The Sayings Source: A Commentary on Q 9783170374386, 9783170374393, 9783170374409, 9783170374416, 3170374389

Citation preview

Markus Tiwald

The Sayings Source A Commentary on Q

W. Kohlhammer

1. Edition 2020 All rights reserved © W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Print: ISBN 978-3-17-037438-6 E-Book-Formate: pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-037439-3 epub: ISBN 978-3-17-037440-9 mobi: ISBN 978-3-17-037441-6 W. Kohlhammer bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of any external website that is linked or cited, or for that of subsequent links.

Content

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Preliminary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Existence of the Sayings Source . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Reconstruction of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 The Critical Edition of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Narratological Access to Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Consequences for this Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Textual Fluidity as an Essential Feature of Q . . . . . . 1.2.5 Textual Basis for this Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries 2.1 Status Quaestionis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Aliquid Novi? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 13 14 14 14 16 17 18 18 18 20

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Time and Place of Q’s Composition . . . . 1.1 The Time of Q’s Literal Composition . 1.2 The Place of Composition . . . . . . . . . 2. The Community behind the Sayings Source . 2.1 Q and Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Jesus vs. Torah? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Anti-Jewish Polemics in Q? . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Gentile Mission in Q? . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Authors of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Itinerant Prophets … . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 … and Village Scribes . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Heritage Contained in Q . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Q as Witness to Early Jesus Traditions 2.3.2 The Heritage of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Extent and Structure of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Deviations from the Lukan Sequence . 3.1.1 The Q-Order Proposed by the CEQ . . . 3.1.2 Modifications of the CEQ-Sequence . . 3.2 Extent of the Q-Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Structure of the Q-Text . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 22 22 23 23 23 24 25 25 27 27 27 28 28 31 32 33 33 34 35 36

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

Content

3.4 3.4.1

..

39

..

40

..

41

..

42

..

44

..

45

. . . .

. . . .

45 46 46 47

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title and Introduction of Q? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 2: The Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22; 4:1–13.16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49) . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10) Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16) . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries The Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for Mission (Q 10:2–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24) . . . . Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries Natural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26) . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32) Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18; 11:39–52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community Confidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12) . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 2: Search for the Reign of God! (Q 12:22b–34) . . . . . . . . .

48 48

3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.7 3.5 3.6

The Narrative Plot of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35) . . . . . Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries The Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13) . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries Natural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18) Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community Confidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents Announcement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23) . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:6) . Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30) . . . . Q’s Plot and the Stages of Salvation History . . . . . . . . . . . Oral Performance and Literal Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 49 55 59 70 72 81 82 84 95 98 104 105 109 112 114 128 128 133

7

Content

Narrative Unit 3: The Coming of the Son of Man (Q 12:39–59) . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 4: Parables of the Reign of God (Q 13:18–21) . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents Announcement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise (Q 14:26–17:2) . . . . Narrative Unit 2: The Forgiveness of God and of One Another (Q 15:4–10; 17:4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 3: Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrative Unit 1: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–37; 19:12–26) . . . . Narrative Unit 2: Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Q 22:28.30) . . . . .

161 164 165 165 172

Part IV: Excursi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man . . . . . . . 1.1 The Reign of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 The Term »Reign of God« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Origins of the Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Disempowerment of Satan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Son of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Reading Q Against the Backdrop of Early Jewish Assumptions 1.4.1 The Expectations of the Baptist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Jesus’ Paradigm Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 Jesus’ Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.4 Jesus’ Continuation of the Baptist’s Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.5 The Restitution of Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.6 The Son of Man in Jesus’ Thought and in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Sacred Scriptures of the Authors behind Q . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The ›Canon‹ of the Jewish ›Bible‹ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Aramaic Sources of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 The so-called ›Septuagint‹ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Scriptural Quotations in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Direct and Indirect Quotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Direct Quotations in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Indirect Quotations in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Index of Direct and Indirect Quotations in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 3: God’s Advocacy for the Poor and the »Violent Fate of Prophets« 3.1 God’s Advocacy for the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Piety in Poverty in Early Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Jesus’ Advocacy for the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Advocacy for the Poor in the Sayings Source . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The »Violent Fate of Prophets« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

176 176 176 176 176 178 179 179 179 180 180 180 181 182 185 185 185 186 187 188 188 189 190 190 195 196 196 196 197 198 199

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 141 143 155 155

8

Content

3.3

Textual Pragmatics of Piety in Poverty and the »Violent Fate of Prophets« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Eschatological Chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 The Eschatological Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 »This Generation« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Eschatological War and Disruption of Families . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4 Imagery of Violence and Insistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Eschatological Peace of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Restitution of the Peace of Paradise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 The Materially Noticeable Peace of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Emblematic Non-Violence and Confidence in God . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Jesus’ Optimism vs. Judgement in Q? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Ambivalent Eschatological Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 A Comparison with Other Early Jewish Writings . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 General Considerations on the Parables of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Parables and the Historical Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Parables in the Sayings Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 The Message of Q-Parables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Gendered Couplets in Q’s Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Gendered Couplets … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 … and their Interpretation in Feminist Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199 200 200 200 201 202 203 204 204 205 205 206 206 206 207 207 207 208 210 211 211 211

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Primary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Classic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha . . 1.1.2 Qumran Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Philo and Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 Pagan Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 Rabbinic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6 Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1.1.7 Patristic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Edition of the Sayings Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Secondary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

213 213 213 213 213 213 214 214 214 214 215 215 215

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 2.3 Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

229 229 230 230 232 233 234

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

9

Content

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11

Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek and Roman Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Testament (including the Sayings Source) . Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabbinic Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patristic Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

234 234 234 237 237 237 238

Acknowledgements

This book is the English translation of my German commentary on the Sayings Source (Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Kohlhammer 2019). Shortly before the publication of the German version, Dr. Sebastian Weigert from Kohlhammer asked me whether I would like to translate it into English. I was glad that he offered me the precious help of Dr. J. Andrew Doole, Assistant Professor at the University of Innsbruck, to supervise and proofread my translation. To both I owe many thanks for having made this book possible! Such a translation is always a difficult undertaking—in parts I decided to reformulate the text completely. Particularly problematic were the many quotes in German—should I leave those (and risk an illegible compositum of two languages) or omit them completely (and thus reduce the background discussion to a minimum)? I decided to put the most important German quotes into the footnotes so that the commentary is readable for those without any knowledge of German while the relevant quotations are preserved for scholars and others who are interested. As a welcome side effect, this commentary establishes a dialogue between German- and English-speaking scholarly traditions. Vienna/Austria, October 2019

Markus Tiwald

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

This book is the English translation of my German commentary on the Sayings Source (Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Kohlhammer 2019)—enlarged with some passages of my introduction to Q (Die Logienquelle. Text, Kontext und Theologie der Quelle Q, Kohlhammer 2016). As the general questions concerning the »Two Document Hypothesis« and the existence of the »Sayings Source« are discussed exhaustively in this introduction, this commentary only offers a short résumé to these questions (and only refers in footnotes to a more extensive analysis).

1.

Preliminary Questions

1.1

The Existence of the Sayings Source

The »Two Document Hypothesis« (henceforth: 2DH) teaches us that Matthew and Luke, in the process of writing their gospels, not only used the Gospel of Mark but also a second document, the so-called »Sayings Source«—or simply »Q« (from the German Quelle »source«). Notwithstanding the fact that this source is not preserved for us as a manuscript but merely reconstructed out of the parallel passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (after subtracting material from the Gospel of Mark), one nevertheless discovers a text with a certain narratological and theological consistency.1 Recent research has demonstrated convincingly that Q had a consistent narratological flow with a coherent theological plot.2 This fits well with the exhaustive review of recent synoptic studies by A. Lindemann, who states that the Q-hypothesis can still be seen as the most convincing response to

1 See Tiwald, Logienquelle, 15–32. 2 See the two comprehensive monographs by H. Scherer, Königsvolk und Gotteskinder: Der Entwurf der sozialen Welt im Material der Traditio duplex (2016), and M. Labahn Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010). Thus, Scherer, Königsvolk, 546, concludes, »dass das Material der Traditio duplex [sc. Q] einen eigenständigen, über mk Jesusrede und mt Sondergut hinausgehenden, in sich sinnvoll vernetzten Entwurf sozialer Identifikationsgrößen bietet—ein Votum zugunsten der These, dass dieses Material aus einem eigenständigen, Mt und Lk gemeinsamen Dokument erwachsen ist.«

14

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

this problem.3 In spite of all remaining questions,4 the assumption of the existence of a »Sayings Source« as second literary document for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke still seems the most viable way to resolve the Synoptic Problem.

1.2

The Reconstruction of Q

Up for more debate than the general existence of Q is the question as to how it is to be reconstructed. 1.2.1

The Critical Edition of Q

In 2000 the Critical Edition of Q (CEQ) was published, edited by J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, J. S. Kloppenborg and M. Moreland. This reconstruction summarises the results of the International Q-Project (IQP), founded in 1989.5 The CEQ presents a quite »conservative« reconstruction, free from any far-reaching speculations.6 In addition to this, the ongoing project Documenta Q in 32 volumes (twelve have been published to date) presents the complete literature on the reconstruction of the respective verses of Q from the last three centuries (C19th to C21st). The CEQ thus offers a quite reliable reconstruction. Nevertheless, the editors see their work as the ongoing task of reconstruction, as J. Robinson puts it in the introduction to the CEQ (lxxi): »It is not to be assumed that the present critical text is a last word. … The … present volume … is intended to facilitate the study of Q, and thus to stimulate this ongoing process. … It is thus to be hoped that the refinement of the text of Q will continue unabated …«7 1.2.2

Narratological Access to Q

In recent research, comprehensive narratological studies on the Sayings Source have contradicted the often-repeated view that Q might only have been a loose collection of 3 Lindemann, Problem, 250: »… eine plausiblere Hypothese, die tatschächlich allen Teilfragen gerecht würde, wird offenbar nicht gefunden. Weder die Griesbach-Hypothese (Mt → Lk → Mk) noch die Farrer-Goulder-Hypothese (Mk → Mt → Lk) noch die Annahme, Mt sei literarisch von Lk abhängig, noch die unterschiedlichen Annahmen eines ›Deutero-Markus‹ gewinnen Zustimmung über das bisherige Umfeld hinaus.« 4 The still remaining questions concerning the existence of Q are discussed in detail by Tiwald, Logienquelle, 15–34. 5 Concerning the IQP und CEQ, see Heil, Rekonstruktion, 133–138, and Tiwald, Logienquelle, 35–38. 6 Cf. Heil, Rekonstruktion, 137: »ein insgesamt eher ›konservativer‹ Q-Text …, der frei ist von extravaganten Spekulationen.« 7 Cf. also Heil, Rekonstruktion, 137–138: »Damit ist jedoch ähnlich wie beim ›Nestle-Aland‹ nur eine Momentaufnahme gegeben, und es ist damit zu rechnen, daß es wie beim ›Standardtext‹ des griechischen Neuen Testaments auch beim neuen Standardtext von Q zu weiteren revidierten Auflagen kommt.«

1. Preliminary Questions

15

sayings and not a consistent literary document—merely some sort of loose-leaf notebook without narrative or theological coherence.8 M. Labahn’s exhaustive monography Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010) has clearly demonstrated that Q is not an accidental collection of randomly acquired sayings9—comparable for example to the Gospel of Thomas—but that Q has a continuous narrative structure and a literary plot.10 In this sense J. Kloppenborg had already claimed: »… we can speak of Q as a ›literary unity‹ …«11 Certainly, Q mainly consist of »sayings and speeches«, yet this material nevertheless constitutes a »narratology of sayings«.12 One has to reckon with an argumentative unity of Q.13 Exactly here the Mainz Approach of Metaphorology and Narratology in the Sayings Source (2014) by R. Zimmermann and his team has consequences for further work with Q:14 … how exactly can one consider or work with a text, which does not exist, or to put it more precisely, which does not exist as a manuscript? … Is there a way to analyse a text without having the exact wording? … Here, the analysis of metaphors and narrative criticism has proven itself useful in many fields. … Even if the Q text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty from the readings in Matthew and Luke, it is possible to make plausible statements about its composition.

This method is further described by A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015) as an intertextual approach to the text that no longer seeks a literal reconstruction of Q but tries to understand the big narratological patterns of Matthew and Luke’s second source.15 Thus, D. Roth describes the approach as follows:16

8 Cf. Luz, Matthäus I, 48, who calls Q a »Materialsammlung« and »nicht ein literarisches Dokument«; »ein größeres Notizbuch«, offering the possibility of inserting new leaves (»jederzeit einen Einschub von neuen Blättern«). 9 Labahn, Gekommene, 574: »mehr als eine zufällige Aneinanderreihung von Sprüchen«. 10 Labahn, Gekommene, 575: »dass Q eine innere Struktur—einen plot—hat.« 11 Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 135. See also the relevant conclusions of Schnelle, Einleitung 251: »Die Endfassung der Logienquelle … lässt eine bewusste literarische Gestaltung erkennen« with a »bewusste theologische Komposition« ibid. 246). See also the even more recent studies of Labahn, Sinn, 131–173; Witetschek, Logien, 175–192; Dormeyer, Narrativität, 213–230. 12 Labahn, Gekommene, 577: »Erzählung des Redens« consisting in »narrativer Sinnbildung«. 13 Cf. Labahn, Gekommene, 119. 14 Zimmermann, Metaphorology, 4–6. 15 Bork, Raumsemantik, 26: »… ein intertextueller Zugang zum Q-Text …, der nicht mehr danach strebt, eine Wortlautrekonstruktion des Q-Textes … zu erarbeiten, sondern durch intertextuelle Rückschlüsse auf die von Matthäus und Lukas verwendete Quelle zulässt. Q wird also als Intertext zwischen Matthäus- und Lukasevangelium aufgefasst, ohne dass die Notwendigkeit einer wortgetreuen (Re-)Konstruktion besteht.«—This approach was already used in the following publications by R. Zimmermann: Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (2014), Puzzling the Parables of Jesus. Methods and Interpretation (2015); Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007). The following monographies using this approach were published by Zimmermann’s team: A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015); D. Roth The Parables in Q (2018). 16 Roth, Parables, 41–42.

16

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary … when Matthew and Luke incorporated Q into their Gospels, they did not simply pick up on the words of their source, but drew out a whole realm of metaphors and images as well as narratival und sociocultural elements. … 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.

Nevertheless, it was again J. Kloppenborg (2000) who had already paved the way for such an approach:17 … it must be kept in mind that there is already in the double tradition approximately 50 percent verbal agreement even if it is still sometimes necessary to decide the syntax of the sentence. For example, in Q 15:4 … This text is typical. It illustrates the fact that disagreement in vocabulary notwithstanding, the general sense of the Q text is clear.

The most recent narratological and sociological studies on Q prove the accuracy of this approach. H. Scherer Königsvolk und Gotteskinder (2016) underscores that the material of Q offers an independent and theologically consistent strain of Jesus tradition.18 1.2.3

Consequences for this Commentary

In accordance with the aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source, one can conclude that Q’s narratological plot can be understood even without a complete and correct reconstruction of Q. Nevertheless, the approach taken here by no means seeks to abandon the project of the reconstruction of Q. This commentary builds on the meticulous work accomplished by the Critical Edition of Q. Even if this reconstruction can never reach a reliability of 100%, it nonetheless offers an accurate basis for this commentary. Hence this study offers a balanced mix of both elements. On the one hand a text-based exegesis without an indulgence in the exuberant details of reconstruction, and on the other hand a narratological approach without ignoring the issue of the base text. Thus, the quest for a correct reconstruction of Q is not dismissed but—thanks to the reliable results of the CEQ—does not represent the primary concern of this commentary. Here the two points of H. Scherer’s critique of the Mainz Approach are certainly helpful. Firstly, she emphasizes that an exclusive reliance on the narrative approach in ignoring all forms of text reconstruction might lead to a projection of our own narratological ideas onto the text (»Zu groß ist dabei die Gefahr, die tatsächlich vorhandenen Daten mit unbewussten narrative Eintragungen anzureichern und so den gesuchten ›Sinn‹ der Texte schnell zu justieren«19). Secondly, she rightly criticises the approach of A. Bork for ignoring the cultural and sociological context to focus solely on narratological patterns. Both criticsms hit the nail on the head and 17 Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 102–103. 18 Scherer, Königsvolk, 546: »dass das Material der Traditio duplex einen eigenständigen … in sich sinnvoll vernetzten Entwurf sozialer Identifikationsgrößen bietet …«—Scherer’s critical remarks to the Mainz Approach (ibid. 129) will be dealt with later. 19 Scherer, Königsvolk, 129–130.

1. Preliminary Questions

17

shall be reflected in this commentary. 1) The CEQ offers a reliable text basis permitting this commentary to focus mainly on the theological patterns of Q (but without ignoring questions of text reconstruction). 2) The sociocultural and sociotheological wort background of the Sayings Source are main points of particular interest in this commentary: Q shall be read against the backdrop of early Judaism and placed within the picture of Second Temple Palestine (cf. the Excursi in Part IV).20 1.2.4

Textual Fluidity as an Essential Feature of Q

In reconstructing »the« Sayings Source, one must not forget that the text underwent a period of thirty years growth with development in different stages.21 Perhaps one can even assume with G. Theißen that a primary core of logia-collections dates back to the time of Jesus himself, when he sent out his disciples as missionaries (cf. Mark 6:7 // Luke 10:1). Here the master obviously teaches his emissaries the basic thrust of his message which they can proclaim. Such texts might have formed the core of later sayings-traditions.22 After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples continued their missionary work by adopting and adapting Jesus’ sayings. About 60 CE the oral traditions of the Sayings Source were framed within a literary document, written down by village scribes. Nevertheless, this by no means ended the phase of oral fluidity—modern approaches reckon with a longer time span of secondary orality: parallel to the written transmission, oral performance of the text was still current.23 At that time most people were illiterate, and scrolls with a written text of the length of Q were quite expensive and far too bulky to be carried over long distances. Hence missionaries, even after the text had been written down, could still rely on their memorized versions of the sayings. Accordingly, even the genre of a missionary sermon must not be imagined as the reading aloud of a fixed text, but as a dramatical mise en scene. It is not the verbatim repetition of a »canonical« text which was important, but the inspired presentation of the missionaries’ convictions.24 »[I]n a situation where literacy was very low, texts were ›performed‹ rather than read in the way that modern literate readers approach texts.«25 Some variant readings thus might not be deliberate

20 Additionally, see the proceedings of two conferences dealing with the sociological background of Q: Tiwald (ed.), Q in Context 1 & 2; but also Tiwald, Logienquelle, 79–135. 21 Cf. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 143–153, who posits three stages of growth in the Sayings Source. 22 Theißen, Entstehung, 46: »Jesus schickte seine Jünger auf Wandermission. Seine Jünger mussten seine Botschaft an mehreren Orten wiederholen! Ein paar mündlich vorgegebene Texte müssen sie dazu mitgebracht haben, die sich ihnen durch Wiederholung einprägten!« 23 Cf. Heil, Textverarbeitung, 103, who refers to W. J. Ong, Orality, 135–137. See also Theißen, Entstehung, 41–46. Recent publications on this topic include Kloppenborg, Contexts, 49–72, and Smith, Parable, 73–97. 24 Cf. Heil, Textverarbeitung, 101: »nicht … die wortwörtliche Wiederholung eines kanonischen Textes …, sondern … die inspirierte, emphatische Aufführung«. 25 Kloppenborg, Contexts, 70.

18

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

redactions or copy errors, but simply diverging »performances«.26 The aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source thus is not only a makeshift solution for not having the original text, but the only ›genre‹-appropriate approach to Q. 1.2.5

Textual Basis for this Commentary

Generally, the CEQ offers the textual basis for this commentary. Nevertheless, in some cases (which will be explained in detail) the commentary proposes an alternative reconstruction. This is in accordance with the wishes of the editors of the CEQ, who did not provide a complete text, but offered different grades of plausibility for a reconstruction. I have provided an English translation on the basis of such a reconstructed Qtext.27 The translation avoids text-critical sigla. Firstly, they would disturb the flow of the text. Secondly, the commentary puts the main focus not on detailed reconstruction but on highlighting the theological and narratological plot of Q. For a detailed justification of this reconstruction, the reader easily can consult the CEQ. Only if the text diverges from the CEQ is a detailed explanation given. Thirdly, subtle details of the reconstruction can be seen only in the Greek text. As this commentary operates on the basis of the English text (but with due recourse to the Greek form), unfortunately not all intricate details of reconstruction can be taken into account. Although I do not provide text critical sigla, I want to emphasize that this should not lead to the illusion that we have the original form of the Q-text. Nevertheless, without the comprehensive details concerning reconstruction, the reader should see the big picture of Q’s narratological plot and consistent theology. I am deeply convinced that this is feasible—even if we never will be able to reconstruct Q verbatim in all its details.

2.

Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries

2.1

Status Quaestionis

A commentary should always address the questions of Cui Bono? and Aliquid Novi?: does this publication really contribute something new? In the German speaking

26 Heil, Textverarbeitung, 103: »Manche Varianten in der Textüberlieferung gehen dann nicht auf unabsichtliche Abschreibfehler oder absichtliche Redaktionen zurück, sondern auf Varianten in der mündlichen Überlieferung.« 27 Providing one’s own translation should be a self-evident prerequisite for a commentary. Nevertheless, the English translation offered by the CEQ could not be used due to licence regulations.

2. Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries

19

world the necessity of an update surely is evident, as the last Q Commentary was published by D. Zeller (1984 in the series Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar, SKK).28 In the English-speaking world there appears to be no need for such an update: H. Fleddermann published Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary in 2005 and in the same year R. Valantasis brought out The New Q: A Fresh Translation with Commentary. Fleddermann’s meticulous and comprehensive thousand-page commentary really is a milestone in Q-research. Nevertheless, two major deficits reduce the value of this opus magnum. Firstly, Fleddermann maintains the minority view »that Mark knew and used Q«.29 And secondly, he also has the unusual proposal »that the background of Q lies in gentile Christianity«,30 for »From start to finish Q reads like a gentile Christian gospel.«31 Especially Fleddermann’s thesis, »that the author of Q was a gentile Christian writing for other gentile Christians«32 leads to certain imbalances in his commentary, given that a growing number of Q-scholars see the matrix of the Sayings Source as still deeply rooted in early Judaism (see below, II.2.1: Q and Early Judaism). In accordance with this, Fleddermann also categorically denies that Q might still preserve Jesus traditions. For him »the characters of Q, including Jesus, [are] literary figures« and thus only »literary constructs«33 without any connection to the historical Jesus or to his Galilean followers. Certainly, the Sayings Source must not be (mis)taken uncritically as the ipsissima vox Jesu, but nevertheless the overwhelming majority of scholars see in Q an important bridge to the historical Jesus34 (see below, II. 2.3: The Heritage Contained in Q). In addition to this, Fleddermann’s commentary mainly focusses on the reconstruction of the text of Q and not so much on exegetical questions. In spite of the major contribution of Fleddermann’s commentary, the theological and narratological plot of Q is treated somewhat briefly. Valantasis’ commentary offers a completely different picture. Incomprehensibly, this monograph contains no references to secondary literature, and indeed no notes at all. There also is not a word about such common questions in Q research as by whom, when, where, and why Q might have been written. Thus, Valantasis’ exegesis somewhat hangs in thin air. Or as J. Verheyden has put it in his review: »… at times it may appear Valantasis had to stretch the text to have it say what he thinks it means.«35

28 S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (1972) is not commentary but an analysis of theological patterns in Q. 29 Fleddermann, Q, 183; but »Mark uses Q creatively« (ibid.). 30 Fleddermann, Q, 164. 31 Fleddermann, Q, 166. 32 Fleddermann, Q, 791. 33 Fleddermann, Q, 204 und 206. 34 Cf. Heil, Rekonstruktion, 141, who defines Q and the Gospel of Mark »als wichtigste Zeugnisse für die Rekonstruktion des historischen Jesus«. 35 Cf. the online recension by J. Verheyden in RBL 1 (2007), accessed: 8.3.2019: https:// www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5177_5452.pdf.

20

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

In addition to these aforementioned commentaries, there nevertheless exists a plethora of excellent publications on Q, albeit not »commentaries« in the strict sense of the word. In the English speaking world one has to point out the groundbreaking analyses by J. Kloppenborg and C. Tuckett. Both scholars have worked over more than forty years on the Sayings Source. Both scholars have emphasized that the Sayings Source was a document of early Judaism, whose authors had not yet broken from their Jewish matrix. The same applies to the publications on Q and on the Synoptic Problem by J. Verheyden and P. Foster. Even if not all of their publications are referred to in this commentary, they are nevertheless quoted in the preliminary volume to this monograph, Die Logienquelle: Text, Kontext, Theologie. Their discussions of the synoptic problem form the backdrop to this commentary. Also essential for this commentary have been the many publications of P. Hoffmann and C. Heil. Both have introduced Q-research to the German speaking world. P. Hoffmann was one of the editors of the Critical Edition of Q. His Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (31983, [1972]) was ground-breaking in the German-speaking world. C. Heil now edits the series Documenta Q but has himself contributed various valuable studies on Q, especially concerning how Luke dealt with his Q-material, as discussed in his monograph Lukas und Q (2003). Similarly, M. Hölscher, Matthäus liest Q (2017) has published a dissertation on Matthew’s use of the Sayings Source. In the German-speaking world one has to point to a huge number of narratological studies on Q, e.g., M. Labahn Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010), or the publications by R. Zimmermann and his team: Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007; especially here the parables of Q), Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (2014), Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation (2015); A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015); D. Roth The Parables in Q (2018). Particular mention should also be made to the monographs of H. Scherer Königsvolk und Gotteskinder: Der Entwurf der sozialen Welt im Material der Traditio duplex (2016) and M. Ebner Jesus—ein Weisheitslehrer? (1998). Older but still important literature includes E. Sevenich-Bax Israels Konfrontation mit dem letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle (1993) and D. Kosch Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (1989).

2.2

Aliquid Novi?

This commentary owes much to all the aforementioned publications—my thanks to all the »Fellow Q-bies«! Yet the value of this publication lies in bringing together the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians and the sociological and theological positioning of the Sayings Source.36 The question of the parting of the ways has gained a lot of momentum in recent years. Recent publications underscore that the parting

36 Cf. my earlier monographs: M. Tiwald, Das Frühjudentum und die Anfänge des Christentums and Die Logienquelle: Text, Kontext, Theologie.

2. Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries

21

of Jews and Christians did not occur with one single moment in history. »[A]ny reference to a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity must further specify who parted, when they parted, and where this separation occurred.«37 Thus, Harlow specifies: »There can be no denying that the borderlines between Judaism and Christianity were not clearcut everywhere in the early centuries of the Common Era, or that the separation between them was uneven and complex.«38 Particularly: if one wants to place the Gospel of Matthew before the parting of the ways (as does much recent research39)—this has to be assumed a fortiori for the Sayings Source.40 The community behind the Sayings Source had not yet broken from their Jewish matrix—polemics against other Jews have to be seen as intra muros Jewish struggles.41 Thus, the Sayings Source is not only an interesting document of emerging Christianity, but even more a valuable document of Second Temple Judaism. Hence, Q can be seen as the missing link between Jesus the Jew and early Christianity.

37 Broadhead, Ways, 389. 38 Harlow, Judaism, 275. Cf. also: Dunn, Partings, 230–259; Boyarin, Christen, 112–129; Broadhead, Ways, 354–391 (with the catchphrase »Parting with ›The Parting of the Ways‹«; ibid. 389); Becker/Reed with the programmatic title of their book »The Ways that Never Parted«; Frankemölle, Frühjudentum, 437; Nicklas, Jews, passim. For an overview of the research, see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 33–48. 39 See the position of Konradt, Matthäus, 19, who sees the Gospel of Matthew »ohne weiteres noch im Rahmen eines innerjüdischen Differenzierungsprozesses«. For a detailed discussion see Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 64–106. 40 See the detailed discussion at Tiwald, Logienquelle, 94–116. 41 Cf. Ebner, Q, 98, who maintains that Q has to be read »von einer intakten jüdischen Matrix aus«; see also ibid. 100.

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

This commentary provides verse-by-verse exegesis of the Sayings Source. Given the limited space, an exhaustive discussion of introductory questions such as the date, location, and theological situation of the Sayings Source cannot be achieved here. I have however done this in an earlier publication: M. Tiwald, Die Logienquelle: Text, Kontext, Theologie (2016). This commentary offers in Part II an overview of the relevant issues that summarizes the results of more extensive discussion.

1.

The Time and Place of Q’s Composition

1.1

The Time of Q’s Literal Composition

The terminus post quem for the composition of Q is the date of Jesus’ death, presumably the year 30 CE.1 As a terminus ante quem one can note the composition of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels (i.e., the eighties of the first century CE), as both evangelists used a written copy of the Sayings Source. The most plausible date of Q’s written composition might be the early 60s of the first century CE—shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 CE. Theories of an earlier dating in the forties2 have not found widespread approval, nor has the proposal of a later dating in the 70s.3

1 See the discussion in Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 89–90. 2 Cf, Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 235, assuming a composition of Q before the so-called Apostolic Council (49 CE), or Schnelle, Einleitung, 250, who tries to parallel the persecution in in Q 6:22 with 1 Thess 2:14–16. 3 Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 175 and 179, also Myllykoski, History, 199. Both see in Q 13:34–35 a hint at the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

2. The Community behind the Sayings Source

1.2

23

The Place of Composition

Most scholars opt for a composition of Q in the northern part of the Galilee in the Syro-Palestinian border region4 due to the references to Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum as provincial towns on the north-western shore of the sea of Galilee, but also to Tyre and Sidon. In contrast to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—where the same places are named—the Sayings Source is still located in a largely rural context. »Matthew and Luke are Gospels oriented to urban settings.«5 In contrast to this, »Q presents us with a rural, Galilean Jewish gospel …«6 The Q parables particularly mirror the world of poor fishermen, small farmers, and common Galilean craftsmen. The rural perspective is dominant, urban life does not enter the picture.7 But even the mission techniques of Q hint at a rural background: Q 10 mentions a rural house-to-house mission. The small village acts as a whole it rejects or accepts a missionary.8 Additionally, the gesture of »shaking off the dust from your feet« (Q 10:11) can only be carried out in a small market place and not in a crowded polis.9

2.

The Community behind the Sayings Source

2.1

Q and Early Judaism

The question as to whether Q was still was rooted in a Jewish matrix has not yet found a unanimous conclusion in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, a still growing number of scholars argue that Q had not broken with Judaism and that all the conflicts have to

4 See the discussion by Schnelle, Einleitung, 250; Schröter, Entscheidung, 74; Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 73; Broer/Weidemann, Einleitung, 62; Tuckett, Art. Q, 732; Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 214–261; Ebner, Q, 101. For a more detailed survey of research (going back to A. von Harnack) see Kloppenborg, Bethsaida, 62–63. Recently, Heil, Q-Gruppe, 163–180, has proposed that »die Q-Gruppe sich in denselben galiläischen Dörfern und Städten herausgebildet hat, in denen Jesus predigte und agierte«, but »die Q-Gruppe in das südliche Syrien geflohen ist, als oder bevor die Römer 67 n. Chr. Galiläa einnahmen. Demzufolge fand die Endredaktion von Q in Syrien statt« (ibid. 163). Also for Heil the Q traditions stem from the Galilee (ibid. 171), but find their framing in Greek in Syria. 5 Kloppenborg, Q, 67–68. The Lukan focus on urban life has been demonstrated by Hoffmann, Studien, 278–280, but Matthew also reflects urban culture in mentioning τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν (22:9), the »holy city (Jerusalem)« (4:5), and »the city of the great King« (5:35). 6 Kloppenborg, Q, 69. 7 Cf. Schröter, Entscheidung, 74 (»eine ländliche Perspektive …, städtisches Leben ist nicht im Blick«). Even Frenschkowski, Galiläa, 536, who favours Jerusalem as the place of Q’s composition, has to admit: »die Bildwelt der Bildworte und Gleichnisse ist ländlich.« 8 Zeller, Logienquelle, 51 (»überschaubare soziale Gebilde«). 9 Cf. Tiwald, Gott, 64.

24

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

be read as intra muros disputes.10 Jesus is depicted as a Torah-observant Jew who rejects the temptations of Satan in Q 4:1–13 by quoting the Torah. Although the Pharisees are heavily criticised for giving up »justice and mercy and faithfulness« by practising ritual prescriptions, the ritual Torah is not abolished, as Q 11:42 underlines: »But one has to do these without giving up the others.« And Q 16:17 emphasizes the eternal validity of the Torah: »But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall away.« 2.1.1

Jesus vs. Torah?

Generally, one has to admit that it is not the Torah but the figure of Jesus (as the expected Son of Man) who is the central point of orientation for Q.11 Nevertheless, eschatologically motivated groups in early Judaism saw their own theology as the only relevant concept of salvation. Only the members of their own group were endowed with the necessary eschatological knowledge for attaining salvation. Such exclusive eschatological knowledge is present in 1QpHab 8:2–3, where it is stated that Israelites only can be saved »by their belief in the teacher of righteousness« (‫)ואמנתם במורה הצדק‬. This corresponds to a certain extent with the Pauline exclusivity of salvation through belief in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:22).12 A claim to exclusive salvific knowledge is also found in the First Book of Enoch and in the Fourth Book of Ezra: »[W]isdom is mediated through an eschatological revelation possessed by the chosen. Outsiders are damned because they lack or reject the revelation that enables them properly to observe divine Law and to read the signs of the times.«13 This eschatological knowledge is perceived as in-group knowledge revealed by special mediators of salvation, such as the figures of »Enoch«, »Ezra«, or the »Teacher of Righteousness«. Only by being part of this exclusive group and by accepting their theology can one obtain salvation. »The deceivers … wrongly claim to present the right interpretation of the Torah, sometimes in opposition to the ›true‹ interpretation presented by the author’s hero.«14 In accordance with such conceptions, Q 10:22 depicts Jesus as the one and only revealer and his disciples as endowed with privileged salvific knowledge revealed only to them (Q 10:23). Nevertheless, in Q these are only apocalyptical reflexes—other apocalyptical patterns are missing in the Sayings Source. Thus Q is not directed to an exclusive community consisting of the elect few but has a universalistic approach to salvation, as can be seen in

10 Heil, Nachfolge, 111: »Entsprechend einem weitgehenden aktuellen Konsens ist das Spruchevangelium Q ein judenchristliches Dokument, das die Tora voraussetzt und bejaht.« 11 Cf. Schnelle, Theologie, 379. 12 Cf. the discussion by Tiwald, Hebräer, 117–120 and 239–246. The LXX translates ‫ה‬‫מוּ‬ (with exception of the Psalms) nearly exclusively with words of the stem πιστ- (Jepsen: Art. ‫אמן‬, 342). 13 Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 89. See also Tiwald, Logienquelle, 97–100. 14 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 488. See also Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 360.

2. The Community behind the Sayings Source

25

Q 12:2–3: »Nothing is covered up that will not be exposed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim on the rooftops.« Summary: In eschatologically motivated groups within early Judaism the conception was widespread that a salvific figure endowed with heavenly wisdom would provide the correct interpretation of the Torah at the end of times. Such figures included Enoch, Ezra, the Teacher of Righteousness for the Qumran community, or Jesus for Christians. Thus, in Q there is no contrast between Jesus and the Torah. 2.1.2

Anti-Jewish Polemics in Q?

Recent studies on polemics in early Judaism have offered new insights: »The purpose for the polemic is not so much the rebuttal of the opponent as the edification of one’s own school. Polemic was primarily for internal consumption.«15 Thus, one has to take into consideration a »protreptic use of polemics«.16 Accordingly, the polemics against the Pharisees (Q 11:39–44), Galilean towns (Q 10:13–15), Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35), and »this generation« (Q 7:31–35; 11:16.29–30.49–51) do not hint at a definite rupture between the Sayings Source and Judaism but are intra muros quarrels between rival Jewish groups. »In spite of the exaggerated and fiery rhetoric of Q, in particular in its final redactional phase, there is good reason to suppose that Q and its partisans identified as Israel and had other Israelites in view as they constructed the document.«17 2.1.3

Gentile Mission in Q?

The question as to whether Q might have broken up with its Jewish roots stands in close connection to the question, if Q had already started a mission to the Gentiles. Also here a growing number of scholars maintain that this yet has not been the case. »… Q and its partisans identified as Israel and had other Israelites in view as they constructed the document. Although they were prepared to condemn their co-ethnic group, there is no evidence that they had fundamentally turned away to embrace non-Israelites.«18 15 Johnson, Slander, 433. 16 Johnson, Slander, 433. See also Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 73–91; Marshall, Apocalypticism, 8–82; Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137. 17 Kloppenborg, Parting, 142. See also Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 121; Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 233; Ebner, Q, 100; Dettwiler, Q, 253; Gnilka, Theologie, 142.—In contrast, the following authors opt for a definite rupture between Q und Israel: Verheyden, Jugement, 219; Schnelle, Einleitung, 250; Fleddermann, Q, 165; Frenschkowski, Galiläa, 557.—For a detailed discussion see Tiwald, Logienquelle, 101–111. 18 Kloppenborg, Parting, 142. Cf. Ebner, Q, 100: »In den scharfen Gerichtsandrohungen Israel gegenüber zeigt sich ein verzweifeltes Ringen um die eigentlich angezielten Adressaten, keineswegs dagegen eine Rückschau auf vollendete Tatsachen aus dem inzwischen heidenchristlichen Milieu heraus.«

26

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

At the Council of Jerusalem in 49 CE permission was given for a Gentile mission without circumcision.19 Nevertheless, the world was divided into a mission to the Jews and a mission to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7–9 and Acts 15:1–29). Jewish Christians still observed kashrut, Sabbath, and circumcision, and yet remained in commune with Judaism (cf. Acts 21:20–24). This is confirmed by Josephus who reports the Pharisaic protest against the execution of James the Just by the Sadducean High Priest Ananus II. (Josephus, Ant. 20:200).20 James, who strictly observed kashrut and ritual prescriptions of the Torah (which led to his surname »James the Just«), was regarded by the Pharisees as one of them. Seemingly, Pharisees considered strictly Torah-observant groups in early Christianity as closer to them than were the Sadducees—which finds support in Acts 21:20–21. At least until the First Jewish War one has to reckon with Torah-observant groups in Palestinian Christianity that—according to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem—still abided by circumcision, kashrut, and Sabbath observance but also limited their mission to Jews alone. The community behind Q fits perfectly with this scheme. J. Kloppenborg rightly underscores: »… Q presupposed an exclusively Israelite environment where people naturally circumcised their sons, kept kashrut, and observed the Sabbath.«21 The gentiles mentioned in Q—always rather one-dimensional—only serve as a contrast to lack of faith in Israel. »The rhetorical strategy at work is shaming. In an agonistic culture such as that of ancient Palestine, to point out the exemplary faith of a non-Israelite is a way of shaming Israelites.«22 In Q such conceptions can be found in Q 11:31–32, where the »Queen of the South« and the »Men of Nineveh« will condemn Israel for its lack of faith at the day of judgement. In the same way the belief of the »Officer of Capernaum« (Q 7:9) is instrumentalized: »I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.« The expression »not even in Israel« highlights the inner-Jewish perspective assuming the superiority of Israel’s relation to God. Thus Tuckett rightly concludes: »… the existence of Gentile Christians seemed only to have been appealed to by Q as part of its continuing passionate plea to the Jewish people to respond positively to the Christian message. Any ›missionary‹ activity in Q seems confined to Judaism.«23

19 For further discussion of the »Council of Jerusalem« and the »Antiochene Incident« see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 213–215. 20 For background information see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 102. 21 Kloppenborg, Q, 69. Cf. also Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 457: »Des Weiteren wurde deutlich, daß die Q-Überlieferung die unverbrüchliche Gültigkeit des Gesetzes als einen in der Jesusüberlieferung verankerten Topos betrachtet und … daß die konkrete Rezeption der Regelungen des νόμος im Horizont einer Tradition erfolgt, in welcher jüdische Reinheitsvorstellungen eine Rolle spielen und die sich diesbezüglich von der markinischen Aufnahme unterscheidet.« In the same way: Tuckett, Q, 425. 22 Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 192. Cf. also Gnilka, Theologie, 142: »… die Ungläubigen in Israel beschämen«. This fits well with Rom 11:11, where Paul supposes that the faith of Gentiles might provoke Israel’s jealousy. 23 Tuckett, Q, 425–426

2. The Community behind the Sayings Source

2.2

The Authors of Q

2.2.1

Itinerant Prophets …

27

In the German-speaking world there is a growing consensus that those behind Q were itinerant prophets with an ethos of following Jesus (Q 6:40) in emblematic poverty (Q 10:4), homelessness (Q 9:57–58), non-violence (Q 6:27–30), and eschatological expectation of God’s reign (Q 10:9). These missionaries saw their emblematic lifestyle as a prophetic sign of the imminent reign of God:24 »But seek his reign, and all these shall be given to you« (Q 12:30)—is the explanation for living in complete confidence of God’s provision. Thus Q-missionaries continue the emblematic lifestyle of Jesus himself (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4; Excursus 3.1.2, and Excursus 4). 2.2.2

… and Village Scribes

Itinerant missionaries, who according to Q 10:4 were not allowed to have any possessions, certainly could not have carried writing materials such as scrolls and ink. Additionally, one can posit that these Q-missionaries might have been—like Jesus himself—illiterate.25 Thus, J. Kloppenborg rightly concludes that Galilean κωμογραμματεῖς (kōmogrammateis), i.e. village scribes, might have framed the Sayings Source in the administrative language of Palestine—Koine Greek. »Those responsible for the framing of Q were likely low-level scribes—the sorts of agents who, in a setting where the vast majority of the population was illiterate, routinely served to mediate the relationship between the majority of the population and various levels of bureaucracy.«26 This thesis was further pursued by W. Arnal27 and G. Bazzana.28 Koine Greek was the administrative language in Palestine from the rule of the Ptolemies. Bazzana even makes out some Q-passages reflecting the »bureaucratic terminology« of Koine administrative language.29 The thesis of village scribes as composers of Q—mainly developed in the USA and Canada—does not necessarily contradict the German conception of itinerant prophets as the authorities behind Q. With the imminent expectation of Jesus’ return as the Son of Man, the first disciples did not see it as necessary to write

24 Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 312–334; Zeller, Redaktionsprozesse, 101–117; Tiwald, Brücke, 523–534; id. Wanderradikalismus, 246–257; Schnelle, Theologie, 381–382; Broer/Weidemann, Einleitung, 70. For a further discussion see Tiwald, Logienquelle, 117–135. 25 For a further discussion see Heil, Analphabet, 265–291. 26 Kloppenborg, Parting, 137. See also id., Convention, 100; id., Gospel, 25. 27 Arnal, Scribes, 159: »… the cultivation and composition of the Q traditions was undertaken by persons with the characteristics of the village scribes (κωμογραμματεύς), that is, by rural scribes who were moderately, but not spectacularly, educated.« 28 Cf. Bazzana’s monograph Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q, 2015; id., Profile, passim. 29 For a further analysis of the »bureaucratic terminology« in the Sayings Source, see Bazzana, Scribes, 134 and 148; id., Profile, passim.

28

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

down their traditions. In the thirty years from Jesus’ death in 30 CE to the written composition of Q in the 60s, these memories were carried on by itinerant missionaries, who used this material for their missionary sermons. Only in the process of the first generation dying off (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–18) and the growing tensions before the First Jewish War (starting 66 CE) did preserving the own traditions become vital. Translation into Greek and the framing of the oral material to a written composition was certainly the work of village scribes, although itinerant missionaries had kept these traditions alive over the previous thirty years. It seems quite plausible that the shift from orality to literacy also was linked with the transition from Aramaic to Greek. Most probably, there were no written Aramaic pre-stages of the Sayings Source,30 despite the fact that the traditions of Q had been transmitted orally in Aramaic for the preceding thirty years.

2.3

The Heritage Contained in Q

2.3.1

Q as Witness to Early Jesus Traditions

Especially in the Mark-Q Overlaps,31 the parallel yet literally independent passages in Q and Mark, there is testimony to orally transmitted collections of Jesus traditions. J. Schröter’s meticulous study Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas concludes that the Mark-Q Overlaps mirror an independent use of already existent and orally transmitted Jesus traditions.32 A literary dependency of Mark on Q cannot be shown, as Ch. Tuckett has demonstrated: »Mark and Q represent independent versions of common traditions.«33 Thus Q alongside the Gospel of Mark becomes »a distinctive stream, or ›trajectory‹, within early Christianity.«34 The oral performance of these traditions permitted individual wording—although maintaining astonishing similarity in content.35 This testifies to

30 Retro-translations of Q into Aramaic are thus somewhat speculative. Cf. Casey, Approach, who assumes a written Aramaic pre-stage of Q. Cf. the critical response to such attempts by Tuckett, Sayings, 290–305. See also Schnelle, Einleitung, 252: »… die Probleme exakter Rückübersetzungen sprechen eher für eine ursprünglich in griechischer Sprache abgefasste Logienquelle, was aber eine Vorgeschichte einzelner Logien in Aramäisch nicht ausschließt.« See also Schattner-Rieser, Aramäische, 81–144. 31 Cf. the list of such »overlap texts« in Ebner, Q, 103. 32 Schröter, Erinnerung, 236: »Bezüglich des Verhältnisses von Mk und Q zeigt sich, daß sie unabhängig voneinander auf einen bereits bestehenden Komplex aus mündlicher Überlieferung zurückgegriffen haben …« (originally partly in Italics). 33 Tuckett, Sayings, 50. Pace Fleddermann, Q, 183: »Mark knew and used Q.« Cf. also Schröter, Erinnerung, 236: »Die Versuche, eine literarische Abhängigkeit des Mk von Q zu erweisen, müssen an einer Analyse des Mk-Textes scheitern, die vielmehr aufweist, daß dieser die Logien selbständig aufgenommen und seiner Intention entsprechend redigiert hat.« 34 Tuckett, Sayings, 76. 35 Cf. Hoffmann, Mutmaßungen, 259.

2. The Community behind the Sayings Source

29

a high degree of the perseverance and tenacity of early, orally transmitted Jesus traditions. Such assumptions fit well with the fact that orally-transmitted Jesus tradition can also be found in the Fourth Gospel (John). Ch. Tuckett rightly maintains: »[The] FG [sc. Fourth Gospel] certainly seems to share a significant, and distinctive, christological trajectory with Q, even if FG may be further ›advanced‹ along it.«36 And E. Broadhead confirms: »FG [sc. Fourth Gospel] and Q certainly root in the same pool of primitive Christian traditions.«37 Additionally, M. Theobald has singled out common sayings traditions in Q and John. Thus, one could talk about John-Q Overlaps.38 Theobald identifies the reason for such common sayings traditions in the existence of itinerant missionaries in the Syrian region: Q and the Fourth Gospel are rooted in the same socio-cultural milieu of itinerant missionaries in SyriaPalestine.39 Points of contact between Q and John stretch from the itinerant lifestyle of missionaries to similar sayings-traditions and corresponding theological patterns. Thus, the interpretation of Jesus’ death as atonement for sins is missing in Q and likewise not constitutive in the Gospel of John40—in contrast to other NT traditions. Certainly, neither John nor his Semeia-Source have drawn directly from the Sayings Source, but both testify to early Jesus traditions, orally transmitted in Syria-Palestine by itinerant missionaries.41 Even some Pauline traditions can be seen in connection with patterns of the Sayings Source. The Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, IV.3.3) can be found in Q and in 1 Thess 2:15–16,42 as can the topic of making Israel jealous by pointing to the belief of Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:11 and Q 7:9).43

36 Tuckett, Gospel, 289. 37 Broadhead, Gospel, 301. Cf. also the intertextual studies of Zimmermann, Johannesevangelium, 497–514. 38 A list of such overlaps can be found in Theobald, Q, 494–495. 39 Cf. Theobald, Q, 491: »Logienquelle und Johannesevangelium bzw. der Trägerkreis eines wichtigen Segments johanneischer Wortüberlieferung wurzeln in einem vergleichbaren Milieu, dem der Wandermissionare des syrisch-palästinischen Grenzgebiets« (originally in Italics). See also Theobald, Johannes, 96, and Tiwald, Freedom, 125–126. 40 Theobald, Johannes, 65, emphasises for the Fourth Gospel that »… eine sühnechristologische Deutung des Todes Jesu (wenn überhaupt) nur am Rande begegnet bzw. erst nachträglich eingezeichnet wurde.« 41 Cf. Theobald, Herrenworte, 555–556, and Theobald, Q, passim. 42 Konradt, Gericht, 81, emphasises: »Die Affinität zwischen 1 Thess 2,15f und Mt 23,29,36 ist jedenfalls frappierend und würde sich … gut erklären, wenn in Q und 1 Thess 2,15f jeweils ein im frühen Christentum verbreiteter Traditionszusammenhang rezipiert wurde.« Concerning synoptic traditions behind 1 Thess see Tuckett, Sayings, 316–339. Concerning Jesus traditions in Pauline literature cf. Tuckett, Sayings, 340–356, and Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung, passim. 43 Cf. Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 235. See also Tuckett, Q, 425–426; Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 192, advocating that the mentions of Gentiles in Q serves to shame Israel (»The rhetorical strategy at work is shaming«). Cf. also Gnilka, Theologie, 142: »… die Ungläubigen in Israel beschämen.«

30

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

Furthermore, we can detect points of contact between the Didache and the Sayings Source. In Did. 11:3–8 we encounter itinerant apostles and prophets with surprising similarities to the Mission Instruction in Q 10.44 In both cases itinerancy and poverty are seen as emblematic signs of Jesus-like authenticity (cf. the expression τρόποι κυρίου, the »lifestyle of the Lord«, in Did. 11:8). Likewise the expression euangelion in Did. 8:2, 11:3, and 15:3–4 focusses on the sayings of the kyrios but not on the kerygma of Jesus’ death and resurrection.45 In Q as in the Didache, Jesus’ death and resurrection are less important than Jesus’ sayings. Accordingly, K. Niederwimmer even has supposed that gospel-traditions behind the Didache go back to a »logiacollection similar to the Sayings Source«.46 Further parallels can be drawn between Q and the Gospel of Thomas.47 Gos. Thom. was composed at the beginning of the second century CE and represents an early form of Gnosis. It is heavily debated as to whether Gos. Thom. is dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and if so, to what extent. Nearly half of the sayings do not have a parallel in the Synoptic Gospels—which is a hint at other sources. Concerning the material parallel to the Synoptics, one can detect dependencies of a literary and an oral nature (see above, I.1.2.4). Thus, the knowledge of at least one written Gospel plus the incorporation of oral traditions and one’s own sources seems to have the highest plausibility. Scholars maintain that in the question of dependency each logion of Gos. Thom. has to be treated separately. This gives an impression as to how intricate the methods of literary criticism can also become in the case of the Sayings Source. Even if the position of Gos. Thom. at this point remains unclear, this gospel unmistakably demonstrates that Sayings-Gospels actually did exist! The Gos. Thom. contains only unconnected Jesus logia without narrative. Perhaps the first oral stage of Q functioned in the same way—but in its written form Q had already obtained a narrative plot and a pervading theological vision. To sum up: Traces of early sayings-traditions can be found outside of Q in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, the Didache, and the Gospel of Thomas, all traditions rooted in the Syro-Palestinian region.48 This testifies to a broader stream of early Jesus memories concentrated in oral collections of sayings. The »Sayings Source Q« as we can reconstruct it from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was therefore the advanced version (i.e., framed and written down) of such oral collections—a snapshot in the variegated developments of Syro-Palestinian Jesus memories.

44 Cf. Niederwimmer, Entwicklungsgeschichte, 70–87. 45 Niederwimmer, Didache, 75–76. 46 Niederwimmer, Didache, 77: »Logiensammlung vom Typus der synoptischen Logienquelle«. 47 For an analysis of the historical and theological background of the Gospel of Thomas see Klauck, Evangelien, 142–162; Schröter, Erinnerung, 136–143; Tuckett, Sayings, 359–420; Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 289–296. 48 Composition of the Gospel of Mark in Syria seems to be the most convincing solution. Theobald, Johannes, 94–98, also locates John in Syria.

2. The Community behind the Sayings Source

2.3.2

31

The Heritage of Q

After its use by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of Mark was still handed down as an autonomous text. This was not the case with the Sayings Source. So one might jump to the hasty conclusion that Q was not as important as Mark.49 However, some scholars underscore that Matthew and Luke might have held Q in higher regard than they did Mark. M. Konradt has emphasised that Matthew in the use of his sources was somewhat critical towards Mark—if not actually anti-Markan—because of Mark’s negative attitude towards the Jewish Law. By writing his own text he wanted to replace or even suppress Mark’s Gospel.50 A growing number of scholars maintain that the Gospel of Matthew advocated an unbroken validity of the Torah (including kashrut and circumcision) at least for Jewish Christianity.51 If this is correct, Konradt’s interpretation gains a high degree of plausibility. Although Matthew opts for a mission to the Gentiles without circumcision (unlike in Q), the complete Torah (including kashrut and circumcision) still remains valid for Jewish Christianity (like in Q, see below, III: Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18). Such a conception of two different lifestyles for Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians goes back to the Council of Jerusalem. The only difference now is that both groups are united in the one community behind Matthew. For Mathew kashrut remains in force for Jewish Christians—but it is only seen as the »least of the commands« (Matt 5:19), far behind the »greatest and first command« (Matt 22:38) to love one’s neighbour.52 J. Schröter comes to a similar conclusion when he emphasises that Q and Matthew are positioned on the same trajectory of Jewish Christianity that still upholds kashrut and ritual Torah. Thus, Matthew reads his Markan source in the light of Q and not vice versa.53 Additionally, if one wants to assume that the Matthean community—being situated somewhere in

49 Cf. the overview of such positions in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 182–184. 50 Konradt, Matthäus, 21: »… dass Matthäus als markuskritisch, wenn nicht als antimarkinisch zu klassifizieren ist. Er … wollte das Mk verdrängen, weil er es für ungeeignet hielt, um in seinen Gemeinden benutzt zu werden. … Theologisch steht Matthäus Q näher als dem Mk.« Completely opposed to this view is Doole, Mark, passim. Yet see the reply to Doole by Konradt, Gegenentwurf, 43–68 (especially 47). 51 See the extensive discussion by Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, passim. 52 Concerning the question of Torah observance in Q, cf. Tiwald, Logienquelle, 94–116. Concerning Torah observance in the Gospel of Matthew see Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 104–105; Konradt, Matthäus, 15–17.21. 53 Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 457: »daß die konkrete Rezeption der Regelungen des νόμος im Horizont einer Tradition erfolgt, in welcher jüdische Reinheitsvorstellungen eine Rolle spielen und die sich diesbezüglich von der markinischen Aufnahme unterscheidet. Die konsequente Fortsetzung dieser Ansätze der Q-Überlieferung findet sich dagegen bei Matthäus, dessen Entwurf sich an vielen Stellen konzeptionell eher als Deutung der MkErzählung im Lichte von Q verstehen lässt als umgekehrt.«—Hölscher, Matthäus, 363:, is somewhat more reserved: »Die Debatte um die Mk- oder Q-Loyalität des Mt zeigt eines mehr als anschaulich: So wie man heute beide Aspekte im MtEv lesen kann, so konnten auch die Adressatinnen und Adressaten beides im Text wiederfinden.«

32

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

Syria54—was founded by itinerant missionaries behind the Sayings Source,55 this trajectory becomes even more likely. It seems quite feasible that in the wake of the First Jewish War the Q-community emigrated from Palestine (see below, III: Q 10:13–15) and found acceptance in their own affiliate foundation: the Matthean community. In this sense the community of Matthew not only theologically but also physically became the successor of Q and its heritage.56 Thus, the Sayings Source was not subdued to a »damnatio memoriae« as H. Scherer has supposed,57 but formed part of a constructive development, starting with a merely Jewish community in the Palestine Q-group and ending with a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles in the Syrian community of Matthew! It was not the wish to abandon the ritual Torah for Jewish Christians that prompted Matthew to combine Mark and Q, rather the new requirements of a mixed community, in which Jewish Christians still observed kashrut and ritual laws while Gentile Christians were not obliged to do so. Matthew simply adapts the regulations of the Council of Jerusalem (see above, II.2.1.3) to a mixed community by blending the Gospel of Mark with the Sayings Source. For Luke the situation might have been exactly the other way round. While Matthew introduces Gentile Christianity into his Jewish conceptions, Luke emphasises the irrevocability of Jewish roots in Gentile Christianity. C. Heil has demonstrated how Luke inserts the Gentile church into the framework of Jewish salvation history.58 It seems that Luke was fighting against the type of tendencies that can be seen in a hyper-Pauline misinterpretation of Pauline theology or shortly later in the Gospel of Markion. Luke’s integration of Q into the Gospel of Mark advocates against the obliteration of Jewish roots by Gentile Christianity and guarantees the irrevocable validity of Jewish salvation history for all Christians.

3.

Extent and Structure of Q

It is commonly accepted that Luke subdivided his Q-material into blocks and inserted these into the framework of the Markan Gospel.59 Thus one can easily follow

54 Konradt, Matthäus, 23: »… eher der Süden Syriens, z. B. eine Stadt wie Damaskus«; Luz, Matthäus I, 103: »eine größere syrische Stadt«; »Antiochien nicht die schlechteste Hypothese«. 55 Luz, Matthäus I, 90: »… von den wandernden Boten und Propheten des Menschensohns der palästinischen Logienquelle gegründet worden ist und weiterhin in engem Kontakt mit ihnen steht« (original in italics). Cf. Ebner, Q, 102: »ein Strang der Q-Trägerschaft … in der vor-Mt Gemeinde …, deren Gründungsmissionare sie vielleicht sogar gewesen sind.« 56 As we have no traces of Jewish Christianity after the First Jewish War in the Galilee, such an emigration seems quite plausible. See the discussion in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 87–88, and Luz, Matthäus I, 90. 57 Scherer, Königsvolk, 546. 58 Heil, Lukas, 364 and 366: »sein Werk in den Kontext der klassischen jüdischen ›Tradition‹ stellen zu wollen«; »in jüdischer Szenerie die Situation der heidnischen Kirche«. 59 Hoffmann/Heil, Spruchquelle, 116.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

33

the Lukan sequence to derive the original order of sayings in Q. The passages reconstructed by this procedure result in an amazingly consistent text with an ongoing narrative plot (see above, II.3.4). The following chapters demonstrate that Q was not merely a loose collection of sayings but already formed a narrative unity. The sequence of Q-sayings proposed here follows the CEQ with the subdivisions of the Hoffmann/Heil edition.60 Nevertheless, this commentary will not mechanically reproduce the CEQ but use it as an instrumentum laboris for independent judgement. Given the diverging ratings of the editors in every passage under discussion,61 this commentary has in some cases modified the text or the text-sequence (see below, II.3.1.2).

3.1

Deviations from the Lukan Sequence

3.1.1

The Q-Order Proposed by the CEQ

At certain points the CEQ offers a deviation from the Lukan sequence, »in cases where it became clear that the Matthean rather than the Lukan order is that of Q«.62 These are the following passages: Q 4:5–8: The second and third temptations of Jesus are reconstructed according to the Matthean order. Q 6:27–36 (Love Your Enemies, Renounce Violence, Golden Rule, Being Full of Mercy) partly follows the Lukan and partly the Matthean order. Both evangelists here have strong redactional tendencies, e.g., the Matthean antitheses and the Lukan topic of loving your enemies. Q 11:16: Demanding a Sign is placed before The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:29–30)—following the Matthean sequence. Q 11:39–52: The Woes against the Pharisees and Scribes of the Law and Wisdom’s Judgement on This Generation are regrouped into a new sequence following partly Luke and partly Matthew. Both evangelists here show strong redactional tendencies. Q 12:33–34: Treasures in Heaven according to the CEQ follows the Matthean order and is found before Q 12:22b–31 (Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies). Unlike the CEQ, this commentary here maintains the Lukan sequence (for detailed argumentation see below, III: Q 12:22b–34). In Q 13:28–29 verses 28 and 29 follow the Matthean order (Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth after the announcement of Those Coming from the East and the West). Q 15:4.5a.7: The Lost Sheep is positioned according to the Matthean order after Against Tempting Little Ones (Q 17:1–2).

60 Hoffmann/Heil, Spruchquelle, 14. 61 The individual ratings of the CEQ editors for each passage under discussion are found in Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 116–144. 62 Robinson, CEQ, lxxxix. Cf. the detailed discussion by Robinson, Sequence, 227–232, and by Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 116–144.

34

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

Q 17:33: Losing One’s Life fits perfectly after Q 14:26–27 (Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross), thus following the Matthean order. Q 17:37: Vultures around a Corpse comes directly after Q 17:23–24 (The Son of Man Like Lightning) adopting the Matthean order. 3.1.2

Modifications of the CEQ-Sequence

In addition to the aforementioned modifications, this commentary has made further amendments to the CEQ concerning the placement of Q 16:16–18. In these verses Matthew and Luke again show strong redactional tendencies, which make a clear decision impossible. Redactional interests alone will not allow a final decision.63 Hence, this commentary took the narrative coherence of Q into consideration and placed the sayings of Q 16 where they seemed most fitting within the plot of Q. This leads to the following results: Q 16:16: According to the narratological trajectory proposed here, the Baptist is only mentioned in the first narrative cycle. At the end of this cycle he reappears in Q 7:18–35, but in the rest of Q is never mentioned again. Thus, Q 16:16 might have originally been found after Q 7:24–28, following the Matthean order. In a very close vote the editors of the CEQ opted for leaving this verse within the Lukan order.64 This commentary argues otherwise and places Q 16:16 after Q 7:24–28. Q 16:17: The position of this verse is indebted to heavy redactional tendencies by both Matthew and Luke: Matt 5:18 uses the saying as the introduction to his antitheses,65 Luke 16:17 inserts it in his topic »righteous use of possessions«.66 With a certain plausibility this saying already in Q formed part of the polemics against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law, thus following the Matthean order by in the context of Q 11:39–52 (after Q 11:33/Matt 5:15 and before Q 12:58/Matt 5:25). If so, than Matthew’s use of this logion as the introduction to his antitheses (Matt 5:18) was already prefigured in Q. Thus the Woes against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law in Q 11:42–52 remain in conti63 A detailed analysis of redactional tendencies in the use of Q 16:16 by Matthew and Luke can be found in Hölscher, Matthäus, 150–153, who—unlike this commentary—opts for the Lukan sequence (ibid. 153). Alternatively many opt for the Matthean order: Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 446; Heil, Lukas, 123; and Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 139. For detailed discussion see Tiwald, Gültigkeit, 347–363. 64 Cf. Robinson, Sequence, 230 (»very close vote«), who nevertheless shows sympathy for the Matthean order. 65 Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 449: »Die beiden anderen Logien (Lk 16,17/Mt 5,18; Lk 16,18/ Mt 5,32) sind dagegen auch bei Matthäus in Kompositionen eingebunden, die als redaktionell zu beurteilen sind. Über ihren Ort in Q kann darum keine Aussage mehr getroffen werden.« 66 Vgl. Marguerat, Règne, 125f.: »Pourquoi Luc a-t-il inséré notre séquence dans un chapitre 16 consacré …à la thématique de l’argent? … Aux yeux de l’évangéliste, une juste gestion de l’argent fait partie des priorités réclamées par la Loi.« Likewise Melzer-Keller, Jesus, 316: »Wahrscheinlich zeichnet Lukas selbst maßgeblich für die Zusammenstellung der Verse 14 bis 18 verantwortlich.« See also Fleddermann, Mark, 202: »Luke 16,17 is the middle saying of a group of three sayings on the Law (Luke 16,16–18) which were originally independent of each other and also independent of the material that precedes and follows them in Luke’s gospel.«

3. Extent and Structure of Q

35

nuity with Matt 5:20: »For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.« Luke on the other hand has interwoven this saying with his topic »righteous use of possessions«, something that Luke sees as the fulfilment of the Torah.67 If Q 16:17 already stood in connection with woes against the riches of the Pharisees (Q 11:39b: »full of plunder and dissipation«), then Luke has taken this idea from the Sayings Source. Q 16:18 most seemingly follows directly after 16:17, as indeed Matt 5:18 and 5:32 are in close proximity.68 Q 16:13 remains in the Lukan sequence, as the saying fits perfectly here with the narrative progress of Q.

3.2

Extent of the Q-Text

Apart from the above mentioned exceptions, this commentary follows the CEQ.69 This text can be seen as a ›conservative‹ reconstruction, free from extravagant speculations.70 Generally, only double tradition has been chosen for reconstruction. Only two pericopae here have been added: Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49) and The Lost Coin (Q 15:8–10)—both without a Matthean parallel.71 Fire on the Earth indeed fits well with the context of Q 12:51.53 (Bringing not Peace but the Sword). The Lost Coin also fits perfectly after the Parable of the Lost Sheep. According to the voting of the CEQ, both texts belonged to Q. Nevertheless, in both cases one could easily omit these passages without spoiling the narrative structure of Q. Thus the question as to whether either text was part of Q seems to be a side issue. In contrast to the CEQ, the pericope Judging the Kairos (Q 12:54–56) is not deemed part Q. Especially the problematic textual basis of Matt 16:2aβ–3 suggests that this text never formed part of the Matthean Gospel and thus is Lukan Sondergut.72 Con-

67 Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 446: »… der Umgang mit dem Besitz als Haltung gegenüber dem νόμος interpretiert wird, an dem sich zu orientieren unmittelbare Relevanz für die Beurteilung im Endgericht besitzt.« See also Tiwald, Gültigkeit, 349–350, and Hoffmann, Recht, 95: »… einen Spruch der Logienquelle, der in Lk 16,18 in isolierter Gestalt überliefert und sekundär mit weiteren Sprüchen verbunden ist, in Mt 5,32 aber innerhalb der Antithesen der Bergpredigt deren antithetischer Form eingepaßt ist.« 68 Melzer-Keller, Jesus, 316: »Plausibel ist eine ursprüngliche Zusammengehörigkeit der Verse 17 und 18, da auch Matthäus die beiden Sprüche in Mt 5:18 und 5:32 in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft überliefert.« See also Tiwald, Gültigkeit, 349–350. 69 For the extent of the Q-text proposed by the CEQ, see Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 116–144. 70 Heil, Rekonstruktion, 137: »… ein insgesamt eher ›konservativer‹ Q-Text …, der frei ist von extravaganten Spekulationen.« 71 Cf. Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 132 and 141. 72 The best codices of the NT, ‫ א‬und B, both omit Matt 16:2aβ–3. Cf. the discussion by Luz, Matthäus II, 443; Konradt, Matthäus, 254; Fleddermann, Q, 650. On the other hand, Müller, Wetterregeln, 171–172, although not convincingly, summarizes the arguments that this pericope was indeed found in Q.

36

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

sequently, this text was only given a plausibility of {C} by the editors of the CEQ73 and will be omitted from this commentary. Also diverging form the CEQ, the pericope The Kingdom of God is Among You (Q 17:20–21) is not deemed to have been part of Q. The editors of Q were also unsure: P. Hoffmann voted with a plausibility of {B} contra, J. Robinson and J. Kloppenborg only with {C} pro.74 With a very detailed analysis C. Heil, H. Fleddermann, and G. Harb have convincingly argued against this text belonging to Q.75

3.3

The Structure of the Q-Text

The structure underlying the Q-text generally follows the reconstruction of Hoffmann/Heil.76 Nevertheless, the subdivisions are modified and enlarged. According to this scheme, Q presents us with seven narrative cycles, the cycles consist of smaller narrative units, which comprise single pericopae. Narrative Cycle 1: The Two Protagonists (Q 3:2b–7:35): John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17) The Introduction of John (Q 3:2b–3a) John’s Announcement of Judgement (Q 3:7–9) John and the One to Come (Q 3:16b–17)

Narrative Unit 2: The Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22; 4:1–13.16) The Baptism of Jesus (Q 3,21–22) The Temptations of Jesus (Q 4:1–13) Nazara (Q 4:16)

Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49) Beatitudes (Q 6:20–23) Love Your Enemies & Renounce Violence (Q 6:27–28.35cd.29–30) The Golden Rule & Being Full of Mercy (Q 6:31–32.34.36) Not Judging (Q 6:37–38)

73 Cf. Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 132. 74 Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 141. 75 Heil, Lukas, 167: »Mit der Mehrheit der Exegeten ist anzunehmen, daß Lk 17,20f. eine lukanische Sondertradition ist …«. Fleddermann, Q, 811: »The Q discourse opened with a general saying that warned against listening to rumors (Q 17,23). Luke formulated three additional introductory verses, all redactional (Luke 17,20–22).« See also Harb, Rede, 69–78. Luke 17,20–21 certainly finds two parallels in Gos. Thom. 3:3 and 113:1–2. But Heil, Lukas, 167, rightly concludes: »Diese Parallelen sind jedoch am ehesten als gnostisierende Weiterentwicklungen der hinter Lk 17,20f. stehenden Traditionen zu sehen; auf eine Q-Vorlage deuten sie nicht.« 76 Hoffmann/Heil, Spruchquelle, 14. A quite similar scheme can be found in Fleddermann, Q, X-XIII.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

37

The Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39) The Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40) The Speck and the Beam (Q 6:41–42) The Tree Is Known by its Fruit (Q 6:43–45) Not Just Saying Master, Master (Q 6:46) Built on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47–49)

Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10) Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16) John’s Inquiry about the One to Come (Q 7:18–19.22–23) John—More than a Prophet (Q 7:24–28) The Reign of God is Violated (Q 16:16) For and Against John (Q 7:29–30) This Generation and the Children of Wisdom (Q 7:31–35)

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13): The Messengers of the Son of Man Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60) Foxes and Birds (Q 9:57–58) Leave the Dead to Bury their Own Dead! (Q 9:59–60)

Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for Mission (Q 10:2–16) Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2) Sheep among Wolves (Q 10:3) Rule for Provisions: Mission in Emblematic Poverty (Q 10:4) House-Mission and Town-Mission (Q 10:5–12) Woes against Galilean Towns (Q 10:13–15) Whoever Takes You in Takes Me in (Q 10:16)

Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24) Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children (Q 10:21) Knowing the Father through the Son (Q 10:22) Blessed are the Eyes that See What You See (Q 10:23–24)

Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13) The Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:2b–4) Ask and It will be Given to You (Q 11:9–13)

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18): Natural and Supernatural Opponents Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26) Casting out Demons by the Finger of God (Q 11:14–15.17–20) Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22) The One not with Me (Q 11:23) The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24–26)

38

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32) The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:16.29–30) The Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh (Q 11:31–32)

Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35) The Light on the Lampstand (Q 11:33) The Light within You (Q 11:34–35)

Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18, 11:14–52) No Iota and no Serif of the Law to Fall (Q 16:17) Prohibition of Divorce and Remarriage (Q 16:18) Woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:42.39b.41.43–44) Woes against the Scribes of the Law (Q 11:46b.52.47–48) Wisdom’s Judgment on »This Generation« (Q 11:49–51)

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21): Confidence in Distress Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12) Uncovering What Is Hidden (Q 12:2–3) Not Fearing the Body’s Death (Q 12:4–5) More Precious than Many Sparrows (Q 12:6–7) Confessing the Son of Man (Q 12:8–9) Speaking against the Holy Spirit (Q 12:10) Hearings before Synagogues (Q 12:11–12)

Narrative Unit 2: Search for the Reign of God! (Q 12:22b–34) Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies (Q 12:22b–31) Storing up Treasures in Heaven (Q 12:33–34)

Narrative Unit 3: The Coming of the Son of Man (Q 12:39–59) The Son of Man Comes as a Robber (Q 12:39–40) The Faithful and the Unfaithful Slaves (Q 12:42–46) Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49) Children against Parents (Q 12:51.53) Settling out of Court (Q 12:58–59)

Narrative Unit 4: Parables of the Reign of God (Q 13:18–21) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18–19) The Parable of the Yeast (Q 13:20–21)

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents (Q 13:24–14:23): Announcement of Judgement A Locked Out (Q 13:24–29) B The Reversal of the Last and the First (Q 13:30) C Judgment over Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35) B The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted (Q 14:11) A The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16–18.21.23)

3. Extent and Structure of Q

39

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times (Q 14:26–17:6): The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise (Q 14:26–17:2) Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross (Q 14:26–27) Losing One’s Life (Q 17:33) Tasteless Salt (Q 14:34–35) God or Mammon (Q 16:13) Against Tempting Little Ones (Q 17:1–2)

Narrative Unit 2: The Forgiveness of God and of One Another (Q 15:4–10, 17:4) The Lost Sheep (Q 15:4.5a.7) The Lost Coin (Q 15:8–10) Forgiving Seven Times (Q 17:3–4)

Narrative Unit 3: Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6) Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30) Narrative Unit 1: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–37, 19:12–26) The Son of Man Like Lightning (Q 17:23–24) Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37) As in the Days of Noah (Q 17:26–27.30) One Taken, One Left (Q 17:34–35) The Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12–13.15–24.26)

Narrative Unit 2: Final Theme—Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Q 22:28.30)

3.4

The Narrative Plot of Q

The aforementioned structure of Q not only helps us to understand the texture of the Sayings Source but also leads to a deeper understanding of Q’s narrative plot. The seven narrative cycles consisting of narrative units build an arc of narratological tension that forms the narrative plot of Q. Even though Q mostly consists in »sayings«, the composition nevertheless creates an ongoing narratological arc—one might call it a »narratology of sayings«.77 Previously free-floating logia were combined via keyword-connections78 to smaller narrative units that later could be intertwined to bigger narrative cycles. Unlike the

77 Labahn, Gekommene, 577: »Erzählung des Redens« leading to »narrativer Sinnbildung«. 78 Schröter, Entscheidung, 70: »mit einfachen literarischen Mitteln—wie etwa Stichwortverbindungen oder thematischen Assoziationen«.

40

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

Gospel of Thomas, in the Sayings Source we already encounter a narratological composition and a pervading narrative plot.79 3.4.1

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35)

The first narrative cycle focusses on the both main actors of Q: John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. In accordance with the theology of Q, the new aeon is already inaugurated by the Baptist—and not with Jesus (see below, III: Q 7:24–28): he who only baptizes with water announces the more powerful one who will baptize with holy spirit and fire (Q 3:16). With John as the messenger of the coming one (Q 7:27) the new era has already begun. Besides, in Q 7:35 John and Jesus together are portrayed as »children of wisdom«: like antithetic twins (fasting & penitence versus the joy of God’s reign and feasting) both in their respective ways justify God’s wisdom. The concluding sentence of the first cycle (»But Wisdom is justified by her children«, Q 7:35) summarizes this whole cycle by zooming in on the two main actors and underscoring their God-given message. Narrative cycle 1 indeed can be seen as the programmatic prelude of Q—the two main actors of the Sayings Source and their messages are presented. Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17) begins by confronting us with the Baptist’s announcements. Narrative Unit 2: the Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22, 4:1–13.16) introduces the second main actor—Jesus. Although in chronological succession to the Baptist, Jesus is identified as the »more powerful one« (Q 3:16) in receiving the holy spirit (Q 3:21–22). With his return to Nazareth (here called »Nazara«), Jesus steps out from the shadow of the Baptist and starts his own ministry. Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49)80 functions as the narratological pinnacle of the first cycle. For the first time in literature, Jesus’ message is condensed into one programmatic address, an idea which further was developed by Matthew in his »Sermon on the Mount«. One of the basic texts of world literature goes back to an invention of Q! The Sayings Source concludes this unity with the question »Why do you call me: Master, Master, and do not do what I say?« (Q 6:46) and the invitation to build a »house« on solid rock by living up to Jesus’ message (Q 6:47–49). Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10) continues on the same narratological trajectory. The gentile officer demonstrates the uncompromising faith in Jesus required by the preceding pericope (Building one’s House on Rock) and thus demonstrates how to follow Jesus’ teaching. The officer even surpasses

79 Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 117: »… dass schon von der Q-Redaktion—anders als z. B. im Thomasevangelium—die Einzelsprüche bereits zu Redekompositionen mit deutlich erkennbaren thematischen Schwerpunkten zusammengestellt wurden.« 80 For the use of »programmatic address« (»programmatische Rede«) for Q 6:20–49 in the history of research, see the documentation in Kosch, Tora, 216.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

41

Israel’s faith: »I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith«. (Q 7:9) Although the Q-community did not undertake a mission to the gentiles, the pagan soldier here functions as a positive counter-example to the disbelief of »this generation«. Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16) concludes the narrative arc of the first cycle. The two main actors once again appear on stage—now the moment has come to establish their mutual relationship. Certainly, »there has not arisen among women’s offspring anyone who surpasses John«. Jesus is »the smaller one«, but under the new conditions of the »reign of God« (Q 7:28) Jesus is »bigger than him«. This sequence offers the internal perspective (for believers in God’s reign), but the external perspective (for the unbelievers) follows in the pericope »This Generation and the Children of Wisdom« (Q 7:31–35). Here John and Jesus are portrayed as peers—both are »children of wisdom«—nevertheless with the intention of demonstrating the fulfilment of the Baptist’s message in Jesus. Cycle 1 presents a coherent narrative arc:81 A John and his Message B Baptism and Testing of Jesus Centre: C Jesus’ Programmatic Address B’ The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus Word A’ Juxtaposition of John and Jesus: a) Jesus bigger than John internal perspective b) Children of Wisdom external perspective

Negative aspects of rejection and disbelief that are widespread in Q are missing in the first cycle, although they are to be found between the lines (e.g., Q 6:46: »Why do you call me: Master, Master, and do not do what I say?«, or »this generation« in Q 7:31–35). The Gentile officer presents the positive example. His exemplary belief surpasses the unbelief in Israel, which is not yet condemned but merely stated. Cycle 1 offers a brilliant prelude to Q by designing the outline of the whole composition. With J. Robinson one might conclude:82 Already it has become clear that the first major segment of Q (Q 3,2–7,35) was composed intentionally in a meaningful sequence. It is not the result of some haphazard collecting of sayings, but rather of conscious and careful editorial composition, designed to argue convincingly that John’s predication of ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Q 3,16) is fulfilled by Jesus (Q 7,19).

3.4.2

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries The Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13)

The programmatic first cycle focussed on Jesus and John, and now the second narrative cycle zooms in on the missionaries. John and Jesus are the messengers of the past, the focus now lies on the present.

81 The concentric structure of the »Programmatic Address« has been pointed out repeatedly, e.g., Fleddermann, Q, 112–113 and 209; Scherer, Königsvolk, 77. The scheme will be adopted by Matthew’s concentric framing of his »Sermon on the Mount« (cf. Luz, Matthäus I, 254). 82 Cf. Robinson, Sequence, 226.

42

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

It is quite remarkable that the second cycle does not yet concentrate on the sedentary Q communities (this will be the case in Narrative Cycle 4) but on the itinerant Q missionaries: an instruction for radical discipleship and for envoys going from town to town. Even the Lord’s Prayer reflects the situation of possession-less itinerant missionaries, who have to pray for bread each day. The expectation of the immediate coming of God’s reign is still unbroken and so extreme that all remaining forces are »thrown« into missionary work (the verb in Q 10:2 is ἐκβάλλω!) to succeed with this last effort. Accordingly, Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60) starts with the uncompromising radicalism of the Q missionaries. Their homelessness (Foxes and Birds) is depicted as the emblematic lifestyle of the coming familia Dei in God’s reign. No longer an earthly father (Leave the Dead to Bury their Own Dead! Q 9:60; cf. Q 14:26) but a father in heaven provides for the new family (Q 10:21, 11:2.13). The Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for the Mission (Q 10:2–16) then gets straight to the point. The need for Workers for the Harvest mirrors eschatological expectations—but also inherent signs of a drop in expectation in consequence of the delay of the Parousia. Nevertheless, the confidence remains, as the Sheep among Wolves demonstrate. In spite of rejection, their non-violent mission will prevail (besides the imagery of »sheep« also the command not to carry a staff refers to non-violence)! The eschatological peace that the missionaries invoked upon entering a house and their non-violent behaviour become emblematic anticipation of God’s coming reign. Complete confidence in God is also demonstrated in the Rule for Provisions. It is a mission in emblematic poverty because God and his reign will take care! In House-Mission and Town-Mission, two types of reaching out to hearers are demonstrated: going from house to house or preaching to a whole town at the marketplace. The Woes against Galilean Towns confront us with the first explicitly negative accent in Q. Jesus’ optimistic attitude (still perceptible in Cycle 1) is slightly overcast with the negative experiences of rejection and unbelief. The end of the mission to Israel is drawing near. Nevertheless, the high self-esteem of Q missionaries remains, as can be seen in Whoever Takes You in Takes Me in. This high self-esteem continues in Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24). The rejection of the missionaries is not considered a failure but— following apocalyptical patterns—as esoteric revelation to an elect group. The missionaries see themselves in Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children, Knowing the Father through the Son and Blessed are the Eyes that See What You See. Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13) continues this trajectory. Because of the missionaries’ »intimacy« with Jesus and the heavenly father they may present all their concerns in the Lord’s Prayer. Ask and It will be Given to You finally sums up that their prayers will certainly be heard by God. 3.4.3

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries Natural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

Already in Cycle 2 the topic of »rejection« was brought forward. Now Narrative Cycle 3 focusses completely on the opponents—natural and supernatural alike.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

43

Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26) makes clear that Jesus is Casting out Demons by the Finger of God and thus God’s reign has come near. Jesus himself is the »stronger one«, who is Burgling a Strong Person—he prevails over Satan, who still holds the dominion over this world (Q 4:5–6 and 11:18; cf. John 12:31 and 16:11). The One not with Me makes clear that everyone now has to take a position in favour of or against Jesus. The Return of the Unclean Spirit demonstrates that such a decision has to be renewed every day—flagging belief due to the delay of the Parousia is criticised. After having dealt with supernatural opponents, Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32) now directs its attention to earthly adversaries. For them only The Sign of Jonah (which means the announcement of penitence) is given. For those who will not repent, The Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh serve as »witnesses for the prosecution«. Their belief has been flawless—unlike the unbelief of »this generation«. In contrast to the unbelief in Unit 2, Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35) focusses on the belief of the Q-missionaries: their light will provide orientation for others, as The Light on the Lampstand and The Light within You exemplify. In early Judaism the Torah was seen as the light of humankind.83 Following this key-word combination, Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18, 11:14–52) now switches from »light« to the right observance of the »Torah«. No Iota and no Serif of the Law to Fall underscores the irrevocable validity of the Jewish Law for the Q-community. With Prohibition of Divorce and Remarriage we are already involved in polemics against the Pharisees and the scribes of the law. The question of divorce was a fiercely debated topic in early Judaism. In accordance with stricter rules for divorcing one’s wife in early Judaism, the historical Jesus opted against too lax a procedure. The Sayings Source now uses Jesus’ guidelines as a means of critique directed against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. This trajectory is drawn on in Woes against the Pharisees and Woes against the Scribes of the Law. These two groups are perceived as rivalling the Q message and are therefore depicted as somewhat mono-dimensional—but this is still within the inner-Jewish polemics of the time. »Q’s complaint with other Jewish groups is not that they observed the Torah and the Q people did not. Rather, Q’s complaint against the Pharisees—no doubt, a bit of caricature—is that they insist on one set of commandments and neglect others …«84 The salient point is that the Sayings Source still advocates observance of ritual and purity laws. Q does not criticise the Pharisees’ tithing but that they »give up justice and mercy and faithfulness«. Q’s conclusion is: »one has to do these without giving up the others«. Pharisees and scribes of the law were commonly perceived as the »wise« in Judaism. Now Wisdom’s Judgment on »This Generation« condemns their positions. By rejecting the message of Q-missionaries, they are no more

83 The Torah respectively the »Word of God« in early Judaism was depicted as »light«, e.g., Ps 119:105; Wis 18:4 (νόμου φῶς); T. Levi 14:4. Concerning the metaphorical use of »light« for the Torah in early Judaism and Rabbinic times see Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 225–229. 84 Kloppenborg, Q, 69.

44

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

than »murderers of prophets«—a somewhat hyperbolic depiction yet in line with early Jewish theology. According to the deuteronomistic interpretation of history, »this generation« is presented as stubborn and unbelieving. In apocalyptic perceptions of early Judaism, »this generation« becomes the generation of eschatological opponents. The Sayings Source adapts such patterns for its own purpose. Wisdom’s judgment on »this generation« is indeed not only the theological climax but also a worthy conclusion to Narrative Cycle 3. The opponents are identified with the enemies predicted in eschatological times, while the Q-missionaries find their predecessors in the prophets and their persecutions! 3.4.4

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community Confidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21)

In response to the »persecutions« mentioned in Cycle 3, Cycle 4 now focusses on confidence in distress and formulates the consequences for the community. Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12) is not only an admonition to more confidence but offers theological reasons for such optimism. Uncovering What Is Hidden underscores that Jesus’ message will ultimately prevail. Being convinced of coming victory, one must persevere while Not Fearing the Body’s Death. The heavenly father knows that we are More Precious than Many Sparrows. Thus one can continue fearlessly Confessing the Son of Man. Speaking against the Holy Spirit is perceived as denying the message of Q. The missionaries have to testify to their convictions in Hearings before Synagogues. After Unit 1 highlights the external perspective of »confidence in distress«, Narrative Unit 2: Search for the Reign of God! (Q 12:22b–34) offers the internal perspective. The two pericopae Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies and Storing up Treasures in Heaven enhance the confidence in reliance on Q’s message. The imagery of insolent ravens and care-free lilies is one of the »highlights« of Q—demonstrating the »brazen freedom of God’s children«!85 After the external and internal view, now Narrative Unit 3: The Coming of the Son of Man (Q 12:39–59) offers the coming eschatological perspective. The minor actions of humankind now are inscribed into the larger horizon of eschatological revolution. The Son of Man Comes as a Robber and will judge The Faithful and the Unfaithful Slaves. The Fire on the Earth does not yet burn as a blazing flame—but at the day of judgement this will be different. But before ultimate salvation, all kinds of eschatological atrocities have to be expected, as Children against Parents demonstrates. The pericope of Settling out of Court does not portray the reconciliation of human adversaries but focusses on the eschatological day of judgement: there is still time for reconciliation, because the Son of Man, the judge, has not yet arrived. But then it will be too late. Narrative Unit 4: Parables of the Reign of God (Q 13:18–21) now concludes this cycle with positive and hopeful imagery. The Two Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the

85 Cf. Tiwald, Freedom, passim.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

45

Yeast follow the same logic: in spite of a small start the results will be enormous. For the time being the reign of God seems small and insignificant, but it will ultimately gain force and permeate everything. 3.4.5

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents Announcement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

Cycle 4 highlights the consequences for the Q-community, and now Narrative Cycle 5 focusses on the consequences for the opponents. The structure of this cycle is concentric—with the Judgement over Jerusalem at its centre. A Locked Out B The Reversal of the Last and the First C Judgment over Jerusalem B The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted A The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests

The two outermost parallels are Locked Out and The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests, both of which focus on new invitees in contrast to those who are denied access. Unlike later gospel tradition, these two Q-pericopae do not yet imply a mission to the Gentiles, rather an inner-Jewish revaluation of priorities. Those who now seem to be far from God’s grace, like tax collectors, sinners, and unwise children (cf. Q 7:29.34, 10:21), will then be given better places than the Pharisees, scribes of the law, and wise (cf. Q 10:21, 11:39–52). This revaluation of priorities is also the topic of the two innermost parallels, The Reversal of the Last and the First and The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted. 3.4.6

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:6)

Cycle 6 now heads towards the eschaton. Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise (Q 14:26–17:2) sums up a loose yet conclusive collection of sayings with a focus on the efforts to be taken on the last days until the coming of the Son of Man: Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross, Losing One’s Life, Tasteless Salt, and God or Mammon. The last pericope Against Tempting Little Ones alerts the community not to provide a bad example. Narrative Unit 2: The Forgiveness of God and of One Another (Q 15:4–10, 17:4) pursues the topic »failure« from Tempting Little Ones and develops a theology of forgiveness. The delay of the Parousia reveals that failures also happen within the community and not only on the outside. The two parables The Lost Sheep and The Lost Coin raise the topic of God’s forgiveness, which subsequently has to be the example for mutual relations. As in the Lord’s Prayer, God’s forgiveness becomes exemplary to human practice, as Forgiving Seven Times concludes. In spite of failures within the community, the Q-group still remains optimistic with respect to the coming eschaton, as Narrative Unit 3: Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6) demonstrates: if belief is strong enough, everything is possible.

46

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

3.4.7

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

Narrative Cycle 6 offers motivations to stay faithful even in spite of a delay of the Parousia. Cycle 7 now returns to the concept of an impending eschaton. Narrative Unit 1: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–37, 19:12–26) starts with a depiction of the fate of the opponents. The Son of Man Like Lightning demonstrates that no one will escape the returning judge of the world. Vultures around a Corpse underscores that sinners will draw God’s punishment upon them, just as a corpse attracts vultures. As in the Days of Noah highlights that the day of judgement will come suddenly and unexpectedly like the Flood. One Taken, One Left says that even close neighbours will be torn apart—one carried off to God and one left behind in the atrocities of judgement. The Parable of the Entrusted Money illustrates that God will »settle his accounts« (συναίρει λόγον, Q 19:15) with humankind. Narrative Unit 2: Final Theme—Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Q 22:28.30) now redirects the focus from the opponents to the believers. In spite of mockery and scorn from the opponents, Jesus’ followers will now be given their reward by the coming Son of Man. Not only will the Son of Man judge their adversaries, but the followers of Jesus themselves will be entrusted with judgement.

3.5

Q’s Plot and the Stages of Salvation History

In addition to a thematic outline (see above), one can also draw Q’s map in accordance with stages of salvation history as M. Ebner has shown:86 I. Past Narrative II. Present Narrative Narrative Narrative Narrative III. Future Narrative Narrative

Cycle 1: The Main Actors John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35). Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle

2: 3: 4: 5:

The Q-Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13) The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18) Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21) Consequences for the Opponents (Q 13:24–14:23)

Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times (Q 14:26–17:6) Cycle 7: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–22:30)

The two outlines of Q demonstrate that Q was by no means only a loose collection of sayings. The Saying Source already possessed a consistent story arc.87 By looking back to the past (Jesus as Son of Man having come for the first time) and expecting the future (Jesus as Son of Man coming in the end time) one finds motivation for the present (the situation of the actual Q community).

86 Ebner, Q, 90–91. 87 Labahn, Gekommene, 577: The »Erzählung des Redens« becomes an example of »narrativer Sinnbildung«.

3. Extent and Structure of Q

3.6

47

Oral Performance and Literal Framing

The structure of Q easily demonstrates how oral performance and literary framing interacted in the process of Q’s development. The single narrative units might well have been used as »stories« told on different days. Thus one might imagine an itinerant missionary saying to his audience: »Today I will talk about the Baptist’s message«—and telling Q 3:2b–17. Or such a missionary was asked: »Tell us about the relation between John and Jesus«—and responds with the narration of Q 7:18–35. Or: »What was the message of Jesus?« and he answered with Jesus’ programmatic speech Q 6:20–49. Or »How can we imagine the coming of the Son of Man?« and they heard Q 17:23–22:30. It remains unclear whether these narrative units were already bundled into narrative cycles at the oral stage of transmission—but a certain probability suggests this. Although this reconstructed scheme of Q reveals a certain literary composition of keyword patterns, the narrative arc of an oral performance is still present. Furthermore, the biographical framing already dates back to the period of orality. Starting with the ministry of John, continuing with Jesus’ baptism and his return to Nazareth, presenting Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum (e.g., the Gentile officer), mentioning Jesus’ rejection in the Galilean villages Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin, and concluding with the expectation of the returning Son of Man: all these already offer historiographical cornerstones similar to those of the Gospel of Mark. These patterns were surely already present in the last stage of oral transmission and were not an element of literary framing. Thus the Sayings Source was heading towards a biographical story arc even in its oral stages and at least at the last time of transmission was no longer a collection of free-floating sayings. Apparently the framing of Q completed what the oral transmission had started. Many features of an oral performance still survive in Q, e.g., the programmatic speech of Jesus. It is quite probable that village scribes put down in writing the separate tales of Q-missionaries—still detectable in the narrative cycles: the message of John and Jesus (Narrative Cycle 1), the missionaries (Narrative Cycle 2), the adversaries (Narrative Cycle 3), the consequences for the communities (Narrative Cycle 4) and for the opponents (Narrative Cycle 5), concluding with instructions for the end times (Narrative Cycle 6) and the impending day of the Son of Man (Narrative Cycle 7). The liveliness of a certain ›conversional tone‹ typical for an oral performance still can be recognised here. The narrative arc already follows some chronological patterns but the general orientation is given by thematical cycles derived from orally transmitted performances: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

The Two Main Actors John and Jesus The Missionaries The Adversaries Consequences for the Q-Community Consequences for the Opponents Instructions for the End Times The Day of the Son of Man

Thus one can conclude: the Sayings Source Q offers a glimpse of the crossing point between oral and literary Jesus traditions.

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Title and Introduction of Q? According to the decision of J. M. Robinson,1 the CEQ proposes that Q might have had a heading (i.e. Q 3:0). This could have been something like »The Words of Jesus«. Any such title remains a mere conjecture without any text-based support2 and it is certain possible that Q had no title at all3 just as the synoptic Gospels did not originally have titles (the headings »Gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke« stem from the second century and are not original).

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35) As already stated above, Cycle 1 comprises a concentric composition with Jesus’ programmatic address in the centre: A John and his Message B Baptism and Testing of Jesus Centre: C Jesus’ Programmatic Address B’ The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word A’ Juxtaposition of John and Jesus: a) Jesus bigger than John internal perspective b) Children of Wisdom external perspective

This makes it clear that the beginning with John the Baptist actually is a beginning with Jesus: the Baptist points to Jesus, the coming one!4 The composition of Cycle 1 points to its centre: the programmatic address of Jesus. Nevertheless, Q lacks the denigrating depiction of the Baptist as found in the later Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Luke the announcement of God’s reign starts only with Jesus and not

1 Cf. Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 117. 2 See the discussion by Labahn, Gekommene, 187. 3 The following scholars do not reconstruct a title for Q: Zeller, Logienquelle, 17; Fleddermann, Q, 210; Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 117 (»Nicht auszuschließen ist, dass Q mit dem Bericht vom Auftreten des Johannes begann [sc. und somit gar keine Überschrift trug].«). 4 Labahn, Gekommene, 187.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

49

with John5 and for Matthew John is but a mere precursor, as Matt 3:11 makes clear.6 In contrast to these conceptions, for Q 7:26 John is »more than a prophet«. For Q the turning point of the aeons has already arrived with John announcing his baptism (see below, III: Q 7:18–35 and 16:16).7 Accordingly, John and Jesus are both depicted as »Children of Wisdom« in Q 7:31–35. Apart from Jesus, the Baptist is the only active character in Q introduced by name.8 Nevertheless, after Narrative Cycle 1 John is not mentioned in Q. Here we can see Q’s bridging function between the memory of the historical Jesus, who was a disciple of the Baptist (see below, III: Q 3:21–22), and the christological centrism of later gospels.

Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17) The Introduction of John (Q 3:2b–3a) 2b

… John …

3a

… all the region of the Jordan (Gen 13:10–11).

Even if the first sentence of Q cannot be reconstructed completely, it is obvious that Q started either with the Baptist’s ministry (as Luke 3:3) or with the location of the Baptist’s works (as Matt 3:5) in »all the region of the Jordan«.9 It already becomes clear that Q does not present us with unconnected sayings as in the Gospel of Thomas.10 The Sayings Source already introduces a geographical and chronological framework. Chronologically, Q starts—like the Gospel of Mark—with the Baptist and ends—unlike Mark—with a glimpse towards the eschatological judgement in Q 22. Geographically, Q already links certain traditions to special places. John’s ministry is situated in the region of the Jordan, Jesus goes to Nazareth (Q 4:16) and Capernaum (Q 7), the missionaries operate in Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre, Sidon (Q 10:13–15) and Jerusalem (Q 13:34) while the eschaton envisages the thrones of judgement (Q 22). So Q’s geographical indications are by no means merely functional, as A. Bork has already observed.11 Unlike in Mark 1:5, in Q we have no mention of »all the country of … and all the people of Jerusalem« but »the region of the Jordan«—which is a literal quotation of Gen 13:10 (πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ιορδάνου). Bork correctly concludes that in Q toponymy is of theological impor5 Thus Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 554. 6 Konradt, Matthäus, 47: »Johannes ist für Matthäus der Vorläufer (vgl. 3,11).« 7 Bork, Raumsemantik, 247. Concerning the baptist’s theology, see Tiwald, Logienquelle, 156–158. 8 Bork, Raumsemantik, 246. 9 Alternatively, Fleddermann, Q, 211–212, wants to interpret »all the region of the Jordan« as a minor agreement and not as part of Q. Here the CEQ’s reconstruction is more plausible. 10 Pace Luz, Matthäus I, 48, who sees in Q only a loose collection of material but not a literary document (»nicht ein literarisches Dokument«). He judges Q as a bigger collection of notes (»ein größeres Notizbuch«), where insertions or omissions always were possible, but not a codex with fixed pages as e.g. the Gospel of Mark. 11 Bork, Raumsemantik, 83.

50

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

tance because salvation history is being placed in the context of the events of the present.12 For example, this can be seen in this pericope: in remembrance of Gen 13:10–11 πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ιορδάνου most likely indicates the region in the North of the Dead Sea,13 and more important than the geographical localisation is the theological connection to Israel’s history of salvation. Quoting biblical traditions creates for the Q-community an »emotional anchorage«14 and thus underscores the unbroken Jewish identity of the Q-community. The stories described in the Sayings Source are in complete accordance and continuation with biblical narratives. Nevertheless, in contrast to Bork one should not conclude that Q did not intend a precise location with »all the region of the Jordan«.15 The traditio duplex (the parallels between Q and Mark) clearly show that older topological traditions have been maintained. That the »region of the Jordan« really means the desert becomes clear in Jesus’ statement about the Baptist in Q 7:24 (»What did you go out into the desert to look at?«). John’s Announcement of Judgement (Q 3:7–9) He said to the crowds coming to be baptized: Brood of vipers! Who showed you to run from the wrath to come? 8 So produce fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to tell yourselves: We have Abraham as (our) forefather! For I tell you: God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And the axe already lies at the root of the trees. So every tree not bearing healthy fruit is to be chopped down and thrown on the fire. 7

D. Zeller has observed that the words of the Baptist resemble biblical penitential sermons consisting of accusation (initial scolding and rhetorical question), admonition (imperative and vetitive), and announcement of the coming judgement by metaphorology.16 The patterns used are an ideal-typical example for a biblical prophet,17 e.g., the motif of God’s wrath and the call for penitence. »God’s wrath« is a widespread

12 Bork, Raumsemantik, 84: »[Der] Ortsname steht daher metonymisch für ein Ereignis der Vergangenheit, welches nun in … Beziehung zur Gegenwart gesetzt wird.« 13 Jericke, Ortsangaben, 106, justifies this by indicating that Abraham and Lot in Gen 13:3 are located in the region of Bet-El and Ai and looking to the East on the plain of the Jordan. 14 The expression »emotional anchorage« is derived from sociolinguistics. According to Malina/Rohrbaugh, John, 5, this is a rhetorical means of establishing familiarity for the ingroup and delimitation against the out-group (e.g., by the use of »anti-language«). 15 Bork, Raumsemantik, 83 (»angesichts der ersten topographischen Angabe in Q, dem Jordan, … eine konkrete Verortung nicht intendiert ist«). Scherer, Königsvolk, 129–130, is correct to criticise this argument: »Bork distanziert sich von einer den kulturellen Kontext berücksichtigenden Herangehensweise an die Texte zugunsten einer narrativen, die in der Textwelt verbleibt.« 16 Cf. Zeller, Logienquelle, 19. 17 Cf. Scherer, Königsvolk, 219 for an analysis of these patterns.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

51

metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, in early Judaism, and in the New Testament.18 Unlike the biblical prophets, John envisages an eschatological judgement and not an inner-worldly event19—so here too John is »more than a prophet« (Q 7:26): with his message announces that the end of times already has come! Also in early Jewish apocalyptic the mention of God’s wrath is connected with God’s eschatological judgement, e.g., in 1 En. 62:12 (»wrath of the Lord of Spirits«). 1 En. 62:5 offers a fascinating parallel to Q—here the eschatological judgement is given to »that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory«. Likewise, Q 3:16 announces the eschatological Baptist of Fire, who is identified with Jesus delegating judgement to his disciples sitting on eschatological thrones (Q 22:28). Here we see that Q’s message is embedded in an »intact Jewish matrix«.20 Historically, it seems that Q directs the Baptist’s address »Brood of vipers!« to the »crowds« (ὄχλοις), and not as in Matt 3:7 to »the Pharisees and Sadducees«.21 The word ἔχιδνα stands for any form of venomous snake and can also be used for treacherous people.22 This vocabulary delineates the following message: treacherous and calculating people speculate on having Abraham as their forefather and thus will be able »to run from the wrath to come«. Such mistaken hopes are destroyed by the Baptist’s cry of »Brood of vipers!« which reveals the hypocrisy of those addressed. Claiming Abraham as forefather alludes to Jewish concepts of election. According to the oldest biblical conceptions, God would carry out his judgement on the enemies of Israel (e.g., Isa 13 against Babylon; Ezek 30:3–4 against Egypt and Cush/ Ethiopia). But already in Isa 65–66 and in the Book of Malachi the eschatological judgment differentiates between the just and the unjust within Isra-

18 Concerning the motif of God’s wrath, see Konradt, Gericht, 57–93. Cf. ibid. the long list of references from the OT and early Jewish texts. Concerning the NT: Luke 21:23; John 3:36; Rom 1:18, 2:5, 9:22, 12:19; 1 Thess 2:16; Col 3:6; Eph 5:6; Rev 6:16 (»wrath of the lamb«), 11:18, 15:1.7, 16:1. »Wrath« can also be used—as in Q 3:7—without the determination »God’s« (e.g., Luke 21:23; Rom 12:19). The expression »wrath (of God)« is a common expression for God’s judgement in the eschaton. Konradt repeatedly (cf. ibid, 65–66 and 81) stresses similarities between Q-traditions (e.g., the Baptist’s sermon or the violent fate of prophets, see below, III: Q 11:47) and aspects of Pauline theology. Most evident are elements of the Baptist’s announcement that are found in the Pauline kerygma—but christologically enhanced by portraying Jesus as the saviour from God’s wrath (ibid. 65–66). Interestingly, 1 Thess 1:10 and Q 3:7 likewise use the abbreviation »wrath to come« (without »God’s«) for the eschatological judgement (Paul uses ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης, Q ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς). 19 Scherer, Königsvolk, 219 (»eine apokalyptische Position, die den biblischen Propheten mit ihren innerweltlichen Gerichten noch fremd ist«). 20 Cf. Ebner, Q, 98; cf. 100 (»von einer intakten jüdischen Matrix aus zu lesen und zu verstehen ist«). 21 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 48–50. This is indebted to the Matthean theology that opposes the unbelief of the Jewish authorities to the belief of the majority of Jewish people, e.g., Matt 9:32–34, 12:22–24, 16:21, 21:9.15–16.23–26.45–46, 27:20. 22 See Liddell/Scott, Lexicon, 748. The question as to whether the image of the stones is based on an Aramaic play-on-words or a play on Isa 51:1–2 (Bovon, Lukas I, 172) has to remain open and is not relevant here.

52

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

el.23 In connection with growing Hellenization since the second century BCE, social inequality and theological tensions were increasing in the midst of Israel. This led to the conception that the demarcation line between the just and the unjust would no longer separate Israel from the other nations but go straight through the middle of Israel, condemning many of those among the Jewish people. Rival inner-Jewish groups mutually accused one another of having lost God’s grace and having abandoned the correct interpretation of the Torah.24 The Baptist’s message fits perfectly into this scenario. Reclaiming the intercession of Abraham (or Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is expressed by Josephus Ant. 11:169; 4 Ezra 3:15; T. Levi 15:4; T. Ash. 7:7; see also Philo Praem. 166 and T. Ab. A 14. At the same time, Israel is warned against the futility of putting its hope in the intercession of the fathers, e.g., 2 Bar. 85:12 (in contrast to 2 Bar. 14:7!); 4 Ezra 7:102–115; 2 En. 53:1; see also L.A.B. 33:5.25 The parallel in 2 En. 53 is of particular relevance:26 And now, my children, do not say: ›Our father is standing before God, and is praying for our sins,‹ for there is no helper of any man who has sinned. 2 You see how I wrote all works of every man, before his creation, [all] that is done amongst all 3 men for all time …

1

God’s election of Israel must not be mistaken as an automatic guarantee of salvation. This is a perfect parallel to the Baptist’s announcement. Thus, a general abrogation of God’s election of Israel—as D. Zeller sees it—is not found here.27 Criticising false expectations of salvation was typical for the biblical prophets (e.g., Amos 3:2 and 9:7–10 against wrong conceptions of election; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:22–25 and Jer 7:4–23 against an overestimation of sacrifices in the temple). The Baptist remains in line with these admonitions. It is quite remarkable that he—as the son of a temple priest (if Luke 1:5 is correct)—establishes a rite for the forgiveness of sins as a rival to the rites of atonement carried out in the temple. Neither the temple nor Abraham is any guarantee if one does not »produce fruit worthy of repentance« (cf. 2 En. 53:2, where there is also reference to the »works of every man«). Jesus’ critique of the temple fits this template perfectly (see below, III: Q 13:34–35). It could be that Jesus adopted such ideas from his teacher the Baptist (see below, III: Q 7:24–28).

23 Hieke, Ende, 37. See also Tiwald, Weisheit, 88–89. 24 See Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 117–160 and 257–266. 25 Scherer, Königsvolk, 148–153, is essentially is right when she underscores that such a hope for salvation in early Jewish texts is never explicitly brought into conjunction with Abraham as forefather; nevertheless, the hope in Abraham as intercessor in the eschatological judgment was no fixed theologumenon but remained in a certain metaphorological fluidity. Thus, both conceptions—the condemnation of Israel’s opponents and the concept of a condemnation of certain Israelites at the same time—could appear in the same context, as is seen in: 2 Bar. 85:12 vs. 2 Bar. 14:7 or 4 Ezra 3:15 vs. 4 Ezra 7:102–115. 26 The Second Book of Enoch (also called Slavonic Book of Enoch) was originally written in Greek and shows parallels to Hellenistic philosophy and Philo. The first edition seems to date to before 70 CE due to references to a functioning temple cult (see Ego, Art. Henoch/ Henochliteratur, WiBiLex). 27 Cf. Zeller, Logienquelle, 19 (»dass das erwählte Volk Abrahams dem Zorn verfällt«).

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

53

John and the One to Come (Q 3:16b–17) I indeed baptize you in water, but the one to come after me is more powerful than me, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in holy spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. 16b

The image of fruitless trees being chopped down and thrown into the fire (Q 3:9) is now further developed with the image of seedless chaff that remains after threshing and is thrown into the fire. Between the two occurrences of fire the contrasting picture of water is introduced—the gift of baptism as a means of salvation. Fire as a metaphor for judgement was common in the Hebrew scriptures, early Judaism, and the New Testament;28 in Matt it becomes a particularly common motif (5:22, 7:19, 13.40.42.50, 18:8–9, 25:41).29 Besides the metaphor of judgment, the image of fire fits well within the Elijahtypology in 1 Kgs 18:38; 2 Kgs 1:10–12, 2:5 and especially Sir 48:1–3. Nevertheless, it remains an open question as to whether the Baptist himself developed the Elijah-typology or it was introduced by later tradition (e.g., Mark 9:12–13; Luke 1:17). In the Sayings Source the parallel John//Elijah is absent. The Baptist announces the coming of a »more powerful« one after him who would carry out a baptism with fire. It is the subject of lively debates whether the »more powerful« one is a reference to God himself or to another eschatological figure executing judgement in the name of God. »The strong one« is a common title for God himself (e.g., Job 9:19; Isa 49:26, 60:16), and the metaphors of threshing, winnowing, and burning the chaff are images of God’s judgement (Isa 27:12–13; Jer 13:24, 15:7; Mal 3:19). Nevertheless, Q does not mention »the strong one« but the »more powerful« one and additionally, the anthropomorphism of carrying his sandals hardly can be used in connection with God himself.30 In early Judaism the expectation was widespread that in eschatological times a salvific figure appointed by God would carry out judgment in God’s name. In Dan 7:13–14; 1 En. 62:5, 69:27–29; 4 Ezra 13:3–13.25–40 this function of the eschatological judge is carried out by the Son of Man (see below, Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man). It is quite probable that the Baptist shared such expectations. A certain probability even indicates that John himself identified the »more powerful« one with the Son of Man. Certainly Jesus used this concept to refer to the coming Son of Man as eschatological judge, as the two independent but corresponding traditions in Q 12:8–9//Mark 8:38 demonstrate; both texts indicate that Jesus did not identify himself with the coming Son of Man.31 If the Baptist shared the opinion 28 Deut 4:24; Isa 66:16; Jer 21:12; Joel 2:3; Nah 1:6; Zeph 1:18, 3:8; Dan 7:10; Jub. 1:23; 1QS 4:21; Mark 9:43.48; John 15:6; 1 Cor 3:15; 2 Thess 1:8; Heb 12:26–29; Jude 1:7; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 18:8, 20:9. 29 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 50. 30 This is the argument of Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 189; pace Backhaus, Art. Täufer, 249, who feels it is most probably YHWH himself who is the expected baptist of fire. 31 Becker, Jesus, 252 (»daß Jesus mit dem Menschensohn eine andere Person als sich selbst gemeint hat«). For a detailed discussion see Tiwald, Logienquelle, 151–155.

54

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

that the »more powerful« one coming after him was the Son of Man, then Jesus simply adopted this idea from the Baptist. Nevertheless, Jesus inserts between the Baptist’s present ministry and the future coming of the Son of Man his own announcement of God’s reign and the salvation of the lost children of Israel. By doing so, he brings his own ministry into close connection with the coming judgement of the Son of Man, as Q 12:8–9//Mark 8:38 demonstrate: whoever does not believe Jesus’ words will be rejected by the Son of Man. This certainly suggests a pre-Easter basis for the future identification of Jesus with the eschatological Son of Man, as we have it in Q 11:30, 12:40, 17:24. This identification of Jesus with the Son of Man (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4) is a missing link in the trajectory from early Jewish expectations to early Christology. It remains a fiercely debated issue as to whether John had only announced a »baptist in fire« or a »baptist in fire and holy spirit«. D. Zeller supports the opinion that John only expected the »baptist in fire« as a sign of eschatological judgment.32 Nevertheless, many traditions in the Jewish Bible and in early Judaism expected the gift of a holy spirit in the end time (Ezek 36:25–27; Joel 3:1–5; Jub. 1:23; 1QS 4:21). In Ezek and 1QS we already have a connection between purification with water and sending of the holy spirit. It is most likely that not only Q but even the historical baptist expected a baptism »in fire and holy spirit«. This idea is reinforced by the narrative arc of John’s announcement: the metaphor of »gathering the wheat into his granary« includes a perspective of hope and salvation. Apparently a salvific restitution of Israel was also expected by the baptist and not only by Jesus!33 John’s baptism can therefore already be seen as a »sacrament of forgiveness«.34 The »forgiveness of sins« in connection with John’s baptisms is mentioned explicitly in Mark 1:4 // Luke 3:3. Only Matt 3:1–2 omits »for the forgiveness of sins« in John’s baptism and inserts it in Matt 26:28 as description of Jesus’ blood. Depicting John’s baptism as forgiving sins stands in counter-tendency35 to early Christian theology and thus was surely not a Christian invention. Intriguingly enough, Josephus Ant. 18:117 also mentions the remission of sins in John’s baptism, even though he criticises such ideas as a misunderstanding: John’s baptism would not have been an atonement for sins (μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει) »but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness« (ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης). This description offers a certain similarity to Essene purity conceptions—it is likely that Josephus, stemming from a priestly family, was here following his own projections.36 Nevertheless, Josephus’ text contains remarkable

32 33 34 35 36

Zeller, Logienquelle, 20. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 188. Cf. ibid. 191. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 190. Cf. the criteria in Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 118. If Josephus favours one group in early Judaism then it is the Essenes (B.J. 2:119–161; Ant. 15:371–379; 18:17). The common theory that Josephus was closest to the Pharisees—referring to Vita 12—draws only on the political orientation of Pharisees as in opposition to Romans (as Josephus was himself) but not on an alignment of the author to this group. Cf. Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 183–184.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

55

parallels to the description of the baptist’s announcements in Q: remission of sins (even if contested by Josephus) by baptism and the performance of righteous deeds. Remarkably enough, John, as the son of a priestly family (cf. Luke 1:5), invented a ritual to obtain atonement for sins different to that of temple practices. Yet, the Baptist remains in line with a broad stream of early Jewish critique of the temple in Jerusalem:37 The moral impurity of temple priests is criticised in T. Mos. 5:5 and 6:1:81, also in Jub. 23:21b; Pss. Sol. 2:3–5; B.J. 4:323; 2 Bar. 10:18 and later in Tg. Isa. 28:1. For the Qumran community the temple in Jerusalem was defiled. They and other circles in early Judaism believed in a heavenly temple that already existed and that was expected to replace the defiled temple in Jerusalem in the end times (4Q174; Jub. 1:29; 4 Ezra 10:46–55 and 1 En. 90:28–29). As in Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Jer 7:4, the baptist criticises an understanding of automatic salvation by the mere fulfilment of rituals—apparently in the same way as he criticises an understanding of automatic salvation by reliance on descendance from Abraham. Neither having Abraham as forefather nor offering sacrifices in the temple is generally abrogated by John, but he questions a confident security without ethical consequences. His critique of the temple was later adopted by Jesus (see below, III: Q 13:34–35)—also without a general abrogation but questioning ritual practices without ethical results.

Narrative Unit 2: The Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22; 4:1–13.16) The Baptism of Jesus (Q 3:21–22) … Jesus … baptized, heaven opened … Son …

21

22

and … the spirit … upon him …

With Narrative Unit 2 the focus shifts from John to Jesus. It is a matter of debate whether Q contained a narration of Jesus’ baptism. By means of textual analysis, one can detect some minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against the text of Mark, e.g., the use of ἀνοίγω (»to open«, Matt 3:16 // Luke 3:21) instead of σχίζω (»to split open«, Mark 1:10). Nevertheless, one could argue that such improvements were made independently by the two later evangelists.38 By means of narratology, one can assume that there existed in Q a narratological link between the baptist’s sermon and the temptations of Jesus. The narrative arc of Q portrays Jesus as the »more powerful« bearer of holy spirit announced by the baptist. Q 4:1 certainly alludes to this as Jesus is led into the wilderness »by the spirit«. Probably a small 37 Cf. Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 271–276. 38 So Fleddermann, Q, 233–235, who maintains that Q had no baptism narrative. Zeller, Logienquelle, 21, also deals without this scene. Arguments in favour for a note on Jesus’ baptism are collected by Labahn, Gekommene, 140–145, with a survey of relevant literature.

56

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

note in the Sayings Source mentioned Jesus’ baptism and his reception of God’s sprit. The Temptations of Jesus (Q 4:1–13) And Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the spirit 2 to be tested by the devil. And he ate nothing for forty days, … he became hungry. 3 And the devil told him: If you are God’s Son, tell these stones to become bread. 4 But Jesus answered him: It is written: Man does not live by bread alone (Deut 8:3). 9 The devil took him along to Jerusalem and put him on the pinnacle of the temple and told him: If you are God’s Son, throw yourself down. 10 For it is written: He will command his angels about you 11 and on their hands they will carry you, so that you do not strike your foot against a stone (Ps 91:11–12). 12 But Jesus answered and said to him: It is written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test (Deut 6:16). 5 And the devil took him along to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour 6 and told him: All these I will give you 7 if you worship me. 8 But Jesus answered and said to him: It is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him (Deut 6:13a = 10:20a). 13 Then the devil left him. 1

With the temptation story we are back again on safe Q-ground.39 Only the sequence of the second and third temptation diverges in Matthew and Luke. Apparently Luke—because of his Jerusalem-centrism—wanted to end the temptations in the holy city.40 Intriguingly enough, the parallel in Mark 1:12–13 also tells us that Jesus was led in the wilderness by the spirit, stayed there for forty days, and was tempted by Satan. The Sayings Source has narratively enhanced such memories by depicting three temptations by the devil and three rejections by Jesus. Indeed, this is one of the few traditions where Q is narratologically more detailed than Mark! Geographically, the formulation that Jesus was »led up« into the wilderness seems curious—given the fact that John’s ministry itself is depicted as in the wilderness (at least in Q 7:24; Q 3:3 only talks about »all the region of the Jordan«). Seen from the fertile Galilee (Q 7:24), John’s activity indeed was in the wilderness—the river Jordan only allows for a small strip of vegetation (cf. the picture of the reed in Q 7:24) in the midst of the desert. The river Jordan cuts a deep valley into the landscape. If one wants to leave

39 Cf. here and in the following Tuckett, Sayings, 153–181. 40 Luz, Matthäus I, 220: »Hier ist die Überlegung viel wahrscheinlicher, daß Lk die Reihe der Versuchungen in Jerusalem enden lassen wollte.« Concerning Luke’s Jerusalem-centrism, see Wasserberg, Mitte, 119–123 and 361. For Luke Jerusalem is the only centre of the postEaster Jesus-movement (Acts 1:4). In concentric circles Jesus’s message spreads over the whole world, starting »in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth« (Acts 1:8). See also Luke 9:31.51, 13:33, 24:33.47.52; Acts 1:4.8, 5:28, 6:7, 8:1.14.27.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

57

the river, one has to go up into the waterless wilderness, where Jesus’ temptation story is located. In the Jewish Bible, the desert/wilderness is a place to experience God’s presence (Exod 3:1–4; 17; 19) but likewise a place of God’s absence (Deut 8:15; Lev 16:10; cf. Q 11:24).41 Both topoi converge in the picture that Jesus is tested in a place so crucial for Israel’s history. In Jesus the whole fate of Israel is fulfilled. The forty days of fasting draws on the forty years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (cf. already Heb 3:5–10).42 Israel, »God’s son« called from Egypt (Hos 11:1), has failed in the desert, while Jesus, the »son of God« (Q 4:9), passes the test by Satan. The wilderness thus becomes a picture of an enhanced repetition of God’s history with Israel—a metaphor common in early Judaism. The Qumran CD 6:5 mentions an exodus from the land of Judah to the land of Damascus as a parallel to Amos 5:27, thus justifying the Qumran settlement in the desert.43 For the time of Cuspius Fadus (44–46 CE), Josephus (Ant. 20:97) mentions a prophet named Theudas (cf. Acts 5:36–37, here with incorrect chronology), who proclaims that he will part the waters of the river Jordan and lead Israel back into the desert as some sort of reversal of Joshua’s conquest of the land (Josh 3). Perhaps the baptist also deliberately placed his ministry in the desert (cf. Q 7:24!) as a sign of restitution for Israel’s salvation history. In early Judaism, the desert was a symbol of penitence and an eschatological new beginning!44 The strong ties with the traditions of the Jewish people not only emerge in this imagery, but also in the quotations of Israel’s Holy Scriptures. Jesus refutes all three temptations by quoting the book of Deuteronomy—which can be seen as the absolute climax and summary of the Torah.45 Four times the traditional quotation formula is repeated here: γέγραπται, »it is written«, followed by the scriptural quotation. The Greek γέγραπται here and in LXX renders the Hebrew ‫תוּב‬, katuv, which is also used repeatedly in the NT (in Q we additionally have 7:26; see below, IV: Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q). It becomes clear that Q is rooted unreservedly in the traditions of Israel’s salvation history. Jesus naturally quotes these traditions and thereby refuses the temptations of the devil and refutes his misuse of Scripture (cf. verses 10–11). Jesus is depicted as the »true Israelite« who fulfils the Torah in an exemplarily way.46 Historically, it seems quite plausible—given the independent parallels in Q and Mark—that Jesus did not start his own ministry immediately after his baptism but

41 Cf. Bork, Raumsemantik, 154–156 and 248, but also Labahn, Gekommene, 466–473. 42 See the list with parallels and correspondences between Deut 8LXX and Q 4 in Labahn, Gekommene, 468. 43 Cf. Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, 280. 44 Bovon, Lukas I, 376: »Symbolik der Wüste als Ort der Buße und des eschatologischen Neuanfangs«. The tension between the wilderness as the location of demons in contrast to the place of a spiritual new beginning is highlighted by Labahn, Gekommene, 469–470. 45 Cf. Braulik, Deuteronomium, 14–15, who underscores the dominant presence of Deut in the prayer and recitation technique in Israel. 46 Hieke, Schriftgelehrsamkeit, 66: In consequence, the Q-missionaries depict »Jesu Verhalten und die eigene Lehre und Praxis als vollkommen übereinstimmend mit dem Hauptgebot der Tora …« (ibid.).

58

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

underwent a period of self-discovery in the desert. Flavius Josephus describes how he spent three years in the wilderness with a hermit called Banus before he started his political career (πολιτεύεσθαι). In a certain similarity to the baptist, Banus »used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently« (Vita 11). It seems quite plausible that Jesus was not only baptized by John but remained his disciple for some time.47 If so, then Jesus’ time in the desert might have been a time of new orientation leading to Jesus’ own ministry separated from the baptist. Jesus’ new orientation was thus depicted with the metaphor of »temptations«. Most likely, Jesus’ new orientation was prompted by a critical key experience (see below, IV: Excursus 1). Such a key experience led to Jesus’ conviction that the reign of God had already come and that the reign of Satan now is defeated (cf. Q 10:9, 11:20.21–22, 16:16; Mark 3:27; John 12:31–32, 16:11; see below at Q 10:9). For Jesus this meant that he replaced the baptist’s expectation of a fire judgement with the hope for restitution in the reign of God.48 Jesus’ conviction that the reign of Satan is now broken and that the reign of God is imminent (cf. Q 10:21–23) is metaphorically condensed into the picture of Jesus’ temptation in the desert and his victory over Satan—a tradition preserved in both Q and Mark. Jesus’ victory over Satan is now portrayed in mythological-archetypical pictures. The three primaeval temptations of owning possessions (turning stones into bread), being admired (after the miracle by jumping from the temple’s pinnacle49), and having power (ruling over all the kingdoms) are portrayed here.50 The will to possessions—sexuality—power was defined by modern psychoanalysis (e.g., Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler). All three reflect the basic needs of humans that have to be lived out in a responsible way. Thus, Philo (Mos. 1.28–33) underscores that Moses resisted the temptations of gluttony, fornication, and luxury. Not only the topics of the temptations mentioned here but also the number three underscores the archetypical content of this depiction: in antiquity the triple repetition indicates that this action is complete and comprehensive.51 In all relevant fields Jesus can defeat Satan. The depiction that Jesus had not had anything to eat or drink for forty days is an allusion to Exod 34:28, where it is said that Moses on Sinai »for forty days and forty nights did not eat bread or drink water«. Theologically, the episode offers proof that Jesus indeed is God’s trusted envoy, the true »Son of God«. This title is used in the devil’s address to Jesus in Q 4:3 and 4:9 and also occurs in Q 10:22 (here in the absolute formulation »the Son«). Even if this title here—other than Q 10:22—does not explicitly unfold its full theological implications, it nevertheless underscores the importance of this pericope. Already in Q—and not only

47 Cf. the discussion in Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 202. 48 Cf. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 197 (»die Gerichtsangst des Täufers durch die Heilsgewissheit seiner [sc. Jesu] Verkündigung«). 49 See the interpretation of Luz, Matthäus I, 226. 50 Thus the interesting psychoanalytic access by Zulehner, Ordenschristen, 29–41, esp. 37. 51 Delling, Art. τρεῖς, 221.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

59

in Mark 1:11—the narration of Jesus’ baptism and temptations was linked to Jesus’ unique relationship to God through use of the expression »Son of God«. Nazara (Q 4:16) 16

… Nazara …

Unfortunately we cannot reconstruct the Q-text in this pericope. Beyond doubt the strange Nazara (Ναζαρά) is transmitted by both Matt 4:13 and Luke 4:16. The word is otherwise not to be found in the NT and stems from Q. Normally, Jesus’ homevillage is rendered as Ναζαρέτ, Nazaret (Mark 1:9; Matt 2:23; John 1:45–46) or Ναζαρέθ, Nazareth (Matt 21:11; Luke 1:26, 2:4.39.51; Acts 10:38).52 The short reference to Jesus’ home-village seems unimportant but its true value lies in the fact that Q here offers »[s]ome form of transitional phrase«53 necessary for narrative progress. The change of Jesus’ location underscores his theological re-positioning: he not only leaves the wilderness but also the relentless judgement metaphorology of the baptist by returning to the fertile Galilee. Unlike the baptist, who had to be visited by people coming to him (cf. Q 7:24), Jesus now like a good shepherd goes in search of the lost sheep, as Q 15:4–7 describes it.

Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49) Jesus’ programmatic address is the very text that was later transformed by Matthew into his »Sermon on the Mount«. This famous text—without doubt part of word literature and one of the most well-known parts of the Bible—originated in Q! According to Luke 6:17, Jesus gave this address ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ, »on a level place«, which led to the expression »Sermon on the Plain«. Where exactly Q locates this address remains open.54 Possibly the mention of Nazara in Q 4:16 offers the location for this speech. Nevertheless it seems more plausible that the mention of Nazara concluded the cycle of Jesus’ baptism by his return in his home-village. Most likely, the programmatic address in Q remained without a location—thus being »programmatic« and not bound to a particular place. Independently, Matthew and Luke both understood this text as a central message and formed from this material the centre-pieces of their respective gospels.55 52 Cf. Kloppenborg, Bethsaida, 64 (especially note 7). Pace Labahn, Gekommene, 477–480, who remains sceptical that this was a Q-tradition. 53 Kloppenborg, Parallels, 22. Labahn, Gekommene, 480, judges it more likely that there was a narrative gap. 54 Kosch, Tora, 222–231, and Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, 68, discuss whether the reference to a mountain might have been part of Q. Nevertheless, it seems more likely that this is part of the Matthean redaction, in which Jesus is portrayed as the new Moses who gives his programmatic address on a mountain in analogy to the announcement of Law at Sinai. 55 Ebner, Q, 86, concludes that Q contains here »hochkarätiges und für das Christentum profilbildendes Gut …«

60

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Beatitudes (Q 6:20–23) And raising his eyes to his disciples he said: Blessed are the poor, for God’s reign is for you. 21 Blessed are those, who hunger, for you will be filled. Blessed are those, who weep, for you will be consoled (Isa 61:1–2). 22 Blessed are you when they insult and persecute you, and say every kind of evil against you because of the Son of Man. 23 Be glad and exult, for vast is your reward in heaven. For this is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 20

The introduction to the programmatic address is lyrical. The genre adopted here is the macarism, which in the Ancient Near-East was a fixed manner of speaking. In the Hebrew Bible macarisms normally consist of an introductory »blessed«, ‫י‬, ’ašre, which is rendered in the LXX with μακάριος, makarios (in the plural μακάριοι, makarioi).56 Then there follows the identity of the blessed person(s) and a reason in the form of a salvific promise.57. Macarisms are present in the Jewish Scriptures and in early Jewish literature in various contexts. In sapiential texts they refer to the consequences of actions: whoever does good will be blessed by God (cf. Ps 1:1–6; Sir 14:1–2.20–27, 25:8–9). They thus focus on the present fate and status of people in society. In apocalyptic contexts macarisms refer to eschatological fate and underscore the idea that God at the end of time will provide a reversal of social and political power by rewarding the poor and oppressed (cf. 1 En. 58:2–3). This latter view is especially dominant in Q in God’s advocacy for the poor, who are the primary heirs of his reign (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1: God’s Advocacy for the Poor). It is not surprising that Jesus’ programmatic address begins with the poor, the hungry, and those who weep. Unlike in Matt 5:3–12 where there are eight beatitudes, in Luke 6:20–23 there are only four, which seems to reflect the text of the Sayings Source. It is noteworthy that the first three beatitudes start with the Greek letter pi (πτωχοί, ptochoi, »poor«—πεινῶντες, peinōntes, »hungry«—πενθοῦντες, penthountes, »weeping«). The alliterative and stichometric rhythm was already present in Q. In the fourth beatitude the rhythm changes. Normally, the first three beatitudes are attributed to Jesus himself: he promises to those in need (poor—hungry—weeping) an eschatological reversal of their fates.58 The fourth beatitude is inspired by the Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2: The »Violent Fate of Prophets«), which interprets the failure of Q-missionaries and thus represents the post-Easter context of the Qcommunity.

56 Steinberg, Art. Seligpreisung (AT), WiBiLex. 57 Konradt, Matthäus, 67: »kurze Nennung der glückselig zu Preisenden + Begründung in Form einer Heilsverheißung.« 58 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 67.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

61

Those mentioned in the first three beatitudes are really poor and hungry—unlike in the spiritualization of Matt 5:3.6, where the poor are »poor in spirit« and the hungry are »those who hunger and thirst for righteousness«. Nevertheless, even in Q the undertone »humble« is present in the word »poor«—both expressions were closely linked in early Judaism (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1: God’s Advocacy for the Poor). This fits well with the »children« (νήπιοι) in Q 10:21, who are honoured with God’s special revelation in contrast to the »sages and the learned«. Childlike confidence in God’s providence is found repeatedly in Q, e.g., in the brazen ravens and carefree lilies (Q 12:22b–31). The beatitude for the »gentle« (πραεῖς) was introduced only later by Matt 5:5, but the same topic is already covered by the aspects of peacefulness and anti-violence in Q (cf. the following verse Q 6:27–28). Love Your Enemies & Renounce Violence (Q 6:27–28.35cd.29–30) Love your enemies 28 and pray for those persecuting you, 35c.d so that you may become sons of your Father, for he raises his sun on the bad and the good and rains on the just and unjust. 29 The one who slaps you on the cheek, offer him the other as well; and to the person wanting to take you to court and get your shirt, turn over to him the coat as well. Mt 5:41 And the one who conscripts you for one mile, go with him a second. 30 To the one who asks of you, give; and from the one who borrows, do not ask back what is yours.

27

Key-word association to the insulted and persecuted in the fourth beatitude leads the text on to loving enemies and renouncing violence. This pericope—without parallel in the Gospel of Mark—became identified as one of the most prominent characteristics of Christianity. While it is surely correct that core values of Jesus’ ethics can been found in these lines, it is incorrect to claim that this text forms a differentia specifica of Christianity, as such concepts were not unknown in early Judaism (see below). The traditions behind these lines can be traced back to the historical Jesus himself.59 The Sayings Source repeatedly mentions love of enemies and non-violence. In the mission instructions, Q-missionaries are sent »like sheep among wolves« (Q 10:3) and told not to carry a stick (Q 10:4), which in antiquity primarily served as a weapon and not as a walking-aid. Non-violence and peacefulness became emblematic identity-markers of the early Jesus movement. This reflects the commonly shared apocalyptic opinion that at the end of times and in the midst of eschatological chaos and war, God’s eschatological peace will flourish (see below, IV: Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q). In many groups of early Judaism this eschatological peace only pertained to supporters of one’s own group (cf. Tob 4:13; Sir 13:15–118; Jub. 36:4.8, 46:1; CD 6:20–21; see below, IV: Excursus 4.3).60 Unlike these conceptions,

59 In this sense: Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 255–256, with additional references to the love of enemies by Greek authors. 60 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 97.

62

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Jesus’ optimism includes the forgiveness of moral (cf. Q 7:34; 15:4–10) and ritual (cf. Q 7:22–23) impurity but is also directed towards enemies. Thus Jesus sets up framework unlike that of the exclusivism of the Qumran community, e.g., 1QS 1:9–10: »He is to teach them both to love all the Children of Light—each commensurate with his rightful place in the council of God—and to hate all the Children of Darkness, each commensurate with his guilt« (cf. also 1QS 1:3–4; 9:21–23). The driving idea behind Jesus’ inclusive approach is the experience of God as a loving father, who »raises his sun on the bad and on the good« and offers salvific mercy to all his children at the beginning of his reign (see below, IV: Excursus 1). Nevertheless, in early Judaism we have similar concepts that advocate loving one’s enemies (e.g. Philo, Virt. 116–118; QE 2:11; T. Sim. 4:4; T. Zeb. 8:4–6; T. Jos. 17).61 Already in the Jewish Scriptures there are similar concepts (e.g., Exod 23:4–5; Lev 19:17–18; Prov 24:27, 25:21–22). The idea that »the LORD is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works« is found in Ps 145:9. A parallel to the Q-imagery of God »raising his sun on the bad and on the good« can be found in Seneca Ben. 4.26.1: »›If,‹ he said, ›you wish to imitate the gods, then bestow benefits also upon the ungrateful; for the sun also rises upon the wicked and the seas are open even to pirates.‹«62 Similar traditions are found in Rom 12:19–21.63 One could conclude that Jesus’ idea of loving one’s enemies was derived from his early Jewish context but was reinforced and realigned by his own theology. Slapping someone’s cheek was considered the ultimate insult (Job 16:10; Lam 3:30; 1 Kgs 22:24; 1 Chr 18:23; see also Isa 50:6–7).64 The coat being carried over a slight shirt was the penultimate possession that could be robbed before one was stripped naked. Possessionless day-labourers at least needed a coat to cover themselves during the night (Exod 22:25–26; Deut 24:12–13). Slapping someone’s cheek and taking someone’s coat were the ultimate means of humiliation and deprivation. Not resisting either of them has its background in the imminent reign of God that would restore justice. Additionally, not resisting anticipates the expected counterreality of the coming basileia. Non-violence becomes an emblematic sign of the expected counter-society of God, where there is no place for injustice.65 By no means can Jesus’ non-violence be understood as »the ethics of slaves« (»Sklavenmoral«), as F. Nietzsche criticised it. It is not the submissive acceptance of unchangeable structures, but an emblematic action of creative protest against structures of suppression and injustice as they were often present in the Palestine of the time. Suppression by Roman overlords or by Jewish collaborators was a common

61 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 97. T. 12 Patr. stems from early Judaism but was reworked by Christians. It is not always possible to separate the original writing from later interpolations. 62 Translation MT: »Si deos« inquit »imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia; nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent maria.« 63 Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung, 55–85, has shown how the traditions of loving one’s enemies and non-violence were also adopted in other circles of early Christianity. 64 Concerning the motives behind slapping someone’s cheek and stealing someone’s coat, see Scherer, Königsvolk, 337–340. 65 Lohfink, Jesus, 181, mentions the »Kontrastgesellschaft Gottes«.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

63

occurrence and reflects local culture and historical reminiscences in Q.66 This becomes clear with the mention of »conscripting you for a mile«. The verb used here is ἀγγαρεύω, angareuō, which characterises a forced recruitment to compulsory labour (cf. Matt 27:32 // Mark 15:21 in compelling Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus’ cross). Another perspective is now opened with verse 30. Until now the focus was on the poor and the oppressed (beatitudes, slapping in the face, taking a coat, compulsory labour). Now the subjects are groups like lenders and borrowers. Nevertheless, it remains the same general principle: renouncing vengeance (in contrast to, e.g., Sir 20:15). For Luke this verse later became important for his ethics of solidarity with the poor—a feature typical for his gospel.67 Yet in Q the scope is still directed on an emblematic lifestyle in anticipation of God’s reign. The Golden Rule & Being Full of Mercy (Q 6:31–32.34.36) And the way you want people to treat you, that is how you should treat them. If you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors do the same? 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what reward do you have? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 36 Be full of mercy, just as your Father is full of mercy. 31 32

Unlike the topic of loving one’s enemy, the »Golden Rule« was widespread in antiquity—in its positive (to treat others as one would like to be treated) as well as its negative (not to treat others as one would not like to be treated) formulation.68 In early Jewish literature this concept is present in Tob 4:15; T. Zeb. 5:3; T. Naph. 1:6; Let. Aris. 207; Philo Hypoth. (= Eusebius PraepEv) 8:7:6. Later, the Rabbis saw in the Golden Rule »the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation« (b. Šabb. 31a). In the Golden Rule (unlike in Love Your Enemies) the idea of reciprocity is generally given. Nevertheless, this is not the main focus for Q. By contextualising the Golden Rule with Love Your Enemies and the subsequent Not Judging, it becomes perfectly clear that the focus here is not on speculations about profiting from one’s own beneficence. Irrespective of how the other party acts, one should act according to one’s own conceptions of correctness.69 What is required here is not calculation but a general attitude to Love of Your Neighbour as Much as Yourself. A connection between the Golden Rule and the rule to Love Your Neighbour as Much as Yourself is found in: Lev 19:18; Sir 31:15; Did. 1:2. The motif of imitating God’s mercy is found in Let. Aris. 207–210, also in connection with a special form of the Golden Rule: 66 Concerning socio-political structures in Palestine at the time of Jesus, see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 237–256. 67 Cf. Tuckett, Luke, 95, who calls Luke’s Gospel »the social gospel, with a bias towards the poor«. See also Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 195–202, and Klauck, Armut, 160. 68 See the overview by Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 257–258. 69 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 122.

64

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source The king received the answer with great delight and looking [at another] said, ›What is the teaching of wisdom?‹ And the other replied, ›As you wish that no evil should befall you, but to be a partaker of all good things, so you should act on the same principle towards your subjects and offenders, and you should mildly admonish the noble and good. For God draws all men [to Himself] by his benignity.‹ 208 The king praised him and asked the next in order How he could be the friend of men? And he replied, ›By observing that the human race increases and is born with much trouble and great suffering: wherefore you must not lightly punish or inflict torments upon them, since you know that the life of men is made up of pains and penalties. For if you understood everything you would be filled with pity, for God also is pitiful.‹ … 210 Having signified his approval, the king said to another ›What is the true mark of piety?‹ And he replied, ›To perceive that God constantly works in the Universe and knows all things, and no man who acts unjustly and works wickedness can escape His notice. As God is the benefactor of the whole world, so you, too, must imitate Him and be void of offence.‹

207

Here there is a combination of the Golden Rule, God as creator who loves his creation, and God’s mercy. This triple statement offers the justification, why also humans have to act likewise. The same triple statement can be found in Q 6: The Golden Rule (v 31)—God as creator, who »raises his sun on the bad and the good« (v 35)— imitating God’s mercy (v 36). The question »Do not even the Gentiles do the same?« is derived from an innerJewish perspective. Similarly, in Q 12:30 (»For the Gentiles seek all these things«) non-Jews are used as a negative contrast to Jews, and Q 7:9 (»I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith«) demonstrates that the righteous behaviour of Gentiles is considered an unexpected exception in the eyes of observant Jews.70 Here it becomes clear that Q still is completely embedded in Jewish thought and argues from an inner-Jewish perspective. Not Judging (Q 6:37–38) Do not pass judgment, so you are not judged. For with the judgment with which you pass judgment, you will be judged 38 and with the measurement you use to measure out, it will be measured out to you. 37

This pericope pursues the ideas of the Golden Rule and juxtaposes it to the ius talionis (cf. Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:19–20; Deut 19:21; Jub. 4:31–32; 11Q19 61:12). The context (»so you are not judged«) makes clear that it is not worldly but divine judgement that provides the scope of this pericope: as in the Beatitudes, the passivum divinum is used to express God’s action. The passivum divinum avoids the direct naming of God out of respect. In Jas 4:11–12 similar traditions have survived, underscoring that only God has the right to judge (see also T. Gad 4:2–3). As a further re-reading of Q’s concepts, Matt 5:38 formulates his anti-theses, juxtaposing the ius talionis to the Love of Enemies. This combination of the motifs to be merciful and God as creator loving his creatures can also be found in the Lord’s prayer (Q 11:2–4; further in Q 17:3–4). Thus we can

70 See Arnal, Q, 138.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

65

speak of a common pattern in the Sayings Source. The basic idea behind this goes back to Jesus himself. His practice of forgiving sinners and including the marginalised is based on his belief that in the approaching eschaton God would restore the sinless integrity of humankind (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4). Nevertheless, God’s gift of mercy and forgiveness must be handed on to one’s neighbour (cf. also the Sondergut-traditions in Matt 18:23–35 reflecting these ideas). A certain parallel to the logion on right measurements can be found in m. Soṭa 1:7: »In the measure that a person measures, so it is measured out to him.«71 The Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39)—The Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40) Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not superior to the teacher. It is enough for the disciple that he becomes like his teacher.

39 40

The position of both Q 6:39 and 40 is a matter of discussion: Hoffmann supposes that Luke 6:39 together with 6:40 interrupts the original Q context of Not Judging (Q 6:37–38) with The Speck and the Beam (Q 6:41–42), while Matt 7:1–5 has conserved the original Q sequence.72 Hoffmann rightly states that in this case Luke is led by strong redactional interests. Nevertheless, the exact position of both logia remains uncertain.73 Following this order apparently leads to a breach in the narrative arc. Nevertheless, this is not the case if one sees the connecting topic in the following: You are not better than the others—cf. v 36: being merciful because we all need God’s mercy; v 37: not judging because God will judge us; v 41–42: the speck and the beam. In this context the logia v 39: a blind person cannot lead another blind person, and v 40: the disciple is not superior to the teacher, fit perfectly. If the positioning really was as reconstructed here, the keyword-association between »blind« and »speck in the eye« certainly was operative. According to the Lukan order, both logia form a unity: if the disciple does not look at his teacher, he becomes a blind person leading other blind people. Jesus is here the teacher,74 as was the original intention of Q, whereas Matt 15:14 uses the word polemically against the Pharisees.75 The metaphor of the blind leading the blind was widespread in antiquity.76 Similar traditions can be found in Rom 2:19–22. The message »It is enough for the

71 Cf. Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 85–90. 72 Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 122. 73 Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 122. Likewise judges Fleddermann, Q, 295. Pace Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 319–321, and Scherer, Königsvolk, 319, who follow the Lukan order and see Matthean redaction. 74 Cf. Kern, Größenwahn, 68–75. 75 Cf. Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 327. 76 See the enumeration by Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 262: Xenophon Mem. 1,3,4; Dio Chrysostomos Or. 62,7; Philo Virt. 7; Sent. Pythagoreorum 40; Diogenes Laertius 5.82; Horaz, Ep. 1.1.1–7; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 11.235. See also Kern, Absturzgefahr, 61–67.

66

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

disciple that he becomes like his teacher« later becomes a common phrase for the Rabbis.77 The Speck and the Beam (Q 6:41–42) And why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but the beam in your own eye you overlook? 42 How can you say to your brother: Let me throw out the speck from your eye, and just look at the beam in your own eye? Hypocrite, first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck in your brother’s eye.

41

With this logion the motto of Q 6:39–40: giving mercy because one needs mercy is extended—now as polemics against hypocrisy and arrogance (and thus fitting well with the blind leading the blind).78 The comparison between speck and beam is hyperbolic and draws its persuasiveness from the contrast between the imaginable speck in an eye and the impossible picture of a complete beam sticking unnoticed in an eye.79 Even if the comparison seems somewhat exaggerated, it was nevertheless common in Rabbinic literature (e.g., b. B. Bat. 15b; b. ‘Arak. 16b). In these cases, the speck stands as metaphor for insignificance in comparison to the beam, e.g., b. Hor. 3b: a speck only forms a little part of a beam.80 In Gos. Thom. 26 there is a parallel without the idea of hypocrisy. The Tree is Known by its Fruit (Q 6:43–45) 43 No healthy tree bears rotten fruit, nor on the other hand does a decayed tree bear healthy fruit. 44 For from its fruit the tree is known. Are figs picked from thorns, or grapes from thistles? 45a The good person produces good things from the good treasure 45b and the evil person produces evil things from the evil treasure. 45c For from exuberance of heart the mouth speaks.

With this pericope the programmatic address approaches its finale. Like the epimythion in a fable, there follows instruction for concrete actions—here in a triple sequence, all suggesting following Jesus’ teachings. From its fruit the tree is known; thus, the disciples will have to bear fruit after hearing Jesus’ teachings. Hence, it is not enough only to say »Master, Master!« Everybody who not only hears Jesus’ words but also acts on them has built his house on solid rock.

77 For the Rabbinic references see Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 577–578, and Kern, Größenwahn, 68–75. 78 Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, Sehschwäche, 76–80. 79 See Leonhardt-Balzer, Sehschwäche, 77. 80 See Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 446–447.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

67

The imperative to bear fruit was already found in the baptist’s sermon (Q 3:8–9: »So produce fruit worthy of repentance … So every tree not bearing healthy fruit is to be chopped down and thrown on the fire«). The programmatic address here draws on the trajectory of the baptist’s sermon. Other than is sometimes speculated, these words do not primarily provide a sapiential rule for judging others,81 rather offers an eschatological appeal to bear »fruit worthy of repentance«. The imagery of »fruit« is derived from biblical contexts: the vine and the fig are metaphors for fertility and prosperity (1 Kgs 5:5; 1 Macc 14:9; see also Num 20:5; Deut 8:8). Thorns and thistles are typical for sterility (Isa 5:6, 7:23–25, 32:13).82 The structure83 is given in successive argumentation in five steps. Firstly, a negated antithetic parallelism (healthy tree—rotten fruit / decayed tree—healthy fruit). Secondly, an explanation (a tree is known from its fruit). Thirdly, another antithetic parallelism (thorns—figs / thistles—grapes), now formulated as a rhetorical question. Fourthly, in v 45ab an ethical actualisation is given—not without a certain breach in the metaphor. Fifthly, the concluding note in 45c—with an even bigger rupture in imagery. What had started as a call to perform deeds of justice now swerves off to instructions on speaking correctly. Nevertheless, v 46 connects both topics: not only speaking but acting. Perhaps this breach of imagery led Matthew (Matt 7:15–20) to place this logion in the context of detecting false prophets. But even in Q one has the impression that v 45c was a sapiential extempore of Qmissionaries (or the redactors of Q), who accentuated Q with sapiential aphorisms (e.g., Sir 27:6 and 21:26). Not Just Saying »Master, Master« (Q 6:46) 46

Why do you call me »Master! Master!« and do not do what I say?

Here too it becomes clear that the end of the programmatic address no longer renders Jesus’ message but offers a pedagogical resume of the Q-missionaries. The address »master« is the Greek κύριος, kyrios, and already has christological overtones.84 However, the kyrios-title still is somewhat fluid in Q and can be used for either God (4:8.12, 10:2.21, 13:35) or Jesus (6:46, 7:6, 9:59, 13:25). While Q 9:59 and 13:25 still reflect a general meaning, in Q 6:46 and 7:6 a certain confession of Jesus’ authority can be detected. Just as Jas 2:14–26 criticises belief without action, so too does the Sayings Source appeal for action from those who hear Jesus’ words. M. Wolter offers the interesting

81 Pace Scherer, Königsvolk, 354, who here sees a sapiential answer to the question »Wie erkenne ich, wonach ich einen Menschen bewerten kann?«. Similarly, Starnitzke, Früchten, 82. 82 Cf. Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 282f. 83 See here and in the following Starnitzke, Früchten, 81–91. 84 Labahn, Gekommene, 295 (»ein christologisch spezifischer Sinn der Herrenanrede anzunehmen«). Also Zeller, Logienquelle, 35.

68

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

proposal that hyper-Pauline misunderstandings of Rom 10:9.13 (salvation by confessing Jesus as Lord) might have triggered such a critique of belief without action. Built on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47–49) Everyone hearing my words and acting on them 48 is like a person who built his house on bedrock; and the rain poured down and the flash-floods came, and the winds blew and pounded that house, and it did not collapse for it was founded on bedrock. 49 And everyone who hears my words and does not act on them is like a person who built his house on the sand; and the rain poured down and the flash-floods came and the winds blew and battered that house, and promptly it collapsed, and its fall was great. 47

»Everyone hearing my words« sums up the complete programmatic address »and acting on them« provides a clear instruction to live according to the words heard. Acting on the message is a biblical topic: Jer 11:4–6; Ezek 33:31–32; Sir 3:1; T. Job 4:2; Jas 1:22–25; Rom 2:13).85 This is underscored with the imagery of building one’s house. Building on solid foundations was a common picture in early Judaism for righteous actions, as can be seen in 1 En.: 1 En. 94 6 Woe to those who build iniquity and violence, and lay deceit as a foundation; for quickly they will be overthrown, and they will have no peace. 7 Woe to those who build their houses with sin; for from all their foundations they will be overthrown, and by the sword they will fall. 1 En. 99 13 Woe to those who build their houses not with their own labors, and make the whole house of the stones and bricks of sin. Woe to you; you will have no peace. 14 Woe to those who reject the foundation and eternal inheritance of their fathers …

Intriguingly enough, 1 En. knows the metaphors of the overthrown foundations but also the rejected foundations and connects both with an unjust lifestyle.86 While Q only offers the imagery of overthrown foundations, Mark 12:10 mentions the rejected foundation(stone). Thus early Christian traditions were developed by adapting early Jewish templates. In the trajectory of the motif »solid foundation« are also 1 Cor 3:9–13 and Rom 15:20 (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim 2:19). The metaphor of construction is also found in 1 Peter 2:5. This pericope is divided in three parts: exposition (building), complication (stormy weather), end (resulting damages).87 It remains unclear whether detailed knowledge of construction experts lie behind these words, such as Jesus himself, whose job—according to Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt 13:55)—was as a τέκτων, tektōn, »build-

85 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 129. 86 See Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 420–422. 87 Cf., here and in what follows, Mayordomo, Neubauten, 92–99, especially 92: »Exposition (Bau), Komplikation (Unwetter) und Auflösung (Schadensaufnahme).«

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

69

er«.88 Nevertheless, such instructions were in line with common sense and did not need the special training of a builder. Seeing the foundation as Jesus’ words does not mean competition to the values of the Torah.89 U. Schnelle is only partly correct when he underscores that it is not the Torah but Jesus’ message and person that is the central soteriological message in Q.90 In early Judaism the expectation of an eschatological unveiling of the true meaning of Torah and God’s order of creation was widespread. In 1QpHab 2:1–10 we read: … [This passage refers to] the traitors with the Man of the 2 Lie, because they have not [obeyed the words of ] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of 3 God. It also refers to the trai[tors to the] New [Covenant], because they did not 4 believe in God's covenant [and desecrated] His holy name; 5 and finally, it refers [to the trai]tors in the Last 6 Days. They are the cru[el Israel]ites who will not believe 7 when they hear everything that is to c[ome upon] the latter generation that will be spoken by 8 the Priest in whose [heart] God has put [the ability] to explain all 9 the words of his servants the prophets, through [whom] God has foretold 10 everything that is to come upon his people and [the Gentiles]. …

1

The »traitors to the New Covenant« are those, who »have not obeyed the words of the Teacher of Righteousness«, because his words are »from the mouth of God«. Likewise we read in 1QpHab 8:1–3: This refers to all those who obey the Law among the Jews whom 2 God will rescue from the place of judgment, because of their suffering and their loyalty 3 to the Teacher of Righteousness. …

1

Loyalty to the Teacher of Righteousness becomes the exclusive criterion for salvation—similar to what the Sayings Source claims for Jesus. In early Judaism apocalyptic and sapiential patterns flowed into one another and led to expectations of »eschatological wisdom about God’s Law«.91 Thus, »Wisdom is mediated through an eschatological revelation possessed by the chosen. Outsiders are damned because they lack or reject the revelation that enables them properly to observe divine Law and to read the signs of the times.«92 This is expressed in 1 En. 104: 10 And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and copy the words of truth, and pervert many and lie and invent great fabrications, and write books in their own names. 11 Would that they would write all my words in truth {in their names}, and neither remove nor alter these words, but write in truth all that I testify to them. 12 And again I know a second mystery, that to the righteous and pious and wise my books will be given for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom.

Fortunately, in Q we only have apocalyptic patterns but the text as a whole is not an apocalyptic writing. Hence, Q does not sustain the concept of exclusive

88 Such ideas were also common imagery, as Mayordomo, Neubauten, 94, demonstrates with Vitruv’s De architectura, where the value of a solid foundation is underscored. 89 See the discussion in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 95–100. 90 Schnelle, Theologie, 379, by quoting Kosch. 91 Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 78. 92 Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 89.

70

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

eschatological wisdom that can only be discerned by a small group of the elect (see below, IV: Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q). In Q, exclusivity does not refer to a segregated knowledge but to the acceptance of Jesus’ message. This does not indicate a rupture with Judaism, as one can see in Qumran or in 1 Enoch. Nevertheless, such texts document a certain inner-Jewish rivalry. Q here takes its own place in the variegated nuances of the beliefs of early Judaism.

Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10) And it came to pass that, when he ended these sayings, he entered Capernaum. There came to him an officer exhorting him and saying: My boy is doing badly. And he said to him: Am I to come and heal him? 6b.c And the officer answering said: Master, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof; 7 but say a word, and let my boy be healed. 8 For I too am a person under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one: Go, and he goes, and to another: Come, and he comes, and to my slave: Do this, and he does it. 9 But Jesus, on hearing this, was amazed and said to those who followed: I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 1 3

Narrative Unit 4 opens up a new passage after the programmatic address of Jesus. The sequence is arranged deliberately. The officer serves as an example of what has just been taught: complete confidence in Jesus’ words. With this pericope Q offers biographical (the naming of Capernaum as a station in Jesus’ ministry) and narrative elements. It becomes clear that Q not only contained »sayings« but was on its way to a gospel narrative. Capernaum is known to us from traditions other than Q as the »operative basis«93 for Jesus (Mark 1:21, 2:1, 9:33, Matt 4:13, John 2:12). A certain plausibility of context suggests the authenticity of this note. When Capernaum is called a πόλις, polis, »city«, in Luke 4:31, this is certainly an exaggeration. Unlike the real poleis Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Magdala, public architecture like an agora, administrative buildings, gymnasion, theatre, amphitheatre, temples, city walls, etc. is missing.94 The toll station in Capernaum (Mark 2:14) was due to the border between the Galilee of Herod Antipas (of whose dominion Capernaum was part) and Philip’s tetrarchy on the other side of the river Jordan. This explains the presence of a ἑκατόνταρχος (literally: »leader of hundred«). This is normally translated as »centurion«, which is wrong, given that Herod Antipas had no Roman soldiers in his territory. Most likely, this »officer« was a commander of non-Jewish troops hired as mercenaries by the tetrarch (cf. Josephus Ant. 18:113–114).95 That this officer was a Gentile only

93 Ebner, Stadt, 15–16 (»operative Basis«). 94 Cf. Zangenberg, Galiläer, 146–147; Ebner, Stadt, 16 and 44–85; Kloppenborg, Q, 76–79. 95 Cf. Luz, Matthäus II, 14; Bovon, Lukas I, 348.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

71

becomes clear in the final verse (1 Macc 3:55 also mentions Jewish »leaders of hundred«). Luke 7:5 will transform this officer into a typical God-fearer (Gentiles sympathising with Judaism) and have him build the synagogue of Capernaum. This clearly is due to Luke’s sympathy for God-fearers; he depicts the officer of Capernaum parallel to Cornelius in Acts 10:1–2 (see also Acts 13:16.26.50, 16:14, 17:4.17, 18:7). There is an interesting non-synoptic parallel in John 4:46b–53, the Healing of the Son of a Royal Official. In this pericope there is a distance healing, unmistakably going back to the same kind of tradition as in the synoptic healing.96 According to Josephus Ant. 17:266.270.281 (here always in the plural and in the service of Herod the Great), the expression βασιλικός, »royal official«, means non-Jewish mercenaries. Herod Antipas—in whose service this officer stood—was only Tetrarch and not »royal« but is nevertheless called »king« in Mark 6:14. Thus, John 4 stands in the same flow of tradition as Q 7. Both texts serve as an example as to how Jesus traditions can be reforged but nevertheless contain a core of historical reminiscences. The officer contacts Jesus because his παῖς, pais (thus Matt 8:6), has become sick. The word παῖς covers a variety of meanings, including the »son« (thus the tradition in John 4:46: υἱός), »servant« (so Luke 7:3: δοῦλος, »slave«), and »boy« (an officer’s assistant). M. Konradt has underscores that Matt 17:18 uses παῖς as »son« and thus he opts in this pericope for the translation »son«.97 Nevertheless, Matt 17:18 assumes the perspective of the narrator, hence one better should translate παῖς as »boy« and not as »son« (from the perspective of the father, the son in Matt 17:15 is called υἱός ). Indeed, at no point in the NT does ὁ παῖς μου have the meaning of one’s own son. Thus one can assume that here the intending meaning is of »the officer’s boy« in the sense of a subordinate serving soldier. Konradt correctly observes that the response of Jesus ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν is not a statement (»I will come and heal him!«), but a question: »Am I to come and heal him?«98 Philologically, the personal pronoun of the first person singular placed first is unusual in Greek if it is not signalling special emphasis. As punctuation marks in the oldest manuscripts are missing, this was the standard way to express a question. Thus the response of Jesus expresses hesitation and distance: he as an observant and righteous Jew was not allowed to enter the house of a Gentile.99 Konradt speculates that Jesus’ hesitations were not yet part of Q, given the fact that this motif is missing in Luke and John and because such reserva-

96 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 269 (»unverkennbar auf denselben Ursprung zurück wie ihre synoptischen Seitenstücke«). 97 Konradt, Matthäus, 134. 98 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 134. 99 According to m. ’Ohal 18:7 the habitations of Gentiles are impure for Jews. This was valid for Jesus’ time too, as can be seen in Acts 10:28, where Peter declares: »You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him« (see also Acts 11:3). Similarly, in John 18:28 the members of the synedrion do not enter the Praetorium so as not to become impure.

72

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

tions also are present in Matt 15:21–28 (»I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel«). Nevertheless, Q was a Jewish document before Matthew, so it is more convincing that Luke and John have omitted Jesus’ hesitation so as not to offend their Gentile Christian readers. Furthermore, according to Luke and John, Jesus does not enter the officer’s house. Thus Luke 7:6 has to introduce a second group which complicates the story and is clearly secondary.100 Also in Q the officer knows about the inappropriateness of his request and that an observant Jew cannot enter his house. Only read against this backdrop does his answer »Master, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof« make sense. But according to the officer it is not even necessary that Jesus enters his house. His confidence is backed by his military experience: »For I too am a person under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one: Go, and he goes, and to another: Come, and he comes, and to my slave: Do this, and he does it.« The expression ἐξουσία, exousia, »authority to command«, is now transferred to Jesus’ authority over the demons that caused the sickness. With these words the officer not only recognises Jesus’ power to heal but also its universality.101 This is the difference to the faith of Israel. Verse 9b (»I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith«) does not devalue the belief of Israel rather is spoken from an inner-Jewish perspective: Jesus would not have expected such faith from a Gentile. Nevertheless, this verse also offers a prolepsis to the references to Jewish unbelief in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Q 10:13–15); in this pericope Jewish unbelief is similarly contrasted with Gentile willingness to repent (Tyre and Sidon). Within the narrative the officer’s belief is positioned as a test case for someone who really lives up to Jesus’ programmatic address. The officer resembles the wise builder who builds his house on solid rock. At the same time the positive and optimistic tones in Q prevail (at this point Q offers no negative example for those who build on sand). The subsequent juxtaposition of John and Jesus positively concludes the first narrative circle. The negative aspects are yet to come.

Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16) The final narrative unit of the first cycle concludes the topic The Main Actors: John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. Already from the very beginning it was clear that Jesus is greater than John. Nevertheless, the concluding unit of this chapter presents us with a classic synkrisis of both characters. After the ways of Jesus and John had gone in different directions following Jesus’ baptism, receiving of the spirit, and new orientation in the desert, here the two protagonists come together once again. Jesus is now portrayed as the expected »one to come«, concluding the narrative arc from Q 3:16 to Q 7:19.102

100 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 272. 101 Konradt, Matthäus, 136: »Universalität des von Gott durch Jesus gewirkten Heils«. 102 Ebner, Q, 89.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

73

John’s Inquiry about the One to Come (Q 7:18–19.22–23) And John, on hearing about all these things 19 and sending through his disciples, said to him: Are you the one to come, or are we to expect someone else? 22 And answering he said to them: Go report to John what you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk around, those with skin diseases are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor are given good news (Isa 26:19; 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 42:7.18; 61:1). 23 And blessed is whoever is not offended by me. 18

There is ongoing discussion as to whether this pericope reflects historical reminiscences of a group from the baptist coming to Jesus. K. Backhaus is surely correct when he opts against historicity and emphasises that this pericope has to be seen as a first attempt to integrate the baptist into the Jesus-story.103 This is also indicated by the scripture-based argumentation. In Jesus’ response we encounter a mixed quotation from different passages of Isaiah:104 raising the dead (Isa 26:19), healing the deaf, blind, and lame, and giving good news (εὐαγγελίζω, euangelizō) to the poor (Isa 61:1LXX), offering help for the afflicted (Isa 29:18–19, 35:5–6, 42:7.18)—see below IV: Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q. There are some hints that the expectation of an eschatological saviour was linked in early Judaism to texts from Isaiah, e.g., 11Q13, a text from Qumran dated by Maier to 75–25 BCE.105 Here Melchizedek is hailed as the coming messenger of good news and the eschatological figure of redemption with the words of Isa 61:1–2 and 52:7. In contrast, in the Qumran Hodayot it is the Teacher of Righteousness (the central figure behind the Qumran manuscripts), who is endowed with these attributes (1QH 23:15). Luke will subsequently enhance this text of Q to form one of his most central passages, Jesus’ inaugural sermon in his home-village of Nazareth (Luke 4:17–21).106 There is a certain possibility that Q and the Qumran community both quoted from florilegia with scriptural references to the coming redeemer. Thus one might talk about »ongoing interpretative trajectories in late Second Temple Judaism«107—as Brooke has put it in his exhaustive study »Isaiah 35 and 61 in 4Q521 and Q«. Hence, we read in 4Q521 Frg. 2 + 4, 2:1.7–8.12–13: [… For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah … 4 Will you not find the Lord in this, all those who hope in their heart? … 7 For He will honour the pious upon the th[ro]ne of His eternal kingdom, 8 setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down. (Ps 146:7–8)] … 12 For He shall heal the critically 1

103 Backhaus, Art. Täufer, 252: »Nicht ein letztes Wort des Täufers klingt hier an, sondern der erste, noch tastende Versuch, die Täuferfigur in die Jesustradition—die Jesusgestalt in die Täuferbotschaft—zu integrieren.« 104 Cf. Tiwald, Logienquelle, 160–161. 105 See Maier, Texte I, 361, but also Kühschelm, Antrittsrede, 167–168. 106 For further details see Kühschelm, Antrittsrede, passim. 107 Brooke, Traditions, 581. See also Hölscher, Matthäus, 96 and 101–102.

74

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted (Isa 61:1), 13 He shall sati[sfy the poo]r, He shall guide the uprooted, He shall make the hungry rich …

The text talks about the coming messiah, as 2:1 clarifies. In interrogative form the text addresses the hearers: »Will you not find the Lord in this, all those who hope in their heart?« This resembles the baptist’s question: »Are you the one to come, or are we to expect someone else?« As in Q 7:22–23 now the »signs of the coming redeemer« are enumerated. Here the healing of the sick and wounded is one of the central notices, as also in 2 Bar. 73:2.108 Maier dates the Qumran text to the first century BCE.109 The text is therefore of direct relevance for a comparison with the Sayings Source. A certain plausibility suggests that the Sayings Source here quotes early Jewish florilegia applicable to the redeemer. John’s question was surely not historical but based on the theological needs of Q to demonstrate that Jesus was the »one to come« (Q 3:16b), and not the baptist. John’s question concerning the »one to come« is derived from his theology. He announced the »one to come after me«, as »more powerful than me« and baptising with fire and holy spirit (see above, III: Q 3:16b–17 and below IV: Excursus 1.4). One has to know that Jesus himself also expected the »one to come« in the person of the Son of Man (see below, IV: Excursus 1). Thus, it is clear that Q 7:18–23 functions as an apophthegm without historical foundation but with the theological intention of clarifying the relationship between John and Jesus.110 One could even call it a haggadah, narrating stories for theological enlightenment. The aim of our pericope is to demonstrate that Jesus is the »one to come« announced by the baptist.111 This fits well with the observation that the summary in Q 7:22 strictly speaking is not a valid answer to the baptist’s question rather a theological interpretation based in the Q community.112 Q 7:22 deliberately reverses the sequence of Isa 61:1LXX (good news for the poor and healing the blind) putting the good news for the poor prominently in last place. Here Jesus’ beatitude for the poor has already become reality.113 Nevertheless, it also becomes clear that none of the miracles mentioned—except the healing of the officer’s servant—is narrated in Q. The focus of Q lies not on Jesus’ miracles but on his salvific

108 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 179. 109 Maier, Texte II, 683. 110 Hölscher, Matthäus, 94: »… sich in Q 7:18–23 eindeutig um ein Apophthegma, dessen erzählerische Pragmatik weniger auf Faktualität ausgerichtet sein dürfte, als vielmehr das Täufer-Jesus-Verhältnis zu reflektieren sucht.« Another narrative gap has been shown by Labahn, Gekommene, 311: »Ein offenes Problem ist, von woher der Täufer seine Frage an Jesus richtet.« We do not even know where the baptist is when he addresses his question to Jesus, as Q has no narration of John being arrested. Even here it becomes clear how fictional this story is. Only Matt 11:2 fills in this gap: John is arrested and sends his disciples from the prison to Jesus. 111 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 279. 112 Hölscher, Matthäus, 95: »nicht im eigentlichen Sinne als Antwort auf die Täuferanfrage fungiert, sondern als pointiertes Schlusswort eine Wirklichkeitsdeutung liefert.« 113 Hölscher, Matthäus, 103.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

75

words.114 Thus Jesus is not yet identified as the messiah as the Teacher of Righteousness was in 4Q521,115 rather as the expected Son of Man. This hits two birds with one stone, as Hölscher explains: firstly, the baptist’s idea is integrated into the message of Jesus, and secondly, Jesus is introduced as the coming Son of Man.116 At the end of Narrative Cycle 1, Jesus is portrayed as the expected eschatological judge announced by the baptist. Yet Jesus not only fulfils John’s eschatological expectations but also his own: he carries out what the announced reign of God hoped to establish: healing and the good news of redemption. The continuity of John and Jesus is finally settled by Q 16:16 and followed by Q 7:31–35 depicting both as children of wisdom. It is one of the major theological motifs of the Sayings Source to bring John and Jesus into alignment by integrating John within the plan of salvation through Jesus. John—More than a Prophet (Q 7:24–28) And when they had left, he began to talk to the crowds about John: What did you go out into the desert to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft robes? Look, those wearing soft robes are in kings’ houses. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, even more than a prophet! 27 This is the one about whom it has been written: Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your path in front of you (Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1). 28 I tell you: There has not arisen among women’s offspring anyone who surpasses John. But the smaller one in God’s reign is bigger than him.

24

In accordance with Q 7:18–23, the relationship between John and Jesus is further elucidated. In this pericope John is finally downgraded to a mere forerunner of Jesus. Once again (as already in Q 7:18–23) scripture is used to reinforce the position. With the literal quote from Exod 23:20 mixed with an allusion to Mal 3:1, Q 7:27 reads: »Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your path in front of you« (see below, IV: Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q). On the one hand stands the wish to subordinate John to Jesus’ ministry. Nevertheless, on the other hand the baptist’s continuing value is still underscored. This is done by varied imagery. The two negative pictures of the reed and those in soft robes contrast with the two positive notions of being a prophet and even being more than a prophet. This encomium of the baptist finds its climax in the words: »There has not arisen among women’s offspring anyone who surpasses John.«

114 Concerning the miracle traditons see Dormeyer, Narrativität, 213–230. See also the monograph of M. Hüneburg, Jesus als Wundertäter in der Logienquelle: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie von Q (2001). 115 Maier, Texte II, 683, has indicated that in this Qumran text two messiahs are mentioned: one the anointed priestly ruler (high priest) and one the anointed lay ruler (king) of eschatological times. Cf. also Maier, Messias, 605–612. The concept of the »messiah« at the time was still somewhat fluid. See Tiwald, Logienquelle, 163–166. 116 Hölscher, Matthäus, 105.

76

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

The picture of the reed reflects local traditions.117 The shores of Lake Galilee and the banks of the river Jordan are covered with reeds. Thus, the picture of a reed shaking in the wind was common knowledge. The metaphorical use of the reed is found in 1 Kgs 14:15 as a metaphor for unsteadiness. Lucian of Samosata depicts Lycinus cautioning Hermotimus, against being »a reed growing on a river’s bank, bending to every breath, however gentle the breeze that shakes it in its passage«, if he is not »able to judge and sift truth from falsehood« (Hermotimus 67). The message behind this is that John is a steadfast preacher of the truth.118 It has to remain open whether in this picture there is already a hidden critique of Herod Agrippa: the tetrarch had minted coins with the picture of a reed. The polemic against those in soft robes in the king’s houses might indicate this. Herod Antipas was only tetrarch and not king but in Mark 6:14.22.26–27 he is nevertheless called »king« and Josephus (B.J. 2:215) calls his tetrarchy a »kingdom«. In any case, the »kingdom of God« provides a counter-reality to earthly »kingdoms« and powers. Through keyword-association the insertion of Q 16:16 after Q 7:24–28 fits quite well. All the nobility in soft robes but without firm convictions (»reeds«) will be swept away by the coming reign of God. That the baptist himself was not afraid to stand up to Herod Antipas’ injustice can be concluded only indirectly from this text, but it is well known from Josephus Ant. 18:116–119 and Mark 6:17–29par.119 The baptist is here identified as not surpassed by anyone »among women’s offspring«. This formulation can be found elsewhere in the Bible, and is a metonymic description for all humanity (cf. Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4, 1QS 11:21; 1QH 5:14, 21:16.23, 23:12–13; Gal 4:4).120 The formulation ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν, »in (= among) women’s offspring« is now contrasted with ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, »in God’s reign«. The following comparative ὁ δὲ μικρότερος (»but the smaller one«) is normally translated as a superlative (»but the smallest«).121 In Greek vernacular it was indeed possible to substitute the superlative with a comparative.122 The sense would thus be that the baptist is not yet part of the new age: the smallest in the reign of God is bigger than him.123 For Luke this certainly is the right understanding, as Luke 4:43, 7:28, 8:1 and 9:2.60 make perfectly clear. In contrast, for the Sayings Source the baptist actually is part of the new age. The baptist’s sermon already envisages this cosmic turning-point (Q 3:2b–17): for Q Jesus is the »more powerful« one announced by John (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4).

117 Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 26–44; Labahn, Gekommene, 438; Hölscher, Matthäus, 159–166. 118 Labahn, Gekommene, 312: »Johannes ist ein standfester Prediger mit autoritativer Predigt.« 119 In Gos. Thom. 78 the critique of »kings and your great persons« becomes even stronger— but with gnostic overtones: »Why did you go out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind, and to see a person dressed in soft clothing like your kings and your great persons? They are dressed in soft clothing and will not be able to recognise the truth.« 120 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283. 121 E.g., Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283. Also Hölscher, Matthäus, 172, shows sympathies for a translation with the superlative. 122 Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf, Grammatik, 47 (§ 60). 123 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283 und 554. »Johannes wird damit de facto aus dem Reich Gottes ausgeschlossen, bzw. es ist vorausgesetzt, dass er ihm nicht angehört.«

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

77

John and Jesus are emphasised as the »twins of wisdom« in Q 7:31–35 (unlike in Matt 11:19 where only Jesus is portrayed as the personification of wisdom). Thus, ὁ μικρότερος in Q is to be read as a comparative (»the smaller one«).124 Jesus in comparison to John is only »the smaller one« because he was disciple of the baptist (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4) and came later than him. But in the coming reign of God Jesus becomes the greater one. Such a concept not only stands in perfect accordance with Jesus’ own perception (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4), but also with the narrative plot of Q. Jesus and John are the two envoys of the end of times, but Jesus is the greater one (cf. the »more powerful« one expected by John). As Tuckett concludes »Within the context of Q … it would seem that John must definitely be included in the new era.«125 The Reign of God is Violated (Q 16:16) The law and the prophets up until John. From then on, the reign of God is violated and the violent plunder it.

16

This thorny verse represents an ongoing crux interpretum, not only concerning its interpretation but also its location within Q. If anywhere in Q, then this verse fits best here. It draws on a topic from Q 7:28: aligning John’s message with Jesus’ announcement of the reign of God. One could even say that the whole passage Q 7:18–28 finds its climax in Q 16:16. Hence this commentary opts in this case for the Matthean sequence, even if this is contested (see below, I.3.1.2: Modifications of the CEQ-Sequence). According to this reconstruction, Q 16:16 has to be read in direct connection to the statement of Q 7:18–28 that Jesus in the reign of God is greater than John, but that the baptist is part of the new age. The expression ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου … ἀπὸ τότε, »up until John … from then on«, thus has to be understood inclusively: John is part of the basileia (see above, III: Q 7:24–28). This verse is considered one of the darkest passages in the gospels.126 Tuckett states: »The problems of this verse are legion and the debate it has engendered is enormous.«127 Nevertheless, also the importance of this passage is enormous given the fact that it is generally seen as an authentic saying of Jesus.128 Typical of Jesus is the view that the eschaton began with the baptist. Likewise the Imagery of Violence and Insistence could go back to Jesus himself.129 This can be seen in images like Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22 // Mark 3:27), the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–8), The Brazen Ravens

124 Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 447, and Scherer, Königsvolk, 480–481, opt for this possibility. 125 Tuckett, Q, 137. Further authors who opt for John as part of God’s reign include Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 447; Heil, Lukas, 126; Verheyden, Violators, 409. In the same sense Ebner, Q, 104, by talking about the two heroes of the beginning of Q (»zwei Helden des Anfangs«). 126 Schmid, Matthäus, 192. 127 Tuckett, Q, 135. 128 See the discussion in Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 123 and 502–503. Cf also Theißen, Gewalttäter, passim. There is a parallel to Q 16:16 in Justin Dial 51.3, almost identical to the reconstruction here. 129 See Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 503; Theißen, Gewalttäter, passim; Labahn, Gekommene, 196 and 449.

78

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

(Q 12:24), The Insolent Begging Friend (Luke 11:5–8), The Widow and the Judge (Luke 18:1–8; especially verse 5), the logia of Throwing Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49), Bringing the Sword (Q 12:51), Dividing Families (Q 12:52), Hating Father and Mother (Q 14:26), Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 19:12), Fishers of Men (Mark 1:17), and parables like The Treasure Hidden in the Field and The Merchant of Pearls (Matt 13:44–46), but also in Jesus’ powerful exorcisms.130 The same imagery of violence and insistence is present in the Lukan formulation of Q 13:24: ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας, »strive to enter by the narrow door«. The use of ἀγωνίζομαι, »to fight for«, can be understood along the same lines as the verb βιάζομαι, »to force your way by violence« or »to be violated«, in Q 16:16.131 In the imagery of violence and insistence Jesus expresses his confidence that the power of Satan is now broken and that the reign of God is imminent (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4). The same optimism can be found in Q 16:16: the reign of God is prevailing with power since John and cannot be stopped. The verb βιάζομαι can be translated with a medial voice (»to prevail by using violence«) or with passive voice (»to suffer violence«).132 The medial translation interprets the verse in favour of the reign of God, the passive translation to the disadvantage of the reign of God. The »violent« people (βιασταί) mentioned here are either Jesus and his disciples (who »plunder« the reign of God by their courageous commitment133) or the enemies of Jesus (who cause the reign of God to suffer violence).134 For the historical Jesus we can assume the former interpretation. The imminence of God’s reign and victory over Satan prompts his conviction that courageous and forceful action is now necessary: the forceful and courageous will carry home the reign of God like a »plundered« trophy. This stands in alignment with Q 11:21–22 Burgling a Strong Person (see below, III: Q 11:21–22). Even though Luke 16:16 has reworked this logion, he nevertheless has maintained this meaning: »Since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.« On the other hand Matt 11:12 connects the saying with the grumpy children (Matt 11:16–19) and the woes against the unbelieving towns Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Matt 11:20–24).135 Now the question remains as to which interpretation reflects the saying in Q. This naturally depends on the positioning of this verse. If we follow the Matthean

130 131 132 133 134

See Häfner, Gewalt, 47. Cf. Bovon, Lukas III, 100. See the detailed argumentation in Häfner, Gewalt, 26–37. See Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 339; Häfner, Gewalt, 51; Heil, Lukas, 127. Pace Theißen, Gewalttäter, who rejects both interpretations (194) but sees in these words a self-stigmatisation (»Selbststigmatisierung«, 183) of Jesus and his followers: »Eine diskriminierte Minorität bekennt sich demonstrativ zu ihrer Außenseiterrolle« (200). Likewise Heil, Lukas, 127. 135 Thus the interpretation of Konradt, Matthäus, 182. Pace Häfner, Gewalt, 48, who sees in Matt 11:13 (the message of all the prophets) an argument against an interpretation the idea that the violent would violate the reign of God. Nevertheless, The Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, III: Q 11:49–51 and IV: Excursus 3.2) demonstrates that in Israel all true prophets were persecuted. Thus for Matthew such an interpretation seems the more likely.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors: John and Jesus (Q 3:2b–7:35)

79

order—as proposed here—the saying in Q was understood as aggression against the reign of God. The following logia For or Against John (Q 7:29–30) and This Generation and the Children of Wisdom (Q 7:31–35) strongly hint in this direction.136 Especially in connection with The Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, III: Q 11:49–51 and IV: Excursus 3.2) it becomes clear that all true prophets were persecuted in Israel. In Q 16:16 Jesus’ optimism is mixed with notes of failure and rejection typical for Q: the Sayings Source starts with John’s announcement of the coming judgement and ends with the prospect of eschatological judgement in Q 22. Despite the darkening perspective, the Sayings Source nevertheless still holds to the positive view of the Jewish Torah (see below, III: Q 11:39–52 and 16:17–18): »the law and the prophets up until John« does not mean an abrogation of the Torah but a new phase in God’s plan of salvation (see above, I.2.1). In early Judaism there was a widespread concept that in eschatological times the protological meaning of the Torah would be revealed. This true meaning was lost due to human sinfulness but would be re-established. Given the fact that the Torah was identified with God’s creation, the Fall of Humanity had obstructed correct understanding of God’s law. Following the protology-eschatology-analogy the true meaning of the Torah would be restored in the end times.137 Thus, in the Apocalypse of Weeks from 1 En. »sevenfold wisdom and knowledge« (93:10b) is predicted for the end of times. This means a »revelatory instruction received by the specially elect community.«138 Apocalyptic knowledge of the eschatological »mystery« is only revealed to the community of the elect, or as Nickelsburg puts it: »The elect are chosen, first of all, to be the recipients of wisdom and knowledge. In the context of the Epistle [sc. Enoch’s Epistle], this means a particular understanding of the divine law, other esoteric information about the cosmos, and the eschatological message of the coming judgement.«139 The eschaton restores the protological master-plan that God has for his

136 Pace Labahn, Gekommene, 196 and 449, who also assumes for Q the positive view in the sense of an »Umwertung des Gewalttäters zum Modell des Nachfolgers« (196), a somewhat constructed interpretation. 137 According to Sir 24 the Torah is identified with God’s wisdom as present at the creation of the world (cf. Prov 8:22–31) and later becoming the Law of Moses (Sir 24:8–11.23). Philo Mos. 2:37 judges: κοσμοποιία γὰρ ἡ τῶν νόμων ἐστὶν ἀρχή, »the creation of the cosmos is the beginning of the Law«—the Torah given at the Sinai is merely a later wording of the unwritten law of nature. According to the Qumran CD 2:2–10, 1QH 9 (former 1QH 1):7–14 and 4Q180, the order of the cosmos was established before creation. In eschatological times (which for the Qumran community had already come) this order of creation will be revealed as a »mystery« (1QH 9:13) to an elect few. Thus the eschatological Torah is nothing but the re-established order of creation (cf. Lange, Weisheit, 215–220 and 297). Paul uses the expression »mystery« in the same way in Rom 11:25; 1 Cor 2:7 and 15:51, by calling it »the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory«, revealed now in the last days. Cf. the detailed discussion in Tiwald, Art. Gesetz, 295–298. 138 Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 57. 139 Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 448. See also Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 104. In the same vein, Heil, Nachfolge, 131–333.

80

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

creation. For Jesus, the »violent« of Q 16:16 are the »elect« who know about this plan and courageously put it into practice. Unlike in early Judaism apocalyptic, for Jesus this plan is no »mystery« but revealed to everyone. Nevertheless, only courageous believers can profit (cf. the word »plunder«) from the new situation. For and Against John (Q 7:29–30) For John came to you … the tax collectors and … responded positively the religious authorities rejected him.

29

30

but

It remains unclear whether these two verses belonged to Q. Between Matt 21:32 and Luke 7:29–30 there are no verbal agreements.140 Nevertheless, between Matthew and Luke a parallel over and above the Markan text is found in the statement that tax-collectors (tax-collectors and harlots in Matt 21:32) had followed the message of the baptist while religious authorities (high priests and elders in Matt 21:23; Pharisees and scribes of the law in Luke 7:30) rejected it. Q 7:29–30 might well have been a transitory note connecting the topic of the baptist with the topic of »this generation«. This Generation and the Children of Wisdom (Q 7:31–35) To what am I to compare this generation and what is it like? 32 It is like children seated in the market-places, who, addressing the others, say: We played the flute for you, but you would not dance; we wailed, but you would not cry. 33 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and you say: He has a demon! 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say: Look! A person who is a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! 35 But Wisdom is justified by her children. 31

The imagery here juxtaposes feasting (playing the flute and dancing) and mourning (wailing and crying). In verse 33 these images are referred to Jesus (eating and drinking) and the baptist (neither eating nor drinking) and a reference to the responses of »this generation« (demon-possession for John—glutton and drunkard for Jesus).141 This generation is not interested in an honest exchange of opinions; they are stuck in their own ideas and unwilling to interact with new ideas.142 The term »this generation« can be found repeatedly in the Sayings Source: Q 7:31, 11:29–32, 11:50–51. In connection with the Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2) »this generation« becomes one of the most important interpretative patterns of Q.143 Its function draws entirely on early Jewish conceptions and should not be misunderstood as anti-Jewish polemic (see below, III: Q 11:16.29–32). In early 140 141 142 143

See the discussion in Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 123, and Fleddermann, Q, 362. See the narrative analysis by Müller, Spiel, 100–110. Cf. Müller, Spiel, 109. Tiwald, Valeur, 133–137.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

81

Jewish apocalyptic it was common to expect a time of pervasive wickedness before the righteousness of God’s reign would triumph. In a time of cataclysmic atrocities the just will have to fight against a perverted eschatological generation (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1). The announcement of such an evil last generation can be found in Jub. 23:14 and in 1QpHab 2:1–10). The deeper meaning of such texts is the consolation of the just: even their rejection and suffering is predicted by God and follows the eschatological schedule fixed by God. Thus even rejection is integrated into a common concept of explaining God’s plan for salvation. Thus biblical patterns are adapted. In Isa 57:4 the unjust’s mockery of the just is expressed in the image of naughty children sticking out their tongues: »Are you not children of rebellion, offspring of deceit (σπέρμα ἄνομον)?« In this pericope the failure of both children of wisdom—John and Jesus (cf. 7:35)—is depicted as part God’s plan! Most remarkable is that Q does not portray Jesus as personified wisdom as does Matt 11:19 but rather juxtaposes John and Jesus as the twins of wisdom. Nevertheless a certain synkrisis is also present and concludes the first narrative cycle: John is the rigid prophet of penitence, while Jesus offers the joy of the coming reign of God. The expression »glutton and drunkard« corresponds to Jesus’ well-documented practice of attending banquets as found in miracle traditions (e.g., Mark 6:35–44), narrative material (e.g., Luke 19:5), sayings traditions (e.g., Q 7:34, 13:29, 24:16–23; Luke 14:15), passion narratives (Mark 14:18; John 13:2) and letters (1 Cor 11:23–25). For Jesus such banquets were emblematic anticipations of the eschatological banquet as announced by Isa 25:6. His banquets are—like his miracle-healings, his forgiveness of sins, and his parables (as narrative counter-realities)—prophetic signs of the coming reign of God. Like the uncompromising penitence and the expectation of fire-judgement for John, the banquets for Jesus are a reference to the coming reality and an anticipation of it. Jesus most likely learned of the emblematic power of such symbolic actions from his teacher the baptist, only changing penitence into joy. The first narrative cycle of Q ends with this final synkrisis between these two main actors in presenting Jesus as greater than John. The following text will focus exclusively on Jesus and his message. The baptist is never mentioned again in the narrative of Q.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries The Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13) With Narrative Cycle 2 a new chapter starts in Q. Having portrayed the past in Cycle 1, Cycle 2 now jumps to the present and focusses on the contemporary Qmissionaries. It does not portray any sedentary members of Q but itinerant missionaries. Even the Lord’s Prayer reflects itinerancy by praying for bread as it is needed. This underscores the high esteem that such missionaries had in the Q community and the unbroken expectation of the coming eschaton as the motivation for this lifestyle (cf. Q 10:9).

82

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60) The first narrative unit opens with a vivid description of radical discipleship. In an emblematic lifestyle the Q missionaries live up to the ideals of homelessness (the image of foxes and birds) and renouncing their families (leaving the dead to bury their own dead). This underscores the importance and the high standards that such an emblematic discipleship carried for Q. It is likely that the historical Jesus himself understood his lifestyle without a home (Q 9:57) and family (Q 9:59; 14:26; see also Mark 3:33–35, 10:29–30) but in itinerancy (Q 10) as an anticipation of a future home and a new family in the coming world of God’s reign. According to eschatological expectations in early Judaism, God would create his new family in the eschaton (concerning the breaking of family ties in the eschaton, see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.3). The emblematic poverty of Jesus (Q 6:20; 10:4) hints at an uncompromising confidence in God’s provision (cf. the pericope of care-free ravens and lilies which concludes with the justification: »But seek his reign and all these shall be given to you«, Q 12:31). Jesus’ non-violence (Q 6:29; 10:3) also demonstrates the emblematic hope that God’s eschatological peace would now come. Jesus acts like the prophets who saw their own lifestyles and actions as a means of announcing their message. This stands in the tradition of ‫( אות‬ʾot), namely an emblematic action to highlight an already existing reality or a reality yet not present but immediate.144 Such an emblematic lifestyle is perfectly in line with Jesus’ entire ministry: his parables metaphorically depict the counterreality of the coming basileia and narratively anticipate God’s coming reign. Jesus’ banquets are an anticipation of the banquet in the coming world, his miracle healings and forgiveness of sins prefigure the coming restoration of integrity in the eschaton. Among the traditions of the New Testament, Jesus’ radical and emblematic lifestyle is best reflected in the Sayings Source, most likely because Q-missionaries still maintained such a lifestyle. Among Q-scholars this movement was dubbed »itinerant radicalism«.145 Itinerancy and possessionless lifestyle as emblematic symbols of missionaries are found in the Didache in the second century and are referred to as the τρόποι κυρίου, the »lifestyle of the Lord«, in Did. 11:8.

144 Thus the definition by Helfmeyer, Art. ‫אות‬, 183. Accordingly, Hosea marries a harlot (Hos 1:2–9) and Ezechiel deliberately becomes impure by baking his bread on human faeces (Ezek 4:12). In this way both prophets symbolically underscore the impurity of God’s people having left YHWH. Likewise Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck to demonstrate the coming fate of the exile if Israel does not repent (Jer 27:2). 145 See the detailed discussion in Tiwald, Freedom, 111–131; id., Wanderradikalismus; id. Logienquelle, 117–128. The basic idea goes back to G. Theißen, Wanderradikalismus. Literatursoziologische Aspekte der Überlieferung von Worten Jesu im Urchristentum (first publication 1973), and P. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (first publication 1972), now in its third edition 312–334.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

83

Foxes and Birds (Q 9:57–58) And someone said to him: I will follow you wherever you go. 58 And Jesus said to him: Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of Man does not have anywhere he can lay his head.

57

Under the keyword ἀκολουθήσω σοι—»I will follow you«—this pericope describes the prerequisites of becoming Jesus’ disciple. Metonymically the expression »to lay one’s head« stands for a home and safety in analogy to the holes of foxes and the nests of birds. Foxes and Birds has a parallel in Gos. Thom. 86. Similar imagery is also found in pagan antiquity: Plutarch, Ti. C. Gracch. 9: … for Tiberius, striving to support a measure which was honourable and just with an eloquence that would have adorned even a meaner cause, was formidable and invincible, whenever, with the people crowding around the rostra, he took his stand there and pleaded for the poor. ›The wild beasts that roam over Italy,‹ he would say, have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children. … and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own. Epictetus, About Cynicism 47: »Look at me, who am without a city, without a house, without possessions, without a slave; I sleep on the ground; I have no wife, no children; no praetorium, but only the earth and heavens, and one poor cloak.«

Homelessness for the benefit of deeper values was also understood in pagan antiquity. Unlike the freedom-fighters in Italy and the itinerant Cynic philosophers, Jesus’ motivations are to be found in the coming reign of God.146 Leave the Dead to Bury their Own Dead! (Q 9:59–60) 59 60

But another said to him: Master, permit me first to go and bury my father. But he said to him: Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.

Jesus’ prohibition of burying one’s own father is shocking. Burying the dead was one of the most important duties of piety in Jewish antiquity (e.g., Tob 1:17–19, 2:3–8; Philo Ios. 22–25; Josephus C. Ap. 2:205; m. Ber 3:1) and was one of the duties of a son towards his father (Gen 25:9, 35:29). There is consent among scholars that this saying goes back to the historical Jesus himself,147 as Christian authors would never have invented such an offensive demand. Nevertheless, there are cases even in the Jewish scriptures where those consecrated to the Lord are not allowed to

146 The thesis that Jesus or the Q-missionaries were influenced by Cynicism has rightly been rejected by Tuckett, Cynic, 349–376; Theißen, Wandercharismatiker, 104; Hengel, Hellenisierung, 69; Tiwald, Logienquelle, 130–135. 147 See the discussion and the overview in Heil, Nachfolge, 122.

84

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

participate in the burial of their own father or mother for reasons of ritual purity, e.g., the high priest (Lev 21:11) or Nazirites (Num 6:6–7). Nevertheless, the motive for Jesus’ demand is not cultic purity-regulations but an emblematic sign of the coming basileia. As in 1 Kgs 19:20, where Elijah calls Elisha to be his disciple, the absolute priority of following the master is underlined (even if Elijah—unlike Jesus—allows his disciple to say goodbye). Even Ezekiel and Jeremiah refuse to mourn the dead (Ezek 24:16–24; Jer 16:5–7) as an emblematic foreshadowing of the coming fate of Israel on its way to exile. Similarly, for Jesus not burying a dead father becomes a sign for the coming reign of God. The oxymoron »leave the dead to bury their own dead« perfectly expresses Jesus’ intention: whoever does not have access to the reign of God is dead (cf. Q 17:33).148

Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for Mission (Q 10:2–16) With the Instruction for Mission the topic »radical discipleship« is further advanced. The imagery in Q 9:57–58 served as an introduction and there now follows detailed instruction. Later Matt 9:37 (= Q 10:2 plus the introductory verse 9:36) adopted this idea to construct his Speech to the Disciples (Matt 9:36–11:1). Remarkably enough, the material of the Instruction for the Mission has come to us in three forms: Q 10:2–16/Mark 6:7–11 / Gos. Thom. 14bc.55.73.86.149 J. Schröter, having exhaustively researched this tradition, rightly concludes that Mark and Q reflect a common stream of early Christian traditions that has been independently adapted but without any literary dependence between Mark and Q.150 Schröter also demonstrates that Gos. Thom. draws on synoptic material in the logia 14:4–5, although logion 73 and 86 might be based on oral traditions.151 Also within the synpoptics the Instruction for the Mission had a varied reception. Luke maintains Q and Mark: Luke 9:1–5 is oriented towards Mark 6:7–11 while Luke 10:1–12 renders the Q-tradition, Luke 22:35–38 refers even a third time to the Mission Instruction. Luke thus offers the Mission Instruction in three forms.152 Luke 22 modifies the radicalism of the two preceding missions and thus builds a bridge between the historical Jesus and the community. The ethos of radical discipleship in the first generation is now transformed to the ethics of sharing possessions.153 Likewise the other two synoptic gospels transform the primary radicalism

148 Cf. Heil, Nachfolge, 124. 149 See Schröter, Erinnerung, 144–239, and Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, passim. Concerning the question of the dependence of Gos. Thom. on the synoptic gospels, see above, II.2.3.1. 150 Schröter, Erinnerung, 236. 151 Schröter, Erinnerung, 237. 152 Cf. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 191–202. Luke 9:1 focusses on the sending of the Twelve to Israel, while Luke 10:1 envisages the mission of Seventy-Two to the Gentiles (according to Let. Aris. 50 and 307 and Num 11:24–27, the number seventy-two symbolically indicates the number of Gentile peoples). 153 Cf. Tiwald, Nichterfüllung, 105–119; Tuckett, Luke, 95–106; Klauck, Armut, 160–194.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

85

of following Jesus in the Mission Instruction (see above, II.2.2.1; see below, IV: Excursus 1.4; IV: Excursus 3.1.2 and IV: Excursus 4) in a more pragmatic way. Mark 6:8–9 makes concessions regarding the equipment of missionaries: staff and sandals are no longer forbidden. Matt 10:9 transforms Q’s renouncing possessions into renouncing financial profit.154 The idea that missionaries are not to receive payment for their work is found in Did. 11:6 (cf. 12:5). These restrictions can be understood due to the abuse of support by itinerant charlatans as depicted by Lucian of Samosata in Peregr. 13 and 16. The old ethos of renouncing financial possessions is still visible in 2 Cor 11:7 and 12:13 (cf. 1 Cor 9:12–15), where Paul is accused of having earned his own money.155 The parallel tradition in Q and Mark and the efforts of the evangelists and Paul to soften these traditions makes clear that the core goes back to Jesus himself. Apparently the historical Jesus sent out his disciples as co-workers and urged them to adopt his own lifestyle of poverty and itinerancy.156 Jesus was convinced that the reign of God was imminent, so he used the short time left to send out his disciples as missionary co-workers. Q 10:16 (»Whoever takes you in takes me in, and, whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me«) and the parallels in Mark 9:37 and John 13:20 (see below, III: Q 10:16) also hint at the historicity of such a collegiate mission. Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2) He said to his disciples: The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. So ask the Lord of the harvest to dispatch workers to his harvest. 2

Q 10:2 has a parallel in Gos. Thom. 73, although here not connected with mission instruction. This was probably a free floating logion that only Q places in this

154 Cf. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 175–191. Matt 10:9 replaces the Q-wording βαστάζω (to carry along) with κτάομαι (to acquire): missionaries have to work without receiving financial recompense, as Matt 10:8 underscores: »You received without payment; give without payment.« Accordingly, Matt 10:10 replaces Q’s μισθός (wage) with τροφή (food). 155 The phrase οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν (1 Cor 9:14) makes clear that this is a command of the Lord to earn one’s living by the gospel and not permission to do so. See the interpretation of Theißen, Lebensunterhalt, 216–217. 156 Pace Schröter, Erinnerung, 238–239, who remains sceptical that the mission instruction contains historical reminiscences of Jesus’ sending out his disciples. He maintains that there was a post-easter radicalisation of mission practice (»von Q … im Blick auf die nachösterliche Missionspraxis radikalisiert«). Nevertheless, it seems more reasonable to put it the other way round: the emblematic radicalism of Jesus’ mission is maintained in Q but was alleviated by the subsequent gospels. The replacing of itinerant missionaries with sedentary bishops and deacons can be seen par excellence in Did. 11:1–12 and 15:1–2 (cf. Tiwald, Logienquelle, 117–128). Nevertheless, Schröter is right that the appointment of the Twelve was not originally connected to the mission of disciples and the title »apostle« has post-Easter origins (cf. Tiwald, Entwicklungslinien, 102–110).

86

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

context. It is unclear whether the eschatological background of this verse hints as the historical Jesus.157 Nevertheless, in the Sayings Source a certain generational shift is visible. Even if the eschatological expectations remain unbroken, the first symptoms of fatigue become visible. Did. 13:1 mentions itinerant prophets becoming sedentary and Did. 15:1–2 tells us about the replacement of »prophets and teachers« by »bishops and deacons«. But already in Q there are visible signs of fatigue in 12:49 and 17:1. Thus the community has to pray for workers because there is already a shortage of missionaries. The metaphor of the harvest is found again and again in connection with the final judgement.158 We see it in Joel 4:13; Jer 51:33 (= LXX 28:33); Isa 27:12; Mic 4:12; 4 Ezra 4:28–29, 9:17. But the word »harvest« (θερισμός) as used here in Q is only found in Isa 18:5 and 2 Bar. 70:2 as an image of the eschatological judgement. Elsewhere the word suggests normal harvest work (LXX: Gen 8:22, 30:14; Exod 23:16, 34:22; Lev 19:9, 23:10.22; Josh 3:15; Judg 15:1; 1 Sam 12:17; 2 Sam 21:9–10). Furthermore, the imagery in Q does not fit with the eschatological judgement. Normally, the harvesters in an eschatological context are God’s angels, but here it is the Q missionaries. Thus other imagery might be at play here. G. Bazzana has underscored that in contemporary documentary papyri from Egypt the word ἐκβάλλω (literally: »to cast out«, here »to send out«) was used in agrarian operations, where a multitude of workers was quickly commissioned for community work.159 Thus the picture does not hint at the final judgement but to community work. This fits well with the metaphor in Isa 27:12, where the dispersed sons of Israel are gathered from all regions. Accordingly, the logion focusses on the mission as collecting the lost children of Israel. Nevertheless, in Q 22:30 the Q-missionaries are brought into connection with the final judgment, at which they »will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel«. In the imminent eschatological expectation of Q, these two images (mission and judgement) can easily coincide.160 The expression »lord of the harvest« (κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ) is singular in Jewish literature as in Greek literature in general. It is a »bold metaphor«161 that Q has formulated. Sheep among Wolves (Q 10:3) 3

Go on your way! Look, I send you like sheep in the midst of wolves.

157 Thus is the opinion of Luz, Matthäus II, 80. See also Heil, Missionsinstruktion, 25–55. 158 Thus: Hauck, Art. θερισμός, 133; Hoffmann, Studien, 289; Luz, Matthäus II, 81. See also: Zimmermann, Bitte, 114–115; Heil, Missionsinstruktion, 43. 159 Bazzana, Scribes, 138: »… to perform liturgical work linked to agriculture.« Ibid. 139: »The use of ἐκβάλλω to indicate a harvest in urgent need of a larger workforce makes most sense if we think that the authors of Q were people acquainted with the specific terminology of liturgies.« 160 Cf. Zimmermann, Bitte, 115. 161 Zimmermann, Bitte, 115 (»kühne Metapher«).

87

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

In classical Greek the imagery of sheep among wolves occurs in Homer (Il. 22.263) as a metaphor for insurmountable hostile opposition (cf. also Sir 13:17). In the Jewish scriptures sheep depict Israel as shepherded by God (Ps 79:13, 80:1). In 1 En. 89:55 (cf. 4 Ezra 5:18.23) the image of sheep among wolves hints at Israel among the Gentiles. Thus U. Luz detects the shocking alienation of the imagery, as Jews who do not believe in Jesus are depicted as Gentile »wolves«.162 But this view might be too simple. 1 En. 89:52–60 mentions wicked sheep killing God’s sheep and thus alludes to the motif of the violent fate of prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2) one of the dominant motifs in Q. Thus the imagery of sheep among wolves might also be used to describe inner-Jewish rivalry. Concerning the question whether there were real persecutions of Q-members by other Jews, see below, III: Q 11:49–51. Rule for Provisions: Mission in Emblematic Poverty (Q 10:4) 4

Carry no purse, no knapsack,

A1 A2

Provisions

no sandals, and no stick,

B1 B2

Equipment

C

Greeting

and greet no one on the road (2 Kgs 4:29).

The rules for the provision of missionaries form a double couplet. The first couplet focusses on the provisions themselves (purse and knapsack), the second on equipment (sandals and stick). All the items are obviously related to journeys. M. Sato has underscored that this is not a rule for but against provisions.163 This hits the nail on the head: the aim of this verse is not avoiding unnecessary baggage rather demonstrating emblematic confidence in the coming reign of God.164 The outfit becomes a prophetic sign for the imminent reign of God (see above, III: Q 9:57–60): like carefree lilies and brazen ravens in Q 12:22b–31 the missionaries shall put all their confidence in their heavenly father: »Seek God’s reign, and all these shall be given to you.« By renouncing even the most elementary needs the missionaries demonstrate their absolute confidence in God’s provision.165 Given the fact that emblematic poverty was practised by Jesus himself as a prophetic sign of his belief in the imminence of God’s reign (see above, III: Q 9:57–60 and see below IV: Excursus 3.1.2), one can conclude that the rule for provisions at its core goes back to Jesus

162 163 164 165

Luz, Matthäus II, 109. Sato, Q, 311 (»Abrüstung« nicht »Ausrüstung«). See also Luz, Matthäus II, 97, note 52. So already the argumentation of Hoffmann, Studien, 315. Cf. Gnilka, Theologie, 141 (»Die als ›Wanderradikalismus‹ etikettierte absolute Bedürfnislosigkeit war Zeichen der nahenden Gottesherrschaft«), and Heil, Missionsinstruktion, 51–52.

88

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

himself.166 This is suggested by Did. 11:8, where poverty and itinerancy are designated the τρόποι κυρίου, tropoi kyriou, »the ways of the Lord«. Emblematic poverty is expressed particularly in not wearing sandals. In the Near East, going barefoot was seen as the ultimate expression of misery.167 Intriguingly enough, the parallel in Mark 6:9 allows the concession of wearing sandals. Forbidding sandals was probably both too radical and impracticable if one embarked on a longer journey. Renouncing knapsack and staff is even more remarkable, as both were part of the typical outfit of an itinerant Cynic philosopher.168 Thus Epictetus (50–130 CE) describes a poor man who decides to advertise his poverty as a deliberately chosen Cynic virtue: On Cynicism 9: I wear a cloak now and I shall wear it then: I sleep hard now, and I shall sleep hard then: I will take in addition a little bag now and a staff, and I will go about and begin to beg and to abuse those whom I meet.

Knapsack and staff here are depicted as the typical attributes of the Cynic (alongside »abusing those whom I meet«). But Epictetus opposes this view with the ethos of a true Cynic: On Cynicism 23: Then, if he is thus prepared, the true Cynic cannot be satisfied with this; but he must know that he is sent as a messenger from Zeus to men about good and bad things, to show them that they have wandered and are seeking the substance of good and evil where it is not, but where it is, they never think; On Cynicism 47: Look at me, who am without a city, without a house, without possessions, without a slave; I sleep on the ground; I have no wife, no children; no praetorium, but only the earth and heavens, and one poor cloak. And what do I want? Am I not without sorrow? Am I not without fear? Am I not free?

Similarities to the Q-missionaries are evident: having no possessions, no home and no family become emblematic signs of an alternative lifestyle. The true Cynic is »sent as a messenger from Zeus to men about good and bad things«. Like modern performance artists, Q-missionaries and Cynic philosophers hint at a deeper reality by their emblematic lifestyle. This certainly is an impressive psychological parallel, but not a parallel in the sense of common roots. A direct dependence cannot be proven, »Jewish cynics«—as it is sometimes claimed—never existed.169 And the motivation is not the same: for Cynics this is a »moral education of mankind«,170 but

166 Thus Heil, Missionsinstruktion, 45. 167 Cf. the prodigal son in Luke 15:22. Further references in Billerbeck I, 569. 168 Cf. Goulet-Cazé, Cynisme, 2738: »Sous l’Empire comme à l’époque hellénistique, on reconnaît le Cynique à son accoutrement inséparable de sa philosophie. Depuis Diogène, cet accoutrement est devenu traditionnel …« See also Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 138–150. 169 Pace Crossan, Jesus, 553, and Lang, Jesus, 63. Cf. the detailed discussions in Tuckett, Cynic, 375; Theißen, Wandercharismatiker, 104; Hengel, Hellenisierung, 69; Tiwald, Logienquelle, 130–135. See also the argumentation of Goulet-Cazé, Kynismus, 156. 170 Billerbeck, Cynicism, 162.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

89

for Jesus it is the coming reign of God. Furthermore, Q 10:4 forbids knapsack and staff, the visible marks of a Cynic. The staff was not so much considered a walking aid but a weapon with which to fend off wild animals or muggers.171 Thus declining to carry a staff is part of the emblematic non-violence of Q-missionaries. They are like »sheep in the midst of wolves« (Q 10:3), just as they offer the other cheek (Q 6:29). They anticipate the coming reign of peace (see below, IV: Excursus 4.2: The Eschatological Peace of God). The older ethos of itinerant radicalism most likely prevailed in the region of Syria until the second and third century CE.172 The Didache decrees that itinerant apostles are allowed to stay no longer than two days at the same place (11:5) and must not carry any provision except bread (11:6) and by no means money (11:12). Lucian of Samosata (120–180 CE) mentions itinerant Christian prophets being supported by sedentary members of the community (De morte Peregrini 11–16). Such regulations were abused by the charlatan Peregrinos,173 who exposed the naivety of Christians to ridicule. In the third century the pseudo-Clementine letters Ad Virgines174 testify to itinerant ascetics operating in the Syrian region and maintaining the ethos of renouncing home and family. The Acts of Thomas likewise date to the third century and depict Thomas as an itinerant encratite (e.g. Acts Thom. 30, 39, 42, 62, 68). In spite of all the changes and developments one can detect a high degree of persistence of such traditions, which—despite a counter-tendency to bourgeois values—upheld itinerancy and poverty as the »ways of the Lord«. Similar traditions have survived in the Gospel of Mark (most likely also written in the region of Syria), but here they are already softened. Mark (as in the so-called Mark/Q-overlaps) but even more so Matthew and Luke see these traditions as reminiscences of the past,175 indeed still claiming that these traditions go back to Jesus himself. Concerning not greeting, see below III: Q 10:5–12. House-Mission and Town-Mission (Q 10:5–12) Into whatever house you enter, first say: Peace to this house! 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will come upon him; but if not, your peace will return upon you. 7 Remain in that house, eating and drinking whatever they provide,

5

171 Hoffmann, Studien, 313–314; Luz, Matthäus II, 96 note 49. 172 Cf. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 299–310. 173 The parallels between Lucian’s Peregrinos and the itinerant prophets of Didache have been highlighted by Schöllgen, Didache 56, and Wengst, Didache, 38. 174 The here mentioned pseudo-Clementine letters are not the Homilies or the Recognitiones but the two lesser known letters Ad Virgines—directed to ascetics living in itinerancy and celibacy. See the introduction to the letters by Duensing, Briefe, 166–188. 175 See Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 175–203, und id. Nichterfüllung, passim. In contrast to Q, where these concepts are still current practice in the community, Mark 6:7 historicizes the mission instruction as an event of the past. Matt 10:9 transforms renouncing possessions into renouncing financial income by substituting Q’s μὴ βαστάζετε (»do not carry with you«) by μὴ κτήσησθε (»do not acquire for yourself«). Luke revokes radical poverty in 22:35–38 and transforms the ethos of poverty into the ethics of exchange between poor and rich.

90

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

for the worker is worthy of his reward. Do not move around from house to house. 8 And whatever town you enter and they take you in, 9 cure the sick there, and say to them: The reign of God has reached you. 10 But into whatever town you enter and they do not take you in, on leaving that town 11 shake off the dust from your feet. 12 I tell you: For Sodom it shall be more bearable on that day than for that town. The text begins with mission to individual houses and then focusses on mission to whole »towns«. This reflects the procedure of first gaining a foothold in one house and then evangelizing the whole »town«. Nevertheless, these »towns« seem to have been settlements of moderate size. The »town« acts as a whole by accepting or rejecting the missionary.176 The subsequent dust-gesture following rejection is only imaginable on the square of a small town where one can address the whole settlement—in a crowded city such a gesture would have been lost.177 Likewise the method of preaching as depicted in Q 12:3 (»What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim on the rooftops.«) is only imaginable in a small settlement, because nobody would take notice of someone on a roof in a big city. The entire mission instruction thus indicates a rural background. Besides, in the region of Syria-Palestine missionaries everywhere had relatives or friends to support them if they were looking for accommodation. Only here was possessionless itinerancy practical—Paul for example had to develop another type of mission when he visited urban centres. He had to provide for his own subsistence and earn his own money.178 Thus J. Kloppenborg is right to conclude: »›Itinerancy‹ [sc. of Q missionaries] should not be imagined on the model of Paul’s journeys; it would have looked more like morning walks.«179 He rightly envisions the Q-community as a rural »network of localized groups«.180 The emblematic function of the missionaries’ behaviour becomes clear from the very beginning of the house mission. Not carrying a staff as a weapon (Q 10:4) and being like »sheep in the midst of wolves« (Q 10:3), who »offer the other cheek« (Q 6:29), correspond to the demonstrative blessing upon entrance: »Peace to this house.« All of these are emblematic signs for the upcoming eschatological peace in the reign of God (see below, IV: Excursus 4.2 The Eschatological Peace of God). Initially these missionaries are not preaching with words but with prophetic signs. The mission itself becomes a sign for the coming reign of God. In this context eschatological peace is imagined as some sort of material power: it comes upon the house and in case of rejection it will return to the missionaries. This eschatological peace is seen as some sort of precious

176 177 178 179 180

Cf. Zeller, Logienquelle, 51 (»überschaubare soziale Gebilde«). Cf. Tiwald, Gott, 64. Cf. Theißen, Lebensunterhalt, passim. Kloppenborg, Gospel, 22. Cf. also Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 258–265. Kloppenborg, Gospel, 22. Id., Convention, 86: »The Q people … may have flourished in a network of villages«.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

91

force that must not be wasted on unworthy houses. Thus the wish for peace must not be squandered along the way, as demonstrated by the command to »greet no-one on the road« (Q 10:4). In a town which accepts the envoys this peace forcefully deploys its power in healing the sick and leading to God’s reign (Q 10:8–9). The sentence »The reign of God has reached you« becomes the key message of the whole mission. A certain parallel to not greeting anyone along the road can be found in 2 Kgs 4:29. Here the prophet Elisha sends his servant Gehazi with the words: »Gird up your loins, and take my staff in your hand, and go. If you meet anyone, give no greeting, and if anyone greets you, do not answer.« In this case, not-greeting becomes a sign of urgency and haste. In the Ancient Near East long greeting rituals may consume too much time.181 Not-greeting was considered impolite—only in the case of major urgency was such behaviour tolerated. Here the behaviour of the missionaries becomes a clear sign for the absolute priority of announcing God’s reign.182 In Luke 10:7–8 the permission for »eating and drinking whatever they provide« (v 7a) is repeated in v 8b »eat what is set before you«. Intriguingly, both references are missing in Matthew’s gospel. Given that »the worker is worthy of his reward (Matt: food183)« was undoubtedly part of Q, there must have been some form of permission for sustenance in Q too—most probably already during the house mission in Q 10:7a. Luke then replicated this in his town-mission. Contrary to the reconstruction of the CEQ, here the second permission for sustenance is not ascribed to Q.184 Does the permission of sustenance also include eating non-kosher food—as some scholars have suggested?185 Much here depends on the question as to whether the Sayings Source had already moved on to a mission to the Gentiles. If they had not done so—as maintained in this commentary—the missionaries would not enter a Gentile house and thus did not have the opportunity to be confronted with non-kosher food.186 It is more likely that the permission for sustenance simply meant what it says: »the worker is worthy of his reward« and thus

181 Hentschel, 2 Könige, 20. See also: Billerbeck, Kommentar II, 166. 182 Cf. Zeller, Logienquelle, 49: »Solche Unhöflichkeit in den Augen eines Orientalen erregte Aufmerksamkeit: Diese Boten müssen in der nächsten Stadt eine dringliche Aufgabe haben, daß sie nicht einmal zu einem kleinen Schwatz verweilen können.« Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 380–381, demonstrates how impolite not greeting was considered in rabbinic Judaism. 183 Matt replaces Q’s μισθός (»wage«) with τροφή (»food«) to avoid the misunderstanding that a missionary might receive financial rewards for his work. This fits well with his triple prohibition of gold, silver, and copper coins in Matt 19:9 and the order in Matt 10:8 »You received without payment; give without payment«. He also changes renouncing possessions into renouncing payment by modifying Q’s μὴ βαστάζετε (»do not carry with you«) to μὴ κτήσησθε (»do not acquire for you«) in Matt 10:9. Similar tendencies can be found in the later Didache (e.g., Did. 11:6.12), where it is prohibited to give money to a missionary. 184 Following the convincing argumentation by Fleddermann, Q, 411–416. 185 Cf. Theißen, Reinheitslogion, 242; Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 247; Scherer, Königsvolk, 196. 186 Observant Jews were not allowed to enter the houses of Gentiles. According to m. ’Ohal 18:7 the habitations of Gentiles are impure for Jews. That this was already the case in early Judaism is suggested by Acts 10:28 and John 18:28.

92

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

has the right to receive food. The following restriction, »Do not move around from house to house«, forbids some sort of ›house-hopping‹ for the sake of better meals. The dust-gesture in case of rejection can also be interpreted as a prophetic sign for the imminent reign of God. While the believers are rewarded with eschatological peace, the non-believers will have a fate worse than the punishment of Sodom. Shaking off dust follows the logic of a minore ad maius: if the missionaries shake the dust off their feet, the habitants of this village will be shaken off in the final judgement.187 The topic of judgement now is pursued in the following verses. Woes against Galilean Towns (Q 10:13–15) Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the wonders performed in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 14 Yet for Tyre and Sidon it shall be more bearable at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be carried up into heaven? You shall descend into Hades! (Isa 14:13.15).

13

Woe-oracles are frequent in the Sayings Source (Q 10:13, 11:42.43.44.46.47.52). In biblical and early Jewish texts this was a frequently employed genre for criticism of rival Jewish groups. A definitive rupture between the Q-community and Israel cannot be found here, rather a radicalized form of the apocalyptic penitential sermon (see below, III: Woes against the Pharisees, Q 11:42.39b.41.43–44). Thus the woe-oracles are of a performative-protreptic nature. They connotatively want to advertise for the community’s ideas but do not denotatively proclaim a real condemnation of other groups.188 The definitive rupture with Israel has not yet come, but the tensions are becoming greater. The three villages mentioned here, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, are situated on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee—right where we locate Jesus’ ministry.189 According to John 1:44 Bethsaida was the hometown of Peter, Andrew, and Philip. Capernaum is named in Mark 1:29—diverging from John 1:44—as the hometown of Peter and Andrew. If we follow Mark 1:21, 2:1, 9:33; Matt 4:13; John 2:12, Jesus had some sort of »operational basis« in Capernaum.190 Most likely these places were also the core region of the Q-group (see above, II.1.2). It is quite probable that after Jesus’ resurrection some of his disciples returned to their home-villages, as M. Moreland rightly concludes: »It is difficult to imag-

187 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 335: »Die so Handelnden demonstrieren, dass sie selbst mit so etwas Unbedeutendem und Unschuldigem wie mit dem Staub einer Stadt nicht mehr zu tun haben wollen—um wieviel weniger mit deren Bewohnern!« 188 See Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137. Polemics as a boundary marker in early Judaism are described by Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 73–91; Johnson, Slander, 419–441; Marshall, Apocalypticism, 68–82. 189 For archaeological data concerning these villages, see Kloppenborg, Bethsaida, 61–90, and Tiwald, Logienquelle, 84–87. The so called ›house of St. Peter‹ in Capernaum is analysed by Broadhead, Ways, 341, and Zangenberg, Silence, 104–107. Even if the tradition were authentic, one cannot reckon with an ongoing and unbroken line of Jewish Christians until Byzantine times. 190 Ebner, Stadt, 15–16.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

93

ine that all Galilean people who were part of a Jewish Jesus group immediately left the Galilee after his death in Jerusalem.«191 Nevertheless, no later than the Second Jewish war—if not during the First Jewish War—this presence of Jewish believers in Jesus seems to have ceased in the Galilee, as no traces of this group have survived. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3:5:2–3) and Epiphanius (Pan. 29.7.7–8, 30.2.7; De mensuribus 15) indicate that the Christians of Jerusalem left the city and went to Pella before the First Jewish War broke out.192 Perhaps the Christians in the Galilee did likewise. At least we have some hints in Josephus B.J. 2:279 // Ant. 20:256 that many Jews left Palestine under the reign of Gessius Florus (64–66 CE) shortly before the outbreak of the war. Even after the war had begun, Jews continued to leave the country. Thus Titus, after having begun the siege of Jerusalem, permitted surrendering Jews to leave the city (B.J. 5:422). Likewise, Luke 21:20–21 mentions such tendencies. Additionally, Acts 19:3 mentions disciples of the Baptist in Ephesus, a city where we also encounter the author of Revelation, who also had Palestinian roots.193 If the reference in Justin Apol. 1.31.6 is right that Bar Kochba persecuted Christians (most likely because of rival messianic claims) then this might have been an additional argument to leave Palestine. If so, the Q-community, having left the Galilee, might have found acceptance in the community of the later Gospel of Matthew. Most likely this community was founded by Q-missionaries and was thus a possible place to flee to (see above, II.2.3.2). The starting point for such an exodus might have been the rejection of Q-missionaries by the majority of Galilean Jews, expressed here as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Thus Jesus’ optimism (see below, IV: Excursus 1) now mingles with harsher notes of failure and the announcement of judgement in Q. Only en passant does Q transmit the notice that Jesus had performed miracles in these villages. Q has only reported one single miracle until now, the healing of the officer’s servant in Capernaum (Q 7:1–10). Additionally, the summary in Q 7:22 (»The blind see and the lame walk around, those with skin diseases are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor are given good news.«) hints at more healings there, and Q 11:14–15.17–20 also mentions the casting out of demons.194 Q mainly consists of logia (sayings) and does not contain much narrative material. Thus the absence of other miracle stories (Q 7:1–19 here is an exception) is explicable. Nevertheless, Jesus’ role in performing miracles—richly attested in the Synoptic Gospels and in extra-biblical sources195—can likewise be found in Q.

191 Moreland, Provenience, 55. Luke locates the first community of Christians only in Jerusalem due to his Jerusalem-centrism. Nevertheless, we have diverging information in Mark 16:7, Matt 28:7 (skipped by Luke), and John 21. Matt 28:16–20 locates Jesus’ order for universal mission in the Galilee and not in Jerusalem. 192 Concerning the reliability of the Pella-note, see Frenschkowski, Galiläa, 551–552, and Bourgel, Move, 107–138. Heil, Q-Gruppe, 163, also assumes that the Q-community fled to Syria before the outbreak of the First Jewish War. 193 See Stowasser, Nikolaiten, 223; Backhaus, Vision, 17. 194 Cf. Robinson, Sequence, 226. 195 E.g., Josephus Ant. 18,63 (concerning the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, see the discussion at Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 87–88); Lucian of Samosata, Peregr. 11 (Jesus depicted as a »magus«); b. San 43a (depicting Jesus’ miracles as sorcery.)

94

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Whoever Takes You in Takes Me in (Q 10:16) Whoever takes you in takes me in, and, whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me.

16

In contrast to the rejection of Q-missionaries is the high esteem in which they hold their own mission. Q 10:16 here functions as some sort of hinge between Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for the Mission (Q 10:2–16) and Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24). The missionaries are rejected by the people but legitimated by God. The Jesus-centrism of Q and the exclusivity linked to belief in Jesus sometimes led to the opinion that such concepts no longer fit into the picture of Judaism.196 In contrast to this, one has to state that in apocalyptic circles of early Judaism, diverging groups followed their own traditions and believed in the salvific exclusivity of their own figures. Thus the »Teacher of Righteousness« had a similar exclusivity for the Qumran community. In 1QpHab 2.1–10, the interpretation (»pesher«) of Hab 1:5, we read: … [This passage refers to] the traitors with the Man of the 2 Lie, because they have not [obeyed the words of ] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of 3 God. It also refers to the trai[tors to the] New [Covenant], because they did not 4 believe in God’s covenant [and desecrated] His holy name; 5 and finally, it refers [to the trai]tors in the Last 6 Days. They are the cru[el Israel]ites who will not believe 7 when they hear everything that is to c[ome upon] the latter generation that will be spoken by 8 the Priest in whose [heart] God has put [the ability] to explain all 9 the words of his servants the prophets, through [whom] God has foretold 10 everything that is to come upon his people and [the Gentiles].

1

The words of the »Teacher of Righteousness« are words »from the mouth of God«. He alone has access to the deeper meaning in the words of the prophets: »God has put [the ability] to explain all the words of his servants the prophets in his heart.« Those who refuse to listen to his interpretation are »traitors to the New Covenant«.197 But there are further parallels to Q 10:16 in Mark 9:37 and John 13. C. Heil supposes that different versions go back to an authentic logion of Jesus being handed down in diverging traditions.198 Perhaps this logion represents an authentic reminiscence of Jesus sending out his co-workers (see above, III: Q 10:2–16).

196 Cf. Schnelle, Einleitung, 250 and 264. See the further discussion at Tiwald, Logienquelle, 95–100. 197 Concerning the Teacher of Righteousness, see Maier, Torah, 35–59, and Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 150–152. 198 Heil, Missionsinstruktion, 47. Likewise Theobald, Herrenworte, 148: »Alles in allem dürfte die joh. Gemeinde den Zugang zu den Aussendungsüberlieferungen nicht über Q, sondern über andere, mündliche Kanäle erhalten haben.« Mark 9:37 talks about children, not about missionaries. But Q-missionaries were also called »children« in Q 10:21, the next logion in the Sayings Source. The logion of not giving scandal to »little ones« follows directly in Mark 9:42 and also has a parallel in Q 17:1–2.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

95

Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24) Narrative Unit 3 makes a thematic connection to the preceding verse (»Whoever takes you in takes me in, and, whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me.«) and focusses on the legitimacy of the Q-envoys. As already seen in Q 10:16, in apocalyptic circles of early Judaism diverging groups followed their own traditions and referred to exclusive redemption-figures. Such conceptions are now expanded in Q 10:21. Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children (Q 10:21) At that time he said: I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you hid these things from sages and the learned, and revealed them to children. Yes, Father, for that is it what has pleased to you. 21

Eschatological patterns are most evident in this saying (see below, IV: Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q). In apocalyptic circles of early Judaism the revealing of ›secrets‹ was scheduled for eschatological times. According to such conceptions, God’s will, the Torah, is imagined as the order of creation (see above, III: Q 16:16) that had been lost by the Fall of Humankind in protological times but will be restored in eschatological times. Such concepts can be found in the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 En. In eschatological times the elect expected »to … be given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge« (93:10b). Likewise the Qumran text Musar leMevin (4QInstruction) 4Q418 Frg. 69 2:10 mentions the »chosen of truth« who will be endowed with special knowledge in eschatological times. They alone know the »mystery of being«199, i.e. God’s hidden plan of salvation that is now revealed to the elect.200 There is a parallel in 4 Ezra 14:44–46, where Ezra receives seventy additional holy books containing the right interpretation of God’s will for eschatological times.201 While the holy scriptures are known to all Jews, the additional books only are intended for a group of special elects. Here an esoteric group within early Judaism claims for itself exclusive knowledge of God’s will. This knowledge is not only derived from scripture but from additional exclusivist texts within the group.202

199 Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 127: »Thus elsewhere in Musar, although revelatory knowledge called ›the mystery of being‹ has been disclosed to the addressee (4Q416 2 iii 17–18) and although there are some who already understand it (4Q418 123 ii 4), he is nevertheless exhorted to investigate, observe, meditate on and understand it (4Q416 2 i 5; 2 iii 14; 4Q417 2 i 2, 18, 25; 4Q418 43–45 i 4—›your mysteries‹).« 200 Lange, Weisheit, 109–120. This knowledge is taught by the »Teacher of Righteousness«, who thus becomes the role of a mediator of revelation (»Offenbarungsmittler«, Lange, Weisheit, 107). 201 Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 81. 202 Hogan, Meanings, 551: »… the wise can find tôrâ (in the sense of divine instruction) in esoteric books—presumably texts that were eventually excluded from the Jewish canon of Scripture.«

96

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

The first followers of Jesus did the same in referring to the Jewish Scriptures as well as to their own traditions—these being hidden from the »sages and the learned«, i.e. rival groups in Judaism. Nevertheless, the scope of Q 10:21 is not an exclusive and esoteric revelatory knowledge but a means of explaining the disbelief of the most important groups in Israel (the »sages and the learned«).203 In spite of the apocalyptic patterns of exclusivist knowledge, the Q-missionaries did not consider their ideas in an esoteric mystery, but were bound to proclaim Jesus’ message to everyone (»What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim on the rooftops«, Q 12:3). Q directs its message to all of Israel and not only to a small, esoteric group. The criticism of rival groups could be somewhat harsh in early Judaism, as we can see in 1. En.: 1 En. 98 … 3 because they have no knowledge or understanding. Thus they will perish, together with all their possessions, and all their splendor and honor; and for dishonor and slaughter and great destitution, their spirits will be cast into the fiery furnace. 1 En. 104 10 And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and copy the words of truth, and pervert many and lie and invent great fabrications, and write books in their own names. 11 Would that they would write all my words in truth {in their names}, and neither remove nor alter these words, but write in truth all that I testify to them. 12 And again I know a second mystery, that to the righteous and pious and wise my books will be given for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom. 13 Indeed, to them the books will be given, and they will believe in them, and in them all the righteous will rejoice and be glad, to learn from them all the paths of truth.

Similar to Q 10:21 where the »sages and the learned« are criticised, in 1 En. 104 there is a polemic against those who »write books«. The »sinners« here are from among the Jewish elites, writing books and living in »splendor and honor« (1 En. 98:3). Nevertheless, the seemingly wisdom of the apparently wise is now disguised as »no knowledge or understanding« (1 En. 98:3) in analogy to Q 10:21 or to Q 11:39–52 (the woe-oracles against the Pharisees). Knowing the Father through the Son (Q 10:22) Everything has been entrusted to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 22

The negative formulation of Q 10:21 (»hidden from sages and the learned«) is now turned into a positive statement: unique revelation of God to his »son«.

203 Cf. Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 113–114.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

97

The Title »Son of God« and the absolute »Son«:204 Q 10:22 is one of the few passages in the Sayings Source that parallels the heights of Pauline theology (e.g., Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4). Already in the temptation story in Q 4:3.9 the devil addresses Jesus as »son of God«. In this pericope the title »son« becomes absolute as »the Son« and expresses Jesus’ revelatory exclusivity. In Jewish Scriptures, the formulation Son of God205 could be used for somebody in a special relationship to God, e.g., the angels in heaven: Gen 6:3; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Ps 89:7; Israel is God’s firstborn son: Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1; Jer 31:9.20; the king: 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; the sage: Sir 4:10; the righteous man: Wis 2:13.18; the peacemakers: Matt 5:9). In analogy to such concepts the title »Son« could indicate the unique exclusivity of Jesus’ relationship to God.206 Paul is the first witness to this development: 1 Thess 1:10, further 1 Cor 1:9, 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 1:16, 2:20, 4:4; and finally Rom 1:3–4.9, 8:3.32. The title »Son (of God)« developed very early into the most prolific expression of Jesus’ unique relationship to God and later to his most important title.207 The earliest nonPauline reference to this title can be found in the Sayings Source. Here we can see that in spite of the variegated contexts of early Christianity, similar theological developments took place, albeit with different speeds and expressions. Closely connected to the title »Son« is the metaphor of »Father« for God—as prominently represented in the Sayings Source (e.g., Q 6:27.36; 10:21.22; 11:2.13; 12:6.30). This metaphor is already present in scripture (Hos 11:1–11; Ps 89:27; Jer 3:4.9, 31:20; Sir 51:10), and certainly was used by the historical Jesus. Mark 14:36 has preserved the Aramaic Abba-title used by Jesus for God—also found in Paul (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). It is most likely that Jesus’ own use of the address »father« for God was the starting-point for the theological post-Easter development of the Father-Son-relationship between Jesus and God. In later theology the father-address of Jesus (»my father«) is put in juxtaposition to the disciples’ father-address (»your father«), especially in John 20:17, but also Mark 11:25par.; Matt 23:9; Luke 22:29, 24:49; John 15:15.208 This distinction is already evident in the Sayings Source, and most prominently in this pericope. »These things«, revealed to Jesus, are eschatological secrets.209 As already stated above, Q here does not present esoteric knowledge revealed only to a small group of chosen ones, rather understands itself as directed towards all Israel.210 Thus the

204 Theologically, one should not distinguish between the title »Son of God« and the absolute »Son«. Cf. Luz, Matthäus II, 208–209. The absolute »Son« can be found in Mark 13:32 (//Matt 24:36); 1 Cor 15:28; Hebrews and John. 205 Cf. Gnilka, Markus I, 60–64; Theobald, Sohn, 119–141; Kremer, Art. Sohn Gottes, 3–71. 206 Cf. Theobald, Sohn, 125. 207 Cf. Theobald, Sohn, 140. 208 Nevertheless, one should not go so far as Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 458, who want to trace this distinction back to the historical Jesus. In the Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:2) such a distinction is not given at all. 209 Luz, Matthäus II, 211. 210 Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 113 (»the idea of the revelation and mediation of divine secrets«). Luz, Matthäus II, 207: »Für die Apokalyptiker sind die Weisheit und die Geheimnisse der Zukunft verborgen (vgl. äthHen 42) und werden durch den Seher (z. B. äthHen 103,2) den wenigen Weisen offenbart (4Esra 12,36–38; 14,26; sBar 46,2–5; 48,3).«

98

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

formulation does not present us with an informative reference as to who will be saved, rather functions as a performative appeal to not being so arrogant as the »sages and the learned« in rejecting Jesus’ message, rather to be as humble as the »children«. There is no dogmatic decision as to who will be excluded, rather paraenetic exhortation to accept Jesus’ revelations. Blessed are the Eyes that See What You See (Q 10:23–24) Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. 24 For I tell you: Many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.

23

The self-assuring consolation that the despised Q-group is in possession of God’s truth now is carried on by a macarism (concerning the literary genre of macarism, see above, III: Q 6:20–23). The »children« of v 21 who are despised by the »sages and the learned« are now participants in a revelation desired by »prophets and kings«. In contrast to the rejection of Q-missionaries in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Q 10:13–15), the value of this message is underscored by insisting on the presence of eschatological events.211 So we read in Pss. Sol. 17:44: »Blessed (μακάριοι), are those born in those days to see the good things for Israel which God will cause to happen in the assembly of the tribes« (see also Pss. Sol. 18:6–7). The formulation »kings and prophets« is used as stereotypical pattern in Apoc. Ab. 25:5; Philo Ebr. 143; 2 Macc 2:13—both groups were »anointed«, kings for political and prophets for spiritual leadership.212 Q names the »prophets« before the »kings« due to the Sayings Source’s affinity to prophecy (see below, IV: Excursus: 3.2). Additionally, the continuity of salvation history is present here. The disciples are eye- and ear-witnesses to the fulfilment of promises given to the prophets and kings in Israel.213

Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13) The topic of trustful prayer continues along the lines of the ›intimacy‹ between the heavenly father and his children: those who call God their caring father are authorised to ask everything of him.

211 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 389. 212 Maier, Torah, 49. 213 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 390 (»… Postulat einer heilsgeschichtlichen Kontinuität: Das Heil, dessen Ohren- und Augenzeugen die Jünger werden, ist nichts anderes als die Erfüllung der Hoffnung von Israels Königen und Propheten«).

99

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

The Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:2b–4) 2b

When you pray, say: Father, may your name be holy may your reign come 3 Give us our bread for the coming day 4 And cancel our debts for us, as we too have cancelled for those in debt to us; and do not lead us into temptation.

Plea for God’s Reign Plea for Bread Plea for Forgiveness

Regrettably the Sayings Source does not offer a situational frame for the Lord’s Prayer. From Mark 1:35 and 6:46 we learn that Jesus prayed repeatedly, and Mark 11:24; Matt 6:5; Luke 11:1 make clear that Jesus also taught his disciples how to pray. Only Luke 11:1 mentions that the Baptist also taught his disciples how to pray. This context suggests that the Lord’s Prayer really goes back to Jesus himself. This view is corroborated by the use of many key topics typical for Jesus, e.g., the father-metaphor for God (see above, III: Q 10:22), the plea for the coming of God’s reign (see below, IV: Excursus 1), the plea for bread as a reflection of Jesus’ itinerant lifestyle (see above, III: Q 9:57–58), and parallels in other early Jewish prayers (see below). Q here offers a shorter version than does the Gospel of Matthew. The address of God most probably was only the vocative »father« and not yet »our father« as in Matt 6:9. Further, the text names three groups of pleas: a double plea concerning God’s reign, a single plea for bread and again a double plea for forgiveness. The plea for forgiveness is connected to the condition of having already forgiven »those in debt to us«. Addressing God as Father was widespread in early Judaism (e.g., Sir 23:1.4; Tob 13:4; 3 Macc 6:3.8; Apocr. Ezek. Frg. 3; 4Q372 Frg. 1 16; 4Q460 Frg. 5 1:5).214 In analogy to Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6, one can see the word »abba« as the Aramaic form of Jesus’ father-address. Abba is an emphatic vocative (the form of direct address). The often repeated thesis that »abba« might be a child’s term of endearment is wrong.215 The Plea for God’s Reign is positioned in prominent first place in a double formulation. Both parts are linked together rhythmically by the concluding »your« in Greek (your name/your reign). Much ink has been spilled over the question as to how »may your name be holy« should be interpreted. According to Ezek 36:22–23, 38:23, 39:7, God sanctifies his name himself, by presenting himself as sovereign Lord over the whole world. In contrast, Isa 29:23; Deut 32:51 (see also Exod 20:7; Lev 22:32; 1 En. 61:12) humankind is to sanctify God’s name. The first interpretation—God sanctifies his name himself (here formulated in the passivum divinum)—has the higher

214 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 104. 215 Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 105; Schattner-Rieser, Aramäische, 81–144.

100

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

context-plausibility. Jesus imagines that the power of Satan is already broken and the final victory of God’s reign imminent (see below IV: Excursus 1). In the Songs for Sabbath-Sacrifice in Qumran (4Q400–407), the reign of God is already present in heaven and can be anticipated on earth by attending the Sabbath-liturgy of the Qumran community.216 Jesus shows a similar concept, but for him the reign of God is not anticipated in liturgy but in his miracle healings and the remission of sins. Thus the first double plea in the Lord’s Prayer might be interpreted as a synonymous formulation: God will sanctify his name by bringing his reign to a full unfolding. Even if this is the primary meaning, the second interpretations is included: everyone engaging in the reign of God is sanctifying God’s name. It is worth noting that sanctifying God’s name also has a social component in making peace with one’s neighbour (Forgiveness-Plea). Sanctifying God’s Name was a fixed expression in early Judaism: 1 En. 39 12 … they stand in the presence of your glory; And they bless and praise and exalt, saying, »Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Spirits, he fills the earth with spirits.« 13 And there my eyes saw all who sleep not; they stand in his presence, and they bless and say, »Blessed are you, and blessed be the name of the Lord forever and ever.« 1 En. 61 12 And all who sleep not in the heights of heaven will bless him, and all the holy ones who are in heaven will bless him, and all the chosen who dwell in the garden of life. And every spirit of light that is able to bless and glorify and exalt and sanctify your blessed name, and all flesh, that in excess of (its) power glorifies and blesses your name forever and ever. 13 For great is the mercy of the Lord of Spirits, and he is slow to anger; and all his deeds and all his mighty acts, as many as he has done, he has revealed to the righteous and the chosen in the name of the Lord of Spirits.

The Kedushah217, the »sanctifying (of God)«, here is described as the centre-piece of the heavenly liturgy in 1 En. 61:12: »every spirit of light that is able to bless and glorify and exalt and sanctify your blessed name, and all flesh, that in excess of (its) power glorifies and blesses your name forever and ever.« In 1 En. 39:12–13 there is only praise and blessing but not sanctifying God’s name, but it is used in connection with the trisagion—the threefold invocation of God as holy (cf. Isa 6:3). The Kedushah is also present in 11Q5 26:9–15: 9 10

Great and holy is the LORD, a Holy of Holies for generation after generation. At his fore marches majesty, at his rear, the tumult of many waters. Loving-kindness and truth surround

216 Cf. Schwemer, Königsherrschaft, 117 (»Die eschatologische Erwartung der Gottesherrschaft auf Erden hat ihren Grund in der präsentischen kultischen Feier der Königsherrschaft Gottes im Himmel!«). The Songs for Sabbath-Sacrifice originated in Essene circles between 150–50 BCE (ibid. 60). 217 In modern-day Judaism, the kedushah (‫ה‬‫דוּ‬ ‫יַלת‬ּ , »prayer of sanctifying«) represents the third part of the amidah (Shemoneh Esreh) and consists in the trisagion, the threefold invocation of God as holy according to Isa 6:3. The kedushah—in the general sense of sanctifying God but not in the sense of today’s prayer—can be found in Jesus’ time. In contrast, the kaddish-prayer—other than often claimed (pace Konradt, Matthäus, 105)— cannot be dated to the time before 70 CE. Cf. Lehnardt, Art. Kaddisch-Gebet, WiBiLex. Likewise Lehnardt, Geschichte, 30–46, especially 43–44.

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

101

His face, truth, 11 justice and righteousness uphold his throne. Darkness he divides from light, preparing the dawn with the knowledge of 12 his heart. When all his angels saw, they rejoiced in song for he had shown them what they knew not: 13 decking out the mountains with food, fine sustenance for all who live. Blessed be he who 14 by his might created the earth, who by his wisdom established the world. By his understanding he stretched forth the heavens and brought out 15 [the wind] from [his] trea[sure stores.] He created [lightning for the ra]in and [from] the end of [the earth] made vapor[s] to rise. …

This text is a valuable parallel to the Lord’s Prayer (and also to Q 6:27–28.35c). In both texts the two key topics are intertwined: God as loving father and creator looking after his creation and God’s mercy. God sustaining his creation is present in the Plea for Bread of the Lord’s Prayer, further in Q 10:7 (»the worker is worthy of his reward«), and in Q 12:29–30 (»So do not be anxious, saying: What are we to eat? Or: What are we to drink? Or: What are we to wear? … For your Father knows that you need them all.«). God’s mercy is the second topic present in the Lord’s Prayer (forgiveness of sins) and in 11Q5 26:10 in the expression »loving-kindness«. Even stronger is the connection in 11Q5 24:10–11: Remember me, do not forget me; cast me not into hardship beyond bearing. (‫ואל תביאני‬ ‫)בקשות ממני‬. 11 Remove afar off the sins of my youth, and let not my sins be remembered against me.

10

1 En. 61:12–13 (see above) demonstrates that one could connect God’s sanctification with God’s mercy in early Judaism. The idea behind this is that God’s holiness becomes extended to the sphere of humankind and sanctifies humankind by the forgiveness of sins. All these elements are present in the Lord’s Prayer: God is a loving father by extending his reign of holiness to the earth, and he brings forgiveness of sins and provides bread for his children. The Lord’s Prayer thus can be seen as an embodiment of early Jewish prayertraditions (criterion of historical plausibility). Nevertheless, Jesus also introduces his own accents into this prayer (criterion of context-bound individuality): the reign of God will begin by breaking the reign of the »ruler of this world« (Q 4:5–6 and 11:18; John 12:31 and 16:11). Jesus prays that God might not delay this process but will soon establish his reign here on earth and redeem humankind from sin, harm, and temptation. The Lord’s Prayer thus is not an incomprehensible text of the past, but a centre-piece of Jesus’ belief and an embodiment of early Jewish hopes. The Plea for Bread: the phrasing here is, »Our bread, the ἐπιούσιος, give us today.« The word ἐπιούσιος, epiousios, is present only here in the New Testament (i.e., Matt 6:11 // Luke 11:3) and does not appear elsewhere in classical Greek. But repeatedly we find the formulation τῇ ἐπιούσῃ (ἡμέρᾳ) »on the following (day)« (so in Acts 7:26, 16:11, 20:15, 21:18; Josephus Ant. 12:215; see also Acts 23:11). »Our bread the ἐπιούσιος« could most probably be translated as »our bread for the coming day«.218 This certainly reflects a Galilean context: itinerant missionaries, who according to Q 10:4 had neither money nor knapsack with provisions, pray that they will not go 218 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 407–408; Konradt, Matthäus, 107; Luz, Matthäus I, 449–452; Labahn, Gekommener, 196–197.

102

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

hungry on the following day. Thus Mark 2:23 provides a story in which Jesus and his disciples had nothing to eat and practised the plucking of ears of corn as permitted by Deut 23:25. Like the ravens in Q 12:22b–31, Jesus’ disciples put all their confidence in God. The invitation »Do not be anxious, saying: What are we to eat? Or: What are we to drink? Or: What are we to wear? For your Father knows that you need them all. But seek his reign, and all these shall be given to you.« This stands in connection to the plea for bread: addressing God as »Father«, seeking God’s reign, and being sustained by God, are all common tropes in both texts. Despite the fact that these concepts had their first Sitz im Leben in the itinerancy of itinerant missionaries, they also apply to the sedentary community.219 This is the basic confidence that the loving Father-God sustains his children, as reflected in Ps 104:14–15, 136:25, 145:15, 147:9; Pss. Sol. 5:9–11. The Plea for Forgiveness: The connection of God’s holiness and the forgiveness of sins can easily be connected in early Judaism. Here the Lord’s Prayer fits perfectly into the context of early Judaism (criterion of historical plausibility). Nevertheless, Jesus also introduces his own accents here (criterion of context-bound individuality) by connecting God’s forgiveness to a willingness to forgive those in debt to us. Such an attitude occurs repeatedly in the NT (e.g., Mark 11:25; Matt 6:14, 18:23–35; Luke 6:37; Col 3:13). The reciprocity in forgiveness of sins is attested in early Judaism, as can be seen in Sir 28:2: »Forgive your neighbour the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.« (see also T. Zeb. 5:3; 8:1–3; m. Yom 8:9)220 The plea and do not lead us into temptation221 is difficult to understand: Can God lead us into temptation? Already James—maintaining old Jewish-Christian traditions—mentions (most likely in reference to the Lord’s prayer) in Jas 1:13–14: »No one, when tempted, should say, ›I am being tempted by God‹; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it.« Nevertheless, the word πειρασμός, (»temptation«, »trial«, »testing«) does not primarily mean temptation to evil, rather reflects the early Jewish conception that God put us in situations of trial (Wis 3:5; Acts 20:19; Jas 1:2; 2 Peter 2:9).222 God here is asked to spare us from difficult trials. Behind this plea stands the experience that humankind can fail in situations of hardship and suffering. The same ideas are present in 11Q5 24:10–11: »Cast me not into hardship beyond bearing. Remove afar off the sins of my youth, and let not

219 Thus correctly, Luz, Matthäus I, 452; Konradt, Matthäus, 107; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 408. 220 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 408. 221 Cf. Gielen, Versuchung, 201–216. The text indeed reads »and do not lead us into temptation«—alternative translations such as »let us not fall into temptation« do not conform to the text itself. A recourse to uncertain Aramaic retro-translations remains mere speculation (ibid. 202–203). 222 See Gielen, Versuchung, 205–206; Gerber, Bitten, 119–125; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 409 and 178–179. Hieke, Schriftgelehrsamkeit, 64, underscores: »Gott erprobt den Glauben und die Treue einzelner (Abraham: Gen 22,1; Ijob) und des Volkes (Dtn 8,2.16; Ex 15,25; 16,4) …«

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13)

103

my sins be remembered against me.« (see the full quotation above)223 In the sphere of God’s holiness which is now beginning, not only is there forgiveness of sins possible but also hope that hardships und temptations might not be come.224 Ask and It will be Given to You (Q 11:9–13) I tell you, ask and it will be given to you, search and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks will it be opened. 11 Which of you, whose son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 12 Or again when he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 13 So if you, though evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him.

9

The topic of trustful childlike praying is now continued in: 1) three synthetic parallelisms (ask—search—knock), 2) a double imagery (asking for bread—asking for a fish), 3) an argument by comparison (if you …—how much more …).225 Ask—search—knock: All three verbs describe an action that intends a certain consequence; they are all synonymous variations of »asking for something«.226 All three verbs are imperatives (the imperative present tense has an iterative function: »do not stop asking«) and serve as direct encouragement for appropriate action. The second part of the sentence is kept in the future tense and describes the direct consequence (you will be given—you will find—for you will be opened). Verse 9 describes a call to action—verse 10 underscores such an action with practical experiences: »For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks will it be opened.« The triple repetition follows the »rule of three«: repeating something three times means that it is correct and sure. The duplication of a call to action and reassurance (v 10) enforces the argumentation. The motifs behind these verses are found in Jer 29:12–13 and Isa 55:6.

223 See also 1 Cor 10:13: »No testing (πειρασμός) has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.«— Cf. Gielen, Versuchung, 212–213. 224 A further aspect here is the monocausality of God (see Gielen, Versuchung, 216: »Allursächlichkeit Gottes«), seeing everything that happens as caused by God. So also in Job 2:10 we read: »Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?« Likewise, Q 12:6 mentions that »not one single sparrow will fall to earth without your Father«. In Q this knowledge leads to the faith that God as loving and caring father will spare his children all forms of undue hardness. Nevertheless, a textual simplification of the Lord’s Prayer in the sense of »let us not fall into temptation« overlooks the existential needs and fears of the person praying amidst the trials of life. See also: Söding, Vaterunser, passim. 225 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 414. 226 Konradt, Matthäus, 120.

104

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Which of you …? introduces in vv 11 and 12 two rhetorical questions implying the answer »none of us«. V 13 finally formulates the result as a conclusion a minore ad maius: »So if you, though evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him.« Bread and fish here do not yet carry a symbolic function (cf. John 21:9–13). When Luke 11:11–12 alternatively mentions a fish and an egg this only demonstrates that here basic nourishments of daily life in Palestine were mentioned.227 In Aramaic the juxtaposition of fish (‫נונא‬, nuna) and snake (‫תנינא‬, tanina) might have been a play on words.228 But even the Greek text follows a special rhythm, the words ἄρτον/λίθον (arton/lithon—bread/stone) and ἰχθύν/ὄφιν (ichthyn/ophin—i and y are similar in Greek—fish/snake).229 The contrasting juxtaposition of »you, though evil« with the good heavenly father is hyperbolic and due to metaphorical exaggeration. This is not an anthropological statement about humankind but a rhetorical argument by comparison. In the formulation that God will give »good things« (ἀγαθά) we encounter similar conceptions to those of Jas 1:17. Luke here mentions the gift of holy spirit. The idea behind this is that God does not fulfil every prayer but nevertheless cares for all his children by giving his spirit. In contrast to Jesus’ eschatologically motivated security of God’s help, Q and Luke offer a sapiential ›correction‹: God does not fulfil all wishes, but nevertheless gives »good things« (Q) or »the holy spirit« (Luke). Nevertheless, the unbroken confidence in God’s sustenance is found in Q and represents the conclusion of Narrative Cycle 2.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries Natural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18) Narrative Cycle 3 begins a new chapter. After the programmatic presentation of Jesus and the Baptist in Narrative Cycle 1 and the depiction of the Q-missionaries in Narrative Cycle 2, now Narrative Cycle 3 focusses on the adversaries. Up until now an essentially positive vision has pervaded the Sayings Source. Now harsher notes of rejection and failure seep into the overall picture. As enemies we firstly have supernatural powers (Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ victory over the Demons), then—by mentioning »this generation«— eschatological adversaries (Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation«), followed by admonitions (Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine!), and finally human enemies (Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law).

227 Gerber, Bitten, 122: »In Galiläa sind Brot und Fisch die typische Nahrung auch der einfachen Leute (vgl. Mk 6,30ff parr …).« 228 Thus the proposal of Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 305. 229 Gerber, Bitten, 120.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

105

Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26) The introduction is positive: Jesus’ victory over the Demons. But instead of reacting with belief, »some« remain sceptical. Here a subsequent instruction follows. Casting out Demons by the Finger of God (Q 11:14–15.17–20) And he cast out a demon that was mute. And once the demon was cast out, the mute person spoke. And the crowds were amazed. 15 But some said: He casts out demons by Beelzebul the ruler of demons! 17 But knowing their thoughts, he said to them: Every reign divided against itself is left barren, and every household divided against itself will not stand. 18 And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his reign stand? 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, your sons, by whom do they cast them out? This is why they will be your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then God’s reign has come upon you.

14

Due to the fact that Q contains only few narrative passages, references to Jesus’ miracles are rare (e.g., the Gentile officer in Q 7:1–10; the summary in Q 7:22 and the accusation in Q 10:13). In our pericope we only learn about a miracle of Jesus in the introductory verse 14 that provides the background for the following discussion with opponents. This pericope finds a remarkable parallel in Mark 3:22–27, being fused in Luke 11:14–22 with the Q-version, while Matt 9:32–34 and 12:22–30 maintains the doublet—if only in a strongly redactional reworking.230 Further parallels can be found in John 7:20, 8:48, 10:20, where Jesus is accused of being possessed by a demon. Beelzebul: The word Βεελζεβούλ is derived form 2 Kgs 1:2.6, where ‫( בעל זבוב‬baal zebub, »Lord of the Flies«) is a derisive title for the god of Ekron. Probably, the title of this god was ‫( בעל זבול‬baal zebul, »Lord of the House«—in the sense of »Lord of the Temple«). This form is still present in the Greek version Βεελζεβούλ in the Gospels and in 2 Kgs 1:2Symm.231 In Jewish thought foreign gods are downgraded to mere »demons«—»Beelzebul« becomes the »ruler of demons«. Nevertheless, the old meaning »Lord of the House« is still present in the picture of the divided household.232 The ruler of this world according to Q 4:5–6 and 11:18 (cf. John 12:31, 16:11) is Satan, who is identified in our pericope with Beelzebul. For Jesus the disempowerment of Satan has already occurred in heaven—thus, the coming of God’s reign on earth is imminent (see below, IV: Excursus 1). Even though the overthrowing of Satan has already happened in heaven, this process will also soon be realized on earth (cf. the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer: »Your kingdom come. Your will be done,

230 For a detailed analysis see Fleddermann, Q, 476–479. This pericope is generally recognized as stemming from Q, see Schröter, Erinnerung, 240–252. Strong literal parallels between Matt and Luke against Mark hint at such a conclusion. 231 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 416, and Schröter, Erinnerung, 253–254. 232 Thus Schröter, Erinnerung, 254.

106

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

on earth as it is in heaven«, Matt 6:10). Thus Satan is fighting back while beating a retreat on earth before his ultimate defeat. Jesus as messenger of the coming reign of God is endowed with God’s power to prepare the ultimate defeat of Satan. It is in this way that the words of our pericope have to be understood: »But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then God’s reign has come upon you.« Jesus’ exorcisms and miracle healings are therefore emblematic signs of the imminent overthrow of Satan. The »reign of Satan« mentioned in v 18 is now brought to an end by the coming of »the reign of God«. G. Bazzana has shown that the expression ἔφθασεν (φθάνω, »to arrive«) used in Q 11:20 for the coming of the reign of God was used in documentary papyri for the giving of benefits by rulers.233 The coming of God’s reign is like a »boon« in comparison to the reign of Satan. The argumentation is twofold. Firstly, in v 17–18 it is stated that the idea of Satan himself expelling demons is absurd, because Satan would not fight against himself. The following v 19 is not so much a logical argument, but an allusion to the bias of Jesus’ opponents.234 The formulation finger of God is derived from scripture, e.g., Exod 8:15, 31:18; Deut 9:10; see also Ps 8:4). »[T]he finger of God indicates the presence of God, his creative power and his involvement in human affairs.«235 It is God personally in his creative and loving power, who expels demons through Jesus as his messenger (see below IV: Excursus 1).236 Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22) A strong person cannot be burgled, 22 but if someone still stronger overpowers him, he will be burgled.

21

The image of a strong person being burgled by an even stronger person finds a parallel in Mark 3:27. In the Markan version we read about a burglar who first has to tie up the owner before he plunders his property. Matt 12:29 corresponds strongly with Mark 3:7, but Luke 11:21–22 offers a diverging text—probably derived from Q. The main argument that this pericope belonged to Q is the shared position after Casting out Demons with God’s Finger (Matt: Spirit) in both Matthew and Luke.237 Jesus repeatedly uses the Imagery of Violence and Insistence (see below IV: Excursus 4.1.4) to highlight the coming of God’s reign. This metaphor is based on apocalyptic

233 Bazzana, Scribes, 139–141. The word φθάνω here is used in connection with φιλανθρωπία (»love for mankind«; see the »loving kindness of God our Saviour« in Titus 3:4) and with εὐεργεσία (»good deed« as in 1 Tim 6:2; Acts 4:9). 234 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 418 (»nicht eigentlich eine Widerlegung des Vorwurfs, sondern eine Demaskierung der Voreingenommenheit von Jesu Kritikern«). Exorcisms in early Judaism are documented in 1QGen Apocr 20:28–29, and Josephus Ant. 8:46–48. 235 Klingbeil, Finger, 415. 236 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 255–256. 237 For the reconstruction of the verse, see Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 125–126; Fleddermann, Q, 484–488; Schröter, Erinnerung, 261–263.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

107

patterns—but Jesus only uses the imagery without adopting the apocalyptic ideas behind it (see below, IV: Excursus 4). The conception behind this pericope is that Satan is considered the ruler of this world (Q 4:5–6 and 11:18; see also John 12:31; 16:11). With the coming of the reign of God the rule of Satan is broken (see above III: Q 11:18–20; and concerning the whole topic see below IV: Excursus 1). God himself is the stronger one who invades the house of Satan (i.e., this world), overpowers Satan, and burgles his possessions (i.e., those under Satan’s dominion). Here the question arises as to whether the stronger one depicts God himself or Jesus. The motifs of this pericope are taken from Isa 49:24–25 (see also Pss. Sol. 5:3):238 Isa 49 24 Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? 25 But thus says the LORD: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; for I will contend with those who contend with you, and I will save your children. Pss. Sol. 5 1 Lord God, I will praise with joy your name among those who know your righteous judgments. 2 For You are good and merciful, the shelter of the poor. When I cry out to You, do not ignore me. 3 For no one takes pillage from a strong man, so who is going to take anything from all that You have done, unless You give it?

In both texts it is clearly God himself who comes to rescue his children and takes them like »booty« from their oppressors. Nevertheless, in all these texts he have a certain metaphorical fluidity. Already the Baptist had announced the »more powerful« one coming after him as the one performing baptism in fire and holy spirit. For Jesus—and probably already for the Baptist (see below IV: Excursus 1.4)—this »more powerful« one was seen as the coming Son of Man. Jesus puts his own ministry into close connection with the coming Son of Man: he links acceptance of the Son of Man to acceptance of his own message (Q 12:8–9 // Mark 8:38). Likewise, the person of Jesus himself becomes relevant for the coming of God’s reign in our pericope by expelling demons »by the finger of God« (Q 11:20). A similar concept can be found in Q 16:16 (see below IV: Excursus 4.1.4). Here Jesus depicts himself as the »violent one« who »plunders« the reign of God from Satan. Apparently Jesus sees himself as God’s representative empowered to cast out demons and heal the sick. He promotes the final victory of God’s reign here on earth by »plundering« those oppressed by Satan’s bondage and setting them free by forgiving their sins, healing their sickness, and expelling their demons. What proves true for the historical Jesus also applies to the Q community (who identify Jesus with the coming Son of Man) and even more for the later Gospels. Thus M. Wolter is right when he says about Lukan Christology that only God is stronger than Satan—but Jesus is seen as God’s representative and acting with his power.239 Thus for Q Jesus himself is the »stronger one«.

238 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 263. 239 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 420: »… kann man nur von Gott sagen, dass er dem Satan überlegen ist. Für die Luke Christologie gehört beides jedoch unauflöslich zusammen, denn Jesus wirkt als Repräsentant Gottes.«

108

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Our pericope finds a parallel in Gos. Thom. 35. According to J. Schröter the triple parallel in Mark, Q and Gos. Thom. indicates that the image of the stronger one has survived in different contexts and in different theological expressions.240 The triple parallel in diverging contexts, the similarity to Jesus’ intentions, but also the problematic metaphor (of Jesus as a violent plunderer) strongly hints at an authentic Jesus tradition preserved in the Sayings Source. The One not with Me (Q 11:23) The one not with me is against me, and the one not gathering with me scatters.

23

This logion follows the pericope of Burgling a Strong Person, as both Matthew and Luke place it here. Originally it might have been a free-floating saying of Jesus— but it fits perfectly here. In Jesus’ eschatological perception the time of decision has come: Satan is overthrown in heaven, Jesus promotes the last battle against him on earth »by the finger of God« (Q 11:20). This means that the eschatological crisis already has come—everybody has to decide if they belong to God or to Satan— neutrality is no longer an option. The logion is constructed as a double antithetic parallelism, juxtaposing »with me«—»against me« and »gathering«—»scattering«. The double parallelism underscores the urgency of this plea. The word »gathering« recalls the eschatological restitution of Israel. At the end of times God will gather the lost tribes of Israel and restore Israel’s integrity (Ezek 28:25; Isa 60:4). Jesus shared such ideas—he installs »the Twelve« as an emblematic symbol anticipating the eschatological restitution of the twelve tribes of Israel.241 This is the backdrop against which this text is to be read and understood. The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24–26) When the defiling spirit has left the person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting-place and finds none. Then it says: I will return to my house from which I came. 25 And on arrival it finds it swept and tidied up. 26 Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and, moving in, they settle there. And the person’s ultimate fate is even worse than it was before. 24

This pericope draws on the topic of expelling demons—but now no longer under the premises of Jesus’ own optimism rather in the perspective of a community that encounters failure and setbacks. Thus the text reflects ideas about demons current 240 Schröter, Erinnerung, 263: »… läßt sich aus dem Vorkommen in Mk, Q, und EvThom schließen, daß das Bildwort in verschiedene Rezeptionsvorgänge eingebunden werden konnte …« 241 Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 42; Gnilka, Christen, 182.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

109

in those times.242 A »defiling spirit« is »entering« or »leaving« a person, it »wanders through waterless regions«, returns and brings with it »seven other sprits«. The picture recalls rabid dogs roaming around—in Greek rabies was called ὑδροφoβία, hydrophobia, (literally: »fear of water«).243 Besides this figurative depiction, the focus rests on the demon finding its former place »swept and tidied up«. This means that the demon was expelled but is now invited to return. It becomes clear that it is not a physical or mental illness that is meant244 but an instruction to follow Jesus exclusively (cf. Q 11:23)245 against the background of the community’s experience that many converts later relapsed into their former habits. Such deceptions are also present in the allegory of the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4:16–19 in the images of not having roots and being suffocated by thorns. Many who accepted Jesus’ message gladly later fell from faith. It is these people that the Sayings Source judges—not without a certain bitterness—claiming »that person’s ultimate fate is even worse than it was before.«246

Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32) Narrative Unit 2 draws on the motif of disbelief and extends it to the topic of judgement against »this generation«. The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:16.29–30) But some were demanding a sign from him. 29 But he said: This generation is an evil generation; it demands a sign, and a sign will not be given to it—except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became to the Ninevites a sign, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.

16

According to Mark 8:11 Jesus was asked to perform a public miracle to demonstrate his authorization by God. The parallel Matt 12:38 / Matt 16:1 indicates that this also was present in Q. In Mark 8:12 Jesus clearly rejects such ideas. Rejection by reference to the sign of Jonah is nevertheless unique to the Q-tradition. There has been much discussion about the meaning of the sign of Jonah. In the Matthean redaction with allusion to Jonah 2:1 it is said: »For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.« (Matt 12:40) Never-

242 Concerning miracles, magic, and medicine in connection with this pericope, see von Bendemann, Rückfall, 469–506. Concerning narratological patterns in this text, see Labahn, Raum, 126–132. 243 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 421. 244 So correctly von Bendemann, Rückfall, 499. 245 Luz, Matthäus II, 282. 246 Labahn, Raum, 128.

110

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

theless, reference to Jesus’ resurrection is not appropriate in Q—in the Sayings Source Passion- and Easter-narratives are missing. M. Ebner interprets the act of being devoured and then spat out by the fish as imagery for the rapture and subsequent reappearance of Jesus returning as the Son of Man for the final judgement.247 Nevertheless, an interpretation that sees the sign of Jonah as a reference merely to Jesus’ preaching of penitence seems to be less complicated. Jonah—like Jesus—did not perform a miracle to demonstrate his authority—his sermon of penitence and reversal was enough for the Ninevites. Thus Jesus here indicates that his message does stand for itself and does not need further reinforcement by a miracle. Such an interpretation is supported by the mention of the »Queen of the South«. Like the Ninevites she also was a Gentile being converted by the mere power of the words by Solomon—without need for a miracle. Furthermore, the »announcement of Jonah« mentioned in Q 11:32 is here called κήρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ (kerygma of Jonah) and already focusses on the preaching of penitence.248 »The saying compares Jonah and Jesus as preachers … Jonah was a sign that the Ninevites needed to repent …«249 Jesus’ message here is made parallel to Jonah’s message of repentance. The message is enough—public displays of miracles are not necessary. The scolding of this generation is based on apocalyptic patterns. It is not directed to real people but to eschatological opponents whose appearance was expected in the last days (see below IV: Excursus 4.1). A wicked and malevolent generation was predicted in apocalyptic conceptions. The reference to »this generation« contains consolation: not the personal failure of the prophets has led to the rejection of the Q-message, but the predicted adversaries are part of the divine plan for the last days. The Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh (Q 11:31–32) The queen of the South will be raised with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and look, something more than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will arise with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it. For they repented at the announcement of Jonah, and look, something more than Jonah is here. 31

The »Queen of the South« refers to the queen of Sheba, who—according to 1 Kgs 10:1–13 (cf. 1 Chr 9:1–12)—visited king Solomon. She and the Ninevites of v 30 were Gentiles who nevertheless had come to believe in Israel’s God. The rhetorical pattern here follows once again the logic of a minore ad maius: if even Gentiles can

247 Ebner, Q, 106. 248 Cf. Luz, Matthäus II, 279–280. The announcement of Jonah is called κήρυγμα already in Jonah 3:2LXX. Jonah is the only prophet in scripture whose message is called κήρυγμα. See Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 425. 249 Fleddermann, Q, 514

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

111

find the path to belief, the failure of Israel is even greater. This perspective is still an inner-Jewish one—mission to Gentiles is not envisaged. The Gentiles here serve as a foil of contrast, as J. Kloppenborg Verbin has stated: »The rhetorical strategy at work is shaming.«250 Such a »shaming rhetoric«251 lies on the same trajectory as Rom 11:11, where Paul wants to render Israel »jealous« by pointing to the example of Gentiles.252 C. Tuckett claims similarly: »… the existence of Gentile Christians seemed only to have been appealed to by Q as part of its continuing passionate plea to the Jewish people to respond positively to the Christian message. Any ›missionary‹ activity in Q seems confined to Judaism.«253 Thus one here can see a forceful appeal to Israel to believe in the message of Q.254 The idea that in the final judgement witnesses for the prosecution will be heard is also present in 1 Enoch: 1 En. 94 11 And your righteous ones in those days will be a reproach to the sinners and the wicked. 1 En. 99 3 Then be prepared, O righteous, and present your petitions as a reminder; offer them as a testimony before the angels, that they may bring in the sins of the unrighteous before the Most High as a reminder.

The repeated oath-formula in 1 En. serves the same purpose. »These instances show that the writer’s use of the oath-formula presupposes a juridical scenario in which he acts as one who testifies. … [H]e takes upon himself the function of a witness against the sinners by describing their deeds (98:1–3; 99:6–9) and declaring that their guilt cannot be concealed (98:6–8).«255 1 En. 98 6 I swear to you, sinners, by the Great Holy One, that all your evil deeds are revealed in heaven, and you will have no unrighteous deed that is hidden. 1 En. 99 6 And again I swear to you, sinners, that sin is prepared for a day of ceaseless bloodshed. Those who worship stones—and who carve images of silver and gold and wood and stone and clay and worship phantoms and demons and abominations and evil spirits and all errors, not according to knowledge; no help will you find from them.

Here it becomes perfectly clear that the polemics of Q against »this generation« are not intended as a definite rupture with Israel but have to be considered innerJewish struggles. In early Judaism rival groups could use extreme language to defend their own positions. As repeatedly shown, such patterns are not informative-denotative statements concerning a real condemnation of rivals but a protrep-

250 251 252 253 254

Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 192. In the same vein Gnilka, Theologie, 142. Arnal, Q, 144. Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 235. Tuckett, Q, 425–426. Concerning the question whether Q had already broken with Israel and started a mission to the Gentiles, see the overview and discussion in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 94–116. 255 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 198.

112

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

tic-performative appeal to advertise one’s own positions.256 The literary genre recalls the rhetoric of politicians during election campaigns who fiercely condemn opponents with whom they then have to build a coalition after the elections.

Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35) The double function of such polemics as analysed in Narrative Unit 2—being directed against opponents but also strengthening the in-group position—becomes evident as the topic of enemies is abandoned in Narrative Unit 3 and instead the in-group message becomes the subject of discussion. Narrative Unit 2 was directed to outsiders, now Narrative Unit 3 again focusses to insiders. The Light on the Lampstand (Q 11:33) No one lights a lamp and puts it in a hidden place but on the lampstand, and it gives light for everyone in the house.

33

The saying of the Light on the Lampstand reflects local culture.257 In antiquity oil lamps played an important role. Simple oil lamps made of clay could be found even in the poorest households. To enhance brightness, such lamps often were put on a lampstand. Especially in sapiential texts of the Bible the metaphor of light is closely connected to the Jewish Torah (e.g., Prov 6:23; Ps 119:105.130).258 In early Judaism this TorahLight-Metaphor was even expanded: T. Levi 14:3–4 mentions the »light of Torah« and L.A.B. 11:1–2 describes the giving of the Torah at Sinai as giving »light unto the world«. In 2 Bar. 77:13 the »shepherds of Israel« are called »the lamps that have shone.« As R. Deines has stated, in early Judaism the metaphor of light can refer to the Torah itself but also to the Israelites who are required to hand this light to all the nations.259 According to this use, Matt 5:14 has interpreted the verse as: »You are the light of the world.« In the context of the third Gospel (Luke 11:33) it is possible that Luke refers the »evil eye«260 (concerning the »evil eye«, see below III: Q 11:34) to disbelief shown in asking Jesus for a miracle. In Mark 4:21 there is another parallel, but here the word is interpreted as »For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.« Mark thus refers the image of the lamp to the reign of God that in its small beginnings might easily be overlooked but soon will become obvious to everyone.261 Another version

256 See especially Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137; Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 73–91; Johnson, Slander, 419–441; Marshall, Apocalypticism, 68–82. 257 Concerning the narratological and sociological background see Dronsch, Leuchte, 133–138. 258 Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 225–229. 259 Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 229. 260 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 428. 261 Schröter, Erinnerung, 345.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

113

can be found in Gos. Thom. in three places (5: disclosing what is hidden; 6: nothing is hidden which will not be revealed; 33: a lamp under a vessel). It seems the topic of revealing disclosed things was very fruitful for the proto-gnostic attitude of Gos. Thom.262 The doublet offered by Luke and the vocabulary used make it clear that this logion was part of Q.263 If we accept the Lukan positioning as the original order of Q—which seems quite reasonable here264—then in Q the logion also followed the demand for a sign and Jesus’ reference to his message of penitence (the »sign of Jonah«). Now Jesus’ message is identified as the true light. In contrast to the final admonitions, which were directed to outsiders against »this generation«, this pericope is directed to insiders: the Q community carries the responsibility that Jesus’ message will not be hidden but will shine for the whole world. The fact that Jesus and his message—and not the Torah—are depicted as »light« remains within the range of early Jewish metaphor. In Isa 49:6 the Servant of God (representing Israel according to Isa 49:3) becomes the »light to the nations«.265 In John 5:35 the baptist, in Rev 21:23 the lamb, and in Rev 11:4 the two witnesses, are named »lamp« or »light«.266 R. Deines thus judges correctly in underscoring that in early Judaism the Torah, the messiah, Israel, the elect or even the righteous in general can be referred to as »light«.267 The Light within You (Q 11:34–35) The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sincere, your whole body is radiant; but if your eye is bad, your whole body is dark. 35 So if the light within you is dark, how great must the darkness be!

34

Verse 34 offers a shift in the metaphor by mentioning the »lamp of the body«.268 The light of Jesus’ message will now enlighten the whole body in behaviour according to Jesus’ message. With »eye« the fundamental attitude of one’s life is described, pervading the whole body. If the basic attitude is wrong, then everything is worth-

262 See also the analysis of Schröter, Erinnerung, 300–376, who demonstrates the stream of traditions and the re-contextualizing of this logion. 263 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 334–337. 264 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 337–340. 265 See also the references in Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 230–233. 266 Dronsch, Leuchte, 135. 267 Deines, Gerechtigkeit, 323: »Die Tora, der Messias, Israel, einzelne herausragende Gerechte und gelegentlich auch die Gerechten überhaupt—das sind die Lichter in der Welt, indem sie an Gott als dem wahren Licht partizipieren bzw. durch diesen ihr Licht erhalten.« 268 According to Popkes, Auge, 139–140, the special metaphor of the »lamp of the body« goes back to Pythagorean and Stoic traditions of light: the eye emits light-beams that return to the eye. Popular philosophical conceptions might have found their way into early Judaism. Nevertheless, Ps 38:10 mentions the »light of my eyes« much earlier.

114

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

less.269 In the context of Q this admonition is directed to insiders (following the admonition to outsiders in Q 11:29–32).270 Thus the text repeats in other words what had already been stated in Q 11:23 (»The one not with me is against me, and the one not gathering with me scatters.«). There can be no neutrality in following Jesus—one has to decide to be for him or against him, for the light or for the darkness.271 Prov 20:27LXX (»The spirit of man is a light of the Lord.«) offers a certain parallel, even if it does not stand in direct connection to our pericope. The topic of the »bad/evil eye« (ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός) is also to be found in Mark 7:22 and Sir 14:10, 31:13 (cf. Deut 15:9), but here refers to greed, envy, and jealousy.

Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18; 11:39–52) Narrative Unit 4 now focusses on the correct interpretation of the Torah. This only appears to be the start of a new topic—the catchword »light« from Narrative Unit 3 standing for the message of Jesus now is carried on as referring to the Jewish Torah (for examples for referring to the Torah as »light«, see above). Jesus’ message and the Torah are now connected by demonstrating how the followers of Jesus observe the Jewish law. Here it becomes clear that the group behind Q was perfectly Torah-observant (see above, III: Q 11:33), and even taught a stricter observance than the Pharisees and scribes, whose understanding of the Torah is now described as deficient and superficial. Narrative Unit 4 thus presents the end of Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries as a confrontation of Q-theology with Pharisaic ideas (if only depicted in a polemical caricature). This is only necessary because Q is still part of early Judaism and thus is positioning itself with regard to rival groups. No Iota and no Serif of the Law to Fall (Q 16:17) But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall away.

17

According to the position of this logion (see the discussion above, I.3.1.2) Q 16:17 functioned as a transition to polemics against Pharisees and scribes (therefore in

269 Popkes, Auge, 142: »Das Auge wird zum Bild für die ethische Grundhaltung eines Menschen … Kann das Auge kein Licht aufnehmen, so wird die menschliche Existenz von Finsternis, also einer ethisch-defizitären Lebenshaltung, beherrscht.« 270 Schröter, Erinnerung, 346. 271 So rightly Schröter; Erinnerung, 347: »Auch hier wird vor Neutralität gewarnt, indem die Alternative der totalen Finsternis vor Augen gehalten wird. Es ist demnach nicht plausibel, von einer Auseinandersetzung mit den Gegnern zu sprechen, denn es sind hier eindeutig die Q-Adressaten selbst im Blick.«

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

115

favour of the Matthean order against Luke). That Q 16:17 opens the discourse makes sense: here the eternal validity of the law is proclaimed programmatically—the following pericopae serve as examples to this general thesis. But even if one wants to position Q 16:17 according to the Lukan order (as scholars mostly do), this does not change anything in the fact that this saying belonged to Q and that the polemics against Pharisees and scribes has to be read by assuming that Q maintained the idea of the unbroken validity of the Jewish Torah. Accordingly, C. Tuckett rightly observes: »Q evidently has a somewhat conservative attitude to the Jewish Law. There is nothing which explicitly questions observance of the Law in any way. … Q 16.17 asserts that the Law is still valid right down to the smallest details of a jot or a tittle.«272 The belief in the eternal validity and immutability of the law was deeply ingrained in early Judaism:273 Philo Mos. 2: 14 But the enactments of this lawgiver are firm, not shaken by commotions, not liable to alteration, but stamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, and they remain firm and lasting from the day on which they were first promulgated to the present one, and there may well be a hope that they will remain to all future time, as being immortal, as long as the sun and the moon, and the whole heaven and the whole world shall endure. 15 At all events, though the nation of the Hebrews experienced so many changes both in the direction of prosperity and of the opposite destiny, no one, no not even the very smallest and most unimportant of all his commandments was changed, since every one, as it seems, honored their venerable and godlike character. 4 Ezra 9: 36 For we who have received the law and sinned will perish, as well as our heart which received it; 37 the law, however, does not perish but remains in its glory. Further evidence for the eternal validity of the Torah are: Bar 4:1; Wis 18:4; Philo Prob. 1.46; Josephus C. Ap. 2.277; 1 En. 72:1; 2 Bar. 59:2, 77:15.

Jesus’ statement (»But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall.«) can therefore be seen as a figure of speech to underscore the eternal validity of the Jewish law.274 In apocalyptic thought the idea was widespread that heaven and earth would actually pass away at the end of time (e.g., Matt 24:35; Rev 21:1; 1 En. 83:3–5, 91:15–17; 4 Ezra 7:29–34; 2 Bar. 32:1–6). Nevertheless, the end of heaven and earth does not mean the end of the Torah. The Torah in early Judaism was perceived as pre-existent, i.e., existing before crea-

272 Tuckett, Sayings, 221–222. See also Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 457: »… daß die QÜberlieferung die unverbrüchliche Gültigkeit des Gesetzes als einen in der Jesusüberlieferung verankerten Topos betrachtet und ihre eigene Aufnahme und Fortsetzung dieser Verkündigung von dieser Überzeugung getragen ist (16,17).« 273 I owe the following examples to my assistant K. Wohlthat, who wrote her – yet unpublished – PhD thesis on this topic. 274 Cf. Luz, Matthäus I, 315, who insists: »Jüdische Texte, welche in eindeutiger Weise die Gültigkeit der Torah auf die Weltzeit begrenzen, kenne ich nicht.« Likewise Heil, Lukas, 129: »Damit steht Q 16,17 in Kontinuität mit ähnlichen frühjüdischen Aussagen über die ›ewige‹ Gültigkeit des Gesetzes.«

116

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

tion and active in creation as God’s masterplan for heaven and earth.275 Torah— existing before heaven and earth—would consequently also exist after the end of heaven and earth, when it would serve as the eternal law according to which the last judgement would be executed, as in 2 Bar. 48:47 and 59:2. Iota and Serif: The iota was the smallest of the Greek letters, the serif a small artistic stroke with which to refine handwriting.276 The formulation means: not even the smallest part of the text will fall away. This implies that the Q-community not only kept the Torah in the sense of the command to love God and one’s neighbour, but also kept the ritual laws and purity prescriptions of the Jewish law (see below, III: Q 11:39–44). This reinforcement of the whole law might have been prompted by liberal groups in early Christianity who no longer observed ritual laws and purity prescriptions.277 If this really was directed against proponents of a mission to the Gentiles without such limitations—as we know it from Paul—then it has to be noted that no polemics are employed here. The people behind Q certainly knew about the Council of Jerusalem where according to Gal 2:7–8 (cf. Acts 15) a division between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians was created. Jewish Christians still kept the whole Torah—including purity laws and ritual prescriptions, while Gentile Christians only observed the ethical norms of the Torah (see Acts 21:20–25).278 Q does not intend to polemicize against the mission to the Gentiles— obviously they agreed with the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem (cf. Q 7:1–10). But Q itself did not engage in such a mission to the Gentiles rather maintained its own Jewish profile (see above, I.2.1.3). Thus the opponents of Q are not Gentile Christians but Jewish rivals like Pharisees and scribes. These groups are also geographically nearer to the Q-community than are the developments in Antioch and the Pauline mission.

275 Prov 8:22–31 and Sir 24 depict the heavenly wisdom of God as pre-existent and present at the creation of the world. This wisdom later becomes »the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us« and takes dwelling »in the beloved city … in Jerusalem« (Sir 24:8–11.23). Cf. Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 260–266. In line with such ideas, Philo Mos. 2:37 can say: »The account of the creation of the world is the beginning of the law.« Therefore the patriarchs—living long before Moses received the written Torah—could nevertheless observe the Torah because they observed the »unwritten« law of nature. Cf. such conceptions in Let. Aris. 143; Philo Abr. 5; 2 Bar. 57:1–3; Rom 1:20. 276 Cf. Philo Flacc. 1:131, where a scribe describes himself as »aiming to get money by every syllable, or, I might rather say, by every serif« (κατὰ συλλαβήν, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ κεραίαν ἑκάστην). Syllable and serif here correspond to iota and serif and indicate the smallest parts of a written text. 277 Thus the opinion of Dautzenberg, Gesetzeskritik, 124. Likewise Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 41. Here and in the following discussion see Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 64–106. 278 For a detailed analysis of the so called »Council of Jerusalem« see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 213–215. The prescriptions mentioned in Acts 15:20 are missing in Gal 2:9–10 and seem to have been a later regula conviventiae, resulting out of the conflict at Antioch and the problem of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians living together in one community (a problem yet not reflected at the Council of Jerusalem).

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

117

Prohibition of Divorce and Remarriage (Q 16:18) Everyone who divorces his wife causes her to be adulterous, and the one who marries a divorcée commits adultery. 18

There is a certain plausibility that verses 17 and 18 belonged together in Q: not only in Luke (where the verses follow directly) but also in Matt 5:18 and 5:32 they are positioned in direct proximity.279 In early Judaism the question of divorce was discussed intensely (see below). The presence of this dispute serves as evidence that the Q-community upheld Torah observance into its smallest details. Unlike the reconstruction of the CEQ, this commentary follows the opinion that Q prohibited not only remarriage after separation but even separation in the first place. The reconstruction in the CEQ inserts after »Everyone who divorces his wife« the addition »and marries another«. With this addition the absolute prohibition of divorce is alleviated to a prohibition of remarriage after a permitted divorce.280 A merely text-based reconstruction cannot solve the problem as to whether the addition already formed part of Q. We have to check the context of early Judaism for further information. There is much debate as to whether divorce was permitted in early Judaism. Scholars repeatedly refer to Deut 24:1–3 where it is permitted to send one’s wife away by writing her a certificate of divorce. But already Mal 2:14–16 (»do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth«) »is directed against divorce on account of mere aversion to the woman«.281 Similar concepts can be found in the LXX version of Prov 18:22 offering an addition to the Hebrew text: »He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.« Here scholars often mention the diverging positions of Hillel (liberal attitude towards divorce) and Shammai (divorce only in the case of adultery) according to m. Giṭ 9:10. Nevertheless, this tradition has to be used with caution, because rabbinic texts only report about the time before the fall of the temple in a legendary fashion and have stylized the traditions about Hillel und Shammai. The names Hillel and Shammai thus serve as jokers for diverging halakhic positions. Hillel is not even mentioned anywhere before rabbinic times. Nevertheless, there is a certain historical plausibility that m. Giṭ 9:10 has preserved traditions about diverging opinions concerning divorce in early Judaism—as can be demonstrated by Mal 2 and Prov

279 Thus the convincing argument in Melzer-Keller, Jesus, 316: See also Tiwald, Gültigkeit, 349–350. 280 Nevertheless, the addition »and marries another« only was accepted with a plausibility of {C}—meaning that the addition is considered uncertain even among the editors of the CEQ. The reconstruction in this commentary follows: Ebner, Jesus, 122; Häfner, Ehescheidung, 103–104; Scherer, Königsvolk, 386. 281 Doering, Marriage, 134. Doering rightly observes that Mal 2:14–16 is not an absolute prohibition of divorce but forbids divorce based only on petty reasons.

118

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

18:22LXX.282 This might fit well with the evidence of Qumran documents. V. Noam has demonstrated that in Qumran divorce only was possible in the case of adultery because then the matrimonial tie was already broken. She concludes: »… the sect followed the same ancient halakhah that was partially preserved in the halakhic rulings of Beth Shammai, and which was stated in Jesus’ sermon as well: divorce was permitted only in cases of adultery.«283 The parallels to the Sayings Source and Jesus’ attitude are obvious. »In all likelihood, the sect denounced marriage to a divorcee, just as Jesus denounced it and just as the ancient Pharisaic midrash denounced it.«284 The text of CD 4:20–21 is particularly remarkable: »They are caught in two: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes, although the principle of creation is ›male and female he created them.‹« Even if CD (and likewise 11Q19 57:17–19) does not—as is often claimed—talk about divorce and remarriage but about polygyny,285 the parallels to our texts are intriguing: as in Mark 10:2–12 (the parallel tradition to Q 16:18), the marriage of a man and a woman is depicted as regulated by the natural order of creation. The idea that divorce is only permitted in the case of adultery fits perfectly with our reconstruction of the Q logion: »Everyone who divorces his wife causes her to be adulterous.« This perspective corresponds to the social status of women in Palestinian Judaism. According to early Jewish thought only a woman could break the marital bonds286 because she was considered the property of her husband.287 After divorce a woman had to find a new husband because in the androcentric world of early Jewish Palestine a woman without a man was unable to survive.288 This background brings about the bulky formulation »causes her to be adulterous«. Apparently Jesus’ position was directed against the »hardness of heart« (Mark 10:5 // Matt 19:8)289 being exercised by androcentric power by bringing women into undue situations of hardship and helplessness.

282 The main question in mGit 9:10 is how wide or narrow one has to understand the formulation erwat davar (»matter of nudity«) in Deut 24:1. According to Gen 9:22 and 1 Sam 20:30 the word erwah (‫ָוה‬) means genital nudity, in Deut 23:14 impure behaviour. Thus Matt 5:32 renders Deut 24:1 with παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (»except on the ground of promiscuity«) opting for a narrow definition. 283 Noam, Divorce, 219. 284 Noam, Divorce, 222–223. 285 Thus Doering, Marriage, 133–163, und Noam, Divorce, 206–223. 286 Heil, Lukas, 134, Anm. 104 (»da nach jüdischem Denken der Mann nicht seine eigene Ehe brechen kann, wenn er seine Frau entläßt«). Nevertheless, Heil supposes that Matthew subsequently »judaized« this phrase. Here it seems more plausible and less complicated to argue that the more Jewish version was already present in Q and had been adapted by Luke to match Hellenistic ideas. In this sense Häfner, Ehescheidung, 103. 287 Häfner, Ehescheidung, 107. 288 Mary Magdalene is certainly an exception, as a woman who is not defined by reference to a man (»wife/mother/daughter of X«). What was possible in urban Magdala might not have been feasible in the rural parts of Palestine, especially when the women—unlike Mary— wanted to stay in their rural network. Concerning Magdala see below, IV: Excursus 3.1.2. 289 Thus Häfner, Ehescheidung, 115. »Hardness of heart« as in opposition to the natural order of creation is already condemned in 1 En. 5:4 (see Doering, Marriage, 159–160).

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

119

Ascription of the logion to the historical Jesus gains support by the parallel Q 16:16 // Mark 10:2–12 and in the traditions contained in 1 Cor 7:10. Intriguingly enough, 1 Cor 7:10 mentions a prohibition of separation and not only a prohibition of remarriage after separation (maintaining the argumentation of Q 16:18). In contrast to the orders of the Lord, Paul allows for possible separation by prohibiting remarriage (1 Cor 7:11) and makes further concessions in 1 Cor 7:15. Additionally to the plausibility of transmission (being attested in three independent traditions) comes the plausibility of context: the question »Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?« (Mark 10:2) was a current debate in early Judaism (cf. Mal 2; Prov 18:22LXX; Qumran; m. Giṭ 9) and most likely was brought before Jesus. His answer might have been along the lines of the reconstruction of Q: »Everyone who divorces his wife causes her to be adulterous, and the one who marries a divorcée commits adultery.«290 This fits perfectly with Jesus’ advocacy for the poor and marginalized (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1) to protect helpless women from androcentric »hardness of heart«.291 The exception of promiscuity, in the case of which both Qumran and Matthew (Matt 5:32 and 19:9) permitted a divorce, is in reality no exception at all because the marital ties were considered already broken in the case of female adultery. In this case the husband even was obliged to expel his wife because the tie was broken. This exception most likely was not yet present in Q because the regulation was completely obvious in early Judaism and did not need further discussion. According to Prov 18:22LXX; Jub. 33:7; T. Reu. 3:15; 1QGenAp 20:15; t. Soṭa 5:9; b. Giṭ. 90b (see also Matt 1:19), the husband had the duty to divorce his wife given her act of adultery due to purity regulations.292 Matthew added this regulation to prevent misunderstandings (Gentile Christians in his community might not have known the Jewish regulations). Remarkably enough, Q 16:18 still seems to uphold Jewish purity regulations, as J. Schröter and M. Stowasser have underscored.293 For Q, ritual purity as demanded by the Jewish Torah still applies, providing confirmation that for the Q-community not even the smallest iota or serif of the law falls away (cf.

290 Cf. Heil, Lukas, 135: »Jesus selbst vertrat jedoch noch eine radikalere Haltung, indem er die Ehescheidung an sich mit Ehebruch gleichsetzte …« Nevertheless, Heil follows the reconstruction of the CEQ and thus maintains that Q had already softened Jesus’ original radicalism. In contrast, this commentary argues that Q has preserved the original words of Jesus in this logion. Likewise: Ebner, Jesus, 122; Häfner, Ehescheidung, 103–104; Scherer, Königsvolk, 386. As in this commentary the position of Jesus is reconstructed (without discussing the wording of Q) by Theobald, Ehescheidung, 119, and Stowasser, Ehescheidung, 85. 291 See also Theobald, Ehescheidung, 119: »Vielfach sensibilisiert für das Unrecht, das den Armen, Hungernden und Weinenden widerfuhr, nahm Jesus gewiß auch jenes Unrecht vielfältiger Art wahr, das Frauen geschah, die, aus welchem Grund auch immer, aus der Ehe ›entlassen‹ wurden.« 292 See Konradt, Matthäus, 90, and Junker, Rekonstruktion, passim. 293 Schröter, Gesetzesverständnis, 457: »… anhand der spezifischen Gestalt des Scheidungsverbotes in [Q] 16:18 erkennbar, daß die konkrete Rezeption der Regelungen des νόμος im Horizont einer Tradition erfolgt, in welcher jüdische Reinheitsvorstellungen eine Rolle spielen und die sich diesbezüglich von der markinischen Aufnahme unterscheidet.« Likewise Stowasser, Ehescheidung, 89.

120

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Q 16:17). In spite of the fact that only Mark 10:6 // Matt 19:4 connect the indissolubility of marriage with the order of creation, a certain plausibility of context hints to the assumption that Jesus himself had argued in this way.294 Such an argument can be found in CD 4:21–22. Even if this line of argument is missing in our Qpericope, many passages in Q depict God as a loving father who sustains his creation. In return, Mark has omitted aspects of Jewish purity norms and the androcentric perspective by adding divorce at instigation of the wife in Mark 10:12. Omission of Jewish purity norms by Gentile Christians might have caused the transformation from a prohibition of separation to a prohibition of remarriage after permitted separation among Hellenistic Christians, as in 1 Cor 7:11 and in Mark and Luke.295 As in early Judaism, the question of divorce is still a topic in the Catholic Church and among certain evangelicals. Striving for the right adaptation of Jesus’ intention is a worthy value. As our survey has shown, copying Jesus’ position one to one has never been a viable solution: Q adapted the saying by leaving out the reference to the order of creation, Mark cut out the purity aspects, and Hellenistic circles changed the prohibition of separation to a prohibition of remarriage after a permitted separation. The »authentic core« seems hard to determine, but if one can find the core of Jesus’ message in avoiding a »hardness of heart« and caring for the poor and marginalized, then new possibilities of interpretations can be opened up far from legislative rigorism.296 Woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:42.39b.41.43–44) Woe to you, Pharisees, for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and give up justice and mercy and faithfulness. But one has to do these without giving up the others. 39b Woe to you, Pharisees, for you purify the outside of the cup and dish but inside they are full of plunder and dissipation. 41 Purify the inside of the cup, … and its outside … will be pure. 43 Woe to you, Pharisees, for you love the place of honour at banquets and the front seat in the synagogues and accolades in the markets. 44 Woe to you Pharisees, for you are like indistinct tombs, and people walking over them are unaware. 42

In Q the question of divorce is treated under the premises of ritual purity (regarding the question of the position of Q 16:17–18 see above, I.3.1.2). This topic now is

294 See the convincing argumentation by Häfner, Ehescheidung, 108–109, and Tiwald, Protologie, 367–380. 295 Thus the position of Theobald, Ehescheidung, 114: »Dies dürfte sich in den hellenistischen Gemeinden eingebürgert haben und so auch zu Markus gelangt sein.« This Hellenistic attitude stands in contrast to Matthew, who still upholds Jewish purity in its entirety: »die seit Paulus für hellenistische Gemeinden bezeugte Praxis, unter Tolerierung unvermeidlicher Scheidungen nur die Wiederheirat zu untersagen, [dürfte] in die matthäischen Gemeinden keinen Eingang gefunden haben« (ibid. 115). 296 See some reflections on the document Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis in Tiwald, Heiligkeit, passim.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

121

developed with the question as to how ritual purity and ethical correctness coincide. The background of the »hardness of the heart« motif was already present— albeit indirectly—in the question on divorce. Now the lack of »justice and mercy and faithfulness« in the lifestyle of Pharisees is openly criticised. As in Q 16:17–18 so also here it becomes clear that the Q-community still upheld Torah in its entirety—both ethical aspects and purity matters.297 Thus the polemic against the Pharisees is not directed against ritual aspects of the law or against purity matters per se, but against »giving up justice and mercy and faithfulness«. »Q’s complaint with other Jewish groups is not that they observed the Torah and the Q people did not. Rather, Q’s complaint against the Pharisees—no doubt, a bit of caricature—is that they insist on one set of commandments and neglect others.«298 Q’s solution is that »one has to do these without giving up the others«. Thus, J. Kloppenborg rightly underscores: »Q presupposed an exclusively Israelite environment where people naturally circumcised their sons, kept kashrut, and observed the Sabbath.«299 Or as C. Tuckett has put it: »Q shows a somewhat conservative attitude to the Jewish Law. There is certainly nothing which explicitly questions observance of the Law in any way.«300 Thus Q 11:42 »demonstrates that there was agreement at the level of Q community … that the tithing of spices was indeed an obligation.«301 One can nevertheless ask whether Q 11:42—like Matt 23:23—called the ethical norms of the Torah τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, »the weightier matters of the law«. According to the CEQ this expression was not yet present in Q. Talking about »weightier matters« would introduce a valuation between various prescriptions of the law. Ethical matters (like »justice and mercy and faithfulness«) would be such »weightier matters« but ritual aspects and purity concerns would be considered less important. Indirectly such a valuation already is present in Q. This is indeed Matthew’s understanding, as the expression τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου is missing in Luke and therefore was not part of Q.302 This question is not only of academic

297 See the discussion at Tiwald, Logienquelle, 114–116. 298 Kloppenborg, Q, 69. 299 Kloppenborg, Q, 69. Likewise: Loader, Attitude, 510 (»Q’s Jesus upholds Torah in its entirety«); Fleddermann, Q, 167 and 791 (»Not only does the Law remain in effect down to its tiniest details as … [Q] states, but the demands of the kingdom radicalize and transcend the Law by tightening its demands even further.«). 300 Tuckett, Q, 425. See also Luz, Matthäus III, 333: »Die Q-Gemeinde macht durch den kleinen Zusatz, daß man dieses Wichtige tun und jenes Unwichtige trotzdem nicht lassen sollte, klar, daß sie nicht daran denkt, das Zehntgebot aufzugeben.« 301 Wild, Encounter, 115. Likewise Scherer: »Deutlich wird dabei, dass die Träger der Traditio duplex [sc. Q] zwar der Reinigungs- und Zehntpraxis nicht widersprachen, sie aber für weniger wichtig erachteten als die sozioökonomischen Belange.« 302 Might Luke have omitted τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου because he regarded ritual und purity matters as obsolete? This is possible, but then it is hard to explain why he did not also omit the sentence, »But one has to do these without giving up the others.« Thus the CEQ is correct in attributing τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου to Matthew and not to Q. Pace Fleddermann, Q, 532.

122

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

interest. Matthew elsewhere introduces a gradation of the law:303 in Matt 22:38 the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour is called »the greatest and first commandment« (ἡ μεγάλη καὶ πρώτη ἐντολή). And Matt 5:19 underscores that »whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments« (μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων) will be the least in the kingdom of heaven. By calling for an »exceeding righteousness« in contrast to that of the Pharisees and scribes it becomes clear that the »least of theses commandments« are Pharisaic purity prescriptions. Likewise for Matthew these parts of the law remain in force (at least for Jewish Christians), if nonetheless subordinated to ethical aspects. The question of major and minor parts of the law was widespread in ancient Judaism. Philo notes in Spec. 2:63 that the double commandment to love God and one’s neighbour represents the κεφάλαια, the main parts of the Torah (in Decal. 18–19 the Decalogue is characterised in this way).304 Similar traditions can be found in Rom 13:9–10, where Paul underscores that the whole Jewish law is »summed up« (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) in the love of one’s neighbour. The community behind Matthew was probably the »successor organisation« to the Q-community (see above, I.2.3.1). Yet unlike Q, the Matthean community had already begun a mission without circumcision to Gentiles (Matt 28:19). Thus the Matthean community—stemming from Jewish Christianity and opening up to Gentile Christians—becomes a mixed community. Apparently the Jewish Christians of the group still maintained ritual laws and purity prescriptions as demanded by the Council of Jerusalem.305 Both Jewish and Gentile Christians observed the major parts of the law, i.e., the commandments to love God and one’s neighbour. In contrast, the ritual und purity matters—being the least of the commandments—were only observed by Jewish Christians306—and lead according to Matt 5:19 to a better place in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew repeatedly mentions ranks and grades in heaven (Matt 5:19, 11:11, 18:1.4, 20:21). This topic was also present in early Judaism (e.g., 4 Ezra 8:49, 10:57; 2 En. 44:5).307 Nevertheless, the Sayings Source still saw no need to argue in this way: Q had not yet begun a mission to Gentiles (see above, I.2.1.3) and thus consisted of merely Jewish Christians. But the yet unbroken observance of the whole Torah in Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that his pre-text, the Sayings Source, also continued to uphold the Torah in its entirety. This is formulated explicitly in Q 11:42b and 16:17.308

303 Concerning the law in Matthew, see Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 64–106. 304 A comparison of Philo, Matthew, and Paul can be found in Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 92–97, and Hoppe, Gerechtigkeit, 141–155. 305 Cf. Strotmann/Tiwald, Matthäusevangelium, 64–106. 306 Thus Konradt, Law, 199, underscores the »validity of the entire Torah« for Matthew, but »lesser and greater commandments are consequently differentiated«. This leads to an »actual marginalization of certain ritual-cultic laws without principally abrogating them.« Likewise Luz, Matthäus I, 319. 307 Konradt, Matthäus, 76, and Luz, Matthäus I, 318. 308 See the detailed discussion in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 94–116.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

123

Thus, the polemic against Pharisees and scribes is not a fundamental critique of the Torah, but an inner-Jewish dispute between two rival groups (see above, I.2.1.2: Anti-Jewish Polemics in Q?). In scriptures and in early Jewish literature woe-oracles were widespread. They functioned as a rebuttal to other Jewish opponents (see above, III: Q 10:21: Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children). For example in 1 Enoch:309 94 8 Woe to you, rich, for in your riches you have trusted; from your riches you will depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches. 9 You have committed blasphemy and iniquity; and you have been prepared for the day of bloodshed and the day of darkness and the day of great judgment. 97 8 Woe to you who acquire gold and silver unjustly and say, »We have become very wealthy, and we have gotten possessions, and we have acquired all that we have wished. 9 And now let us do what we have wished, for silver we have treasured up in our treasuries, and many goods in our houses; and as water they are poured out.« 10 You err! For your wealth will not remain, but will quickly ascend from you; for you have acquired everything unjustly, and you will be delivered to a great curse.

These texts resemble the woe-oracles against the Pharisees in the Sayings Source, depicting them as »full of plunder and dissipation« (Q 11:39). One easily can see that this—like 1 Enoch—discredits the adversaries in hyperbole. Indirectly it becomes clear that the incriminated were in reality not »wicked evildoers« but representatives of rival teachings. In 1 En. we can read about them: 96 4 Woe to you, sinners, for your riches make you appear to be righteous, but your heart convicts you of being sinners; … 103 5 Woe to you, dead sinners. When you die in your sinful wealth, those who are like you say about you, »Blessed are the sinners all their days that they have seen. 6 And now they have died with goods and wealth, and affliction and murder they have not seen in their life; They have died in splendor, and judgment was not executed on them in their life.«

The incriminated »sinners« are from among the religious elites: they »appear like the righteous« and are »blessed« because they have »died in prosperity and in wealth«. Or as 1 En. 104:10 puts it, they »invent great fabrications, and write books in their own names«. Thus, they are the elites—like the Pharisees in Q 11:43, who take »the place of honour at banquets and the front seat in the synagogues and accolades in the markets«. In this way 1 En. and Q polemicize against rival groups that are more successful than themselves. Q and 1 En. also both insinuate that their rivals have attained their success through unjust conduct (in Q by »giving up justice and mercy and faithfulness« and being »full of plunder and dissipation«). This is

309 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 197: »In adopting this form [sc. woe-oracles], he places himself in the line of the biblical prophets who had pronounced woe-oracles against the disobedient of Israel (Isa. 3:9, 11; 10:1–2, 5; 28:1–3; Jer. 22:13; 23:1; Ezek. 6:11; 13:3; 16:23; 24:6, 9; Amos 6:1, 4–6; Hos. 7:13; Mic. 2:1; Hab. 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19) and other nations (Isa. 10:5; Jer. 48:46; Zeph. 2:5) who were regarded as a threat to God’s people.« See also Stuckenbruck, ibid., 216. On polemics in early Judaism, see Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137.

124

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

certainly hyperbole and presents a distorted view of reality. Such polemics used a repertoire of patterns that could be attributed to different groups.310 Similarly the accusation against Pharisees of being »indistinct tombs« finds a parallel in Qumran. CD 8:12–13 insults the Pharisees as »white-washers« (an allusion to Ezek 13:10), »spewer[s] of lies« (cf. Mic 2:11), and »those who deal in mere wind«.311 The »white-washers« better fit with the version of our logion in Matt 23:27 where the Pharisees are called »whitewashed tombs«, while Luke 11:44 only talks about »unmarked graves«. In Acts 23:3 Paul refers to the high priest as a »whitewashed wall«. We see that such polemics followed certain patterns and could be adapted to fit various groups. A socially and economically inferior group claims that the success of their rivals is due to greed and false theology. Thus 1 En. 104:10–13 claims that the books and teachings of the opponents will not prevail, only the in-group can claim true wisdom. G. Nickelsburg has defined such positions in 1 En.: »False teachers propound interpretations of divine law that the author claims are perverting that law.«312 Likewise L. Stuckenbruck: »Thus it is the opponents who have departed from the unalterable law of God. Since they have ›gone astray‹ and influence others to do the same (98:15), they will undergo harsh forms of punishment and destruction described in each of the woes.«313 The Sayings Source adopts the same idea in Q 10:21: God’s wisdom is revealed not to sages but to children. Woes against the Scribes of the Law (Q 11:46b.52.47–48) And, woe to you, scribes of the law, for you bind … burdens and load them onto people’s backs, but you yourselves do not want to lift a finger to move them. 52 Woe to you, scribes of the Law, for you shut people out from the reign of God. You did not go in, nor did you let in those trying to get in. 47 Woe to you, for you built the tombs of the prophets, but your fathers killed them. 48 You witness against yourselves that you are sons of your fathers. 46b

The discussion concerning correct interpretation of the Torah now addresses the »scribes of the law«. In Judaism it was common to describe the observance of the law as a »burden« (Matt 11:30; Acts 15:28). In Matt 11:29; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1 the Torah has a »yoke«. In Jewish texts this imagery occurs for the first time in m. ’Abot 3:5—here with

310 Such topoi were present in both early Judaism and early Christianity, as the parallel between 1 En. 97:7–10 and Jas 4:13–16 or Luke 12:16–21 makes clear. 311 See Maier, Nachumpescher, 239, and Tiwald, Valeur, 119–120. Maier, Nachumpescher, 248–249, compares the polemics of Qumran against the Pharisees to those in the NT: »Viele der erhobenen Vorwürfe sind stereotyp verwendete Elemente der religiösen Polemik überhaupt und lassen in keiner Weise auf die Gegner schließen. … Wenn die Qumrantexte gegenüber den Pharisäern ähnliche Vorwürfe erheben wie die christliche Urgemeinde, so bedeutet dies keineswegs eine echte Bereicherung unseres Wissens über die Pharisäer, sondern nur über die Mentalität ihrer Gegner.« 312 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 427. 313 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 360.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

125

positive connotations: whoever carries the »yoke of the Torah« (‫ה‬‫ל תּוֹ‬) becomes free from the »way of this world« (‫ץ‬ ), i.e. earthly servitude. One is reminded of Matt 11:29–30 where Jesus calls his own way an »easy yoke« and a »light burden«. Thus for Q it is not the law itself that is a »burden« (cf. Deut 30:11) but the deficient interpretation of the »scribes of the law«. Also here the parallels to 1 En. are striking, for which L. Stuckenbruck underscores the »theological character of some of the differences between the author’s community and the opponents. These differences stem from conflicting … perspectives through which their traditions are interpreted.«314 Likewise the interpretation of G. Nickelburg: »The deceivers … wrongly claim to present the right interpretation of the Torah, sometimes in opposition to the ›true‹ interpretation presented by the author’s hero.«315 The passage 1 En. 95:4 (»Woe to you who utter anathemas that you cannot loose; healing will be far from you on account of your sins.«) fits well with the polemics in Q 11:52 that the scribes »shut people out from the reign of God« and do not »let in those trying to get in«. The incriminated groups in 1 En. and Q were so powerful that they could socially ostracise their opponents. Such behaviour is perceived in the Sayings Source as »persecution« and connected to the theologumenon of the violent fate of prophets—a text that follows directly after this pericope (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2 and III: Q 11:49–51). Wisdom’s Judgment on »This Generation« (Q 11:49–51) Therefore also Wisdom said: I will send them prophets and sages, and some of them they will kill and persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets poured out from the founding of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, murdered between the sacrificial altar and the house. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. 49

The idea that all true prophets have been persecuted by Israel was a fixed topos in early Judaism (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2). In the Sayings Source this idea becomes one of the leading motifs, e.g., in Q 6:22–23, 11:47–51, 13:34–35. This motif connects the group’s rejection in its mission to Israel (cf. Q 10:13–15) with the rejection of Jesus and portrays this rejection as part of God’s schedule for the last days. The blood of all the prophets: Taking Q 11:49 at face value, some scholars reckon with violent persecutions of Christians by Jews in the first century CE. U. Schnelle draws a parallel between persecutions in Q and the persecutions mentioned in 1 Thess 2:14–16.316 Nevertheless, Q 11:50 talks about »the blood of all the prophets

314 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 360. 315 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 488. 316 Schnelle, Einleitung, 250: »Die Logienquelle setzt Verfolgungen der jungen Gemeinde durch Juden in Palästina voraus … In 1 Thess 2,14–16 erwähnt Paulus um 50 n. Chr. bereits zurückliegende Christenverfolgungen in Judäa.«

126

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

poured out from the founding of the world«—and thus does not name one single contemporary martyr but refers to Abel and Zechariah (for the explanations of Abel and Zechariah, see below, IV: Excursus 2.3). Similar to 1 Thess 2:15 one can assume that neither Paul nor the Sayings Source knew about martyrs in their own communities having been killed by Jews because of their belief in Jesus.317 Rather, Paul and Q both adapt the common early Jewish pattern of the violent fate of prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2). M. Konradt judges rightly that the affinity between 1 Thess 2:15–16 and Matt 23:29–36 (= Q 11:49–51) is due to common patterns in early Christianity that the Sayings Source and 1 Thess 2:15–16 used independently.318 This fits well with the results of S. Rollens and her examination Persecution in the Social Setting of Q (2015). Here she highlights the role that martyr-narratives played in group-psychology and underscores their importance for establishing an in-group-identity: »In some cases, the claim to have experienced violence may have been so ideologically valuable that the persecution was deliberately sought out.«319 The trauma of being rejected is now converted into its opposite: only true prophets have been persecuted. Persecution becomes a sign of prophetic legitimation. One can even be glad about persecution, as Q 6:22–23 concludes: »Blessed are you when they insult and persecute you, and say every kind of evil against you because of the Son of Man. Be glad and exult, for vast is your reward in heaven. For this is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.« The same dynamics can be found in 1 En. 103: and we were destroyed and there was no one to help us with word and deed; we were powerless and found nothing. We were crushed and destroyed, and we gave up hope any more to know safety from day to day; 11 we had hoped to be the head and became the tail. We toiled and labored and were not masters of our labor; we became the food of the sinners. The lawless weighed down their yoke upon us; 10

317 The only Christian martyrs of the first century CE killed by Jews are Stephen (about 32 CE being lynched by the mob and not officially condemned according to Acts 7:59), James the son of Zebedee (due to the political restoration of Agrippa I in 37–44 CE, Acts 12:2), James the Just (executed in 62 CE by the high priest Ananus II due to Sadducee politics but against the fierce protest of the Pharisees, who defended him according to Josephus, Ant. 20:200), and the otherwise unknown Antipas of Pergamum (Rev 2:13). A general or universal persecution of Christians by Jews is nowhere to be found. Likewise the tensions in 1 Thess 2:14–16 do not exceed what one generally knows about inner-Jewish struggles of the time. 1 Thess 2:14–16 does not mention violent persecutions of Christians, only that the »Jews« are said to have »killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets«. At least here the stylisation of such martyr-narratives by Paul becomes clear: Jesus was executed by the Romans and not by Jews and the Violent Fate of Prophets was a common pattern in early Judaism. For further details see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 36–37, and idem, Logienquelle, 109–110. 318 Konradt, Gericht, 81: »Die Affinität zwischen 1 Thess 2,15f und Mt 23,29–36 ist jedenfalls frappierend und würde sich, da kaum von einer Kenntnis des 1 Thess durch den ersten Evangelisten auszugehen ist, gut erklären, wenn in Q und 1 Thess 2:15f jeweils ein im frühen Christentum verbreiteter Traditionszusammenhang rezipiert würde.« 319 Rollens, Persecution, 156.

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

127

As in the Sayings Source it is not easy to determine whether the language here in 1 En. is merely metaphorical or a report of real events. Or as L. Stuckenbruck has put it: »[T]here is no indication in the text that his own [sc. the prophet’s] experience reflects exactly what he describes as having happened to his community (cf. [1 En.] 103:9–15).«320 Nevertheless, the notion of being destroyed »from day to day« does not hint at murder but at repeated forms of discrimination. The Sayings Source continues patterns of the deuteronomistic interpretation of history (cf. 2 Kgs 17:7–20; Jer 7:27, 25:3–4, 35:14–15) and further develops it into the violent fate of prophets. 1 En. especially here refers to topoi from Deut 28, as L. Stuckenbruck has shown: »The language in the text [sc. 103:9–15], however, consists in large part of words, expressions and whole phrases drawn from the reservoir of curses for breaking the covenant in Deuteronomy 28 (esp. vv 13, 25, 26, 29, 33, 38–42, 44, 45, 48, 51, 62, 64, 65, 66; for explicit references to disobedience to the covenant, see vv 13, 15, 45, 58). … The righteous are made to utter a deep disappointment, if not disillusionment, that they themselves are suffering the consequences promised in the covenant to the disobedient (cf. e.g. Lam. 5:1–22; Deut. 31:17b).«321 Thus one can assume that 1 En. 103; 1 Thess 2:15–16 und Q 11:49–51 belonged to a common cluster of motifs that used deuteronomistic patterns to explain their own failure in the lineage of prophetic rejection and martyrdom. On the same trajectory is 1QpHab 2:1–10. This Qumran text mentions the »cru[el Israel]ites who will not believe when they hear everything that is to c[ome upon] the latter generation that will be spoken by the priest in whose [heart] God has put [the ability] to explain all the words of his servants the prophets.« The parallel to Q 11:49–51 is evident: the group’s message is depicted as a direct interpretation of God’s will. Rejection of this message is equivalent to »cruelty«. In both texts those who reject the message are seen as wicked eschatological opponents whose appearance was predicted for the last days. 1QpHab 2:7 names »the latter generation« and Q talks about »this generation« (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1). From Abel to Zechariah (see below, IV: Excursus 2.3). Abel was not a prophet, but the first person to meet a violent death (Gen 4:8–10).322 The »Zechariah« named here alludes to the son of the priest Jehoiada who was killed according to 2 Chr 24:20–22 at the time of king Joash (840–801 BCE).323 Here we finally realize that the Sayings Source adapted patterns of early Judaism. Abel was considered the first victim of human violence, Zechariah the last prophet to be murdered. The depiction thus spans the whole biblical story.324 According to the Vitae Prophetarum, dating in its core to the first half of the first century CE in Palestine,325 Zechariah

320 321 322 323

Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 216. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 548. Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 436. Here the Lukan version seems to be original (cf. Tuckett, Sayings, 200). Matt 23:35 mentions »Zechariah son of Barachiah«, the prophet mentioned in Zech 1:1. 324 Luz, Matthäus III, 374: »Abel ist der erste im Kanon des Alten Testaments ermordete Gerechte (Gen 4,8–10), Sacharja [sc. Zechariah] ben Jojada (2 Chr 24,20–22) der letzte. Die zeitliche Präzisierung will also die ganze Zeit der Bibel umspannen.« 325 See Schwemer, Studien I, 65–69.

128

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

ben Johoiada was regarded as the last of the prophets.326 His murder is also mentioned in Josephus Ant. 9:168. The figure was of some importance in early Judaism.327 It becomes clear how deep the Sayings Source was rooted in early Jewish narratives. M. Karrer has pointed to another Jewish motif here. Murdering someone in the temple amounts to be the pinnacle of injustice.328 Here too Q stands in an unbroken line of Jewish motifs, accepting undisputedly the holiness of the temple in Jerusalem.

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community Confidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21) Narrative Cycle 4 now highlights the consequences that Narrative Cycles 1–3 bring about for the community. Confidence in Distress might be a suitable title for this cycle. Here the view is directed to insiders, while Narrative Cycle 5 will direct the perspective to outsiders in focussing on consequences for adversaries.

Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12) Narrative Unit 1 starts programmatically with the public announcement of Jesus’ message. The sequence of the logia here seems somewhat looser than in the preceding parts. Nevertheless, one can detect an on-going narrative trajectory. According J. Schröter Q 12:2–12 draws on the anti-Pharisaic passages by encouraging the community to public proclamation in spite of the aforementioned rejection.329 Uncovering What Is Hidden (Q 12:2–3) Nothing is covered up that will not be exposed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3 What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim on the rooftops. 2

The first section of Narrative Unit 1 is carefully chosen: the opponents identified in the preceding verses want to suppress the message of the Q group, but this message now will be »proclaimed on the rooftops«. Q 12:2 uses a double antithetic parallelism: covered up—exposed/hidden—made known. A parallel tradition can be found in Mark 4:22, but only Luke 12:2 // 8:17 has maintained the doublet. The logion even has two parallels in Gos. Thom. 5 and 6. It is unclear whether v 2 renders a common saying (like »The truth will soon be revealed.«).330 However, the content of our logion is of an eschatological 326 327 328 329 330

Cf. Schwemer, Studien I, 28–29, and Schwemer, Studien II, 284. Further evidence from rabbinic times are listed by Schwemer, Studien II, 293–294. Karrer, Israel, 147–148. See Schröter, Erinnerung, 348. See the discussion at Luz, Matthäus II, 123 and 125, but also Schröter, Erinnerung, 350.

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

129

nature and not sapiential. The »covered up« here is the eschatological knowledge about Jesus as the coming Son of Man. This truth still is hidden to opponents but will be made known by the events in the last days. In this context, the saying functions as consolation for those who believe in Jesus but are rejected.331 The certainty that Jesus will return as the judging Son of Man gives his disciples the courage to announce his message publicly. The metaphors »dark« and »light« reflect the difference between »hidden« and »public«. Confessing Jesus publicly is also the topic of Q 12:8–9.332 In v 3 as in v 2 a double antithetic parallelism is given: dark—light/in the ear—on the rooftops. Not Fearing the Body’s Death (Q 12:4–5) 4 5

And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear the one who is able to destroy both the soul and the body in hell.

The topic »fearless confession« now is continued. Reference to »those who kill the body« is due to hyperbolic language and does not indicate real martyrs being murdered for their belief (see above, III: Q 11:49–51). This finds certain parallels in 1 En.: 95 3 Fear not the sinners, O righteous; for the Lord will again deliver them into your hand, that you may execute judgment upon them as you desire. 96 3 Fear not, you who have suffered; for you will receive healing, and a bright light will shine upon you, and the voice of rest you will hear from heaven. 102 4 Fear not, souls of the righteous; take courage, you pious who have died.

The expression fear not is a formula of encouragement used repeatedly in scripture (e.g., Isa 51:7: »Do not fear the reproach of others, and do not be dismayed when they revile you.«). This formula was used to enhance confidence in God’s help in apparently hopeless situations. The dichotomy of body and soul is due to the influence of Hellenistic anthropology on early Judaism.333 Similar concepts can be found in 2 Macc 6:30, 7:9.28–29; 4 Macc 9:7–9, 13:13–15; Philo Prob. 109. The one who is able to destroy both the soul and the body in hell is not the devil but God. Here there is a contrast between fear of God and fear of human opponents, as in 2 Macc 6:18–26. Nevertheless, the scope of the verse is not being afraid of God’s judgement but having confidence in help from God who cares for every single sparrow (cf. Q 12:6).

331 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 76: »In diesem Kontext fungiert unser Logion als Trostwort …« Ebner nevertheless opts for the wickedness of the opponents being revealed in the last days. Nevertheless, in view of verse 3 it seems more convincing to interpret that which is »covered up« as the message of Jesus. 332 See Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 441–442. 333 Luz, Matthäus II, 126 (»Einfluß griechischer, dichotomischer Anthropologie auf weite Kreise des Judentums«). Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 442, cites considerable evidence from Greek philosophy that enemies can only kill the body not the soul.

130

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

The expressio γέεννα, geenna, »hell«, renders the Hebrew ‫ם‬ ‫יא‬, ge hinnom, »valley of Hinnom« (Josh 15:8, 18:16; Neh 11:30; Jer 19:6), a gorge to the south of today’s Old City of Jerusalem. In scripture this valley was condemned as place of idolatry (cf. 2 Kgs 23:10; 2Chr 28:3), and was thus accursed (Jer 7:31–32; 19:6). In early Judaism there developed the opinion that this would be the location of eschatological punishment for sinners (1 En. 26–27, 90:26–27; 4 Ezra 7:36; 2 Bar. 59:10; in the NT: Matt 5:22.29–30, 23:15.33, Mark 9:43.45.47par; Jas 3:6). More Precious than Many Sparrows (Q 12:6–7) Are not five sparrows sold for two cents (assaria)? And yet not one of them will fall to earth without your Father. 7 But even the hairs of your head all are numbered. Do not be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows.

6

This logion also follows the general trajectory of »confidence in God«. The imagery here operates once more with a comparison a minore ad maius. Sparrows were the cheapest poultry and frequently sold at the marketplaces.334 The assaria were Roman copper coins. Sixteen assaria made one denarius, the daily pay for an unskilled day labourer (Matt 20:2).335 If God cares even for such cheap birds, how much more will he care for his own children? This logion finds a parallel in Q 12:28: »But if God thus clothes the grass in the field, there today and tomorrow thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, people of little faith.« The hairs of your head all are numbered recalls 1 Sam 14:45LXX, where Jonathan is protected with the formula: »As the Lord lives, there shall not fall to the ground one of the hairs of his head.« (see also Dan 3:94) One single hair stands for the whole person: not even one hair of this person shall be damaged. But the context of the logion here is even wider, as correctly observed by M. Ebner. The idea that everything has been counted and ordered by God is deeply rooted in sapiential texts (e.g., Wis 11:20).336 Thus the message is: God cares for everything in this world, for insignificant sparrows, for each hair on our heads, and even more for each of us personally. Confessing the Son of Man (Q 12:8–9) Anyone who confesses me before men, the Son of Man will also confess before the angels. 9 But whoever denies me before men will be denied before the angels.

8

334 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 291 talks about »poultry for the poor« (»Geflügelbraten der kleinen Leute«). See the evidence from antiquity in Ehling, Vögel, 281–282. 335 For Roman coins, see Reiser, Numismatik, 457–488, especially 458 and 481. Concerning the assaria see Ehling, Vögel, 285–288. 336 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 302: »Die Idee vom Zählen ist im weisheitlichen Denken tief verwurzelt. Gott zeigt darin seine Macht über die Welt, daß er ›alles nach Maß, Zahl und Gewicht geordnet‹ hat (Weish 11,20).«

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

131

Based on this confidence, fearless confession of the Son of Man is now demanded. The Sayings Source has already identified Jesus with the eschatological Son of Man.337 In contrast, the historical Jesus expected the Son of Man as eschatological judge according to conceptions present in the Similitudes of 1 En. (see below, IV: Excursus 1.3 and 1.4).338 In the Similitudes the Son of Man is depicted as a pre-existent heavenly protagonist (48:2–3.6–7, 62:7) who will judge the world in the name of God (62:5, 69:27–29). This concept fits well with the message of the baptist, who announced the greater one to come after him baptizing with fire and holy spirit (see above, III: Q 3:16b–17). The parallel in Mark 8:38 suggests that this logion goes back to the historical Jesus himself. In both Mark and Q, Jesus and the Son of Man are depicted as two different persons who are nevertheless set in a close relationship:339 being justified in the eschatological judgement by the Son of Man is linked to the acceptance of Jesus’ words. This »implicit Christology« going back to Jesus himself could lead to the identification of Jesus with the Son of Man in the Sayings Source. Speaking against the Holy Spirit (Q 12:10) And whoever says a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him. 10

»Speaking against the holy spirit« is also found in Mark 3:29. The doublet in Matt 12:31b/Matt 12:32b indicates that this text was part of Q.340 The text finds a parallel in Gos. Thom. 44. Since the early church much ink has been spilled over the question, what »speaking against the holy spirit« might entail.341 In rabbinic times one differentiated between remissible and irremissible sins.342 »Denying the spirit of the Lord« is already found in 1 En. 67:10, and sinners are said to have »corrupted their holy spirit« in CD 5:11–12. In both texts the breaking of God’s order is meant. The argumentation of our pericope is similar: whoever speaks against Jesus (who here is identified with the Son of Man) will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the message of Q (identified with the holy spirit) will not be forgiven.343 Between the time of Jesus and the time of the Q-messengers lies the insight of the Q-community that this Jesus is not a mere human but the coming Son of Man. Paul argues similarly in 2 Cor 5:16: »Even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.« The community of Q claims to have gained this new insight through the holy spirit. Later interpretations in the early church likewise attributed this new insight to reception of the holy spirit as the direct fruit of Jesus’ resurrection (e.g., John 20:22 and Acts 2:1–4). Given 337 338 339 340 341 342 343

Tiwald, Logienquelle, 151–155. See the detailed discussion in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 152–153. Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 390–396. See the discussion by Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 130, and Fleddermann, Q, 571–575. See the overview in Luz, Matthäus II, 263–266. Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 636–638. Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 445, and Luz, Matthäus II, 266.

132

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

that Q does not mention the resurrection of Jesus, the Sayings Source has not yet come this far, but one can nevertheless detect the beginnings of holy spirit theology here: Jesus, rejected by humankind (in Q this rejection is present in the violent fate of prophets, see below, IV: Excursus 3.2 and 3.3), is justified by God in the holy spirit as the coming eschatological judge and Son of Man. This trajectory—already present in Q—is further developed in Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:14–40. That God would send out his holy spirit at the end of times was expected by Joel 3:1–2 (quoted in Acts 2:16–17) and in Zech 12:10. This expectation has now become reality for Q, and this understanding must not be questioned because this would be »speaking against the holy spirit«. Pragmatically, this text strengthens the position of the Q-missionaries: whoever rejects them rejects God’s holy spirit. Thus such ideas have a strong function of consolation. »Proclaiming Jesus without fear« is the overall topic of this narrative unit. Additionally, Q here operates with the motif of the violent fate of prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.2). In Q as in Acts 7:51–52 (Stephen’s sermon) this topic helps to explain the group’s failure. It is quite remarkable that in Acts 7:51 Israel’s rejection of Jesus is also called »opposing the holy spirit«. The fact that itinerant prophets claimed to possess the holy spirit can also be found in the Didache: 11 7 Do not test or examine any prophet who is speaking in a spirit, »for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.«

In Did. 11:7 the sin against the holy spirit is transferred from the message to the messengers—unlike in Q, where the sin against to holy spirit still focusses on the confession of Jesus as Son of Man. Nevertheless, in Q the entire argument already serves the purpose of underlining the authority of the missionaries. Apparently the Didache has preserved older traditions that can also be found in the Sayings Source (see also I.2.3). Hearings before Synagogues (Q 12:11–12) When they lead you into synagogues, do not be anxious about how or what you are to say; 12 for the holy Spirit will teach you in that hour what you are to say. 11

Unlike in the parallel version in Mark 13:9, in Q we do not hear that the missionaries are »handed over« (παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς) to »councils« (συνέδρια) to be »beaten« (δαρήσεσθε) in the synagogues. Rather the missionaries are »led into synagogues« (εἰσφέρωσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς). The synagogue in early Judaism was not yet dedicated exclusively to prayer but was used as a multifunction room for assemblies of all kinds.344 One of these functions certainly was that of a court-

344 Concerning the existence and function of synagogues in Second Temple Palestine see Levine, Palestine, 23–41.

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

133

room, but it also functioned as a place for public hearings in community assemblies. Leading someone into a synagogue thus is not primarily to be understood as a judicial act, but may also refer to a public hearing of an interesting newcomer, just as Jesus is portrayed as preaching in synagogues. Nevertheless, the pericope is contextualized within the overall topic of Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear. Thus the character of a somewhat »official« hearing is already present, a hearing that demands a certain amount of courage. The tensions between believers of Jesus and his adversaries can certainly be felt here. Nevertheless, bloody persecutions of missionaries are not mentioned (see above, III: Q 11:49–51).345 Most likely it was the mockery of children in marketplaces (cf. Q 7:32), the disbelief of the audience (Q 10:10, 11:16–32) and being »insulted because of the Son of the Man« (Q 6:22) that instilled fear among the envoys, rather than any form of corporal persecution. The holy spirit is expected to teach the missionaries »how or what they are to say« (v 11). Such conceptions can be found later in John 14:16.26, 15:26, 16:7, where the holy spirit is depicted as παράκλητος, paraklētos, »advocate«, who helps the disciples in the »lawsuit« against the »world«. Thus the Sayings Source already contains initial traces of a theology of the holy spirit (see above, III: Q 12:10).

Narrative Unit 2: Search for the Reign of God! (Q 12:22b–34) We are still in Narrative Cycle 4, dealing with the Consequences of Jesus’ Message for the Community. While the preceding Narrative Unit 1 with the topic Proclaiming Jesus without Fear was directed to insiders, Narrative Unit 2 again zooms in on the community and discusses the general attitude that Q-followers should develop as a consequence of Jesus’ announcement of the reign of God. In the sequence of the next two pericopae the CEQ follows the Matthean order and places Q 12:33–34 before Q 12:22b–31. The basic idea behind this is that the connection to v 22b (διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν) should be facilitated.346 Nevertheless, the introduction »Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life« fits better in direct sequence to Hearings before Synagogues (Q 12:11–12): in this pericope the help of the holy spirit makes fear unnecessary. The topic »do not be afraid« (Q 12:4) is drawn on here and applied to the life in general. The introductory διὰ τοῦτο, »therefore«, serves continuity: a new topic is opened along the same thematic trajectory of »do not be afraid«.

345 Tiwald, Gott, 80, concludes, that the expected holy spirit firstly served to cure the nervousness of the missionaries facing such public preaching rather than of saving them from violent persecution. 346 See Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 130. This descision was controversial for the editors of the CEQ. Thus J. Kloppenborg voted for the Lukan sequence. This commentary follows Kloppenborg’s judgement and sticks to the Lukan order, as does Fleddermann, Q, 594.

134

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies (Q 12:22b–31) 22b

Therefore I tell you,

A do not be anxious about your life, what you are to eat, nor about your body, with what you are to clothe yourself. B 23 Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? C1 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet God feeds them. Are you not better than the birds? 25 And who of you by being anxious is able to add a bit to your lifespan? C2 26 And why are you anxious about clothing? 27 Observe the lilies, how they grow: they do not work nor do they spin. Yet I tell you: Not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these. 28 But if God thus clothes the grass in the field, there today and tomorrow thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, people of little faith So do not be anxious, saying: What are we to eat? Or: What are we to drink? Or: What are we to wear? B 30 For the Gentiles seek all these things; for your father knows that you need them all. C 31 But seek his reign, and all these shall be given to you. A

29

In continuation of the catchphrase »do not be afraid« (Q 12:11) and in fearing for one’s life (Q 12:4–5), the focus shifts from external threats to a personal attitude of faith in God’s provision. Outline:347 This pericope consists—quite unusually for Q—of a longer passage in which Matthew and Luke mostly agree. This allows us to develop a detailed analysis of the text’s structure.348 The introductory phrase do not be anxious (Structure: A) serves as the catchphrase for the whole pericope, because v 22b and v 29 mention the things for which one should not be anxious: v 22b mentions life—what you are to eat and body—what you are to wear; v 29 what are we to eat—what are we to drink— what are we to wear. The repetition underscores the urgency. After the topic not being anxious there follow the reasons (Structure: B) why worry is unnecessary: v 23 emphasizes: »Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?« and v 30 states »For the Gentiles seek all these things; for your father knows that you need them all.« What v 23 places on an anthropological level, v 30a places on a sociological level.349 The derogatory depiction of Gentiles is due to early Jewish thought

347 Cf. Heil, Vertrauen, 144–146. 348 The stucture and interpretation here follow Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 250–275, and Scherer, Königsvolk, 193–195. 349 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 258. »Was V. 23 auf anthropologischer Ebene abhandelt, wird in V. 30a soziologisch als typisch heidnische Sorge verortet.«

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

135

and underlines the Jewish background of Q’s argumentation.350 The Letter of Aristeas 140–141 offers a similar argument: 140 Hence the leading Egyptian priests having looked carefully into many matters, and being cognizant with (our) affairs, call us [sc. the Jews] »men of God«. This is a title which does not belong to the rest of mankind but only to those who worship the true God. The rest are men [not of God] but of meats and drinks and clothing. For their whole disposition leads them to find solace in these things. 141 Among our people such things are reckoned of no account, but throughout their whole life their main consideration is the sovereignty of God (περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστείας).

Contrasting the anxiety of Gentiles with the care of Jews for God’s reign was also present in the Letter of Aristeas, though here following sapiential and not as in Q eschatological patterns. In Structure C there follow the consequences. In the first part (C1 and C2) these are given in a twofold image stemming from sapiential motifs (brazen ravens and carefree lilies). In the second part the sapiential topic shifts to an eschatological motif, the reign of God (C). The double image of ravens and lilies serves to reinforce the idea, while the last motif (the reign of God) is the main focus of the whole passage. Whoever possesses the reign of God does not need anything else. Ravens and Lilies:351 Ravens were not popular animals for Galilean peasants. They were considered impure (Lev 11:15; Deut 14:14). Thus Matt 6:26 changes the expression to the less controversial »birds of the air«.352 Ps 147:9 and Job 38:41 mention that God even takes care of the ravens, but the picture in Q remains scandalous. The same proves true for the lilies that are depicted as somewhat »lazy« here. Perhaps the juxtaposition of »lilies« (‫ים‬, shoshanim) and Solomon (‫ה‬, shlomo) originally formed a play on words. Lilies and Solomon likewise are associated with extraordinary splendour (see the depiction of Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:1–29). But even Solomon’s splendour is outdone by that of the lilies.353 Interpretation: This pericope is one of the most beautiful passages in the Sayings Source. Its topic is the »brazen freedom of God’s children«,354 emphasised in the examples of insolent ravens and carefree lilies. This pericope is aligned to the topic

350 351 352 353

Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 257. For the sociological background see Heil, Vertrauen, 146–148. Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 275, and Scherer, Königsvolk, 193–194. Heil, Vertrauen, 149, maintains that the depiction of Solomon’s splendour is set as an example of someone who puts all his effort into earthly things and not into God’s glory. Nevertheless this has no support in the text and goes against early Jewish patterns: Solomon was admired for his piety towards God and also stood for unmatched splendour (see the panegyric in 1 Kgs 10:1–29). The text relies on a comparison: not even the seemingly unsurpassed king Solomon was as beautiful as these lilies. Negative views of Solomon are completely absent from this pericope. 354 Tiwald, Freiheit, 7–9; id. Freedom, 111–131. See also Heil, Vertrauen, 149 (»Hier spricht sich der einfache Gottesglaube Jesu aus, der der souveränen Fürsorge des Schöpfers für alle Geschöpfe vertraut …«).

136

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

of »immoral heroes« in Jesus’ parables,355 along the same trajectory as Jesus’ imagery of violence and insistence (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.4). Like a modern performance artist Jesus uses emblematic symbols to underscore his message. His complete confidence in the upcoming reign of God is emphasised by owning neither sandals, purse, nor knapsack, and by his non-violent attitude (see above, III: Q 9:57–60). Likewise, his miracle healings, expulsions of demons, forgiving of sins, and celebrating banquets, all symbolically anticipate the imminent reign of God (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4). Additionally, the pericope of the lilies and ravens depicts God’s warmhearted and loving care for all of his creatures.356 When v 30 underscores: »for your Father knows that you need them all«, this recalls the trusting attitude of Jesus as expressed in his »abba«-address for God (see above, III: Q 10:22) and in the Lord’s Prayer (see above, III: Q 11:2b–4). This pericope therefore provides insight into Jesus’ own attitude towards God and his self-understanding. Modern critique of this pericope (like »This is no way to live in society.«) misunderstands the main point: Jesus, unlike Immanuel Kant, does not intend to formulate a »categorical imperative« as a universal guideline for all human actions.357 He was no lawgiver but a charismatic messenger of God’s reign, no moralizer but an eschatological envoy. His emblematic imagery seeks to encourage his audience to change their lives and engage in God’s reign (see above, III: Q 9:57–60). Like the biblical prophets he hints with symbolic actions to his message. Certainly the poor and marginalized of his time understood his message as a sign of hope (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1: God’s Advocacy for the Poor). Storing up Treasures in Heaven (Q 12:33–34) Do not treasure for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust deface and where robbers dig through and rob, but treasure for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust defaces and where robbers do not dig through or rob. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

33

The preceding pericope required not being anxious about earthy things (12:29: »What are we to eat? Or: What are we to drink? Or: What are we to wear?«). Now 355 Schramm/Löwenstein, Helden, passim, have coined the expression of »immoral heroes« in Jesus’ parables. The scheme was advanced by Heil, Klugheit, 254; some uncritical aspects in the assessment of Schramm/Löwenstein were corrected by Strotmann, Helden, 418–436. Such »immoral heroes« possess brazen but spontaneous creativity and are willing to take risks, just as Jesus ask his audience to take the risk of God’s reign. Further examples of such »immoral heroes« can be found in Q 12:58–59; Mark 12:1–12par; Matt 13:44; Luke 16:1–13, 18:1–8; Gos. Thom. 98. 356 See Heil, Vertrauen, 149: »Von den Raben und Lilien ist nicht ihr Nichtstun zu lernen, sondern die Bedingung ihres Nichtstuns, nämlich die verlässliche Fürsorge Gottes …« 357 See also Heil, Vertrauen, 149: »Den radikalen Verzicht auf die Sorge um Nahrung und Kleidung lebten allerdings schon nicht alle Anhängerinnen und Anhänger Jesu, und bereits in Q kann man Tendenzen entdecken, die Forderung Jesu für das alltägliche Gemeindeleben zu aktualisieren …«

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

137

this pericope continues on the same trajectory with the admonition: »Do not treasure for yourselves treasures on earth.« Unlike the eschatological motivation of the previous pericope, this passage follows sapiential patterns.358 Treasures in Heaven serves as a metaphor for salvation acquired through the good deeds of the just. This concept is frequent in early Judaism, e.g., Pss. Sol. 9:5; Sir 29:10–11; Philo Praem. 104; 4 Ezra 6:5–6; 2 Bar. 14:12; 2 En. 50:5, and among the rabbis (Billerbeck I, 430–431). The uncertainty of earthly possessions also conforms to a pattern of early Judaism, as found in Jas 5:2–3. The destructive power of moths is part of the biblical imagery of the transience of earthly goods (besides Jas 5:2–3, see also Ps 39:12; Job 13:28; Isa 50:9, 51:8). The heart symbolizes the core of one’s personality. One can only have one heart, so one can only have one treasure. V 34 resembles a sapiential saying, but the scope is aimed at the reign of God and thus enhanced with eschatological aspects. The Gos. Thom. also contains in 76:3 the image of a treasure not destroyed by »moth« and »worm« (yet here the »treasure« is secret gnostic knowledge and not the reign of God).

Narrative Unit 3: The Coming of the Son of Man (Q 12:39–59) Narrative Unit 3 now continues with general admonitions about The Coming of the Son of Man. The sayings here are loosely linked by key words. The Son of Man Comes as a Robber (Q 12:39–40) But know this: If the householder had known at which hour the robber was coming, he would not have let his house be burgled. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

39

Thief-Imagery: In 1 Thess 5:2 we encounter the image that »the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night«. Further such imagery can be found in 2 Peter 3:10; Rev 3:3, 16:15; Gos. Thom. 21. The thief-imagery was already present in the earliest Christian traditions, but was adapted in diverging contexts and with a certain fluidity. The core of this tradition consists in the conviction that the events predicted will surely become reality.359 It is hard to say whether this metaphor was used by the historical Jesus himself. Jesus’ imagery of violence and insistence (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.4) might be a hint in this direction. In Q 11:21–22 (most probably going back to the historical Jesus) God/ Jesus is depicted as the »burglar« who overpowers Satan as the lord of this world. Per-

358 For the following interpretation see Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 458; Konradt, Matthäus, 112; Luz, Matthäus I, 464–465. 359 Cf. the reseach on the tradition history of this pericope by Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung, 123–193, especially 186: »Für die Diebmetapher kann folglich vermutet werden, dass sie schon früh in urchristlicher mündlicher Tradition verankert war, … wobei die konkrete Ausformung der Motive immer … flexibel blieb, die Grundaussage aber konstant die Gewissheit des kommenden Endereignisses bildete.«

138

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

haps the thief-metaphor of our pericope was an early adaptation by the first Christians of Jesus’ own image as we know it from Q 11:21–22 // Mark 3:27. In such adaptations the paraenetic aspects (e.g., watchfulness) were stressed and the eschatological implications (Jesus’ defeat of Satan) omitted. Paraenesis of Watchfulness: A similar admonition to watchfulness can be found in Mark 13:33–36 (the parable of a man going on a journey), Matt 25:1–13 (the parable of the ten bridesmaids) and in 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; Did. 16:1. The general statement of not knowing when the time will come might well go back to Jesus himself. Especially Mark 13:32, where Jesus confesses not to know »that day or hour« would not have been invented by early Christians. This is a nice example of how Jesus’ own imagery was adapted and contextualized.360 The Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42–46) Who then is the faithful and wise slave whom the master put over his household to give them food on time? (Ps 104:27)? 43 Blessed is that slave whose master, on coming, will find him doing this. 44 Amen, I tell you, he will appoint him over all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart: My master is delayed, and then begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with the drunkards, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him to pieces and give him an inheritance with the faithless.

42

The motif of watchfulness against robbers is now modified in the »faithful and wise slave«, who is watchful and attentive in fulfilling his tasks. Such variations on the motif of watchfulness—supported by explanatory stories—were widespread in early Jesus traditions (as we have seen above). The imagery of a person taking a trip and entrusting his possession to slaves is also found in Q 19:12–26. Local culture is reflected in the ancient household and the relationship between master and slave.361 Corporal punishment was usually for bad slaves, while »cutting him to pieces« uses hyperbolic language: when someone is »cut to pieces« you cannot »give him an inheritance with the faithless«. In the words »My master is delayed« a certain delay of the parousia can be detected already in Q,362 even though Q generally reflects an unbroken expectation of the imminent reign of God. One can see a similar tension in Paul’s letters: in 1 Thess

360 Schröter, Jesus, 117–118 talks about »sprachlich wie inhaltlich variablen Jesusüberlieferungen des 1. und 2. Jh.s, die gerade nicht den Eindruck einer an der wörtlichen Bewahrung der Lehre Jesu und ihren ursprünglichen Verwendungszusammenhängen orientierten Weitergabe erwecken, sondern den einer vielfältigen Neuinterpretation, Adaption an je aktuelle Situationen und freien sprachlichen wie inhaltlichen Gestaltung.« Likewise Labahn, Achtung, 158, who calls this pericope a »frühchristliche Rezeption eines derartigen Jesusbildes vom Reich.« 361 Gerber, Zeit, 165–166. 362 Gerber, Zeit, 168: »Die Annahme ›das hat Zeit‹ (V 45) charakterisiert Menschen, die nachlassen im Ernst der Erwartung des zum Gericht Kommenden. Diese Erfahrung scheint bereits früh verbreitet gewesen zu sein.«

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

139

4:15 and 1 Cor 7:29 Paul expresses his expectation of being alive at the parousia. Nevertheless, 1 Thess 4–5 reveals certain doubt, as members of community are dying. Remarkably enough, Paul answers in 1 Thess 5:1–10 by using similar motifs as the Sayings Source: the thief-metaphor has already been mentioned (see above, III: Q 12:39–40). A further parallel is offered in the picture of drunkenness as symbol for a lack of watchfulness, as in Q 12:42–46. Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49) 49

I have come to hurl fire on the earth, and how I wish it had already burned up!

It is difficult to determine whether this logion belongs to Q as it is absent from Matthew.363 Syntactically, it fits well with the following logion that also contains, »I have come to hurl/bring … to the earth.« It is hard to believe that Luke invented the saying, as evidenced by the next sentence in Luke 12:50 (see below). Most probably Luke found this problematic logion in Q and tried to explain it, while Matthew omitted it completely. While both previous pericopae had a somewhat paraenetic scope, this logion again focusses on the eschaton. The key word »watchfulness« is now transformed by association to a bright burning fire, even though this involves a certain breach in the metaphor. The saying of hurling fire on the earth is also present in Gos. Thom. 10. The use of ἦλθον + aorist infinitive (»I have come to …«) can also be found in the v 51, in Mark 2:17par, and in Matt 5:17. It is hard to determine, what fire here really means.364 The Lukan context makes clear that he interpreted the fire as the eschatological turmoil leading initially to separation (Q 12:51) and violence (Q 16:16) but later to eschatological peace (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1). Accordingly, Luke 12:50 has inserted the sentence: »I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!« Thus Luke interprets the eschatological chaos as Jesus’ suffering and death.365 Children against Parents (Q 12:51.53) Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? I did not come to bring peace, but a sword! 53 For I have come to turn son against father, and daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Micah 7:6).

51

363 Fleddermann, Q, 638, argues against, Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 468, in favour. 364 See the overview of diverging interpretations in Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 468–469. 365 Thus the interpretation of Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 469, concerning v 50. Luke 12:49 is interpreted by Wolter as the fire of the holy spirit. One can accept this as a Lukan adaptation, but for Q such an interpretation is unlikely.

140

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Syntactically the phrase »I have come to bring … on earth« fits well with the preceding pericope. Thematically this text finds a parallel in Gos. Thom. 16. Q 12:51.53 again is safe Q-territory, even if the reconstruction is not easy.366 Jesus’ image contained a certain imagery of violence and insistence (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.4). The image of the sword evokes the idea of separation. In apocalyptic circles of early Judaism the breaking up of family ties in the last days was an expected part of the cataclysmic eschatological events (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.3). In the theology of Q the earthly family is replaced by the family of God grouped under the loving father-God. The logion fits perfectly with the family-free ethos repeatedly documented for the historical Jesus: Q 9:59, 14:26; Mark 3:21.31–35, 6:4, 10:28–30; Luke 2:48–50; John 2:4. A certain parallel to our pericope can also be found in Mark 13:12par, but there as a prophecy about the imminent eschatological disruptions of families, without mentioning that Jesus would bring about these events. The imagery must not be misinterpreted as abolishing the commandment to honour one’s father and mother (cf. Mark 7:10–13par, 10:19par), but reflects an apocalyptic expression of exclusive loyalty to Jesus and his message.367 In the context of Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community this logion underlines the need for loyalty to Jesus. Settling out of Court (Q 12:58–59) While you go along with your accuser on the way, make an effort to break free from him, lest the accuser should hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and the assistant should throw you into prison. 59 I say to you: You will not get out of there until you pay the last penny!

58

Conflict within families, through key word association, now leads to conflict in court. Like in Q 12:51.53, where families only served as a metaphor, so too here no trial at a real court is depicted. It is not reconciliation with an earthly opponent that is the focus of this pericope, but reconciliation in the eschatological judgement.368 Before God will come as judge at the end of days, everyone is to settle with the accuser and pay back any debts, because on the day of judgement it will be too late. The »accuser« here is the Son of Man who will judge humankind in the name of God, while the judge is God himself. While the expected Son of Man is still »on the way«, »breaking free« still is possible, but soon it will be too late. The Last Penny: Luke 12:59 here mentions the λεπτόν, lepton, Matt 5:26 the κοδράντης, kodrantēs, the »quadrans«. Both were copper coins of small denomination. A denarius (according to Matt 20:2 the salary of a day labourer) had the value

366 Cf. the analysis at Fleddermann, Q, 641–644. 367 Heil, Rezeption, 222: »… daß die Verkündigung Jesu zur Entscheidung ruft. Dieser … Ruf zur Entscheidung nimmt selbst vor familiärer Loyalitätspflicht keine Rücksicht.« 368 Thus rightly Konradt, Matthäus, 85; Luz, Matthäus I, 345; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 473.

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21)

141

of 64 quadrantes. According to Mark 12:42 one received two lepta for one quadrans (cf. also m. Qidd. 1:1; m. ’Ed. 4:7; t. B. Bat. 5:11).369 The quadrans was once the smallest denomination in the Roman financial system. After 6 CE the Romans introduced the lepton into Judea with the worth of half of a quadrans. A quadrans and a lepton here indicate the proverbial »last penny«.370

Narrative Unit 4: Parables of the Reign of God (Q 13:18–21) While in Narrative Unit 3 the coming judgement was depicted, Narrative Unit 4 presents more positive aspects. Two encouraging parables conclude Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community—Confidence in Distress. C. Heil has shown that these two parables Q 13:18–21 serve as a link between the eschatological address to the disciples (Q 12:39–59) and the announcement of judgement in Q 13:24–14:23.371 Nevertheless, the general tone here is positive and full of confidence. This only will change with Q 13:24. Concerning the parables in Q, see below, IV: Excursus 5: Parables and Methaphorical Imagery in Q. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18–19) and the Yeast (Q 13:20–21) What is the reign of God like, and with what am I to compare it? 19 It is like a seed of mustard, which someone took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches (Ps 104:12a). 20 And again: With what am I to compare the reign of God? 21 It is like yeast, which a woman took and baked372 it into three measures of flour until all of it was leavened. 18

The classical structure of a parable normally starts with »The reign of God is like …« (ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) followed by a substantive in the dative.373 This

369 See Reiser, Numismatik, 458, 477–478, and Labahn, Forderung, 181–182. The numismatic system of the Romans was not decimal but hexadecimal. 370 The proverbial use of the quadrans as the smallest coin can be found in Martial’s Epigrammata 2.44.9: »et quadrans mihi nullus est in arca«. 371 Heil, Lukas, 43. 372 The word ἐνέκρυψεν (being found in Matt 13:33 and Luke 13:21 likewise) literally means »to hide« but ἐγκρύπτω is used in Ezek 4:12LXX in the sense of »to bake«. LXX uses the word ἐγκρυφία for »cake« (Gen 18,6; Exod 12,39; Num 11,8; 1 Kgs 17,12.13; 19,6; Ezek 4,12; Hos 7,8). The correct meaning thus is not that the reign of God is »hidden« but that the yeast helps to transform the flour into »cakes« like the reign of God will transform the world (cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 487). 373 Nevertheless, this scheme is not always used, as Kloppenborg, Parables, 287–289, shows. Concerning the question of parables and coming reign of God see below, IV: Excursus 5.1.3).

142

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

scheme is also operative in the two following parables. Both parables have a chiastic structure, presenting the crucial statement in the centre and finishing with a meaningful conclusion:374 ὁμοία ἐστὶν it is like κόκκῳ σινάπεως a seed of mustard ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον αὐτοῦ which a person having taken threw in his garden καὶ ηὔξησεν and it grew καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον, and developed into a tree, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ and the birds of the sky κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ nested in its branches ὁμοία ἐστὶν it is like ζύμῃ, yeast ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ which a woman took and ἐνέκρυψεν baked εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία into three measures of flour ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη until it was fermented ὅλον all (of it)

At the centre of the parables is firstly the growing of God’s reign and secondly the baking into three measures of flour signifying the all-pervasive power of God’s reign. A final accent of the first parable is the nesting of the birds of the sky in the branches of the tree (signifying the reign of God) and in the second parable the fermentation of the dough (again the all-embracing force of God’s reign). Seed of Mustard: Mustard trees are common in Palestine and will reach a high of about two metres. Compared to big forests in colder climates this seems to be small, but in the mostly low vegetation in Palestine this is a »tree«. Nevertheless, the motif behind this parable is the World Tree as depicted in Ezek 17, 31; Dan 4. According to Ezek 31:6.13 and Dan 4:18 the »birds of the air made their nests in its boughs«. Yeast: In the process of preparing bread, a small piece of yeast is added to the flour. The measure for the flour used in the Greek original is σάτον, saton, which

374 Here I follow the analysis of Ostmeyer, Gott, 185.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

143

renders the Hebrew se’a (‫ )סאה‬and the Aramaic sata (‫)סאתא‬.375 According to Josephus Ant. 9:85 one saton equals one and a half Roman modii, which are 13 litres. The three sata would therefore be 40 litres, giving about 50 kg of bread, a meal for over 150 persons(!). This certainly is not the daily work of a normal woman.376 Perhaps the »three sata« are an allusion to Gen 18:6, where Sarah prepares cakes from three se’a of flour for God’s visit in Mamre, as K.-H. Ostmeyer has argued.377 The message of both parables is the same: even if the beginnings are small (small mustard seed, small bit of yeast), the consequences will effect everything.378 The tree becomes so big that even the »birds of the sky« are able to dwell in it. The small piece of yeast leavens even forty litres of flour. One can claim that the historical Jesus told such parables when he was derided for his modest success. One can suspect that his entourage of prostitutes, tax-collectors, and Galilean have-nots brought derision from his audience. Nevertheless, Jesus’ confidence was unbroken. With his parables he still anticipated the counter-reality of the coming reign of God. The beginnings of allegorization can already be detected here. Most probably the allegorical traits (e.g., the mustard tree for the World Tree, three sata of flour as an allusion to scripture) were missing in the words of the historical Jesus and could have been the work of Q-community. Likewise the pairing of the two parables was not original: the missing parallel of the parable of the yeast in the Gospel of Mark and the separate narration of both parables in Gos. Thom. (20; 96:1–2) hint in this direction.379 Most probably those behind the Sayings Source connected the parables and formed the chiastic structure. Additionally, both parables show a male-femalecomplementarity. Gendered couplets are frequent in Q (see below IV: Excursus 5.2): Sowing was work for men, baking bread for women.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents Announcement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23) While Narrative Cycle 4 focussed on the consequences of the coming reign of God (the perspective for insiders), now Narrative Cycle 5 directs the attention to outsiders and mentions consequences for opponents. The message of judgement was already present in Cycle 4 but now becomes a fortiori dominant for the adversaries. Narrative Cycle 5 does not consist in inidividual sayings but in five concentric pericopae.

375 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 487. 376 Luz, Matthäus II, 333: »Der Text schildert also nicht, was eine Bäuerin üblicherweise tut.« See also Ostmeyer, Gott, 187. 377 Ostmeyer, Gott, 188. 378 Cf. Heil, Lukas, 49. 379 Thus correctly Heil, Lukas, 48.

144

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

A Locked Out (Q 13:24–29) B The Reversal of the Last and the First (Q 13:30) C Judgment over Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35) B The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted (Q 14:11) A The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16–18.21.23)

The judgement over Jerusalem is placed in the centre: Jerusalem is still the holy city and the religious centre with the temple for the Q-group. The temple was not yet destroyed. Locked Out finds its parallel in the Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests; while The Reversal of the Last and the First corresponds to The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted. Locked Out (Q 13:24–29) Enter through the narrow door, for many will seek to enter and there are few who enter through it. 25 When the householder has arisen and locked the door, and you stand outside and knock on the door saying: Master, open the door for us, and he will answer you: I do not know you. 26 Then you will begin saying: We ate in your presence and drank and it was in our streets that you taught. 27 And he will say to you: I do not know you! Get away from me you who do lawlessness (Ps 6:9a)! 29 And many shall come from the East and the West and recline 28 with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the reign of God, but you will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 24

In the following judgment-sayings the perspective shifts and the tone becomes darker. The text starts with the invitation to »enter« but immediately points to the »narrow door«. These texts no longer reflect Jesus’ optimism as in the Programmatic Address Q 6, but deal with the harsh experience of failure: there will be only »few who enter«. The imagery of our pericope is strongly influenced by early Jewish patterns, as attested in 1. En.: 1 En. 104 2 Take courage, then; for formerly you were worn out by evils and tribulations, but now you will shine like the luminaries of heaven; you will shine and appear, and the portals of heaven will be opened for you. … 6 Fear not, O righteous, when you see the sinners growing strong and prospering, and do not be their companions; but stay far from all their iniquities, for you will be companions of the host of heaven.

The »portals of heaven« here correspond to the »narrow door« in Q. In 1 En. the text is formulated from the perspective of the just, unlike in Q from the perspective of the unjust. Nevertheless, both texts picture a reversal of status: in Q, those who detested and excluded others are now »locked out«. In 1 En. the »portals of heaven« will be opened to those who were shamed. Likewise the reference to becoming »companions of the host of heaven« in 1 En. fits well with »reclining with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the reign of God«. The picture from 1 En. 104:2 that the just will »shine like the luminaries of heaven« finds no parallel in Q but is present in Matt 13:43 »The righteous will shine like the sun.« It becomes clear that the imagery is due to early Jewish patterns that could be re-used in various contexts.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

145

Breaking with Israel? Knowing about the use of early Jewish patterns here, one is well advised not to interpret these verses as a break with Israel in the Q-community. It is not that »Gentiles take the place of Israel«380, rather a case of inner-Jewish rivalry and consolation for the inferior group. In fact, the patterns of judgement employed here were widespread in early Judaism, as T. Ab. A 11.3–12 // T. Ab. B 8.4–16 demonstrate:381 Abraham sees the broad gate leading to doom and the narrow gate leading to the eternal life. The metaphor of the two ways is even more widespread in Jewish thought (Jer 21:8; Ps 1:6; 1 En. 91:18–19; 2 En. 30:15; Philo Spec. 4:180), as in early Christianity (Did. 1:1; Barn 18:1, 20:1), and in Graeco-Roman antiquity (Xenophon Mem. 2.1.20–34; Cicero Off. 1.117–118).382 The opinion that it will only be »a few« who are saved is found in 4 Ezra 7:47–61, 8:1; 2 Bar. 44:15; T. Ab. B 8:15–16; and in Philo (Agr. 104: »But the paths of prudence, and temperance, and the other virtues, even though they may not be utterly untravelled, are, at all events, not beaten much.«). For the Q-community talking about »the few« being saved forms some sort of consolation. It is not their fault that their message is not successful, but it is a general rule that only »a few« take this path.383 The motif of the narrow door in v 25 is modified to the motif of the locked door, changing the imagery but not the basic statement: the narrow door does not have enough space for all to pass through and the door locked at a special time likewise means one has make some effort to enter the gate before it is too late. The same motif is present in the parable of the bridesmaids in Matt 25:1–13. In Matt 25:12 the bridegroom answers in a similar fashion to the householder in our pericope: »I do not know you.« Even appeal to having indeed known and spent time with the householder proves futile. The phrase ἔφαγεν ἐνώπιον … »eating in front of someone« (in the sense of eating in the presence of someone) is biblical vocabulary for table fellowship (e.g., 2 Sam 11:13; 1 Kgs 1:25; 2 Kgs 25:29) and symbolizes familiarity. The phrase »it was in our streets that you taught« makes it clear that this »householder« is Jesus. The former community no longer has any value because the locked-out are »doers of lawlessness«. Here the text leaves the level of metaphor and makes clear that entering the narrow door means keeping God’s commandments. The phrase ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ [πάντες] οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, »Get away from me [all] you who do lawlessness« is a literal quotation of Ps 6:8a.384 This psalm

380 Thus Zeller, Logienquelle, 87: »Heiden lösen Israel am Ende ab.« Ibid.: »Die Verhärtung Israels Jesus gegenüber ist schon zum Faktum geworden.« 381 T. Ab. in its actual form (in two independent recensions A/B) is a Christian text, both recensions go back to a Jewish original composed shortly before the defeat of the Jewish insurrection in Alexandria (thus, before 115–117 CE). Cf. Hieke, Art. Abraham, WiBiLex; Janssen, Testament, 195–201. 382 See Konradt, Matthäus, 123. 383 Konradt, Matthäus, 124: »Für die Gemeinde impliziert die Rede von ›wenigen‹ eine Vergewisserung: Sie müssen sich von ihrer Minderheitensituation keineswegs irritieren lassen, sondern sollten umso mehr angespornt sein, zu den wenigen zu gehören.« 384 Concerning the question of reconstruction, see the detailed analysis in Heil, Revisited, 157–175.

146

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

prays for salvation from enemies. Like the psalmist, the authors of Q do not want to give informative instruction about the condemnation of enemies, but performative consolation for a troubled situation. Already in 1 Macc 3:6 we read that Judas Maccabaeus had »prospered deliverance (σωτηρία) by his hand« by confounding »all the doers of lawlessness« (πάντες οἱ ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας). »Lawlessness« (ἀνομία) in 1 Macc is the epitome of acting against the Jewish Torah. Thus Q identifies doing the will of Jesus with the Jewish nomos, the Torah. Fulfilling Jesus’ message is the way to be saved at the last judgement385 and thus is the equivalent to fulfilment of the Jewish Torah. In v 29 the imagery is once more transformed by depicting what those locked out are missing out on: table fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In biblical language this three patriarchs are named together to depict the everlasting covenant of God and his faithfulness (e.g., Gen 50:24; Exod 2:24, 6:3.8, 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8, 9:5.27, 29:12, 30:20, 34:4; 2 Kgs 13:23; Bar 2:34; Tob 4:12; Jdt 8:26; 2 Macc 1:2; Acts 7:8; Heb 11:16). Table fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob here means the fulfillment of all the promises that God has ever given to his people, including the fulfilment of the Torah as the book of God’s promises remains valid. Pilgrimage of Gentiles or Restoration of Israel: Now the question arises as to whether the »many coming from the East and the West to recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the reign of God« depict a Pilgrimage of Gentiles or the Restoration of the Dispersed Tribes of Israel. In older literature the interpretation of a pilgrimage of Gentiles prevailed by reference to Isa 2:2–5, 11:10, 60:3; Mic 4:2–3. Sometimes this interpretation also involved the Gentiles taking the place of Israel and replacing the Jews as God’s chosen people.386 But the imagery used here could rather hint at the eschatological restoration of the dispersed children of Israel (as in Isa 43:5–6, 11:12–16, 60:4; Ps 107:3 [= Ps 106:3LXX]; Zech 8:7–8; Bar 4:37; 2 Macc 2:18; 1 En. 57:1; 90:33; Pss. Sol. 11:2). This imagery would then not mean the substitution of Israel but its restoration. On closer inspection, it appears that nowhere do the Gentiles coming to Zion have an independent function but always serve the purpose of underscoring the restitution of Israel.387 This becomes perfectly clear in the connection of both motifs, e.g., in Isa 11:10–16. Additionally, the naming of compass points (»the East and the West«) normally focusses on the restoration of Israel.388 M. Konradt has stated that it is not the replacement of Israel as God’s chosen people that is intended here but the exclusion of Palestinian Jews who did not

385 Hoffmann, Studien, 309 (»Der Weg zur Rettung im Gericht ist für Q also das Tun der Worte Jesu«). 386 See the overview by Zeller, Völkerwallfahrt 1 and 2, passim. In Völkerwallfahrt 2, 87, he concludes: »Die Vielen nehmen tatsächlich als eine Art ›Ersatz‹ die Plätze beim Vätermahl ein, die für die Juden bestimmt waren.« 387 Zeller, Völkerwallfahrt 1, 236–237. 388 Konradt, Matthäus, 136: »Nennungen von Himmelsrichtungen (›Osten und Westen‹) [begegnen] in keinem der Belege für die Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion; breit bezeugt ist sie dagegen in Texten, die von der Sammlung der exilierten Israeliten sprechen…«

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

147

believe in Jesus’ message by integrating Jews from the Diaspora.389 Nevertheless, one may remain sceptical of the idea that Q thought of Diaspora-Jews (e.g., stemming from Paul’s mission). It is more probable that the text is merely playing with contrasts: those who once were so close to Jesus (eating and drinking in his presence) did not take their opportunity, so they will be excluded when even the most remote children of Israel will be brought back. These ideas might well go back to the historical Jesus himself. With his appointment of the »Twelve« Jesus symbolically anticipates the restoration of Israel, and at the same time reintegrates sinners and the marginalized into the holy people, and even visits Jews in the Diaspora. Thus the whole context of this pericope fits perfectly with the motif of bringing together and restoring the lost children of Israel. The »Judging of the Twelve Tribes of Israel« in Q 22:28.30 then lies directly on this trajectory. The perspective of this pericope is therefore still very much an inner-Jewish perspective. There is no substitution of Israel by the Gentiles here. Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth is a biblical expression for grief (wailing: Isa 15:3, 22:12; Jer 3:21; Mic 7:4; 1 En. 108:3.5) and wrath (gnashing of teeth: Ps 35:16, 37:12; Job 16:9; Lam 2:16). Grief and wrath focus on the missed opportunity to participate at the eschatological banquet. The Eschatological Banquet: The idea that God in the eschaton will give a luscious banquet for the elect is already present in Isa 25:6 and is further developed in 1 En. 62:14; 2 En. 42:5 and also by the rabbis.390 The historical Jesus adopted the imagery of banquets to symbolize the reign of God and celebrated emblematic banquets as a foretaste of eschatological events391 (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4.2). The image of a banquet evokes happiness and lust for life, but also universal brotherhood: in the Ancient Near East eating together established a bond stronger even than family ties (cf. Gen 19:1–8). God, inviting us to his table, makes us his family, and we all become brothers and sisters united by our caring father-God. The Reversal of the Last and the First (Q 13:30) 30

The last shall be first and the first shall be last.

This was originally an independent logion that diverging traditions could insert into different contexts, as one can see from Mark 10:31 and Gos. Thom. 4:2. The logion here fits well and develops a special meaning in its Q context: those who were the »first« with Jesus and even ate and drank with him (see the previous

389 Konradt, Matthäus, 136. 390 Luz, Matthäus II, 13 (note 12). For the rabbis, see Billerbeck IV 1154–1160. 391 Jesus’ attitude towards banquets is depicted in all literary genres of the NT: miracle stories (e.g., Mark 6:35–44; John 2:1–13), narrative (e.g., Luke 19:5), and sayings traditions (e.g., Q 7:34; 13:29; 24:16–23; Luke 14:15). Jesus even celebrated an emblematic banquet the day before his death (John 13:2; 1 Cor 11:23–25; depicted as a Passover-Banquet in the synoptics gospels), interpreting the reign of God as coming in spite of his own violent fate.

148

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

pericope) will be excluded and thus become »last«, while new-comers from the East and the West will partake in the eschatological banquet. Apart from its contextualization in Q, the saying reflects authentic Jesus tradition (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1: God’s Advocacy for the Poor). The radicalism of a counter-society established by the coming reign of God is perfectly defined by this short saying. Judgment over Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her nestlings under her wings, and you were not willing! 35 Look, your house will be left to you. I tell you, you will not see me until you say: Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord (Ps 118:26a)! 34

The Judgment over Jerusalem is placed in a central position in Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents/Judgement.392 In scholarly discourse this pericope bears a high burden to proof as to whether the rupture between Q and the temple in Jerusalem had already happened. Does the phrase »Look, your house will be left to you« hint at such a context? Furthermore, is this sentence a vaticinium ex eventu from the time after 70 CE, indicating that the temple in Jerusalem had already been destroyed? A response to this question is facilitated by realizing that our pericope is based on two argumentative patterns of early Judaism. Firstly, the theologumenon of the Violent Fate of Prophets, and secondly, early Jewish critique of the temple. The Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, VI: Excursus 3.2) draws on interpretative patterns of deuteronomistic theology. It says that all true prophets were persecuted and even murdered by Israel. The earliest pre-text of this motif can be found in Neh 9:26. Neh 9:26–33 proposes a fixed pattern of motifs consisting of:393 a) sin against God, b) the warning of the prophets and their rejection, sometimes even by murder, c) punishment by God and the repentance of Israel by invoking God, d) God having mercy on Israel and reconciliation. In Neh 9:26–33 this sequence of patterns is repeated three times, in the beginning and in the end in exactly the same order, in the middle with small variations.394 The final element here is always God’s mercy. The sequence of the patterns sin—murdering the prophet—punishment and repentance—reconciliation with God was common in early Judaism, as can be seen in Ant. 9:265–267 and 10:38–41; 1 En. 89:51–90:19; Jub. 1:7–26 (cf. 1QpHab 2–5395). Here too the final element always presents God’s mercy on Israel. Sometimes these 392 Cf. Tiwald, Gott, 63–88, and id., Art. Tempel, 460–467. 393 The motifs listed here diverge slightly from those of Steck, Geschick, 63: Steck regrettably ignores God’s mercy which clearly forms the last element in the sequence. 394 For a more detailed analysis, see Tiwald, Gott, 71–72. 395 The topic here is the persecution of the Teacher of Righteousness, who is not depicted as a »prophet«, but whose rejection follows the same patterns.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

149

texts present a separation between the just and the unjust in Israel but a general condemnation of all Israel is nowhere to be found in early Judaism. This likewise proves true for texts such as 4Q504–506; 4 Ezra 14:27–35; 2 Bar. 78:5–7. These texts offer a related schema, consisting of sin—punishment and repentance—reconciliation with God (hence only the motif of rejecting the prophets is missing). In these texts God’s mercy on Israel also forms the final element. According to such pre-texts the schema behind Q 13:34–35 can most likely be described as: A: sin/murdering prophets

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her!

34

B: a warning from the proph- How often I [Jesus as prophet!] wanted to gather your chilet and his rejection dren together, as a hen gathers her nestlings under her wings, and you were not willing! C: punishment by God

Look, your house will be left to you. will not see me until you say:

35a

35b

I tell you, you

D: repentance of Israel by in- 35c Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord voking God (Ps 118:26a)!

Among scholars it is fiercely debated as to whether v 35c really means reconciliation with God. Some exegetes here point to 1 En. 48:5, 62:3–5.9–10, 63:2, where even worship of the eschatological judge by the evildoers does not save them from punishment.396 This is certainly correct but nevertheless misjudges the literary genre of such texts. It has repeatedly been stated that such texts are not to be understood in an informative but in a performative way:397 they connotatively want to trigger repentance but they do not deliver information in a denotative way as to who is condemned and who is not.398 Such texts do not informatively predict the irreversible fate of the condemned but performatively try to bring about repentance. Certainly these texts—as indeed Q 13:35—contain a certain threat, but do not present a fait accompli. Thus our pericope is a final call for repentance but not the definitive breach with Israel.399 Jerusalem here symbolizes all Israel.400 The quotation of Ps 117:26LXX (Ps 118MT) further corroborates this view: after »blessed is

396 Thus, Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 499, and Luz, Matthäus III, 384–385, hinting at Calvin’s interpretation. 397 See the detailed studies by Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 73–91; Johnson, Slander, 419–441; Marshall, Apocalypticism, 68–82; Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137. 398 Cf. Johnson, Slander, 441: »… the conventional nature of the polemic means that its chief rhetorical import is connotative rather than denotative.« 399 Pace Verheyden, Jugement, 219, who maintains: »La systématique du raisonnement, son caractère négatif et radical, tant pour le contenu que pour la forme, tout cela ne peut s’expliquer qu’en admettant ne plus avoir affaire à un dernier appel, … mais bel et bien à un adieu pas encore digéré.« 400 Scherer, Königsvolk, 176, emphasizes that the temple in Jerusalem had become the unique centre of the cult since the centralisation politics of Josiah.

150

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

the one who comes in the name of the Lord« (εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου) the psalm continues with: »we bless you from the house of the Lord.« Ps 118MT was written within the horizon of Zion and temple theology.401 The psalm represents the perspective that in the temple of Jerusalem God’s universal kingdom will be celebrated.402 The temple of Jerusalem becomes the centre of eschatological salvation. But then how can one interpret v 35a: »Look, your house will be left to you.«? Temple-criticism in early Judaism: The biblical prophets were known for their criticism of the temple, e.g., Amos 5:21–24; Hos 6:6; Jer 6:20, 7:1–11; Ps 40:7–9, 50:8–14. These tendencies were also present in early Judaism. Likewise the threat that God would leave his »house« was widespread: 1 Kgs 9:7–8; Isa 5:1–7; Jer 12:7, 22:5; Ezek 9–11 (especially 10:18–19, 11:23) and 2 Bar. 8:2.403 Josephus also informs us in B.J. 6:299–311 about repeated prophecies from the time before the Jewish War mentioning a possible destruction of the temple, e.g., Jesus Ben Ananos in the year 62 CE, »four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity« (B.J. 6:300).404 In early Judaism the idea was widespread that the present temple in Jerusalem would be replaced in the eschaton by a temple not made by human hands but by God himself.405 For the Qumran community the temple in Jerusalem was defiled, but in the now upcoming eschaton God would create his own new temple. Until the eschaton the Qumran community with its prayers substituted some of the expiatory functions of the temple; the community thus thought of itself as a »sanctuary of living persons« (‫מקדש‬ ‫אדם‬, 4Q174 3:7), a temple formed not by stones but the living presence of the community members.406 The idea that living persons can build a spiritual temple is also present in Philo, Somn. 1.215. Here the λογικὴ ψυχή, the »rational soul«, serves as a temple for God. In the New Testament a temple formed by living persons is found in 1 Cor 3:16–17, 6:19–20; 2 Cor 6:16 and 1 Peter 2:5. Furthermore, T. Mos. 5:5 and 6:1407 criticises the impurity and immorality of temple priests, as do Pss. Sol. 2:3–5 and B.J. 4:323; 2 Bar. 10:18; Tg. Isa. 28:1 and Jub. 23:21b. Thus, Jub. 1:29; 4 Ezra 10:46–55, and 1 En. 90:28–29—like the Qumran texts—expect a new temple to be founded in the eschaton.408 One can conclude: the topic that God

401 Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen, 319. There is a link between Ps 118 and Isa 12:1–6 in the idea of a restitution of Israel. 402 Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen, 320: The psalm »enthält »eine Zukunftsperspektive, die ihn zu einem Danklied der geretteten Gerechten … macht, die im Jerusalemer Tempel JHWHs universale Königsherrschaft feiern …« 403 See Müller, Gerichtsankündigung, 137, and Wild, Encounter, 114. 404 Cf. Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 231; Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 86–87; Müller, Gerichtsankündigung, 137. 405 See Tiwald, Protologie, 378–379. Further: Paesler, Tempelwort, 40–89 and 150–66. Likewise Evans, Opposition, 235–53, 236–41, and Ådna, Tempel, 122–27. 406 See Ådna, Tempel, 105; Maier, Bausymbolik, 103–106. 407 Evans, Opposition, 237–238. 408 Cf. Ådna, Tempel, 44–45 und 104, and Paesler, Tempelwort, 156–165.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

151

would leave his old temple in Jerusalem and replace it with a new temple in the end times was widespread in early Judaism. Such idea nevertheless did not intend an abrogation of the temple per se, nor can such ideas be interpreted as a breach between Christians and Jews.409 Your house: Another objection might be that talking about »your house« underscores the rupture by expressing a certain distance.410 But the translation of ἀφίημι with a double object does not simply mean »to leave« but »leaving something to someone«.411 H. Scherer rightly concludes that the temple will be left to those who feel responsible for it, but will no longer be of relevance for God.412 These words probably preserve a reflection of Jesus’ own criticism of the temple. Most likely Jesus performed a prophetic gesture in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem (Mark 11:15–19par), misleadingly referred to as the »cleansing of the temple«, more appropriately as Jesus’ »temple action«.413 The prophetic word against the temple (Mark 14:58; John 2:19) makes clear414 that this action was part of Jesus’ announcement of the upcoming reign of God.415 His emblematic gesture criticises a false reliance on the expiatory function of the temple, but is not directed against the temple per se. A certain parallel can be seen in Jer 7:4–7: »Do

409 Thus correctly Karrer, Israel, 149: »Nicht unmittelbar der (zweite) Tempel Jerusalems, sondern Heiligtumstheologie in einer ›idealen‹ Gestalt prägt den Heilsausblick von Q …«. Pace Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 498, who emphazises an irreversible breach between Jews and Christians by referring to Jer 12:7: »I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage; I have given the beloved of my heart into the hands of her enemies«. But Jer 12:7 makes clear that such oracles are merely performative and not informative, as Jer 12:14–15 continues: »I am about to pluck them up from their land, and I will pluck up the house of Judah from among them. And after I have plucked them up, I will again have compassion on them, and I will bring them again to their heritage and to their land, every one of them.« 410 Thus Konradt, Matthäus, 367. 411 Thus rightly Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 498, by refering to Eccl 2:18; Ps 16:14LXX; Josephus Ant. 7:274; Matt 5:40; 22:25; John 14:27. 412 Scherer, Königsvolk, 181. 413 Jesus does not intend a cultic or ritual »cleansing« of the temple or »purifying« the temple from greedy merchants, rather this is a prophetic gesture (see Söding, Tempelaktion, 50–52). 414 For further details see the analysis in Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 381. Even if Jesus’ word against the temple and his temple-action are only linked together in John 2:14–22, they nevertheless refer to the same action. In Mark 14:58 Jesus’ temple-logion is attributed to »false witnesses«, but the parallel in John 2:19 fits well with the temple-action and similar traditions in Q 13:34–35 and Mark 13:2 and thus suggests a link between the logion and the action (Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 381). Early Christianity struggled with Jesus’ criticism of the temple, as the »false witnesses« in Mark 14:58, the metaphorical interpretation in John 2:19, the conditional formulation in Matt 26:61, and the omission of the saying by Luke in addition to attributing the word to Stephen in Acts 6:14 clearly demonstrate. Ultimately, it was Koch, Geschichte, 175, who advocated against the historicity of this temple-action, but—as argued by Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 381—a saying causing so much embarrassment certainly was not invented by early Christians. 415 Söding, Tempelaktion, 61.

152

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

not trust in these deceptive words: ›This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.‹ For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever.« Jesus’ announcement »I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands« (Mark 14:58) reflects his expectation that in the upcoming eschatological era God himself will create his own temple as a replacement for the human-made sanctuary. A certain probability suggests that the Sayings Source has maintained a reflection of this in Jesus’ words: »Look, your house will be left to you.« This is not an abrogation of the temple itself but a prediction of a replacement of the human-made temple by God’s own temple in the eschaton. This idea fits perfectly with those in Qumran, Jub. 1:29; 4 Ezra 10:46–55, and 1 En. 90:28–29. It remains an open question as to how the historical Jesus imagined the new eschatological temple. According to the protology-eschatology correspondence, early Judaism believed that at the end of times the original relationship between God and humanity would be restored by God effusing his spirit over »Judah and Jerusalem« (Joel 3:1–5, quoted in Acts 2:17–21). In this way the entire city of Jerusalem would become the bearer of God’s spirit and thus host God’s presence like a temple. This idea is attested in Rev 21:22, where the heavenly Jerusalem descends from God to the earth to replace the human-made city, yet there is no longer a need for a temple in this new Jerusalem because God’s direct presence replaces the temple and transforms the whole city into God’s sanctuary. Likewise, John 4:20–24 maintains that every place on earth where God’s spirit is can be God’s temple.416 Most likely Jesus’ temple criticism provided the background for Q 13:34–35. It would be astonishing if Jesus’ temple-action and temple-saying had not left any traces in the Sayings Source. The context of Jesus’ temple-prophecy makes clear that no general criticism of the temple (let alone an abrogation of the temple) lies behind this action. Thus also in the Sayings Source there is no abrogation of the temple. Nevertheless, the old temple will be replaced by a new temple in the imminent eschaton. With the arrival of the returning Jesus as the judging Son of Man, all Israel will recognize Jesus’ ministry by blessing the one coming in the name of the Lord.417 Hen and Nestlings: The image of »gathering someone under one’s wings« is based on biblical metaphors, e.g., Deut 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8, 36:8, 57:2, 61:5, 63:8, 91:4; Isa 31:5; 2 Bar. 41:4).418 The eschatological gathering of God’s people was a main topic in Jesus’ ministry (see above, III: Q 13:29). The historical Jesus failed in gathering God’s people, but he will not fail as the returning Son of Man, as v 35c and the eschatological worship by all Israel make clear.

416 Cf. Tiwald, Art. Tempel, 466, and id., Frühjudentum, 285–287. 417 Thus also Scherer, Königsvolk, 181. 418 Luz, Matthäus III, 379.

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents: The Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

153

The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted (Q 14:11) Everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted.

11

The paraenetic style continues here. According to the concentric scheme of Narrative Cycle 5 this logion is symmetrically paired with The Reversal of the Last and the First; both logia frame the pericope Judgement over Jerusalem. This framing once again makes clear that Judgement over Jerusalem follows paraenetic motifs and does not contain dogmatic proclamations as to whether or not Jerusalem is condemned. This logion fits well within the context of the historical Jesus. The saying was put into different contexts in the New Testament. Q has placed the logion as a parallel to that of the First-Last and as a consequence to the temple-logion, perhaps as a criticism of temple priests being the first and exalted in Israel, who will lose their privileges in the coming eschaton. Whereas Matt 23:12 positions the saying as a polemic against the Pharisees, Luke 14:11 uses it to conclude his story about invited dinner guests. An older Jesus tradition is here integrated into different contexts, but still maintains its basic meaning. The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16–18.21.23) A certain man prepared a large dinner, and invited many. 17 And he sent his slave at the time of the dinner to say to the invited: Come, for it is now ready. 18 One declined because of his field, another because of his business. 21 And the slave, on coming, said these things to his master. Then the householder was enraged and said to his slave: 23 Go out on the roads, and invite whomever you find, so that my house may be filled. 16

The question as to whether this parable was part of Q is a matter of considerable debate—Matthew and Luke present strongly diverging versions. Recent scholarship increasingly opts for its presence in Q.419 The story finds a parallel in Gos. Thom. 64, following the plot in Q (other than in Matthew only one slave is sent out once). Nevertheless, Gos. Thom. follows Matthew in having not two but only one group of newly invited guests. In Q, Matthew and Luke, the Parable of Invited Dinner Guests has already undergone a certain allegorization, expansion, and enrichment with additional motifs. Thus Matt 22:7 presents the host as a »king«, sending his »troops« to »burn their city«, a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.420 In this way Matt 22:8 concludes that »those invited were not worthy« (οἱ δὲ κεκλημένοι οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι). Earlier 419 Thus Fleddermann, Q, 722–735, and Konradt, Matthäus, 339. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 509, remains undecided, Luz, Matthäus III, 233, opts against it being in Q. In this commentary, the diverging versions might well be seen as an example of secondary orality (see above I.1.2.4). 420 Konradt, Matthäus, 340.

154

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

scholars wanted to interpret this verse as a substitution of Israel by the Gentiles.421 Luke 14:24, on the other hand, builds on the story with the words: »For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner«, which in earlier exegesis also was considered as a condemnation of Israel. But Luke 14:24 does not mention the exclusion of all Israel.422 Furthermore, Luke 14:23 (»Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled«) was often interpreted as a mission to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, this viewpoint is also no longer tenable and goes beyond the text.423 In sum: Matthew and Luke in different ways have transformed a parable derived (most probably) from the Sayings Source by introducing additional allegorical elements. But it remains problematic to see in this parable the definitive condemnation of Israel and its substitution by the Gentiles. Nowhere in this pericope do we find the condemnation or substitution of Israel as such. The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests is generally attributed to the historical Jesus:424 the content fits well within Jesus’ imagery of banquets, but also with his other parables (see above, III: Q 13:24–29 and below IV: Excursus 1.4.2). Thus Jesus’ point in the parable can be easily determined: he was repeatedly confronted with rejection and disbelief. His Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3–8par) already mentions that three quarters of the seed go to waste. It is most likely that the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18–19 // Mark 4,31–32) and the Parable of the Yeast (Q 13:20–21) functioned as Jesus’ justification for the small scale of his movement. This pericope goes in the same direction and deals with rejection and failure. In spite of such rejection, Jesus’ optimism focusses on the precious gift of God’s reign that can be lost if his invitation is rejected. Like the Treasure Hidden in the Field (Matt 13:44) and the Merchant in Search of Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45–46) no-one would not seize such an opportunity. The same proves true for this parable: Who would not accept the invitation to such a luscious banquet? The parable hits two birds with one stone: firstly, those who reject Jesus’ offer really are stupid, and secondly, Jesus justifies his advocacy for the poor and marginalized. The ›noble‹ guests—e.g., Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees … the whole religious ›establishment‹— have rejected Jesus’ offer and now the common people are taking their places. It is not the replacement of Israel with the Gentiles that is the message of this parable but the reversal of the last and the first and the exaltation of the humble. The

421 Konradt, Matthäus, 340, criticises »die These der Ablösung Israels durch die Völkermission.« As examples for this viewpoint see Trilling, Israel, 85: »… das äußere Faktum der Zerstörung Jerusalems als Beweis für die innere Abwendung Gottes von seinem Volk …« Likewise Frankemölle, Jahwe-Bund, 108 and 219: »Israel hat sein Privileg als Jahwes Eigentumsvolk vertan. An seine Stelle tritt ein neues Bundesvolk, die Jünger in der Nachfolge Jesu …«. An overview of this older viewpoint and his own revocation of this perspective can be found in Frankemölle, Wurzeln, 342–363. 422 Thus correctly Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 509. 423 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 513: »Dass auf der Sachebene nunmehr die Heidenmission im Blick ist, ist beim besten Willen nicht zu erkennen.« 424 Luz, Matthäus III, 236.

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times: The Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

155

context of the pericope makes this perfectly clear, at least according to the plot of Narrative Cycle 5. But also the context of the Sayings Source hints in this direction: some daring »violent« people now »violate« the reign of God by quickly taking their opportunity (cf. Q 16:16), while Pharisees and Scribes (Q 11:39–52) remain as hesitant as the Galilean towns (Q 10:13–15). The establishment does not care for the seemingly crazy preacher man (cf. Mark 3:21–22), and now it is the »immature children« (Q 10:21) and »poor« (Q 6:20)—thus the people »on the roads« in this parable—who are invited into the reign of God (that the banquet symbolizes the reign of God, see above, III: Q 13:24–29). Thus the command from the host (depicting God inviting to his reign) to his servant (depicting Jesus) to »go out on the roads, and invite whomever you find« fits perfectly the situation of Jesus and his ministry. Even though the logion of Matt 21:31 (»Truly I tell you, the tax-collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you«), as directed against »the chief priests and the elders of the people« (Matt 21:23), is missing in Q, it nevertheless expresses Jesus’ original intention. A breach with »Israel« is not intended here, but a reversal of social status. In God’s reign the »poor from the streets« will have better places than the religious establishment.

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21) After Narrative Cycle 5 has directed admonitions to outsiders, now Narrative Cycle 6 returns to the perspective to insiders with a strong focus on the upcoming eschaton. The whole chapter sounds like a loose collection of motivating slogans. The first signs of fatigue become visible, the first traces of the delay of parousia can be detected—even if Q still reckons with the imminence of the eschaton.

Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise (Q 14:26–17:2) The first narrative unit in this cycle underscores commitment to Jesus without compromise. This was the topic of Narrative Cycle 2 (Q 9:57–11:13) but mainly with a focus on the missionaries—the perspective is now widened to include the whole community of Q. Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross (Q 14:26–27) The one who does not hate father and mother, cannot be my disciple. The one who does not hate son and daughter, cannot be my disciple.

26

156 27

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

The one who does not take up his cross and follow me, cannot be my disciple.

Hating One’s Family in Q 14:26–27 (Matt 10:37 // Luke 14:26) finds a parallel in Mark 10:29 (Matt 19:29 // Luke 18:29). Taking Up One’s Cross in Q 14:27 (Matt 10:38 // Luke 14:27) also has a parallel in Mark 8:34 (Matt 16:24 // Luke 9:23).425 The familyless ethos of the Jesus movement occurs repeatedly in the Sayings Source (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.3). This reflects apocalyptic beliefs that in the last days all fleshly bonds would be disrupted and God would create his new family. For Jesus as for Q, the end of times has already come.426 Additionally, conflicts between the historical Jesus and his own family are present in texts beyond the Sayings Source, e.g., Mark 3:21.31–35, 6:4, 10:28–30; Luke 2:48–50; John 2:4; Gos. Thom. 15, 16, 55. The logion of »hating« father and mother, son and daughter, thus belongs on the horizon of eschatological expectations: in eschatological chaos (starting with the disruption of families) God will create his eschatological peace (see below, IV: Excursus 4.2). The formulation »to hate«, preserved in Luke 14:26, is original, »Whoever loves father or mother more than me« in Matt 10:37 is a less shocking and thus later adaptation. »Hating« is prophetically radicalized language with the intention to shock and attract attention. Furthermore, the imagery of violence and insistence is common in Jesus’ words (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1.4). Taking Up One’s Cross already in Q—but likewise in Gos. Thom. 55427—is combined with Hating One’s Family. In Mark the two sayings remain separate. The combination of the two sayings only makes sense in post-Easter times from the perspective of Jesus’ passion.428 Thus Taking Up One’s Cross most probably is a post-Easter construction that Q has linked to Hating One’s Family.429 Even if the Sayings Source does not mention Jesus’ death and resurrection explicitly (being understandable given the strong focus on sayings), Q nevertheless knew about Jesus’ crucifixion, as this text demonstrates.430 As with the theologumenon of the violent fate of prophets (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1) discipleship without compromise is demanded. Nevertheless, Taking Up One’s Cross does not necessarily mean martyrdom unto death, but can be a metaphorical expression for »every kind of evil against you because of the Son of Man« (Q 6:22). Concerning the question as to whether Q already had martyrs in the community, see above, III: Q 11:49–51.431 425 For the reconstruction and placement of the Q logion, see Fleddermann, Q, 746–751; Schröter, Erinnerung, 404–409; Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 98–102; Heil, Lukas, 97–106. 426 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 416. 427 For an analysis of Gos. Thom. 55 (cf. Gos. Thom. 101) see Schröter, Erinnerung, 412–413. 428 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 347. 429 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 104. 430 See Schröter, Erinnerung, 409, who underscores that Q parallelizes Jesus’ sufferings with those of the Q-missionaries. 431 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 102 (note 22) presumes: »Hinter den ›Verfolgungen‹ steckt vermutlich nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die Apathie der Adressaten.« Similarly Tuckett, Q, 283–323.

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times: The Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

157

The structure of this pericope is elaborate: a triple couplet, introduced with the words »The one who does not« and concluded with »cannot be my disciple«. The first part of the couplet always consists in two parts: father and mother—son and daughter—take up his cross and follow me. Intriguingly enough, the parent-generation and the children-generation is mentioned but not a wife. This fits well with the parallel saying in Mark 10:29 // Matt 19:29 which also fails to mention a wife. In contrast to this, Luke has inserted in his Q-template (Luke 14:25) and in his Marktemplate (Luke 18:29) that a wife is also to be left behind. Not only the fact that Mark and Matthew do not offer a tradition of leaving one’s wife but also Luke’s loss of the obvious rhythm (three couplets) hints at the fact that Luke here is secondary to an older tradition preserved in Q and Mark. Luke’s insertion becomes understandable as a measure of discipline: a missionary cannot father children with his wife and then leave them behind. In Q this is not yet a problem—given the expectation of an imminent eschaton, one could leave parents and children to short-term care by relatives and friends. After the significant delay of the parousia (i.e., in Luke’s time) such an understanding was no longer viable. Perhaps Luke also followed the tendency to limit the work of missionaries to males by cutting out female prophets.432 Such tendencies are well known from the Pastoral Epistles, but also from Luke himself.433 The identical results in Q, Mark, and Matthew, but also in Gos. Thom. 55 and 101 indicate that the first missionaries travelled in the company of their wives.434 Also in 1 Cor 9:5 there is evidence that »the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas« travelled in the company of their wives.435 Thus the missionaries’ wives participated in the emblematic itinerancy, poverty, homelessness, and pacificism of their husbands, and they too became emblematic examples of the coming reign of God as female prophets and missionaries. Beyond the Q-tradition, we have many hints at missionary-couples in early Christianity, where the wife was clearly engaged in active missionary work.436 This holds true for Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19; in Acts 18:2.18.26: Priscilla und Aquila) or for Andronicus und Junia (Rom 16:7), who are described »prominent among the apostles«.437 Losing One’s Life (Q 17:33) The one who finds his life will lose it, and the one who loses his life for my sake will find it.

33

432 Thus is the opinion of Heil, Lukas, 238: »Während Q 14,26 noch an Jüngerinnen und Jünger gleichermaßen gerichtet war, engt Luke den Nachfolgespruch … auf männliche Jünger ein.« 433 Bieberstein, Jüngerinnen, 68–69. See texts like 1 Tim 2:11–12. 434 See the discussion by Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 105–110; Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus, 211–220; Tiwald, Logienquelle, 177–181. 435 Schrage, 1 Kor, 291–292 and 315–316. 436 Cf. Müller, Ehepaare, passim. 437 See the discussion in Tiwald, Entwicklungslinien, 31.

158

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Taking Up One’s Cross and Losing One’s Life are linked in Mark 8:34–35, but were they already linked in Q? If so, Matthew provides us with the original Q-sequence while Luke has broken it up. This seems quite probable as Matt 10:38 maintains the Qsaying, while Matt 16:24b follows Mark 8:34–35. In both pericopae Taking Up One’s Cross (Matt 8:38 and Matt 16:24b) is followed by Losing One’s Life (Matt 8:39 and Matt 16:25). If Matt 10:38 stems from Q then also the following v 39 presumably is taken from the Sayings Source. In contrast, Luke exhibits strong redactional tendencies in this pericope: in his eschatological speech (Luke 17:22–37) the Q-logion underscores a determination to save one’s own life (cf. the three examples in Luke 17:31–32 followed by the general rule Luke 17:33).438 Remarkably enough, John 12:25 also mentions Losing and Saving One’s Life in connection with following Jesus (John 12:26) and in the context of dying to bear fruit (John 12:24).439 This most probably reflects the preservation of common traditions of early Christianity without direct literary dependence.440 The link of Q 14:26–27 + 17:33 and Mark 8:34 + 8:35 testifies to an early pairing of sayings preserved in independent traditions.441 In respect to formal criteria Q 17:33 represents us with a coupled paradoxical rule with a stylistic proximity to parts of a commander’s exhortation to his soldiers before battle.442 According to Xenophon, Cyr. 3.3.45, the commander exhorts his soldiers: »[A]nyone who wishes to live would be a fool if he tried to run away, when he knows that it is the victors who save their lives, while those who try to run away are more likely to meet their death than those who stand their ground.« There are plenty of similar formulations in antiquity, hinting to the fact that Q here used a common trope.443 The knowledge of such argumentation does not require a philosophical education, as such patterns might well have been of common use in general culture. As we have seen, at an early stage the logion was linked to Taking Up One’s Cross. Thus the saying most probably does not go back to the historical Jesus but reveals an early Christian reaction to failure and rejection.444

438 See the analysis in Heil, Lukas, 105 (»Die lukanische Position in Q 17,33 wird erst durch den redaktionellen Einschub Luke 17,31f sinnvoll. Matthäus hat also die ursprüngliche QEinheit in Matt 10,37–39 erhalten …«). Pace Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 112–113. Another solution is proposed by Fleddermann, Q, 762: »Neither Luke’s position in the Apocalyptic Discourse nor Matthew’s in the Mission Discourse reflect the original position of the saying in Q.« 439 See the discussion in Schröter, Erinnerung, 404–411. 440 Schröter Erinnerung, 411 (»Rückgriff auf gemeinsame Tradition …, der sich auch ohne literarische Vermittlung vollziehen kann«). 441 Schröter, Erinnerung, 417 (»ein Spruchpaar, das bereits auf einer älteren Traditionsstufe gebildet wurde«). 442 Thus rightly Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 118, who refutes the arguments against such a comparison (pace Gnilka, Markus II, 24). 443 Further references are mentioned by Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 118: Xenophon, An. 3.2.39, 3.1.43; Cyr. 4.1.5; Sallust, Cat. 58.15–17; Jug. 87.2; Curt. 4.14.25 (§ 55); 5.9.6–7 (§ 26); PseudoMenander (Syrian Menander), Sent. 55. The earliest passage might be Homer, Il. 5.529–532. 444 Thus Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 122.

159

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times: The Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

Tasteless Salt (Q 14:34–35) Salt is good, but if salt becomes tasteless, with what can it be seasoned? is fit neither for the earth nor for the dunghill—it gets thrown out.

34

35

It

Tasteless Salt perfectly matches the preceding sayings. The disciples of Jesus shall give the right »taste« to this world. There has been much debate on the exact meaning of »tasteless«. In Matt 5:13 as like in Luke 14:34 the word μωρανθῇ— literally »to make foolish«—is used. This might have rendered a play on words in an original Aramaic version.445 The word ‫תפל‬, tafal (»tasteless« in the culinary as also in the social meaning), might be a pun with ‫ תבל‬taval (»to season«). This is one of the rare cases where the original Aramaic words of Jesus can be reconstructed. In Mark 9:50a we have a nearly verbatim parallel to this pericope: »Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it?« If one accepts the interpretation as an Aramaic play on words, it is not important whether the salt here is depicted in its conserving-purifying function (cf. 2 Kgs 2:19–22) or as seasoning (see Job 6:6).446 Col 4:6 demands »Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt«, and Diogenes Laertius 4.10 calls the language of academics »unseasoned by salt«.447 Such parallels define the imagery of this pericope: Jesus’ disciples must have what it takes. God or Mammon (Q 16:13) No one can serve two masters; for a person will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Mammon.

13

In direct trajectory to the preceding sayings the line of uncompromising commitment to Jesus is drawn on by declaring the impossibility of serving God and Mammon at the same time. The Greek word μαμωνᾶς, mamōnas, is derived from the Aramaic ‫מוֹן‬, mamon (emphatic ‫א‬‫מוֹ‬, mamona), »riches, provisions, possessions«, in accordance with the Hebrew word ‫ן‬, aman, »to be firm«. Mammon in its negative connotation thus comprises earthly possessions giving the illusion of security. The alternative »God or Mammon« presents Mammon as some sort of idol or anti-god.448 This was exactly the intention of the Sayings Source and additionally reflects Jesus’ own perspective: God’s advocacy for the poor led in early Judaism to a special Piety in Poverty, as adopted by Jesus (see below, IV: Excursus 3.1). Also beyond the Sayings Source the radical alternative »God or Mammon« is reflected in Mark 10:25 (»It is easier for a

445 446 447 448

Thus Ebner, Q, 94, by refering to Black, Approach, 166. See the discussion by Konradt, Matthäus, 72. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 520. Konradt, Matthäus, 112.

160

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God«). According to Q 10:4 missionaries have to live up to Jesus’ emblematic poverty and must renounce purse, knapsack, sandals, and staff. Following Q 6:20–21, only the poor will possess God’s reign. This pericope fits well with Narrative Unit 1 Discipleship without Compromise. As result of God’s imminent reign, the disciples are required to put all their confidence in God like the Ravens and the Lilies (see above, III: Q 12:22b–31). Luke will transform the ethos of imitating Jesus’ prophetic poverty into the ethics of the inner-community exchange of possessions. Thus, the original radicalism of eschatological expectation, still present in Q, becomes transformed into a socially-caring concept of shared ethics.449 Against Tempting Little Ones (Q 17:1–2) It is necessary for temptations to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It is better for him that a millstone is put around his neck and he is thrown into the sea, than that he should entice one of these little ones.

1

The narrative unit Discipleship without Compromise now is brought to a conclusion with a look at »temptations«. On can suppose that the aforementioned topics Taking Up One’s Cross and Renouncing Mammon were not observed by all community members. Not living up to this high ethos had already become part of the reality behind the Sayings Source. In spite of Q’s expectation of an imminent eschaton, the initial signs of a delay of parousia become noticeable. Nevertheless, for Q such fatigue symptoms do not lead to renouncing an imminent expectation of the end times but are fitted into a concept of eschatology that declares such temptations as a »necessary« (ἀνάγκη)450 time of probation in the eschatological chaos. The expectation of eschatological atrocities was widespread in early Judaism (see below, IV: Excursus 4.1). Thus we read in 2 Bar. 48:31: »that time which brings tribulation will arise. Indeed, it will come and pass with acute force, and when it comes it will be agitated with heated vehemence.« The Sayings Source interprets the temptations as the predicted—and thus »necessary«—time of trial in the eschaton. The picture of a millstone put around the neck follows hyperbolic tropes and insists on the severity of guilt. The picture mentions a large millstone from a mill drawn by a donkey, and it is so big that a human head fits in the central hole. The picture underscores that evildoers should expect a terrible fate.451 The saying follows the

449 For further details, see Tiwald, Nichterfüllung, passim, and id., Wanderradikalismus, 191–202. 450 Luke 17:1 has formulated more cautiously ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάνδαλα μὴ ἐλθεῖν (»It is impossible that temptations will not come.«). Concerning reconstruction, see Fleddermann, Q, 795: »Luke’s expression is milder than Matthew’s because Luke tries to avoid divine responsibility for scandals.« 451 Luz, Matthäus III, 20.

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times: The Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

161

Hellenistic genre of »it is better … than« sayings.452 Even such a cruel death by drowning with a millstone around one’s neck will be better than the consequences of enticing one of these little ones. The logion finds a parallel in Mark 9:42. The little ones is according to 2 Bar. 48:19 a self-designation for God’s people: »Look at the little ones who have subjected themselves to you, and redeem all those who draw near to you. Do not cut off the hope of our people, and do not cut short the times of our help.« This imagery is due to the idea of Piety in Poverty, where the poor and little ones are depicted as the chosen ones of God (see below IV: Excursus 3.1.1 and see above III: Q 10:21).

Narrative Unit 2: The Forgiveness of God and of One Another (Q 15:4–10; 17:4) After having mentioned »temptations«, now the possibility of »forgiveness« becomes the main topic. The high ideals of the preceding Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise become somewhat softened. Those who have failed to live up to the true ethos of discipleship will obtain forgiveness in the case of repetance. The original Sitz im Leben of both parables (Lost Sheep and Lost Coin453) can be seen in God’s restoring power (see below IV: Excursus 1). In the context of the Sayings Source both texts are situated in the context of Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times—The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia. Here the Sayings Source deals with the failure of the disciples and offers a means of forgiveness. The two parables (concerning parables in Q see below IV: Excursus 5) are presented—as is typical for Q—in the form of »Gendered Couplets«454 (see below IV: Excursus 5.2: Gendered Couplets in Q’s Imagery). Being a shepherd is a job for men, while domestic work is part of the role of a woman. The final thought in this unit consists in Forgiving Seven Times. Here it becomes clear that such sayings already reflect an internal community practice. The Lost Sheep (Q 15:4.5a.7) 4 Which person among you who has a hundred sheep and loses one of them will not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and go look for the lost one? 5a And if it should happen that he finds it, 7 I say to you that he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.

452 See the examples in Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 566, e.g., Chrysippus, Frgm. 760 (SVF 3): »It is better to live as a fool than not having lived and never having the opportunity to be foolish.« (my translation) 453 Heil, Gleichnisrede, 187, traces the parables of the Mustard Seed, Yeast, Lost Sheep, and Lost Coin back to the historical Jesus. 454 Harb, Rede, 194–225.

162

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

The parable of the Lost Sheep once again reflects local Galilean culture. Most probably this parable goes back to the historical Jesus.455 The text starts with a rhetorical question addressing the listeners directly and involving them immediately in the story:456 »Of course, no shepherd will let one sheep go astray, even if there are still 99 left …«457 A poor shepherd could not risk losing even one single sheep.458 The crucial point can be seen in care for the lost and the joy of recovery. With this parable Jesus justifies his own care for the ›lost‹ as a special trait of his message (see below IV: Excursus 1.4.5). The parable finds a parallel in Gos. Thom. 107, whose form seems to be secondary in comparison to the synoptic version: the focus here shifts from the shepherd to the lost sheep. The image of the Good Shepherd was already present in pre-Christian times and linked to the image of a man carrying a sheep on his shoulders. The origin of this goes back to Hermes Kriophoros who carries a ram on his shoulders to the sacrificial altar. The image was later transferred to a context in which it expressed a shepherd’s care for his flock.459 It is from this that early Christianity adopted the picture for Christ as the Good Shepherd. The topos of the »carrier« yet is not present in Q and first appears in Luke 15:5 (»When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices.«). The Lost Coin (Q 15:8–10) Or what woman who has ten coins and loses one would not light a lamp and sweep the house and look for it until she finds it? 9 And on finding it she calls her friends and neighbours, saying: Rejoice with me, for I found the coin which I had lost. 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy among the angels over one repenting sinner. 8

As a Matthean parallel is missing, this pericope cannot be claimed for Q with certainty. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that Q might have contained this parable.460 The text not only presents a gendered couplet to the Lost Sheep (see below IV: Excursus 5.2: Gendered Couplets in Q’s Imagery), but also a rhetorical couplet: 455 456 457 458

Heil, Gleichnisrede, 187. See the narratological analysis in Roth, Parables, 376–387. Kloppenborg, Parables, 317. The question as to whether the parable depicts a hired shepherd or the owner of the sheep remains irrelevant, as in both cases the loss of even one sheep would be devastating: a hired shepherd would lose his job, the owner of the sheep his source of income. Cf. Oveja, Neunundneunzig, 206. 459 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 525. 460 See the discussion in Hoffmann, Anmerkungen, 140. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 96–98, in particular opts for its inclusion in Q: »The evidence inclines in favor of Luke 15:8–10 deriving from Q. It appears in a Q context and is stylistically consistent with Q; indeed it displays Q’s characteristic doubling of illustrations and the use of gender-paired illustrations.« Likewise Fleddermann, Q, 772–775, and id., Coin, 289–322. Heil, Gleichnisrede, 184–185, leaves the question open but emphasises that the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin both can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times: The Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

163

the introduction in both cases is given as a rhetorical question implying a clear response: a lost item (sheep or coin) draws all the attention on itself, while the items which are not lost (ninety-nine sheep or nine coins) seem less important. At the end of both is the overwhelming joy at having recovered the lost item. In both parables we encounter local Galilean culture. The coin mentioned in the Greek text is a δραχμή, drachmē, drachma. The denarius and drachma were in use at the same time.461 In Roman times the drachma equalled a sestertius, the tetradrachma a denarius. One denarius was seen as the salary of a day labourer (cf. Matt 20:2). But sometimes authors mixed up the denarius and drachma: in Tob 5:15 one drachma is seen as the salary of a day labourer. A lost drachma thus did not represent particular wealth, but nevertheless secured the daily sustenance of the poor. The final formulation about joy among the angels over one repenting sinner builds the bridge between the earthy and the heavenly ›household‹. The message is very comforting in its insistence on the restoring power of the coming reign of God who will restore the integrity of humankind (see below IV: Excursus 1.4.5). Jesus justifies his commitment to sinners with such parables (cf. also Mark 2:16–17). Forgiving Seven Times (Q 17:3–4) If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if seven times a day he sins against you, also seven times shall you forgive him.

3 4

Forgiving Seven Times now follows as practical instruction for community life: the members of the community have to adopt God’s attitude of forgiving. Already the historical Jesus linked God’s forgiveness to a readiness to forgive one’s neighbour: the Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:4), Love Your Enemies & Being Full of Mercy (Q 6:27–28.36), but also outside of Q-traditions in Bringing Offerings to the Altar (Matt 5:24) or in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:23–35). While Matthew puts the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant in direct succession to this Q logion (which he introduces with a question from Peter), the version in Luke maintains the original bare bones and lack of context.462 Seven times: Seven was a holy number already in pre-biblical times because of the seven luminaries (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). In the Bible the holy number seven occurs in the seven days of creation, the seven days of the week, and the holiness of the seventh day, the Sabbath. Seven is the number of completeness and fulfilment. According to Gen 2:2 God finished his work of creation on the seventh day. Forgiving seven times is therefore a symbol of unlimited forgiveness. Matt 18:22 has enhanced his formulation with the hyperbolic »seventy-seven times«.

461 For more details see Reiser, Numismatik, 460 and 475–476. 462 Regarding the details of reconstruction see Fleddermann, Q, 799–802.

164

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him: Forgiveness is not unconditional but follows the repentance of the sinner. Thus the Sayings Source develops a certain reciprocity: the logion of Offering the Other Cheek (see above III: Q 6:29) is transformed in the Sayings Source from asymmetric non-violence to the reciprocity of the Golden Rule.463 Jesus’ unconditional non-violence and pacificism had been an emblematic sign of the coming reign of God (see below IV: Excursus 4.2: The Eschatological Peace of God). The Sayings Source now adapts this attitude and transforms it to a community rule for mutual forgiveness and correction. Matt 18:15b enhances this rule to form a detailed procedure of discipline (»when the two of you are alone«) followed in v. 16–17 by different levels of escalation (»take one or two others along with you«—»tell it to the church«—»let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector«). Modes of inner-community discipline can be found in Lev 19:17, but also in Qumran: CD 9:7–8 and 1QS 5:24–6:1: … Each man is to reprove 25 his fellow in truth, humility and loving-kindness. He should not speak to him in anger, with grumbling, 26 with a [stiff] neck or with a wickedly [zealous] spirit. He must not hate him because of his own [uncircumcised] heart. Most assuredly he is to rebuke him on the day of the infraction so that he does not 6:1 continue in sin. Also, no man is to bring a charge against his fellow before the general membership unless he has previously rebuked that man before witnesses. 5:24

Narrative Unit 3: Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6) The last narrative unit in Narrative Cycle 6 consists only of a single pericope. Nevertheless, this is a fitting conclusion for the narrative cycle The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia. Here the faith required in expectation of the Son of Man is underlined once again. Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6) If you have faith like a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree: Be uprooted and planted in the sea! And it would obey you.

6

The image of the smallness of a mustard seed also occurs in Q 13:18–19, but there it is a metaphor for growth. Here the image serves the purpose of underscoring that only very little faith is necessary to accomplish great things. The formulation— at least in the Lukan version—starts in the realis (»If you have faith …«) but ends in the irrealis (»you could say …«). Thus ultimately the lack of such a faith is lamented. In Mark 11:22–23 we have a parallel to this logion, but there it is for moving mountains (as in Matt 17:20) rather than uprooting mulberry trees. Nevertheless, in the Markan context Jesus has just caused a fig tree to wither instantly (Mark 11:21). The Greek συκῆ, sykē, »fig tree« and συκάμινος, sykaminos, »mulberry tree«, are similar and explain the two traditions as diverging oral versions of the same 463 Theißen, Gewaltverzicht, 160–197.

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

165

story. Perhaps moving mountains was the dramatically upscaled version of uprooting trees.464 The image of moving mountains also occurs in 1 Cor 13:2 and Gos. Thom. 48. In 1 Cor 13:2 the image refers to particularly strong faith, but in Gos. Thom. the focus is on making peace.465 A Jesus tradition has survived in different expressions and framings.

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30) In the preceding Narrative Cycle 6 the first signs of parousia-fatigue became detectable (Tasteless Salt, God or Mammon, Against Tempting Little Ones, Forgive Seven Times). But now Narrative Cycle 7 offers a fulminant finale by underscoring the certainty of Q’s convictions.

Narrative Unit 1: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–37; 19:12–26) In fulminant style Narrative Unit 1 describes the imminent day of the Son of Man. The Son of Man Like Lightning (Q 17:23–24) If they say to you: Look, he is in the desert, do not go out; or: Look, he is indoors, do not go in. 24 For as the lightning streaks out from the East and flashes as far as the West, so will the Son of Man on his day. 23

The notion that the Son of Man will flash like lightning on the day of his coming serves two purposes. Firstly, it uses this potent image to depict the ubiquity of this event as a cosmic happening. Secondly, it also cautions against wrong beliefs in alternative messiahs. As in Narrative Cycle 6, where the first signs of fatigue were highlighted, here too the temptation to follow alternative saviours becomes apparent. Alternative Messiahs: The Sayings Source does not use the title Messiah / Christ for Jesus or for anybody else. This has a good reason:466 in early Judaism the title 464 See the detailed analysis in Schröter, Erinnerung, 418–435. Schröter nevertheless concludes that the Q version already referred to the moving of mountains and that Luke adapted the text according to Mark 11 (ibid. 427). A final decision here is not possible as both reconstructions remain hypothetical. Nevertheless, the metaphor of moving mountains was common (e.g., Job 9:5; Rev 8:8; Josephus Ant. 2:333; bSanh 24a; etc.) which was not the case with uprooting trees (cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 277). Thus Jesus’ own idea of uprooting trees might have been developed into the more common image of moving mountains in subsequent tradition. 465 Nevertheless, Gos. Thom. 48 does not talk about making peace in the general sense, but aims at the gnostic idea of »unity«. Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 433. 466 Cf. Tiwald, Logienquelle, 163–166.

166

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Messiah was linked to a »warrior king« as a »militant figure« who would restore the political reign of David.467 Such hopes were also present in Christian groups, as attested in Acts 1:6. Likewise, Flavius Josephus tells us about political prophets acting as insurgents in the time before the First Jewish War (at roughly the time when the Sayings Source was written down). These prophets promised political redemption and triggered messianic hopes. Ant. 18:85–87 depicts a Samaritan prophet towards the end of Pilate’s term of office (26–36 CE), who assembled a huge crowd on Mount Gerizim by announcing he would find the sacred vessels that Moses was supposed to have buried there. Pilate ordered his soldiers to attack the crowd and killed the prophet. Under the reign of Cuspius Fadus (44–46 CE) a certain Theudas agitated the crowds, as mentioned in Ant. 20:97–99 and Acts 5:36 (here with an incorrect chronology). He announced that he would part the river Jordan—most probably to reverse the miracle of Joshua (cf. Josh 3) and lead the people back into the desert.468 The parallel to Q 17:23 (»If they say to you: Look, he is in the desert, do not go out.«) is obvious. Additionally, Ant. 20:167–168 and B.J. 2:258–260 mention many anonymous prophets under the government of Felix (52–60 CE). Josephus (Ant. 20:167) calls them »impostors and deceivers« (οἱ δὲ γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες ἄνθρωποι) who »persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God«. Around the same time an Egyptian prophet (Ant. 20:169–172 // B.J. 2:262f; cf. Acts 21:38) caused a rebellion by announcing that he would bring the walls of Jerusalem to fall in analogy to the fall of Jericho. In the time of Procius Festus (60–62 CE) another anonymous prophet (Ant. 20:188) announced »deliverance and freedom from the miseries« (σωτηρίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλομένου καὶ παῦλαν κακῶν), if the crowds would follow him into the wilderness. All these ›prophets‹ triggered messianic hopes by connecting political rebellion with allusions to the biblical history of salvation (Israel’s time in the wilderness, parting of the Jordan, downfall of the city walls, vessels of Moses, …).469 Going into the desert, as mentioned in Q 17:23, should repeat the purifying time of Israel’s journey in the wilderness. This pattern occurred frequently in early Judaism: the Qumran community had their dwelling in the desert and the baptist announced his message of repentance in the desert. The Sayings Source also mentions the temptation to follow such ›redeemers‹ and draws on the idea that neither (a) in the desert outside nor (b) inside the house they will find an alternative saviour. But perhaps inside the house also carries the metaphorical meaning in the sense of neither in the open nor in what is hidden can there be found an alternative to Jesus.

467 Pomykala, Art. Messianism, 939. Likewise, the Qumran manuscripts 4Q161 Frg. 8 + 9: 5–13 and 4Q285 mention that the son of David will defeat the »Kittiyim« (i.e. the Romans, cf. Dan 11:30) and Pss. Sol. 17:23–46 depicts the messiah as a warlord. In 4 Ezra 11–12 a messiah from the house of David (12:32) is presented as a lion (cf. Gen 49:9; Hos 5:14; Rev 5:5) who defeats the Romans depicted in the shape of the (Roman) eagle. 468 Stegemann/Stegemann, Sozialgeschichte, 151. 469 Pomykala, Art. Messianism, 941.

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

167

The picture of the ›hidden Messiah‹ is attested in John 1:26, 7:26–27; Justin: Dial 8:4.470 A warning against such alternative saviours was not only due to the religious expectation (interpreting Jesus as coming Son of Man) but also due to political reasons: Josephus mentions that the Romans violently suppressed all these movements and executed the ›prophets‹. The image of the flash already serves as a depiction of the sudden appearance of God (Ps 97:4; Ezek 1:13–14) or of angels (Dan 10:6; Matt 28:3; in Luke 10:18 for the fall of Satan). In 2 Bar. 53:8–11 (cf. the explanation in 2 Bar. 72:1–2) the flash becomes the sign of the messiah who comes to dominate the earth. Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37) 37

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

In both Matt 24:28 and Luke 17:37 the expression used here for »vultures« is ἀετοί. The word ἀετός, aëtos, normally means »eagle«471 not »vulture«. But in antiquity such distinctions were not always maintained.472 The Hebrew Bible does not distinguish between eagle and vulture, as for both the word ‫ר‬ is used (Deut 32:11; Job 9:26, 39:27; Prov 23:5, 30:17; Jer 48:40, 49:16.22; Ezek 1:10, 10:14, 17:7; Hos 8:1; Obad 1:4; Mic 1:16; Dan 7:4). Sometimes, even in the same pericope the attributes of eagles and vultures are mixed.473 Thus it is an over-interpretation to associate a deeper meaning with the word »eagle«, e.g., the »Roman eagle« (as found on Roman standards, cf. Josephus B.J. 3:123). Even if 4 Ezra 12:11.22–27 uses the figure of the eagle to symbolize the Roman empire, anti-Roman polemics are not present in the Sayings Source. Thus such an interpretation would do violence to the text. In contrast, a parallel from Hosea is more rewarding: Hos 8 1 Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the LORD, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2 Israel cries to me, »My God, we-- Israel-- know you!« 3 Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him.

In Hos 8:1 punishment is over the house of the Lord »like a vulture« (‫ר‬) over dying animals. Like the trumpet that announces the coming of enemies, the vulture announces the coming of death. Both pictures underscore that the consequences are inevitable. The same proves true for the Sayings Source: as a corpse attracts vultures, the unbelief of humankind attracts God’s punishment.474 Intriguingly enough, Hos 8:2 (»Israel cries to me, ›My God, we, Israel, know you!‹« has a parallel

470 471 472 473

Harb, Rede, 139. Thus the translation in Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 585. See Harb, Rede, 146–167, who quotes many examples from literature. In Job 39:27–30 the eagle »makes its home in the fastness of the rocky crag«, but »where the slain are, there it is« refers to the vulture. In Mic 1:16 the bald head indicates a vulture and not an eagle (pace the translation of the NRSV). 474 Cf. Harb, Rede, 167: »… die Unvermeidbarkeit der Sammlung der Geier als Hauptpunkt des Vergleichs …«

168

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

in Q 13:26: »We ate in your presence and drank and it was in our streets that you taught.« Faced with the reality of the coming judgement, the community should not indulge in false hopes. Nevertheless, neither in Hosea nor in the Sayings Source is a definitive and final condemnation of Israel intended, rather a performative admonition to correct belief. It becomes perfectly clear how much Q is indebted to early Jewish paraenesis. As in the Days of Noah (Q 17:26–27.30) As it took place in the days of Noah, so will it be on the day of the Son of Man. 27 For as in those days, they were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark and the flood came and took them all, 30 so will it also be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 26

This pericope is also based on biblical topics. In Gen 6–7 Noah builds his ark to escape the flood sent as a punishment for humankind (Gen 6:5.11). The imagery of judgment is reflected here.475 They were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage most likely does not paint a negative picture of the activities mentioned but serves as an expression of the unexpectedness of judgement that breaks suddenly upon daily life.476 This fits well with the subsequent pericope in Q 17:34–35, where judgement breaks upon daily work in the field or at the mill. The scope of the text is not to forbid eating, drinking, and marrying, but to admonish us not to forget God’s message in the daily life. Only in later rabbinic traditions was the generation of the flood depicted as drunkards (cf. Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 961), but for early Judaism such an idea is not attested.477 Marrying and being given in marriage does not primarily focus on sexual intercourse478 but is to be understood literally: the image of marrying and being given in marriage symbolizes the expectation of a longer time of security as in Jer 29:5–6. It is not a criticism of the institution of marriage or sexuality but an emphasis on the shortness of time, just as Paul qualifies marriage in 1 Cor 7:29. The day of the Son of Man: In the scriptures the expression »day of YHWH« (e.g., Joel 3:3–5; Zech 14:1; Isa 34:8) is the day of judgement for all the evildoers and the day of salvation for all the just. Paul mentions in 1 Thess 5:2 that »the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night«; the concept of suddenness and unexpectedness is present both here and in Q. In daily life, as one eats, drinks, and starts a family, judgment comes suddenly and unexpectedly. Additionally, Paul also connects the »day of the Lord« with the parousia of Jesus and transforms the expres475 476 477 478

Harb, Rede, 167–177. Thus correctly Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 582. Harb, Rede, 170. Pace Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 582. Especially Luke 20:34–35 (mentioned by Wolter as a point of reference) hints at another interpretation. Additionally, such a meaning of γαμέω would not be in accordance with Q 16:18.

169

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

sion into the »day of our Lord Jesus« (1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 1:14). Here Paul and the Sayings Source both take up common oral traditions in nascent Christianity.479 One Taken, One Left (Q 17:34–35) I tell you: There will be two in the field, one is taken and one is left. will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left.

34

35

Two

The idea of the unexpectedness of judgement is now drawn on in the images of daily work in the field and at the mill. The central message is that at the day of judgement there will be no time for repentance and everyone will be affected.480 The Sayings Source here and elsewhere uses Gendered Couplets (see below IV: Excursus 5.2). The work in the field was typical for men while the work at the handmill was typical for women (cf. Exod 11:5; Lev 26:26; Isa 47:2; Eccl 12:3). Such gendered couplets became frequent in the later rabbinic literature, but in Q we have the first appearance in Jewish texts. Taken and Left: With high plausibility παραλαμβάνω, paralambanō, »take along«, means the fate of salvation and ἀφίημι, aphiēmi, »leave behind«, means condemnation:481 the word παραλαμβάνω is used for the rapture of the elect (e.g., 1 En. 17:1; T. Levi 17:4.6; T. Ab. A 15:1, 16:5; Matt 4:5.8 (= Q 4:5.9).482 This imagery adopts apocalyptic elements in which the elect are carried away to heaven (cf. 1 Thess 4:17), while those left behind will be devoured by the apocalyptic chaos.483 The Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12–13.15–24.26) A certain person, on taking a trip, 13 called ten of his slaves and gave them ten minas and said to them: Do business until I return. 15 At his return, the master of the slaves settles his accounts with them. 16 And the first came, saying: Master, your mina has produced ten more minas. 17 And he said to him: Well done, good slave, you have been faithful over a pittance, I will put you in charge of plenty. 18 And the second came saying: Master, your mina has earned five minas. 19 He said to him: Well done, good slave, you have been faithful over a pittance, I will put you in charge of plenty. 20 And the other came saying: Master, 21 I knew you, that you are a hard person, reaping where you did not sow and gathering from where you did not winnow, and, scared, I went and hid your mina in the ground. Here, you have what belongs to you. 22 He said to him: Wicked slave! You knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather from where I have not winnowed? 23 Then you had to invest my money with the 12

479 See the detailed analysis in Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung, 123–193. 480 Harb, Rede, 178: »Es gibt keine vorausgehende Zeit der Umkehr mehr und es kann jeden Menschen treffen, Männer wie Frauen.« 481 See the detailed study of Friedl, Gericht, 151–190 (especially 185–186, note 1053). 482 Friedl, Gericht, 153–186. 483 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 584–585.

170

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

money-changers! And at my coming I would have received what belongs to me plus interest. 24 So take the mina from him and give to the one who has ten minas. 26 For to everyone who has will be given; but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him The parable of the entrusted money is one of the longest units in the Sayings Source. As Matthew and Luke offer two diverging versions of this parable, many scholars contest its presence in Q. Nevertheless, if one leaves out the story about receiving royal power from Luke 19:12b.14–15.27, a common tradition with an identical plot seems quite likely:484 a person travels afar and entrusts his servants with his money, then two of the servants do good business while one servant hides the money for being afraid of his master (Matt 25:25: hid in the ground; Luke 19:20: wrapped up in a piece of cloth) and is therefore reprimanded by his master upon his return. Also identical is the witty note that the last servant should have brought the money to the money-changers: Matt 25:27 talks about the τραπεζίταις, trapezitais, the money-changers, while Luke 19:23 writes ἐπὶ τράπεζαν, epi trapezan, into the (money-changer) bank—in both versions mentioning the loss of interest. Matthew talks about entrusted »talents«, Luke about »minas«: both were weight units for silver coins.485 Even if Luke 19:13 mentions ten servants and Matt 25:15 only three, Luke 19:16.18.20 only settles accounts with three of them. Also the conclusion is identical, stating that everyone who has will be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. The scope of the narration is that in view of the coming of the Son of Man (thus the context in the Sayings Source) and of his judgement (in Matt 25:19 συναίρει λόγον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, »he settled accounts with them«, in Luke 19:15 ἵνα γνοῖ τί διεπραγματεύσαντο, »so that he might find out what they had gained by trading«) one should not be afraid but act courageously and confidently. In spite of the judicial character of the story, the main plot is positive and encouraging. The appeal to act courageously and without fear appears repeatedly in Jesus’ parables, e.g., the treasure hidden in a field and the merchant of fine pearls (Matt 13:44–46), the unjust steward (Luke 16:1–8), the insolent ravens (Q 12:24), the brazen begging friend (Luke 11:5–8), the widow and the judge (Luke 18:1–8), and fits well to Jesus’ Imagery of Violence and Insistence486 (see below IV: Excursus 4.1.4: Imagery of Violence and Insistence). Basically, this story goes back to the historical Jesus:487 in view of the coming reign of God careful consideration and reflection are inadequate—one needs to act courageously for the reign of God. Also the reflections of local Galilean culture suggest this is a parable of the historical Jesus: J. Kloppenborg describes the

484 Cf. Fleddermann, Q, 838; Heil, Lukas, 197–204; Roth, Parables, 109–114. 485 One talent was worth sixty minas, one mina was hundred drachmas. One drachma was according to Tob 5:15 the salary of a day labourer (see above III: Q 15:8–10). For more details see Reiser, Numismatik, 459, and Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 620. 486 Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 503; Labahn, Gekommener, 196. 487 Konradt, Matthäus, 386.

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

171

economic situations in rural Palestine as follows: »[T]enancy became an important instrument of the agricultural economy in Jewish Palestine. … The growth of large estates had important effects on the structure of labour: not only were smallholders forced to cede their plots in favour of large estates, … but the labour demands of such properties also distorted established agricultural patterns. … There is evidence of a shift from small-scale polycropping to large-scale monoculture oriented to export.«488 Likewise S. Freyne: »A new elite of absentee landlords emerged who had little interest in maintaining a balance.«489 The turbo-capitalism of absentee landlords is an authentic trait in this story. But most remarkably, such capitalism is not criticised but serves as an example. Here as elsewhere we encounter ›immoral heroes‹ (see above III: Q 12:22b–31, the brazen ravens), situated on the same trajectory as the aforementioned Imagery of Violence and Insistence (see below IV: Excursus 4.1.4). The purpose of such parables is not moral reflection on the social situation but a call to courageous action in view of the coming reign of God. Such images are disturbing and provide the means to awaken the listeners and bring them to action. As in life only the courageous will prevail, so too in the coming reign of God. This is a parable that Jesus might have told to his reluctant and cautious listeners. One easily can understand that such a parable was considered problematic in the later Jesus movement. In the same way that the parable of the Unjust Steward was reworked, as one can see in the six additional interpretations attached to the story (cf. Luke 16.8b.9.10.11.12.13), the same is true for this pericope. Already in the Sayings Source—but even more in Matthew and Luke—the parable of the entrusted money finds a paraenetic reworking. The immediacy of the coming reign of God is changed to the immediacy of the returning Son of Man. In Matt 25:19 there is also a hint at the delay of the parousia, in that »after a long time the master of those slaves came«. The editors of the CEQ have claimed this formulation also for Q 19:15, albeit with considerable uncertainty. More likely is that this is Matthew’s formulation and that the text in Q was as Luke 19:15 »at his return«.490 On the other hand, Luke adds a story of the nobleman trying to attain royal power, most likely a reminiscence on the son of Herod the Great, Archelaus, going to Rome to be endowed with the title of a king. Here a delegation of Jews argued against his request (Josephus Ant. 17:208.222.300–316).491 Thus the narrative receives another level and becomes enriched with allegorical patterns.492 Allegorical and parae-

488 489 490 491

Cf. Kloppenborg, Growth, 61: Freyne, Revolt, 51. Thus also Fleddermann, Q, 849. Archelaus was considered brutal and unfair (cf. Matt 2:22), thus a delegation of Jews went to Rome to thwart his ambitions. The aim of this delegation was to integrate Judea into Syria while maintaining the right to follow Jewish laws. Even if Archelaus was only bestowed with the title »ethnarch«, the Romans nevertheless made him ruler of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. For further details, see Kollmann, Einführung, 83; Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 83–84; Luz, Matthäus III, 496; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 619–620. 492 Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 618.

172

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

netic tendencies are nevertheless already present in the Sayings Source. We are endowed by God with special gifts and have to give account at the Last Day. The originally encouraging message is slightly transformed into a paraenetic text that presents us with the possibility of failure in view of the coming judgement. An authentic parable of Jesus was considered too problematic and was transformed into a paraenetic and allegorical text. This could explain why the versions in Matthew and Luke diverge, most probably as different ›actualisations‹ of this problematic parable were circulating. The diverging versions can be considered as an example of secondary orality (see above I.1.2.4). The final logion here is: Everyone who has will be given … This logion was added to the parable at a later stage,493 and it cannot be claimed for the historical Jesus but is the interpretation of his followers.494 The oxymoron gives the text a witty conclusion: from the one who does not have, one cannot take anything(!). Nevertheless, the pithy formulation perfectly underscores the message that one will lose everything if one is not willing to take some risks, but that the courageous will carry home the reward.

Narrative Unit 2: Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Q 22:28.30) You who have followed me, Israel.

28

30

will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of

This remarkable saying concludes the Sayings Source495 and summarizes the most important messages of Q: 1) Consolation: The rejected messengers of Q (cf. Violent Fate of Prophets, see below IV: Excursus 3.2; see above III: Q 10:21) will be proved right by the events of the end time. In spite of their present rejection they will be invested with the power to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. 2) Imminence of the End Times: The imminence of the eschatological events is the main motivation behind the Sayings Source. The fulfilment of Q’s hopes is expected at any time and will bring ultimate redemption. Judging: It is matter of fierce debate, as to whether the word »judging« (κρίνω) means the final and irrevocable condemnation of those in Israel who do not believe (as P. Hoffmann has seen it496) or if it only means »governing« the twelve tribes in

493 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 93. 494 Ebner, Weisheitslehrer, 94: »Regelgut der frühen Q-Gemeinde«. 495 Cf. Tuckett, Sayings, 254: »[T]he evidence suggests that this was the final saying in Q.« See his further reflections on the placement and the textual reconstruction. 496 Hoffmann, Herrscher, 264: »Das Logion Q 22:30 markiert mit der Gerichtsankündigung über ganz Israel einen Endpunkt. Es bedeutet den Abschied von Israel.«

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

173

the sense of a restoration of Israel (as G. Theißen maintains497). Here Theißen points to Pss. Sol. 17:26, where the coming Messiah will gather and govern/judge an Israel that has been sanctified by the Lord: Pss. Sol. 17 26 And he [sc. the son of David] will bring together a holy people (συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον) whom he will lead in righteousness. And he will judge the tribes of the people (κρινεῖ φυλὰς λαοῦ) that have been made holy (ἡγιασμένου) by the Lord their God.

In early Judaism the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel was expected in the end times: the lost tribes would be brought back to Zion (cf. Isa 60:4). Jesus also adopts this idea by instating the Twelve who symbolically prefigure the restoration of the twelve tribes.498 Even if »the Twelve« are not mentioned in Q, this pericope nevertheless contains a positive future for Israel because here the twelve tribes clearly will be restored.499 Furthermore, G. Bazzana has taken a closer look to the word κρίνω in apocalyptic literature and concludes: »[I]ts main theme is the participation of Jesus’s disciples (and of the Q people) in the exercise of divine sovereignty in the end-time.«500 Thus the scope of this logion is not directed to outsiders against the unbelievers in Israel, but to insiders as reassurance that the Q-believers are on the right path and will be given what is due to them by the returning Son of Man. The text therefore carries a strong function of comfort and reassurance for the Q community. Those who were ridiculed by children in marketplaces (cf. Q 7:31–35) will now receive the highest honours. The whole argument serves as a logos protreptikos that does not condemn in an informative way but reassures with a performative attitude.501 Nevertheless, one must not completely omit the aspect of judgement in the text. C. Heil has emphasized that a total reduction of κρίνω to the meaning »govern« might not be in accordance with Q 6:29.37, where κρίνω clearly has the meaning of »judging«.502 Likewise, C. Tuckett underscores that κρίνω/κρίσις in the context of Q mainly indicates the Last Judgment (Q 11:31; cf. also 6:37 and 11:19b). The topic of judgement is certainly present in Q (Q 10:12–15, 11:31–32, 13:28–29).503

497 Theißen, Entstehung, 66. »Das Logion von den Zwölfen, die Israel richten werden, zielt nicht auf eine Verdammung Israels. Denn die vorausgesetzte Sammlung der zwölf Stämme ist ein Heilsgeschehen. Das Gericht der Zwölf entspricht dem ›Richten‹ des Messias in PsSal 17:26—und auch das ist ein heilschaffendes Regieren.« 498 For »the Twelve«, see Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 42, and Gnilka, Christen, 182. 499 Theißen, Lokalkolorit, 233 note 46: »Auf jeden Fall enthält dieses Q-Logion eine Heilsbotschaft für Israel: Die zwölf Stämme werden aus der Zerstreuung zurückkehren.« 500 Bazzana, Judgement, 183: 501 Nickelsburg, Wisdom, 73–91; Johnson, Slander, 419–441; Marshall, Apocalypticism, 8–82; Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137. Thus Johnson (ibid. 433) notes: »The purpose for the polemic is not so much the rebuttal of the opponent as the edification of one’s own school. Polemic was primarily for internal consumption.« Johnson underscores the »protreptic use of polemics«. 502 Heil, Zukunft, 194. 503 Tuckett, Sayings, 254.

174

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Nevertheless, this judgment does not necessarily include the condemnation of all Israel, as Tuckett rightly observes: »[E]ven if one accepts that κρίνω here means ›judging‹ and not ›ruling over‹ …, it does not necessarily refer to condemning as opposed to acquitting. … The language of the saying itself does not imply necessarily that the whole ›twelve tribes of Israel‹ are rejected and condemned en bloc.«504 Indeed, it becomes clear that the logos protreptikos hints towards a confirmation to insiders and the appeal to repent to outsiders. The same proves true for the Epistle of Enoch in 1 Enoch:505 1 En. 95 3 Fear not the sinners, O righteous; for the Lord will again deliver them into your hand, that you may execute judgment upon them as you desire. 1 En. 98 12 Woe to you who love the deeds of iniquity; why do you have good hopes for yourselves? Now be it known to you that you will be delivered into the hands of the righteous, and they will cut off your necks, and they will kill you and not spare you.

The parallels to the Sayings Source are significant: the eschatological judgment will be put into the hands of the righteous to be carried out against the sinners. The Epistle of Enoch comprises 1 En. 92:1–5; 93:11–105:2 and was written shortly before the insurrection of the Maccabees.506 The sinners being threatened with condemnation are—as in Q 22—inner-Jewish groups representing diverging religious ideas.507 Thus in 1 Enoch as in the Sayings Source the ›sinners‹ were not real evildoers but more influential Jewish rivals. These rivals were dominant in religious and economic aspects, as the following texts make clear: 1 En. 104 6 Fear not, O righteous, when you see the sinners growing strong and prospering, and do not be their companions; but stay far from all their iniquities, for you will be companions of the host of heaven. 1 En. 94 8 Woe to you, rich, for in your riches you have trusted; from your riches you will depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches.

Most likely the ›sinners‹ come from among the religious elites, because they are said to »alter and copy the words of truth, and pervert many and lie and invent great fabrications, and write books in their own names« (1 En. 104:10). In the Say-

504 505 506 507

Tuckett, Sayings, 262. Tiwald, Valeur, 115–137. Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 215, and Ego, Art. Henoch/Henochliteratur, WiBiLex. For the classification of the ›sinners‹ in 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 427: »False teachers propound interpretations of divine law that the author claims are perverting that law …« See also ibid. 488: »The deceivers … wrongly claim to present the right interpretation of the Tora, sometimes in opposition to the ›true‹ interpretation presented by the author’s hero.« Likewise Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 360: »The description of their activities in terms of altering or perversion (99:2) implies the author’s conviction that his community is the repository of revealed truth, called ›the eternal covenant‹ (Eth. ›law‹). Thus it is the opponents who have departed from the unalterable law of God. Since they have ›gone astray‹ and influence others to do the same (98:15), they will undergo harsh forms of punishment and destruction described in each of the woes.«

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

175

ings Source this corresponds to the election of the »children« and the rejection of the »sages and the learned« in Q 10:21. The comparison with 1 Enoch reveals that such texts did not intend to condemn ›evildoers‹ but to reinforce the group’s own positon against dominating rivals. The function of consolation can be seen in the repeated formula »fear not« in 1 En. 95:3 and 104:6. Even if the adversaries prevail in the present, their fate will be reversed in the coming eschaton. For outsiders such texts serve as a last appeal to repent and to accept the position of the ingroup. A definite rupture between ›Jews‹ and ›Christians‹ is nowhere to be found in the Sayings Source. Q 22 is to be read intra muros of the pluriformity of early Judaism. For good measure, one can observe that the threats of judgement against opponents are comparatively moderate in the Sayings Source—other than in the Epistle of Enoch (see below IV: Excursus 4.3.2). In Q we miss detailed fantasies of violent bloodspilling, brutal force, and other atrocities. In 1 En. the last day is described as a »day of (ceaseless) bloodshed« (94:9, 99:6; cf. also 100:1–3). The sinners shall be put to judgement (91:11), no grave shall be dug for them (98:13), »their spirits will be cast into the fiery furnace« (98:3), »in the heat of a blazing fire« they will burn (100:9). The text quoted above (98:12) also mentions that the sinners »will be delivered into the hands of the righteous, and they will cut off your necks, and they will kill you and not spare you«. It is good to see that such atrocities are missing in Q, even if the Sayings Source itself is not free from harsh and exaggerated condemnations (e.g., Q 10:13–15, the woes against Galilean villages). In contrast to Jesus’ message of salvation, Q stronger focusses on aspects of judgement and condemnation. Nevertheless, interpreting Q 22 as a definitive rupture between ›Jews‹ and ›Christians‹ would be a gross misinterpretation, because it would misunderstand the literary genre of such texts. Rapure or Resurrection? M. Ebner has proposed an interesting aspect to Q 22 by underscoring that Q does not talk about resurrection but mentions the eschatological rapture of the just.508 Q actually has a more ›primitive‹ eschatology than Paul or the later Gospels. The aspect of rapture is also present in 1 Thess 4:17 and the aspect of transformation in 1 Cor 15:51. The idea of rapture puts the emphasis on collective judgement expected for the Last Day.509 Q’s eschatology is completely in the future and lacks any hint of present eschatology as reflected in Paul’s letters. Paul in contrast to the Sayings Source thus was better prepared for future Christian theology following the continued delay of the parousia. Q offers us precious insights into the very beginnings of the Jesus movement, when the disciples still stood in ardent eschatological expectation and still formed an integral part of the variegated Jewish landscape.

508 Ebner, Q, 106. 509 Ebner, Q, 107.

Part IV: Excursi

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man 1.1

The Reign of God

1.1.1

The Term »Reign of God«

The term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, basileia tou theou, reign of God, can be found in the Sayings Source in 6:20; 7:28; 10:9; 11:2.20.52; 12:31; 13:18.20; 16:16; 17:20–21. The concept is derived from the Hebrew Bible (see below IV: Excursus 2), where reign is attributed to God. In the use of this term already in the Jewish scriptures, the verbal element is dominant indicating the action of God in reigning and in being king. Thus the expression βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ first and foremost is not a spatial or static expression, but the dynamic fulfilment of God’s reigning.1 Nevertheless, besides the action of God’s reigning there is already a spatial factor in God’s reign2, yet even here not in a static way but underscoring the verbal dynamics, e.g., as one »goes into the reign of God« (Q 11:52). Obviously, this does not mean a spacial-geographical aspect, but a special way of acting, living and thinking. Also here we have an example for the associative-symbolic meaning of »the reign of God« which generally means an action.3 Given these circumstances, the normal translation »kingdom of God« seems too static, and the formulation »reign of God« should be preferred.4 1.1.2

Origins of the Term

The most prominent occurrences of YHWH-related reigning (cf. ‫כוּת‬, malkut, for the reign of a king derives from the verb ‫מלך‬, mlk, »reigning as king«) can be found

1 Cf. Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 38, and Camponovo, Königsherrschaft, 443–446. 2 Cf. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 222, note. 3. In the same way Labahn, Gekommene, 518, also emphasises the »dynamisch-räumliche Interpretation des Gottesreiches«. Even though Labahn (ibid. 520) emphasises that the basileia in Q 7:28 does not appear as a dynamic conception but as a geographical space, he nevertheless insists that this space is not static but defines the means of affiliation to this kingdom. 3 Cf. Camponovo, Königsherrschaft, 440 and 445. 4 Cf. Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 38–39.

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man

177

in the psalter and in the Aramaic section of the Book of Daniel, in addition texts of Second Isaiah, Jeremiah und Zech 14. In postexilic times, the hope for the coming reign of YHWH (which was expected more or less immediately) was a central item in deuteronomistic, prophetic, and apocalyptic literature and lead to many different forms and traditions.5 Especially in late-exilic/early-postexilic Second Isaiah the concept of YHWH’s reign underwent a process of eschatologisation and globalisation (e.g., Isa 52:7–10, the antetext behind Q 7:22). In apocalyptic scriptures of early Judaism the politically unstable situation and the pressure of dominant Hellenistic culture lead to the substitution of inner-historical hopes of salvation by eschatological concepts of redemption. God’s reign—which already existed in heaven—would stretch out to over the whole earth in the end times. Then God would conquer his enemies and bring about the end of the reign of evil on earth (cf. Dan 2:44; 7:27). For the community at Qumran—which was strictly eschatological—the end of times had already come and the reign of God was imminent. Especially in the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407) such concepts can clearly be detected. Here the reign of God is seen as already present in heaven and the community participates in the heavenly cult and in God’s reign.6 The best manuscripts of these songs (4Q400–405) date to a time between 75–25 BCE7 and thus can be drawn upon as comparative material to the Sayings Source. These texts describe the participation of the Qumran community in the cultic service alongside the angels in the heavenly sanctuary.8 Thus, during the Sabbath prayer, the community viewed themselves as participating in God’s heavenly reign—the participation in God’s heavenly cult becomes a prolepsis of God’s further reign over all the earth. 4Q400 Frg. 2: … 1 wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly h[oly.] 2 They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, won[drous] 3 beyond other divine beings and humans alike. …. 4Q403 Frag. 1 Col. 1 (with Mas1k Frag. 2, 4Q404 Frags. 1–2, and 4Q405 Frag. 3 Col. 2): 30 A text belonging to the Instructor. The song accompanying the sacrifice on the seventh Sabbath, sung on the sixteenth of the (second) month. Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all 31 the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise 32 among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic [pr]aise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all 33 the godlike, together with the splendor of [His] entire rea[lm.] Lift His exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine be-

5 Cf. Leuenberger, Art. Königtum, WiBiLex. 6 Schwemer, Königsherrschaft, 115. See also Camponovo, Königsherrschaft, who nevertheless underestimates the role of the reign of God concepts in Qumran, deeming them peripheral for Qumran spirituality (ibid. 307) In addition to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the War Scroll also mentions the central role of the reign of God, e.g., 1QM 12:7.8. 7 Maier, Texte II, 377–417; Schwemer, Königsherrschaft, 60. Cf. also Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, 362 and 371–375. 8 Schwemer, Königsherrschaft, 48.

178

Part IV: Excursi

ings--His glorious divinity above 34 all the highest heavens. Surely He [is the utterly divine] over all the exalted princes, King of king[s] over all the eternal councils. By the wise will—35 through the words of His mouth-- shall come into being all [the exalted godlike]; at the utterance of His lips all the eternal spirits shall exist. All the actions of His creatures are but what His wise 36 will allows. Rejoice, you who exult in [knowing Him, with] a song of rejoicing among the wondrous godlike. Hymn His glory with the tongue of all who hymn to His wondrous, joyfilled knowledge, 37 with the mouth of all who chant [to Him. Surely He] is God of all who rejoice in eternal wisdom, and mighty Judge over all perceptive spirits. 38 Laud, all you confessing divine beings, the King of praise; surely all the wise divine shall laud His glory, and all the righteous spirits His truth. 39 Through the precepts of His mouth is their knowledge found acceptable, at the return of His warrior hand to dispense judgment is their praise perfected. …

1.2

The Disempowerment of Satan

As direct consequence of the coming of God’s reign, not only the downfall of God’s enemies on earth but also the disempowerment of God’s supernatural opponents was expected. In the Sayings Source this concept is linked to overthrowing the Devil (Q 4:2–13) or the Satan (Q 11:18). Initially, in OT the Satan (hebr. ‫ן‬, satan)9 was a mere human »accuser« (Ps 109:6) or »adversary« (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:18; 11:14.23.25). As supernatural adversary, »the Satan«—with the article—is introduced in Job 1–2 und Zech 3:1–2. In the LXX this is translated as διάβολος, diabolos (lit. »confuser« in the sense of »slanderer«, and subsequently »devil« in English), an expression used in Q 4. Additionally, in Q 11:18 the expression σατανᾶς, satanas, has maintained the Hebrew term. In Wis 2:24 the διάβολος is declared responsible for the Fall of Humanity and identified with the snake in Gen 3. In 1 En 40:7 (plural), 53:3, 54:6, 65:6 (plural), the Satan (in the singular) or the Satans (in the plural) signify supernatural adversaries of God. In addition to the term Satan/Devil, in early Judaism the expressions Belial/Beliar and Mastema were common for supernatural opponents of God. At the end of days the overthrow of the Satan was expected to initiate God’s reign, as Jub. 50:5.9 and As. Mos. 10:1 indicate (cf. also Rev 12:7–9): Jub. 50: 5 And the jubilees shall pass by, until Israel is cleansed from all guilt of fornication, and uncleanness, and pollution, and sin, and error, and dwells with confidence in all the land, and there shall be no more a Satan or any evil one, and the land shall be clean from that time for evermore. … 9 Ye shall do no work whatever on the Sabbath day save what ye have prepared for yourselves on the sixth day, so as to eat, and drink, and rest, and keep Sabbath from all work on that day, and to bless the Lord your God, who has given you a day of festival and a holy day: and a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel is this day among their days for ever. As. Mos.10: 1 And then His [sc. God’s] kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation, And then Satan shall be no more, And sorrow shall depart with him.

According to Jub. 23:29, 40:9, 46:2, the Satan is not only to the antithesis of God, but stands metaphorically for all evil, sorrow, and harm.

9 See Pierce, Art. Satan, and Frey-Anthes, Art. Satan.

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man

1.3

179

The Son of Man

The First Book of Enoch not only features the Satan but also the Son of Man. In the first place, the Hebrew formulation ‫( בן אדם‬ben ’adam, cf. Ezek) indicated generically one of the human race. In the Aramaic Book of Daniel the formulation ‫בר אנש‬ (bar ’enosch) in 7:13–14 stands for an eschatological figure who will establish an everlasting reign in the name of God (the »Ancient of Days«).10 The eschatological concepts linked to the figure of the Son of Man in early Judaism remained very vague. The Similitudes of 1 Enoch, comprising chapters 37–71, were written at the beginning of the first century CE,11 and thus can serve as comparative material to Jesus and the Sayings Source. In the Similitudes the Son of Man is not only—as in Dan 7—the one who will establish God’s reign on earth (48:5, 69:26), but is imagined as a pre-existent heavenly figure (48:2–3.6–7, 62:7), who will pass judgement in the name of God (62:5, 69:27–29). The Son of Man here embodies eschatological hopes for salvation (48:10, 52:4). In the Fourth Book of Ezra, written at the end of the first century CE in Palestine after the destruction of the Temple, the Son of Man is portrayed in chapter 12 as a figure of eschatological salvation and judgement (vv 3–13.25–40), who is identified with the Davidic Messiah (12:31–32).

1.4

Reading Q Against the Backdrop of Early Jewish Assumptions

1.4.1

The Expectations of the Baptist

According to Q 3:16b the Baptist was waiting for the More Powerful One, coming after him and carrying out Baptism with Fire (i.e., passing eschatological judgement) and Baptism with the holy Spirit (i.e., the eschatological restitution) (for a detailed interpretation, cf. III: Q 3:16b–17). Apparently the More Powerful was not God himself (the anthropomorphism of »bearing his sandals« would not fit with God), but a figure of eschatological judgement and restoration acting in the name of God. A certain contextplausibility advocates for the idea that the Baptist identified the More Powerful One with the Son of Man—even if this cannot be proven. In any case, the Baptist shared the expectation that the eschatological turning point was imminent and that a judgement and restoration figure coming after him would prepare God’s reign—which is commen-

10 Cf. here and in the following: Nickelsburg, Art. Son of Man, 1250–1251; Chialà, Son, 177; Tiwald, Logienquelle, 151–155. 11 Concerning the dating of the Similitudes of 1 En., see Ego, Art. Henoch/Henochliteratur, WiBiLex: »frühestens im 1. Jh. v. Chr.«; Nickelsburg, Art. Son of Man, 1250: »Composed between late first century B.C.E. and the first half of the first century C.E. …« Ibid. Parables, 47 »no later than the early decades of the first century C.E.« See also Charlesworth, Composition, 465 (»20–4 B.C.E.«); Boccaccini, Place, 288 (»parallels the earliest origins of the Jesus movement«); Vögtle, Gretchenfrage, 125; Schreiber, Menschensohn, 2.

180

Part IV: Excursi

surate with early Jewish Son of Man expectations. Also in perfect accordance with early Jewish theology is the conception that the More Powerful One would not only pass judgement (Baptism with Fire), but also initiate a certain restitution (Baptism with Holy Spirit—for the Baptism with Holy Spirit see further, III: Q 3:16b–17). 1.4.2

Jesus’ Paradigm Shift

Compared to the Baptist, Jesus’ ministry shows a certain variation:12 Message: The Baptist announces judgement by fire (Q 3:7–9.16–17), while Jesus proclaims victory over Satan and the beginning of God’s reign (cf. the logion of expelling demons with the finger of God as the initiation of God’s reign in Q 11:20). Geographical Location: The Baptist preached uncompromising penitence in the barren desert (Q 7:24–26). Jesus leaves the desert and returns to the fertile Galilee (Q 4:16). In contrast to the Baptist, where the penitents have to »go out into the wilderness« (Q 7:24), Jesus proactively goes in search of sinners, like a good shepherd in search of lost sheep (Q 15:4–7). Attitude: While John fasts, Jesus is called »a glutton and drunkard« (Q 7:33–34). Jesus’ meals with sinners are emblematic of the coming salvation of God’s reign (cf. Q 13:24–29; 14:16–23). This attitude is reflected in Q 10:21–23 in expectation of God’s reign. 1.4.3

Jesus’ Experience

Was there a certain experience in Jesus’ life that caused this paradigm shift?13 Scholars here often name Satan’s Fall from Heaven Luke 10:18 (»I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning«) derived from Lukan Sondergut, and in connection with this Jesus’ Striving with Satan in Q 4:1–13 and Mark 1:12–13. In these traditions we encounter material out of three different strands—one even could mention Rev 12:7–10 as a fourth strand. This clearly meets the criterion of plausibility by attestation (»Wirkungsplausibilität«), connected with the criterion of plausibility by context (»Kontextplausibilität«),14 because the imminent expectation of God’s reign and the disempowerment of Satan was a common expectation in apocalyptical theologies of early Judaism. Jesus here perfectly fits into the frame of early Judaism eschatology. 1.4.4

Jesus’ Continuation of the Baptist’s Ideas

Prompted by the Baptist’s incentive and a special visionary event, Jesus gained confidence that the power of Satan was now broken and God’s reign imminent (cf.

12 Cf. also Ebner, Q, 104–105. 13 For a further discussion of Jesus’ pivotal experience, cf. Ebner, Zeit, 100–108, and Theobald, Satan, 174–190. 14 For the two criteria cf. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 116–120.

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man

181

Q 11:2). Jesus—as an agent of God’s reign—sees himself endowed with the power to expel demons »by the finger of God« (Q 11:20). It seems a period of instruction under the Baptist had laid the foundations for this.15 Jesus adopted and adapted the Baptist’s teachings in a creative way (see above, Jesus’ Paradigm Shift)—not in contrast to but rather as a re-reading of his former teacher’s ideas (cf. Q 7:24–28). The creative continuation of the Baptist’s ideas by Jesus can be seen in many points: Imminent Eschatological Expectation: Both the Baptist and Jesus expect the end of time as being come. Expectation of an Eschatological Judge: The Baptist and Jesus likewise reckon with the coming of an eschatological envoy, who will pass judgement in the name of God. (Q 12:8–9). A certain plausibility allows for the conclusion (see above) that the Baptist already expected this in the form of the More Powerful One who would baptize with fire, the Son of Man as an eschatological judge. In accordance with this, Jesus also expects the coming of the Son of Man, who would confirm Jesus’ preaching (cf. Q 12:8–9—see also the discussion below). Hope of Salvation: Both the Baptist and Jesus not only expected judgement but also the healing restauration of Israel. For John such ideas are focussed on the expectation of a Baptism with holy Spirit (cf. III: Q 3:16b–17). Jesus pursues this trajectory but— prompted by a visionary experience—expands this concept. Between the judgement message of the Baptist and the coming of the Son of Man, he now inserts his own ministry as the overwhelming gift of God’s mercy resulting from the disempowerment of Satan and the restitution of the humanity in the coming reign of God (Q 6:35). 1.4.5

The Restitution of Humanity

In early Judaism, the idea was widespread that God at the end of the times would restore humanity to the holiness and paradise that existed at the beginning of time. A restauration of protological integrity was expected for eschatological times (the protology-eschatology-analogy).16 Such concepts can also be found in the Sayings Source: God as the loving creator of the world »causes his sun to rise on bad and good and rains on the just and unjust« (Q 6:28). In accordance with such ideas, Jesus expected the forgiveness of sins by a loving father, as the Lord’s Prayer illustrates (Q 11:4). With regard to the reign of God, it was clear that the presence of God requires absolute purity. According to such concepts, the Qumran community tried to avoid all impurity and thus pave the way for God’s arrival.17 Jesus adopts the same paradigm—but with a completely different interpretation. Where God reigns, impurity cannot prevail—hence, God’s reign will proactively sweep away all impurity. Jesus presents a con-

15 Ebner, Zeit, 104. 16 For the protology-eschatology-analogy see: Doering, Laws, 217; ibid., Much, 240; Becker, Jesus, 155–168; Schnelle, Jesus, 109–110; Kollmann, Wundertäter, 251–254; von Lips, Traditionen, 247–254; Niebuhr, Jesus, 330–334. 17 Cf. Magness, Purity, 182–188.

182

Part IV: Excursi

cept of »dynamic purity«.18 In contrast to the exclusive understanding of Qumran, Jesus’ concept of purity is »inclusive and proactive«19—as his healings and exorcisms underscore. Thus, it is not impurity that is contagious but purity! The upcoming reign of God now permeates everything, as a small piece of yeast leavens the whole measure of dough in Q 13:21.20 Accordingly, Jesus does not devalue or cancel the old purity laws, but he re-evaluates them.21 As a messenger of God’s reign, he is armed with the restitutive power of the upcoming basileia that will restore humanity to holiness. Thus, Jesus deliberately makes contact with the ethically and ritually impure in order to heal them with the contagious power of God’s reign. In this context it must be remembered that according to early Jewish conceptions it is the whole person—physically, ethically, ritually—that is now endowed with God’s eschatological restitution of protological integrity. Such concepts are consequently established in Q 7:22–23 as proof of Jesus’ legitimacy: »The blind see and the lame walk around, those with skin-diseases are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor are given good news. And blessed is whoever is not offended by me.« The same holds true for the missionaries of the Sayings Source: »And whatever town you enter and they take you in, cure the sick there, and say to them: The reign of God has reached you« (Q 10:8–9). In the signs of a restitution of the humanity—healing the sick (Q 7:22–23), expelling demons (Q 11:14–20), forgiving sins (Q 11:4, 15:10, 17:3–4)—it becomes clear that the reign of Satan has ended and the reign of God has begun—as Q 11:14–20 emphasises. 1.4.6

The Son of Man in Jesus’ Thought and in Q

It is remarkable that in the Sayings Source and in the canonical Gospels the expression »Son of Man« only occurs in the mouth of Jesus—but never as a title applied to Jesus. This is a strong hint that the expression »Son of Man« in the NT is not derived from post-Easter theology but goes back to the historical Jesus himself.22 18 Avemarie, Purity, 276 and 279. Cf. also Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 380: »… ›offensive Reinheit‹ und ›inklusive Heiligkeit‹, die den Kontakt mit dem Unheiligen nicht scheut …« This interpretation goes back to Berger, Pharisäer, 238–248. Cf. also: Loader, Attitude, 523. 19 Magness, Glory, 190. Cf. also ibid. 180: »Actually, Jesus’ exorcisms and healings as well as his emphasis on moral or ethical behavior should be understood within the context of biblical purity laws«. Also ibid. 193: »Jesus’ exorcisms and healings, as well as his exhortations to behave morally and ethically, reflect his concern with the observance of biblical law, as absolute purity and perfection were prerequisites for the establishment of the kingdom of God.« 20 Cf. Magness, Purity, »I suggest that Jesus’ exorcisms and healings were not intended merely as apocalyptic signs, but were performed by Jesus and his disciples as God’s agents to effect the entry of the diseased and disabled into the kingdom of God.« 21 Cf. Tiwald, Art. Gesetz, 300: »Damit entwertet Jesus die alten Reinheitsgebote nicht, aber er wertet sie um: Als Bote der basileia braucht er keine Angst vor moralisch oder kultisch unreinen Menschen zu haben, da er in der Kraft des nahekommenden Gottesreiches die protologische Reinheit und paradiesische Gutheit der Welt (vgl. Gen 1,10.12.18.etc.) eschatologisch wiederherstellt und Dämonen, Krankheiten und Unreinheiten aller Art vertreibt.« 22 Beyond the Gospels the expression »Son of Man« only occurs in four pericopae: Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6–8; Rev 1:13, 14:14; in the Pauline literature the expression is missing completely.

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man

183

The historical Jesus did not yet identify himself with the Son of Man,23 but expected in the person of the Son of Man the eschatological judge—in accordance with the Baptist’s expectation of the More Powerful One and in accordance with early Jewish thought. This becomes clear in the parallel tradition Q 12:8–9 and Mark 8:38: Q 12 8 Anyone who confesses me before men, the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels. 9 But whoever denies me before men will be denied before the angels. Mark 8 38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels.

The Sayings Source and the Gospel of Mark here represent two independent strands of Jesus tradition that witness for the authenticity of this saying. The parallel tradition here meets the criterion of plausibility by attestation (»Wirkungsplausibilität«),24 alongside the criterion of plausibility by context (»Kontextplausibilität«), because many Jews at the time expected the Son of Man to come as an eschatological judge. In addition, there is also the criterion of counter-tendency (»Tendenzwidrigkeit«)—because in all other traditions it is Jesus who is identified with the Son of Man—and only here he is not. A tradition clearly opposed to tendencies of early Christianity was obviously not created by Christians but rather reflects older— presumably historical—Jesus-traditions. Thus there is a strong probability that Jesus himself did not identify with the coming Son of Man.25 Nevertheless, Jesus places himself in a close relationship with the coming Son of Man. For Jesus’ self-perception, this means that he and his message would be justified by the coming judge. Thus his own message stands in accordance with God’s will and this will also be attested by the coming Son of Man. If one wants to stress pre-Easter »Christology«, this most certainly should be one of the reference points.26 The same self-confidence is also reflected by the Q missionaries in Q 10:16: »Whoever takes you in takes me in, and whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me.« In accordance to this interpretation, Jesus becomes the exclusive messenger of God with eschatological relevance: in the acceptance or rejection of his person and his teaching, the eschatological fate of humankind is sealed! The coming of God’s reign is linked to Jesus’ preaching and acting: »But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then God’s reign has come upon you« (Q 11:20). Leaving the traditions of the Sayings Source, one even might ask how Jesus understood his own death.27 Certainly, Jesus did not actively seek his death (he was seeking faith on the part of his audience), but he might have seen his courageous testimony in front of the

23 For a further discussion and further arguments, cf. Tuckett, Sayings, 232–249 and 266–289, but also Tiwald, Logienquelle, 151–154. 24 For the following criteria cf. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 116–120. 25 Cf. Becker, Jesus, 252. 26 Cf. Schröter, Erinnerung, 393, who underscores the »soteriological relation« between Jesus and the Son of Man. 27 For the following, see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 206–209.

184

Part IV: Excursi

high priests as a sign of divine testing: here he himself would have to demonstrate what he had always demanded from his audience, having »faith like a mustard seed« (Q 17:6) and not wavering in troubles (cf. his critique of those of little faith, Q 12:28). If he himself should lose his faith in the power of the imminent reign of God then everything would be lost. Perhaps Jesus saw his last journey to Jerusalem, his prophetic sign in the Temple (commonly but wrongly known as the »cleansing of the Temple«), and also his possible death as a final test by God. Like the prophets Jesus saw his own individual fate intertwined with his message (cf. Hos 1:2–9; Ezek 4:12, 5:1, 24:16–17, Jer 27:2). Even if Jesus did not seek his death, he was nevertheless ready to risk his own life for the greater good of announcing God’s message. Generally, the words in Mark 14:25 are considered the ipsissima vox: »Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.« Here Jesus reveals his knowledge of his upcoming death—which after his provocation in the Temple was hardly surprising—but he interprets his deliberately accepted loss of life as a means of bringing the reign of God to its victory. Jesus regarded his public life as a kind of vicarious ministry:28 He substitutes the lack of purity of lepers and sinners by touching them with the proactive holiness of basileia (see above), but he also stands with his faith as a substitute for the lack of faith in Israel. In spite of his death and because of his faithful loyalty to God’s will in acceptance of the loss of his life, God’s reign will prevail. Even if such concepts go far beyond the theology of the Sayings Source (Q does not contain a passion narrative), we can nevertheless detect strands of such concepts in Q: Q 12:28, 13:18–19 and 17:6 reflect the necessity of absolute confidence in the coming of God’s reign—a confidence that Jesus himself had lived up to until his very last moment. This clearly shows that Jesus—like the OT prophets—identified himself completely with his message—even unto the acceptance of his own death. Thus, also the coming fate of mankind would be linked to the fate of Jesus himself: the coming Son of Man would rebuke everybody, who did not accept Jesus’ message. This selfperception of the historical Jesus prepared the ground for a post-Easter theology, where belief in the message of Jesus was replaced by belief in Jesus himself. Even if Q has no passion narrative and no theology of the suffering Son of Man, it is consistent that even in Q Jesus is identified with the coming Son of Man: Q 11 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. Q 12 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. Q 17 26 As it took place in the days of Noah, so will it be in the day of the Son of Man. 27 For as in those days, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah entered the ark and the flood came and took them all, 30 so will it also be on the day the Son of Man is revealed

28 Cf. Niemand, Abendmahl, 100.

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

185

The sayings quoted here are so unspecific that they originally might have indicated another eschatological judge other than Jesus. The sign of Jonah here does not—as later in Matt 12:40—refer to the resurrection, but parallels the expectation of judgement announced by Jonah and otherwise connected with the coming of the Son of Man. Only in creating sayings of the present Son of Man (Q 7:34, 9:58) does one realize that Jesus in Q is already identified with the Son of Man: Q 7 33 For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and you say: He has a demon! 34 The Son of Man came, eating and drinking, and you say: Look! A person who is a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! Q 9 58 And Jesus said to him: Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of Man does not have anywhere he can lay his head.

The last stage in this process—the identification of Jesus with the suffering Son of Man—is not yet realized by Q. It first occurs in the Gospel of Mark (e.g., Mark 10:33: »See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles«). As the Sayings Source has no passion narrative, this stage logically is not yet part of Q. Nevertheless, the whole narrative plot of the Sayings Source focusses on the theologumenon, that the Jesus who has come is identical with the Son of Man who is yet to come.29

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q 2.1

The Sacred Scriptures of the Authors behind Q

2.1.1

The ›Canon‹ of the Jewish ›Bible‹

The expression »canon« for a compendium of holy books is a Christian invention and for Jewish texts is only to be used in quotation marks.30 Also the expression »Bible« is not correct for the books of early Judaism, »since the Qumran discoveries have demonstrated that there was no such thing as ›the Bible‹ in the late Second Temple period: the Bible, in the form of a fixed list of specific forms of specific books, emerged only at a later date …«31 For the time of early Judaism one should rather talk about the (Holy) Scripture(s) or put »Bible« in quotation marks.

29 Cf. the title of M. Labahn’s exhaustive monography on narrative structures in Q: Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte. 30 For the following, see. Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 266–271. 31 VanderKam, Jubilees, 409; cf. also Zahn, Scripture, 323–324. The expression βιβλία, biblia, in connection with holy books already occurs in Josephus Ant. 12:36 (τὰ τῆς Ἰουδαίων νομοθεσίας βιβλία, »the books of the legislation of the Jews«) and in C. Ap. 38 (δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία, »but in twenty-two books«), albeit not yet as proper noun.

186

Part IV: Excursi

In early Judaism there was no commonly accepted compendium of Holy Scriptures (»canon«). Neither Josephus’ reference in C. Ap. 1:37–43 nor 4 Ezra 14:44 can function as such: Josephus mentions twenty-two sacred books and 4 Ezra twenty-four— both without naming the texts. Thus we do not even know if Josephus and 4 Ezra include the same scriptures in their counting. One has to conclude that in early Judaism diverging groups also had diverging »canonical« concepts.32 Temple-based groups, such as the Sadducees and the Samaritans, focused on the Pentateuch, while groups not oriented around a temple, such as the Pharisees, Essenes, Qumranites, and early Christians had ›extended canons‹ that concentrated on a certain prophetic opposition to the Temple priesthood.33 As a way to determine which texts were referred to in which groups as »holy«, one might count how often a text was quoted in the respective community (e.g., in the manuscripts of Qumran).34

2.1.2

Aramaic Sources of Q

Jesus’ native language was Aramaic—but the Sayings Source (at least in the form that Matthew and Luke were using) was written in Greek.35 Even if one has to reckon with a long process of tradition (from Jesus until the early 60s of the first century CE), it seems quite possible that the change to Greek only occurred with the leap from orality to literacy. Apparently, »… Q was originally composed in Greek and … did not undergo a phase of written transmission in Aramaic«.36 With the leap from Aramaic to Greek and from orality to literacy, two remarkable watersheds in the development of Q occurred, beyond which no form of reconstruction is possible, even if one can still recognize old patterns of oral performance (cf. II.3.6: Oral Performance and Literal Framing). Scriptural quotations refer to the Greek versions of Holy Scriptures—and do not betray an Aramaic context. If one accepts that the Sayings Source was framed, written down, and edited by village scribes in Greek (cf. II.2.2: The Authors of Q) than it is very probable that they also added appropriate quotations from the Greek Scriptures: »… the scripture quotations in Q all go back to the Greek Old Testament.«37 As to whether the orally transmitted Aramaic pre-stages of Q already contained allusions to the Holy Scriptures (the temptation story here might be a good candidate), this cannot be determined and has to remain merely a possibility.

32 Cf. Schröder, Gesetze, 236. For a further discussion, see Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 267–270. 33 Fabry, Text, 37. 34 This idea was invented by Fabry, Text, 44, for the Qumran texts, and adapted by Tiwald, Hebräer, 102–104, for Pauline homologumena. 35 Concerning the thorny question of oral and literal pre-stages in the process of Q traditions, cf. Tiwald, Logienquelle, 26–30. Concerning Aramaic, see Schattner-Rieser, Aramäische, 81–144. 36 Bazzana, Kingdom, 120. 37 Fleddermann, Q, 156

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

2.1.3

187

The so-called ›Septuagint‹

Our reference point for scriptural quotations are therefore the Greek versions of the Holy Scriptures. In contrast to popular opinion, these texts should not generally be named ›the Septuagint‹ (henceforth: LXX) as if there had been a monolithic edition of all the books of the Jewish »Bible« in Greek translation. Concerning the LXX, such developments were not earlier than in Christian times. The translations of the different books of the so-called LXX took place at different times and under diverging theological frameworks. For the Pentateuch one can assume a Greek translation in the middle of the second century BCE in Alexandria, although one has to reckon with early recensions in the second and first century BCE taking place at different locations and with different intentions. One such intention was to create a text closer to the Hebrew formulations. Nevertheless, the recensions differed considerably in style, theology, and translation technique.38 This also proves true for the translation of the prophetic books, which were translated at different places, with different theological intentions, and with diverging skills. ›The Septuagint‹—as Christians today know it from the Rahlfs edition—as a monolithic compendium of scriptures did not exist in those times.39 As the various ›books‹ circulated on single scrolls, one even cannot reckon with a fixed sequence of prophetic and hagiographic texts. Given the fact that in those times no ›biblical canon‹ existed, not even the exact content of prophetic and hagiographic books is certain.40 Only with the Christian development of codices, the holy scriptures were no longer transmitted in loose scrolls but as pages in a book—which subsequently leads to a particular sequence. There was therefore no unity, either in the number of holy books or the translations of the texts themselves. E. Tov has emphasised that in early Judaism no two scrolls of the same book were the same!41 The LXX did not reach a level of textual constancy before the second and third centuries CE.42 The scriptural quotations in the texts of Philo, Josephus, the NT, and the early church fathers reflect variegated recensions that cannot be unified.43 The diversity of LXX translations reflects the variety of diverging versions of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew. According to the many variant readings in Hebrew a unified Greek translation cannot be expected. Additionally, in early Judaism there was no central authority that might have super-

38 39 40 41

Cf. Tilly, Septuaginta, 51. Cf. Kreuzer, Bible, 113. Cf. Tilly, Septuaginta, 54. Tov, Bibelübersetzungen, 133. Cf. also Maier, Testamenten, 63: »Obwohl die Tradition von einer ›Septuaginta‹ spricht, muß ein vielfältiger und langwieriger Prozeß vorausgesetzt werden, da die christlichen Gemeinden unterschiedliche Versionen übernommen haben.« 42 Tov, Bibelübersetzungen, 133. 43 Tov, Bibelübersetzungen, 165. Cf. also Harl, Septante, 276: » … à l’époque de rédaction des écrits du NT les textes grecs de la Bible circulaient sous plusiers formes textuelles … Il n’est donc pas étonnant que nous trouvions dans les écrits du NT des citations de l’AT sous des formes différentes.«

188

Part IV: Excursi

vised or commissioned a standard text form (neither in Hebrew nor in Greek).44 Furthermore, recourse to an initial translation (»Ur-Übersetzung«) is not feasible: already in early Judaism a variety of diverging recensions of the Greek Scriptures were in circulation—prompted by diverging theological interests. Hebraising tendencies (attempting a closer proximity to the Hebrew original) ran alongside tendencies to improve Greek translations by avoiding Hebraisms.45 D. C. Allison, in in his monograph from 2000 The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q, reaches the conclusion: »For what follows I cite LXX; but we shall see from time to time herein that Q seems to reflect knowledge of other textual traditions«.46 This requires explanation, because at that time a monolithic LXX did not exist—all Greek translations were fluid textual traditions. The statement of C. Tuckett here is more precise: »Allegedly Septuagintal readings have now been shown to occur in Hebrew MSS of this period, so that we certainly cannot make a neat, over-schematic division. … Nor should we forget the obvious facts about the complexity of the history of ›the‹ so-called LXX.«47 Finally, one cannot precisely distinguish whether a variant reading dates back to the redactional tendencies of the Q author or was already a verbatim quote from a variant Greek translation.48

2.2

Scriptural Quotations in Q

2.2.1

Direct and Indirect Quotations

It has become common to distinguish between direct/explicit/literal quotations and indirect quotations/allusions.49 Heuristically, this certainly makes sense, but a precise definition of an explicit quotation seems difficult, as diverging criteria make clear. D. Dimant has proposed a precise definition: »Explicit quotations are biblical phrases of at least three words, more or less accurately reproduced, and introduced by special terms and explicit references to the source.«50 Nevertheless, she instantly admits: »In our literature [sc. the literature of early Judaism] such quotations are relatively few.«51 Additionally, the standard introduction formula ‫תוּב‬, katuv in He-

44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51

Tilly, Septuaginta, 63. Cf. Tilly, Septuaginta, 82–83; Kreuzer, Bible, 67. Allison, Jesus, 6, note 22. Tuckett, Sayings, 205. See also the detailed examination of LXX-quotations in the temptation narrative by Tuckett, Sayings, 158–159. Luz, Matthäus I, 195, writes in analogy to the use of Scripture in Q about the first evangelist: »Damit wird alles offen: Wieviel von den von den späteren ›offiziellen‹ Texten abweichenden Textvarianten auf die Arbeit des Mt, … und wieviel bereits griechischen oder hebräischen Sonderformen ›flüssiger‹ Texte zuzurechnen ist, ist schwer zu sagen und höchstens im Einzelfall zu entscheiden.« See also Scherer, Königsvolk, 190 (especially note 693 with reference to diverging text forms). For a further discussion, see: Tiwald, Hebräer, 50–58. Dimant, Use, 385. Dimant, Use, 385.

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

189

brew or in Greek γέγραπται, gegraptai (»it is written«)52 in early Judaism was not only used to introduce an explicit quotation but also to indicating that the scribe is alluding to biblical topics.53 At the same time, many explicit quotations were not explicitly introduced. What makes it even harder—and ultimately impossible—to find a neat distinction is the fact that according to the variety of diverging LXX readings one cannot decide whether a variant reading is a literal quote from a special LXX manuscript or deliberate redaction on the part of the author. T. Lim has put it this way: »Given the diversity of text-types in this period and the profusion of variants for individual verses, how does one know that an exegete has changed his biblical text and not simply quoted an extant variant?«54 Furthermore, we have to take into account a certain tendency of early Judaism to avoid explicit quotations. In the place of direct quotations, one used biblical paraphrases or merely adopted biblical vocabulary. A neat distinction between literal quotation, allusion, and mere biblical ›echo‹ is ultimately impractical. »There is no firm distinction between variant readings in the biblical text, biblical paraphrases such as the so-called 4Qreworked Pentateuch, and elaborated works of ›the rewritten Bible‹ which include implicit exegesis and longer additions to the biblical narrative such as the Book of Jubilees. In this sense, it seems that no clear-cut border can be established between the Bible and its reworking.«55 The distinction between direct and indirect quotations only has heuristic value and must not be mistaken as a hard and fast rule. 2.2.2

Direct Quotations in Q

Following the aforementioned caveats, one could define a direct quotation in the following way: the sequence of at least three subsequent words (discounting articles) reproduced in the same sequence and with the same wording as in the reference text. The LXX edition of Rahlfs will serve as a default of the original reference text (see the caveats above). A direct quotation may have an introductory formula, but this is by no means a requirement. In Q the only quotations with an introductory formula can be found in the temptation story Q 4:1–13 (with reference to Ps 91:11–12; Deut 6:13) and in Jesus’ evaluation of the Baptist Q 7:27 (with reference to Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1). Five times the Sayings Source uses the introduction formula γέγραπται, »it is written« (Q 4:4.8.10.12, 7:27), thus rendering the Greek translation of the Hebrew ‫תוּב‬, katuv.

52 Cf. the use of such formulae in Qumran (e.g. CD 5:1, 7:19, 9:5) and in Pauline literature (e.g. Rom 1:17; 1 Cor 1:19). 53 Fabry, Methoden, 24–25. Cf. also Stemberger, Grundzüge, 36: » … man denke nur an den Umgang der Bibeltexte in Qumran, wo mit katub, ›es ist geschrieben‹, auch Zitate eingeleitet sein können, die so in der Bibel nirgends zu finden sind.« 54 Lim, Scripture, 69: 55 Kister, Heritage, 101.

190 2.2.3

Part IV: Excursi

Indirect Quotations in Q

Q contains only a few direct quotations but many allusions to the Scriptures.56 C. Heil has published a detailed study on the allusion to Mic 7:6 in Q 12:53 and shown that this allusion was frequent in early Judaism—but always as indirect and never as a literal quotation.57 This fits well with the results of a study by A.-M. Schwemer, who stressed that in the Vitae Prophetarum (dating back to the first century CE and initially a Jewish text) a certain tendency to avoid direct quotations and the use scriptural paraphrases can be detected.58 M. Knibb likewise came to the same results for the 1 En.: » … throughout 1 Enoch, there are no explicit quotations from the Hebrew Bible, but it is not hard to recognise numerous allusions to passages in the Hebrew Bible.«59 Such paraphrases are rightly considered implicit quotations and were very frequent in early Judaism. D. Dimant distinguishes different types of implicit quotations: 1) ›rewritten Bible‹ as »narrative which follows closely the sequence and the text of a given biblical episode, using large segments of the actual biblical text … such as Jubilees, The Biblical Antiquities, the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch 6–11« and 2) complete reformulations »with occasional implicit quotations … like the Life of Adam and Eve and Joseph and Aseneth« and finally 3) »pseudepigraphic biography«.60 Likewise, H.-J. Fabry emphasises the variegated use of scriptural quotations in early Judaism—reaching from literal citation to interpretative rewriting and allegorical reframing.61 Hence, the scriptural use of the Sayings Source is representative for early Judaism. 2.2.4

Index of Direct and Indirect Quotations in Q

The following index presents the direct and indirect quotations in Q. The Greek text of the Sayings Source here reproduces the edition of Hoffmann/Heil, the LXX follows the Rahlfs edition (concerning the question of the pre-text see the discussion above). In addition to the edition of Hoffmann/Heil some further allusions are identified (these are explained with a special footnote). Q 3:3 πᾶσα..η..περίχωρο … τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου Gen 13:10 = Gen 13:11 πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ιορδάνου

Not completely literal

56 Cf. Heil, Rezeption, 218. 57 Heil, Rezeption, 214: »In frühjüdischen apokalyptischen Schriften wird Mic 7,6 also nicht wörtlich zitiert; es werden aber ähnliche Motive verwendet, und es finden sich hier schon Erweiterungen von Mic 7,6 …« 58 Cf. Schwemer, Verwendung, 85 and 91. 59 Knibb, Use, 165 60 Dimant, Use, 401–402. 61 Fabry, Methoden, 33.

191

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

Q 4:4 ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος Deut 8,3 ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος

Literal quotation62 introduced with γέγραπται

Q 4:8 κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. Deut 6:13a = 10:20a κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις

Not completely literal but with an introduction formula (γέγραπται)

Q 4:10 ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ Ps 90:11LXX (= Ps 91:11MT) ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ Q 4:11 ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου Ps 90:12LXX (= Ps 91:12MT) ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου

Literal quotation mixed from LXX Ps 90:11 + 12 with an introduction formula (γέγραπται)

Q 4:12 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου Deut 6:16 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου

Literal quotation with an introduction formula (γέγραπται)

Q 6:20 μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί Isa 61:1 εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς Q 6:21 μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι παρακληθήσεσθε Isa 61:2 παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας

Allusion

Q 7:22b τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν καὶ χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, καὶ νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται Isa 26:19a ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις Isa 29:18–19 καὶ ἀκούσονται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ κωφοὶ λόγους βιβλίου καὶ οἱ ἐν τῷ σκότει καὶ οἱ ἐν τῇ ὁμίχλῃ ὀφθαλμοὶ τυφλῶν βλέψονται καὶ ἀγαλλιάσονται πτωχοὶ διὰ κύριον ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ καὶ οἱ ἀπηλπισμένοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐμπλησθήσονται εὐφροσύνης

Mixed quotation, not literal but referring to central key words—perhaps an early Jewish florilegium (cf. the discussion in the commentary)

62 For a detailed study of scriptural references in the temptation narrative, cf. Hieke, Schriftgelehrsamkeit, 43–71. Hieke (ibid. 47) underlines: »Die intertextuelle Verknüpfung der Versuchungsgeschichte in Q mit dem Text aus dem Deuteronomium beginnt nicht erst beim Zitat, sondern schon in Q 4,1–2. … Die Zahl ›vierzig‹ und der Ort der ›Wüste‹ parallelisieren Jesu Versuchung mit dem Aufenthalt Israels in der Wüste in typologischer Entsprechung, ebenso der Gedanke der göttlichen ›Führung‹.«

192

Part IV: Excursi

Isa 35:5–6 τότε ἀνοιχθήσονται ὀφθαλμοὶ τυφλῶν καὶ ὦτα κωφῶν ἀκούσονται τότε ἁλεῖται ὡς ἔλαφος ὁ χωλός καὶ τρανὴ ἔσται γλῶσσα μογιλάλων … Isa 42:7 ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους καὶ ἐξ οἴκου φυλακῆς καθημένους ἐν σκότει Isa 42:18 οἱ κωφοί ἀκούσατε καὶ οἱ τυφλοί ἀναβλέψατε ἰδεῖν Isa 61:1 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν Q 7:27 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου Exod 23:20 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ὅπως εἰσαγάγῃ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ἡτοίμασά σοι Mal 3:1 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου

The first part is a literal quotation from Exod with an introduction formula (γέγραπται). The second part is an allusion to Exod und Mal

Q 10:4 καὶ μηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπάσησθε 2 Kgs 4:29 καὶ ἐὰν εὐλογήσῃ σε ἀνήρ οὐκ ἀποκριθήσῃ αὐτῷ

Allusion

Q 10:15 Allusion καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως τοῦ ᾅδου καταβήσῃ Isa 14:13 σὺ δὲ εἶπας ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ σου εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβήσομαι Isa 14:15 νῦν δὲ εἰς ᾅδου καταβήσῃ καὶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς Q 11:20 ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ Exod 8:15 δάκτυλος θεοῦ ἐστιν Exod 31:18 τὰς δύο πλάκας τοῦ μαρτυρίου πλάκας λιθίνας γεγραμμένας τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ θεοῦ Deut 9:10 τὰς δύο πλάκας τὰς λιθίνας γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ θεοῦ cf. Ps 8:4 ὅτι ὄψομαι τοὺς οὐρανούς ἔργα τῶν δακτύλων σου

Allusion63

63 This allusion is not listed by Hoffmann/Heil—perhaps because it is only a metaphorical expression.

193

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

Q 11:21–22 Allusion64 ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύναται οὐδεὶς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ εἰσελθὼν τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ διαρπάσαι, ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον τὸν ἰσχυρὸν δήσῃ Isa 49:25 οὕτως λέγει κύριος ἐάν τις αἰχμαλωτεύσῃ γίγαντα λήμψεται σκῦλα λαμβάνων δὲ παρὰ ἰσχύοντος σωθήσεται ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν κρίσιν σου κρινῶ καὶ ἐγὼ τοὺς υἱούς σου ῥύσομαι Pss Sol 5:3 οὐ γὰρ λήψεταί τις σκῦλα παρὰ ἀνδρὸς δυνατοῦ καὶ τίς λήψεται ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησας ἐὰν μὴ σὺ δῷς Q 11:51 Abel is mentioned in Gen 4:8–10 Zechariah in 2 Chr 24:20–22.

Allusion65

Q 12:42 δοῦναι αὐτοῖς ἐν καιρῷ τὴν τροφήν Ps 103:27LXX (= Ps 104:27MT) πάντα πρὸς σὲ προσδοκῶσιν δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εὔκαιρον

Allusion

Q 12:53 ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι υἱὸν κατὰ πατρὸς καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς Mic 7:6 διότι υἱὸς ἀτιμάζει πατέρα θυγάτηρ ἐπαναστήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτῆς νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτῆς ἐχθροὶ ἀνδρὸς πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ

Allusion66

Q 13:19 τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ Ps 103:12aLXX (= Ps 104:12aMT) ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσει ἐκ μέσου τῶν πετρῶν

Allusion

Q 13:21 γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία Gen 18:6 τρία μέτρα σεμιδάλεως καὶ ποίησον ἐγκρυφίας

Allusion67

64 Schröter, Erinnerung, 263, concludes about the pericope Burgling a Strong Person: »[Es] lässt sich wahrscheinlich machen, daß der konstante Kern des Bildwortes Bestandteil einer mit der LXX vertrauten Tradition war.« This allusion is not listed by Hoffmann/Heil. 65 This allusion is not listed by Hoffmann/Heil—perhaps because it is merely a name. 66 Concerning this allusion, see the exhaustive analysis by Heil, Rezeption, 211–222. 67 This allusion is not listed by Hoffmann/Heil, perhaps because σάτα τρία in Q and τρία μέτρα in LXX diverge. Nevertheless, σάτον, saton is the equivalent for sea (‫ )סאה‬in the Hebrew Bible and translates the Aramaic sata (‫)סאתא‬. In the LXX (ed. Rahlfs) here we read τρία μέτρα, but the Hebrew reference-text mentions ‫ים‬ ‫שׁ‬ (»three sea«). Thus, a LXXrecension closer to the Hebrew text might have read τρία σάτα. Concerning measurement units see Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 487; concerning the possible allusion to Gen 18:6, see Ostmeyer, Gott, 187–188.

194

Part IV: Excursi

Q 13:27 ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν Ps 6:9a (LXX = MT) ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν

Almost literal, only πάντες is missing68

Q 13:35c εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου Ps 117:26LXX (= Ps 118:26MT) εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου

Literal quotation69

Q 17:26–27 Reference to Noah, the ark and the flood in Gen 6–7.

Allusion70

The index of allusions in Q could be expanded in many ways. The pertinent monograph of D. C. Allison (The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q, 2000) additionally offers allusions to scriptural personages in Q (e.g., »Abraham«: Q 3:8, 13:28; »Jonah«: Q 11:29.30.32; »Solomon«: Q 11:31, 12:27), scriptural places in Q (e.g., »desert«: Q 7:24; »Jerusalem«: Q 4:9, 13:34; »Sodom«: Q 10:12), supernatural characters from scripture (e.g., »Satan«: Q 11:18; »Beelzebul«: Q 11:15.19) and scriptural terms and idioms in Q (e.g., »the eschatological wrath of God«: Q 3:7; »the twelve tribes of Israel«: Q 22:30).71 The list above only includes allusions that establish a direct narrative connection with biblical traditions (e.g., Abel and Zechariah in Q 11:51 or Noah and the flood in Q 17:26–27) or represent direct allusions to biblical expressions (e.g. the »finger of God« in Q 11:20). Such criteria certainly reflect subjective considerations and no fixed methodology—but this makes the index more transparent and concise. For a more comprehensive survey see Allison’s monograph,72 in which the presentation is by no means hypertrophic: even uncon-

68 Heil, Revisited, 162, sees this not as a quotation but as an »echo of Ps 6,9a«. Nevertheless, following the critieria used here (see above), one has to opt for a direct quotation. Adaptations and smaller reformulations were normal in quotations in antiquity. Perhaps the variations were already present in the template the Q author used. Intriguingly enough, 1 Macc 3:6 also mentions that πάντες οἱ ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας shrink back from Judas Maccabeus. Is this enough to consider the phrase ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας as a common turn of phrase and Q 13:27 following this? O’Rourke, Use, 16, sees here a »commonplace expression«, while Heil, Revisited, 162, remains sceptical. 69 O’Rourke, Use, 24, opts against a literal quotation. »It could have been an intended citation, but the expression is rather commonplace.« Nevertheless, in this quotation the context of Zion and temple theology is vital in the Psalm as in Q 13:35 (see Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen, 319). In Q the returning Son of Man will be greeted with the same words as the eschatological redeemer in Ps 117LXX. According to Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen, 320, this Psalm contains a perspective on the future reign of God being celebrated in the temple of Jerusalem (»eine Zukunftsperspektive, die ihn zu einem Danklied der geretteten Gerechten … macht, die im Jerusalemer Tempel JHWHs universale Königsherrschaft feiern …«). The parallels to the Sayings Source are evident. 70 This allusion is not mentioned by Hoffmann/Heil—perhaps because it is too obvious. 71 Allison, Scripture, 6–8. Cf. also Scherer, Königsvolk, 191, who mentions »bewusste Anspielungen auf biblische Traditionen« (e.g., Q 3:17, 6:27.36, 7:22, 12:53, 13:19.27.35, 16:18). 72 Cf. the list of Allison, Scripture, 6–8 and 182–184.

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

195

scious and casual uses of biblical motifs testify to the extent to which an author is immersed in a biblical way of thinking, talking, and writing. Thus Allison concludes correctly: »Q’s words and phrases manifestly place the book within a specific linguistic tradition and a particular community of texts. … So the Tanakh gives Q its form as well as its vocabulary. In every way Q reflects a biblical literary legacy.«73

2.3

Results

Firstly, one can conclude with C. Heil: »Q conveys a certain scribal competence.«74 Secondly, one may go a step further with C. Tuckett, who states that, »allusions to scripture go deeper and further in Q than has sometimes been allowed. … There may be relatively few explicit quotations of scripture in Q with introductory formulae. But a sensitivity to the possibility of slightly more allusive intertextual echoes should make us aware that scripture is far more fundamental in Q than first impressions might imply.«75 Q 11:51 (»from Abel to Zechariah«) demonstrates in particular that the time span envisioned refers to a certain understanding of the scriptures: Abel is the first victim of murder in scripture (Gen 4:8–10), Zechariah son of Jehoiada the last (2 Chr 24:20–22). The reference to these two figures spans the whole timeline of the Bible.76 Even if the concept of a ›canon‹ is still fluid at this time, one can already look back to a normative salvation history which is used here as legitimation. »There may be, and probably were, debates about the precise limits of the canon; but the presupposition of this Q saying seems to be that the era of ›biblical‹ history is one on which to look back, as a closed era of the past. If so, it is probably reasonably sensible to think of a fairly fixed entity in talking about the ›Scripture‹ in Q.«77 Furthermore, one can conclude that the character of Jesus as presented in the Sayings Source refers to the same authoritative texts (e.g., the Pentateuch in the temptation story) as did the majority of Jews in antiquity.78 This underscores the continuity in which the Sayings Source still stands within Israel and within the holy traditions of Israel. Even though in early Judaism neither the exact number nor the exact wording of holy books yet was fixed, reference to traditions in the Pentateuch and in prophetic narratives was nevertheless a common practice among Jews.79 T. Hieke has conclusively demonstrated that Jesus in the temptation narrative is depicted as the archetype of an observant Jew who fulfils the will of God in an exemplary way.80 For Q it is undisputed that »it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall« (Q 16:17).

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Allison, Scripture, 8–9. Heil, Revisited, 172. Tuckett, Sayings, 218. Cf. Luz, Matthäus III, 374. See also the explanations above, III: Q 11:49–51. Tuckett, Sayings, 200. Cf. Scherer, Königsvolk, 191. Cf. Scherer, Königsvolk, 191. Hieke, Schriftgelehrsamkeit, 66.

196

Part IV: Excursi

Excursus 3: God’s Advocacy for the Poor and the »Violent Fate of Prophets« 3.1

God’s Advocacy for the Poor

3.1.1

Piety in Poverty in Early Judaism

From 300 BCE, the impact of Hellenism in Palestine not only led to an increasing cultural split between supporters and opponents of the Hellenistic way of life, but also prompted social tensions between the poor and the rich.81 Under the reign of the Ptolemies and later the Seleucids a crushing burden of taxes was laid on the shoulders of Palestine—and this led to internal tensions between the Jewish winners and Jewish losers of Hellenization. At the time the idea that »poor« equals »pious« and »rich« equals »Hellenised« took root and subsequently developed into a highly explosive socio-religious conflict.82 Already in the OT, so-called »Armenfrömmigkeit« was a distinct strain of theology (e.g., Isa 29:18–21, 66:1–5; Zeph 3:11–13; Ps 40:18, 70:6, 86:1, 109:22). In early Judaism, especially in apocalyptic literature, social criticism could flourish on this trajectory, e.g., in Enoch’s Epistle (1 En. 92:1–5, 93:11–105:283).84 Enoch’s Epistle was written shortly before the Maccabean revolt.85 The author sees himself in direct lineage from the OT prophets and under the biblical pseudonym »Enoch« utters woe-oracles against rival groups in early Judaism.86 Tensions between poor and rich are a particularly strong theme in this writing. The text mentions »… circumstances of social underprivilege and oppression (as is clear from statements about the righteous throughout the Epistle) …«87 94 7 Woe to those who build their houses with sin; for from all their foundations they will be overthrown, and by the sword they will fall. And those who acquire gold and silver in judgment will quickly perish. 8 Woe to you, rich, for in your riches you have trusted; from your riches you will depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches. 96 4 Woe to you, sinners, for your riches make you appear to be righteous, but your heart convicts you of being sinners; and this word will be a testimony against you, a reminder of (your) evil deeds. 5 Woe to you who devour the finest of the wheat, and drink , while you tread on the lowly with your might.

81 Cf. the discussion at Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 56–63 and 252–256. 82 Cf. Schäfer, Geschichte, 26: »Ohne Zweifel entstand bereits in ptolemäischer Zeit die verhängnisvolle Gleichsetzung von ›arm‹ und ›fromm‹ sowie von ›reich‹ und ›hellenisiert‹, die sich in der Folgezeit zu einem gefährlichen sozial-religiösen Gemisch entwickeln sollte.« 83 Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 3. 84 For a further discussion of social critique in 1 En., see: Tiwald, Valeur, 125–137. 85 Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 215. For a discussion of an alternative dating cf. the discussion ibid. 86 Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 197. 87 Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 548. See also Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 426–427.

Excursus 3: God’s Advocacy for the Poor and the »Violent Fate of Prophets«

197

97 8 Woe to you who acquire gold and silver unjustly and say, »We have become very wealthy, and we have gotten possessions, and we have acquired all that we have wished. 9 And now let us do what we have wished, for silver we have treasured up in our treasuries, and many goods in our houses; and as water they are poured out.« 10 You err! For your wealth will not remain, but will quickly ascend from you; but you have acquired everything unjustly, and you will be delivered to a great curse.

Remarkably, piety of poverty was known also in Qumran, especially in the sapiential texts. These manuscripts often date back to pre-Qumran times and underscore the conception that God especially favours the poor because their piety is not distracted by wealth.88 It is notable that in the Qumran manuscripts terminology for »poor« is closely connected with expressions of »humbleness«. These conceptions are generally embedded in an eschatological context: only the poor and humble will be dignified with God’s election at the end of times.89 Thus, 1QH 23:15–16 praises God for »bringing good news to the humble in accordance with the abundance of Your compassion, [to satis]fy from the fountain of kn[owledge all the trou]bled of spirit and those who mourn for eternal rejoicing.«

3.1.2

Jesus’ Advocacy for the Poor

The Galilee in the time of Jesus was culturally inhomogeneous and can be seen as a »kaleidoscope of diverging political and religious groups«.90 Hellenization and Romanization had led to a strong urbanization and caused a »simultaneous existence of a seemingly very traditional rural world next to strongly urbanized centres of Hellenism beginning already in the 2nd century BCE (Magdala) and continuing well into the 1st century CE (Tiberias).«91 This cultural split between Hellenized cities and poor rural villages was apparently the reason why Jesus avoided the urban centres Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Magdala. One can detect a selective geographical radius in Jesus’ Galilean activity.92 His primary attention to the poor and marginalized in Galilean villages has be seen as deliberate social critique and as

88 Cf. Hausmann, Art. Weisheit (AT), WiBiLex. 89 Cf. Ro, Armenfrömmigkeit, 201: »Für die Verwendung der Armentermini in den Qumranschriften ist charakteristisch, daß sie in einem eschatologischen Erwartungshorizont eingesetzt sind. Die so mit traditionellen Prädikaten umschriebene, bewußt eingenommene Demutshaltung galt als die Voraussetzung dafür, daß der Fromme die eschatologischen Schrecken übersteht, und zwar eben dank der dem Demütigen, Niedrigen etc. geltenden Erwählung und Stärkung durch Gott.« 90 Zangenberg, Jesus, 32. 91 Zangenberg, News, 481. See also Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 237–247, and Tiwald, Freedom, 111–131. 92 See Zangenberg, Jesus, 38: »So selektiv Jesu geographischer Radius nach dem NT ist (Gebiet am See mit unmittelbarer Umgebung nach Osten und Norden; Dörfer, Besuch von Dörfern und kleiner Städte in dieser Region, Aussparen von Sepphoris und Tiberias), so begrenzt ist sein Adressatenkreis.«

198

Part IV: Excursi

the emblematic expression of Jesus’ advocacy for the poor.93 Similar to the social critique in the Sayings Source, other traditions likewise underscore this portrayal, such as Mark 10:25: »It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.«

3.1.3

Advocacy for the Poor in the Sayings Source

Whereas the later users of Q—Matthew and Luke—already focussed on an urban audience,94 the Sayings Source still reflects a thoroughly rural perspective—urban life does not raise its head.95 In Q the critique of »those wearing soft robes … in kings’ houses« (Q 7:24–28) is already present in the description of the Baptist, and the beatitudes for those who are poor, who hunger and who weep is part of Jesus’ programmatic speech (Q 6:20–21). Consequently, Jesus’ response to the Baptist is: »The blind see and the lame walk around, those with skin diseases are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor are given good news (πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται).« In accordance with similar conceptions in Qumran (see above), in Q God’s advocacy for the poor and humble is embedded in an eschatological horizon: only the poor and humble will be able to overcome the eschatological cataclysms because they put their confidence in God and not in earthy things.96 In Qumran and in the Sayings Source it is not only material poverty that is envisaged but also the attitude of humility: in Q 10:21 it is the »children« (νήπιοι) that have received God’s special revelation. The Sayings Source already makes a connection between God’s advocacy for the poor and the violent fate of prophets, as Q 6:20–23 emphasizes. Here two main strains of Q theology are brought together as we will see in the following.

93 Cf. Zangenberg, Galiläer, 155: »Jesu Zuwendung zu ländlichen Milieus, den Armen oder Marginalisierten der galiläischen Gesellschaft … ist eine bewusste Akzentsetzung, die ihre Wurzeln in seiner recht eigenen herrschafts- und sozialkritischen Rezeption der Heilstraditionen Israels hat, sozusagen in einer selbständigen, theologisch motivierten ›Option für die Armen.« See also Hoppe, Galiläa, 190–198, and Ebner, Stadt, 17: »Weder die herodianischen Städte innerhalb Galiläas noch die Großstädte, die Galiläa im Westen (an der Mittelmeerküste) und im Osten (in der Dekapolis) umgeben, gehören zum Aktionsradius Jesu. Seine Adressaten sind unter den Fischern und Bauern in den kleinen Orten am Nordufer des Sees Gennesaret zu finden. … Die Wiege der Jesusbewegung ist das ländliche Milieu in Galiläa.« 94 Cf. Kloppenborg, Q, 67–68: »Matthew and Luke are Gospels oriented to urban settings.« For the Lukan focus on urbanity, see Hoffmann, Studien, 278–280. Matthew is also oriented towards urban culture when he mentions τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν (Matt 22:9), the »holy city« Jerusalem (Matt 4:5) and the »city of the great king« (Matt 5:35). 95 Schröter, Entscheidung, 74; cf. also Kloppenborg, Q, 69: »Q presents us with a rural, Galilean Jewish gospel.« 96 Cf. Ro, Armenfrömmigkeit, 201.

Excursus 3: God’s Advocacy for the Poor and the »Violent Fate of Prophets«

3.2

199

The »Violent Fate of Prophets«

In deuteronomistic theology it was a common theologoumenon (or indeed »anthropologoumenon«) that Jerusalem and Israel had always resisted the true prophets (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:7–20; Jer 7:27, 25:3–4, 35:14–15). Since O. H. Steck this conception has been known as the deuteronomistic fate of prophets (»deuteronomistisches Prophetengeschick«).97 In 2 Kgs 17:7–20 the unheeded warnings of the prophets and the stubbornness of God’s people become a general interpretative pattern for the history of the Northern and Southern kingdoms. The same applies for the deuteronomistic strata in the book of Jeremiah:98 Jeremiah meets the fate of a true prophet who is scorned by his people (e.g., Jer 7:27, 25:3, 35:14). Nevertheless, a violent fate of the prophets—including their murder—is not yet present in deuteronomistic theology and is first mentioned in Neh 9:26, a passage independent of deuteronomistic theology. Accordingly, one should no longer talk about the »deuteronomistic fate of prophets« when the killing and persecution of prophets is mentioned, but about the violent fate of prophets.99 This motif was widespread in early Judaism: 1 En. 89:51–90:19; Jub. 1:7–26; 1QpHab 1–5; Josephus Ant. 9.265–267; 10.38–41; and also Sir 49:7.100 In the Sayings Source the concept of the violent fate of prophets becomes a dominant pattern of interpretation: Q 6:22–23, 11:47–51, 13:34–35. In the NT this topic also occurs outside of Q-traditions and thus shows the widespread use of such conceptions: 1 Thess 2:15; Mark 12:1–9; Matt 22:6; Acts 7:51–52; and also Rom 11:3 and Heb 11:32–37. M. Konradt emphasises that in the relevant passages in Q and in 1 Thess 2:15–16 two strands of a wide-ranging theological tradition-complex have been preserved.101

3.3

Textual Pragmatics of Piety in Poverty and the »Violent Fate of Prophets«

Piety in Poverty and the Violent Fate of Prophets are two interpretative patterns of early Judaism that the Saying Source intertwines. Both concepts converge in the idea that failure in theological and economic success is perceived as some sort of legitimation by God. Thus a double aim is achieved. These concepts offer consolation for the losers ad intra and at the same time condemn the dominant opponents ad extra. The textual pragmatics of both attitudes can be seen as logos protreptikos—

97 98 99 100 101

Steck, Geschick, passim. Cf. also: Tiwald, Logienquelle, 104–107. Cf. Steck, Geschick, 72, and Backhaus/Meyer, Jeremia, 420–421. For the following cf. Tiwald, Gott, 69–76. See Konradt, Gericht, 80. Konradt, Gericht, 81 (»… in Q und 1 Thess 2,15f jeweils ein im frühen Christentum verbreiteter Traditionszusammenhang rezipiert wurde«); cf. also Hoppe, Thessalonikerbrief, 167.

200

Part IV: Excursi

advocating one’s own position in distinction to the dominant enemies.102 For the Sayings Source, the »enemies« are diverging inner Jewish groups who do not accept the message of Q. Notwithstanding the harsh critique of the enemies in Q, a definitive breach with these inner Jewish opponents does not occur, as J. Kloppenborg and C. Tuckett have impressively demonstrated.103 »In spite of the exaggerated and fiery rhetoric of Q … there is good reason to suppose that Q and its partisans identified as Israel and had other Israelites in view as they constructed the document. Although they were prepared to condemn their co-ethnic group, there is no evidence that they had fundamentally turned away to embrace non-Israelites.«104— »All this suggests that Q is not produced in a situation where there has been a division that is now irreparable.«105

Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q The Sayings Source is no apocalypse, although it does contain some apocalyptical patterns.106 For early Jewish apocalyptic a certain breach in the history of salvation connected with the end of this world was constitutive—a conception that yet cannot be detected in Q. For the Sayings Source God’s reign comes into this world, it changes the world for the better, but does not destroy it. Likewise, in the Sayings Source there is no dualistic division of the world: the final eschatological confrontation between the powers of God and the powers of evil has already occurred and led to the beginning of God’s reign (see above, IV: Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man). Accordingly, secret apocalyptical knowledge does not appear in Q—not even in Q 10:21–24 (see the explanation in the commentary above). Nonetheless, the Sayings Source belongs within the bigger picture of early Jewish eschatological texts reckoning with the imminent end of days.107 These patterns now shall be given closer examination.

4.1

Eschatological Chaos

4.1.1

The Eschatological Testing

Unlike in early Jewish apocalyptic, the Sayings Source offers no catalyst scenarios of the end of universe. Neither does it mention a periodisation of time, as in Dan 7–8 and Rev 13, or colourfully depicted scenarios of eschatological atrocities as in Mark

102 103 104 105 106

Cf. Tiwald, Valeur, 122–125. Cf. Kloppenborg, Parting, 123–143; Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 107–121. Kloppenborg, Parting, 142. Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 121. Cf. Tuckett, Apocalyptic, 113: »Q itself is certainly not an ›apocalypse‹«, and Kloppenborg, Eschatology, 306. See also the discussion by Tiwald, Logienquelle, 159–160. 107 Cf. the distinction between eschatological und apocalyptic: Tiwald, Frühjudentum, 188–190.

Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q

201

13:8–32par and Rev 13–16. Nonetheless, Q shares the apocalyptical conception that before the advent of God’s reign outstanding tribulations in the form of »birth pangs« of the new aeon have to take place (see below, IV: Excursus 4.2)—a concept from Mark 13:8. These tribulations are seen as a »testing« for the elect community—after their successful trial the eschatological peace of God’s reign will descend upon them. 4.1.2

»This Generation«

The catalyst tribulations of apocalyptical times lead to the expectation that in the last days a wicked generation of unprecedented evil would afflict the elect community. Thus, the Apocalypse of Weeks stemming from the First Book of Enoch predicts for the seventh week—the time of eschatological »peripeteia«—the coming of a »wicked generation«:108 1 En. 93 9 After this, in the seventh week, there will arise a perverse generation, and many will be its deeds, and all its deeds will be perverse. 10 And at its conclusion the chosen will be chosen, as witnesses of righteousness from the eternal plant of righteousness, to whom will be given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge.

The seventh week is the time of eschatological peripeteia. The malevolence of the evildoers reaches its peak—and then collapses and gives way to the »elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness«. The »wicked generation« stands emblematically for the expected »time of pervasive wickedness« and for »unprecedented malevolence«109. The ex eventu »predicted« events of eschatological times (narrated time) mirror the rejection of the authors in the present time (narration time). Rejection in the present time thus is interpreted as predicted by God’s eschatological schedule. Similar patterns can be found in Qumran, e.g., 1QpHab 2:1–10, an interpretation (»pesher«) of Hab 1:5: [This passage refers to] the traitors with the Man of the 2 Lie, because they have not [obeyed the words of] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of 3 God. It also refers to the trai[tors to the] New [Covenant], because they did not 4 believe in God’s covenant [and desecrated] His holy name; 5 and finally, it refers [to the trai]tors in the Last 6 Days. They are the cru[el Israel]ites who will not believe 7 when they hear everything that is to c[ome upon] the latter generation that will be spoken by 8 the Priest in whose [heart] God has put [the ability] to explain all 9 the words of his servants the prophets, through [whom] God has foretold 10 everything that is to come upon his people and [the Gentiles].

1

Here the »latter generation« is depicted as »traitors« and »cruel Israelites« because »they have not obeyed the words of the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God«. 108 Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 119, translates the Ethiopic tewled ‘elut with »wicked generation«. The Aramaic text here has a lacuna (ibid. 121 and 50–52), the Coptic fragment ends with v 8 (ibid. 52). 109 Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch, 122–123.

202

Part IV: Excursi

The textual pragmatics of »this generation« (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) in the Sayings Source follows exactly the same patterns: the insider message is claimed to be in accordance with God’s will—whoever does not obey is part of a perverted generation. The syntagm »this generation« can be found seven times in Q consisting in three different pericopae: Q 7:31, 11,29–31, 11:50–51. »This generation« can be understood as the main personification of Q-antagonists.110 Nevertheless, this syntagm does not denote a particular group, but functions as a set expression for the eschatologically predicted adversaries. Rejection of the Q-group is interpreted as the predicted rejection by an ungodly generation and as the predicted tribulation for the just. Thus the rejection also functions as a means of confirmation for the message! Accordingly, the syntagm of »this generation« is connected with the »violent fate of prophets« (see above, IV: Excursus 3.2) in Q 11:49–51: as only the true prophets were persecuted in days gone by, persecution and violence under a wicked eschatological generation are understood as ›proof‹ that the Q-group is fulfilling the will of God in the predicted eschatological struggles. Similar concepts are found in Acts 2:40, when Peter in his Pentecost address says: »Save yourselves from this corrupt generation (ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης).« In this context, the Sayings Source operates with deuteronomistic topics. Moses in Deut 32:5LXX laments »a perverse and crooked generation« (γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη) and in Deut 32:20 »a perverse generation, children in whom there is no faithfulness« (γενεὰ ἐξεστραμμένη ἐστίν υἱοί οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν πίστις ἐν αὐτοῖς). Isa 57:4LXX describes the scorn of the unjust against the just as naughty children sticking out their tongues: »Whom are you mocking? Against whom do you open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, the offspring of deceit (σπέρμα ἄνομον)?« Here we have two similarities with Q: firstly the naughty children parallel the moody children with whom Jesus compares »this generation« in Q 7:31–32, and secondly the topic of »a-nomia« (lawlessness) also occurs in the accusation against »you who do lawlessness« (ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν) in Q 13:27.

4.1.3

Eschatological War and Disruption of Families

In Jewish apocalyptic literature, cataclysmic atrocities were predicted for the last days. This led to the expectation of widespread wars and general suffering (cf. the War Scroll of Qumran; 2 Bar. 27:5; Sib. Or. 3:796–799; Mark 13:8–32par.; Rev 13–16). This global disruption would also bring about the breaking of family ties, which was a common apocalyptical motif.111 Such concepts can be found in the Book of Jubilees and in the First Book of Enoch:

110 Cf. Labahn, Gekommene, 455–456. 111 Cf. Heil, Rezeption, 211–222; Bieberstein, Jüngerinnen, 120; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 508.

203

Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q

Jub. 23 19 And they shall strive one with another, the young with the old, and the old with the young, the poor with the rich, the lowly with the great, and the beggar with the prince, on account of the law and the covenant; for they have forgotten commandment, and covenant, and feasts, and months, and Sabbaths, and jubilees, and all judgments. 1 En. 99 5 At that very time, those who are giving birth will bring forth, and they will sell and abandon their young infant; and those who are with child will abort; And those who are nursing will cast off their children, and they will not return to their infants or to their sucklings nor will they spare their beloved ones. 1 En. 100 1 And then in one place the fathers will be smitten with their sons, and brothers will fall in death with one another, 2e From dawn until sunset they will be murdered together 1c until there flows of their blood as it were a stream. 2 For a man will not restrain his hand from his son, nor from his beloved one, to kill him; and the sinner will not restrain his hand from the honored one, nor from his brother.

Certain logia in the Sayings Source are situated on a similar trajectory: Q 9 59 But another said to him: Master, permit me first to go and bury my father. said to him: Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.

60

But he

Q 12 51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? I did not come to bring peace, but a sword! 53 For I have come to turn son against father, and daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Mic 7:6). Q 14 26 The one who does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple. The one who does not hate son and daughter cannot be my disciple.

Q puts human family ties in juxtaposition to the new family of God, the familia Dei: the good creator-God of the world is a loving father who will heal the sinful constitution of this world and restore paradise. Thus his children shall love one another (Q 6:27–30) and mutually forgive sins (see below, IV: Excursus 4.2: The Eschatological Peace of God). Similar traditions in the gospels without a parallel in Q follow the same pattern, e.g., Mark 3:21.31–35, 6:4, 10:28–30; Luke 2:48–50; John 2:4. In all these texts the human family is replaced by the family of God. Similar traditions have found their way into the Gospel of Thomas 15, 16, 55. 4.1.4

Imagery of Violence and Insistence

Violent imagery is omnipresent in apocalyptic traditions in early Judaism. This finds a parallel in Q 16:16: »The law and the prophets until John. From then on, the reign of God is violated/violently prevails and the violent plunder it.« Much ink has been spilled on the interpretation on this thorny verse that some consider the darkest saying in the NT.112 Scholars generally agree that this verse is Jesus’ ipsissima vox.113 112 Schmid, Matthäus, 192: »… eines der dunkelsten Worte des Evangeliums.« The interpretation here follows Tiwald, Gültigkeit, 347–363. 113 Cf. Becker, Jesus, 140; Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 123 and 502–503; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 95; Heil, Lukas, 125.

204

Part IV: Excursi

The word βιάζεται can be translated with the passive meaning »being violated« or with the medial voice »prevailing violently«. It is possible that this verb and the subsequent »violent [people]« (βιασταί) functioned in the original saying of Jesus in bonam partem: the reign of God will prevail with force against all adversaries and the courageous (the »violent«) will inherit it!114 The conception that God’s reign blazes a trail powerfully and unstoppably occurs repeatedly in Jesus’ parables, e.g., Q 13:18–19 (Mustard Seed) and 13:20–21 (Yeast and Flour). The apparent imagery of violence and insistence is typical of Jesus115 and can be seen in the following images: Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22//Mark 3:27), the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–8), Brazen Ravens (Q 12:24), Impudently Begging Friend (Luke 11:5–8), the Widow and the Judge (Luke 18:1–8 especially the violence in v 5), Throwing Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49), Bringing the Sword (Q 12:51), Breaking Up Family Ties (Q 12:52), Hating Father and Mother (Q 14:26), Eunuchs for God’s Reign (Matt 19:12), Fishers of Men (Mark 1:17), and in parables like the Hidden Treasure and the Merchant of Pearls (Matt 13:44–46). It is similarly attested in the powerful exorcisms of Jesus.116 According to Jesus’ imagery of violence and insistence the disciples of God’s reign are »the violent« (βιασταί) in the best sense of the word—they forcefully and courageously »conquer« the reign of God with their confidence and self-assurance. In its original form the logion Q 16:16 emphasised Jesus’ uncompromising optimism that the reign of Satan is broken and that God’s reign now can be »plundered« (ἁρπάζουσιν)—just as Jesus himself »burgles« »Satan’s reign« »by the finger of God« in Q 11:14–22. (see IV: Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man).

4.2

The Eschatological Peace of God

4.2.1

Restitution of the Peace of Paradise

As we saw above (see IV: Excursus 1.4.5: The Restitution of Humanity) in early Judaism there was a widespread belief that the end times (eschatology) would restore the integrity of paradise (protology). Such ideas can be found in: Isa 9:5–6; Zech 9:10; 1 En. 1:8, 11:2; T. Levi 18:4; 2 Bar. 73; Sib. Or. 3:750–755; Luke 1:79, 2:14. In accordance with such conceptions are the Peace of Animals in Isa 11:6–10, 65:25 and similar ideas in 2 Bar. 73:6; T. Naph. 8:4–6 and in the NT: Mark 1:13b; Rom 8:19–22. The imagery of pacifying the wild mirrors the restitution of the peacefulness and goodness of paradise (cf. Gen 1:26, 2:19). Banishing the ferocity of wild animals offers a metaphorological parallel the victory over the powers of the primordial chaos in the act of God’s creation (Gen 1:2). According to such expectations, the restitution of the peace of paradise is not only found on the macro-level of the cosmos but also on the micro-scale of interpersonal 114 Cf. Häfner, Gewalt, 29. See ibid. for exhaustive discussion. 115 Cf. Theißen/Merz, Jesus, 503; Labahn, Gekommener, 196. 116 Cf. Häfner, Gewalt, 47. For a further look at the »Immoral Heroes« in Jesus’ parables cf. III: Q 12:22b–31. (commentary on the Brazen Ravens).

Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q

205

relations. When early Jewish apocalyptic predicts tremendous suffering in the last days (see above), then God’s eschatological peace offers the counter-reality of his reign in contrast to the now-defeated reign of Satan. 4.2.2

The Materially Noticeable Peace of God

In such concepts, the eschatological peace of God is figured out as a materially noticeable force, as depicted in Q 10:4–12: the announcement of peace by the Qmissionaries must not be wasted in casual encounters on the road (»greet no one on the road«), but has to be saved for the »sons of peace« who accept the emissaries in their houses. Here the material peace of God unfolds his full power: it is a formulaic entreaty by the missionaries that your peace will come upon this house and rest on this house. If there is no »son of peace«, the power will return to the emissaries. It is exactly this peace that now begins its powerful work in »curing the sick« and preparing »the reign of God«—as Q 10:9 emphasises. 4.2.3

Emblematic Non-Violence and Confidence in God

In the midst of catalyst atrocities, the emblematic peace and non-violence of the Q-missionaries become a forceful sign of God’s new world—a counter-reality that deliberately underscores uncompromising belief in the coming of God’s reign: the command to love your enemies and to offer the other cheek (Q 6:27–30), the mission »like sheep in the midst of wolves« (Q 10:3), the refusal to carry a stick (Q 10:4), which was considered a weapon and not a walking device. The aforementioned criterion of context-plausibility underscores that the emblematic non-violence of Jesus and the subsequent Q-missionaries fits perfectly into the picture of early Judaism. The expectations of God’s eschatological peace stands in contextplausible coherence with traditions in early Judaism, whereas the non-violent attitude of Jesus has to be seen as context-plausible individuality of the man from Nazareth. A multitude of apocalyptic texts in early Judaism expect a violent annihilation of eschatological opponents (e.g., 1 En., 91:11, 94:9, 95:3, 98:3.12, 99:6, 100:1–3.9). Jesus turns this motif on its head. Albeit using imagery of violence and insistence, Jesus nevertheless campaigns for non-violence and forgiveness. Here one can see Jesus’ original intention which the Sayings Source has preserved. It is fascinating to reconstruct Jesus’ optimism in connection with God’s salvation of the world and the counter-reality of God’s reign. This optimism becomes apparent in Jesus’ emblematic healing of the sick, evangelizing of the poor and reconciling of sinners (see above, IV: Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man). One has to understand Jesus’ confidence in God’s salvation in this way:117 like Brazen Ravens and Insolent Lilies, Jesus is free from all anxiety and puts all his hope in the provision of his heavenly father!

117 Vgl. dazu Tiwald, Freedom, passim.

206

Part IV: Excursi

4.3

Jesus’ Optimism vs. Judgement in Q?

4.3.1

Ambivalent Eschatological Expectations

Jesus’ optimism towards the coming of God’s salvation is noticeable throughout Q and is one of the dominant patterns in Q-theology: since the reign of Satan is broken (see above, IV: Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man) God’s reign prevails with force. This positive world-view leads to Jesus’ pro-active contact with sinners: like a good shepherd he goes in search of the lost sheep (Q 15:4–7) and offers an anticipation of eschatological salvation by the sign of common meals (e.g., Q 7:34, 14:16–23).—But how can such an optimistic view can be reconciled with more pessimistic concepts in Q, such as the Violent Fate of Prophets or the concept of This Generation (see above, IV: Excursus 4.1), and also the repeated threats of judgement (Q 10:13–15, 11:31–32, 13:34–35, 22:30)? Firstly, the historical Jesus himself expected an eschatological judgement by the coming Son of Man (Q 12:8–9; see above, IV: Excursus 1.4.6). Secondly, for the historical Jesus a use of Imagery of Violence and Insistence was common, albeit with optimistic connotations (see above, IV: Excursus 4.1.4: Imagery of Violence and Insistence). Both Jesus and the Sayings Source participate in a broad stream of eschatological expectations in early Judaism. Nevertheless, the emphasis starts to shift slightly: the growing failure of the Q-missionaries already condenses in a stronger expectation of God’s judgement, albeit the more optimistic notes are not completely lost. Both aspects are sometimes displayed quite disconnectedly in Q— but this is typical of early Jewish apocalyptic. In spite of all the slander and polemics in Q, the Sayings Source still has to be read as a logos protreptikos, not trying to condemn but to convince intra-Jewish opponents.118 (see above, III: Q 22:28.30). 4.3.2

A Comparison with Other Early Jewish Writings

In comparison with other early Jewish apocalypses, the polemics in Q can still be perceived as somewhat moderate. In contrast, 1 En. addresses the following threats against its opponents: 1 En. 94 9 You have commited blasphemy and iniquity; and you have been prepared for the day of bloodshed and the day of darkness and the day of great judgment. 1 En. 98 12 Woe to you who love the deeds of iniquity; why do you have good hopes for yourselves? Now be it known to you that you will be delivered into the hands of the righteous, and they will cut off your necks, and they will kill you and not spare you. 1 En. 99 6 And again I swear to you, sinners, that sin is prepared for a day of ceaseless bloodshed. Those who worship stones—and who carve images of silver and gold and wood

118 Cf. the overview in Tiwald, Logienquelle, 94–116.

Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q

207

and stone and clay and worship phantoms and demons and abominations and evil spirits and all errors, not according to knowledge; no help will you find from them.

Other depictions in 1 En. follow the same pattern: »they [sc. the just] will … execute judgement« (1 En. 91:11), »your [sc. the sinners] grave will not be dug.« (1 En. 98:13), »their spirits will be cast into the fiery furnace.« (1 En. 98:3), and »Woe to you, all you sinners, because of the words of your mouth and the deeds of your hands, for you have strayed from the holy deeds; in the heat of a blazing fire you will burn.« (1 En. 100:9). Similarly scornful is the slander against the opponents of the Qumran community: in 4Q169 1:2 and 2:2 and also in CD 1:18, the Pharisees are branded as »interpreters of smooth things« and in CD 8:12–13 as »shoddy-wall-builders«, »white-washers«, »spewers of lies«, and as somebody, »who deals in mere wind«.119 The Sadducees are also the target of fierce polemics: CD 4:15–19 accuses them of being caught »in the three traps of Belial …. The first is fornication; the second is wealth; the third is defiling the sanctuary«. Having defiled the sanctuary (cf. also in CD 5:6, 6:11–19; etc.) is a common reproach. CD 6:11–19 emphasises that the Sadducees »light up God’s altar in vain« (cf. Mal 1:10), because they did not listen »to the commandments of the members of the new covenant in the land of Damascus« (i.e., the Qumran community).

Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q 5.1

General Considerations on the Parables of Jesus

5.1.1

Parables and the Historical Jesus

»The parables are commonly regarded as a distinctive, if not the most distinctive, feature of speech of the historical Jesus, and hence, the most promising avenue of historical Jesus research.«120 Parables of »growth« in particular seem to reflect the teaching of the historical Jesus: Mark 4:3–9 (Parable of the Sower), Mark 4:26–29 (Self-growing Seed), and Mark 4:31 (Parable of the Mustard Seed) with its parallel tradition in Q 13:18–19.121 In analogy to growth in nature, such parables underscore the certainty of the coming of God’s reign. Even if there may be set-backs in the 119 Cf. the discussion by Tiwald, Valeur, passim, and Maier, Nachumpescher, passim. 120 Kloppenborg, Parables, 275. For a further discussions as to whether parables really are the most historical of Jesus tradtions, cf. Witetschek, Gleichnisse, 27, who emphasises that we encounter parables in all strains of Jesus tradition: Mark, Q, Matthean and Lukan Sondergut, Johannine traditions, apocryphal gospels, and agrapha. See also Zimmermann, Parables, 211–236; Kloppenborg, Parables, 275–319; Hoppe, Bildworte, 33–68. 121 At this point the Q-text can be reconstructed with a certain plausibility, even though Matt and Luke have intertwined this tradition with text from Mark. In this parable, Q seems to possess an older version than Mark, as Fleddermann, Q, 665, has put it: »Mark lies downstream from Q.« Luz, Matthäus II, 327, comes to the same conclusion.

208

Part IV: Excursi

growing process, the outcome is nevertheless certain—growth in nature and the coming of God’s reign will finally prevail. Such parables are not moralistic—they include no threats, they have no intention to indoctrinate, they are primarily simply nice stories. Nevertheless, they involve the audience and in being heard they develop a certain performative power. In the act of narration, the narrated reign of God becomes reality.122 In accordance with Jesus’ miracles, forgiveness of sins, and emblematic lifestyle (poverty and non-violence), the parables are also performative signs of the coming reign of God. In the act of narration there occurs a proleptic anticipation of God’s reign that becomes mediated by the force of the narrative imagination. 5.1.2

Parables in the Sayings Source

The parables are one of the most-researched topics of Q123—which is not surprising: »like Mark, the Sayings gospel apparently remembers that Jesus was (among other things) a parabler and seeks to incorporate parables into its discourse.«124 Unlike the Gospel of Mark, in Q there is no theory of parables: other than in Mark 4:11–12 the parables of Jesus do not serve to conceal the truth of God’s reign and to reveal it to an elect in-group alone. Although similar conceptions can also be detected behind Q 10:21, they are not as developed in relation to the Q-parables. In spite of the significant number of parables in Q, nowhere in the Sayings Source is the term παραβολή, parabolē, »parable«.125 The Sayings Source includes nine parables:126 Q 6:47–49: Built on Rock or Sand Q 7:31–32: Children in the Marketplace Q 12:42–46: The Faithful or Unfaithful Slave Q 13:18–21: Double Parable of: The Mustard Seed/The Yeast Q 14:16–18.21.23: The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests Q 15:4–5a.7–10: Double Parable of: The Lost Sheep/The Lost Coin Q 19:12–13.15–24.26: The Parable of the Entrusted Money

122 Concerning the connection between reign of God and parables, see Kloppenborg, Parables, 287–289. 123 See also the following publications: Kloppenborg, Parables; Zimmermann, Parables; Zimmermann, Metaphorology; Zimmermann, Leseanleitung; Roth, Parables; Heil, Gleichnisrede. Roth, Parables, 7–13, offers an overview of research. 124 Kloppenborg, Parables, 282. 125 At least, if one only takes into consideration the somewhat certain content of Q. Cf. the analysis by Kloppenborg, Parables, 282–285, and Heil, Gleichnisrede, 180. 126 Cf. the lists by Heil, Gleichnisrede, 179, and Kloppenborg, Parables, 301–305 (Kloppenborg also includes Luke 12:16–21 in the text of Q).

Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q

209

Nevertheless, D. Roth (in the school of R. Zimmermann) uses the expression »parable« in a more extensive way.127 This leads to a significantly diverging index of parables in Q, which is as follows:128 The Q Parables of John the Baptist and of the Centurion Parable of the Axe at the Root of the Trees (Q 3:9) Parable of the Winnowing (Q 3:17) Parable of an Authority under Authority (Q 7:8) The Parables of Jesus: »Master«/»Slave« Parables Parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42–46) Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12–13.15–24.26) Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16–23) The Parables of Jesus: »Son of Man« Parables Parable of the Children in the Marketplace (Q 7:31–35) Parable of the Thief in the Night (Q 12:39–40) Parable of One Taken and One Left (Q 17:34–35) The Parables of Jesus: »Sapiential« Parables Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39) Parable of the Fowl and the Flowers (Q 12:24.27–28) Parable of the Salt (Q 14:34–35) Parable of the Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37) The Parables of Jesus: »Discipleship« Parables Parable of the Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40) Parable of a Tree Being Known by Its Fruit (Q 6:43–44) Parable of God or Mammon (Q 16:13) Parable of the Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24–26) Parable of a Light on a Lampstand (Q 11:33) Parable of the Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2) Parable of the House on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47–49) The Parables of Jesus: »Kingdom (of God)« Parables Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18–19) Parable of the Leaven (Q 13:20–21) Parable of a Kingdom Divided against Itself (Q 11:17–18) The Parables of Jesus: »Community« Parables Parable of Settling Out of Court (Q 12:58–59) Parable of the Splinter and the Beam (Q 6:41–42) Parable of Asking of a Father (Q 11:11–12) Parable of the Lost Sheep (Q 15:4–5a.7)

127 Roth, Parables, 17, names six criteria for a »parable«: »short narratival (1) fictional (2) text that is related in the narrated world to known reality (3) … 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).«—Roth, Parables, 14, has to admit that the expression παραβολή is not found in Q. He nevertheless underscores: »…Matthew and Luke … employ the term ›παραβολή‹ in Q contexts, though not in the same Q contents.« Thus, every definition of »parable« is secondary for Q, as the expression is missing in the Sayings Source. 128 Roth, Parables, vii-xi, cf. also 20–21.

210

Part IV: Excursi

Although this commentary does not follow Roth’s classification, his index nevertheless has its own right and is by no means hypertrophic: it highlights very convincingly how widespread metaphorical language is in Q and that imagery has an important function in the Sayings Source.129

5.1.3

The Message of Q-Parables

J. Kloppenborg and C. Heil have emphasised that only two of the nine parables in Q mention the reign of God (Mustard Seed and Yeast).130 While J. Kloppenborg therefore sees the work of Q-scribes reframing the message of Jesus (»Jesus the parabler became scribalized«131), C. Heil assumes that the reign of God might have been only one topic among many.132 It is certainly impossible to reconstruct in detail how Jesus formulated his parables. Nevertheless, this commentary sees a strong probability that the primum movens of Jesus’ message was the upcoming reign of God (see above, IV: Excursus 1)— albeit not always mentioned in explicit formulations—which also holds true for the parables of Jesus. Under authentic parables going back to the historic Jesus, C. Heil mentions the Parables of Mustard Seed, Yeast, Lost Sheep and Lost Coin.133 Two (and therefore half!) of these parables explicitly mention the reign of God: Mustard Seed and Yeast. Nevertheless, even in the other two parables the reign of God seems to be present implicitly. If one assumes that the restitution of paradise (see above, IV: Excursus 1.4.5) in connection with God’s paternal love is the core message of Jesus’ basileia-proclamation, then we can also easily make a connection for the two remaining parables (i.e., Lost Sheep and Lost Coin). Thus, Zimmermann sees the central message of The Lost Sheep in God’s »search for the marginalized« and that »God/Christ cares for the lost«.134 Both elements fit perfectly into the scheme of the restorative power of God’s reign. In addition, C. Heil mentions the universal and uncompromising care of God as a central message of the two parables (Lost Sheep and Lost Coin)135—but this care is enhanced by the coming reign of God, even though this is not mentioned expressis verbis here. Hence, R. Zimmermann is certainly right: »In the Q document as a whole, the eschatological perspective plays an important role in the parables.«136

129 Cf. Roth. Parables, 408, who sees as the scope of his research »… 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.« 130 Kloppenborg, Parables, 287–289; Heil, Gleichnisrede, 182–183 und 186–187. 131 Kloppenborg, Parables, 319. 132 Heil, Gleichnisrede, 182–183: »… daß in der Gleichnisrede des historischen Jesus selbst das Reich Gottes nur eines unter mehreren Themen war.« 133 Cf. Heil, Gleichnisrede, 187. 134 Zimmermann, Parables, 233 and 226. 135 Heil, Gleichnisrede, 187: »Akzentuierung der persönlichen Nähe und universalen, bedingungslosen Sorge Gottes«. 136 Zimmermann, Parables, 215 (quoted approvingly by Roth, Parables, 392).

Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q

211

Another remaining question is whether the historical Jesus responded with his parables to the critique of his contemporaries. If so, then Q 6:47–49 (Built on Rock or Sand), Q 7:31–32 (Children on the Marketplace), Q 12:42–46 (The Faithful or Unfaithful Slave), and Q 14:16–23 (The Invited Dinner Guests) could preserve reminiscences of Jesus’ own parables. In any case, these texts have been reframed by the situation of rejection that the Q-missionaries have experienced. Thus these traditions certainly witness to the »scribalizing of the Jesus tradition«,137 as J. Kloppenborg has called it.

5.2

Gendered Couplets in Q’s Imagery

5.2.1

Gendered Couplets …

It has repeatedly been emphasised that the Sayings Source offers a certain number of gendered couplets in its imagery. These couplets function on the complementarity of male and female.138 S. Bieberstein mentions the following examples:139 Q 7:32: Boys: playing the flute and dancing/Girls: crying Q 11:31–32: The Queen of the South/The Men of Niniveh Q 12:24–28: Ravens: sowing and reaping/Lilies: spinning Q 13,19–21: Male Sower: Mustard Seed/Female Housework: Yeast Q 15:4–10: Male Shepherd: Lost Sheep/Female Housework: Lost Coin Q 17:34–35: Men in the Field/Women at the Mill

5.2.2

… and their Interpretation in Feminist Exegesis

In feminist exegesis there has been a lot of discussion, as to whether these gendered couplets should be seen as a positive or negative contribution to female liberation. L. Schottroff emphasizes that the perception of female work in a maledominated society can certainly be seen as some sort of improvement.140 In contrast, H. Melzer-Keller underscores that such imagery only codifies role models of the dominant patriarchal perception. The metaphor used here does not transcend

137 Kloppenborg, Parables, 319: »The Sayings Gospel’s successful incorporation of the parable into a literary format was a key to step in the scribalizing of the Jesus tradition.« 138 Melzer-Keller, Jesus, 331, underscores for Q the »große Anzahl von Doppelbildworten und -gleichnissen, die auf einer Art ›Mann-Frau-Komplementarität‹ basieren«. 139 Bieberstein, Jüngerinnen, 106. »Crying« in the sense of »mourning« was female activity. Concerning Q 12:24–28: sowing and reaping was the work of men, while spinning was a female activity. Complementarity is also found in Q 17:34–35: working in the field was male work, grinding at the mill female work.—A similar index of gendered couplets is given by Harb, Rede, 194–225, who also includes Q 12:51–53 and Q 14:26. 140 Schottroff, Wanderprophetinnen, 335: »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.«

212

Part IV: Excursi

the framework of fixed gender roles.141 T. Ilan opens up a new perspective by poining to gendered couplets in rabbinic traditions, e.g., m. Neg. 2:4; b. ‘Abod. Zar. 28a–b; Leviticus Rabbah 17:2). Thus, the gendered couplets in Q are most likely not an initiative to safeguard women’s rights, but they can be seen as a literary pattern common in Judaism. Or, as T. Ilan puts it: »All this together may make Q less feminist than some feminists would have liked us to think, but it certainly makes it more Jewish.«142

141 Melzer-Keller, Jesus, 345: »Denn die verwendete Metaphorik bewegt sich ganz im Rahmen der herrschenden Gesellschaftsordnung und greift auf die klassische Arbeitsteilung zwischen den Geschlechtern zurück.« 142 Ilan, Women, 209.

Bibliography

1.

Primary Literature

1.1

Classic Literature

1.1.1

Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

1 ENOCH English: Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary of the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Minneapolis 2001; Nickelsburg, G. W. E./VanderKam, J. C., 1 Enoch 2. A Commentary of the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82, Minneapolis 2012. 2 ENOCH English: Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: Volume Two: Pseudepigrapha, Oxford 1913. 2 BARUCH English: Stone, M. E./Henze, M., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes, Minneapolis 2013. 4 EZRA English: Stone, M. E./Henze, M., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes, Minneapolis 2013. APOCRYPHON OF EZEKIEL English: http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/StudTxts/apocEzek.html (accessed: 20–10.2019). ASSUMPTIO MOSIS English: Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: Volume Two: Pseudepigrapha, Oxford 1913. LETTER OF ARISTEAS English: Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: Volume Two: Pseudepigrapha, Oxford 1913. JUBILEES English: Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Volume Two: Pseudepigrapha, Oxford 1913. PSALMS OF SOLOMON English: Brenton, L. C. L., The English Translation of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (Bible Works electronic edition, Copyright by FABS International, c/o Bob Lewis, DeFuniak Springs FL 32433) 1988. TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM English: Charlesworth, J. H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments: Volume 1, New Haven, Connecticut 1983, 869–902..

1.1.2

Qumran Manuscripts

Hebrew: Abegg, M. G., Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts, Electronic Edition BibleWorks 8, 2001. English: Wise, M./Abegg, M./Cook, E. M. (Ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, New York 2005.

1.1.3

Philo and Josephus

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA Greek: Cohn, L., Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt. Bd. 1–6, Berlin 1962.

214

Bibliography

English: Yonge, C. D., The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus: Translated from the Greek: 4 vols., London 1854–1855. LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM/BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES English: James, M. R., The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, London 1917; http://www.archive.org/details/biblicalantiquitOOpseurich (accessed: 15.6.2019) FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS Greek: Niese, B., Flavii Iosephi Opera. Bd. 1–5, Berlin 1888–1889. English: Whiston, W., The genuine works of Flavius Josephus, New York 1828.

1.1.4

Pagan Authors

DIOGENES LAERTIUS English: Online edition by R.D. Hicks (accessed: 30.6.2019): http://www.per seus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=en&all_words=unseasoned&phrase=&any_ words=&exclude_words=&documents=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.1.0258 CHRYSIPPOS VON SOLOI Greek: Arnim, J. von, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta III. Chrysippi Fragmenta Moralia. Fragmenta Successorum Chrysippi, Stuttgart 1964 (reprint). English: Translation MT EPIICTETUS, On Cynicism = Discourses 3:22; Greek: Billerbeck, M., Epiktet. Vom Kynismus, Leiden 1978. English: http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.mb.txt (accessed on 1.4.2019) LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA, De morte Peregrini Greek/English: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:208.1.0461 (accessed: 20.10.2019) Hermotimus Greek/English: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text: 208.1.0521 (accessed: 20.10.2019). MARTIAL Latin: Barié, P./Schindler, W. (Ed.), Martial-Epigramme, Berlin 1999. PLUTARCH, Vitae parallelae Greek: Lindskog, C./Ziegler, K./Gärtner, H. (Ed.), Plutarchii Vitae Parallelae III/1, Stuttgart 1996. English: Online editon by Bernadotte Perrin, accessed: 1.4.2019 http://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A208.1.0065%3Achapter%3D9%3Asection%3D5 SENECA, De Beneficiis Latin: Rosenbach, M. (Ed.), L. Annaeus Seneca. De Clementia. De Beneficiis. Über die Milde (Philosophische Schriften 5), Darmstadt 1989. XENOPHON, Cyropaedia English: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3A text%3A1999.1.0204%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D3%3Asection%3D45 (accessed: 30.6.2019)

1.1.5

Rabbinic Literature

MISHNAH: https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah (accessed: 29.3.2019) TALMUD BAVLI: https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud (accessed: 20.10.2019)

1.1.6

Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

GOSPEL OF THOMAS Coptic/Greek/Geman/English: Bethge, H.-G., Evangelium Thomae Copticum, in: Aland, K. (Ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 151996, 517–546.

1.1.7

Patristic Literature

AUGUSTINE Latin: Dombart, B./Kalb, A. (Ed.), De civitate Dei (CCSL XLVII/XIV, 1 et 2), Turnhout 1955.

3. Secondary Literature

215

DIDACHE Greek: Rordorf, W./Tuilier, A., La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres (Didachè). Introduction, Texte, Traduction, Notes, Appendice et Index (SC 248), Paris 1978. English: Hall, I. H./Napier J. T., (ed. Riddle, M. B.), The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, in: A. Roberts/J. Donaldson (ed.), The Ante-Nicene fathers. Translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325 (American reprint of the Edinburgh edition. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes, by A. C. Coxe), Buffalo 1885.

1.2

Edition of the Sayings Source

CEQ: THE CRITICAL EDITION OF Q: Robinson, J. M./Hoffmann P./Kloppenborg J. S. (managing editor: M. C. Moreland), 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, Leuven 2000.

2.

Tools

Billerbeck, P.(/Strack, H.), Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch, München 101994. Billerbeck, P.(/Strack, H.), Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch II. Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas und Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch, München 102009. Billerbeck, P.(/Strack, H.), Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch IV. Exkurse zu einzelnen Stellen des Neuen Testaments, München 91997. Blass, F./Debrunner, A./Rehkopf F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen 17 1990.

3.

Secondary Literature

Ådna, J., Jesu Stellung zum Tempel (WUNT 2/119), Tübingen 2000. Allison, D. C., The Intertextual Jesus. Scripture in Q, Harrisburg PA, 2000. Arnal, W., The Q Document, in: M. Jackson-McCabe (Ed.), Jewish Christianity Reconsidered. Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, Minneapolis, 2007, 119–154. Arnal, W. E., Jesus and the Village Scribes. Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q, Minneapolis 2001. Backhaus, K., Art. Jesus und Johannes der Täufer, in: J. Schröter/C. Jacobi (Ed.), Jesus Handbuch, Tübingen 2017, 245–252. Backhaus, K., Die Vision vom ganz Anderen. Geschichtlicher Ort und theologische Mitte der Johannes-Offenbarung, in: Id. (Ed.), Theologie als Vision. Studien zur Johannes-Offenbarung (SBS 191), Stuttgart 2001, 10–53. Bazzana, G., Village Scribes behind Q. The Social and Political Profile of the Sayings Gospel in Light of Documentary Papyri, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 99–120 [Short quotation: Profile]. Bazzana, G., Galilean Village Scribes as the Authors of the Sayings Gospel Q, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 133–148 [Short quotation: Scribes].

216

Bibliography

Bazzana, G., Q 22:28–30. Judgment or Governance in the Sayings Gospel Q? in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015, 169–183. Bazzana, G., Kingdom of Bureaucracy. The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q (BEThL 274), Leuven 2015. Becker, J., Jesus von Nazaret, Berlin 1996. Becker, A./Reed, A. Y. (Ed.), The Ways That Never Parted. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95), Tübingen 2003. Bendemann, R. von, »Vom Rückfall« (Lk 11,24–26par). Der Umgang mit Rekadenz-Phänomenen im Spannungsfeld von Wundertätigkeit, Magie und Medizin, in: J. Kamlah/R. Schäfer/M. Witte (Ed.), Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt (ADPV 46), Wiesbaden 2017, 469–506. Bieberstein, S., Verschwiegene Jüngerinnen – vergessene Zeuginnen. Gebrochene Konzepte im Lukasevangelium (NTOA 38), Göttingen 1998. Billerbeck, M., Greek Cynicism in Imperial Rome, in: ead. (Ed.), Die Kyniker in der modernen Forschung, Amsterdam 1991, 147–166. Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 31967 (reprint 1971). Bourgel, J., The Jewish Christians’ Move from Jerusalem as a pragmatic choice, in: Dan Jaffé (Ed.), Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Leiden 2010, 107–138. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Bd. 1: Lk 1,1–9,50 (EKK III/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Bd. 2: Lk 1,1–9,50 (EKK III/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Bd. 3: Lk 1,1–9,50 (EKK III/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Bd. 4: Lk 1,1–9,50 (EKK III/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009. Bork, A., Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (WUNT 2/404), Tübingen 2015. Boyarin, D., Als Christen noch Juden waren. Überlegungen zu den jüdisch-christlichen Ursprüngen. In: KuI 16 (2001) 112–129. Broadhead, E. K., Jewish Ways of Following Jesus. Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity (WUNT 266), Tübingen, 2010. Broadhead, E. K., The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Sayings Source. The Relationship Reconsidered, in: R. T. Fortna/T. Thatcher (Ed.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, London/Leiden 2001, 291–301. Broer, I./Weidemann, H.-U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Würzburg 32010. Camponovo, O., Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften (OBO 58), Göttingen 1984. Casey, M., An Aramaic Approach to Q. Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Cambridge 2002. Crossan, J. D., Der historische Jesus, München 1994 [English: Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, San Francisco 1991]. Deines, R., Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177), Tübingen 2004. Delling, G., Art. τρεῖς, in: ThWANT VIII, 1969, 215–225. Dettwiler, A., La Source Q et la Torah. In: Id./D. Marguerat (Ed.), La source des paroles de Jésus (Q). Aux origines de christianisme (Le Monde de la Bible 62). Genève, 2008, 221–254. Dimant, D., Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, in: M. J. Mulder (Ed.), Mikra, Philadelphia 1988, 379–419. Doering, L., Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels, in: R. Bieringer u. a. (Ed.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJ.Supplements 136), Leiden/Boston 2010, 207–253. Doering, L., Marriage and Creation in Mark 10 and CD 4–5, in: F. García Martínez (Ed.), Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85), Leiden 2009, 133–163.

3. Secondary Literature

217

Doole, A., What was Mark for Matthew? An Examination of Matthew's Relationship and Attitude to his Primary Source (WUNT 2/344), 2013. Dormeyer, D., Narrativität und Theologie der Wunder in Q, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 213–230. Dronsch, K., Lieber eine Leuchte als ein unscheinbares Licht (Die Lampe auf dem Leuchter/ Vom Licht auf dem Leuchter) – Q 11,33, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 133–138. Dunn, J. D. G., The Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianty, London 1991. Ebner, M., Die Stadt als Lebensraum der ersten Christen. Das Urchristentum in seiner Umwelt I (GNT 1,1), Göttingen 2012. Ebner, M., Die Spruchquelle Q, in: M. Ebner./S. Schreiber (Ed.): Einleitung in das Neue Testament (KStTh 6), Stuttgart 22013, 86–112. Ebner, M., Jesus von Nazaret. Was wir von ihm wissen können, Stuttgart 2007 [Short quotation: Jesus]. Ebner, M., Jesus von Nazaret in seiner Zeit. Sozialgeschichtliche Zugänge, Stuttgart 2003 [Short quotation: Zeit]. Ebner, M., Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess (HBS 15), Freiburg i. Br. 1998 [Short quotation: Weisheitslehrer]. Ego, B., Art. Henoch/Henochliteratur, in: WiBiLex (composed: April 2007). Permanent link: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/20989/ (accessed: 2.9.2017). Ehling, K., Vögel als Lebensmittel für Jesus und die Jünger: Anmerkungen zu Q 12,6a, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 281–288. Evans, C., Opposition to the Temple: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J. Charlesworth (Ed.), Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York 1992, 235–253. Fabry, H.-J., Methoden der Schriftauslegung in den Qumranschriften, in: G. Schöllgen/C. Scholten (Ed.), Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum : Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (JAC Erg. 23), Münster 1996, 18–33. Fabry, H.-J., Der Text und seine Geschichte, in: E. Zenger et al. (Ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KStTh 1,1), Stuttgart 51995, 34–59. Fleddermann, H. T., The Lost Coin (Luke 15,8–10), in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 289–322. Fleddermann, H. T., Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1), Leuven 2005. Fleddermann, H. T., Mark and Q. A Study of the Overlap Texts. With an Assessment by Frans Neirynck (BETL 122), Leuven, 1995. Frankemölle, H., Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (KStTh 5), Stuttgart 2006. Frankemölle, H., Jüdische Wurzeln christlicher Theologie. Studien zum biblischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Texte, Bodenheim 1998. Frankemölle, H., Jahwe-Bund und Kirche Christi. Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des »Evangeliums« nach Matthäus (NTA.NF 10), Münster 21974. Frenschkowski, M., Galiläa oder Jerusalem? Die topographischen und politischen Hintergründe der Logienquelle, in: A. Lindemann (Ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BEThL 158), Leuven 2001, 535–559. Frey-Anthes, H., Art. Satan (AT), in: WiBiLex (composed: May 2007; actualisation: Nov. 2009). Permanent link: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/26113/ (accessed: 6.10.2017). Freyne, S., The Revolt from a Regional Perspective, in: A. M. Berlin/J. A. Overman (Ed.), The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History, and Ideology, London 2002, 43–56. Friedl, A., Das eschatologische Gericht in Bildern aus dem Alltag (ÖBS 14), Frankfurt 1996.

218

Bibliography

Gerber, C., Bitten lohnt sich (Vom bittenden Kind) – Q 11,9–13, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007,119–125. Gerber, C., Es ist stets höchste Zeit (Vom treuen und untreuen Haushalter) – Q 12,42–46, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 161–170. Gielen, M., »Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung«. Die 6. Vater-Unser Bitte – eine Anfechtung für das biblische Gottesbild?, in: ZNW 89 (1998) 201–216. Gnilka, J., Die frühen Christen. Ursprünge und Anfang der Kirche (HThK.S 7), Freiburg 1999. Gnilka, J., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (HThK.S 5), Freiburg i. Br. 1994 [Short quotation: Theologie]. Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus I (Mk 1–8,26) (EKK II/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 41994. Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus II (Mk 8,27–16,20) (EKK II/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 31978. Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Kynismus und Christentum in der Antike. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt von Lena R. Seehausen (Ed. M. Frenschkowski), Göttingen 2016. Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Le Cynisme à l’Époque impériale, in: W. Haase (Ed.), ANRW Bd. 36/4, Berlin 1990, 2720–2833. Häfner, G., Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat – Neutestamentliche Aspekte, in: E. Garhammer/ F. Weber (Ed.), Scheidung – Wiederheirat – von der Kirche verstoßen? Für eine Praxis der Versöhnung, Würzburg 2012, 101–117. Häfner, G., Gewalt gegen die Basileia? Zum Problem der Auslegung des »Stürmerspruches« Mt 11,12, in ZNW 83 (1992) 21–51. Hauck, F., Art. θερισμός, in: ThWNT 3, Stuttgart 1938, 133. Hausmann, J., Art. Weisheit (AT), in: WiBiLex (composed: April 2009). Permanent link: https:// www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34707/ (accessed: 19.10.2017). Harb, G., Die eschatologische Rede des Spruchevangeliums Q. Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Q 17,23–37 (BToSt 19), Leuven 2014. Harb, G., Die ersten beiden Weherufe gegen die Pharisäer in der Logienquelle (Q 11,42.39b.41), in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Kein Jota wird vergehen. Das Gesetzesverständ-nis der Logienquelle vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie. (BWANT 200), Stuttgart 2012. Harl, M., La Septante aux abourds de l’ère chrétienne, in: G. Dorival/M. Harl/O. Munnich, La Bible Greque des Septante, Paris 1988, 269–288. Harlow, D. C., Early Judaism and Early Christianity, in: J. J. Collins/D. C. Harlow (Ed.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Cambridge 2010, 257–278. Heil, C., Die Q-Gruppe in Galiläa und Syrien, in: M. Labahn (Ed.), Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle (FRLANT 271), Göttingen 2017, 163–180. Heil, C., Klugheit und Phantasie (Lk 16,1–8a.8b–13), in: id./R. Hoppe (Ed.), Menschenbilder – Gottesbilder. Die Gleichnisse Jesu verstehen, Ostfildern 2016, 245–261. Heil, C., Die Zukunft Israels in der lukanischen Redaktion von Q, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015, 185–199. Heil, C., »Πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας« Revisited. The Reception of Ps 6,9a LXX in Q and Luke, in: id., Das Spruchevangelium Q und der historische Jesus (SBAB 58), Stuttgart 2014, 157–175. Heil, C., Beobachtungen zur theologischen Dimension der Gleichnisrede Jesu in Q, in: id., Das Spruchevangelium Q und der historische Jesus (SBAB 58), Stuttgart 2014, 177–188. Heil, C., Analphabet oder Rabbi? Zum Bildungsniveau Jesu, in: id., Das Spruchevangelium Q und der historische Jesus (SBAB 58), Stuttgart 2014, 265–291. Heil, C., Die Missionsinstruktion in Q 10,2–16. Transformationen der Jesusüberlieferung im Spruchevangelium Q, in: W. Eisele/C. Schaefer/H.-U. Weidemann (Ed.), Aneignung durch Transformation. Beiträge zur Analyse von Überlieferungsprozessen im frühen Christentum (FS M. Theobald) (HBS 74), Freiburg 2013, 25–55.

3. Secondary Literature

219

Heil, C., Nachfolge und Tora in Q 9,57–60, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Kein Jota wird vergehen. Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie (BWANT 200), Stuttgart 2012, 111–140. Heil, C., Antike Textverarbeitung. Zum Verhältnis von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit bei Homer und im Spruchevangelium Q, in: C. Wessely/A. D. Ornella (Ed.), Religion und Mediengesellschaft. Beiträge zu einem Paradoxon, Innsbruck 2010, 93–104. Heil, C., Vertrauen in die Sorge Gottes (Sorgt euch nicht) – Q 12,24.26–28, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 144–153. Heil, C., Lukas und Q. Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q (BZNW 111), Berlin 2003. Heil, C., Die Q-Rekonstruktion des Internationalen Q-Projekts. Einführung in Methodik und Resultate, in: NT 43 (2001) 128–143. Heil, C., Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas, in: ZNW 87 (1996) 211–222. Helfmeyer, F. J., Art. ‫אות‬, in: ThWAT I (1973) 182–205. Hengel, M., Zum Problem der »Hellenisierung« Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus, in: id. (Ed.), Judaica et Hellenistica, Tübingen 1996, 1–90. Hieke, T., Am Ende der Tage wird es geschehen … Zur Eschatologie des Alten Testaments, in: id. et al. (Ed.), Zeit schenken – Vollendung erhoffen. Gottes Zusage an die Welt (Theologische Module 8), Freiburg i. Br. 2013, 7–52. Hieke, T., Art. Abraham, in: WiBiLex (composed: Jan. 2005). Permanent link: https://www.bibel wissenschaft.de/de/stichwort/12288/ (accessed: 26.3.2018). Hieke, T., Schriftgelehrsamkeit in der Logienquelle. Die alttestamentlichen Zitate in der Versuchungsgeschichte Q 4,1–13, in: J. M. Asgeirsson/K. De Troyer/M. W. Meyer (Ed.), From Quest to Q. Festschrift für James M. Robinson (BEThL 146), Leuven, 2000, 43–71. Hoffmann, P., Anmerkungen zur Rekonstruktion der Critical Edition of Q, in: Hoffmann, P./Heil, C. (Ed.), Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt 42013, 116–144. Hoffmann, P., Mutmaßungen über Q. Zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q, in: A. Lindemann (Ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BEThl 158), Leuven 2001, 255–288. Hoffmann, P., Das Recht der Frau oder »Wider die legalisierte Willkür des Mannes«, in: id. (Ed.), Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Jesus-Bewegung (SBAB 17), Stuttgart 1994, 95–117. Hoffmann, P., Herrscher in oder Richter über Israel? Mt 19,28/Lk 22,28–30 in der synoptischen Überlieferung, in: K. Wengst/G. Saß (Ed.), Ja und nein. Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wolfgang Schrage, Neukirchen 1998, 253–264. Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA.NF 8), Münster 31983 (Erstauflage 1972). Hoffmann, P./Heil, C. (Ed.), Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt 42013. Hogan, K. M., The Meanings of tôrâ in 4 Ezra, in: JSJ 38 (2007) 530–552. Hölscher, M., Matthäus liest Q. Eine Studie am Beispiel von Mt 11,2–19 und Q 7,18–35 (NTA.NF 60), 2017. Hoppe, R., Synoptische Bildworte – eine Lebenslehre, in: id./C. Heil (Ed.), Menschenbilder – Gottesbilder. Die Gleichnisse Jesu verstehen, Ostfildern 2016, 33–68. Hoppe, R., Der erste Thessalonikerbrief. Kommentar, Freiburg i. Br. 2016. Hoppe, R., Gerechtigkeit bei Matthäus und Philo, in: R. Kampling (Ed.), Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation – Rezeption – Rezeptionsgeschichte (FS H. Frankemölle), Paderborn 2004, 141–155. Hoppe, R., Galiläa als kultureller und religiöser Lebenskontext Jesu, in: M. Gielen/J. Kügler (Ed.), Liebe, Macht und Religion. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Grunddimensionen menschlicher Existenz. FS für Helmut Merklein, Stuttgart 2003, 185–198. Hossfeld, F.-L./Zenger, E., Psalmen 101–150 (HThK.AT). Freiburg et al. 2008.

220

Bibliography

Hüneburg, M., Jesus als Wundertäter in der Logienquelle: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie von Q (ABIG 4), Leipzig 2001. Ilan, T., The Women of the Q Community within Early Judaism, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 195–209. Jacobi, C., Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 213), Berlin 2015. Janssen, E., Testament Abrahams (JSHRZ 3,2), Gütersloh 1975, 193–256. Jepsen, A., Art. ‫אמן‬, in: ThWAT I, Stuttgart 1970, 313–348. Jericke, D., Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis. Ein historisch-topographischer und literarischtopographischer Kommentar, Göttingen 2013. Johnson, L. T., The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, in: JBL 108 (1989) 419–441. Jonas, D., Tretet ein! (Von der verschlossenen Tür) – Q 13,24–27, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 193–199. Junker, L., Rekonstruktion und Interpretation des Logions Q 16,18 vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Reinheitsvorstellungen, Dissertation, University Duisburg-Essen 2019 (publication in preparation for WUNT II). Karrer, M., Christliche Gemeinde und Israel. Beobachtungen zur Logienquelle, in: P. Mommer u. a. (Ed.), Gottes Recht als Lebensraum. Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker, NeukirchenVluyn 1993, 145–163. Kern, G., Absturzgefahr (Vom Blinden als Blindenführer) – Q 6,39, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 61–67. Kern, G., Größenwahn?! (Vom Schüler und Lehrer) – Q 6,40, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 68–75. Kister, M., A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and its Implications, in: M. E. Stone/E. G. Chazon, Biblical Perspectives: Early Use of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the First International Symposion of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Leiden 1998, 101–111. Klauck, H.-J., Apokryphe Evangelien. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 22005. Klauck, H.-J., Die Armut der Jünger in der Sicht des Lukas, in: id., Gemeinde – Amt – Sakrament. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven, Würzburg 1989, 160–194. Klingbeil, G. A., The Finger of God in the Old Testament, in: ZAW 112 (2000) 409–415. Kloppenborg, J. S., Oral and Literate Contexts of the Sayings Gospel Q, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 49–72. Kloppenborg, J. S., Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 61–90 [Short quotation: Bethsaida]. Kloppenborg, J. S., A »Parting of the Ways« in Q? in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015, 123–143 [Short quotation: Parting]. Kloppenborg, J. S., Q, the Earliest Gospel. An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Lousiville 2009 [Short quotation: Q]. Kloppenborg, J. S., The Growth and Impact of Agricultural Tenancy in Jewish Palestine (III BCE—I CE), in: JESHO 51 (2008) 33–66. Kloppenborg, J. S., Jesus and the parables of Jesus in Q, in: R. A. Piper (Ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q (NT.S 75), Leiden 1995, 275–319. Kloppenborg, J. S., The Sayings Gospel Q. Recent Opinion on the People behind the Document, in: Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 1 (1993) 9–34 [Short quotation: Gospel].

3. Secondary Literature

221

Kloppenborg, J. S., Literary Convention, Self-Evidence, and the Social History of the Q People, in: Semeia 55 (1991) 77–102. Kloppenborg, J. S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance, Sonoma (CA) 1988. Kloppenborg, J. S., Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q, in: HThR 80 (1987) 287–306. Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S., Excavating Q. The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel, Edinburgh 2000 [Short quotation: Excavating]. Knibb, Michael A., The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19, in: F. García Martínez/G. P. Luttikhuizen, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome : Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst. Leiden 2003, 165–178. Koch, D.-A., Geschichte des Urchristentums, Göttingen 2013. Koch, D.-A., Die Überlieferung und Verwendung der Septuaginta im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert. Aspekte der neueren Septuagintaforschung und deren Bedeutung für die neutestamentliche Exegese, in: id./H. Lichtenberger (Ed.), Begegnung zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg, Göttingen 1993, 215–244. Kollmann, B., Einführung in die Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Darmstadt 22011. Kollmann, B., Jesus und die Christen als Wundertäter. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum (FRLANT 170), Göttingen 1996. Konradt, M., Das Matthäusevangelium als judenchristlicher Gegenentwurf zum Markusevangelium, in: id. (Ed. A. Euler), Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358), Tübingen 2016, 43–68. Konradt, M., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1), Göttingen 2015. Konradt, M., Law, Salvation and Christian Identity in Paul and Matthew, in: M. Welker/G. Etzelmüller (Ed.), Concepts of Law in the Sciences, Legal Studies, and Theology (RPT 72), Tübingen 2013, 181–204. Konradt, M., Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium, in: id./D. Sänger (Ed.), Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament (NTOA 57), Göttingen 2006, 129–152. Konradt, M., Gericht und Gemeinde. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ehtik in 1Thess und 1Kor (BZNW 117), Berlin 2003. Kosch, D., Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (NTOA 12), Göttingen 1989. Kremer, J., Art. Sohn Gottes. In: BiLi 46 (1973) 3–71. Kreuzer, S., The Bible in Greek. Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint, Atlanta 2015. Labahn, M., Sinn im Sinnlosen: Hermeneutische und narratologische Überlegungen zu Q, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 131–173. Labahn, M., Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender. Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 32), Leipzig 2010. Labahn, M., Füllt den Raum aus – es kommt sonst noch schlimmer! (Beelzebulgleichnis) – Q 11,24–26, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 126–132. Labahn, M., Achtung Menschensohn! (Vom Dieb) – Q 12,39f, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 154–160. Labahn, M., Forderung zur außergerichtlichen Einigung (Der Gang zum Richter) – Q 12,58f, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 178–184. Labahn, M., Über die Notwendigkeit ungeteilter Leidenschaft (Vom Doppeldienst) – Q 16,13, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 220–226.

222

Bibliography

Labahn, M., Die plötzliche Alternative mitten im Alltag (Mitgenommen oder zurückgelassen) – Q 17,34f, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 227–234. Lange, A., Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18), Leiden 1995. Lehnardt, A., Art. Kaddisch-Gebet, WiBiLex (composed: Jan. 2012). Permanent link: http:// www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/22980/ (accessed am 17.1.2017). Lehnardt, A., Die Geschichte des Kaddisch-Gebets, in: W. Homolka (Ed.), Liturgie als Theologie. Das Gebet als Zentrum im jüdischen Denken, Berlin 2005, 30–46. Leonhardt-Balzer, J., Die Behebung einer Sehschwäche (Vom Splitter und dem Balken) – Q 6,41f, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 76–80. Leonhardt-Balzer, J., Vom Wirken des Salzes (Vom Salz) – Q 14,34f, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 200–204. Leuenberger, M., Art. Königtum Gottes (AT), in: WiBiLex (composed: April 2012). Permanent link: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/23808/ (accessed 6.10.2017). Levine, L. I., The Ancient Synagogue in First-Century Palestine, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 23–41 [Short quotation: Palestine]. Lim, T. H., Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters, Oxford 1997. Lindemann, A., Neuere Literatur zum »Synoptischen Problem«, in: ThR 80 (2015) 214–250. Lindemann, A., Neuere Literatur zur Logienquelle Q, in: ThR 80 (2015) 377–424. Loader, W.R.G., Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2/97), Tübingen 1997. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bd. 1: Mt 1–7 (EKK I/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn et al. 52002. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bd. 2: Mt 8–17 (EKK I/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn et al. 6 2016. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bd. 3: Mt 18–25 (EKK I/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 32016. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bd. 4: Mt 26–28 (EKK I/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002. Maier, J., Torah und Normensysteme in den Qumranschriften, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Kein Jota wird vergehen. Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie (BWANT 200), Stuttgart 2012, 35–59. Maier, J., Bausymbolik, Heiligtum und Gemeinde in den Qumrantexten, in: A. Vonach/R. Meßner (Ed.), Volk Gottes als Tempel (Synagoge und Kirchen 1), Wien 2008, 49–106. Maier, J., Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer I–II (UTB 1862/1863), München 1995. Maier, J., Messias oder Gesalbter? Zu einem Übersetzungs- und Deutungsproblem in den Qumrantexten, in: RdQ 17 (1996) 585–612. Maier, J., Zwischen den Testamenten. Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (NEB Erg. 3), Würzburg 1990. Maier, J., Weitere Stücke zum Nachumpescher aus der Höhle 4 von Qumran, in: Judaica 18 (1962) 215–250. Malina, B.J./Rohrbaugh, R.L., Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, Minneapolis 1998. Marguerat, D., Le Règne, Jésus et la Loi (Q 16,16–18), in: C. Coulot/D. Fricker (Ed.), Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament II. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser (LeDiv 118), Paris 2004, 113–127. Marshall, J., Apocalypticism and Anti-Semitism: Inner-Group Resources for Inter-group Conflicts, in: J. S. Kloppenborg/J. W. Marshall (Ed.), Apocalypticism, Anti-Semitism and the Historical Jesus. Subtexts in Criticism, London 2005, 68–82. Mayordomo, M., »Einstürzende Neubauten« (Hausbau auf Felsen und Sand) – Q 6,47–49, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 92–99.

3. Secondary Literature

223

Melzer-Keller, H., Jesus und die Frauen. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung nach der synoptischen Überlieferung (HBS 14), Freiburg 1997. Merklein, H., Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft. Eine Skizze (SBS 111), Stuttgart 31989. Moreland, M., Provenience Studies and the Question of Q in Galilee, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 43–60. Müller, C. G., Frühchristliche Ehepaare und paulinische Mission (SBS 215), Stuttgart 2008. Müller, P., Vom misslingenden Spiel (Von den spielenden Kindern) – Q 7,31–35, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 100–110. Müller, P., Wetterregeln (Von der Beurteilung der Zeit) – Q 12,54–56, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 171–177. Müller, P., Schnell und unausweichlich (Vom Aas und den Geiern) – Q 17,37, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 235–239. Müller, U. B., Die Gerichtsankündigung Q 13,34f. als authentisches Wort Jesu, in: U. Busse/ M. Reichardt/M. Theobald (Ed.), Erinnerung an Jesus. Kontinuität und Diskontinuität der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung (BBB 166). Bonn, 2011, 133–141. Münch, C., Gewinnen oder Verlieren (Vom anvertrauten Geld) Q 19,12f.15–24.26, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 240–254. Myllykoski, M., The Social History of Q and the Jewish War, in: R. Uro (Ed.), Symbols and Strata. Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, Göttingen 1996, 144–199.Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Minneapolis 2001. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Revealed Wisdom as a Criterion for Inclusion and Exclusion: From Jewish Sectarianism to Early Christianity, in: J. Neusner/E. S. Frerichs (Ed.), »To See Ourselves as Others See Us«. Christians, Jews, »Others« in Late Antiquity, Chico (CA) 1985, 73–91. Nicklas, T., Jews and Christians? Second Century ›Christian‹ Perspectives on the ›Parting of the Ways‹ (annual Deichmann Lectures 2013), Tübingen 2014. Niebuhr, K.-W., Jesus, Paulus und die Pharisäer. Beobachtungen zu ihren historischen Zusammenhängen, zum Toraverständnis und zur Anthropologie, in: Revista Catalana de Teologia 34/2 (2009) 317–346. Niederwimmer, K., Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wanderradikalismus im Traditionsbereich der Didache, in: W. Pratscher/M. Öhler (Ed.), Quaestiones theologicae. Gesammelte Aufsätze (BZNW 90), Berlin 1998, 70–87. Niederwimmer, K., Die Didache (KAV 1), Göttingen 1989. Niemand, C., Jesu Abendmahl. Versuche zur historischen Rekonstruktion und theologischen Deutung, in: id. (Ed.), Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7), Frankfurt a. M. 2002, 81–122. Noam, V., Divorce in Qumran in Light of Early Halakhah, in: JJS 56 (2005) 206–223. Ong, W. J., Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the World, New York 1982. O’Rourke, J. J., Possible Uses of the Old Testament in the Gospels, in: C. A. Evans/W. R. Stegner (Ed.), the Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNT.S 104), Sheffield 1994, 15–25. Ostmeyer, K.-H., Gott knetet nicht (Vom Sauerteig) – Q 13,20f, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 185–192. Oveja, A., Neunundneunzig sind nicht genug! (Vom verlorenen Schaf) – Q 15,4–5a.7, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 205–219. Paesler, K., Das Tempelwort Jesu. Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelreinigung im Neuen Testament (FRLANT 184), Göttingen 1997. Pierce, C. T., Art. Satan and Related Figures, in: J. J. Collins/D. C. Harlow (Ed.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, Michigan 2010, 1196–1200. Pomykala, K. E., Art. Messianism, in: J. J. Collins/D. C. Harlow (Ed.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, Michigan 2010, 938–942. Popkes, E. E., Das Auge als Lampe des Körpers (Vom Auge als des Leibes Licht) – Q 11,34f, in: R. Zimmermann, et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 139–143.

224

Bibliography

Reiser, M., Numismatik und Neues Testament, in: Bib. 81 (2000) 457–488 Robinson, J. M. The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem, in: R. Hoppe/U. Busse (Ed.), Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien. Festgabe für Paul Hoffmann zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 93), Berlin 1998, 225–260. Robinson, J. M./Hoffmann P./Kloppenborg J. S. (managing editor: Moreland, M. C.), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Biblical Exegesis & Theology 30), Leuven 2001. Robinson, J. M./Hoffmann P./Kloppenborg J. S. (managing editor: Moreland, M. C.), 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, Leuven 2000. Rollens, S. E., Persecution in the Social Setting of Q, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 149–164. Roth, D., The Parables in Q (The Library of New Testament Studies 582), London 2018. Roth, D., Die Parabeln in der Logienquelle: »Alte« Probleme und »Neue« Ansätze, in: C. Heil/ G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 193–212. Schattner-Rieser, U., Das Aramäische zur Zeit Jesu, »ABBA!« und das Vaterunser: Reflexionen zur Muttersprache Jesu anhand von Qumran und der frühen Targumim, in: Frey, J./Popkes, E. E./Tätweiler S. (Ed.), Jesus, Paulus und die Texte von Qumran (WUNT II 390), Tübingen 2015, 81–144. Scherer, H., Königsvolk und Gotteskinder. Der Entwurf der sozialen Welt im Material der Traditio duplex (BBB 180), Göttingen 2016. Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT 1), Regensburg 1965 Schnelle, U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830), Göttingen 92017. Schnelle, U., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2917), Göttingen 32016. Schnelle, U., Jesus, ein Jude aus Galiläa, BZ 32 (1988), 107–113. Schöllgen, G., Die Didache. Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre (FC 1), Freiburg 1991. Schottroff, L., Wanderprophetinnen. Eine feministische Analyse der Logienquelle, in: EvTh 51 (1991) 332–344. Englisch: Ead., Itinerant Prophetesses: A Feminist Analysis of the Sayings Source Q, in: R. A. Piper (Ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q (NT.S 75), Leiden 1995, 347–360. Schramm, T./Löwenstein, K., Unmoralische Helden. Anstößige Gleichnisse Jesu, Göttingen 1986. Schröder, B., Die »väterlichen Gesetze«. Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer, Tübingen 1996. Schröter, J., Der »erinnerte Jesus«: Erinnerung als geschichtshermeneutisches Paradigma der Jesusforschung, in: id../C. Jacobi (Ed.), Jesus Handbuch, Tübingen 2017 (Short quotation: Jesus). Schröter, J., Entscheidung für die Worte Jesu. Die Logienquelle in der Geschichte des frühen Christentums, in: BiKi 54 (1999) 70–74. Schröter, J., Erwägungen zum Gesetzesverständnis in Q anhand von Q 16,16–18, in Tuckett, C. (Ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BFETL 131), Leuven 1997, 441–458. Schröter, J., Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas Gebundene Ausgabe (WMANT 76), Neukirchen 1997 (Short quotation: Erinnerung). Schulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, Zürich 1972. Schwemer, A. M., Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum I und II (TSAJ 49 und 50), Tübingen 1995 and 1996. Schwemer, A. M., Die Verwendung der Septuaginta in den Vitae Prophetarum, in: ead./M. Hengel (Ed.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Tübingen 1994, 62–91. Schwemer, A. M., Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern aus Qumran, in: ead./M. Hengel, Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, Tübingen 1991, 45–118.

3. Secondary Literature

225

Sevenich-Bax, E., Israels Konfrontation mit dem letzten Boten der Weisheit. Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle (MThA 21), Münster 1993. Smith, D., From Parable to Logion: Oral and Scribal Factors in the Composition of Q, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 73–97. Söding, T., Vaterunser und Versuchung, Christ in der Gegenwart, Online-Ausgabe vom 13.8.2017: https://www.herder.de/cig/geistesleben/2017/07-12-2017/vaterunser-bitte-va terunser-und-versuchung/ (accessed: 26.6.2018). Söding, T., Die Tempelaktion Jesu, TThZ 101 (1992), 36–64. Starnitzke, D., Von den Früchten des Baumes und dem Sprechen des Herzens (Vom Baum und seinen Früchten) – Q 6,43–45, in: R. Zimmermann et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 81–91. Steck, O. H., Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23), Neukirchen–Vluyn 1967. Stegemann, E./Stegemann, W., Urchristliche Sozialgeschichte. Die Anfänge im Judentum und die Christusgemeinden in der mediterranen Welt, Stuttgart 21997. Stemberger, G., Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. Fragen, Fakten, Hintergründe, Stuttgart 2013 (überarbeitete Neuauflage der 1991 erschienenen gleichnamigen Publikation in SBS 144). Stemberger, G., Grundzüge rabbinischer Hermeneutik, in: G. Schöllgen/C. Scholten, Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (JAC Erg. 23), Münster 1996, 34–42. Stökl Ben Ezra, D., Qumran. Die Texte vom Toten Meer und das antike Judentum (UTB Jüdische Studien 3), Tübingen 2016. Stowasser, M., »Dies spricht für dich, dass du die Werke der Nikolaiten hasst« (Offb 2,6) – Ein frühes Zeugnis für den Konflikt um Anpassung oder Widerstand?, in: R. Klieber/M. Stowasser (Ed.), Inkulturation. Historische Beispiele und theologische Reflexion zur Flexibilität und Widerständigkeit des Christlichen (Theologie, Forschung und Wissenschaft 10), Wien 2006, 203–227. Stowasser, M., Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat in der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung, in: PzB 25 (2016) 73–96. Strotmann, A., Unmoralische Helden als Vorbilder in Jesusgleichnissen? Zu einer schwierigen Hypothese, in: 418–436. Strotmann, A./Tiwald, M., Das Matthäusevangelium – eine Paulus-Polemik? Überlegungen zum Toraverständnis des ersten Evangelisten, in: M. Ebner/G. Häfner/K. Huber (Ed.), Kontroverse Stimmen im Kanon (QD 279), Freiburg i. Br. 2016, 64–106. Stuckenbruck, L. T., 1Enoch 91–108 (CEJL), Berlin/New York 2007. Theißen, G., Kynische und urchristliche Wandercharismatiker. Zu W. Stegemann: »Hinterm Horizont geht’s weiter«, in: id. (Ed.), Von Jesus zur urchristlichen Zeichenwelt. »Neutestamentliche Grenzgänge« im Dialog, Göttingen 2011, 101–116. Theißen, G., Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem, Heidelberg 22011. Theißen G., Das Reinheitslogion Mk 7,15 und die Trennung von Juden und Christen, in: K. Wengst/G. Saß (Ed.), Ja und nein: Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels (FS W. Schrage), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998, 235–51. Theißen, G., Jünger als Gewalttäter (Mt 11,12f.; Lk 16,16). Der Stürmerspruch als Selbststigmatisierung einer Minorität, in StTh 49 (1995) 183–200. Theißen, G., Wanderradikalismus. Literatursoziologische Aspekte der Überlieferung von Worten Jesu im Urchristentum (Erstpublikation 1973), in: id. (Ed.), Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19), Tübingen 31989, 79–105. Theißen, G., Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5,38–48/Lk 6,27–38) und deren sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, in: id. (Ed.), Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19), Tübingen 31989, 160–197.

226

Bibliography

Theißen, G., Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare (Erstpublikation 1974/1975), in: id. (Ed.), Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19), Tübingen 31989, 201–230. Theißen, G., Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (NTOA 8), Göttingen 1989. Theißen, G./Merz, A., Der historische Jesus, Göttingen 21997. Theobald, M., Das Johannesevangelium und Q: Wie groß ist ihre gemeinsame Schnittmenge und wie erklärt sie sich? in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 467–495 [Short quotation: Q]. Theobald, M., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 1–12 (Regensburger Neues Testament), Regensburg 2009 [Short quotation: Johannes]. Theobald, M., »Ich sah den Satan aus dem Himmel stürzen …«. Überlieferungskritische Beobachtungen zu Lk 10,18–20, in BZ 49 (2005) 174–190. Theobald, M., »Sohn Gottes« als christologische Grundmetapher bei Paulus, in: id. (Ed.), Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT 136), Tübingen 2003, 119–141. Theobald, M., Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium (HThK 34), Freiburg 2002 [Short quotation: Herrenworte]. Theobald, M., Jesu Wort von der Ehescheidung. Gesetz oder Evangelium? ThQ 175 (1995) 109‒ 124. Tilly, M., Einführung in die Septuaginta, Darmstadt 2005. Tiwald, M., Proaktive Heiligkeit: Eine jesuanische »Theologie des Scheiterns«, in: P. M. Zulehner/T. Halík (Ed.), Wir teilen diesen Traum. Theologinnen und Theologen aus aller Welt argumentieren »Pro Pope Francis«, Patmos, 2019, E-Book, ISBN/EAN: 9783843611169. Tiwald, M., Die bleibende Gültigkeit der Tora nach Q 16, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 347–363. Tiwald, M., Art. Einzug in Jerusalem, Tempelreinigung (Jesu Stellung zum Tempel), in: J. Schröter/C. Jacobi (Ed.), Jesus Handbuch, Tübingen 2017, 460–467. Tiwald, M., Die Logienquelle. Text, Kontext, Theologie, Stuttgart 2016. Tiwald, M., Das Frühjudentum und die Anfänge des Christentums. Ein Studienbuch (BWANT 208), Stuttgart 2016. Tiwald, M. (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015. Tiwald. M. (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015. Tiwald, M., The Brazen Freedom of God’s Children: »Insolent Ravens« (Q 12:24) and »Carefree Lilies« (Q 12:27) as Response to Mass-Poverty and Social Disruption? in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context II. Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source (BBB 173), Bonn 2015, 111–131. Tiwald, M., Verborgene Weisheit – Wahres Israel. Die eschatologische Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Logienquelle und frühjüdischer Apokalyptik, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015, 85–106. Tiwald, M., Art. Gesetz, in: Bormann, L. (Ed.), Neues Testament. Zentrale Themen, NeukirchenVluyn 2014, 295–314. Tiwald, M., Die protreptische, konnotative und performative Valeur der Gerichts- und Abgrenzungsmetaphorik in der Logienquelle, in: D. Roth/R. Zimmermann/M. Labahn (Ed.), Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (WUNT 315), Tübingen 2014, 115–137. Tiwald, M., »Blickt auf die Vögel des Himmels« – Die unverschämte Freiheit der Kinder Gottes, in: Bibel heute 195 (3/2013) 7–9.

3. Secondary Literature

227

Tiwald, M., Hat Gott sein Haus verlassen (vgl. Q 13,35)? – Das Verhältnis der Logienquelle zum Frühjudentum, in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Kein Jota wird vergehen. Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie (BWANT 200), Stuttgart 2012, 63–88. Tiwald, M., Frühchristliche Pluralität in Ephesus, in: R. von Bendemann/M. Tiwald (Ed.), Das frühe Christentum und die Stadt (BWANT 198), Stuttgart 2012, 128–145. Tiwald, M., ΑΠΟ ΔΕ ΑΡΧΗΣ ΚΤΙΣΕΩΣ … (Mk 10,6). Die Entsprechung von Protologie und Eschatologie als Schlüssel für das Tora-Verständnis Jesu, in: U. Busse/M. Reichardt/M. Theobald (Ed.), Die Memoria Jesu. Kontinuität und Diskontinuität der Überlieferung (BBB 166), Bonn 2011, 367–380. Tiwald, M., Die vielfältigen Entwicklungslinien kirchlichen Amtes im Corpus Paulinum und ihre Relevanz für heutige Theologie, in: T. Schmeller/M. Ebner/R. Hoppe (Ed.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg i. Br. 2010, 101–128. Tiwald, M., Hebräer von Hebräern. Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation (HBS 52), Freiburg i. Br. 2008. Tiwald, M., Wanderradikalismus. Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (ÖBS 20), Frankfurt am Main 2002 [Short quotation: Wanderradikalismus]. Tiwald, M., Die Nichterfüllung wanderradikaler Erwartungen als Geburt frühkirchlicher Ethik, in: Protokolle zur Bibel 10 (2001) 105–119. Tiwald, M., Der Wanderradikalismus als Brücke zum historischen Jesus, in: A. Lindemann (Ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BEThL 158), Leuven 2001, 523–534 [Short quotation: Brücke]. Tov, E., Die griechischen Bibelübersetzungen, in: W. Haase (Ed.), ANRW II 20.1, Berlin 1987, 121–189. Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums, München 1964. Tuckett, C., Apocalyptic—in Q? in: M. Tiwald (Ed.), Q in Context I. The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source. Die Scheidung zwischen Gerechten und Ungerechten in Frühjudentum und Logienquelle (BBB 172), Bonn 2015, 107–121 [Short quotation: Apocalyptic]. Tuckett, C., From the Sayings to the Gospels (WUNT 328), Tübingen 2014 [Short quotation: Sayings]. Tuckett, C., The Fourth Gospel and Q, in: R. T. Fortna/T. Thatcher (Ed.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, London 2001, 281–290 [Short quotation: Gospel]. Tuckett, C., Art. Q Source, in: L. H. Schiffman/J. C. VanderKam (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2000, 732–733 [Short quotation: Art. Q]. Tuckett, C., Luke, Sheffield 1997. Tuckett, C., Q and the History of Early Christianity. Studies on Q, Edinburgh 1996 [Short quotation: Q]. Tuckett, C., A Cynic Q?, in: Bibl 70 (1989) 349–376 [Short quotation: Cynic]. VanderKam, J., Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees, in: CBR 6.3 (2008) 405–431. Verheyden, J., The Violators of the Kingdom of God. Struggling with Q Polemics in Q 16, in: R. Buitenwerf/H.W. Hollander/J. Tromp (Ed.), Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity. Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge (NT.S 130), Leiden 2008, 397–415. Verheyden, J., Le jugement d’Israël dans la source Q, in: A. Dettwiler/D. Marguerat (Ed.), La source des paroles de Jésus (Q). Aux origines de christianisme (Le Monde de la Bible 62), Genève 2008, 191–219. von Lips, H., Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (WMANT 64), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990. Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre). Barnabasbrief. Zweiter Klemensbrief. Schrift an Diognet, Darmstadt 1984. Wild, R., The Encounter between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism, in: NT 27 (1985) 105–124.

228

Bibliography

Witetschek, S., Was erzählen die Logien? Zur narrativen Dimension von Q, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/ D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 175–192. Witetschek, S., Gleichnisse und Gleichnisauslegung, in: id./C. Heil (Ed.), Menschenbilder – Gottesbilder. Die Gleichnisse Jesu verstehen, Ostfildern 2016, 12–32. Wohlthat, K., »Es ist aber leichter, dass der Himmel und die Erde vergehen…«. Die ewige Gültigkeit des Gesetzes auf der Grundlage von Q 16,17 vor dem Hintergrund des Frühjudentums und des Matthäusevangeliums, Dissertation, University Duisburg-Essen 2019 (in preparation for publication). Zahn, M. M., Art. Rewritten Scripture, in: T. H. Lim/J. J. Collins (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2010, 323–336. Zangenberg, J., Jesus der Galiläer und die Archäologie, in: MThZ 64 (2013) 123–156. [short quotation: Galiläer]. Zangenberg, J., From the Galilean Jesus to the Galilean Silence. Early Christiantity in the Galilee until the Fourth Century CE, in: C. Rothschild/ J. Schröter (Ed.), The Rise and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries of the Common Era, Tübingen 2013, 75–108 [Short quotation: Silence]. Zangenberg J., Archaeological News from the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee, in: Early Christianity 1 (2010) 3–14 [Short quotation: News]. Zangenberg, J., Jesus – Galiläa – Archäologie. Neue Forschungen zu einer Region im Wandel, in: C. Claußen/J. Frey (Ed.), Jesus und die Archäologie Galiläas (Biblisch-theologische Studien 87), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008, 7–38 [Short quotation: Jesus]. Zeller, D., Jesus, Q und die Zukunft Israels, in: Andreas Lindemann (Ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BEThL 158), Leuven 2001, 351–369. Zeller, D., Kommentar zur Logienquelle (SKK 21), Stuttgart 1984. Zeller, D., Das Logion Mt 8,11f/Lk 13,28f und das Motiv der »Völkerwallfahrt« 1, in: BZ 15 (1971) 222–237. Zeller, D., Das Logion Mt 8,11f/Lk 13,28f und das Motiv der »Völkerwallfahrt« 2, in: BZ 16 (1972) 84–93. Zeller, D., Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder »Sitz im Leben« beim Q-Material, in: id. (Ed.), Jesus – Logienquelle – Evangelien (SBA 53), Stuttgart 2012, 101–117. Zimmermann, R., Q und das Johannesevangelium: Methodische Vorüberlegungen und intertextuelle Beobachtungen, in: C. Heil/G. Harb/D. A. Smith (Ed.), Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies: Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects (BToSt 34), Leuven 2018, 497–514. Zimmermann, R., Puzzling the Parables of Jesus. Methods and Interpretation, Minneapolis 2015. Zimmermann, R., Metaphorology and Narratology in Q Exegesis: Literary Methodology as an Aid to Understanding the Q Text, in: id./D. T. Roth/ M. Labahn (Ed.). Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (WUNT 315), Tübingen 2014, 3–30. Zimmermann, R., Eine Leseanleitung zum Kompendium, in: id. et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 3–48. Zimmermann, R., Folgenreiche Bitte! (Arbeiter für die Ernte) – Q 10,2, in: id. et al. (Ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh 2007, 111–118. Zulehner, P. M., Ordenschristen und ihr prophetischer Dienst. Menschliches im Dienst Gottes und der Menschen, in: GuL 58 (1985) 29−41.

Index

1.

Subject Index

Agrippa I. 126 Amidah 100 Ananos II. 26, 126 Andronicus and Junia 157 Apocalypse of Weeks from 1 En. 79 apocalyptic 200 Aramaic 179, 186 Baptist 179 Bethsaida 23, 92–93, 98 Book of Daniel 179 Capernaum 23, 92–93, 98 Chorazin 23, 92–93, 98 circumcision 26 Collection of Israel 146 Council of Jerusalem 32, 116 counter–tendency 89 Critical Edition of Q 14, 33–35 day of YHWH 168 delay of Parousia 160 Didache 30 early Judaism 23 Eschatological Disruption of Families 202 Fourth Book of Ezra 179 Gendered couplets 211–212 God’s advocacy for the poor 196 Gospel of Luke 33 Gospel of Matthew 31 Gospel of Thomas 30 Hellenism 197 homelessness 27, 157 imagery of violence and insistence 77, 140, 170, 204–205 itinerancy 89, 157 James the Just 26, 126 James the Zebedaide 126 Jerusalem–centrism 93 John–Q Overlaps 29 Kaddish 100 kashrut 26

Kedushah 100 Koine Greek 27 Literal Framing 47 logos protreptikos 199, 206 Mammon 159 Mark–Q Overlaps 28 Messiah 165 mission to the Gentiles 25, 31 missionary couples 157 Musar leMevin (4QInstruction) 95 narratological access to Q 14 non–violence 27, 164 parables 207 Paraenesis of Watchfulness 138 Paul 126 peacefulness 204 Pharisee 26 Piety in Poverty 159 Polemics 25 poverty 157 Prisca and Aquila 157 protology–eschatology–analogy 79, 181 pseudoclementine letters Ad Virgines 89 Q–missionaries 27 recensions of the LXX 188 reign of God 78, 106, 146–147, 176 rewritten Bible 190 Sabbath 26 Sadducee 26 salary of a day labourer 163 Satan 178 Satan’s Fall from Heaven 180 Scriptural Quotations 188 secondary orality 17, 172 Sidon 23 Similitudes of 1 Enoch 131, 179 social criticism 196 Son of Man 176, 179 Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice 177

230

Index

stages of salvation history temple–critique 150 tenacity 89 Torah 24

46

tropoi kyriou 88 Tyre 23 urbanization 197 village scribes 27

2.

Index of Primary Sources

2.1

Old Testament

Genesis 1:26 204 2:2 163 4:8–10 127, 195 6:3 97 8:22 86 25:9 83 50:24 146 Exodus 2:24 146 3:1–4 57 4:22 97 8:15 106 20:7 99 21:24–25 64 22:25–26 62 23:4–5 62 23:16 86 34:28 58 Leviticus 11:15 135 16:10 57 19:9 86 19:17–18 62 19:18 63 21:11 84 22:32 99 24:19–20 64 26:42 146 Numbers 6:6–7 84 20:5 67 32:11 146 Deuteronomy 1:8 146 8:8 67 8:15 57

9:10 106 14:14 135 15:9 114 19:21 64 23:25 102 24:12–13 62 30:11 125 32:5 202 32:11 152, 167 32:51 99 Joshua 3 57 3:15 86 15:8 130 Judges 15:1 86 Ruth 2:12 152 1 Samuel 12:17 86 2 Samuel 7:14 97 11:13 145 21:9–10 86 1 Kings 1:25 145 5:5 67 9:7–8 150 10:1–29 135 10:1–13 110 14,15 76 18:38 53 19:20 84 22:24 62

2 Kings 1:10–12 53 1:2.6 105 2:19–22 159 13:23 146 17:7–20 127, 199 23:10 130 25:29 145 1 Chronicles 9:1–12 110 18:23 62 2 Chronicles 24:20–22 127, 195 28:3 130 Nehemiah 9:26–33 148 11:30 130 Tobit 1:17–19 83 4:12 146 4:13 61 4:15 63 5:15 163 13:4 99 Judith 8:26 146 1 Maccabees 3:6 146 3:55 71 14:9 67 2 Maccabees 1:2 146 2:13 98 2:18 146

231

2. Index of Primary Sources 6:30

129

Job 1:6 97 6:6 159 9:19 53 9:26 167 13:28 137 14:1 76 16:9 147 16:10 62 38:41 135 39:27–30 167 Psalms 1:1–6 60 1:6 145 2:7 97 8:4 106 17:8 152 35:16 147 39:12 137 40:7–9 150 79:13 87 89:7 97 89:27 97 104:14–15 102 107:3 146 117:26LXX 149 119:105.130 112 145:9 62 147:9 135 Proverbs 6:23 112 18:22 117 23:5 167 24:27 62 Wisdom 2:13.18 97 3:5 102 11:20 130 Sirach 3:1 68 4:10 97 13:15–118 61 13:17 87 14:1–2.20–27 60 14:10 114 23:1.4 99

27:6 67 28:2 102 29:10–11 137 31:15 63 48:1–3 53 51:10 97

21:8 145 27:2 82, 184 29:12–13 103 31:9.20 97 48:40 167 51:33 86

Isaiah 2:2–5 146 5:1–7 150 5:6 67 9:5–6 204 11:6–10 204 11:10–16 146 13 51 15:3 147 18:5 86 25:6 147 26:19 73 27:12–13 53 27:12 86 29:18–19 73 29:23 99 31:5 152 34:8 168 43:5–6 146 49:3 113 49:24–25 107 49:26 53 50:6–7 62 50:9 137 51:7 129 52:7 73 55:6 103 57:4 81, 202 60:4 108, 173 61:1LXX 73–74 61:1–2 73

Lamentations 2:16 147 3:30 62

Jeremiah 3:4.9 97 6:20 150 7:4–23 52 7:4–7 151 7:4 55 7:27 127, 199 7:31–32 130 11:4–6 68 12:7 150 13:24 53 16:5–7 84 19:6 130

Baruch 2:34 146 4:37 146 Ezekiel 1:10 167 4:12 82, 184 9–11 150 13:10 124 24:16–24 84 28:25 108 30:3–4 51 31:6.13 142 33:31–32 68 36:22–23 99 36:25–27 54 Daniel 3:94 130 4:18 142 7:4 167 7:13–14 53 10:6 167 Hosea 1:2–9 82, 184 6:6 52, 55, 150 8:1–3 167 8:1 167 11:1–11 97 11:1 97 Joel 3:1–5 54, 152 3:1–2 132 3:3–5 168 4:13 86 Amos 3:2 52 5:21–24 55, 150

232 5:27

Index 57

4:2–3 146 4:12 86 7:4 147

Jonah 1:4 167

168

Malachi 2:14–16 117 3:19 53

Zechariah 8:7–8 146 9:10 204 12:10 132

Micah 1:16 167 2:11 124

2.2

14:1

Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Apoc. Ab. 25:5 98 Apocr. Ezek. Frg. 3 99 As. Mos. 10:1 178 2 Bar. 8:2 150 2 Bar. 10:18 55, 150 2 Bar. 14:12 137 2 Bar. 32:1–6 115 2 Bar. 41:4 152 2 Bar. 44:15 145 2 Bar. 48:19 161 2 Bar. 48:47 116 2 Bar. 59:10 130 2 Bar. 59,2 115 2 Bar. 70:2 86 2 Bar. 73:2 74 2 Bar. 73:6 204 2 Bar. 77:13 112 2 Bar. 78:5–7 149 2 Bar. 85:12 52 1 En. 1:8 204 1 En. 17:1 169 1 En. 26–27 130 1 En. 37–71 179 1 En. 39:12–13 100 1 En. 48:5 149, 179 1 En. 57:1 146 1 En. 58:2–3 60 1 En. 61:12–13 100–101 1 En. 61:12 99–100 1 En. 62:5 53, 131, 179 1 En. 62:12 51 1 En. 62:14 147 1 En. 67:10 131 1 En. 69:27–29 131, 179 1 En. 72,1 115 1 En. 83:3–5 115 1 En. 89:51–90:19 148, 199 1 En. 89:52–60 87 1 En. 89:55 87 1 En. 90:28–29 55, 150, 152

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4

En. 91:18–19 145 En. 92:1–5 174 En. 93,9–10 201 En. 94:11 111 En. 94:6–7 68 En. 94:7–8 196 En. 94:8–9 123 En. 94:9 206 En. 95:3 129, 174, 205 En. 95:4 125 En. 96:3 129 En. 96:4 123 En. 96,4–5 196 En. 97:8–10 123 En. 97,8–10 197 En. 98:3 96 En. 98:6 111 En. 98:12 174, 206 En. 99:3 111 En. 99:5 203 En. 99:6 111, 206 En. 99:13–14 68 En. 100:1–2 203 En. 102:4 129 En. 103:5–6 123 En. 103:10–11 126 En. 104 69 En. 104:2 144 En. 104:10–13 96, 124 En. 108:3.5 147 En. 30:15 145 En. 42:5 147 En. 44:5 122 En. 50:5 137 En. 53:1 52 Ezra 3:15 52 Ezra 4:28–29 86 Ezra 5:18.23 87 Ezra 6:5–6 137 Ezra 7:29–34 115

233

2. Index of Primary Sources 4 Ezra 7:36 130 4 Ezra 7:47–61 145 4 Ezra 7:102–115 52 4 Ezra 8:49 122 4 Ezra 9,36–37 115 4 Ezra 10:46–55 55, 150, 152 4 Ezra 12:11.22–27 167 4 Ezra 12:31–32 179 4 Ezra 13 179 4 Ezra 13:3–13.25–40 53 4 Ezra 14:27–35 149 4 Ezra 14:44–46 95 4 Ezra 14:44 186 Jub. 1:7–26 148, 199 Jub. 1:23 54 Jub. 1:29 55, 150, 152 Jub. 4:31–32 64 Jub. 23:14 81 Jub. 23:19 203 Jub. 23:21b 55, 150 Jub. 23:29 178 Jub. 33:7 119 Jub. 36:4.8 61 Jub. 50:5.9 178 L.A.B. 11:1–2 112 L.A.B. 33:5 52 Let. Aris. 140–141 135 Let. Aris. 207–210 63

2.3

Let. Aris. 207 63 3 Macc 6:3.8 99 4 Macc 9:7–9 129 Pss. Sol. 2:3–5 55, 150 Pss. Sol. 5:3 107 Pss. Sol. 5:9–11 102 Pss. Sol. 9:5 137 Pss. Sol. 11:2 146 Pss. Sol. 17:26 173 Pss. Sol. 17:44 98 Sib. Or. 3:750–755 204 T. Ab. A 14 52 T. Ash. 7:7 52 T. Gad 4:2–3 64 T. Job 4:2 68 T. Jos. 17 62 T. Levi 14:3–4 112 T. Levi 15:4 52 T. Levi 17:4.6 169 T. Levi 18:4 204 T. Mos. 5:5 55, 150 T. Naph. 1:6 63 T. Naph. 8,4–6 204 T. Reu. 3:15 119 T. Sim. 4:4 62 T. Zeb. 5:3 63, 102 T. Zeb. 8:4–6 62

Dead Sea Scrolls

CD 1:18 207 CD 4:15–19 207 CD 4:20–21 118 CD 4:21–22 120 CD 5:6 207 CD 5:11–12 131 CD 6:11–19 207 CD 6:20–21 61 CD 8:12–13 124, 207 1QGenAp 20:15 119 1QH 5:14 76 1QH 23:15 73 1QpHab 1–5 199 1QpHab 2:1–10 69, 81, 127, 201 1QpHab 2,1–10 94 1QpHab 2–5 148 1QpHab 8:1–3 69 1QpHab 8:2–3 24

1QS 1:9–10 62 1QS 4:21 54 1QS 11:21 76 11Q5 24:10–11 101–102 11Q5 26:9–15 100 11Q13 73 11Q19 57:17–19 118 11Q19 61:12 64 4Q169 1:2 207 4Q174 55 4Q174 3:7 150 4Q372 Frg. 1 16 99 4Q400–407 100, 177 4Q418 Frg. 69 2:10 95 4Q460 Frg. 5 1:5 99 4Q504–506 149 4Q521 75 4Q521 Frg. 2 + 4, 2:12 73

234

2.4

Index

Philo of Alexandria

Agr. 104 145 Decal. 18–19 122 Ebr. 143 98 Hypoth. (= Eusebius PraepEv) 8:7:6 Ios. 22–25 83 Mos. 2,14–15 115 Praem. 104 137 Praem. 166 52

2.5

Josephus

Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant. Ant.

9:168 128 9:265–267 148, 199 11:169 52 12:215 101 17:208 171 18:113–114 70 18:116–119 76 18:117 54 20:97 57 20:167 166 20:167f 166 20:169–172 166 20:188 166 20:200 26, 126

2.6

63

Ant. 20:256 93 B.J. 2:215 76 B.J. 2:258–260 166 B.J. 2:262f 166 B.J. 2:279 93 B.J. 3:123 167 B.J. 4:323 55, 150 B.J. 5:422 93 B.J. 6:300 150 C. Ap. 1:37–43 186 C. Ap. 2:205 83 C. Ap. 2,277 115 Vita 11 58

Greek and Roman Authors

Cicero, Off. 1:117–118 145 Diogenes Laertius 4:10 159 Epictetus, About Cynicism 9 88 Epictetus, About Cynicism 23 88 Epictetus, About Cynicism 47 83, 88 Homer, Ilias 22,263 87 Lucian, De morte Peregrini 11–16 89

2.7

Prob. 1,46 115 Prob. 109 129 QE 2:11 62 Somn. 1:215 150 Spec. 2:63 122 Spec. 4:180 145 Virt. 116–118 62

Lucian, De morte Peregrini 13 and 16 Lucian, Hermotimus 67 76 Plutarch, Ti. C. Gracch. 9 83 Seneca, Ben. 4.26.1 62 Xenophon, Cyr. 3.3.45 158 Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.20–34 145

New Testament (including the Sayings Source)

Sayings Source 3:0 48 3:2b–7:35 40, 48 3:2b–17 49, 76 3:16b 74 4:1–13 24, 180 4:5–8 33 4:5–6 106 6:20–49 59 6:22–23 125, 199

6:22 133, 156 6:27–36 33 6:27–30 205 6:29 89 6:40 27 6:47–49 211 7:1–10 105 7:9 64 7:18–35; 16:16 72 7:18–28 77

7:22–23 182 7:24 50, 59 7:31–35 25 7:31–32 202, 211 7:32 133, 211 7:33 185 7:34 185, 206 9:57–11:13 81 9:57–11,13 41 9:57–60 82

85

235

2. Index of Primary Sources 9:57–58 27 9:58 185 10 23, 30 10:2–16 84 10:3 61, 205 10:4–12 205 10:9 27, 58 10:13–15 25, 72, 206 10:21–24 95 10:21–23 58 10:21 124 10:22 24 10:23 24 11:2–4 64 11:2b–4.9–13 98 11:4 182 11:14–52; 16:17–18 42 11,14–52; 16,17–18 104 11,14–26 104 11:14–20 182 11:16 33 11:24 57 11:30 54 11:31–32 211 11:33–35 112 11:39–52 33 11:39–44 25 11:49–51 202 11:16.29–32 109 12:2–13:21 44, 128 12:2–12 128 12:2–3 25 12:3 90 12:8–9 107, 183, 206 12:22b–34 133 12:22b–31 61, 102 12,24–28 211 12:30 27, 64 12:33–34 33 12:39–59 137 12:40 184 12:42–46 211 12:49 78, 204 12:51 78, 204 12:52 78 12:54–56 35 13:18–21 141 13,18f 184 13:19–21 211 13:21 182 13:24–14:23 45, 143 13:24 78

13:27 202 13:28–29 33 13:34–35 25 14:16–23 211 14:26–17:21 155 14:26–17:6 45 14:26–17:2 155 14:26 204 15:4–10; 17:4 161 15:4–10 211 15:4–7 59, 206 15:4.5a.7 33 16:13 35 16:16–18 34 16:16 34 16:17–18; 11:39–52 114 16:17 34 16:18 35 17:3–4 64 17:20–21 36 17:23–22:30 46 17:33 34 17:34–35 211 17:37 34 22:28.30 172 Matthew 1:19 119 3:1–2 54 3:16 55 4:13 70, 92 5:3–12 60 5,3.6 61 5:9 97 5:14 112 5:18 34–35, 117 5:19 122 5:20 35 5:26 140 5:32 119 5:38 64 6:5 99 6:9 99 6:11 101 6:14 102 7:1–5 65 7:15–20 67 9:32–34 105 11:19 81 11:29–30 125 11:30 124 12:29 106

12:38 109 12:40 185 13:43 144 13:44–46 78, 170, 204 15:14 65 15,21–28 72 16:1 109 17:15 71 17:18 71 19:12 78, 204 19:29 156 20:2 130, 163 21:11 59 21:31 155 21:32 80 22:6 199 22:38 122 23:9 97 23:12 153 23:23 121 23:27 124 23:29–36 126 24:35 115 25:1–13 138, 145 26:28 54 27:32 63 28:3 167 28:7 93 28:19 122 Mark 1:4 54 1:5 49 1:12–13 56, 180 1:13b 204 1:17 78, 204 1:21 70, 92 1:29 92 1:35 99 2:14 70 2:23 102 3:7 106 3:22–27 105 3:27 58, 106, 138, 204 3:29 131 4:3–9 207 4:21 112 4:22 128 4:26–29 207 4:31 207 6:7–11 84 6:9 88

236 6:14.22.26–27 76 6:17–29 76 6:35–44 81 7:22 114 8:11 109 8:34–35 158 8:38 107, 131, 183 8,38 53 9:12–13 53 9:37 85, 94 9:42 161 10:2–12 118 10:6 120 10:29 156 11:22–23 164 11:24 99 11:25 102 12:1–9 199 12:10 68 13:9 132 13:32 138 13:33–36 138 14:18 81 14:25 184 14:36 97, 99 14:58 151 15:21 63 16:7 93 Luke 1:5 55 1:26 59 1:79 204 2,48–50 203 3:3 54 3:21 55 4:17–21 73 4:31 70 4:43 76 6:17 59 6:20–23 60 6:37 102 6:39 65 7:3 71 7:5 71 7:6 72 7:29–30 80 9:1–5 84 10:7–8 91 10:18 167, 180 11:1 99 11:3 101

Index 11:5–8 78, 170 11:11–12 104 11:14–22 105 11:21–22 106 11:33 112 12:2 128 12:50 139 12:59 140 14:11 153 14:15 81 14:23 154 14:24 154 15:5 162 16:1–8 77, 170 16:17 34 17,20–22 36 17:22–37 158 18:1–8 204 18:29 156 19:5 81 21:20–21 93 22:29 97 22:35–38 84 John 1:26 167 1:44 92 2:4 203 2:12 70, 92 2:19 151 4:20–24 152 4:46b–53 71 5:35 113 7:20 105 12:25 158 12:31–32 58 12:31 101, 105–106 13:2 81 13:20 85 15:15 97 20:17 97 20:22 131 21:9–13 104 Acts of the Apostles 2:1–4 131 2:14–40 132 2:16–17 132 5:36–37 57 7:8 146 7:26 101 7:51–52 199

7:51 132 7:56 182 10:1–2 71 10:38 59 13:16.26.50 71 15:1–29 26 15:28 124 18:2.18.26 157 19:3 93 20:19 102 21:20–25 116 21:38 166 23:3 124 23:11 101 Romans 1:3–4.9 97 2:13 68 2:19–22 65 8:3 97 8:15 97, 99 8:19–22 204 10:9.13 68 11:11 26, 29, 111 12:19–21 62 15:20 68 16:3 157 16:7 157 1 Corinthians 1:8 169 1:9 97 3:9–13 68 3:16–17 150 7:10 119 7:11 120 7:29 139 9:5 157 9:12–15 85 11:23–25 81 13:2 165 15:51 175 16:13 138 16:19 157 2 Corinthians 1:14 169 1:19 97 5:16 131 6:16 150 11:7 85

237

2. Index of Primary Sources Galatians 1:16 97 2:7–9 26 2:7–8 116 4:4 76, 97 4:6 97, 99 5:1 124

4:15 139 4:17 169, 175 5:1–10 139 5:2 137, 168

Ephesians 2:20 68

2 Timothy 2:19 68 4:19 157

Colossians 3:13 102 4:2 138 4:6 159

Hebrews 2:6–8 182 3:5–10 57 11:16 146

1 Thessalonians 1:10 97 2:14–16 126 2:15 126, 199

James 1:2 102 1:22–25 68 3:6 130

2.8

2 Peter 2:9 102 3:10 137 Revelation 1:13 182 3:3 137 11:4 113 12:7–10 180 12:7–9 178 14:14 182 21:1 115 21:22 152 21:23 113

Targums 55, 150

Rabbinic Writings

b. ‘Abod. Zar. 28a–b 212 b. ‘Arak. 16b 66 b. B. Bat. 15b 66 b. Giṭ. 90b 119 b. Hor. 3b 66 b. Šabb. 31a 63 Leviticus Rabbah 17:2 212 m. Ber 3:1 83

2.10

1 Peter 2:5 68, 150

1 Timothy 3:15 68

Tg. Isa. 28:1

2.9

4:11–12 64 5:2–3 137

m. ’Ed. 4:7 141 m. Giṭ 9 119 m. Giṭ 9:10 117 m. Neg. 2:4 212 m. Qidd. 1:1 141 m. Yom 8:9 102 t. B. Bat. 5:11 141 t. Soṭa 5:9 119

Patristic Writings

Barnabas 18:1 145 Didache 1:1 145 Didache 1:2 63 Didache 8:2 30 Didache 11:3–8 30 Didache 11:6 85 Didache 11:7 132 Didache 11:8 82

Didache 15:1–2 86 Didache 16:1 138 Epiphanius, de mensuribus 15 93 Epiphanius, Pan. 29:7:7–8 93 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3:5:2–3 93 Justin, Apol. 1:31:6 93 Justin, Dial. 8:4 167

238

2.11

Index

Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Acts Thom. 30.39.42.62.68 89 Gos. Thom. 5.6 128 Gos. Thom. 5.6.33 113 Gos. Thom. 10 139 Gos. Thom. 14bc.55.73.86 84 Gos. Thom. 15 156 Gos. Thom. 21 137 Gos. Thom. 26 66 Gos. Thom. 35 107

Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos.

Thom. Thom. Thom. Thom. Thom. Thom. Thom. Thom.

48 55 64 73 76 86 101 107

165 157 153 85 137 83 157 162