 that presents difficulties but also the identification of the Son of Man with a “thief.” In addition, the utilization of the image of vultures and a corpse (cf. Q 17:37) highlights the manner in which Q not only does not shy away from potentially or actually offensive images but actually, at points, appears to embrace them. 11.1.4 Functional “Christology” Over four decades ago, Stanton wrote, “Recent attempts to grapple with christological themes in the New Testament have concentrated too rigidly on christological titles. This is particularly noticeable in recent studies of Q.”18 Though the 15. Stanton, “On the Christology of Q,” 40. I am not sure, however, that Stanton is correct in connecting this assessment to the assumption that “the resurrection was axiomatic for the Q community” (ibid.), for it does not seem to me that this is the only basis upon which one can argue against an overemphasis upon judgment in Q. For a discussion of the issue of the “resurrection” in Q as opposed to the canonical Gospels, cf. John S. Kloppenborg, “ ‘Easter Faith’ and the Sayings Gospel Q,” Semeia 49 (1990): 71–99. 16. Harb, Die eschatologische Rede, 270. Cf., however, the helpful discussion concerning the eschatological function of Jesus in Q in ibid., 188–92. 17. Ibid., 185. 18.  Stanton, “On the Christology of Q,” 40. Cf. also the comment by Paul Hoffmann and Christoph Heil: “Die Konzentration auf christologische Titel in der älteren Forschung

396

The Parables in Q

consideration of christology exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on the basis of titles has been widely recognized as inadequate, the question of “christology” and Q remains a difficult one. I am quite sympathetic with the view of Hoffmann and Heil when they write that the “christology” of Q “drückt sich vor allem auch in seinen Funktionen aus: so wirkt Jesus z.B. in Q besonders als Wortverkündiger, während er im Markusevangelium stärker als Wundertäter in Erscheinung tritt. Diese Akzentuierung macht gerade Q 7,22 zu einer faszinierenden Ausnahme in Q.”19 There is, however, also a sense in which the actions ascribed to Jesus reveal a “functional ‘christology’ ” beyond the miraculous deeds listed in Q 7:22. As noted in both the discussion of John the Baptist’s parables (in Chapter 4) and the parable of the Workers for the Harvest (Chapter 8, Section 8.6), the activity of Jesus is brought into close contact with the activity of God. As just stated, in Q 3:9 it appears that God is the judge, whereas in Q 3:17 it is Jesus as the “Coming One.” In Q 10:2 it is God who must send out the workers into the field and in Q 10:3 it is Jesus who sends the disciples out. It was also noted in the discussion of the parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42-46) in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, that κύριος is used in Q to refer to both God and Jesus,20 and regardless of whether one views κύριος as a significant titular designation for Jesus in Q or not, at the very least some ambiguity is created concerning the “master” as Symbol in the Q parables. Is the master God or is the master Jesus? In some ways, perhaps, the use of the term κύριος seeks to allow the activity of these two characters to be brought into contact. In the helpful observations by Kloppenborg concerning the development of the identification of Jesus in Q, it is striking how it is predominantly parables that develop the relationship between Jesus’s activity and God’s activity: It is unclear from Q’s initial description whether ὁ ἐρχόμεηος is God or the mal’ak habberît à la Mal 3,1-3. But of course, Q 7,18-23 is designed to claim that title for Jesus himself, in spite of the lack of obvious fit with John’s description of ὁ ἐρχόμεηος. In both Q 10,2 and 12,4-5 the one who controls the ‘harvest’ and the final disposition of judgment is unquestionably God. But with Q 12.42–46, these roles are assumed, through a metaphorical transfer, by the Son of Man.21

It is not merely in acts of judgment, however, that the ambiguity involving the identification of a character as Symbol occurs. As was seen in the discussion of the shepherd as a character in the parable of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7; cf. Chapter 10, Sections 10.4.2 and 10.4.4), there is an important sense in which the

schöpft jedoch die christologische Deutung Jesu in Q nicht aus” (Die Spruchquelle Q:  Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch [3d ed.; Darmstadt:  Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2009], 24). 19. Die Spruchquelle Q, 24. 20. Cf, Chapter 5, n. 47. 21. Kloppenborg, “Power and Surveillance,” 168.

Conclusion

397

activity of Jesus and of God are intertwined in this character and in a theology of seeking or “mission.” At the same time, it must be remembered that in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Jesus and John were both seen to be presented on equal footing as emissaries of Wisdom in the verses following the parable of the Children in the Marketplace (Q 7:31-35) as they both experience a prophet’s rejection along the lines of Deuteronomistic theology (cf. also, e.g., Q 6:23; Q 11:47-51). In addition, regardless of how one understands the difficult Q passage in 7:24-28, it is clear that in Q 7:26 John the Baptist, as the messenger sent to prepare the way of Jesus, is referred to as “more than a prophet.” Furthermore, as noted above, the “Son of Man” does not appear to be the agent of judgment in Q’s eschatological discourse. It is therefore not simply the case that at every point in Q, that which God does, Jesus does, nor is it quite as simple as saying “Jesus was greater than any other prophet,” for this could potentially also be said of John. At the same time, however, it is clear that the words and actions of Jesus are imbued with divine authority throughout Q, as especially underscored in the parable of the House on Rock or Sand in Q 6:47-49. And it is also evident that there is a particular manner in which “the Son” is uniquely related to the Father, both in that which has been entrusted and in knowledge (cf. Q 10:22). Further reflection upon the precise manner in which a “functional christology” is operative in Q certainly seems to be in order, and such reflection must consider the important contribution to the christological expressions that occur in Q through the parables.22 11.1.5 “This Generation” Bork has recently helpfully observed the manner in which “this generation” “[sich] außerhalb des semiotischen Raums des Q-Dokuments [befindet] und damit einen wesentlichen Teil der out-group der Q-Narration [bildet].”23 Regardless of whether one goes so far as Arto Järvinen’s contention and accepts, in his view, “the quite standard view that ‘judgement to this generation’ . . . is Q’s organizing principle,”24 the negative presentation of this group in the parable in Q 7:31-32 as well as in the sayings of Q 11:29-31, 49-51 reveal, as Labahn puts it, “im Blick auf die soziale Qualifikation der Gruppen innerhalb des Textes ist ‘diese Generation’ die entscheidende Chiffre zur Kennzeichnung der Oppositionsgruppe für Jesus, den Menschensohn, und für seine Anhänger.”25 It is worth noting that this

22.  For instance, there is a clear sense in which the parables support Larry Hurtado’s observation that Q “reflects a very high view of Jesus’ role, powers, and person. He is directly associated with God in crucial eschatological functions, and he has unquestioned authority in the lives of his followers” (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 254). 23. Bork, Raumsemantik, 305. 24. Järvinen, “The Son of Man and His Followers,” 186. 25. Labahn, Der Gekomme als Wiederkommender, 424.

398

The Parables in Q

“Oppositionsgruppe” is not simply negatively presented in a parable, but is actually introduced in Q through the comparison in a parable (cf. the parable of the Children in the Marketplace in Q 7:31-32). The first association in Q with “this generation,” therefore, is not a prose description of their character but the image of children in a marketplace whose playing has been ruined. Concerning “this generation,” Kloppenborg has also noted that “if the Sayings Gospel . . . views John, Jesus and their followers in a line of continuity with the prophets calling Israel to repentance and announcing God’s judgment, then Jerusalem, which kills the prophets (13:34), stands at the opposite pole in the symbolic world of Q.”26 Quite clearly, also at this opposite pole is “this generation” for it is from it that Q requires the settling of accounts for the spilled blood of the prophets (Q 11:49-51). And yet, it may be the case that the parables in Q 17:34-35, 37 point to an aspect of “this generation” that is not focused upon their overt opposition to God’s envoys. With a view toward the eschatological “Spruchkette” in Q 17, Rudolf Schnackenburg was of the opinion that the community addressed by Q should be “stets bereit . . . und sich nicht vom irdischen Denken und Trachten des gegenwärtigen ‘bösen Geschlechts’ (vgl. Lk 11,29f.31f. par.) gefangen nehmen lassen.”27 An echo of “this generation” being described as “evil” (πονηρά; Q 11:29) can be heard in the master addressing the third slave in the parable of the Entrusted Money as πονηρὲ δοῦλε (Q 19:22). Such a description demonstrates the manner in which depictions of the unfaithful, or of those devoted to master’s other than God, may all be linked to “this generation.” As such, the parables are not simply illustrating a teaching, they themselves actually are the teaching. 11.1.6 “Kingdom of God” A final theme to consider here is that of “kingdoms” for whether earthly, of Satan, or of God, they appear at several points in Q.  The helpful table in Bork’s work lists: Q 4:5; Q 11:14-20; Q 10:9; Q 6:20; Q 12:31; Q 11:2; Q 7:28; Q 16:16; Q 11:52; [Luke 17:20-21, not paralleled in Matthew]; Q 13:18-21; Q 13:28-29; and Q 22:30.28 So what is it that the parables, in particular, contribute to the “kingdom” understanding of Q? This question is especially pertinent in the light of Kloppenborg’s contentions that, on the one hand, “the center of Q’s theology is not Christology, but the reign of God,”29 but, on the other hand, that “the connection between the kingdom and parabolic narrative” has been “effectively severed, except in the single instance (13:18–19, 20–21) where the kingdom and its ethic was the topic

26. Kloppenborg, “City and Wasteland,” 154. 27.  Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Der eschatologische Abschnitt Lk 17,20-37,” in Mélanges bibliques: En hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux (ed. Albert Descamps and André de Halleux; Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), 229. 28.  Bork, Raumsemantik, 132. Cf. also the list and discussion in Bazzana, “BASILEIA,” 162–6. 29. Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 391.

Conclusion

399

under discussion in the discourse. Whether or not the remainder of the parables were originally about the kingdom one cannot know. In Q, they are not.”30 As seen in Chapter 9, if one limits oneself to the explicit invoking of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, then Kloppenborg is, of course, correct. And yet, to state that only these two parables in Q are “about the kingdom” seems decidedly too narrow a view. For instance, the parable and its development in the Beelzebul controversy underscores “dass Jesus Anteil an einem Königreich hat, welches mit seinem Einfluss die Macht von satanischen und irdischen Königreichen übersteigt” and that “das Königreich Gottes durch sein Gekommen-Sein [sich charakterisiert].”31 These observations fit well with the fascinating study by Bazzana where he notes that “given the fact that βασι λεία is naturally employed in political contexts, one ought to assume that the Sayings Gospel’s deployment of the βασι λεία τοῦ θεοῦ should be conceptualized primarily as a political move or—more precisely, since the Q use assigns ‘sovereignty’ to ‘God’—as a theological political move.”32 Significantly, he concludes, “while certainly the abstract βασι λεία is employed by the Q people as a form of criticism of their contemporary human sovereigns, at the same time its use lays the foundation of another hierarchy, grounded in the privileged authority of the administrators of God’s kingdom.”33 There is a clear sense in which the parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself is utilized in the teaching that the kingdom of God has come.34 At the same time, however, further parables underscore how to live in the light of the now present kingdom of God as well as how to prepare for the kingdom of God that is yet to come in its fullness. Time and again the discussions of a parable in Q have noted both the ethical35 and eschatological implications of a Q parable and dependence upon God (e.g. Q 10:2; 12:14, 17), relating to Jesus and

30. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 318. 31. Bork, Raumsemantik, 134. 32. Bazzana, Kingdom of Bureaucracy, 265. 33. Ibid., 323. 34. As Kloppenborg notes, “For Q . . . the present already partakes of eschatological realities” (“Symbolic Eschatology,” 296). 35.  The extent to which, if at all, NT or Q “ethics” exist is debated. The NT or Q, for instance, does not offer a “Reflexionstheorie der Moral” (cf., e.g., “Ethik als Reflexionstheorie der Moral,” in Niklas Luhmann, Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik:  Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft [4 vols; Frankfurt am Main:  Suhrkamp, 1980–1995] 3:358–447). Yet, the parables do provide implicit and explicit reasons for particular modes of behavior, which Matthew and Luke at times develop further. This reality allows one, as Ruben Zimmermann puts it, “von einer Handlungsbegründung im Sinne einer ‘Ethik’ bzw. ‘impliziten Ethik’ zu sprechen” (“Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes,” TLZ 132 [2007]:  273). Though in some instances the ethics may be more “inferred” than “implicit,” it remains important to recognize, as noted at numerous points in the preceding chapters, that there are ethical implications arising from the Q parables.

400

The Parables in Q

God in a particular manner (Q 6:40; 16:13), the proclamation of and winning of others to the message of Q (e.g. Q 10:2; 15:4-5a, 7), and preparing for the day of judgment and final revelation of the kingdom (e.g. Q 6:47-49; 12:39-40, 42-46),36 all of which are relevant for relating the parables to conceptions of the kingdom. There is thus, as noted in Chapters 6 and 9, a certain “already” and “not yet” of the kingdom in passages such as Q 12:31-32 taken in conjunction with the parable of One Taken and One Left (Q 17:34-35) or the parables of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18-19) and of the Leaven (Q 13:20-21). In addition, the time between the coming of the “already” and before the arrival of the “not yet,” that is the “now,” is marked by a sense of urgency as highlighted in the parable of Settling Out of Court (Q 12:58-59). Even if one is inclined to follow Kloppenborg and state that only the parables in Q 13:18-19 and Q 13:20-21 are “about” the kingdom of God, it is important to recognize that at the very least many other parables “point to” the kingdom.

11.2 Methodology and the Function of the Q Parables 11.2.1 The Q Parables as Intertexts As noted in Chapter 3, a distinctive of this study’s approach to Q and the Q parables is found in moving away from a word-level reconstruction of a Q “text” as a prerequisite to studying this document and instead moving toward considering Q as an “intertext.”37 As such, particular focus fell upon the plot and characters, both prominent narratival elements, along with the images and metaphors that Matthew and Luke drew from Q as they incorporated the Q parables into their own Gospels. Two particularly significant methodological aspects of this intertextual study are worth highlighting here. First, it has hopefully been demonstrated that a word-for-word reconstruction of the Q text is not required for considering Q and gaining insight into its content. At no point in the preceding chapters is any argument concerning a Q parable based uniquely upon a particular wording and at no point does an argument stand or fall based upon a particular verbal reconstruction of Q. Of course, the analysis is not “wordless” and reference was regularly and repeatedly made to the wording of

36.  Cf. the view of Schröter, “In Q the small beginning and the great completion [of the kingdom of God] are opposed to one another, whereby the stress lies on the warning to watchfulness in the face of the unexpected coming of the Son of Man” (“The Son of Man,” 53). 37.  As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Q as an intertext was presented as a metaphorical and narratival realm from which Matthew and Luke drew and which is accessible through Matthew and Luke. In other words, it is the connections in content, form, structure, characters, plot, images, metaphors, and so on between Matthew and Luke that intertextually point to the source from which these are drawn.

Conclusion

401

Matthew and/or Luke. And yet, such references were not made in order to attempt to discover “the Q words,” which, if Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark can tell us anything, often cannot be found in either Matthew or Luke. Rather, the wording was considered as witnessing “prominent characteristics and structures”38 which Q contained and offered writers using it as a source. Second, though verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke is a vital component of the argument for the existence of Q as a source, verbatim agreement is not necessarily a crucial component of identifying a Q text. It is generally argued that as verbatim agreement decreases, the certainty with which a Q passage can be posited also decreases. Even though I do not wish to completely deny the validity of this perspective, once it has been established upon the basis of passages with a high level of verbal agreement that Q existed as a source, identifying further Q passages can also take place on the basis of other connections between Matthew and Luke. To restate a point made in Chapter  3, once intertextual relationships are taken seriously one can recognize that a passage is not necessarily “closer” to Q when the agreement in the wording of Matthew and Luke is high. In fact, even when there is uncertainty, even great uncertainty, concerning the wording of a Q parable, significant insight can still be gained into that parable on the basis of intertextual connections binding Q and Matthew and Luke together. As foreign as it may seem to many NT scholars, it is not necessary for the exegesis of a text to proceed only along the word level. It is possible to exegete structures, characters, and images and thus it is possible to exegete Q without a word-for-word reconstruction of the text. Furthermore, approaching Q as an intertext places particular emphasis upon the plethora of realms from which the Q parables draws its images and inspiration and the points of contact these parables establish with the surrounding world. For instance, it has repeatedly been seen that passages found in the HB or Second Temple texts form part of the background of the Q parables, especially the characters and images found therein. In addition, sentiments expressed by Greco-Roman authors or realities reflected in ancient papyri have been seen to lie behind certain sentiments and even certain expressions. Q is thoroughly embedded in the first century CE and relevant texts of this era can often be recognized as one of the sources offering traditions and images for the Q parables. What is more, Bildfelder, such as the “Master”/God or “Slave”/People of God found in Jewish texts, are found in numerous Q parables with the several Bildfeldern associated with a “shepherd” informing the parable of the Lost Sheep. It is not only Bildfelder associated with characters, however, that are found throughout the Q parables, but also spatial images related to such Bildfeldern. For instance, Bork has recently highlighted the manner in which household imagery of larger, or even elite, households is utilized in a “Haushalt-Gottes-Metaphorik,”39 especially in parables such as the Faithful and Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42-46), the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16-23), and

38. Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism,” 139. 39. The term is that of Gerber, “Es ist stets höchste Zeit,” 167.

402

The Parables in Q

the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26).40 On the basis of either faithful or unfaithful actions or a faithful or unfaithful response, the space can either be a “Platz der Ungläubigen” and receive “eine eschatologische Färbung”41 related to judgment or it can be the “Haushalt Gottes, in welchen man eingeladen ist.”42 This space, and those inhabiting it, is utilized by the Q parables in vivid depictions of the benefits of faithfulness and the terror of unfaithfulness. It is also used in a similar manner, though with a different emphasis, in the parable of the Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24-26) where the question of who or what inhabits the human as “house,” as “space,” is of central importance. For this reason, it is not simply “textual worlds” but also the “world” around the author(s) of Q that inform the background of the parables found here.43 For instance, in addition to the structures of ancient households (masters and slaves) being a bildspendender Bereich, the parable of the House on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47-49) utilizes imagery from the actual construction of homes, and the parables of a Light on a Lampstand (Q 11:33) and of the Leaven (Q 13:20-21), for example, draw on activity that takes place within the life of the home. Numerous parables, including John the Baptist’s parables of the Ax at the Root of the Trees (Q 3:9) and of the Winnowing (Q 3:17) along with Jesus’s parables of a Tree Being Known by Its Fruit (Q 6:43-45), Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2), Asking of a Father (Q 11:11-12), and of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18-19), draw images from the agricultural realm. Though this rural context is often noted, the centurion’s parable of an Authority under Authority (Q 7:8) also draws on military imagery and financial depictions are found in the parables of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12-13, 15-24, 26) and of God or Mammon (Q 16:13). The latter of these employs images overtly laden with religious significance as is also the case in the parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself (Q 11:17-18a). Also not to be overlooked are the parables including animals as “characters” or images as in the parable of Asking of a Father (Q 11:11-12), of the Fowl and the Flowers (Q 12:24, 26-28), of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7), or of the Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37). In sum, both texts and images are woven together into the intertextual world of Q, a world into which we subsequently gain insight as Q becomes an intertext of Matthew and Luke.

40. Cf. Bork, Raumsemantik, 113–18. 41. Ibid., 114. 42. Ibid., 118. 43.  The focus here is upon several bildspendende Bereiche for the parables. For a more extensive list of bildspendende Bereiche in Q as a whole, cf. Ruben Zimmermann, “Metaphorology and Narratology in Q Exegesis:  Literary Methodology as an Aid to Understanding the Q Text,” in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (ed. Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn), 10–11. Zimmermann here groups the metaphors in five fields:  “Metaphors of Animals and Plants,” “Social Metaphors (of the Household): Human Relationships,” “Metaphors of Rural Life,” “Metaphors of Urban Life,” and “Visual Metaphors: Ability to See/Ethics.”

Conclusion

403

11.2.2 Locating the Q Parables in Q In Chapter 2, the definition of a parable was considered and arguments were presented for why, in fact, a significantly greater number of passages in Q should be identified as “parables” than is often the case. When this greater number of parables is recognized, a concomitant recognition immediately follows, namely, that they are found throughout the Q material. Thus, just as Harold Attridge rightly makes the important observation that Jesus’s parables “are scattered throughout the streams of tradition,”44 they are found throughout Q. As has been noted repeatedly throughout this monograph, there are numerous challenges in attempting to reconstruct Q not only on the micro-level involving wording, but also on the macro-level concerning content and the order of that content. It is thus not surprising that there is also some dispute concerning the divisions of Q. Fleddermann provides a helpful overview of suggestions setting forth more numerous, smaller units (Polag, Schenk, and Kloppenborg) as well as suggestions of four large units (Manson, Crossan, and Jacobson).45 Taking three suggested divisions as an example, namely, those of Kloppenborg, Hoffmann and Heil, and Fleddermann, the marked prominence of the parables in Q can be illustrated. First, the divisions set forth by Kloppenborg,46 in which the parables are set in bold: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

3:3, 7-9, 16-17 4:1-13 6:20b-23, 27-33, 35c, 36-37b, 38c, 39-45, 46-49 7:1b-2, 6b-10, 18-19, 21-23, 24-28, 31-35 9:57-60; 10:2-16, 21-24 11:2-4, 9-13 11:14-20, 23-26, 29-35, 39-44, 46-52 12:2-12 12:22-31, 33-34 12:39-40, 42b-46, 49, 51-53, 54-56, 58-59 13:18-21 13:24, 26-30, 34-35; 14:11/18:14; 14:16-24, 26-27; 17:33; 14:34-35 15:4-7; 16:13, 16-18; 17:1b-2, 3b-4, 6b 17:23-24, 37b, 26-27, 30, 34-35; 19:12-13, 15b-26; 22:28-30

Second, the divisions set forth by Hoffmann and Heil,47 with sections that either are or contain parables set in bold:

44. Harold W. Attridge, “Reflections on Research into Q,” Sem 55 (1991): 233. 45. Cf. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 110–12. 46. Cf. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 115n4. In the ensuing list of verses I have excluded the disputed verses, which are placed in parentheses by Kloppenborg. 47. Cf. Hoffmann and Heil, Die Spruchquelle Q, 14–15.

404

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The Parables in Q

3:2b-17, 22-11; 4:1-13, 16; 6:20-49; 7:1-10, 18-35 9:57-60; 10:2-16; 10:21-24; 11:2b-4, 9-13 11:14-26, 16, 29-35, 39-52 12:2-12, 33-34, 22b-31, 39-46, 49-59; 13:18-21 13:24–14:23 14:26–17:21 17:23-37; 19:12-26; 22:28, 30

Finally, even in the five-part structure suggested by Fleddermann that groups larger sections together,48 parables are found in prominent positions as indicated by the references in brackets: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

John and Jesus (3:8–7:35) [3:9, 17 and 7:31-35] The Disciples (9:51–11:13) [10:2 and 11:11-12] The Adversaries (11:14-52) [11:17-18a, 24-26] The Present Kingdom (12:2–13:21) [13:18-19, 20-21] The Future Kingdom (13:24–22:30) [19:12-13, 15-24, 26]

Thus, it is not only the extent to which parables are found in every section of Q (and in every layer of Q, if one is inclined to follow a stratigraphical analysis of Q)49 but also how often they are found at crucial points in a section (beginning, middle, or conclusion) that is striking. This point is important to consider further. 11.2.3 The Function of the Q Parables When considering the function of the parables in Q, a first point to be made involves the role they play in the sections of Q.  As just seen in the discussion above, parables are found in strategic locations throughout Q.  As Kloppenborg observes, “In the case of Q 6:47–49 and 13:18–19, 20–21 they [the parables] fall at the end of a sequence, providing a concluding dramatization. In Q 12:16–21 and 15:4–7, 8–10 the parables introduce ideas upon which the following discourse elaborates.”50 Once one recognizes, however, that there are more parables in Q to be considered than the ten parables Kloppenborg identifies in the article from which this citation is taken, one realizes that there are additional parables, according to Kloppenborg’s divisions, introducing or concluding sections. In addition, even when not introducing or concluding a larger division, parables introduce or conclude subsections within them (cf., e.g., Q 10:2 and Q 17:34-35). Heil recognizes these points, though then concludes, “In Q wird den Gleichnissen Jesu also keine vorrangige Stellung eingeräumt, sie dienen vielmehr als Illustrationen,

48. Cf. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 112. 49.  For my hesitation in pursuing such an approach cf. the brief comments and references in Chapter 3, n. 2. 50. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables in Q,” 317.

Conclusion

405

Begründungen und Überleitungen.”51 This is, however, a somewhat curious conclusion for it seems to me that the utilization of parables at key points in Q, far from belittling their significance, is precisely the manner in which the importance of the parables is underscored. Here, Fleddermann, for instance, has argued, “Besides using parables to articulate the structure of Q, the author also employs them to develop the argument of Q.”52 Specifically, though somewhat problematically, Fleddermann sees this particularly with a view toward the delay of the parousia. He states, “Besides announcing that the Lord’s return has been delayed, the author also explains the delay by assigning a reason for the delay both on the level of the individual and the level of the cosmos. The author unfolds this argument entirely through parables.”53 Even if the preceding chapters have disputed Fleddermann’s view of the significance of the delay in Q as a whole, he is correct in recognizing that the argument of the departing and returning “master” is entirely found within the Q parables. Furthermore, both Kloppenborg and Fleddermann contend that parables in Q do not seem to function as “parables” as such, meaning that they are not “parabolic.” Fleddermann maintains, “Q subordinates the parable form to the speech form and the dialogue form,”54 and Kloppenborg argues that “[the parables] function for the most part as demonstrative ‘proofs’ and ornaments with both exemplary and allegorical features.”55 These “proofs” aim at making an argument more vivid through description, by “putting the matter in plain sight” through an appeal to customary or ordinary behaviors.56 Here Kloppenborg is arguing that according to the description in Aristotle, the parables do not explicitly have a rhetorically primary function in Q’s kingdom discourse, a point that was already discussed above. At the same time, it is important to remember that Fleddermann also argues, as already cited previously in this work, that “the parables in Q are not embellishments; they do not serve just to dress up the argument by introducing striking images. Instead, they help develop the argument of the speeches and dialogues further.”57 Regardless of the precise discursive function one ascribes to the

51. Heil, “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension,” 652. 52. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 95. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid., 94. 55. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 282. Cf. also Kloppenborg’s comments concerning the parables in his Q1: “Here parables function much as they do in other rhetorical speeches, as ‘witnesses.’ The locus of challenge and provocation is not the parable as such, but the entire speech to which they were attached and which they either introduce or conclude” (ibid., 319). As such, it is Kloppenborg’s contention that “the Saying Gospel’s successful incorporation of the parable into a literary format was a key step in the scribalizing of the Jesus tradition. And it provided an important antecedent for Matthew’s and Luke’s much more ambitious use of parables a few decades later” (ibid.). 56. Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables,” 301. 57. Fleddermann, Q: Reconstruction, 508.

406

The Parables in Q

Q parables, and here I think Kloppenborg and Fleddermann would agree, they are not simply or merely illustrations. In fact, I would be inclined to make the claim that certain arguments can only, or at least most effectively, be made through the parable genre58 and would therefore posit that this is precisely the reason for the presence of numerous parables in Q. To consider only a few examples, first, it was mentioned above that in the discussion of the parable of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7), it was seen that the “joy” value of the lost-but-now-found sheep invites theological reflection within the context of the parable on the role of Jesus, and his relationship to the activity of God, and a “mission” in Q. At the same time, by expecting the hearer or reader to agree with the action of the shepherd, there is a sense in which the parable sets forth that “the addressees can and should identify themselves with the shepherd.”59 Yet, Zimmermann highlights a vital point, namely, that the expectation to act like the shepherd is not set forth through “an imperative ethics of commands,” rather “the ethical reflection takes place narratively . . . It is the scenario, the characters, and the emotions that unfold narratively in the parable and thus become models for correct behavior.”60 In other words it is a parable as parable that is able to fulfill this admonishing function in a manner that a direct imperative cannot. Second, the parables are not simply illustrative of teaching that occurs elsewhere but are themselves actual modes of effective teaching, in particular through their appeal structure. For instance, when Q addresses the issue of “judging” in Q 6:37, a simple injunction not to judge and the ensuing didactic statement that one will be judged according to the standard with which one judges operates quite differently from the parable of the Splinter and the Beam (Q 6:41-42). In the parable the addressee is drawn into a narrative progression the problem of hypocritical judgment is illustratively exposed with hyperbolic imagery. It is not that Q 6:37 teaches about judging and Q 6:41-42 illustrates the teaching; rather, both passages “teach.” They simply do so in different ways and with differing levels of appeal to the reader or hearer. Even more significant is the fact that nearly every rhetorical question in Q is found in a parable,61 and several second-person direct addresses are found within 58.  This point is related to the arguments made by Paul Ricoeur and Eberhard Jüngel many years ago concerning metaphors in the volume Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache (Munich:  Chr. Kaiser, 1974). Here, for instance, Ricoeur noted how a parable is marked by “die Verbindung einer Erzählform mit einem metaphorischen Prozess” (ibid., 65). Significant is the manner in which this is connected to his argument that “die Metapher etwas Neues über die Wirklichkeit [sagt]” (ibid., 49) and Jüngel’s conclusion: “Metaphern sind Ereignisse unmittelbaren Lernens. Sie lehren, spielend zu lernen” (ibid., 119). The ensuing paragraphs in the main text seek to highlight precisely how the parables are not simply ornamental or illustrative but may even be indispensable. 59. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 233. 60. Ibid., 234. 61. Exceptions include Q 6:32, 34 (if Matthew’s reading is followed) and 7:24. Rhetorical questions are, of course, not the only questions found in Q parables. For a consideration of the questions found in the parables discussed in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu and as

Conclusion

407

the parables. As was noted in the relevant discussions, the parables, for example, of Asking of a Father (Q 11:11-12), of the Salt (Q 14:34-35), and of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-5a, 7) or of the Splinter and the Beam (Q 6:41-42) and of God or Mammon (Q 16:13) directly draw the hearer or the reader into the presented narrative through the use of such rhetorical devices, employing them to lead the addressee to Q’s intended conclusion.62 Such moves are typical for parables and a vital component of their effectiveness. As Zimmermann puts it, “Parables fulfill a pedagogical function that is further intensified by direct appellative elements, such as questions . . . or imperatives . . . which speak directly to the readers and emphasize over and over: you are challenged to decide for yourself either for or against the message.”63 Finally, certain depictions of judgment can almost only occur through parabolic speech. Though it may be possible to make the statement, “If you don’t obey God he will hack you to pieces,” the depiction, though not less disturbing, finds a context in the parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42-46). As discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, the use of such imagery within the context of a narratival progression involving a master and a slave creates a narratival and parabolic space within which, in antiquity, such violent depictions of judgment can occur. If one can say “a picture is worth a thousand words” perhaps one may be permitted to say “a parable is worth a thousand words.” In sum, in Järvinen’s words, “the document Q as a whole is a mixture of comforting assurances, ominous threats, and demanding exhortations”64 and so are its parables. In fact, as it would appear, certain such elements are able to be expressed only through the parables.

11.3 Concluding Observations and Future Research At the conclusion of his most recent installment in the A Marginal Jew series, Meier argues that the role that parables play in the quest for the historical Jesus is “a secondary and modest one.”65 He goes on to observe that there is a certain irony here in reconstructed in the CEQ, cf. Ruben Zimmermann, “Fragen bei Sokrates und Jesus: Wege des Verstehens – Initiale des Weiterfragens,” in Schülerfragen im (Religions-)Unterricht: Ein notwendiger Bildungsauftrag heute?! (ed. Heike Lindner and Mirjam Zimmermann; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2011), 39–45. The list of passages includes Q 6:39; Q 6:41-42; Q 6:44; Q 7:31; Q 11:11-12; Q 12:24-28; Q 12:42; Q 12:56; Q 13:18; Q 13:20; Q 14:34; and Q 15:4. 62. Rondez, e.g., notes the manner in which rhetorical questions are employed in order to “force” a particular answer upon the reader or hearer of the parable as if it were the only possible answer to a given situation (Alltägliche Weisheit?, 121). 63. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 215. 64. Järvinen, “The Son of Man and His Followers,” 222. 65. Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 375. This is due to Meier’s view: “the parable of the Mustard Seed, the Evil Tenants of the Vineyard, the Great Supper (alias the Marriage Feast), and the Talents (alias the Pounds) all yield positive reasons for judging that, in substance if not in precise wording, they derive from the historical Jesus” (ibid., 8). It is important to

408

The Parables in Q

that “in light of the outsized role attributed to parables by most modern questers, the results of Volume Five have led us to experience a surprising eschatological reversal in scholarship,” and then offers his concluding sentence: “The historical Jesus might well be pleased.”66 Regardless of one’s views concerning the historical Jesus, for the Jesus of Q it is precisely the opposite conclusion that should be reached. In the light of a secondary and modest role often ascribed to the parables in Q, both in their number and in their function, they actually have a rather outsized role in this early Christian text. To this extent, at least, it would seem that the Jesus, as well as the John the Baptist and the centurion, presented in Q would be pleased with the recognition of this point, for the hearing of, grappling with, and living out of their message as presented in Q arrives at its audience in large measure via their parables. It is thus, first of all, my hope that the present work leads to the recognition of significantly more material in Q as rightly to be identified as “parables” along with a greater appreciation of how all of these parables function in this early document of the Jesus movement. In addition to the more narrow focus on Q parables, however, I also hope that this study, along with the works of Arne Bork and Ruben Zimmermann referenced at points in this monograph, not only continues but also provides further impetus for a methodological shift in approaching and studying Q. Even though many insights have been gained by a source- and redaction-criticism dominated approach to Q, the limitations of this approach have become increasingly obvious. As long as the assumption is held that a word-level reconstruction of Q is a prerequisite for research on Q, Q studies will be significantly hampered by the necessary limitations, and ultimate impossibility, of such an approach. Of course, there is value in the heuristic exercise of reconstructing Q; however, it is my sense that such an approach has taken us about as far as we can go along these lines. As Zimmermann observed at a conference in Mainz on metaphor, narrative, and parables in Q, “Though the overviews and summaries of Q research found in the Documenta Q series is clearly a valuable service to scholarship, it also reflects how debates and discussions concerning the precise reconstruction of Q may well never end and may therefore be an unproductive line to continue to follow.”67 For this reason, without wishing in any way to discount the important and valuable Q research done over the past 100–150 years, perhaps the intertextual approach advocated here can be seen as the planting of new methodological trees in the field of research on Q. I can only hope that these new trees will bring forth fruitful insights concerning the various themes and teachings found in Q, considered here with a view toward the Q parables, so that in the end both the trees and their fruit can be judged as being “good.”68 note, however, that Meier emphasizes that “this is not to say that all the other parables are creations of the early church or the evangelists, though some are. Rather, the large majority of parables simply do not supply sufficient evidence for making a firm judgment either way (hence, non liquet . . .)” (ibid.). Cf. also ibid., 209–10. 66. Ibid., 375. 67. Zimmermann, “Metaphorology and Narratology in Q Exegesis,” 5. 68.  These final thoughts echo my conclusion in Roth, “Parablen in der Logienquelle” (forthcoming).

BIBLIOGRAPHY The notes in this volume use the standard abbreviations found in Patrick H. Alexander et al., The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1999), supplemented by Siegfried M. Schwertner, Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete (3d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014). Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Anchor Bible 26. Garden City : Doubleday, 1971. Aletti, Jean-Noël. “Parabole des mines et/ou parabole du roi: Lc 19, 11–28: Remarques sur l’écriture parabolique de Luc.” Pages 309–32 in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles: XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon (1987). Edited by Jean Delorme. Lectio Divina 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. Alkier, Stefan. “Intertextualität – Annäherungen an ein texttheoretisches Paradigma.” Pages 1–26 in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110. Edited by Dieter Sänger. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Allison, Dale C. Jr. “The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23=Luke 11.34–36.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 61–83. Allison, Dale C. Jr. The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. Allison, Dale C. Jr. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Amsler, Frédéric. “Comment le texte de la Source a-t-il été reconstruit? Notes sur l’histoire des editions de Q.” Pages 51–72 in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origins du christianisme. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler and Daniel Marguerat. Monde de la Bible 62. Geneva: Labor et fides, 2008. Arai, Sasagu. “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf – Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 2 (1976): 111–37. Archibald, Herbert Thompson. The Fable as a Stylistic Test in Classical Greek Literature. Baltimore: J. H. Furst Company, 1912. Arnal, William E. “Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations: From Rhetoric to Social History.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 75–94. Arnal, William E. “The Q Document.” Pages 119–54 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt A. Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Arnal, William E. “Redactional Fabrication and Group Legitimation: The Baptist’s Preaching in Q 3:7–9, 16–17.” Pages 165–80 in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Arrian. Epictetus Discourses, Books 1–2. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Attridge, Harold W. “Reflections on Research into Q.” Semeia 55 (1991): 223–34. Baasland, Ernst. Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount: New Approaches to a Classical Text. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 351. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

410

Bibliography

Bailey, Donald M. Greek and Roman Pottery Lamps. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1963. Bailey, Kenneth Ewing. Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Translated by Christine van Boheemen. 2d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. Bammel, Ernest. “Seminar Report: The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition.” New Testament Studies 18 (1971): 95–128. Barton, Stephen C. “Parables on God’s Love and Forgiveness (Luke 15:1–32).” Pages 199–216 in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Batten, Alicia. “More Queries for Q: Women and Christian Origins.” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 24 (1994): 44–51. Bauckham, Richard. “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 162–76. Bawarshi, Anis S. and Mary Jo Reiff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Reference Guides to Rhetoric and Composition. West Lafayette: Parlor, 2010. Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. “BASILEIA—The Q Concept of Kingship in Light of Documentary Papyri.” Pages 153–68 in Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament: Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 3.–4. Dezember 2009 am Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte der Universität Salzburg. Edited by Peter Arzt-Grabner and Christina M. Kreinecker. Philippika: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 274. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. “Violence and Human Prayer to God in Q 11.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70 (2014), 8 pages, Art. #2733, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ hts.v70i1.2733. Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981. Beare, Francis Wright. “The Parable of the Guests at the Banquet: A Sketch of the History of Its Interpretation.” Pages 1–14 in The Joy of Study: Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects Presented to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant. Edited by Sherman E. Johnson. New York: MacMillan, 1951. Beavis, Mary Ann. “Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–8).” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 37–54. Beavis, Mary Ann. “Introduction: Seeking the ‘Lost Coin’ of Parables about Women.” Pages 17–32 in The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom. Edited by Mary Ann Beavis. The Biblical Seminar 86. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Becker, Jürgen. Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth. Biblische Studien 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972. Bengel, Johann Albrecht. Der Gnomen: Lateinisch-deutsche Teilausgabe der Hauptschriften zur Rechtfertigung: Römer-, Galater-, Jakobusbrief und Bergpredigt: Nach dem Druck von 1835/36. Edited and translated by Heino Gaese. Tübingen: Francke, 2003. Bennema, Cornelius. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009.

Bibliography

411

Bennema, Cornelius. “A Theory of Character in the Fourth Gospel with Reference to Ancient and Modern Literature.” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 375–421. Bergemann, Thomas. Q auf dem Prüfstand. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 158. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Berger, Klaus. Formen und Gattungen des Neuen Testaments. UTB 2532. Tübingen: Francke, 2005. Bernoulli, Carl Albrecht. Die Kultur des Evangeliums: Erster Band: Johannes der Täufer und die Urgemeinde. Leipzig: Der Neue Geist Verlag, 1918. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49). Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Betz, Otto. “The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot (Light on the Dark Passages: Matthew 24, 51 and Parallel; Acts 1, 18).” Revue de Qumran 17 (1964): 43–58. Bindemann, Walter. “Harter Herr oder gnädiger Gott? Zur Auslegung des Gleichnisses vom anvertrauten Geld (Mt 25,14-30 par. Lk 19,12-27).” Pages 129–50 in Bekenntnis und Erinnerung: Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Hans-Friedrich Weiss. Edited by Klaus-Michael Bull and Eckart Reinmuth. Rostocker theologische Studien 16. Münster: Lit, 2004. Bishop, E. F. “The Parable of the Lost or Wandering Sheep: Matthew 18.10–14; Luke 15.3–7.” Anglican Theological Review 44 (1962): 44–57. Bjorndahl, Sterling. “An Honor Map of Q.” Pages 63–78 in Wenn Drei das Gleiche sagen – Studien zu den ersten drei Evangelien mit einer Werkstattübersetzung des Q-Textes. Edited by Stefan H. Brandenburger and Thomas Hieke. Theologie 14. Münster: Lit, 1998. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990. Blomberg, Craig L. “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case: The Lucan Parables.” Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984): 78–103. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. 2 vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994–96. Böhlemann, Peter. Jesus und der Täufer: Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1984. Bork, Arne. Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.404. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Böttrich, Christfried. “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb in der Nacht: Parusieerwartung und Paränese.” Pages 31–57 in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Christfried Böttrich. Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006. Boucher, Madeleine I. The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 6. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977. Boucher, Madeleine I. The Parables. New Testament Message 7. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 4 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1989–2009.

412

Bibliography

Bradley, Keith R. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. Collection Latomus 185. Brussels: Latomus, Revue d’Études Latines, 1984. Braun, Willi. “The Historical Jesus and the Mission Speech in Q 10:2–12.” Foundations & Facets Forum 7 (1991): 279–316. Bremond, Claude. Logique du récit. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973. Brennecke, Hanns Christof. “ ‘Niemand kann zwei Herren dienen’: Bemerkungen zur Auslegung von Mt 6,24/Lk 16,13 in der Alten Kirche.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 88 (1997): 157–69. Bridge, Steven L. “Where the Eagles Are Gathered”: The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Brightman, F. E. “Six Notes.” Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1928): 158–65. Brooks, Peter. Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Brown, David M. All the Parables of Jesus: A Guide to Discovery. Bloomington: WestBow, 2012. Brownlee, W. H. “Muhammad ed-Deeb’s Own Story of His Scroll Discovery.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16 (1957): 236–9. Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 10th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. English: History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Burchard, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Burkett, Delbert. The Unity and Plurality of Q. Vol. 2 of Rethinking the Gospel Sources. Society of Biblical Literature Early Christianity and Its Literature 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906. Burkitt, F. Crawford. Review of Adolf von Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1907): 454–9. Cadbury, Henry J. “Animals and Symbolism in Luke (Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts, IX).” Pages 3–15 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920. Cadoux, A. T. The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use. New York: MacMillan, 1931. Caird, George B. “Expounding the Parables: I: The Defendant (Matthew 525f.; Luke 1258f.).” Expository Times 77 (1965): 36–9. Cameron, Ron. “Myth and History in the Gospel of Thomas.” Apocrypha 8 (1997): 193–205. Cameron, Ron. “The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Response to John S. Kloppenborg.” Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 351–4. Cameron, Ron. “ ‘What Have You Come Out to See?’ Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels.” Semeia 49 (1990): 35–69. Carlston, Charles E. and Dennis Norlin. “Once More: Statistics in Q.” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 59–78. Carlston, Charles E. and Dennis Norlin. “Statistics and Q—Some Further Observations.” Novum Testamentum 41 (1999): 108–23.

Bibliography

413

Carter, Warren. “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:27–31).” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 467–87. Carter, Warren. “Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31–32).” Pages 181–201 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Carter, Warren. “Resisting and Imitating the Empire: Imperial Paradigms in Two Matthean Parables.” Interpretation 56 (2002): 260–72. Carter, Warren and John Paul Heil. Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 30. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998. Catchpole, David C. “The Centurion’s Faith and Its Function in Q.” Pages 1:517–40 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Catchpole, David C. “Q and ‘The Friend at Midnight’ (Luke xi. 5–8/9).” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 407–24. Catchpole, David C. “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom: A Rejoinder.” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 377–88. Catchpole, David C. The Quest for Q. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Catchpole, David C. “The Ravens, the Lilies and the Q Hypothesis: A Form-Critical Perspective on the Source-Critical Problem.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 6/7 (1981/1982): 77–87. Charette, Blaine. The Theme of Recompense in Matthew’s Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 79. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. The Good & Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978. Cicero. On Duties. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913. Collins, Adela Yarboro. “The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source.” Pages 369–89 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Polebridge, 1989. Cotter, Wendy J. “Children Sitting in the Agora: Q (Luke) 7:31–35.” Forum 5 (1989): 63–82. Cotter, Wendy J. The Christ of the Miracle Stories: Portrait through Encounter. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Cotter, Wendy J. “The Parable of the Children in the Market-Place, Q (Lk) 7:31–35: An Examination of the Parable’s Image and Significance.” Novum Testamentum 29 (1987): 289–304. Cotter, Wendy J. “The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: Their Function in the Earliest Stratum of Q.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992): 38–51. Cotter, Wendy J. “ ‘Yes, I Tell You, and More Than a Prophet.” Pages 135–50 in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Crook, Zeba Antonin. “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypotheses.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78 (2000): 23–48.

414

Bibliography

Crossan, John Dominic. Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus. New York: Seabury, 1980. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996. Crossan, John Dominic. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Crossan, John Dominic. “The Seed Parables of Jesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 244–66. Crossley, James G. “The Semitic Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2 (2004): 138–57. Cullmann, Oscar. “Das Gleichnis vom Salz: Zur frühesten Kommentierung eines Herrenworts durch die Evangelisten.” Pages 192–201 in Oscar Cullmann: Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962. Edited by Karlfried Fröhlich. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Dalman, Gustav. Von der Ernte zum Mehl: Ernten, Dreschen, Worfeln, Sieben, Verwahren, Mahlen. Vol. 3 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Schriften des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts 6. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1933. Daly, Lloyd W. Aesop without Morals: The Famous Fables and a Life of Aesop. New York: T. Yoseloff, 1961. Darr, John A. On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Dassmann, Ernst and Georg Schöllgen. “Haus II (Hausgemeinschaft).” Pages 13:802–905 in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by T. Kluser et al. Stuttgart, 1950–. Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. DeConick, April. The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Derrenbaker, Robert A. Jr. Review of Dale C. Allison Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 150–1. Derrenbaker, Robert A. Jr and John S. Kloppenborg Verbin. “Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 57–76. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Christ and Reproof (Matthew 7.1-5/Luke 6.37–42).” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 271–81. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin.” New Testament Studies 26 (1979): 36–60. Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970. Dewey, Arthur J. “A Prophetic Pronouncement: Q 12:42–46.” Forum 5 (1989): 99–108. Dibelius, Martin. Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. Dillon, Richard J. “Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25–33/Luke 12:22–31).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 605–27. von Dobbeler, Stephanie. Das Gericht und das Erbarmen Gottes. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 70. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1988. Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. 2d ed. London: Nisbet, 1936.

Bibliography

415

Dolby-Stahl, Sandra K. “A Literary Folkloristic Methodology for the Study of Meaning in Personal Narrative.” Journal of Folklore Research 22 (1985): 45–69. Dormeyer, Detlev. “Literarische und theologische Analyse der Parabel Lukas 14,15–24.” Bibel und Leben 15 (1974): 206–19. Dormeyer, Detlev. “Q 7,1.3.6b-9.?10? Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum: Narrative Strategie mit Chrie, Wundergeschichte und Gleichnis.” Pages 189–206 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. von Dobbeler, Stephanie. Das Gericht und das Erbarmen Gottes. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 70; Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1988. Downing, F. Gerald. Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Manuals 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Dronsch, Kristina. “Lieber eine Leuchte als ein unscheinbares Licht (Die Lampe auf dem Leuchter / Vom Licht auf dem Leuchter): Q 11,33 (Mk 4,21 / Mt 5,15 / Lk 8,16; 11,33 / EvThom 33,2f.).” Pages 133–8 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Dronsch, Kristina. “Text und Intertextualität: Versuch einer Verhältnisbestimmung auf interdisziplinärer Grundlage.” Pages 26–39 in Intertextualität: Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Arbeitsfeld. Edited by Karin Herrmann and Sandra Hübentahl. Sprache & Kultur. Aachen: Shaker, 2007. Duff, David, ed. Modern Genre Theory. Longman Critical Readers; Harlow : Longman, 2000. Dungan, David L., ed. The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium led by M. É. Boismard, W. R. Farmer, F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Dunn, James D. G. “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition.” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 139–75. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1975. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Dunn, James D. G. “John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture.” Pages 42–54 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Dupont, Jacques. “Dieu ou mammon: (MT 6,24; LC 16,13).” Pages 2:551–67 in Études sur les évangiles synoptiques. Edited by Frans Neirynck. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 70. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Dupont, Jacques. “Les implications christologiques de la parabole de la brebis perdue.” Pages 331–50 in Jésus aux origines de la christologie. Edited by J. Dupont. 2d ed. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 40. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Dupont, Jacques. “La lampe sur le lampadaire dans l’évangile de Saint Luc (Lc 8,16; 11,33).” Pages 1032–48 in Études sur les évangiles synoptiques. Edited by Frans Neirynck. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 70. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Dupont, Jacques. “La parabole de la Brebis perdue (Matthieu 18, 12–14; Luc 15, 4–7).” Gregorianum 49 (1968): 265–87.

416

Bibliography

Dupont, Jacques. “La transmission des paroles de Jésus sur la lampe et la mesure dans Marc 4,21-25 et dans la tradition Q.” Pages 201–36 in Logia: Les Paroles des Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus. Edited by Joël Delobel. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 59. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Ebner, Martin. Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess. Herders biblische Studien 15. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. van Eck, Ernest. “Do Not Question My Honour: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Parable of the Minas (Lk 19:12b–24, 27).” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011). Art. #977. 11 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v67i3.977. Eder, Jens. Die Figur im Film: Grundlagen der Figurenanalyse. Marburg: Schüren, 2008. Edwards, Richard A. “An Approach to a Theology of Q.” Journal of Religion 51 (1971): 247–69. Edwards, Richard A. “Matthew’s Use of Q in Chapter Eleven.” Pages 257–75 in Logia: Les Paroles des Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus. Edited by Joël Delobel. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 59. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Edwards, Richard A. A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Ehrhardt, Arnold. The Framework of the New Testament Stories. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964. Ellingworth, Paul. “Luke 12.46—Is There an Anti-climax Here?” The Bible Translator 31 (1980): 242–3. Erlemann, Kurt. Das Bild Gottes in den synoptischen Gleichnissen. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 126. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988. Erlemann, Kurt. Gleichnisauslegung: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. UTB 2093. Tübingen: Francke, 1999. Ernst, Josef. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1976. Ernst, Josef. “Gastmahlgespräche: Lk 14,1–24.” Pages 57–78 in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schürmann. Edited by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Josef Ernst, and Joachim Wanke. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. Ernst, Josef. Johannes der Täufer. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 54. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Evans, Craig A. “Authenticating the Words of Jesus.” Pages 3–14 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. New Testament Tools and Studies 28. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Eve, Eric. “Challenging Q.” Expository Times 113 (2002): 408–409. Eve, Eric. “Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment.” Pages 89–114 in Questioning Q. Edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin. London: SPCK, 2004. Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem. London: Macmillan, 1964. Farrer, Austin. “On Dispensing with Q.” Pages 55–88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by Dennis E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. Finnern, Sönke. Narratologie und biblische Exegese: Eine integrative Methode der Erzählanalyse und ihr Ertrag am Beispiel von Matthäus 28. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.285. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28. Garden City : Doubleday, 1981–85. Fleddermann, Harry T. “The Beginning of Q.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 24 (1985): 153–9.

Bibliography

417

Fleddermann, Harry T. “The Demands of Discipleship: Matt 8,19-22 Par. Luke 9,57-62.” Pages 1:541–61 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Fleddermann, Harry T. “The Householder and the Servant Left in Charge.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25 (1986): 17–26. Fleddermann, Harry T. “John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11–12//Luke 3:16–17).” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23 (1984): 377–84. Fleddermann, Harry T. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 122. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995. Fleddermann, Harry T. “Mark’s Use of Q: The Beelzebul Controversy and the Cross Saying.” Pages 17–33 in Jesus, Mark, and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and Its Earliest Record. Edited by Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Fleddermann, Harry T. “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28 (1989): 216–36. Fleddermann, Harry T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Fleddermann, Harry T. Review of the CEQ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 391–2. Fletcher-Louis, Crispen. “Jesus and Apocalypticism.” Pages 3:2877–909 in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill. Flusser, David. “Aesop’s Miser and the Parable of the Talents.” Pages 9–25 in Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod. Studies in Judaism and Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Flusser, David. Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus: 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse. Judaica et Christiana 4. Bern: Peter Lang, 1981. Foerster, Werner. “Das Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Pfunden.” Pages 37–56 in Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Eine Festschrift für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 16. Juni 1953. Edited by Werner Foerster. Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1953. Forbes, Greg W. The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Ford, Richard Q. The Parables of Jesus: Recovering the Art of Listening. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Forster, Edward M. Aspects of the Novel. London: Edward Arnold, 1927. Foster, Paul. “The Pastoral Purpose of Q’s Two-Stage Son of Man Christology.” Biblica 89 (2008): 81–91. Foster, Paul. “Q Parables: Their Extent and Function.” Pages 255–86 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Fowler, Alastair. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. France, R. T. “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples.” Pages 252–81 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1972.

418

Bibliography

France, R. T. “God and Mammon.” Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979): 3–21. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Frenschkowski, Marco. “Kyrios in Context: Q 6:46, the Emperor as ‘Lord,’ and the Political Implications of Christology in Q.” Pages 95–118 in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und Römische Herrschaft: Vorträge auf der Ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies. Edited by Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 36. Tübingen: A. Franke, 2002. Frey, Jörg. “The Character and Background of Matt 5:25–26: On the Value of Qumran Literature in New Testament Interpretation.” Pages 3–39 in The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting. Edited by Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 60. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Éditeurs, 2005. Frey, Jörg. “Die Lilien und das Gewand: EvThom 36 und 37 als Paradigma für das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Überlieferung.” Pages 122–80 in Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Jens Schröter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 157. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5. Wilmington: Michael Glazier and Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980. Friedrichsen, Timothy A. “ ‘Minor’ and ‘Major’ Matthew–Luke Agreements against Mk 4,30–32.” Pages 1:649–76 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Friedrichsen, Timothy A. “A Note on καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτόν (Luke 12:46 and the Parallel in Matthew 24:51).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 258–64. Friedrichsen, Timothy A. “The Parable of the Mustard Seed: Mark 4,30–32 and Q 13,18–19: A Surrejoinder for Independence.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 77 (2001): 297–317. Fuchs, Albert. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach Jesus. Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 5. Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament und Seiner Umwelt, 1980. Fuchs, Albert. “Exegese im elfenbeinernen Turm: Das quellenkritische Problem von Mk 1,2-8 par Mt 3,1-12 par Lk 3,1-17 in der Sicht der Zweiquellentheorie und von Deuteromarkus.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 20 (1995): 23–149. Funk, Robert W. “Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: The Parable of the Leaven.” Interpretation 25 (1971): 149–70. Funk, Robert W. Funk on Parables: Collected Essays. Edited with an introduction by Bernard Brandon Scott. Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2006. Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Funk, Robert W. “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds: Ezekiel 17:22–24; Mark 4:30–32.” Interpretation 27 (1973): 3–9. Funk, Robert W. Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Bibliography

419

Funk, Robert W. “The Wilderness.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 205–14. Gäbel, Georg. “Mehr Hoffnung wagen (Vom Senfkorn): Mk 4,30-32 (Q 13,18-19/Mt 13,31-32/Lk 13,18-19/EvThom 20).” Pages 327–36 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Garrett, Susan R. “ ‘Lest the light in you be darkness’: Luke 11:33–36 and the Question of Commitment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 93–105. Gathercole, Simon. The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Gathercole, Simon. The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 11. Leiden: Brill, 2014. von Gemünden, Petra. Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Eine Bildfelduntersuchung. Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Gerber, Christine. “Bitten lohnt sich (Vom bittenden Kind) Q 11,9-13 (Mt 7,7-11 / Lk 11,9-13.” Pages 119–25 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Gerber, Christine. “Es ist stets höchste Zeit (Vom treuen und untreuen Haushalter) Q 12,42-46 (Mt 24,45-51/Lk 12,42-46).” Pages 161–70 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Glancy, Jennifer A. “Slaves and Slavery in the Matthean Parables.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 67–90. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88. Goodacre, Mark. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Goodacre, Mark and Nicholas Perrin, eds. Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Goulder, Mark D. “Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels.” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 51–69. Goulder, Mark D. “The Derrenbacker-Kloppenborg Defense.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 331–6. Goulder, Mark D. “Is Q a Juggernaut? ” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 667–81. Goulder, Mark D. Luke—A New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Goulder, Mark D. “On Putting Q to the Test.” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 218–34. Goulder, Mark D. “Self-Contradiction in the IQP.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 506–17. Gowler, D. B. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 2. New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Gräßer, Erich. Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. 3d. ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Groenewald, E. P. “God and Mammon.” Neotestamentica 1 (1967): 59–66.

420

Bibliography

Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 2d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961. Guenther, Heinz O. “When ‘Eagles’ Draw Together.” Forum 5 (1989): 140–50. Guijarro, Santiago. “The Family in First-Century Galilee.” Pages 42–65 in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor. Edited by Halvor Moxnes. London: Routledge, 1997. Habbe, Joachim. Palästina zur Zeit Jesu: Die Landwirtschaft in Galiläa als Hintergrund der synoptischen Evangelien. Neukirchener theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996. Häfner, Gerd. Der verheißene Vorläufer: Redaktionskritische Untersuchung zur Darstellung Johannes der Täufers im Matthäusevangelium. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 27. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33. Dallas: Word, 1993–95. Hahn, Ferdinand “Die Worte vom Licht Lk 11,33–36.” Pages 107–38 in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Für Josef Schmid. Edited by Paul Hoffmann in collaboration with Norbert Brox and Wilhelm Pesch. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. “A Note on Matthew XII.28 Par. Luke XI.20.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 167–9. Harb, Gertraud. Die eschatologische Rede des Spruchevangeliums Q: Redaktions- und Traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Q 17,23-27. Biblical Tools and Studies 19. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Harb, Gertraud. “The Meaning of Q 17,37: Problems, Opinions and Perspectives.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 102 (2011): 283–93. von Harnack, Adolf. New Testament Studies II: The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Translated by J. R. Wilkinson. Crown Theological Library. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1908. von Harnack, Adolf. Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die Zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Eschatologische Existenz: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1. Thessalonicher 4,13–5,11. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 110. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu: Eine hermeneutische Einführung. 4th ed. Uni-Taschenbücher 1343. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Hartin, Patrick J. “Angst in the Household: A Deconstructive Reading of the Parable of the Supervising Servant (Lk 12:41–48).” Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 373–90. Hartin, Patrick J. “ ‘Yet Wisdom Is Justified by Her Children’ (Q 7:35): A Rhetorical and Compositional Analysis of Divine Sophia in Q.” Pages 151–64 in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Haslam, J. A. G. “The Centurion at Capernaum: Luke 71-10.” Expository Times 96 (1985): 109–10. Hasler, Victor. “Die königliche Hochzeit, Matth. 22,1–14.” Theologische Zeitschrift 18 (1962): 25–35. Hauck, Friedrich. Das Evangelium des Lukas: Synoptiker II. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Leipzig: Deichert, 1934. Havener, Ivan. Q: The Sayings of Jesus. Good News Studies 19. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Bibliography

421

Hawkins, J. C. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909. Head, Peter M. and Peter J. Williams. “Q Review.” Tyndale Bulletin 54 (2003): 119–44. Hearon, Holly and Antoinette Clark Wire. “Women’s Work in the Realm of God (Mt. 13.33; Lk.13.20, 21; Gos. Thom. 96; Mt. 6.28–30; Lk. 12.27–28; Gos. Thom. 36).” Pages 136–57 in The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom. Edited by Mary Ann Beavis. The Biblical Seminar 86. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Hedrick, Charles. Many Things in Parables: Jesus and His Modern Critics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Hedrick, Charles. Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1994. Heil, Christoph. “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension der Gleichnisrede Jesu in Q.” Pages 649–59 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. Heil, Christoph. Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 111. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Heil, Christoph. “Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes (Sorgt euch nicht) Q 12,24.26-28 (Mt 6,26.28-30 / Lk 12,24.26-28 / EvThom 36,1-4 [P.Oxy. 655] / Agr 124).” Pages 144–53 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Heil, Christoph. “Was erzählt die Parabel vom anvertrauten Geld? Sozio-historische und theologische Aspekte von Q 19,12-26.” Pages 339–70 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Heil, John Paul. The Meal Scenes in Luke–Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 52. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1999. Heiligenthal, Roman. “ ‘Gott als Banker’: Die Parabel von den ‘anvertrauten Talenten’ (Mt 25,14–30).” Pages 81–91 in Wahrheit suchen – Wirklichkeit wahrnehmen: Festschrift für Hans Mercker zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Elisabeth Reil and Rolf Schieder. Landauer Universitätsschriften: Theologie 4. Landau: Knecht Verlag, 2000. Heininger, Bernhard. Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 24. Münster: Aschendorff, 1991. Helbig, Jörg. Intertextualität und Markierung: Untersuchungen zur Systematik und Funktion der Signalisierung von Intertextualität. Beiträge zur neueren Literaturgeschichte 3.141. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1996. Henderson, Ian H. “Gnomic Quatrains in the Synoptics: An Experiment in Genre Definition.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 481–98. Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Hengel, Martin. Eigentum und Reichtum: Aspekte einer frühchristlichen Sozialgeschichte. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973. Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000. Hengel, Martin. “Der Lukasprolog und seine Augenzeugen: Die Apostel, Petrus und die Frauen.” Pages 195–242 in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Stephen C. Barton, and Benjamin G. Wold. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer. Jesus und das Judentum. Vol. 1 of Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

422

Bibliography

Herman, David, James Phelan, Peter J. Rabinowitz, Brian Richardson, and Robyn Warhol. Narrative Theory: Core Concepts & Critical Debates. Theory and Interpretation of Narrative. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2012. Herzog, William R. III. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Hills, Julian V. Review of the CEQ. Theological Studies 63 (2002): 386–8. Hjerl-Hansen, Bórge. “Le rapprochement poisson-serpent dans la prédication de Jesus (Mt. VII,10 et Luc XI,11).” Revue biblique 55 (1948): 195–8. Hoffmann, Paul. “Die Anfänge der Theologie in der Logienquelle.” Pages 134–52 in Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Josef Schreinger and Gerhard Dautzenberg. 2d ed. Würzberg: Echter Verlag, 1978. Hoffmann, Paul. “Blinde Führer? Christliche Gemeideleitung [sic, though correct in the table of contents] im Visier des Lukas.” Pages 1–33 in Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John. Edited by J. Verheyden, G. van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 218. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Hoffmann, Paul. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. 3d ed. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1982. Hoffmann, Paul. Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 28. Münster: Aschendorff, 1995. Hoffmann, Paul and Christoph Heil. Die Spruchquelle Q: Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch. 3d ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2009. Holthuis, Susanne. Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption. Stauffenburg Colloquium 28. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1993. Honoré, A. M. “A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 95–147. Hoppe, Rudolf. “Das Gastmahlgleichnis Jesu (Mt 22,1-10; Lk 14,16-24) und seine vorevangelische Traditionsgeschichte.” Pages 277–93 in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien: Festgabe für Paul Hofmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Rudolf Hoppe and Ulrich Busse. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Hoppe, Rudolf. “How Did Jesus Understand His Death? The Parables in Eschatological Prospect.” Pages 154–69 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective: The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Christentum und Judentum in der Logienquelle.” Evangelische Theologie 51 (1991): 344–64. Horsley, Richard A. “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Reluctant Recognition by Modern Scholars.” Semeia 83/84 (1998): 19–66. Horsley, Richard A. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. 2d ed. New York: Continuum, 1994. Horsley, Richard A. with Jonathan Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Huffman, Norman A. “Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1978): 207–20. Hultgren, Arland J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Hultgren, Stephen. Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 113. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.

Bibliography

423

Humphries, Michael L. Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. Hüneburg, Martin. “Heilung per Befehl (Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum): Q 7,1.3.6b-9.” Pages 173–82 in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Band 1: Die Wunder Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann in collaboration with Istvan Czachesz, Detlev Dormeyer, Judith Hartenstein, Bernd Kollmann, Annette Merz, Christian Münch, Tobias Nicklas, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Uta Poplutz. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Hüneburg, Martin. Jesus als Wundertäter in der Logienquelle: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie von Q. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001. Hunter, A. M. Interpreting the Parables. Rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1964. Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno. “σίναπι.” Pages 7:286–90 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–79. Inselmann, Anke. Die Freude im Lukasevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.322. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Jackson, Bernard S. Theft in Early Jewish Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Jacobson, Arland D. The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992. Jacobson, Arland D. “Jesus against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition.” Pages 189–218 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James Robinson. Edited by Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin De Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 146. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Jacobson, Arland D. “The Literary Unity of Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 365–89. Jannidis, Fotis. “Character.” Pages 14–29 in Handbook of Narratology. Edited by Peter Hühn, John Pier Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. Narratologia: Contributions to Narrative Theory. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Jannidis, Fotis. Figur und Person: Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie. Narratologia 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Järvinen, Arto. “The Son of Man and His Followers: A Q Portrait of Jesus.” Pages 180–222 in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Jeremias, Joachim. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 8th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. English: The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. 2d ed. New York: Scribner, 1972. Jeremias, Joachim. “Die Lampe unter dem Scheffel.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 39 (1940): 237–40. Jeremias, Joachim. “Tradition und Redaktion in Lukas 15.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 62 (1971): 172–89. Jeremias, Joachim. Die Verkündigung Jesu. Vol. 1 of Neutestamentliche Theologie. 3d ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1979. Jervis, L. Ann. “Suffering for the Reign of God: The Persecution of Disciples in Q.” Novum Testamentum 44 (2002): 313–32. Johnson, Steven R. Q 7:1–10: The Centurion’s Faith in Jesus’ Word. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.

424

Bibliography

Jones, Ivor H. The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary. Novum Testamentum Supplements 80. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Jónsson, Jakob. Humour and Irony in the New Testament: Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash. Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 28. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Joseph, Simon J. Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.333. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Jülicher, Adolf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 2 vols. 2d ed. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1910. Kahl, Werner. “Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 103 (2012): 20–46. Kahl, Werner. “Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder: Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems.” Transparent-Extra 75 (2004): 1–36. Kahl, Werner. “Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems.” Pages 404–42 in Kontexte der Schrift: Band II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache – Text: Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Christian Strecker. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2005. Kähler, Christoph. Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie und Therapie: Versuch eines integrativen Zugangs zum kommunikativen Aspekt von Gleichnissen Jesu. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Kazmierski, Carl R. John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996. Kazmierski, Carl R. “The Stones of Abraham: John the Baptist.” Biblica 68 (1987): 22–39. Keen, Suzanne. “Readers’ Temperaments and Fictional Character.” New Literary History 42 (2011): 295–314. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Kelhoffer, James A. The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 176. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Kern, Gabi. “Absturzgefahr (Vom Blinden als Blindenführer) – Q 6,39f.” Pages 61–7 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Kern, Gabi. “Einleitung.” Pages 49–57 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Kern, Gabi. “Größenwahn?! (Vom Schüler und Lehrer): Q 6,40 (Mt 10,24-25a/Lk 6,40/ Joh 13,16; 15,20.” Pages 68–75 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Kim, Chan-Hie. “The Papyrus Invitation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 391–402. Kim, Myung-Soo. Die Trägergruppe von Q – Sozialgeschichtliche Forschung zur Q-Überlieferung in den synoptischen Evangelien. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge aus europäischen Hochschulen 1. Hamburg: an der Lottbek, 1990. King, George B. “A Further Note on the Mote and the Beam (Matt. vii. 3–5; Luke vi. 41–42).” Harvard Theological Review 26 (1933): 73–6. King, George B. “The Mote and the Beam.” Harvard Theological Review 17 (1924): 393–404. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism. Richmond: John Knox, 1969.

Bibliography

425

Kinman, Brent. “Debtor’s Prison and the Future of Israel (Luke 12:57–59).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 411–25. Kirk, Alan. The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 91. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kirkwood, William G. “Parables as Metaphors and Examples.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (1985): 422–40. Kissinger, Warren S. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. ATLA Bibliography Series 4. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1979. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. 2d ed. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 13. Münster: Aschendorff, 1978. Klein, Hans. Das Lukasevangelium. 10th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Kloppenborg, John S. “City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q).” Semeia 52 (1990): 145–60. Kloppenborg, John S. “Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Pages 149–90 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Kloppenborg, John S. “Goulder and the New Paradigm: A Critical Appreciation of Michael Goulder on the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 29–59 in The Gospels According to Michael Goulder: A North American Response. Edited by Christopher A. Rollston. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2002. Kloppenborg, John S. “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q.” Pages 275–319 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ron A. Piper. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Kloppenborg, John S. “On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew.” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 210–36. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Parable of the Burglar in Q: Insights from Papyrology.” Pages 287–306 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Deeds of Gift.” Pages 169–94 in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Edited by Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander, and Johannes Tromp. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kloppenborg, John S. “Pastoralism, Papyri and the Parable of the Shepherd.” Pages 47–69 in Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament: Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 3.–4. Dezember 2009 am Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte der Universität Salzburg. Edited by Peter Arzt-Grabner and Christina M. Kreinecker. Philippika: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Power and Surveillance of the Divine Judge in the early Synoptic Tradition.” Pages 147–84 in Christ and the Emperor: The Gospel Evidence. Edited by Gilbert Van Belle and Joseph Verheyden. Biblical Tools and Studies 20. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Kloppenborg, John S. Q: The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

426

Bibliography

Kloppenborg, John S. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance. Foundation & Facets (Reference Series). Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Representation of Violence in the Synoptic Parables.” Pages 323–51 in Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in Their First Century Settings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Kloppenborg, John S. Review of Harry T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Theology Bulletin 37 (2007): 137–8. Kloppenborg, John S. Review of Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, eds. Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2006): 42–3. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 307–44. Kloppenborg, John S. “Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q.” Harvard Theological Review 80 (1987): 287–306. Kloppenborg, John S. The Tenants in the Vineyard. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kloppenborg, John S. “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 83 (2007): 53–80. Kloppenborg, John S. and Callie Callon, “The Parable of the Shepherd and the Transformation of Pastoral Discourse.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 218–60. Kloppenborg Verbin, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Knowles, Michael P. “ ‘Everyone Who Hears These Words of Mine’: Parables on Discipleship (Matt 7:24–27//Luke 6:47–49; Luke 14:28–33; Luke 17:7–10; Matt 20:1–16).” Pages 286–305 in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Knox, Wilfred L. The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels: Volume Two: St. Luke & St. Matthew. Edited by H. Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM, 1990. Kogler, Franz. Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Urkirche. Forschung zur Bibel 59. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. Kollmann, Bernd. “Lk 12,35-38 ein Gleichnis der Logienquelle.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 81 (1990): 254–61. Kosch, Daniel. Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Kosch, Daniel. “Q: Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Eine methodenkritische Hinführung mit einem Exkurs zur Q-Vorlage des Lk.” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 36 (1989): 409–25. Koschorke, Albrecht. Wahrheit und Erfindung: Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Erzähltheorie. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 2012. Kreitzer, Larry J. Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 134. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996. Kremer, Jacob. “Mahnungen zum innerkirchlichen Befolgen des Liebesgebotes: Textpragmatische Erwägungen zu Lk 6,37–45.” Pages 231–45 in Vom

Bibliography

427

Urchristentum zu Jesus: Für Joachim Gnilka. Edited by Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Kümmel, Werner. Verheißung und Erfüllung: Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu. 3d ed. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1956. Kuss, Otto. “Zum Sinngehalt des Doppelgleichnisses vom Senfkorn und Sauerteig.” Biblica 40 (1959): 641–53. Labahn, Michael. “Achtung Menschensohn! (Vom Dieb): Q 12,39f. (Mt 24,43f. / Lk 12,39f. / EvThom 21,5).” Pages 154–60 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Labahn, Michael. “Forderung zu außergerichtlicher Einigung (Der Gang zum Richter) Q 12,58f. (Mt 5,25f. / Lk 12,58f.).” Pages 178–84 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Labahn, Michael. “Füllt den Raum aus – es kommt sonst noch schlimmer! (Beelzebulgleichnis) Q 11,24-26 (Mt 12,43-45 / Lk 11,24-26).” Pages 126–32 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Labahn, Michael. Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 32. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. Labahn, Michael. “Die plötzliche Alternative mitten im Alltag (Mitgenommen oder zurückgelassen): Q 17,34f. (Mt 24,40f. / Lk 17,34f. / EvThom 61,1).” Pages 227–33 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Labahn, Michael. “Das Reich Gottes und seine performativen Abbildungen: Gleichnisse, Parabeln und Bilder als Handlungsmodelle im Dokument Q.” Pages 259–82 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Labahn, Michael. Review of the CEQ. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 97 (2002): 769–73. Labahn, Michael. “Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft (Vom Doppeldienst) Q 16,13 (Mt 6,24 / Lk 16,13 / EvThom 47,1f.).” Pages 220–26 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Lachmann, Renate. “Cultural Memory and the Role of Literature.” European Review 12 (2004): 165–78. Lagrange, M.-J. Évangile selon Saint Luc. Études Bibliques. Paris: LeCoffre, 1948. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Lambrecht, Jan. Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Lambrecht, Jan. Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung. Analecta biblica 28. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Latham, James E. The Religious Symbolism of Salt. Théologie historique 64. Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1982. Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. Bonner biblische Beiträge 54. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche (Vom Splitter und dem Balken) Q 6,41f. (Mt 7,3-5/Lk 6,41f./EvThom 26).” Pages 76–80 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Vom Wirken des Salzes (Vom Salz) Q 14,34f, (Mk 9,49f. / Mt 5,13 / Lk 14,34f.).” Pages 200–204 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: Harper One, 2014. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Who’s Catering the Q Affair?: Feminist Observations on Q Paraenesis.” Semeia 50 (1990): 145–61.

428

Bibliography

Levinson, N. The Parables: Their Background and Local Setting. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1926. Liebenberg, Jacobus. The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 102. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor evangelistas: cum tractatibus chorographicis, singulis suo evangelistae praemissis. Edited by Johann Benedikt Carpzov. Leipzig: Joh. Heinrici Richteri, 1684. Lindemann, Andreas, ed. The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 158. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Lindenberger, J. M. “Ahiqar.” Pages 479–507 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Vol. 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Linnemann, Eta. Gleichnisse Jesu: Einführung und Auslegung. 7th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Linnemann, Eta. “Überlegungen zur Parabel vom großen Abendmahl: Lc 14 15-24 / Mt 22 1-14.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 51 (1960): 246–55. Linton, Olof. “The Parable of the Children’s Game: Baptist and Son of Man (Matt. XI. 16–19=Luke VII. 31–5): A Synoptic Text-Critical, Structural and Exegetical Investigation.” New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 159–79. von Lips, Hermann. Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 64. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Loader, William R. G. Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Sonderband. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Urchristentum: 1. Buch: Johannes der Täufer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932. Lohmeyer, Ernst. “Vom Baum und Frucht: Eine exegetische Studie zu Matth. 3, 10.” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 9 (1932): 377–97. Loisy, Alfred. L’Évangile selon Luc. Paris: Émile Nourry, 1924. Löning, Karl. “Die Füchse, die Vögel und der Menschensohn (Mt 8,19f par Lk 9,57f).” Pages 82–102 in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Für Joachim Gnilka. Edited by Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Lonsdale, Steven H. Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Lövestam, Evald. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lunds universitets årsskrift 55. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963. Luhmann, Niklas. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik: Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. 4 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1980–95. Lührmann, Dieter. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969.

Bibliography

429

Lutz, Cora E. “Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates.’” Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947): 3–147. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 4 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985–2002. Luz, Ulrich. Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1993. Mai, Hans-Peter. “Bypassing Intertextuality: Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext.” Pages 30–59 in Intertextuality. Edited by Heinrich F. Plett. Research in Text Theory/ Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Main, Andrew. “Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds: Economic and Theological Perspectives on Ezekiel 34.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 493–504. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1949. Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Marcus, Joel. “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus.” Pages 2:247–77 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. New Testament Tools and Studies 28. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Margolin, Uri. “Character.” Pages 66–79 in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Edited by David Herman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Marguerat, Daniel. Le jugement dans l’évangile de Matthieu. 2d ed. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995. Marguerat, Daniel and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Marxsen, Willi. Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1963. März, Claus-Peter. “. . . laßt eure Lampen brennen!”: Studien zur Q-Vorlage von Lk 12,35 – 14,24. Erfurter theologische Schriften 20. Leipzig: Benno, 1991. März, Claus-Peter. “Zum Verständnis der Gerichtspredigt in Q.” Pages 128–48 in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung: Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck. Quaestiones disputatae 150. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. März, Claus-Peter. “Zur Vorgeschichte von Lk 12,35–48: Beobachtungen zur Komposition der Logientradition in der Redequelle.” Pages 166–78 in Christus Bezeugen: Für Wolfgang Trilling. Edited by Karl Kertelge, Traugott Holtz, and Claus-Peter März. Freiburg: Herder, 1990. Massa, Dieter. “Verstehensbedingungen von narrativen Bildern aus kognitiver Sicht.” Pages 313–30 in Bildersprache verstehen: Zur Hermeneutik der Metapher und anderer bildlicher Sprachformen. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Munich: Fink, 2000. Mattila, Sharon L. “Negotiating the Clouds around Statistics and ‘Q’: A Rejoinder and Independent Analysis.” Novum Testamentum 46 (2004): 105–31. Mattila, Sharon L. “A Problem Still Clouded: Yet Again—Statistics and ‘Q.’” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 314–29.

430

Bibliography

Mayer, Rudolf. Die biblische Vorstellung vom Weltenbrand: Eine Untersuchung über die Beziehungen zwischen Parsismus und Judentum. Bonner orientalistische Studien 4. Bonn: Orientalisches Seminar, 1956. Mayordomo, Moisés. “ ‘Einstürzende Neubauten’ (Hausbau auf Felsen oder Sand) Q 6,47-49 (Mt 7,24-27 / Lk 6,47-49).” Pages 92–9 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. McArthur, Harvey K. “The Parable of the Mustard Seed.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 198–210. McCall, Marsh H. Jr. Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison. Loeb Classical Monographs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. McNicol, Allan J., David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope, William R. Farmer, and Philip Shuler. Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996. Meadors, Edward P. Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Meier, John P. “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 528–47. Meier, John P. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. Vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Meier, John P. “The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24–30): Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?” Journal of Biblical Literature (2012): 715–32. Meier, John P. “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in the Vineyard: Is the Gospel of Thomas Independent of the Synoptics.” Pages 129–45 in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson. Society of Biblical Literature Early Christianity and Its Literature 7. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Meier, John P. Probing the Authenticity of the Parables. Vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Mell, Ulrich. “Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung 100 Jahre nach Adolf Jülicher.” Theologische Rundschau 76 (2011): 37–81. Melzer-Keller, Helga. “Frauen in der Logienquelle und ihrem Trägerkreis.” Pages 37–62 in Wenn Drei das Gleiche sagen – Studien zu den ersten drei Evangelien mit einer Werkstattübersetzung des Q-Textes. Edited by Stefan H. Brandenburger and Thomas Hieke. Theologie 14. Münster: Lit, 1998. Melzer-Keller, Helga. Jesus und die Frauen: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung nach den synoptischen Überlieferungen. Herders biblische Studien 14. Freiburg: Herder, 1997. Merkle, Benjamin L. “Who Will Be Left Behind? Rethinking the Meaning of Matthew 24:40–41 and Luke 17:34–35.” Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2010): 169–79. Merklein, Helmut. Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu. Forschung zur Bibel 34. Würzburg: Echter, 1978. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meurer, Hermann-Josef. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Paul Ricoeurs Hermeneutik der Gleichniserzählung Jesu im Horizont des Symbols “Gottesherrschaft/Reich Gottes. Bonner biblische Beiträge 111. Bodenheim: Philo, 1997. Meyer, Paul D. “The Gentile Mission in Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 405–17.

Bibliography

431

Meyers, Carol. “Archäologie als Fenster zum Leben von Frauen in Alt-Israel.” Pages 63–109 in Tora. Vol. 1.1 of Die Bibel und die Frauen. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto, and Andrea Taschl-Erber. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010. Mitton, C. Leslie. “Threefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus.” Expository Times 75 (1964): 228–30. Moessner, David P. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Moreland, Milton C. and James M. Robinson. “The International Q Project Work sessions 23–27 May, 22–26 August, 17–18 November 1994.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995): 475–85. Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistische Synopse. Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1971. Mournet, Terence C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel. Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Moxnes, Halvor. Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Moxnes, Halvor. “What Is Family?: Problems in Constructing Early Christian Families.” Pages 13–41 in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor. Edited by Halvor Moxnes. London: Routledge, 1997. Müller, Christoph Gregor. Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterzeichnung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk. Herders Biblische Studien 31. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Müller, Peter. In der Mitte der Gemeinde: Kinder im Neuen Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1992. Müller, Peter. “Schnell und unausweichlich (Vom Aas und den Geiern) Q 17,37 (Mt 24,28 / Lk 17,37).” Pages 235–9 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Müller, Peter. “Vom misslingenden Spiel (Von den spielenden Kindern) Q 7,31-35 (Mt 11,16-9 / Lk 7,31-35).” Pages 100–10 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Münch, Christian. “Gewinnen oder Verlieren (Von den anvertrauten Geldern) Q 19,12f.15–24.26 (Mk 13,34 / Mt 25,14–30 / Lk 19,12-27.” Pages 240–54 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Münch, Christian. Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium: Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 104; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. Mußner, Franz. “1QHodajoth und das Gleichnis vom Senfkorn (Mk 4,30–32 Par.).” Biblische Zeitschrift 4 (1960): 128–30. Mußner, Franz. “Der nicht erkannte Kairos (Mt 11,16–19 = Lk 7,31–35).” Biblica 40 (1959): 599–612. Nauck, Wolfgang. “Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions for Discipleship.” Studia theologica 6 (1952): 165–78. Neirynck, Frans. “Assessment.” Pages 261–307 in Harry Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. Neirynck, Frans. “The First Synoptic Pericope,” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 72 (1996): 41–74.

432

Bibliography

Neirynck , Frans . “ The Reconstruction of Q and IQP/CritEd Parallels .” Pages 53 – 147 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus . Edited by Andreas Lindemann . Neirynck, Frans. “The Sayings Source Q and the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 125–45 in vol. 3 of Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–93. Oakman, Douglas E. Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 8. Lewiston: Mellon, 1986. O’Day, Gail R. “ ‘There the ? will gather together’ (Luke 17:37): Bird Watching as an Exegetical Activity.” Pages 288–303 in Literary Encounters with the Reign of God. Edited by Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim. London: T&T Clark, 2004. O’Donovan, Oliver. “The Moral Authority of Scripture.” Pages 165–75 in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Olofsson, Staffan. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 31. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1990. O’Rourke, John J. “Some Observations on the Synoptic Problem and the Use of Statistical Procedures.” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 272–7. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. “Gott knetet nicht (Vom Sauerteig) Q 13,20f. (Mt 13,33 / Lk 13,20f. / EvThom 96.” Pages 185–91 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Oveja, Animosa [a pseudonym for the collective authorship of Detlev Dormeyer, Annette Merz, Christian Münch, and Ruben Zimmermann]. “Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug! (Vom verlorenen Schaf) Q 15,4-5a.7 (Mt 18,12-14 / Lk 15,1-7 / EvThom 107).” Pages 205–19 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Parker, David C. Review of David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q. Scottish Journal of Theology 50 (1997): 507–508. Patterson, Stephen J. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 84. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Patterson, Stephen J. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993. Peabody, David B., ed. One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke: Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002. Percy, Ernst. Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung. Lunds universitets årsskrift 49. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1953. Perry, Alfred M. “An Evangelist’s Tabellae: Some Sections of Oral Tradition in Luke.” Journal of Biblical Literature 48 (1929): 206–32. Perry, Ben Edwin. Aesopica. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1952. Pesch, Rudolf and Reinhard Kratz. So liest man synoptisch: Anleitung und Kommentar zum Studium der synoptischen Evangelien V: Gleichnisse und Bildreden: Teil II: Aus der zweifachen Überlieferung. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1978. Peterson, William L. “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics.” Novum Testamentum 23 (1981): 128–47.

Bibliography

433

Petrie, Stewart. “ ‘Q’ is Only What You Make It.” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 28–33. Phelan, James. Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology. Theory and Interpretation of Narrative Series. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996. Phelan, James. Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression, and the Interpretation of Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Philo. On the Deacalogue; On the Special Laws, Books 1–3. Translated by F. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Philo. Questions on Exodus. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Piper, Ronald A. “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories.” Pages 317–49 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. Piper, Ronald A. “The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q.” Pages 54–73 in Conflict and Intervention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996. Piper, Ronald A. “Matthew 7,7-11 par. Luke 11,9-13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of Jesus’ Sayings.” Pages 411–18 in Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jesus. Edited by Joël Delobel. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 59. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Piper, Ronald A. “Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence in Q.” Pages 219–64 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James Robinson. Edited by Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin De Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 146. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Piper, Ronald A. Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Volume V. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922. Plummer, Alfred. “The Parable of the Demon’s Return.” Expository Times 3 (1892): 349–51. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume II. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume VI. Translated by W. C. Helmbold. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Polag, Athanasius. Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle. 2d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982. Poirier, John. “Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreements and their Impact on the Synoptic Problem.” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2008): 68–123. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. “Une parabole à l’image antithétique: Q 6,46-49.” Pages 681–93 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. “La parabole des talents (Mt 25, 14-30) ou des mines (Lc 19, 11–28).” Pages 165–93 in À cause de l’évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Lectio Divina 123. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985. Rabb, Earle R. The Case of the Missing Person: How Finding Jesus of Nazareth Can Transform Communities and Individuals Today. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010.

434

Bibliography

Rau, Eckhard. Reden in Vollmacht: Hintergrund, Form und Anliegen der Gleichnisse Jesu. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 149. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Reinstorf, Dieter and Andries van Aarde. “Reflections on Jesus’ Parables as Metaphorical Stories Past and Present.” Hervormde teologiese studies 58 (2002): 721–45. Reiser, Marius. Die Gerichtspredigt Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu und ihrem frühjüdischen Hintergrund. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 23. Münster: Aschendorff, 1990. Rengstorf, Karl-Heinrich. “ ‘Geben ist seliger denn nehmen’: Bemerkungen zu dem außerevangelischen Herrenwort Apg. 20,35.” Pages 23–33 in Die Leibhaftigkeit des Wortes: Theologische und seelsorgerliche Studien und Beiträge als Festgabe für Adolf Köberle zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Edited by Otto Michel and Ulrich Mann. Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1958. Ricoeur, Paul. “Biblical Hermeneutics.” Semeia 4 (1975): 29–148. Ricoeur, Paul and Eberhard Jüngel. Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer. 2d ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963. Riniker, Christian. Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu. Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe XXIII Theologie 653. Bern: Peter Lang, 1999. Robbins, Vernon K. “Rhetorical Argument about Lamps and Light in Early Christian Gospels.” Pages 201–17 in New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 3. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. Robinson, James. “A Critical Text of the Sayings Gospel Q.” Pages 309–18 in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays. Edited by Christoph Heil and Joseph Verheyden. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 189. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Rodd, C. S. “The End of the Theology of Q?” Expository Times 113 (2001): 5–12. Rodd, C. S. “Spirit or Finger.” Expository Times 72 (1961): 157–8. Rodd, C. S. “The Theology of Q Yet Again: A Reply to the Responses of Christopher Tuckett and Paul Foster.” Expository Times 114 (2002): 80–5. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. “A Peasant Reading of the Parables of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror?” Biblical Theology Bulletin 23 (1993): 32–9. Rollens, Sarah. “ ‘Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves What is Right?’: A Consideration of the Synoptic Relationship between Mt 5,25-26 and Lk 12,57-59.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 86 (2010): 443–63. Roloff, Jürgen. Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthäusevangelium: Ein Kommentar zu Mt 13,1-52. Edited by Helmut Kreller und Rainer Oechslen. Biblisch-theologische Studien 73. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Römer, Thomas. Dark God: Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament. New York: Paulist, 2013. Rondez, Pascale. Alltägliche Weisheit? Untersuchung zum Erfahrungsbezug von Weisheitslogien in der Q-Tradition. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 87. Zürich: TVZ, 2006.

Bibliography

435

Roscheé, Theodore R. “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 210–20. Roth, Dieter T. “Glaube und Fernheilung (Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum).” Pages 393–401 in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Band 1: Die Wunder Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Roth, Dieter T. “ ‘Master’ as Character in the Q Parables.” Pages 371–96 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Roth, Dieter T. “Missionary Ethics in Q 10:2–12,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68 (2012), Art. #1215, 7 pages, http://dx.doi.org./10.4102/hts. v68i1.1215. Roth, Dieter T. “Missionary Ethics in Q 10:2–12.” Pages 81–100 in Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Edited by Kobus Kok, Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth, and Christopher M. Hays. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.364. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Roth, Dieter T. “Die Parabeln in der Logienquelle: ‘Alte’ Probleme und ‘Neue’ Ansätze.” In Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects. Edited by Christoph Heil, Gertraud Harb, and Daniel Smith. Biblical Tools and Studies. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Roth, Dieter T. “The Words of Jesus and the Torah: A Consideration of the Role of Q 6,47-49.” Pages 89–110 in Kein Jota wird vergehen: Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie. Edited by Markus Tiwald. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 200. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013. Roth, Dieter T., Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn, eds. Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Rothschild, Clare K. Baptist Traditions and Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Rothschild, Clare K. “Children Who Refuse to Acknowledge the Baptizer.” Paper presented at the conference “Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis.” Roskilde, Denmark, June 21–24, 2015. Rowland, Ingrid D. and Thomas Noble Howe. Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Ruf, Martin G. “Zoff bei Beelzebuls (Beelzebulgleichnis) Mk 3,22-26 (Q 11,14-20 / Mt 12,22-28 / Lk 11,14-20).” Pages 278–86 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Safrai, Shmuel and David Flusser. “The Slave of Two Masters.” Pages 169–72 in David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magness, 1988. Sato, Migaku. Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Sato, Migaku. “Wisdom Statements in the Sphere of Prophecy.” Pages 139–58 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ron A. Piper. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schellenberg, Ryan S. “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009): 527–43.

436

Bibliography

Schenk, Wolfgang. Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher Übersetzung mit kurzen Erläuterungen. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981. Schlosser, Jacques. “Q et la christologie implicite.” Pages 289–316 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Andreas Lindemann. Schmid, Josef. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Regensburger Neues Testament 1. 5th ed. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1965. Schmid, Josef. Matthäus und Lukas: Eine Untersuchung des Verhältnisses ihrer Evangelien. Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895–) 23. Freiburg: Herder, 1930. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Der eschatologische Abschnitt Lk 17,20-37.” Pages 213–34 in Mélanges bibliques: En hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux. Edited by Albert Descamps and André de Halleux. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970. Schneider, Gerhard. “Das Bildwort von der Lampe: Zur Traditionsgeschichte eines Jesus-Wortes.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 61 (1970): 183–209. Schneider, Ralf. Grundriß zur kognitiven Theorie der Figurenrezeption am Beispiel des viktorianischen Romans. ZAA Studies 9. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 2000. Schnider, Franz “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf und seine Redaktoren.” Kairós 19 (1977): 146–54. Schottroff, Luise. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 2d ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007. Schottroff, Luise. “Itinerant Prophetesses: A Feminist Analysis of the Sayings Source Q.” Pages 347–60 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ron A. Piper. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schottroff, Luise. Lydias ungeduldige Schwestern: Feministische Sozialgeschichte des frühen Christentums. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994. Schottroff, Luise. “Verheißung für alle Völker (Von der königlichen Hochzeit) Mt 22,1-4.” Pages 479–87 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Schottroff, Luise. “Von der Schwierigkeit zu teilen (Das große Abendmahl) Lk 14,12-24 (EvThom 64).” Pages 593–603 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Schottroff, Luise. “Wanderprophetinnen: Eine feministische Analyse der Logienquelle.” Evangelische Theologie 51 (1991): 332–44. Schrage, Wolfgang. Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964. Schramm, Tim and Kathrin Löwenstein. Unmoralische Helden: Anstößige Gleichnisse Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986. Schreiber, Stefan. “Apokalyptische Variationen über ein Leben nach dem Tod: Zu einem Aspekt der Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu.” Pages 129–56 in Lebendiger Hoffnung – Ewiger Tod?!: Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 24. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997. Schröter, Jens. Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2001.

Bibliography

437

Schröter, Jens. “The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q.” Pages 34–68 in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records. Edited by Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Schüle, Andreas. “Mashal (‫ ) ָמ ָשׁל‬and the Prophetic ‘Parables.’” Pages 205–16 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Schulz, Siegfried. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. Schürmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder, 1969–94. Schürmann, Heinz. “QLk 11,14-36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt.” Pages 1:563–86 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Schütz, Roland. Johannes der Täufer. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 50. Zürich: Zwingli, 1967. Schwarz, Günther. “τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 72 (1981): 264–71. Schweizer, Eduard. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 2d ed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Scott, Bernard Brandon. Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Sevenich-Bax, Elisabeth. Israels Konfrontation mit den letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle. Münsteraner theologische Abhandlungen 21. Altenberge: Oros, 1993. Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures 1960–1961. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Siegert, Folker. “Jesus und sein Volk in der Quelle Q.” Pages 90–124 in Israel als Gegenüber: Vom Alten Orient bis in die Gegenwart: 25 Studien zur Geschichte eines wechselvollen Zusammenlebens. Edited by Folker Siegert. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Sim, David C. “The Dissection of the Wicked Servant in Matthew 24:51.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 58 (2002): 172–84. Skeat, T. C. “The Lilies of the Field.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 37 (1938): 211–14. Smith, Daniel A. Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Smith, Robert Houston. “The Household Lamps of Palestine in New Testament Times (Third in a three-part series).” Biblical Archaeologist 29 (1966): 2–27. Smitmans, Adolf. “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb.” Pages 43–68 in Wort Gottes in der Zeit: Festschrift Karl Hermann Schelkle zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden, Schülern. Edited by Helmut Feld and Josef Nolte. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973. Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Snyman, Gerrie. “Who Is Speaking? Intertextuality and Textual Influence.” Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 427–49.

438

Bibliography

Söding, Thomas. “Die Gleichnisse Jesu als metaphorischeErzählungen [sic]: Hermeneutische und exegetische Überlegungen.” Pages 81–118 in Die Sichtbarkeit des Unsichtbaren: Zur Korrelation von Text und Bild im Wirkungskreis der Bibel: Tübinger Symposion. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Nino Zchomelidse. Arbeiten zur Geschichte und Wirkung der Bibel 3. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Stanton, Graham N. “On the Christology of Q.” Pages 27–42 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule. Edited by Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Starnitzke, Dierk. “Von den Früchten des Baumes und dem Sprechen des Herzens (Vom Baum und seinen Früchten): Q 6,43-45 (Mt 7,16-20; 12,33-35 / Lk 6,43-45 / EvThom 45).” Pages 81–91 Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Steck, Odil Hannes. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. 4th ed. Herder/ Spektrum 4128. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Stein, Robert H. “The Genre of the Parables.” Pages 30–50 in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Stein, Robert H. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1981. Steinhauser, Michael G. Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien: Eine form- und traditionskritische Studie. Forschung zur Bibel 44. Würzburg: Echter, 1981. Sterling, Gregory. “ ‘Where Two or Three are Gathered’: The Tradition History of the Parable of the Banquet (Matt 22:1–14/Luke 14:16–24/GThom 64).” Pages 95–121 in Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Jens Schröter. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–61. Strecker, Georg. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. 3d ed. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1930. Strobel, A. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdischen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Suggs, M. Jack. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Tannehill, Robert C. The Sword of His Mouth. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Supplements 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Tegtmeyer, Henning. “Der Begriff der Intertextualität und seine Fassungen – Eine Kritik der Intertextualitätskonzepte Julia Kristevas und Susanne Holthuis.” Pages 49–81 in Textbeziehungen: Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität. Tübingen: Stauffenberg, 1997. Thatcher, Tom. Jesus the Riddler: The Power of Ambiguity in the Gospels. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.

Bibliography

439

Theißen, Gerd. “Frauen im Umfeld Jesu.” Pages 92–110 in Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gerd Theißen. Edited by Annette Merz. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 202. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Theißen, Gerd. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2d. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Thurén, Lauri. Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Tilly, Michael. Johannes der Täufer und die Biographie der Propheten: Die synoptische Täuferüberlieferung und das jüdische Prophetenbild zur Zeit des Täufers. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 137. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. Tiwald, Michael. Die Logienquelle Q: Text, Kontext, Theologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Tiwald, Michael. “Die protreptische, konnotative und performative Valeur der Gerichtsund Abgrenzungsmetaphorik in der Logienquelle.” Pages 115–37 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Tiwald, Michael. Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt. Österreichische biblische Studien 20. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002. Tödt, Heinz Eduard. Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1959. Topel, John. “What Kind of a Sign are Vultures? Luke 17,37b.” Biblica 84 (2003): 403–11. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist.” Pages 28–41 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Trunk, Dieter. Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium. Herders biblische Studien 3. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Tucker, Jeffrey. Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel of Luke. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 162. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q and the ‘Church’: The Role of the Christian Community within Judaism according to Q.” Pages 65–77 in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q and the Historical Jesus.” Pages 213–41 in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 114. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q and Thomas: Evidence of a Primitive ‘Wisdom Gospel’?: A Response to H. Koester.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 67 (1991): 346–60. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom.” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 367–76. Tuckett, Christopher M. Review of the CEQ. Journal of Theological Studies 53 (2002): 627–31.

440

Bibliography

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Uro, Risto. “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q.” Pages 67–118 in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by Risto Uro. Suomen Exsegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja 65. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki, 1996. Uro, Risto. “John the Baptist and the Jesus Movement: What Does Q Tell Us?” Pages 232–57 in The Gospel behind the Gospels. Edited by Ronald A. Piper. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Uro, Risto. Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q. AASF: Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 47. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Uro, Risto, ed. Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Suomen Exsegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja 65. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki, 1996. Vaage, Leif. “Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence.” PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1987. Valantasis, Richard. The New Q: A Fresh Translation with Commentary. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document.” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 49–73. Venetz, Hermann-Josef. “Bittet den Herrn der Ernte: Überlegungen zu Lk 10,2//Mt 9,37.” Diakonia 11 (1980): 148–61. Verheyden, Joseph. “Le jugement d’Israël dans la source Q.” Pages 191–219 in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): aux origines du christianisme. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler and Daniel Marguerat. Monde de la Bible 62. Genéve: Labor et fides, 2008. Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London: Allen Lane, 2003. Via, Dan O. “The Relationship of Form to Content in the Parables: The Wedding Feast.” Interpretation 25 (1971): 171–84. Visotzky, Burton L. “Overturning the Lamp.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 72–80. Vögtle, Anton. Gott und seine Gäste: Das Schicksal des Gleichnisses Jesu vom großen Gastmahl. Biblisch-theologische Studien 29. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wailes, Stephen L. Medieval Allegories of Jesus’ Parables. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1987. Waller, Elizabeth. “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 35 (1979–80): 99–109. Walter, Nikolaus. “Mk 1,1-8 und die ‘Agreements’ von Mt 3 und Lk 3: Stand die Predigt Johannes des Täufers in Q?” Pages 1:457–78 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Wanke, Joachim. “ ‘Kommentarworte’: Älteste Kommentierungen von Herrenworten.” Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1980): 208–33. Weaks, Joseph Allen. “Mark without Mark: Problematizing the Reliability of a Reconstructed Text of Q.” PhD diss., Brite Divinity School, 2010. Webb, Robert L. “The Activity of John the Baptist’s Expected Figure at the Threshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1991): 103–11.

Bibliography

441

Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Weber, Kathleen. “Is there a Qumran Parallel to Matthew 24, 51 / / Luke 12, 46?” Revue de Qumran 16 (1995): 657–63. Weder, Hans. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 120. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Wegner, Uwe. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Weinrich, Harald. “Münze und Wort: Untersuchungen an einem Bildfeld.” Pages 508–21 in Romanica: Festschrift für Gerhard Rohlfs. Edited by Heinrich Lausberg and Harald Weinrich. Halle: Veb Man Niemeyer, 1958. Weise, Günter. “Zur Spezifik der Intertextualität in literarischen Texten.” Pages 39–48 in Textbeziehungen: Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität. Edited by Josef Klein and Ulla Fix. Stauffenburg Linguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenberg, 1997. Weiser, Alfons. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der Synoptischen Evangelien. Studien zum Alten und Neuem Testament 29. München: Kösel, 1971. Wellhausen, Julius. Das Evangelium Matthaei. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904. Wiefel, Wolfgang. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. Wilder, Amos M. Early Christian Rhetoric. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Wille, Günther. Musica Romana: Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Römer. Amsterdam: P. Schippers N.V., 1967. Williams, Francis E. “Is Almsgiving the Point of the ‘Unjust Steward’?” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 293–7. Williams, James G. “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel.” Semeia 43 (1988): 85–114. Wilson, Walter T. Philo of Alexandria: On Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 3. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Wischmeyer, Odar [sic Oda]. “Matthäus 6,25-34 par: Die Spruchreihe vom Sorgen.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 85 (1994): 1–22. Wischmeyer, Odar. “Die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Überlegungen zu ihrem Selbstverständnis, ihren Beziehungsfeldern und ihren Aufgaben.” Pages 245–71 in Herkunft und Zukunft der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Edited by Oda Wischmeyer. Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 6. Tübingen: A. Francke, 2003. Wojciechowski, Michael. “Aesopic Tradition in the New Testament.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008): 99–109. Wolter, Michael. “Jesus as a Teller of Parables: On Jesus’ Self-Interpretation in His Parables.” Pages 123–39 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective: The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Edited by James H. Charlesworth with Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wolter, Michael. “Reconstructing Q?” Expository Times 115 (2004): 115–19.

442

Bibliography

Woods, Edward J. The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke–Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Wrege, Hans-Theo. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Wright, Benjamin G. III. The Letter of Aristeas: “Aristeas to Philocrates” or “On the Translation of the Law of the Jews.” Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis, Fortress, 1996. Wright, Robert B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 1. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Wright, Stephen I. Jesus the Storyteller. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015. Yamasaki, Gary. John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew’s Narrative. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Young, Brad H. The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1998. Youngquist, Linden E. in cooperation with Thomas Klampfl, Shawn Carruth, and Jonathan L. Reed. Q 6:37–42: Not Judging—The Blind Leading the Blind—The Disciple and the Teacher—The Speck and the Beam. Edited by Christoph Heil and Gertraud Harb. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Lucas. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. 4th ed. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1920. Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. 4th ed. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1922. Zeller, Dieter. “Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 11 16f. / Lk 7 31f.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 68 (1977): 252–7. Zeller, Dieter. Kommentar zur Logienquelle. Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar – Neues Testament 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984. Zeller, Dieter. “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material.” Pages 395–409 in Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jesus. Edited by Joël Delobel. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 59. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Zeller, Dieter. Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüchen bei den Synoptikern. Forschung zur Bibel 17. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Zerwick, M., S.I. “Die Parabel vom Thronanwärter.” Biblica 40 (1959): 654–74. Ziegler, Ignaz. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit. Breslau: Schleisische Verlags-Anstalt v. S. Schottlaender, 1903. Zimmermann, Alfred F. Die urchristlichen Lehrer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Zimmermann, Ruben. Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 171. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Figurenanalyse im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zu Sinn und Wahrheit narratologischer Exegese.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 105 (2014): 22–6.

Bibliography

443

Zimmermann, Ruben. “Folgenreiche Bitte! (Arbeiter für die Ernte) Q 10,2 (Mt 9,37f/Lk 10,2/EvThom 73).” Pages 111–18 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Formen und Gattungen als Medien der Jesus-Erinnerung: Zur Rückgewinnung der Diachronie in der Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 131–67 in Die Macht der Erinnerung. Edited by Martin Ebner et al. Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 22. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Fragen bei Sokrates und Jesus: Wege des Verstehens – Initiale des Weiterfragens.” Pages 33–59 in Schülerfragen im (Religions-)Unterricht: Ein notwendiger Bildungsauftrag heute?! Edited by Heike Lindner and Mirjam Zimmermann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2011. Zimmermann, Ruben. Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.122. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Gleichnishermeneutik im Rückblick und Vorblick: Die Beiträge des Sammelbandes vor dem Hintergrund von 100 Jahren Gleichnisforschung.” Pages 25–63 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Gleichnisse als Medien der Jesuserinnerung: Die Historizität der Jesusparabeln im Horizont der Gedächtnisforschung.” Pages 87–121 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Zimmermann, Ruben, ed. Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 231. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Zimmermann, Ruben. “How to Understand the Parables of Jesus: A Paradigm Shift in Parable Exegesis.” Acta Theologica 29 (2009): 157–82. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Imagery in John: Opening Up Paths into the Tangled Thicket of John’s Figurative World.” Pages 1–43 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann in collaboration with Gabi Kern. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 132 (2007): 259–84. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Jesus im Bild Gottes: Anspielungen auf das Alte Testament im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Hirtenbildfelder in Joh 10.” Pages 81–116 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Edited by Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle in collaboration with Juliane Schlegel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Eine Leseanleitung zum Kompendium.” Pages 3–46 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Memory and Form Criticism: The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge Between Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process.” Pages 130–43 in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. Edited by Annette Weissenrieder and Robert B. Coote. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache: Ein methodologischer Versuch.” Theologische Zeitschrift 56 (2000): 108–33.

444

Bibliography

Zimmermann, Ruben. “Metaphorology and Narratology in Q Exegesis: Literary Methodology as an Aid to Understanding the Q Text.” Pages 3–30 in Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q. Edited by Dieter T. Roth, Ruben Zimmermann, and Michael Labahn. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Parabeln – Sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmung jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort,’ ‘Gleichnis,’ ‘Parabel’ und ‘Beispielserzählung.’” Pages 383–419 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Zimmermann, Ruben. Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Zimmermann, Ruben, in collaboration with Detlev Dormeyer, Gabi Kern, Annette Merz, Christian Münch, and Enno Edzard Popkes, eds. Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2007. Zmijewski, Josef. Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 21,5-36 und Lk 17,20-37. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 40. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1972. Zuntz, G. “The ‘Centurion’ of Capernaum and His Authority (Matt. VIII. 5–13).” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1945): 183–90. Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Salz: Lebensfeindlich, aber schmackhaft,” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 38 (2005): 73–5. Zymner, Rüdiger. Gattungstheorie: Probleme und Positionen der Literaturwissenschaft. Paderborn: Mentis, 2003. Zymner, Rüdiger, ed. Handbuch Gattungstheorie. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2010. Zymner, Rüdiger. “Parabel.” Pages 502–503 in vol. 6 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by Gert Ueding. 10 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992–2012.

PRE-MODERN AND MODERN AUTHORS Albright, W. F. 70 n.69 Alkier, Stefan 42 Allison, Dale C. 58 n.3, 61 n.21, 64 n.41, 69 n.65, 72 n.72, 83 n.140, 99 n.57, 100, 160 n.81, 190 n.3, 194 n.21, 195, 196 n.33, 230 n.3, 233, 239, 251 n.113, 255–6 n.146, 257 n.151, 259, 261–2, 264 n.188, 266 n.196, 273, 274 n.245, 278 n.262, 288, 310–11 n.80, 314, 319, 324, 326, 337 n.223, 351 n.68, 354 n.79, 356, 360, 363 n.120, 372 n.174, 373 Arai, Sasagu 386 n.248 Archibald, Herbert Thompson 155 n.45 Arnal, William 59 n.7, 77 n.104, 186, 201 n.60, 324–5 Attridge, Harold 403 Baasland, Ernst 18 n.54, 208 n.96, 211, 214, 216, 219, 238–9, 242, 245 n.89, 246–7, 250–4, 265 n.192, 266, 270–1, 273, 291 n.322, 296 n.354, 339 n.1, 340, 344, 345 n.24, 346, 348–9, 352 n.70, 353, 354, 357–60, 362, 363 n.120, 365–6, 368, 372 Bal, Mieke 48 n.101 Bammel, Ernest 73 Barton, Stephen C. 383 n.232 Batten, Alicia 177 n.168, 186, 187 n.221, 277 n.258, 314 n.101, 326 Bauckham, Richard 165 n.109, 170, 174 Bawarshi, Anis S. 13 n.36 Bazzana, Giovanni 208, 275 n.252, 369 n.156, 399 Beare, Francis W. 133 Beavis, Mary Ann 16 n.46, 97 n.45, 101 Becker, Jürgen 65 n.46 Bengel, Johann Albrecht 260, 372 Bennema, Cornelius 52 n.120 Bergemann, Thomas 40 n.66

Berger, Klaus 12 n.33 Bernoulli, Carl Albrecht 58 n.3 Betz, Hans Dieter 199 n.49, 243, 247, 254 n.138, 265 n.192, 273, 295 n.353, 340 n.2, 342 n.12, 346 n.34, 351, 363, 368, 371 Betz, Otto 100 Bindemann, Walter 108 n.100, 117 n.144, 123 n.169 Bishop, E. F. 382 n.224 Bjorndahl, Sterling 249 n.105, 306 Black, Matthew 215 Blomberg, Craig L. 18 n.51, 89, 90 n.10, 93, 108 n.99, 132 n.208, 134 n.217, 139 n.252, 140, 143 n.273, 148 n.12, 152, 167, 249, 287 n.307, 289 n.313, 290 n.319, 299, 300 n.18, 301, 311, 318, 379 Bock, Darrell L. 65 n.42, 67 n.53, 70 n.69 Böhlemann, Peter 61 n.21, 73 Borg, Marcus J. 193 n.17, 231 Bork, Arne 41 n.69, 142 n.267, 280 n.270, 292, 345, 397, 401, 408 Böttrich, Christfried 166 n.114, 175 Boucher, Madeleine I. 10, 15 Bourquin, Yvan 46 n.91 Bovon, François 58 n.3, 62, 67, 78 n.111, 83 n.137, 142, 161 n.90, 164 n.106, 165 n.109, 196 n.36, 223 n.179, 225 n.191, 237 n.43, 240, 242 n.66, 259 n.158, 265 n.192, 266 n.199, 329, 331 n.191, 336 n.221, 341 n.7, 353 n.76, 355–7 Bradley, Keith R. 97 n.45 Braun, Willi 282 n.281 Bremond, Claude 16 n.46 Brennecke, Hanns Christof 247 n.95 Bridge, Steven L. 221, 223 n.179, 225 n.191

446

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors

Brooks, Peter 45, 46 Brown, David M. 13 n.35 Brownlee, W. H. 382 n.224 Bultmann, Rudolf 12 n.33, 94, 211 n.107, 220 n.160, 238 n.48, 287 n.304, 328 n.178, 340 n.2, 362 n.119, 369 Burkett, Delbert 191 n.9 Burkitt, F. Crawford 36 n.45 Cadbury, Henry J. 28, 148 n.11, 203 n.65, 379 n.210 Caird, George B. 340–1, 348–9 Callon, Callie 380, 382–3, 385, 386 n.244, 389 Cameron, Ron 26, 74 n.84, 156 n.55, 161 n.89, 163 n.101, 386 Carter, Warren 137 n.240, 222 n.174, 223, 302 n.31, 303, 309 n.73, 320 n.132 Catchpole, David R. 29 n.28, 78 n.113, 79 n.118, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 172 n.135, 198 n.47, 208 n.94, 210 n.105, 221, 224, 277 n.256, 282, 284 n.295, 285 n.296, 361, 364 n.125, 370, 384, 386, 389 Charette, Blaine 101, 106 Charlesworth, James H. 368 Chatman, Seymour 45–8 Collins, Adela Yarboro 25 n.6 Cotter, Wendy J. 28, 77, 79 n.117, 82, 86, 146 n.4, 147, 148 n.11, 150 n.21, 153–4, 159, 162–3, 300 n.16, 302, 309 n.74, 313, 314 n.98, 323 Crook, Zeba Antonin 299 n.7 Crossan, John Dominic 11, 91, 108 n.99, 109, 114, 129 n.197, 306, 308, 323–4 n.154, 369 n.154 Crossley, James G. 378 n.207 Cullmann, Oscar 212 n.115, 217–18 Culpepper, R. Alan 47 Curtius, E. R. 53 Dalman, Gustav 181 Darr, John A. 52 n.121 Dassmann, Ernst 167 n.116 Davies, W. D. 58 n.3, 61 n.2, 69 n.65, 83 n.140, 99 n.57, 195, 239, 251 n.113, 259, 266 n.196, 274 n.245, 278 n.262, 288, 310–11 n.80, 314, 319, 326, 337 n.223, 363 n.120, 372 n.174, 373 DeConick, April 178 n.168, 353 n.71

Derrenbacker, Robert A. Jr. 42 n.74 Derrett, J. Duncan M. 121 n.163, 357, 359 n.103, 384, 386 Dewey, Arthur J. 89 n.5, 104 n.87 Dibelius, Martin 58 n.3, 59 n.10 Dillon, Richard J. 210 von Dobbeler, Stephanie 60 n.13 Dodd, C. H. 10, 16 n.46, 166 n.114, 220 n.160, 315 Dolby-Stahl, Sandra K. 23 n.1 Dormeyer, Detlev 58 n.3, 78 n.111, 79 n.118, 82, 83 n.140, 85, 132 n.207, 138 Downing, F. Gerald 205 n.73 Draper, Jonathan 277 n.256, 282 n.281 Dronsch, Kristina 269 Dunn, James D. G. 38 n.57 Dupont, Jacques 247 n.94, 254 n.140, 272, 377–8, 385, 388 n.259 Ebner, Martin 197, 208 n.96, 233, 235 n.32, 236 n.38, 243 n.71, 244, 267 n.205, 363 n.124, 365, 372 van Eck, Ernest 108 n.99, 121 Eder, Jens 48 n.101, 50–1, 280 n.269 Edwards, Richard A. 7, 76, 86 n.155, 106, 108, 130, 158 n.68, 160, 173 n.140, 197, 205 n.75, 216, 229, 235 n.33, 250, 254, 263 n.187, 312–13, 349 n.57, 353, 363, 375 Ehrhardt, Arnold 155 n.48, 219 n.160, 220 Erlemann, Kurt 12 n.33, 124–5, 132, 135 n.227, 137 n.239 Ernst, Josef 58 n.3, 73, 75 n.93, 76, 140 n.259, 158 n.70, 197 Finnern, Sönke 48 n.102, 96 n.41 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 64 n.40, 65, 68 n.66, 72 Fleddermann, Harry 8–9, 28–30, 38, 60 n.14, 67 n.53, 70, 73 n.78, 74–5, 84 n.141, 85, 90, 102–3, 105 n.93, 118 n.149, 127, 157, 158 n.71, 161, 164 n.106, 165 n.109, 166 n.114, 171, 172 n.137, 175, 180, 182–3, 195, 199, 205, 207, 218, 226 n.201, 234, 239 n.50, 241 n.61, 243, 256 n.146, 260, 263–4, 265 n.192, 267 n.205, 285, 295, 325 n.162, 328 n.178, 333–4, 340 n.2, 349 n.57, 351

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors n.64, 353–4, 367 n.143, 369 n.154, 375 n.190, 377 n.199, 388 n.260, 389 n.262, 392, 405 Fletcher-Louis, Crispen 118 n.148 Flusser, David 114 n.126, 116 n.134, 118 n.149, 124, 165 n.110, 112, 293 Foerster, Werner 110 n.106, 116 n.134, 120 Ford, Richard Q. 108 n.100, 117, 120, 121 n.163 Forster, Edward M. 47, 48 Foster, Paul 9 n.16, 97 n.49, 169 Fowler, Alastair 13 France, R. T. 64, 65 n.44, 72 n.74, 80, 81, 164 n.106, 169 n.120, 251 Frey, Jörg 199 n.48, 340 n.2, 341 n.7, 346 n.34, 350 Frenschkowski, Marco 35 n.44, 97, 138, 279 n.266, 280 Freyne, Sean 279 n.268 Friedrichsen, Timothy A. 299 n.7 Fuchs, Albert 59 n.6, 328 n.177 Funk, Robert W. 45, 114, 120 n.157, 130 n.200, 133, 137, 140 n.256, 303–4, 309 n.73, 315 n.102, 316 n.108, 386 n.244 Gäbel, Georg 305 n.49, 306 n.50 Garrett, Susan R. 270, 271 n.229 Gathercole, Simon 353 n.71 von Gemünden, Petra 64, 66, 242 n.66 Gerber, Christine 90 n.11, 91 n.15, 93, 94 n.29, 95, 105 n.94, 367, 370 n.165, 372–3 Glancy, Jennifer A. 95 n.39, 98, 122 Gnilka, Joachim 226 n.195 Goulder, Michael 29 n.24, 375 n.190 Gräßer, Erich 89 n.5, 103 n.85, 109 n.100, 113 n.121, 165 n.108, 170 n.125, 172, 174 n.145, 311 n.80 Green, Joel B. 60, 61 n.2, 68 n.62, 174 n.146 Gregg, Brian Han 88, 92, 98 Groenewald, E. P. 251 Grundmann, Walter 176 n.162, 220 n.160, 329 n.184 Guenther, Heinz O. 225 n.191, 226 Guijarro, Santiago 134 n.221, 333 Habbe, Joachim 279 n.268 Häfner, Gerd 58 n.3, 64 n.37, 67, 74

447

Hagner, Donald A. 60, 214, 254, 260–1, 273 n.238, 354 n.80, 356 n.87, 373, 375 n.192 Hahn, Ferdinand 272 n.233 Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. 337 n.223 Harb, Gertraud 162 n.94, 176 n.162, 177 n.167, 180, 182, 185, 186 n.220, 220, 223–5, 226 n.201, 277 n.254, 395 von Harnack, Adolf 7, 28, 108 n.99 Harnisch, Wolfgang 46, 115 n.134, 120, 132 n.207, 134 n.221, 140 n.256, 170 n.126 Hartin, Patrick J. 91 n.13, 99 n.56, 161 n.90, 163 n.101 Haslam, J. A. G. 82 n.131 Hauck, Friedrich 176 n.162, 220 n.160 Havener, Ivan 57 n.1 Hawkins, J. C. 28 Hearon, Holly 302 Hedrick, Charles W. 341 n.10, 376 n.193 Heil, Christoph 8, 29, 39 n.61, 42 n.74, 109 n.102, 178 n.168, 181 n.185, 200 n.53, 204 n.69, 206 n.83, 250–1, 394 n.12, 395 n.18, 396, 404 Heil, John Paul 136 n.232 Heiligenthal, Roman 110 n.105, 113 n.119, 115 n.134, 116 n.139, 120 n.157, 121, 123, 126 Heininger, Bernhard 3 n.5, 11 Helbig, Jörg 43 n.75 Henderson, Ian H. 247 n.94 Hengel, Martin 38, 253 n.134 Herman, David 49 Herzog, William R. III 122 Hjerl-Hansen, Bórge 368 n.149 Hoffmann, Paul 27, 64 n.36, 70 n.69, 73–4, 76, 102, 105 n.93, 111 n.110, 129 n.197, 150 n.21, 153 n.33, 192, 195, 196 n.38, 208, 210 n.105, 236 n.41, 238 n.48, 261 n.172, 281 n.277, 322 n.148, 327 n.174, 337 n.225, 352 n.70, 395 n.18, 396 Holthuis, Susanne 41 n.69 Hoppe, Rudolf 141 Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm 24 n.2, 274 n.247 Horsley, Richard A. 96 n.44, 277 n.256, 282 n.281, 350 n.60 Huffman, Norman A. 132, 308, 319 Hultgren, Arland J. 11, 90 n.12, 96 n.43,

448

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors

105 n.93, 108 n.99, 133, 143 n.275, 292, 301, 306, 310, 316, 318, 362 n.119, 363 n.124, 372 n.176, 374, 379, 382 Hultgren, Stephen 333 n.205 Humphries, Michael L. 328 n.178, 330 n.189, 335 n.216 Hüneburg, Martin 80, 83, 262 Hunter, A. M. 11 Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno 303 Hurtado, Larry 397 n.22 Inselmann, Anke 135 Jackson, Bernard S. 346 Jacobson, Arland D. 25, 44, 157, 158 n.71, 251, 256 n.146, 366 n.133, 373 n.182 Jannidis, Fotis 48 n.103, 49, 51 n.114 Järvinen, Arto 147 n.7, 156 n.54, 397, 407 Jeremias, Joachim 91 n.12, 93 n.26, 110 n.106, 113, 119 n.150, 123 n.173, 133 n.211, 141 n.263, 142, 148 n.11, 150 n.20, 156, 164 n.106, 166 n.114, 171 n.128, 173 n.144, 174 n.149, 180 n.182, 184, 190, 198, 208, 211 n.107, 215, 222, 232, 247 n.94, 255 n.146, 259–60, 265 n.192, 269, 282 n.280, 294 n.342, 304, 309 n.69, 310 n.76, 319 n.127, 321, 340, 346 n.31, 347, 349 n.52, 352 n.70, 362 n.119, 364 n.126, 367, 373 Jervis, L. Ann 157 Johnson, Mark 53 n.123 Jónsson, Jakob 270 Joseph, Simon J. 28 n.21 Jülicher, Adolf 12 n.33, 152 n.31, 153 n.33, 191 n.7, 194, 219 n.160, 227 n.201, 230 n.3, 233, 234 n.24, 238 n.48, 255 n.146, 260, 272 n.232, 287 n.304, 288 n.310, 362 n.119 Jüngel, Eberhard 406 n.58 Kähler, Christoph 115 n.134 Kazmierski, Carl R. 59 n.10 Keen, Suzanne 48 n.100 Kelhoffer, James A. 159 n.74 Kern, Gabi 192, 196, 232, 235 Kim, Chan-Hie 131 n.205 Kim, Myung-Soo 283 King, George B. 358 n.97 Kinman, Brent 344 n.21

Kirk, Alan 23 n.2, 85, 89, 104 n.87, 176, 177 n.166, 183, 196 n.38, 198 n.46, 201 n.58, 203 n.63, 217 n.148, 225, 237, 240, 241 n.63, 265 n.192, 272, 311 n.83, 320 n.136, 323 n.150, 324, 337, 348, 361, 387 n.251 Kirkwood, William G. 18 n.48 Klauck, Hans-Josef 271, 272 n.234, 311 n.80, 328 n.178, 329 n.184 Klein, Hans 219 n.157, 225 n.193 Kloppenborg, John S. 5 n.9, 8, 12, 14, 25 n.6, 26 n.7, 27, 29–30, 31 n.33, 40 n.67, 70 n.69, 72 n.74, 73 n.81, 74 n.89, 75, 77, 78 n.112, 79, 90 n.12, 96, 98 n.50, 100 n.59, 101–5, 108, 111 n.110, 113 n.121, 116, 126, 127 n.194, 142, 143 n.272, 150 n.21, 151, 158 n.72, 160, 161 n.88, 162, 164–5, 168, 171–4, 176 n.162, 177 n.168, 182–4, 186 n.218, 193, 196–7, 200 n.57, 201 n.60, 203, 215, 217, 222, 226–7, 235–6, 243, 247–8, 254, 255 n.146, 262, 264, 265 n.192, 273, 276–8, 279 n.268, 283, 293, 294 n.340, 297, 298 n.6, 301, 313, 321–3, 328 n.178, 334, 335 n.216, 340 n.2, 341 n.8, 342 n.13, 347, 349 n.57, 350 n.60, 354 n.78, 369, 371, 374 n.187, 377 n.201, 379 n.209, 380, 382–3, 385, 386 n.244, 387, 389, 396, 398–9,  404–5 Knowles, Michael P. 87 n.2, 287, 294–5 Knox, Wilfred L. 345 n.27, 350 n.60 Koester, Helmut 8, 131 n.206, 190 n.3 Kogler, Franz 299 n.7 Kosch, Daniel 30 n.29 Koschorke, Albrecht 43 Kratz, Reinhard 290 Kreitzer, Larry J. 223 Kremer, Jacob 246, 358, 360 Kristeva, Julia 42 Kümmel, Werner 298 n.5, 319 Kuss, Otto 297 n.1, 320 n.134 Labahn, Michael 9, 26 n.10, 39, 48 n.100, 49 n.105, 85, 95 n.36, 100–1, 103 n.83, 109 n.101, 111 n.110, 117, 119, 123, 130 n.200, 134 n.219, 137, 138 n.243, 141, 147 n.7, 156 n.55, 161, 166 n.114, 168 n.119, 172–3, 177 n.166, 178–9, 180

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors n.178, 181, 184, 186, 193 n.18, 194, 197 n.45, 207, 245–6, 247 n.95, 251, 253 n.128, 254 n.143, 256 n.148, 257, 260, 261 n.171, 263, 273 n.241, 284 n.295, 295, 327 n.176, 334 n.212, 336 n.220, 342–5, 351 n.62, 386, 392 n.4, 397 Lachmann, Renate 40 n.68, 41 Lagrange, M.-J. 278 n.260 Lakoff, George 53 n.123 Lambrecht, Jan 7, 28, 116 n.134, 126, 145 n.3, 377 n.198, 388 n.258 Laufen, Rudolf 272, 274 n.247, 279, 282 n.281, 285 n.300, 297 n.3, 309 n.69, 311 n.80, 335 n.215 Leonhardt-Balzar, Jutta 212 n.114, 215 n.126, 218 n.153, 219 n.159, 353–4, 359 Levine, Amy-Jill 187 n.222, 281 n.273, 301, 302 n.29, 304 n.39, 305–7, 308 n.68, 313–15, 317, 320–21, 324 n.158, 326 n.168, 384 n.234 Liebenberg, Jacobus 17 n.48 Lightfoot, John 215 Lindenberger, J. M. 99 Linnemann, Eta 129 n.199, 131 n.206, 132 n.209, 379 n.208 Linton, Olof 38, 147 n.9, 148 n.11 von Lips, Hermann 146 n.5 Lohmeyer, Ernst 58 n.3, 60, 61, 62, 72, 318 Loisy, Alfred 67 n.53 Löning, Karl 161 n.91 Lonsdale. Steven 154 Lövestam, Evald 174 Löwenstein, Kathrin 117 n.143, 165 n.109, 166 n.113, 169 n.123, 174 Lührmann, Dieter 7, 23 n.2, 34 n.39, 104 n.87, 109 n.101, 127, 139, 147 n.10, 162 n.94, 175 n.153, 283, 322 n.148, 328 n.178, 394 n.13 Luther, Martin 221 n.166 Luz, Ulrich 67 n.53, 146 n.4, 152 n.32, 154, 160 n.86, 168 n.119, 173 n.142, 180, 190 n.4, 216, 226 n.195, 268–9, 270 n.219, 332 n.195, 347 n.41, 349, 356, 362 n.119, 364 n.125 McArthur, Harvey K. 307, 309 n.69 McCall, Marsh H., Jr. 12 n.12 Mack, Buton L. 324 Main, Andrew 376 n.195

449

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers 48 n.101 Mann, C. S. 70 n.69 Manson, T. W. 10, 26 n.7, 59 n.7, 70 n.69, 80 n.120, 106 n.98, 108 n.99, 111 n.112, 115, 116 n.135, 121, 122 n.167, 132 n.208, 136 n.233, 137, 138 n.247, 139 n.253, 160, 165 n.108, 170, 179 n.174, 196, 198, 199 n.51, 205–6, 211 n.108, 236, 244, 263 n.187, 274 n.245, 290 n.319, 294 n.342, 300, 311 n.87, 320 n.133, 349 n.58, 351 n.62, 357, 361 n.113, 362 n.119, 363, 367, 374, 379 n.209, 383 n.232 Marcus, Joel 328 n.178, 335 Margolin, Uri 50 n.111 Marguerat, Daniel 46 n.91 Marshall, I. Howard 61 n.21, 77, 141, 161 n.90, 164 n.106, 193 n.18, 212 n.115, 216 n.134, 218 n.153, 223, 225 n.191, 235 n.31, 236 n.38, 238 n.48, 239, 256 n.146, 259, 265 n.195, 267 n.202, 277, 282 n.277, 288 n.308, 289, 310 n.80, 318, 329, 344, 352 n.70, 363 n.120, 365 n.130, 368, 373 Marxsen, Willi 3 n.4 März, Claus-Peter 70 n.69, 77 n.104, 100, 103 n.82, 172 Massa, Dieter 54 n.129 Mayordomo, Moisés 294, 295 n.353 Meadors, Edward P. 158, 307, 319 n.127 Meier, John P. 4 n.7, 9, 11, 15, 87 n.1, 108, 130 n.202, 407 Melzer-Keller, Helga 177 n.167 Merkle, Benjamin L. 183 n.198 Merklin, Helmut 388 n.259 Meurer, Hermann-Josef 325 n.163 Meyers, Carol 182 n.190 Moessner, David P. 147, 149, 284 Moxnes, Halvor 159, 254 n.138, 308, 332 Müller, Peter 149–50, 153, 155, 158 n.71, 159, 161 n.87, 163, 221, 222 n.174, 226 n.197 Münch, Christian 110 n.107, 115–17, 118 n.149, 124, 127, 393 Mussner, Franz 156 Nauck, Wolfgang 217 Neirynck, Frans 59 n.6

450

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors

Nolland, John 65, 67 n.57, 69, 72, 92, 141 n.264, 169 n.120, 216, 218 n.153, 221 n.166, 225 n.191, 235 n.29, 237, 243, 248 n.103, 251, 255, 256 n.146, 257 n.151, 265 n.192, 271, 275 n.250, 283, 285, 352 n.70, 361, 367–8 Oakman, Douglas E. 304 n.39 O’Day, Gail R. 223–4 O’Donovan, Oliver 81 Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich 315, 317, 320 n.134 Oveja, Animosa [pseudonym] 377, 380 n.219, 383 n.230, 386 Patterson, Stephen J. 304 n.39, 352 n.71, 369 n.154 Percy, Ernst 310 Pesch, Rudolf 290 Phelan, James 49–50 Piper, Ronald A. 83, 190 n.5, 196, 198 n.46, 200, 202, 206 n.84, 207, 209, 215 n.130, 219, 225–6, 232, 238 n.48, 246 n.93, 249 n.104, 252–3, 264, 271, 350, 356, 360, 365, 367 n.143, 370, 373 n.179 Plummer, Alfred 262, 280 n.272, 329 Puig i Tàrrech, Armand 111 n.110, 113 n.118, 117–18, 288 n.308, 291 Rabb, Earle R. 304 n.39 Rabinowitz, Peter J. 49 Rau, Eckhard 58 n.4, 310 n.75, 313 n.91, 319 n.131, 320 n.135, 372 n.172 Reiff, Mary Jo 13 n.36 Reiser, Marius 58 n.3, 60 n.16, 61, 62 n.28, 64 n.37, 67 n.53, 68 n.62, 77, 340 n.2, 346 Rengstorf, Karl-Heinrich 362 n.119 Ricoeur, Paul 47, 391 n.1, 406 n.58 Riesner, Rainer 236 Riniker, Christian 117 n.144, 126 n.190 Ringgren, Helmer 308 n.66 Robbins, Vernon K. 266 n.197 Robinson, James 27, 29, 35 n.43 Rodd, C. S. 37 Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 109 n.103, 125 Rollens, Sarah 340 n.5, 342 n.14, 348 Römer, Thomas 393 n.10 Rondez, Pascale 201–2 n.64, 203 n.66, 204

n.69, 205 n.75, 206–7, 209 n.104, 267 n.205, 270, 272, 364, 368, 372 n.176 Roth, Dieter T. 1 n.1, 19 n.57, 79 n.118, 88 n.4, 164 n.107, 248 n.100, 274 n.249, 286 n.302, 287 n.304, 393 n.7, 408  n.68 Rothschild, Clare K. 73 n.83, 147 n.6, 155 n.47, 156 n.55 Ruf, Martin G. 332 Safrai, Shmuel 250 Sato, Migaku 8, 196 Schellenberg, Ryan S. 306, 307 n.58, 317, 322, 324 Schenk, Wolfgang 386 n.249 Schlosser, Jacques 285 n.295, 295 n.352 Schmid, Josef 28, 349 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 398 Schneider, Gerhard 244 Schneider, Ralf 50 n.111 Schöllgen, Georg 167 n.116 Schottroff, Luise 98, 99 n.56, 108 n.99, 116, 134, 136–7, 140, 169, 183 n.203, 184 n.209, 186, 314, 317, 323, 382  n.224 Schramm, Tim 117 n.143, 165 n.109, 166 n.113, 169 n.123, 174 Schreiber, Stefan 325 n.161, 351 Schröter, Jens 36 n.45, 255, 264 n.190, 265 n.192, 272, 274 n.247, 282 n.277, 321, 332, 334, 337 n.226, 400 n.36 Schulz, Siegfried 81 n.130, 86 n.157, 94, 98, 152 n.32, 158 n.68, 169 n.123, 176 n.162, 185, 193 n.16, 199 n.50, 200 n.57, 211 n.107, 217, 238 n.48, 241 n.62, 245 n.89, 261 n.175, 265 n.192, 273, 297 n.3, 310, 317, 322, 323 n.149, 328 n.180, 351, 354 n.80, 373 n.179 Schürmann, Heinz 69 n.64, 190 n.3, 193, 263 n.182 Schütz, Roland 66 Schwarz, Günther 73 n.80 Schweizer, Eduard 179 n.174, 316 n.108 Scott, Bernard Brandon 11, 89, 95 n.39, 101, 105, 121, 131 n.206, 134 n.221, 140–1, 307, 316–17, 318 n.126, 333 n.200 Sevenich-Bax, Elisabeth 70 n.69, 158 n.71, 353 n.76

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors Sherwin-White, A. N. 346 Siegert, Folker 95 Sim, David C. 96 n.43 Skeat, T. C. 199 n.48 Smith, Daniel A. 111 n.109, 159, 394 Smith, Dennis E. 140 n.259 Smith, Robert Houston 269 n.212 Smitmans, Adolf 165, 172 n.136, 174 n.152 Snodgrass, Klyne 12, 37 n.55, 51 n.116, 90 n.12, 94, 98 n.53, 108 n.99, 110 n.107, 122 n.166, 126 n.189, 127 n.191, 137, 287, 291 n.325, 293–4, 297, 299, 303 n.35, 309, 311 n.82, 317 n.113, 318, 323 n.154, 324, 325 n.162, 326, 375 n.189, 381 n.223, 382, 385 Snyman, Gerrie 42 n.72 Spranger, Peter 101 n.72 Stanton, Graham N. 162, 394–5 Starnitzke, Dierk 240, 245 Steck, Odil Hannes 161 n.88 Stein, Robert H. 11, 318 Steinhauser, Michael G. 198 n.46, 199 n.50, 201 n.58, 217 n.149, 242 n.66 Sterling, Gregory 130 n.202 Strecker, Georg 172 n.138, 345 n.27, 349 n.54 Strobel, A. 91 n.12 Suggs, M. Jack 156 n.52, 161 n.89, 162 n.94 Tannehill, Robert C. 189 n.1, 201 n.58, 204–5 Thatcher, Tom 381 Theißen, Gerd 179, 207, 331 Thurén, Lauri 381 n.220 Tilly, Michael 70 n.69, 75 Tiwald, Markus 37 n.54, 282 n.280, 283 n.285, 294 n.347 Tödt, Heinz Eduard 86, 157 Topel, John 220 n.161, 223, 225–7 Trunk, Dieter 261 n.170, 263 n.182, 264 Tuckett, Christopher 24 n.2, 25 n.5, 60 n.13, 73, 74 n.87, 75 n.96, 81, 91 n.16, 96 n.42, 98 n.51, 102–3, 104 n.87, 129 n.198, 130 n.202, 146 n.4, 149, 152, 156 n.52, 157–8, 163, 165 n.109, 174–5, 185 n.214, 189, 192, 205 n.78, 209, 210 n.105, 218, 225 n.190, 227 n.206,

451

230 n.7, 244, 252–3, 256 n.146, 262 n.181, 264 n.188, 283 n.282, 285, 287 n.303, 308 n.64, 323 n.151, 325 n.161, 337 n.226, 349 n.55, 358, 361, 370–1, 394 n.13 Twelftree, Graham H. 337 n.223 Uro, Risto 42 n.74, 73 n.84, 77, 282 n.279 Vaage, Leif 275 n.250 Valantasis, Richard 72 n.74, 237, 259, 263 n.181, 296 n.354 Verheyden, Joseph 60, 139 Vermes, Geza 194 n.24, 222 n.169, 291 Via, Dan O. 46, 113, 135 n.222, 136 n.232 Visotzky, Burton L. 269 n.213 Vögtle, Anton 129 n.200, 131 n.203, 139 Wahlen, Clinton 257 n.152, 264 n.188 Wailes, Stephen L. 302 Walter, Nikolaus 59 n.6 Wanke, Joachim 237 n.41 Weaks, Joseph Allen 36 Webb, Robert L. 67–70 Weder, Hans 132 n.208, 375 n.191, 383, 385 n.239, 388 n.259, 390 n.269 Wegner, Uwe 79 n.117, 80, 84 n.142, 85 Weinrich, Harald 53 Weise, Günter 41 n.71 Weiser, Alfons 94, 98 n.50, 99, 100 n.63, 103 n.85, 104 n.87, 123 Wellhausen, Julius 80 Wiefel, Wolfgang 328 n.178 Wilder, Amos M. 12 Williams, Francis E. 247 n.97 Williams, James G. 8 Willie, Günther 154 Wilson, Walter T. 194 n.24 Wink, Walter 57 Wire, Antoinette Clark 302 Wischmeyer, Oda 40 n.67, 205 n.78, 207 n.93, 209–10 Wojciechowski, Michael 124 Wolter, Michael 16 n.46, 44, 283 n.286 Woods, Edward J. 336 n.219 Wrege, Hans-Theo 239 n.51, 289 n.313 Wright, Benjamin G. III 208 n.93 Wright, N. T. 292 n.328, 389 Wright, Stephen I. 17 n.48

452

Pre-Modern and Modern Authors

Yamasaki, Gary 59 n.10, 65 n.44 Young, Brad H. 383 n.232 Zahn, Theodor 84 n.146, 155 n.48, 280 n.272 Zeller, Dieter 76, 109 n.101, 130 n.203, 133, 151–2, 155, 158 n.71, 183, 203, 209–10, 277 n.254, 305 n.44, 326 n.173, 328 n.178, 342 n.13, 372 n.177, 373 Ziegler, Ignaz 229 n.2 Zimmermann, Alfred F. 231 n.9 Zimmermann, Ruben 7, 12 n.30, 14, 16 n.47, 17, 18 n.52, 39 n.62, 43, 48 n.101,

53, 54 n.127, 88 n.3, 131 n.203, 170 n.124, 191 n.11, 201 n.59, 203 n.68, 217 n.142, 220 n.163, 240 n.60, 266 n.201, 275 n.251, 277–80, 297 n.2, 352 n.70, 353 n.75, 367, 377 n.200, 379 n.209, 381, 384 n.237, 388 n.259, 390, 392, 399, 401, 406–8 Zmijewski, Josef 176 n.162, 180, 185 n.210, 219 n.160, 226 n.198, 227  n.205 Zuntz, G. 80 Zwickel, Wolfgang 214 Zymner, Rüdiger 17 n.48

SUBJECT Abraham 61, 65 n.44, 75, 319 allegory 10 n.18, 137, 142, 174 n.146, 220–1, 314, 344, 350 anti-Judaism 315 apocalyptic 210 Beelzebul 261–4, 271, 328, 333–5, 399 Bildfeld 53–4, 97, 401–2 God-Father 366 God-Master 97 God-Shepherd 384, 390 Israel-Servant 97 Israel-Sheep 384 Israel-Son 366 catchword 64 n.35, 74–5, 85 n.150, 294 n.340, 370 n.165 CEQ 26–7, 30–2, 35, 38–9, 129 n.198 characterization direct 92 n.21, 135 n.228 indirect 92 n.21 through analogy 92 n.21 characters 47–52 Artefakt 51 fiktives Wesen 51–2 “flat” or “round” 48 interior monologue 93, 95 mental model/image 50, 96, 119, 134, 136, 168, 213, 249, 344, 380–1, 384 mimetic component 51–2 Symbol 51–2 Symptom 51 synthetic component 51–2 thematic component 51–2 women 186, 325–6 Christology 82 n.135, 85–6, 97–8, 162, 229, 234, 285, 335 n.216, 394–7 functional 284–5, 395–7

“Coming One” 69–70, 75 n.90, 104 Cynic/Cynicism 286–7 n.303, 335 n.216, 337 n.226 day of judgment 102–5, 126, 170, 185, 394, 400 delay of the parousia 102–5, 111 n.110, 172 n.139, 175, 324–5, 349 n.57, 405 Deuteronomistic theology 74–5, 157–8, 164, 397 emotions 406 anger 132, 135–6, 153, 393 fear 124–5 hate 251 joy 386–9 Emotionsauslöser 135 ethics 196, 399, 406 exorcism 83, 256, 258–9, 261–3, 271, 333–4, 337–8 family 202, 251–2, 264 n.188, 332–3 Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis 2 n.4 fire 62, 65, 69, 74–5, 205, 357 unquenchable 71, 73 fruit 59–64, 71, 75, 239–46, 308 n.67, 408 gendered couplet 150 n.20, 179, 186, 201, 300, 313, 325 genre 13–14 Gentile Mission 84, 282 n.281, 283, 304, 321, 323 Greco-Roman meal 134, 140–1 Griesbach Hypothesis 2 n.4 harvest 69–72, 203–4, 240 n.60, 273–4, 275–86, 326 honor 387–8

454

Subject

intertextuality 40–4, 177 n.167, 182, 400–2 IQP 29 n.24, 35 n.43 itinerant radicals see wandering charismatics Israel 62 n.28, 71, 75, 86, 283, 305, 344 n.21, 366, 390

παραβολή (parabolē) 12 n.33, 14, 15 n.45 Passover 315 patron-client relationship 95, 374 n.187 Pharisees 118 n.144, 193, 231, 235, 245 n.89, 261, 355–6, 371 plot 45–7 quinary scheme 46–7

Jerusalem 142–3, 268, 398 John the Baptist 76–7, 156, 284, 397

Q

kingdom(s) earthly 252, 331–2, 399 of God 105, 123, 208–11, 226, 254, 259–62, 264, 273, 282, 297–8, 321–27, 351, 371, 398–400 of Satan 331, 336, 399 Law Jewish 306–7 Torah 118 n.144, 234, 268 Lord’s Prayer 210, 370–1 Lot 183 marginalized class 141–2 poor 125, 210 Mark deutero- 59 n.6, 328 Mark/Q Overlaps 23, 25, 328 proto- 59 n.6 ‫( משָׁל‬māšāl) 15 n.45, 16 metaphor 10 minor agreement 37 n.54 Moses 262 n.177, 269 narrative 10, 16 n.46 narrative gap 90, 149, 230–1, 257, 266–7, 313 n.91, 342, 382 Noah 181, 183 parable definition 10–13, 15–17 German scholarship 12 n.33, 16 function in Q 404–7 location in Q 403–4 order in Q 20 n.58

extent and order 29 n.28 mission 388, 390, 406 reconstruction 26–39 stratigraphy 24 n.2 QLk 30 n.29 QMt 30 n.29 Sepphoris 347 sheep 383–4 shepherd 54 n.126, 380–90, 401, 406 Sodom and Gomorrah 66 n.50, 185 Solomon 200–1, 204 Son of Man 104–5, 145, 156–9, 169, 171–6, 181, 184–5, 220–1, 225–7, 254, 392, 394–5, 397 Sondergut 23, 25 spatial image/space 110 n.108, 225, 233, 259–60, 305, 308, 332, 401–2 Synoptic Problem statistics 31 n.34 temporal image 110 n.108, 131, 179 n.176, 225–6, 282–3, 345 “this generation” 151, 162–4, 372, 397–8 Tiberias 347 treasure 124, 175, 209, 245, 253–4 Torah see Law Two-Document Theory 2 n.4 violence 97–8, 101–2, 137, 205, 393 wandering charismatics 207, 209–10, 253, 277 n.256 winnowing 67–9 wisdom 89, 158, 160–3, 189, 201, 203, 218, 254, 290, 314, 397 Zealots 192–3, 246 n.92

BIBLICAL PASSAGES Hebrew Bible (LXX) Genesis 1 2:19 3:18 5:24 8:11 15:9-17 15:11 (LXX) 15:17 (LXX) 18:6 18:6 (LXX) 18:26 (LXX) 19:8 19:17 (LXX) 19:26 24:25 24:32 26:12 29:31, 33 32:14 40:17

85 305 244 181 357 102 102 102 319 318 183 357 183 214 71 71 281 251 379 305

Exodus 1:17 5:7 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:16 5:18 12:15-20 15:20 18:20 21:34 (LXX) 22:1 22:25 23:18 29:17

125 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 316 154 345 279 171 124 316 96

Leviticus 2:11 2:13 11:13 11:13-19 11:14 19 19:14 19:17 19:32 11:15 23:17 24:7

316 213 223 223 223 194 125, 194 358, 360 125 203 316 213

Numbers 18:19 21:6

213 368

Deuteronomy 4:29 6:24 14:12-18 14:12 14:13 14:14 20:5-6 20:5-9 21:15-17 21:20 21:22-23 23:20-21 28:49 31:12 32:6

371 125 223 223 223 203 291 140 251 160 160 124 223 125 366

Judges 6:19 9:7-16 9:38 9:45 19:19

319 63 64 214 71

456

Biblical Passages

19:23 (LXX)

279

Ruth

181

1 Samuel 1:24 8:6 12:17 13:20-21 18:14 25:18 (LXX)

319 154 281 64 345 318

2 Samuel 1:23 6:5 (LXX) 7:14 21:7 21:10 22:29 23:6

223 154 366 269 305 269 244

1 Kings 6:15 11:9-13 12:24 16:24 17:4 17:6 18:32 (LXX)

357 331 305 279 203 203 318

2 Kings 2:11 2:19-22 4:10 6:2, 5 7:1 (LXX) 7:16 (LXX) 7:18 (LXX)

181 213 269 357 318 318 318

2 Chronicles 13:5 19:7 34:11

213 125 357

Ezra 6:9

213

Nehemiah 5:15

125

Job 6:6 8:12 8:15 9:25-26 14:1-2 21:17 21:18 22:15-16 24:16 (LXX) 33:18 34:21 38:41 39:27 39:28-30 39:30 41:19

213 204 291 223 204 269 71 292 171 195 345 203 223 223 223, 226 71

Psalms 1:3 7:16 8:9 16:10 18:28 23 30:9 33:9 37 37:2 40:2 49:11 50:18 58:12 68:5 74:4-6 80:9 83:14-15 92:14 103:12 (LXX) 103:15-16 103:27 (LXX) 104:10-11 104:12 119:104 119:113 119:176 139:24 144:15 (LXX) 145:8 (LXX)

63, 243 195 305 195 269 384 195 85 100 204 292 305 170 243 366 64 62 293 291 303 204 100 203 308 269 251 384 345 100 194

Biblical Passages 145:15-16 147:8-9 147:9

203 203 203

Proverbs 1:31 3:11-12 6:1-5 8:17 8:32 9:3 10:16 (LXX) 10:25 12:7 13:9 14:11 19:22 (LXX) 20:20 21:17 23:5 23:20-21 24:21 25:7b-8 25:9-10 26:1 26:9 28:10 29:24 30:17 31:10 31:10-31 31:15 31:18 31:21 31:30

243 203 347 371 163 161 243 293 293 269 293 243 269 101 223 101 125 347 347 281 101 195 170 223 100 100 100 269 101 100

Ecclesiastes 3:4

154

Song of Songs 1:17 2:13

357 244

Isaiah 3:10 5:12 5:24 6:10 7:23-25

243 154 71 194 244

457

10:16-17 10:17-18 10:33-34 11:7 13:19-21 17:13 18:5 18:5 (LXX) 18:6 21:10 24:17-18 25:6 27:12 28:17 30:27-28 30:29 34:9-10 35:5-6 38:18 40:6-8 40:7-8 40:10-11 40:11 41:14-16 41:15 49:15 50:10 53:6 55:10-11 47:11 (LXX) 47:14 55:6 63:16 65:25 66:24

65 66 64 71 259 71 282 282 305 71 195 141 282 293 293 154 72 142 195 204 205 384 384 71 357 366 125 384 85 195 71 371 366 71 65, 72

Jeremiah 1:10 2:21 2:26 4:3 4:4 4:13 5:14 7:20 8:13 11:16 15:3 17:6

291 62 170 244 66, 72 223 66 72 244 66 305 214

458

Biblical Passages

17:10 17:7-8 17:27 18:9 21:8 21:12 21:14 22:7 23:1-6 23:28 31:4 31:9 31:13 31:43-44 (LXX) 34:18-19 (Aquila) 34:18-20 43:12 46:22 48:43-44

243 63 72 291 345 72 66 6 384 71 154 366 154 195 102 102 66 64 195

Lamentations 4:19

223

Ezekiel 13:13-14 15:6-7 16:4 17:22-24 17:23 31:6 34 34:4 34:11-16

293 66 213 305, 308 305, 308 303, 305, 308 376, 384 384 384

Daniel 2:41-43 3:80 (Theodotian) 4 4:7-9 4:10-12 4:11-12 4:15 4:18 4:20-21 4:20-22 4:21 (LXX) 11:4

331 203 63 305 309 305, 308 63 309 305, 308 63 304 331

Hosea

2:14 6:11 7:4 8:1 9:10 10:1 10:8 10:13 11:3

305 283 317 223 244 62 244 243 366

Joel 2:9 2:22 4:13

170 244 282

Amos 1:7 1:10 1:12 1:14 2:9 5:6 5:18-20 9:12-15

66 66 66 66 63 72 170 291

Obadiah 18

71

Micah 1:16 2:12 4:12 4:12-13

223 384 282 71

Nahum 1:6 1:10 3:13

65 71 66

Habakkuk 1:8

223

Zephaniah 1:18 2:9

65 214

Zechariah 5:3 8:5

170 153, 155

Biblical Passages

459

11:1 11:3-17

66 384

Susanna 1:55 1:59

96 96

Malachi 1:2-3 2:10 3:1-3 3:2-3 3:19 4:1

251 366 396 72 62, 71 65

Tobit 8:3

259

Wisdom 4:3-5 4:10-11 7:27 10 10:16

64 180 161 158 161

Old Testament Apocrypha Baruch 4:33-35

259

1 Esdras 5:2

154

Judith 11:7

203

Q 3:7-8 3:7-9 3:8-9 3:9

3:16-17 3:17

1 Maccabees 1:39 2:12 3:45 4:38 15:4

332 332 154 332 332

2 Maccabees 2:18

180

Sirach 4:11 6:3 6:18-19 15:2 18:20 22:16-18 27:6 29:2 30:24-25 32:15 39:26 40:22 51:10 51:25 51:26

163 64 243 163 347 291 243 357 206 371 214 204 366 233 233

4:1 4:1-12 4:5 4:8 4:12 6 6:20 6:22 6:23 6:23c 6:27-28 6:27-35 6:27-38 6:32 6:34 6:35 6:36 6:37 6:37-38 6:37-42 6:39

157 73, 74, 77, 119 104, 243 20, 58, 71, 74, 160, 242, 244, 395–6, 402 73, 74, 77, 284, 395 20, 58, 66, 71–2, 119, 160, 240, 280, 326, 395–6, 402 85, 259 85 398 97 97 194 210, 398 145, 258, 394 397 143 351 374 360 406 406 258 233 406 360 190 7, 9, 14, 20, 32, 189–90, 193, 196–7, 231, 232, 234–7, 352, 358–9,

460

6:39-40 6:39-42 6:39-45 6:40

6:41-42

6:41-42a 6:42 6:42b 6:43-44 6:43-45

6:43-46 6:44 6:45 6:46 6:46-49 6:47 6:47-49

6:49 7:1-10 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:8bβ-9 7:9 7:18-19 7:18-23 7:18-35 7:19 7:22 7:22-23 7:24 7:24-28 7:26 7:28 7:31 7:31-32

Biblical Passages 361, 407 361 190, 193, 196, 360 193, 196, 355 9, 20, 32, 196–7, 229, 234–7, 359, 361, 400 7, 9, 20, 32, 196, 232, 237, 245, 352, 356, 359, 361, 406–7 237 245, 354, 360 356 7, 75, 238, 241 8, 9, 20, 32, 232, 244, 246, 284, 295, 402 190 241, 243, 407 125, 241, 245, 258 85, 97, 236, 294 7, 85, 294 85, 294 7–9, 20, 31, 32, 123, 197, 232, 236, 245–6, 263, 286, 293, 295, 392, 397, 400, 402, 404 85, 294 84, 163, 294, 334 85, 97, 294 82, 85, 294 20, 78, 138, 392, 402 85 86, 135, 163 326 70, 396 73, 156, 163 77 396 326 259, 406 162, 397 397 398 407 8, 145, 397–8

7:31-34 7:31-35

7:33-34 7:33-35 7:34 7:35 9:57 9:57-58 9:57-60 9:58 9:59 9:59-60 9:60 9:61-62 10:2

10:2-12 10:3 10:6 10:6-8 10:9 10:10-11 10:9b 10:13-15 10:16 10:21 10:21-24 10:22 10:23-24 11:1 11:2 11:2-4 11:5-8 11:9-10 11:9-10, 13 11:9-13 11:10 11:11-12 11:11-13 11:13

9, 163 7–9, 20, 31–2, 146, 158, 162–4, 393, 397 156, 159–60, 162 8, 156, 158 145, 157, 160, 162, 394 145, 156, 158, 160–3 194 248 235 8, 145, 394 97 248 194 248 9, 20, 31–2, 70–1, 77, 97, 207, 209, 244, 273–8, 281–5, 326, 374, 392, 396, 399–400, 402, 404 281 7–8, 77, 277, 284–5, 396 281 210 210, 327, 398 327 284 393 197 97 197 9, 19, 33, 397 278, 322 158 210, 365, 398 370–1 370 366, 369–71 363 9, 20, 33, 370–1 369–70 8, 202, 209, 362, 370, 402, 407 7, 369, 373 365–6, 370–1

Biblical Passages 11:14 11:14-15 11:14-15, 17-20 11:14-20 11:14-23 11:14-26 11:14-52 11:15 11:15-20 11:17-18 11:17-18a 11:17-19 11:17-20 11:18a 11:19 11:19-20 11:20 11:21-22 11:23 11:24-26

11:29 11:29-31 11:29-32 11:29-32 11:29-35 11:30 11:31 11:31-32 11:33 11:33-34 11:33-35 11:33-36 11:34-35 11:34-36 11:35 11:39-44 11:47-51 11:49-51 11:52 12:2 12:2-3 12:4-5 12:4-7 12:6-7 12:8

83, 261, 284 9 33 9, 337, 398 273 262 393 335 83 298, 327 20, 402 335, 337 9 335 261, 264, 333, 337 261 259, 278, 322, 326, 335, 337 8–9, 335 262–4 7–9, 20, 33, 74, 104, 255, 258, 262–4, 333, 338, 402 398 397 258, 272 273 272 145, 394 204 186, 201, 313 7, 9, 20, 33, 265–6, 273, 402 8 272 258 9, 19, 33, 271–2 7, 104 273 258 143, 397 161, 393, 397 398 278, 322 8 396 374 8 145, 394

12:8-9 12:10 12:14 12:16-20 12:16-21 12:17 12:22 12:22-23 12:22-31 12:23 12:24 12:24, 26-28 12:24, 27-28 12:24-28 12:24b 12:26 12:27 12:28 12:29 12:29-31 12:30 12:31 12:31-32 12:33 12:33-34 12:35-38 12:36-38 12:39 12:39-40

12:39-46 12:40 12:42 12:42-46

12:42b-46 12:43 12:43-44 12:44 12:45 12:46 90. 12:49

461 186 145, 394 399 8 8, 404 399 206 199 198, 210, 248, 253, 374 206–7 200, 204, 284 9, 33, 203, 374, 402 20, 198–9, 245 186, 313, 407 206 199 200 203–4, 206 199 253 202 207–8, 254, 371, 398 400 209 175, 248, 253–54 8, 23 8 7–8, 98, 169 8–9, 14, 20, 33, 104, 129, 164, 174–6, 209, 245, 317, 349, 392, 400 395 90, 98, 104, 145, 169, 171, 173, 394 90, 100, 407 7–9, 20, 33, 88, 104, 111, 126, 175–6, 392–3, 396–1, 400, 407 9 90–1, 103–4 95 91, 104 90, 95, 103 98, 103 174

462 12:51-52 12:51-53 12:54-56 12:56 12:57-58 12:58-59 13:18 13:18-19

13:18-21

13:19 13:20 13:20-21

13:21 13:24 13:24-27 13:25 13:25-26 13:26 13:25-27 13:26-27 13:28 13:28-29 13:34 13:34-35 13:35 14:5 14:11 14:16 14:16-21, 23 14:16-23

14:16-24 14:21 14:26 14:26-27 14:34 14:34-35 15:3-7 15:4

Biblical Passages 185 174, 185 9, 33, 349 407 340 7–9, 20, 33, 327, 339, 349, 361, 400 407 7–9, 10, 14, 20, 33, 297–8, 321, 398, 400, 402, 404 8–9, 20, 186, 201, 278, 311, 313, 392, 398 311 407 7–10, 14, 33, 297, 312, 317, 321, 398, 400, 402, 404 351 7, 218 9, 34, 392 77 370 236 8 104 217 76, 104, 142–3, 398 160, 398 142–3, 393 97, 182 195 195 134 8–9, 234 7–9, 14, 21, 34, 128, 160, 218, 392, 401 8, 143 134 160, 248, 250, 252 218, 234 189, 407 8–9, 21, 34, 211, 217–18, 407 8 387, 407

15:4-5a, 7

15:4-5, 7 15:4-6 15:4-7 15:4-10 15:8-10 16:13

16:16 16:17 16:18 17 17:1-2 17:1b-6 17:3 17:3-4 17:6 17:23 17:23-24 17:23-37 17:24 17:26 17:26-27 17:26-29 17:26-30 17:27 17:28-29 17:28-30 17:30 17:33 17:34 17:34-35

17:35 17:37

17:37b 19 19:11-27 19:12-13, 15-20a, 21, 20b, 22-24, 26

8–9, 14, 21, 34, 374, 396, 400, 402, 406–7 9–10, 386 8 7–9, 387, 404 311 8–9, 404 9, 21, 31, 34, 97, 246, 249, 251, 253–4, 311, 388, 393, 400, 402, 407 387, 398 24, 388 387 395 197, 387 311 360, 361 351, 361, 387 307, 311, 387 185, 259 183 184 18, 145, 173, 183, 226–7, 394–5 145, 173, 394 183, 185, 395 183 104, 227 181, 183 183–4 185 145, 173, 183, 394 218 178 9, 21, 34, 174, 176, 183–6, 201, 225, 313, 325, 349, 392, 395, 398, 400, 404 8 9, 21, 34, 145, 177, 183, 219, 226–7, 244, 398, 402 221 392–3 8 9

Biblical Passages 19:12-13, 15-24, 26

19:12-13, 15-26 19:12-26 19:12-27 19:21-22 19:22 22:28, 30 22:30

8–9, 14, 21, 34, 106–7, 111, 175, 392–3, 402 8 7–8 8, 127 117 398 127, 197 398

New Testament Matthew 3:7 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 4:1-11 5:13 5:13-16 5:15 5:24 5:25 5:25-26 5:26 5:35 5:39 6:10 6:24 6:25-33 6:25-34 6:26 6:26, 28b-30 6:28a 6:28b 6:28-30 6:29 6:30 6:32 7:1-2 7:3-5 7:4 7:7 7:7-8 7:7-11 7:9

63 61 58, 243 67 58, 66–7, 70 363 18–19, 211–12, 217 18 265–7, 269 347 341–2 339, 347–8 342 19 19 363 18, 246 206 253 18, 199 198 206 200 18 201 200, 204 202 359–60 339, 352 353 369 369 362, 370 363–4, 370

7:11 7:13 7:15 7:16 7:16-20 7:17-18 7:18 7:18, 16 7:19 7:22-23 7:24 7:24-27 7:25 7:26 7:27 8:9 8:16 8:20 9:10-11 9:23 9:32-33 9:37 9:37-38 9:38 10:1-4 10:5-16 10:7 10:16 10:24 10:24-25a 10:24-25 10:25 10:25b 10:37-39 11:2-15 11:2-19 11:16 11:16-19 11:17 11:19 12:22-24 12:25 12:25-26 12:28 12:29-30 12:33 12:34 12:35, 34 12:43-45

463 373 19 242 238, 240 239 240 238 20 59, 243 19 288, 294 286–7 289 289, 294 289 78 266 304, 394 156 154 284 278 274–5 280 275, 278 275 284 18 232, 236 229 190 231 232 218 156 156 7, 147–8 146 148 162, 394 333 329–30 327 337 25 20, 238, 240 243 20 255

464 12:44 13:3-9 13:24-30 13:30 13:31 13:31-32 13:31-33 13:32 13:33 13:37-43 13:39 13:40-42 15:1-20 15:7 15:12 15:14 16:2-3 18:3 18:10-14 18:12 18:13 18:13b 18:15 18:34 20:1 20:2 20:8 21:39 21:40 22:1-10 22:1-14 22:2-3 22:3 22:3, 5-6 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:7 22:8 22:8-9 22:9 22:10 22:11-13 22:11-14 23 23:34 24:27 24:28 24:32-33

Biblical Passages 257 37 67 281 300 298, 308 7 321 312 67 281 67 190 355 190 190–1 23 37 7, 378 376–7, 379, 385 378, 386 379 360 96 278 275, 278 278–9 37 279 7, 20, 128 9, 43, 129 131 134–5 131 138 138 138 129, 132, 134–6 133 135 132, 141 133, 136 136 7, 67 355 161–2 223 219, 223 37

24:40 24:40-41 24:41 24:42-25:13 24:43 24:43-44 24:43-51 24:45 24:45-51 24:47 24:48 24:49 24:51 25:1-12 25:1-13 25:5 25:14 25:14-15 25:14-29 25:14-30 25:15 25:18 25:19 25:20 25:21 25:22 25:23 25:24 25:28 25:29

178 176 181 172 165–6 164 7 93, 100 88 112 111 93 96 19 23 111 112, 114 110, 113 106–7 7 110, 114 113 111, 115 119 110, 112 119 110, 112 115 113 111, 125

Mark 1:7 2:15-16 3:22-26 3:23 3:28-29 4:3-9 4:21 4:26 4:29 4:30 4:30-32 4:31 4:32 5 9:33-37 9:49-50a 10:13-16

67 156 9 328 264 37 265 297 281 297 9, 299 308, 311 300 259 151 211 151

Biblical Passages 10:15 12:1-11 12:8 12:9 12:42 13 13:14-18 13:27 13:28-29 16:18 Luke 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10-14 3:16 3:17 4:21 5:29-30 5:33 5:36 6:20 6:37-38 6:39 6:39-42 6:40 6:40b 6:42 6:43 6:43-44 6:43-45 6:44 6:45 6:47 6:47-49 6:48 6:49 7:1-10 7:6 7:8 7:18-30 7:18-35 7:22 7:31 7:31-32 7:31-35

37 37 37 279 347 185 185 180 37 368

63 61, 63 58 63–4 67 58, 65–7, 70, 284 266 156 156 381 190 359–60 14–15, 18, 190–1, 194, 359 242 190, 229–30, 233, 359 231 353 240 20, 238 239 20, 240 20, 245 274, 294 286–7 288–9 289–90, 294 80 59 78, 80 156 156 136 148 7 146

7:32 7:34 7:35 8:2 8:5-8 8:16 9:1-6 9:58 10:2 10:1-16 10:2 10:19 11:5-8 11:9-10 11:9-13 11:11 11:13 11:14-15 11:14-32 11:17 11:17-18a 11:20 11:21-22 11:21-23 11:23 11:24-26 11:29-30 11:29-36 11:31-32 11:33 11:33-36 11:34-36 11:49 12:13-21 12:13-14 12:15-21 12:16-20 12:22-31 12:22-32 12:24 12:24, 27-28 12:26 12:27 12:28 12:30 12:35-38 12:36-38 12:39 12:39-40

465 147 161, 394 162 261 37 265–6 275 304, 394 279 275 274 363 25, 370 369 362 363–4 373 333 255 329–30 327 337 26 25 271 255, 271 398 272 398 265–6 161, 270–2 266, 272 161–2 24 24 24 24 206 253 199 198 206 200–1 200, 204–5 202 23, 176 25 165–6 164

466 12:39-46 12:40 12:42 12:42-46 12:43 12:44 12:45 12:46 12:47-48 12:54-56 12:58 12:58-59 12:59 13:15 13:18-19 13:18-21 13:19 13:20-21 13:24 13:25-27 14:12-14 14:12-24 14:13 14:15-24 14:16-17 14:16-23 14:16-24 14:17 14:18-20 14:21 14:21, 23-24 14:21-22 14:21-23 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:34 14:34-35 14:35 15:1 15:3-7 15:4 15:4-6 15:4-7 15:5

Biblical Passages 7 165, 173 93 88, 164 100 112 93, 101 92, 96 99 19, 348 341–2 339, 348 342 355 298 7 300, 31 312 19 19 136 9, 129 139 7 131 20, 43, 128, 137 8 134, 135, 138 131, 139 132, 134–5, 139–41 135 136 139 138 129, 132–3, 136, 141 133, 136 212 211 212, 216 156 7 376–9, 385 381 8, 381 386

15:7 15:7b 15:8-10 16:9 16:11 16:13 17:3 17:24 17:30-31 17:32-33 17:34 17:34-35 17:35 17:37b 18:17 19:12 19:15 19:12-26 19:12-27 19:13 19:14 19:16 19:16-21 19:17-19 19:18 19:20 19:21-22 19:22 19:24 19:25 19:26 19:27 20:9-16 20:13 20:15 21:29-31 22:19 23:52 23:55 24:3 24:23

378 379 24 251 251 246 360 224 176 176 177–8 176 181 219, 225 37 114 112 106–7 7–8 110, 112, 114 111 119 110 112 119 113 117 115 113 115 125 111 37 279 37, 279 37 221 221 221 221 221

John 3:14 3:29 4:35 5:19-23

368 156 281 9, 19

Biblical Passages 12:24 13:16 15:20

302 230 230

Acts 5:16 8:7 9:23 16:16, 19 19:12 22:3 24:14 28:3-6

258 258 345 248 341 233 345 368

Romans 2:19

193

1 Corinthians 3:6 3:6-10 5:6-7 10:9 14:20

327 291 316 368 151

2 Corinthians 11:13

278

Philippians 3:2

278

467

1 Thessalonians 5:2

170

1 Timothy 6:20

123

2 Timothy 1:12 1:14 2:15

123 123 278

Hebrews 2:15

341

James 3:12 5:4

243 278

2 Peter 3:10

170

Revelation 3:3 14:15 16:3 16:15 18:2 18:16-18

170 180, 281 258 170 258–9 332

ANCIENT SOURCES Fragmenta 138

Greco-Roman

216 n.131

Diodorus of Sicily Bibliotheca historica 31.3.1 351

Aesop Fable 11 Fable 97 Fable 225 “The Miser” Proverb 115

154 n.44 154 n.44 124 154 n.44

Alciphron Ep. 2.23.1

68 n.62

Dioscurides Pedanius Mat. med. 4.19

216 n.131

Aristophanes Plutus Plut. 565

193 n.18 171

Epictetus Diatr. 1.25.10 Diatr. 2.20

84 243

Aristotle Historia animalium 9.32 Poetics Poetics 1455b, 24–9 Rhet. 2.4.4 Rhet. 2.20

222 45 46 n.92 159 n.79 12 n.33

Herodotus Hist. 1.141

155

Horace Sat. 1.3.25

358

Marcus Aurelius

243 n.76

Musonius Rufus Fragment 32

358

358 96 n.44 281 n.275

Philostratus Appolonius 8.7.9

159 n.76

92 n.17 281 n.275 381

Plato Leg. 9.857a Phaedr. 270e Resp. 6.484d Resp. 6.506c Resp. 7.518c Resp. 8.555c

346 n.31 194 194 194 194 250

Pliny the Elder Nat. 10.3 Nat. 18.20

222 281 n.275

Arrian Epict. diss. 1.16 Cicero Off. 1.146 Off. 2.24 Verr. 2.3.112 Columella Rust. 1.8 Rust. 3.3.4 Rust. 7.3.26 Corpus hermeticum frag. 11.2.48 Poimandres 4.6 Diocles Comica Adespota 596

203

372 n.176 250 216 n.131

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.72.12 154

Ancient Sources Nat. 19.170 Nat. 20.236-40 Nat. 31.73–105 Nat. 31.82 Nat. 31.87 Nat. 31.88 Nat. 31.89 Nat. 31.98–105

306 306 214 215 214 214 214 214

Plutarch De Curios. 515d Inim. Util. 88C–D Tranq. an. 472F

358 359 243

Quintilian Inst. 6.3.63

328 n.178

Seneca Ep. 87.25 Ira 2.10.6

243 n.76 243 n.76

Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.259

195

Theophrastus Caus. plant. 4.13.6

281 n.276

Varro Rust. 1.44 Rust. 2 Rust. 2.2.20

281 n.275 380 381

Virgil Georg. 3.406–408

170

Vitruvius De architectura 1.5.1 De architectura 3.4.1–2 De architectura 6.8.1

291 291 291

Xenophon Oec. 7.19-22 Oec. 18.6

181 n.189 68 n.60

Jewish Josephus Ant. 9.36.41

64

469

Ant. 17.198 Ant. 17.299–323 Ant. 18.113–114 Ant. 18.117 Bell. 2:80–100

79 n.118 109 n.100 79 n.118 64 n.37 109 n.100

Philo Decal. 152 Ebr. 156 frag. 2.649 Migr. 80 Mut. 55 QE 1.15 QE 2.14 Spec. Leg. 1.175 Spec. Leg. 1.293 Spec. Leg. 2.185 Spec. Leg. 4.7 Virt. 2.7

332 290 n.317 250 290 n.317 290 n.317 316 316 n.111 214 316 n.111 316 171 194 n.24

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Bar. 17:13 2 Bar. 39:1-8 2 Bar. 53:7 2 Bar. 70:2 1 Enoch 1 En. 10:6 1 En. 54:1-2 1 En. 90:24-25 1 En. 100:4 1 En. 100:9 1 En. 102:1 4 Ezra 4:28-32 4 Ezra 7:36-38 4 Ezra 9:1-25, 29-37 Ahiqar Apoc. Zeph. 2:2-4 Jos. Asen. 15.7 Jub. 9:15 Jub. 21:11 Jub. 36:10 L.A.B. 28.4 Let. Aris. 140–1 Odes Sol. 8:80 Pss. Sol. 5:8–10, 18 Pss. Sol. 15:4-5 Pss. Sol. 15:6-7 Pss. Sol. 15:10-15

269 63 293 282 294 n.347 65 65 65 180 65 65 282 65 283 99 178 n.168 304 65 213 65 64 n.37 207 n.93 203 n.64 209 n.98 65 65 65

470 T. Benj. 11:1 T. Dan. 6:1 T. Dan. 6:4 T. Jud. 18:6 T. Levi 15:1

Ancient Sources 278 331 n.192 331 n.192 250 332

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH XIV, 24-26 1QH XV, 8-9 1QHa III, 29-34 1QHa XVI, 8-9 1QM XIV, 11 1QpHab X, 5, 13 1QS 1QS II 1QS II, 8 1QS VIII, 5

291 291 65 308 64 65 27 n.14 393 n.9 65 291

Apostolic Fathers 1 Clem. 24:4-5 2 Clem. 6.1 Didache Did. 1.5 Did. 10:5 Ign. Magn. 10.2

302 n.29 247 n.95 27 n.14 340 n.4 180 316–17 n.112

Church Fathers Augustine Serm. Dom. 2.25.87

292 n.328, 295 n.351

Eusebius Theophania 22

113 n.121

John Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 24.3

295 n.351

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts John 95 Dial. Sav. 144.5-7 Gos. Phil. 60 Gospel of the Nazarenes Gospel of Thomas Gos. Thom. 2 Gos. Thom. 20

155 306 n.50 194 113 n.121 4 n. 8 369 n.154 298–9

Gos. Thom. 21 Gos. Thom. 21.5 Gos. Thom. 26 Gos. Thom. 26.1 Gos. Thom. 28 Gos. Thom. 33 Gos. Thom. 33.2-3 Gos. Thom. 34 Gos. Thom. 36.9-10 Gos. Thom. 45 Gos. Thom. 47.1 Gos. Thom. 47.2 Gos. Thom. 61 Gos. Thom. 61.1 Gos. Thom. 64

Gos. Thom. 64.10-11 Gos. Thom. 73 Gos. Thom. 92 Gos. Thom. 94 Gos. Thom. 96 Gos. Thom. 96.1-2 Gos. Thom. 103 Gos. Thom. 107 Pistis Sophia 133 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.21 Ps.-Clem. Rec. 4.33

165 n.109 166 n.112 196 n.33, 352 n.71 353 n.71 194 266 n.196 265 191, 196 n.33 199 n.48 239 n.50 247 n.95 247 n.95 178 n.168 178 129 n.198, 131 n.204, 140 n.257, 142 135 n.228 274 n.248 369 n.154, 371 369 n.154 298 n.5, 319 n.131 312 n.88 165 380 n.219, 388 69 n.65 83 n.140 83 n.140

Mishnah and Talmud b. Arak 16b m. ‘Avot 3.17 ‘Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 24 m. Kil. 1.4 m. Kil. 2.8 Midr. Lam. 12. proem b. Šabb. 153a m. Šabb. 3.6 y. Sanh. 6.23c

358 287 n.305 287 n.305 307 307 155 n.49 136 n.231 270 132 n.207

Targums Tg. Ket. 4.4

154 n.39

Papyri BGU XVI 2602 P.Cair.Zen. I 59049.3–4 P.Mich. VI 421.2–9

275 n.252 279 n.268 171

Ancient Sources P.Mich. XI 618 P.Oxy. 1 P.Oxy. 654 P.Oxy. 655 P.Oxy. XLIX 3467.3–7

275 n.252 352 n.71 369 n.154 199 n.48 171

PSI VI 345 P.Soter. 4.24-28 P.Strass. IX 872.7-9 SB XXII 15781

471 279 n.268 72 n.74 72 n.74 171